Sandy Larsen

If you include in your (hypothetical) poll only people who know a lot of the details, I'll bet that over 90% believe there was a conspiracy.

No, it's not, is it. That statement is now an established fact.

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.

I've stated my opinion. I will just observe you and Bill et al. discussing the alleged mole hunt, to see if there could be anything to it IMO.

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down. That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

According to you, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute.

Netanyahu https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-netanyahus-approach-to-war-in-gaza-a-mistake-deepening-rift-between-the-two-allies

Yes, because False ("Oswald acted alone") = ("Oswald acted with others") = ("Oswald acted in a conspiracy") where False is the inverse logical operator (same as Not).

Clever response! And true.

Matt, I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine. What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.

Matt, I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine. What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.

Ben's obvious purpose for posting this is to attack his new enemy, NPR. I'm moving this to the Water Cooler.

Pot meet kettle. With a dose of sour grapes. So report yourself.

Keyvan, What makes you think that the photos, films, and x-rays are all legitimate? Saying that is like saying you know something is true because you read it on the internet. I don't believe I've done that. But jeez Keyvan, just because one part of a photo has been altered doesn't mean that the whole thing has been altered. You need to use your best judgement in deciding what to trust. BTW, deciding for nor no apparent reason that none of the photos, films, x-ray have been altered is not using sound judgement, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe you, Keyvan. What you just admitted to is that you have a preconceived notion, and will consider no other possibility because you are a closed-minded ideologue. Well, I've got news for you pal... It is easy for those of us with open minds to see that the location of the gaping wound in the Zapruder film is inconsistent with what we see in the autopsy photos. It is also easy for us to see that the location of the wound as described in the autopsy report is inconsistent with what we see in the Zapruder film. And ALL of these are inconsistent with where ~40 Parkland and Bethesda hospital medical professionals said they saw the wound. And yet, the one thing that is consistent between the location as indicated in the photos, film, and autopsy report is that the wound was NOT on the back of the head. Which is in stark contrast to where all the medical professionals placed it. Given that a back-of-the-head blowout wound indicates a shot from the front -- something that contradicts the lone gunman theory -- it is exceedingly obvious to those of us with open minds that the explanation for the inconsistency between the witness statements and the obviously illegitimate photos, film, and autopsy report is that the U.S. government altered the latter three as a part of their coverup designed to blame only Oswald. Furthermore, it is obvious to those of us with open minds that the reason for the inconsistencies between the photos, film, and autopsy report is that there was insufficient time to coordinate the altering of the three pieces of evidence so that they would be more precisely consistent with each other.

I've never had a discussion with the "Nix film study."

Apparently Keyvan doesn't know where the large blowout wound was located. Either that or he's afraid to answer.

@Matt Cloud, I've come to the conclusion that you cannot be reasoned with.

So Keyvan, Where do you believe the large blowout wound was located? And why do you believe what you believe?

Bill, Tommy Graves replied to your comment, as follows: When he said the above, Bagley didn't realize yet that Solie was a "mole" in the mole-hunting Office of Security, and that he had sent (or duped his confidant, protege, and mole-hunting superior, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" / "Popov's Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division. In fact, Bagley didn't start to think Solie might be a "mole" until Malcolm Blunt showed him some CIA documents which suggested that in April of 1964 (i.e., just two months after the CIA had started seriously interrogating Nosenko), Solie had tried to talk the Warren Commission's David Slawson into believing Nosenko was a true defector, that his 1962 and 1964 contradictions and incorrect statements could be explained as being due to 'stress, poor memory, language difficulties and/or too much alcohol," and that he should be allowed to testify to the WC (i.e., "the KGB had had nothing to do with Oswald in the USSR"). In other words, when Bagley (who died in 2014) said the above, he thought a "witting" Oswald had been sent to Moscow by the regular CIA as a "dangle" in a normal mole hunt. He didn't realize that, as has been shown recently by John M. Newman, an unwitting(?) Oswald was sent by a KGB-controlled part of the CIA as an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail mole hunt.

I much prefer my simple, innocent explanation to your overly elaborate, sinister one. BTW, how is it that when I speculate or give a simple explanation, you criticize it as being non-responsive, only a conclusion, only an assumption, etc.? But when you do the vary same thing, you think it's okay? Especially given that your speculation is way more elaborate than mine. Your speculation is far more speculative than is mine.

I don't know about your theory Matt, but in my theory the mention of Azcue's replacement in the Kostin Letter does NOT blow the cover on the CIA's monitoring operation of the Cuban Consulate, or of Eusebio Azcue. According to my theory, yes the letter was written by the CIA plotters... BUT the only thing the Soviets would think when they received the letter was that it was OSWALD who was aware of Azcue's replacement. Not the CIA. (Of course, Oswald was oblivious to the whole thing.) As a matter of fact, this dovetails nicely with how the CIA plotters made it look like Oswald was in cahoots with the Cubans! First, Elena Garro's accusations that Oswald was friendly with Silvia Duran and a bunch of her associates, and then Gilberto Alvarado's accusation that Oswald was paid $6500 in the Cuban Consulate for the killing. Well, the mention of Azcue's replacement in "Oswald's" Kostin letter made it appear that Oswald was VERY familiar with the goings on at the Cuban Consulate! So the Kostin letter accomplished two things. It showed the FBI -- in their assassination investigation -- that Oswald was dealing with KGB assassinations chief Valeriy Kostikov; AND that Oswald was very familiar with the Cuban Consulate's goings on. No wonder J. Edgar Hoover seriously considered that a communist plot was behind the assassination.

Well what did you expect? You expected me to spell out exactly what happened, and give source material to back it up? Instead of expecting ME to do that, why don't you do it yourself? Well I thought it was reasonable to conclude that the CIA might have been aware of Azcue being replaced. And apparently I was right! Because David Boylan has shown in his post above that the CIA did indeed know of Azcue's replacement! Thanks David.

It's a pretty damn good conclusion. Why else would Scott want poor little secretary Silvia Duran AND a bunch of her associates taken in and questioned by the Mexican Police? Just because she spoke with Oswald? I mean, please! If you don't like my conclusion, fine. Think of it as reasoned speculation. It is a part of my hypothesis. Speculation is a necessary part of hypotheses and theories. My theory is that it was an element of the CIA who were the assassination plotters. In Mexico City, they use Oswald impersonators to paint a fake story of Oswald negotiating with the Cubans and Russians to kill Kennedy. I don't believe that Win Scott was involved in the plotting. I believe that it appeared to Scott that Oswald might have been involved with the Cubans in assassinating Kennedy. (Which explains why he had Duran arrested.) And that belief only increased (naturally so!) when he got word of Gilberto Alvarado saying that, while in the Cuban Consulate, he overheard Oswald being paid $6500 to kill Kennedy. Information to Excelsior might have been leaked by a corrupt police officer for profit. I can't think of any reason why the CIA, the CIA plotters, the U.S. government, or the Mexican Police would intentionally leak the story. No, I accounted for it. With reasoned speculation. It is you who have not accounted for it. Okay. let me know if you come up with anything.

Keyvan, Where do you believe the large blowout wound was located? And why do you believe what you believe?