Sandy Larsen
-
Posts
9,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Sandy Larsen
-
-
10 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:
Sorry Keven! You can say what ever you want but: Narrative is Narrative, Gibberish is Gibberish, and Fact is Fact.
Keyvan,
Where do you believe the large blowout wound was located? And why do you believe what you believe?
-
Keven,
Keyvan Shahrdar is obviously incapable of defending his beliefs.
It's amazing that he has any opinion at all. Virtually every "best witness" to the gaping wound places in on the right side of the back of Kennedy's head. By "best witness" I mean one who had more than a unexpected quick glance at the wound, i.e. the few Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw the blowout headshot occur. In contrast, the best witnesses were the medical and other professionals at Parkland and Bethesda Hospitals. There were over 40 such witnesses.
So how could Keyvan possibly believe otherwise? If he believes what the autopsists said, then he would believe the blowout wound was located as shown here:
But if Keyvan believes that, then he must reject the gaping wound as depicted in the Zapruder film:
Zapruder clearly shows that the gaping wound is located at the right temple.
If Keyvan believes the gaping wound is located where the Zapruder film shows it, then he must reject this autopsy photo:
%20(uncropped)%20(JFK%20Absolute%20Proof).JPG)
The temple is fully intact here, and the gaping wound is located where the autopsists placed it, at the top-back of the head. Or possibly further back where 40 medical professionals placed it.
No matter what a person accepts as the gaping wound location, he must accept that at least one of the images is fraudulent.
That being the case, I don't for the life of me understand why they just don't accept the back-of-head location given by the 40 medical professionals. After all, it is statistically impossible for so many witnesses to all get it wrong. In contrast to photos and films, which history proves could be altered in 1963.
From Mary Poppins, 1964.
-
On 4/18/2024 at 10:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:
I will never understand why they recruited Jon Meacham as their historian.
I'm sure Meacham got the history wrong. But I think his presence in the documentary adds to its perceived credibility... he is well known among political junkies. (Not that I've seen the documentary.)
Reiner certainly should have run a summary of his material past a knowledgeable person like Jim D. before producing the documentary. What a waste of time, money, credibility, and impact that he didn't take such a simple step.
-
16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
First, Matt, I don't know if the following statement:
“When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.”
has anything to do with the Azcue replacement timing issue. The two dates, Nov. 9 and Nov. 18, might just be coincidences.
Even if that sentence does relate to the Azcue timing issue, I don't see how the instruction of that sentence, given to Ambassador Dobrynin, supposedly resolves the timing issue in the Americans' eyes. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. knew precisely the date of the letter and the date the Soviets received it, a fact that apparently the Russians were aware of (since they knew of the U.S. mail intercept program).
16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:The instructions to Dobrynin indicate that the Kremlin is aware of some issue with regard to the timing of the letter. The Soviets apparently don't want to say they received the letter when they in did (the 9th evidently) and for some reason feel the need to state to the U.S. that it was received on a later date (the 18th). Why?
First, let me point out that the Soviet Embassy couldn't have received the Kostin letter on the Nov. 9th because that is the date that Oswald (supposedly) wrote the letter. Surely it would have take a few days for it to be delivered. And who knows if the letter was even mailed the day it was written.
That said, it occurred to me that perhaps the letter truly wasn't received by the embassy till Nov. 18. And perhaps the Soviets wanted to make that late delivery date clear in a CYA maneuver... having received the letter only four days before the assassination hardly gave the Soviets enough time to analyze the letter and notify American officials of potential foul play on the part of Oswald.
I just saw in my notes the date that HTLINGUAL reported the intercepted Kostin letter, and that date is Nov 18, 1963. Which tends to support Nov. 18 being the date the embassy received the letter.
16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:The instructions don't resolve the timing issue, whether "in the Americans' eyes" or other. Indeed they perpetuate it. More however, what the instructions do is inform the Americans that there counter-intelligence program is blown -- that it's useless.
16 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:How did the Soviets learn of the mail-opening program?
Perhaps they had noticed signs of steam opening of letters from Americans.
-
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Yes, I believe the Kostin letter was planted by the CIA in order to strengthen the evidence that Oswald had (supposedly) contracted with the Cubans and Soviets to have Kennedy killed. (Allegations made by Gilberto Alvarado.)
As for the comment in the letter about Azcue being replaced:
The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement. We don't really know if there was a timing issue as to the date of Azcue leaving, because when the Kostin letter said, "I am glad he has since been replaced," for all we know the CIA writer of the letter could have meant more specifically that the DECISION for his replacement had been made, and that soon the actual replacement will take place.
Or it could be that the CIA writer of that letter simply made a mistake... he might have merely assumed that the replacement had taken place prior to his writing of the letter.
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:You write "The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement." That IS the issue I raised. Simply stating that you have reached a conclusion as to the question is non-responsive, without explanation as to how you can justify that conclusion.
My justification is simple:
My working theory says that a CIA plotter wrote the Kostin Letter, in Oswald's name, and planted the letter. (i.e. it was sent to the Soviet Embassy in Washington and Ruth Paine had a copy.)
Since the letter commented on Azcue being replaced, the writer of the letter -- a CIA employee -- had to have known about the Azcue replacement.
End of Justification.
No JFKA researcher knows how the writer of the Kostin letter knew about the Azcue replacement, right? So ANY explanation they give will be speculative. Which is fine if it is reasoned speculation.
Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. Though naturally, it is best to have a large number of factual data points in order to minimize the need for speculation
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:And whether Azcue was in fact replaced or whether merely the decision to replace had been made, you have not answered the question as to how the author of the letter, whoever that might have been, knew either of those scenarios.
-
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
As for how the Excelsior newspaper got the information so quickly about the so-called Oswald visits, I suppose they could have gotten it from the Mexican police. After all, the Mexican police did hold Silvia Duran and a number of her friends for questioning, and did actually beat her, likely because she wouldn't admit to the charges made against her by Elena Garro, who was being held in "protective custody" at the time in a hotel. Garro's story painted Oswald as being a friend of Duran's and associating with her friends.
So the story the Mexican Police got from Duran was the innocent/real one (according to their understanding), where Oswald was there to get a transit visa. (Not to negotiate an assassination deal with the Cubans and Russians.)
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:Well, Duran was apparently arrested at CIA instructions sent on the 23rd along with instructions that she be held incommunicado.
Right. On November 23, Mexico City CIA station chief Winston Scott asked the president of Mexico to arrest Silvia Duran because he suspected that the CIA plotters' plan that implicated Cuba and Russia might be true.
Meanwhile, Elena Garro was reportedly taken into protective custody the very same day as a result of her protesting outside the Cuban Consulate against Duran. And she gave the fake story of Oswald being friendly with Duran and others.
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:The leak to the paper would seem to violate that second instruction. But it is a possibility that information obtained during her interrogation could have been a source for the goings-on inside the Cuban embassy -- albeit a very fast turnaround to get it into the paper on the 25th...
15 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:... but that doesn't account for the paper's information as to the goings-on inside the Soviet embassy.
Silvia Duran had called the Soviet Embassy about Oswald, and she could have been told how Oswald had behaved there.
So the Mexican Police may have been aware of the Soviet Embassy's goings on from Duran, and this could have been leaked to the Excelsior Newspaper as well.
(My prior thinking has been that maybe nobody at all visited the Soviet Embassy. But in my mind it's becoming likely that an Oswald imposter visited there like one did the Cuban Consulate. Maybe the very same imposter visited both places.)
-
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:
One of the as yet unexplained details is the origin of the story of Oswald going to the Soviet Consulate in the first place. The claim first appeared in public, in print, in the Mexican newspaper Excelsior on November 25, and picked up on that day by U.S. wire service U.P.I.
According to U.P.I., dateline November 25, 1963:
“The newspaper Excelsior said today Lee Harvey Oswald spent several days in Mexico City in late September, calling on consulates of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
…
Excelsior said the Cuban consulate told Oswald it could not issue the visa without talking to the United States government and that would take 10 or 12 days. [Oswald had evidently been there on September 27, 1963.] The paper said Oswald left the office in a huff and slammed the door as he went.
The next day [presumably September 28] he appeared at the office of the soviet consul and asked for a visa directly to the Soviet Union.
[Excelsior] said Oswald supported his argument for the visa by saying his wife was a soviet citizen, that he was a Communist, and that he had lived in Russia for three years.
Told of Long Wait
The soviet consul told him the normal time to process such a request would be about three months. Oswald again left in a huff, [Excelsior] said.
[Excelsior] said there was no indication Oswald talked to any important officials of the soviet or Cuban embassies, other than the respective consuls.”
Now, certainly one question that immediately pops out after reading this report is where the newspaper Excelsior got its information. The Excelsior was a worker cooperative, anti-imperialist, and not presumably an organ of the CIA. So how did they get their information? Would CIA leak to Excelsior and thus betray the secret (their “sources & methods”) that they had taps on the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City? That’s a question, to you.
The only evidence we have of "Oswald" visiting the Soviet Embassy, that I am aware of, is the phone call made by an Oswald impersonator On October 1, 1963. That is the only call where the name "Lee Oswald" was given. In the call, the Oswald impersonator spoke in broken Russian to the embassy guard, saying that he had visited with an officer there on September 28. The guard suggested that the officer he had visited was Valeriy Kostikov.
If a person actually did visit Soviet Embassy that day, I believe it was probably an imposter, just like the "Oswald" that visited the Cuban Consulate was an imposter.
As for how the Excelsior newspaper got the information so quickly about the so-called Oswald visits, I suppose they could have gotten it from the Mexican police. After all, the Mexican police did hold Silvia Duran and a number of her friends for questioning, and did actually beat her, likely because she wouldn't admit to the charges made against her by Elena Garro, who was being held in "protective custody" at the time in a hotel. Garro's story painted Oswald as being a friend of Duran's and associating with her friends.
So the story the Mexican Police got from Duran was the innocent/real one (according to their understanding), where Oswald was there to get a transit visa. (Not to negotiate an assassination deal with the Cubans and Russians.)
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:Another unexplained detail involves the letter that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviets on November 9, 1963, and reprinted in the Warren Commission as CE 15. In the letter, Oswald writes,
“… the Cuban consulate [sic] was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replaced.”
Evidently indeed, the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, was replaced, as Oswald had noted in his November 9 letter. The problem is Azcue was not replaced until November 18, more than a week after Oswald’s letter.
This date problem in the Oswald letter to the Soviets raises a few possibilities:
1. Oswald had a very good source in U.S. intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.;
2. Oswald had a very good source in Soviet and/or Cuban intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.; or
3. The letter is a forgery, written to put more Oswald-Soviet connections out there for investigators after the assassination, albeit with the Azcue timing problem in plain sight.
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:I expect you, Sandy, will agree with scenario number 3, that the letter is a forgery. I would agree.
Yes, I believe the Kostin letter was planted by the CIA in order to strengthen the evidence that Oswald had (supposedly) contracted with the Cubans and Soviets to have Kennedy killed. (Allegations made by Gilberto Alvarado.)
As for the comment in the letter about Azcue being replaced:
The CIA must have known about Azcue's replacement, or planned replacement. We don't really know if there was a timing issue as to the date of Azcue leaving, because when the Kostin letter said, "I am glad he has since been replaced," for all we know the CIA writer of the letter could have meant more specifically that the DECISION for his replacement had been made, and that soon the actual replacement will take place.
Or it could be that the CIA writer of that letter simply made a mistake... he might have merely assumed that the replacement had taken place prior to his writing of the letter.
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:But I expect further you will say the forgery was by C.I.A. And there is a problem.
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:First, according to Richard Helms, in a letter to Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission dated February 2, 1964, Helms states:
“We do not know who might have told Oswald that Azcue or any other Cuban had been or was to be replaced, but we speculate that Silvia Duran or some Soviet official might have mentioned it if Oswald complained about Azcue’s altercations with him.”
This would be the Sylvia Duran that had described Oswald “as a blonde.”
In 1967, columnists Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, who had been targets of RFK’s “Mockingbird Operation,” the wiretapping of various journalists in the early ‘60s who seemed to be getting unusually good information, wrote:
“After receiving this reply from the CIA [Helms], the Warren Commission’s staff made no further inquiry on the Azcue reference, but centered their probe on the circumstances under which the letter was prepared and later discovered.”
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:And now I hear you Sandy saying “but of course Helms said that; He’s one of the plotters!” I hear you. I hear you.
Actually, I've never thought that Helms was one of the plotter. Though I suppose he might have been.
But even if he wasn't, I don't understand how what he said would contradict my beliefs as I've stated them here. Maybe you can explain.
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:But you’re not out of the woods. The problem grows deeper you see. Because in the late 1990s Boris Yeltsin of Russia presented to Bill Clinton some Soviet documents related to their monitoring of the Oswald situation.
One document in that collection is a cable written shortly after the assassination on November 22, 1963, from Moscow to the Soviet ambassador in Washington. In it, the Kremlin instructs ambassador Dobrynin to share with Secretary of State Rusk photocopies of correspondence between their embassy and Oswald but he specifically adds:
“When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.”
Later in the cable, the point is more explicit:
“The U.S. authorities are aware of this final correspondence, since it was conducted through official mail.”
See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0091a.htm
This is hugely significant. It indicates a couple of things. One is that the Soviets knew of problems with the timing of the Azcue letter. Second, it instructs Dobrynin to tell Rusk, impliedly, that the Soviets also knew of the U.S. mail-opening program, run then by William J Cotter.
First, Matt, I don't know if the following statement:
“When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.”
has anything to do with the Azcue replacement timing issue. The two dates, Nov. 9 and Nov. 18, might just be coincidences.
Even if that sentence does relate to the Azcue timing issue, I don't see how the instruction of that sentence, given to Ambassador Dobrynin, supposedly resolves the timing issue in the Americans' eyes. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. knew precisely the date of the letter and the date the Soviets received it, a fact that apparently the Russians were aware of (since they knew of the U.S. mail intercept program).
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:How the Soviets knew any of these details, Sandy, ...
What details? The Azcue replacement timing issue dates?
The CIA knew that Azcue was going to be replaced. So why wouldn't the Soviets have not also known that?
With the Azcue replacement date in hand, and the Kostin letter in hand, the Soviets had all the details that you've pointed out. No mole needed to get it for them.
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:... is a another question put to you along with the suggestion that the Soviets’ knowledge of these activities points yet again in the direction of a mole, or at very least a U.S. KGB interlocutor, who was keeping them abreast. This supports the view that what is being targeted here — again by someone or someones, CIA, KGB, a mix of both? — is Angleton’s counterintelligence efforts, his “mole-hunt.”
-
2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:
Wow, I'm very impressed. I didn't think Johnson had it in him.
Maybe the Democrats will save his Speakership from MTG and her sorry ilk.
-
13 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:
Humans are not very good at incorporating low probabilities in their thinking.
Contrary to popular belief, statistics don't lie. But they can fool you.
Even highly intelligent mathmeticians need to consult a statistician on occasion.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:
You're welcome. Sorry but I'm probably going to drop out of this thread. Not for lack of interest, but I have a bad feeling about incurring a major misconduct penalty for lèse-majesté.
Mocking an Administrator is not wise. Even if it is minor and carries just a few warning points.
-
7 hours ago, Michael Kalin said:
Matt, not likely this complicated topic will receive the careful analysis you contemplate from pontificators who refuse to study the source material.
"pontificators who refuse to study the source material" = "people who disagree with me and won't tolerate my smart-ass remarks"
-
12 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:
And it's not obvious he was a spy working for U.S. intelligence, no matter how many times you repeat that claim.
FWIW, I agree with Jim that it is obvious Oswald worked for U.S. intelligence. Most likely the CIA.
-
On 4/15/2024 at 4:21 PM, Matt Cloud said:
With above in mind, here are some details, now, regarding the “Mexico City shenanigans” as you put it.
One of the as yet unexplained details is the origin of the story of Oswald going to the Soviet Consulate in the first place. The claim first appeared in public, in print, in the Mexican newspaper Excelsior on November 25, and picked up on that day by U.S. wire service U.P.I.
According to U.P.I., dateline November 25, 1963:
“The newspaper Excelsior said today Lee Harvey Oswald spent several days in Mexico City in late September, calling on consulates of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
…
Excelsior said the Cuban consulate told Oswald it could not issue the visa without talking to the United States government and that would take 10 or 12 days. [Oswald had evidently been there on September 27, 1963.] The paper said Oswald left the office in a huff and slammed the door as he went.
The next day [presumably September 28] he appeared at the office of the soviet consul and asked for a visa directly to the Soviet Union.
[Excelsior] said Oswald supported his argument for the visa by saying his wife was a soviet citizen, that he was a Communist, and that he had lived in Russia for three years.
Told of Long Wait
The soviet consul told him the normal time to process such a request would be about three months. Oswald again left in a huff, [Excelsior] said.
[Excelsior] said there was no indication Oswald talked to any important officials of the soviet or Cuban embassies, other than the respective consuls.”
Now, certainly one question that immediately pops out after reading this report is where the newspaper Excelsior got its information. The Excelsior was a worker cooperative, anti-imperialist, and not presumably an organ of the CIA. So how did they get their information? Would CIA leak to Excelsior and thus betray the secret (their “sources & methods”) that they had taps on the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City? That’s a question, to you.
Another unexplained detail involves the letter that Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviets on November 9, 1963, and reprinted in the Warren Commission as CE 15. In the letter, Oswald writes,
“… the Cuban consulate [sic] was guilty of a gross breach of regulations, I am glad he has since been replaced.”
Evidently indeed, the Cuban consul, Eusebio Azcue, was replaced, as Oswald had noted in his November 9 letter. The problem is Azcue was not replaced until November 18, more than a week after Oswald’s letter.
This date problem in the Oswald letter to the Soviets raises a few possibilities:
1. Oswald had a very good source in U.S. intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.;
2. Oswald had a very good source in Soviet and/or Cuban intel, who kept an eye on Mexico City comings and goings, after Oswald’s return to the U.S.; or
3. The letter is a forgery, written to put more Oswald-Soviet connections out there for investigators after the assassination, albeit with the Azcue timing problem in plain sight.
I expect you, Sandy, will agree with scenario number 3, that the letter is a forgery. I would agree. But I expect further you will say the forgery was by C.I.A. And there is a problem.
First, according to Richard Helms, in a letter to Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission dated February 2, 1964, Helms states:
“We do not know who might have told Oswald that Azcue or any other Cuban had been or was to be replaced, but we speculate that Silvia Duran or some Soviet official might have mentioned it if Oswald complained about Azcue’s altercations with him.”
This would be the Sylvia Duran that had described Oswald “as a blonde.”
In 1967, columnists Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott, who had been targets of RFK’s “Mockingbird Operation,” the wiretapping of various journalists in the early ‘60s who seemed to be getting unusually good information, wrote:
“After receiving this reply from the CIA [Helms], the Warren Commission’s staff made no further inquiry on the Azcue reference, but centered their probe on the circumstances under which the letter was prepared and later discovered.”
And now I hear you Sandy saying “but of course Helms said that; He’s one of the plotters!” I hear you. I hear you. But you’re not out of the woods. The problem grows deeper you see. Because in the late 1990s Boris Yeltsin of Russia presented to Bill Clinton some Soviet documents related to their monitoring of the Oswald situation.
One document in that collection is a cable written shortly after the assassination on November 22, 1963, from Moscow to the Soviet ambassador in Washington. In it, the Kremlin instructs ambassador Dobrynin to share with Secretary of State Rusk photocopies of correspondence between their embassy and Oswald but he specifically adds:
“When sending the photocopies, say that the letter of November 9 [discussed above] was not received by the embassy until November 18, obviously it had been held up somewhere.”
Later in the cable, the point is more explicit:
“The U.S. authorities are aware of this final correspondence, since it was conducted through official mail.”
See https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/other/yeltsin/html/Yeltsin_0091a.htm
This is hugely significant. It indicates a couple of things. One is that the Soviets knew of problems with the timing of the Azcue letter. Second, it instructs Dobrynin to tell Rusk, impliedly, that the Soviets also knew of the U.S. mail-opening program, run then by William J Cotter. (William J. Cotter, btw, who ran the mail-opening program, was the brother-in-law of John N. McMahon, who in 1962-63, back even in 1959, was an executive in the Agency’s COMOR operations — that has to do with overhead surveillance matters including the U-2 and CORONA satellite programs. His sister, William Cotter's wife, Virginia Alicia Cotter nee McMahon, died young, in her 40s, in 1962. She had been a VENONA codebreaker, BTW, in the 1940s, and is buried in Arlington.)
How the Soviets knew any of these details, Sandy, is a another question put to you along with the suggestion that the Soviets’ knowledge of these activities points yet again in the direction of a mole, or at very least a U.S. KGB interlocutor, who was keeping them abreast. This supports the view that what is being targeted here — again by someone or someones, CIA, KGB, a mix of both? — is Angleton’s counterintelligence efforts, his “mole-hunt.”
Matt,
I intend on replying to this post of yours. At the moment I am not feeling up to it. (Health issues.)
-
3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:
Unfortunately, I've reached my photo limit and can't figure out how to add image links from Google Drive. I'll try to figure it out if I can.
From Forum Tips & Tricks:
-
21 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
I'd be greatly surprised if you found my saying something much more than what I said above.
Perhaps then you just re-summarize here for us what it is "you've said above?" A copy and paste will do.
Oh, I meant just this:
I've never thought that commies were running the Oswald Project, or even just the young boy being cared for by those militant commies. I DO believe that he would become HARVEY Oswald after breaking up with his caretakers.
We have very little knowledge to go by. But my guess is that the boy was a Russian speaking orphan who was somehow hooked with up the commies. I suppose they had high hopes for the boy also becoming a militant commie when he grew up.
Sorry about my ambiguity in referring to it.
-
BTW, I don't recall if I mentioned this... I will have to get permission from the other admin members to make the changes I'm talking about.
-
8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Much better. And a water cooler for "Those who believe alternative/MAGA facts."
Works for me. I entertain "alternative" views on a number of subjects, none are MAGA tho. 2 threads cover it.
Thanks for your feedback.
-
36 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
This is not sounding nearly as tight as you had once -- and quite recently -- proclaimed.
I'd be greatly surprised if you found my saying something much more than what I said above.
-
4 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:
WATER COOLER
WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)
Maybe this would be better:
WATER COOLER
WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM (For those who disbelieve alternative/MAGA facts.)
-
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:
WATER COOLER
WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)
WATER COOLER - ALTERNATIVE (For those who believe alternative (e.g. MAGA) facts.)
As I said earlier, our experience is that the alternative/MAGA people don't post in the thread dedicated to them. I think it's because they like convincing non-believers of their beliefs, rather than singing to the choir. Because of that, we might be able to eliminate their Cooler altogether. Just have these two:
WATER COOLER
WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)
-
5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
I think the Water Cooler needed one thread -- "Free for All."
I think many here find "MAGA" and "Mainstream" pejoratives.
Well, I'm pretty sure we will be using some segregation in order to please those who don't want to engage with those who they think believe obvious nonsense. That was the problem we had before.
But we could promote the "one thread -- Free for All" that you speak of as the standard Water Cooler. In which case the names of the threads might be something like this:
WATER COOLER
WATER COOLER - MAINSTREAM (For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts.)
WATER COOLER - ALTERNATIVE (For those who believe alternative (e.g. MAGA) facts.)
The top one is the standard Cooler for everybody.
-
5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Consider yourself contacted, Sandy. I'd like to delete attachments on the 56 years thread.
Now what?
Will you do me a big favor, Cliff?
I'm trying to teach Ron Bulman the ropes. Would you ask him to help you? That way we can test my instructions, and at the same time train Ron.
Thanks.
I'll help out if Ron can't. But Ron's a bright guy and I think he'll have no trouble doing this.
-
13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
Okay -- so you don't know whether there was Soviet involvement in the Oswald Project, is that correct?
Other than Harvey fake defecting to the Soviet Union, I don't know of any Soviet involvement. And I see no reason to believe there was such an involvement.
13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:All we have here are your guesses -- ...
Yes, of course. That's all anybody has to offer... their guesses.
13 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:...that he was loosely affiliated with communists but then that relationship was severed? Is that correct?
Yes.
(Unless I'm forgetting something. Or if I missed something somebody posted.)
-
4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
I gather from that that Michael Kalin has been placed now too in the penalty box, as I had, for misdemeanors I did not commit -- an allegation of "harassing" for the observation that editing posts weeks old, the content of which has become a material point of discussion in the thread, was "self-serving." Wonderfully revealing, all.
In any case, I ask you, Sandy, by which I include all of those you include when you employ your "we" as you do so often here ("We believe [X]"), how do you square the Harvey & Lee thesis, and indeed the entire discussion going back years here relating to the anonymous call to the Tippits of Connecticut, where you explore the possibility of "militant commies" -- your words -- running the Harvey project, with your claim here that you see no reason to include the possibility of other intelligence organizations involvement? On the one hand, you did, for a time at least, see the possibility apparently of the Communist Party running Harvey yet on the other hand, with respect to Mexico City, you see no such possibility. Is that why you must hermetically-seal off the "Mexico City shenanigans" from a larger contextual understanding of what you yourself claim is a decades-long intelligence operation? Is it KGB ran Harvey but CIA did Mexico CIty? Elaborate, if you wouldn't mind, please.
Matt,
I've never thought that commies were running the Oswald Project, or even just the young boy being cared for by those militant commies. I DO believe that he would become HARVEY Oswald after breaking up with his caretakers.
We have very little knowledge to go by. But my guess is that the boy was a Russian speaking orphan who was somehow hooked with up the commies. I suppose they had high hopes for the boy also becoming a militant commie when he grew up.
Disinformation in Oswald's CIA File - For molehunt purposes or for Oswald patsification purposes?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.