Benjamin Cole

CT- Maybe, but what I do not understand about "AI" is that it can fabricate realities or "hallucinate." "Take Matt Taibbi, the investigative journalist most recently famous for the Twitter Files, where he exposed how pre-Musk Twitter (now X) colluded with the U.S. government in a far-reaching censorship effort — a reminder that the compulsion to manipulate predates Generative AI. Taibbi asked Gemini, “What are some controversies involving Matt Taibbi?” In response, the AI enthusiastically fabricated and attributed to him Rolling Stone articles replete with factual errors and racist remarks — all entirely made up. Or take Peter Hasson, who asked Gemini about his own book, “The Manipulators,” which also details censorship efforts by social media platforms. Gemini replied that the book had been criticized for “lacking concrete evidence” and proceeded to fabricate negative reviews supposedly published in the Washington Post, NYT, Wired — all entirely made up. Both authors contacted Google asking, essentially, ‘what the heck?’ In both cases, Google’s response was ‘Gemini is built as a creativity and productivity tool, and it may not always be accurate or reliable.’" https://justthink.substack.com/p/generative-ai-creativity-vs-productivity?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 ---30--- There is enough hallucinating already in the JFKA community! There may also be intentionally misleading paper documents in the record...but how can anyone, including AI, know if those documents are "real" or not? When JFK Records documents are snuff-jobbed by government...how can AI know what is in those documents? The application of AI by non-state actors may add to our understanding of more modern controversial events, such Jan. 6. I hope something comes out of AI and the JFKA...but I wonder.

GD- I wonder if the Marcello tapes are degrading. My understanding is that old-fashioned vinyl tapes start to degrade, and after just a few decades. Why does the Biden Administration keep such 60-year-old tapes under lock-and-key? I wonder if the Mob did the JFKA. And if they did it, if they had their own motives but were also green-lighted and were a cat's paw for someone else. As you say, any researcher can (usually with florid conviction and adamantly) connect the JFKA dots to a Marcello, or the CIA, or the Mormon Mafia, or Russians, Israelis, LBJ, WASP-globalists and so on.

JDG--Exactly! IMHO, you have struck paydirt. I ginned this up a few years back. I might improve on it a bit, but by and large, still holds water.

BF-- I do not have your background, but I did take a couple computer science classes back in the day, something about COBOL or BASIC, and there were still fortran cards on campus. Yes, fortran cards. Like you , I have wondered why suddenly what appears to be a powerful program is called AI (not just in JFKA, but in other applications as well). The guys on Wall Street have been up to their eyeballs in a lot of this stuff. One thing that puzzles me is why LLMs at times fabricate or hallucinate. Matt Taibbi asked an LLM about himself with hilarious and horrifying results...the LLM began to fabricate not good, but but bad falsehoods about Matt Taibbi. If you have not seen that article, i will post it here.

Oh, I agree. And if all the JFKA paper documents could be unsealed and then digitized, and other relevant documents, likely AI could be of great assist on correlating information. Needless to say, paper documents that were destroyed, or intentionally misleading documents, could still pose problems. It is an interesting topic. My guess is current events, in which there are lots of faces to be recognized (due to smartphone images), and smartphone locations to be unveiled, and lots of print information in digitized form, are richer fields for AI. For example, one right winger, Dinesh D'Souza, claimed to tracked smartphone locations and ballot box locations, and found evidence of ballot harvesting, or ballot-box stuffing, in the last Presidential election. I do not know if D'Souza's work was ever independently verified, so for me it is just an interesting idea, a technique that perhaps independent, non-government researchers could use. One problem is, this all costs money. And for all of of us, the problem remains: I suspect 99% of government investigations, and large fraction of private investigations, write the abstract and conclusions first, and then go out and do "the 'research." AI or not.

Yes, I see AI as correlating information, all information, including facial recognition technologies, vehicle license plates, smartphone locations etc. As I am sure you know, that information has to be online, where it can be accessed. The JFKA era...not always so. Of course, no smartphones back then. Maybe some new insights would pop up in the JFKA with AI. My guess is the JFKA information in the public sphere has been picked over pretty well, but maybe AI could draw some connections hitherto un-noticed. A more fruitful area for independent AI review might be the Jan. 6 event.

You have the last word. I look forward to further comments from you, on a wide range of topics.

Amen. While I tend to concur with Pat Speer on most items, I think the real key to the JFKA is the timing of the shots that struck JFK and JBC. With the Z-film, IMHO, we can detect JBC being struck at ~Z-295 and JFK at Z-313. Not enough time for both shots to have been fired by a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. This conforms with JBC's testimony, and also with the small round hole in the rear of JBC's assassination day shirt, that reveals the bullet that struck JBC was not tumbling--ergo, almost certainly a straight shot. IMHO, the shot striking JBC at ~Z-295 also conforms with the "bang.....bang-bang" cadence heard by most ear-witnesses. There seems to be reasonably intelligent people on all sides of the "which direction did the shots come from" argument. Of course, within the JFKA community everyone is always incontrovertibly correct...but maybe the timing of the shots is a more fruitful inquiry to be made.

I can't think of anyone in the entire DC establishment who "did anything" about it (the false JFKA establishment narrative) up to and including people running DC presently, who have actively suppressed JFK Records.

You are incorrect in your assumptions. I read a wide range of news outlets, from alt-l and alt-r to some standard outlets such as NYT (usually a couple days late, when I can get around the paywall). There are very serious journalists, such as Matt Taibbi, who are skeptical and dubious about the standard narratives regarding Russiagate and Jan. 6. Taibbi is not a Trump loyalist and neither am I. You have been informed of the three-part Columbia Journalism Review series that explained the many weaknesses, even regrettable excesses and failures, in the media Russiagate story. The CJR, in general, is a liberal media publication, and not a Trump outlet. That said, for the purposes of the EF-JFKA, being a Trump loyalist is certainly a valid political stance, as valid as being a Biden loyalist or an RFK2 loyalist. As a moderator, you should take pains to create a collegial forum, in which different viewpoints---pro-Trump, pro-Biden or pro-RFK2---are respected, and none disparaged (excepting overt hate speech, personal insults, etc.). I have not formed any opinions regarding your reading habits, and I respect whatever views you bring to EF-JFKA. I do not disparage your commentary. We are just on different pages.

That's right. O'Donnell believed shots, or at least audible gunshot sounds, had been fired from the GK. Beyond dispute, many earwitnesses placed audible gunshots as coming from the GK. In addition, many witnesses (including law enforcement officers and veterans) smelled gunsmoke in DP, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. Others placed gunshots as coming from the TSBD. Of course, you can have audible gunshots coming from both locations, thus creating confusion. There may have been other gunshots, from weapons using silencers. The WC was glib in condensing this welter of witness accounts into "LHO did it alone."

I do not understand why you would make assumptions, or make a disparaging comments about what news I read or watch. In truth, I am bit of a bandysnatch, very eclectic in news consumption. If you are referring to Fox, I almost never watch Fox or any MSM news. The pace and content is far too tedious. Perhaps I merely have a different point of view than you. I do not make assumptions about your reading or viewing materials, nor do I disparage your views. I am skeptical of modern-day academia and media. Leave it at that. IMHO, I am on firm ground in that regard.

Among the many oddities of LHO, in addition to radio appearances (a rare thing back in 1962-3) was the strange fact that Kerry Thornley wrote a book on LHO---before the JFKA. Thornley had served in the same unit at Atsugi as LHO, and then was seen in New Orleans with LHO in 1963, though Thornley denied it. The WC found out about the unpublished Thornley manuscript, seized it, and then sent it to the National Archives, and it remained unpublished until 1991. I wonder how many of us had someone write a book about us---when we were still in our 20s? "What was Lee Harvey Oswald really like? In 1962 Marine Corp. Pvt. Kerry W. Thornley wrote a novel about a fellow Marine who defected to the USSR. Little did he know that his friend, Lee Harvey Oswald, would be accused of assassinating President John F. Kennedy. Through the fictional character Johnny Shellburn, The Idle Warriors gives rare insight into the mind of the man who allegedly committed the most infamous crime of the century."

Sandy Larsen responded: "Presumed innocence" is not the same thing as "innocence." Keven Hofeling replied: Sandy, Manafort and Kilimnik WERE NOT EVEN CHARGED with any Russian collusion allegations. The exaggerated sensational allusions to Russian collusion were all a smokescreen. You've been conned. There isn't a single solitary piece of evidence of contacts with Russian intelligence officers. Sandy Larsen responded: The FBI is sufficiently satisfied that Paul Manafort funneled information to Russian spies via Konstantin Kilimnik, an FBI fugitive. Keven Hofeling replied: If so, then why didn't Mueller charge Manafort and Kilimnik with a single count of anything related to Russiagate? The policy of the FBI is not to comment on matters that are screened but not charged, so what do you think is so different about this Sandy? It's political, and improper under the American system of justice. It's political in exactly the same way that McCarthyism was political. Sandy Larsen responded: The following April 5, 2021 New York Times article give details on how Paul Manafort was linked to Russian intelligence. The referenced (and linked) Treasury Department document gives the greatest details. Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data Following is an excerpt from the article: The revelation, made public in a Treasury Department document announcing new sanctions against Russia, established for the first time that private meetings and communications between the [Trump] campaign officials, Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and their business associate were a direct pipeline from the campaign to Russian spies at a time when the Kremlin was engaged in a covert effort to sabotage the 2016 presidential election. Keven Hofeling replied: The Department of the Treasury has no evidence to support their sanctions. They've admitted there is nothing new to add to the Mueller Report and the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion, and those two Reports did not produce any evidence either. What country do you think you are living in Sandy, Russia or China? Don't you think Manafort and Kilimnik are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law, or do you think we should just throw the American system of justice out the window for the sake of McCarthyist hysteria? Here is the key excerpt from the New York Times article you are quoting, which acknowledges that there was no new evidence to support the Russian collusion allegation (a characteristic that is rampant among mainstream press coverage of these Russian collusion stories [characteristic of yellow journalism], and is also true of sources such as Wikipedia): "...The Biden administration provided no supporting evidence to bolster the assessment that the Russian intelligence services obtained the polling data and campaign information. And the release shed no light on why Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates gave polling data to Mr. Kilimnik, although previous government reports have indicated that Mr. Manafort thought Trump campaign strategy information could be a valuable commodity for future business deals with Kremlin-connected oligarchs. Having the polling data would have allowed Russia to better understand the Trump campaign strategy — including where the campaign was focusing resources — at a time when the Russian government was carrying out its own efforts to undermine Donald J. Trump’s opponent. Mr. Gates said in a statement on Thursday that the Treasury Department had failed to provide any evidence to back up its claim, adding that “the polling data passed periodically to Kilimnik at Paul Manafort’s direction was simplistic and outdated, never in real time.” “It was from both public and internal sources,” Mr. Gates said. “It was not massive binders full of demographics or deep research. It was ‘topline’ numbers and did not contain any strategic plans.”..." 'Biden Administration Says Russian Intelligence Obtained Trump Campaign Data' A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies. By Mark Mazzetti and Michael S. Schmidt | New York Times | April 15, 2021 | https://web.archive.org/web/20211107015515/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/us/politics/russian-intelligence-trump-campaign.html A Treasury Department document shed more light on links between the campaign and Russian spies. NBC News asked the Treasury Department to disclose the evidence upon which the sanctions were based and were, as usual with government disclosures of evidence relating to the Russiagate hoax, given the runaround: "....The officials did not disclose when or how the U.S. came into possession of the new intelligence about Kilimnik, including whether or not the information was developed during the Trump or Biden administrations. The officials did not identify the source or type of intelligence that had been developed...." 'U.S. has new intel that Manafort friend Kilimnik gave Trump campaign data to Russia' By Tom Winter and Monica Alba | NBC News | April 16, 2021 | https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/u-s-has-new-intel-manafort-friend-kilimnik-gave-trump-n1264371 Paul Manafort was chair of the Trump campaign for part of 2016. Kilimnik had worked for him in Ukraine. U.S. officials say Kilimnik is a Russian spy. All the usual suspects immediately trumpeted the Treasury Report from the rooftops as if it were evidence, such as Rachel Maddow and Adam Schiff, as noted in the following video excerpt by Aaron Mate and Glenn Greenwald (who emphasize, highlight and underscore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support the Russia collusion allegations against Paul Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik): Glenn Greenwald on why Russiagate disinformation never ends The Grayzone | Apr 30, 2021 | https://youtu.be/6AXcjwX-JGA?si=P48JFo0WzKhR-y-6&t=861 On the same day that the claim of "Russian bounties" in Afghanistan collapsed, another US intelligence-sourced, evidence-free claim was treated as vindication for conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia collusion. Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté discuss the predictable demise of the "Russian bounties"; the Biden administration's new evidence-free assertion that Paul Manafort associate Konstantin Kilimnik passed Trump campaign polling data to Russia; and why major US media outlets continue to parrot Russiagate disinformation no matter how many times the "bombshells" turn into duds. Guest: Glenn Greenwald. Journalist whose latest book is "Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Bolsonaro’s Brazil." Ultimately, the truth remains as follows, even after the Department of Treasury sanctions: "...All of this highlights another inconvenient fact about Mueller’s case against Manafort: It is not about Russia, but about tax, bank, and lobbying violations stemming from his time in Ukraine. The Virginia judge who presided over Manafort’s first trial said the charges against him “manifestly don’t have anything to do with the [2016] campaign or with Russian collusion.” The collusion probe, the DC judge in Manafort’s second trial concurred, was “wholly irrelevant” to these charges...." The Manafort Revelation Is Not a Smoking Gun AARON MATÉ | THE NATION | JANUARY 11, 2019 | https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/manafort-no-smoking-gun-collusion/ Proponents of the Trump-Russia collusion theory wildly overstate their case, again. KE- Keep on truckin'. America needs dissenting views and narratives. There was a time when, in general, when American intellectuals and academics tried to protect free speech, and encouraged dissent. Now, the academics, and many allied in media, want to suppress dissent and speech. Unless a speaker is calling for the genocide of Jews, in which case the speech is protected, depending on context. I don't trust government investigations (see the WC) and especially do not trust partisan government investigations. I have lost faith in academia and media.

Do you have the slightest idea how ridiculous it appears for you to present this pitiful Washington Post article which makes completely unsubstantiated claims just so you can beat your silly Russophobic war drum? Especially when you allege doing so to be the equivalent of taking me to the "wood shed"? Don't you have any "evidence" that I cannot so easily demonstrate to be completely without foundation as I have below with your piece of Washington Post yellow journalism? I have insisted that you provide evidentiary support for your Russiagate hoax claims, to which you have provided this Washington Post nothing burger, which I suspect is about the best I am ever going to be able to get out of you. The Ron Wyden letter you have been clamoring about for the last few days illustrates the problem with your article (which I am going to demonstrate below): https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/final_signed_wyden_letter_to_dni_on_2016_election_report_declassification.pdf Senator Wyden, unlike you, has the good sense to have done his preliminary research. and has become aware that the Paul Manafort case suffers from a severe shortcoming, that being, a total absence of solid substantiating evidence. Thus, he has written to the Director of National Intelligence requesting declassification of redacted portions of the Senate Intelligence Report on Collusion. Senator Wyden knows, of course, what the redacted sections amount to, and therefore knows that they won't be redacted, because -- it is my prediction -- the redactions are exculpatory in nature and were redacted to save the Committee from further embarrassment. In any event, for your purposes, the redacted portions of the Senate Committee report do not constitute "evidence," and your allusions to the contrary are mere speculation. The headline of your Washington Post article is "Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aide," so we shall see if it delivers the content it promises. Your Washington Post article begins with the following paragraph: "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." It certainly sounds damning, but is it true? In determining this, I want to expand the scope of the inquiry to include all of the Manafort charges and convictions, not only in the Court proceedings addressed in your article (Judge Amy Berman Jackson's U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia), but also for Judge T. S. Ellis III's U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Manafort's trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began on July 31, 2018. Manafort was charged with various financial crimes including tax evasion, bank fraud, and money laundering. There were 18 criminal charges including 5 falsifications of income tax returns, 4 failures to file foreign bank account reports, 4 counts of bank fraud, and 5 counts of bank fraud conspiracy. On August 21, 2018, the jury found Manafort guilty on 8 of the 18 felony counts, including five counts of filing false tax returns, two counts of bank fraud, and one count of failing to disclose a foreign bank account. Judge Ellis declared a mistrial on the remaining 10 charges. None of the Virginia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with Office of Special Counsel ("OSC") Robert Mueller's summary of the Virginia proceedings from page 5 and 6 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Likewise, none of the District of Colombia charges or convictions had anything to do with Russiagate. To provide you with certainty about that I am providing you with OSC Robert Mueller's summary of the D.C. proceedings from page 6-8 of the "GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM" in the District of Colombia case, as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.525.0_4.pdf Note that so far, Manafort has not been charged with or convicted of any offenses that have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, which brings us to the subject matter of your Washington Post article, the charges and convictions related to Paul Manafort's breach of his Cooperation Agreement with the OSC. The OSC charged Paul Manafort with 5 charges related to his breach of the Cooperation Agreement. The most concise recitation of those 5 charges and proceedings associated therewith is found in Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 Order, which follows. As you can see, none of these 5 offenses have anything to do with Russiagate or Russian collusion, and I have included links to the pleadings of the OSC and Defendant Manafort upon which the Court based its judgment so that you can inquire further about the nature of each charge (but note that there are redactions which I believe were intended to make it difficult for the media to report that there was no Russia collusion involved, so you may need to review all of them to piece it together as I have): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf "...On November 26, 2018, the parties informed the Court in a joint status report [Dkt. # 455] that it was the government’s position that the defendant had breached the plea agreement by making false statements to the FBI and Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”) and that it was time to set a sentencing date. The defendant disputed the government’s characterization of the information he had provided and denied that he had breached the agreement, but he agreed that in light of the dispute, it was time to proceed to sentencing. Thereafter, the government was ordered to provide the Court with information concerning the alleged breach, a schedule was established for the defense to respond, and the following submissions were made a part of the record in the case: December 7, 2018 Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 461] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 460] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.460.0_3.pdf January 8, 2019 Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Submission in Support of its Breach Determination [Dkt. # 470] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 472] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.471.0_6.pdf January 15, 2019 FBI Declaration in Support of the Government’s Breach Determination with accompanying exhibits [Dkt # 477] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 476] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.476.0_4.pdf January 23, 2019 Defendant’s Reply to the Declaration [Dkt. # 481] (Sealed); [Dkt. # 482] (Public) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.482.0_7.pdf The Court held a sealed hearing on February 4, 2019, and the parties each filed post-hearing submissions. See Def.’s Post-Hearing Mem. [Dkt. # 502] (Sealed), [Dkt. # 505] (Public); Government’s Suppl. [Dkt. # 507] (Sealed). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.505.0.pdf It is a matter of public record that the Office of Special Counsel has alleged that the defendant made intentionally false statements to the FBI, the OSC, and/or the grand jury in connection with five matters: (i) a payment made by Firm A to a law firm to pay a debt owed to the law firm by defendant Manafort; (ii) co-defendant Konstantin Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy; (iii) the defendant’s interactions and communications with Kilimnik; (iv) another Department of Justice investigation; (iv) and the defendant’s contacts with the current administration after the election. The parties are agreed that it is the government’s burden to show that there has been a breach of the plea agreement, but to be relieved of its obligations under the agreement, it must simply demonstrate that its determination was made in good faith. Plea Agreement ¶ 13. With regard to the 5 charges brought against Manafort by the OSC, Judge Amy Berman Jackson's February 13, 2019 final Order provided as follows: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.509.0_5.pdf Thus, concerning Mueller's Office of Special Counsel allegations that Manafort had breached the terms of his plea agreement by lying to the FBI and the OSC, of the 5 allegations, the Court found in favor of the government on 3, all of which were predicated upon Manafort's consulting work for the government of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine before Yanukovych's overthrow in 2014. The Court specifically found that Manafort had not intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnick's role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy, and that Manafort had not intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the Trump administration. This means that the central claim of your Washington Post article -- that "Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort lied to prosecutors with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III about matters close to the heart of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, a federal judge ruled Wednesday." -- is absolutely and categorically false. Your Washington Post article goes on to state the following: "Manafort’s lies, the judge found, included “his interactions and communications with [Konstantin] Kilimnik,” a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District said Manafort also lied to the special counsel, the FBI and the grand jury about a payment from a company to a law firm — which he previously characterized as a loan repayment — and made false statements that were material to another Justice Department investigation whose focus has not been described in public filings in Manafort’s case." Note how the author of the article inserted that Konstantin Kiliminak was "a longtime aide whom the FBI assessed to have ties to Russian intelligence" to imply that Manafort's non-Russiagate related convictions were in fact related to Russiagate. Then, again, the article falsely insinuates that the OSC's prosecution of Mantafort involved Russiagate, when it in fact did not: "In the deal with prosecutors, Manafort agreed to cooperate “fully and truthfully” with the government, seemingly giving investigators access to a witness who was at key events relevant to the Russia investigation — a Trump Tower meeting attended by a Russian lawyer, the Republican National Convention and a host of other behind-the-scenes discussions in the spring and summer of 2016." And throughout the article are allegations that imply Russian involvement in the past associations between Kilimnik and Manafort which were not substantiated in the Virginia or D.C. cases, nor by the Mueller Report or the Senate Committee Report on Collusion: "Mueller prosecutors have said Manafort’s lies about the frequency and substance of his contacts with Kilimnik go “very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.” They highlighted Manafort’s shifting account of an August 2016 meeting in New York City with Kilimnik — a longtime aide who also has been indicted in the Mueller investigation — in which the pair discussed a peace plan for Ukraine, while Manafort served as Trump’s campaign chairman. A resolution of hostilities in Ukraine that leads to the lifting of sanctions against Russia is a top Kremlin foreign policy goal. Mueller’s office also claims Manafort “intentionally provided false information” in debriefing sessions on several topics, including the extent and substance of his interactions with Kilimnik. The pair met in December 2016, in January 2017 when Kilimnik was in Washington and again in February 2017, and as recently as the winter of 2018, according to previously released court documents. Prosecutors also said that Manafort passed polling data related to the U.S. presidential campaign to Kilimnik during the campaign and that the two worked on a poll in Ukraine in 2018.... ...Jackson’s brief order did not add to what was previously known about the Aug. 2, 2016, meeting at the Grand Havana Room, an upscale cigar bar in Manhattan, between Manafort and Kilimnik. Prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said in a previous court hearing that the meeting included Rick Gates, who was Manafort’s top deputy on the Trump campaign and in Ukraine and has also pleaded guilty in the Mueller investigation, and that Gates said the men left separately using different exits than Kilimnik." Mr. Neiderhut, your Washington Post article is yellow journalism in its purest form, and that you think it is solid evidence of Russiagate makes you and Russiagate appear all the more ridiculous. KE-- As old guys say, "Keep on truckin.'" I concur that Russiagate was "an elaborate hoax" to quote Bret Stephens, of the NYT. IMHO, Jan. 6 was likely just a spontaneous scrum, although the possibility of state provocateurs is interesting, along with the inexplicable stories of Ray Epps, Mr Buffalo Horns and many others. The important thing is to do what you do: bring a gimlet eye to official or partisan narratives. People who present dissenting narratives from official or partisan propaganda are immensely valuable.

KH-- I respect those who challenge Deep State narratives, on the JFKA, Jan. 6, Watergate, Iran-gate, the C19 lab-leak and so on. I wonder about this one. Whatever people are suffering from seems more serious than cricket noises or strong flu strains. The Canadians in Havana reported similar symptoms. I am keeping an open mind on this one. The Russians can also play very dirty.

EL- Evidently, the intel state was lying to Trump on several matters, including whether US troops were on the ground in Syria. Trump thought he had removed all the boots on the ground, but no.... Whatever you think about Trump, when the Commander in Chief gives an order and it is flouted...then you have governance by Deep State. What did the CIA or other agencies tell Trump regarding the JFKA? Likely not the truth.

DB--thanks for posting. I enjoyed this segment of BOR. Lots of intelligent conversation. I still wonder if the JFKA plot was hatched from on high many months in advance...or it just appears that way as a true investigation was never conducted. This lack of insight into the nuts-and-bolts of the JFKA allows reasonable people to make many reasonable deductions...which may or may not be true. I do suspect a great deal or witting or unwitting complicity after the JFKA, in the cover-up. Before hand? Not sure. Any large organization, filled with or affiliated with thousands of agents or assets experienced in black ops or war, could have rogue elements. And then would be compelled to cover up the truth.

PS-- Thanks for your comments and excellent website. 1. Oh, many reasons, as you know, for GSR (real or false) positives on the outside on LHO's hands. He was in a police car, he was in a police station, where GSR's were common. He handled print materials at the TSBD. There are any number of common items that can lead to false positives. Perhaps LHO, fearing a trap, indeed fired at Tippit, and so had GSR on his hands. 2. For the light dose on LHO's face, perhaps he fired but once, and the TSBD was "exhaling." It was hotter inside the TSBD than outside. and LHO was on an upper floor, meaning the hot air would rise and out the windows. Perhaps LHO washed his face at his rooming house, or the Texas Theater. Perhaps, as a CIA asset, LHO knew about and used a GSR-prophylactic while shooting (paper on the face). Perhaps LHO perspired heavily enough to wash away the GSRs. Eight hours had elapsed, which past the generally accepted time period for accuracy. Guinn's "2.5 hours" comment is curious. You say LHO did not take a bathroom break inside the DPD. The guy had a strong bladder perhaps. If he took a bathroom break, would that have been recorded? One wonders why such a delay in applying the paraffin cast. All in all, as I say, IMHO, the LHO paraffin test is not dispositive. I am still a CT'er.

BF--Thanks for your comments. Yes, ironically, it was the very same Guinn. Bullets: Yes, from my reading, Guinn failed to take into account that manufacturers of lead used in bullets do not precisely control for quality, and mix and match bullets from different production runs, and even within a bullet there are variations in elements. Casts: I do not have a definitive answer why Guinn said that paraffin casts could be taken on a suspect up to 2.5 hours after a shooting, and be reliable. That strongly suggests Guinn tried testing after 3 hours, and found results unreliable--too many false negatives. It is quite a statement to make, when LHO's cast had been taken 8 hours after he possibly fired a rifle. Maybe Pat Speer knows. To be sure, Guinn, or anyone can make mistakes. I made one in 1983 and then another one in 1995, for example.

BF-- Thanks for your comments. It turns out, there were many, many sources for false and real positives on LHO hands. Even sitting in a police car, which LHO did, can result in false positive on the hands, or touching objects in a police station. This is because police officers, who often practice shooting, carry GSR around. It is even said that fingerprint inks can result in GSR false positives. Or, LHO is used a paper barrier on his face in the TSBD, but when surprised by Tippit, then fired at Tippit. Or, LHO washed his lightly exposed face, perhaps at the Texas Theater, with the palms of his hands, but did not thoroughly wash the backs of his hands. However, the big takeaway is Guinn saying it "appears, he added, that these (NAA) results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle." Guinn seems to be saying 2.5 hours is the upper time limit for an accurate GSR NAA test. But LHO casts were made more than eight hours after his purported shooting. In other words, the true GSR on LHO's face simply dissipated, perhaps through perspiration, or wiping his face with a cloth, or washing, before GST testing was done. Later, after the JFKA, LHO touched the one or several of many items that can bring about a false positive on the hands. As I say, IMHO, the GSR test is not dispositive. That does not mean I conclude LHO is guilty or innocent. I would not convict or exonerate LHO on the GSR test. But, each to his own.

Pat Speer has a formidable website devoted to the JFKA, recommended for all. Chapter 4f is devoted to paraffin casts. There is this curious paragraph: "He (Guinn, running tests on paraffin casts) advised that there appears that triple firing of this rifle will leave unambiguous positive tests every time on the paraffin casts. It further appears that washing the casts with diphenylbenzidine does remove one of the characteristic elements (barium) but such washings do not remove all of the other characteristic element in powder residues (antimony). Further be advised that the tests to date indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times. It appears, he added, that these results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle providing that the skin of the shooter has not been washed in the meantime. ---30--- That sure is a strange amount of time to mention, 2.5 hours. That's 150 minutes. Does this mean that even the neutron activation analysis (NAA) tests become non-dispositive after 150 minutes? Guinn sure seems to suggest as much. The phrase "even if" suggests nearing a time limit. LHO had a paraffin cast made more than eight (8) hours after having possibly fired a rifle. And, yes, again the mention that a simple washing the face would eliminate even traces of antimony, evidently the most resilient of GSRs. LHO might have washed his face either in the rooming house he lived and visited, or the Texas Theater. It is said LHO did not take a bathroom break in custody before the paraffin test. But he was in custody for more than six hours before the tests were conducted. A very strong bladder perhaps. Would records be kept of bathroom breaks? And, of course, LHO, if a CIA asset, may have been trained in spycraft, possibly to assassinate Castro or others, and may have used a prophylactic while shooting, such as paper taped to his face (plenty of that in the TSBD). IMHO, the negative LHO paraffin cheek test is not dispositive.

KE- Keep on truckin.' I think dissent from legacy-establishment media narrative is valuable, especially as we see so much mushing together of legacy media and the two major parties, and the intel state. Remember: COVID-19 did not come from a lab, and Hunter Biden's laptop is a Russian disinformation story. The JFKA was carried out by LHO alone.

Matt- This is interesting. I am keeping an open mind on this topic. I am glad I am an unimportant person. It seems almost anyone could be targeted.

Nothing is certain except death, taxes, and that the legacy-establishment media, or other CIA plants, will savage anyone who thinks elements of the US security state were involved in the JFKA, whether they be candidates, or media figures. And illegally suppressing the JFK Records is never a news story.