Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Kalin

Members
  • Posts

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    JFK assassination research

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Michael Kalin's Achievements

Collaborator

Collaborator (7/14)

  • One Year In
  • Dedicated
  • Collaborator
  • One Month Later
  • First Post

Recent Badges

  1. Free to do whatever I want? Bless my soul, a gracious straw boss! What I want is to register a substantive change of opinion. I now believe Oswald & an impostor were both present in Mexico City during the critical time period, and that the presence of both supports the molehunt theory. The latter contradicts my 3/27 opinion. At this point I can't remember the reason why I thought so, but it was a shot in the dark that missed. The reason for my about face? Mainly the recognition of the compartmentalization factor, with sub-entities operating in ignorance of each other. Also factor in the multiplicity of intelligence agencies with a stake in this game, and it becomes difficult for the agency compartment that thinks it's in charge to determine who's doing what. Hence, the idea of a molehunt gains traction.
  2. Here's what Scott wrote: Note "The full history is complex and confused, with many unanswered questions." It would be wise to jettison the blackbox labeled "Mexico City shenanigans," a fatuous attempt to hide the complexity & confusion by stuffing in choice items while classifying the rest as nugatory.
  3. Peter Dale Scott may have shared the disinformation theory, but he also saw plenty of room for a molehunt theory. A quote follows from Dallas ’63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House. Complications abound, but that's the reality of compartmentalization in the intelligence field of endeavor. In agreement with Matt Cloud: the question should be "whose spy?" [comment 3/30/24]
  4. Bob was on the ball back then. Topically, pay attention to "With God on Our Side," particularly the verses about Germans & Russians.
  5. Bill, makes sense now. Thanks for clearing up the ambiguity, but this is recondite subject matter. You must speak by the marked card or equivocation will undo us. The paragraph's final sentence refers to the predicate of the preceding sentence. However, I'm fogged as to why a music video was piped into the discussion. Honey, it's no rock 'n' roll show.
  6. You are right. Explicit dissemination orders are absent from DIR 74673, but paragraph 3 states, "THE INFORMATION IN PARAGRAPH ONE IS BEING DISSEMINATED TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN MEXICO CITY." This does not clarify the dissemination issue. The preceding text of Chapter 5 undermines the cable's statement [my emphasis]: So there may be a missing link in the molehunt argument, which incorporates an "Egerter-created clash between the agencies’ headquarters and the local agencies’ offices."
  7. Perhaps following Peter Dale Scott's terminology was a mistake. Bill Simpich's State Secret Chapter 5 uses the term "marked cards" when comparing DIR 74673 with DIR 74830. Bill's 3/24 comment refers to "bait" instead of marked cards. It's preposterous that Oswald may have been impersonated while he was present in Mexico City, but the weirdness of it all is fascinating.
  8. The sense I've acquired is that the thin allotropic barium meal served up to various intelligence entities by the 10/10/63 cables was not intended to launch a molehunt. This opinion is based in part on this excerpt from the last section ("The Surplus of Deception: A Molehunt? Or Also Something More?") of Peter Dale Scott's article, "Oswald, the CIA, and the Hunt for Popov’s Mole." A major "surplus of deception" can be discerned in the CIA's machinations relative to Oswald's affairs in Mexico City, with the purpose of maintaining his potential usefulness as a patsy. These are preliminary thoughts of necessity. The material is too extensive to scope within a few days. There is one question that has a bearing on this, undetermined to this day: was LHO himself actually in Mexico City while someone else was impersonating him? Answer yes and the weight of the argument shifts away from a molehunt. The purpose was to stymie other investigations by creating massive complications. Answer no, maybe the pendulum swings back the other way toward initiating a molehunt.
  9. No, I'm not playing ask me another with anybody. Negative, but I cannot answer the question, "How can he not?" The case he makes against Solie is formidable, not airtight, but nothing about any of this strikes me as airtight.
  10. Re-reading Newman's Uncovering Popov's Mole -- almost done -- apart from mole hunt paralysis not getting your drift. Why ask me questions to which you know the answers? It's like chewing the fat with a philosophy professor.
  11. An impenetrable pile d'assiettes sans silver linings. Please feel free to expatiate on the use of marked cards in connection with an interlocutory mole.
  12. It was my goal to come up with a serious response to the question that is the subject of this thread, but I can't do it as my impressions are so vague as to be worthless. The material is too extensive & dense to assimilate in one pass. For example, keeping track of the activities & connections described in Scott's extraordinary "Oswald, the CIA, and the Hunt for Popov’s Mole" is a daunting task, and this molehunt is separate and distinct from the subliminal Mexico City molehunt. Identifying & following the marked cards relative to each in a conclusive way is arduous. It's worth noting that an item absent from his earlier Fourth Decade article is the APPENDIX: CIA PERSONNEL AND ANOMALIES IN THE OSWALD FILE. This guide to the players with brief descriptions of the nature of their involvement appears just before the footnotes. I'm hoping this thread does not fade away before I can produce an argument, or even a sensible criticism, but it isn't likely. Too much work remains to be done. The source material is vast.
  13. Affirmative. Dallas '63 The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House. See Section 3. Oswald, the CIA, and the Hunt for Popov’s Mole. Unfortunately there are no page numbers. Warning -- heavy duty spook stuff -- postprandial ingestion is recommended, following a barium meal.
  14. Thanks -- I've long wondered why the coup de grace idea persists, but Alaric Rosman's analysis is not entirely persuasive. Are his conclusions drawn mainly from the photograph? If so, damn insightful. Per Dr. Rose shots 1-3 were all fired at an upward angle (2 was slightly upward), and there is no indication of sequence. Also, Tatum's HSCA statement is the one that does not indicate a coup de grace, only the position from where a final shot was fired (after running behind the car and stepping into the street). The Myers reference is no longer pertinent. In 2018 Myers deleted "in the head" from his 1983 Tatum interview. As to the question of deflection, I'll leave that to the experts.
  15. Evidence for the "coup de grace" does not exist, indicating it was a concoction by the HSCA. 1. There is no reason to believe the purported source, Jack Tatum, was present at the murder scene. 2. Even if he was there he said nothing about a coup de grace. 3. Dr. Rose's autopsy does not support a coup de grace. See this comment in the "The 1:22pm DPD radio message translates as The jacket was planted and the witness transplanted (revision)" thread for details and the gunshot wound chart.
×
×
  • Create New...