Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Straus Family


Recommended Posts

Greg are you channeling Tom Scully (the wedding list guy)?

I don't see any weddings listed, Len.

Are you claiming that the people who started and funded Youth House and the immigrant housing of the Rosenbergs having close ties to the intelligence community with one also having a holiday home on the same VERY exclusive small island as the Paines, is necessarily meaningless and on a par with "the cousin of the miikman to the Crown family knowing the neighbor of Badgeman" type posts of Toms?

It may be a meaningful fact in regard to the murder of JFK -- or maybe not.

Your arrogant certainty that it is reflects True Belief, not logic.

One man's arrogance is another man's confidence. The only salient fact at the moment, as far as you are concerned, is that you have no idea what I have up my sleeve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It sure is. People dump on books and research they know zero about all the time - especially when they fear it will make them and their own "efforts" irrelevant.

Something about the Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here....

Let us know when you get to the part where the boy playing Harvey Oswald from Youth House with Hungarian ancestry is used by all those connections you found to help the CIA create an untraceable spy in the name of Lee Oswald.

:sun

The difference, David is that I have only published one of a proposed 3 or 4 volumes - so I can say with confidence that Cliff is most definitely talking about things of which he has no knowledge.

On another thread you said you'd present "the full solution" in volume 3.

You are trying to compare that with my demolition of those parts of Armstrong's book which are plastered all over the web. See the difference? I directly respond to research that exists on the web. Cliff is trying to knock research that he hasn't seen and knows nothing about.

I know you claim to possess "the full solution" to the case and you feel you are in a position to declare other evidence "the wrong dots."

To lay claim to such certainty is a pitch for snake oil.

You guys do presentations on Armstrong's book without having read it. So it must be okay not to read it, so long as you praise it.

Who "you guys"? I've never posted about Armstrong.

I do agree with Cliff on one thing - the Assassination Research Community is a hoot.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can assume that the "executors" of the plot to kill JFK were the same as the "executors" of the plot/s to sheep-dip and kill Oswald.

I find it makes more sense to view these operations as compartmentalized.

There may have been any number of operations involved in "sheep-dipping" Oswald.

Three different agencies may have run operations involving Oswald -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

Was setting Oswald up with housing and employment thru Ruth Forbes Paine the same operation as connecting "Oswald" to alleged KGB assassin-master Valeriy Kostikov in Mexico City?

Let's game this out a bit: Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Red Assassin, a frame which required him to be murdered within an hour of JFK (dead men don't cry patsy).

Had this operation succeeded Ruth Forbes Paine would go down in history as the woman who harbored the Communist Agent of Fidel & the KGB.

Is that a fate she'd sign up for?

"I don't see how..."

"I find it makes more sense..."

"There may have been..."

"Three different agencies may have..."

"Let's game this out a bit..."

Great stuff, Cliff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can assume that the "executors" of the plot to kill JFK were the same as the "executors" of the plot/s to sheep-dip and kill Oswald.

I find it makes more sense to view these operations as compartmentalized.

There may have been any number of operations involved in "sheep-dipping" Oswald.

Three different agencies may have run operations involving Oswald -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

Was setting Oswald up with housing and employment thru Ruth Forbes Paine the same operation as connecting "Oswald" to alleged KGB assassin-master Valeriy Kostikov in Mexico City?

Let's game this out a bit: Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Red Assassin, a frame which required him to be murdered within an hour of JFK (dead men don't cry patsy).

Had this operation succeeded Ruth Forbes Paine would go down in history as the woman who harbored the Communist Agent of Fidel & the KGB.

Is that a fate she'd sign up for?

"I don't see how..."

"I find it makes more sense..."

"There may have been..."

"Three different agencies may have..."

"Let's game this out a bit..."

Great stuff, Cliff.

I don't claim to be in possession of "the full solution."

You do.

What a hoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure is. People dump on books and research they know zero about all the time - especially when they fear it will make them and their own "efforts" irrelevant.

Something about the Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here....

Let us know when you get to the part where the boy playing Harvey Oswald from Youth House with Hungarian ancestry is used by all those connections you found to help the CIA create an untraceable spy in the name of Lee Oswald.

:sun

The difference, David is that I have only published one of a proposed 3 or 4 volumes - so I can say with confidence that Cliff is most definitely talking about things of which he has no knowledge.

On another thread you said you'd present "the full solution" in volume 3.

You are trying to compare that with my demolition of those parts of Armstrong's book which are plastered all over the web. See the difference? I directly respond to research that exists on the web. Cliff is trying to knock research that he hasn't seen and knows nothing about.

I know you claim to possess "the full solution" to the case and you feel you are in a position to declare other evidence "the wrong dots."

To lay claim to such certainty is a pitch for snake oil.

You guys do presentations on Armstrong's book without having read it. So it must be okay not to read it, so long as you praise it.

Who "you guys"? I've never posted about Armstrong.

I do agree with Cliff on one thing - the Assassination Research Community is a hoot.

In maths, Cliff, the "full solution" is breaking a problem or a set of problems down to the simplest possible form, so 1+1 = 2. Not all sets of problems can be broken down that far because some parts of the equation are unknown, and possibly unknowable. So for those cases, the "full solution" is not going to boil down to a single digit.

It is interesting that you insist on calling something "snake oil" when you have no clue as to what it is. I guess some people just want this case to drag on indefinitely so they can keep spinning their wheels and posting for the 296,203rd time, stuff about bunched shirts, botched autopsies and doppelgangers.

"You guys", Cliff, would be David and his 2 Oswald friends. As much as you may insist it's all about you, this actually was a reply to David.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can assume that the "executors" of the plot to kill JFK were the same as the "executors" of the plot/s to sheep-dip and kill Oswald.

I find it makes more sense to view these operations as compartmentalized.

There may have been any number of operations involved in "sheep-dipping" Oswald.

Three different agencies may have run operations involving Oswald -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

Was setting Oswald up with housing and employment thru Ruth Forbes Paine the same operation as connecting "Oswald" to alleged KGB assassin-master Valeriy Kostikov in Mexico City?

Let's game this out a bit: Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Red Assassin, a frame which required him to be murdered within an hour of JFK (dead men don't cry patsy).

Had this operation succeeded Ruth Forbes Paine would go down in history as the woman who harbored the Communist Agent of Fidel & the KGB.

Is that a fate she'd sign up for?

"I don't see how..."

"I find it makes more sense..."

"There may have been..."

"Three different agencies may have..."

"Let's game this out a bit..."

Great stuff, Cliff.

I don't claim to be in possession of "the full solution."

You do.

What a hoot.

The above seems to be your preliminary launch-pad for ( a ) defending Ruth Paine and ( b ) building your case that Oswald was sheep-dipped. Yet it seems built on a lot of assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

There was the "Soviet defector" reputation Oswald gained; the FPCC leafleting and radio show in New Orleans; the alleged KGB-Oswald meet in Mexi.

For all I know there could have been three different operations run by three different intel agencies.

"For all I know..." Hold that thought, Cliff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can assume that the "executors" of the plot to kill JFK were the same as the "executors" of the plot/s to sheep-dip and kill Oswald.

I find it makes more sense to view these operations as compartmentalized.

There may have been any number of operations involved in "sheep-dipping" Oswald.

Three different agencies may have run operations involving Oswald -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

Was setting Oswald up with housing and employment thru Ruth Forbes Paine the same operation as connecting "Oswald" to alleged KGB assassin-master Valeriy Kostikov in Mexico City?

Let's game this out a bit: Oswald was sheep-dipped as a Red Assassin, a frame which required him to be murdered within an hour of JFK (dead men don't cry patsy).

Had this operation succeeded Ruth Forbes Paine would go down in history as the woman who harbored the Communist Agent of Fidel & the KGB.

Is that a fate she'd sign up for?

"I don't see how..."

"I find it makes more sense..."

"There may have been..."

"Three different agencies may have..."

"Let's game this out a bit..."

Great stuff, Cliff.

I don't claim to be in possession of "the full solution."

You do.

What a hoot.

The above seems to be your preliminary launch-pad for ( a ) defending Ruth Paine and ( b ) building your case that Oswald was sheep-dipped. Yet it seems built on a lot of assumptions.

Defending Ruth Forbes Paine?

No, I'm asking a reasonable question: was her providing housing for the Oswald family and efforts to find employment for LHO part of the same operation as the "Oswald meets Kostikov" frame in Mexico City?

Hoover told Nixon the afternoon of 11/22 that Oswald was a Communist.

Yeah, looks to me like the cat got sheep dipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sure is. People dump on books and research they know zero about all the time - especially when they fear it will make them and their own "efforts" irrelevant.

Something about the Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind here....

Let us know when you get to the part where the boy playing Harvey Oswald from Youth House with Hungarian ancestry is used by all those connections you found to help the CIA create an untraceable spy in the name of Lee Oswald.

:sun

The difference, David is that I have only published one of a proposed 3 or 4 volumes - so I can say with confidence that Cliff is most definitely talking about things of which he has no knowledge.

On another thread you said you'd present "the full solution" in volume 3.

You are trying to compare that with my demolition of those parts of Armstrong's book which are plastered all over the web. See the difference? I directly respond to research that exists on the web. Cliff is trying to knock research that he hasn't seen and knows nothing about.

I know you claim to possess "the full solution" to the case and you feel you are in a position to declare other evidence "the wrong dots."

To lay claim to such certainty is a pitch for snake oil.

You guys do presentations on Armstrong's book without having read it. So it must be okay not to read it, so long as you praise it.

Who "you guys"? I've never posted about Armstrong.

I do agree with Cliff on one thing - the Assassination Research Community is a hoot.

In maths, Cliff, the "full solution" is breaking a problem or a set of problems down to the simplest possible form, so 1+1 = 2. Not all sets of problems can be broken down that far because some parts of the equation are unknown, and possibly unknowable. So for those cases, the "full solution" is not going to boil down to a single digit.

And you may still be wrong. Your attitude of infallibility is egregious.

It is interesting that you insist on calling something "snake oil" when you have no clue as to what it is.

I know what your attitude is. As if you've got a proprietary hold on Historical Truth.

I guess some people just want this case to drag on indefinitely so they can keep spinning their wheels and posting for the 296,203rd time, stuff about bunched shirts,

Bingo! The dismissal of physical evidence!

Greg, you seem unaware of the paramount importance of physical evidence in a murder case. The body, the clothing.

You post for the 296,203rd time about Oswald who had nothing to do with killing Kennedy.

The clothing evidence and the body have everything to do with the killing.

botched autopsies and doppelgangers.

Not me, pal,

Harriman and the Staff Support Group out of Ft. Detrick MD.

Can't say they did it but there is a lot of evidence consistent with that conclusion.

"You guys", Cliff, would be David and his 2 Oswald friends. As much as you may insist it's all about you, this actually was a reply to David.

As much as you strain for weak insults -- thanks for the clarification.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo! The dismissal of physical evidence!

Greg, you seem unaware of the paramount importance of physical evidence in a murder case. The body, the clothing.

You post for the 296,203rd time about Oswald who had nothing to do with killing Kennedy.

The clothing evidence and the body have everything to do with the killing.

Cliff,

I think physical evidence is tremendously important. My concern is that it hasn't budged the case one inch forward towards a new investigation.

Physical evidence was used to convict Oswald postmortem, not exonerate him.

Physical evidence had nothing to do with Garrison reopening the case and chasing a conspiracy.

Physical evidence had nothing to do with forcing the formation of the HSCA

Physical evidence had nothing to do with forcing the establishment of the ARRB

So... physical evidence would be something the government is only interested in if it supports their conclusion. In 50 + years, physical evidence has only had one positive effect. The dictabelt got a conspiracy finding. But then the same physical evidence was quickly found not to support such a conclusion at all when re-examined by more "experts".

The only physical evidence that is going to move this case forward is DNA. And There are several items that could be tested.

Until then, I think the ROKC approach is worth a shot.

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13125405-buell-wesley-frazier-where-s-your-rider?page=last

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13122617-dallas-transit-transfers-

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13152069-billy-lovelady-location

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13163914-prayer-man-gifs

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13158398-bags-boxes-bones-bungling-and-bonnie-ray

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13151626-the-roll-call-remedy

Just a small sample of the original and ground-breaking research done by a handful of people. My input to any of the above has been minimal. I don't necessary agree right down the line with it all... but I am blown away by it all, and there is much much more right than wrong with it.

it is the paradigm shifts and quantum leaps we see in the above that are needed now to renew interest - not more of the same old same old tired mantras wrapped in pabulum.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second that!

1. The must think they are of royal blood and don't want it watered down. :maggieJ

2. Straus Family facts are very interesting Greg.

Cheers!

1. There are some interesting FBI interviews in the 26 volumes which show just how "royally" Mike and Ruth treated the hired hands on the island. Quite a contrast to the "good Samaritan", charitable and hospitable image we have come to know and love.

2. Glad someone besides me and Paul thinks so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...