Jump to content
The Education Forum

Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met.

DSL - what is their motivation to be truthful?

The only mention of NAMES begins with the faked calls on OCT 1st...

At 10:45am on 10/1/63 a call came into the Russian Consulate (despite this man using the Soviet Military Attache # for call #1 on the 27th... and then again incorrectly on Oct 3rd.
anyway... "LEE OSWALD"  and "KOSTIKOV" are introduced into the conversation by an Oswald impostor and a Russian KGB agent...  Until that transcript there is no information as to who is meeting with Duran and Azcue...

It is then Win Scott and Amb Mann who reinforce the KOSTIKOV story....  if theirs were the only evidence to consider, okay... but that's not the case.

 

4 hours ago, David Lifton said:

David,

Please send me your email.

I believe that the map that you published ("part 2, the Trip Down") is seriously incorrect, and I'd like to correspond with you about it.

Please use: dsl74@Cornell.edu

Thanks.

DSL

No reason not to discuss it right here David.

  • Bus the FBI put him on leaves New Orleans at 12:20pm on 9/25 (a Sept 1964 report on MAJOR GREEN , Terminal Manager Continental Bus and this 12:20pm bus, is back-dated to Dec 1963 to appear as if the 12:20pm bus was always an option....  Here is the original report: WCD183 p22
    img_10587_23_300.png    there is no 12:20pm bus.... yet
    and here is the report from September 21, 1964 - only days before the WCR is released...   WCD1553 p6
    img_11948_8_300.png
    And the revised and back-dated report which mirrors the 9/21/64 report...   The info about the 12:20pm bus was not initially considered...  yet the two buses bound for Mexico City would not get Oswald to Houston in time....
    img_10634_13_300.png
  • 1st stop Houston where he supposedly arrives after midnight...  Testimony from the Twifords becomes relevant  http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/twifor_e.htm
  • Using the route offered the bus heads south after Houston... There is a record of a single ticket sold in Houston  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11039#relPageId=7&tab=page  yet on the very next page Marina states that the clothing HAMMETT described is not anything Oswald owned (white/brn pullover, white dungarees and dirty white canvas shoes - pretty good description given the timeframe - no?)
  • Thru Corpus Christi - YET; there is compelling evidence that Oswald was seen in Austin at the SSS office on the 25th... which would make sense since Oswald was on the way to Dallas....When shown a photo of HARVEY, both Ronnie Dugger and Mrs. Stella Norman claim the person they met was “identical with Oswald”.
  • As corroboration we have Olin Hamilton in Dallas who claims to have gotten an application from a "Lee Harvey Oswald" just after Sept 23, 1963  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=511 
  • Neuvo Laredo is Next....
  • Then the claimed FLECHA ROJAS trip to Monterrey leaving at 2pm to travel 3.5 hours in order to catch the FLECHA ROJAS bus in Monterrey leaving at 3:30pm.
  • Then the Aussie girls supposedly climb aboard yet they took DEL NORTE buses...  as did the McFarlands...

 

So how about you lay it bare David... if I'm wrong here I'll fix it... what is it about this map is "seriously incorrect" ?

fig1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 314
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met.

 

This is an excellent point. It's actually sad that we should even have to waste our time going over it, but... 

If Oswald was never in Mexico City, then he could never have met with these Soviet officials. Can we at least agree on that? 

So why then would they each confirm his visit to the Soviet embassy, when they could have distanced themselves and their country from the alleged assassin, and "laid bare" the alleged CIA plot to frame LHO?

All it would have taken was for them to say... "someone calling himself Lee Oswald visited, but it was not the man arrested in Dallas", and they could have hung their CIA adversaries out to dry.

Here is why... OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY. 

I don't care how he got there. A train, a plane, an automobile, or his tricycle. He was there.

The Soviets knew it, and they weren't about to get caught in a lie by denying it. They were in enough trouble.

Why did the CIA create the controversy over Oswald's trip to Mexico that we are now bashing each other over?

Before the assassination it's purpose was to conceal an ongoing operation. Following the assassination it helped conceal the CIA's long hidden "operational interest" in the alleged assassin. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 9:42 AM, Craig Carvalho said:

Here is why... OSWALD WAS IN MEXICO CITY. 

Craig....  you're willing to take the word of 3 KGB agents despite there not being any evidence of this man's existence outside the Cuban Consulate...

We are not "bashing" anything.  Anne Goodpasture working with the Russian desk officer, Win Scott and for David Atlee Phillips sends a cable from MX to HQ on Oct 8 suggesting the image she KNOWS is not Oswald, is LEE OSWALD because the translation reveals it.

The photo is from Oct 4th at 12:22 not the 1st... and is not the same as the photo on the 2nd...  this message stemming from the Tarasoff translation starts the ball rolling...  you notice how often his entire name is used whenever referred to: Lee Harvey Oswald yet in this case, LEE OSWALD leaving the necessary room for the HENRY 201 file to do its thing.

If you have ANYTHING to corrocorate these three KGB agents... please post...  thanks.
DJ

From State Secret:

The last time Goodpasture was interrogated about this phone call, her interrogator referred to the caller on September 28 as “Oswald or an Oswald substitute”. Goodpasture didn’t even argue with him. She herself had referred in the past to “the man calling himself Oswald”, and “the ‘alleged’ Oswald”.

The American translators of the tapes were not interviewed for 13 years after the assassination

The Americans report that an audiotape of the September 28 call was delivered to the CIA’s Boris and Anna Tarasoff. This wiretapped call contained three different languages – as Boris translated Russian and Anna translated English while the monitors provided a Spanish translation, they worked on it together. Boris Tarasoff testified fifteen years later that he thought the Russian speaker as probably an officer named Konstantinov - although the Mexico City station prided itself as identifying all callers whenever possible, no intelligence officer or Warren staffer ever sought the identity of the Russian who spoke with Duran and Oswald.

This flat refusal to identify which Soviet spoke with Oswald falls into the same category as the Agency’s failure to question Duran or the Tarasoffs. The only reasonable explanation is that they knew what would they would find out and they didn’t want to know. Media consultant Brian Litman interviewed all of the Soviet officers, and by the end of this year we may know if a Soviet officer ever reported receiving this call. Stunningly, as we will see, neither of the Tarasoffs were never interviewed by anyone about their transcriptions of Oswald until thirteen years after the assassination, even though Boris’ transcription - under his pseudonym of “Douglas Feinglass” - was presented as authoritative evidence to CIA headquarters on November 23, 1963.

No American ever interviewed Sylvia Duran for 13 years after the assassination

 

The FBI couldn't find a shred of evidence he was there... and why would Hoover specifically call out the CIA for the "FALSE STORY re: OSWALD in Mexico"...
Win Scott and Clark Anderson both write that there is no evidence of him other than the transcripts and the word of those at the Consulate...

 

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald sign his name correctly on the Visa... yet simply copy the Visa order for the hotel registry?

 

 

You can WANT him to have been in Mexico City.....  but desire sadly does not make it true.

The trinkets he supposedly brought back from Mexico were not sold in Mexico...  the exchange ticket is found in Aug 1964...

 

Does it serve the CIA to show a photo of THE Oswald in Mexico City, regardless of a conspiracy or Lone Nut conclusion?  Of course it does....

Does Lee Oswald know his name enough not to sign it "Lee, Harvey Oswald"?  The hotel Manager personally writes in the names of guests each day they stay in the room other than for their check-in...  as the manager repeats each name in rooms 1-17 the handwritting is identical...  but then we get to room 18 and Oswald...

Like the rest of the evidence - one FBI asset in the Gobernacion handled all of this....

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJ - You can WANT him to have been in Mexico City.....  but desire sadly does not make it true. 

David, You could completely erase the FACT that Oswald was in Mexico City, and it wouldn't change a thing regarding the events that occurred in Dallas.

Mexico City was a side-show event.

Bottom line is... You can WANT Oswald to be innocent... but desire sadly does not make it true.

Nor does making Bill Simpich your personal Lord and Savior lend legitimacy to the Oswald apologist's cause.

With all due respect to Mr. Simpich, he's just another guy, with another theory.

He is no different from any of the rest of us here who have spent many long hours, days, weeks, and years studying this case..  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always, great documentation David.

 

How do we explain the application filed by Sylvia Duran which was then sent and processed in Havana?  Was it an Oswald impostor/lookalike in and out of the Consulate that day?  I think we all agree that these interactions occurred between Duran and someone.  I'm just having a great deal of trouble working out how an impersonation fits in here with the shenanigans that ensued in the days and weeks to follow in the MEXI Station.  If we accept that someone other than the LHO killed in Dallas was in the Cuban Consulate filing paperwork I think this action must have been perpetrated from outside the framework of the main assassination plot.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, Craig Carvalho said:

Mexico City was a side-show event.

Bottom line is... You can WANT Oswald to be innocent... but desire sadly does not make it true.

Ok... so we finally get to the bottom line...

you think Oswald did some shooting that day do ya?  you think Oswald was PART of the assassination?

:o

As for the Mexico City side show... those who show up here with much to say on their soapbox tend to have the least amount of supporting evidence and are generally standing on the shoulders of someone else's work.

Now speaking of Simpich...  you've read the entire thing ?  Regardless of the theories he tests, the FACTUAL INFO offered makes your opinions moot... where any and all unsupported humble opinions belong...

You've read the 6 chapters I wrote specifically about the evidence of the trip and why it fails so miserably.

Mr Curtis = Win Scott btw...

Where does this info originate Craig?  Who conveys this info and how does it proceed from there?

 

 

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:17 AM, Craig Carvalho said:

He (Simpich) is no different from any of the rest of us here who have spent many long hours, days, weeks, and years studying this case..

Really.   

Can you please post or link us to YOUR hundreds of pages of research with sources...  Or how about ANYTHING where you did the research and you found a conclusion to share...

There's a big difference between standing on the sidelines criticizing other's work....  and producing work yourself, putting it out there for discussion, and learning a thing or two.

What any of us WANTS is irrelevant...  what can you reasonable PROVE using everything at our disposal...

I proved the FBI covered the CIA's xxx about lying about Oswald in Mexico City, most likely since he was in Dallas and ultimately at the Odio's door when the CIA placed min in MX calling the Soviet Military Attache....  where do YOU suppose he got that number?

Rhetorical Craig... since I see by your other posts - verifying what you post is not something you care to do...

 In "The Finger Finally Points" thread you write:
Hello Paul (Brancato),

Let me explain that last sentence a bit further.

Oswald was a Marxist. When he applied for his visa passport before going to the Soviet Union, the first country he listed as a point of interest was Cuba.

This is the application where he gets his father's name wrong...

First off it was not a "point of interest" but a list of countries to be visited...  yet by neglecting to be thorough you dismiss the box next to this which asks:  PURPOSE OF TRIP

"To attend the college
of A. Schweizer Chur
Switzerland, and the
Un. of Turku, Turku
Finland. To visit all
other countries as a
Tourist"

So prior to his leaving for Russia, he lists Cuba yet mentions nothing having to do with Cuba as a PURPOSE.

 

 

 

 

Now fast forward to 1963... In June of 1963, just before the Oswald Project begins and his move to New Orleans, Oswald applies for yet another Passport...

He's been associated with Marxism and Soviet newspapers, talking politics and about communism, etc....  Does this same interest in CUBA - now more important than ever and only months away - show up on this application?

hmmmm...  not so much Craig...  what happened to, how'd you put it - the first country he listed as a point of interest was Cuba - ??

Where's CUBA when it would carry the greatest implications...  In June of 1963 Oswald no longer listed CUBA as a "country to be visited"

Why only do a half-baked job of presenting the information, so much so as to skew what the evidence actually said?

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 11:36 AM, Brendan Boucher said:

As always, great documentation David.

 

How do we explain the application filed by Sylvia Duran which was then sent and processed in Havana?  Was it an Oswald impostor/lookalike in and out of the Consulate that day?  I think we all agree that these interactions occurred between Duran and someone.  I'm just having a great deal of trouble working out how an impersonation fits in here with the shenanigans that ensued in the days and weeks to follow in the MEXI Station.  If we accept that someone other than the LHO killed in Dallas was in the Cuban Consulate filing paperwork I think this action must have been perpetrated from outside the framework of the main assassination plot.

 

 

I can only venture a guess about that Brendan...

Either there was no photo sent (hence the Oswald photo not being stapled to the paperwork) or it was created after the fact...  where are those other 2 copies she talks about?

(side note: reminds me of the "master sheet" of all incoming rifle shipments that Mike Scribor said he kept at Kleins, in addition to those 2 bogus pages of rifle serial numbers given to the WC - would LOVE to have seen what that says)

"If we accept that someone other than the LHO killed in Dallas was in the Cuban Consulate filing paperwork I think this action must have been perpetrated from outside the framework of the main assassination plot."

YES...   Let's just say that Oswald was doing FBI undercover work trying to get closer to JURE members to report on them.  But it appears that the men he is with are part of the pre-assassination set-up to sheep-dip him as crazy, a great shot, willing to kill JFK and said so.  The follow-up call to Odio is simply too strange for anything else.

At this point one must decide whether TAMPA and CHICAGO were real attempts on his life or false flag...  Given the info we have on Vallee and the Chicago Plot and what happened to Abe Bolden... I see them as real attempts.

Say he is killed in Tampa by a Cuban sharpshooter or in Chicago by a team of 4 shooters yet blamed on Vallee...  How does that affect the setting up Oswald in Dallas?
It blows it out of the water....  They even tried to tie Oswald to Vallee....

the actions and activities Oswald found himself directed towards serve 2 purposes in my mind...  the first is to maintain the cover, the bona fides for Oswald's penetrations... PLUS it could easily be turned into a simmering conspiracy with other Cubans to get JFK back to Bay of Pigs...

Read thru what Alvarado did and said and when...  and what Phillips did about it....

I just get the feeling that info on Arthur Vallee would have been connected to the same sources if Chicago was successful...

-------------------------------

JFK is killed and LHO did not do it but would be framed for it...  LEE HENRY OSWALD in both 10/10 cables is sent by "C BUSTOS" who was JOHN WHITTEN's assistant.  The difference of course being that the one from CIA to NAVY/STATE/FBI presents an immediate conflict between description and LEE HENRY's birth date.

On the right is the "same" info sent back to Mexico City...  that it says "attempted" to renounce is a dead giveaway for up to that moment very few knew he only "attempted" it and did not fully renounce it and become a USSR Citizen.

That WHITTEN's own assistant is the source of the information which according to Simpich begins the mole hunt only goes to show 1) how little Mr. Trejo knows of the situation and 2) how much more realistic the sources of those calls and transcripts are the CIA itself, as a ace in the hole should a Dallas be needed.

Whether or not Duran and Azcue were double agents for the US, for Cuba... along with the massive number of other "spies" running around trying to steal them from the other side, I think it's safe to say that Mexico City's initial purpose had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

In my posts on this topic I have given the names of two mid/high level U.S. government officials who gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators regarding photos of Oswald in Mexico City. You ignored them.

I offered a photo of Oswald inside the Cuban consulate given to a CBS reporter in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. You sidestepped it by saying there was no proof of Oswald being "outside" the Cuban consulate, (nice try).

I offered evidence of three Soviets officials who have not only confirmed Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy, but who also gave specifics regarding Oswald's state of mind at that time. You challenged their veracity without even taking into consideration my explanation as to why it was in their best interest to be truthful, (either way).

Filling a page on a forum with lots of documents, (which I have already seen), does not impress me, nor does it prove your point(s).

To borrow a phrase from you... You can't learn what you don't want to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

David,

In my posts on this topic I have given the names of two mid/high level U.S. government officials who gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators regarding photos of Oswald in Mexico City. You ignored them.

I offered a photo of Oswald inside the Cuban consulate given to a CBS reporter in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. You sidestepped it by saying there was no proof of Oswald being "outside" the Cuban consulate, (nice try).

I offered evidence of three Soviets officials who have not only confirmed Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy, but who also gave specifics regarding Oswald's state of mind at that time. You challenged their veracity without even taking into consideration my explanation as to why it was in their best interest to be truthful, (either way).

Filling a page on a forum with lots of documents, (which I have already seen), does not impress me, nor does it prove your point(s).

To borrow a phrase from you... You can't learn what you don't want to know. 

Craig - have you seen any of the photos of Oswald you reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Craig - have you seen any of the photos of Oswald you reference?

Of course he hasn't...

18 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

David,

In my posts on this topic I have given the names of two mid/high level U.S. government officials who gave sworn testimony to congressional investigators regarding photos of Oswald in Mexico City. You ignored them.

I offered a photo of Oswald inside the Cuban consulate given to a CBS reporter in 1978 by Eusebio Azcue. You sidestepped it by saying there was no proof of Oswald being "outside" the Cuban consulate, (nice try).

I offered evidence of three Soviets officials who have not only confirmed Oswald's visit to the Soviet embassy, but who also gave specifics regarding Oswald's state of mind at that time. You challenged their veracity without even taking into consideration my explanation as to why it was in their best interest to be truthful, (either way).

Filling a page on a forum with lots of documents, (which I have already seen), does not impress me, nor does it prove your point(s).

To borrow a phrase from you... You can't learn what you don't want to know.

Nice, even misquote the quote... :up

Our Attorney General gave SWORN TESTIMONY in front of Congress and lied his butt off...  until Authenticated and/or Corroborated "evidence" is worthless.

With regards to the "photo of Oswald" from Azcue... you prove once again you're not to be trusted with references or opinions...  and cannot even do the most simple of searches to find out how wrong you are...  and what actual research looks like....

8 pages in there is another photo of your Oswald talking with CASTRO

5a0b6eaf7bf7e_NikitaKruschevNikolaiLeonovyFidelCastro.jpg.1801a7ed6b0d4b441ef534511c2ba35b.jpg

 

Finally - your "soviet officials" were KGB agents Craig. and you didn't offer it David Lifton did...  as for your explanation of anything....  at this point you haven't shown you even know the basics of what happened let alone the details...

As for impressing you...   the bull couldn't care less what the gnats are doing....

What else you got?    :eat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Craig Carvalho said:

Paul, those photos along with Win Scott's unpublished manuscript were removed from Mexico City in 1971, just two days after Scott's death, by James Angleton. When Angleton was fired by DCI Colby in 1975 every file Angleton had on the JFK assassination was destroyed. 

Then how can you say they were of Oswald when they were never seen and all we have is the word of people involved....?

Craig - please try and think for a minute....   You're basically saying that you have this box... inside this box is a photo of Oswald in Mexico but the box has no openings and two people who swear they saw the photo claim it was Oswald.  Every other item trying to support Oswald in Mexico is provably a fraud....

There are over 20 FBI assets, the CIA, DFS and Cuban intelligence along with I&NS and still they cannot find evidence of Oswald in Mexico OTHER THAN what was supplied by the CIA...

You're so eager to take the word of the KGB... why not the CIA?

The reality is you simply are not that familiar with the evidence or the documents or you wouldn't misquote them so badly...

So as I asked...

What else you got?  :eat

5a0b737683d58_63-11-27RussHolmes104-10434-10093NOVEMBER27-RecordsrevealnotraceofOswald-plusnoArrivalordeparturerecordsforhim1959topresent.jpg.c6a2644f791985aba535631891351d9a.jpg

 

or HOOVER

5918942e413ce_64-01-15HooverwrittennotesabouttheCIAlieaboutOswaldinMexico.jpg.2a435a2e899fe4d4f5a67868fe0e6f0f.jpg

 

or the FBI

58c06427ab788_63-11-04FBIMexifile105-3702NARA124-10230-10426-Thoroughcheck11-4-63thru11-23OswalddidN-etgroupsandOSwaldUNKNOWNtoallMexiinformants-composite.thumb.jpg.8e1b624120896626707b174c9cdcf045.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

When I joined my first forum I had already spent more than three decades researching this case. I thought, wow, this will be great. I'll have somewhere to share information with other like-minded people. I admit I was being naive. These forums all ultimately have their agendas. That's why I don't post here much, as you can see from my low post count. I was once told by a very well known researcher to avoid these types of settings, and for the most part I do. I guess I just can't help but getting a kick out of listening to the "experts" weigh in on this stuff now and again... LOL!

Edit to add:

Just so there are no hard feelings I will comment on one of your documents above... even though I have no credibility at this point... just kidding.

The one where Hoover is complaining about the CIA withholding French espionage activities in the U.S. ... guess who collaborated with both the OSS and French intelligence here in the U.S. during WWII... none other than Oswald's good friend George DeMorehnshildt, (pretty sure I got the spelling right on that). Coincidence?   

Edited by Craig Carvalho
Added info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

Why did the CIA create the controversy over Oswald's trip to Mexico that we are now bashing each other over?


The story the CIA fabricated of Oswald's business in Mexico city was designed to implicate Castro in the assassination of President Kennedy. Which would serve to justify an American attack on Cuba. (Not to say that this was the purpose for the assassination. Just a second bird to kill.)

The story created by the CIA was that Oswald was engaged in a Cuban plot to kill Kennedy, a plot that included Duran, Azcue, the black guy with red hair who paid Oswald $6500 for his part in the plot, and others. The Mexican police arrested Duran and Azcue and tried to force confessions out of them. (Naturally they couldn't confess given they hadn't conspired with Oswald. Let alone invited him to the infamous twist party.)

The reason the FBI didn't find evidence of Oswald traveling by bus or airplane to Mexico is because, according to the CIA's fabricated story, Oswald traveled by automobile.

This is my opinion based on all the evidence I have seen.
 

BTW I wouldn't trust anything written by KGB agents regarding this. Doing so can only create confusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig....

No hard feeling at all...  I spent a very long time working on nothing but Mexico City and the Evidence available. I realize that there was quite a lot of chatter about many, many items in the case....  that this or that person said something, especially in this case, requires the extra step of Authentication....

It's a simple thing really but because this was not a real trial, evidence did not need to pass that test....

So I ask a basic question...  if, on Oct 1st the CIA took a photo of Oswald in Mexico at these consulates.... and the CIA wants to connect him with KOSTIKOV, how would his photo be detrimental to the effort?  IOW why would Goodpasture pick a photo from Oct 4th of a man claimed to be the only American looking person that day... and associate that with a call on Oct 1st that never took place... or meetings/calls on the 28th when both locations are closed and the switchboard is unmanned?

I think you're looking for something that was never there... like Ozzie in the window with the rifle... myth.

Are you saying that you don't believe Odio and her sister?

-----------------------

George was everybody's good friend...  He was watching Oswald for the CIA... this we know.  I don't think he knew what he got into when called upon to deal with Oswald...

If you don't mind... can you source out the OSS/French Intel connections?  How do you come to that knowledge?

Do you discount what Hoover is saying about the false story?  Did you read thru any of the MX work at Kennedysandking?


At the end of the day Craig, it's what you post and how it's supported that matters...  "saying it" as you said, doesn't make it so....
I don't know you at all while I've been posting/writing on the subject for 15 years - mistakes, errors , revelations and all....
I'm wrong often, no doubt, because I go ahead and put my work out there...

Again, I enjoy a discussion/debate with someone who knows their stuff...  that's all I'm really asking...  if you're saying something is a FACT...

Show us why.

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...