Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 791
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Debating nutters actually does provide something useful. There are a lot of fundamental facts that old timers never mention because it's old news. For example, that the "Oswald" in Mexico City was actually an imposter and that Hoover and LBJ knew it, but the Warren Commission was never told.

However, these fundamental facts DO come up when nutters are being debated. And that's a good thing for both new forum members and those who come across forum pages in web searches.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Just hours after JFK was killed, top FBI brass knew Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City a few weeks earlier.

Alan Belmont, the number 3 man at the FBI, wrote a 9:15 am 11/23/63 memo to Hoover's assistant and special friend Clyde Tolson which said, in part, "... this individual does not appear to be Oswald, as he looks to be older, heavier, and with more hair.  Also the Agents who have talked to Oswald have listened to the tape provided by the CIA of the call allegedly made by Oswald to the Soviet Embassy, and they do not think the individual was Oswald, as his voice is different, and he spoke in broken English."

 

Belmont2Tolson_1.jpg

Belmont2Tolson_2.jpg

That audio tape of the Oswald impersonator, naturally, disappeared.

 

Thanks for providing a copy of that letter from the FBI. Very interesting !
It shows FBI agents making an investigation in earnest and asking legitimate questions and making it a point to check every piece of evidence and wanting to explore every avenue.
I can only congratulate them for a good job !
I notice several things. According to that letter, the FBI agreed that Oswald ordered his rifle from Kleins. What do you think ? Were they lying ?
I also notice that at that early stage in the investigation, they did not know whether there was another individual involved with Oswald or whether there was a guy named Hidell.
They made some research and found the answers later on.
No big deal.
And being honest, they did not hesitate to put their doubts in writing about the audio bit they heard and the picture that they saw that came from the CIA. Good. What conspiracy can you see there ? They write that they "think" that the person is not Oswald. They are right; It was not Oswald. Due to faulty equipment, the CIA agents watching the embassy missed taking a picture of Oswald. So what ?. Then there was a mix up and the picture of another man who was not Oswald was sent, and when they realized their mistake, they put the picture aside. End of story.

Now, please provide me with the phone number of your boss. I'd like to call him. I'll ask him a simple question : "Has Jim Hargrove ever made any mistakes at work ?". I'm sure they'll give me several examples of instances when you were late, or forgot something, or missed an appointment, or lost an item, or took the wrong equipment, and so on.

You are a human being. You make mistakes. That's part of life. But you want other people to be always perfect, otherwise you'll accuse them of all kinds of things conspiratorial…

Mind you, CIA agents are human beings. And their equipment can sometimes break down. I thought that you would be able to understand that simple point.

--> Anyway, more to the point.
You are being very dishonest here, with your title about the FBI supposedly "knowing" that Oswald had been impersonated. They say no such thing. They merely write that they "think" that there was another person. They talk about "another individual", but -- how convenient ? -- that part is not highlited in your copy of the letter.

You should be ashamed of yourself. 

Edited by François Carlier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hoover warned LBJ about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City

From  a contemporaneous transcript of a telephone conversation conducted the morning of 11/23/63;

President Johnson: “Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September,”

J. Edgar Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."

That conversation was kept classified for thirty years, not declassified until 10/26/93.  The full transcript can be seen starting HERE.

The audio tape recording of the LBJ/HOOVER discussion excerpted above existed for some time.  If my memory serves, and it doesn’t always, I listened to the recorded conversation two or perhaps even three times in the early years of the Internet.  But at some point the relevant portion of the tape was erased, replaced by 14 minutes of noise.  A very detailed discussion of this 14 minute gap by archivist Rex Bradford can be read HERE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Send me your own pictures and I'll easily find some that look different !
I remember my friend taking a picture at university when I was in my twenties in which I look smaller than a girlfriend when I was actually taller. These things happen. Or was it the CIA who altered the picture during the night ?

Of course, you are right Francois but the H&L people pretend not to know these facts. How many times when looking at family photos does someone remark "that doesn't look like you"? This is especially true with photos taken in the good old days of film only which most here are old enough to remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
23 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Send me your own pictures and I'll easily find some that look different !
I remember my friend taking a picture at university when I was in my twenties in which I look smaller than a girlfriend when I was actually taller. These things happen. Or was it the CIA who altered the picture during the night ?

Of course, you are right Francois but the H&L people pretend not to know these facts. How many times when looking at family photos does someone remark "that doesn't look like you"? This is especially true with photos taken in the good old days of film only which most here are old enough to remember.

 

Yes, I'm sure that Francois and Tracy are right... these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

4oswalds.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:



--> Anyway, more to the point.
You are being very dishonest here, with your title about the FBI supposedly "knowing" that Oswald had been impersonated. They say no such thing. They merely write that they "think" that there was another person. They talk about "another individual", but -- how convenient ? -- that part is not highlited in your copy of the letter.

You should be ashamed of yourself. 

Most people say, 'I think', when making an initial accusation.  Leaves them with a way out just in case they're wrong.  I've said, 'I think', all my life, and always when 100% sure.  It's a question of usage, not what percentage that they think they're accusation is correct.  Any critical thinker is heuristic, initially.  LNers never are.

i notice when FC hits a wall, the FBI, CIA, DPD, make mistakes.   When the FBI, CIA, DPD, support the WC, they're cogently 100% correct, and never making any mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, that was Rule 11 of the Disinformation Techniques:

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

i notice when FC hits a wall, the FBI, CIA, DPD, make mistakes.   When the FBI, CIA, DPD, support the WC, they're cogently 100% correct, and never making any mistakes.

Not at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Hoover warned LBJ about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City

From  a contemporaneous transcript of a telephone conversation conducted the morning of 11/23/63;

President Johnson: “Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico in September,”

J. Edgar Hoover: "No, that's one angle that's very confusing for this reason. We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name. The picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there." 

That conversation was kept classified for thirty years, not declassified until 10/26/93.  The full transcript can be seen starting HERE.

 

But, but, but.... you heard Francois didn't you Jim? He said that the FBI was very honest about reporting this Mexico City problem. Surely then Hoover must have told the Warren Commission about it. And surely it was disclosed to the public. Right???

 

b83eef2b053d5379d8dc1681fc9584d9d202b970

 

(Sorry... I never tire of that joke. :lol:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, I'm sure that Francois and Tracy are right... these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

4oswalds.jpg

 

Heh-heh.  I see what you mean, Sandy.  I'll never again believe that there was anything the least bit suspicious about this "Lee Harvey Oswald" business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Heh-heh.  I see what you mean, Sandy.  I'll never again believe that there was anything the least bit suspicious about this "Lee Harvey Oswald" business.

I wasn't aware of what Larsen wrote since I have him on "ignore", and for good.
Since you copied his post, I now know what he wrote and it is such a blatant attempt at disinformation that I see that as confirmation that I was right to decide to ignore him.
Neither W. Tracy Parnell nor myself have ever said that (to quote Larsen) : "these four gentlemen are indeed Lee Harvey Oswald".
We NEVER said that. We know very well that the third picture (to mention that one) is of someone else.
Larsen's post is ludicrous and misleading at best.

When I see a picture of Lee Oswald, I say : "it's Lee Oswald". When I see a picture of someone else, I say : "it's someone else". But even that seems too complicated for Sandy Larsen...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Debating nutters actually does provide something useful. There are a lot of fundamental facts that old timers never mention because it's old news. For example, that the "Oswald" in Mexico City was actually an imposter and that Hoover and LBJ knew it, but the Warren Commission was never told.

However, these fundamental facts DO come up when nutters are being debated. And that's a good thing for both new forum members and those who come across forum pages in web searches.

 

I'm amazed at all the new info I'm finding on this site.   I've been away for awhile, and either forgot, or didn't know in the first place a lot of the evidence being presented here, and since the beginning of the site.  So yes, the nutters have some use.  I'm only saying, don't get angry, because they're just playing around with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robert Card said:

I'm amazed at all the new info I'm finding on this site.   I've been away for awhile, and either forgot, or didn't know in the first place a lot of the evidence being presented here, and since the beginning of the site.  So yes, the nutters have some use.  I'm only saying, don't get angry, because they're just playing around with us.

Glad to help. 😁

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

×
×
  • Create New...