David Josephs Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 13 hours ago, Joseph McBride said: Nasty attacks on other researchers using hostile language do not advance the cause of understanding this case but drag it down. Informed disagreement, citing evidence to support one's viewpoint, is another matter altogether. JM, And when one refuses to only repeat the same unsupported opinions rather than engage in debate with citing evidence… we just keep turning the other cheek? How many vapid posts do u enjoy in rebuttal of any of your researched conclusions? Have u seen today’s self appointed forum overlord provide anything concrete in rebuttal or is it the same tired feckless double talk we get any time H&L is brought up? Why do none of these nay sayers ever address Ely and that memo or the obvious differences in who made statements and who served with the taller Lee? what are the consequences for opinion stated as misinformation in rebuttal to physical evidence anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Josephs said: Agreed…. Go look at the evidence for oneself and come to one’s own conclusion. John has some far out there hypotheses which may come off as his statements in fact…. If Chris didn’t turn everything on its edge and make far reaching hypotheses AND THEN PROVE THEM, we wouldn’t have a fairly detailed map of how we arrive at just over 6 feet of viewable film on a 25ft roll of film spliced in 6 places… the so called “original or “master” as the SS called it. Making your own decisions on what has happened in Dealey Plaza is what a person should do. If Ron Bulman has a certain opinion then that opinion is good for him, maybe not others. I do have some far out speculations and hypotheses. I have said once or twice in comment that I am probably one who is the farthest out in thinking on some issues. Why? It has been 58 years since the events of Dealey Plaza and people are still arguing over this and that with little agreement on issues. The official story of the Warren Commission overlays what happened in Dealey Plaza with lies, forgeries, coerced testimony, changed testimony, and production of altered evidence. This has been done to the point that one can not get to the truth due to the intensive argument and confusion about what really happened. I use what I call "out of the box" thinking on many occasions. The bit that Ron Bulman mentions is about the AMIPA film. There are frames that show President Kennedy with grimaces on his face, cheek widely bulging, and the appearance that he may have been shot in the back. What do you do with that? Ignore it? Or, well he is waving to the crowd later? Then ignore it? Something caused the way Kennedy looked in those frames. We have had a marvelous example of out of the box thinking recently. Chris D. notices there is something wrong with the Zapruder film from the perspective from where he was shooting the film. He goes looking and finds in Weigman that there is an extra camera man standing on a retaining wall behind Zapruder. No one else has done that in 58 years of research. Should that be ignored because it doesn't agree with you opinions or biases? He also suggests there may be more films and just perhaps Sitzman may have been filming also. This is based on what appears to be a dark object in front of her face. Should that be ignored because of your biases? Were there more then 3 films similar to Zapruders shot at the same time. Were there films shot before the assassination to serve as base films for a new composite film? These are questions worth asking. Many don't because of the biases and opinions of other folks here on the forum. Facts alone, due to alteration or not with consequent argument, will not tell the complete story of the events of Dealey Plaza. It is my opinion one needs to go further. Your critics and friends will tell you if you have gone too far and do not have a relevant view. Edited October 20, 2021 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 As a moderator/administrator, I will once again admonish all participants to refrain from the personal attacks. PERIOD. As a person who has been following the JFK assassination story since it happened [when I was a 9-year old 4th grader], there are certain things about which I have my doubts. Harvey and Lee is one. But I also believe that David Josephs has done a great job highlighting the inconsistencies and anomalies in the purported Oswald trip to Mexico City to show MUCH reasonable doubt that it ever actually occurred. So because I disagree with one aspect of Mr. Josephs ' research, that doesn't mean that I believe that none of his work has value. The truth is, there is enough reasonable doubt in the case against Oswald to warrant examining all of the evidence. And after a thorough examination, some may stand and some may fall. And sometimes we merely disagree on which doubts are reasonable and which are not. But we should do our best to remain civil toward others when addressing them in the forum. And personal attacks are a weak rebuttal, implying that you have exhausted your evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Hilliard Posted October 20, 2021 Share Posted October 20, 2021 On 10/18/2021 at 7:41 PM, Karl Hilliard said: Rather than go off on a tangent of absolutes [absolutely was a Harvey...absolutely was no such person] I would like to stick with the topic at hand. On a search [this forum] --there are pages of Oswald in Mexico discussions and I viewed just one that states as do others...that "Silvia Duran's name and telephone number appears in Oswald's notebook". Superficially, that is only sort of true. Ms Duran's name was located in the notebook. However, the phone number was written along with the Cuban consulate address and Silvia's name was written below that... as an apparent afternote. The FBI was known to have fiddled with that address book. They [Hoover?] didn't like it that SA Jim Hosty's name also appears in it. I will provide a link which shows that light on the matter. A C-Span article on the top of the page---- https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=301625911020337 I tried to bring the topic back on track with the above. I request some advanced comment concerning the appearance of Duran's name in the Oswald address book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 21, 2021 Share Posted October 21, 2021 OK, in this episode of the "The Ochelli Effect" Carmine Savastano makes a fleeting reference to seeing a video, or filmed interview of Kostikov, in which the KGB/Embassy agent discusses his meeting with LHO. Does anyone know what Savastano is talking about? I think I have seen this Kostikov video also, but cannot remember where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) On 10/20/2021 at 9:58 PM, Benjamin Cole said: OK, in this episode of the "The Ochelli Effect" Carmine Savastano makes a fleeting reference to seeing a video, or filmed interview of Kostikov, in which the KGB/Embassy agent discusses his meeting with LHO. Does anyone know what Savastano is talking about? I think I have seen this Kostikov video also, but cannot remember where. I'm pretty sure this is in the PBS-presented documentary, Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (1993). Kostikov and Nechiporenko spiel the party line about how LHO was on edge and slammed his revolver down on the desk. Their attitude is pretty much, "Who, us?" You might get more out of it than I did in 1993. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261496/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm It's possible that interview footage shot for this film was licensed for later documentaries, though. Edited October 22, 2021 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 2 hours ago, David Andrews said: I'm pretty sure this is in the PBS-presented documentary, Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? (1993). Kostikov and Nechiporenko spiel the party line about how LHO was on edge and slammed his revolver down on the desk. Their attitude is pretty much, "Who, us?" You might get more out of it than I did in 1993. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261496/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm It's possible that interview footage shot for this film was licensed for later documentaries, though. David: Many, many thanks. That has been driving me crazy. To be sure, in the world of Spy v. Spy (if you are old enough, think Mad magazine), who knows who is ever telling the truth, or a version of the truth? Still, Kostikov himself says he met LHO. My guess is LHO did show in Mexico City, but that there was also an impersonator. Some say Kostikov was just an ordinary Embassy employee, not KGB, and that "Kostikov was KGB" was fabricated by the CIA to bring the hammer down on investigations into LHO---the "World War III virus" posited by John Newman. Who knows? Thanks again. We have some participants in the JFKA saga on record and on film, such as Veciania and Kostikov. For me, these personal statements carry more weight, but maybe they shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: David: Many, many thanks. That has been driving me crazy. Amusing viewer review on the IMDB page for the doc: This WAS the definitive doc about Oswald - WAS... jims0852025 November 2014 Warning: Spoilers ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS*** When first broadcast in 1993, this documentary was 3 hours long and filled with first-hand interviews with those who knew Oswald throughout his lifetime. It was a full-fleshed story of a troubled childhood and frustrating adulthood, all leading to his destiny in Dallas. However, for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, this episode was cut down to only one hour, removing key information that leads builds the case that Oswald was the lone assassin (which he most certainly was). With all of these details removed, this documentary now plays like every other retelling of the assassination and leaves the viewer with the impression that there is actual doubt about Oswald's guilt. The original version gets 10 out of 10, but the re-cut version gets 4, and I'm being generous. Shame on Frontline for falling into the conspiracy hole and removing all of the facts that condemn Oswald and show him as the murderer he is/was. How the hell can there be spoilers for the JFKA weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 1 hour ago, David Andrews said: Amusing viewer review on the IMDB page for the doc: This WAS the definitive doc about Oswald - WAS... jims0852025 November 2014 Warning: Spoilers ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS*** When first broadcast in 1993, this documentary was 3 hours long and filled with first-hand interviews with those who knew Oswald throughout his lifetime. It was a full-fleshed story of a troubled childhood and frustrating adulthood, all leading to his destiny in Dallas. However, for the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination, this episode was cut down to only one hour, removing key information that leads builds the case that Oswald was the lone assassin (which he most certainly was). With all of these details removed, this documentary now plays like every other retelling of the assassination and leaves the viewer with the impression that there is actual doubt about Oswald's guilt. The original version gets 10 out of 10, but the re-cut version gets 4, and I'm being generous. Shame on Frontline for falling into the conspiracy hole and removing all of the facts that condemn Oswald and show him as the murderer he is/was. How the hell can there be spoilers for the JFKA weekend? As usual, I wonder who is the true author of such commentary, just as one wonders about Wikipedia entries. This looks like planted commentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 For anyone who is interested, at the 1:46 mark, the three Embassy employees, including Kostikov, talk about the meeting with LHO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cjwKxuie2o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico. Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets. No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking. Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described… almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Tracy Parnell Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 On 10/20/2021 at 8:55 AM, David Josephs said: tracy at least presents a case and in some areas his rebuttals are spot on Finally after all these years! I won't let it go to my head though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted October 24, 2021 Share Posted October 24, 2021 22 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said: Finally after all these years! I won't let it go to my head though. Even a broken clock is right 2x a day… lol But overturn ALL the H&L evidence? Simply too much of it. Namaste… DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted October 26, 2021 Share Posted October 26, 2021 On 10/23/2021 at 8:58 PM, David Josephs said: Real stickler is that Kostikov er al were being watched and recorded wherever they were in Mexico. Many of these meetings occur Sept 27/28 yet if they wanted Oswald in Mexico not a single report in the month of Sept’s CIA summary reports mentions the CIA awareness of these meets. No voice recordings from within the Soviet compound has Oswald speaking. Like all the players there is no reason to believe KGB officers, whose job it is to turn westerners, or Azcue’s with the same job for Cuba, would have treated a wanna be “redefector” the way they described… almost as bad as the never dying Paz party disinformation… David J- I am perfectly willing to believe LHO was impersonated in Mexico City, sheesh, maybe even got an airplane back from down there. But why would KGB/Embassy officers make up a story about meeting LHO? Seems to me if they had never met LHO, they could say so. In fact, denying the LHO-Embassy meeting makes more sense. Admitting to an LHO meeting opens up the question if LHO was doing KGB bidding, as even recent authors have written entire books alleging. My take is LHO was a US intel asset, but he did in fact meet Kostikov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now