"Was Oswald an Agent of the CIA?" Where is it?

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 8:24 AM, Steve Roe said:

Read Fred Litwin's article on the brain in Lance's post. That explains it in a logical and reasonable manner. 

But more importantly, as Lance as pointed out......what's the deal with Bethesda embedded cover up conspirators with a mundane brain weight? This gets to the heart and soul of just how far does this crazy conspiracy go? Do you really think there were secret cover-up artists at Bethesda? 

If you do believe that, then you have the biggest well-oiled conspiracy known to man. I don't think Cecil B. DeMille could imagine a "Cast of Thousands" like Stone/DiEugenio do. There must have been a Pre-Assassination meeting somewhere to get everyone in sync. Perhaps they held it at the Orange Bowl. 

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

I hate the terms CT/LNT...  like there is no other option...

Those still using these terms apparently have missed some of the "new kids on the block".  Those newbies are here simply because they are looking for answers to legitimate questions.  Questions not answered by the WC, HSCA, etc

Nothing more, nothing less... really.

Now, the old timers deserve a lot of credit, just look at what has surfaced because of THEIR actions... or do you believe the CIA decided one day to make that stuff public by themselves ?   

So regarding all CT being nutty... don't think so... , please don't generalize (that always a bad idea..).

Edited January 1, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Bob Ness]

23 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Is there something difficult about these?

What did he actually write? Did it indicate Oswald was affiliated with the CIA?

Is he adamant there is some bombshell document called "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" that should be in the CIA files and should have been released?

Does he have an explanation as to why other HSCA staff would have produced a different report under essentially the same title at the same time?

Does he have an explanation for his 1996 article in the AARC Quarterly and why it is so startlingly different from what he supposedly told you the same year?

Does he have an explanation for his apparent silence about "Was Oswld An Agent of the CIA?" since 1996?

Does he have a reasction to the discssion I found which suggested his "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" never got past the work-product stage and may been properly dsetroyed?

Yeah, there is. J Walker typing hahaha. You do know when there's a little squiggly red line under it that means it need to be checked for spelling. Don't believe me? Ask the nurse or the bar tender, whoever is closest. Or both.

Go away.

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:40 AM, Bob Ness said:

Yeah, there is. J Walker typing hahaha. You do know when there's a little squiggly red line under it that means it need to be checked for spelling. Don't believe me? Ask the nurse or the bar tender, whoever is closest. Or both.

Go away.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:09 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I hate the terms CT/LNT...  like there is no other option...

Those still using these terms apparently have missed some of the "new kids on the block".  Those newbies are here simply because they are looking for answers to legitimate questions.  Questions not answered by the WC, HSCA, etc

Nothing more, nothing less... really.

Now, the old timers deserve a lot of credit, just look at what has surfaced because of THEIR actions... or do you believe the CIA decided one day to make that stuff public by themselves ?   

So regarding all CT being nutty... don't think so... , please don't generalize (that always a bad idea..).

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Bob Ness]

17 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I will gently suggest you're not doing yourself any favors with these posts.

I'll gently suggest my posts directed at you are because in spite of the fact you have something to offer here you continuously post obnoxious insults meant to derail threads and start flame wars and it gets tiresome. I've read other posts of yours that present cogent arguments in a more or less respectful manner. Then you circle in to add arrogant blather I suppose to elevate yourself (I don't know why you think it does) and belittle people rather than speaking to something you actually know something about.

As far as your vision I'm sorry to hear that and I will refrain from teasing about errors related to it. My hope is you will cease with the tr011ing and add to dissecting the JFKA with whatever point of view you have and the experience you've accumulated.

Or go away if you're not interested in that.

[Charles Blackmon]

2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

 Conspiracists range from those who are seriously mentally ill to those who are intelligent and sincere, with the former often being the most vocal.

Whom exactly is "seriously mentally ill"? Names please, if you don't mind. This should be interesting.

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:02 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

Whom exactly is "seriously mentally ill"? Names please, if you don't mind. This should be interesting.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Charles Blackmon]

You know you don't have to reply and damage your credibility further, right?

[Matthew Koch]

27 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

You start, and I'll let you know if I agree. If you don't think there is serious mental illiness in the UFO and JFK conspiracy communities, you need to get out more.

Lance, how do you know that you are not psychologically projecting your condition onto others? You seem very compulsive with this alien stuff. That opening paragraph in the wiki sounds alot like you with the blame shifting and shame dumping. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 12:52 PM, Matthew Koch said:

Lance, how do you know that you are not psychologically projecting your condition onto others? You seem very compulsive with this alien stuff. That opening paragraph in the wiki sounds alot like you with the blame shifting and shame dumping. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/1/2023 at 8:24 AM, Steve Roe said:

On 12/31/2022 at 2:42 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Well what's your explanation for the brain weighing more than average after having a large chunk of it blown out?

On 1/1/2023 at 8:24 AM, Steve Roe said:

Read Fred Litwin's article on the brain in Lance's post. That explains it in a logical and reasonable manner.

 

In other words, you have no idea how to explain the largely-intact autopsy brain just like Lance doesn't. At least not something you want your name associated with.

Well that's understandable. There is no logical non-conspiracy explanation.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In other words, you have no idea how to explain the largely-intact autopsy brain just like Lance doesn't. At least not something you want your name associated with.

Well that's understandable. There is no logical non-conspiracy explanation.

 

When they can't explain something that can't be explained the default position is to say "read what the so-called expert says".

[Guest]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:15 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

When they can't explain something that can't be explained the default position is to say "read what the so-called expert says".

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[James DiEugenio]

Did Lance say that because a head weighs more than a brain, that this somehow explains why JFK's brain weighed more than the average after the assassination?  🙃

Whew, that is a real humdinger, even for Lance.

As anyone familiar with the autopsy photos can see, the front and rear of Kennedy's head is pretty much intact. The only real disfigurement is the so-called side flap. That is torn but not severed.

Lance should do his homework before he writes stuff like this.

Which also ignores a few key details, which the defense would be sure to shove in his face upon cross examination:

1. Stringer's sworn testimony.

2. The difference in film stock and film process.

3. The many eyewitnesses--over ten-- who saw a severely damaged brain

4.  The shocking lack of sectioning in order to "preserve the specimen".  

5. The failure to weigh the brain the evening of the autopsy.

 

As the reader can see, this kind of explanation allows the proverbial 16 wheeler semi to be driven through it.

Who is the ufologist again?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by James DiEugenio