The Raleigh phone call - an examination of the "call slip" factoid

[Greg Doudna]

The word censored out is "t-r-o-l-l"

Lance Payette, after I labored to detail and eviscerate your character smear of Alveeta Treon, you are not even going to acknowledge or address or retract your character smear? Just drive-by character assassination, ignore substantive to-the-point response (from me), and "then I'm done"? 

That's xxxxx behavior Lance. 

You started it. You assassinated Alveeta Treon's character, called her names in public. She probably has family members, and even if she did not it is not right. I don't like to see character assassination done of Ruth Paine and I don't like it any better to see you doing this to Alveeta Treon.

You can't just "then I'm done" without response or correction. Have you no conscience? 

Edited January 27, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Charles Blackmon]

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

You can't just "then I'm done" without response or correction. Have you no conscience? 

Its called "hit and run". 

He did give his M.O. in another thread; something about listen to my Lone Nut stories but don't expect me to defend them.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Charles Blackmon
typo

[Michael Griffith]

I don't think Lance Payette is interested in serious discussion. I think he is here to spread his poorly researched version of the assassination, and nothing more. I think it is a waste of time to try to reason with him. 

[James DiEugenio]

Mike, I could not agree more about the drug crimes advisor from Arizona.

I really dislike these people who have nothing better to do but try and get in the face of people who really are trying to figure out what happened in Dealey Plaza and  discern what happened to America as a result.

I just wish they would say, "I don't give one barf bag about who blew Kennedy away  or why."  But that would be too honest.

Edited January 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

https://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

by Glenn Greenwald

January 15, 2010

Excerpt

... In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. 

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

[Steve Roe]

23 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Nothing about Hurt telling Lifton that he made the "crank" call to the jail. Thanks.

Flew right over your head I see. So, Mr. Blackmon, Lance laid out his argument on the Raleigh call. 

Let's see your argument. 

[Charles Blackmon]

My argument to you is I have seen nothing as "evidence" that Hurt told Lifton that he (Hurt) made the "crank" call to the jail.

If you think I am going to argue with you or the lawyer whether Hurt was a nut case I am not.

 

[Ron Ege]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Flew right over your head I see. So, Mr. Blackmon, Lance laid out his argument on the Raleigh call. 

Let's see your argument. 

 

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Obama confidant's spine-chilling proposal

Cass Sunstein wants the government to "cognitively infiltrate" anti-government groups

https://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

by Glenn Greenwald

January 15, 2010

Excerpt

... In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.  This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here. 

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups."  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government).   This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Mr. Niederhut, thanks for digging that one up; a great refresher for those who remember it and FYI/FYE for those who may have missed it.

And:

https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/cass-sunstein-employing-behavioral-

H-m-m.  Anyone noticing a little correlation between Sunstein's proposed "program" and "current events" (especially, those of the past several years)?

And - just ma-a-y-be, certain government elements were "kinda/sorta" practicing the same type of machinations, say, even before 11/22/1963, not to mention the obvious practice of the craft, subsequently thereto.

If "there's nothing to see here folks, move along", just please kindly release each and every scrap of paper/audio tape/video tape, etc., relative to the JFKA, as well as the RFKA and MLKA - and also, all the records in support of all of the government's questionable/improbable "official explanations", in regard to to so many other national/international governmental "actions" over the decades. 

Me thinks that that would certainly clear up a lot of on-going discussion/dissension of so many things.

Of course, I don't think we should hold our breath.  

Please, no, "It would threaten national security."  

That continual excuse, is well beyond the "lame" category.

Yes, I will grant that "the right" is also complicit in attempting to control the populace' thinking, attitudes, etc.

Our "mission" here, as I see it, is reality/factuality, and it seems that most, in their individual/collective quest to bring the debate to a much desired final conclusion, simply desire, to eventually be as successful (regardless of whatever side one is on), as was the TV series, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE'S fictional protagonist, "Mr. Phelps". 

Thus, here, all have, "decided to accept" the "mission".

Be careful though - of "the secretary's" probable disavowment! 

The truth will out.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Ron Ege

[Steve Roe]

58 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

 

Mr. Niederhut, thanks for digging that one up; a great refresher for those who remember it and FYI/FYE for those who may have missed it.

And:

https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/cass-sunstein-employing-behavioral-

H-m-m.  Anyone noticing a little correlation between Sunstein's proposed "program" and "current events" (especially, those of the past several years)?

And - just ma-a-y-be, certain government elements were "kinda/sorta" practicing the same type of machinations, say, even before 11/22/1963, not to mention the obvious practice of the craft, subsequently thereto.

If "there's nothing to see here folks, move along", just please kindly release each and every scrap of paper/audio tape/video tape, etc., relative to the JFKA, as well as the RFKA and MLKA - and also, all the records in support of all of the government's questionable/improbable "official explanations", in regard to to so many other national/international governmental "actions" over the decades. 

Me thinks that that would certainly clear up a lot of on-going discussion/dissension of so many things.

Of course, I don't think we should hold our breath.  

Please, no, "It would threaten national security."  

That continual excuse, is well beyond the "lame" category.

Yes, I will grant that "the right" is also complicit in attempting to control the populace' thinking, attitudes, etc.

Our "mission" here, as I see it, is reality/factuality, and it seems that most, in their individual/collective quest to bring the debate to a much desired final conclusion, simply desire, to eventually be as successful (regardless of whatever side one is on), as was the TV series, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE'S fictional protagonist, "Mr. Phelps". 

Thus, here, all have, "decided to accept" the "mission".

Be careful though - of "the secretary's" probable disavowment! 

The truth will out.

 

 

What's this supposed to mean? 

[Gerry Down]

On 1/27/2023 at 12:48 PM, Gerry Down said:

So let me get this straight. This theory is that a drunk John Hurt phoned the DPD looking for Oswald on Nov 23rd to have a talk. He gave Mrs Swinney his name and where he was from (John Hurt of Raleigh, North Carolina). Then John Hurt hung up - maybe he thought it was not a good idea to have a drunken chat with Oswald so late at night afterall, or the wife caught him and made him hang up. Mrs Swinney writes down on a piece of paper the name of “John Hurt” of “Raleigh, North Carolina”. Mrs Swinney then phones Oswald in his cell about this John Hurt. Oswald says he had no idea who John Hurt is. Meanwhile Mrs Alveeta comes in to work perhaps about 10:50pm and she briefly listens in on this conversation with Oswald before then going off the line and leaving Oswald and Mrs Swinney to talk in private. 

All during this time there were two Secret Service agents in the room and hear about this John Hurt that was trying to contact Oswald. At this stage Mrs Swinney decided to try and find out (possibly on the orders of the Secret Service or on her own initiative) who this John Hurt was from Raleigh North Carolina. So she phones the operator directory assistance in North Carolina where they look through their phonebook and give her the names of presumably the only two John Hurts in Raleigh North Carolina. So she takes the previous piece of paper she had on which she had written the name of “John Hurt” and “Raleigh, North Carolina” and now adds the two possible phone numbers given to her by the operator directory assistance in North Carolina. Mrs Swinney then places two outgoing calls to each of these John Hurts in the hope of reaching the drunk guy who had rang her, but neither answer. The nosy Mrs Alveeta sees Mrs Swinney making these two outgoing calls and presumes she is making them on Oswalds behalf. As neither John Hurt answers the phone, Mrs Swinney  views the whole endeavor pointless and throws the piece of paper in the bin.

When Mrs Swinney goes off work at 11pm, Mrs Alveeta retrieves the piece of paper from the bin and proceeds to make up a call sheet with the data on it as a souvenir for her daughter but because she only arrived in at 10:50pm AFTER John Hurt had phoned in, and only hears the start of the phone conversation in which Mrs Swinney talks to Oswald about a John Hurt, Mrs Alveeta thinks that it was Oswald looking for John Hurt rather than the other way around – John Hurt looking for Oswald. As the Secret Service had witnessed the events surrounding the call, after Oswald is assassinated Secret Service agent Kelley makes some brief enquiries to see if there is any “John Heard” on their books who could be linked to Oswald, which shows up negative. 

This theory would mean the following:

• Mrs Alveeta was being honest in so far as her understanding that Oswald was trying to contact a John Hurt.
• Mrs Swinney is telling the truth when she says Oswald was not trying to contact any John Hurt. Mrs Swinney probably thought no more of the John Hurt call as a crank call from a drunken idiot.
• The long suffering wife of John Hurt was telling the truth when she said that her husband had drunkenly phoned the DPD looking for Oswald on the night of Nov 23rd.
• John Hurt himself was being honest in the years after the incident when he said he didn't know Oswald. 

 

This explanation which I posted yesterday, which was a follow on from something Lance said, seems to be the best fit for the evidence surrounding the Raleigh call. 

For me this settles the Raleigh call.

[Steve Roe]

3 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

My argument to you is I have seen nothing as "evidence" that Hurt told Lifton that he (Hurt) made the "crank" call to the jail.

If you think I am going to argue with you or the lawyer whether Hurt was a nut case I am not.

 

Let me repeat, it flew right over your head. Lifton talked to John Hurt (1970) and Henry Hurt talked to John Hurt's widow a few years later. Got it now? 

 

[Guest]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:49 AM, Steve Roe said:

What's this supposed to mean? 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:27 AM, Michael Griffith said:

I don't think Lance Payette is interested in serious discussion. I think he is here to spread his poorly researched version of the assassination, and nothing more. I think it is a waste of time to try to reason with him. 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/27/2023 at 8:56 AM, Greg Doudna said:

There is no known person advocating for John Limond Hart, and you were informed of that on this thread. Straw man. 

Lance Payette, after I labored to detail and eviscerate your character smear of Alveeta Treon, you are not even going to acknowledge or address or retract your character smear? Just drive-by character assassination, ignore substantive to-the-point response (from me), and "then I'm done"? 

That's xxxxx behavior Lance. 

You started it. You assassinated Alveeta Treon's character, called her names in public. She probably has family members, and even if she did not it is not right. I don't like to see character assassination done of Ruth Paine and I don't like it any better to see you doing this to Alveeta Treon.

You can't just "then I'm done" without response or correction. Have you no conscience? 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Let me repeat, it flew right over your head. Lifton talked to John Hurt (1970) and Henry Hurt talked to John Hurt's widow a few years later. Got it now? 

 

You present no evidence of what you are saying happened.  I want to see where David Lifton said what you allege Hurt said to him. 

I know about what the widow said, she was just sick of being bothered and said what they wanted her to say.