The Silent Conspiracy

[Charles Collins]

Nope.. I have questioned every point and for one very good reason; the points raised are not sound and require all sorts of speculation to even make sense.

Get your act together and present a compellent case and we may have something to talk about. All you are doing so far is confirming your own bias.

Your opinions don’t interest me. Read the book, like I already suggested, and then you might be able to make a comment worth responding to.

[Martin Weidmann]

Your opinions don’t interest me. Read the book, like I already suggested, and then you might be able to make a comment worth responding to.

Your opinions don’t interest me.

There it is again, the standard Charles Collins cop out whenever somebody says something he doesn't like.

You are the one who started the thread, now I am giving you feed back you don't like and like a coward you run.... Pathetic!

Don't start a thread and ask for opinions if you can't handle the responses.

[Charles Collins]

Your opinions don’t interest me.

There it is again, the standard Charles Collins cop out whenever somebody says something he doesn't like.

You are the one who started the thread, now I am giving you feed back you don't like and like a coward you run.... Pathetic!

Don't start a thread and ask for opinions if you can't handle the responses.

I have answered critical questions from others who disagree with the theory. Your responses (this one included) are only your opinions that are designed to attack. Good luck trying to get reasonable responses to those....

[Martin Weidmann]

I have answered critical questions from others who disagree with the theory. Your responses (this one included) are only your opinions that are designed to attack. Good luck trying to get reasonable responses to those....

I haven't expressed any opinion other than that I do not see the dots that you are connecting to reach your own conclusion. I also did not attack you. The fact that you consider my observations as an attack on you says so much more about you than it does about me.

You may have answered "critical questions" (whatever that means) from others but you have never been able to deal with my feed back in a honest way.

What I did see is that points I have raised earlier were repeated by others and you replied to those but ignored them when I pointed them out to begin with.

You seem to be very selective in who you want to answer and who not.

You are not seeking for "reasonable answers", you want answers that you consider "reasonable".... there is a difference!

Your responses (this one included) are only your opinions that are designed to attack.

So now you attack me for allegedly attacking you when all I have done is question your opinion..... Project much?

[John Iacoletti]

Your opinions don’t interest me.

That's fine, Charles, but it cuts both ways.  Why should we be interested in Latell's opinion of when Oswald "became aware" of something, or somebody's opinion about a "communist salute"?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Charles: Here's a key section of Latell's book that I think warrants highlighting. Notice the lengthy number of qualifiers. "If" and "possibly" and "probably." Oswald may have met with Cuban agents at the so-called "twist party" (which is an odd place to do so but never mind) or elsewhere; but Latell doesn't offer us any evidence other than rumors and allegations.

[Charles Collins]

Charles: Here's a key section of Latell's book that I think warrants highlighting. Notice the lengthy number of qualifiers. "If" and "possibly" and "probably." Oswald may have met with Cuban agents at the so-called "twist party" (which is an odd place to do so but never mind) or elsewhere; but Latell doesn't offer us any evidence other than rumors and allegations.

Yes, thanks Steve. The book is quite interesting. And the covert activities of the DIG and CIA in Mexico City should be a point of our focus. Sadly, we will most likely not ever know precisely what happened because the covert activities have been kept umm secret. And we are therefore sometimes forced into trying to use our best guesses based on what we do have.

The perspective of Latell is unique. He does a pretty good job of providing source notes for the items he can. And using qualifiers, etc, when needed.

I believe that Aspillaga’s account of the morning of 11/22/63 is credible evidence that there was some prior knowledge (or at least some curious guessing going on) in DIG headquarters about a potential assassination. I hope that some corroboration will surface one day.