JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
"And he said 'I shot Walker'"
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on August 12, 2025, 02:11:17 PM ---[...]
--- End quote ---
Griffith,
Are you a Russian troll?
You sound like a Russian troll.
Everything you incessantly carp about has been proved true, but with you it's "in one ear and out the other," as though you've either been thoroughly zombified by sixty-two years of KGB JFKA disinfo or you're actually a KGB agent.
Why can't you accept the possibility that Oswald didn't see the wooden cross-piece in the window frame due to a bright light inside Walker's room?
Do you really think only 20-30 bad guys were needed to pull off and cover up the JFKA the way you envision it?
Steve M. Galbraith:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on August 11, 2025, 08:33:03 PM ---Thanks, I was about to make the correction that she didn't actually find the note itself. She told the WC she was "astounded" when SS agents showed up at her house with the note, and she made no connection to Walker until she later saw the story reported in the Houston Chronicle.
CIA operative Ruth was also in Three Stooges mode at the WC: She said that Oswald, upon returning from a meeting of the right-wing National Indignation Committee, had made a passing remark suggesting he "didn't give much credit" to Walker, but this was not a strong remark at all and certainly not suggestive of violence. And Oswald never said anything at all about JFK. What a missed opportunity on the part of Ruth and her CIA handlers!
--- End quote ---
I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.
Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?
But there's little there and what little there is is positive.
On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.
And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on August 11, 2025, 07:59:59 PM ---Remember, Mr. Griffith says Sirhan was hypno programmed to shoot RFK.
--- End quote ---
You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.
You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.
I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.
Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.
This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research.
When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on August 11, 2025, 07:59:59 PM ---And that we can't reject the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun. Or gun camera.
--- End quote ---
Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on August 11, 2025, 07:59:59 PM ---And that all of this, the assassination of JFK et cetera, was done by 25 to 30 people.
--- End quote ---
This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.
Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.
Bill Brown:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on August 12, 2025, 05:22:18 PM ---You say this like it's some wild idea. Just FYI, one of the world's leading experts on hypnosis, Dr. Daniel Brown of Harvard University, interviewed and tested Sirhan for years, and concluded that Sirhan was hypno-programmed to fire at RFK, and that this was why Sirhan had no memory of shooting RFK and why he could not remember several key periods of time leading up to the assassination. Dr. Brown provided a detailed report on his findings in his sworn statement for Sirhan's 2011 appeal. Dr. Brown discusses his findings in this video titled The Real Manchurian Candidate, available on YouTube.
You sound like someone who lapsed into a coma in the 1950s, who has awoken, and who is reacting with disbelief when a friend tells you that the U.S. landed several men on the Moon in the 1970s.
I'm guessing you are unaware of all the evidence that has surfaced about CIA and military mind-control programs in the 1950s and 1960s, right? You might dare yourself to read historian Stephen Kinzer's award-winning 2019 book Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control, published by the respected publishing house Henry Holt and Company. As you may know, Kinzer has authored two other best-selling books, All the Shah's Men and The Brothers.
Kinzer's book on the CIA's mind-control program received favorable reviews from the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times Review of Books, the San Francisco Review of Books, the London Review of Books, among other sources.
This is a perfect, prime example of the fact that you lone-gunman theorists are often blissfully unaware of scholarly, acclaimed research because your echo-chamber world has ignored that research and you then summarily dismiss credible claims that are based on that research.
When you're done with Kinzer's book, you might break down and read Lisa Pease's book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, which draws on numerous scholarly sources regarding disclosures on mind-control programs.
Here, too, you act like this is some kind of crazy idea because you haven't done your homework. You apparently don't know that when the OAS tried to assassinate De Gaulle, one of their weapons was a gun camera, i.e., a gun disguised as a camera. Let me guess: This is all news to you, right? Have you read any of Jeff Sundberg's research on gun cameras in the intelligence world? Have you read Mary Haverstick's book A Woman I Know?, which includes a lengthy discussion on the evidence regarding the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting?
This misstates my position. Are you just assuming that no one will go back and read what I've said on this matter? Or, perhaps you only skimmed over my statements on this issue and misunderstood them.
Let me try to explain my view as plainly as I can--again: Obviously, many more than 25 or 30 people would have had to play a role in the assassination and in the ensuing cover-up. However, only a few dozen people initiated the plot, managed the operation, understood the big picture, and drove the cover-up. Similarly, hundreds of people were involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, but only one or two dozen people initiated the conspiracy, managed the operation, knew the big picture, and drove the attempted cover-up. In both cases, most of those involved did not realize they were aiding a conspiracy and did not understand how their actions fit into the big picture.
--- End quote ---
Sirhan, when interviewed in 1988 by David Frost, admitted that he killed Bobby Kennedy and even explained his motive for doing so in complete detail.
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on August 12, 2025, 05:19:39 PM ---I have to admit I was more definitive about the handwriting analysis then it was. Your post cleared that up.
Re the note: The very smart Jean Davison showed that note to some graduate Russian language students for their judgment. The consensus was that it was poorly written, with all sorts of grammatical and spelling mistakes.
One point (hijacking this a bit) about Oswald's views about JFK: This is one mystery that I can't figure out. Reportedly he said positive things about JFK especially on civil rights. Michael Paine said Oswald told him that JFK was the best president of his lifetime. How to explain this? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if it was a cover story, he was pulling a Herbert Philbrick act, wouldn't he condemn JFK? That would be part of the act. If he was a Marxist (as he understood it) and a Castro supporter, wouldn't he also condemn JFK for his Cuba policies?
But there's little there and what little there is is positive.
On the other hand, he wrote that there wasn't any difference between non-Marxists, that whether they were liberal or conservative or Christian Democrats or anything else, it didn't matter. They were on the wrong side of history. That's always been the Marxist interpretation of history. So in this view there's no difference between JFK and Walker.
And Fritz said that Oswald said this about JFK's death.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask him what he thought of President Kennedy or his family?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I asked him what he thought of the President.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. What he thought about the family--he said he didn't have any particular comment to make about the President.
He said he had a nice family, that he admired his family, something to that effect. At one time, I don't have this in my report, but at one time I told him, I said, "You know you have killed the President, and this is a very serious charge."
He denied it and said he hadn't killed the President.
I said he had been killed. He said people will forget that within a few days and there would be another President."
--- End quote ---
I have shown all of Oswald's writings to my wife, a native Russian speaker for 70 years. Her reaction has been the same - not absurdly bad, but also not someone with any real command of the language. She says he often uses a word that is Russian and technically correct, but not a word that anyone who really knew Russian would ever use. I recall her laughing at something where he meant to say he was going duck hunting, but the word he used was "baby duckling." I just happened to have read an interview the other day with Paul Gregory, and his assessment of Oswald's Russian was the same.
My thinking on JFK is that Oswald was genuinely focused on Cuba and a possible role for him there, Castro's warnings about American assassination attempts had been recently published, "something" happened in Mexico City, and by 11-22 Oswald had convinced himself that the assassination was a pro-Castro act that would establish him as a true Marxist and friend of Cuba even if he didn't survive - and if he did, it would surely be his ticket to glory in Cuba. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Any one who doesn't think CTers are loons really needs to visit the counterpart to this thread at the Ed Forum. Good Lord, what an inane bunch of responses from some pretty prominent folks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version