Author Topic: For what it's worth  (Read 119 times)

Viewing This Topic: Matt Brooks, Mark A. Oblazney

Online Mark A. Oblazney

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: For what it's worth
« Reply #7 on: Today at 08:24:55 PM »
Yes, John, and Albert is only a ‘senior’ member here.  We’re heroes!  He should join Ralph’s place, they only have senior members there, many of them not breathing anymore lol

no, wait I’m still a senior member here, sorry hero
« Last Edit: Today at 08:26:56 PM by Mark A. Oblazney »

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2807
Re: For what it's worth
« Reply #8 on: Today at 08:56:27 PM »
Yes, John, and Albert is only a ‘senior’ member here.  We’re heroes!  He should join Ralph’s place, they only have senior members there, many of them not breathing anymore lol

no, wait I’m still a senior member here, sorry hero

I assume you're talking about Ralph Cinque and his Oswald Innocence Campaign. He bailed out of McAdams group years before John died. I figured he had gone to that great JFK Lancer Conference in the sky, then I found this group and people are still talking about him in the present tense.

Online Jarrett Smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
Re: For what it's worth
« Reply #9 on: Today at 11:17:23 PM »
This one is good. I entered JFK assassination forum KGB and came up with this.

Where the KGB material actually comes from
The only KGB‑related content in the results appears in a JFK assassination discussion forum, where a user posting under the name “Tom Graves” debates Cold War intelligence history
jfkassassinationforum.com
.
This forum “Tom Graves” is:
A participant in online debates, not the congressman or the writer.
Discussing topics such as KGB defectors, Yuri Nosenko, and Soviet intelligence operations.
Engaged in arguments about whether the KGB recruited Lee Harvey Oswald and whether certain defectors were genuine
1
.

1 Source
Nothing in the forum indicates that this poster has any personal connection to the KGB; he is simply arguing about historical intelligence controversies.