JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael O'Brian on June 05, 2019, 10:09:52 PM
-
How and when does a theory regarding this assassination become debunked??
Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim
-
How and when does a theory regarding this assassination become debunked??
Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim
The easy answer; It becomes "debunked" as soon as one of the sides can't deal with it honestly.
-
There should be reputable sources who show with a process that is credible for a fact being a fact . I've had a tendency to type up what I felt was fact in the past and the bottom line is that I feel a certain way about what happened that day and it's just not up to me to make those statements . I would like to see what is said to be iron-clad in the JFK case !
-
There must be dozens of theories that have been 'debunked'...Oswald did it all alone is one of them.
-
There must be dozens of theories that have been 'debunked'...Oswald did it all alone is one of them.
How would I get my one looked at, and to be debunked if it proves as being not possible? it involves another firing point, but with the same trajectory as the alleged S.N on the 6th floor
-
How would I get my one looked at, and to be debunked if it proves as being not possible? it involves another firing point, but with the same trajectory as the alleged S.N on the 6th floor
Shooting through the building windows? Extremely unlikely. Review the so called Sniper Nest photo below and we see oodles of blockage. There are films of the east side of the TSBD that show the 6th fl windows to have been shut.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xAAoxe8RDZ8/UqPdAlJqiZI/AAAAAAAAxX4/suutC3ecTxU/s1600/TSBD-Sixth-Floor-Snipers-Nest.jpg)
-
Shooting through the building windows? Extremely unlikely. Review the so called Sniper Nest photo below and we see oodles of blockage. There are films of the east side of the TSBD that show the 6th fl windows to have been shut.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xAAoxe8RDZ8/UqPdAlJqiZI/AAAAAAAAxX4/suutC3ecTxU/s1600/TSBD-Sixth-Floor-Snipers-Nest.jpg)
I am only saying that the trajectory could be the same if fired from the Dal Tex through the 6th floor alleged SN window, and it appears that the limo would have been visible through those two windows, that is if the obstacles filmed in the photo provided, which is pre shots, were out of the way.
It is also very possible that the car was visible and more importantly lined up at the time of the last shot.
Only one or two boxes would need to be moved and the most Southern window could have been momentarily opened too, by who ever threw the elevator switches, two or three guys working together would easily plant the hulls and all
This is a huge addition to the case and needs to be debunked, accordingly.
-
Only one or two boxes would need to be moved and the most Southern window could have been momentarily opened too, by who ever threw the elevator switches, two or three guys working together would easily plant the hulls...
There is some speculation that the Sniper's Nest was re-arranged ..even maybe more than once before that picture was released. If one is willing to accept the possibility of a Dal Tex shooter then why not select a more probable sniper perch along the fire escape area as some critics have? There was also an adequate seclusion from the southwest roof top. It bothers me that access to that building was scarcely ever explored and reported by anyone. I was in the Dal Tex back when the first floor was the original JFK museum say around 1975. They were selling Jessie Curry's book for $3. I bought my copy there.
-
There is some speculation that the Sniper's Nest was re-arranged ..even maybe more than once before that picture was released. If one is willing to accept the possibility of a Dal Tex shooter then why not select a more probable sniper perch along the fire escape area as some critics have? There was also an adequate seclusion from the southwest roof top. It bothers me that access to that building was scarcely ever explored and reported by anyone. I was in the Dal Tex back when the first floor was the original JFK museum say around 1975. They were selling Jessie Curry's book for $3. I bought my copy there.
Thanks for your posts, and for keeping this thread going.
I was not aware that it was once a museum, it's hard to imagine some of those in authority on the case making money out of such a tragic event with the likes of Curry selling his book all the way back in 1975, sounds like a good read though.
What is going on in that building today do you know? I like you also think it should have been explored fully when we consider the suspicion surrounding it.
My reasons for this theory is because if it was possible then it should be debunked or investigated, the chances of the limo being in the position at the same time allowing a sniper a shot through those arks of the TSBD if true are so small.
It almost would be a miracle not to have been set up with Greers help, and we still do not sure if he stopped the limo, or not.
When we consider then how well he lined the car up to Zapruder as well, while it might have been just the way it was, it sure is great attention to detail without meaning it.
IMO they would not have fired directly down onto Elm from the Dal Tex if they were trying to set Oswald up in the TSBD at the alleged SN.
If such an opportunity to fire from the Dal Tex could land on Elm via the TSBD then they would go for it providing Greer was helping, as discussed moving a few boxes etc after the shot passed, was the easy part.
-
The easy answer; It becomes "debunked" as soon as one of the sides can't deal with it honestly.
Like when you try to argue that Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket on because you don't want to honestly address the issue of why Oswald would be in the theater without a jacket.
-
Thanks for your posts, and for keeping this thread going.
I was not aware that it was once a museum, it's hard to imagine some of those in authority on the case making money out of such a tragic event with the likes of Curry selling his book all the way back in 1975, sounds like a good read though.
What is going on in that building today do you know? I like you also think it should have been explored fully when we consider the suspicion surrounding it.
My reasons for this theory is because if it was possible then it should be debunked or investigated, the chances of the limo being in the position at the same time allowing a sniper a shot through those arks of the TSBD if true are so small.
It almost would be a miracle not to have been set up with Greers help, and we still do not sure if he stopped the limo, or not.
When we consider then how well he lined the car up to Zapruder as well, while it might have been just the way it was, it sure is great attention to detail without meaning it.
IMO they would not have fired directly down onto Elm from the Dal Tex if they were trying to set Oswald up in the TSBD at the alleged SN.
If such an opportunity to fire from the Dal Tex could land on Elm via the TSBD then they would go for it providing Greer was helping, as discussed moving a few boxes etc after the shot passed, was the easy part.
According to Bob Jackson, Amos Euins and Howard Brennan, someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window. Are you really saying that a sniper was firing from the Dal-Tex from a line of sight passing through the sniper's nest (and past the person sticking a rifle out the window) and down onto Elm Street?
-
How and when does a theory regarding this assassination become debunked??
Even "falsify" can mean "prove something false," in addition to "make something false." "Debunk" itself often suggests that something is not merely untrue, but also a sham; one can simply disprove a myth, but if it is "debunked," the implication is that it was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim
Have you read “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi? He believes that he has debunked all of the conspiracy theories.
-
According to Bob Jackson, Amos Euins and Howard Brennan, someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window.
Jackson didn't say that someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window.
-
Jackson didn't say that someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window.
Jackson said he saw the rifle barrel and added that he saw it being retracted back inside. So you're saying something other than a human being did that?
-
Jackson said he saw the rifle barrel and added that he saw it being retracted back inside. So you're saying something other than a human being did that?
something other than a human being did that
>>> Bingo, nailed it: Lee Harvey Oswald (AKA 'Dirty Harvey')
John must have seen Aliens:
-
Jackson didn't say that someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window.
That's right: There was only a nobody in that window.
;)
-
According to Bob Jackson, Amos Euins and Howard Brennan, someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window. Are you really saying that a sniper was firing from the Dal-Tex from a line of sight passing through the sniper's nest (and past the person sticking a rifle out the window) and down onto Elm Street?
Well look who it is, thanks for the post though.
I am saying it might have been momentarily possible, for sniper, to have had this line of sight, and to have had the target as well in the cross hairs, at least at the time of the head shot.
-
Well look who it is, thanks for the post though.
I am saying it might have been momentarily possible, for sniper, to have had this line of sight, and to have had the target as well in the cross hairs, at least at the time of the head shot.
It just seems pretty far "out there" to fire a shot from the Dal-Tex building that passes through the sniper's nest window. Someone was in that window holding a rifle out of it. In addition to Bob Jackson, Howard Brennan and Amos Euins (all of whom saw a rifle sticking out the window)... Malcolm Couch stated that he saw the rifle barrel being withdrawn back into the window. So there was a body in the sniper's nest.
Also, is there a line of sight from the Dal-Tex that passes through the sniper's nest window? If so, how much lead time would a shooter really have if he was firing a shot through the sniper's nest?
-
Jackson said he saw the rifle barrel and added that he saw it being retracted back inside. So you're saying something other than a human being did that?
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
-
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
approximately half of weapon
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxQ2dJV8/oswald-s-rifle.jpg)
JohnM
-
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Iacoletti,
*finished the sentence ?
-- MWT ;)
-
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually (finished?) the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Iacoletti,
Maybe there was a plumber or an electrician up there, working during lunchtime, and maybe those two Black guys (Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman) were just looking up there to see if he needed any help!
-- MWT ;)
PS Or hey, maybe it was an evil, evil, evil CIA dude who stuck a section of pipe out there while Kennedy was goin' down Elm Street, and then set off a cherry bomb or somethin', just to help frame Oswald after-the-fact!
(I don't suppose Oswald or the Ruskie or Cuban assassin ducked down low so he couldn't be seen by nosey people down at street level before he started a-pullin' the barrel back through the window.)
-
Have you read “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi? He believes that he has debunked all of the conspiracy theories.
No I have not read it yet! I wonder how he would have went about debunking this theory, even though it was only a momentarily possibility, of the line of sight being available from the Dal Tex through the alleged SN window on the 6th floor of the TSBD
-
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Is there a point to this nonsense? Seriously, you don't have bigger fish to fry? Get a life.
-
Is there a point to this nonsense? Seriously, you don't have bigger fish to fry? Get a life.
Bill,
In his futile campaign to prove Oswald innocent, Iacoletti attacks the obvious (e.g., that Jackson saw the barrel of a rifle, and that the reason Jackson didn't see anybody up there is probably because the dude or dudette who pulled it back through the window ducked below Jackson's line-of-sight while doing so), and he pushes the implausible, e.g., that the three women on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film are three really cute guys wearing Bermuda shorts, that the glasses a gal is wearing in Betzner-3 are more likely a dragonfly, a tree branch, a floating shadow, or just way-the-heck too much mascara, and that a gal's dark complexion in Z-frame 60 (and those around it) can be explained by the film's highly localized "color saturation".
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Bill,
Not only does Iacoletti disbelieve the fairly obvious (e.g., that it must have been a rifle barrel that Jackson saw, and the dude or dudette who pulled it back in may have7 ducked below Jackson's line-of-sight while doing so), but he fervently believes in the highly implausible, e.g., that the three women on the Pergola Patio in the Towner film might be three really cute guys wearing Bermuda shorts, instead, that the glasses a gal is wearing in the Betzner-3 photo very well could have been a dragonfly, a tree branch, a floating shadow, or just way-the-heck too much mascara, and that the dark complexion of a gal (self-described American Indian, Stella Mae Jacob) in Zapruder frame 60 (and those around it) was probably caused by ... uhh ... the film's highly localized "color saturation".
LOL
-- MWT ;)
The guy should spend some time away from this stuff; he's losing it.
-
I'm saying that your claim "according to Jackson . . . someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window" is false.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
Cool
Did anyone else see a rifle in that window, John?
-
According to Bob Jackson, Amos Euins and Howard Brennan, someone was sticking a rifle out the sniper's nest window. Are you really saying that a sniper was firing from the Dal-Tex from a line of sight passing through the sniper's nest (and past the person sticking a rifle out the window) and down onto Elm Street?
Yep. He singlehandedly had the effect of having both camps unite, momentarily, in gales of laughter.
-
Is there a point to this nonsense? Seriously, you don't have bigger fish to fry? Get a life.
This forum is only the half of it
-
The guy should spend some time away from this stuff; he's losing it.
He started losin it in 2017 upon the release of the JFK files. I noticed he backed off from criticizing his own species somewhat.
-
He started losin it in 2017 upon the release of the JFK files. I noticed he backed off from criticizing his own species somewhat.
Bill,
Interesting.
Any files in particular?
-- MWT :)
-
Bill,
Interesting.
Any files in particular?
-- MWT :)
I forget who he was posting to, but he was definitely enthusiastic about the upcoming release... saying something to the tune of making some big progress against the WC findings.
-
I forget who he was posting to, but he was definitely enthusiastic about the upcoming release... saying something to the tune of making some big progress against the WC findings.
I take it he was bummed that Trump didn't release everything?
-- MWT ;)
-
I take it he was bummed that Trump didn't release everything?
-- MWT ;)
Aren't we all?
Don't hold your breath; lf the Cubans or Russians were involved, that info will never see the light of day. It's been suggested that the delay involves a redaction of any info that reveals USA black ops in Cuba & the region.. including the names of those involved, and their descendants.
-
Aren't we all?
Don't hold your breath; lf the Cubans or Russians were involved, that info will never see the light of day. It's been suggested that the delay involves a redaction of any info that reveals USA black ops in Cuba & the region.. including the names of those involved, and their descendants.
Oh, absolutely,
Suggested by brainwashed-by-KGB-propaganda, Deep State-believin' Tin-Foil-Hat Conspiracy Theorists, imho.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
Iacoletti,
Maybe there was a plumber or an electrician up there, working during lunchtime, and maybe those two Black guys (Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman) were just looking up there to see if he needed any help!
-- MWT ;)
PS Or hey, maybe it was an evil, evil, evil CIA dude who stuck a section of pipe out there while Kennedy was goin' down Elm Street, and then set off a cherry bomb or somethin', just to help frame Oswald after-the-fact!
(I don't suppose Oswald or the Ruskie or Cuban assassin ducked down low so he couldn't be seen by nosey people down at street level before he started a-pullin' the barrel back through the window.)
Maybe sarcasm isn't evidence of anything.
-
Is there a point to this nonsense? Seriously, you don't have bigger fish to fry? Get a life.
Says the guy spreading misinformation.
-
I forget who he was posting to, but he was definitely enthusiastic about the upcoming release... saying something to the tune of making some big progress against the WC findings.
Yet another Chapman "recollection" that can't be cited, no doubt.
I never said anything even remotely similar to that.
-
Yet another Chapman "recollection" that can't be cited, no doubt.
I never said anything even remotely similar to that.
I remember, all right. You were positively gleeful at the prospect. Funny how you trust authority at times. You were actually expectlng a bombshell, it seems.
And tell us how to cite something from the hacked version of this forum
-
I remember, all right. You were positively gleeful at the prospect. Funny how you trust authority at times. You were actually expectlng a bombshell, it seems.
Sure you do, Bill. ::)
I remember that time on the hacked version of this forum that you were gleeful about Trump being elected.
-
A pretty good answer would be that...a theory is debunked when it is evident that its proponent is less concerned with pursuit of the truth, and more concerned with a "Special Pleading" style support of his pet theory. It is similarly debunked (or "falsified," though I REALLY dislike that particular definition of the word) when the evidence just doesn't support the given conclusion (upon which the theory or hypothesis is based) and/or it is clear that there are many problems with the evidence....and, in this case, the "problems" are legion!!!
You might also like to remember that there were letters from Mr. Hoover and Katzenbach urging that the American public be immediately "sold" on the idea of a lone, crazed assassin, which strongly smacks of a hidden (perhaps duplicitous) agenda of the feds.
-
There were letters from Mr. Hoover and Katzenbach urging that the American public be immediately "sold" on the idea of a lone, crazed assassin, which strongly smacks of a hidden (perhaps duplicitous) agenda of the feds.
Thomas,
Have you considered the possibility that they were simply reacting to the WW III Virus that was planted in Oswald's CIA file on October 2, 1963, by KGB triple-agent Ivan Obyedkov, KGB triple-agent Aleksey Kulak (aka Hoover's "protected"-from-CIA "Fedora"), KGB officer Oleg Brykin, mysterious former East German Guenter Schulz (Hoover's "Tumbleweed"), KGB officer Valery Kostikov, himself, and a (probable) Russian impersonator of Oswald (KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov?) over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA Soviet Embassy phone line?
-- MWT ;)
-
Nope, Mr. Graves...I'm not familiar with this ....though I will say that a careful examination of all the photographs of suspect Oswald strongly suggests that there were actually SEVERAL "Oswalds," as do the many stories of the man...when he COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been in all those places. BTW, thanks for the polite reply. I find that on JFK ass. pages, there is PLENTY of personal attack and absurd, dogma-like reasoning.
-
Nope, Mr. Graves...I'm not familiar with this ....though I will say that a careful examination of all the photographs of suspect Oswald strongly suggests that there were actually SEVERAL "Oswalds," as do the many stories of the man...when he COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been in all those places. BTW, thanks for the polite reply. I find that on JFK ass. pages, there is PLENTY of personal attack and absurd, dogma-like reasoning.
Thomas,
You're welcome, and I agree.
On the substantive issues in my post, maybe you should look into the names I mentioned.
For Obyedkov, read what I've written about him by googling Byetkov Obyedkov (simultaneously).
For what I've written about Leonov, google Leonov "Blond Oswald" (simultaneously).
For Nosenko and Kulak, and for general background on how "KGB"/GRU has been running circles around our intelligence agencies (and those of our allies) since day one, read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book Spy Wars (free to read on the Internet), his 2014 follow-up PDF Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and pertinent chapters in Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (also free to read on the Internet.
Here's Spy Wars for you:
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames
-- MWT ;)
-
Thomas,
Have you considered the possibility that they were simply reacting to the WW III Virus that was planted in Oswald's CIA file on October 2, 1963, by KGB triple-agent Ivan Obyedkov, KGB triple-agent Aleksey Kulak (aka Hoover's "protected"-from-CIA "Fedora"), KGB officer Oleg Brykin, mysterious former East German Guenter Schulz (Hoover's "Tumbleweed"), KGB officer Valery Kostikov, himself, and a (probable) Russian impersonator of Oswald (KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov?) over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA Soviet Embassy phone line?
-- MWT ;)
Thomas is referring to a conclusion, reached, or suggested, by John Newman, that the “diabolical” James Jesus Angleton placed a WW3 virus in Oswald’s file that would come to life after the assassination. Newman does not mention and makes no claim, as far as I know, that the Russians planted that virus. Newman places the blame for doing that, with intent, on JJA. Thomas is hijacking a theory of Newman’s which points the finger at the CIA (or a rogue traitor and spy, JJA) and trying to claim that this was the work of the Russians. If Dr. Newman has changed his take on this I would like to hear about it.
-
Here's Spy Wars for you:
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames
-- MWT ;)
Here is Howard Olsen’s opinion of Tennant Bagley
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf
TOP SECRET
13 October 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington
#386 38
1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of Bagely to a supergrade position.
2) I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.
3) I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions.
Howard J. Osborn
Director of Security
-
This has all been debunked ages ago on the EF. Perhaps you should go over there and study this subject in more depth. I can't believe in this day and age that someone still misconstrues what John Newman said. Do you have much experience about that which you posit? It's not wise to piggyback off of someone's words and apply your own meaning to it, especially in this case. Just do a search for it on the EF, I am sure every question that you have thoughts about, is plainly and more than amply stated over there.
Jeff,
Debunked by whom?
A tinfoil hat-wearing "The Evil, Evil, Evil CIA Did It" ... "researcher," or two?
Doesn't it bother you that Duran and Azcue both described the Oswald they'd dealt with (or not) in such a way that perfectly described "Third Secretary/Assistant Cultural Attache" KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov, and that the Soviet Embassy "security guard" who volunteered (over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline) the made-radioactive-by-KGB name "Kostikov" to an Oswald impersonator (who, as Peter Dale Scott points out, spoke Russian poorly -- i.e., on purpose? -- AND English poorly -- i.e., naturally?) was a KGB triple-agent whom CIA mistakenly believed was working for CIA?
What's with the attitude, btw?
-- MWT ;)
PS Disregard the Bruce "Sucker" Solie-influenced "Osborn Document" that Michael Clark posts every time I say something good about his bugbear,Tennent H. Bagley, and just bear in mind that it was proved in Bagley's 2007 book that he, Newton "Scotty" Miler, and Angleton, et al., were right, after all: Nosenko was a false defector sent here to get CIA and FBI to disbelieve a previous (true) defector -- Anatoliy Golitsyn.
Newman even convinced Peter Dale Scott of this last year in San Francisco.
Btw, ever heard of the first CIA officer ever recruited by the KGB, Edward Ellis Smith, in 1956?
-
Sure you do, Bill. ::)
I remember that time on the hacked version of this forum that you were gleeful about Trump being elected.
What you don't know is that I had my 'do changed to match his.
But I just can't grope anybody; not my thing...
And surely you must remember me calling the next POTUS 'she' when referring to the then upcoming election.
Pretty sure you said something like 'I saw what you did there' re my gender reference.
-
Jeff,....
Blah blah blah...
an Oswald impersonator (who, as Peter Dale Scott points out, spoke Russian poorly -- i.e., on purpose? -- AND English poorly -- i.e., naturally?) ...
1956?
Peter Dale Scott did not say that the Mexico City LHO (who spoke on the recordings that the CIA erased) spoke Russian poorly, on purpose. You just made that up and slipped it in there as if nobody would notice your deception.
What's with the attitude, btw?
-- MWT ;)
It’s probably the lies.... jus’ sayin.
Newman even convinced Peter Dale Scott of this last year in San Francisco.
Of what?
-
Nosenko was a false defector sent here to get CIA and FBI to disbelieve a previous (true) defector -- Anatoliy Golitsyn.
Nosenko was a KGB agent who defected to the United States in Switzerland in early 1960. His interrogation was headed under supervision of the Soviet Russia division of the Directorate of Operations, especially by David Murphy an Peter Bagley of the SR division.
Mr. Osborne states that he repeatedly protested the treatment of Nosenko. After more than two years of solitary confinement in a special facility for which the Office of Security provided all security measures, Mr. Bruce Solie of the Security Office finally arranged for the release of Nosenko and gradually increased his privileges and freedom.
Mr. Osborne states that Nosenko has proved to be the most valuable defector in the entire history of the CIA. He has been responsible for identifying nine Soviet agents including a Major in the Pentagon.
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a95b5aff-c8a2-48ae-8436-008ec880290f/downloads/F170D42F-0075-4E23-BF34-9B64AD1AA987.jpeg?ver=1562015721579
-
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a95b5aff-c8a2-48ae-8436-008ec880290f/downloads/F170D42F-0075-4E23-BF34-9B64AD1AA987.jpeg?ver=1562015721579
Michael,
If you had read Spy Wars, you'd realize that all of the "leads" Nosenko gave CIA and FBI were to KGB agents who were either: 1) already under suspicion, 2) not active with KGB when Nosenko "uncovered" them, and/or 3) had already lost their access to classified materials.
In other words, they were all "burnable" by the KGB, in its (unfortunately successful-from-1964-to-2007) attempt to build Nosenko up in the eyes of gullibles at the CIA and FBI, like your boy Osborn, Bruce "Sucker" Solie, John L. Hart, Leonard McCoy, Cleveland Cram, Rufus Taylor, et al., and the worst of all -- J. Edgar Hoover, who unwittingly gave a KGB triple-agent (Aleksei Kulak) "protection" from the evil, evil, evil CIA, and even sent his reports directly to president Nixon.
I dare you to name just one who falls beyond these parameters.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
PS Here's a WaPo article from 1981 about Kulak (aka "Fedora").
Enjoy!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/09/03/fbi-says-its-spy-in-kgb-was-a-fake/2f5602ba-7108-473e-9d91-dbdb92746da2/?utm_term=.a7fcf5e0b190
-
Michael,
If you had read Spy Wars, you'd realize that all of the "leads" Nosenko gave CIA and FBI were to KGB agents who were either: 1) already under suspicion, 2) not active with KGB when Nosenko "uncovered" them, and/or 3) had already lost their access to classified materials.
In other words, they were all "burnable" by the KGB, in its (unfortunately successful-from-1964-to-2007) attempt to build Nosenko up in the eyes of gullibles at the CIA and FBI, like your boy Osborn, Bruce "Sucker" Solie, John L. Hart, Leonard McCoy, Cleveland Cram, Rufus Taylor, et al., and the worst of all -- J. Edgar Hoover, who gave a KGB triple-agent (Aleksei Kulak) "protection" from the evil, evil, evil CIA and even sent his reports directly to presidents LBJ and RMN.
I dare you to name just one who falls beyond these parameters.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Thomas,
You cite nothing, and even if you did, it would be from one who was writing an apologia for his own failings, and who was in charge of torturing a later-exonerated victim. That is how the record reads. I can’t do anything about that. You claim that all of your CIA superhero’s were suckers except for one: the author of (apparently) the only book you have read in the last three years.
-
Thomas,
You cite nothing, and even if you did, it would be from one who was writing an apologia for his own failings, and who was in charge of torturing a later-exonerated victim. That is how the record reads. I can’t do anything about that. You claim that all of your CIA superhero’s were suckers except for one: the author of (apparently) the only book you have read in the last three years.
Thomas, you cite nothing, and even if you did, it would be from one [Tennent H. Bagley] who was writing an apologia for his own failings, and who was in charge of torturing a later-exonerated victim. That is how the record reads. I can’t do anything about that. You claim that all of your CIA superhero’s were suckers except for one: the author of (apparently) the only book you have read in the last three years.
Michael,
Are you afraid to read Bagley's Spy Wars,and/or Spymaster, and/or Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and Mark Riebling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA, and Pyotr Deriabin's book about Oleg Penkovsky, The Spy Who Saved The World, and Golitsyn's New Lies For Old and/or The Perestroika Deception, etc, etc, etc, and/or oodles and gobs of other books and Internet articles (e.g., by Emma Best at Muckrock), etc, etc, etc?
Are you afraid to watch Newman's two-part youtube presentation "Spy Wars" (yep, based on the book by the same name by ... gasp ... Tennent H. Bagley) from March 3, 2018, again (if you ever did, that is), especially the part near the end of Part 2 where PDS confesses that Newman has just convinced him that ... gasp ... Nosenko was a false defector?
If so, Why?
And what do you mean by "cite" in the context of this forum and the basic subject matter I'm talking about -- the fact that the "KGB" has been running circles around our intelligence agencies since day one?
Which KGB or GRU "illegal," triple-agent or false defector would you like to have more information about, Michael?
George de Mohrenschildt?
Aleksei Kulak?
Dimitri Polyakov (who, after he left the U.S. and really did start working with the CIA, was then uncovered in Moscow a few years after he'd retired, arrested, "tried," and executed)?
Yuri Loginov?
Edward Ellis Smith?
Regardless, the ball's in your court.
My standing challenge to you:
Name one KGB (or GRU) agent who was "uncovered" by your hero, Nosenko, who wasn't already under suspicion by FBI or CIA, or who was still actively working for the KGB (or GRU), and/or still had access to classified materials.
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Edited a teensy-weensy bit and bumped for MICHAEL CLARK, or anyone else who'd like to take a shot at it. The standing challenge, that is.
-- MWT ;)
-
Michael,
........
LOL
-- MWT ;)
Thomas
Why do you ambrace the motto: “ I don’t answer questions, I only ask them”?
Why do you think that anyone should ever engage you with those standings rules?
-
Michael, I took your comment about CIA fakery to possibly be a blanket statement, not specific to any particular thing posted by Tommy.
Thank you for the clarification. I post on the assumption it is the obligation of the presenter to posts specific cite in support...at the least,
if it is a book page cite, details...book title and page #, and more if available....a screen capture of the cited book page, highlighting the key supporting words.
I agree the price of admission to debate Tommy should not require reading an entire book.
The Empire Trust post I was refering to.:
Tom, thanks for the follow-up on this. It is an interesting element to the recent posts to the Veciana thread, and it is interesting on its own.
I am trying to be more civil...I have refrained comment on the HP Albarelli, Jr. thread here, despite his key influence on Simkin putting the
Ed Forum into a slow death spiral, in consideration of the inability of Mr. Albarelli to represent himself.
-
Peter Dale Scott did not say that the Mexico City LHO (who spoke on the recordings that the CIA erased) spoke Russian poorly, on purpose. You just made that up and slipped it in there as if nobody would notice your deception.
Michael,
I didn't mean to suggest that PDS said (or even suggested), in that two-part March 3, 2018 "Spy Wars" youtube video presentation by Dr. John M. Newman in San Francisco, that the Oswald over-the-phone impersonator had intentionally spoken bad Russian.
That's my theory.
In other words, it seems to me as though the over-the-phone impersonator of Oswald didn't realise he could speak Russian pretty darn well, and overplayed his "Oswald Must Have Been A Lousy Speaker Of Russian" hand (or voice) in that regard.
If you've watched Dr. John M. Newman's two-part March 3, 2018 "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco as you claim you have, then you probably remember PDS's emphasizing near the end of Part 2 that the over-the-phone impersonator spoke bad Russian AND BAD ENGLISH (emphasis his), as I would suspect a Russian impersonator -- like over-30, short, blond, very thin-faced KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov, for example -- would have done -- speak bad English, that is.
Sorry for the confusion.
-- MWT ;)
PS I've never tried to deceive anybody at this forum, or at the EF (from which, btw, you successfully contrived to get me banned on May 20 of last year).
No need for you to go back and completely remove your May 21 "limited hangout" (but still self-incriminating) reasons for deleting your day-before (baiting) remarks on that EF thread, seein' as how I have screenshots of them.
I don't know how to post them here, however.
Maybe I can learn how to do that...
-
.....
.....
I try to hoist them on their own petard, using their own documents to prove their incompetence and indifference to fact finding.:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1981.msg56165.html#msg56165
If you are not aggressive and thorough in investigating the assassination of a POTUS, when would an agency be competent at its own
principle function?...
I am not understanding you there
I’ve been a forum moderator; I’ve been in charge of the well being of emotionally disturbed children; I’ve been entrusted with critical data circuits that cannot be taken off line. I’ve never been the pilot of an airplane. So, it goes without saying that I have never crashed a plane.
I meant the FBI incompletely investigated both Jack Leslie Bowen and his brother in law, Roy Mantooth, as well as John Howard Bowen
and Albert Osborne, if what the FBI missed through tepid commitment, incompetence, or the mendacity behind the directions and policies
of the FBI management, is any indication. The contradictions of the HSCA testimony of Dallas FBI supervisor Shanklin and his no. 2, vs testimony of Hosty, supported by compatible testimony of the recently demoted to secretary also does not inspire integrity or hint of its influence in that agency.
Michael, from reading your Ed Forum posts, I found your approach there unusual because you avoided predictable newbie behavior.
You studied the forum! You avoided duplicating with new threads, well discussed or repeatedly presented topics. You've posted with thought
and deliberation. You kept me coming back because of your broad interests and capacity for retaining detail.
BTW, I checked last week on ancestrylibrary in the hope the SUNY branch yearbook of Suzanne Liggett's graduation year
had been added. Not yet... Thank you for calling the library of that branch to ask for the availability of that particular research material.
-
I meant the FBI incompletely investigated both Jack Leslie Bowen and his brother in law, Roy Mantooth, as well as John Howard Bowen
and Albert Osborne, if what the FBI missed through tepid commitment, incompetence, or the mendacity behind the directions and policies
of the FBI management, is any indication. The contradictions of the HSCA testimony of Dallas FBI supervisor Shanklin and his no. 2, vs testimony of Hosty, supported by compatible testimony of the recently demoted to secretary also does not inspire integrity or hint of its influence in that agency.
Michael, from reading your Ed Forum posts, I found your approach there unusual because you avoided predictable newbie behavior.
You studied the forum! You avoided duplicating with new threads, well discussed or repeatedly presented topics. You've posted with thought
and deliberation. You kept me coming back because of your broad interests and capacity for retaining detail.
BTW, I checked last week on ancestrylibrary in the hope the SUNY branch yearbook of Suzanne Liggett's graduation year
had been added. Not yet... Thank you for calling the library of that branch to ask for the availability of that particular research material.
Tom Scully, they say that self actualizationn is earning the respect of yout peers. I don’t flatter myself by thinking that I have earned or gained your respect, nor by considering myself as one of your peers, but your comments are beyond well-received. Thank you.
I still kick myself for not making that trip down I-88 that day. I hope that yearbook surfaces.
-
I wrote:
"By explicating Tennent H. Bagley's great 2007 book Spy Wars in his March 3, 2018 youtube presentation (titled, appropriately, "Spy Wars"), Dr John M. Newman even convinced Peter Dale Scott." (or words to that effect).
Of what?
Why, that Nosenko was a false defector, Michael!
Don't you remember?
Hint: It's at 34:48 in Part 2.
(It's on youtube.)
(Which is on the Internet.)
-- MWT ;)
-
Quote from: Thomas Graves on July 01, 2019, 08:25:24 PM
Thomas,
You cite nothing, and even if you did, it would be from one [Tennent H. Bagley, who got nothing but excellent performance ratings every year, and a commendation upon retiring] who was writing an apologia for his own failings, and who was in charge of torturing a later-exonerated victim. That is how the record reads. I can’t do anything about that. You claim that all of your CIA superhero’s [sic] were suckers except for one: the author of (apparently) the only book you have read in the last three years
Thomas, you quoted me here, and altered the text. I believe that is against the rules.
-
Tom Scully, they say that self actualizationn is earning the respect of yout peers. I don’t flatter myself by thinking that I have earned or gained your respect, nor by considering myself as one of your peers, but your comments are beyond well-received. Thank you.
I still kick myself for not making that trip down I-88 that day. I hope that yearbook surfaces.
Michael, the college yearbook photo of John Liggett's sister-in-law, Suzanne LaPaugh Liggett would portray her as four years older than she was in the image below, and would be only two years earlier than the photo of her in the 1963 image with her husband Malcolm and Jack Ruby, but this was within reach and is the best we have, for now, anyway !
Suzanne LaPaugh, 1957 high school yearbook photo.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/SuzanneLaPaugh.jpg)
I located a yearbook picture of Malcom Liggett's wife, Suzanne LaPaugh Liggett, at Binghamton University ( Harper College). Library staff would not send me a picture of the yearbook photo. Here is the photo you mentioned... on the left are Susanne and Malcolm Liggett, it is alleged.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3UTg4x8LzLE/WUK3glwBShI/AAAAAAAA9Zg/f9mZzU2bXi8dEURvOj-Oasa0fZNVVXy-gCLcBGAs/s1600/Carousel%2Bphoto.jpg
Michael, I finally found and will soon post Suzanne's 1957 Milne High School yearbook photo. So far, sad to say, I'm not feeling a resemblance. I want to find a photo of Malcolm, as well.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyLiggettTheMenWhoKilledKennedy.jpg)
I'm admittedly "outgunned" as far as analyzing this puzzle. John Iacoletti, isn't it time to tap the talent of our self labeled, ______ forensics "expert"?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyLiggettTheMenWhoKilledKennedyCRPmhl.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MalcolmHughLiggett_1957.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/RubyMalcolmHliggett_1957.jpg)