Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: That Is Not Officer Haygood = Conspiracy! Prove Me Wrong Challenge
« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 03:54:47 AM »
Quote from: Dan O'meara on March 14, 2024, 12:07:57 AM
For starters, between points #1 & #2, you have Officer Haygood running straight through the Ft Worth sign.

 :D :D :D
You funny.

The No Glove Cop does Not WALK toward the Pergola. Take the time and closely examine the Darnell/Martin Films. Through my research, I have untangled Officer Haygood's entire journey and how he was able to back at his motorcycle make his 12:35 radio transmission.

Point#4 is where Haygood is filmed in Darnell walking towards the TSBD building. You don't have a clue what he does after this point.
If Haygood is to get back to his bike in time to make his radio call then this is an approximation of the route he took. We know after he is filmed in Darnell, Haygood is back at his bike making his 12:35pm radio call.

And you've untangled Haygood's entire journey??
I've yet to hear this.
Please explain his full journey from the time he gets off his bike to the time he makes his radio call, and the evidence this timeline is based on?
As I understand it you have Haygood at the Triple Underpass for at least 4 minutes (12:34pm). How does he get round the railroad yard and back to his bike for his 12:35pm radio call

   Have you viewed the NEW DARNELL FILM SNIPPET? In this snippet, the "No Glove Cop" is walking even further toward/down the Elm St Ext.
   That same NEW Darnell snippet shows the Elm St Ext is NOW jammed with people. There is no way that Officer Harkness could drive his 3 wheel motorcycle down that street at this point in time.
   That "No Glove Cop" is being filmed at around 12:38. At 12:35 Officer Haygood was already back at his motorcycle and making his documented police radio transmission. That motorcycle cop ain't Haygood.
2
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Overview of Dealey Plaza
« Last post by Jarrett Smith on Today at 03:53:04 AM »
Quote from: Gerry Down on Today at 03:43:13 AM
Notice Fred's holding an umbrella but never tells us who the umbrella man was

Tom Graves?
3
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Overview of Dealey Plaza
« Last post by Gerry Down on Today at 03:43:13 AM »
Notice Fred's holding an umbrella but never tells us who the umbrella man was
4
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 03:28:23 AM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 03:08:55 AM
FL--

You seem to be a leading proponent of the theory that the CIA historian inaccurately defined Clay Shaw's role with the CIA in 1992, and then never issued a clarification or retraction of an obvious error. 

https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/

The above is a connecting link to the CIA Public Affairs/Media Relation guys.

Go ahead and ask them if the CIA historian made a basic blunder.

If they say so, I will buy it.

You have done a word search on some online documents. That is not the same as reviewing the actual physical papers and items the CIA historian's well-staffed office did, including microfilmed documents, and other ephemera.

Good luck with the CIA public affairs staff.

Dear "BC,"

Maybe he was too embarrassed to admit it.

Or maybe Bruce Solie got to him.

Did he ever apologize for the huge mistake he or one of his assistants made in the same 1992 report regarding Gilberto Alvarado, Elena Garro de Paz and Lee Harvey Oswald?

No?

WHY NOT?


-- "TG"
5
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 03:08:55 AM »
FL--

You seem to be a leading proponent of the theory that the CIA historian inaccurately defined Clay Shaw's role with the CIA in 1992, and then never issued a clarification or retraction of an obvious error. 

https://www.cia.gov/contact-cia/

The above is a connecting link to the CIA Public Affairs/Media Relation guys.

Go ahead and ask them if the CIA historian made a basic blunder.

If they say so, I will buy it.

You have done a word search on some online documents. That is not the same as reviewing the actual physical papers and items the CIA historian's well-staffed office did, including microfilmed documents, and other ephemera.

Good luck with the CIA public affairs staff.
6
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 02:53:23 AM »
Quote from: Michael Capasse on Today at 02:42:14 AM
WC Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964

Rep. Boggs. So I will ask you. Did you have agents about whom you had no record whatsoever?

Mr. Dulles. The record might not be on paper. But on paper would have hieroglyphics that only two
people knew what they meant, and nobody outside the agency else could say it meant another agent.

Rep. Boggs. Let's take a specific case, that fellow Powers was one of your men.
Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes, he was not an agent. He was an employee.

Rep. Boggs. There was no problem in proving he was employed by the CIA.
Mr. Dulles. No. We had a signed contract.

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA.
The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?
Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?
Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.

Wowie zowie!

That proves it!

Clay Shaw was a "highly paid" CIA "contract source"!


Whatever that is.
7
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Today at 02:42:14 AM »
WC Executive Session | Jan. 27, 1964

Rep. Boggs. So I will ask you. Did you have agents about whom you had no record whatsoever?

Mr. Dulles. The record might not be on paper. But on paper would have hieroglyphics that only two
people knew what they meant, and nobody outside the agency else could say it meant another agent.

Rep. Boggs. Let's take a specific case, that fellow Powers was one of your men.
Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes, he was not an agent. He was an employee.

Rep. Boggs. There was no problem in proving he was employed by the CIA.
Mr. Dulles. No. We had a signed contract.

Rep. Boggs. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA.
The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?

Mr. Dulles. Yes, but he wouldn't tell.

The Chairman. Wouldn't tell it under oath?
Mr. Dulles. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no.

The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Dulles. He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but he wouldn't tell it any other way.

Mr. McCloy. Wouldn't tell it to his own chief?
Mr. Dulles. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.
8
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Fred Litwin on Today at 02:29:06 AM »
Benjamin: I guess the CIA has better things to do.

Yes, the segregated collection is online and you can search for yourself.

No one has ever found substantiation in any underlying document. And no one has come up with a CIA document that uses the term "contract source."

As I  said in my blog post, Paul Hoch found another error in that document, and the CIA has not commented on that either.

fred
9
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 02:13:59 AM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:38:22 AM
TG--

Since I have not pawed through the 64 boxes of HSCA materials reviewed by the CIA historian and his staff (boxes which include an unknown number of reels of microfilm), I don't pretend to know the full reason the historian, in 1992, so prominently and unambiguously presented Shaw as a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA, until 1956.

I doubt the CIA historian made an error on such a high-profile topic.

No one else seems to have manually reviewed the 64 boxes of files either.

Fred Litwin claims to have seen the materials online somehow, but of course, there is no guarantee all the documents were copied and placed online, let alone the reels of microfilm.

I gather Litwin has done some word-searches online, hunting for the "Shaw," perhaps in combination with other words, and drew his conclusions from that. I have done similar word searches, and the results can be iffy.

It is curious that the CIA, or the CIA historian's office, has never issued a correction to their definition of Shaw.

A rather important clue, no?

Perhaps Fred Litwin can explain why the CIA has left the lie outstanding for more than 30 years.

If the CIA, or historian's office, issues a correction or clarification on the Shaw matter, I would easily and certainly accept that.

No biggie to me. Someone in the CIA was very interested in LHO---we know that from DeMohrenschildt and J. Walter Moore, and the unusual routing of mail/documents inside the CIA.

What would be interesting is if it was Bruce Solie who put Shaw onto LHO.

At bottom, I suspect the New Orleans stuff had little to do with the JFKA.

LHO took a potshot at General Walker in April 1963, and likely had accomplices. In Dallas!

LHO's Walker hunt accomplices---not New Orleans figures---strike me as LHO's likely companions on 11/22.

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.

High profile?

The Clay Shaw trial had concluded 23 years earlier.

But then again, maybe J. Kenneth had read a report on Shaw that Bruce Solie had written for Jim Garrison, and/or seen Oliver Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie, "JFK," and, gotten, like so many other gullible Americans, zombified by it.

George DeMohrenschildt, the guy whom in the early 1970s CIA counterintelligence analyst Clare Edward Petty determined, by reading some WW II VENONA decrypts, was very probably a long-term NKVD/KGB "illegal"?

That George Demohrenschildt?
10
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: AI, CIA and "Contract Source"
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:38:22 AM »
TG--

Since I have not pawed through the 64 boxes of HSCA materials reviewed by the CIA historian and his staff (boxes which include an unknown number of reels of microfilm), I don't pretend to know the full reason the historian, in 1992, so prominently and unambiguously presented Shaw as a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA, until 1956.

I doubt the CIA historian made an error on such a high-profile topic.

No one else seems to have manually reviewed the 64 boxes of files either.

Fred Litwin claims to have seen the materials online somehow, but of course, there is no guarantee all the documents were copied and placed online, let alone the reels of microfilm.

I gather Litwin has done some word-searches online, hunting for the "Shaw," perhaps in combination with other words, and drew his conclusions from that. I have done similar word searches, and the results can be iffy.

It is curious that the CIA, or the CIA historian's office, has never issued a correction to their definition of Shaw.

A rather important clue, no?

Perhaps Fred Litwin can explain why the CIA has left the lie outstanding for more than 30 years.

If the CIA, or historian's office, issues a correction or clarification on the Shaw matter, I would easily and certainly accept that.

No biggie to me. Someone in the CIA was very interested in LHO---we know that from DeMohrenschildt and J. Walter Moore, and the unusual routing of mail/documents inside the CIA.

What would be interesting is if it was Bruce Solie who put Shaw onto LHO.

At bottom, I suspect the New Orleans stuff had little to do with the JFKA.

LHO took a potshot at General Walker in April 1963, and likely had accomplices. In Dallas!

LHO's Walker hunt accomplices---not New Orleans figures---strike me as LHO's likely companions on 11/22.

Caveat emptor, and draw your won conclusions.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10