The Armstrong, DiEugenio, David Joseph, Sandy, et al belief system is swallowed and defended as a whole. As we've experienced, it is heresy to think
evidence like ours could be other than disinfo, irrelevant to the requirement that the Klein's money order was fake, not purchased by LHO!

One of many reasons why their forum is a joke! Lance has done awesome work on this money order issue and deserved credit for it.

Bagley thought LHO was a "witting" CIA asset when in Russia. Maybe "witting," but reporting to Solie? 

According to Malcolm Blunt and John M. Newman, Pete Bagley realized from the documents Blunt showed him (which Bagley hadn't been privy to in 1959) that all of the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's defection had been routed to the Security Research Staff in the Office of Security instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division -- and that Oswald, therefore, had been sent to Moscow by the CIA.

How did Bagley know that?

Because he knew that someone of adequate authority in OS/SRS had to arrange in advance for said cables to be routed like that.

Caveat: Neither Bagley in 2012 (or so) nor Oswald in 1959 knew that he was an ostensible "dangle" in a planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Bruce Solie in the mole-hunting Office of Security?) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division.

Factoids:

Bruce Solie, James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior -- who was in Beirut (home of Kim Philby) in February 1957 right after CIA's spy Pyotr Popov was betrayed (by Solie?) in D.C. movie houses, who in April 1964 tried to convince W. David Slawson into letting Nosenko testify to the Warren Commission, who 1966 became the CIA's case officer for Kremlin-loyal triple agent Igor Kochnov (Kitty Hawk) in the tragic Shadrin Affair, and who in 1968 "cleared" false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962 / false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964 Yuri Nosenko via a bogus polygraph exam and a specious report -- just happened to be Deputy Chief of OS/SRS and Chief of its top-secret-records-hoarding Research Staff.

Oh, and he was one of the five members of the HONETOL mole-hunting panel which found no moles in the CIA.

Look it up.

Oh, and he was probably privy to the U-2's specifications in January 1957, too.

Interestingly, Newman tells us in his 1995/2008 book, Oswald and the CIA, that all of those incoming cables disappeared into a "black hole" for six weeks and that the ones that mentioned that the former marine U-2 radar operator had threatened to tell the Soviets "something of special interest" didn't resurface until after the assassination.

Michael Griffith says there was a shooter on top of the linen truck.

So you're another WC apologist who keeps repeating statements that you know are false. As I have told you previously, I have never said there was a shooter on the top of the linen truck. Do a search of all my articles and forum posts: you won't find one single sentence where I advance such an argument.

And that "possibly" the Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera (or camera gun, whatever).

You say that like it's some wild idea, yet your embrace such genuine fantasies as the single-bullet theory and the the FMJ-ammo-headshot theory.

Gun cameras were already a thing in the early 1960s. I am persuaded by Mary Haverstick's and Jeff Sundberg's research that the Babushka Lady may have fired at JFK with a gun camera. Have you read their research? Are you aware that some OAS assassins used gun cameras? You can Google it.

And he believes Garrison's claims about triangulated fire, the plan developed by Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald. . . .

I've already corrected you on this falsehood, but you just keep repeating it. My belief in a triangulated crossfire is not based on Garrison's claims, including his claim that Ferrie, Shaw, and Oswald developed such a plan.

that was then supposedly carried out by the CIA. And the Mob. And others.

By rogue elements of the CIA (without the knowledge of the director and his staff and most of the rest of the CIA) and elements of the Mafia, yes, absolutely. Plenty of other scholars share this view.

And he believes JFK was shot from the front in the head. And shot from the front in the neck.

And? Here, again, you act like you're describing some wild idea when in fact you're describing a perfectly credible scenario that's supported by the autopsy skull x-rays, by the ballistics evidence, by the Parkland 11/22/63 descriptions of the head and throat wounds, by accounts from several witnesses at the autopsy, and more.

You guys are constantly labeling perfectly valid arguments as wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc., usually because you have no other answer to them. Yet, as mentioned, you turn around and float truly ridiculous theories such as the single-bullet theory and the FMJ-bullet-headshot theory.

But the HSCA acoustics analysis, which he also says he believes, concluded there were two shooters: one shooting from the TSBD and a second from behind the fence. Two shooters. Four shots.

I've already explained this to you, but you again ignore my explanation. Again, given that the Dallas test firing only fired shots from two locations, the acoustical evidence does not prove that shots were only fired from the sixth-floor window and from the grassy knoll. It does indeed prove that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll, but it does not prove that there were only four shots or that all the shots fired from the rear came from the sixth-floor window.

I again remind you that the committee required that the 140.3 impulse pattern be ruled a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots. They required this because a shot at 140.3 on the dictabelt would mean there was another gunman firing from behind, and they found that conclusion unacceptable, in spite of the evidence for it.

Nothing in their analysis - which again he says he believes - concluded there was a shooter on the linen truck. Or that Babushka Lady fired a shot. Or that there were shooters from three locations, i.e., triangulation, or a shooter from the front who shot JFK the neck/throat and a shooter or a shot from the front who inflicted the head wound.

One, this is a silly argument. Two, see above.

His arguments are a mish mash of claims and counter-claims and arguments that contradict other arguments. His conspiracy is a jumble of ideas and thoughts and allegations that make no sense, are at odds with each other. It's like he's playing "JFK Assassination: the Game" where the person who propose the most claims, whether they make sense or not, somehow wins.

I'll say the same thing I said when you made this argument in another thread: the contradictory arguments are in your mind and are based on your distortions and misrepresentations of my research.

The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".[SNIP]

Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the Dallas test firing. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.

Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 93% probability that timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.

Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was indeed caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.

Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the windshield-distortion correlations on the dictabelt. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.

Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that N-waves from supersonic rifle fire occur on the dictabelt; that those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them; and that the dictabelt not only contains N-waves but also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-
blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.               

Let me save you some time: Bugliosi's response to this evidence was to claim, citing the FBI TSD's farcical report, that detecting "shock waves accurately" is "very difficult" and that therefore any statements about "shock waves" (i.e., N-waves) on the dictabelt are "extremely questionable." He, following the TSD's lead, simply ignored the fact that the N-waves only occur in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle's mic was in position to record them, and that the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct and interval, which debunks the speculation that these sounds were merely "some other sounds or electrical impulses produced internally” (Reclaiming History, Endnotes, p. 199).

Gary Cornwell, the deputy chief counsel for the HSCA, noted that the NRC/NAS panel ignored this and other evidence:

And the NRC essentially ignored, and never did explain how, if these impulse patterns were not gunfire, their timing, sequencing, and qualitative characteristics were so extensively corroborated by the other physical and scientific evidence in the case. Was all of the meshing of such evidence simply a coincidence? . . . Several witnesses testified that one shot came from the grassy knoll, just as the acoustics indicated. Just a coincidence? The shock waves and windshield distortions were present on the shots where they should have been, and absent on the others. One more coincidence? Since the NRC described their findings as conclusive and not subject to question, one must wonder why the NRC ignored all of this evidence that corroborated the Barger and Weiss findings, but is totally inconsistent with the NRC findings that these impulses are not the actual sounds of gunfire. One might also wonder why the NRC never addressed, never discussed, and never attempted to explain other "cross talk" on the Channel I tape that is totally inconsistent with the NRC conclusion that impulse patterns evidencing four shots occurred . . . after the actual assassination. (Real Answers: The John F. Kennedy Assassination, Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998, pp. 112-114)

AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.

What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.

Nice try. But the chance that in a group of 25 people all would independently make an error that caused them to make the same false report is the same regardless of the kind of error. 

Besides, why would anyone have failed to hear the first “horrible ear-shattering noise”?  And if they initially thought it was a firecracker or a backfire, why would they not realize later that it was a shot.  And if they were so abysmally dull as to not think the first noise was the first shot why would they all decide not to even mention that another loud sound preceded the first shot?  The source of the error would have to be common to all the witnesses. And the fact that most of them (but not all) reported hearing three shots means that they did not miss hearing the first shot.

Any way you look at it, any scenario in which these witnesses independently reported the same false observation is so highly improbable that one can conclude with the highest degree of certainty that it did not happen.  The possibility that the witnesses were not independent and either colluded with each other or were strongly influenced by others to say they saw something they were told but did not see is still more likely than the chance they all independently made the same error.