Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Not a single argument presented.
Not a single scrap of evidence provided on which to base any kind of counter-argument.
Just the maniacal rantings of a rabid zealot.

When you try to engage with this issue you just look buffoonish and are forced to question your precious WC narrative - "We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window".

Can you explain how anyone could know that or why it is even important to know that? Of course you can't. There is ample evidence  that Oswald was in the sniper's nest at 12:30 firing the shots that killed JFK. The fact you think it is important to know where Oswald was in the minutes leading up to the assassination reveals just how dumb you rare.
Quote

And when that doesn't work you resort to the sort of fabrication the WC would be proud of - " If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15"

So, here's a challenge for you. Rather than spew your endless Oswald-Did-It routine (and you accuse me of starting off with an assumption! :D), let's have a rational discussion about any detail of the argument I'm putting forward. Pick a specific detail, any detail, and let's debate rationally.
What do you say?

Nobody could have a rational debate with someone as stupid as you. You think the most trivial things are important while ignoring the compelling evidence that Oswald was the assassin. That is not an assumption. An assumption is a belief made in lieu of evidence, such as all theories that anyone except Oswald took part in the crime. The fact that you obsess over trivialities such as a supposed elevator race prior to the assassination reveals just how clueless you are. You focus on all the dumb stuff while ignoring what is important. Sorry, just being honest.
13
Book Review in History--Washington Independent Review of Books

Castro’s Secrets: The CIA And Cuba’s Intelligence Machine
Brian Latell    Palgrave Macmillan  288 pp.

May 21, 2012

A consideration of alternative theories on the assassination of John F. Kennedy, including thoughts on what Castro and Cuban intelligence knew prior to November 22, 1963.

Reviewed by Ronald Goldfarb

The assassination of John F. Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald in November 1963, a grim anniversary we will commemorate next year, was certainly the crime of the last century. An extensive body of literature chronicled, critiqued and analyzed that event, following the official Warren Commission Report that President Lyndon Baines Johnson ordered to document what happened. That report was flawed for reasons the Commission itself could not know. It acted quickly, as it had to, in order to assuage concerns about possible conspiracies and continuing dangers to the U.S. However flawed by the deceptions of officials in the FBI and CIA who knew facts they did not relate, and even secrets Robert F. Kennedy could not share, the Warren Commission’s basic conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was an erratic assassin who acted alone has withstood continuous barrages of criticism. Some of that criticism is foolish and insubstantial, some impressively persuasive. Today, the Warren Commission findings remain the accepted view of the assassination.

But the case is not closed, and may never be. Two credible theories draw conclusions inconsistent with the Warren Commission’s. One is that the Mafia plotted and ordered Kennedy’s murder in retribution for Robert F. Kennedy’s aggressive prosecutions and investigations of its members. That theory is developed in my book, Perfect Villains, Imperfect Heroes: RFK’s War Against Organized Crime, a memoir of that “war” in which I was one soldier. There is convincing proof that the Mafia conspired to kill John F. Kennedy, but none to tie its conspiracy to the act of Lee Harvey Oswald, which may have fortuitously intervened. The dots of accumulating proof are not connected, though a U.S. House of Representatives Special Committee concluded that was the case, and later detailed studies added further proof of the Committee’s conclusion, based on post-Warren Commission archival disclosures.

The second theory, also backed by credible evidence, but also inconclusive, is that Fidel Castro was behind Oswald’s act of treachery in retaliation for the U.S. government’s plans to assassinate him. Again, there is evidence to support this theory, but not enough to settle the matter. Castro’s Secrets, a new book by former CIA official Brian Latell, a knowledgeable expert on Latin American intelligence, pursues this latter theory, adding credible new, if not decisive, evidence.

Latell worked for almost four decades for the CIA and National Intelligence Agency, including time as a CIA Cuba desk analyst and an intelligence officer for Latin America. He knows the literature and is a punctilious researcher, a knowledgeable historian, and a savvy insider. Latell concludes that Fidel Castro, among other notable skills, was Cuba’s “supreme spymaster,” conspiratorial in his instincts, audacious in his actions, devious in his Machiavellian brilliance, and avid in his hatred of the U.S.

I met with Latell in Key Biscayne, Florida, and over cups of Cuban coffee we discussed the revelations in his new book, a follow-up to his earlier After Fidel. Latell’s research adds uniquely credible evidence that Castro knew that the U.S. was planning to kill him, warned there might be retribution, and was aware that Kennedy was being pursued by Oswald. There is no proof Castro solicited Oswald’s criminal act or contributed to his crime. But that he knew of Oswald’s intentions, and waited knowingly for it to happen, is now demonstrated by Latell’s book.

Latell combed through vast collections of stored archival records and interviewed Cuban defectors who had fled Cuba and were protected by our intelligence service. One in particular, Florentino Aspillaga Lombard, who fled Cuba’s intelligence agency, and has been protected and hidden since then in the U.S., told Latell that his radio surveillance directed at the CIA was suddenly and inexplicably ordered to be stopped shortly before the Kennedy assassination, and was to be refocused on Texas. The implication is clear:  Castro knew of Oswald’s plan, watched and waited for it to happen. That doesn’t make Castro the active conspirator, but it proves a level of passive complicity, at the least “a conspiracy of silence,” Latell suggests.

Castro had proof that his double agent, Rolando Cubela, was meeting in Paris with Desmond Fitzgerald, Robert F. Kennedy’s CIA contact on Cuban intelligence and CIA machinations, to conjure a plan to kill Castro at the very time Oswald shot John F. Kennedy. One Cuban intelligence official told a colleague that she knew of the assassination in Dallas “almost before Kennedy did,” as a result of Cuban intelligence’s knowledge of Oswald’s plan.

Latell’s chief revelation in Castro’s Secrets is Aspillaga’s disclosure that, early in the morning of November 22, 1963, he was ordered to direct radio attention to Texas.  Aspillaga related that story to Latell in a CIA safe house decades ago. Latell confirmed it through declassified reports of two “reliable American intelligence community sources.” The revelation demonstrates Castro’s knowledge of the deadly cross-currents of intrigue between our countries that concluded in the assassination of JFK. Alone, it does not prove that Castro or Cuban intelligence agents initiated or assisted Oswald’s acts; but it does show that they knew of his plan, and at a minimum silently let it happen. Latell concedes there is “a critical distinction between Fidel Castro simply knowing in advance and somehow being involved in what transpired.”

Aspillaga is “the most valuable Cuban intelligence officer ever to have changed sides,” Latell reports. His disclosure that he was instructed “to redirect the antennas from Langley and Miami to Texas“ and to advise his superiors if anything important happened,  is chilling evidence that adds meaning to other circumstantial evidence we now know. “They knew Kennedy would be killed,” Aspillaga told Latell. Oswald had told Cuban officials in Mexico earlier that he planned to assassinate JFK. Even Lyndon Baines Johnson later stated that “Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first,” adding that “I never believed Oswald acted alone, although I can accept the fact that he pulled the trigger.”

Both alternative explanations of the assassination, undercutting the Warren Commission’s single bullet, one lone assassin conclusion, remain haunting, challenging, but inconclusive. Perhaps after Fidel Castro’s death and the likely easing of relations between Cuba and the U.S., further evidence will emerge to resolve the perplexing riddle of November 23, 1963. “Until Cuban intelligence in Havana is prepared to turn over their files … it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to tidy up this case, finally and conclusively,” former CIA Director Richard Helms concluded to assassination investigators.

The Warren Commission, the House Assassination Committee, the Church Committee, and five million pages of U.S. government documents disclosed no evidence of Cuban complicity in JFK’s assassination. Latell concludes that “Castro and a small number of Cuban intelligence officers were complicit in Kennedy’s death but that their involvement fell short of an organized assassination plot.” The case rests there. For now.

Ronald Goldfarb is a Washington DC attorney and author. He has reviewed much of the John F. Kennedy assassination literature, discussed it on TV documentaries, and written about it in his Perfect Villains, Imperfect Heroes: Robert F. Kennedy’s War Against Organized Crime, published by Random House in 1995, and recently optioned for a movie

---30---

If Cuban intel had foreknowledge of the JFKA...that sure does not line up with the LHO-LNT.

An LN would not tell anyone what he was up to. How would Havana know that something would happen in Dallas on 11.22? One way would be if they had assets collaborating with or manipulating LHO.

No one was ever explained the gunsmoke in the GK area in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA.
14
I guess you're not bright enough to figure out that when you draw conclusions based on time estimates witnesses have given, you are assuming that those estimates are accurate. If those estimates are off by even a little, your whole argument collapses like a cheap lawn chair.

The rest of your post is utter drivel, as usual.
The usual ranting with nothing to back it up.

Do you deny the WC omitted the elevator race from the final report. Or the testimony of Piper. Or the testimony of Rowland?
Can you argue against my point that the WC deliberately created a false narrative by ignoring all this evidence in favour of the fabrication involving Givens returning to the 6th floor?
Can you do it using evidence rather than your usual bluster?
Can you get involved in a genuine debate?

The WC left a lot of irrelevant things out of their final report for reasons already stated. They did provide the 26 volumes of testimony for anal people such as yourself who want to pick the fly$hit out of the pepper. 
Gee, i'd hate to think that the crap you've presented so far was the good stuff.
Nor do I need to know. i know where he was at 12:30. He was blowing JFK's brains out.
It is truly laughable that there are people in this world who think the WCR should have contained every word of testimony given over the course of a 9 month long investigation.

Not a single argument presented.
Not a single scrap of evidence provided on which to base any kind of counter-argument.
Just the maniacal rantings of a rabid zealot.

When you try to engage with this issue you just look buffoonish and are forced to question your precious WC narrative - "We also don't know where Oswald was during the time BRW was at the window".
And when that doesn't work you resort to the sort of fabrication the WC would be proud of - " If Oswald was on the first floor at 12:00 and BRW was on the 6th floor until 12:15"

So, here's a challenge for you. Rather than spew your endless Oswald-Did-It routine (and you accuse me of starting off with an assumption! :D), let's have a rational discussion about any detail of the argument I'm putting forward. Pick a specific detail, any detail, and let's debate rationally.
What do you say?
15
The image isn't doctored...This will be proven by obtaining the original Darnell film and showing the exact same plaid pattern on the original film...People who claim alteration where there was no alteration (Sandy Larsen) condemn themselves to Cinque land...

Larsen's image was better than Kamp's and I assume Larsen somehow got the original or accessed technology that was better able to resolve the current copy...The image Larsen used for his analysis zoomed closer in to the plaid and managed to capture the exact alternating red, black, white, and brown plaid bars and their uniqueness and then perfectly match them to the bars seen on Lovelady's plaid in other photos...The match was perfect and was proof beyond a doubt...Proof that shows you and Royell are full of it...When I told Larsen that he had therefore indirectly proven the time that Frazier said he was standing and staring in shock at Sarah Stanton by locating Lovelady & Shelley fast-walking up the extension Larsen went back and deleted his Education Forum thread containing the photo analysis of Lovelady's plaid bars...There is nothing too low for the clique on The Education Forum and they always get to rule on themselves and their own rank dishonesty...Iler is now enforcing that corruption and has the nerve to do it under a so-called strict set of rules...Jim DiEugenio is the Trump-like leader of that clique who managed to parlay that sordid corruption all the way to the point of presenting a knowingly-false Prayer Man theory before Congress...

Just to show how dishonest The Education Forum is the clique doesn't speak up and admit Larsen's original photo analysis or his dishonest deletion of it...And those people are judging ME!...You'll never see the rank hypocrite Mark Knight comment on this business or its significance in regard to The Education Forum's so-called purpose and rules...Knight is too busy banning for life the researcher who discovered the conspiracy evidence discovery of our generation on false rules violation charges...And the clique doesn't mind...

You are the one who is full of it.
Do you really think you can claim evidence you can't provide and probably doesn't exist?
What if everything you are saying is a lie? How do we know it isn't?
You've already lost all credibility regarding this topic and this claim about Larsen seems desperate and far-fetched.

And just to clarify, the image IS doctored. That's not in dispute. You have based your identification on this single, doctored image. That's not in dispute either.
What is in dispute is your dubious claim about Larsen's work.
Please provide evidence. Your word counts for nothing.
16
From Time magazine Apr 26, 2017

Lee Harvey Oswald---By Olivia Waxman

After Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John F. Kennedy shortly after noon on Nov. 22, 1963, things moved quickly. About an hour later, Oswald fatally shot Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit. Thirty minutes after that, police found Oswald and arrested him. Two days later, on Nov. 24, Jack Ruby shot Oswald. And just a day after the assassination, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had already expressed his preliminary finding that Oswald had acted alone.

The full Warren Commission report would later back up that finding — but more than a half-century later, polls have found that most Americans are not convinced of that fact.

That’s why former CIA operative Bob Baer launched an investigation into the declassified government files on the case.

As the above clip shows, on his six-part series JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald — debuting Tuesday night on the History channel — Baer (seen in the clip above with former LAPD police lieutenant Adam Bercovici) attempts to demystify the link between Oswald and Cuban and Soviet operatives.

It’s no secret that, for example, Oswald went to a meeting at the Soviet embassy in Mexico eight weeks before he assassinated JFK, or that he tried to defect to the Soviet Union in 1959. But Baer pursues those leads, and further investigates Oswald’s connections to the Cuban dissident group Alpha 66, which had been infiltrated by Cuban intelligence officials who were reporting their activities back to Fidel Castro’s government. His conclusion is that, while Oswald acted alone when he fired the bullets that killed the President, his connections to Cuban and Soviet officials were deeper than is often assumed.

Ahead of the debut of his series, Baer spoke to TIME about why Oswald could have wanted to work with the Soviets and Cubans:

TIME: Why did you start looking into declassified government files on Lee Harvey Oswald?

BAER: I went through CIA files on it when I was working there, and there was Cuban-related stuff that didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. When I got into the CIA, George H.W. Bush signed a release [of files] to me, and the archives came back and said they couldn’t find [the files I requested] anymore. Documents on it that shouldn’t have disappeared had disappeared. So that raised an alarm bell. But what really got me into it was meeting a defector from Cuba and one of the best agents the CIA has ever had. He said that on the 22nd of November 1963, four hours before the assassination, he was at an intelligence site in Havana when he got a call from Castro’s office, saying, “Turn all of your listening ability to high frequency communications out of Dallas because something’s going to happen there.”

What are the biggest revelations in the documentary?

Our hypothesis was that the Cubans knew [about Oswald’s plan] in advance. We have eyewitnesses putting Oswald with Cuban intelligence in Mexico City. And the last people that Oswald was hanging out with before the assassination were Alpha 66. I do believe that, after the assassination, Oswald was heading for a safe house that was owned by Alpha 66. Now, according to the FBI, CIA and Cuban intelligence sources we talked to, in November 1963, info about anything that Alpha 66 did in the U.S. was sent back to Cuba. So if, in fact, Oswald told Alpha 66 he was going to kill the president — and we do have witnesses saying he told them this — then Castro knew. And the borders were all shut down at that point, so our assumption is he was going to this Cuban safe house, where he had been before. Whether the Cuban dissidents of Alpha 66 knew he was coming or not, we don’t know.

But I do not think that [Castro] furthered the plot. I think the Cuban dissidents reporting back to Havana informed him that there’s this American, Lee Harvey Oswald, who says he’s going to kill the president. The fact that this stuff has never been looked into I find extraordinary.


Why didn’t they?

The Warren Commission did mention it, but they just said that it was a coincidence that he met with the KGB’s head of assassinations for North America in Mexico City. They didn’t look into how peculiar it is for an American, on a weekend, to meet with three KGB officers during their time off. The Warren Commission said he only went to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and met a local employee. But I believe his Cuban connections are much deeper than the Warren Commission shows. I think [the commission] just didn’t want to make that public. Johnson told the FBI that if they can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Russians and the Cubans were involved in this, then they shouldn’t drag their suspicions into the public eye. But they sort of suspected it.

That reminds me of the discussion of whether the FBI should have shared its news from its investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email use or possible Russian involvement in the campaign prior to the election last fall. It’s this question of how and whether intelligence officials should talk about something that’s still ongoing.

Yeah it’s exactly like that; If you can’t prove it, don’t drag it out to the public. Except the [Oswald] evidence is stronger than so far what we’ve seen on Russia and its connections to the Trump campaign.

What was going on in Cold War history at this point that caused this controversy to play out the way that it did?

My assumption at the end is that Castro had every reason in the world to [want to] kill Kennedy. It’s risky if there are actual Cuban agents shooting the President, that’s Armageddon, nuclear war. But if you simply hear rumors of this, you don’t do anything. I’ve seen that happen in the CIA, where we heard stuff and didn’t pass the details to another government because it was a hostile government.


What about the Soviet side? Did you find any evidence that they encouraged Oswald?

There’s no evidence that the Russians took that risk, providing him money weapons or training, and I don’t think the Russians encouraged him. What we think is that they were like three times removed. I think they simply monitored Oswald as best they could. The Russians probably thought, “We can’t afford to deal with an American crazy person,” but Cuban intelligence deals with a lot of crazy people. The Cubans didn’t give money or guns to agents; they were just looking for fellow believers.

Why did Oswald want to defect to the Soviets in the first place?

I think he was at a dead end. He had a broken childhood, and he joined the Marines to become somebody. He wanted to become a historical figure, and he thought he deserved to be one. He needed some sort of anchor to his life and that thing in 1959 was communism. When he gets there [to the Soviet Union], they don’t want him at first. And when they have to accept him after he attempts suicide, they send them to Minsk. It’s sort of the end of the earth. He’s a factory worker, not what he expected at all, so he comes back. That’s the context of the whole series, what was going through his mind at each one of these steps.

Are there any unanswered questions you still have or now have after doing the documentary?

I’d look for further confirmation that Cubans knew about this to confirm our thesis. We don’t know exactly what the Cubans told him in Mexico City — was it to go back to Louisiana and Dallas and tell us what Cuban dissidents there were doing? And what did Oswald mean when he said he was a “patsy” when he was being questioned by the Dallas police? A patsy for whom?

I know the general relationship was that Russians and Cubans shared everything in those days. So did this get back to Moscow? I don’t know, I don’t have the evidence. Do I suspect it did? Yes. It’s sort of like if an American went to Syria, spent a month with the Islamic State, and came back and assassinates the President. Would anyone call him a lone wolf? That’s what happened with Kennedy.


---There is also a book written by Brian Latell, the CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America from 1990 to 1994 and author Castro's Secrets: Cuban Intelligence, the CIA, & the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, that came out in 2013.

--30---

The LHO-DGI-G2 links were never really followed up by the WC; indeed were snuffed out. The HSCA-1979 did a little better, but Blakey was an old mob-hunter, and leads after nearly 17 years get harder to sniff out.

What is remarkable is how many people think the CIA perped the JFKA, or subscribe the to LNT...when in fact a number of clues point to Havana-Moscow.

17
The whole thing is completely insane.  She was allowed to request an all female execution team because it was deemed too traumatic to put to death by a man.  Too traumatic!  You can't make that up.  Her family will now probably sue and get millions.  The leftists spend more time and energy attempting to thwart capital punishment than caring about American citizens who are assaulted and murdered by illegal aliens.  They will spend years citing this as yet another reason not to allow capital punishment.  It is an upside down world.  Hopefully there is a full investigation and someone is held accountable.  I find it very difficult to believe there was not some intent to undermine her execution.

 :D How do you blame the left?

TN is a Republican supermajority deeply RED state that has a recent track record of botching executions.
If you are going to execute - do it right.

Botched Executions in Tennessee

• October 2026 (Christa Pike): Prison officials halted the execution process after administering the lethal drug pentobarbital, and the inmate was subsequently transferred to a medical facility for care. Following the incident, Governor Bill Lee suspended all scheduled executions to allow for an independent review.

• May 2026 (Tony Carruthers): The execution attempt was halted when personnel were unable to successfully establish the required intravenous lines. The state subsequently granted the inmate a one-year reprieve.

• April 2022 (Oscar Smith): Governor Lee called off the execution shortly before it was scheduled to begin due to a technical oversight. An internal review later revealed that the execution drugs had not undergone testing according to the required state protocols

18
The Cubans seemed to know in advance that JFK was in danger on 11/22

https://time.com/4753349/oswald-kennedy-declassified-documentary/



19
Says the guy obsessed with the "KGB" and Russia.  Your mind has not been affected by Putin or the KGB.  You are under the propaganda influence of our own media and establishment politicians.  They have used repetition of themes and hoaxes to generate TDS.  I didn't agree with Biden or Obama but never had any deep-seated feeling of hatred toward them.  TDS sufferers are unhinged on the topic of Trump.  It's very personal to them for reasons that they can't explain acting under the influence of propaganda.  The most common trait of TDS sufferers is anger and unhappiness.

Dear Herr Comrade Smith,

You're a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

Zombified by KGB disinformation to the Nth degree.

-- Tom
20
   This has to do with: (1) Time Stamping, and (2) JFK Assassination Urban Legends

If there's one thing you are familiar with, it's JFK Urban Legends. You've created enough of them.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10