Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Lance Payette speaks and How this would play out in court!

« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 02:51:49 AM »

My exposure of the Wilmouth fraud did cause that claim to disappear from the H&L site. Now, it was Waldman, VP of Klein's, and DAVID BELIN who should have noticed the absence of the critical bank stamps:

Waldman was a middle age businessman, and VP of Klein's Sporting Goods. David Belin was an attorney, with years of experience in business matters. Either of these men could have examined the front and back side of postal money order 2,202,130,462, looking for a bank stamp that showed the date of deposit. The absence of a dated bank stamp on a check, money order, or bank draft, would cause most business people and bankers to conclude the item was never deposited to a bank or cashed. The fact that Belin did not ask Waldman about a dated bank stamp on the money order is very suspicious, and suggests that Belin intentionally refrained from asking this question. And for a very good reason. If the money order was never deposited, then Kleins would not have shipped C2766 to Oswald. He could not have shot at General Walker. His photo holding the rifle would not have appeared on the cover of Life Magazine. He could not have carried the rifle to the 6th floor of the TSBD. He could not have shot and killed JFK.

https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html

You can't make this stuff up. No, wait - apparently you CAN!

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: I've talked with several homicide cops. They don't believe in conincidence

« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 02:41:24 AM »

Alas, when I departed the Ed Forum, I deleted in their entirety all of my posts going back several years in one three-hour binge. I had started a "Raleigh phone call" thread, but my original post with my research is gone and no one who responded quoted my original post in its entirety. Since Greg Parker agreed it was "good work," it must have been a winner!

All I can remember now is that by the time of the call Hurt was an alcoholic mental case who admitted he had made the call - i.e., it was an incoming call by Hurt - and the woman who wrote the call slip and the woman who found it were bitterly at odds as to what had occurred. In any event, I was and am 100% satisfied it is much ado about nothing.

Here is the thread: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28717-the-raleigh-phone-call-an-examination-of-the-call-slip-factoid/

Steve Roe, Gerry Down and others agreed with my analysis, and Steve pointed out that David Lifton had spoken at great length with Hurt decades earlier and was satisfied he was an alcoholic mental case. Greg Doudna, perhaps predictably, had his "alternative take" on what had occurred. Niederwacky predictably went into "Lance the cognitive infiltrator" mode; he also referred to me as "our buglioser," which was at least halfway witty.

Jimbo also got in his shots.

Here is Gerry Down's summary of his understanding, so it must be close to what I had written. In any event, this was a full-scale factoid exploration by me and involved a lot of work.

So let me get this straight. This theory is that a drunk John Hurt phoned the DPD looking for Oswald on Nov 23rd to have a talk. He gave Mrs Swinney his name and where he was from (John Hurt of Raleigh, North Carolina). Then John Hurt hung up - maybe he thought it was not a good idea to have a drunken chat with Oswald so late at night afterall, or the wife caught him and made him hang up. Mrs Swinney writes down on a piece of paper the name of “John Hurt” of “Raleigh, North Carolina”. Mrs Swinney then phones Oswald in his cell about this John Hurt. Oswald says he had no idea who John Hurt is. Meanwhile Mrs Alveeta comes in to work perhaps about 10:50pm and she briefly listens in on this conversation with Oswald before then going off the line and leaving Oswald and Mrs Swinney to talk in private.

All during this time there were two Secret Service agents in the room and hear about this John Hurt that was trying to contact Oswald. At this stage Mrs Swinney decided to try and find out (possibly on the orders of the Secret Service or on her own initiative) who this John Hurt was from Raleigh North Carolina. So she phones the operator directory assistance in North Carolina where they look through their phonebook and give her the names of presumably the only two John Hurts in Raleigh North Carolina. So she takes the previous piece of paper she had on which she had written the name of “John Hurt” and “Raleigh, North Carolina” and now adds the two possible phone numbers given to her by the operator directory assistance in North Carolina. Mrs Swinney then places two outgoing calls to each of these John Hurts in the hope of reaching the drunk guy who had rang her, but neither answer. The nosy Mrs Alveeta sees Mrs Swinney making these two outgoing calls and presumes she is making them on Oswalds behalf. As neither John Hurt answers the phone, Mrs Swinney views the whole endeavor pointless and throws the piece of paper in the bin.

When Mrs Swinney goes off work at 11pm, Mrs Alveeta retrieves the piece of paper from the bin and proceeds to make up a call sheet with the data on it as a souvenir for her daughter but because she only arrived in at 10:50pm AFTER John Hurt had phoned in, and only hears the start of the phone conversation in which Mrs Swinney talks to Oswald about a John Hurt, Mrs Alveeta thinks that it was Oswald looking for John Hurt rather than the other way around – John Hurt looking for Oswald. As the Secret Service had witnessed the events surrounding the call, after Oswald is assassinated Secret Service agent Kelley makes some brief enquiries to see if there is any “John Heard” on their books who could be linked to Oswald, which shows up negative.

This theory would mean the following:

Mrs Alveeta was being honest in so far as her understanding that Oswald was trying to contact a John Hurt.
Mrs Swinney is telling the truth when she says Oswald was not trying to contact any John Hurt. Mrs Swinney probably thought no more of the John Hurt call as a crank call from a drunken idiot.
The long suffering wife of John Hurt was telling the truth when she said that her husband had drunkenly phoned the DPD looking for Oswald on the night of Nov 23rd.
John Hurt himself was being honest in the years after the incident when he said he didn't know Oswald.

I'm not familiar with how switchboards worked in 1963 (i.e. how Mrs Swinney would phone Oswald in his cell, or how she would look for numbers from operator directory assistance in North Carolina etc). If anyone sees any mistake in my understanding of how these sets of phonecalls were made, please let me know.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Yuri "The KGB Had Nothing To Do With Oswald In The USSR" Nosenko

« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 02:35:25 AM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:35:07 AM

TG--

We don't know how much LBJ knew after 11.22, but by all accounts LBJ was a cunning and smart fellow, whatever his flaws.

Within a day or two, LBJ suspected Castro.

Some may posit LBJ was fed mis-info by the CIA, but LBJ was no naif when it came to Washington machinations.

And then within another 48 hours, LBJ wanted all leads back to Havana snuffed out.

The LNT-SBT has always been a convenient or political answer to a physical problem.

You are aware, aren't you, that the only reason the CIA and the FBI believed on 11/23/63 that Oswald had met with the KGB's head of assassinations and sabotage in the Western Hemisphere, Col. Valery Kostikov, was because a Kremlin-loyal KGB Major at the FBI's NYC field office, Aleksey Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA), had told it that Kostikov's charge at the U.N., Igor Brykin, was Department 13?

You do know, don't you, that the Security Officer at the Soviet Embassy who volunteered Kostikov's name to a forgetful Oswald or "Oswald" over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phoneline on 1 October 1963, Ivan Obyedkov, was a Kremlin-loyal triple agent, i.e., the CIA mistakenly believed it had successfully recruited him?

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is this forum being invaded by refugees from the Ed Forum?

« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 02:08:49 AM »

As I've stated previously, however, I never got so much as a warning at the Ed Forum. I think that fact speaks to the state of moderation at the time - principally James Gordon and Kathy Beckett, both of whom were very nice to me. I think Simkin was out of the picture by the time I joined. I was also gone (I think) by the time Sandy Larsen was appointed, which even at the time I regarded as the Beginning of the End. The addition of Niederwacky made the moderation about as close to a reign of terror as one could find.

City-Data is a wild ride. They have umpteen different moderators for umpteen forums, and you have to learn the "culture" of each forum or risk being banned from the whole thing. I was banned about eight times - I made a hobby out of reappearing with a new persona and seeing how long I could get away with it. My favorite - always on the Religion & Spirituality forum - was Irkle Berserkle, who has been gone for years but is still occasionally mentioned in the vein of "thank God he's gone."

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 02:07:43 AM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 12:29:07 AM

Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.

They were testing a shot sequence that does not conflict with the evidence. That’s all I was saying. They were just trying to see if three shots beginning about z208 and ending at z313 could be made. The found that it was possible. And, in at least one case, none missed.

You seem to think that I somehow invented the three shot no miss scenario. Anyone looking at the evidence can see that there is evidence that each of the three shots struck in the limo. If that wasn’t the case the WC would not have had a section explaining why they could not determine which shot missed.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Is this forum being invaded by refugees from the Ed Forum?

« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 02:02:03 AM »

When I tried to show the Davidson Enhancement of the Wiegman Film that displayed Sarah Stanton's face on Prayer Man on The Education Forum the Prayer Man people sent Private Messages to Gordon accusing me of various methodology errors...Gordon then accused me of those alleged methodology violations without checking if they were valid or not...He then did the demerit points moderation trick that website uses in an effort to make a case for banning against me...When I asked Gordon in Private Messages to please show me the specific site rules I violated and what material violated them he responded that he didn't have to and any further inquiries would result in banning...It was obvious that Gordon was over his head and the reason he was doing this was because he didn't want the site to know he wasn't capable of moderating technical analyses...The Prayer Man theory was the forum's pet theory and Gordon wasn't about to let a universally ridiculed member refute it...I was ultimately banned for being too insulting, too indisciplined, and failing to follow the rules of evidence when told...That last one was quite ironic seeing how I was posting the correct evidence so it was actually them who were guilty of what they were accusing me of...Gordon had pulled that rule out of his ***...With this The Education Forum had successfully avoided the evidence that Prayer Man was Stanton...

After I was banned I asked Beckett over on the McAdams forum how she justified keeping the correct Prayer Man evidence from her members?...Beckett refused to answer...She then ran back to the Education Forum and told them I was attacking her...She knew just the right dirty tricks to keep me from The Education Forum...

Worldly & Other Worldly Mysteries - UFOs/UAPs - Bigfoot - Ghosts etc / Re: The Most Convincing UFO Encounter

« Last post by Lance Payette on Today at 01:55:03 AM »

The mundane explanation - there is ALWAYS a mundane "explanation" - is "mass hysteria" plus "undue influence" by the investigators.

As we see even on these forums, for many people ANY mundane explanation is preferred to any non-mundane explanation.

The ones I love are those that combine multiple mundane explanations - the two pilots were misled by Venus, the aircraft and ground radar malfunctioned, the three ground witnesses at two different locations saw the Goodyear blimp, and the ground traces were made by rutting moose. A bit of an exagerration, but not by much.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Yuri "The KGB Had Nothing To Do With Oswald In The USSR" Nosenko

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:35:07 AM »

TG--

We don't know how much LBJ knew after 11.22, but by all accounts LBJ was a cunning and smart fellow, whatever his flaws.

Within a day or two, LBJ suspected Castro.

Some may posit LBJ was fed mis-info by the CIA, but LBJ was no naif when it came to Washington machinations.

And then within another 48 hours, LBJ wanted all leads back to Havana snuffed out.

The LNT-SBT has always been a convenient or political answer to a physical problem.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is this forum being invaded by refugees from the Ed Forum?

« Last post by Tom Scully on Today at 01:04:53 AM »

Quote from: Tom Graves on Yesterday at 11:44:32 PM

Former Ed Forum moderator Kathy Beckett and a far-left, Nosenko-loving / Bagley-hating firebwand CT by the name of Michael Clark conspired to kick me out of the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum in May 2018.

"It was long ago and far away, and so much better than it is today"

My advice, wear slippers, I inadvertently stepped on the wrong folks' toes.

I was removed from the Ed Forum by John Simkin in 2013 for the offense of making Simkin's book author friend, Peter Janney, look ridiculous.
I really pissed off Janney's Budd, Doug Horne, as well. Janney's aunt was married to Rockefeller sponsored ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Pace

And Janney's father was Personnel Director of the CIA

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Wistar_Morris_Janney
Frederick Wistar Morris Janney (March 15, 1919 – January 18, 1979) was a career Central Intelligence Agency officer who was recruited by Allen Dulles in 1949. He held a number of positions during his thirty-year career and was awarded the Agency's highest honor, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, four days after his death.[1]

Quote

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mary_s_Mosaic/OGOCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+dieugenio+protege&pg=PT348&printsec=frontcover
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
books.google.com › books
Peter Janney · 2016
Found inside
... DiEugenio protégé whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but he would identify himself on Amazon only as “Rational Voice.” Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully ...

Doug Horne's review of the first edition of Janney's book that had to be rewritten to attempt to make3 it less ridiculous,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R8NNVIZE9ITM/ref=cm_cr_othr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928

Doug Horne's reaction to my Amazon review of his friend, Janney's book.:

Douglas Horne's reaction to facts he was unable to refute but did not appreciate learning of, to say the least!

Quote

Douglas 13 years ago In reply to an earlier post Report abuse

If you are a truly "rational voice" you will provide your real name and tell us exactly how you came by your citations. To not do so is cowardly. To continue not to do so will make readers wonder who you really represent, and really work for. Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact.

Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?

If the William L. Mitchell you cite did not kill Mary Meyer in 1964, then perhaps his identity was highjacked---stolen---circa 1964, by the covert operations ("wet") arm of the Agency---and used by the hitman.

Unless you provide us with your real name and the exact means by which you came up with your citations, you will only increase everyone's suspicion of your motivations here---and your methods.

Many despicable and cold-blooded people throughout history have been well-educated. So finding a person named William L. Mitchell with three college degrees does not prove he could not have been Mary Meyer's killer. That seems like the kind of flawed "logic" an intelligence agency would use on readers in an attempt to cast doubt about the disturbing conclusions of a controversial book.

If this William L. Mitchell didn't kill Mary Meyer, why isn't he raising hell about Janney's book? We certainly haven't heard a peep from him, now, have we?

Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:29:07 AM »

Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 12:15:30 AM

At least the producers at CBS agreed with me that the first shot didn’t miss.

Nobody agrees with you. That would be silly. They tested only the WC's second shot miss scenario. That scenario requires the first shot to be the single bullet. Since you reject the single bullet theory, that means they didn't agree with you. They came up with their own mistake.

Since they chose the wrong scenario, it's not surprising they would reach the wrong conclusion.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10