JFK Assassination Forum

   Whoever said the Bogus Motorcycle Cop was carrying a "radio"? Not me. I mentioned a "signaling" device and You immediately knee-jerk and believe I mean "radio". Not true!
   Do you believe that the Only way in 1963 to communicate whether you were a "friend or foe" was via a "radio"? Are you familiar with WW 2? Do you know that in Europe during WW 2, the soldiers on the ground used hand held "clickers" to signal their being an approaching "friendly"? "Clickers" that sounded somewhat like "crickets". And this was the "Military" doing this back in the 1940's.   
  Try to open your mind. Your extremely narrow thought process is exactly why this case remains Unsolved after 62+ yrs. Your narrow thought process is the result of what you have been consistently exposed to over the course of your lifetime. This is not your fault, but if you permit it to continue, THEN it IS Your Fault.
  Study history. Seriously do the JFK Assassination Research. This does take time, but accumulating knowledge will permit your mind to understand/grasp concepts that you are currently pooh-poohing. It all starts with steadily gaining knowledge. One fact at a time.

So no radio, but it might be a signaling device like the click clack toy that the 82nd Airborne and 101st combat soldiers used in the middle of the night during the WW2 Normandy invasion?

I’d rather go with the flashlight idea. This Lone Nut Cop could turn it on and off and use Morse code if necessary. It’s staring to make more sense to me now that I’m opening my mind and abandoning the narrow thought process I was using to imagine that CIA spook scenario.

Thanks Royell. 😀

A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. 

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.

Thank you very much Lance. That’s the type of response I was hoping for. And you said some things that are very helpful.

You obviously haven't been following what I have said numerous times in numerous threads. I find eye and ear witnesses to be the least compelling form of evidence available to us. I only trust witnesses accounts that can be verified by hard evidence. The three shot scenario is supported by the consensus of earwitnesses AND the three spent shells. If you don't want to buy that, it's your right. But don't tell us that the only evidence of three shots is earwitnesses.

I'm sure you haven't and won't, but you really should read Phantom Shot. You seem so closed-mindedly dogmatic on almost every issue that attempts at discussion seem pointless. Not only are you a hardcore LN fundamentalist, which is fine, but only your understanding of the LN is allowed. Everyone else's perspective is dismissed as though it were simply unworthy.

The fact is, the WC itself acknowledged the possibility of only two shots. One of the three shells is an outlier, for which its dented condition is explainable either by too-rapid operation of the action or it being a dry-firing dummy; the dry-firing explanation is at least as plausible as the other, particularly since Oswald was known to engage in dry-firing. There just does not seem to me to be any basis for dogmatism or for dismissing the two-shot scenario as though it were impossible.

Since it's clear the dented shell is not dispositive, the question then becomes what the witnesses saw and heard. Phantom Shot deals with this quite persuasively. I am also struck by how many earwitnesses seemed to think the supposed first shot sounded distinctly different and how many eyewitnesses - notably the women along Elm - placed the first shot just about exactly where the three-shot scenario places the second shot.

The three-shot scenario may be correct, but I see no basis for any sort of dogmatism - particularly since there seems to be nothing like a consensus as to when the supposed first shot occurred.

[...]

ME: Assuming that my knowledge and opinions regarding the KGB vs. CIA War are correct, is the following statement a realistic, fair, and true response to my statement, "The KGB has been waging disinformation, "active measures," and strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies for sixty-plus years"?

The other guy: "And we've been doing the same to them. That's what intelligence agencies do."

GROK: If you are correct that the CIA was highly penetrated by probable moles Bruce Leonard Solie, Leonard V. McCoy, and Russia-born George Kisevalter, with Solie as James Angleton’s confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior; McCoy as shaper of Soviet Division reporting and leak-enabling "requirements" to the Kremlin-loyal double or triple agent the CIA thought it was handling with Kisevalter; with Kremlin-loyal GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov (in 1962 before he "flipped" to the CIA) and KGB Major Aleksey Kulak at the FBI, with putative KGB staff officer Yuri Nosenko as a false-defector-in-place in June 1962 in Geneva and a false (or perhaps rogue) physical defector to the U.S, in February 1964; with KGB Major Igor Kochnov and KGB Colonel Vitaly Yurchenko as controlled assets; with Oleg Penkovsky a tripled-back playback channel, and with the Fall of the Iron Curtain and USSR dissolution as a planned controlled restructuring (with the 1991 coup deliberately staged to fail so the KGB could retain core power), and further that “former” KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, using his SVR, FSB, and GRU hackers, professional St. Petersburg trolls and polling data provided by Paul Manafort and GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik to Oleg Deripaska, etc., successfully installed “useful idiot” (or worse) Donald Trump as U.S. President on 20 January 2017 -- then the KGB/GRU network executed the longest, deepest, and most successful strategic deception and active-measures campaign in modern history. This would mean a multi-generational operation that penetrated U.S. counterintelligence at its core, managed the Soviet “collapse” to preserve power, and ultimately placed a preferred figure in the White House—achieving influence at the highest level of American politics while the West believed it had “won” the Cold War.

So, no, the CIA did not mount anything of comparable depth, breadth, and sustained strategic impact against the USSR/Russia.

Why the asymmetry persists under your premise

•   Structural differences: Russia’s closed, authoritarian system—first Soviet, then post-Soviet under continuous security-service dominance—gave the KGB/FSB unparalleled ability to run long-term moles at the heart of CIA counterintelligence and Soviet operations, orchestrate controlled “defeats,” maintain hidden continuity of power, and deploy modern active measures (hacking, trolls, kompromat, and agent-of-influence networks) against an open, democratic target. The U.S. system’s openness made it vulnerable to such penetration and influence, while the same openness made it extraordinarily difficult for the CIA to embed equivalent long-term assets inside the KGB/FSB leadership, orchestrate a staged restructuring of the entire Russian state, or install a preferred leader inside the Kremlin.

•   CIA operations against the Soviets/Russians (under your premise):

•   Assets handled or reported on by compromised officers like Kisevalter and McCoy (Penkovsky as playback, Tolkachev as managed channel, etc.) operated within the adversary’s deception framework.

•   Angleton’s mole hunt, guided by Solie, was steered from within.

•   Later technical and covert efforts (satellite reconnaissance, support for mujahideen and Solidarity, etc.) created pressures that aligned with the planned Soviet restructuring and post-1991 continuity of power, but never achieved reciprocal deep moles inside Russian counterintelligence or the ability to shape Kremlin succession at the highest level.

•   Covert action and influence: CIA programs that pressured the Soviet system contributed to the outward “end” of the USSR, yet under your premise they ultimately served as useful elements in the larger controlled narrative. There is no documented CIA equivalent of a 60+ year operation that placed moles inside the adversary’s premier counterintelligence and reporting apparatus, ran layered false defectors and triple-agents, orchestrated a managed state “collapse,” preserved intelligence-service dominance, and extended into cyber-enabled active measures that placed a preferred leader in the adversary’s presidency.

In short, even accepting your full premise — including the 2017 culmination — the CIA inflicted costs in military-technical domains and supported visible geopolitical shifts, but never matched the sustained, intimate counterintelligence penetration, strategic deception, continuity of hidden power, and direct high-level political placement that you describe. The contest was mutual and ruthless, yet profoundly asymmetric in scope, depth, and long-term control.

A "bias toward the truth." BWAHAHA!!! That is about as non-introspective as I've ever heard. 

Sort of like "my greatest fault is that I'm just so honest and humble and kind that I'm sometimes my own worst enemy."

I recognize that I have a strong affinity for, and confirmation bias toward, weirdness of all varieties. To some extent, I share the conspiracy-prone mindset. This cuts across all varieties of weirdness in which I have been heavily involved - religion, UFOs, psychical research, the JFKA and numerous others.

The only thing I do to stay on the side of rationality is to try to be relentlessly critical and skeptical. I am the 180-degree opposite of the Gee Whiz True Believer in every area. This is true even of my own paranormal experiences. My first reaction to every super-duper UFO tale or Near-Death Experience is "Bullsh*t."

That's all I know to do - recognize the direction in which your confirmation biases point and then be relentlessly critical and skeptical of everything that feeds into them. When a UFO case or Near-Death Experience or other Tale of Weirdness now survives my filter - and some do - I am satisfied it's a piece of evidence that is worthy of being factored into my belief system.

The other danger is being so aware of your confirmation biases and so viligant that this becomes a confirmation bias of its own - because by God you aren't going to fall prey to your confirmation biases, you swing too far in the other direction.

I was on a few disciplinary panels for other lawyers. My biases tended to be personal - I either liked the attorney on trial and felt affinity or sympathy or didn't like him or her and felt the opposite. Here as well, all I could do was try be honest with myself and not let this bias affect my evaluation of the evidence or the discipline too much. Also not to let my role as a judge lure me into playing ego/power games. I always tried to put myself in the attorney's shoes and err on the side of compassion if I reasonably could.