Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Some Info about Malcom Blunt and Bruce Solie
« Last post by Tom Graves on January 30, 2026, 01:50:37 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on January 30, 2026, 01:02:08 PM
He was in the Office of Security, heading the Research staff. Read his HSCA testimony as to the scope of his duties. Moreover, Shaw's attorneys were posing questions as to Shaw's possible CIA connections (and even whether the CIA had files on THEM!). We have no idea what the "inquiry" may have related to in the context of Solie's position.

In fact, the All-Seeing Eye of AI tells me this is exactly what Solie was doing - assisting in the inquiry as to whether Shaw in fact had any CIA connections as alleged. Moreover, there are many materials with Solie's name in reference to WC critics like Weisberg and Epstein and characters like Nagell. Why? Because these were potential SECURITY issues and he headed the RESEARCH staff. Indeed, pesky Mr. AI interrupted my breakfast to add, "Bruce Solie, a high-ranking official in the CIA’s Office of Security (OS) and its Security Research Staff (SRS), was interested in Jim Garrison’s investigation because it threatened to expose sensitive CIA operations and personnel."

On pages 11-17 of this PDF are organizational charts for the Office of Security. It wasn't exactly "Howard Osborn and Bruce Solie sharing a desk in the corner."

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32404556.pdf

This is my problem with characters like Blunt, whom I put in the same category as Newman. They absolutely BURY themselves (and you, their eager readers) in documents and acronyms and fill in the vast gaps with dark speculation driven by what they want to see. "Read Newman's Jesus book," advises the sage Mr. Payette. You will realize that Newman and Blunt, your heroes, are, in their own little way ... absolutely nutty.

Memo to Solie referencing Garrison's investigation = Solie is outside his assigned area = Solie is monitoring the Garrison investigation = Solie is a KGB mole.

Dear Fancy Pants Rants,

Was it "nutty" of Blunt to show to Bagley an April 1964 memo to Warren Commission attorney W. David Slawson in the margins of which Slawson had written that Solie had tried to convince him in a (now missing) letter or memo to let Nosenko testify to the Warren Commission, even though harsh (but not tortuous) interrogations of Nosenko had just begun, and even though many officers in the Soviet Russia Division and the Counterintelligence Staff doubted that Nosenko was bona fide?

Was it "nutty" of Blunt to show Bagley some CIA documents that Bagley hadn't been privy to in 1959-1960 which indicated that someone in Solie's office had arranged in advance with the Records Integration Division and the Office of Mail Logistics to have all of the incoming non-CIA cables on Oswald's upcoming defection be sent to Solie's office instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division?

-- Tom
52
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What do Lance Payette and James DiEugenio have in common?
« Last post by Tom Graves on January 30, 2026, 01:21:27 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on January 30, 2026, 01:05:35 PM
Mental meltdown in progress?

Dear FPR,

You're projecting again.

-- Tom
53
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Storm Drain
« Last post by Lance Payette on January 30, 2026, 01:20:11 PM »
Fred has, of course, got the wrong storm drain. The actual storm drains in question were (1) behind the picket fence, and (2) on the roof of the Dal-Tex building. There was also a storm drain in Ruth Paine's garage, although it's precise role in the JFKA has not been determined. Oswald, or rather Hidell, attempted to order a storm drain from Klein's but opted for an old Mauser with a 4X Weaver scope because the postage was $943 less.
54
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Some Info about Malcom Blunt and Bruce Solie
« Last post by Lance Payette on January 30, 2026, 01:02:08 PM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 04:43:00 AM
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JrjkAJh0eUTDFgl8LbU7y6OAhKnnPi54/view?usp=sharing

This doc shows Solie was sticking his nose into the Garrison investigation, although Solie was in counter-intel.

I don't know know if there are other docs, or many undocumented actions by Solie.

If Solie is hunting spies and moles, he seems a little far astray. Maybe he had valid reasons, but I can't see that story line.

Perhaps Solie feared G2 assets would be exposed, which could lead to his exposure as well.

He was in the Office of Security, heading the Research staff. Read his HSCA testimony as to the scope of his duties. Moreover, Shaw's attorneys were posing questions as to Shaw's possible CIA connections (and even whether the CIA had files on THEM!). We have no idea what the "inquiry" may have related to in the context of Solie's position.

In fact, the All-Seeing Eye of AI tells me this is exactly what Solie was doing - assisting in the inquiry as to whether Shaw in fact had any CIA connections as alleged. Moreover, there are many materials with Solie's name in reference to WC critics like Weisberg and Epstein and characters like Nagell. Why? Because these were potential SECURITY issues and he headed the RESEARCH staff. Indeed, pesky Mr. AI interrupted my breakfast to add, "Bruce Solie, a high-ranking official in the CIA’s Office of Security (OS) and its Security Research Staff (SRS), was interested in Jim Garrison’s investigation because it threatened to expose sensitive CIA operations and personnel."

On pages 11-17 of this PDF are organizational charts for the Office of Security. It wasn't exactly "Howard Osborn and Bruce Solie sharing a desk in the corner."

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32404556.pdf

This is my problem with characters like Blunt, whom I put in the same category as Newman. They absolutely BURY themselves (and you, their eager readers) in documents and acronyms and fill in the vast gaps with dark speculation driven by what they want to see. "Read Newman's Jesus book," advises the sage Mr. Payette. You will realize that Newman and Blunt, your heroes, are, in their own little way ... absolutely nutty.

Memo to Solie referencing Garrison's investigation = Solie is outside his assigned area = Solie is monitoring the Garrison investigation = Solie is a KGB mole.
55
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / What do Lance Payette and James DiEugenio have in common?
« Last post by Tom Graves on January 30, 2026, 12:51:37 PM »
Dear Fancy Pants Rants,

It’s ironic that the only thing you and our mutual nemesis, far-left James DiEugenio (whose heroine, pro-Russia Tulsi Gabbard, was in Atlanta yesterday “monitoring” the FBI’s raid on the Fulton County Election Center), have in common is that you both cherish the “weak-and-inefficient” KGB*, the folks who from Day One have "made hay" out of the anomaly-replete JFKA to get us to tear ourselves apart, and who, with the help of said "hay," installed The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with “Xxxx”) on 20 January 2017 and January 20 2025.

*Today’s SVR and FSB

-- Tom
56
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences
« Last post by Lance Payette on January 30, 2026, 12:24:07 PM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 12:17:53 AM
LP

Yes, but there is evidence Ferrie and Shaw knew each other, from the commentary of Orest Pena, a bar owner before the HSCA.

Perhaps Pena is mistaken, or maybe he is telling the truth. 

Pena says Shaw and Ferrie would visit the bar together.

There is no word if Pena's bar was a gay bar, or gay tolerant.

As for hook-ups always hewing to hoity-toity class lines...we all know sexual desire crosses class lines the way the wind blows through the bushes.

I must say, your pretty obvious desperation to cling to Pena is losing you a lot of points in my estimation of your reasoning abilities. Do you believe Pena was an FBI informant, even though the FBI said he wasn't and DeBrueys was adamant? That Oswald was an FBI informant? That he was consorting openly with DeBrueys, a Customs agent, and an INS agent, meeting them in restaurants.

It isn't a matter of "hook-ups." Shaw was a high-profile, highly respected public figure in New Orleans. If he were to stoop to "hooks ups" with a character like Ferrie, he sure as hell wouldn't be bar-hopping with him. Your egalitarianism is duly noted, but Shaw was not crazy.

There comes a time when rational people say "OK, let it go. I wish it were true to help my theory, but this goes nowhere."

Speaking of not letting it go, Richard Burnes not only brought in Josephine Hug's husband (a radio announcer) on August 3, 1967, he brought back HER for a second bite at the apple. It didn't go any better this time. One can only wonder what Burnes thought he was accomplishing. The killer, as it were, was that both spouses said they had recently seen the man she thought was Ferrie - long after Ferrie was dead. Oops.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/grandjury/pdf/Hug2.pdf
57
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences
« Last post by Gerry Down on January 30, 2026, 09:38:12 AM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 04:19:23 AM
FL--

That is a valid point, that Pena would not repeat his understanding of the Shaw-Ferrie relationship under oath.

Do you have any clue why Pena would not repeat, under oath, the rather specific statements he made regarding Shaw and Ferrie? 

What did Pena have to gain by fabricating the Ferrie-Shaw friendship?

From what I can see, Pena wasn't asked about the Ferrie Shaw relationship in his testimony. It looks like the interviewer quickly moved on to asking about Banister after asking about Shaw. Pena could have interpreted this as meaning to keep your mouth shut about it. Of course the interviewer might not have meant it that way. The interviewer at that stage might genuinely be frustrated with Penas lack of candor in his answers and just be looking to bring the testimony to a close. Though it does seem a bit odd that the interviewer did not explore the issue of the Ferrie Shaw relationship, as that would have been central to the Garrison case 10 years previously.
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Some Info about Malcom Blunt and Bruce Solie
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 04:43:00 AM »
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JrjkAJh0eUTDFgl8LbU7y6OAhKnnPi54/view?usp=sharing

This doc shows Solie was sticking his nose into the Garrison investigation, although Solie was in counter-intel.

I don't know know if there are other docs, or many undocumented actions by Solie.

If Solie is hunting spies and moles, he seems a little far astray. Maybe he had valid reasons, but I can't see that story line.

Perhaps Solie feared G2 assets would be exposed, which could lead to his exposure as well.

59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 04:19:23 AM »
FL--

That is a valid point, that Pena would not repeat his understanding of the Shaw-Ferrie relationship under oath.

Do you have any clue why Pena would not repeat, under oath, the rather specific statements he made regarding Shaw and Ferrie? 

What did Pena have to gain by fabricating the Ferrie-Shaw friendship?
60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / The Photo That Exonerates Eugene Thane Cesar?
« Last post by Benjamin Cole on January 30, 2026, 02:02:59 AM »
Eugene Thane Cesar was the rent-a-security guard officer who escorted RFK through the pantry at the Ambassador on June 5 1968, when RFK was shot, and fatally wounded by Sirhan Sirhan.

Some have speculated that Cesar actually shot RFK, as LA County Coroner Noguchi has concluded RFK had been shot from behind---and most witnesses placed Sirhan in front of RFK.

However, Sirhan himself told one interviewer that RFK had turned away from Sirhan at the last instant.

The Confession: During an interview with Michael McGowan, a onetime investigator for Sirhan's legal team, Sirhan was asked why he didn't shoot Kennedy right between the eyes. Sirhan replied, "Because that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second".

Well, sure, the authenticity of the Sirhan's statement to McGowan can be challenged, like nearly everything about the JFKA or RFKA. However, on several other occasions, to a lawyer and others, Sirhan "slipped" and said he remembered what happened in the Ambassador pantry.

And then there is this nearly iconic photo:




What you see the left of RFK's right hand is Cesar's clip-on tie.

It was evidently pulled from Cesar's attire by a falling RFK.

An RFK who was facing Cesar, as he had turned away from Sirhan and his upheld gun?

Likely.

This does not mean Sirhan acted alone. He may have had manipulators or accomplices, such as his own brother, and the girl in the polka-dot dress.

Sirhan's brother bought the handgun for Sirhan, and was likely there at the Ambassador (many people described seeing a Sirhan look-a-like), and the polka-dot dress girl (evidently, a real looker) got him liquored up.

Sirhan was not hypnotized, but rather in a cult, or group of Middle East extremists.

Sirhan hated Jews, Israel and RFK. He said so with abandon, many times.

 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10