JFK Assassination Forum

Fred,

I watched it last night on YouTube. It's pretty obvious I'm a rookie at the podcast thing. The camera angle and the lighting were terrible but you made the best of it. You inserted some interesting clips as well. I had a lot of fun doing it. Thanks. The downside is that now people will know I look nothing like my avatar.

That would indicate there was yet another CIA officer who, at least after the JFKA, would have questions about what Solie was up to.

Not if Solie did the arranging with the OML and the RID, himself.

Solie may have sent LHO to Russia somehow, [but] he would have needed a cut-out.

Okay. Whatever turns you on.

I would even go further---LHO visited the KGB down in MC, was in contact with G2 in New Orleans, and G2 penetrated Alpha 66 on Harlandale in Dallas, where one eyewitness said they saw LHO. Two months before the JFKA, Castro said the Kennedys could be the targets of assassination attempts too. State Department officials had careers deep-sixed for even asking about LHO-Cuban commie ties.

Ditto.

TG--

I had that question on the tip of my tongue---someone inside the CIA Office of Mail Logistics and the Records Integration Division routed incoming non-CIA cables about Oswald's upcoming defection to the Office of Security's mole-hunting Security Research Staff (where Solie was Deputy Chief) instead of where they would normally go -- the Soviet Russia Division.

That would indicate there was yet another CIA'er, who, at least after the JFKA, would have questions about Solie was up to. Like Snyder, they never said anything.

I think you have limned a fascinating CT, and it is plausible.

I accept that CIA may have been riddled with KGB assets in the 1950-60s, and Solie may have sent LHO to Russia somehow. He would have needed a cut-out.

I would even go further---LHO visited the KGB down in MC, was in contact with G2 in New Orleans, and G2 penetrated Alpha 66 on Harlandale in Dallas, where one eyewitness said they saw LHO.

Two months before the JFKA, Castro said the Kennedys could be the targets of assassination attempts too. 

State Dep'ters had careers deep-sixed for even asking about LHO-Cuban commie ties. 

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.

I quoted you accurately.

Are you still pretending fiber matching isn't real evidence? Are you still pretending our courts haven't accepted that as valid evidence for decades?

that's why the words "valid evidence" are in quotes.

I also have not misrepresented what you said, because you do keep going on and on about what courts have accepted for decades.

We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity.

Who is "we"?

Admissibility is indeed different than authenticity. Courts do allow all sorts of evidence to come in but not all evidence is actually proof of anything!

And besides, you were rambling on about "valid evidence" which clearly is not the case when the evidence isn't or can't be authenticated.

But keep digging your hole, if you like

You have got to laugh about the LN BS

On the one hand we have just had three LNs basically saying "once Oswald was dead nobody cared about the authenticity of the evidence".
Which of course means that they just threw bits and pieces together to wrap the case around an already dead man who couldn't defend himself.

And then on the other hand this clown keeps going on about what courts have accepted as "valid evidence".

Why do you have to tell blatant lies to make your points. Nobody ever said what you put in quotes. When you put something in quotes, it should be word for word what the person actually said. It's a very easy thing to quote somebody accurately by doing a Copy and Paste. Instead, you choose to make a strawman argument against something nobody said. Nobody said what you put in quotes and your words twisted the point we have actually made. We were speaking about the admissibility of the evidence which is different than the authenticity. Courts will sometimes declare authentic evidence inadmissible if the police or the prosecution failed to dot the i's and cross the t's. Of course, no one would expect an Oswald denier such as yourself to understand the difference.