ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 25th April 2017, 07:29 PM   #3201
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Alert: Tonight on the History Channel, 10/9 Central, Tracking Oswald

http://www.history.com/shows/jfk-dec...oswald-preview

I'll keep an open mind, but they had to have known that the National Archive would be dumping the rest of the JFK files this summer, so the show will be working with limited information...not that this ever stopped anyone.

I enjoyed this crew's previous effort, Finding Hitler, where they didn't find Hitler, but managed to detail the massive S.S. escape routes out of Europe into South America.

The show looks like they're taking the more productive route leaving LHO as the lone shooter, and looking into the possibility of others behind him (which is where a real conspiracy would be found if there ever was one).
Arrgh... they are making claims to build up the mystery, but the claims aren't true.

Nine minutes into the episode airing tonight, one man makes the claim:
"Oswald's six days in this city [Mexico City] are absolutely crucial. They were never looked into by the Warren Commission, because they didn't want to know."

That's a load of horse manure.

Oswald's six days in Mexico City were looked into extensively by the Warren Commission.

For example, in Chapter 6, "Investigation of Possible Conspiracy", they dealt with Oswald's time in Mexico City here: https://www.archives.gov/research/jf....html#contacts

They also dealt with his six days in Mexico City in a separate portion of appendix 13 in the Warren Report. https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...13.html#mexico

It appears they are going to cover the same ground covered 53 years ago by the Warren Commission but reach a different conclusion. Thus far, I've seen no revelations, and their preview suggests they uncovered some startling new information in that Oswald met with KGB agent Kostikov in Mexico City, but that was known to, and mentioned by the Warren Commission as well.

"Information produced for the Commission by the CIA is to the effect that the person referred to in the letter as "comrade Kostin" was probably Valeriy Vladimirovich Kostikov, a member of the consular staff of the Soviet Union in Mexico City. He is also one of the KGB officers stationed at the Embassy. It is standard Soviet procedure for KGB officers stationed in embassies and in consulates to carry on the normal duties of such a position in addition to the undercover activities."

Note as well that while the program is trying to make the case that the CIA concealed all this from the Warren Commission, the Commission itself credits the information above as coming from the CIA.

==========

Double Arrgh!

To make things appear more sinister, and to make it appear they are uncovering new information, 20 minutes into the episode they show page 733 of the Warren Report, but it is heavily redacted.

They did the redacting, for effect only. It was not published that way, and was never redacted.

Here's the way the page was published in 1964 by the Government Printing Office:
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0379a.htm

If you've taped the episode, or can view it on demand, compare the above page to the image on the screen 20 minutes into the episode.

It's a crock.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 25th April 2017 at 07:54 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:02 PM   #3202
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
We've both been to Dealey Plaza, there's no place for a second gunman. Hell, people even saw Oswald setting up in his window to take the shot.
There were 11 witnesses that noticed something/someone on the 6th floor yet not one of them got the clothing correct. As for LHO "setting up in his window to take the shot." Please provide where the person or persons identified LHO as the man setting up at the window.

Quote:
You'd think if there was another gunman he would have been seen too.
Carolyn Walther, a witness, was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963. The FBI provided the following statement:

"Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD Building and saw a man standing on either the fourth or fifth floor in the southeast corner window. … This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. … In the same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders."

This can be found at Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.522 Commission Exhibit 2086

The Warren Commission did not call her as a witness but her observation challenged the Lone Gunman theory.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:50 PM   #3203
traxy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
There were 11 witnesses that noticed something/someone on the 6th floor yet not one of them got the clothing correct. As for LHO "setting up in his window to take the shot." Please provide where the person or persons identified LHO as the man setting up at the window.



Carolyn Walther, a witness, was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963. The FBI provided the following statement:

"Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD Building and saw a man standing on either the fourth or fifth floor in the southeast corner window. … This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. … In the same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders."

This can be found at Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.522 Commission Exhibit 2086

The Warren Commission did not call her as a witness but her observation challenged the Lone Gunman theory.
Carolyn Walther likely saw a portion of a tall stack of boxes Oswald had positioned around the snipers nest window and mistook it for a person.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 11:49 PM   #3204
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Nine minutes into the episode airing tonight, one man makes the claim:
"Oswald's six days in this city [Mexico City] are absolutely crucial. They were never looked into by the Warren Commission, because they didn't want to know."

That's a load of horse manure.

Oswald's six days in Mexico City were looked into extensively by the Warren Commission.

For example, in Chapter 6, "Investigation of Possible Conspiracy", they dealt with Oswald's time in Mexico City here: https://www.archives.gov/research/jf....html#contacts

They also dealt with his six days in Mexico City in a separate portion of appendix 13 in the Warren Report. https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...13.html#mexico
The WC did cover the "Mexico Trip" extensively but not conclusively. Here is an example... The FBI (the investigative body for the WC) provided a list of all Mexican tourist cards issued from New Orleans, the same day LHO's was issued, the name right before LHO was eliminated and the comment "No record of FM 824084 found" was provided as a note. In 1975 the document was declassified and the name revealed was George Gaudet a C.I.A. agent for 20 years responsible for a Latin American newsletter. If the name was left alone and not taken off, coincidence could be used but instead a lie was created and further suspicion is piled on to other piles of suspicious coincidences. By the way, Gaudet knew LHO and his dealings in NOLA, could this be the reason why his name was not provided by the FBI? Read Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime (New York: Marlowe & Co., 1998), pp. 254-256
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:00 AM   #3205
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Carolyn Walther likely saw a portion of a tall stack of boxes Oswald had positioned around the snipers nest window and mistook it for a person.
I believe you just provided 2 conjectures, I am not saying you are incorrect but why couldn't Carolyn Walther be correct and where is the evidence for saying "Oswald had positioned ..."?
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 05:12 AM   #3206
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
There were 11 witnesses that noticed something/someone on the 6th floor yet not one of them got the clothing correct.
How do you know what the *correct clothing* was, and how did you determine that? A lot of them got the floor wrong too, but we both know how that happened. The first floor had a façade and counting up, many people started counting with the first floor of windows visible to people on the street, which was the second floor.


Originally Posted by No Other View Post
As for LHO "setting up in his window to take the shot." Please provide where the person or persons identified LHO as the man setting up at the window.
Numerous people gave a description fitting Oswald. And as he was the only person to leave a rifle behind on the sixth floor, he appears to be the most likely candidate for the person in the window - unless you can name some other more likely candidates.

Robert Edwards:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.

Edwards testimony filled out the description:
Mr. BELIN - Could you describe this individual at all? Was he a white man or a Negro?
Mr. EDWARDS - White man.
Mr. BELIN - Tall or short, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have anything in his hand at all that you could see?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his hands?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Could you tell whether he was light skinned or medium skin or if you couldtell?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining in or not, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - Don't know.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun out that day?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did the man have?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light brown.
Mr. BELIN - Light brown hair?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is what I would say; yes, sir.
...


Ron Fischer:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].

Ronald Fischer's testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion ----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have a thick head of hair or did he have a receding hair-line---or couldn't you tell?
Mr. FISCHER - I couldn't tell. He couldn't have had very long hair, because his hair didn't seem to take up much space---of what I could see of his head. His hair must have been short and not long. ...
Mr. BELIN - Now, what about being light-headed?
Mr. FISCHER - By "light-headed," I meant that he didn't have black hair. He didn't have dark--he didn't have well, when I say "dark," I mean black. He didn't have black hair. He didn't have blonde hair. When I said, "light-headed," I didn't mean blonde or I would have said that, but--uh.
Mr. BELIN - What color of hair did you mean? Did you say "light-headed"?
Mr. FISCHER - I believe I did say "light-headed"--because I didn't--like I say--I didn't want it to appear that he was dark.
Mr. BELIN - By "dark," what color do you mean?
Mr. FISCHER - Black.
Mr. BELIN - Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your recollection, what color hair did he have?
Mr. FISCHER - Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure, just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or whatever you call it--I don't know.


Arnold Rowland saw a man in the window about 15 minutes before the assassination. From his 11/22/63 statement:
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.

Rowland's testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black.


A slender young (mid-twenties) white male with short brown hair is the general description. Sound like anyone you know who happened to leave a rifle behind in the Depository?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 26th April 2017 at 05:46 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 06:04 AM   #3207
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You'd think if there was another gunman he would have been seen too.

Originally Posted by No Other View Post
Carolyn Walther, a witness, was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963. The FBI provided the following statement:

"Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD Building and saw a man standing on either the fourth or fifth floor in the southeast corner window. … This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt and had blond or light brown hair. … In the same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders."

This can be found at Warren Commission Hearings, vol.24, p.522 Commission Exhibit 2086

The Warren Commission did not call her as a witness but her observation challenged the Lone Gunman theory.
Are we supposed to not notice you didn't respond to the point?

The person Carolyn Walther said she saw was not a second gunman, unless you think two people had room to shoot from the sniper's nest, both with their own weapons, or they shared the one weapon between them.

Where's the eyewitness testimony of a second gunman?

Walther's statement is quite clear about what she saw. She said she saw only a portion of a man behind the man with the weapon, and this second man was wearing a brown jacket, and she saw no head, no arms, and she described no movement by this second man. Now, no head, no arms, and no movement sounds a lot like boxes, to me. Your mileage may differ.

Now, since numerous people said they saw brown boxes behind the shooter or the man in the window, and when the police arrived at the sixth floor to secure the scene, they found brown boxes and no one wearing a brown jacket, the reasonable conclusion is Walthers saw some boxes and misinterpreted those boxes (which like Walthers' second man, had no head, no arms, and made no independent movement) as a man wearing a brown jacket that she could only see from the shoulders to the waist.

However, if you wish to cling to her eyewitness report, and insist she saw a second man there is no corroborative evidence for, I cannot stop you.

Regardless, however, it still doesn't address the argument made, that of a second gunman being seen.

Got any evidence of one?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 26th April 2017 at 06:07 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 09:06 AM   #3208
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I believe you just provided 2 conjectures, I am not saying you are incorrect but why couldn't Carolyn Walther be correct and where is the evidence for saying "Oswald had positioned ..."?
Asking why couldn't Walthers be correct is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You want to say she is correct, you need to provide the proof of that. No one needs prove your assertions incorrect.

As for the boxes being positioned, the last time I looked, those boxes were not capable of independent movement, so somebody moved them. Many of the boxes were moved to that area as Oswald's co-workers laid down a new plywood floor on the sixth floor. They moved boxes out of the area to be covered, put down the plywood flooring, and then moved the boxes back. It just so happened that man of the boxes were moved toward the southeast side as part of that re-flooring, so Oswald didn't need to move many boxes at all. Perhaps all he moved was the two small Rolling Readers that were stacked on the window sill as an apparent gun rest.

We'll never know exactly how many boxes Oswald moved, but since it was his rifle found on the sixth floor, and his weapon that inflicted the head wound on JFK (witness the two fragments found in the limo traceable to his weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons), we can presume Oswald was the one moving the boxes to build the sniper's nest.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 09:07 AM   #3209
traxy
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 133
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
I believe you just provided 2 conjectures, I am not saying you are incorrect but why couldn't Carolyn Walther be correct and where is the evidence for saying "Oswald had positioned ..."?
Hank pretty much covered it. The "man" Walthers said she saw had no visible head, no arms, did not move and was brown in color. There were man size stacks of boxes in front of the snipers nest area.
traxy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 10:08 AM   #3210
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
The WC did cover the "Mexico Trip" extensively but not conclusively. Here is an example... The FBI (the investigative body for the WC) provided a list of all Mexican tourist cards issued from New Orleans, the same day LHO's was issued, the name right before LHO was eliminated and the comment "No record of FM 824084 found" was provided as a note. In 1975 the document was declassified and the name revealed was George Gaudet a C.I.A. agent for 20 years responsible for a Latin American newsletter. If the name was left alone and not taken off, coincidence could be used but instead a lie was created and further suspicion is piled on to other piles of suspicious coincidences. By the way, Gaudet knew LHO and his dealings in NOLA, could this be the reason why his name was not provided by the FBI? Read Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime (New York: Marlowe & Co., 1998), pp. 254-256
Your point is off the subject of the History Channel special, which special seems designed to suck people into believing Oswald had help from the Russians at this point in time by ignoring evidence and making it appear documents that weren't redacted were redacted.

Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.

He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.

Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=577&tab=page

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0124b.htm

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 26th April 2017 at 11:19 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:18 PM   #3211
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Arrgh... they are making claims to build up the mystery, but the claims aren't true.

Nine minutes into the episode airing tonight, one man makes the claim:
"Oswald's six days in this city [Mexico City] are absolutely crucial. They were never looked into by the Warren Commission, because they didn't want to know."

That's a load of horse manure.

....
Right off the bat Baer says "There's no way Oswald could have acted alone without support"

What kind of support did he need?

He already had the rifle, and it was a $13 job with a cheap Japanese scope, not some high-end Remington with a Zeis scope. The motorcade just happened to roll past his place of employment, so it wasn't like he needed fake credentials to access a building...and he didn't have a getaway car.

What kind of support did he think Oswald had?

Then the Mexico City thing was mostly a circus. Like you already said, the Warren Commission covered it as best they could. Baer assumes there was a secondary meeting based on the postcards Oswald brought back.

The post cards are interesting, Baer suggests they were given to Oswald by the Soviets as coded directions for a clandestine meeting for further discussion. It is possible that this part is true based on the simple fact that Oswald was not the sentimental type who would have wasted money on postcards, but would have kept postcards from the KGB for the same reason most of us would - they were from the KGB. But in his mind it made him an important person.

The problem is that the Soviets already knew Oswald from his defection, and could have had his background checked with a phone call back to Moscow - which certainly happened. So if there was a second meeting it happened because the KGB were bored, or they thought LHO was worth a second look.

I'm going with bored.

Anyway, it's nice to have something else to talk about instead of bad pathology and forensics.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 12:28 PM   #3212
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by No Other View Post
There were 11 witnesses that noticed something/someone on the 6th floor yet not one of them got the clothing correct. As for LHO "setting up in his window to take the shot." Please provide where the person or persons identified LHO as the man setting up at the window.
The man with Oswald's rifle on the floor Oswald worked on, that floor?


Quote:
Carolyn Walther, a witness, was interviewed by the FBI on December 4, 1963. The FBI provided the following statement:

blah,blah,blah

The Warren Commission did not call her as a witness but her observation challenged the Lone Gunman theory.
And yet her statement is IN the Warren Commission.

Here's the thing, there were two TSBD employees in the window below Oswald, and another one filmed the motorcade from a window below them, so you had a bunch of people in windows, but only one had a rifle pointed out.

And you said at least 11 people saw it. 11<1, you go with the weight of the evidence.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 06:36 PM   #3213
OKBob
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Right off the bat Baer says "There's no way Oswald could have acted alone without support"
I noticed, too, how heavy-handed the question-begging was from the start, both by Baer and the voice-over. They took an inch of evidence and turned it into a hundred miles of speculation. And this will evidently be a multi-episode investigation.

There's a Time article available on the Internet today in which a reporter named Olivia B. Waxman interviews Baer. Baer repeats some of what he says in the program. Check out the rhetoric he uses in the interview: such-and-such "could have" happened (speculation); such-and-such "didn't make sense to me" (argument from incredulity); "my assumption is" and "I think" (more speculation). In the show itself, he even has Oswald meeting with conspiring agents in a bullfight stadium because (a) it's known that Oswald went to a bullfight while in Mexico, and (b) it's a venue where, according to Baer, Oswald would have been difficult to track and observe.

The Time reporter happily relates all this without ever questioning Baer on his speculations or checking what the WC Report said about Oswald in Mexico--no independent reporting at all. Surely this superficial treatment by mainstream media is one reason why JFK CT remains so popular with the public. Vince Bugliosi used to blame it largely on the barrage of CT itself. But the mainstream outlets--which CT folks often accuse of pushing a LN agenda--actually help fuel CT speculation by their passivity and their preference for controversy to substance.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 06:48 PM   #3214
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 9,244
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Did I say that I thought a subsonic bullet was tumbling or unstable when it hit Connally? No. That's the official version, but with a high-velocity tumbling bullet.

Connally's back wound was no more oval than Kennedy's small head wound.

I've already explained the implications of the "pin-the-entry-on-the-head game". At the very least, it shows how something that may very well be a hoax has become a major gatekeeper of the historical, legal JFK forensic evidence.
Man, you better hope nobody coming onto ISF and is interested in this subject enough to read through these threads, because you were bleating about sabot subsonic bullets within the last few weeks as being the answer as to why the documented evidence can only account for three rounds fired. You've also put forward speculation that the "X" number of (how many we'll never know if we wait for you to answer) shooters used "volley fire" to make the hit and a whole lot more wild ass speculations. I only know one guy irl that believes everything about every conspiracy. but he has the good sense not to put it into writing

You may have cut and pasted something somewhere, but not in this thread.

If you have addressed this question I'd be interested in you posting a link to that post.

For the sake of the masses, I've been asking MJ for an explanation of what the headwound location means in the larger context of the rifle (that was documented as being LHO's) being discovered in the building where LHO worked, where the shots were fired from along with a dead DPD officer and LHO being arrested with that murder weapon in hand.

If this is just more of MJ's (opps, I mean Sylvia Meagher's ) jive about what the "Worlds Best Snipers" and "Olympic Snipers" thought about LHO's skills, it'll be par for the course, but slack on the facts is something that doesn't apply to a poster that hasn't earned it. I believe I've seen posts from every active poster (including myself) in this thread when we screw up something about this or that fact, but you and more than a few other CTists over the years in this thread identified apples as oranges and rather than admit a mistake, went right down with the ship they were floating their nonsense on.

You do a particularly fine job of that anytime you post just about anything wrt firearms and everything else involved, including terminal ballistics.

Admitting to errors or omissions isn't a noted characteristic of CTist's.

Shall we start an informal pool on this question being answered with a coherent fashion that isn't cut and pasted from some one else?

Maybe that's been the causation of this problem all along with CTist's - as far as it is known, no other CTist on the assassination have ever come clean on their mistakes or the nonsense they have promoted, so since there isn't anything to cut and paste, the lot of 'em are at a loss for words.
__________________
"On the issue of immigration, our policy should not be informed by our collective outrage about one man's conduct." - California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2017, 09:20 PM   #3215
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,486
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
I noticed, too, how heavy-handed the question-begging was from the start, both by Baer and the voice-over. They took an inch of evidence and turned it into a hundred miles of speculation. And this will evidently be a multi-episode investigation.

There's a Time article available on the Internet today in which a reporter named Olivia B. Waxman interviews Baer. Baer repeats some of what he says in the program. Check out the rhetoric he uses in the interview: such-and-such "could have" happened (speculation); such-and-such "didn't make sense to me" (argument from incredulity); "my assumption is" and "I think" (more speculation). In the show itself, he even has Oswald meeting with conspiring agents in a bullfight stadium because (a) it's known that Oswald went to a bullfight while in Mexico, and (b) it's a venue where, according to Baer, Oswald would have been difficult to track and observe.

The Time reporter happily relates all this without ever questioning Baer on his speculations or checking what the WC Report said about Oswald in Mexico--no independent reporting at all. Surely this superficial treatment by mainstream media is one reason why JFK CT remains so popular with the public. Vince Bugliosi used to blame it largely on the barrage of CT itself. But the mainstream outlets--which CT folks often accuse of pushing a LN agenda--actually help fuel CT speculation by their passivity and their preference for controversy to substance.
Baer's an interesting guy.

He left the CIA with an ax to grind which resulted in a pair of good books about his time with the Agency. The problem is he got sucked into the orbit of Hollywood consulting on films like "Syriana", and becoming a popular talking head on documentaries about the CIA, plus cable news as well.

I interpret this show as his way exploring his pet theory while milking the JFK CT at the same time. My main issue is that they could have covered everything they showed us in the first hour in about 10 minutes.

My other issue is that during the entire show Oswald's visit to the Cuban Embassy was not mentioned. Everyone knows he went, but my guess is that this will be played as some big "revelation", and then it's back to Mexico City. Next week they go to Russia to meet with guys who have already shown up on other documentaries, but that won't be mentioned. Plus, Russians get paid or they don't show up, so I don't know how productive this visit will be as far as new information.

My last though on the show is how Baer kept saying that Mexico in the 1960s was a hotbed of espionage...guess what? It still is, everyone has an operation in Mexico City: Russia, Cuba, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and others. The US has a number of operatives in the city from the CIA, NSA, and DEA. If spying was ended in Mexico City there'd be an economic recession.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:43 AM   #3216
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Plus, Russians get paid or they don't show up, so I don't know how productive this visit will be as far as new information.
I'm sure the Russians could come up with new revelations if the pay is right. You know the adage, you get what you pay for. Whether those new revelations are true is another story entirely, one you'd also have to pay for.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:06 AM   #3217
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your point is off the subject of the History Channel special, which special seems designed to suck people into believing Oswald had help from the Russians at this point in time by ignoring evidence and making it appear documents that weren't redacted were redacted.

Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.

He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.

Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=577&tab=page

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0124b.htm

Hank
In researching this, I found an error by Bugliosi. It's a minor error, but an error nonetheless. He wrote, in his endnotes on Gaudet, [endnotes disk, p.386] that "The fact of his [Gaudet] being issued a fifteen-day tourist card in New Orleans on September 17, 1963, was preserved for posterity in Warren Commission document number 75, pages 573, 588, and 652, declassified by the FBI in 1975. And the list of people receiving tourist cards in this document, for some reason, omitted Oswald’s name, though Oswald having gotten a Mexican tourist card that day is in the Warren Report (WR, p. 730)..."

Actually, Oswald's name is not omitted, it's just listed separately.

You will note on this page that Oswald's name is omitted from the numbered listing of those issued visas on 9/17/63 (Oswald obtained visa 24085): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=577&tab=page and his name and info should appear after Gaudet's.

But the information on Oswald's tourist visa 24085 appears at the top of this page: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=575&tab=page

Bugliosi missed that. This implies he was lying and thus part of the cover-up! I can't explain how or why, but we all know every error implies conspiracy.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 05:08 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:00 PM   #3218
OKBob
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2
[quote=Bugliosi missed that. This implies he was lying and thus part of the cover-up! I can't explain how or why, but we all know every error implies conspiracy. Hank[/QUOTE]

Hank's clever burlesque of CT rhetoric here--nicely done--glances at the common use of the word "lying" to characterize the views, perceived inaccuracies, or sometimes even simple mistakes of opponents in arguments. That glib charge is not confined to CTers, of course. It's common now in our culture, and plays a particularly corrosive role in contemporary politics.

It's very common in JFK CT rhetoric (less common, though not absent, in LN rhetoric, I think). A glance at the current food-fights at alt-assassination-jfk, where Robert Harris (known to participants here) features centrally just now, shows that accusations of "lying" are a dominant note and go-to strategy for rebuttal. In slinging these charges, CTers suggest that LNers (I dislike these terms, but they serve as shorthand) are somehow personally invested in the WCR--not just that LNers have been persuaded by the evidence compiled by the WCR and other official investigations.

This rhetorical tic tries to cast one's opponent, not as a polemicist on equal footing with oneself, but rather as a part of the alleged conspiracy itself (the "paid shill" ad hominem fallacy). Related to this use of "lying" is the tactic of claiming that one's opponent is simply offering "excuses" for the side one disagrees with. These words personalize the debate, cast an ad hominem pall over the entire discussion, and effectively negate any possibility of productive give-and-take. It is a demonizing use of language that has the ultimate effect of suggesting that there are no objective facts or analytical standards out there, just morally correct (or morally incorrect) subjective commitments.

Last edited by OKBob; Yesterday at 01:11 PM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:14 PM   #3219
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,130
Wow, alt.assassination.jfk is still runnning? It's been a long time since I've looked into newsgroups...
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:47 PM   #3220
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The man with Oswald's rifle on the floor Oswald worked on, that floor?
I do not understand your question.




Quote:
And yet her statement is IN the Warren Commission.
Her statement to the FBI is in the WC Report, she was not called to testify.

Here's the thing, there were two TSBD employees in the window below Oswald, and another one filmed the motorcade from a window below them, so you had a bunch of people in windows, but only one had a rifle pointed out.

And you said at least 11 people saw it. 11<1, you go with the weight of the evidence.[/quote]What I said or at least meant to imply is that 11 people said they saw something on the 6th floor. Not one of them got the clothing correct, in summary, you have 11 people describing the clothes that were not worn by LHO. What evidence?
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:15 PM   #3221
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
How do you know what the *correct clothing* was, and how did you determine that? A lot of them got the floor wrong too, but we both know how that happened. The first floor had a façade and counting up, many people started counting with the first floor of windows visible to people on the street, which was the second floor.




Numerous people gave a description fitting Oswald. And as he was the only person to leave a rifle behind on the sixth floor, he appears to be the most likely candidate for the person in the window - unless you can name some other more likely candidates.

Robert Edwards:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell.

Edwards testimony filled out the description:
Mr. BELIN - Could you describe this individual at all? Was he a white man or a Negro?
Mr. EDWARDS - White man.
Mr. BELIN - Tall or short, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - I couldn't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have anything in his hand at all that you could see?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Could you see his hands?
Mr. EDWARDS - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
Mr. BELIN - How much of him could you see? Shoulder up, waist up, knees up, or what?
Mr. EDWARDS - From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what,
Mr. BELIN - Was the man fat, thin, or average in size?
Mr. EDWARDS - Oh, about average. Possibly thin.
Mr. BELIN - Could you tell whether he was light skinned or medium skin or if you couldtell?
Mr. EDWARDS - No.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun shining in or not, if you know?
Mr. EDWARDS - Don't know.
Mr. BELIN - Was the sun out that day?
Mr. EDWARDS - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did the man have?
Mr. EDWARDS - Light brown.
Mr. BELIN - Light brown hair?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is what I would say; yes, sir.
...


Ron Fischer:
Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Robert E. (Bob) Edwards, we were standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, on the southwest corner; about thirty seconds before the motorcade came by, Bob turned to me and said that there was a man on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, at the window there, and I looked up and saw the man. I looked up at the window and I noticed that he seemed to be laying down there or in a funny position anyway, because all I could see was his head. I noticed that he was light-headed and that he had on an open-neck shirt, and that was before the motorcade rounded the corner. I noticed his complexion seemed to be clear, and that he was in this twenty's [sic], appeared to be in his twenty's [sic].

Ronald Fischer's testimony:
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the man? Could you describe his appearance at all? First of all, how much of him could you see?
Mr. FISCHER - I could see from about the middle of his chest past the top of his head.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Mr. FISCHER - He was in the---as you're looking toward that window, he was in the lower right portion of the window. He seemed to be sitting a little forward.
And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color.
Uh---he had a slender face and neck---uh---and he had a light complexion ----he was a white man. And he looked to be 22 or 24 years old.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember anything about the color of his hair?
Mr. FISCHER - His hair seemed to be---uh---neither light nor dark; possibly a light---well, possibly a---well, it was a brown was what it was; but as to whether it was light or dark, I can't say.
Mr. BELIN - Did he have a thick head of hair or did he have a receding hair-line---or couldn't you tell?
Mr. FISCHER - I couldn't tell. He couldn't have had very long hair, because his hair didn't seem to take up much space---of what I could see of his head. His hair must have been short and not long. ...
Mr. BELIN - Now, what about being light-headed?
Mr. FISCHER - By "light-headed," I meant that he didn't have black hair. He didn't have dark--he didn't have well, when I say "dark," I mean black. He didn't have black hair. He didn't have blonde hair. When I said, "light-headed," I didn't mean blonde or I would have said that, but--uh.
Mr. BELIN - What color of hair did you mean? Did you say "light-headed"?
Mr. FISCHER - I believe I did say "light-headed"--because I didn't--like I say--I didn't want it to appear that he was dark.
Mr. BELIN - By "dark," what color do you mean?
Mr. FISCHER - Black.
Mr. BELIN - Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your recollection, what color hair did he have?
Mr. FISCHER - Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure, just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or whatever you call it--I don't know.


Arnold Rowland saw a man in the window about 15 minutes before the assassination. From his 11/22/63 statement:
This man appeared to be a white man and appeared to have a light colored shirt on, open at the neck. He appeared to be of slender build and appeared to have dark hair.

Rowland's testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - Describe, as best you can, the appearance of the individual whom you saw?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was rather slender in proportion to his size. I couldn't tell for sure whether he was tall and maybe, you know heavy, say 200 pounds, but tall whether he would be and slender or whether he was medium and slender, but in proportion to his size his build was slender.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you give us an estimate on his height?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; I couldn't. That is why I said I can't state what height he would be. He was just slender in build in proportion with his width. This is something I find myself doing all the time, comparing things in perspective.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he a white man or a Negro or what?
Mr. ROWLAND - Seemed, well, I can't state definitely from my position because it was more or less not fully light or bright in the room. He appeared to be fair complexioned, not fair, but light complexioned, but dark hair.
Mr. SPECTER - What race was he then?
Mr. ROWLAND - I would say either a light Latin or a Caucasian.
Mr. SPECTER - And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; except that it was dark, probably black.


A slender young (mid-twenties) white male with short brown hair is the general description. Sound like anyone you know who happened to leave a rifle behind in the Depository?

Hank
Not one of your examples could track down LHO if those were the only descriptions provided. And your conjecture of LHO leaving the rifle behind is just that... conjecture and not fact.

“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.” ― Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police, 1969

You should provide the burden of proof; the Dallas police chief couldn't.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:37 PM   #3222
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Your point is off the subject of the History Channel special, which special seems designed to suck people into believing Oswald had help from the Russians at this point in time by ignoring evidence and making it appear documents that weren't redacted were redacted.

Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.

He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.

Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=577&tab=page

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.

The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0124b.htm

Hank
WASHINGTON, D.C., THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1976

Another JFK Slaying Riddle

Oswald, CIA Trails Crossed;
Shadowy Figure Emerges

By Norman Kempster

Washington Star Staff Writer

Senate investigators are trying to
untangle a perplexing coincidence
that links Lee Harvey Oswald with a
long-time CIA agent who published a
Latin American newsletter as a
“cover” for his intelligence work.

The former agent, William George
Gaudet, received a Mexican tourist
permit with the serial number just
preceding that of one issued to Oswald
on Sept. 17, 1963, about two months
before the assassination of President
John F. Kennedy.

In a telephone interview this week.
Gaudet. wno is now living in retire-
ment in Waveland. Miss., said he
knew Oswald by sight at the time, al-
though he cannot recall if Oswald
was with him in the Mexican consu-
late in New Orleans.

Asked if he was sent by the CIA to
the consulate to keep track of Os-
wald, Gaudet responded. "I was
not.”

THE GAUDET matter is under
study by Sen. Richard Schweiker. R-
Pa., a member of a two-man sub-
committee of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, which is investigating
the relationship between the Warren;
Commission and the CIA and FBI.

The commission, headed by the!
late Chief Justice Earl Warren, con- 1
eluded that Oswald, acting alone,
murdered Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 J
Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby two
days later.

Continued From A-l

Schweiker has said the
assassination investigation
should be reopened because
of new evidence that has
been discovered since the
Warren Commission pub-
lished its report. He said his
own investigation has found
curious "intelligence fin-
gerprints” on the case.

The Gaudet matter
seems to be one more of the
puzzles that have added to
the controversy that sur-
rounds the Kennedy assas-
sination. The Warren Com-
mission was told that
Oswald went to Mexico City
in October 1963. While there
he contacted the Cuban and
Soviet embassies in an
apparent effort to obtain
permission to go to Cuba.

There is evidence that the
CIA had Oswald under sur-
veillance while he was in
Mexico, although many of
the details of his trip are
still being disputed.


ESPITE GAUDET’S in-
sistance that his trip to
Mexico had nothing to do
with Oswald’s, the coinci-
dence of numbers raises
questions that the commis-
sion apparently did not ask.

Evidence supplied to the
commission concerning
Gaudet is confusing unless
several widely separated
reports are brought togeth-
er. It is impossible to tell
from the face of the docu-
ments whether the FBI,
which served as the investi-
gative arm of the commis-
sion, made the necessary
connections.

Schweiker has complain-
ed that the FBI often sub-
mitted documents to the
commission without helping
the members determine the
significance of the papers.

The commission appar-
ently was informed that
Gaudet had received the
tourist card issued iust be-
fore Oswald’s. But the pub-
lished report gives no indi-
cation that the information
was given more than pass-
ing consideration. Working
only from the originally
published materials, it was
impossible to learn of the
coincidence in serial num-
bers.

GAUDET'S newsletter
operation was headquarter-
ed in New Orleans. He said
he frequently had seen Os-
wald distributing handbills
of the "Fair Play for Cuba
Committee,” a pro-Castro
group, outside of his office.
Gaudet said he knew Os-
wald by name and by sight
although they had never
met.

Gaudet also expressed
some opinions about the
Kennedy assassination that
coincide with the views of
some of the critics of the
Warren Commission.

Despite Oswald's rhetori-
cal support for Cuban
Premier Fidel Castro, Gau-
det said he believes Oswald
actually was involved with
a group of anti-Castro
Cubans.

Gaudet was asked if he
had formed an opinion
about why Kennedy was
killed.

“The only possible idea
that I could have would be
the anti-Castro Cubans
(conspired to kill him) be-
cause of the fiasco at the
Bay of Pigs,’' Gaudet re-
sponded. "If I was an anti-
Castro Cuban, there is no
question I would have been
very bitter about what hap-
pened at the Bay of Pigs."

Gaudet said he had no
way of knowing if Oswald
had contacts with the CIA
because “my work with the
CIA did not involve any-
thing within the United
States "

THE REPORT included
the full text of a letter from
the Mexican government
listing the names, ad-
dresses and as much other
information as possible
about the people who re-
ceived cards numbered
824082, 824083, 824086 and
824087. Oswald received
card numbered 824085. No
mention was made of
824084.

An FBI report submitted
to the commission but not
made public until later said
"no record of 824084 locat-
ed."

But a recently declas-
sed document lists Gaudet
as the holder of card num-
ber 824084, something that
Gaudet readily confirmed.

Another FBI report made
public earlier said Gaudet
received a tourist card on
the same day as Oswald,
but it made no mention of
the similarity in serial
numbers. That document
said Gaudet “indicated that
he has in the past been an
employee of the CIA.’’

In a telephone interview.
Gaudet was bitter about
that FBI report, which he
said should never have been
declassified. He said he
only reluctantly told the
FBI about his CIA back-
ground after the bureau
had agreed to protect his
cover.

"IF THE CIA needed me
to do a job, now that my
cover’s been revealed, I
couldn’t be of any help to
them, even if I wanted to."
Gaudet said. “I’m useless
to them. I couldn’t go back
to Central America.”

At 67, Gaudet is unlikely
to be called out of retire-
ment. He now talks freely
about an intelligence career
that he said spanned 25
years beginning during
World War - II, when he
served in a special Latin
American unit headed by
now Vice President Nelson
Rockefeller.

He said he joined the CIA
shortly after the agency
was created in 1947, and
continued until 1969.

Throughout his career
with the CIA, Gaudet lived
a double life as a spy and as
a journalist who specialized
in Latin American affairs.
He said he provided some
information to the planners
of the Bay of Pigs invasion
of Cuba.

Gaudet was publisher of
Latin American Report, a
newsletter that sold for $15
a week to clients with an
interest in the region. He
also wrote free-lance dis-
patches for several U.S.
publications, including the
Miami Herald. His CIA
connections apparently
were not revealed to publi-
cations that purchased his
articles. Chase Manhattan Bank,
First National City Bank of
New York, Standard Oil Co.
of New Jersey (now Exxon)
and other businesses.

Gaudet declined to go
into detail about his other
financial arrangements
with the CIA. But he said he
spied for patriotic reasons
and not for the money that
he received.

During the years Gaudet
said he was working for the
CIA, the agency frequently
provided journalistic cover
jobs for its agents. CIA
Director William E.‘ Colby
has said that since 1973 the
agency has not employed as
agents full-time staff mem-
bers of major U.S. publica-
tions or broadcast net-
works. But he refused to
rule out the use of employees
of small specialized news-
letters or of foreign publi-
cations.
GAUDET SAID the two
biggest customers for the
newsletter — purchasing
more than 20 subscriptions
each — were the ClA and
the Soviet intelligence serv-
ice. the KGB.

Although the CIA and the
KGB each were paying
more than $15,000 annually
for subscriptions, Gaudet
denied that the money
amounted to a subsidy of
his efforts. He said both
agencies bought the letter
for the information it con-
tained.

Other clients included the
United Fruit Company.

Phone(202) 484-5000

Hank, now you know where some of my information comes from, in this case it was an interview with Gaudet and what I stated is what he stated. He said he knew of LHO, he (Gaudet) was a CIA Agent, he published a newsletter, it was bought by others (the CIA purchasing from itself was common, it was an easy way to pay for Operations and laundry the money), he was employed by the Agency for 25 years.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:00 PM   #3223
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Asking why couldn't Walthers be correct is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You want to say she is correct, you need to provide the proof of that. No one needs prove your assertions incorrect.
Frankly, your continuous use and misuse of pointing out fallacies is old and trite. I never said I wanted her to be correct, do not make assumptions or pretend to read my mind. As for my question, it is not shifting the burden of proof, when someone makes a claim Traxy said"Carolyn Walther likely saw a portion of a tall stack of boxes Oswald had positioned around the snipers nest window and mistook it for a person." Since a comment was made, I asked Traxy to support his comment, I am surprised (not really) that you didn't call him out for providing a conjecture.

Quote:
As for the boxes being positioned, the last time I looked, those boxes were not capable of independent movement, so somebody moved them. We'll never know exactly how many boxes Oswald moved
to make that a useful statement you have to prove that LHO moved at least one box to set up the snipers nest and you can't nor can anybody else.
Quote:
but since it was his rifle found on the sixth floor, and his weapon that inflicted the head wound on JFK (witness the two fragments found in the limo traceable to his weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons), we can presume Oswald was the one moving the boxes to build the sniper's nest.
you can presume anything and that is all you get... a presumption not fact.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:34 PM   #3224
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Regarding Gaudet, he wasn't a "CIA AGENT" like you suggest but like thousand of other international travelers during the Cold War period, simply volunteered to furnish information to Domestic Contact Division of the CIA... they would debrief travelers to learn what they could. His most active period was 1948 - 1955, and from 1955 - 1961 he was an infrequent contributor. He had no contact with the CIA after 1961.
See my previous post Gaudet acknowledged he was an Employee for the CIA

Quote:
He didn't know Oswald, but said he saw him at the Trade Mart distributing literature, and didn't even travel to Mexico at the same time as Oswald. He left a week earlier, and only had a stop-over in Mexico because his destination wasn't Mexico but Central America.
The link you provided showed that Gaudet went to Mexico City for one day. which one of your claims is accurate? The document you provided or you saying he went to Central America? It can't be both. CE2123 is the document that the Mexican Government provided to the FBI. One of the questions that the FBI did not ask is why was Gaudet's name left off the list by the Mexican Government? The Mexican document was created on 11/30/63 which trumps your 12/2/63 document prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys.

Quote:
Gaudet's name wasn't left off the FBI report that became Warren Commission Document 75 (CD75) prepared by FBI Agent DeBrueys on 12/2/63. You can see his name for yourself here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=577&tab=page
This is hard to reconcile after reading the article in the Washington DC newspaper.

Quote:
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but much of it appears erroneous.
Appearances can be deceptive if there is myopia in the Receptor.

Quote:
The HSCA investigated all this and you can find their conclusions here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archi...port_0124b.htm

Hank
thanks Hank I was not aware that the HSCA even existed, your links are invaluable.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:01 AM   #3225
No Other
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Are we supposed to not notice you didn't respond to the point?
If you want someone to respond, you first need to ask them a question. What question that was asked to me that I failed to answer?

Quote:
The person Carolyn Walther said she saw was not a second gunman, unless you think two people had room to shoot from the sniper's nest, both with their own weapons, or they shared the one weapon between them.
I am not making a claim, it was Carolyn Walther who made the claim. I never said she was correct or that I even believed her. Stop telling me what you think I am thinking. Do not attribute your flimsy "straw man" to me.


Quote:
Walther's statement is quite clear about what she saw. She said she saw only a portion of a man behind the man with the weapon, and this second man was wearing a brown jacket, and she saw no head, no arms, and she described no movement by this second man. Now, no head, no arms, and no movement sounds a lot like boxes, to me. Your mileage may differ.
Mileage may differ? I am not making claims, I posted what somebody told the FBI and since she felt she saw what she said, I only wonder why the WC did not call her to testify. I am not out to prove who shot who when, I am just pointing out inconsistencies and asking about them.

Quote:
Now, since numerous people said they saw brown boxes behind the shooter or the man in the window, and when the police arrived at the sixth floor to secure the scene, they found brown boxes and no one wearing a brown jacket
they also did not find LHO up there but it does not prevent you from claiming that he was there with the rifle in his hand.
Quote:
the reasonable conclusion
Reasonable in your eyes, do not attribute your guess with anything other than a guess.
Quote:
is Walthers saw some boxes and misinterpreted those boxes (which like Walthers' second man, had no head, no arms, and made no independent movement) as a man wearing a brown jacket that she could only see from the shoulders to the waist.
For a person who continuously insists on facts from people, you provide a lot of interpretations all by yourself.

Quote:
However, if you wish to cling to her eyewitness report, and insist she saw a second man there is no corroborative evidence for, I cannot stop you.
"Cling" I only posted what the FBI provided to the WC. Your insistence on attempting to characterize my post as being a stance is a reckless regard for the facts.

Quote:
Regardless, however, it still doesn't address the argument made, that of a second gunman being seen.

Got any evidence of one?

Hank
Did I say there was a second gunman? I'll give you the answer... NO! and "Regardless" of what? Walthers said she saw another person, that is not disputed by anyone.
No Other is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.