Deep Politics Forum

Gordon Gray Wrote:There is a line of thinking that the Secret Team wanted to scotch the Peace talks between Ike and Nikita, and since the U2 was becoming obsolete, the shoot down was fortuitous if not planned. Oswald could have well been sent to provide the info necessary. Also Marina has been helpful to Soviet interests, in giving credence to Oswald the lone nut. They certainly wanted no suspicions to be cast upon them even if they were indeed innocent.

Which would make more sense because once Oswald completed this operation he was a spent entity since he would have so much attention on him it would be hard for him to get away with anything on either side. That fits the motive and method of the shadow government and its need to prevent detente. And also its need to position itself for the pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union it proposed to Kennedy.


Having tested the viability of a doubles program with this U-2 operation Oswald would then become highly useful in a set-up of Cuba in the assassination of JFK.


What I don't understand is why they would let Judyth Baker live if what she says is true? Other people on the Hit List were killed for much less. And Baker was allegedly invisible and therefore would be unmissed if she were murdered.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

Gordon Gray Wrote:There is a line of thinking that the Secret Team wanted to scotch the Peace talks between Ike and Nikita, and since the U2 was becoming obsolete, the shoot down was fortuitous if not planned. Oswald could have well been sent to provide the info necessary. Also Marina has been helpful to Soviet interests, in giving credence to Oswald the lone nut. They certainly wanted no suspicions to be cast upon them even if they were indeed innocent.

Which would make more sense because once Oswald completed this operation he was a spent entity since he would have so much attention on him it would be hard for him to get away with anything on either side. That fits the motive and method of the shadow government and its need to prevent detente. And also its need to position itself for the pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union it proposed to Kennedy.


Having tested the viability of a doubles program with this U-2 operation Oswald would then become highly useful in a set-up of Cuba in the assassination of JFK.


What I don't understand is why they would let Judyth Baker live if what she says is true? Other people on the Hit List were killed for much less. And Baker was allegedly invisible and therefore would be unmissed if she were murdered.

It's a good question Albert - my feeling is that regardless of the truth or not, there was little effect this info would have on the assassination conclusions or conspiracy to incriminate Oswald.
Kinda like the unnecessasy piling on of the Oswald is Innocent project...

We already know he was innocent... Prayerman identified as Oswald would of course make that point irrefuteable. Whether Altgens is altered to cut Ozzie out and put Lovelady in remains a matter of debate and very poor math and can never be fully resolved. But we have more than enough material to make a strong case against Oswald pulling the JFK trigger.

JVB's info changes nothing about what occurs on Nov 22nd... only what history says about Oswald. All one need do is say she's mistaken about seeing Lee in Feb 1962 and there's little to be said to further support there being two Oswalds in Feb 1962 - on ein the US and one in Minsk... Since no one blieves that in the first place, JVB's 2nd hand evidence about it is of no concern to those who would be charged with removing her.


Fetzer offered 14 reasons to believe Baker... these are the only three which deal with actual evidence. the other 11 reasons are testimonials basically asking "Why else would they say this if her story wasn't true" and "She has this thing that was Oswald's so it must be true"...

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/...-vary.html - Maybe something has changed since 2010? Interestingly, the vido of Anna Lewis is not longer posted at this site.

REASON #1. Documents and researchers prove Baker and Oswald worked together for months at Wm. B. Reily Co., a coffee company in New Orleans, and that these jobs were pre-arranged cover jobs (W-2 and her word)
REASON #2: Baker has the testimonies of living witnesses confirming her intimate relationship with Oswald in New Orleans (Anna Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyN37x3OfHs )
REASON #6: Baker provides evidence that her job and Oswald's job at Reily's were cover jobs for clandestine activities elsewhere (W-2 and her word)

David Josephs Wrote:Whether Altgens is altered to cut Ozzie out and put Lovelady in remains a matter of debate and very poor math and can never be fully resolved.

I just flat out refuse to believe Altgens is anything other than Lovelady. The Prayer Man film clips show Lovelady separate from Prayer Man.

I'm fairly confident Prayer Man is not Oswald based on common sense.


A Lone Nut-sympathetic position? No. I'll put my money on Oswald in the lunch room.

Albert Doyle Wrote:

David Josephs Wrote:Whether Altgens is altered to cut Ozzie out and put Lovelady in remains a matter of debate and very poor math and can never be fully resolved.

I just flat out refuse to believe Altgens is anything other than Lovelady. The Prayer Man film clips show Lovelady separate from Prayer Man.

I'm fairly confident Prayer Man is not Oswald based on common sense.


A Lone Nut-sympathetic position? No. I'll put my money on Oswald in the lunch room.

I don't see how common sense or personal beliefs have anything to do with the process of elimination needed to determine who ELSE Prayerman could be other than Oswald.

That being Oswald makes all the sense in the world since he was not on the 6th floor and not in the lunchroom and no witness tells us "exactly" where he was seen.... but if you have another name and supporting evidence, please share it.

I agree, Altgens is Lovelady as Hughes shows he was on the West side of the doorway when the limo turns... unless that is Prayerman.

Again, more importantly... was it Oswald on the stairs in Baker's affidavit? I doubt it.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:It is not cursory at all. That is your spin.

There are no signatures, and the guy when interviewed did not even know if it was JFK's casket. Which is unbelievable. Plus there is the near impossible time/speed factor.

You want to bring in all this other paraphernalia which was already dealt with by Roger Feinman in his fine monograph The Signal and the Noise. Which is still the best and most devastating critique of Best Evidence ever.

If you want to debate BE fine, open up a new thread. Just count me out.

I have been exposed to Lifton at length for decades. Both at EF, and at various conferences, which he does not attend anymore nor is he invited to do so.

If you want to enlist in those ten points, go ahead and be my guest. Its all yours.

If you listen to Dennis David below he's clearly describing wounds that could only be captured at Lifton's pre-autopsy. Both the temple entry wound and blown-out rear exit wound are things that did not exist at the main 8 o'clock Bethesda autopsy. Humes declared there had been surgery done to the head. That could only be done at the pre-autopsy. The urgency to kill Pitzer existed because his film evidence contained proof of both a conspiracy in the Plaza and at Bethesda.

When Dennis David says he knows because he saw the film evidence his body language and voice stress says he's not lying (22:13):



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqpW89lhnE0

Parker refers to McAdams and his equivocating double talk when trying to refute Hargrove's tax issues. Parker supports McAdams. Meanwhile there's no excuse for the full tax records not being released. Parker hasn't produced a Dolly Shoe W-2 with the original Employee Tax ID number.

I've lost all respect for Lifton because he is ignoring McBride's protest that it was much more complicated than that. McBride then detailed his Oswald Pfisterer witnessing with other witnesses and landmarks. Lifton ignores it and refers to the documents - blindly ignoring the already established depth of alteration and corruption in the case concerning the document record. Lifton trusts the Commission documents and uses them against Armstrong, as does crass denier Parker.


Parker is a ham-handed bully. He made the ludicrous claim that the driver's license witnessed by many was actually a registration. It could be checked out if Texas registrations came on a pink driver's license-sized card. Regardless, the workers at the Texas Department of Public Safety would be able to distinguish between a registration and license. Besides, why would Oswald have a registration anyway? To have a registration means you would have to have a car, and to have a car means you would need a license. Nobody called Parker on this and they allowed him to change the subject to White's photo. He also never answered for Bogard's firm memory of the 9th. Parker is a dishonest ass. The agent clearly saw "Texas Driver's License" on the card. Parker's denial of this exhibits his doing the things he jumps on others for. What a hypocrite.

Hey, Albert. Thanks for keeping an eye on things over there. It's almost impossible to keep up with his zillions of posts, much less untangle them. But I did give you a shout-out for the driver's license tip... though it's no doubt buried under more bs by now.

One of the things that first convinced me that the man killed by Jack Ruby was not a native-born American was the well-known evidence for how well he spoke Russian. Just a few quick highlights:


In December 1963 Vladimir Petrov, head of the Slavic Language Department at Yale, read a copy of Oswald's 1962 letter from Russia to John Tower. After reading it, Petrov wrote to Senator Tower. Petrov said, "I am satisfied that letter was not written by him [Oswald]. It was written by a Russian with an imperfect knowledge of English."


Just two months after Oswald was discharged from the Marines, doctors at the Moscow hospital reported: "The patient apparently un*derstands the questions asked in Russian. Sometimes he answers correctly, but immedi*ately states that he does not understand what he was asked. "[7 WC Exhibit 985, Volume 18, p. 470]


Then, of course, come all those observations about how fluent Oswald was in Russian when he returned stateside:




There are many other recollections, but my favorite is this, from from Natalie Ray a guest at Katya Ford's 1962 Christmas party:


Natalie Ray was asked by Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler, "Did he (Oswald) speak to you in Russian?" Mrs. Ray replied, "Yes; just perfect; re*
ally surprised me .... it's just too good speaking Russian for be such a short time, you know .... .I said, 'How come you speak so good Russian? I been here so long and still don't speak very well English."'

Albert Doyle Wrote:David,


I think you should make Lifton answer to that Palmer McBride letter. I think he was being less than honest portraying McBride as consenting to his version of the dates. The McBride letter clearly rejects that and gives details that require a response from Lifton.

Albert:

Have you ever sat down and actually met --and talked with--Palmer McBride?

I did. For hours.

First on the telephone in September, 1994, and then on camera, a few weeks later.

It was after the phone call that I hired a professional film crew to go over the same ground again, and get it all on camera.

John Armstrong then re-entered the picture and did a sales job apparently persuading McBride of the "historical importance" (my quotes) of his original statement, which in fact was simply an error on McBride's part, and then became the so-called "foundation" for this whole two-Oswald hypothesis.

Armstrong also pulled the same stuff with Linda Faircloth, who completely and totally misrepresented the conversation that I had with her.

I already published extracts of what McBride said to me over at the London Forum --years ago.

When McBride sat there, on camera, and --practically ruminating aloud--reaffirmed when it was that he knew Oswald, and related it to his prior job at the Weyerhauser (phonetic) box company, it was pretty obvious it was spring 1956 when he knew Oswald at Pfisterer.

If this matter had been investigated properly back in 1963/1964, and all the employment and appropriate tax records retrieved, there never would have been a "two-Oswald" theory; and there never would have been a John Armstrong running around and lobbying witnesses, and attempting to connect dots that really don't "connect."

Also: who actually wrote the so-called McBride letter?

Did Palmer McBride just sit down one evening and write that himself? Or did he have assistance of some sort?

Does anyone know the answer to that question?

And since when does a witness in a historical situation like this, become such an intense partisan to a particular hypothesis.

DSL
5/21/15 - 1:50 a.m. PDT
Los Angeles, California