Operation forty pic

[Peter Lemkin]

One last point....unless I can't read any more or am very confused by your posts, you didn't say it was Gonzalez, you said it was Droller/Bender!...making your view of who you believe it is ever more 'murky'.

I now understand why the research community can not get their facts straight or at the very least it's the few researchers that don't read carefully, just a min. ago you were addressing Seymour, Hopsicker says it's Seymour, you simply are posting information that I already know is incorrect so I AGAIN said it's Gonzalez, now, the person sitting directly in-front of Sturgis with the GLASSES on his face is Bender! Got it? Get it? Good!

Oh, and BTW! it's NOT my view, it's a fact!

Nothing you or anyone else states here on any subject is 'fact' unless backed up by significant [and presented] documents, evidence, verified interviews, etc. (and even then, subject to consensual agreement and challenge with new information or evidence that the basis for that presumed 'fact' is not valid). All else are viewpoints held by one person, or group of persons. By the way, are you aware that you have had, throughout your stay here on this Forum, presented a very combative style of posting - bordering on violating the rules? Many believe your style has been to provoke, as often as to shed light; to provoke, then withdraw...then provoke/attack others on the Forum - or the Forum itself, repeatedly. This will get you nothing but winding up on moderation, should it continue.

If you have information you want to share - share it. If you have information you don't want to share, don't tease or provoke the Forum [or its members] with vague hints about it, nor present yourself as some unique repository of 'fact', not available to others without substantial evidence - or not possible of being challenged about your views and 'facts' (as you like to call them). Please. Engage civilly and without attacking others. If you must, you can challenge another's ideas, research, or beliefs; but not the persons themselves. These are the rules of engagement here on this Forum. If you don't respect them only you will be responsible for the consequences. Such statements as 'Got it? Get it?' [along with the personal attacks removed by moderators] are/were not civil, non-productive, nor conducive of anything but creating friction - provoking, disrupting, and causing dissension/discord. They were against the rules of the Forum, besides. Similar will not be tolerated further. I believe I am expressing the unanimous view of the moderators and founders in saying this.

N.B. You have thus far, IMO, presented no 'facts' the research community nor members can 'bank on' in this matter, merely your opinions/beliefs. If you have evidence otherwise, you are welcome to present it - civilly.

[Scott Kaiser]

One last point....unless I can't read any more or am very confused by your posts, you didn't say it was Gonzalez, you said it was Droller/Bender!...making your view of who you believe it is ever more 'murky'.

I now understand why the research community can not get their facts straight or at the very least it's the few researchers that don't read carefully, just a min. ago you were addressing Seymour, Hopsicker says it's Seymour, you simply are posting information that I already know is incorrect so I AGAIN said it's Gonzalez, now, the person sitting directly in-front of Sturgis with the GLASSES on his face is Bender! Got it? Get it? Good!

Oh, and BTW! it's NOT my view, it's a fact!

Nothing you or anyone else states here on any subject is 'fact' unless backed up by significant [and presented] documents, evidence, verified interviews, etc. (and even then, subject to consensual agreement and challenge with new information or evidence that the basis for that presumed 'fact' is not valid). All else are viewpoints held by one person, or group of persons. By the way, are you aware that you have had, throughout your stay here on this Forum, presented a very combative style of posting - bordering on violating the rules? Many believe your style has been to provoke, as often as to shed light; to provoke, then withdraw...then provoke/attack others on the Forum - or the Forum itself, repeatedly. This will get you nothing but winding up on moderation, should it continue.

If you have information you want to share - share it. If you have information you don't want to share, don't tease or provoke the Forum [or its members] with vague hints about it, nor present yourself as some unique repository of 'fact', not available to others without substantial evidence - or not possible of being challenged about your views and 'facts' (as you like to call them). Please. Engage civilly and without attacking others. If you must, you can challenge another's ideas, research, or beliefs; but not the persons themselves. These are the rules of engagement here on this Forum. If you don't respect them only you will be responsible for the consequences. Such statements as 'Got it? Get it?' [along with the personal attacks removed by moderators] are/were not civil, non-productive, nor conducive of anything but creating friction - provoking, disrupting, and causing dissension/discord. They were against the rules of the Forum, besides. Similar will not be tolerated further. I believe I am expressing the unanimous view of the moderators and founders in saying this.

N.B. You have thus far, IMO, presented no 'facts' the research community nor members can 'bank on' in this matter, merely your opinions/beliefs. If you have evidence otherwise, you are welcome to present it - civilly.

I'm just going to completely ignore you! You're not worth my time Mr. Peter! I find it very weird when one person tries to start talking for everyone else, makes me think you have some sort of agenda.

Hi Magda, I would love to do nothing but that, give you all the "correct" names, but I'm going to Miami in August or Sept. and I will be seeing Felix as well as many others who are upset that this photo has been floating around. I really don't want to stir the pot so to say, not now anyways, The proof I have of these men in this photo comes from the many "Cubans" I've showed this photo to in Miami asking them if they could recognize the men in the photo, whenever some did, I wrote that persons name down.

At this moment, I can not give away the folks who I have talked to on getting the names of the men in the photo due to this being a public forum, I have in the past already spit out a "few" names in this photo on FB, it seems that Mr. Peter believes everything everyone "tells" him or what he's "told" by everyone else but refuses to dig a little deep for the truth, I find that very weird. Not the kind of book I would want to read.

Peter Lemkin: As I stated on another thread and above, Tosh has told me [as well as Dawn] that it is he hiding behind his suit in the photo.

I feel as though I'm at a bowling alley and I just have to knock'em down "one at a time". Then, he writes his garbage above, very weird character Mr. Peter is I say!

[Magda Hassan]

Hi Magda, I would love to do nothing but that, give you all the "correct" names, but I'm going to Miami in August or Sept. and I will be seeing Felix as well as many others who are upset that this photo has been floating around. I really don't want to stir the pot so to say, not now anyways...

Well, pretty hard to get toothpaste back in the tube. Felix and friends might not like it but the photo has been out and about for quite a few years now.

At this moment, I can not give away the folks who I have talked on getting the names of the men in the photo due to this being a public forum...

Understandable. Especially if you have an understanding with them that it was a private discussion.

Peter Lemkin: As I stated on another thread and above, Tosh has told me [as well as Dawn] that it is he hiding behind his suit in the photo.

I feel as though I'm at a bowling alley and I just have to knock'em down "one at a time".

Bowl away. But Tosh has admitted it is him so your proof will need to be very good indeed.

[Albert Doyle]

Scott. No need for ridicule. If you taunt a call for civil conduct you might get kicked off the board and people like me will lose your valuable input. Right now I'm leaning towards it being Tosh because he says it is.

[Scott Kaiser]

If you have information you want to share - share it.

I did! But, YOU refuse to accept it!

don't tease or provoke the Forum [or its members]

I'm not, I have SHARED my information, but YOU continue to believe what you're told!

nor present yourself as some unique repository of 'fact', not available to others without substantial evidence

I have! No one has ever communicated with as many anti-Castro Cubans in Miami as I have to date, simply no one!

or not possible of being challenged about your views and 'facts' (as you like to call them).

I want you to challenge me that way you'll learn something if you just open your mind and understand what it is I have already accomplished to date.

Engage civilly and without attacking others.

Could you please give me one example of my attacking and whom I have attacked? Thank you!

If you don't respect them only you will be responsible for the consequences. Such statements as 'Got it? Get it?'

I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but referring to Got it? or Get it? is after all in a manner that is responsive to your statement. You said.

One last point....unless I can't read any more or am very confused by your posts, you didn't say it was Gonzalez, you said it was Droller/Bender!...making your view of who you believe it is ever more 'murky'.

I don't believe for one min. my response was "out of line" I was simply trying to get you to [understand].

[along with the personal attacks removed by moderators]

You keep saying that, but I don't understand what you're talking about, can you please give me an example? Thank you!

You have thus far, IMO, presented no 'facts' the research community nor members can 'bank on' in this matter, merely your opinions/beliefs. If you have evidence otherwise, you are welcome to present it - civilly.

But, you say,

To my knowledge, there are NO publicly available documents about who is in the photo - but surely the CIA and FBI [possibly others] have detailed analysis/documents of the photo and the meeting it represents. At one time, after it emerged, when I was [U]sure[/U] it was Tosh [hiding his face], he was denying it. More recently, he has admitted it to Dawn, myself, and others in emails and elsewhere. I said elsewhere that he certainly could tell you everyone in the photo [and the reason for the celebration/meeting], but he has refused to tell me anything more than where and when - but that is buried somewhere in many emails and I'm not in the mood to try to locate it just now. I'd suggest you, Scott, ask Tosh to name the persons. Some are obvious and there is no doubt. A few are. To my memory, Tosh never said he was 'part' of Op-40, but he often said he was associated with/supporting it [or persons/ops within it]. You'd have to ask him the subtle difference[s].

Now that is excellent research folks!

You just keep setting up the pins Doc! And, I'll keep knocking them down!

[Scott Kaiser]

Hi Magda, I would love to do nothing but that, give you all the "correct" names, but I'm going to Miami in August or Sept. and I will be seeing Felix as well as many others who are upset that this photo has been floating around. I really don't want to stir the pot so to say, not now anyways...

Well, pretty hard to get toothpaste back in the tube. Felix and friends might not like it but the photo has been out and about for quite a few years now.

At this moment, I can not give away the folks who I have talked on getting the names of the men in the photo due to this being a public forum...

Understandable. Especially if you have an understanding with them that it was a private discussion.

Peter Lemkin: As I stated on another thread and above, Tosh has told me [as well as Dawn] that it is he hiding behind his suit in the photo.

I feel as though I'm at a bowling alley and I just have to knock'em down "one at a time".

Bowl away. But Tosh has admitted it is him so your proof will need to be very good indeed.

But Tosh has admitted it is him so your proof will need to be very good indeed.

He has also DENIED it's him, so which is it? Are you saying that folks here are willing to go with his latter response? Interesting! For years now, ever since I have discovered my father was killed by Sturgis I at one time thought that Richard Cabrera was involved simply because Cabrera admits he was afraid of my father. And because Cabrera was a high level G-2 agent that reported back to Fidel Castro, and because one plan my father had was to infiltrate Cuba kill Cuban soldiers and cut them up into pieces to terrify other soldiers into leaving Fidel's army. When word of this got back to Fidel I assume Fidel ordered the death of my father. I wasn't focusing, but now, I have come to realize what information my father processed and why he was killed. I have always let my yes be yes and my no be no, you may take that for what it's worth.

But, I have never, ever said something only to change my mind later for the publicity. That's my proof!

[Scott Kaiser]

One last thing, Tosh may say what he wants about him being in that photo, dead men can't talk, but I'm sure that Sturgis is haunting Tosh right now asking Tosh in his own subconscious mind, "why are you lying on me"?

[Magda Hassan]

He has also DENIED it's him, so which is it?

True. But it really really really looks just like him. I mean really what are the chances of his double being there with his friends? Maybe Tosh didn't want to be identified as being at that meeting for the same or similar reasons your Miami Cuban contacts didn't want to. I would need to ask Tosh why he once claimed it wasn't him.

[Albert Doyle]

Photos of Sturgis show his eyebrows thin out towards the sides. Photos of Tosh show his eyebrows remain thick all the way to the sides. The man in the Op 40 picture has eyebrows the remain thick all the way to the sides.

[Scott Kaiser]

The iris color is different, the eyebrows are different, the hair is different, the pimple on his nose is different, because he told me so, wow! Will you listen to yourselves? Are you all serious! I'm going to let you all in on a little secret that I'm still very pissed about, just as soon as Tosh heard I was writing a book and knew I visited Antonio Vencina, Tosh called Antonio, and told him that I wrote a book and saying all kinds of bad things about him in my book. Antonio was very pissed off at me and didn't want to talk to me for a very long time, it took awhile for things to calm down, I then sent Antonio the full edition of my "unedited" book so he could see himself that everything Tosh said about me wasn't true.

Now, getting to the photo, I could have cared less what Tosh said about this photo. I would have allowed him to play his little escapades and continue the BS, I wouldn't have given two craps one way or the another because that photo has absolutely nothing to do with my father other than the fact that Sturgis was one of my father's closest associates.

When Tosh lied about me saying I wrote all kinds of bad things about Antonio, that's when I really started to dig into this photo and discovered the truth. Had it been Tosh in this photo, I would have left this photo alone and never said a word, but because it's not Tosh I'm not going to allow this charade to continue.

Tosh sent me the same photo's he has sent everyone else, and he tried to convince me it was him too.

Tosh "discovers" that Sturgis looks like him in this photo, so he plays the part, and while doing so has fooled everyone!