Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Poyle

  1. #1

    Default Poyle

    Hi David,

    Thanks for showing me that document, you titled your thread "New Document Shows POYLE in Mexi After 10/17" You then say, "this suggest to me that Poyle was not there earlier - as in when Oswald was said to have been."

    If it's okay with you, I would like to confirm a few things, first, how could you assume Poyle was in Mexico "after" 10/17 when we both know the document is dictated on the 17th of October?

    Also, if in-case you missed it, the document also reads, "Should Mexi receive from LIENVSY or Wave specific date arrival Mexi, perhaps can switch plans in order use more appropriate local agents but present need meet POYLE within airport Customs prior possible contact with [*****] (POYLE) or others make LIFIRES rest and most secure method handling this job." That is Poyle's name blacked out to protect his earlier visit to Mexi.

    Please let me help you, as I've already had this information translated by agents of the CIA who I can trust 110%. I will NOT mention their names, nor will I ever expose them, so please don't ask.

    1. Please look into what "LIFIRES" mean, I could tell you, but I think it's important you find out for yourself.
    2. How could you believe Poyle was not in Mexi earlier when the document is dated October 17, 1963? Or, are you suggesting this is when Poyle visited Mexi? The same day the document is dictated?
    3. I have already informed you that Poyle was in Mexi on October 10, 1963, (7) days prior to this dictated document, and on the day Oswald was suppose to be there.
    4. I have already proven POYLE was there on 11/21/1963, the day before JACK was assassinated.
    5. I have proven my father reached out to POYLE before reaching out to the HSCA and reached out to Howard Liebeengood at the same time POYLE knew my father had the ONLY known photographs of those involved in whacking JACK. (This too has been proven.)
    6. Please tell me you also don't believe ANY of this information is also related to the CIA's "Summary & Recap" of November 17-23, 1963, when we know JACK visited Miami on November 16th, 1963, furthermore, this is the very same information found and discovered in POYLE's file.
    7. With ALL due respect, NO ONE needs to believe a word I'm saying, with all the information and stories already planted by the FBI & CIA it's no wonder everyone has their own rabbit hole, and THAT will never allow anyone to ever know the real truth. Stories from James Files to Roscoe White and everyone in between, it's no wonder no one will ever know, sad, very sad.
    Last edited by Peter Lemkin; 02-02-2018 at 05:26 AM.

  2. Default

    If it's okay with you, I would like to confirm a few things, first, how could you assume Poyle was in Mexico "after" 10/17 when we both know the document is dictated on the 17th of October?

    Take a second and READ it Scott... the entire thing discusses events that will happen in the future, not that have already happened in Mexico City...

    This one document remains to only item of evidence I have seen that mentions POYLE in MEXICO and this places him there after the 17th and not between the 27th of Sept and Oct 3rd...
    Do you have anything to post which places him in Mexico that predates the doc below?

    "MEXI STANDING BY MEET [POYLE]"

    "LIFIRE ASSETS WILL HANDLE" iow; in the future

    "[POYLE] STAY MEXI MAY BE EXTREMELY BRIEF" iow; in the FUTURE Scott...

    "[POYLE] SHOULD BE SENT MNTY (MONTERREY)" IOW; IN THE FUTURE....

    LIFIRE A joint program with the Mexican security forces. LIFIRE obtained passenger manifests of all commercial flights, passport photographs of travelers to Cuba, and could sometimes even follow a passenger to the hotel with their surveillance truck.

    1. Please look into what "LIFIRES" mean, I could tell you, but I think it's important you find out for yourself. Dont be condescending Scott... I posted the doc for you based on your interest in the man
    2. How could you believe Poyle was not in Mexi earlier when the document is dated October 17, 1963? Or, are you suggesting this is when Poyle visited Mexi? The same day the document is dictated? Answered above
    3. I have already informed you that Poyle was in Mexi on October 10, 1963, (7) days prior to this dictated document, and on the day Oswald was suppose to be there. Informing me and PROVING IT are two different things.. Here, I'm informing you the moon is made of cheese.. Unless I offer something to prove it to you... So what?
    4. I have already proven POYLE was there on 11/21/1963, the day before JACK was assassinated.
    Again Scott... link me to the proof, the docs, the testimony... anything.
    5. I have proven my father reached out to POYLE before reaching out to the HSCA and reached out to Howard Liebeengood at the same time POYLE knew my father had the ONLY known photographs of those involved in whacking JACK. (This too has been proven.) I have to take your word on that
    6. Please tell me you also don't believe ANY of this information is also related to the CIA's "Summary & Recap" of November 17-23, 1963, when we know JACK visited Miami on November 16th, 1963, furthermore, this is the very same information found and discovered in POYLE's file Poyle's file? links, post, or copies??? links to the SUMMARY & RECAP you mention too please.
    7. You don't have to believe a word I'm telling you, with all the information and stories already planted by the FBI & CIA it's no wonder everyone has their own rabbit hole, and THAT will never allow anyone to ever know the real truth. Stories from James Files to Roscoe White and everyone in between, it's no wonder no one will ever know, sad, very sad Not a matter of belief, Scott. If we believed without authentication where would we be?

    Can you give me anything concrete to hang my hat on? This message does not support the idea that POYLE was in Mexico during the CIA's charade.

    Sometimes you get shown the light
    in the strangest of places
    if you look at it right.....
    R. Hunter

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Josephs View Post
    If it's okay with you, I would like to confirm a few things, first, how could you assume Poyle was in Mexico "after" 10/17 when we both know the document is dictated on the 17th of October?

    Take a second and READ it Scott... the entire thing discusses events that will happen in the future, not that have already happened in Mexico City...

    This one document remains to only item of evidence I have seen that mentions POYLE in MEXICO and this places him there after the 17th and not between the 27th of Sept and Oct 3rd...
    Do you have anything to post which places him in Mexico that predates the doc below?

    "MEXI STANDING BY MEET [POYLE]"

    "LIFIRE ASSETS WILL HANDLE" iow; in the future

    "[POYLE] STAY MEXI MAY BE EXTREMELY BRIEF" iow; in the FUTURE Scott...

    "[POYLE] SHOULD BE SENT MNTY (MONTERREY)" IOW; IN THE FUTURE....

    LIFIRE A joint program with the Mexican security forces. LIFIRE obtained passenger manifests of all commercial flights, passport photographs of travelers to Cuba, and could sometimes even follow a passenger to the hotel with their surveillance truck.

    1. Please look into what "LIFIRES" mean, I could tell you, but I think it's important you find out for yourself. Dont be condescending Scott... I posted the doc for you based on your interest in the man
    2. How could you believe Poyle was not in Mexi earlier when the document is dated October 17, 1963? Or, are you suggesting this is when Poyle visited Mexi? The same day the document is dictated? Answered above
    3. I have already informed you that Poyle was in Mexi on October 10, 1963, (7) days prior to this dictated document, and on the day Oswald was suppose to be there. Informing me and PROVING IT are two different things.. Here, I'm informing you the moon is made of cheese.. Unless I offer something to prove it to you... So what?
    4. I have already proven POYLE was there on 11/21/1963, the day before JACK was assassinated.
    Again Scott... link me to the proof, the docs, the testimony... anything.
    5. I have proven my father reached out to POYLE before reaching out to the HSCA and reached out to Howard Liebeengood at the same time POYLE knew my father had the ONLY known photographs of those involved in whacking JACK. (This too has been proven.) I have to take your word on that
    6. Please tell me you also don't believe ANY of this information is also related to the CIA's "Summary & Recap" of November 17-23, 1963, when we know JACK visited Miami on November 16th, 1963, furthermore, this is the very same information found and discovered in POYLE's file Poyle's file? links, post, or copies??? links to the SUMMARY & RECAP you mention too please.
    7. You don't have to believe a word I'm telling you, with all the information and stories already planted by the FBI & CIA it's no wonder everyone has their own rabbit hole, and THAT will never allow anyone to ever know the real truth. Stories from James Files to Roscoe White and everyone in between, it's no wonder no one will ever know, sad, very sad Not a matter of belief, Scott. If we believed without authentication where would we be?

    Can you give me anything concrete to hang my hat on? This message does not support the idea that POYLE was in Mexico during the CIA's charade.


    David, I'm not sure how familiar you are with reading this document, but, if I can help in any small way, I will. First, the document starts off by saying, "Mexi standing by meet Poyle and provide him ticket for first available flight" The document is dated October 17, 1963, the ONLY other time POYLE was in Mexi AFTER October 17, 1963 was on November 21, 1963, so... Are you saying that was his first available flight?

    Keep in mind the document is dated the 17th of October, seven days AFTER Oswald allegedly visited Mexi. Someone maybe POYLE may or may not insist on something, but someone will instruct him, may be POYLE this will not be done, (past tense). Something WAS done, and someone may insist on something, but... He is to be instructed it will NOT be done.

    Perhaps, can switch plans in October.... "but [present] need meet Poyle" assuming the author is not saying like (before) past tense, prior, and here we go! Prior possible contact with [*****] POYLE, meaning PRIOR TO THE 17th, prior has nothing to do with the future unless the prior altered the future. In this case it did, POYLE who is the same height as Oswald, I believe they both stood at 69 inches, and represented Oswald is why my father showed Poyle the photos in the first place.

    Most secure in handling this job, what job do you know of that is considered TOP SECRET, has never been disclosed before, a month before the president gets killed and where Oswald is suppose to be, tell me, please be honest, have you or ANYONE for that matter ever heard the name POYLE before?

    "As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan" let me repeat that again word for word so there's an understanding, or may be, you're not reading between the lines, in this case, the authors words. "
    As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan"

    Lastly, POYLE may wait a long time before FORTSON's arrival from JM/WAVE which can cause intimate danger to the whole plan / job, Fortson was taking orders from JMWAVE BUT! POYLE was also to be debriefed by FORTSON, WIN SCOTT was station chief in Mexico, of course he didn't know a thing about what was going on right? Wrong! Scott turned over the photos and tapes of Oswald in Mexico to the FBI and notified Washington within minutes of the assassination that Oswald was in Mexico, tuff break eh? but... It wasn't Oswald, it was Poyle. I keep telling you things, I say the same thing over and over and still, you're not getting it... And BTW... Saying that Win Scott didn't know was sarcasm.


    This document speaks about the past, present and future, just as the summary and recap did. Like I said, believe what you want, I don't care!

    Peter, if you want to move this information too because I mentioned my father, just to try and get a reaction out of me, to piss me off, go ahead! I don't give a crap anymore, I've said my piece, I've proven my case, and I don't care what ANYONE believes! <period>
    Last edited by Scott Kaiser; 02-02-2018 at 03:52 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    And yet, they were still able to point out Oswald within minutes AFTER the assassination, do you understand what it is I'm saying here? Within minutes, let me repeat myself so it sinks in, WITHIN MINUTES of the ASSASSINATION it was REPORTED to WASHINGTON DC that OSWALD was in Mexi.

    Habba good day!

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....&relPageId=164

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Kaiser View Post
    And yet, they were still able to point out Oswald within minutes AFTER the assassination, do you understand what it is I'm saying here? Within minutes, let me repeat myself so it sinks in, WITHIN MINUTES of the ASSASSINATION it was REPORTED to WASHINGTON DC that OSWALD was in Mexi.

    Habba good day!

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....&relPageId=164

    {sigh}

    Scott...

    what does pointing out that the FBI, STATE and ONI received a number of cables explaining how LEE OSWALD appears on a transcript and was photographed (but not really)

    If both the FBI and CIA knew that the Mexico trip was a charade and that Oswald was in Dallas with Odio at the time, of course there would be concern over "Mexico" on the 22nd.

    Truly, Hill, Sawyer, Westbrook and others steer the DPD to Oswald and vice versa...


    How does any of that support POYLE having been where you claim? it doesn't.


    David, I'm not sure how familiar you are with reading this document, but, if I can help in any small way, I will. First, the document starts off by saying, "Mexi standing by meet Poyle and provide him ticket for first available flight" The document is dated October 17, 1963, the ONLY other time POYLE was in Mexi AFTER October 17, 1963 was on November 21, 1963, so... Are you saying that was his first available flight
    No, it wasy "first available flight MNTY" Scott... Monterrey.

    His "stay may be brief" is talking about a FUTURE event.... AFTER the 17th of Oct.... after he gets a flight related top Monterrey ... why do you butcher the meaning of these words so?


    Keep in mind the document is dated the 17th of October, seven days AFTER Oswald allegedly visited Mexi. Someone maybe POYLE may or may not insist on something, but someone will instruct him, may be POYLE this will not be done, (past tense). Something WAS done, and someone may insist on something, but... He is to be instructed it will NOT be done.

    Scott... Oswald was placed in Mexico between Sept 26 and Oct 3rd... Oct 17th is over 2 weeks after that... I appreciate what you WANT this to say... but it doesn't.

    Perhaps, can switch plans in October.... "but [present] need meet Poyle" assuming the author is not saying like (before) past tense, prior, and here we go! Prior possible contact with [*****] POYLE, meaning PRIOR TO THE 17th, prior has nothing to do with the future unless the prior altered the future. In this case it did, POYLE who is the same height as Oswald, I believe they both stood at 69 inches, and represented Oswald is why my father showed Poyle the photos in the first place.

    "Mexi standing by MEET POYLE" that is something that takes place in the future Scott... "Will FIRMLY instruct him this not be done" FUTURE TENSE SCOTT... <will do> is not something in the past


    Most secure in handling this job, what job do you know of that is considered TOP SECRET, has never been disclosed before, a month before the president gets killed and where Oswald is suppose to be, tell me, please be honest, have you or ANYONE for that matter ever heard the name POYLE before?

    Now you're just throwing out generalities and suppositions... there are many many names out there with which no one is familiar. The documents so far do not place POYLE in MEX prior to the 17th of Oct... If you have something that corroborates that thought... post it.... "MAY BE" is a future tense meaning after the 17th... why would POYLE need to be there on the 21st or 22nd for a brief stay?

    "As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan" let me repeat that again word for word so there's an understanding, or may be, you're not reading between the lines, in this case, the authors words. "As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan"





    Sometimes you get shown the light
    in the strangest of places
    if you look at it right.....
    R. Hunter

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Josephs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Kaiser View Post
    And yet, they were still able to point out Oswald within minutes AFTER the assassination, do you understand what it is I'm saying here? Within minutes, let me repeat myself so it sinks in, WITHIN MINUTES of the ASSASSINATION it was REPORTED to WASHINGTON DC that OSWALD was in Mexi.

    Habba good day!

    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....&relPageId=164

    {sigh}

    Scott...

    what does pointing out that the FBI, STATE and ONI received a number of cables explaining how LEE OSWALD appears on a transcript and was photographed (but not really)

    If both the FBI and CIA knew that the Mexico trip was a charade and that Oswald was in Dallas with Odio at the time, of course there would be concern over "Mexico" on the 22nd.

    Truly, Hill, Sawyer, Westbrook and others steer the DPD to Oswald and vice versa...


    How does any of that support POYLE having been where you claim? it doesn't.


    David, I'm not sure how familiar you are with reading this document, but, if I can help in any small way, I will. First, the document starts off by saying, "Mexi standing by meet Poyle and provide him ticket for first available flight" The document is dated October 17, 1963, the ONLY other time POYLE was in Mexi AFTER October 17, 1963 was on November 21, 1963, so... Are you saying that was his first available flight
    No, it wasy "first available flight MNTY" Scott... Monterrey.

    His "stay may be brief" is talking about a FUTURE event.... AFTER the 17th of Oct.... after he gets a flight related top Monterrey ... why do you butcher the meaning of these words so?


    Keep in mind the document is dated the 17th of October, seven days AFTER Oswald allegedly visited Mexi. Someone maybe POYLE may or may not insist on something, but someone will instruct him, may be POYLE this will not be done, (past tense). Something WAS done, and someone may insist on something, but... He is to be instructed it will NOT be done.

    Scott... Oswald was placed in Mexico between Sept 26 and Oct 3rd... Oct 17th is over 2 weeks after that... I appreciate what you WANT this to say... but it doesn't.

    Perhaps, can switch plans in October.... "but [present] need meet Poyle" assuming the author is not saying like (before) past tense, prior, and here we go! Prior possible contact with [*****] POYLE, meaning PRIOR TO THE 17th, prior has nothing to do with the future unless the prior altered the future. In this case it did, POYLE who is the same height as Oswald, I believe they both stood at 69 inches, and represented Oswald is why my father showed Poyle the photos in the first place.

    "Mexi standing by MEET POYLE" that is something that takes place in the future Scott... "Will FIRMLY instruct him this not be done" FUTURE TENSE SCOTT... <will do> is not something in the past


    Most secure in handling this job, what job do you know of that is considered TOP SECRET, has never been disclosed before, a month before the president gets killed and where Oswald is suppose to be, tell me, please be honest, have you or ANYONE for that matter ever heard the name POYLE before?

    Now you're just throwing out generalities and suppositions... there are many many names out there with which no one is familiar. The documents so far do not place POYLE in MEX prior to the 17th of Oct... If you have something that corroborates that thought... post it.... "MAY BE" is a future tense meaning after the 17th... why would POYLE need to be there on the 21st or 22nd for a brief stay?

    "As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan" let me repeat that again word for word so there's an understanding, or may be, you're not reading between the lines, in this case, the authors words. "As it possible POYLE stay Mexico may be extremely brief under above plan"






    Interesting enough, someone always has got to be right, and of course debate truth, when it cannot be discredited. Have you ever thought that to be interesting too? In your first argument you say; "Dont be condescending Scott... I posted the doc for you based on your interest in the man" Are you saying you did all this for me? Common now, what you really did was point out what you thought you read, and you were so anxious in providing your thoughts, just one thing... How the hell can you pull apart a few photos, but you can't read a document?

    You argue Poyle was in Mexico AFTER October 17, 1963, and yet cannot read the word [prior] as I've pointed out to you and now you want me to provide the summary/recap found in Poyle's file of November 17-23 regarding Dallas, which I've already done, sorry if you missed it, but pulling a Tom or Peter on me isn't going to work, may I suggest you keep your eyes open?

  7. #7

    Default

    And, please.... Try to stick with one color on the font! You're making me go color blind!

  8. #8

    Default

    Hey! It's you.... The people you call yourselves "researchers" who are really interested in this shit, I can care less! I just told you what happened, you must find what I said, didn't think you were going to find that document of October 1963, betcha no one believed me when I said Poyle was there on October 10, 1963 after I've already proven he was there on November 21, 1963. You know, the day before the old dude who f%*ed up the BPO's got whacked, I've told you the truth, and you've never heard of me until 50 years later, honestly, I don't give a shit which rabbit hole you want to travel down, so long as I know what I'm saying is the truth, that's all that matters to me!!!

  9. Default Strictly for clarification...

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Kaiser View Post
    Hey! It's you.... The people you call yourselves "researchers" who are really interested in this shit, I can care less! I just told you what happened, you must find what I said, didn't think you were going to find that document of October 1963, betcha no one believed me when I said Poyle was there on October 10, 1963 after I've already proven he was there on November 21, 1963. You know, the day before the old dude who f%*ed up the BPO's got whacked, I've told you the truth, and you've never heard of me until 50 years later, honestly, I don't give a shit which rabbit hole you want to travel down, so long as I know what I'm saying is the truth, that's all that matters to me!!!

    Strictly for clarification, and I have no desire to take a bite of this apple, by chance Scott, is BPO's a typo for BOP's?

    Larry
    StudentofAssassinationResearch


  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LR Trotter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Kaiser View Post
    Hey! It's you.... The people you call yourselves "researchers" who are really interested in this shit, I can care less! I just told you what happened, you must find what I said, didn't think you were going to find that document of October 1963, betcha no one believed me when I said Poyle was there on October 10, 1963 after I've already proven he was there on November 21, 1963. You know, the day before the old dude who f%*ed up the BOP's got whacked, I've told you the truth, and you've never heard of me until 50 years later, honestly, I don't give a shit which rabbit hole you want to travel down, so long as I know what I'm saying is the truth, that's all that matters to me!!!

    Strictly for clarification, and I have no desire to take a bite of this apple, by chance Scott, is BPO's a typo for BOP's?

    Bay of Pigs. No biggie, I have what you might call a disorder of dyslexia, on top of that, I've recently been diagnose having dementia. The laughs may begin!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •