silentNate
1.618 xakep
Hail those that c+p fron David Icke 
Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the CIA, declassified memo reveals
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You're the one who posted it - you tell me how and where it arrived into the public domain.
I don't know. I've not even googled. But then I didn't post it up. I'm interested, go on, tell me. Something that sensitive must have an interesting history behind it.
I don't know. I've not even googled. But then I didn't post it up. I'm interested, go on, tell me. Something that sensitive must have an interesting history behind it.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
I noticed the David Icke source.
I figured I'd ignore it - it's too easy.
I don't want to attack Dr Jazzz on this thread... I was just tutting...
There is a wider issue here, and the shit-smell of American Politics doesn't go away even after 40 years.
It can only get worse.
I figured I'd ignore it - it's too easy.
I don't want to attack Dr Jazzz on this thread... I was just tutting...
There is a wider issue here, and the shit-smell of American Politics doesn't go away even after 40 years.
It can only get worse.
DrJazzz said:
Right then Jazzz,
I can't read this document.
But I'm gonna pin my fillings to you on this one and give "the benefit of the doubt", without question.
It would be "brilliant" if it is, as you purport, a US Govt. doc'.
I will follow this thread.
And buy you a beer, either way, later this year.
So peeps.
PROVE it ain't what Jazzz says it is!
Or, if you can't....Admit so, and lay off!
Woof
Masseuse said:This is why governments get away with so much shit.
Because when they are eventually found out people still don't want to believe it. Or can't be bothered because it was a long time ago. I can't believe the pathetic response to this.
"Oswald was a cia agent"
"Prove it"
"Here's an official government memo"
"I've gone blind and I don't care and you're still a tinfoil hatter anyway so there".
Doesn't matter if you're looking at Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Lennon, or any other symbolic leader who threatened certain power structures. They all get bleedin offed don't they.
And by "lone gunmen"
"How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?"
Word Mass!
Woof
Streathamite
ideological dogmatist
err, so was OBL and Ho Chi MinhDrJazzz said:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yr all missing a vital and obvious point.
have any of you ever seen a declassified yankee document which didn't have lots of black marker on it? i suspect that the highlighted sections of the memo above were blacked out and have been replaced by the Nutty Icke with conspiracy nonsense. why doesn't one of the conspiracy types email the national security archive and determine the true provenance of this memo?
have any of you ever seen a declassified yankee document which didn't have lots of black marker on it? i suspect that the highlighted sections of the memo above were blacked out and have been replaced by the Nutty Icke with conspiracy nonsense. why doesn't one of the conspiracy types email the national security archive and determine the true provenance of this memo?
bristle-krs said:
True enough. But if we don't have an accurate picture of what has passed, we cannot have an accurate picture of the here and now. By finding out what has passed in history we can better define our current state and the likely outcome of any action we may take in a given circumstance. For example, if we take an action based on our perceived history and this perception is innaccurate, how can our choice of action be valid?
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
perhaps i'm not making myself clear: how can you get a clear picture of that day 41 years ago, given the ludicrously vast swathes of data?
would your energy not be better spent tackling injustices here, now?
would your energy not be better spent tackling injustices here, now?
No, you are making yourself clear. The huge amount of information (and misinformation) is indeed a barrier but new pieces of information should at the very least be verified and if placed in the information pool may well negate other peices fo information, resulting in a slightly clearer picture.bristle-krs said:
Of course more energy should be spent on the here and now but not to the point that new information relating to our history and therefore relating to the definiton of our present should be ignored. I suppose it's all about balance and the validity of each individual revelation should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Look, killing Kennedy made no essential difference to the course of either US or world history.
In historical terms, his assasination was an irrelevance.
A far more important assasination - where we know for a fact that the CIA was involved - was that of Patrice Lumumba, whose murder helped drive the former Belgian Congo into dictatorship, lunatic levels of corruption and finally civil war and social catastrophe in which three million people have died (so far).
In historical terms, his assasination was an irrelevance.
A far more important assasination - where we know for a fact that the CIA was involved - was that of Patrice Lumumba, whose murder helped drive the former Belgian Congo into dictatorship, lunatic levels of corruption and finally civil war and social catastrophe in which three million people have died (so far).
Masseuse said:This is why governments get away with so much shit.
Because when they are eventually found out people still don't want to believe it. Or can't be bothered because it was a long time ago. I can't believe the pathetic response to this.
"Oswald was a cia agent"
"Prove it"
"Here's an official government memo"
"I've gone blind and I don't care and you're still a tinfoil hatter anyway so there".
Doesn't matter if you're looking at Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Lennon, or any other symbolic leader who threatened certain power structures. They all get bleedin offed don't they.
And by "lone gunmen"
"How long shall they kill our prophets while we stand aside and look?"
Excellent post as are your others here masseuse.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Jangla said:
okay; are you saying the document posted above counts as 'new evidence'? because (i) it doesn't seem to be a smoking gun to my eyes, it doesn't say anything new; (ii) where is the provenance to go with it?
You're entitled to question whether it is genuine or not. What I don't want is on the one hand people to go "this document is so extraordinary so it must be a fake' - and then, when authenticity has been establised, to turn round and say 'well it's neither here nor there'.FridgeMagnet said:
I'm confident it's genuine, it's appearing on other sites (not that that necessarily means it's good), but it would be ridiculous for someone to attempt to forge a document which they claim is declassified - for it is within the bounds of any American Citizen to source the document for themselves. Plus, the document makes perfect sense.
DrJazzz said:You're entitled to question whether it is genuine or not. What I don't want is on the one hand people to go "this document is so extraordinary so it must be a fake' - and then, when authenticity has been establised, to turn round and say 'well it's neither here nor there'.
I'm confident it's genuine, it's appearing on other sites (not that that necessarily means it's good), but it would be ridiculous for someone to attempt to forge a document which they claim is declassified - for it is within the bounds of any American Citizen to source the document for themselves. Plus, the document makes perfect sense.
Fair?
Aye!
Woof
ill-informed
passive aggressive master
how does an american go about seeing the document? (not that i'm an american of course)
editor
hiraethified
It would make things soooo much easier if you bothered to check the authenticity of the material first and gave it some credible context before starting yet another thread making a bold, emphatic declaration of conspiracy-tastic 'fact', DrJ.DrJazzz said:
Why are you always unable to do this?
Excacly......and why are posters saying don't pick on the good Dr. when it was him who started the thread with a bold statement implying it is fact?....If it were real I would have no doubt that Dr. J would not have found it on the internet somewhere.....Jesus fucken Christ, how gullible are you guy's?
Perhaps Mass. if it wasn't so bleeding obviously a faked document, it wouldn't be ridiculed so quickly.
I don't believe one word of it, because there is no fucken way that a document that valuable would be suddenly found on the internet. DavidIckes website no less....
I suspect Dr. J is fishing for a different conspiracy to tout instead of 911.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
There is the other possiblility.
The memo says that LHO was trained by the CIA. Therefore, assuming the docs genuine, we can say that LHO received unspecified forms of CIA training.
What we don't have evidenc for is any kind of employment or further contact LHO had with the CIA once this unspecified training was completed, if indeed it was.
That is ALL the document can allow to say Dr J - it does not provide a scrap of evidence that LHO was in the active employ of the CIA as an operative, informal or otherwise. It just says they trained him.
The memo says that LHO was trained by the CIA. Therefore, assuming the docs genuine, we can say that LHO received unspecified forms of CIA training.
What we don't have evidenc for is any kind of employment or further contact LHO had with the CIA once this unspecified training was completed, if indeed it was.
That is ALL the document can allow to say Dr J - it does not provide a scrap of evidence that LHO was in the active employ of the CIA as an operative, informal or otherwise. It just says they trained him.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
For anyone interested, from the NARA:
61 Boxes?
http://www.archives.gov/research_room/jfk/collection_register_jfk.html
61 Boxes?
No kyser - read the last paragraph on the page. It says the CIA used him for Soviet assignments, in Minsk. A CIA agent. And the fact that Oswald had spent time in Russia was always touted as evidence that he was a pinko commie for whom offing presidents would be a career goal. Right!kyser_soze said:
Oh, and the last time I produced a document, and editor proclaimed it must be a forgery because it wasn't appearing in the mainstream media, was the Schoedinger vs. Bush rape lawsuit. It was genuine. Schoedinger went on to commit suicide, apparently (gunshot to the head).
The thread has long since been deleted, editor.
But I have a firm memory of it, and you vigorously questioned that the document I had put up an image (the court application) was genuine; because it wasn't appearing in the mainstream media, but 'conspiracy' sites. Your argument was protracted and vociferous. However, it was genuine, yet there was no admission that you had been mistaken - and you went straight on to arguing that the court case meant nothing.
And here, you are questioning whether this one is genuine. I'm pretty confident that it is. As I said, there would be little point in forging a declassified government memo, because you would certainly be found out. Yet, you must appreciate that it's beyond me to fly to America and source the document for myself.
The document pictured I think has first appeared on 'Libertythink' http://www.libertythink.com/2004/09/oswald-was-cia.html who claim that it was obtained by www.jfkmurdersolved.com (who, incidentally, offer what seems a very plausible candidate for the assassination).
But I have a firm memory of it, and you vigorously questioned that the document I had put up an image (the court application) was genuine; because it wasn't appearing in the mainstream media, but 'conspiracy' sites. Your argument was protracted and vociferous. However, it was genuine, yet there was no admission that you had been mistaken - and you went straight on to arguing that the court case meant nothing.
And here, you are questioning whether this one is genuine. I'm pretty confident that it is. As I said, there would be little point in forging a declassified government memo, because you would certainly be found out. Yet, you must appreciate that it's beyond me to fly to America and source the document for myself.
The document pictured I think has first appeared on 'Libertythink' http://www.libertythink.com/2004/09/oswald-was-cia.html who claim that it was obtained by www.jfkmurdersolved.com (who, incidentally, offer what seems a very plausible candidate for the assassination).
Similar threads
