Jump to content


Spartacus

Greg Parker

Member Since 28 May 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 01:36 PM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Straus Family

Yesterday, 11:46 PM

 

 



http://khmerization....-offensive.html

 

The Magazine source for this article is McCall's, but a 1968 Saturday Evening Post article is much more detailed, revealing that Averell Harriman was directly involved in circumstances which lead to Jackie's trip to Cambodia. The point of this is that it is not certain that Jackie knew who was behind her husband's murder, but would she have went on a diplomatic mission to Cambodia arranged by the person responsible for his death? Harriman as JFK Conspirator might fly on the Forum, but not in the real world.   

 

I'm not saying as a fact that Harriman pushed the button on JFK.

 

I'm arguing that he had the motive, means and opportunity far beyond any other single individual.

 

if Max Holland's characterization of his meeting with LBJ is accurate, Harriman deserves to be regarded as a Person of Interest in the case

 

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

 

(quote on)

 

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.  None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

 

(quote off)

 

There was no meeting of top US gov't Soviet experts.

 

Charles Bohlen was traveling in France, George Keenan spent the day in quiet mourning with Robert Openheimer at Princeton.

 

Smells like treason.

 

Using Max Holland as a source for anything smells like BS. You at least qualify it with your "if". But it's a big one.

 

You also need to qualify this "I'm arguing that he had the motive, means and opportunity far beyond any other single individual." by adding "as far as I know." Because there is indeed someone who beats on all counts. 

 

I thought you going to start your own thread on this? 


In Topic: The Straus Family

Yesterday, 11:45 PM

 



http://khmerization....-offensive.html

 

The Magazine source for this article is McCall's, but a 1968 Saturday Evening Post article is much more detailed, revealing that Averell Harriman was directly involved in circumstances which lead to Jackie's trip to Cambodia. The point of this is that it is not certain that Jackie knew who was behind her husband's murder, but would she have went on a diplomatic mission to Cambodia arranged by the person responsible for his death? Harriman as JFK Conspirator might fly on the Forum, but not in the real world.   

 

I'm not saying as a fact that Harriman pushed the button on JFK.

 

I'm arguing that he had the motive, means and opportunity far beyond any other single individual.

 

if Max Holland's characterization of his meeting with LBJ is accurate, Harriman deserves to be regarded as a Person of Interest in the case

 

Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

 

(quote on)

 

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the

assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey

Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an

experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the

unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists.  None of them

believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

 

(quote off)

 

There was no meeting of top US gov't Soviet experts.

 

Charles Bohlen was traveling in France, George Keenan spent the day in quiet mourning with Robert Openheimer at Princeton.

 

Smells like treason.

 

Using Max Holland as a source for anything smells like BS. You at least qualify it with your "if". But it's a big one.

 

You also need to qualify this "I'm arguing that he had the motive, means and opportunity far beyond any other single individual." by adding "as far as I know." Because there is indeed someone who beats on all counts. 


In Topic: Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

Yesterday, 10:52 PM

Greg Parker:  Please forgive me, but I'm not sure, possibly because of bad memory, whether you believe Marina's husband was an intelligence agent, the subject of this diary.

 

His roles varied from courier to agent/asset to informant to patsy. 

 

Footnote:  Individuals sometime change over the course of their lives, change in appearance, affect, ability to interact with others, etc.  Marina's husband is a mystery.  There is not a clean, clear line of Oswald, from child to adult.  The line is troubled, uncertain.

 

When Marina's future husband arrives in Moscow, he's a wreck.  From then on, he appears to be a wreck.

 

Really?

 

He's a wreck once he gets back to the U.S. with a wife and child.

 

Really?

 

But in the NOLA radio broadcast, he's pulled together well.

 

Of course!

 

Something's wrong here.  Or unexplained.  I say unexplained.

 

The "something" may well be who you are reading. believing, listening to.

 

Are individuals sometimes odd, sometimes out of step with the mainstream?  Sure.

 

Asperger's


In Topic: Was Oswald an Intelligence Agent?

Yesterday, 01:41 AM

I'm so glad to hear someone has the answers.

Set the world on fire.

When it comes to zingers, you're right up there with Bill Shorten... 

 

B7si32_CIAACeyZ.jpg


In Topic: Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Yesterday, 01:32 AM

Gentlemen and Ladies,

 

I have just hidden a post for inappropriate use of language.

 

Please be more circumspect.

 

This is a very important thread and you are all showing how well you are working together and collaborating on an issue that could be of real importance in JFK research.

 

Please bear in mind the use of language on a forum that is open to the public.

 

James

 

she_ite.jpg

 

she_ite2.jpg

 

she_ite3.jpg

 

No, not all of these are from the "old regime"

 

Yes, I know you are not omnipresent.

 

But I think the sheer volume as shown indicates a systemic problem. That problem being that it depends on who "transgresses" as to what - if any - action is taken.

 

All I ask is for a bit of fairness and consistency.