Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Owen Parsons

Members
  • Content count

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Owen Parsons

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

10,134 profile views
  1. I protest

    Yes, because he had known Chambers under another name ("George Crosley" according to Hiss, and "Carl" according to Chambers, although Chambers later allowed that Hiss was possibly correct) and had not yet had a face-to-face meeting with him. When he finally had the face-to-face meeting, he identified him as George Crosley after a physical examination. Who is this unnamed witness? There are many named people who knew nothing of this.
  2. What are "statics," John? While you're at it, why don't you try proving that the Prouty quote, as you have presented it here, is not an absurd and slanderous fabrication, as I have shown?

  3. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    Sure. See this post of mine here. And thanks for the Brandt article.
  4. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    No, it's a figment of YOUR fertile imagination. I followed your advice and looked through your various newsgroup postings (under various alliases) and found the original Prouty quote, which is a bit, err... differen't.
  5. You will soon have attained celebrity statics with posts and insight like these.

  6. Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

    And even Don Gibson made these same claims at the COPA conference in the 1993-94 timeframe as I recall. Bill, do you remember the audience reaction when Prouty made his anti JFK statements? Were you there or would John Judge have any of the VHS transcripts available? How about when Mark Lane said: "Files? What files? There are no files for the Congress of Freedom!" I have to thank Vicky Wertz for turning me on to The Liberty Lobby and their chosen promulgators of the party line. Prouty made no anti-JFK comments. The quote you have presented to this forum is a fabrication and the original offers you no support. I'm pretty sure the Gibson comments are similiarly fabricated, but I was unable to find anything about it. But considering the source...
  7. I protest

    He initially denied it because he had known Chambers under a different name and his physical appearance had changed drastically in the interval. Context. I think you'll find that just about all the allegations of interest in the American Communist movement track back to one person.
  8. http://www.prouty.org/fletch4.html
  9. Your quote from Col. Prouty as presented in this thread is a fabrication. I followed your advice and sifted the newsgroups. You presented the quote in a more accurate form a decade ago. "I come from 9 generations of Americans going back to the Mayflower. I don't know when the uhh... Kennedys came over here from Ireland...but the people of Massachusetts sure seemed to like him." [Note: the Mayflower of course landed in Massachussetts.] A user named steve4439 put the quote in context: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...b41dca13652599f
  10. Alger Hiss

    My eyes must have decieved me then, because I'm pretty sure I did read it. Bingo, they weren't refuting the actual, unpublished, article, but an oral presentation, which, if I understand correctly, they did not even attend. Now let's actually address the paper, shall we?
  11. Alger Hiss

    Yeah, they are essentially "refuting" an article they had not even read at the time. It was a preemptive strike. I find their "refutation" weak and facile, particularly their attempt to explain away Gorsky's placing Ales in Mexico while Hiss was in Washington, compare which to Kai and Chervonnaya. Jeff Kisseloff calls it "a quickly assembled, conjectural, truncated, inaccurate summary of Bird and Chervonnaya's findings included in a premature and hostile response to reports of "The Mystery of Ales" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (see "Hiss Was Guilty," History News Network, April 16, 2007), which was posted on the Internet two months before the Bird and Chervonnaya paper was published or even available for review." http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/tanenhausresponse.html By "objective scholars" I assume you mean Allen Weinstein, Bush's Chief Archivist and the man who said of the National Endowment for Democracy, which he helped create, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." He wrote a book almost entirely worthless called "Perjury." Since you are not dealing with any real issues, I will just direct you to some refutations and leave it at that. See here: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/kissel.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/navasky.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/gaps.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/jones.html
  12. Alger Hiss

    Um yeah, and the article you posted also only deals with the Ales issue. If you want to get into all the other fraudulent so-called "evidence" of Hiss' guilt, we can do that. Yeah, academic papers are typically very cautious and measured in their conclusions and use words like "suggest" rather than definitive statements. This is the rule, not the exception. Hardly surprising. Now why don't you actually get around to addressing the evidence in the paper?
  13. Alger Hiss

    Typical tendencious Haynes and Klehr schlock. All of which can be rebutted by simply comparing this article to the Bird/Chervonnaya paper which it attempted to pre-emptively rebut. After studying this matter in some depth, I can say that the entire case against Alger Hiss is one blatant fraud after another and that he is entirely innocent.
  14. Dean Andrews

    [EDIT: I'm cutting out my comments in re: Ferrie, Cubans, and IMSU pre-BoP. Since I don't really have the documents to work with except the excerpts you are giving me and I don't really feel comfortable arguing from that position, I'm not really going to press this particular side issue further.] I used McAuliffe because I had it handy and he crystallized it succinctly. As you note, he was president of the FDC and that quote was based on a conversation with Ferrie himself. What I have not used here is interviews I did for a book. I hope they're less equivocal than McAuliffe. Given one of the sources, I'd need some more confirmation. Just my opinion. Well, that's your prerogative. What could be more solid than an attorney? I asked if a partial confession to a DA'a investigator would be hearsay. He said yes, inadmissible. In the course of the conversation, I said the suspect died. The lawyer said "when?". I said about 3 days later. How did he die? The coroner said it was a stroke, but there were a couple of notes found that seemed to foretell his death. He said THAT could be considered a deathbed confession, if the suspect knew he might die. Would that make it admissible? Under some circumstances, yes. In Louisiana? Yes. (He was an attorney practicing in Louisiana.) I don't know the name of this attorney and I don't know how valid his offhand remarks are. I'm also not even sure if this aspect of La. law existed around Garrison's time as D.A. I can't take this to bank. Why did he wait three days to go loud and public? I don't think you can get interviews on demand from newspapers. Biles cites Davy 191. I have found the quote. You aren't even citing an FBI denial. You are citing the retraction the Justice Department made in June. Now we are back to a single unequivocal FBI statement that says Shaw was investigated in December 1963. Why did the CIA admit to the FBI associations with Shaw, Bringuier and others, but dissemble abut this? You can't pick and choose like that. First, as you yourself should realize, at least 1/3rd of Roman's statement to the FBI is a lie, as I don't think even you question Sergio Arcacha Smith's CIA connections. Second, I don't know where the CIA informed the FBI about Shaw and Bringuier, but if so, this is still interagency communication and should not be put on level with the memos circulating between the top three of the FBI. But not definitive enough to be sure. Yes, but definitive enough to be pretty confident about it. There are two world views about Shaw. One is that he was lying, the other that his accusers were lying. I think in the instances I cited and in others, Shaw is provably lying. The head of the ITM knows and anti-Communist, maybe even worked with him. That proves what? Yeah, an anti-Communist and... racist. And this is not the end of Shaw's connections. Or one could look at Shaw's associations within PERMINDEX and Centro Modiale Commerciale. But he went into much less detail then. Mostly about 'forces'. Yes, he did talk about the forces behind the assassination, but he also discusses concrete details of the events surrounding this from his own files. You know this. "9. When did you first meet David Ferrie? Ans. The summer of 1961" Smith is lying here, or he goofed on the year. He did not "first meet David Ferrie" in the "summer of 1961." According to you, Smith and Ferrie became much more friendly in late April of 1961, but even then, they still knew each other prior to that. EDIT: I've found the relevant excerpt here. It reflects DiEugenio's representation save for the date. Since this is supposed to be Ferrie's first meeting with Arcacha, it could not possibly be in the Summer of 1961. It would of necessity have to take place prior to the Bay of Pigs. There are two options: 1. Arcacha's account of his first meeting with Ferrie is accurate, with the exception of the date. 2. Arcacha is telling a blatant lie about the details of his first meeting with Ferrie (one assumes to cover-up something perhaps more incriminating). I think #1 is most likely. Let the reader decide. So my research is disqualified? I supported and admired Garrison, but came to feel that he made some wrong decisions. One of those was when he started regarding those who disagreed with him as some sort of enemies. I'm disqualified? I don't think that comparing Garrison to Joseph McCarthy speaks to your objectivity, no. Given Escalante's tendency to quote assassination books (Please read his inverview in Furiati) and the absence of a source in the one mention, I'm not comfortable with claiming it as a fact. Certainly del valle was involved in counterrevolutionary activites, but the involvement of Ferrie with del Valle is questionable. Again, how could he have spent 6 months with del Valle but still flown his EAL flights? Why did his roommate not see him disappear for 6 months? The reason you are having trouble with this is because you are conflating Escalante's account with Tendedara's. Escalante does not say that Ferrie spent an entire 6 months with del Valle, merely that he made some flights for del Valle's organization. It's a big difference. He mentions Ferrie's flights in the context of intelligence gathered from infiltration of del Valle's organization. As an example of Escalante's use of other assassination materials, he talks about his knowledge of a Carlos Rocha and mentions that "A DAVID FERRIE investigation of Jim Garrison said he was waiting for a Cuban exile named CARLOS. So we cannot say that this is the same person, but there is a very interesting relation." (link) So he is only using it insofar as it might relate to his own knowledge of Cuban intelligence. In this instance, he explicitly says he can't confirm it, but its "very interesting." Ferrie was involved with the FRD, so he may be regarded as a contact. Yeah, and that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the Bay of Pigs Yes, she did. Do you still think we can trust CIA/FBI documents that were not meant for public eyes? See my comments about Roman and the FBI above. How else might pilots be used in an invasion? Bomb dropping. But all the interview says is that Ferrie acted as a "flying instructor." Ferrie would just be teaching the basic mechanics of flying. Someone else could fill in the rest. I don't think you can train pilots a few hours at a time for an event like this. I think a great deal could be a accomplished in oh, say, a hypothetical situation of 3-4 hour lessons on a Thursday at the air strip over a span of 5-6 weeks (more or less). And I'm pretty sure Ferrie wasn't the only flying instructor the CIA had on hand. I imagine things could be coordinated pretty easily. Not to mention the whole backdrop that Ferrie was not that active before the BoP! The only case you have been able to make is that Ferrie might not have been very active with the FRD pre-BoP. But even if true, this is very different from saying that Ferrie was not very active overall pre-BoP. Training of pilots in Guatemala would not fall under the aegis of FRD. We have Marchetti's information that Ferrie was involved in preparations for the BoP and the Ferrie interview with Ivon that we are currently disputing about. Martens, you recall was cagey about Houma before the Garrison and the Grand Jury. he was not cagey about it in later years. Martens died a few years ago, BTW. Layton Martens has at various times said he was only Ferrie's roommate since November 17, 1963, or that he was never Ferrie's roommate (link). Now, I'm certain he was Ferrie's roommate, and prior to 1963, but would you classify him as a reliable source? So stipulated. he could have borrowed or rented a plane. There's no evidence that he did, but yes, he could have. So, Ferrie's flight to Guatemala isn't really "impossible" like you said earlier. Why do you think Ferrie was a CIA agent? Well, lets see, as an example, E. Carl McNabb/Jim Rose, a CIA pilot, says he went on flights for the CIA with Ferrie and that Ferrie had a higher security clearance than he did. In theory, anything is possible. I'm looking for what we can prove. This is not "in theory." Garrison refers to an interview with Ferrie (almost certainly identical with the "confession" to Ivon) that describes trips to Guatemala for the purpose of training pilots. You brought up some evidence that did not really prove or disprove this. It would be "in theory" if I wasn't basing this on anything; its not some wild speculation. My study will fill in a lot of gaps about Ferrie. Some things about him prove to be true, and are carried forward. Some things do not prove to be true. There is some bad information about him out there, that bounces from book to book. You will find a lot of new information in the book which will support what I think are your beliefs. Be patient, I'm getting there. I just hope its out before Lifton's Oswald book. I'm not attacking Garrison, or DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen. I appreciate the work they've done. I've found some mistakes here and there, and I sometimes disagree with their analysis. So be it. There will be the DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen books presenting one case, the Lambert and other books presenting another, and my book introducing a lot of new stuff, some of which will support one side or the other. Serious researchers will read them all and decide what to believe or not. That's the way it goes. If it's any consolation, my book is NOT an assassination book; It's an attempt to define who Ferrie was, so that others may take the research in different directions. Sometimes it seems that you go out of your way to put Ferrie in a good light. For example, we had a discussion of Ferrie's activites at the ice rink a while ago. You used the latter-day statements of Beauboef and Coffey to show that Ferrie probably didn't talk to Chuck Rolland. The problem with that was that not only did this contradict Chuck Rolland's story, it contradicted Ferrie's own to the FBI within days of the event. But this case carries some strong convictions. I've been raked over the coals by one side for even doing a biography of a "nobody" like Ferrie. Others have gotten angry that I don't agree with some of the accepted wisdom about Ferrie. Yes, I can recall "Jerry" on alt.assassination.jfk making complaints of this nature. I know you get it from both directions. I meant what I said before, and I don't intend it to be condescending in the least: You appear to be a good deal younger than me. I'm impressed by your interest in this (much as I was with Joe Biles) and I encourage you to learn further. Don't just accept what you read in books. Find the original documentation, contact witnesses, try to resolve all the discrepancies. But I recommend some level of historian's disclipline. The goal is truth, not some particular theory (including LN theories, too). That means going where the evidence points, not speculating. If you do this and write your own analysis, I'll buy your book. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for a gentlemanly exchange. Thanks, and I've enjoyed it (although its been time consuming). In the meantime, when mine is published, you, in particular will be surprised at how much you agree with! I hope so.
  15. Dean Andrews

    Double post. Ugh.
×