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
Sign in to follow this  
Greg Parker

LHOCW VOL 2 now available

Recommended Posts

"Greg, uhh, How long is that "plain brown wrapper"

;)

Bill

Greg, Sorry, I was attempting a wry joke about a certain "plain brown wrapper"- bag, that did or didn't take a ride with Buell Frazier and Ozzie. B)

Bill

Doh! Got me again me, Bill! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I consider to be the main points of information from vol 2

  • John Donovan told the basic truth during his WC testimony. He was got to after that and lied through to his teeth to anyone silly enough to listen. His purpose was to use broad stroke language allowing listeners to conclude that Oswald was recruited by Communists in Japan.
  • Nelson Delgado's testimony needs to be taken seriously. Seriously, why has everyone fallen for the WC's interpretation of his testimony instead of what Nelson actually said?
  • Oswald hot date, Rosaleen Quinn was herself a CIA agent preparing for a mission somewhere in the Eastern Bloc.
  • Oswald's recruiter was David Ferrie
  • What Ferrie recruited Oswald into was a CAP program with large flags pointing to domestic and foreign components. The foreign component was the birth of the false defector program.
  • Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, is well known to have worked for the CIA as a psychologist under military cover. Not known until this book was the nature of that work. She was employed as part of a dedicated team looking at recruitment of people for the FICON program. FICON was the precursor to the U2 program. And this was all leading up to Oswald joining the Marines. Bear in mind that in book one, a lot of circumstantial evidence was laid out for the case that Edwin Ekdahl knew the Hyde clam while both he and they lived in NYC through a mutual interest in Norman Thomas and the cooperative movement. Ekdahl's sister even wrote a book on the subject.

For the nitty gritty details on all this, the book is available through all online sellers. Here is the amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B014KJPNBW/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=189S5JSBF5JPY9MCNTXB&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR200%2C320_

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I consider to be the main points of information from vol 2

  • John Donovan told the basic truth during his WC testimony. He was got to after that and lied through to his teeth to anyone silly enough to listen. His purpose was to use broad stroke language allowing listeners to conclude that Oswald was recruited by Communists in Japan.
  • Nelson Delgado's testimony needs to be taken seriously. Seriously, why has everyone fallen for the WC's interpretation of his testimony instead of what Nelson actually said?
  • Oswald hot date, Rosaleen Quinn was herself a CIA agent preparing for a mission somewhere in the Eastern Bloc.
  • Oswald's recruiter was David Ferrie
  • What Ferrie recruited Oswald into was a CAP program with large flags pointing to domestic and foreign components. The foreign component was the birth of the false defector program.
  • Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, is well known to have worked for the CIA as a psychologist under military cover. Not known until this book was the nature of that work. She was employed as part of a dedicated team looking at recruitment of people for the FICON program. FICON was the precursor to the U2 program. And this was all leading up to Oswald joining the Marines. Bear in mind that in book one, a lot of circumstantial evidence was laid out for the case that Edwin Ekdahl knew the Hyde clam while both he and they lived in NYC through a mutual interest in Norman Thomas and the cooperative movement. Ekdahl's sister even wrote a book on the subject.

For the nitty gritty details on all this, the book is available through all online sellers. Here is the amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B014KJPNBW/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=189S5JSBF5JPY9MCNTXB&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR200%2C320_

bump

bumped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I consider to be the main points of information from vol 2

  • John Donovan told the basic truth during his WC testimony. He was got to after that and lied through to his teeth to anyone silly enough to listen. His purpose was to use broad stroke language allowing listeners to conclude that Oswald was recruited by Communists in Japan.
  • Nelson Delgado's testimony needs to be taken seriously. Seriously, why has everyone fallen for the WC's interpretation of his testimony instead of what Nelson actually said?
  • Oswald hot date, Rosaleen Quinn was herself a CIA agent preparing for a mission somewhere in the Eastern Bloc.
  • Oswald's recruiter was David Ferrie
  • What Ferrie recruited Oswald into was a CAP program with large flags pointing to domestic and foreign components. The foreign component was the birth of the false defector program.
  • Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, is well known to have worked for the CIA as a psychologist under military cover. Not known until this book was the nature of that work. She was employed as part of a dedicated team looking at recruitment of people for the FICON program. FICON was the precursor to the U2 program. And this was all leading up to Oswald joining the Marines. Bear in mind that in book one, a lot of circumstantial evidence was laid out for the case that Edwin Ekdahl knew the Hyde clam while both he and they lived in NYC through a mutual interest in Norman Thomas and the cooperative movement. Ekdahl's sister even wrote a book on the subject.

For the nitty gritty details on all this, the book is available through all online sellers. Here is the amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B014KJPNBW/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=189S5JSBF5JPY9MCNTXB&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR200%2C320_

bump

bumped

This is typical of the mentality he has. He moaned and groaned that I should leave po' l'il Harvey & Lee alone and start discussions on my own book. Then he claimed if I did, he would dissect it and pick the book to pieces. Now that I have (again - because I have done so in the past) started such a thread, he not only isn't dissecting it, he is actually complaining that I started what HE insisted I start!

David must have had a little brother that he loved playing "heads I win-tails you lose" with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my copy, Greg. It looks great!

Thank you, Randy.

There are some minor editing issues, but they are being ironed out for the hard copy.

Any questions, critiques after reading... feel free...

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I consider to be the main points of information from vol 2

  • John Donovan told the basic truth during his WC testimony. He was got to after that and lied through to his teeth to anyone silly enough to listen. His purpose was to use broad stroke language allowing listeners to conclude that Oswald was recruited by Communists in Japan.
  • Nelson Delgado's testimony needs to be taken seriously. Seriously, why has everyone fallen for the WC's interpretation of his testimony instead of what Nelson actually said?
  • Oswald hot date, Rosaleen Quinn was herself a CIA agent preparing for a mission somewhere in the Eastern Bloc.
  • Oswald's recruiter was David Ferrie
  • What Ferrie recruited Oswald into was a CAP program with large flags pointing to domestic and foreign components. The foreign component was the birth of the false defector program.
  • Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, is well known to have worked for the CIA as a psychologist under military cover. Not known until this book was the nature of that work. She was employed as part of a dedicated team looking at recruitment of people for the FICON program. FICON was the precursor to the U2 program. And this was all leading up to Oswald joining the Marines. Bear in mind that in book one, a lot of circumstantial evidence was laid out for the case that Edwin Ekdahl knew the Hyde clam while both he and they lived in NYC through a mutual interest in Norman Thomas and the cooperative movement. Ekdahl's sister even wrote a book on the subject.

For the nitty gritty details on all this, the book is available through all online sellers. Here is the amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B014KJPNBW/ref=pd_sim_351_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=189S5JSBF5JPY9MCNTXB&dpSrc=sims&dpST=_AC_UL320_SR200%2C320_

bump

bumped

This is typical of the mentality he has. He moaned and groaned that I should leave po' l'il Harvey & Lee alone and start discussions on my own book. Then he claimed if I did, he would dissect it and pick the book to pieces. Now that I have (again - because I have done so in the past) started such a thread, he not only isn't dissecting it, he is actually complaining that I started what HE insisted I start!

David must have had a little brother that he loved playing "heads I win-tails you lose" with.

Greg,

That does sound a bit hypocritical of DJ, doesn't it.

He's a truly desperate and slightly paranoiac man, IMO.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Greg,

with the same level of understanding you have from your study of Harvey and Lee...

you get your review.

I'm sure, like your attacks on John and his book, it will fall on deaf ears and be of no consequence to anyone...

at least now we can play on the same, level field.

;)

--------------

Nothing written in this volume is based in fact.... the author guesses, alters evidence, speculates and then writes whatever his faith-based opinions conclude.

When we look at a source, if one is ever offered, it says the exact opposite of what the author tells us it said... every time.

Then the author wants us to believe that the entire book is not devoted to disproving the H&L theory at every opportunity... :up

The book is a complete waste of time and fails to prove a single thing it attempts...

It remains one mans attack on the sensibilities of any intelligent person choosing to pick it up at all as well as a one man crusade against the published work of his betters.

Why would anyone waste their time?

---------------

I see what you mean Greg... not reading the work or learning a thing about what it says makes condemning it so much easier...

I bet you'd think someone who wants to discuss a topic you wrote about would read the work first? But you;ve shown me a better way..

Thanks.

I will go see what you think the big deals about Delgado and Donovan are as they are two of the key sources of evidence for... wait for it....

Harvey and Lee being two people... but the book is not about disproving that...

:news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go Greg,

with the same level of understanding you have from your study of Harvey and Lee...

you get your review.

I'm sure, like your attacks on John and his book, it will fall on deaf ears and be of no consequence to anyone...

at least now we can play on the same, level field.

;)

--------------

Nothing written in this volume is based in fact.... the author guesses, alters evidence, speculates and then writes whatever his faith-based opinions conclude.

When we look at a source, if one is ever offered, it says the exact opposite of what the author tells us it said... every time.

Then the author wants us to believe that the entire book is not devoted to disproving the H&L theory at every opportunity... :up

The book is a complete waste of time and fails to prove a single thing it attempts...

It remains one mans attack on the sensibilities of any intelligent person choosing to pick it up at all as well as a one man crusade against the published work of his betters.

Why would anyone waste their time?

---------------

I see what you mean Greg... not reading the work or learning a thing about what it says makes condemning it so much easier...

I bet you'd think someone who wants to discuss a topic you wrote about would read the work first? But you;ve shown me a better way..

Thanks.

I will go see what you think the big deals about Delgado and Donovan are as they are two of the key sources of evidence for... wait for it....

Harvey and Lee being two people... but the book is not about disproving that...

:news

The difference is David, that H & L material is plastered all over the web. There is more than sufficient upon which to base a judgement.

Just as a matter of interest, many years ago, prior to looking at any of Armstrong's claims, I just assumed at least the evidence was honest, even if the theory was most likely wrong. To that extent, I even used Kurian's statements in one of my own pieces. Then later, when looking more deeply into other of Armstrong's claims and witnesses, I began to realize what major issues there were with his evidence. So I threw Kurian out with all that other bath water. More recently however, after specifically looking further into Kurian's claims, I accept they could be true. I accept it is possible that Carro asked for a quick unofficial assessment of Oswald and/or for advice about him prior to court. The unofficial nature of the interview would be the reason no written record exists of it. Kurian's memory of Oswald's height was accurate within in an inch or two as a margin of error, given the length of time. Oswald was not tall and husky. Simple as that. But the real point is, this is honest research. What you do with H & L is something else again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes... Delgado's testimony should be carefully reviewed...

Why does the FBI and Hoover try to show Delgado was full of it? And you of course used these 4 reports in addition to his testimony... right?

Like this one: I seem to remember you LOVE FBI reports as sources for your conclusions....

How does this testimony work in with that report?

Mr. LIEBELER - You mentioned that your MOS, I believe it is called, your military occupation specialty, has an indication that you are qualified to speak Spanish or another language; is that correct?
Mr. DELGADO - Right.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you take tests while you were in the Army to establish your proficiency in the Spanish language?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes, I took the language proficiency test, and also the OCS test, the regular test they give you when you first go into the service, and I passed them all. It's in my 201 files, my military records.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you pass the Spanish proficiency test?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes. In fact I was offered to be sent to Monterey language school.

Mr. LIEBELER - To continue your studies in connection with the Spanish language?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - You took the Spanish proficiency test when you came into the Army at Fort Ord; is that correct?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes.

Delgado%20and%20the%20FBI%20and%20Spanis

Delgado%20and%20the%20FBI_zpspti3oos7.jp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear David.

You didn't read Delgado's testimony, did you?

Mr. LIEBELER - You mentioned before in your testimony that you had been interviewed prior to this time?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - By whom?
Mr. DELGADO - FBI agents.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember their names?
Mr. DELGADO - No; I don't.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember approximately when they talked to you?
Mr. DELGADO - They talked to me about five times.
Mr. LIEBELER - About five times?
Mr. DELGADO - Right.
Mr. LIEBELER - Could it have been three times?
Mr. DELGADO - One is at home, twice in the battery--no, four times, because they visited me once at home, twice at the battery. the same fellow; then he brought another man in. Yes; four times. Two different fellows. And one time one was a Spanish--I don't know, I guess he was a Spanish interpreter.
Mr. LIEBELER - He spoke Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - He spoke Castilian Spanish.
Mr. LIEBELER - Castilian Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - Right.
Mr. LIEBELER - That is a different kind of Spanish from the kind you speak?
Mr. DELGADO - All right. He could go out here in New York City and go down in Spanish Harlem and he would be lost. I mean it would be all right if 90 percent of the Spanish people down there were college graduates, they could understand him. They don't speak that type of Spanish there, nor do they speak it in a lot of other Spanish countries. It's like speaking the English as spoken in England, you know. You can't expect a man from Georgia to try and understand a man from England the way he speaks pure English.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have difficulty in understanding this agent when he spoke to you in Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - No. See, I took it in high school. But he had difficulty in interpreting my Spanish.
Mr. LIEBELER - So you think he was likely to have gotten the opinion that you weren't very proficient in Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - Right. But I would be willing to challenge him if he and I go down to Spanish Harlem and see who gets across faster.
---------------------
If the FBI really could discredit Delgado, it would have done so by showing the following was a lie.
Mr. DELGADO - I am a 94116, which means that I am a cook, with a linguist digit, which means I can speak and write Spanish fluently. That is what that last 6 in that digit means.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you highlight the gulf between us in approach. You think because some FBI reports can't be trusted, you need to toss them all out (except when they help you. Then you pretend there is no problem at all with them) . Conversely if (you are not into H & L and) you trust some, you should trust them all.
From my side, I trust them whether they help me or not, unless there are grounds for not trusting particular ones. Here, you've got a case of the FBI trying to discredit a witness on the grounds that he said something the FBI didn't like (Oswald was not a great shot with a rifle). It is similar to the situation Rowland found himself in for daring to say he saw 2 men up on the 6th floor. The FBI was sent out to bring him down a peg or two - not on the basis of his testimony, but on the basis of his background. You know - similar to what your friend Stevo tried with me - using my background to try and discredit me.
As your other friend Jim is fond of saying - try harder.
Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear David.

You didn't read Delgado's testimony, did you?

Mr. LIEBELER - You mentioned before in your testimony that you had been interviewed prior to this time?
Mr. DELGADO - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - By whom?
Mr. DELGADO - FBI agents.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember their names?
Mr. DELGADO - No; I don't.
Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember approximately when they talked to you?
Mr. DELGADO - They talked to me about five times.
Mr. LIEBELER - About five times?
Mr. DELGADO - Right.
Mr. LIEBELER - Could it have been three times?
Mr. DELGADO - One is at home, twice in the battery--no, four times, because they visited me once at home, twice at the battery. the same fellow; then he brought another man in. Yes; four times. Two different fellows. And one time one was a Spanish--I don't know, I guess he was a Spanish interpreter.
Mr. LIEBELER - He spoke Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - He spoke Castilian Spanish.
Mr. LIEBELER - Castilian Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - Right.
Mr. LIEBELER - That is a different kind of Spanish from the kind you speak?
Mr. DELGADO - All right. He could go out here in New York City and go down in Spanish Harlem and he would be lost. I mean it would be all right if 90 percent of the Spanish people down there were college graduates, they could understand him. They don't speak that type of Spanish there, nor do they speak it in a lot of other Spanish countries. It's like speaking the English as spoken in England, you know. You can't expect a man from Georgia to try and understand a man from England the way he speaks pure English.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have difficulty in understanding this agent when he spoke to you in Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - No. See, I took it in high school. But he had difficulty in interpreting my Spanish.
Mr. LIEBELER - So you think he was likely to have gotten the opinion that you weren't very proficient in Spanish?
Mr. DELGADO - Right. But I would be willing to challenge him if he and I go down to Spanish Harlem and see who gets across faster.
---------------------
If the FBI really wanted to discredit Delgado, all they had to do was show the following was a lie.
Mr. DELGADO - I am a 94116, which means that I am a cook, with a linguist digit, which means I can speak and write Spanish fluently. That is what that last 6 in that digit means.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again you highlight the gulf between us in approach. You think because some FBI reports can't be trusted, you need to toss them all out (except when they help you. Then you pretend there is no problem at all with them) . Conversely (if you are not into H & L and) you trust some, you should trust them all.
From my side, I trust them whether they help me or not, unless there are grounds for not trusting particular ones. Here, you've got a case of the FBI trying to discredit a witness on the grounds that he said something the FBI didn't like (Oswald was not a great shot with a rifle). It is similar to the situation Rowland found himself in for daring to say he saw 2 men up on the 6th floor. The FBI was sent out to bring him down a peg or two - not on the basis of his testimony, but on the basis of his background. You know - similar to what your friend Stevo tried with me - using my background to try and discredit me.
As your other friend Jim is fond of saying - try harder.

Greg,

Bravo!

:clapping

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×