What a family!

[Greg Parker]

On it's own though, it also offers an alternative scenario. IIRC Marina was required to attend the US embassy in Moscow for a medical check before departing for the US. We know now that some of those medical people were CIA. Maybe those holes were drilled there... ala the KGB case....

Len: Then you should easily be able to provide a citation for the underlined claim. So the new theory is that she was recruited to spy on her husband before they moved to US? Irregardless of when she was supposedly 'turned' why would they get a Russian woman to spy on her deep cover CIA agent husband?

Memory jog: It was Alexis Davison who was the doctor who examined Marina at the embassy. He was later kicked out of the country for spying. The thing about the question "why" Len, is that if something did happen – then they is a reason for it – even when that reason is not easily discerned. Best not to get ahead of the game, okay? That Bouhe's church was backed by the CIA has never been disputed. I'm pretty sure even McAdams' concedes it was.

The ICA was part of the same CIA and government backed private organisations used in Cold War efforts. It for instances, supported military coups in Latin America.

But I'm through with providing cites for you because you then proceed to dissect the minutiae in attempts to tie up large portions of my time. That is just using the rules for your own less than pure purposes. The fact is, when you can't zero in on some point or other to pick apart, you just ignore the cite and move on to something else - no acknowledgment - no nothing.

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

You are the one not reading. "It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War."

The thesis backs up that premise. Len: That's a stretch, the author said its funding was primarily private and the CIA was not among its government funders. I notice that you edited out your original claim where you classified PH as a "CIA sponsored "charity"", he flat out contradicted you according to him it was a) a legit charity not tied to the CIA c) mostly privately funded.

From the thesis:

The State-private Network and Psychological Warfare Ironically, "a heavily centralized campaign" to mobilize the American people, according to intellectual historian Giles Scott-Smith, "would not sit well with an American ideology built on the freedom of the individual." Freedom "exalted individual choice" while "it condemned state control," explains Lucas, and its promotion had to occur through the appearance of individuals such as Project HOPE's Dr. Walsh "freely making their own decisions and pursuing their own objectives" or "through the apparent autonomy of organizations in the private sector" like Project HOPE. The U.S. government needed HOPE and other "active groups, not linked to the government," writes Helen Laville, "to represent private American life" and challenge communism's expansion. Accordingly, U.S. propaganda strategy, Lucas concludes, "relied upon cooperation between the Government and private groups." This cooperation between private citizens and public officials created a web of organizations called the "State-private network" that covertly or overtly received material or moral support (and sometimes both) from the U.S. government while waging psychological warfare on behalf of the United States.6 US government + covert = CIA.

As for the private funding... that was how the CIA covertly funded such groups – to maintain a separation. Everything had to appear to purely PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENT action.

I do not recall anywhere where he specifically states there was NO CIA funding of Project Hope.

You missed your true calling Greg, you should move to Young, NSW and 'Pic' cherries, I wrote "And there was no mention of PH being involved in 'psyops' other that trying to make the US seem more appealing than the USSR by providing free medical care in poor non-aligned countries. So there is no reason to believe Marina's dentist implanted a listening device in one of her fillings just because his boss later became a PH volunteer."

I live in Orange. It's the apple city. Seriously.

Firstly you are mistaken in believing he only joined PH AFTER Marina's work was done. He had been on one trip prior. Secondly, the author states that the terms psychological warfare, political warfare, ideological warfare, information, the battle for hearts and minds, public diplomacy, and even cultural diplomacy were all used interchangeably during the Cold War.

If you think he could not have been recruited for other roles during his exposure to Cold War operations with PH, just say so.

Lastly, whatever I edited out, it was not chosen for any reason other than trying to make discussion more readable. You edit, do you not? Feel free to reinsert it.

[Greg Parker]

Find me someone other than the author of the paper whose definition of psychological operations implicitly or explicitly includes humanitarian operations in neutral countries.

Greg,

I took a closer look at the paper and the author did cite 2 – 3 sources for his definition of psychological operations. According to one 'U.S. officials "defined . . . psychological warfare broadly to include any nonmilitary action taken to influence public opinion or to advance foreign policy interests."' [pg 15] But even accepting this admittedly 'broad' definition for psyops, a definition more encompassing than normally used today, especially on the EF - a dentist participating in program to provide free care to people in 3rd world countries in no way suggests he earlier would have ordered an underling in the US to implant a listening device in a patient's tooth.

And once again your definition of PH as CIA backed was totally false as per your source. According to the author the government's "material support" to PH consisted of "the retired Navy hospital ship and the money to refurbish that vessel." [Pg 30] and that failing to get further government financial support "turned to corporate America for material support and financial backing" [pg 49] he even said explicitly that "Project HOPE demonstrates, however, that funding and supplying State-private organizations did not always involve a covert CIA plot." [ibid]

Material support = overt funding.

Private funding = covert funding

Edited November 21, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Jim,

when someone here starts referring to themselves in the third person, it usually indicates a problem with their ego. I'll giver you one guess who does that when under pressure...

When someone starts addressing the peanut gallery instead of the other participant in the debate, it usually indicates they are feeling threatened and insecure and totally incapable of responding directly back to points directly made.

For instance, I have said repeatedly that I have made no allegations or insinuations. Those are YOUR invntions. I have merely stated as fact that there was a conflict of interest and a failure to address that conflict. Above and beyond that, I have pointed out Jack's self-serving and contradictory statements in regard to his friendship with Kudlaty and also when Armstrong first became aware of that friendship.

You avoid those issues and repeatedly prattle on in attempts to put allegations of impropriety in my mouth, lecturing that I should research information in the book (which this has nothing to do with this at all), challenging me to prove allegations I have not made (and even if I had made them, Jack's refusal to answer questions kind of limits options on investigating further), and you even jump on Doug's bandwagon ridiculing Wiki. Easy to do. I've done it. But the fact is that wiki is generally reliable on non-controvertial matters.

You also wrongly assume I have done zero research on the Kudlaty matter.

I posted this on Feb 27, 2007

Refer to CE 1384 which indicates formal request for NYC school records through the Mayors office and NYC Board of Education and that legal advice was sought on handing over court records. See 1373-A which shows that the request for Fort Worth school records was made through the Texas Attorney General to Fort Worth police who then went through the Fort Worth School District offices.

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was enacted in 1974. Under this Act, school records can be released without consent only to:

The current school district

A school district to which the student is transferring

State or federal education authorities

State or federal financial aid programs

Law enforcement officials for "child welfare" protection

Or upon a judge's order for release

Handing over school records was not done willy nilly - even when it's the FBI and it's the investigation of an assassinated president. Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says.

What school district was Stripling in again? Fort Worth?

If Kudlaty handed over any records, it appears to have been an illegal act.

None of the theory's supporters replied to the above. How strange

As for Pfisterer - at the time Oswald worked there, the company employed 5 runners including Oswald. Three said Oswald was there in '56 and one said '57.

Did Armstrong interview any of the three who said '56? If not, why not?

Don and others before him are always keen to mention how much money Armstrong spent like that equates to quality. Only in America...

Greg keeps on avoiding the point, and he does this deliberately.

He also avoids another point about his own sloth.

The only way his ridiculous insinuation has any import is if Jack had any influence at all over Kudlaty prior to John talking to him.

What evidence does he have for this?

Zilch.

And he doesn' t understand or refuses to understand that he bears the burden of proof here. In fact, he does not want to bear the burden of proof because it will show that his insinuation is nothing but hot air. He does not want that to happen because then he can't bandy it about any more.

The worst part of this was when he tried to say that Doug somehow agreed with him on this point. When this was not the case, he started attacking Doug.

Now he actually brings up some oh so brief FBI reports to counter, not the astronomy club stuff I brought up, but the Pfisterer employment. But what he does not say is two things:

1. John has even more witnesses who place Oswald at Pfisterer at that time, witnesses i did not name.

2. The FBI and the WC understood this was a real problem for them, so they arbitrarily slid this back. Not because of these brief and shallow reports Greg cites, or any real investigation, but simply because they did not want to deal with it. Which of course, is what they always did in these kinds of situations.

So far from his own self promoted stance of "draining the swamp" , or as a self appointed ombudsman, what Greg is really doing is unabashedly siding with the FBI and Hoover. Sort of like what Bob Harris did with those Secret Service reports to counter VInce P.

If one was really interested in finding out the truth of the situation, one would not just sit there and search MFF to find what fits one's own agenda. He would do the kind of work that John did--a real field investigation. But alas, Greg won't even pick up the phone to call someone. He would rather trash Jack over what amounts to a big fat zero in evidentiary terms. Which he then tries to obfuscate by quoting Wikipedia on "Conflict of interest", which can only apply when one represents two people at once. Yet it has been established that John did not know about Jack's acquaintance with Kudlaty when he talked to the latter. And further,there is no evidence that Jack even knew Kudlaty was at Stripling at the time or later. If so, Greg would have produced it.

This all smacks of cheap lawyer tricks, the kind of thing Specter was famous for. And that Posner and Bugliosi used. And at the same time, it avoids confronting all the other witnesses that support Kudlaty. Like say, his boss, Calindo, the teachers, and the students. And also the fact taht Kudlaty has a reputation for character purity that is well known in his field. A reputation so exalted that even the Texas Monthly editor--who was out to wreck John-- could not touch it. If this reputation was not so sterling, he probably could not have become superintendent, or been in a handpicked group of 25 to go to China to observe their educaton system.

The idea that somehow he would forfeit all that for a guy he once was acquainted with at TCU in the forties is so off the wall, that one has to really wonder. But then one adds in this: for what benefit? To be mentioned in a JFK book that maybe seven hundred people will read?

Sure Greg. And you are saying you never thought of all this right?

[Michael Hogan]

Don and others before him are always keen to mention how much money Armstrong spent like that equates to quality. Only in America...

It requires money to travel around the country, interviewing witnesses and visiting libraries, JFK symposiums, universities and

the National Archives in Washington D. C. in order to assemble the documents and evidence Armstrong used in his research.

It takes money to self-publish a book like

Harvey & Lee

.

Don Jeffries did not imply that the money Armstrong spent equated to quality. I don't see how Greg gleans that from what Don wrote.

Don allowed that Armstrong's work may not be perfect, and debating his conclusions is fair game. Don does make the point that the

time, effort and money invested by Armstrong in writing

Harvey & Lee

was not made with the expectation of financial reward.

Don simply asks what would be the motive for Armstrong to purposefully lie.

Where does Don say that the money Armstrong spent equates to quality? The can be no doubt that the vast amount

of documents assembled in Armstrong's footnotes and the CD that accompanies the book represent important

and valuable research. Regardless of one's level of experience in studying John Kennedy's murder, after reading

Harvey & Lee

in its entirety one will know more about the subject than they did before.

I understand John Armstrong is yet another of the polarizing figures in the CT community, but I don't believe it's imperative that we accept 100% of anyone's work. Armstrong obviously put a great deal of time and effort (and evidently his own money) into a massive amount of research. Dispute any of his conclusions all you want, but can't you recognize the genuine effort that went into his work? If you assume he was being dishonest here, what was the motive? Financial? Like most CT writers, I'm quite certain Armstrong made little or nothing on his book.

There is no book on Lee Oswald and the JFK assassination that I know of that contains more references to primary documents (both well-known and obscure) than Armstrong's book.

It is useful for this alone. Sometimes the attempts to criticize those who find value in Armstrong's work come across as petulant and childish.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Parker]

Michael, the point is that whenever anyone is attempting to defend Armstrong, the amount of money he spent is invariably raised. Why state the obvious unless it's meant to somehow implant the thought that the book MUST be good... (my god! All that money!!!) If I'm wrong then I wasted all those years observing human behaviour. What you say is correct; the money allowed the research. It did not guarantee quality.

But I'm glad to see nothing much has changed with you. Still able to zoom in on one little comment of mine while remaining mute on the personal attacks meted out to me, along with all those attempts to put words in my mouth, and the utter failure of anyone to directly address the ethical issues I raise, let alone the evidence presented which shows where Armstrong's research is flawed.

Don and others before him are always keen to mention how much money Armstrong spent like that equates to quality. Only in America...

It requires money to travel around the country, interviewing witnesses and visiting libraries, JFK symposiums, universities and

the National Archives in Washington D. C. in order to assemble the documents and evidence Armstrong used in his research.

It takes money to self-publish a book like

Harvey & Lee

.

Don Jeffries did not imply that the money Armstrong spent equated to quality. I don't see how Greg gleans that from what Don wrote.

Don allowed that Armstrong's work may not be perfect, and debating his conclusions is fair game. Don does make the point that the

time, effort and money invested by Armstrong in writing

Harvey & Lee

was not made with the expectation of financial reward.

Don simply asks what would be the motive for Armstrong to purposefully lie.

Where does Don say that the money Armstrong spent equates to quality? The can be no doubt that the vast amount

of documents assembled in Armstrong's footnotes and the CD that accompanies the book represent important

and valuable research. Regardless of one's level of experience in studying John Kennedy's murder, after reading

Harvey & Lee

in its entirety one will know more about the subject than they did before.

I understand John Armstrong is yet another of the polarizing figures in the CT community, but I don't believe it's imperative that we accept 100% of anyone's work. Armstrong obviously put a great deal of time and effort (and evidently his own money) into a massive amount of research. Dispute any of his conclusions all you want, but can't you recognize the genuine effort that went into his work? If you assume he was being dishonest here, what was the motive? Financial? Like most CT writers, I'm quite certain Armstrong made little or nothing on his book.

There is no book on Lee Oswald and the JFK assassination that I know of that contains more references to primary documents (both well-known and obscure) than Armstrong's book.

It is useful for this alone. Sometimes the attempts to criticize those who find value in Armstrong's work come across as petulant and childish.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, the point is that whenever anyone is attempting to defend Armstrong, the amount of money he spent is invariably raised. Why state the obvious unless it's meant to somehow implant the thought that the book MUST be good... (my god! All that money!!!) If I'm wrong then I wasted all those years observing human behaviour. What you say is correct; the money allowed the research. It did not guarantee quality.

But I'm glad to see nothing much has changed with you. Still able to zoom in on one little comment of mine while remaining mute on the personal attacks meted out to me, along with all those attempts to put words in my mouth, and the utter failure of anyone to directly address the ethical issues I raise, let alone the evidence presented which shows where Armstrong's research is flawed.

It's not my obligation to defend you, Greg. I stay out of most threads you are involved in, because in your eyes you are always right.

But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even

claim that Armstrong said it, it reminded me of the discussion I had with you over AMORC, Rosicrucianism, and radionics. It was back then

that I saw what lengths you would go to to try and prove the unprovable and what questionable internet sources you would summon.

I still read and pay attention to most of what you post here. I do not throw out everything you say on the basis of the above.

The point is, you totally misdescribed what Don Jeffries said and threw in a snarky comment for good measure, and you deserved to be called on it.

[Doug Weldon]

Jim,

when someone here starts referring to themselves in the third person, it usually indicates a problem with their ego. I'll giver you one guess who does that when under pressure...

When someone starts addressing the peanut gallery instead of the other participant in the debate, it usually indicates they are feeling threatened and insecure and totally incapable of responding directly back to points directly made.

For instance, I have said repeatedly that I have made no allegations or insinuations. Those are YOUR invntions. I have merely stated as fact that there was a conflict of interest and a failure to address that conflict. Above and beyond that, I have pointed out Jack's self-serving and contradictory statements in regard to his friendship with Kudlaty and also when Armstrong first became aware of that friendship.

You avoid those issues and repeatedly prattle on in attempts to put allegations of impropriety in my mouth, lecturing that I should research information in the book (which this has nothing to do with this at all), challenging me to prove allegations I have not made (and even if I had made them, Jack's refusal to answer questions kind of limits options on investigating further), and you even jump on Doug's bandwagon ridiculing Wiki. Easy to do. I've done it. But the fact is that wiki is generally reliable on non-controvertial matters.

You also wrongly assume I have done zero research on the Kudlaty matter.

I posted this on Feb 27, 2007

Refer to CE 1384 which indicates formal request for NYC school records through the Mayors office and NYC Board of Education and that legal advice was sought on handing over court records. See 1373-A which shows that the request for Fort Worth school records was made through the Texas Attorney General to Fort Worth police who then went through the Fort Worth School District offices.

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was enacted in 1974. Under this Act, school records can be released without consent only to:

The current school district

A school district to which the student is transferring

State or federal education authorities

State or federal financial aid programs

Law enforcement officials for "child welfare" protection

Or upon a judge's order for release

Handing over school records was not done willy nilly - even when it's the FBI and it's the investigation of an assassinated president. Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says.

What school district was Stripling in again? Fort Worth?

If Kudlaty handed over any records, it appears to have been an illegal act.

None of the theory's supporters replied to the above. How strange

As for Pfisterer - at the time Oswald worked there, the company employed 5 runners including Oswald. Three said Oswald was there in '56 and one said '57.

Did Armstrong interview any of the three who said '56? If not, why not?

Don and others before him are always keen to mention how much money Armstrong spent like that equates to quality. Only in America...

Greg keeps on avoiding the point, and he does this deliberately.

He also avoids another point about his own sloth.

The only way his ridiculous insinuation has any import is if Jack had any influence at all over Kudlaty prior to John talking to him.

What evidence does he have for this?

Zilch.

And he doesn' t understand or refuses to understand that he bears the burden of proof here. In fact, he does not want to bear the burden of proof because it will show that his insinuation is nothing but hot air. He does not want that to happen because then he can't bandy it about any more.

The worst part of this was when he tried to say that Doug somehow agreed with him on this point. When this was not the case, he started attacking Doug.

Now he actually brings up some oh so brief FBI reports to counter, not the astronomy club stuff I brought up, but the Pfisterer employment. But what he does not say is two things:

1. John has even more witnesses who place Oswald at Pfisterer at that time, witnesses i did not name.

2. The FBI and the WC understood this was a real problem for them, so they arbitrarily slid this back. Not because of these brief and shallow reports Greg cites, or any real investigation, but simply because they did not want to deal with it. Which of course, is what they always did in these kinds of situations.

So far from his own self promoted stance of "draining the swamp" , or as a self appointed ombudsman, what Greg is really doing is unabashedly siding with the FBI and Hoover. Sort of like what Bob Harris did with those Secret Service reports to counter VInce P.

If one was really interested in finding out the truth of the situation, one would not just sit there and search MFF to find what fits one's own agenda. He would do the kind of work that John did--a real field investigation. But alas, Greg won't even pick up the phone to call someone. He would rather trash Jack over what amounts to a big fat zero in evidentiary terms. Which he then tries to obfuscate by quoting Wikipedia on "Conflict of interest", which can only apply when one represents two people at once. Yet it has been established that John did not know about Jack's acquaintance with Kudlaty when he talked to the latter. And further,there is no evidence that Jack even knew Kudlaty was at Stripling at the time or later. If so, Greg would have produced it.

This all smacks of cheap lawyer tricks, the kind of thing Specter was famous for. And that Posner and Bugliosi used. And at the same time, it avoids confronting all the other witnesses that support Kudlaty. Like say, his boss, Calindo, the teachers, and the students. And also the fact taht Kudlaty has a reputation for character purity that is well known in his field. A reputation so exalted that even the Texas Monthly editor--who was out to wreck John-- could not touch it. If this reputation was not so sterling, he probably could not have become superintendent, or been in a handpicked group of 25 to go to China to observe their educaton system.

The idea that somehow he would forfeit all that for a guy he once was acquainted with at TCU in the forties is so off the wall, that one has to really wonder. But then one adds in this: for what benefit? To be mentioned in a JFK book that maybe seven hundred people will read?

Sure Greg. And you are saying you never thought of all this right?

Greg:

I have not followed this and any other Armstrong threads very much because it is not something I have wanted to devote much time to, Again, I know nothing about you but it is YOU who asked my opiniion about the ethical issue involved in this matter. You specifically asked my opinion, not anyone else's. I am uncertain why you sought my opinion rather than from others but when I responded with an answer you did not like your response was to childishly take some personal cheap shots. Again, I don't know you and you certainly do not know me. In subsequent posts you have complained how people attack you personally. Personally, I could care less about your cheap attack on me, but in my mind this is what casts a bad light on the whole research community.

Besides not wanting to focus time on issues such as this as I am frustratingly trying to finish writing my book. I especially have no desire to discuss Armstrong with someone who has not even bothered to read what Armstrong wrote. I have some criticisms of the book but you are not even close in determining where the book is weak and where it is strong. Futhermore, there are others on this forum who are far more equipped than I to discuss his book. As to the FBI reports it is legitimate to raise them and try to resolve which accounts are likely accurate but to accept these minor reports as gospel is foolish. My guess, as so often happened in interviews by the FBI and in testimony is that they were probably asked the questions predicated by something such as "When you worked with Oswald in 1956, did you.....? The statements are not even signed by the witnesses and the record is replete with witnesses who state what was presented is not what they said and sometimes where there are signatures witnesses have later said that it was not their signature on a statement. All statements, from both sides, should be weighed very carefully. It is a con if you are suggesting the whole issue is simply one of ethics. You are trying to discredit Armstrong. As both Jim and I have noted, with someone like Kudlaty, why don't you just pick up the phone and call him. Ask him how well he knew Jack White, ask him what he did when the FBI came to him.Read the book and phone the witnesses. You ask if Armstrong called the witnesses you raised as contradicting Armstrong. My response would be "Did you?"

You do not know me or my background. One of the things you do not know is that I taught school law at a university at the graduate level for 12 years to masters and PHD students. You state " Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says..." Actually you are way off base. That and subsequent laws have progessively tightened access to records and protected the privacy of students. Even parents are now limited in accessing their child's records once they have reached age 18. Before this time and in 1963 it was much easier for anyone, including newspapers and reporters to access those records. They certainly would NOT have been denied to law enforcement agencies. Things have changed much. If Oswald had confessed while being denied an attorney his case could have gone up to the Supreme Court with Miranda v Arizona. The Miranda case actually happened before Oswald was arrested and the case law could have now be known as Oswald v Texas, the Oswald case instead of the Miranda case.

It is a shame how you have blindly pursued this in attacking Jack and recklessly gone after Armstrong. If you want to attack him do so and hang your cap on the correct issues. There was NO conflict of interest and nothing ethically wrong here. Not one person has yet supported you on this issue. When can you let it go? You are only diminishing your own credibility.

Doug Weldon

Edited November 22, 2010 by Doug Weldon

[Greg Parker]

It's not my obligation to defend you, Greg. I stay out of most threads you are involved in, because in your eyes you are always right.

Nor your obligation to be even-handed, apparently. But that's okay.

And a search of this site will demonstrate I've admitted error more than once. A search of my own site will show I have added addendums to show errors in, and to make corrections to the main body.

But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even

claim that Armstrong said it,

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to here. Whatever it is, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with the discussions in this thread. But I;m happy to be shown otherwise.

it reminded me of the discussion I had with you over AMORC, Rosicrucianism, and radionics. It was back then

that I saw what lengths you would go to to try and prove the unprovable and what questionable internet sources you would summon.

Here is what Michael is talking about for any interested parties. http://educationforu...opic=8797&st=45 What can be seen is your efforts to castigate me for speculating in my Oxnard article that the Oxnard caller was a Rosicrucian – despite being told that speculation was not contained in the article; only in discussion here. Your inability to discuss or acknowledge the bigger picture - that the woman was performing some type of occult ritual is what is telling. Doesn't matter to me if it was AMORC, the Satanic Church, or some other group she belonged to. It's like arguing over what brand of dishwasher liquid you use when most have essentially the same ingredients. One piece of speculation I have made in the past about radionics which I no longer believe, is that the mystery box found in Oswald's possession was possibly a radionics device.

I still read and pay attention to most of what you post here. I do not throw out everything you say on the basis of the above.

Nor do I throw everything Armstrong or Jack White says out. If you care to search for it, you'll find instances where Jack has agreed with me, and other times when I've agreed with him. Hopefully no one here is bloody-minded enough to make a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The point is, you totally misdescribed what Don Jeffries said and threw in a snarky comment for good measure, and you deserved to be called on it.

That's your opinion. From where I sit, every time Armstrong's research is under scrutiny, someone will jump in to mention how much he spent on researching the book. The money he spent is obvious to everyone. Why mention the obvious, unless you are suggesting something beyond the obvious.

That you are oblivious to the double-standard you use is deciding who "deserves" to get called out is kind of amusing.

Jack making self-serving and contradictory statements? That's okay.

Jim and others putting allegations in my mouth? That's okay

Jack breaking forum rules by questioning my research abilities? That's okay

[Doug Weldon]

Greg is trying to play both ends of this argument:

Armstrong's original research should not be given its due simply because he had the money to do what no one else had done.

To me this is completely too categorical and indiscriminate. And ultimately unfair. It somehow implies that what John did was worthless because it was expensive to do.

John's research is original in two ways.

First, John purposely avoided some of the standard bearers who came before him since he did not think their reputations measured up against their output. Therefore he did not want to be unduly influenced by them. And, in fact, if you read his book, you will see a remarkable dearth of references to any of the standard books in the field.

Second, because of his wealth, he had the time and money to talk to people who others did not: e.g. the Ziger sisters, Kudlaty, Dr. Kurian.

These were new witnesses that, to my knowledge, no private researcher had ever interviewed before. These people had new information to offer.

Now whatever one thinks of John's main thesis, his book is largely original. In the sense that it relies mostly on primary sources. That is documents and interviews. John's wealth allowed him to write that kind of book. So, for example, he could actually visit NARA and handle much of the first day evidence himself. And he could go through the comparison of the DPD list versus the FBI list and make interesting discoveries of how they differed. Again, to my knowledge, no one had ever done that before. It is a significant achievement. And John did an article for Probe in that regard. And he later included it in his book.

But this is what I mean about Harvey and Lee. It is full of stuff like that because of John's avoidance of previous staples in the field and his ability to achieve things others did not. As I mentioned specifically above. And you can add that to the other things i mentioned: his work on the alleged rifle transaction, the alleged revolver transaction and his chapter on Mexico City.

Let me comment on the last further. This chapter, and the adjunct matters John covers in relation to it, amount to over a hundred pages. In my discussion of this matter in relation to Bugliosi's book, I used much of this material. I consider John's work on this crucial subject to be of real importance in the field. In fact, I listed it as one of the four most important sources on Mexico, along with the Lopez Report, and John Newman's book and his Probe essay. And there are things you will not find in Lopez or Newman in John's work e.g. the mystery of how Oswald got there and how he returned are not dealt with in Lopez or Newman. John deals with them at length and in depth and in a way that no on else ever has.

That is what I mean by originality. And that is one reason why his work is valuable and I recommend it to all.

Jim:

I am reading the book again and I am coming away even more impressed with what John did. An example is Oswlad applying to Albert Schweitzer college. John actually went to this small, remote town in Switzerland, found out everything about the school, went through land and title records, finding out who owned the property, who was on the board of directors, any information relating to Oswald, etc.,etc. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his premise, I cannnot imagine anyone, no matter their financial resources, being as thorough as one coulld possibly be. No government agency was this thorough.

Doug Weldon

Edited November 22, 2010 by Doug Weldon

[Michael Hogan]

But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not and justify doing so by referencing some obscure blogger that didn't even claim that Armstrong said it....

I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to here. Whatever it is, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with the discussions in this thread. But I;m happy to be shown otherwise.

Right here:

Martin Blank:

Marina once said she had two husbands. ("I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy") Did she get them mixed up innocently? Or was it purposeful. Who was the other in addition to Harvey? Was she with both Harvey and Lee?

This quote was supposedly made to a French journalist. A quick google tells me the only people who mention this alleged quote are pushing the two Oswald theory. Two alarm bells right there. The jourmalist is unnamed and no one but Armstrong and his supporters use the "quote".

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

If he didn't, I apologise. I was relying on this:

The Final Word

I leave you with these mysterious words from the widow, Marina.

"I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy."

Sources: Armstrong, John, Harvey and Lee; Marrs, Jim, Crossfire; Douglass, James, JFK and the Unspeakable; www.history-matters.com

http://oswaldsmother...ude-part-4.html

I saw that when I Googled. Those sources were for that author's entire essay. I don't believe that Armstrong

ever used that quote and would have to be shown where he did in order to be convinced otherwise.

Fair enough, Mike.

I would like to see the quote in its original form and context along with the name of the French journalist to believe it was said. And if it was a true quote, I'd like to hear what Marina meant by it before I would countenance accepting the conveniently very literal interpretation adopted by supporters of Armstrong's theory (even if not Armstrong himself).

Seems to me, a typical quote made to indicate (for example) that the nice axe murderer who lived next door turned out to be quite the Jeckyl & Hyde.

That's your opinion. From where I sit, every time Armstrong's research is under scrutiny, someone will jump in to mention how much he spent on researching the book. The money he spent is obvious to everyone. Why mention the obvious, unless you are suggesting something beyond the obvious.

That you are oblivious to the double-standard you use is deciding who "deserves" to get called out is kind of amusing.

Jack making self-serving and contradictory statements? That's okay.

Jim and others putting allegations in my mouth? That's okay

Jack breaking forum rules by questioning my research abilities? That's okay

You're such a whiner, Greg. Your idea of what constitutes a double-standard is ridiculous. I am under no obligation to defend your petty arguments on this thread.

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

I have not followed this and any other Armstrong threads very much because it is not something I have wanted to devote much time to, Again, I know nothing about you but it is YOU who asked my opiniion about the ethical issue involved in this matter. You specifically asked my opinion, not anyone else's. I am uncertain why you sought my opinion rather than from others

Why, Doug? Because you saw fit to stick your nose into this earlier in the year, then backed out when told what it was actually about (as opposed to what you thought/pretended it was about), and ignored my repeated requests at that time to offer your opinion. It was reasonable at that time to ask, since you did enter the fray. It is is still reasonable, since you ducked it then.

but when I responded with an answer you did not like your response was to childishly take some personal cheap shots.

You know damned well the answer you gave was nonsense because you falsely continue to try and tie the need for some nefarious act to the situation in order for it to qualify as a genuine ethical/conflict of interest concern.

In subsequent posts you have complained how people attack you personally. Personally, I could care less about your cheap attack on me, but in my mind this is what casts a bad light on the whole research community.

And the lack of comprehension continues apace. I have NOT complained about anything except the double standard involved which gives everyone else a free pass to do and say what they like, so long as they are Armstrong supporters, while searching for any perceived infringements from me to attack. What I listed were examples – not whines. I have already said Jack can say whatever he wants to me – it has zero effect. It's double-standards I can't abide.

As to the FBI reports it is legitimate to raise them and try to resolve which accounts are likely accurate but to accept these minor reports as gospel is foolish. My guess, as so often happened in interviews by the FBI and in testimony is that they were probably asked the questions predicated by something such as "When you worked with Oswald in 1956, did you.....? The statements are not even signed by the witnesses and the record is replete with witnesses who state what was presented is not what they said and sometimes where there are signatures witnesses have later said that it was not their signature on a statement. All statements, from both sides, should be weighed very carefully.

You can surmise how those interviews unfolded all you like. You miss the point. Unless Armstrong interviewed those witnesses, the whole thing reeks of merely searching out those who support his theory. It is pointless telling me how thorough he was if he ignored those witnesses.

It is a con if you are suggesting the whole issue is simply one of ethics. You are trying to discredit Armstrong.

The Kudlaty matter is most definitely a matter of ethics. I am not trying to discredit Armstrong. It is impossible to determine who was at fault because Jack won't clarify his contradictory statements.

You ask if Armstrong called the witnesses you raised as contradicting Armstrong. My response would be "Did you?"

Why would I? I wasn't writing a book. It was his responsibility to do that.

You state " Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says..." Actually you are way off base. That and subsequent laws have progessively tightened access to records and protected the privacy of students. Even parents are now limited in accessing their child's records once they have reached age 18. Before this time and in 1963 it was much easier for anyone, including newspapers and reporters to access those records. They certainly would NOT have been denied to law enforcement agencies.

I'm well aware that privacy laws have progressively tightened. But to suggest that anyone could go and access school/child records in 1963 is false on its face. Oswald's NYC school records were not handed over without going through appropriate channels; nor were Forth Worth's records. And the fact that LEGAL advice was sought before Oswald's court records were finally handed over indicates what to you, Doug? It indicates to me that legal advice was sought because of possible legal impediments. None of those records were simply handed over because the FBI asked for them nicely.

In short, your suggestion that such records would NOT be denied upon request by law enforcement is not supported by the evidence cited.

Edited by moderator due to offensive language.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Antti Hynonen

[Jack White]

Greg...you have no idea what is in John's book. Read the book and get back to us.

Quit displaying your ignorance if what is in the book.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

I think it matters that Armstrong spent alot of his own money on research, I still dont have a copy of his book but my favorite book was written in the same way with lots of the authors own money, thats "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman

That shows me complete dedication to the subject

[Len Colby]

On it's own though, it also offers an alternative scenario. IIRC Marina was required to attend the US embassy in Moscow for a medical check before departing for the US. We know now that some of those medical people were CIA. Maybe those holes were drilled there... ala the KGB case....

Len: Then you should easily be able to provide a citation for the underlined claim. So the new theory is that she was recruited to spy on her husband before they moved to US? Irregardless of when she was supposedly 'turned' why would they get a Russian woman to spy on her deep cover CIA agent husband?

Memory jog: It was Alexis Davison who was the doctor who examined Marina at the embassy. He was later kicked out of the country for spying.

I looked into this and yes he was booted. Apparently he was told inform others at the embassy when he saw a chalk or charcoal mark next to a particular lamppost between he apartment and place of work or received a signal on his home phone. Webberman has several pages on this and I did not see any evidence in them Davidson was CIA. To me the fact they used him suggests he wasn’t, they would have wanted someone the KGB wasn’t closely monitoring.

HTTP://ajweberman.com/noduleX8-RE-DEFECTION.pdf

The thing about the question "why" Len, is that if something did happen – then they is a reason for it – even when that reason is not easily discerned. Best not to get ahead of the game, okay?

That argument would make sense IF you persuasive evidence such a thing happened, but you don’t even have weak evidence that it did. All that you have is piles of speculation about as solid as a mud house built on quicksand.

That Bouhe's church was backed by the CIA has never been disputed. I'm pretty sure even McAdams' concedes it was.

The you should be able to cite where McAdams says this, he was the secretary of the St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox church in another thread Bill said it received CIA funding but his links did not support the claim. Feel free to provide evidence in support of your claim.

The ICA was part of the same CIA and government backed private organisations used in Cold War efforts. It for instances, supported military coups in Latin America.

But I'm through with providing cites for you because you then proceed to dissect the minutiae in attempts to tie up large portions of my time. That is just using the rules for your own less than pure purposes. The fact is, when you can't zero in on some point or other to pick apart, you just ignore the cite and move on to something else - no acknowledgment - no nothing.

The rule that one must support their claims is quite reasonable, it is to prevent people from simply something was true and walking away. You claim DeM was CIA because he went on a single mission for the ICA. Most accounts I’ve seen said it frequently provided cover for the agency rather than was part and parcel of it. This is a crucial difference but even if the latter were true one would have to assume many if not most of its missions fit with the ICA cover story. Thus you have failed to produce evidence DeM was an agent.

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

You are the one not reading. "It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War."

The thesis backs up that premise. Len: That's a stretch, the author said its funding was primarily private and the CIA was not among its government funders. I notice that you edited out your original claim where you classified PH as a "CIA sponsored "charity"", he flat out contradicted you according to him it was a) a legit charity not tied to the CIA c) mostly privately funded.

From the thesis:

The State-private Network and Psychological Warfare Ironically, "a heavily centralized campaign" to mobilize the American people, according to intellectual historian Giles Scott-Smith, "would not sit well with an American ideology built on the freedom of the individual." Freedom "exalted individual choice" while "it condemned state control," explains Lucas, and its promotion had to occur through the appearance of individuals such as Project HOPE's Dr. Walsh "freely making their own decisions and pursuing their own objectives" or "through the apparent autonomy of organizations in the private sector" like Project HOPE. The U.S. government needed HOPE and other "active groups, not linked to the government," writes Helen Laville, "to represent private American life" and challenge communism's expansion. Accordingly, U.S. propaganda strategy, Lucas concludes, "relied upon cooperation between the Government and private groups." This cooperation between private citizens and public officials created a web of organizations called the "State-private network" that covertly or overtly received material or moral support (and sometimes both) from the U.S. government while waging psychological warfare on behalf of the United States.6 US government + covert = CIA.

He did not say anywhere in that section that PH received covert funding. As for the bit about “apparent autonomy” that so struck you fancy note that his source did not refer specifically to PH nor that he did not indicate PH was not autonomous, he indicated the contrary elsewhere.

“Walsh alone—not the White House, the State Department, the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), the USIA, or the CIA—was the impetus behind Project HOPE”

As for the private funding... that was how the CIA covertly funded such groups – to maintain a separation. Everything had to appear to purely PRIVATE NON-GOVERNMENT action.

I do not recall anywhere where he specifically states there was NO CIA funding of Project Hope.

I have pointed this out to you at least 3 times, twice in this thread and one in the other. So for the forth time

Yet, the Ford Foundation, for instance, could only provide thousands of dollars, not millions. So, the CIA also set up dummy foundations to funnel its own money to the network’s member groups. In many ways the network itself was, according to one writer, “an entrepreneurial coalition of philanthropic foundations, business corporations and other institutions and individuals, who worked hand in hand with the CIA.”

Project HOPE demonstrates, however, that funding and supplying State-private organizations did not always involve a covert CIA plot. Instead, Walsh turned to corporate America for material support and financial backing

You missed your true calling Greg, you should move to Young, NSW and 'Pic' cherries, I wrote "And there was no mention of PH being involved in 'psyops' other that trying to make the US seem more appealing than the USSR by providing free medical care in poor non-aligned countries. So there is no reason to believe Marina's dentist implanted a listening device in one of her fillings just because his boss later became a PH volunteer."

I live in Orange. It's the apple city. Seriously.

Firstly you are mistaken in believing he only joined PH AFTER Marina's work was done. He had been on one trip prior. Secondly, the author states that the terms psychological warfare, political warfare, ideological warfare, information, the battle for hearts and minds, public diplomacy, and even cultural diplomacy were all used interchangeably during the Cold War.

If you think he could not have been recruited for other roles during his exposure to Cold War operations with PH, just say so.

Of course “he could have been recruited for other roles”, he also “he could have been recruited” by the KGB or Mossad or “he could have been” child molester, transvestite or Satanist, but there is no evidence even suggesting he was any of those things. He was a dentist who went on humanitarian missions in 3rd world countries with a group that was lent a hospital ship by the Navy and had as a secondary objective improve the image of the US in the countries it treated patients.

Lastly, whatever I edited out, it was not chosen for any reason other than trying to make discussion more readable. You edit, do you not? Feel free to reinsert it.

I already reinserted it, your edit fundamentally changed the meaning of what I was saying. I accept that this was inadvertent on your part though.

[Greg Parker]

Greg is trying to play both ends of this argument:

Still playing to the Peanut Gallery, Jim?

Armstrong's original research should not be given its due simply because he had the money to do what no one else had done.

That you continue to twist everything I say is starting to wear a bit thin. I know you know better.

To me this is completely too categorical and indiscriminate. And ultimately unfair. It somehow implies that what John did was worthless because it was expensive to do.

It implies nothing of the sort. It outright states that the quality of Armstrong's output had nothing to do with the monetary input. Yet the money issue is always raised whenever Armstrong's research is under scrutiny. That it is raised at such a time implies a direct correlation between the money and the quality. Excuse me while I barf at that thought.

John's research is original in two ways. First, John purposely avoided some of the standard bearers who came before him since he did not think their reputations measured up against their output.

You want to put some names to that slur of first gen researchers?

Therefore he did not want to be unduly influenced by them. And, in fact, if you read his book, you will see a remarkable dearth of references to any of the standard books in the field.

I infer from that that no one should read any other book lest one is unduly influenced. The only book one must read is Armstrong's. Barf # 2 ready to fire.

Second, because of his wealth, he had the time and money to talk to people who others did not: e.g. the Ziger sisters, Kudlaty, Dr. Kurian.

Apart from the Zigers, there may be very good reason for that.

These were new witnesses that, to my knowledge, no private researcher had ever interviewed before. These people had new information to offer.

And friendships to declare.

Now whatever one thinks of John's main thesis, his book is largely original.

That's great. But it still doesn't equate to quality. An Elvis-did-it book would be original too.

In the sense that it relies mostly on primary sources. That is documents and interviews. John's wealth allowed him to write that kind of book. So, for example, he could actually visit NARA and handle much of the first day evidence himself. And he could go through the comparison of the DPD list versus the FBI list and make interesting discoveries of how they differed. Again, to my knowledge, no one had ever done that before. It is a significant achievement. And John did an article for Probe in that regard. And he later included it in his book.

But this is what I mean about Harvey and Lee. It is full of stuff like that because of John's avoidance of previous staples in the field and his ability to achieve things others did not. As I mentioned specifically above. And you can add that to the other things i mentioned: his work on the alleged rifle transaction, the alleged revolver transaction and his chapter on Mexico City.