Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

14,661 profile views

Robert Charles-Dunne's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

  1. But according to Armstrong Kudlaty DIDN'T misspeak. Armstrong mis-transcribed. I don't believe it for a second, but that's the current party line. Your party. Try to keep up. No, he said two names, and nobody in the crack H&L squad - including the venerated author - noticed it for... how many years? The book's been in print for 2 decades, and I pointed this out 2 years back. Yet your crack squad boasts of top flight analytical skills. Incongruous much? You cannot ascertain whether the mistake was Kudlaty's (due to passage of time) or Armstrong's (with the passage of no time.) So stop trying to pretend that you can. No, the name of the principal is irrelevant to you, because Kudlaty naming two of them undercuts the value of his story as "evidence." As a witness, this makes him seem addled. That you cannot see this is purely down to your own bias and self-interest. This is how the wrong principal's name ended up being published in a book, which you defend, and about which you see nothing wrong. So, of course, there's nothing to see here, move along. Point? That some people can't find their own backside with both hands. And ignore the import of things even when pointed out to them.
  2. The top post of the following page is informative: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/page/3/ According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school. The principal's name was Wylie. According to quotations from John Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty claimed he received a call from the Stripling principal who ordered him to meet the FBI at the school. The principal's name was Lucas. You did not read that wrong. John Armstrong QUOTED a key witness claiming two contrary and mutually exclusive things. When confronted with this impossibility - there weren't two different principals of Stripling at the same time - the crack H&L squad went into radio silence. When I persisted in demanding a rationalization for this mistake, it was eventually grudgingly admitted that Armstrong had mis-transcribed what Kudlaty told him. With all due respect, I have a higher opinion of John Armstrong than that. The diligent, methodical John Armstrong wouldn't cite two different principals from the same witness and not notice, would he? And leave the two different principals in print until it was pointed out? How many years later? Did no one in the crack H&L squad proofread? Or notice? Personally, I have a hard time accepting that John Armstrong is that inept, shoddy, or lazy. Presumably, they know better. If the crack H&L squad cya fallback is that Armstrong is so incompetent, it doesn't exactly strengthen the quality of their argument. So, we are assured the 40-year old memory of Frank Kudlaty is perfect, but the short term memory of John Armstrong is not. Of course. To admit the alternative is to forfeit the game, set and match. To cast in stone the fact that key witness Kudlaty claimed to have been instructed by a principal who by Nov. 1963 was no longer principal. And who in Nov. 1963 was no longer alive, hence unable to call Kudlaty or anyone. Hell of a way to run a railroad.
  3. Way back on June 22, in an H&L thread you were actively participating in, John K. asked if John Armstrong “has found any connection between Edwin Ekdahl and ONI?” On June 27 I answered as follows: “I asked John A. about this and he said no, he had found no direct evidence for that.” Here is the link. But that statement only discounts ONI, not the multiplicity of intel, US or otherwise. And you seem determined to find evidence, whether it exists or not. As in: So you have absolutely no basis to believe Ekdahl had Intel ties, but you're looking for it anyway. Solid police work. So now ridiculing the patently risible is “hate speech” and “personal invective?” Sad really. Yeah, I broke out of an existing thread because that existing thread didn't answer my questions. Couldn't get the time of day from you. Or the others, Denny Zartman excepted. Now that you've been given no choice but to answer those questions, we see the quality of the answers on display. It's funny you should mention dedicated threads, actually, because repeatedly in the past when a thread did not go to your liking, you simply started another one. Jim, you’re not a stupid man. If a post addresses members by name and asks ONLY for information about that topic, do you really think repeated requests to only discuss Ekdahl is an open invitation to drop info irrelevant to the topic? If you’d like to know how this works, you could always ask a Forum admin. Or complain, as you’ve been wont to do in the past. Never seen so many people play to the ref in my life. But I hazard the guess that if there is such rule, it would have been invoked. At your insistence. Again with the “hatefest” stuff. Playing to the ref again? Fact is, I asked repeatedly what evidence you had that Ekdahl had any intel affiliations, after you and yours had implied it numerous times. What evidence did you have? Nothing. By your admission, and by Armstrong’s. And it only took a week or so of trying before you quickly and quietly whispered there was no evidence. Since this thread has demonstrated you have nothing substantive about Ekdahl, it should waft off into the ether. It has served its purpose.
  4. And this, Dear Friends, is what happens in H&L world. Ask a question about Ekdahl, receive stuff about Kittrell completely unrelated to Ekdahl, apparently addressed to other H&L acolytes. On a thread about Ekdahl. Ask the same question abut Ekdahl, receive stuff about Willcott completely unrelated to Ekdahl, apparently also addressed to fellow H&L acolytes. On a thread about Ekdahl. Ask a third time about Ekdahl, and get 20 reasons why H&L should not be pulped... Again, on a thread abut Ekdahl. And In the midst of such is slipped in a most innocuous line: I must have missed where you - days ago - said you had found no hard evidence that Ekdahl was associated with American Intel. Would you mind please citing it for me, as missing it would make me look rather like a horse’s posterior?
  5. I thought below was the question being asked in the initial post in this thread to which an answer was sought: What evidence (needn’t even be proof, since the two words have different meanings) can any of the above muster for the assertion that Ekdahl did anything other than his traveling electrical consultant job for EBASCO? As in, you know, intel? And perhaps you could hazard a guess why he would take (a) Marguerite with him while doing this TOP SECRET work? Jeremy is, of course, correct to draw the distinction between an Ekdahl intel affiliation, and participation in the hypothetical H&L scenario. Even if Ekdahl had intel connections and/or was a witting asset of same, it in no way requires that he was necessarily involved in any way with the H&L hypothesis. Or that he would need to know of such a purported project. When the boy was nine years old. In the absence of proof to the contrary. Which is currently lost at sea. I had hoped to elicit from the H&L purveyors precisely what they knew about Ekdahl. And if it would support the strong implications made that there was something odd about his incomplete work record. Implications of espionage! Woo-woo! Turns out Team H&L has bupkis to show for this. I figured if they had something, this would become an interesting thread. And if they had nothing - as seems to be the case - the thread would die. Which it now should, until evidence shows that Edwin Ekdahl was something other than a devoted step-father, a potential adulterer, and a traveling electrical consultant. Or if H&L confreres wish to bicker here in public about what each of them has or had wrong. I’d pay to read that.
  6. I expected better from you, Jim. I never expressed "alarm” over anything. On the contrary. I supplied data of which you seemed unaware "NOTE: Following the assassination of President Kennedy the FBI conducted a background search on Edwin Ekdahl. Their report states, "Records do not indicate where Ekdahl worked from 1943 to 1953. The company (EBASCO Services) will not be able to furnish this information." The only other identifying information included was Ekdahl's social security number which was 001-09-9471." The FBI reported that for at least a 3 year duration, Ekdahl was based out of Fort Worth. So whether EBASCO’s files (on a man already ten years dead) regarding where he worked were incomplete, FBI found out at least a portion of that. A fact you don’t disclose. In fact, you suggest just the opposite, that the Bureau couldn’t account for his whereabouts for a decade. As previously posted by your humble scribe, the Bureau provided his place of employment for a third of the time you say has vanished. Fort Worth. Three years. Sorry, what was it you assured readers the Bureau couldn't find ten years of? Two pages of antidote: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57725#relPageId=182&search=ebasco I would presume if there was any reason to investigate him further, the Bureau would have done so. But since he'd been dead for a decade when the assassination occurred, it seems unlikely Ekdahl played a role in it. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd be astounded. As demonstrated previously, the quoted “NOTE” above was little more than purple prose signifying nothing but an attempt to convey Ekdahl was part of some type of intel plot. I have no “concern,” but thanks for trying to mock by fabrication. You know, I could have sworn that in the opening post of this thread, I asked specifically about Ekdahl. First you come back with Kittrell, and now with a Wilcott exhibit, a decade after Ekdahl's death. Does Wilcott mention Ekdahl? If not, why is this even here, where we're talking about Ekdahl and the assertions that he was in some way intel? Which you now, eventually, admit don't exist. In passing, where fewer will notice. Now you'd like to bait and switch with “The Oswald Project,” which couldn't possibly have been operative when Ekdahl was still alive. If Wilcott wrote or testified anything about Ekdahl, I'd welcome seeing it. If it doesn't exist, this is simply another cheap sleight of hand. Jeez, how many people do you need to know about this TOP SECRET hush-hush doppelganger plot? In order for it to work by your assertions, just about everybody ever connected intimately with Oswald (family & friends) must have been made privy to this data. Rather defeats the purpose of a TOP SECRET hush-hush doppelganger plot, doesn't it? Then why do you need a hand addressed gilded invitation to share that fact, eventually, when there were no other gambits available? Will you be appending such a corrective to your "NOTE" above. Seems only right. I wish you success with your plans. In the meantime, the issue here is Ekdahl, and those making against him unsupported charges of espionage. Your analysis of the CIA does a disservice to everyone who has a serious case to make against the Agency. Your metier is fostering a tale so tall, so internally inconsistent, so self-negating, so preposterous that all others with accusations against the Agency are tarred with your brush. This isn't a serious investigation into the President's murder, or the role played in it by CIA. This is masquerading propaganda that does CIA's bidding for it. But, sincerely, thanks for bothering to reply. I much prefer you the person to the re-re-recycled derp you have often sent in your stead.
  7. Although not about Ekdahl, Sandy Larsen’s post reveals some intriguing things: Presumably Sandy Larsen can speak on behalf of “most H&L supporters.” There is evidence for Sandy’s contention in this very thread, when Denny Zartman truthfully wrote: Not sure why people gingerly back away from their H&L adherence in a thread dedicated to Edwin Ekdahl, But here we are. And yet one notes a goodly portion of your 5,600 posts here at the Ed Forum is in defense of precisely that book of that “bad movie.” I have noticed in passing that there are H&L acolytes who will pick and choose which pieces of H&L theory they will invest with meaning, and which they feel free to reject. Perhaps it is why the H&L “moment” never attained critical mass: even devotees balked at having to buy in to everything. This is the Gordon Lonsdale scenario with a twist, a persona provided by a living child rather than a dead one. But it sticks a stake into the very heart of H&L, which requires two Oswalds, not one, or even one and a half. Edwin Ekdahl, anyone?
  8. With all of which I’m in agreement. Had the WC met its mandate, just think how different the past 5+ decades would have been. Imagine all the spare time we would have had. This thread is specifically devoted to questions re: Edwin Ekdahl and certain assertions made about him. If you have something on the topic, I welcome it. If not, perhaps those other comments might best be made in another thread. (Or start one.) I have gone out of my way to extol the virtues of Armstrong’s research when it has led to hitherto unknown documents and people. Anyone who won’t give him that credit is churlish. But, again, today’s topic is Ekdahl. Wise use of “if true.” You know, I kept my mouth shut on this topic for 15 years. I was asked 20-ish years ago to vet early portions of the book. I did as asked. I made known some of my reservations, and my absolute insistence that the Lonsdale comparison was inappropriate, at least, deceptive at worst. And since it was the beginning of the book, it predisposed a careful reader to assume that all that followed was equally.... dubious. I suspect the bulk of my comments were not entirely to their liking. But I gave H&L a 15-year head start. I’d call that fair. After a week of expecting an answer to questions in another thread re: Ekdahl, to no reply, I thought I’d ask the question in a specific dedicated thread, addressed to those who had made assertions. I’m pleased to say that Denny Zartman showed up, albeit to admit that further facts about Ekdahl wouldn’t be forthcoming. It takes courage and honor to admit the limitations of one’s argument, and he’s a bigger man for having done so. (Plus, he’s a good writer, and I like reading his stuff.... but don’t tell him I said that.) I’m disappointed to report that all others to whom this thread is directed - both named and unnamed co-conspirators - have either posted nothing of significance, or nothing at all, and have studiously avoided posting a comment in this thread. They’re not required to answer questions put to them honestly, but these are opportunities to display the depth of their argument. Why is such a grand opportunity being squandered? And, Michael, I know you’ve been around the block enough times that I don’t even need to tell you the rest, because you know it by rote. Assertions made re: H&L. Questions posed re: assertions. Silence. Or worse yet, “what about Bolton Ford?” and “what about...” everything but the topic at hand. In this case, the issue is Ekdahl, and whether those who have him serving some kind of intel functions actually have any specific reason for the suspicions. Thus far - nada. Now the thread will be populated by any number of people who don’t speak to the issue of Ekdahl. But feel compelled to say little, but at great length, here. Assertions made re: H&L. Rinse and repeat. Now, who knows anything about Edwin Ekdahl's purported espionage activities?
  9. No “well, how-about-ism” here thanks. Leads nowhere. The topic of this thread is claims made about Edwin Ekdahl. And is specifically addressed to those who made them. Your observations - which have nothing to do with Ekdahl - would perhaps be better posted elsewhere. Have your say, by all means. Just not here. Ekdahl only please.
  10. So that would be a big fat no from Mr. Zartman. No, what you can't do is provide any basis to believe the "woo woo" being spun around the topic of Ekdahl. Thanks for coming so close to admitting it. You remember your "good work, Jim" comment when Mr. Hargrove posted a massaged version of what the documents actually reveal? What, pray tell, was the "good work" based upon? We're making some progress Now that we've heard from "not even a strong supporter," perhaps we can hear from someone who is. Who's next?
  11. Jeremy Bojczuk was kind enough to remind certain folks on the EVIDENCE For H&L....thread earlier today that I’ve been asking a question for a week. Thus far, to no avail, but also to no great surprise. It is a frequent modus operandi. Since they all continue to contribute to the pertinent thread where the question has been posted more than once, I thought I would address the question to them directly in this thread. We’re all busy men, with many things to do. Perhaps the question has simply escaped their otherwise hawk-eyed attention. Messrs. Hargrove, Zartman, Kowalski (and I think Monsieur Butler too, to a lesser extent, but am uncertain) have all invoked much “woo woo” over Edwin Ekdahl’s purported, or likely, or possible involvement with intelligence, using his EBASCO employment as a cover. There’s been much palaver on the topic. Just not a single reason to believe it true. What evidence (needn’t even be proof, since the two words have different meanings) can any of the above muster for the assertion that Ekdahl did anything other than his traveling electrical consultant job for EBASCO? As in, you know, intel? And perhaps you could hazard a guess why he would take (a) Marguerite with him while doing this TOP SECRET work? Surely between the H&L brain trust, there must be a single, tangible reason for so many members of the H&L squad spinning the same yarn? What is it? Actual evidence, please: no "woo woo." And while I have your attention, why do you sterling photographic analysts have so hard a time differentiating Romulus from Remus?
  12. Saw that movie as well and what you said about Ekdahl made sense. He could have played a similar role as the Courier did in the USSR, in China and Japan. He could have been making observations about military technology or actively participating in operations, while maintaining a cover job as an employee of an American company operating in China. Spectacular speculation. Got the slightest evidence to bolster this “could have been” scenario? Didn’t think so. Maybe you could trouble Denny and Jim H. to see if they have located ANY SINGLE BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR THIS? You’ve all suggested it, but you’ve all come up blank when asked for a scintilla of evidence. Not the way it works. He worked for EBASCO for the last 3 years of WW 2, but stayed stateside: EBASCO was quite clear in stating of his ten year tenure with them: “The record did not indicate the area of the United States in which Mr. Ekdahl worked from 1943 to 1953....” The mention of Lonsdale only serves to remind one that the foundational predicate used in H&L - Gordon Lonsdale - bears precisely ZERO relevance to the alleged H&L project. Lonsdale was one Soviet kid who was supplied with the id papers for a dead Canadian kid and grew up westernized. Where’s his doppelganger? Because he seems to be short, to the tune of one. In what way does that relate to H&L? Well, it doesn’t. And the repetition of a falsehood doesn't make it true.
  13. Well, he had a 13" head, so what do you think? Don’t think so? Ask some of your H&L confreres. Apparently he replaced David Bowie in the Elephant Man touring cast. It’s called football, everywhere in the world that people play it. Where you live, the game that lets you use your hands a lot is called football. Sometimes tough to distinguish one’s posterior from one’s elbow in such environs. Explains much, really. I am not a highly skilled photographic interpreter such as yourself, but I have a thought that might pertain. People mucking about in rough terrain are sometimes known to wear rubber boots. Sometimes as high as the knee. When in the water, one tucks the pants into the boots. When on land, one tucks the boots under the pants. You see how that works? Don't even need "weird" boots. The pant cuffs are “see through?” I have no trouble seeing them. They’re the part that doesn’t let you see either the blue jeans or the boots. But then I am not a highly skilled photographic analyst such as yourself. As for the pant cuffs, there are at least two perfectly mundane explanations for this. First, although I was not Oswald’s age at the time, I do recall that rolling up blue jeans pant cuffs was a fad for a while. Went well with a ducks ass hairdo and badass leather jacket. But given the photo, I’d go with my second choice, which is that he was trying to ensure his pant cuffs didn’t get dirty by dragging on the ground. Or he was wearing borrowed pants, because Harvey had run off with all Lee’s britches. Made a fortune in the USSR by selling Lee’s authentic gen-you-ine USA trousers. I don’t know. Is there a market for pix of Lee Harvey Oswald’s feet? Lovely to see you and Jim H. getting along so well, what with all the freelancing that you and other H&L acolytes seem to do.
  14. Perhaps I am slow and need it explained to me. So, please help a guy out, would you? Followed by, in the self-same post: So, how is a chap who posts 200 times on a particularly suspect H&L contention, NOT willing to “argue the evidence here....?” In fact, there are dozens of Forum members who have been more than willing to argue the evidence, only to have you hive off into silence, and ignore the questions you can’t answer. Or answer with something wholly irrelevant. I ask about Ekdahl, you respond with Kittrell. Hell of a way to run a railroad. And then come back to claim that nobody’s willing to argue the evidence. Which is rather backwards and counter-factual. Jim will “CLAIM to have debunked” contentions from H&L detractors. And post dozens of links. But he simply WILL NOT argue the evidence that doesn’t suit him on the JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE website. What do you have on Ekdahl’s intelligence connections? Because you assert and imply much, but actual evidence (and - dare I say - “proof) has not been forthcoming. Stop begging to debate the H&L phantasm and answer a straight question. Because I'll keep asking it until you do.
  • Create New...