Stephen Roy

Oh, come on, Linda: It was just a joke. You people take yourselves WAY too seriously. I'm surprised that you didn't suggest that my dog wash me... I respect her as a researcher and wish her well in this and other endeavors. I strongly disapprove of her decision to claim that she knew Oswald and Ferrie.

Oh, darn. What a shame. I have to wash the dog that day...

I've read it although not recently. I don't think it is all that either/or, black/white. First, people change. Second, they do contradictory things. He had a lot to say in that manuscript about CPUSA and yet, he was shortly sending out his printing samples celebrating Hall and Davis. Was that manuscript how he felt, or was it meant for a particular audience? Look, I know exactly what you mean about the contradictions and the seeming disconnect. I've felt that at many times in researching this. But Oswald TOLD us who and what he was. What is strong enought to simply cast that aside? Why disbelieve him? I DO think that there are parts of his leftist ass-kissing that sound to me like they MIGHT be an infiltrator doing his best to imitate what he thinks a leftist would say. It just not strong enough to disregard what he actually claimed, in public and in private, over a 9-year period. And having done a lot of research on New Orleans, I'm not so sure about the general characterization of his associations there. I respect your POV and understand it is representative of probably most in the research community. My philosophy is to go only so far as the evidence allows: "This far and no farther," and I don't think the evidence is so clear, compelling and unambiguous as to disregard what Oswald told us, and to favor what we SUSPECT he meant.

I'm in the difficult position of having to disagree with two of the stars of the research community, whom I respect: Larry and Pat. From his mid-teens until his death, Oswald always held himself out to be a leftist, making the point explicitly on several occasions. While it is possible to mirror-read this and theorize that he might have been a counterspy, either for others or on his own, the evidence is by no means as direct. I'm not arguing that he was either a genuine leftist, or a rightist posing as a leftist; What I am saying is that the evidence is not nearly as one-sided as some in the research community seem to think. When new evidence emerges, it is worth considering under BOTH possible interpretations.

Forgive me for playing the Devil's Advocate, but shouldn't we also consider if it was a sincere overture on Oswald's part? I acknowledge that some of the phraseology seems a bit cliche, shallow, maybe even provocative, but are we in a position to positively regard it as part of a cover story? Oswald's writing could be clumsy at times.

As I think some of Oswald's correspondence with leftist groups was picked up by mail covers, I wonder why this wasn't. Certainly Gus Hall was under a mail cover, yes? Wouldn't a letter from a redefector to the GenSec of the CPUSA be of interest to the mail cover folks? Thanks for keeping it alive, Larry.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57607086/the-man-who-shot-the-zapruder-film/

An undated letter from Oswald to the CPUSA has surfaced in an auction. In this letter, Oswald applies for membership in the Communist Party. http://www.paulfrasercollectibles.com/News/Memorabilia/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-letter-to-highlight-October-24-auction/15274.page

Tony explained in a recent email that the photo was misidentified, that it was Shackley, that it's too late to fix this printing, and that it will be corrected in subsequent printings. He seems very unhappy about the error.

I've tried to lay back on the Judyth Baker thing for a number of reasons. She never met Ferrie (and probably not Oswald, either), but I have no desire to rain on her parade, cut into sales of her books, etc. But when she seems to obsess about me in print, I feel compelled to set things straight to a narrower audience of interested researchers. I'll address the rest of the craziness in time, but this caught my eye: QUOTE ON: I submit an example {of a conflict}, from two 1998 posts to McAdams' newsgroup, made only days between each other. On 22 Dec. 1998, Blackburst wrote: “In 1958, Ferrie weaseled his way back into the Lakefront squadron.” (From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst) REF: Subject: Re: Shackelford Article Date: 22 Dec Less than a week later, Blackburst altered the information: “ March 1958-June 1960 - DF is invited back to the New Orleans Cadet Squadron (Lakefront) as an instructor by a sympathetic former cadet who is now the commander.” From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst) (Subject: Re: D.W. Ferrie August 1959 Date: 28 Dec 1998 His patina of 'neutrality' was briefly exposed, before it was hidden again. QUOTE OFF There is NO conflict here. Ferrie was chased out of the squadron in 1954-5 by Wing Executive Officer Ehrlicher. In March 1958, he was invited back by new commander Bob Morrell. Ferrie came back and submitted papers for reinstatement of his CAP rank, but Ehrlicher opposed this at headquarters. Ferrie and Morrell went over his head to Wing Commander Haas and wrote him several self-serving and ass-kissing letters. By September 1959, Ehrlicher relented, Haas approved the paperwork, and Ferrie had weaseled his way back into the squadron. This is just an example of how Baker tries to find conflicts where none exist. Another annoying thing is that she keeps saying that I never met Ferrie. True, guilty as charged. Most biographers of people who died young never met their subject. Yes, I never met Ferrie. But neither did Baker.

I've corresponded privately with Baker. A family issue is taking all of my attention right now, and it may well affect the progress of my book. I have asked her to just leave me out of things right now. I have no problem with her researching and writing on the JFK case and I have no desire to impede her book sales. It makes no sense for me to discuss/debate on her Facebook pages, as I don't believe her story. Once again, my book is a biography, not an assassination book. Somewhat like Carpenter's Clay Shaw book, it merely assembles a bunch of new biographical and contextual material to help define who this mysterious guy was. I clarify, for example, the provable relationship between Ferrie and the CIA, and I offer a bunch of context of the FRD/CRC in New Orleans. It's hard to imagine Baker coming up with a similar book, but you never know. I wish she and her FB supporters would stop trying to portray me as a disinfo agent or a jealous rival. BTW Mods: Do we really need to start the new EdForum era with call-out subject heads using a member's name? (Misspelled, in my case.)

Sure, anything is possible. Ferrie could have borrowed a car from any of a number of people. Of course, when a reporter talked to neighbors in November, they said Ferrie had been using a motorcycle all summer. In my state, it was possible to register a car under a name different from the owner. We did that in my family. Ferrie didn't own a car between March and November. Given his money situation, I'd be surprised if he could have bought a car for the boy.

Quick background: Baker never met Ferrie. She earlier claimed that she and Oswald drove around in Ferrie's car, but I noted that the car he had in early 1963 was described as in "deplorable" shape, so her second book describes the car as in poor shape. Next, I informed her that the car was repossessed in March 1963 and that he did not get a new car until November, instead using a motorcycle all summer. Now she uses a 1963 investigative report commissioned by Eastern Air Lines (which I first posted online nearly 20 years ago) to suggest that Ferrie actually did have a car. She omits that the car was registered to Lt. David W. Ferrie Jr, USMC, of Alexandria. In fact, Ferrie allowed a young serviceman to use his name to register a car which his parents would not let him register, something he did more than once. She mentions Ferrie having used the title "Dr. David W. Ferrie," but fails to note that he did so because he had a virtually useless degree in pyschology from a mail-order diploma mill in Italy, and hoped to start a service counseling young boys. She once again repeats that I never met Ferrie. I did not, but many biographers never met subjects who died many years ago. I have used documents and interviews, the old-fashioned way. More important, SHE never met Ferrie. She has provided NO checkable evidence that she did, citing only uncheckable items like claims that he lectured her and she kept notes, that he lent her a library card or that he sent her a book. In fact, she makes claims that would never have happened: activities in New Orleans when Ferrie was not in the city; having enemies at parties, whom he would never have invited or allowed to be there; wearing a pilot's uniform and discussing his homosexuality when the slightest mention of these things would destroy what he wanted most at that moment, to win his grievances against Eastern Air Lines and get back on flight duty. She claims to have worked at some sort of makeshift medical lab at Ferrie's apartment but cannot account for the fact that many people who came and went at odd hours (or who LIVED there) saw no sign of such a lab, and did not recognize Baker by description, picture or name. Her lame excuse that the items were hidden does not diminish that some of these people could have shown up unannounced ANYTIME. For these and many other reasons, Baker has no option but to try to pre-emptively discredit my ongoing research. If she thinks that the car is the ONLY problem found in her book, let me assure folks that there are MANY more problems with it. It would take another book to discuss them all. Due to what I consider a crazy atmosphere, I decided some time ago to disengage and just let her publish whatever she wants without mentioning me. But she insists on dragging my name into this again and again, which will not work to her benefit in the long run. There is a reason why almost all researchers (and especially specialists on New Orleans), on all sides of these issues, do not credit her stories. Once again she plays the sympathy card: Nefarious forces are deliberately blocking her from responding. If that be the case, she can email me and, with the approval of the Moderators, I will post her responses here. How about THAT, Karl?

Great to have the Forum back. I missed it. Here's hoping people have learned something, and will be more alert to posting within the rules.

We are fortunate, in a sense, that the matter with which we are concerned, the assassination, took place within recent memory, and that people associated with it in one way or another are (or were) still alive to be questioned. I think it is good historical practice to try to obtain as much primary evidence as possible, and new interviews (despite the fading of memories and the passage of time since the events) can turn up useful new paths for research. I would not have contemplated interviewing Gordon Novel, but for the fact that he surfaced himself about 10 years ago when he threatened to sue another researcher. I obtained his email address and decided to give it a try. I didn't expect him to agree, but it was worth a shot. I wasn't disappointed. "Very cute," Novel responded. "Perhaps you'd enjoy dealing with the Ramsey Clark law firm," he added in a threatening manner. I responded that I was simply looking to set the record straight about Dave Ferrie. This seemed to loosen him up and he suggested that I phone him. Thus began a series of contacts which would span many weeks and cover a lot of ground. In the back of my head I'm thinking, Gee I might be chatting with one of JFK's assassins! Novel was an inveterate name-dropper and braggart. At the time we spoke, he seemed obsessed with Area 51 and all that, as well as various dental problems, and he seemed to split his time between Houston and New Orleans. Another of his obsessions, and this is perhaps why he agreed to be interviewed for my book, was his desire to posthumously "screw Jim Garrison." Our talks also proved the old adage that the more the interviewer knows, the more the interviewee will talk. Perhaps to impress me, he insisted on sending me his CV (curriculum vitae or resume). He said he had two, a white CV (for open consumption) and a black CV (presumably for reading by intelligence pros). He only sent me a copy of the former, which I still have. One of the first things that struck me was his claim that he didn't know Ferrie that well. I had read that the relationship was a bit stronger than that. He wanted me to contact his best friend, Jim Schaeffer (name altered) who knew Ferrie much better and had been in the Civil Air Patrol with him. I thought this was odd, as I knew the names of most of the leaders and cadets of Ferrie's CAP squadrons, and Schaeffer was not among them. The first thing I did was to contact the people I knew from the Lakefront and Moisant CAP squadrons, including some who kept the rosters, to ask if they had ever heard of Schaeffer, and the answers were negative. After much phone-tag, I finally spoke with the highly nocturnal Schaeffer and the alarm bells went off again. He was VERY cagey about details of his alleged relationship with Ferrie. He couldn't specify which unit he was in or the time period. He didn't seem to know any of the major CAP personalities. When I fed him a false name of a CAP commander, he acted as if he knew him. I came to feel that he never met Ferrie, and I could pretty much name the book from which he got each little nugget of Ferrie lore. I surmised that Schaeffer had even bamboozled Novel into believing him. Schaeffer did indicate that he was a skilled musician, and he wanted to jam with me when I came to New Orleans. I guess I passed the Schaeffer test, because Novel started opening up and telling me all sorts of details (his current version) of the Houma pickup/heist and other matters, detailed in my book. I eventually broached the possibility that Novel might sit for a videotaped interview with my research partner, New Orleans filmmaker Steve Tyler. To my surprise, he agreed (presumably still to "screw Garrison") and I excitedly called Tyler to tell him. It would quite a coup to get Novel on tape for Steve's film about Ferrie. The next few weeks were a whirl of travel arrangements made, cancelled, rescheduled as we tried to nail the elusive Novel down to a date. At last I made the trip to New Orleans and started working with Steve on other interviews, but Novel still threw multiple curves. He was going to be in Houston for a few days getting a bad tooth fixed. Jeez, Gordon, I paid a lot of money to be there for the video interview, and he damn well better show up. Yeah, yeah, he said, we'll make it happen. We played cat and mouse with my then-new cell phone, but we finally set up a meet at the Que Sera restaurant on the 3300 block of St. Charles (not far from Dr. Mary Sherman's former place!). Steve and I were seated, and I still didn't think Gordon would show up. Suddenly my phone rang and he said he was at the front door. I moseyed over and there he was. Older, grayer, smaller than I expected, the real Gordon Dwane Novel. As he was still sore from dental work, I bought Novel a bowl of Tortilla Soup and an Iced Tea. The atmosphere didn't allow for in-depth conversation. Novel was adamant that we accompany him to Schaeffer's home. We followed Novel in Steve's car, which was loaded with the video equipment, and shared for the first time that the whole scenario was a little creepy and surreal. Were we being set-up for some sort of gay thing? We ended up at Schaeffer's place on Exposition Boulevard, near Audubon Park. The first thing I noticed was a bunch of Area 51 bumper stickers all over the porch windows. As we entered, I noticed that every table top and surface area was covered with nicknacks and other brickabrack, grouped by theme, and I kept thinking of the Addams Family song: "Their house is a museum, where people come to see 'em." Now Jim Schaeffer appeared and invited us to the "seating area." This was weird. It was an old car seat covered with pillows and cushions, plopped down in a living room facing an open set of double doors into a darkened dining room. Steve and I kept exchanging glances, increasingly concerned about what we had discussed in the car on the way over. Schaeffer insisted on playing his music. It was competent playing on traditional 3-chord New Orleans classics, but nothing with any "reach," and I was unable to jam, as there were no instruments available. Suddenly an old projection TV came on in the darkened dining room, at first showing NASCAR racing but quickly turning to some kind of porn. Uh-oh, I thought, but before I had time to shoot a glance at Steve, Novel said "Hey Jim, show them the girls!" On either side of the big TV, flashing colored lights came on and illuminated two department store mannequins, dressed in lingerie. Attached to motors, "the girls" actually gyrated along with the porn on the TV. Steve eyes and mine met, but we didn't need to verbalize anything. This is too weird. We've got to get out of here. Screw the interview. Both Steve and I began making excuses about having commitments early in the morning, saying we'd call Novel the next day. But they weren't done yet. One of them broke out a leafy green substance in a baggie and insisted that we have a "night cap." Now, to some, the idea of sparking a bone with Gordon Novel might sound intriguing, but given the gyrating dummies, the flashing lights, the big-screen porn, we were more than eager to leave with our dignity. As we drove away, we were relieved and immediately agreed that no interview was worth such craziness. I had a hard time explaining it to Novel the next day, saying that I had been called back home for an emergency. Despite the craziness of the trip, Novel and I were able to keep the conversation going for some time afterward. The purpose of this account was simply to share the craziness of that scene, now that Novel is safely past suing me. The more substantive evidence-related results of our conversations will be related in my Ferrie biography.

Tom: Are you saying that the Gloria Loomis who worked with Angleton is not the same Gloria Loomis who was married to the book publisher?

I don't know how to post an image of the cover, but here's Don Carpenter's biography of Clay Shaw. You can click the "read inside" thing and get several early chapters for preview. http://www.amazon.com/Man-Million-Fragments-Story-ebook/dp/B00D2XYSGY/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1369921880&sr=8-7&keywords=clay+shaw

Yes, Horne crossed a line. We should continue to study and ask questions, but be more circumspect with allegations/ Mandel goofed. I work in news. You try to get it right but you sometimes rely on what other people tell you, and this time Mandel goofed. But Horne throws around words like "lie" and wishes people (not Mandel) a place in hell.

This goes to what I've been saying for a long time: These names that we throw around are or were real people, with real families, and some among us are too reckless with charges.

Moderators: I joined this forum some years ago because I saw it as a place for civil discussion and debate, where good information can be posted in an atmosphere of academic fairness, where mods step-in only when needed and where members are free to express opinions without fear of personal attacks. Sure, there have been knock-down drag-out fights (and I've been part of a couple), but the mods somehow always seemed to be able to pull us back on track. I've been very disappointed with the atmosphere here lately. Some members have been attacking other members unfairly and obsessively. Some make personal attacks couched as sarcasm. Some feel that other members don't deserve the protections of the rules. A few posters are just plain mean. I find myself less and less interested in reading or posting here, and it needn't be that way. Is there anything the mods can do to improve the situation, to reduce the meanness and make it a more pleasant place for discussion?

This is about the point where I expect Rod Serling to step in and address the viewers.

What are you going on about? I'm trying to withdraw from the melee, somewhat at your earlier suggestion. I think there are some people who take genuine concerns about instances of government misbehavior and amplify it into a generalized belief that law enforcement people can't be trusted at all, that they're secretly engaged in all kinds of nefarious things. I think that kind of exaggeration is harmful. I was talking about my own personal way of viewing things, not something to impose on anyone else. And knock off the guilt by association bit, please.

Re-evaluate, but don't overreact. I suspect some people who've studied the JFK assassination and are well aware of lies issued in the name of the FBI may simply associate FBI = Lies. Like the parable of the boy who cried "Wolf!", a history of false reports can result in a loss of credibility. That said, IMO it's not healthy to assume there's never a wolf nor that there's always a wolf. I don't want to get into this now, but to address your example: I think some of the claims of FBI lies in my areas of interest in the JFK case are overstated or misstated. For me, personally, I going to start holding some of the claimants to a higher standard of proof. I've had this in the back of my head for a few years, but some of the stuff I've heard recently has firmed my belief that some claimants may have what is, to my way of thinking, a profoundly different way of looking at the world. This is all personal, doesn't affect anybody else. None of which is to excuse REAL instances of government misbehavior. We have enough real ones that we don't need to be imagining wrong ones.

I wasn't going to say this, Tommy, because it will probably annoy a lot of our friends in this group, but the reaction of some people to the Boston case and some of the others you mention has me re-evaluating my own feelings about accepting certain claims.