Stephen Roy

If you can do a capture from video, Newbrough is in the 1993 Frontline Oswald special.

First off, forgive me for taking this topic off in another direction. I was bothered by your suggestion that violence is a part of American culture. Of course I am guilty of making subjective comments. That is what we do all the time. And I don't question your right to do so. I don't think you are seeing America as it really is. I think you are starting with the conclusion that it's a violent culture, and looking for evidence to support it. You are also guilty of being subjective, or as you put it, “looking at it through your own biases”. How so? Anecdotal stories are interesting but they can only be used to illustrate the point you are making. When it comes down to it, my experience of New York or your experience of London, is fairly irrelevant to the argument that America is a more violent place that other industrialized countries. Your original argument was that violence is a part of American culture. As I pointed out, there is a considerable amount of statistical data to support this claim. While statistics do not often tell the whle story, I'd be interested in some citation of these statistics, and in comparison with other nations. For example, you have had for many years the highest murder-rate in the advanced world. The US offers a great amount of personal liberty, and that includes firearms, which are too easily used in the heat of anger. But a great deal of this occurs in the big cities (of which there are many), in the drug/gang subculture. You also imprison the highest percentage of your population than any other country. I guess the idea is that they can't be out committing crimes if they're doing time. The state also carries out more acts of extreme violence on its citizens. The United States, alone amongst the Western World, retains the death penalty. The DP is still a topic of much debate here. Have you got some alternative statistics to support the claim that other countries have a worse record for violence than the United States? I'm not making that claim. Like many Americans, I fear that those outside the US get a skewed picture of this country from "popular culture", mostly TV and films, and from sensationalist news reports which focus only on the bad things. By and large, Amercians are nice, happy, gentle people who are happy to live in this country and are striving to make it better. It certainly doesn't FEEL like a "violent culture."

I live in the US and I don't see the US you think you see. Having also traveled extensively, I see many of the same problems in other areas of the world, including the UK. I would agree that there is sometimes a sense of fear in the BIG CITIES of the US, but this is also true of Paris, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities. I'm proably a bit more familiar with the US than you are, and I think you are looking at it through your own biases.

John: Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture? Steve As you might infer, I found this opinion troubling. It is indeed true that a large percentage of members of this forum are Americans. It is also true that the United Staes of America is a large country, with internet available to nearly everyone, and that Americans may have a disproportionate interest in an assassination which occurred in this country. It is also true that the majority behave in an exemplary way. However, it is true that virtually every complaint I receive is about the behaviour of an American member. But, as you note, a large percentage of members of this forum are Americans. I do think it is partly cultural. This, I don't understand. You believe it is a part of American culture to be aggressive? For example, the films that you make often include people being very aggressive to each other. The films that "we" make? Again, we make MANY of the films seen here and around the world. Do other nations make less aggressive films? I am troubled by this projection of what filmmakers do to American culture in general. In fact, it seems as the aggression is part of some sort of formula that the American public like. Americans, of course, are not the only consumers of American films. As I flip through the movie listings in my local paper, I see only a small proportion that seem to have an aggressive theme. In any case, there is a universal theme to creative works involving the antagonist and the protagonist, and it's not excusively American. Of course the “baddies” are portrayed in this way, but so are the “goodies”. Take the example of the crime movie. The detectives attempting to solve the case are invariable unpleasant to each other for most of the time. However, by the end of the film, they are the best of friends, and in many cases, lovers. American movies are not only aggressive and violent, they are also extremely sentimental. I'm not sure this represents the majority of American films, but I'm also not sure how this applies to out culture. I have visited the United States many times and have not found the American people to be particularly aggressive or violent. They are just as polite and courteous as members of any country I have visited. In fact, on average, I would say they are better behaved that the British. Indeed, one could look at different cultures and cherry-pick certain traits. Such as a culture where sarcasm is frequently used. However, on forums, some Americans behave as if they are in the movies. I do agree that there are some over-aggressive Americans on forums. Therefore, I assume there is something cultural in all this. I think that's a wrong assumption on your part. From an American perspective, it certainly is. That it is not a bad thing to be very aggressive. After all, in foreign affairs you seem to take a very similar approach. Is this what's at the root of it? From an American perspective: There was a power-vacuum after World War II, and the the US, the UK, the USSR and other rushed to fill it, for better or worse. The US has made mistakes in foreign policy, but the American people always seem to find a way to curtail it, as we did in Southeast Asia, and as we are now trying to do in the Middle East. Some of our leaders are cowboys, but some are peacemakers. I think the good often gets lost in the torrent of criticism. Come to America again some time. I'll show you an America you may not know.

John: Do you really believe that abusive behaviour is part of American culture? Steve

I'm more inclined to side with Nosenko being legit, but he DID admit lying about a few things.

I can't get in to edit the above, but I forgot to mention... Ther's an interesting group shot of CIA officials with some rarely-photographed people, such as Sheff Edwards and Jack Maury. Angleton is looking down, trying to hide his face.

I know this is not directly on topic, but this battle formed the underpinning of the era of the JFK assassination. Does anyone who has studied this "defector war" have any strong opinions as to who was right: Golytsin or Nosenko? I can see cases for and against either. While it is striking that the Golysin side still has its defenders - Scott Miler being one of them - there is also a contingent who came out against Golytsin, like Kisevalter and Bulik. And a whole raft of undecideds, like Helms, McCone and others. I'm re-reading the interesting "Spy Who Saved The World" about Penkovskiy, by Schecter and Deraibin, and the authors note that when Angleton took aside Bulik (one of those who ran Penkovskiy) and told him about Golytsin's "false defector" scenario, Bulik left the office in a huff and never spoke with Angleton again. And Kisevalter, a true cold-warrior, simply never believed that Golytsin was anything more than a defector who had already disgorged all of his useful stuff, and was now trying to justify CIA interest in him. BTW, there are some interesting pictures in this book: Bulik and Kisevalter meeting with P, P in US and Brit military uniforms, KGB pictures of all the principals in the case like Alexis Davison and D/COS Hugh Montgomery, KGB films of P and Mrs Chisholm meeting, etc. Schecter was allowed to go to Lubiyanka to get the official KGB take on the case. His co-author Deriabin, a former KGB officer who defected to the west, wisely declined the offer!

That's "Little Al" Beaubouef, son of Al Beaubouef, and the original picture is in Al's scrapbook. Little Al was born in early 1966, so this picture must be mid-late 1966. Al's last name, by the way, is pronounced Bo-buff, and is correctly spelled Beaubouef, not Beauboeuf.

That is not true. I provided a detailed answer (61). So did Robert Charles-Dunne (63). I stand corrected. As some of her questions came within quoted text, it is difficult to follow the questions and resonses. I see her question in 63 (which I thought was addressed to you) and your response in 67. Jean Davidson is welcome to post on the forum. Davison, no second "D". Her welcome was a bit ambiguous. So far, we have been unable to find a supporter of the LN theory willing to defend their position for any length of time while abiding by the rules. Jean has already made clear that she is unwilling to do this She made clear that she is not willing to abide by the rules? and does not intend to stay long. It is up to our readers to decide why this is. I disagree that readers are free to draw inferences from her disinclination to stay.

Jean: Hope you do pop in from time to time. Let me play Devil's Advocate: I think there is one school of thought on the torso wound, that the positioning of the wounds was actually too flat: in other words that the back would was level with or lower than the throat wound.

As something of a fence-sitter on certain aspects of this matter (yeah, I know, I know, beat me up!), I will say this about some of the LN postings that have been appearing of late, here and elsewhere: I have no problem with well-framed and polite LN arguments; as I said, it helps us all put a finer point on our arguments. A few years back, there seemed to be some LN postings that followed these guidelines; but lately, a lot of the LN stuff has taken on an overly-aggressive and deprecating quality. I've just about given up on alt.conspiracy.jfk, and I'm close to giving up on alt.assassination.jfk. I don't think some of these posters realize how ineffective their arguments are when they phrase them in such insulting tones.

Stephen Roy's gentlemanly solicitude toward Ms. Davison is examplary, but unnecessary. Ms. Davison authored a book 23 years ago, and in the interim has demonstrated on various JFK fora that she is perfectly capable of holding her own in debates. She needs no protection, and - contrary to Stephen's impression of this thread - hasn't been subjected to any "guilt by association." In re-reading this thread, I see no incivility or "attacks" toward Ms. Davison; only toward Mr. Von Pein, whose Amazon review highly lauds Ms. Davison's book. If the odium is directed toward Mr. Von Pein, it is less because he admires Ms. Davison's book, and more because there is a relatively fresh residual odour here from his efforts in these parts. Mr. Von Pein's MO is to trumpet the importance of logic and common sense, yet resorts to vituperative insults toward the "idiots" and "fools" who don't agree with his point of view - or worse, have the cheek to dare challlenge his unsupported assumptions. He may have earned whatever comes his way, but this doesn't reflect poorly upon Ms. Davison; only upon Mr. Von Pein, who is something far more disagreeable than merely a "notably more aggressive writer," to use Stephen's highly charitable description. There is a remarkable tendency among a small group of players to highly praise each other at every turn. Mel Ayton will characterize Max Holland as a brilliant historian, and Holland will return the favour by characterizing Ayton's latest literary effort as brilliant, which is then regurgitated at every opportunity. When there are so few remaining adherents to their particular cause, they must make maximal use of each other's ability to propagdanize on behalf of that shrinking cause. If Ms. Davison's book attracts proponents like Mr. Von Pein, it is unfortunate for her, but it wasn't the result of anything done by a member of this forum. Had John Simkin wished to denigrate Ms. Davison's book, he wouldn't have cited Mr. Von Pein's capsule review of fulsome praise, but would have employed the only other review for the book at Amazon, penned by forum member Vince Palamara: "More Oswald-did-it alone garbage; avoid." Those wishing to learn more about the book in question are advised to spend the $5.95 it will cost them at Amazon, and read Ms. Davison's work for themselves. As to Stephen's larger point pleading for greater civility here, that is always a good idea, no matter how difficult some members here make it to maintain a level of politesse. Perhaps you're right, but all she did was ask a question, and the only response was a note that von Pein liked her book.

Indeed, DVon Pain is wrong about everything else he says about Oswald, but Jean's writing on the assassination does have reasoned thinking, sound logic and common sense, and she should be a welcome addition to the discussion. I started a thread on her book Oswald's Game under History Books to broaden such a discussion, if she bothers to stick around. I would also like to address DVP's points in another thread as well. You would think that if DVP and JD used common sense they would recognize that if all the evidence points so distinctly at one person as the culpret, that it may be planted as a set up? As for Ford, I would like to know what Jean Davison thinks Ford had in mind when he changed the wording of the report if it was not to reallign the facts to fit the single-bullet-theory? BK Just after I made the above post, I checked "History Books" and saw your new thread on her book. Bravo. That's the kind of open-mindedness I was talking about. Sure, hold her feet to the fire on what she's written - that's fair game. The attack mode is not. It is just so hypocritcal that it comes in a thread about that very subject.

What is this all about? I've read several posters here opine that it might be good to have some LNs here to keep the debate lively. Jean Davison comes here and asks a couple of polite questions, and for this she is subjected to attacks. To make matters worse, the attacks reference David von Pein, a notably more aggressive writer who merely admires Davison's book, to give her the "guilt-by-association" treatment. Whassup with that? It is also striking that this all occurs in a thread complaining that all points of view are not fairly represented at another site. Are contrary or controversial points of view not welcome here? Are we unable to answer Davison's polite questions with equal politeness? Frankly, this kind of give-and-take helps us keep our own house in better order.

He definitely gives the date April 1963. He said these meetings took place in the offices of the CRC and the headquarters of the Friends of Democratic Cuba. He adds that they were both located in the same building as Banister's detective agency. (page 103) Something is definitely wrong here. The FDC existed at 402 St. Charles Street (the Balter Building) from January 6, 1961 to the third week in March, 1961. This was the same building that the Frente Revolucionario Democratico was located in. Guy Banister had had an office in that building from July 1958 to January 1960, when he moved to the Newman Building at 531 Lafayette Street. Banister was never in the same building, at the same time, as the FRD or the FDC. (But from October 1961 to February 1962, Banister and the FRD's successor, the Cuban Revolutionary Council, were in the same building, the Newman Building.) With all due respect, Fabian Escalante's information is wrong. I have opined here before, based on Escalante's previous book (and the Furiati book) that Escalante combines what he gets from his flies/interviews with information in US assassination books. The problem is, some of the latter is wrong. One has to read his stuff with a fine filter, and use supporting sources wherever possible.

OK, now I'm confused. Does he say that someone was CURRENTLY spying on the FDC in April 1963? The Friends of Democratic Cuba existed only from January 6, 1961 to the third week of March, 1961. All of the people involved with it agreed that it only lasted a few months in 1961, and contemporaneous documents (1961) support this. This is why I worry sometimes about Escalante's reporting.

I've never heard about Shinley 'til now, but I (admitedly) briefly checkout out the link, and he comes off as a Garrison basher. That's one of the species that most arrouses my suspicion, so maybe I'm hypersensitive. Also, some of it could be true, but I gotta wonder why he's going after Jim Garrison so vigerously: Garrison Helps LBJ Pay Campaign Debt Garrison Lies about Banister's Files Garrison's Case Against Shaw Destroyed Garrison Accused of Perjury I also wonder why I don't see any positive info about Garrison to balance out the (rather niggling IMO) attacks. WTF? I think it is fair to say that Shinley does not hold Garrison's case in high regard. But he has helped many a researcher, without regard to whether or nor he agrees with them. And most important, I have absorbed and checked much of his material, and it all checks out. Most significant are his posts regarding material from the New Orleans newspaper archives, a treasure trove of contemporaneous information. I often get interesting leads from people with whom I disagree, and I would urge people interested in NO to check out Jerry Shinley's material, and take from it what they will. I'd be careful of red-flagging people. The research community is still somewhat conflicted about Garrison's case. Some support it completely, some support only parts of it, some think the conspiracy was elsewhere. I myself have been critical of parts of it, where I think it conflicts with other records. The objective in this case has always been to establish what is true and what isn't true. Just my 2 cents.

Jerry P. Shinley is amazing at turning up obscure info about the New Orleans milieu. Anybody interested in the topic should read his stuff. He has pointed me in new directions many times.

I always thought the guy you showed distributing leaflets with LHO was Charles Hall Steele, and Johann Rush (who was there) says in a.a.jfk that it was Steele. But Stu Wexler has an interesting alternate theory, which he presented at Lancer this year. The latin-looking guy leafletting with LHO (?) has never been identified. The Cubans coming out of court are probably Bringuier, Celso Hernandez and Miguel Cruz, and a few friends. Frank Bartes is also supposed to have been there, as was Dr. Augustin Guitart.

A point well taken on the believeability of the paperwork and witnesses, but one has to look at it in context. There's a bunch of mutually corroborative stuff. How much could have been faked? On the other hand, I am VERY leery of this stuff of identifying people from crowd photographs. It's just my cautious nature.

There sems to be a good paper/witness trail that Shaw was on the West Coast at the time.

I can think of three things you'll read and go Wow! I didn't know that!

In theory, anything is possible. I'm looking for what we can prove. My study will fill in a lot of gaps about Ferrie. Some things about him prove to be true, and are carried forward. Some things do not prove to be true. There is some bad information about him out there, that bounces from book to book. You will find a lot of new information in the book which will support what I think are your beliefs. Be patient, I'm getting there. I can see that we have different views about some things. I think I am more inclined to try to nail down what can be proven and less inclined to speculate. I suspect I'm not going to change your views on anything, and I know what the documents I've seen and interviews I've done show, and it would take a very strong case to change my mind. I do appreciate the exchange. (Like some I've had with others, it may well affect how I present a few things.) I'm not attacking Garrison, or DiEugenio, Davy or Mellen. I appreciate the work they've done. I've found some mistakes here and there, and I sometimes disagree with their analysis. So be it. There will be the DiEugenio, Davy and Mellen books presenting one case, the Lambert and other books presenting another, and my book introducing a lot of new stuff, some of which will support one side or the other. Serious researchers will read them all and decide what to believe or not. That's the way it goes. If it's any consolation, my book is NOT an assassination book; It's an attempt to define who Ferrie was, so that others may take the research in different directions. But this case carries some strong convictions. I've been raked over the coals by one side for even doing a biography of a "nobody" like Ferrie. Others have gotten angry that I don't agree with some of the accepted wisdom about Ferrie. I meant what I said before, and I don't intend it to be condescending in the least: You appear to be a good deal younger than me. I'm impressed by your interest in this (much as I was with Joe Biles) and I encourage you to learn further. Don't just accept what you read in books. Find the original documentation, contact witnesses, try to resolve all the discrepancies. But I recommend some level of historian's disclipline. The goal is truth, not some particular theory (including LN theories, too). That means going where the evidence points, not speculating. If you do this and write your own analysis, I'll buy your book. Maybe I'll agree. Maybe not. Anyway, thanks for a gentlemanly exchange. In the meantime, when mine is published, you, in particular will be surprised at how much you agree with!

This refers to Ferrie's 1963 trips to Guatemala. It is not neutral evidence when one claims to have made two trips, is supported by flight records, and mails correspondence that supports what he claimed he did there. And again, why did his roommates not notice any other trips?