Owen Parsons

Yes, because he had known Chambers under another name ("George Crosley" according to Hiss, and "Carl" according to Chambers, although Chambers later allowed that Hiss was possibly correct) and had not yet had a face-to-face meeting with him. When he finally had the face-to-face meeting, he identified him as George Crosley after a physical examination. Who is this unnamed witness? There are many named people who knew nothing of this.

Sure. See this post of mine here. And thanks for the Brandt article.

No, it's a figment of YOUR fertile imagination. I followed your advice and looked through your various newsgroup postings (under various alliases) and found the original Prouty quote, which is a bit, err... differen't.

And even Don Gibson made these same claims at the COPA conference in the 1993-94 timeframe as I recall. Bill, do you remember the audience reaction when Prouty made his anti JFK statements? Were you there or would John Judge have any of the VHS transcripts available? How about when Mark Lane said: "Files? What files? There are no files for the Congress of Freedom!" I have to thank Vicky Wertz for turning me on to The Liberty Lobby and their chosen promulgators of the party line. Prouty made no anti-JFK comments. The quote you have presented to this forum is a fabrication and t

He initially denied it because he had known Chambers under a different name and his physical appearance had changed drastically in the interval. Context. I think you'll find that just about all the allegations of interest in the American Communist movement track back to one person.

http://www.prouty.org/fletch4.html

Your quote from Col. Prouty as presented in this thread is a fabrication. I followed your advice and sifted the newsgroups. You presented the quote in a more accurate form a decade ago. "I come from 9 generations of Americans going back to the Mayflower. I don't know when the uhh... Kennedys came over here from Ireland...but the people of Massachusetts sure seemed to like him." [Note: the Mayflower of course landed in Massachussetts.] A user named steve4439 put the quote in context: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...b41dca13652599f

My eyes must have decieved me then, because I'm pretty sure I did read it. Bingo, they weren't refuting the actual, unpublished, article, but an oral presentation, which, if I understand correctly, they did not even attend. Now let's actually address the paper, shall we?

Yeah, they are essentially "refuting" an article they had not even read at the time. It was a preemptive strike. I find their "refutation" weak and facile, particularly their attempt to explain away Gorsky's placing Ales in Mexico while Hiss was in Washington, compare which to Kai and Chervonnaya. Jeff Kisseloff calls it "a quickly assembled, conjectural, truncated, inaccurate summary of Bird and Chervonnaya's findings included in a premature and hostile response to reports of "The Mystery of Ales" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (see "Hiss Was Guilty," History News Network, April 16, 200

Um yeah, and the article you posted also only deals with the Ales issue. If you want to get into all the other fraudulent so-called "evidence" of Hiss' guilt, we can do that. Yeah, academic papers are typically very cautious and measured in their conclusions and use words like "suggest" rather than definitive statements. This is the rule, not the exception. Hardly surprising. Now why don't you actually get around to addressing the evidence in the paper?

Typical tendencious Haynes and Klehr schlock. All of which can be rebutted by simply comparing this article to the Bird/Chervonnaya paper which it attempted to pre-emptively rebut. After studying this matter in some depth, I can say that the entire case against Alger Hiss is one blatant fraud after another and that he is entirely innocent.

[EDIT: I'm cutting out my comments in re: Ferrie, Cubans, and IMSU pre-BoP. Since I don't really have the documents to work with except the excerpts you are giving me and I don't really feel comfortable arguing from that position, I'm not really going to press this particular side issue further.] I used McAuliffe because I had it handy and he crystallized it succinctly. As you note, he was president of the FDC and that quote was based on a conversation with Ferrie himself. What I have not used here is interviews I did for a book. I hope they're less equivocal than McAuliffe. Given one of th

Double post. Ugh.