Owen Parsons

I have read the Venona stuff, thank you. On Venona, please read this very good article. That particular presentation of the Venona cable which you link to includes Gordievsky's identification of Hiss as Ales. What it does not say is that Gordievsky cites a Thomas Powers article in the New York Review of Books as his source for this. Powers had been given access to this particular cable before Venona went public. Venona confirming Venona. On Weinstein, see here, here, here, and here. Weinstein's scholarship is on par with Posner's. All of this could be found on the website I posted, did you even take a look at it? Edit: Dawn, some clips from that film can be found here.

Tim, Mellen goes over the Walker-Banister connection in a paragraph in the "Unsung Hero" chapter. The segment mentioned by Owen asserts that Banister attended a speech given by Walker in Baton Rouge. Attendance at a speech isn't the same sort of connection that a meeting at Banister's office would connote. The Notes section erroneously has this as page 223 rather than 224. Tim Carroll This is true, of course. The source for this, police officer Joseph Cooper, also said that Banister and Walker knew each other. The gist of the connection is there, though it is not exactly as presented (in a sentence which chiefly rattles off names). This is hardly a grievous sin. It is unfortunate that the footnotes start screwing up half-way through the book, but this does not make the information of the footnotes incorrect. This will undoubtedly be fixed in the next edition.

What evidence does Mellen cite that shows Walker at Banister's office in New Orleans?Tim, from page 69: "Other visitors to Banister's office included Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell, in town to protest the screening of Leon Uris' Exodus, and who was introduced to Banister by Jack Martin; General Edwin Walker; the ubiquitous Ed Butler; and Klan stalwarts Alvin Cobb and A. Roswell Thompson, who drove up in a big black Cadillac.... I saw no reference at the back of the book for this claim. Now that I've purchased the book, the footnoting/sourcing problem in Ms. Mellen's book is immediately apparent. As the reviewer quoted by Gerry observed, "about midway in the book, [the footnotes] do not correspond to the correct page...." As for my earlier questions about the evidence that General Walker was a visitor to Banister's office, there is no cited evidence whatsoever. It also appears that the book relies too heavily on single-sourced assertions which don't meet the minimum standards of journalism. All of that said, I'll now shut up and read the book. Tim Carroll Tim, Mellen goes over the Walker-Banister connection in a paragraph in the "Unsung Hero" chapter. A few quick comments on the Lambert review. First, she is very deceptive in mentioning Judge Christenberry's dismissal of the Shaw perjury charges. She doesn't mention that the good Judge was a Clay Shaw buddy and that his wife wrote a congratulatory letter to Shaw after the charges were dismissed. Lambert is not a trustworthy source. She seriously misrepresented Anne Dischler's information to suite her anti-Garrison thesis, as Mellen shows. Unsurprisingly, Lambert doesn't mention this in her little review (which really just picks around the edges of Mellen's book). I think that the evidence of the loan would be less impressive if it wasn't for all the independent confirmation of Ferrie's Dallas trip, a week before the assassination, from other witnesses. So yes, I do believe it. Lambert also doesn't tell much about Beckham that isn't already in Mellen's book. What Lambert's rendition lacks is context.

Certain individuals would like the public to think that Hiss was "guilty as hell," and it is most certainly a cornerstone of the Buckley faith. Doesn't make it true, however. Interested readers should check out this link.

Wasn't it you that was whining about your "free speech" in the media thread, when you have been able to spam unimpeded here? You are in no place to accuse others of whining. Richard Nixon is not my hero, so I am under no obligation to debunk your favorite Mat Wilson article. I already rebutted one garbage article and you pretty much ignored it. Why should now be different? I have better things to do with my time. Your comment about David Ferrie is nonsensical. David Ferrie was supposed to have debunked the Warren Report (before the Commission had even started, before the Zapruder film, before any of the evidence was in) for Garrison during the brief time he was in his custody in November 1963? Is this what you are getting at? Again, where does David Ferrie even fit into your theory anyway?

Jim Garrison believed in the Warren Report for as long as he did because he hadn't bothered to actually read it before then, helloooo. You still have not engaged with the rebuttal to your Mat Wilson Jim Garrison article that I posted weeks ago. If you expect any conspiracy oriented book on the JFK assassination to end up on CNN, you haven't seriously followed this case. Only Posner and McAdams end up on the major news networks. Stop spamming the Mat Wilson link, everyone has seen it by now.

You're most certainly correct. You will never get anything like that from me. All you can to do is attack my age, not my arguments. Who is really being infantile here? What kind of "educator" are you if you tell a high schooler (me) to drop out of school? Edit: Correction, I suppose the "pithy" stuff was for Frank Agbat.

Yes, of course I have read it. Have you read my post? Edit: Thanks for telling your side of the story Mr. Turner.

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA. I did not defend the CIA. The FACT that the CIA was not officially involved in the Kennedy assassination is besides the point. The CIA is the suspect that EVERYBODY LOVES TO BLAME, but it is Hoover's FBI that covered up the Kennedy assassination, so I think that it is ABSOLUTELY STUPID to blame the CIA for HOOVER'S COMPLICITY IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION COVER UP. One more thing -rest assured, if Garrison blames the CIA, the CIA was not involved -other than rogue CIA operatives like Hunt, Sturgis and perhaps others, the official hands of the CIA are clean. Rogue operatives like Nixon, Sturgis, Hunt and the like had access to Hoover's FBI, they would never even think about getting Kennedy's CIA involved, after he fired Dulles. Don't forget the smoking gun memo, where Nixon talks about the FB, ah, CIA. That's right,it wasn't the CIA, Nixon's slip of the tongue was on the money, it was Hoover's FB... What splendid logic you employ here ("if Garrison blames the CIA, the CIA was not involved"). Nevermind that you haven't bothered to defend this Garrison hatred of yours after I have repeatedly challenged it. But so be it. If Mat Wilson/You say Garrison is a Hoover stooge (nevermind all the internal FBI evidence, some even originating from Hoover himself, to the contrary) then it must be so. I don't think anyone has ever said "Kennedy's CIA" (by this I suppose you mean John McCone) killed Kennedy, but rather the Helms-Angleton faction. No strawmen, please. Also, please explain why Goldwater should have won. His politics seem rather far to the right of what one would expect from an alleged Kennedy admirer.

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA.

I could not agree more. Bill Turner is also one of my heroes. It should not be forgotten the role that people like Turner and Hinckle played in challenging the Warren Commission report. Their work at Ramparts was vital in keeping the investigation alive. For example, Penn Jones's work was only known to a few hundred people (the readers of the Midlothian Mirror), most of whom who were completely uninterested in the case, until Ramparts publicised his articles. Bill Turner's book (The Fish is Red : the Story of the Secret War Against Castro, 1981) also focused attention towards the role that the anti-Castro Cubans played in the assassination. Bill Turner is also the most generous of writers. He never fails to respond to my questions concerning his investigations. I have not been able to get a copy of Joan Mellen's book yet, but if she does attack important researchers like Bill Turner, her own credibility will be seriously undermined. Mellen doesn't really "attack" Bill Turner (you'll notice she contributed a blurb to the back cover of Rearview Mirror and cites it positively in her bibliography; Mr. Heidenheimer cites this very instance) so much as his work on this particular lead. Most of the blame falls on "Bill Boxley," with Turner pursuing Bradley because of his Minutemen connections. If Mellen seems just a little passionate about this particular incident, this is probably Vincent Salandria's influence rubbing off, since she is part of his circle. David Boylan is also correct that it wasn't really a matter of confusing Bradley and Braden, as there were many dubious witnesses against Bradley. Edit: I'm also a big admirer of Bill Turner's work and own both Deadly Secrets and The Assassination of Robert Kennedy.

For someone who has never professed to have any serious bonafides, you sure do make a lot of noise. You treat every single one of your writings as if God himself had etched it in stone with his finger. I am not even going to pretend any longer that there is a distinction between "Mat Wilson" and yourself; your ability to quote from such rare works as Paris Flammonde's Kennedy Conspiracy (as you did awhile ago in your Jim Garrison thread) has shown me that you are fully capable of both writing "his" articles (when "he" isn't plagiarizing) and citing the sources that "he" cites (when "he" bothers to cite sources). There is never going to be a "good reason" that is good enough for you to back down on anything. Your behavior here has not been that of the disinterested searcher for truth that you like to pretend to be. The only reason for your presence here that I have been able to discern is to cause distraction and confusion through your repetitious, contentless, sometimes nonsensical, spam. You have become so obnoxious that even Hemming, a former defender of yours, has turned against you. The real question I have for you, Ms. "Foster", is "[a]re you ever serious?" I tend to think the answer is no and that "you are full of yourself." I expect Ms. "Foster" to reply by insinuating that I adore Nixon, hate Kennedy, and should focus my energies on reading that wonderful "Mat Wilson" piece that "she" enjoys spamming unrelated threads with.

Jim Garrison was not "the 'official' version of Jack Ruby." You can imply Garrison had David Ferrie killed all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Where does David Ferrie fit in your Hoover-Johnson assassination theory anyway? I really hope I haven't been "too weird." My question, which you have not yet answered, is do you agree with the Wilson-network viewpoint that Scott did not murder Laci Peterson?

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison." I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda. Now: What do you think of the Peterson case? You are stubborn. I already told you that you are trying to divert attention from the Kennedy assassination by discussing things that I know nothing about. I think your extreme, political views are getting in the way here. The only person being stubborn here is you in not answering a simple question. If you really know as little about the Peterson case as you imply, posting your opinions on what little you do know should be no problem. This is the last question I'm going to ask you. What, pray tell, are my extreme political views (my alleged secret hatred of Kennedy aside)? Edit: You can find a whole list of links on the Peterson case just from the Wilson McAdams FAQ reprint alone. "Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline 1/30/03 DIVERTING BLAME 2/21/03 EARLY REPORTS 3/03/03 PLANTING LACI'S HAIR 3/16/03 SUSPICIOUS MINDS: KEY REPORT 3/21/03 AMBER FREY 4/04/03 MEDIA SPIN 4/10/03 SMOKING GUN? 3/16/03 MARK GERAGOS 6/03/03 WAS LACI SHOT? 9/23/03 JAILHOUSE SNITCHES 10/05/03 FRAMING SCOTT PETERSON 09/20/03 ANATOMY OF INQUISITION 10/20/03 LARRY KING LIVE TAKEOVER 11/22/03 CONNER PETERSON 01/14/04 CENSORING THE TRUTH 02/06/04 THE REAL SCOOP 02/16/04 VIVIAN MITCHELL DIES 02/18/04 WHO IS FRAMING SCOTT 08/22/04 AMBER FREY TAPES 09/20/04 AMBER FREY'S LIES 10/22/04 TAMPERING WITH THE JURY 12/27/04 AND JUSTICE FOR ALL --DENIED." What is your opinion of all this?

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison." I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda. Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

In other words, you take Mr. Wilson's position on Howard Dean, what a startling surprise. Now, do you think Scott murdered Laci Peterson? I'm getting quite a few "distinct impression" from you. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I did not know that Mat Wilson had a position on Howard Dean and I don't care. I do think you are very strange, trying to shift from a discussion of the Kennedy assassination, to something that I know nothing about. No wonder you are such a big Garrison fan, you use his tactics. I'm just probing you for independent thought process here. What is your position on Laci Peterson's murder? Mr. Wilson (or whoever) provides plenty of links to his opinions on it on the bottom of many of the sites you have posted. What is your opinion? Edit: You do raise a point about the discussion though. Sorry Dawn if I have derailed your thread.

In other words, you take Mr. Wilson's position on Howard Dean, what a startling surprise. Now, do you think Scott murdered Laci Peterson? I'm getting quite a few "distinct impression" from you.

Aaah, but your political views interest me. I want to see if your opinion of Howard Dean diverges from Mr. Wilson's (or any of the other various names that pop up on his network).

Another part of the Mat Wilson network. You can tell this because of the recycled image at the bottom and the link to Mr. Wilson's book. Ms. Foster: I challenge you to post a non-Mat Wilson link. Also, what are your opinions on current DNC Chairman Howard Dean?

Actually, Lane has never turned on Garrison. Epstein was against Garrison pretty much from the word "go."

Neat, Mr. Wilson has posted the John McAdams FAQ (without permission, I'm sure). Here is an alternate link (since the Mat Wilson link appears to have quickly gone down). Perhaps it would also interest you to know, Ms. Foster, the person who rescued the FAQ from oblivion and whose name appears on Mr. Wilson's site, Jim Hargrove, is a Jim Garrison supporter (though his main interest is John Armstrong's research). Two of the people whose info on McAdams is featured in the FAQ, Lisa Pease and Dr. Gary Aguilar, are also Jim Garrison supporters.

I don't think I even need to address your absurd allegation that I secretly hate Kennedy. I can tell something is a Mat Wilson site because they reuse the same graphics and link to each other. The biggest giveaway for this particular site you posted is the link to Mat Wilson's online disinfo book. It is presented as all a part of the same website, not as something separate. No, of course not all sites that link to John McAdams' site belong to McAdams.

This question you asked was only later edited into your post. I didn't notice it until this post of yours that I am now responding to. Your tactics are somewhat dishonest. In any case, a quick search is proving fruitless. Not that it really matters. My point is there are numerous other JFK speeches and quotes online, but you will always pick the ones Mat Wilson reprints. I have never seen you post a non-Mat Wilson link. I have never seen you post an opinion that has not previously appeared on Mat Wilson's site(s).

I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me. I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway". Well, it doesn't bug me, and if you object to popular Kennedy sites, I think that you can't stand the man. Please tell me how it constitutes a popular Kennedy website. Do a google search on Matt Wilson and John Kennedy and see how long it takes you to find anything. Its a disorganized mess of a network consisting of various websites located on various servers. It contains many dishonest articles (on Garrison for instance). Even when he is right (like on Alger Hiss' framing by the FBI) he defends his position so poorly, I can't help but wonder if his argument wasn't meant to be knocked down as a strawman. The only encounter I had with his website before you started heavily pimping it here was an article he reprinted by Vincent Palamara. Nice insinuation there, that if I object to your lack of original thought and frequent parroting of a dubious source, I must, contrary to my stated feelings, dislike JFK. Edit: Actually, you can find Mr. Wilson on google, this error results from my consistently spelling "Mat" as "Matt." The main thrust of my post stands.

I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else. Do you have a problem with that? I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me. I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken on any issue comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway".