B. A. Copeland

Would that be Whitten’s investigation Mr. H? Could you direct me to any reading regarding the suppressed results and do you have any opinion as to why the results were suppressed? Thanks a ton I’m advance as always.

Certainly not a shocker lol. Interestingly enough, and just out of curiosity, I googled Harvey’s address. Nice home in a very nice “foresty” area. I thought I read somewhere (Stockton?) that his daughter Sally described nicely her backyard. Has anyone either ever tried or successfully contacted Harvey’s son and daughter??

Interestingly enough, I saw an old book on Albert Schweitzer the other day in a library donation pile which is to be later sold I think(?). I should’ve grabbed it...

Hey I’d definitely lean towards the opinion of pre-mid 1964 Goly as good for the US, a genuine defector, given the evidence that I have personally observed. I understand that, as always with this case, my mind must remain open to new information (and the interpretation of said information) that either supports or contradicts current evidence. I know one thing, anyone walking away after Newman’s presentation....at the very least should question whether or not Nosenko was genuine but certainly be more cautious to accept the official line that he was. Thanks for the book info TG. I also downloaded the article by Bagley as well, can’t wait to dig in. Added to my library ASAP. I had no idea it was offered online. Here I am trying to push a local library to pick up the much more reasoned JFK/Cold War books. Bagley’s book will certainly be among them.

Thanks Bill! I was (literally) and merely curious as to your thoughts about him, if any. Thanks for the response! I have certainly deferred to Blunt, Newman and Dale. Primarily Alan Dale & Blunt's talks because they bring up very interesting points or thoughts concerning Solie. I also asked because this is definitely your territory (and I know how you feel about Stephan Roll, Bill Bright, et al. and please forgive me if I'm wrong!) and after listening to Dale/Blunt's talks, I could not help but to wonder if you or Newman had any opinions on Solie, especially after listening to Dale/Blunt. So naturally my thinking was "wow....I wonder what Simpich and Newman think about Solie after a careful listen to Dale/Blunt's talks?". I'd imagine Simpich was certainly impressed (and VERY attentive!) but as with all research, one has to ultimately study themselves and see if they arrive at the same conclusion, no? I'd say, given the weight of what Newman presented, I'd be more convinced than not that Nosenko was a false defector but I've an open mind. However, I lean more towards him being false than not. I also want to highlight a very important point that PDS (either directly or indirectly) brought up: just because Nosenko is most likely false, doesn't necessarily mean that Golitsyn is a true defector (not that I believe you've even remotely expressed that lol) but certainly a point worth repeating. My wish is....a 5 hour-ish round table discussion with Simpich, Dale, Blunt, Newman....please, in my lifetime lol...

Bill, have you ever dug into Bruce Solie? I believe Blunt and Dale mentioned that he was best man at Nosenko's wedding lol? He vouched for his authenticity as a defector (compare Solie's review and Bagley's investigation) he was also his handler and...surely Solie as a security officer cannot be that blind? (speculation on my part!). Am I paranoid in even lightly wondering if Solie was up to something? I'd love Simpich's take on this guy. I know for a fact that Blunt and Dale, in their amazing series of talks, at the very least consider the guy as someone to devote serious study. I hate to to seemingly accuse the guy of evil deeds, for which I am not (without evidence) but I am looking at event contextually and simply desire to study him as a part of the context. The results could be negative or positive.

Thanks Dave! I haven't read it yet but I can probably bet the farm its redaction city lol?

Sounds good to me and my pleasure Jim.

My responses in blue.

Ahhh I see and thanks Jim. Can't wait to dig into it.

Wait so the name was changed? I remember you saying it would be “JFK: The Evidence Today”? I mean it’s not really relevant it seems but just curious. Looking forward to reading it as well as (hopefully) the audiobook.

Eddy could you point me to the exact document you extracted your excerpt from? There are quite a bit of Harvey documents. I've tried searching but oddly cannot locate your above excerpt. Thanks.

Ah thats great, and double thanks Dave .

Who is Betty Mora? I’ve never come across her name before.

Non-sequitur’s are so quite common unfortunately in this case when trying to solve it but I’m with Dr. Newman and Simpich: “I’m willing to be wrong” (Simpich) and “It’s police work, not dogmatism” (Newman).

This is absolutely most fascinating. I wish we could audibly listen to guys like he and Morales, etc. Eddy what is the source for this? Harvey’s Church Committee Testimony?

I'm not sure I understand and perhaps I wasn't clear myself in my response, for which I apologize. Whenever researchers or students of the assassination make any claims, even if they cite sources, I find that considering what they have presented but not necessarily believing or investing 100% in their claims. If your point is that I need to "study myself" in order to see that Metta is correct, well that is obvious (I think we all should encourage study of course) but in the meantime I'm learning and part of that process is questioning Metta's powerful claim and scenario he presents in his film. You have said that Talbot was not the source, so I am asking you if you know who was the source? What is Metta's proof or evidence that Harvey went from Rome to Dallas in November 1963? Did you listen to the evidence that Doug presented to counter Talbot's (and Metta's) claim? It seem compelling but of course I will dig deeper. As for now, I'd like to know what you and Metta know as to Harvey being in Dallas via flight from Rome in 11/1963. So I went first, now its your turn.

Me first lol? Well I was listening to an audio from Rob Clark of the Lone Gunman Podcast and Doug Campbell was his guest that particular episode. The episode is here: https://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-111-chessboards-and-marked-cards (skip to the 13:55 mark. That is where the discussion begins) They discuss that particular bit about Harvey's flight to Dallas from Rome and though I even take their analysis with a grain of salt (have to study it myself) it does motivate me to wonder what Metta's proof of the alleged event is.

Could you enlighten me as to the source? Doug Campbell did a seemingly good show on showing how that was probably (or actually) impossible. I also said "if not Talbot".

I am of the same opinion of Blunt and Dale when they see to have at least questions concerning Bruce Solie....he's certainly someone to really focus on as far as a hunt for a potential mole. I'm not saying the guy is guilty but certainly some time should be dedicated to him. Bill do you have any opinion of him? Listening to Dale and Blunt's talks (phenomenal IMHO) are really enlightening on Solie and his actions in a few operations at the least.

Apologies. Corrected. Point (or question) still stands.

Ah, gotcha.

Metta may have made a big mistake including in his film the bit about Harvey, his deputy and a flight to Dallas from Rome...I wonder who or what his source was....if not Talbot.

Pre- or foreknowledge of the assassination. He was a crucial part of the plan. He, as Simpich so amazingly states, had to be "in on the assassination", which would be huge. This potentially leads (quite powerfully) into Military Intelligence. I consider Westbrook a top suspect. I also know that Armstrong certainly considers him a top suspect as well.

Jim, when you say "PM thing", I assume you mean "Prayer Man"?