Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Thanks. I didn't realize there was such a great divide on Armstrong. I think he hit a rich vein, though.

Marty

I am sure that if you stick around here long enough, there will be THREE OSWALDS, or maybe four. Why stop at two?

[Edit: I was present when John Armstrong first presented his "two Oswald" theory in Fredonia, and I have never heard a more sloppy presentation. John Armstrong is a nice man, but he wouldn't know what EVIDENCE is if it jumped up and bit him in the butt!

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greg:

Let me get this straight.

Because Jack knew Kudlaty, you are offering the following:

White solicited Kudlaty into a conspiracy. The object of which was to manufacture a story about him and the FBI and Oswald.

White then introduced Kudlaty to John and the conspiracy was then executed?

And Kudlaty has stayed true to this story for years, even in his interview with Texas Monthly?

Is this what you are saying? I just want to get it down so you can't say I misconstrued what you are implying.

Jim, I am saying nothing more or less than that there is an ethical issue which undermines the credibility of the story and that Jack’s attempts to back away from what he wrote, further undermine it, as does Doug’s refusal to comment on the ethics of it. Let’s put the boot on the other foot. Let’s say Bugliosi produces a witness some 30 or 40 years after the event whose story supports Bugliosi’s lone nut theory. Then later, it is revealed in the heat of debate that this witness has been a longtime friend of one of Bugliosi’s chief supporters, and further, that this supporter had given some assistance in the research for the book. Do you ignore that? Do you see it as somehow different to this real life situation? Please explain just what you would do and how you would handle that scenario so there is no misconstruing on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin - Besides Kathy C., Jack and you I don't think many people take the 2 Oswalds theory seriously.

Your talk of John Pic seems to have gotten Greg all excited though because he's been convinced for years the man was an itel op.

"Yes. Pic's notation on mileage for the "get-together" indicates it was official business."

:rolleyes::D:P

Len, please feel free to add the quote to your sig.

Meanwhile, those with more enquiring minds can go here to see why Len is so eager to put up the "nothing to see here" sign

You could just provided a link to this thread were I pointed out all the holes in your theory. Tell us again about how Marina (a CIA asset) had listening device implanted in her tooth to keep tabs on her husband (another CIA asset) during his meeting with his half brother (yet another itel type).

http://educationforu...topic=5228&st=0

Len,

that is a separate, albiet related topic and one I have readily admitted I am not as convinced about as I am with the Pic issue. I put it out there for consideration. The facts are that there was a precedent case in the Soviet Union, and here you have CIA backed White Russians organising dental work for Marina with a dentist who had been involved in CIA sponsored "charity" work. Coincidence? Quite possibly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin - Besides Kathy C., Jack and you I don't think many people take the 2 Oswalds theory seriously.

Your talk of John Pic seems to have gotten Greg all excited though because he's been convinced for years the man was an itel op.

"Yes. Pic's notation on mileage for the "get-together" indicates it was official business."

:rolleyes::D:P

Len, please feel free to add the quote to your sig.

Meanwhile, those with more enquiring minds can go here to see why Len is so eager to put up the "nothing to see here" sign

You could just provided a link to this thread were I pointed out all the holes in your theory. Tell us again about how Marina (a CIA asset) had listening device implanted in her tooth to keep tabs on her husband (another CIA asset) during his meeting with his half brother (yet another itel type).

http://educationforu...topic=5228&st=0

Len,

that is a separate, albiet related topic and one I have readily admitted I am not as convinced about as I am with the Pic issue. I put it out there for consideration. The facts are that there was a precedent case in the Soviet Union,

What 'precedent' was that?

and here you have CIA backed White Russians organising dental work for Marina

I have not seen info DeM was "CIA backed" like many businessmen who did business overseas he provided the CIA with info. And though he left Belarus when he was 8 or 9 he was not involved in anti-Soviet activities

with a dentist who had been involved in CIA sponsored "charity" work.

It was not the actual dentist who treated her but his supervisor who had been a Project Hope volunteer. The ties between PH and the CIA were tenuous IIRC a couple of people on the groups board were tied to the agency.

Coincidence? Quite possibly.

Seeing connections were none exist? Almost certainly!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we to make of the Oswald “family”?

Has there ever been another “family like this? Can anyone say DNA?

Lee Oswald has two beautiful daughters, and I forget how many grandchildren. Now comes this CREEP named Blank who attacks them and their DNA. I invite the moderators to chastise me, and even ban me from the forum, but I refuse to be associated with Mr. Blank. I think he is a disgusting character! Blankety-Blank!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I didn't realize there was such a great divide on Armstrong. I think he hit a rich vein, though.

Marty

I am sure that if you stick around here long enough, there will be THREE OSWALDS, or maybe four. Why stop at two?

[Edit: I was present when John Armstrong first presented his "two Oswald" theory in Fredonia, and I have never heard a more sloppy presentation. John Armstrong is a nice man, but he wouldn't know what EVIDENCE is if it jumped up and bit him in the butt!

John is not comfortable with public speaking. Please read the book and then form any opinion you wish.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because John did something that no other critic has done before. He sent away for every Oswald FBI and WC document at NARA. He then put them together one after another so he could account for the official chronology of Oswald's life

Since Lee Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination, all of Armstrong's work was a complete waste of time.

If Armstrong was seriously interested in solving this case, he would have studied the lives of James Angleton and Richard Helms, to mention just a few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh Ray, you just stepped in it again. And its a perfect example of what I said above: you have not read the book.

The subtitle to it is "How the CIA framed Oswald". Pretty clear huh?

Angleton figures throughout the book. Since Armstrong came to the same conclusion that Newman did: Oswald was his creation.

And at the end, in his chapter called "To the Victors belong the Spoils", he discusses both Helms and Angleton. Get it Ray, he called them "Victors".

I like that logic: any lengthy study of Oswald cannot relate to who killed Kennedy. You mean like Melanson's and Newman's?

Do you at least wipe your shoes off once in awhile?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh Ray, you just stepped in it again. And its a perfect example of what I said above: you have not read the book.

The subtitle to it is "How the CIA framed Oswald". Pretty clear huh?

/quote]

Thank you Jim. You are right. I have been misled by internet summaries, and need to read the book itself. I took a great liking to John Armstrong when I met him some years ago, and you have made me realize that I have been unfair to him. It now seems that he and I are on the same page, and I thank you for bringing me up to speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its incredible the analogies that get thrown around here without any real analysis. Or firsthand investigation.

No analysis needed above and beyond what I've already stated, Jim, since the issue is that of the ethical considerations involving a conflict of interest – not how that conflict was created.

And then we jump to conclusions about say Bugliosi.

What conclusions about Bugliosi are you talking about and who "jumped" to them? Whatever, it certainly wasn't me, so I have no idea why you mention it.

Without any reading of the sources or any internal logic. Or even one phone call.

See above. No need. But if you want to change the subject to internal logic, can you explain the internal manoeuvres involved in claiming, as some including Jack has, that Robert Oswald must have known about the 2nd Oswald – and yet also claim that Robert spilt the beans on the whole charade by talking about Stripling? I mean, if the guy knew – surely he would not say anything which hinted at the operation. Alternatively, there was no operation and Stripling was just faulty memory – which the "I Led 3 Lives" nonsense demonstrates he possessed.

The first guy to say in public that Oswald attended Stripling was Robert Oswald. ANd that was back in 1959.

THat is some conspiracy. Because Armstrong did not get interested in the JFK case until 30 years later.

Jack White went to TCU with Kudlaty. Which is before he got interested in JFK.

Again, that is some conspiracy.

Yah. Nice. But it has nothing to do with issue I raised – and fwiw, nor is it the response interested in reasonable discussion since the scenario you outline is not the only way collusioon could occur. You have simply opted for the least likely and offered it up as the only.

Now is there supposed to be some kind of "moral problem" here?

Ethical.

If so I don't see it.

Well, I'll help you out. Doug sees it. That's why he won't respond to my requests for his comment.

To me the problem is with anyone who somehow sees something that is not there in it.

Like I said, I'll help you out.

From wiki: "A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs."

To apply that to this situation: Jack had multiple interests - working with Armstrong while being a friend of one his witnesses – a situation with the potential to corrupt the story Kudlaty allegedly had. You can also see that impropriety does not necessarily follow a conflict of interest. It is the potential for that to occur which is the problem.

Diffusing it usually means either withdrawing from one of the conflicting elements, or, as I believe should have happened here, declaring the conflict. Not only was that conflict not declared; it had been suppressed until Jack White spilled the beans in a fit of desperation while trying to vouch for Kudlaty's honesty on the basis of his long friendship dating back to college. That cover-up of the relationship isn't a good look; nor has been Jack's often gobsmackingly silly attempts since yhen to minimise the damage by completely backflipping on his own words. You have apparently taken that cue with your attempts to do the same by relegating what Jack originally described as a friendship with Kudlaty dating back to the '40s to a situation where Jack merely "knew" him. In case you don't get it by now, the more you both use such tactics, the worse it looks. Transparency is all about declaring one's interests openly and fully.

If one follows John's book, which few of his critics have read i.e. Carroll, Colby, and Parker--the way he got interested in this issue was the way he got interested in Palmer McBride. He read something that made no sense to him chronologically. Why?

I'm getting a little tired of having mistruths repeated after they have been corrected. Once more and hopefully for the last time. I have debunked "evidence" used to support the theory as it appears on the web and in forums such as this – and only when it is warranted. Above and beyond that, I am '"guilty" of decrying the habit supporters of the theory have of trying to elevate the theory to historical fact.

Because John did something that no other critic has done before. He sent away for every Oswald FBI and WC document at NARA. He then put them together one after another so he could account for the official chronology of Oswald's life--year to year, month to month, week to week. Sometimes day by day. This is something no one had ever done before. So when something like RObert Oswald's pronouncements about Stripling surface, that jars John's chronology. And he jumps to check it out. And unlike most researchers, this is not by calling other researchers or dismissing it out of hand as some kind of mistake. He actually goes to the scene and starts investigating things to see if there is anything there.

What first interested John about Stripling was Robert Oswald's public utterances. He then went to the WC where Robert also mentions Stripling. Which makes it three times in five years. How could a sibling make a mistake like that? For instance, I know exactly where my two sisters attended school, each and every year until they graduated.

Do you also remember what their favorite TV shows were, what years those shows ran and where they were living at the time? Did your sisters move around at the same rate Lee hopped about from school to school across the country?

John then wrote a letter to the principal at Stripling. This principal called John back and said that although the records were gone it was "common knowledge" that Oswald had been there. (Armstrong, p. 97) John then got a record of teachers who were there at the time. He started calling them and found one who recalled Oswald being there. A few of the teachers suggested he talk to Kudlaty who had been an administrator there. He called Kudlaty and that is when he told him about Oswald and the FBI.

"Common knowledge" is, by definition, something "commonly known" within a particular population – unless this was a very VERY tiny school, "common knowledge" would constitute more than one teacher, Kudlaty and 3 students. Can we say "exaggeration"?

And has anyone ever explained why the FBI would involve itself in helping the CIA cover up one of its operations. Do we know who asked them to?

It was not until after this call, when John was trying to track down students that he became aware of Jack White's going to TCU with Kudlaty many years before.

All the more reason to declare the relationship in the book instead of suppressing it – and then, when it comes to light, trying to play it down by relegating to a mere acquaintanceship.

Again, it is shocking to me the lengths people will go to to smear Armstrong and discredit his witnesses. Without doing any kind of background check, or even reading his book. And then the most unsubstantiated smears are hurled at John without even a modicum of logic or fairness.

Mock shock! This thread's got it all!

If you were using logic, Jim, we wouldn't be having this debate. The ethical considerations underpinning conflict of interests and how to deal with them can be quickly ascertained through application of logic.

"Fairness"? You want to discuss "fairness"? Take a long hard look at the debating tactics you and others have employed in this thread so far - and then look up "fairness - antonyms".

Talk about arrogance and bias. Which is what we use to criticize the WC.

You use "arrogance and bias" to criticise the WC? Last I checked, you were pretty good at using facts in your criticisms of it – unlike here where your desire to defend the indefensible necessitates the use of straw arguments and false accusations bordering on personal attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that is a separate, albiet related topic and one I have readily admitted I am not as convinced about as I am with the Pic issue. I put it out there for consideration. The facts are that there was a precedent case in the Soviet Union,

Len: What 'precedent' was that?

http://reopenkennedy...l-clinic-t3.htm

and here you have CIA backed White Russians organising dental work for Marina

Len: I have not seen info DeM was "CIA backed" like many businessmen who did business overseas he provided the CIA with info. And though he left Belarus when he was 8 or 9 he was not involved in anti-Soviet activities

The background on who organised the dental work was muddied by the fact everyone gave a different account. IRRC, Bouhe was the one credited by the WC. In any case, DeM worked for the International Co-operation Administration in 1957. The ICA has been widely regarded and described as a CIA front.

with a dentist who had been involved in CIA sponsored "charity" work.

Len: It was not the actual dentist who treated her but his supervisor who had been a Project Hope volunteer. The ties between PH and the CIA were tenuous IIRC a couple of people on the groups board were tied to the agency.

Tenuous only according to your memory. It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War.

Coincidence? Quite possibly.

Len: Seeing connections were none exist? Almost certainly!

One connection I missed: the one between you and stand-up comedy.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Ray Carroll is sincere in his last comment and actually reads the book.

I do intend to read John Armstrong's book, and I sincerely regret not having done so up to now. I met John Armstrong and he is as nice a guy as I have ever met, so I really have no excuse. MEA CULPA!

And I repeat my thanks to Jim Di Eugenio. I know I am not alone in thanking Jim for his many contributions to the JFK inquiry, and I wish him nothing but the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know Greg, I like you personally and I think most of your work is worth reading.

Thank you Jim.

When it comes to this though, for some reason you lose your balance and temperament.

Nonsense.

Your take on the White/Kudlaty thing is so irrational, so exaggerated that I can't take it seriously. And I have a hard time believing you do.

There is nothing "irrational" about taking conflicts of interest seriously. If we were talking about Bugliosi instead of Armstrong, Von Pein instead of White, and a late arriving friend of Von Pein's touted as a lone nut witness, you'd be all over it like a rash.

As per "arrogance and bias", Greg, what I meant was the WC critics accused the Commission of having that attitude. Not that the critics had that attitude. Or that I do.

Okay.

In your post, I don't see any attempt at dealing with the evidence presented e.g. Robert Oswald's many references to Stripling,

Then you may want to check again. It was dealt with.

Stripling's negative template in the official story, Armstrong's initiative in noticing this and writing the principal, then going down there and interviewing teachers, administrators and students and finding a fine witness in Kudalty and several other corroborating ones. All this is washed out in the White/Kudlaty affair. Even when the TCU thing was way in the past and as I showed, had nothing to do with John's work. As I amply demonstrated.

As I said, any actual impropriety is a separate issue to the conflict of interest.

As per your insinuation about why did the FBI arrive there if this was a CIA operation, well Greg, I can tell you why. Since I interviewed FBi agents about this very subject. Whenever the FBI stumbled across an Agency project they understood to stay aloof from it even if it was illegal.

I understand that. But this is not a matter of staying aloof. It is the opposite. It is getting involved by aiding the cover-up.

If John is right about this, then it is very hard to believe that Hoover was not aware of this by say Oswald's return to the USA. Probably sooner. Secondly, there were CIA liasons within the FBI, like Papich, who could have tipped off Hoover.

"Could have"

And Greg, as per Robert talking about Stripling, I mean did you read what I wrote or not? Robert talked about it TWICE in the public record before the assassination. It was already out there. I mean what are you going to say, he should have shut up since he knew his brother was being set up for Kennedy's murder while Eisenhower was president?

No. You keep coming up with the silliest possible scenario to knock down, Now why is that? If you are suggesting he had no reason in 1959 to cover up the Stripling saga, I can go along with that. But to mention it to the WC was a little foolhardy. If they had decided to actually follow that lead, the jig is up. So again -- why would he risk that if he was "in" on the operation?

On the subject of Robert, was the family living across the road from Stripling when he himself attended?

The rest of your post seems to me well...I'll stop there.

IOW, like Jack, you'd rather not be responsive. Okay.

I hope Ray Carroll is sincere in his last comment and actually reads the book. As Doug says,there is no substitute for it. John did many things that no one ever did before. And the one I mentioned above is just one of several.

Ya. Good luck with that recruit Mon Capitain.

But you won't ever know that by just listening to debates about his work. You have to read it yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg when you put your comments and mine in the same color you make it difficult for anyone else to follow our 'debate'

that is a separate, albiet related topic and one I have readily admitted I am not as convinced about as I am with the Pic issue. I put it out there for consideration. The facts are that there was a precedent case in the Soviet Union,

Len: What 'precedent' was that?

http://reopenkennedy...l-clinic-t3.htm

Not really much of “a precedent case” supposedly a Soviet agent had holes drilled in a tooth as part of his ID/excuse to see his handler who was a dentist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

and here you have CIA backed White Russians organising dental work for Marina

Len: I have not seen info DeM was "CIA backed" like many businessmen who did business overseas he provided the CIA with info. And though he left Belarus when he was 8 or 9 he was not involved in anti-Soviet activities

The background on who organised the dental work was muddied by the fact everyone gave a different account. IRRC, Bouhe was the one credited by the WC. In any case, DeM worked for the International Co-operation Administration in 1957. The ICA has been widely regarded and described as a CIA front.

Was Bouhe “CIA backed” and/or “involved in anti-Soviet activities”? DeM went on a single mission for the International Cooperation Administration in 1957, something to do with petroleum development in Yugoslavia. ICA is more accurately described as an “agency that cooperate[d] with” the CIA rather than a front

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

with a dentist who had been involved in CIA sponsored "charity" work.

Len: It was not the actual dentist who treated her but his supervisor who had been a Project Hope volunteer. The ties between PH and the CIA were tenuous IIRC a couple of people on the groups board were tied to the agency.

Tenuous only according to your memory. It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War.

Them I sure you can provide ample documentation of this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Coincidence? Quite possibly.

Len: Seeing connections were none exist? Almost certainly

One connection I missed: the one between you and stand-up comedy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...