Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Scully

Len, what do you really know about George DeMohrenschildt besides what the WC, a CIA/Reader's Digest linked "journalist" and GHW Bush have stated? Do you accept that the WC and the NY Times simply overlooked the 1943 clipping in the Times' files that stated that DeMohrenschildt chose a "best man" at his Dorothy Pierson wedding,

Goddert Wrede, who may have been a Gehlen agent with Finnish legation cover?

What about George's cousin and employer, the Nazi Baron who was imprisoned in the Dakota's? Do any omissions

by the WC, such as the Goddert Wrede omission, diminish your confidence in what you really know?

The Hooker-Bush connection, even if it was the only one, stinks on its face. When you add Clemard Charles, James R. Greene, Dodi Fayed's father, and Joseph Dryer into the "mix", what does it all mean? How do you know what weight to give to any part of it? Were Admiral Bruton or the Colonel with the Russian name, important DeMohrenschildt connections? What about Ralphael Lehman, the African postage stamp king? There is no need to distract you with an endless circle of debate about a connection between Zapruder and Jean LeGon. It doesn't matter, when the fullness of the DeMohrenschildt traveling circus of acquaintances is thoroughly recited. Then there are the duplicate threads....Joseph Dryer was involved with Braga's Jack Malone, Malone was involved with Kleberg, Braga's son married Hooker's daughter. Henry Crown's crony, Pat Hoy was an intimate of Ernie Byfield, Jr., who was married to a white Russian noblewoman whose sister was married to Braga's first cousin. Crown's personal attorney seemed to be in charge of investigating and interrogating DeMohrenschildt, but spent precious time complementing George on his looks and physique. How about George's association with the brothers at tha Tex-Mex ranch with its very own, internal border station?

On edit: I almost left out the spectacle of Oswald "minder" Priscilla Johnson McMillan, daughter of Trubee Davison banking partner and neighbor, and her husband's "visit" to DeMohrenschildt in Haiti, under the guise, as usual, of journalistic pursuits....

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

This is one of the most absurd examples of "reasoning" I have ever encountered.

The "long friendship" is so grossly exaggerated as to be ridiculous. Frank Kudlaty

was a fellow student at TCU when I was there 1946-1949. He was not a PERSONAL

friend, but we crossed paths numerous times. I was editor of the school paper.

He was a basketball player. We both had involvement with student government.

I knew him to be a guy of outstanding character and values. I was in some classes

with his fiancee. That was in the 1940s. After graduation, I did not know what

happened to him for at least FORTY YEARS, until I saw him at a few football

games. Then, fifty years later when John Armstrong mentioned his name, I said

to John...I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THAT GUY. An acquaintance that I last saw

in 1949 is seen as a conspiratorial plot between me and Kudlaty to fool Armstrong?

This is beyond absurdity!

Now how Parker can translate that into A CONFLICT OF INTEREST shows his lack

of skill as a historical investigator. His allegations are completely false and

make him out to be someone attempting to smear my reputation. Anything ELSE

Parker says must be totally discounted because of such blatant untruths.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is one of the most absurd examples of "reasoning" I have ever encountered.

The "long friendship" is so grossly exaggerated as to be ridiculous. Frank Kudlaty

was a fellow student at TCU when I was there 1946-1949. He was not a PERSONAL

friend, but we crossed paths numerous times. I was editor of the school paper.

He was a basketball player. We both had involvement with student government.

I knew him to be a guy of outstanding character and values. I was in some classes

with his fiancee. That was in the 1940s. After graduation, I did not know what

happened to him for at least FORTY YEARS, until I saw him at a few football

games. Then, fifty years later when John Armstrong mentioned his name, I said

to John...I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THAT GUY. An acquaintance that I last saw

in 1949 is seen as a conspiratorial plot between me and Kudlaty to fool Armstrong?

This is beyond absurdity!

Now how Parker can translate that into A CONFLICT OF INTEREST shows his lack

of skill as a historical investigator. His allegations are completely false and

make him out to be someone attempting to smear my reputation. Anything ELSE

Parker says must be totally discounted because of such blatant untruths.

Jack

Jack, I remind you that in 2007, you said," Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate." A friend since the ‘40s, Jack. The word “since” here indicates the period of time from the '40s through to the time you made the above statement in your effort to vouch for his honesty. You cannot have it both ways. Either he has been a friend since the ‘40s and you are therefore well qualified to act as a character referee, or he was “not a personal friend”; that he was only someone you “crossed paths” with a few times over a three year period and did not in fact even see for the next 40 years as you now indicate was the case. If this is true, then your statement in 2007 was “exaggerated”, and you are in no position to vouch for his honesty. The conflict of interest was created when you advised Armstrong of your “acquaintanceship” with Kudlaty and Armstrong neglected to ensure this was declared in his book. If, as seems to be the case, your 2007 outburst was the first public mention of this relationship – no matter what the true nature of it was – then the situation is only compounded. If I have said anything here which misconstrues the ethics of the situation, I again ask Doug Weldon – a lawyer who would be well acquainted with such ethical concerns – to set me straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This is one of the most absurd examples of "reasoning" I have ever encountered.

The "long friendship" is so grossly exaggerated as to be ridiculous. Frank Kudlaty

was a fellow student at TCU when I was there 1946-1949. He was not a PERSONAL

friend, but we crossed paths numerous times. I was editor of the school paper.

He was a basketball player. We both had involvement with student government.

I knew him to be a guy of outstanding character and values. I was in some classes

with his fiancee. That was in the 1940s. After graduation, I did not know what

happened to him for at least FORTY YEARS, until I saw him at a few football

games. Then, fifty years later when John Armstrong mentioned his name, I said

to John...I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THAT GUY. An acquaintance that I last saw

in 1949 is seen as a conspiratorial plot between me and Kudlaty to fool Armstrong?

This is beyond absurdity!

Now how Parker can translate that into A CONFLICT OF INTEREST shows his lack

of skill as a historical investigator. His allegations are completely false and

make him out to be someone attempting to smear my reputation. Anything ELSE

Parker says must be totally discounted because of such blatant untruths.

Jack

Jack, I remind you that in 2007, you said," Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate." A friend since the ‘40s, Jack. The word “since” here indicates the period of time from the '40s through to the time you made the above statement in your effort to vouch for his honesty. You cannot have it both ways. Either he has been a friend since the ‘40s and you are therefore well qualified to act as a character referee, or he was “not a personal friend”; that he was only someone you “crossed paths” with a few times over a three year period and did not in fact even see for the next 40 years as you now indicate was the case. If this is true, then your statement in 2007 was “exaggerated”, and you are in no position to vouch for his honesty. The conflict of interest was created when you advised Armstrong of your “acquaintanceship” with Kudlaty and Armstrong neglected to ensure this was declared in his book. If, as seems to be the case, your 2007 outburst was the first public mention of this relationship – no matter what the true nature of it was – then the situation is only compounded. If I have said anything here which misconstrues the ethics of the situation, I again ask Doug Weldon – a lawyer who would be well acquainted with such ethical concerns – to set me straight.

I have nothing but utter contempt for people like you. Distortion of the truth impedes the search for truth.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Now, when I questioned this logic before, I commented on people who attack Armstrong without ever reading his book or making any phone calls. Which you did not.

So I got in contact with John today and I asked him about what got him interested in Stripling in the first place. And he told me a progressive narrative that pretty much echoes his book. This was it:

1. Robert Oswald's pronouncements at three intervals over five years. Again, that is THREE TIMES in five years Robert said it.

2. John then wrote a letter to the contemporary principal of the school.

3. Then he got in contact with the principal via phone, and he then went there in person.

4. The principal then referred him to the district HQ to get a roster of teachers there at the time.

5. John called the teachers. The teachers then told him to call Kudlaty.

6. John did so and Kudlaty told him the story about the FBI. But he also told him that his own boss, the principal at the time, told him to meet the FBI at Stripling.

Now, please show me the insidious, nefarious cover up and conspiracy involved here that you are suggesting. Where and when did it start? How did it work? Because John did not even know Kudlaty went to TCU in the forties when he called him.

Greg, if you are going to suggest these kind of dark allegations, the burden of proof is on you.

Please show me your evidence for witness manipulation.

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making

untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since

he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm

John's story.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Now, when I questioned this logic before, I commented on people who attack Armstrong without ever reading his book or making any phone calls. Which you did not.

So I got in contact with John today and I asked him about what got him interested in Stripling in the first place. And he told me a progressive narrative that pretty much echoes his book. This was it:

1. Robert Oswald's pronouncements at three intervals over five years. Again, that is THREE TIMES in five years Robert said it.

2. John then wrote a letter to the contemporary principal of the school.

3. Then he got in contact with the principal via phone, and he then went there in person.

4. The principal then referred him to the district HQ to get a roster of teachers there at the time.

5. John called the teachers. The teachers then told him to call Kudlaty.

6. John did so and Kudlaty told him the story about the FBI. But he also told him that his own boss, the principal at the time, told him to meet the FBI at Stripling.

Now, please show me the insidious, nefarious cover up and conspiracy involved here that you are suggesting. Where and when did it start? How did it work? Because John did not even know Kudlaty went to TCU in the forties when he called him.

Greg, if you are going to suggest these kind of dark allegations, the burden of proof is on you.

Please show me your evidence for witness manipulation.

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making

untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since

he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm

John's story.

Jack

Jack and Greg:

Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Jim, there is a mile of difference between saying you have been friends with someone since the 1940s (when you are trying to vouch for that persons honesty) and saying you were only acquaintances and hadn't actually seen each other for 40 years (when the ethics of the situation is pointed out). That you want to suggest that the two statements are essentially the same is disappointing and clearly in error. I have not put together any plot involving the three men. That is your construct.

I have instead, pointed out that a conflict of interest is a separate issue to any act of impropriety, and that a conflict of interest can exist even when no impropriety has taken place. Politicians are required to declare pecuniary interests so that there is transparency in the event of any potential conflict between those interests and their duties of office. Politicians who fail to declare pecuniary interests are liable to various sanctions for very sound reasons - and without the need for any impropriety to have taken place (apart from the failure to declare). Anyone involved in this thread (apart from Len) who says they would not go after Bugliosi in similar circumstances is a xxxx and hypocrite.

And anyone suggesting that those attempting to write history should be held to lesser ethical standards than politicians has no place to stand in this debate - especially when the bar set for politicians isn't really all that high...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Now, when I questioned this logic before, I commented on people who attack Armstrong without ever reading his book or making any phone calls. Which you did not.

So I got in contact with John today and I asked him about what got him interested in Stripling in the first place. And he told me a progressive narrative that pretty much echoes his book. This was it:

1. Robert Oswald's pronouncements at three intervals over five years. Again, that is THREE TIMES in five years Robert said it.

2. John then wrote a letter to the contemporary principal of the school.

3. Then he got in contact with the principal via phone, and he then went there in person.

4. The principal then referred him to the district HQ to get a roster of teachers there at the time.

5. John called the teachers. The teachers then told him to call Kudlaty.

6. John did so and Kudlaty told him the story about the FBI. But he also told him that his own boss, the principal at the time, told him to meet the FBI at Stripling.

Now, please show me the insidious, nefarious cover up and conspiracy involved here that you are suggesting. Where and when did it start? How did it work? Because John did not even know Kudlaty went to TCU in the forties when he called him.

Greg, if you are going to suggest these kind of dark allegations, the burden of proof is on you.

Please show me your evidence for witness manipulation.

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making

untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since

he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm

John's story.

Jack

Jack and Greg:

Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Thanks for (finally) giving your opinion, Doug.

But this has no more to do with coincidence than it has to do with any actual acts of "plotting".

That you guys want to make it about "coincidences" versus "plots" is just setting up a false dichotomy.

I strongly suggest you brush up on your ethics. Conflicts of interest stand alone and apart from any and all other considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing but utter contempt for people like you.

Jack, you've lived long enough to enjoy your contempts. I don't mind.

Distortion of the truth impedes the search for truth.

The one problem with willing yourself into utter contempt is that, like most strong emotions, it impedes logical thought.

In order to distort the truth, one has to have first found it.

Jack

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'

Mea Culpa. Had no idea you could not distinguish between red and pink.

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.

Sorry. I meant precedent use of a dentist in operations and necessitating actual dental work.

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

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

Bouhe's church was CIA backed. The ICA was a front. That it seemed to merely "cooperate" with the CIA was the whole point of being at arms length.

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

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.

http://etd.ohiolink....ohiou1198092879

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

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

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Now, when I questioned this logic before, I commented on people who attack Armstrong without ever reading his book or making any phone calls. Which you did not.

So I got in contact with John today and I asked him about what got him interested in Stripling in the first place. And he told me a progressive narrative that pretty much echoes his book. This was it:

1. Robert Oswald's pronouncements at three intervals over five years. Again, that is THREE TIMES in five years Robert said it.

2. John then wrote a letter to the contemporary principal of the school.

3. Then he got in contact with the principal via phone, and he then went there in person.

4. The principal then referred him to the district HQ to get a roster of teachers there at the time.

5. John called the teachers. The teachers then told him to call Kudlaty.

6. John did so and Kudlaty told him the story about the FBI. But he also told him that his own boss, the principal at the time, told him to meet the FBI at Stripling.

Now, please show me the insidious, nefarious cover up and conspiracy involved here that you are suggesting. Where and when did it start? How did it work? Because John did not even know Kudlaty went to TCU in the forties when he called him.

Greg, if you are going to suggest these kind of dark allegations, the burden of proof is on you.

Please show me your evidence for witness manipulation.

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making

untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since

he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm

John's story.

Jack

Jack and Greg:

Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Thanks for (finally) giving your opinion, Doug.

But this has no more to do with coincidence than it has to do with any actual acts of "plotting".

That you guys want to make it about "coincidences" versus "plots" is just setting up a false dichotomy.

I strongly suggest you brush up on your ethics. Conflicts of interest stand alone and apart from any and all other considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Greg:

You asked me for my opinion than reject it which is certainly your right. Are you saying that Armstrong knew that Kudlaty and Jack had once been friends and he should not have followed up on questioning Kudlaty? Are you suggesting that Jack gave Armstrong the lead that "eventually" led to Kudlaty? If so, what proof do you have and how would it be unethical if Jack even had given him the lead? What do you think Armstrong should have done? If it does bother you, why don't you simply do as I suggest, forget Kudlaty, read the book, and contact any witnesses you desire? Most are not that difficult to find. I don't understand that there is a concern about any "plot" between Jack and Armstrong. I know both of them and to me, the character of each is beyond reproach. There are remarkable coincidences in life. It seems to me the longer I speak with almost any person that the name of a common acquaintance will emerge. The phrase "six degrees of separation" has a basis in fact. Are you suggesting that there was no independent way that things led to Kudlaty? Rather than create a mystery that I believe you will find leads nowhere why don't you humor people, read the book, contact who you desire and are able to, and form any opinion that you wish. There is nothing personal in this. Some of the people who disagree with me vehemently I consider to be good friends. Good luck.

Best,

Doug

Edited by Doug Weldon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg goes into ultra violent mode whenever Armstrong is brought up.

Please explain one Frank Kudlaty.

If one reads the WR,pgs 678-80, one will see that the official story--which Greg Parker supports along with Len Colby--is that after his mom pulled him out of the New York scene, Oswald sent to school at Beauregard Junior High in New Orleans. He then attended tenth grade at Warren Easton High School also in New Orleans.

This is where Kudlaty comes in. Along with several others. Including Robert Oswald. See,if you read the summary of Oswald's education in the WR he goes from Ridglea West Elementary to New York to Beauregard. THere is no mention of any junior high school or high school in Fort Worth. Which makes Kudlaty an utterly fascinating witness. Let me explain why.

In 1959, Robert Oswald mentioned to a reporter that his brother Lee attended Stripling JH in Fort Worth. (Star Telegram, 10/29/59) Three years later, in 1962, Robert Oswald said the same thing. (ibid, 6/8/62) Could he really be mistaken twice?

Nope. Because Kudlaty backs him up in spades. On the morning after the assassination, assistant principal Frank Kudlaty was phoned by his boss, Principal Lucas. He was to meet two FBI agents at Stripling. He did and began to look up Oswald's file before the FBI agents got there. Sure enough, Lee was there for one semester. Then the two agents got there and asked him for the file. He turned it over. (Armstrong Harvey and Lee, pgs. 98-99)

Now before Colby uses his usual "trash the guy's reputation" slam, let us note: Kudlaty went on to become the superintendent of schools in Waco. Then in 1979, the State Department picked a list of 25 outstanding education managers to go to China to observe their system. Kudlaty was one of them.

Armstrong later located three students from the school who recalled Oswald.

Kudlaty is so credible that when the Texas Monthly did its hatchet job on Armstrong--similar to what Greg and Colby do here--even they had to admit that they could not lay a hand on Kudlaty. In fact, these witnesses were so credible that the editor--like Ben Bradlee with David Leigh-- took the original writer off the story. He then rewrote it himself. The problem was he knew Kudlaty so he couldn't question his veracity. The guy was just too much of a paragon.

As per Greg's categorical statement of there being no question that the Marguerite we all know is beyond doubt Oswald's real mom, please take a look at the photo of her taken right after her wedding to Ekdahl, Then look at any of the pictures taken in the sixties.

People do not shrink five inches in 15 years unless stricken with polio or TB. Which she was not.

It is incredible to me the number of people who trash Armstrong's book without ever reading it through.

Amazing that you dismiss the WCR's central conclusions but want us to unquestioningly accept its minutiae. Might they have missed or omitted that he spent "one semester" at a school it FTW?

And who besides Armstrong spoke to Kudlaty? Did he say exactly when LHO supposedly studied there? Did Armstrong find any students from the school who remembered LHO?

Please provide the direct quotes and citations for Robert Oswald.

Oh and please tell us how you determined Margaruite's heights in the various photos.

All of the above questions are answered in HARVEY AND LEE.

Various photos reveal the height of Marguerite. Here is the SHORT HISTORICAL Marguerite.

Jack

post-667-095908000 1290191938_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It is admirable when someone admits they have been on the wrong track. Nobody

WHO READS THE BOOK can find fault with the research. Perhaps since John is not

a professional author, the writing can be criticized. But NOT the research.

Jack

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...