What a family!

[Jack White]

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

Here is the tall slim Marguerite Ekdahl.

Jack

[Len Colby]

GREG: …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?

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

Len: 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.

GREG:

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

Len: Exactly, not much of a precedent case

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

GREG: 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

GREG: 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.

Len: 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

GREG: 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.

Len: I assume then you can provide reliable citations for these claims. Word to the wise, since you have a track record of citing sources that don’t say what you think they do look at them carefully before posting the links.

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

GREG: 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.

GREG: 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.

Len: Them I sure you can provide ample documentation of this.

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

Len: Did you actually take a look at the paper or did you just post the link from a Google search? (Sorta like you did during the Darwin thread). The 140 plus page master’s thesis about Project Hope made on 6 references to the CIA. And the author’s position contradicts your claims. He said that while PH got some overt non-CIA money from the government and “willingly disseminated propaganda on behalf of the government, and engaged in a close cooperative relationship with the government” it was primarily privately funded and was NOT “sinister, covert, and largely directed by the CIA”:

Ultimately, this chapter calls for a new understanding of the State-private network that moves beyond the traditional conception of the network as sinister, covert, and largely directed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [Pg 23]

[…]

Though he admittedly served as a committee chair in the quasi-official People-to-People Program, Walsh alone—not the White House, the State Department, the International Cooperation Administration (ICA), the USIA, or the CIA—was the impetus behind Project HOPE. [Pg 33]

[…]

Yet, the Ford Foundation, for instance, could only provide thousands of dollars, not millions. So, the CIA also set up dummy foundations to funnel its own money to the network’s member groups. In many ways the network itself was, according to one writer, “an entrepreneurial coalition of philanthropic foundations, business corporations and other institutions and individuals, who worked hand in hand with the CIA.” Project HOPE demonstrates, however, that funding and supplying State-private organizations did not always involve a covert CIA plot. Instead, Walsh turned to corporate America for material support and financial backing [pg 55]

[…]

Having already supplied Project HOPE with a moment of publicity before the American people, [Time-Life VP C.D.] Jackson set about gauging the level of support in official circles for both HOPE and the New White Fleet. “To determine the attitude toward the Great White Fleet on the part of all interested agencies; and to assess the prospects for obtaining federal financial support . . . without sacrificing the underlying ‘people-to-people’ concept,” he sent Time-Life staffer Edgar P. Smith to Washington in late September 1959. Illustrating Jackson’s wide-ranging network of contacts within government, Smith met with such luminaries as Congressmen O.C. Fisher (D-Texas) and Ed Edmonson (DOklahoma), ICA Deputy Director James Grant, Assistant Secretary of Defense Graves Erskine, Special Assistant to the President Karl Harr, and CIA Director Allen Dulles.

Smith returned from Washington with “several rather pessimistic conclusions” about the New White Fleet’s prospects. He reported that real, as opposed to rhetorical, government support was generally lacking, especially since Life “joined with HOPE.” In meetings with administration officials, Smith encountered a “general feeling that we should ‘wait and see how HOPE turns out.’” He noted, however, that the USIA and the ICA seemed surprisingly sympathetic to both proposals though he did not elaborate.” [Pg 60]

[…]

Proposed demonstrations included “spectacular development projects like a rice airlift to Indonesia, the establishment of an emergency food bank for international disasters, and programs for education in less developed areas.” The CIA suggested “the U.S. organize an ‘international medical year’ or an ‘international biomedical year’ to attack worldwide diseases and reward scientists whose research benefited humankind.” [Pgs 117-8]

[…]

By arguing that Project HOPE was part of the State-private network, this chapter abandoned the conventional understanding of the network as sinister, covert, and largely directed by the CIA. It broadened the State-private network’s definition to include private organizations like Project HOPE that overtly received official support, willingly disseminated propaganda on behalf of the government, and engaged in a close cooperative relationship with the government at a level of intensity beyond the norm and befitting what public officials and private citizens alike saw as necessary to win a total war [pg 148]

And there was no mention of PH being involved in ‘psyops’ other that trying to make the US seem more appealing than the USSR by providing free medical care in poor non-aligned countries. So there is no reason to believe Marina’s dentist implanted a listening device in one of her fillings just because his boss later became a PH volunteer.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

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

Doug, I asked for your opinion based on the misunderstanding that you knew at least as much about ethics and conflicts of interest as even a third rate ambulance chaser would know. My apologies for over-rating your professional skills.

You also seem to have difficulty in comprehending my posts. I'll take responsibility for that and try again. This time, I'll simply quote from wiki: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results"

I will add that the ethical consideration is in eliminating or minimising such conflicts. Here, I believe that could have been done simply by noting the relationship in the book.

That you continue to plough ahead with the false dichotomy of "coincidence" vs "plot" in disregard of all that I've said, tells me all I need to know.

regards,

greg

[Doug Weldon]

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

Doug, I asked for your opinion based on the misunderstanding that you knew at least as much about ethics and conflicts of interest as even a third rate ambulance chaser would know. My apologies for over-rating your professional skills.

You also seem to have difficulty in comprehending my posts. I'll take responsibility for that and try again. This time, I'll simply quote from wiki: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results"

I will add that the ethical consideration is in eliminating or minimising such conflicts. Here, I believe that could have been done simply by noting the relationship in the book.

That you continue to plough ahead with the false dichotomy of "coincidence" vs "plot" in disregard of all that I've said, tells me all I need to know.

regards,

greg

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Parker]

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

Len: Exactly, not much of a precedent case

Not if you just want to consider the radio bit and disregard other aspects.

On it's own though, it also offers an alternative scenario. IIRC Marina was required to attend the US embassy in Moscow for a medical check before departing for the US. We know now that some of those medical people were CIA. Maybe those holes were drilled there... ala the KGB case....

GREG: 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.

Len: I assume then you can provide reliable citations for these claims. Word to the wise, since you have a track record of citing sources that don't say what you think they do look at them carefully before posting the links.

You can find the information yourself if you don't like the cites I provide,

GREG: 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.

Len: Them I sure you can provide ample documentation of this.

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

Len: Did you actually take a look at the paper or did you just post the link from a Google search? (Sorta like you did during the Darwin thread).

It was exactly like I did before.

You are the one not reading. "It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War."

The thesis backs up that premise.

And there was no mention of PH being involved in 'psyops'

Len. Newsflash. Psyops = propaganda. Read the thesis again.

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly

Only if you call non-responsiveness in order to avoid reality your "responsibility".

and respectfully.

"Good manners" are no substiute for honest and responsive replies. Nor will it deflect from your attempts to change this into a debate over plots never mentioned nor hinted at by me.

I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views.

The only "confusion" is being deliberately created by you and others by introducing irrelevancies e.g your false dichotomy. In reality, it could not be more straightforward.

My response does not change.

No, it doesn't. You have persisted again and again with talk of "coincidences" vs "plots" despite many times being told it has nothing to do with either.

Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community.

No doubt. It's difficult having your illusions shattered,

This appears to be nothing more than a game to you.

Nope. I take ethical issues very seriously. You and others on this thread, appear not to be bothered by them at all. I find that rather disturbing.

It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book

Which is yet another irrelevancy. This is not about his book. It is not about the quality of his reserach. It is about an ethical issue, pure and simple.

and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks.

What can I say? I use up all my patience on my kids.

Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.

Your responses to the ethical issue prove that, unfortunately.

I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you.

Why would any of them stick their heads out of the trenches and risk being subjected to the barrage of propagandising and obfuscation I have had to deal with on this issue?

Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Yeah. Sure. "Sincere" to the bitter end.

Doug Weldon

Edited November 20, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Question for Jack.

Jack, which of these statements is true?

1)Armstrong did not mention in his book that Jack and Frank attended the same college in 1949 (he did not even

know that).

Jack White, post #27 from the Armstrong on Oswald's Employment at Tujagues thread, May 4, 2010

2)Then, fifty years later when John Armstrong mentioned his name, I said to John...I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THAT GUY.

Jack White, post #53 this thread Nov 18, 2010

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

Why are you trying to imply that one has to be deceptive?

Jim, they are mutually exclusive statements. I am astonished you claim not to recognise that.

As far as I can see, John does not mention that Jack and Kuldaty went to college in the forties at TCU.

Yes. I believe that is indeed, the case. It is, after all, what I have been saying should have happened.

So what? As I related in detail: 1.) John did not know this when he interviewed Kudlaty,

And according to Jack's May statement, he still did not know about it after the book was published.

But then, a couple of days ago, that story changed. Jack now claims he told Armstrong about going to school with Kudlaty the very first time Armstrong Mentioned Kudlaty. Unless you wish to posit that the first time Armstrong mentioned Kudlaty to Jack was AFTER the book was published, the statements are mutually exclusive – one of them is not factual.

and 2.) It has no relevance to the evidentiary matter at hand.

It has relevance to the issue I have been discussing.

You are the one who is trying to make something out of nothing.

Not quite. You are endeavouring to convince everyone it is nothing.

And you don't look very good doing it.

Well, I have mixed feelings about your efforts here. On the one hand, I have some admiration for those who defend their friends. On the other hand, sometimes the best thing to do for a friend is to gently encourage them to own up to their mistakes. When defending someone however, reaches the point where you have to become wilfully blind to contradictory statements, I think it may be time some one tapped you both on the shoulder and had a friendly word about extracting yourselves from this with some dignity still intact.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Doug Weldon]

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly

Only if you call non-responsiveness in order to avoid reality your "responsibility".

and respectfully.

"Good manners" are no substiute for honest and responsive replies. Nor will it deflect from your attempts to change this into a debate over plots never mentioned nor hinted at by me.

I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views.

The only "confusion" is being deliberately created by you and others by introducing irrelevancies e.g your false dichotomy. In reality, it could not be more straightforward.

My response does not change.

No, it doesn't. You have persisted again and again with talk of "coincidences" vs "plots" despite many times being told it has nothing to do with either.

Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community.

No doubt. It's difficult having your illusions shattered,

This appears to be nothing more than a game to you.

Nope. I take ethical issues very seriously. You and others on this thread, appear not to be bothered by them at all. I find that rather disturbing.

It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book

Which is yet another irrelevancy. This is not about his book. It is not about the quality of his reserach. It is about an ethical issue, pure and simple.

and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks.

What can I say? I use up all my patience on my kids.

Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.

Your responses to the ethical issue prove that, unfortunately.

I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you.

Why would any of them stick their heads out of the trenches and risk being subjected to the barrage of propagandising and obfuscation I have had to deal with on this issue?

Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Yeah. Sure. "Sincere" to the bitter end.

Doug Weldon

Greg:

This is even more strange than I thought. As I understand your rant now it has nothing to do with whether you believe there is validity or not to Armstrong's book, which you have not read but choose to isolate bits and pieces from the internet, but your concern is that there is some ethical violation or lack of duty by Armstrong to disclose in his book that Kudlaty and Jack White had some sort of relationship as either acquaintances or friends in the past, something Jack says Armstrong could not have known when he interviewed Kudlaty. Since Armstrong did not disclose this in his book then this "ethical" violation casts dispersion on the veracity of his book and Kudlaty's crediility as a witness. Should Armstrong have brought a list of names of everyone he knew when he talked with any witness and inquire of the witness whether he/she recognizes any of the names on that list? Do you believe that should detract from Kudlaty's credibility as a witness though Kudlaty would not have had any way of knowing that Armstrong knew White? Is that what this is about? I have no idea when Armstrong found out about the Kudlaty-White "relationship." Let's assume it was after the book went to the publisher? What do you believe Armstrong should have done? It may be my shortcoming, but I don't see any connection with Jack knowing Kudlaty unless you somehow believe that there was some concerted effort by the three of them to contrive a story. As I mentioned before, if this bothers you so much then throw out Kudlaty's whole account. It is such a very small piece of the book. Armstrong's intent has always been to present his findings and allows one to reach their own conclusions. He does not like confrontation. He doesn't "argue" for his position but simply presents the evidence. It does not bother or upset him if somewhat rejects that evidence. On its face it is a very bizarre story and should be approached with skepticism. Unfortunately, my understanding of ethics is not based on the scholarly works of "wikepedia" so I may seriously be out of touch. However cheated I am by that lack of a broad education I simply do not see any ethical duty or breach, but obviously I am not going to persuade you otherwise. Perhaps some other people reading this thread will have a broader perspective than I do and may post their support for your posi.... Whoops, I think I just heard a fire engine. Gotta go.

Doug Weldon

Edited November 20, 2010 by Doug Weldon

[Greg Parker]

Let me use another example of John's work that I think gives some insight into his book.

When John was taking Jim Marrs' JFK class at Texas Arlington, students were encouraged to find a piece of evidence that they found interesting and present it to the class.

John used the famous Palmer McBride statement to the FBI. McBride claimed that he worked with Oswald at Pfisterer's dental lab in New Orleans in late 1957. The problem here is that the WC says Oswald enlist d in the Marines about a year before. ( see p. 681 of the WR) John found this quite interesting. When he asked Gary Mack about it after the class, Mack said that the guy was obviously mistaken. John felt that this was an unwarranted, arrogant response since Mack had done no inquiry into the matter at all. He just dismissed it outright.

So John decided to do what Mack did not do. He actually got in contact with McBride who was living in California at the time. McBride vividly recalled Oswald to John. He liked Oswald and invited him to hi house two or three times to listen to classical music. He and Oswald even went to the opera Boris Godunov together. John actually found the program for this performance. It was in 1957. McBride also recalled he and Oswald discussing Russia's space success. Sputnik was launched in 1957.

Oswald actually showed McBride communist inspired books, like Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.

John sent McBride two differing photos of Oswald's mother: the short, dumpy, unattractive one and the tall, rather nice looking woman. McBride recognized the former only.

Palmer once introduced Jim Vance to Oswald. Vance was his best friend and a member of the New Orleans astronomy club. Ralph Hartwell was a former member of the club who later joined the AIr Force. He told the FBI that in his correspondence with the astronomy club, he recalled McBride mentioning Oswald, as did another member William Wulf. McBride also took Oswald to meetings of the club held at the home of one Walter Gehrke. Gehrke told the FBI he recalled the meetings and meeting Oswald in 1958 at his home in Metairie. At a meeting there presided over by Wulf, Oswald praised Russia and communism. Wulf yelled at him that if he liked russia so much, he should go there. Wulf recalled this incident to Armstrong as being in late 1957 or early 1958. When Wulf talked to the commission he said it may have been earlier, but he would like to consult his records. He was not allowed to and the WC never secured the minutes. John allowed him to collect his thoughts and use landmarks in his memory, like a year he spent out of school..He was sure it was in late 57 or early 58. Which jibes with Gehrke, McBride and Hartwell.

Now during this time period, the WC has Oswald in the pacific at Atsugi, or on maneuvers in the Philippines.

What John did here is what he did with the Robert Oswald testimony. He noticed a dichotomy that others dismissed. He then tracked it down in person. It turns out that Palmer McBride was credible on his own. But then Palmer led him to other landmark and time stamp evidence like the opera performance, like Sputnik. But then Palmer led him to other corroborating witnesses: Jim Vance, Ralph Hartwell, Wiliam Wulf, Walter Gehrke.

That is pretty impressive in my book. And BTW, John's book is full of stuff like this. But it is also full of great info that is not related to his two Oswald thesis. In my opinion, the book is worth buying just for the Mexico City chapter and the work on the alleged ordering of the rifle and handgun--which you will never look at the same way again after you read his work on them.

So, I urge everyone to read the book instead of listening to summaries or slams of it. You can't put 950 pages of real and new information in any summary.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=994010

John Fioello stated Oswald worked there for a "for not more than a few months" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=22

Lionel Slater stated Oswald worked there for "several weeks" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=29

John Ulmer stated photo of Oswald "resembles a messenger who was employed for just a few weeks in 1956"

[Doug Weldon]

Let me use another example of John's work that I think gives some insight into his book.

When John was taking Jim Marrs' JFK class at Texas Arlington, students were encouraged to find a piece of evidence that they found interesting and present it to the class.

John used the famous Palmer McBride statement to the FBI. McBride claimed that he worked with Oswald at Pfisterer's dental lab in New Orleans in late 1957. The problem here is that the WC says Oswald enlist d in the Marines about a year before. ( see p. 681 of the WR) John found this quite interesting. When he asked Gary Mack about it after the class, Mack said that the guy was obviously mistaken. John felt that this was an unwarranted, arrogant response since Mack had done no inquiry into the matter at all. He just dismissed it outright.

So John decided to do what Mack did not do. He actually got in contact with McBride who was living in California at the time. McBride vividly recalled Oswald to John. He liked Oswald and invited him to hi house two or three times to listen to classical music. He and Oswald even went to the opera Boris Godunov together. John actually found the program for this performance. It was in 1957. McBride also recalled he and Oswald discussing Russia's space success. Sputnik was launched in 1957.

Oswald actually showed McBride communist inspired books, like Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.

John sent McBride two differing photos of Oswald's mother: the short, dumpy, unattractive one and the tall, rather nice looking woman. McBride recognized the former only.

Palmer once introduced Jim Vance to Oswald. Vance was his best friend and a member of the New Orleans astronomy club. Ralph Hartwell was a former member of the club who later joined the AIr Force. He told the FBI that in his correspondence with the astronomy club, he recalled McBride mentioning Oswald, as did another member William Wulf. McBride also took Oswald to meetings of the club held at the home of one Walter Gehrke. Gehrke told the FBI he recalled the meetings and meeting Oswald in 1958 at his home in Metairie. At a meeting there presided over by Wulf, Oswald praised Russia and communism. Wulf yelled at him that if he liked russia so much, he should go there. Wulf recalled this incident to Armstrong as being in late 1957 or early 1958. When Wulf talked to the commission he said it may have been earlier, but he would like to consult his records. He was not allowed to and the WC never secured the minutes. John allowed him to collect his thoughts and use landmarks in his memory, like a year he spent out of school..He was sure it was in late 57 or early 58. Which jibes with Gehrke, McBride and Hartwell.

Now during this time period, the WC has Oswald in the pacific at Atsugi, or on maneuvers in the Philippines.

What John did here is what he did with the Robert Oswald testimony. He noticed a dichotomy that others dismissed. He then tracked it down in person. It turns out that Palmer McBride was credible on his own. But then Palmer led him to other landmark and time stamp evidence like the opera performance, like Sputnik. But then Palmer led him to other corroborating witnesses: Jim Vance, Ralph Hartwell, Wiliam Wulf, Walter Gehrke.

That is pretty impressive in my book. And BTW, John's book is full of stuff like this. But it is also full of great info that is not related to his two Oswald thesis. In my opinion, the book is worth buying just for the Mexico City chapter and the work on the alleged ordering of the rifle and handgun--which you will never look at the same way again after you read his work on them.

So, I urge everyone to read the book instead of listening to summaries or slams of it. You can't put 950 pages of real and new information in any summary.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=994010

John Fioello stated Oswald worked there for a "for not more than a few months" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=22

Lionel Slater stated Oswald worked there for "several weeks" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=29

John Ulmer stated photo of Oswald "resembles a messenger who was employed for just a few weeks in 1956"

Greg:

This is legitimate. When there is a conflict in the evidence I am sure you would agree you have to examinine it in its totality to resolve the conflict. I have no idea whether the FBI was pushing the 1956 date or if it was independent recall. They tried to do that with Palmer McBride. Sometimes a conflict cannot be resolved and no conclusions can be reached. However, I believe it is important to at least examine how the Armstrong witnesses established the date.

Doug Weldon

[Don Jeffries]

This thread illustrates, once again, the apparent impossibility of ever achieving a general cohesiveness amongst conspiracy believers.

Greg Parker is generally someone I agree with, and seems to have done some good work. However, he is way off base here, and coming close to having his warning level raised, imho, for his over the top insinuations about Jack White. I understand John Armstrong is yet another of the polarizing figures in the CT community, but I don't believe it's imperative that we accept 100% of anyone's work. Armstrong obviously put a great deal of time and effort (and evidently his own money) into a massive amount of research. Dispute any of his conclusions all you want, but can't you recognize the genuine effort that went into his work? If you assume he was being dishonest here, what was the motive? Financial? Like most CT writers, I'm quite certain Armstrong made little or nothing on his book.

Greg- what is it that you are inferring here? Even if someone accepted your semi-slanderous accusations that Jack is not being truthful about his relationship with Kudlaty, exactly what is your point? Do you believe that Jack lied about the extent of his friendship with this guy? If so, why? How did that aid in Armstrong's research? Why would Kudlaty distort the truth- to make Armstrong's hypothesis more believable? Again, not that I accept that Jack, Kudlaty or Amstrong has done anything dishonest whatsover, but please explain why this is all so important to you. Even if you somehow could prove your curious thesis, what will you have accomplished?

Whether it's Duke Lane uncovering unrelated aspects of a long dead witness's life, or Ray Carroll angrily "defending" Lee Harvey Oswald from those who have worked for decades to clear his name, to Tom Purvis maintaining that Oswald fired all shots with the Carcano, but the Warren Commission "covered up," this forum is full of posters who frankly astound me. I did not previously think Greg Parker was in this category.

One thing should be obvious to any disinterested observer of the JFK assassination critical community; while CTers who agree on most important aspects of this case engage in a never ending series of dramatic feuds with one another, LNers seem to be in total accord. You will never see them expend great efforts to smear a witness that is friendly to the official story. Or publicly argue about anything with another LNer.

WE are often the greatest enemy in our pursuit of the truth. We simply will not stop eating our own.

[Greg Parker]

This thread illustrates, once again, the apparent impossibility of ever achieving a general cohesiveness amongst conspiracy believers.

Greg Parker is generally someone I agree with, and seems to have done some good work. However, he is way off base here, and coming close to having his warning level raised, imho, for his over the top insinuations about Jack White.

What insinuations would they be, Don? I'm guessing they're the ones being made up by others and put in my mouth. There is a conflict of interest where a witness in a case is friends with one of the investigators and that investigator has neither withdrawn from the case, nor acknowledged the friendship in any reports. This is a very similar situation. All I have done is brought that problem into the light. All Jack has done has made disparaging remarks about me and my ability as a researcher and made self-serving and contradictory statements about both the depth and length of the friendship with Kundlaty and who knew what about that friendship, and when they knew it. In regard to those remarks, all I have done is point out the contradictions they contain and asked which of the statements is true (if any). Are you seriously telling me I'm out of bounds for that and Jack gets a free pass for his personal attacks? Can you point out which rule or rules I have allegedly broken?

I understand John Armstrong is yet another of the polarizing figures in the CT community, but I don't believe it's imperative that we accept 100% of anyone's work. Armstrong obviously put a great deal of time and effort (and evidently his own money) into a massive amount of research. Dispute any of his conclusions all you want, but can't you recognize the genuine effort that went into his work? If you assume he was being dishonest here, what was the motive? Financial? Like most CT writers, I'm quite certain Armstrong made little or nothing on his book.

Like others before you, you put up one option as if it is the only. Go figure. As for recognising his work... please do a search. I have done it numerous times. I have even added to what he did with my own research and passed that information on to another researcher doing independent work along similar lines.

Greg- what is it that you are inferring here?

Nothing. I am saying very explicitly that there was a conflict of interest, and that nothing was done to ameliorate that.

Even if someone accepted your semi-slanderous accusations that Jack is not being truthful about his relationship with Kudlaty, exactly what is your point?

If you don't get it by now, why would I want to keep banging my head? And I think you probably mean "semi-libellous" but either way, it's the same as being – semi-pregnant. Such a state does not exist. Are you aware that a necessary condition of slander and libel is that the claim being made is false? Can you point out the statements that you claim fit that description?

Falsely accusing someone of libel may in itself be libel.

Do you believe that Jack lied about the extent of his friendship with this guy?

At this stage, all I know as a fact is that he has contradicted himself about that – as he has about when Armstrong became aware of the friendship.

If so, why? How did that aid in Armstrong's research?

I don't believe how many times I have had to repeat this: Actual acts of impropriety are not required to create a conflict of interest. The conflict itself is an ethical issue and needs to be dealt with in an ethical fashion. If you do not understand the importance of the issue under discussion – I just do not know what to say about that except your country would be in a lot deeper doo-doo than it is if not for the enforcing of ethical behaviour in politics to avoid or ameliorate conflicting interests.

Why would Kudlaty distort the truth- to make Armstrong's hypothesis more believable? Again, not that I accept that Jack, Kudlaty or Amstrong has done anything dishonest whatsover, but please explain why this is all so important to you.

I have to explain this again, as well? You guys are driving me nuts with your complete lack of comprehension. Let's swap Armstrong for Bugliosi and Jack for Von Pein. Bugliosi writes a book in part touting a new lone nut witness. Years later, this witness is being discussed on a forum such as this, and the credibility (not the honesty) of the witness is being questioned. Von Pein, in an effort to defend the legitimacy of the witness, then suddenly announces he can vouch for him because he has been a friend since college days. But then when ethical concerns are raised, Von Pein starts tamping down the language and this friend is suddenly relegated to a mere acquaintance. Later still, Von Pein contradicts an earlier statement that Bugliosi did not know about the friendship till after the book was published by saying that he in fact told Bugliosi about it the very first time Bugliosi mentions having found this witness.

Are you going to tell me you are completely fine with the above scenario? You see no contradictions, and there is nothing to be concerned about? Because the above scenario is EXACTLY what has transpired here. Only the names are different.

Even if you somehow could prove your curious thesis, what will you have accomplished?

What THESIS? I have pointed out FACTS. There is no THESIS. What do those FACTS accomplish? I thought truth was it's own reward.

Whether it's Duke Lane uncovering unrelated aspects of a long dead witness's life, or Ray Carroll angrily "defending" Lee Harvey Oswald from those who have worked for decades to clear his name, to Tom Purvis maintaining that Oswald fired all shots with the Carcano, but the Warren Commission "covered up," this forum is full of posters who frankly astound me. I did not previously think Greg Parker was in this category.

Frankly I'm astounded that you're astounded.

One thing should be obvious to any disinterested observer of the JFK assassination critical community; while CTers who agree on most important aspects of this case engage in a never ending series of dramatic feuds with one another,

Let's get this straight. I was asked what I thought about Kudlaty. Don't blame me if you and others don't like the answer.

LNers seem to be in total accord. You will never see them expend great efforts to smear a witness that is friendly to the official story. Or publicly argue about anything with another LNer.

WE are often the greatest enemy in our pursuit of the truth. We simply will not stop eating our own.

I'm sorry, but we have to clean our own pool before presenting it as a replacement for the officially sanctioned one. If we do not, we tread water until we sink under the weight of carrying two Oswalds, the mafia, Castro, aliens, the Secret Service, Onasis, the AOS, the CIA, the KGB, Big Oil, a confluence of multiple lone nuts - and for all I know, Porky Pig.

We have to get the freeloaders and dead wood out of the pool and put the pooper-scooper to use. Then we might have something saleable.

[Len Colby]

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

Len: Exactly, not much of a precedent case

Not if you just want to consider the radio bit and disregard other aspects.

On it's own though, it also offers an alternative scenario. IIRC Marina was required to attend the US embassy in Moscow for a medical check before departing for the US. We know now that some of those medical people were CIA. Maybe those holes were drilled there... ala the KGB case....

Len: Then you should easily be able to provide a citation for the underlined claim. So the new theory is that she was recruited to spy on her husband before they moved to US? Irregardless of when she was supposedly ‘turned’ why would they get a Russian woman to spy on her deep cover CIA agent husband?

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

GREG: 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.

Len: I assume then you can provide reliable citations for these claims. Word to the wise, since you have a track record of citing sources that don't say what you think they do look at them carefully before posting the links.

You can find the information yourself if you don't like the cites I provide,

Len: You haven’t provided any cites, common sense and forum rules dictate it’s up to you, not me, to document your claims. How Am I supposed to find evidence of something I don't believe to be true?

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

GREG: 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.

Len: Them I sure you can provide ample documentation of this.

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

Len: Did you actually take a look at the paper or did you just post the link from a Google search? (Sorta like you did during the Darwin thread).

It was exactly like I did before.

You are the one not reading. "It was part of a large array of Government-CIA backed private groups used in psyops during the Cold War."

The thesis backs up that premise.

Len: That’s a stretch, the author said its funding was primarily private and the CIAwas not among its government funders. I notice that you edited out your original claim where you classified PH as a “CIA sponsored "charity"”, he flat out contradicted you according to him it was a) a legit charity not tied to the CIA c) mostly privately funded.

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

And there was no mention of PH being involved in 'psyops'

Len. Newsflash. Psyops = propaganda. Read the thesis again.

You missed your true calling Greg, you should move to Young, NSW and ‘Pic’ cherries, I wrote “And there was no mention of PH being involved in ‘psyops’ other that trying to make the US seem more appealing than the USSR by providing free medical care in poor non-aligned countries. So there is no reason to believe Marina’s dentist implanted a listening device in one of her fillings just because his boss later became a PH volunteer.”

But even if we only look at your truncated version though some define all propaganda as psyops on this forum it normally has more sinister connotations of trickery. In any case it is normally considered to propaganda directed against the enemy.

According to SourceWatch

“Psyops or Pyschological operations are those which "alter the behavior of an enemy, without altering his beliefs" (those which alter beliefs are propaganda techniques). By contrast psyops are much more tactical and typically induce only shallow reactions or responses required only for a quite short time, e.g. the duration of a bombing campaign.”

The Washington Post’s military columnist wrote:

PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

“Now for psychological operations to be effective, you must carefully plan your propaganda. You must make sure that you know everything about your enemy and that you are targeting his beliefs and not using your own.” - Major Ed Rouse (Ret) who spent 20 years as a psyop officer

http://www.psywarrior.com/psyhist.html

Another psyop major wrote, “As traditional "users of propaganda against the enemy,"

PSYOP units generated initiatives during the Persian Gulf War”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/WPA.htm

According to an article hosted on the site of a Professor at the Institute of Communications Studies at the University of Leeds “Dating back to the times of Alexander the Great, Psyops has been used as a weapon in countless wars to break down the mental strength of the enemy and influence their behaviour.”

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=64&paper=358

PH did not operate in Communist [i.e. “enemy”] countries. Find me someone other than the author of the paper whose definition of psychological operations implicitly or explicitly includes humanitarian operations in neutral countries.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Find me someone other than the author of the paper whose definition of psychological operations implicitly or explicitly includes humanitarian operations in neutral countries.

Greg,

I took a closer look at the paper and the author did cite 2 – 3 sources for his definition of psychological operations. According to one ‘U.S. officials “defined . . . psychological warfare broadly to include any nonmilitary action taken to influence public opinion or to advance foreign policy interests.”’ [pg 15] But even accepting this admittedly ‘broad’ definition for psyops, a definition more encompassing than normally used today, especially on the EF - a dentist participating in program to provide free care to people in 3rd world countries in no way suggests he earlier would have ordered an underling in the US to implant a listening device in a patient's tooth.

And once again your definition of PH as CIA backed was totally false as per your source. According to the author the government’s “material support” to PH consisted of “the retired Navy hospital ship and the money to refurbish that vessel.” [Pg 30] and that failing to get further government financial support “turned to corporate America for material support and financial backing” [pg 49] he even said explicitly that “Project HOPE demonstrates, however, that funding and supplying State-private organizations did not always involve a covert CIA plot.” [ibid]

Edited November 20, 2010 by Len Colby