Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

That is something I forgot to mention, but is what I meant.

John actually went to the place where Schweitzer was formerly located. And he took a picture of the hotel that it is today. Again, he was the first guy to do this.

Now, George Michael Evica did a lot of work on Schweitzer also. Without going there.

In many ways, he even goes beyond John, but the point is this: The whole Schweitzer episode is the main focus of Evica's book.

With John, it is not a main focus. Its a minor sidelight. But John illuminates what is cast off in one sentence in most biographies to an extent that no one had done before. And only Evica has since.

One thing I have applauded Armstrong for on this board is for coming up with the name Percival Brundage.

GME got some of his leads from my posts here. He then took them much further than I ever could have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike,

I did not use a "blogger" to back up an assersion. You've got the cart before the horse. Rather, I came across the quote and noted the "blogger" cited Armstrong as a source. Though as you say, his citations were for the entire article, I think most reading it would assume as I did, that the cites applied to all main points made.

What was my response when you corrected me?

"Fair enough, Mike".

Just to make sure there is no misundertanding of my intent with that comment, should you ever correct me again, I'll be sure to add "Thank you for the correction."

I also apologised if I had it wrong. The qualification was only there because of your coyness as to what you apparently knew all along.

As for being a "whiner", I suggest you contact John S and every mod and ask how many times I have complained about something.

Then ask the same question about others, including some of your friends here.

What I pointed out to you were not "whines". They were examples of behaviour toward me that you would, if you were to be consistent, point out to those involved. Instead, you look for any infringement from me, real or imaginary, to jump on. It is something I do not recall you doing prior to my criticisms of Armstrong. That little coincidence, along with your silence regarding the behaviour of others in this thread, spells vendetta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg...you have no idea what is in John's book. Read the book and get back to us.

Quit displaying your ignorance if what is in the book.

Jack

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is something I forgot to mention, but is what I meant.

John actually went to the place where Schweitzer was formerly located. And he took a picture of the hotel that it is today. Again, he was the first guy to do this.

Now, George Michael Evica did a lot of work on Schweitzer also. Without going there.

In many ways, he even goes beyond John, but the point is this: The whole Schweitzer episode is the main focus of Evica's book.

With John, it is not a main focus. Its a minor sidelight. But John illuminates what is cast off in one sentence in most biographies to an extent that no one had done before. And only Evica has since.

Please note:

George Michael Evica, in A Certain Arrogance (p. 370 notes)

113-.....See also the brilliant work of Greg Parker, a young Australian assassination researcher and writer, who has posted highly significant material on http://educationforum. Parker has written important summaries on Ruth Paine, and the US/USSR exchange program, the Council on International Education Exchange (CIEE); the "Friends Journal" story on Ruth Paine and her Quaker exchange group (drawing on the FBI's Supplemental Report); the East-West Contacts Staff; Frederick T. Merrill, Merrill and Free Europe Committee: and on the "space race" "dominated at government committee levels by ....Lyndon Johnson, James Killian, Nelson Rockefeler, and Percival Brundage." I have paraphrased or quoted Parker's work, here happily acknowledged. If I held any doubt about the large lateral signifiance of the Oswald story I was researching and writing as I followed it through Albert Schweitzer College, its Unitarian dimensions, Brundage and his elitist associates, and the Paines with their incredible connections, Greg Parker's independent discoveries in these same areas offered premium support for my work.

I know that Paker and Evica were on the same track at the same time and discussed their work before GME passed away.

Also note that GME was also hot on the trail of the Man on the Motorcyle in Mexico City, the Philadelphia Quaker and possible LICZY3 candidate, but he passed away before we could tell Evica that we locted him, due in large part to Parker's research and determination.

In addition, rather than attack Armstrong or Parker or any researcher, why not take what we know about the various "Oswalds" and try to straighten it all out - and determine if each case is a matter of mistaken identification, faulty memories or intentional impersonations - as we know to be the case in the months and weeks leading up to the assassination?

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

That Bouhe's church was backed by the CIA has never been disputed. I'm pretty sure even McAdams' concedes it was.

The you should be able to cite where McAdams says this, he was the secretary of the St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox church in another thread Bill said it received CIA funding but his links did not support the claim. Feel free to provide evidence in support of your claim.

Sorry. I thought I had already explained I'm not allowing you to use the forum rules as a means of wasting my time again. If you were interested in the subject matter, you'd continue the discussion - even when you cannot find fault with a citation.

The rule that one must support their claims is quite reasonable, it is to prevent people from simply something was true and walking away. You claim DeM was CIA because he went on a single mission for the ICA. Most accounts I've seen said it frequently provided cover for the agency rather than was part and parcel of it. This is a crucial difference but even if the latter were true one would have to assume many if not most of its missions fit with the ICA cover story. Thus you have failed to produce evidence DeM was an agent.

I do not believe I ever said he was an agent, though that may have been the correct term for him at various times. Speaking of DeM in general, I think I would tend to only say he had ties to the agency.

-----------------------

From the thesis:

The State-private Network and Psychological Warfare Ironically, "a heavily centralized campaign" to mobilize the American people, according to intellectual historian Giles Scott-Smith, "would not sit well with an American ideology built on the freedom of the individual." Freedom "exalted individual choice" while "it condemned state control," explains Lucas, and its promotion had to occur through the appearance of individuals such as Project HOPE's Dr. Walsh "freely making their own decisions and pursuing their own objectives" or "through the apparent autonomy of organizations in the private sector" like Project HOPE. The U.S. government needed HOPE and other "active groups, not linked to the government," writes Helen Laville, "to represent private American life" and challenge communism's expansion. Accordingly, U.S. propaganda strategy, Lucas concludes, "relied upon cooperation between the Government and private groups." This cooperation between private citizens and public officials created a web of organizations called the "State-private network" that covertly or overtly received material or moral support (and sometimes both) from the U.S. government while waging psychological warfare on behalf of the United States.6 US government + covert = CIA.

He did not say anywhere in that section that PH received covert funding. As for the bit about "apparent autonomy" that so struck you fancy note that his source did not refer specifically to PH nor that he did not indicate PH was not autonomous, he indicated the contrary elsewhere.

"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"

I do not recall anywhere where he specifically states there was NO CIA funding of Project Hope.

I have pointed this out to you at least 3 times, twice in this thread and one in the other. So for the forth time

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

I still don't recall anywhere he specifically states that PH got no CIA funding.

If you think he could not have been recruited for other roles during his exposure to Cold War operations with PH, just say so.

Of course "he could have been recruited for other roles", he also "he could have been recruited" by the KGB or Mossad or "he could have been" child molester, transvestite or Satanist, but there is no evidence even suggesting he was any of those things. He was a dentist who went on humanitarian missions in 3rd world countries with a group that was lent a hospital ship by the Navy and had as a secondary objective improve the image of the US in the countries it treated patients.

He was a dentist who just prior to and just after seeing Marina, went on trips with Project Hope – a "charity" which was part of the State-Private Cold war effort to defeat communism. The whole idea of having a "private" effort was to draw the free market contrast to communism. PH was of the "right wing" philanthropic mold, geared to assisting war and counterrevolution and/or serving political propaganda/psyops purposes. That it had, according to you, ex-CIA employees, but no CIA funding, makes no sense.

Lastly, whatever I edited out, it was not chosen for any reason other than trying to make discussion more readable. You edit, do you not? Feel free to reinsert it.

I already reinserted it, your edit fundamentally changed the meaning of what I was saying. I accept that this was inadvertent on your part though.

Thank you, Len. I appreciate that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

I did not use a "blogger" to back up an assersion. You've got the cart before the horse. Rather, I came across the quote and noted the "blogger" cited Armstrong as a source. Though as you say, his citations were for the entire article, I think most reading it would assume as I did, that the cites applied to all main points made.

What was my response when you corrected me?

"Fair enough, Mike".

Just to make sure there is no misundertanding of my intent with that comment, should you ever correct me again, I'll be sure to add "Thank you for the correction."

I also apologised if I had it wrong. The qualification was only there because of your coyness as to what you apparently knew all along.

As for being a "whiner", I suggest you contact John S and every mod and ask how many times I have complained about something.

Then ask the same question about others, including some of your friends here.

What I pointed out to you were not "whines". They were examples of behaviour toward me that you would, if you were to be consistent, point out to those involved. Instead, you look for any infringement from me, real or imaginary, to jump on. It is something I do not recall you doing prior to my criticisms of Armstrong. That little coincidence, along with your silence regarding the behaviour of others in this thread, spells vendetta.

Yes, they were whines. You say that I look for any infringement by you, to jump on. How many times have I "jumped on" anything

you wrote this year? How many times have I commented on anything you wrote, outside of this thread?

I don't need to contact John S for anything. I read what you write. If you call my comments about your misquote of Armstrong

and your mis-description of the point Don Jeffries was trying to make a "vendetta" or a little coincidence, you are again

wrong. Jim DiEugenio and Don Jeffries are two of the more level members here. If you call agreeing with them that Armstrong's research

has value and pointing out where you were mistaken about Armstrong a vendetta, then you are a whiner for sure.

Finally, your claim that most people reading the blogger's quote of Marina would make the same assumption that you did, that

it came from Armstrong, is specious. Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that

Marina Oswald said those exact words. There were other authors cited by the blogger; what made you think that it was something

Armstrong claimed? I'll give you a one word answer - vendetta.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GREG: That Bouhe's church was backed by the CIA has never been disputed. I'm pretty sure even McAdams' concedes it was.

LEN: The(n) you should be able to cite where McAdams says this, he was the secretary of the St. Nicholas Russian Orthodox church in another thread Bill said it received CIA funding but his links did not support the claim. Feel free to provide evidence in support of your claim.

GREG:Sorry. I thought I had already explained I'm not allowing you to use the forum rules as a means of wasting my time again. If you were interested in the subject matter, you'd continue the discussion - even when you cannot find fault with a citation.

LEN: I have no idea what you are talking about did not provide a citation. And it is not like I simply ‘found fault’ with Bill’s citation, it did not support his claim. He wrote:

As for George Bouhe and the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches in Dallas, I've learned that there were two of the - churches that is - St. Nicholas and St. Seraphin.

One of them received funds and support from the CIA through the Catherwood Fund and the Tolstoy Foundation, and maybe both did, and were the social centers for the White Russian refugees in Texas.

Some of the details are discussed in the testimony of Paul Raigorodsky and Igor Voshin here:

However neither mentioned the Catherwood Fund and only Raigorodsky metioned the Tolstoy Foundation, but he only said that it helped Russian exiles resettle in Europe and the US and Europe and he said nothing about them giving anyone, let alone the church, money.

========================

LEN: The rule that one must support their claims is quite reasonable, it is to prevent people from simply something was true and walking away. You claim DeM was CIA because he went on a single mission for the ICA. Most accounts I've seen said it frequently provided cover for the agency rather than was part and parcel of it. This is a crucial difference but even if the latter were true one would have to assume many if not most of its missions fit with the ICA cover story. Thus you have failed to produce evidence DeM was an agent.

GREG: I do not believe I ever said he was an agent, though that may have been the correct term for him at various times. Speaking of DeM in general, I think I would tend to only say he had ties to the agency.

LEN: You called him and Bouhe “CIA backed White Russians”. There ties by your own admission to the Agency were rather loose, nothing suggests they would be involved in a plot to put a mythical listening device in one of Marina’s fillings.

-----------------------

GREG: From the thesis:

The State-private Network and Psychological Warfare Ironically, "a heavily centralized campaign" to mobilize the American people, according to intellectual historian Giles Scott-Smith, "would not sit well with an American ideology built on the freedom of the individual." Freedom "exalted individual choice" while "it condemned state control," explains Lucas, and its promotion had to occur through the appearance of individuals such as Project HOPE's Dr. Walsh "freely making their own decisions and pursuing their own objectives" or "through the apparent autonomy of organizations in the private sector" like Project HOPE. The U.S. government needed HOPE and other "active groups, not linked to the government," writes Helen Laville, "to represent private American life" and challenge communism's expansion. Accordingly, U.S. propaganda strategy, Lucas concludes, "relied upon cooperation between the Government and private groups." This cooperation between private citizens and public officials created a web of organizations called the "State-private network" that covertly or overtly received material or moral support (and sometimes both) from the U.S. government while waging psychological warfare on behalf of the United States.6 US government + covert = CIA.

LEN: He did not say anywhere in that section that PH received covert funding. As for the bit about "apparent autonomy" that so struck you fancy note that his source did not refer specifically to PH nor that he did not indicate PH was not autonomous, he indicated the contrary elsewhere.

"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"

GREG: I do not recall anywhere where he specifically states there was NO CIA funding of Project Hope.

LEN: I have pointed this out to you at least 3 times, twice in this thread and one in the other. So for the forth time

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

GREG: I still don't recall anywhere he specifically states that PH got no CIA funding.

Wow, that must be a mighty powerful case of cognitive dissonance. He said some groups got money though “dummy foundations” (i.e. “covert CIA plot
”) but “funding and supplying” PH “DID NOT…INVOLVE a covert CIA plot” thus it needed to “turn{} to corporate America for material support and financial backing”

============

GREG: If you think he could not have been recruited for other roles during his exposure to Cold War operations with PH, just say so.

LEN: Of course "he could have been recruited for other roles", he also "he could have been recruited" by the KGB or Mossad or "he could have been" child molester, transvestite or Satanist, but there is no evidence even suggesting he was any of those things. He was a dentist who went on humanitarian missions in 3rd world countries with a group that was lent a hospital ship by the Navy and had as a secondary objective improve the image of the US in the countries it treated patients.

GREG: He was a dentist who just prior to and just after seeing Marina, went on trips with Project Hope – a "charity" which was part of the State-Private Cold war effort to defeat communism. The whole idea of having a "private" effort was to draw the free market contrast to communism. PH was of the "right wing" philanthropic mold, geared to assisting war and counterrevolution and/or serving political propaganda/psyops purposes. That it had, according to you, ex-CIA employees, but no CIA funding, makes no sense.

LEN: 1) He did not see Marina, someone wotking umder him did.

2) I’ve only see reference to him working with PH after Marina was treated

3) I’ve seen no evidence PH was right-wing, anti-Communism was a consensus in the US even progressive Democrats like Stevenson and Humphrey were anti-Comunists.

4) I’ve seen no evidence it was“geared to assisting war and counterrevolution”

5) There is nothing sinister about “serving political propaganda…purposes” as an objective.

6) CD Jackson was on the board. He like losts of other people was in the OSS during WW2. His Spartacus bio makes no mention of him being a CIA employee before or during his involvement with PH though it does say he “took an active role in Operation Mockingbird.” It does NOT follow that everything he was involned in was a CIA plot.

You have yet to produce any evidence PH received CIA funding, your own source contradicted you.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Len, do you understand the concept of clandestine activities?

http://web.archive.org/web/20030216181436/http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-64.htm#P5432_1138149

Background:

...A letter written in 1959 by a member of the Eisenhower administration indicated that Walsh wanted a "big-

name, big-money, little-action" board, but the administration had a different idea. (11) C. D. Jackson, a member of the Eisenhower administration on the founding board of HOPE, stated that the administration was delighted that HOPE, LIFE (magazine), and the Advertising Council (of America) were joining forces to promote the project. He wrote, "I would simply urge that even if there were some excess cost, it would be more than amply justified by the goodwill that would accrue from having a privately endowed U. S. hospital ship riding at anchor in the steaming disease-ridden harbors of Southeast Asia....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

I did not use a "blogger" to back up an assersion. You've got the cart before the horse. Rather, I came across the quote and noted the "blogger" cited Armstrong as a source. Though as you say, his citations were for the entire article, I think most reading it would assume as I did, that the cites applied to all main points made.

What was my response when you corrected me?

"Fair enough, Mike".

Just to make sure there is no misundertanding of my intent with that comment, should you ever correct me again, I'll be sure to add "Thank you for the correction."

I also apologised if I had it wrong. The qualification was only there because of your coyness as to what you apparently knew all along.

As for being a "whiner", I suggest you contact John S and every mod and ask how many times I have complained about something.

Then ask the same question about others, including some of your friends here.

What I pointed out to you were not "whines". They were examples of behaviour toward me that you would, if you were to be consistent, point out to those involved. Instead, you look for any infringement from me, real or imaginary, to jump on. It is something I do not recall you doing prior to my criticisms of Armstrong. That little coincidence, along with your silence regarding the behaviour of others in this thread, spells vendetta.

Yes, they were whines. You say that I look for any infringement by you, to jump on. How many times have I "jumped on" anything

you wrote this year? How many times have I commented on anything you wrote, outside of this thread?

Don't know. How many times I have discussed Armstrong this year, Mike?

I don't need to contact John S for anything.

Well, in round figures, the number of complaints I have made is zero. On the other hand, I don't think any one would be able to keep count of the number Jack has made. But despite that, you are never going to call him a whiner, are you Mike?

Because you're a hypocrite with a vendetta.

I read what you write. If you call my comments about your misquote of Armstrong

and your mis-description of the point Don Jeffries was trying to make a "vendetta" or a little coincidence, you are again

wrong.

Nope. Don brought money into a discussion on the quality of the research. And if he hadn't, you can be sure somewone else would have.

But even if I was actually wrong in what I said, there have been far greater aspersions thrown at me, and your silence on that makes you a hypocrite and your nitpicking a vendetta. The correlation between my critiques of the two Oswald theory and your looking for faults of mine is there, and it could not be plainer.

Jim DiEugenio and Don Jeffries are two of the more level members here. If you call agreeing with them that Armstrong's research

has value and pointing out where you were mistaken about Armstrong a vendetta, then you are a whiner for sure.

Yeah yeah. Jim and others continually try and turn this away from the ethics issue by putting words in my mouth suggesting I am criticing the entire book and you happily go along with that appalling behaviour.

Jack White blantantly breaks forum rules by calling my research skills into question, and you happily ignore that.

You are of course correct in saying you're not obligated to defend me. But ignoring the above while attacking trivial matters - especially when I had apologies for any mistake - just highlights your hypocrisy.

Finally, your claim that most people reading the blogger's quote of Marina would make the same assumption that you did, that it came from Armstrong, is specious. Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words.

Jim "Mr Level" Di Euginio has stated in this thread that only about 750 people have read the book. That being the case, I dare say most people stumbling onto the blog would not have read it.

There were other authors cited by the blogger; what made you think that it was something Armstrong claimed? I'll give you a one word answer - vendetta.

Gotta give you your due. You're a tryer. I actually thought that the quote was probably sourced from both Armstrong and Marrs. My impression was that most of the material came from those two gentlemen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you think anything on that website, let alone the passage you quoted, supports the notion PH was a CIA front. Your sarcasm would be apter if the quote actually contradicted my position.

Len, some of the foundations named as funding PH in the mid 'eighties have long been exposed as CIA conduits.

Also, you'll find a cite in my article on the dental work for Dr Staples pre '62 trip with PH.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you think anything on that website, let alone the passage you quoted, supports the notion PH was a CIA front. Your sarcasm would be apter if the quote actually contradicted my position.

Len, some of the foundations named as funding PH in the mid 'eighties have long been exposed as CIA conduits.

Completely irrelevant since we are interested in whether or not it received CIA funding over 20 years earlier. But provide some cites.

Also, you'll find a cite in my article on the dental work for Dr Staples pre '62 trip with PH.

I stand correct but it was Dr. Allen who did her dental work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg...you have no idea what is in John's book. Read the book and get back to us.

Quit displaying your ignorance if what is in the book.

Jack

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain

Mark Twain would appreciate Harvey and Lee...sorta like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, with Angleton as n Jim.

Read the book, and learn why you are SO wrong.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg...you have no idea what is in John's book. Read the book and get back to us.

Quit displaying your ignorance if what is in the book.

Jack

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain

Mark Twain would appreciate Harvey and Lee...sorta like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, with Angleton as n Jim.

Read the book, and learn why you are SO wrong.

Jack

????????????????????

Twain never used the term "n Jim", I have no idea how Jack's analogy is supposed to fit the supposed 2 Oswalds scenario.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Blank:

Marina once said she had two husbands. ("I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy") Did she get them mixed up innocently? Or was it purposeful. Who was the other in addition to Harvey? Was she with both Harvey and Lee?

This quote was supposedly made to a French journalist. A quick google tells me the only people who mention this alleged quote are pushing the two Oswald theory. Two alarm bells right there. The jourmalist is unnamed and no one but Armstrong and his supporters use the "quote".

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

Michael:

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

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...