Cliff Varnell Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 The above is only the beginning. There is a lot more to come... Well? By all means, proceed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 The above is only the beginning. There is a lot more to come... Well? By all means, proceed... I am. Volume 2 will be out later this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 8, 2015 Author Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) Greg, Your "Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War" has fascinated me since I read a review of it, a positive review, at CTKA last year. As an aside, when I was taking ROTC in the 1960s, some of the classes -- the escape and evasion class, for example -- focused heavily on the Korean War, even though the Vietnam war was then heating up or raging. The Korean War played a major role in my indoctrination as a prospective U.S. Army officer. In the early to mid-1960s, the Korean War was alive and well in the thinking of many U.S. Army officers. In fact, the Korean War was studied to the exclusion of the Vietnam War in some of my ROTC classes. "The Manchurian Candidate" was right up my alley 1963-1970. (Yes, I know the movie was suppressed in the U.S.) Here is why http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED027472.pdf The Oswald presented to history by those who write history was a classic cold-war figure. Idealistic in an uninformed way. Uninformed because he misunderstood U.S. capitalism. Inflamed by the promise of Leninism, or Marxism, take your choice. Neurotic. Narcissistic. I can go on. The fact is, he was a real human, a real person, who had thoughts, feelings, passions, weaknesses -- like we all do. If you can bring him to life here, please do. Is that your opinion, or are you taking the word of Miss Prissy Johnson? Specifically in what way did he misunderstand US capitalism? Edited April 8, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 9, 2015 Share Posted April 9, 2015 The above is only the beginning. There is a lot more to come... Well? By all means, proceed... I am. Volume 2 will be out later this year. The blurb for Vol 1 touted JFK assassination revelations. Care to discuss those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 9, 2015 Author Share Posted April 9, 2015 The above is only the beginning. There is a lot more to come... Well? By all means, proceed... I am. Volume 2 will be out later this year. The blurb for Vol 1 touted JFK assassination revelations. Care to discuss those? The front cover states "explosive new revelations", and it delivers on those given vol 1 is 50% historical background and 50% Oswald bio from 0-13 years of age. Vol 1. Completely solves the 1948 Jorge Gaitan assassination in Colombia. Reveals that another Colombian politician living in exile may have been murdered by a CIA doctor treating him for asthma after the politician talked about returning to Colombia Reveals the hypocrisy of the US in running a Socialist Utopia in Panama while waging a cold war against Leftist governments elsewhere. Reveals 3 separate mass poisonings in France on the same weekend 6 months prior to the outbreak of the Korean War and the subsequent claims of biological warfare. It further reveals evidence that the US wanted to test biological weapons outside the lab before using them on the battlefield. Shows how Oswald's time in New York helped build a "defector" profile. Reveals for the first time how the people who built and funded Youth House had connections to the Rosenbergs, at least 2 CIA officers and to the Paines and Forbes families Reveals for the first time that the Ekdahl marriage was bigamous Reveals the strong circumstantial evidence of an Ekdahl-Hyde connection. Reveals that Ekdahl was living in the Roosevelt Hotel in NO at the same time George Hunter White was staying there while testing cannabis as a truth drug at various southern defense bases Reveals LHO's alleged knife incident with Pic's wife was fabricated Reveals that school records show Ekdahl was sole guardian of Oswald during times he was separated from Marguerite Any of those you want to discuss? http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 The above is only the beginning. There is a lot more to come... Well? By all means, proceed... I am. Volume 2 will be out later this year. The blurb for Vol 1 touted JFK assassination revelations. Care to discuss those? The front cover states "explosive new revelations", and it delivers on those given vol 1 is 50% historical background and 50% Oswald bio from 0-13 years of age. Vol 1. Completely solves the 1948 Jorge Gaitan assassination in Colombia. Reveals that another Colombian politician living in exile may have been murdered by a CIA doctor treating him for asthma after the politician talked about returning to Colombia Reveals the hypocrisy of the US in running a Socialist Utopia in Panama while waging a cold war against Leftist governments elsewhere. Reveals 3 separate mass poisonings in France on the same weekend 6 months prior to the outbreak of the Korean War and the subsequent claims of biological warfare. It further reveals evidence that the US wanted to test biological weapons outside the lab before using them on the battlefield. Shows how Oswald's time in New York helped build a "defector" profile. Reveals for the first time how the people who built and funded Youth House had connections to the Rosenbergs, at least 2 CIA officers and to the Paines and Forbes families Reveals for the first time that the Ekdahl marriage was bigamous Reveals the strong circumstantial evidence of an Ekdahl-Hyde connection. Reveals that Ekdahl was living in the Roosevelt Hotel in NO at the same time George Hunter White was staying there while testing cannabis as a truth drug at various southern defense bases Reveals LHO's alleged knife incident with Pic's wife was fabricated Reveals that school records show Ekdahl was sole guardian of Oswald during times he was separated from Marguerite Any of those you want to discuss? http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK Point out the ones which directly relate to JFK's murder. Odds are the plot to kill Oswald was a compartmentalized intel operation -- ditto JFK. So far you've begged the question as to their direct connections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Cliff, you seem determined to pick a fight. First you erroneously claimed the blurb of my 1st volume "touted JFK assassination revelations". This showed both an ignorance of the book and what a blurb is. Having been corrected, you persist in asking which of those new revelations directly connects into the assassination - then top it off by showing complete ignorance of what "begging the question" means. I understand that the lifestyle those into the old punk rock scene were exposed to took a toll on some, so I'll cut you some slack. The Gaitan assassination was a carbon copy of the RFK hit.... right down to the AMORC studying patsy. The Gaitan assassination inquiries were a carbon copy of the Warren Commission cover up. The possibility of Gabriel Turbay (another liberal Colombian politician) having been killed by a CIA doctor may have relevance to some of the tangential murders in the JFK story. The Korean War aftermath was the start of serious efforts to create "super" soldiers impervious to propaganda, torture and interrogation Korean War POW studies helped psychologists identify the traits of potential traitors. The "traitor" profile was the only one Oswald was ever "sheep-dipped" for. The various connections outlined was how LHO was identified for this. The bigamous nature and other factors discussed in the book point to the marriage between Ekdahl and Marguerite being far more than a case of "lonely hearts". Access to the kids - particularly LHO - seems to have been the ultimate reason for it. The Youth House/Straus family connections do come into play at various times, including the weekend of Nov 22 - but as I have already said, I'm not prepared to go into details here. -------------------------------- To you, the actual assassination seems to have happened in a vacuum and is the only thing worth writing about or discussing. To others, the notion that it happened in a vacuum is symptomatic of the rot that has set in over 50+ years. There is a back-story. There is context. There are details about various actors that should and need to be fleshed out. There is a history - not a single event frozen in time. If you want to continue to pick a fight, rest assured, I'll accommodate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Cliff, you seem determined to pick a fight. First you erroneously claimed the blurb of my 1st volume "touted JFK assassination revelations". This showed both an ignorance of the book and what a blurb is. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "blurb": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blurb ": a short description that praises something (such as a book) so that people will want to buy it" Here is an example of a blurb: <quote> Book DescriptionPublication Date: March 10, 2014 The author examines the life of Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of the Cold War climate of the times and the people who shaped and used him. Includes the solving of a precedent case along with many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself. The ineluctable conclusion is that Oswald was the patsy he claimed to be. <quote off> Greg, what part of "many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself" don't you grasp? Having been corrected, you persist in asking which of those new revelations directly connects into the assassination - then top it off by showing complete ignorance of what "begging the question" means. You are completely unaware that your book has been advertised as featuring "new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself" -- then you top it off by not knowing that "begging the question" refers to an argument which assumes the truth of its conclusion. Which is exactly what you're doing in this thread. You assume the truth of Straus family involvement but you don't make any actual argument for it. I understand that the lifestyle those into the old punk rock scene were exposed to took a toll on some, so I'll cut you some slack. Well, that let's me off the hook. What's YOUR excuse for not knowing what a blurb is, what the blurb for your book says, or the difference between the assassination of JFK and the cover-up? The Gaitan assassination was a carbon copy of the RFK hit.... right down to the AMORC studying patsy. The Gaitan assassination inquiries were a carbon copy of the Warren Commission cover up. The possibility of Gabriel Turbay (another liberal Colombian politician) having been killed by a CIA doctor may have relevance to some of the tangential murders in the JFK story. The Korean War aftermath was the start of serious efforts to create "super" soldiers impervious to propaganda, torture and interrogation Korean War POW studies helped psychologists identify the traits of potential traitors. The "traitor" profile was the only one Oswald was ever "sheep-dipped" for. The various connections outlined was how LHO was identified for this. The bigamous nature and other factors discussed in the book point to the marriage between Ekdahl and Marguerite being far more than a case of "lonely hearts". Access to the kids - particularly LHO - seems to have been the ultimate reason for it. The Youth House/Straus family connections do come into play at various times, including the weekend of Nov 22 - but as I have already said, I'm not prepared to go into details here. None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination. You got nothin'. -------------------------------- To you, the actual assassination seems to have happened in a vacuum and is the only thing worth writing about or discussing. You don't read my work. This is typical of the contentless insults you gotta spew in order to give the impression you're making an argument. To others, the notion that it happened in a vacuum is symptomatic of the rot that has set in over 50+ years. People don't study the murder of JFK; they study the cover-up. Like you. That's the rot that's set in after 50+ years -- people really don't know the difference. There is a back-story. There is context. There are details about various actors that should and need to be fleshed out. There is a history - not a single event frozen in time. Laos was the key to understanding why JFK was killed, I've concluded. If you want to continue to pick a fight, rest assured, I'll accommodate. No, you'll spew insults and mis-characterize my positions and squeeze off some insults of the clothing evidence. But discuss the murder of JFK? You'll never do it, Parker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Cliff, you seem determined to pick a fight. First you erroneously claimed the blurb of my 1st volume "touted JFK assassination revelations". This showed both an ignorance of the book and what a blurb is. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of the word "blurb": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blurb ": a short description that praises something (such as a book) so that people will want to buy it" Here is an example of a blurb: <quote> Book DescriptionPublication Date: March 10, 2014 The author examines the life of Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of the Cold War climate of the times and the people who shaped and used him. Includes the solving of a precedent case along with many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself. The ineluctable conclusion is that Oswald was the patsy he claimed to be. <quote off> Greg, what part of "many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself" don't you grasp? That would be a "blurb" if it was on the cover of the book. Since it is also talking about how you will see that Oswald was the patsy, it should be a clue that this is talking about the 3 volumes combined. from Meriam-Webster: Full Definition of BLURB: a short publicity notice (as on a book jacket) Having been corrected, you persist in asking which of those new revelations directly connects into the assassination - then top it off by showing complete ignorance of what "begging the question" means. You are completely unaware that your book has been advertised as featuring "new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself" -- then you top it off by not knowing that "begging the question" refers to an argument which assumes the truth of its conclusion. Which is exactly what you're doing in this thread. You assume the truth of Straus family involvement but you don't make any actual argument for it. I haven't assumed anything, Cliff. I haven't put any arguments up, either. I laid out some facts that can be found in the first volume. That you keep saying I should provide more is your problem, not mine. Your claim therefore that I have been begging the question seemed to indicate you didn't know what it meant. Looks like you looked it up and then have tried to retrofit it by making up stuff about what I have said. I understand that the lifestyle those into the old punk rock scene were exposed to took a toll on some, so I'll cut you some slack. Well, that let's me off the hook. What's YOUR excuse for not knowing what a blurb is, what the blurb for your book says, or the difference between the assassination of JFK and the cover-up? What you quoted came under the amazon heading of "book description", not "blurb". A blurb is in the vast majority of cases found on a book cover. Under no circumstances could a "blurb" be said to be equivalent to a book description. I am well aware of what the description is since I wrote it. It is there to cover the three volumes. The rest of what you wrote s just you yabbering away clueslessly. You have no idea - none - of what I think or what information I have. Your brain apparently cannot conceive of anyone solving this thing in a manner that may actually make a difference - unlike your bunched shirt theory - unlike Armstrong's 2 Oswald theory and unlike the body-snatcher's BS. The Gaitan assassination was a carbon copy of the RFK hit.... right down to the AMORC studying patsy. The Gaitan assassination inquiries were a carbon copy of the Warren Commission cover up. The possibility of Gabriel Turbay (another liberal Colombian politician) having been killed by a CIA doctor may have relevance to some of the tangential murders in the JFK story. The Korean War aftermath was the start of serious efforts to create "super" soldiers impervious to propaganda, torture and interrogation Korean War POW studies helped psychologists identify the traits of potential traitors. The "traitor" profile was the only one Oswald was ever "sheep-dipped" for. The various connections outlined was how LHO was identified for this. The bigamous nature and other factors discussed in the book point to the marriage between Ekdahl and Marguerite being far more than a case of "lonely hearts". Access to the kids - particularly LHO - seems to have been the ultimate reason for it. The Youth House/Straus family connections do come into play at various times, including the weekend of Nov 22 - but as I have already said, I'm not prepared to go into details here. None of this has anything to do with the JFK assassination. You got nothin'. You wish. -------------------------------- To you, the actual assassination seems to have happened in a vacuum and is the only thing worth writing about or discussing. You don't read my work. This is typical of the contentless insults you gotta spew in order to give the impression you're making an argument. I'm sorry? Have you actually written more on these boards than about bunched shirts and punk rock? I've certainly read some of those. Again, you claim I have been making arguments. I haven't. I have laid out facts. You don't like it so YOU have tried to turn it into an argument. To others, the notion that it happened in a vacuum is symptomatic of the rot that has set in over 50+ years. People don't study the murder of JFK; they study the cover-up. Like you. That's the rot that's set in after 50+ years -- people really don't know the difference. No. You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about in regard to my work. There is a back-story. There is context. There are details about various actors that should and need to be fleshed out. There is a history - not a single event frozen in time. Laos was the key to understanding why JFK was killed, I've concluded. Well, if you have ever started a thread on that, I missed it. If you want to continue to pick a fight, rest assured, I'll accommodate. No, you'll spew insults and mis-characterize my positions and squeeze off some insults of the clothing evidence. Are you insulted by the fact that the clothing evidence has not moved this case one inch toward final closure? A bit precious, since it clearly hasn't. But you hang in there, Cliff, until your last thread of self-respect starts to unravel. Is that what you wanted? But discuss the murder of JFK? You'll never do it, Parker. Not in a thread about information pulled from volume one of a 3 volume set. Ask me again after the 3rd volume is published. Unless this really has nothing to do with wanting to discuss those issues of course - more about you just wanting to score points and pick fights, isn't it Cliff? And btw, the only mis-characterizations, pal, have come from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 So...has anyone who is taking issue with Greg Parker's book actually READ the book? I can't attack his work--or praise it--because I have yet to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 So...has anyone who is taking issue with Greg Parker's book actually READ the book? I can't attack his work--or praise it--because I have yet to read it. Right to the point, Mark. And the issue of attacking a work you haven't read has been covered here many times. Mr Varnell, at the risk of incurring your wrath, you DO seem to be more interested in "picking a fight" with Mr. Parker than discussing the JFK assassination. What is pertinent and what is not will remain an unknown until this mystery has been solved in its entirety. At the present time, anything that concerns the Paine family is certainly appropriate for discussion. Like Paul Brancato, Jon Tidd, Ed LeDoux and others, I find this a worthy topic, and would like to hear whatever information Greg has to share... Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Greg Parker, You write: "Is that your opinion, or are you taking the word of Miss Prissy Johnson? Specifically in what way did he misunderstand US capitalism?" My take is that Marina's husband misunderstood U.S. capitalism. He misunderstood that wealth creation, not fairness, was and is central to U.S. capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted April 10, 2015 Author Share Posted April 10, 2015 Greg Parker, You write: "Is that your opinion, or are you taking the word of Miss Prissy Johnson? Specifically in what way did he misunderstand US capitalism?" My take is that Marina's husband misunderstood U.S. capitalism. He misunderstood that wealth creation, not fairness, was and is central to U.S. capitalism. I asked, Jon, because the wording and sentiment used echoed Miss Prissy almost perfectly. I disagree. He knew the system wasn't "fair". That's not the same thing as believing it was supposed to be based on "fairness". You'd have to be stark raving mad to grow up in the West believing that "fairness" was any sort of economic component. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) Right to the point, Mark. And the issue of attacking a work you haven't read has been covered here many times. In my first post on this thread I raised a reasonable issue: "And like Lee Harvey Oswald himself none of it will have anything at all to do with JFK's murder?" <edited for grammar> I'm challenging the assumption that the major perps track back through Oswald and his associations -- that Oswald is anything other than a total dead-end in regards to the actual murder of JFK.. Mr. Parker's response was less than collegial. In the advertising copy on his Amazon page it's written (emphasis added): <quote> The author examines the life of Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of the Cold War climate of the times and the people who shaped and used him. Includes the solving of a precedent case along with many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself. The ineluctable conclusion is that Oswald was the patsy he claimed to be. The activities of Lee Harvey Oswald during his short life did not take place in a vacuum to be filled with plot scenarios purloined from Saturday Matinees. His was a real life, in a real world on the brink. And in that real world there were studies, policies, programs and overt and covert operations all pulling it either closer to the brink, or back from it. The trick was never to tip it over, but to perpetuate the feeling that it just might tip at any minute. From his time in New York City, there is a distinct pattern of activities fitting sweetly into just those curious little boxes. In the field of logic there is a fallacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc ("with this, therefore because of this"). Basically, it states that correlation does not imply cause and effect. However, logic also dictates that a long pattern of correlation considerably shortens the odds in favor of just such an implication. Noted statistician, Edward R Tufte, goes so far as to suggest that the oft-quoted maxim "correlation is not causation" is incomplete and therefore innacurate. According to Tufte, the shortest true statement that can be made about causality and correlation is, "correlation is not causation, but it sure is a hint." With that in mind, this book, where it is not concentrating on various types of evidence, is a journey through those correlations: hints for future inquiries to ponder and investigate. <quote off> What "many new revelations in the Kennedy assassination itself"? Mr Varnell, at the risk of incurring your wrath, you DO seem to be more interested in "picking a fight" with Mr. Parker than discussing the JFK assassination. I am picking a fight with the assumption that revelations about Oswald and the Paines are the same thing as revelations about the killing of JFK. I'm having way too much fun for wrath, btw. What is pertinent and what is not will remain an unknown until this mystery has been solved in its entirety. The mystery will never be solved in its entirety (the perps are dead and the trail cold) and whenever someone claims "full solution" to the case I'll have sharp questions to ask. The point I'm making is that Oswald is pertinent to the cover-up of JFK's murder, certainly. If there is a case that Lee Harvey Oswald is pertinent to the JFK assassination Mr. Parker is reticent to share. At the present time, anything that concerns the Paine family is certainly appropriate for discussion. A discussion of the cover-up -- certainly! But if Greg is going to finger whole families for treason and murder there should be an actual argument to accompany the accusation. Just to fling mud and then declare -- buy my book later this year! -- is chicken-offal. Like Paul Brancato, Jon Tidd, Ed LeDoux and others, I find this a worthy topic, and would like to hear whatever information Greg has to share. I think the cover-up of the JFK assassination is a worthy topic, indeed. Do we have to conflate a study of the cover-up with a study of the murder -- or does someone need to actually argue that case? Everyone has asked Greg to share more but he is reticent. Tom Edited April 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 11, 2015 Share Posted April 11, 2015 3. Mary Bancroft was the mistress of Allen Dulles from WWII and during the JFK era. Mary Bancrofts childhood friend was Ruth Paine. Steve, I appreciate your work very much. Is it possible that Allen Dulles may have been set-up as a patsy himself-- given unknown contingencies facing the major perps? Perhaps his personal Job #1 on the Warren Commission was to protect himself and other intel types who were also set up as potential patsies due to their links with Oswald? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now