James DiEugenio Posted January 11, 2016 Author Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) There is nothing intriguing about any of the above. Oswald had many, many person's names in his notebook. Just ask Weberman. One notebook entry DOES NOT prove a relationship at all. Only in Caufield's book is that so. That is how threadbare his book is on Oswald, and that is how desperate he is to foreshorten the documented record of the man. And there is a big problem with Caufield's treatment of Garrison's files. I have also seen those files also. In fact, Jeff would have never had the portion of them he does if it was not for me. Therefore, in my review of his book there will be some INFORMED criticism of what he does with them. And with Garrison. And with Gordon Novel. And with Banister, and with Butler, and with Bringuier. Etc etc. Edited January 11, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) There is nothing intriguing about any of the above. Oswald had many, many person's names in his notebook. Just ask Weberman. One notebook entry DOES NOT prove a relationship at all. Only in Caufield's book is that so. That is how threadbare his book is on Oswald, and that is how desperate he is to foreshorten the documented record of the man. And there is a big problem with Caufield's treatment of Garrison's files. I have also seen those files also. In fact, Jeff would have never had the portion of them he does if it was not for me. Therefore, in my review of his book there will be some INFORMED criticism of what he does with them. And with Garrison. And with Gordon Novel. And with Banister, and with Butler, and with Bringuier. Etc etc. Actually, James, it was nice of you to share your Jim Garrison files with Dr. Caufield. It helped him to break through the stagnation of the past quarter-century of JFK research. As for the Dan Burros entry in the LHO notebook -- there was more than just a name and an address, and besides that, there are more entries in there that Caufield illuminates for the first time in a half-century. The fact that the Warren Commission insisted on the false doctrine of a "Lone Nut" LHO, while General Walker insisted on the false doctrine of a "Leftist" LHO should give us a clear message -- LHO was neither of these. This leaves the next option -- the true doctrine of the "Rightist" LHO who was FAKING a persona as a "Leftist". We have known this for a long time -- but nobody until Caufield has indicated the implications. The implications are the breakthrough. LHO was a secret rightist and a fake leftist. His actual associations in 1963 were Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Ed Butler, Carlos Bringuier, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, and very likely Frank Sturgis and the whole Cuban Exile brigade. Obviously this is the far right. Although LHO continually wrote letters to the CPUSA, the FPCC, the Militant and the USSR Embassy, LHO never associated with those guys, and he never joined. LHO was creating an FBI traceable paper trail and a persona. Jim Garrison already broached this topic -- but the pressure was too great for Jim. He was forced back to a CIA-did-it posture -- and he backed away from his months of intensive research into the Extreme Right sources of the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I see Mr Trejo has been making use of the edit function for non-typo related edits. That's the measure of the man. I'll leave you to flail and make back-dated corrections to your arguments through your edit function. In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I see Mr Trejo has been making use of the edit function for non-typo related edits. That's the measure of the man. I'll leave you to flail and make back-dated corrections to your arguments through your edit function. In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year... Yeah, sure, Greg. You keep saying that week after week. It's carnival barker writing. If you haven't said anything yet, the likelihood that you have ANYTHING substantial is mighty slim. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I see Mr Trejo has been making use of the edit function for non-typo related edits. That's the measure of the man. I'll leave you to flail and make back-dated corrections to your arguments through your edit function. In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year... Yeah, sure, Greg. You keep saying that week after week. It's carnival barker writing. If you haven't said anything yet, the likelihood that you have ANYTHING substantial is mighty slim. Regards, --Paul Trejo Like you're an expert on anything slim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) ...In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year... Yeah, sure, Greg. You keep saying that week after week. It's carnival barker writing. If you haven't said anything yet, the likelihood that you have ANYTHING substantial is mighty slim. Regards, --Paul Trejo Like you're an expert on anything slim? My point is that you haven't said anything yet, and its been weeks, and you keep promising to "make toast" of Ruth Paine. We're waiting. Are we waiting in vain? Are you really only going to do what James DiEugenio did in his Destiny Betrayed (2012), and simply echo Carol Hewett's work from the 1990's? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited January 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 ...In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year... Yeah, sure, Greg. You keep saying that week after week. It's carnival barker writing. If you haven't said anything yet, the likelihood that you have ANYTHING substantial is mighty slim. Regards, --Paul Trejo Like you're an expert on anything slim? My point is that you haven't said anything yet, and its been weeks, and you keep promising to "make toast" of Ruth Paine. We're waiting. Are we waiting in vain? Are you really only going to do what James DiEugenio did in his Destiny Betrayed (2012), and simply echo Carol Hewett's work from the 1990's? Regards, --Paul Trejo Tut tut! Patience. I do hear that a hearty serve of deep fried hog snout is good comfort food. And maybe wash it down with cherry cola and 'ludes to settle those nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Caufield's breakthrough? This is an author who is trying to imply that Oswald did not even speak Russian in MINSK! That is WC, Jean Davison crapola. Caufiled leaves out the following: 1. The Roslaeen Quinn testimony, the State Department applicant who spent an hour or two with Oswald in the service because she was studying Russian for a year with a tutor. She said LHO spoke better Russian than she did. BTW, this was played up to good effect in Melanson's book back in 1989. 2. The Ernst Titovets evidence. This was Oswald's best friend in Russia in Minsk. He said Oswald spoke Russian quite well. Titovets was at the AARC conference two years ago. And his book was published in part by the MFF three years ago. Those are facts. Which the WC covered up and ignored. Because they did not want to admit Oswald was learning Russian in the service. This is what I mean: Caufield wants to take us back to the Warren Commission. He conceals and ignores it because he wants to make Oswald into a neo Nazi. This is a breakthrough? And BTW, this is just the beginning of the grievous faults in this book. Caufield makes Lamar Waldron look even-handed and objective. Edited January 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) From Part 2 of Volume 2 of Lee Harvey Oswald's Cold War. There are citations for this section. However, they do nor copy and paste very well, so are not included here. ------------------- Donovan remembered a lot about Oswald. But only from the Santa Ana period. He remembered that another enlisted man (Henry Rousell) arranged for Oswald to date the man’s aunt – a Pan Am stewardess from New York named Rosaleen Quinn (though Donovan claimed not to recall her name even when prompted by counsel for the commission). Rosaleen told Donovan (during another arranged date by Rousell) that Oswald spoke Russian and that he was “a bit of an oddball”. Rousell had set his aunt up with Oswald apparently on the basis that Rosaleen had completed a Berlitz course in Russian language and Rousell had known of Oswald’s ability with the language. According to Rosaleen, Oswald spoke Russian better than she did herself. We are not informed as to why John Donovan was “fixed up” with the stewardess after the date with Oswald, though it could be guessed that it had more to do with his time at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service than whether or not he had a GSOH or liked Pina Coladas. Ms. Quinn’s Berlitz private tutoring in Russian for more than a year was in preparation to take the State Department Foreign Service exam. The more one looks at Ms. Quinn, the more one sees a CIA agent or asset. In 2011-12, ABC aired the series Pan Am, a look at the lives of a Pan Am flight crew in the early 1960s. Though fictional, it was based on solid archival research by a former Pan Am employee, Nancy Hult Ganis. One of the most controversial aspects of the series was in showing a relationship between the airline and the CIA, and more specifically between the CIA and members of flight crews. In fact, some of the research conducted by Ganis included finding airline employees being involved with “State Department operations [involving] behind-the-scene missions in dangerous locations.” Other former flight attendants interviewed in the wake of the series concurred that the show portrayed CIA involvement with the airline and some employees in a “realistic” fashion. The State Department is common cover for CIA agents. Ms. Quinn traversing the continent where she would have a blind date with a young man about to become a “turncoat” while she herself was probably preparing for some sort of covert work behind the Iron Curtain confounds our trust. The overall picture snaps into focus even further when we consider that two members of Donovan’s unit were CIA employees, and both gave their employer advance notice that Donovan would be contacting to advise about Oswald’s time at Santa Ana. The two men were John Moretti, who was a New Supervisor Orientation (NSO) – a Human Resources position - the same field and the same (hidden) employer as Sylvia Hoke. The other was Major A.F. Boland whose name was redacted in the original document release. Donovan duly phoned the CIA on December 1, 1963. He assured the officer who handled his call that he had not yet spoken to either the FBI or the Secret Service. He also pointed out he was employed by the FBI prior to joining the Marines; a fact missing from background information routinely sought and obtained by the commission of those giving testimony. The very next day Donovan was talking to the media. ------------------------------ Edited January 12, 2016 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Greg that's great stuff. I hadn't realized that Donovan had so much contact. What period in the Oswald timeline is the "Santa Ana period"? One other thing I'm a little confused about is this claim from Joan Mellen, in "A Farewell to Justice", that Maj. Boland and John Moretti were in Oswald's Marine Corp unit. Were they also on Donovan's team or is someone mistaken? https://books.google.com/books?id=scug_gAfL-wC&pg=PP396&lpg=PP396&dq=Major+A.F.+Boland&source=bl&ots=lYhtIZ9qlK&sig=lVyP-ZLo93yQWqFJlm0K72oUrso&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9yp3b3qPKAhVU3mMKHVifDYoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Major%20A.F.%20Boland&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 That is interesting Greg. About both Donovan and Quinn. It does resemble some kind of set up to see if Oswald is ready to go to Russia. Hmm, wonder why Caufiield missed that. And said the opposite. BTW, you know how bad Caufield is? He needs JFK to be in the CFR because his nutty theory is that 700 people at a rightwing conference are going to kill off the entire CFR. (Don't laugh) So he says Kennedy was a member. Little problem Jeff. You're factually challenged again. You know, as in "Oswald didn't speak Russian". Kennedy never joined the CFR. And anyone who knows anything about that body, or who has read Imperial Brain Trust, the best book on it, would know that. (see p. 247) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Greg that's great stuff. I hadn't realized that Donovan had so much contact. What period in the Oswald timeline is the "Santa Ana period"? One other thing I'm a little confused about is this claim from Joan Mellen, in "A Farewell to Justice", that Maj. Boland and John Moretti were in Oswald's Marine Corp unit. Were they also on Donovan's team or is someone mistaken? https://books.google.com/books?id=scug_gAfL-wC&pg=PP396&lpg=PP396&dq=Major+A.F.+Boland&source=bl&ots=lYhtIZ9qlK&sig=lVyP-ZLo93yQWqFJlm0K72oUrso&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9yp3b3qPKAhVU3mMKHVifDYoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Major%20A.F.%20Boland&f=false Joan is just flat out wrong here. The two men were in Donovan's RESERVES unit in 1963. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=50080&relPageId=2&search=%22john_moretti%22 The Santa Ana period in question is when both LHO and Donovan returned from SEA until Oswald's discharge. Everything Donovan said post Warren Commission was a fabrication. The dissembling was incredible and all aimed at bolstering the Epstein/Angleton garbage that the Soviets recruited Oswald in Japan. Don't know why some authors took him seriously... Edited January 12, 2016 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 That is interesting Greg. About both Donovan and Quinn. It does resemble some kind of set up to see if Oswald is ready to go to Russia. Jim, it would be great if someone could track Ms Quin's career from those two dates onward. Maybe an FOIA request to State and CIA? I'll apologize to Paul if she didn't end up behind the Iron Curtain somewhere... And YES. Neither of her dates were simple blind dates, or based upon innocent mutual interest in the Russian language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Paul T - Marina no longer believes that her husband acted alone? Is that what she said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) That is interesting Greg. About both Donovan and Quinn. It does resemble some kind of set up to see if Oswald is ready to go to Russia. Jim, it would be great if someone could track Ms Quin's career from those two dates onward. Maybe an FOIA request to State and CIA? I'll apologize to Paul if she didn't end up behind the Iron Curtain somewhere... And YES. Neither of her dates were simple blind dates, or based upon innocent mutual interest in the Russian language. Dear Greg, Here I go again. How do you know their two dates weren't based on their "innocent mutual interest in the Russian language"? Your award-wining poetic intuition? Regardless, there might be other possible "innocent" explanations if it wasn't the Russian language that "brought them together." For example, I realize she musta been somewhat older than Oswald, her bein' the auntie of one of his Marine colleagues and everything, but she was a Pan Am stewardess, after all, so she must have been a pretty darn good-looking gal, doncha think? I mean, I had an older girlfriend in the Czech Republic for a while. She was very pretty, blond, a surgical room "head" nurse, her name was Ludmila (spelling?), and boy-oh-boy did we have a "good time," if you know what I mean. The way I see it, this Pan Am stewardess and Oswald could have done that and worked on their Russian "cases" (a grammatical expression) at the same time! Nominitave, Dative, Genitive, Locative, .... --Tommy Edited January 12, 2016 by Thomas Graves 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