Why did Marina write these words...

[Len Colby]

1) Can you provide a direct quote (and citation) from the "husband of [Pic's] sister-in-law" stating he was trained as a pharmacist? Odd if it were true since he was an NCO and being a pharmacist in the US (currently at least) requires at least 6 years of college/post graduate education which would make him an officer.

Commission Document 128 - FBI Welke Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Oswald, p3

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=338518

Looking at it again, you might argue that it is Parish who was the pharmacist, though that is not how it reads. Taking your point into account, I tend to think Parish meant that Pic had some basic training in pharmacy as part of his overall training in lab work.

I agree that it refers to Pic and that it probably meant he had some pharmacy training. According to an ‘index’ complied by Robert Howard he was a “lab technician”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166280

2) What is title and author of the article in Cabinet #8 that included the drug list?

Google only has snippet view, so that info not showing. It is in Cabinet issues 6-9 p127 (possibly 3 issues published in book form.

I figured out where it appeared and will address it in my next post.

3) Who brought Pic's notebook to the WC's attention?

Well, that's a good question. Sometimes these things came to the attention of authorities in ways you wouldn't expect.

[…]

In this case there are only two reasonable ‘suspects’ Pic and Marina, now if they were doing something surreptitious why talk about it?

4) What years did the radiation experiments at Pic's AFB take place,can you describe them?

The earliest human radiation experiments I can find at the moment relating to Wilford Hall started in 1965. My memory is that they did experiments on thyroid and/or cancer patients commencing in 1962 either alone or jointly with other facilities. I did have a cite for it, as this was presented at a Cyril Wecht symposium in 2003 and a cite was required. I lost that paper in a computer crash the following year so am posting this now rather than delay any longer while trying to locate it again on the web.

Sorry Greg I find your “my dog ate it” excuse kind of hard to swallow because you made no mention of the supposed 1962 tests in your May 31 2004 post about Pic on another thread nor in your Oct 23 2005 post on this one where you used the vague phrase “during the '60s”. Why no previous mention of the supposed 1962 study here or on your own site? I think it’s because you suspect (correctly) that I discovered that according to your own source such studies didn’t start there till 1966. More on this in my next post.

5) What is the source for your claim that the "May 19, 1975 issue of Newsweek" tied Brundage to JM/Wave? I don't imagine you own a copy and it doesn't appear to be available online.

It is in google books - snippet view.

OK so he and another Former Eisenhower administration official held most of the stock in Southern Air Transport that seems to be the extent of it

6) Can you give a complete rundown of where Pic was stationed through 1962,when did he switch from the Navy to the Air Force?

Switched from Coast Guard to Air Force on Feb 1, 1956. Coast Guard from memory - was attached to Treasury at that time - not Navy. How he came to be trained in Navy hospitals without being in the Navy, I don't know (unless of course, I'm mistaken about CG not part of Navy!).

In August 1962 he was transferred to Wilford Hall Air Force Hospital, Lackland AFB as NCO in Charge of the Special Procedures Branch, Department of Pathology.

“How he came to be trained in Navy hospitals without being in the Navy, I don't know”

According to the article about the PSU you posted elsewhere “To provide replacements, classes at petty officer schools were expanded to maximum size, and larger numbers of men went to Navy schools”. Also since it is a relatively small service the USCG seems to depend on the Navy for a lot of its support services, for example Naval Hospital Bremerton and the Philadelphia Naval Hospital treat (or treated) USCG personnel so it not surprising some might serve short stints at such hospital especially if for training. Though not formally part of the Navy in peace time it is close to it in mission and institutional culture

http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/nhbrem/Patie...Pages/SARP.aspx

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

[Len Colby]

The gist is that Pic who was the NCO in charge of a super secret military project went to “debrief” or ‘swap information’ with Marina and discussed “drugs tested by the CIA in various projects”

Congratulations Len! Yes, that is the gist.

Except of course that:

-the list is quite long thus the odds of coincidentally mentioning drugs on it were high

- you have yet to come up with a reliable citation that it is authentic (see below)

- you have no evidence he was involved such a project only that he was stationed at a bases where standard presumably declassified radiology and radio-therapy experiments were performed years later (or presumably) years earlier.

You obscured the latter by using the vague phrase “during the '60s”. I found your source the DoD’s “Report on Search for Human Radiation Experiment Records 1944 — 1994”. None of the experiments at Wilford or Portsmouth sounds like they were secret. The 1st one listed at the Texas base started in 1966 and had little (if anything) to do with pathology, blood work or the drugs on the list (though such blood work MIGHT have been involved in experiments that begin in 1968). None of this of course is news to you. The abstract of the 1966 tests begins:

“From 1966 until 1975, researchers at Wilford Hall Medical Center, Lackland AFB, TX studied the abnormal patters of growth and development of the skull in infants and children with cleft lip and palate defects. The purpose of the study was to more accurately discern proper diagnosis and subsequent treatment of cleft lip and palate defects. The original proposal called for 100 patients and a comparison group of 100 “normals.” To date, no information is available on the actual number of participants. Radiation exposure was limited to serial roentgenograms [i.e. X-rays (Len)]; however, the number of exposures or dosage is unknown.” [pg 10]

The other studies at Wilford were also standard medical research involving radiology and/or radio-therapy there is no indication the subjects were unwilling/uniformed or that the research had any military applications. The next 8 studies at the hospital involving human exposure to radiation were:

“1968 until 1972, researchers…studied intra-arterial infusion of standard chemotherapeutic agents(5-Fluorouracil) in patients with primary cancer of the liver or gall bladder.” [pg 12]

“From 1970 until 1978, researchers…studied urinary steroid patterns and estrogen receptors in women with breast cancer…Standard medical treatment for breast cancer was not changed as part of this protocol. As a result, the fifty breast cancer patients may have received standard radiation therapy. All participants received a chest x-ray as part of the entry evaluation.” [pg 13]

“From 1970 to 1971 researchers...studied repeat use of intravenous contrast dye in patients with a previous allergic-type reaction to the dye.” [pg 15]

“From 1972 to 1975, researchers...studied whether local irradiation resulted in general immunosuppression of patients with breast cancer.” [pg 16]

“From 1972 to 1974, researchers...studied thyrotropin (TSH) levels in patients with euthyroid goiter and other euthyroid patients without goiter who had similar thyroxine (T4) and free thyroid index (FTI) determinations. All patients had TSH, T4 and triiodothyronine (T3) resin determinations performed and more than 90% had 131-iodine uptake performed. TSH”

Despite your attempts to make them seem sinister (on another thread) the tests at Portsmouth was similarly inoffensive:

“From a presently undetermined date until 1959, researchers from the Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA compared precordial isotope-dilution cardiac output values with those obtained by the Fick method.”

“From a presently undetermined date until 1960, researchers from the Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA evaluated the effect of parabromdylamine maleate on the thyroidal uptake of radioiodine (I-131) in untreated hyperthyroid and euthyroid patients.”

[To make a long story short they were testing to see how use of an anti-histamine affected a standard treatment for thyroid patients. Len]

“From a presently undetermined date until 1960, researchers from the Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA studied tendon reflexes as a diagnostic aid in myxedematous patients. Diagnosis was determined by history, physical examination, five and twenty-four hour iodine-131 (I-131) uptake, protein bound iodine, and red cell I-131 uptake.”

Thus your conclusion “John Pic Jr, it seems, was being trained in particular areas of medicine dealing with chemical, biological and radiological warfare.” Was completely unfounded

1) the tests had nothing to do with “chemical, biological and radiological warfare”

2) You have no evidence he was at the bases when the tests were performed. Though the ones at Portmouth don’t have start dates very few of the ones at other locations lasted 5 -6 years or more.

3) Even if such tests started by April 1954 (when Pic left) Portsmouth was and still is a very large facility with thousands of staff and the odds of him being involved were small.

behind Oswald’s back.

Whoopsie. Nope. Never said or hinted at that. It may be true, but I have no opinion on it.

Except for when you wrote:

“This explanation however doesn't make much sense since they could have spoken an any topic with Lee acting as interpreter.”

I.E. he was not involved in the conversation and lied about it. Peter already picked up on where you were going with that:

“Your point about translation by Lee is interesting. Perhaps they were writing so that he couldn't know what they were talking about.”

So without obfuscation tell us what you were driving at.

You already encapsulated "what I'm driving at". Your insistence that I should speculate beyond that is your problem, not mine.

So was your point that what you claim was a mildly interesting footnote or that it “means” something. Any sinister connotations were just in my imagination?

Why would an NCO at a pathology department have to know what dicain and heroica were? Though he should have been able to figure out ‘Morphinum’ was he said “She used Latin phrases, some of which were familiar to me”

He was trained as a pharmacist according to someone who had known him closely for 11 years.

Can you provide a direct quote and reference?

But for the sake of argument, if he wan't sure what the words were, don't you think he would have asked for clarification from Marina? Which brings up the question of why she wrote them in the first place.

Written communication is often easier for people with a language barrier. As for why he didn’t ask her “for clarification” I know from personal experience that when trying to communicate with someone when there is a language barrier sometimes it makes more sense to feign understanding or change the subject to a simpler topic.

As for Cabinet:

It describes itself as “an award-winning quarterly magazine of art and culture that confounds expectations of what is typically meant by the words "art," "culture," and sometimes even "magazine." Like the 17th-century cabinet of curiosities to which its name alludes, Cabinet is as interested in the margins of culture as its center.” I doubt the editors fact check the authors.

What you doubt is irrelevant. The magazine has a sterling reputation. Issues have a themed section. The one under discussion here had the theme title Pharmacopia

I imagine then you can back your claim it “has a sterling reputation”. The list appears in a piece titled “Lophop-Nine” by Kevin C. Pyle someone selling a copy of the magazine gave the following summary “Uncle Sam wants you. To take experimental drugs” and ‘lophop-nine’ is one of the drugs on the list. Additionally some of the articles are available online and the list isn’t in any of them and Pyle produced a book touching on “CIA funded LSD testing on unknowing American” and other related topics (more on that to come).

http://winnipeg.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-b...QQAdIdZ99975976

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/8/index.php

This however does NOT help you very much.

1) Pyle you see is a “graphic artist” i.e. a cartoonist. The NY Times does not (or did not) fact check it columnists so the odds of an underground art magazine checking the sourcing of a cartoon are minimal.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/opeds_and...tchecking_1.php

http://www.poorandstupid.com/2003_09_21_ch...446684813728134

2) His publisher gave the following description of his book Lab USA:

“Electromagnetic mind-control, open-air biological testing in New York City subways, and clandestine dosing of citizens with psychotropic drugs are all part of America’s little known, yet well-footnoted, history of medical abuse. Lab USA chronicles and illuminates these and many more events through the medium of comix. Employing declassified documents, court testimony, and interviews, Lab USA contrasts objective facts with powerful images to reveal the role of language and authority in the implementation of these dark deeds.”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-d...155&s=books

It sounds like a good book largely based on reality but the “Electromagnetic mind-control” part is literally tin-foil hat lunacy so he seems to have a problem separating reliable from crackpot sources.

3) I was inclined to think the list might be authentic, though there was no reliable evidence it was till I discovered there’s no such drug as ‘lophop-nine’. At least the only Google hits to it were referencing the list, Pyle article or the “Iluminati”*. However Lophophora is the genus of peyote (‘hora’ means hour/time not nine) and is sometimes used as synonym. You could argue “lophop-nine” was a variant but then it would be lophophora novem or something else Latin, peyote is Lophophora williamsii.

Puharich was a big fan of magic mushrooms, this can’t be coincidence I suggest you research the connection. This together with the supposedly using MRI contrasts and stuff like coffee and quinine indicates the list wasprobablly a hoax.

* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...mp;oq=&aqi=

??? The “April, 1962 edition” quoted “what Puharich said at a conference in 1987”?? and quoting him indicates they “seemed sold on it”?? Actually they seem to attribute the claims to Puharich and the other inventor:

You're easily confused.

The answer to your question is, "no".

No you’re confusing, the way you wrote your post it seemed you were citing the 1962 article for the 1987 quote. Thus I was making a joke at your expense. In case you failed to notice I quoted the short PM piece.

"The two items were separate. You can view the Popular Mechanics article here. Tooth Radio ArticleThey don't show any doubt that it worked. "

So if “the two items were separate” you have no evidence the listening device worked, the evidence in support of the hearing aid is already minimal (see below). Though the author(s) of the PM piece didn’t “show any doubt that it worked” they gave no indication they verified the claims, there was no mention of any tests or meeting someone with one installed, and the only sources cited were Puharich and his colleague.

"Are you sticking to your assumption that Puharich was a crackpot and therefore the invention probably didn't work? "

It makes it less likely they were true.

"Can you point me to patent law which states that an invention does not need to be in working order? What you cited does not say that, even though you seem to think it does."

It says you don’t need to provide a working prototype i.e. you don’t need to show that it works. Additionally I asked two patent attorneys “[Does an] inventor [have] to demonstrate that their 'art' actually functions as specified. Has this requirement changed over time? I'm interested in items patented in 1961 and 2001 (filed 1999)” and they told me the following:

Attorney 1:

“The invention has to be new and different, but does not have to be proven to work. It has to be useful, but the threshold for being useful is very low. I don't [think] that has changed over the years. Patents filed before June of 1995 were valid for 17 years after the date they issued. Patents filed after June of 1995 are valid for 20 years after the date they were filed.”

Attorney 2:

“Outside of the bio/medical context, the PTO does not ordinarily require proof that the invention actually works. The inventor is required to describe the invention, and how to making and using it in a way that is "full, clear, concise, and exact" so as to "enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same."

The law has not changed during this period, but the content of patent applications has changed.”

Since the tooth hearing aid could fall under the “bio/medical context” I asked for clarification only the first got back to me: “I couldn't answer that without doing some research, so I'll let you do the research”. Thus the patent is inconclusive. My guess is that the requirement for “bio/medical” inventions would be for ones that would adversely affect the patient if the device failed to work.

What evidence did Evica cite that Project Hope was run by the CIA? Can quote what he said?

Get the book. Haven't got the time or inclination to type out pages for someone whose reaction to them would be a foregone conclusion.

Then find the time. You’re supposed to document your claims, if you have a scanner (or access to one) you wouldn’t have to type. Barring that you could sum up his evidence.

But I misremembered what you wrote which was “The underlying purpose of Project Hope was in Cold War Psychological Operations which had CD Jackson pulling the strings.”

Zachary A. Cunningham wrote a 140 page history master’s thesis titled: PROJECT HOPE AS PROPAGANDA: A Humanitarian Nongovernmental Organization Takes Part in America’s Total Cold War. Some excerpts

“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” [pg33]

AND

In general, various sources funded the State-private network, ranging from well-known

and independently wealthy citizens to, in Lucas’s words, “established organizations” such as the Advertising Council or the Ford Foundation. 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.(50)

[…]

“50) Lucas, Freedom’s War, 107-109; Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA in the World of Arts and Letters (New York: New Press, 1999), 130;There is no available evidence to suggest that Project HOPE received covert government support from the CIA. In fact, the project’s occasional financial problems are such a frequent topic in primary documents that one suspects the organization never received such covert support. Studies of the State-private network by Lucas, Saunders, and others demonstrate that organizations receiving CIA funding usually were quite flush with cash. Project HOPE does not seem to share this characteristic. More research, especially in still classified documents, may one day prove this supposition incorrect. For documents discussing HOPE’s financial difficulties see Smith to Jackson, Memorandum regarding Project HOPE Board meeting, November 17, 1960, Box 57, Great White Fleet (Project HOPE), 1960-61, C.D. Jackson Papers, EL; numerous documents in Box 01, Series I: Maritime Operations-Administrative files, 1958-1974, S.S. Hope (HRG 20), HOPEA; John Cooper, “ICA Aide Says Hospital Ship ‘Hope’ Isn’t Worth Money Its Sponsors Ask,” Washington Post, September 8, 1961; and Maxine Cheshire, “Calm Waters Ahead for Good Ship HOPE,” Washington Post, March 25, 1962.

[Pgs 48-9]

Though he descried C.D. Jackson as an “important board member” and wrote a 11 page section on him he expressed no doubt Dr. Walsh was fully in charge.

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Cunni...ohiou1198092879

You provided no evidence Brundage was involved in JM/Wave

I've noted it in the past: May 19, 1975 issue of Newsweek.

So he and Perkins McGuire, another former Eisenhower administration official, acted as “beards” for the CIA in 1960. But you are really stretching 1) Starting in 1960 Brundage and McGuire held much of the stock of an airline the CIA bought 2) decades later (see below) he was president of Project Hope 3) not the dentist who actually treated her but the one who ran the Baylor clinic and supervised Marina’s dental treatment was a PH volunteer before and after 1962.Therefore it is reasonable to believe Marina had a CIA ‘bug’ hidden in her false teeth.

and your cited source did NOT say when he was president of PH. He was “chairman, Unitarian Development Fund Campaign (1959-62)” PH was mentioned in the next sentence. Due to your propensity to misquote your sources I only believe your citations when I can see the original.

The dates I gave are correct. If you think I got it wrong, prove it. Your knee-jerk reaction is not believe any sources given to you anyway.

That’s a lame cop out it’s up to you to provide evidence for your claims not me to prove you wrong. The source you cited did NOT support your claim, it was yet another example of you misreading something. OK I’ll prove it:

“Dr. Walsh, project HOPE's founder and leader for thirty-four years, later received numerous honors from grateful countries.”

http://americanhistory.si.edu/hope/05hope.htm

“He [Walsh] was chief executive officer and medical director of Project HOPE's parent organization, the People-to-People Health Foundation, from 1958 to 1992 and president from 1958 to 1991. He was subsequently vice chairman.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/28/us/willi...ml?pagewanted=1

The “Publisher’s Letter” from the Fall 1991 issue of the organization’s magazine was signed “William B. Walsh, M.D.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Project HOPE”

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/10/3/4.pdf

A June 16, 1992 NY Times article identified Walsh as “president, Project Hope”

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/17/world/su...ml?pagewanted=1

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

ME(Len): So your scenario is that Marina consented to having healthy teeth pulled/caped so a listening device could be hidden in them allowing the CIA to monitor her husband as part of some nefarious plot which involved doping him without his consent but in cahoots with his half brother. Does that sound reasonable to you?

It sounds like typical Len making stuff up.

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

That was all based on statements you’ve made on this thread. Which parts of the scenario do not back? The other possible scenario based on your narrative is: Jeanne and George de Mohrenschildt conned a woman with medical training into thinking her healthy teeth were in need of urgent care where unwittingly had a listening device installed in her dental implants and shortly there after in her husband’s absence was debriefed by his spook half brother.

Question Greg, how could the plotters avoid the hidden bug being discovered by other dentists? According to several sources she had extensive private dental work done in 1964. Perhaps all the dentists in Dallas-Ft. Worth were “in on it”

"As for your sources re Marina having a cracked front tooth in 1964 - how the hell is that relevant to the state of her teeth in October 1962 - the time frame under scrutiny?"

You expressed doubts she really had bad teeth and went as far as to suggest all the pre-1963 photos of her showing her (healthy) teeth were destroyed. I supplied numerous references indicating her teeth were in bad shape till she had them fixed with post assassination sympathy money. Two specifically mentioned she avoided showing her teeth when being photographed. If her were bad in 1964 it’s far more reasonable to assume they were already bad in 1962 then that they suddenly deteriorated.

Re you quotes from FBI interviews with the dentist, and quotes from DeM etc.... if you had read my post on the subject, you would have noticed I supplied all of that and more... it comes back to CIA connected White Russians being the only people to notice her bad teeth in 1962 and arranging dental work under the guidance of a CIA connected dentist.

It’s not surprising Marina had only been in the US 4 months and due to not speaking much English had little contact with others, George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt were by all accounts the Oswalds’ closest friends. The latter was neither Russian nor tied to the CIA. The only ties I know of between the former and the CIA has him giving a debriefing about his trips to Yugoslavia and asking if it was OK to be in contact with the Oswalds. It was very common at the time for businessmen to tell the CIA about trips to countries where it had limited presence. The dentist who actually examined and treated her was not CIA connected. and all you’ve shown is that

I must admit, I'm perplexed that you have used the following in support of your argument:

“Mrs. Hunter proported to identify Marina Oswald by her eyes, and did not observe the fact that Marina Oswald had a front tooth missing at the time she supposedly saw her [early November 1963].”

Someone NOT noticing she had a tooth missing helps you... how? And since this was after her dental work, how do you know the missing tooth (assuming it actually was missing) wasn't one that had been pulled?

The Baylor dentists said she had 5 teeth extracted and made no mention of her being given implants

Edited January 9, 2010 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

I agree that it refers to Pic and that it probably meant he had some pharmacy training. According to an ‘index’ complied by Robert Howard he was a “lab technician”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166280

Yes, I've since seen the reference to him as "lab tech". Point is, he had at least some pharmacy training.

In this case there are only two reasonable ‘suspects’ Pic and Marina, now if they were doing something surreptitious why talk about it?

You can rule Marina out on the basis that she was not asked about it at all in her voluminous testimony. Pic, who seemed uncomfortable with being questioned about it, may have done it if he feared it would somehow come out anyway, so one way to deal with that is be proactive and hand it in with innocent explanations for the entries. AS I said before though, the sources of information often surprise, so I would not like to narrow the field to just Pic (I'd bet the farm it wasn't Marina).

If the WC was at all interested in getting the facts together on various aspects of the case, it failed here. Pic should have been questioned about why he recorded the mileage to his brother's house. Marina should have been questioned about the drugs she named, and the context of that discussion.

Sorry Greg I find your “my dog ate it” excuse kind of hard to swallow because you made no mention of the supposed 1962 tests in your May 31 2004 post about Pic on another thread nor in your Oct 23 2005 post on this one where you used the vague phrase “during the '60s”. Why no previous mention of the supposed 1962 study here or on your own site? I think it’s because you suspect (correctly) that I discovered that according to your own source such studies didn’t start there till 1966. More on this in my next post.

I have no control over your gag reflex, or what triggers it.

The history to this is that I was working on a book which included much on medical experiments, the Cold War use of universities, and Pic and his relationship with LHO. I was unsatisfied with the work and left it dormant. This was back in about 2002. In 2003, I was asked if I could send a paper over to the Wecht Symposium which would be displayed with other papers for people to read. I decided to send the Pic material from the book. The book had citations and these were used for the paper I sent as cites were requested.

Then in May 2004, I lost a lot of research, including the Pic material, in a computer crash. My wife gave birth to premature twins (3 mnths early) in Feb 2004, so I was lucky to be posting at all in May - I sure as hell didn't have time to refind lost material - hence my vagueness.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.assa...645cb6ca5?hl=en

Would you like me to post a picture of the twins in their humidicribs? They turn 6 next month, and despite major medical complications from their premature birth, they are now the brightest kids you could hope to find anywhere, and devilishly good looking to boot!

I am a little nonplussed that I have not been able to find the information again that I had originally relied upon, but that does happen. Information comes and goes from the web. Mostly there is nothing suspicious about such disappearances. It's the nature of the beast. Other times, I have to wonder. For instance, after I posted about how the PSU used ONI and FBI informants to help clear the docks and water ways of "subversive elements" - that information got excised from the Navy History article from which I took it (or maybe the whole article got taken down? It was one or the other).

As for Marina and her dental work, I can only repeat that I'm aware the case for what I propose is not strong and is highly speculative. I think it's a possibility, that's all - and nothing you have said changes that.

You doubt Puharich's invention worked? Fine with me. I can't find any evidence for or against that proposition, apart from what has already been posted.

You doubt that Marina would have had teeth pulled that were healthy (or at least relatively so)? Again fine with me. In the post war years however, it was not uncommon for women to have all their teeth pulled - healthy or otherwise - and replaced with dentures to ensure their future husbands would not be saddled with ongoing dental bills later in life. Compared to that, Marina sacrificing a few teeth should hardly raise any fuss. You're looking at it from a modern day viewpoint.

Re patent law: You quote a patent attorney as saying, “The invention has to be new and different, but does not have to be proven to work. It has to be useful, but the threshold for being useful is very low."

I had already looked into it a little. The basics which come up in search after search are: the invention has to be new. It has to be different. It has to be useful. None of the texts I read mention that it does not actually have to work -- and the natural inference to be drawn would be that it does have to work in order to be useful. None of the texts said anything about a low threshold of usefulness. What the hell would constitute a "low threshold". Or to put it another way - how low can we go and still get a patent! Maybe he got one even though it did not work as a tooth radio because it made a damn fine paperweight?

Re the state of Marina's teeth during '63/64. All you've got is an alleged cracked front tooth and/or an alleged missing front tooth. Was one missing and one cracked? Or did the the cracked one eventually just fall out? Whatever - it is no indication of the state of her teeth in Oct '62. You need to re-read what George's wife said on the subject. She got it right. Marina having bad teeth made no sense to her, and nor does it to me.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I agree that it refers to Pic and that it probably meant he had some pharmacy training. According to an 'index' complied by Robert Howard he was a "lab technician"

http://educationforu...h...st&p=166280

Yes, I've since seen the reference to him as "lab tech". Point is, he had at least some pharmacy training.

In this case there are only two reasonable 'suspects' Pic and Marina, now if they were doing something surreptitious why talk about it?

You can rule Marina out on the basis that she was not asked about it at all in her voluminous testimony. Pic, who seemed uncomfortable with being questioned about it, may have done it if he feared it would somehow come out anyway, so one way to deal with that is be proactive and hand it in with innocent explanations for the entries. AS I said before though, the sources of information often surprise, so I would not like to narrow the field to just Pic (I'd bet the farm it wasn't Marina).

If the WC was at all interested in getting the facts together on various aspects of the case, it failed here. Pic should have been questioned about why he recorded the mileage to his brother's house. Marina should have been questioned about the drugs she named, and the context of that discussion.

Sorry Greg I find your "my dog ate it" excuse kind of hard to swallow because you made no mention of the supposed 1962 tests in your May 31 2004 post about Pic on another thread nor in your Oct 23 2005 post on this one where you used the vague phrase "during the '60s". Why no previous mention of the supposed 1962 study here or on your own site? I think it's because you suspect (correctly) that I discovered that according to your own source such studies didn't start there till 1966. More on this in my next post.

I have no control over your gag reflex, or what triggers it.

The history to this is that I was working on a book which included much on medical experiments, the Cold War use of universities, and Pic and his relationship with LHO. I was unsatisfied with the work and left it dormant. This was back in about 2002. In 2003, I was asked if I could send a paper over to the Wecht Symposium which would be displayed with other papers for people to read. I decided to send the Pic material from the book. The book had citations and these were used for the paper I sent as cites were requested.

Then in May 2004, I lost a lot of research, including the Pic material, in a computer crash. My wife gave birth to premature twins (3 mnths early) in Feb 2004, so I was lucky to be posting at all in May - I sure as hell didn't have time to refind lost material - hence my vagueness.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.assa...645cb6ca5?hl=en

Would you like me to post a picture of the twins in their humidicribs? They turn 6 next month, and despite major medical complications from their premature birth, they are now the brightest kids you could hope to find anywhere, and devilishly good looking to boot!

I am a little nonplussed that I have not been able to find the information again that I had originally relied upon, but that does happen. Information comes and goes from the web. Mostly there is nothing suspicious about such disappearances. It's the nature of the beast. Other times, I have to wonder. For instance, after I posted about how the PSU used ONI and FBI informants to help clear the docks and water ways of "subversive elements" - that information got excised from the Navy History article from which I took it (or maybe the whole article got taken down? It was one or the other).

As for Marina and her dental work, I can only repeat that I'm aware the case for what I propose is not strong and is highly speculative. I think it's a possibility, that's all - and nothing you have said changes that.

You doubt Puharich's invention worked? Fine with me. I can't find any evidence for or against that proposition, apart from what has already been posted.

You doubt that Marina would have had teeth pulled that were healthy (or at least relatively so)? Again fine with me. In the post war years however, it was not uncommon for women to have all their teeth pulled - healthy or otherwise - and replaced with dentures to ensure their future husbands would not be saddled with ongoing dental bills later in life. Compared to that, Marina sacrificing a few teeth should hardly raise any fuss. You're looking at it from a modern day viewpoint.

Re patent law: You quote a patent attorney as saying, "The invention has to be new and different, but does not have to be proven to work. It has to be useful, but the threshold for being useful is very low."

I had already looked into it a little. The basics which come up in search after search are: the invention has to be new. It has to be different. It has to be useful. None of the texts I read mention that it does not actually have to work -- and the natural inference to be drawn would be that it does have to work in order to be useful. None of the texts said anything about a low threshold of usefulness. What the hell would constitute a "low threshold". Or to put it another way - how low can we go and still get a patent! Maybe he got one even though it did not work as a tooth radio because it made a damn fine paperweight?

Re the state of Marina's teeth during '63/64. All you've got is an alleged cracked front tooth and/or an alleged missing front tooth. Was one missing and one cracked? Or did the the cracked one eventually just fall out? Whatever - it is no indication of the state of her teeth in Oct '62. You need to re-read what George's wife said on the subject. She got it right. Marina having bad teeth made no sense to her, and nor does it to me.

bumped for Len!

[Greg Parker]

I agree that it refers to Pic and that it probably meant he had some pharmacy training. According to an 'index' complied by Robert Howard he was a "lab technician"

http://educationforu...h...st&p=166280

Yes, I've since seen the reference to him as "lab tech". Point is, he had at least some pharmacy training.

In this case there are only two reasonable 'suspects' Pic and Marina, now if they were doing something surreptitious why talk about it?

You can rule Marina out on the basis that she was not asked about it at all in her voluminous testimony. Pic, who seemed uncomfortable with being questioned about it, may have done it if he feared it would somehow come out anyway, so one way to deal with that is be proactive and hand it in with innocent explanations for the entries. AS I said before though, the sources of information often surprise, so I would not like to narrow the field to just Pic (I'd bet the farm it wasn't Marina).

If the WC was at all interested in getting the facts together on various aspects of the case, it failed here. Pic should have been questioned about why he recorded the mileage to his brother's house. Marina should have been questioned about the drugs she named, and the context of that discussion.

Sorry Greg I find your "my dog ate it" excuse kind of hard to swallow because you made no mention of the supposed 1962 tests in your May 31 2004 post about Pic on another thread nor in your Oct 23 2005 post on this one where you used the vague phrase "during the '60s". Why no previous mention of the supposed 1962 study here or on your own site? I think it's because you suspect (correctly) that I discovered that according to your own source such studies didn't start there till 1966. More on this in my next post.

I have no control over your gag reflex, or what triggers it.

The history to this is that I was working on a book which included much on medical experiments, the Cold War use of universities, and Pic and his relationship with LHO. I was unsatisfied with the work and left it dormant. This was back in about 2002. In 2003, I was asked if I could send a paper over to the Wecht Symposium which would be displayed with other papers for people to read. I decided to send the Pic material from the book. The book had citations and these were used for the paper I sent as cites were requested.

Then in May 2004, I lost a lot of research, including the Pic material, in a computer crash. My wife gave birth to premature twins (3 mnths early) in Feb 2004, so I was lucky to be posting at all in May - I sure as hell didn't have time to refind lost material - hence my vagueness.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.assa...645cb6ca5?hl=en

Would you like me to post a picture of the twins in their humidicribs? They turn 6 next month, and despite major medical complications from their premature birth, they are now the brightest kids you could hope to find anywhere, and devilishly good looking to boot!

I am a little nonplussed that I have not been able to find the information again that I had originally relied upon, but that does happen. Information comes and goes from the web. Mostly there is nothing suspicious about such disappearances. It's the nature of the beast. Other times, I have to wonder. For instance, after I posted about how the PSU used ONI and FBI informants to help clear the docks and water ways of "subversive elements" - that information got excised from the Navy History article from which I took it (or maybe the whole article got taken down? It was one or the other).

As for Marina and her dental work, I can only repeat that I'm aware the case for what I propose is not strong and is highly speculative. I think it's a possibility, that's all - and nothing you have said changes that.

You doubt Puharich's invention worked? Fine with me. I can't find any evidence for or against that proposition, apart from what has already been posted.

You doubt that Marina would have had teeth pulled that were healthy (or at least relatively so)? Again fine with me. In the post war years however, it was not uncommon for women to have all their teeth pulled - healthy or otherwise - and replaced with dentures to ensure their future husbands would not be saddled with ongoing dental bills later in life. Compared to that, Marina sacrificing a few teeth should hardly raise any fuss. You're looking at it from a modern day viewpoint.

Re patent law: You quote a patent attorney as saying, "The invention has to be new and different, but does not have to be proven to work. It has to be useful, but the threshold for being useful is very low."

I had already looked into it a little. The basics which come up in search after search are: the invention has to be new. It has to be different. It has to be useful. None of the texts I read mention that it does not actually have to work -- and the natural inference to be drawn would be that it does have to work in order to be useful. None of the texts said anything about a low threshold of usefulness. What the hell would constitute a "low threshold". Or to put it another way - how low can we go and still get a patent! Maybe he got one even though it did not work as a tooth radio because it made a damn fine paperweight?

Re the state of Marina's teeth during '63/64. All you've got is an alleged cracked front tooth and/or an alleged missing front tooth. Was one missing and one cracked? Or did the the cracked one eventually just fall out? Whatever - it is no indication of the state of her teeth in Oct '62. You need to re-read what George's wife said on the subject. She got it right. Marina having bad teeth made no sense to her, and nor does it to me.

bumped for Len!

Bumped for Len (again!)

"I think it's because you suspect (correctly) that I discovered that according to your own source such studies didn't start there till 1966. More on this in my next post." Len Colby, Jan 10, 2010.