amazon link

http://www.amazon.com/Harvey-Oswalds-Cold-Assassination-Reinvestigated-ebook/dp/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=la_B00IXYONKI_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394576765&sr=1-1

Kudos Greg.

Ditto, Greg. I'll be downloading later today at home.

Thanks Albert.

Just installed kindle for pc and downloaded the book. As i work nights i hope to make a start on it over the weekend. And may i add a belated congratulations to Greg.

Alan Dixon wrote:Just installed kindle for pc and downloaded the book. As i work nights i hope to make a start on it over the weekend. And may i add a belated congratulations to Greg.

Thanks Alan. If nothing else, I hope I have managed to bring something new to the table.

Greg,

before too much time passes I did want to acknowledge that I have read through your volume one -- though rather too quickly, I must confess.  I do plan to go back through it again paying a bit more attention to detail (I was overwhelmed by the number of events and players you introduced with which I was abjectly and shamefully unfamiliar; I can only speak for myself here, since other members of this forum are undoubtedly better informed and have followed your work for a longer period of time).  I can, however, say without hesitation that I found it all utterly fascinating, and that I am on tenterhooks to see where all the various threads you tug at are going to connect up. 

I couldn't really pick out any one thing I found to be particularly provocative in the three parts -- there were lots.  Certainly we have not paid enough attention to Gaitán or the Bogotá conference, both in terms of setting the tone for later events and for that eerie Sirhan-Sirhan parallel.  It shows that the CIA's MO and the usual cast of characters (like Sullivan & Cromwell) which would become familiar under Dulles were already taking shape at that point.  The SIS narrative was also something I found extremely suggestive, esp. in light of links to the likes of Birch O'Neal and Angleton's (and Harvey's, and Maheu's, and Banister's ...) close ties with FBI; plus the indication that Castro and del Pino might have been manipulated during these events.

The Korean War material was also really interesting.  I think you are right that we have not focused enough on that "police action" as a kind of crucible of Cold War ingredients.  You make a good case for the biochemical testing, the war having been provoked by Rhee, encouraged by J.F. Dulles, etc.

There is also plenty to chew on wrt to LHO's early life.  This is where I feel I must reread you, because it just brims with particulars.  If I follow the broad outlines, however, it seems your argument is that Oswald's "profiling" was already beginning at that point -- that he was in some sense being "monitored" as a candidate for recruitment into what would later be a false defector program because of certain characteristics in his family milieu, his upbringing, and personality.  I seem to sense that you see Ekdahl, with his various links (Norman Thomas, the Hydes, White, Overholser, et al) as figuring into this.  I also take it you will be spelling this out somewhat more explicitly further on down the line?  though again I admit it's possible I may have missed the more explicit role attributed to him here ... as I said, I read through this a bit quickly.

I do have a lot on my plate these days, and in fact may have to cut back my visits to the forum.  But I did want to at least congratulate you on this work before I go off and fall into a hole or something.  You have uncovered a lot of amazing stuff.  Can't wait for the rest.

Albert Rossi wrote:Greg,

before too much time passes I did want to acknowledge that I have read through your volume one -- though rather too quickly, I must confess.  I do plan to go back through it again paying a bit more attention to detail (I was overwhelmed by the number of events and players you introduced with which I was abjectly and shamefully unfamiliar; I can only speak for myself here, since other members of this forum are undoubtedly better informed and have followed your work for a longer period of time).  I can, however, say without hesitation that I found it all utterly fascinating, and that I am on tenterhooks to see where all the various threads you tug at are going to connect up. 

I couldn't really pick out any one thing I found to be particularly provocative in the three parts -- there were lots.  Certainly we have not paid enough attention to Gaitán or the Bogotá conference, both in terms of setting the tone for later events and for that eerie Sirhan-Sirhan parallel.  It shows that the CIA's MO and the usual cast of characters (like Sullivan & Cromwell) which would become familiar under Dulles were already taking shape at that point.  The SIS narrative was also something I found extremely suggestive, esp. in light of links to the likes of Birch O'Neal and Angleton's (and Harvey's, and Maheu's, and Banister's ...) close ties with FBI; plus the indication that Castro and del Pino might have been manipulated during these events.

The Korean War material was also really interesting.  I think you are right that we have not focused enough on that "police action" as a kind of crucible of Cold War ingredients.  You make a good case for the biochemical testing, the war having been provoked by Rhee, encouraged by J.F. Dulles, etc.

There is also plenty to chew on wrt to LHO's early life.  This is where I feel I must reread you, because it just brims with particulars.  If I follow the broad outlines, however, it seems your argument is that Oswald's "profiling" was already beginning at that point -- that he was in some sense being "monitored" as a candidate for recruitment into what would later be a false defector program because of certain characteristics in his family milieu, his upbringing, and personality.  I seem to sense that you see Ekdahl, with his various links (Norman Thomas, the Hydes, White, Overholser, et al) as figuring into this.  I also take it you will be spelling this out somewhat more explicitly further on down the line?  though again I admit it's possible I may have missed the more explicit role attributed to him here ... as I said, I read through this a bit quickly.

I do have a lot on my plate these days, and in fact may have to cut back my visits to the forum.  But I did want to at least congratulate you on this work before I go off and fall into a hole or something.  You have uncovered a lot of amazing stuff.  Can't wait for the rest.

Albert,

these are the threads I was hoping readers would pick up on. I actually feel a little relieved it does seem to have hit those chords well enough. 

Re the profiling... teenage boys were a great focus of attention because of the Korean War. These were the next wave of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines... and the PTB were desperate not to have another POW "turncoat" situation occur. So that was one aspect -- how to toughen up the American male mentally and physically to withstand whatever torture or voodoo might be thrown at them if captured. Another aspect was inoculating them against communist propaganda by feeding them the home-grown variety about Americanism.

There were also hearings into communist fronts luring children into their web. One response to all this was in getting teens into such groups as Boy Scouts, YMCA... and CAP. The flip side (and here I am speculating) was in perhaps using the Chinese profile of a US defector to place someone with the profile into one of the services and see how well that service identifies him - or how he is handled. 
That may have evolved into sending that same person over to the USSR to see if they pick him up. I think the opportunity for that occurred as a direct result of the stalemate at Test Ban Treaty negotiations with radar at the heart of the sticky issues. Radar really was the sore point, that much I can prove. But I can't say much more without spilling the big bean I have for the second volume. It does go to tying everything up a bit more.

This is going to sound weird - but what I will add for now is that I believe Oswald did covertly AND legally, hand over radar secrets AND it had absolutely nothing to do with bringing down the U2. It had to do with saving the Geneva talks. You can extrapolate from there who did bring Powers down and why. 

Jim Di created a lot of expectations about you before you joined. Nothing he said was exaggerated. Whatever contributions you can continue to make here will a boon for the forum.  

ps - yes - I see Ekdahl as a key figure. And more has being uncovered about him by a correspondent in the last couple of weeks which will strengthen the case even further.

greg parker wrote:The flip side (and here I am speculating) was in perhaps using the Chinese profile of a US defector to place someone with the profile into one of the services and see how well that service identifies him - or how he is handled. 
That may have evolved into sending that same person over to the USSR to see if they pick him up.

Yes, this certainly does come through what you have written.  It will be interesting to see the specifics you develop in Oswald's case.

I think the opportunity for that occurred as a direct result of the stalemate at Test Ban Treaty negotiations with radar at the heart of the sticky issues. Radar really was the sore point, that much I can prove. But I can't say much more without spilling the big bean I have for the second volume. It does go to tying everything up a bit more.

Great!

This is going to sound weird - but what I will add for now is that I believe Oswald did covertly AND legally, hand over radar secrets AND it had absolutely nothing to do with bringing down the U2. It had to do with saving the Geneva talks. You can extrapolate from there who did bring Powers down and why. 

Wow ... that's a bit of a twist!  But I won't ask you to explain any further here and let the cat out of the bag.  I'll be patient, like a 9-year-old in the back seat on a long car trip ...

Jim Di created a lot of expectations about you before you joined.

Yikes.

Greg, I really am a side-liner, despite whatever Jim might have said. My interest in this case has been nearly life-long, but somehow it has never translated into the need to do original research. That doesn't mean I don't have my own way of thinking. But most of the time I can only react to things others write.  Having been a musician of sorts, I can very well appreciate how someone like this -- the critic who doesn't actually perform -- can be annoying.  I guess that is why I also am reluctant to get into knock-down-drag-out fights about anything -- I truly admire most of those who devote so much of their time to studying this material, even if I might disagree, perhaps even violently, with their particular conclusions.  (And, speaking of Jim, something very admirable I have noted about him is that even if he disagrees with others in the critical camp (and says so, often without mincing words), he also goes out of his way to use and cite what he considers good material from some of those very authors.  In the world of scholarship and research, it has been my experience that such a coexistence of largeness of spirit with exacting standards is rare.)

ps - yes - I see Ekdahl as a key figure. And more has being uncovered about him by a correspondent in the last couple of weeks which will strengthen the case even further.

Looking forward to the revelations ...

P.S.  I just pinged Len Osanic, voting to have you on for an interview, and pointing him to the amazon link.  I don't know whether JimD has done so as well, though I do note you have both an ad and a sampler on CTKA now.

P.P.S.  Funny that your Amazon blurb mentions Tufte.  My lab is hosting an exhibit featuring his work.
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/tufte/index.html

Talk about correlations ... or synchronicity ... or something ...

Greg

Len answered me that you'll be on next week.  Also announced on Jim's segment from yesterday.

Great news ... I'll be listening.

Al

Albert Rossi wrote:Greg

Len answered me that you'll be on next week.  Also announced on Jim's segment from yesterday.

Great news ... I'll be listening.

Al

Great news indeed!

http://www.blackopradio.com/schedule.html

Thanks guys.

Have just pre-recorded the interview with Len.

Bear in mind, I got up at 4 am to do this, added to which I am dosed up on cold & flu meds... coherence is not guaranteed! 

It will be aired next week.

greg parker wrote:Thanks guys.

Have just pre-recorded the interview with Len.

Bear in mind, I got up at 4 am to do this, added to which I am dosed up on cold & flu meds... coherence is not guaranteed! 

It will be aired next week.

Congratulations, Greg! I just finished listening to Len's most recent interview with Jim Di, and he sounded like he really liked your book.