> On Mar 8, 2:10 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> On Mar 3, 9:37 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:>>>>> On Mar 1, 7:17 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 1:14 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Feb 26, 1:55 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 4:04 pm, Anthony Marsh
comcast.net> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> John McAdams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:39:11 -0500, Peter Fokes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>From E. Howard Hunt's autobiography, An American Spy, John Wiley &
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sons, 2007
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conspiracy theorists who believe Hiss was railroaded say the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prosecution aimed to stir popular support against Communism. The only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witness against the accused was Whittaker Chambers, a TIME magazine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> senior editor who supposedly received secret documents, which were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typed on Hiss's Woodstock typewriter (which he had given away). TIME,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many people point out, was owned by HENRY LUCE, a major player in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American politics who had ties to Allen and John Foster Dulles and was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a champion of America's place as world leader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A popular theory, NOT BEYOND CONSIDERATION NOW that Nixon's massive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paranoia has come to light, is that prosecutors FORGED the evidence on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another typewriter engineered to duplicate Hiss's typewriter. John
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dean writes in his book Blind Ambition that Nixon even confessed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Colson, "The typewriters are always the key. We built one in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Hiss case," though Colson claims that he has NO MEMORY of such a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conversation, and it never came out on any tapes. Still, twenty-five
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years after the trial, Nixon's secret tapes show that he remained
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obsessed with the case, talking about it frequently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note: In the recent book Legacy of Ashes, Weiner writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information, once part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wild Bill Donovan's domain. The men who responded to the CIA's call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included Henry Luce and his editors at TIME, LIFE and Fortune; popular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader's Digest;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the most powerful executives at CBS news. Dulles built a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pledges of support from men such as Alex Springer, West Germany's most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powerful press baron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> p. 77
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you actually try to deny that Hiss was guilty, Peter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You understand there really were Cold War traitors, don't you? Ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hear of Venona?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Venona is helpful, but do not rely on it. Venona does not name the
>>>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>>>>>> And, Marsh, youhave personally read all over 10,000 pages of VENONA?
>>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I doubt it.
>>>>>>>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you know what you are talking about, as I have
>>>>>>>>>> proved time and time again.
>>>>>>>>> That is totally untrue, but expected from you. Your ignorance of the
>>>>>>>>> intelligence servicwa is lacking. Like your falso claim that the U-2
>>>>>>>>> flew at 100,000 feet,
>>>>>>>> Not what I claimed at all. Your claim was that no aircraft ever flew at
>>>>>>>> 100,000 feet. You were in a coma when the CIA recently released its
>>>>>>>> files and there big as life it states that the maximum altitude for the
>>>>>>>> U-2 was 100,000 feet.
>>>>>>> That is utterly false, Marsh, at. You cannot quote it. CIA KNEW it nevar flew over 70.000 feet as shown in Soviet > > tracking. Your cits do not support your false assertion. You have a reading promblem, apparently from lack of education.
>>>>>> There you have it folks. Ned Dolan can't even read the official CIA
>>>>>> document which states that the ceiling was 100,000 feet.
>>>>> A fabrication, Marsh. No CIA document exists that states that the U-2 had
>>>>> a ceiling od 100,000 feet. If you have it quote from it. I defy you.
>>>> I just did. And you can see it for yourself at the CIA web site.
>
>>> That too is a fabrication .
>
>>> Nothing at that site has a statement from CIA that the U-2 had a
>>> ceiling of 100,000 feet, that is why you are unable to provide a
>>> quote. You duck, cowardly, instead, because you can't as it does.n't
>>> exist.
>>>>> And even Powers admitted that he flew over 70,000 feet.
>>>>> No he did not as he couldn't.
>>>> He did not admit it to the Soviets.
>
>>> Obviously, ecause the Sovs knew he ddn't. They knew hia exact height
>>> and it was always ubder 70,000 feet
>
>> No.
>
> No what, Marsh?
>
>> Even Dulles wondered why Powers did not stay higher and why he was
>> shot down at 70,500 feet.
>
> Oh? And what is yur source? He was actually flying somewhat under
> 70.000 feet. The uaual cruising altitude was 68-69 thousand feet. This
> is verifiable.
>
>> Test flights went much higher.
>
> That is a fabrication.
>
>
>
>> Your original claim was that NO aircraft could fly at 100,000 feet,
>> which I easily disproved.
>
> Notv really. You cited some special aircraft, testaircraft, not
> production aircraft. They didn't flly at sustained altitudes
>
>> And my claim was never that a U-2 actually flew at 100,000 feet.
>
> Insead, you are doing it in this hread as you claimed before.
>
>
>
>>> He admitted it to Congress.
>>> ]If he did, he lied.
>
>>>>>>>>> There are more than 10,000 pages and I have
>>>>>>>>>> read many of them. Not all. Neither have you.
>>>>>>>>> Untrue. I have them all in my bookcase. NSA sent them to me.
>>>>>>>> No, you don't. You do not have all the Venona documents.
>>>>>>> Oh?
>>>>>>>> And you can not post one of them which names one of their American
>>>>>>>> agents by the English given name. Only codenames.
>>>>>>>> I could claim that the code name HARP means Ned Dolan.
>>>>>>> Sure , and it would be a fabrication.
>>>>>>>>>> I have read the book.
>>>>>>>>> Good for you. Glad to hear you can read.
>>>>>>>> But you did not read the book.
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>> You have not.
>>>>>>>>> Prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.
>>>>>>>>>>> It names codenames and then the CIA claims who the codenames
>>>>>>>>>>>> really are. Lots of room for false accusations there.
>>>>>>>>> Prove it. I was at the VENONA conference, and you don't know wgat you
>>>>>>>>> are writing about, as usual.
>>>>>>>> Yes, I think I spotted you in the audience.
>>>>>>> Oh? Since it was by invitation and your name was not on the list, how
>>>>>>> did you get in? Where was it?
>>>>>> At the National Spy Museum.
>>>>> That wasn't the official release of the VENONA documents. It was in a
>>>>> place to where you were invited, had to show a picture badge to get
>>>>> through security. I have been to the Museum only once and ther was no
>>>>> dicussion of VENONA. I was at the official release, you obviously were
>>>>> not.
>>>>>> You still walking with the black cane?
>>>>> No. because I have NEVER walked wwith a black cane
>>>>>>>>>>> Again you show your ignorance of the venona documents. Sad!
>>>>>>>>>> What I said is accurate. Show me any Venona document that names the,
>>>>>>>>>> individual by the given English name. Again, you come up empty.
>>>>>>>>> So? There is a lot more to intelligence nalysis. But that is beyond
>>>>>>>>> someone with your limited education. But since you clami to be so
>>>>>>>>> great an expert prove the named are falsely ccused
>>>>>>>> Which names do I claim are falsely accused?
>>>>>>> That was your implicatiom.
>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>> Then perhaps you shoud try to write more clearly.
>>>> Then perhaps you should learn to write correctly.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Brits had them. Remember Kim Philby? Was he framed too?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't the Canadians have any?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that the contemporary left wants to get Hiss off.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or is not happy with the way the right-wing tries to frame every leftist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems they somehow identify with him, doesn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And why would that be?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> .John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Back to Venona. For years, I've been reading right-wingers claiming
the docs prove Hiss' guilt, only to see it countered by non-right-
wingers claiming that the documents just use code names. Ishtar/Ned,
if you are now claiming that the docs DO name Hiss, could you please
find the specific docs and post a link, if possible?
