I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.
The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?
Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.
The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.
No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.
I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).
He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.
This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.
Oh, boy. Once again we're going to see that you get into trouble and show the inadequacy of your research when you engage on specifics.
For starters, I notice you didn't address the point about whether you have even read O'Toole's book.
Now, it just figures that you would cite Sean DeGrilla apparently without knowing of any of the many problems with his shoddy scholarship.
DeGrilla's critique of O'Toole's book is downright deceptive. Let's take a look at DeGrilla's attack on O'Toole's PSE analysis in his book
Malcontent (Part II:1):
DeGrilla pretends that PSE experts Mike Kradz and Lloyd (“Rusty”) Hitchcock did not confirm what O’Toole said about their PSE analyses, and that they gave “less than ringing endorsements” when asked about O’Toole’s PSE research. If you actually read DeGrilla’s quotes from Kradz and Hitchcock, you see that he is rather clumsily misrepresenting what they said, even though he quotes them.
With Kradz’s statement, DeGrilla underlines the part where, clearly for rhetorical effect, Kradz describes O’Toole’s research as “a strange, different, and bizarre system of explanations and interpretations.” Perhaps DeGrilla hoped that by underlining these words, the reader would not notice that
Kradz then goes on to say that O’Toole’s system of explanations and interpretations is “creditable” and “has not been denied nor refuted.” So even though Kradz said that O’Toole’s research was creditable and had not been denied or refuted, DeGrilla pretends that Kradz denigrated O’Toole’s research.
Furthermore,
we should remember that when O’Toole asked Kradz to analyze the Oswald PSE charts, he did not tell him that the charts were of Oswald’s statements. He simply told Kradz that the charts were of statements made by someone who had been accused of murder, so Kradz had no idea that he was looking at charts of statements made by Oswald. I mention this because DeGrilla does not.
Also, when Kradz learned that the PSE charts were of Oswald, he suspected the O’Toole had misused his PSE equipment, so he checked all the settings that O’Toole had used--and found no problem with them.
DeGrilla’s attempt to minimize Hitchcock’s endorsement of O’Toole’s PSE research on Oswald’s declarations of innocence is perhaps even more misleading and sophomoric than his treatment of Kradz’s statement.
DeGrilla quotes an FBI memo that opined that Hitchcock’s letter to O’Toole was “far from an unqualified endorsement.” Really? Hitchcock said that unless Oswald was so crazy that he was unaware of his own actions, he, Hitchcock, could state “beyond reasonable doubt” that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else. Let’s read what the memo itself quotes Hitchcock as saying:
“Assuming that he (Oswald) was not suffering from a psycho-pathological condition that made him ignorant of his own actions, I can state, beyond reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else.”And this is not all that Hitchcock said.
DeGrilla conveniently fails to inform his readers that Hitchcock also said in his letter that his own PSE analysis of the recordings of Oswald’s innocence declarations “clearly” indicated that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he made them. I quote from Hitchcock’s letter:
“My PSE analysis of these recordings indicates very clearly that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he denied killing the president.”Humm, I wonder why DeGrilla does not see fit to quote that part of Hitchcock’s letter. Why do you suppose he omitted such crucial information?
You have once again been burned by your failure to read both sides of an issue before discussing the matter in a public forum. I'm certain you had no idea about the errors and deception in DeGrilla's research, and it apparently did not occur to you to read O'Toole's book or his article before running with DeGrilla's hack job.
I would encourage everyone to read O’Toole’s article on his PSE analysis of Oswald’s innocence declarations. O’Toole’s article contains a lot more information than what I’ve presented so far, such as information on O’Toole’s methodology and how he used the PSE equipment. Here’s the link to the article:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdfI would also encourage everyone to read O'Toole's book
The Assassination Tapes.
As for O'Toole's position at the CIA, I will just point out that unfortunately the CIA has a long record of not always being completely accurate when describing the work and positions of former CIA personnel who said things the agency did not like.
It is worth noting that O'Toole authored several award-winning books, including
The Encyclopedia of American Intelligence and Espionage and
Honorable Treachery: A History of American Intelligence. One of his books was a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
The bio that O'Toole submitted to a research committee reads as follows:
Mr. O'Toole is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDSGT. Mr. O'Toole accepted a position as Director of the Education Division of Computer Methods Corporation, New York.Now, I can tell you as a federal employee myself that GS-14 is a very high rank, and that GS-14s are frequently put in charge of running offices or branches of departments and sometimes entire departments. The person who ran the department I worked for at Army Sustainment University was a GS-14.
Of course, you seek to denigrate or minimize the qualifications of any author who posits a conspiracy in the JFK case, but O'Toole was clearly an educated person and a serious and respected scholar.
Recent Posts
I'm sure Greg is an intelligent and hardworking guy who is kind to stray dogs, but in my opinion his ideas on virtually every issue are indeed lunatic fringe stuff. YMMV, and I'll bet it does.