Hood College Weisberg Archive

[claviger]

Hood College | Weisberg Archive
http://www.hood.edu/library/special-collections/weisberg-archive.html
- 39k - similar pagesThrough the generosity of Harold Weisberg (1913
2002), Hood College has obtained ... Dr. Gerald McKnight, Professor
Emeritus of History at Hood, and with the ...

[Ace Kefford]

On Mar 15, 1:12 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hood College | Weisberg Archivehttp://www.hood.edu/library/special-collections/weisberg-archive.html

> - 39k - similar pagesThrough the generosity of Harold Weisberg (1913
> 2002), Hood College has obtained ... Dr. Gerald McKnight, Professor
> Emeritus of History at Hood, and with the ...

Definitely some worthwhile readings there in the usual combative style
of Mr. Weisberg.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Mar 15, 1:12 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hood College | Weisberg Archivehttp://www.hood.edu/library/special-collections/weisberg-archive.html

> - 39k - similar pagesThrough the generosity of Harold Weisberg (1913
> 2002), Hood College has obtained ... Dr. Gerald McKnight, Professor
> Emeritus of History at Hood, and with the ...

The good news is that a lot of interesting stuff is online:

http://jfk.hood.edu/index.shtml?home.shtml

The bad news is that the site can be difficult to navigate: the table
of contents isn't very helpful, and the OCR is patchy, making some
pages difficult to find via the search function. (Other sites using
scanned documents, such as the Mary Ferrell site, have the same
problem. That's why I prefer to retype documents into HTML for my own
website, although it's a lot more work and probably not feasible for
larger databases.)

The site's also been having technical difficulties for a couple of
weeks now. The search function seems to be disabled at the moment, but
if you go to Google and use the keyword "Weisberg" along with the
subject you're looking for, you just may get a few hits.

Dave

[James K. Olmstead]

I was at Hood a couple of years ago and talked to the staff there about the
Weisberg Collection held and the internet
problem accessing the online collection.....they were aware of the
problem...but they must have funding issues getting
the system in better shape. However once you get in the online collection
you can get a great deal of material.

Weisberg's struggle to get documents was a great benifit for both
sides....setting aside some of his views, he helped us
all get alot of material.

jko

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fbff023a-1f2e-46b7...@hs8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[Ace Kefford]

Dave,

Agreed on all counts.

I would assume from what you write that there is no affordable program
that can accurately convert scanned documents into HTML.

Ace

[pjsp...@aol.com]

As you probably know, Dave, there was a brouhaha over on the Ed Forum
after certain members posted excerpts from Weisberg's letters in which he
quite possibly libeled another member. This led to this member threatening
a lawsuit, and the removal of certain materials from the online archive.
My concern is that some beanie at Hood College has now questioned the
merit of having an online archive, in which a cranky old man complains
about many people still with us, and has chosen to shutter the whole
thing.

If so, UGGGHHHHH!

[black...@aol.com]

On Mar 15, 10:21 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:

> The site's also been having technical difficulties for a couple of
> weeks now. The search function seems to be disabled at the moment, but
> if you go to Google and use the keyword "Weisberg" along with the
> subject you're looking for, you just may get a few hits.
>
> Dave

I am finding the blackout there annoying. It looks like they're
converting to a newer web design.

One trick I've used is a variation on your Google suggestion, and it
seems to out-perform Hood's own search function:

On Google, go to advanced search. Where it allows you to specify the
domain, enter jfk.hood.edu. Then enter your search term in the normal
fashion, such as Carlos Bringuier. It brings up only hits from the
Hood/Weisberg collection.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are a few free programs which can do it, although it may take
several steps and a lot of proofreading to catch the OCR errors.
Some people prefer the programs to scan the documents into PDF format.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/15/2012 11:21 PM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Mar 15, 1:12 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hood College | Weisberg Archivehttp://www.hood.edu/library/special-collections/weisberg-archive.html
>> - 39k - similar pagesThrough the generosity of Harold Weisberg (1913
>> 2002), Hood College has obtained ... Dr. Gerald McKnight, Professor
>> Emeritus of History at Hood, and with the ...
>
> The good news is that a lot of interesting stuff is online:
>
> http://jfk.hood.edu/index.shtml?home.shtml
>
> The bad news is that the site can be difficult to navigate: the table
> of contents isn't very helpful, and the OCR is patchy, making some
> pages difficult to find via the search function. (Other sites using
> scanned documents, such as the Mary Ferrell site, have the same
> problem. That's why I prefer to retype documents into HTML for my own
> website, although it's a lot more work and probably not feasible for
> larger databases.)
>

Rex Bradford used a special high capacity scanner which would
automatically scan in hundreds of pages at a time.

[Dave Reitzes]

You can scan them with OCR software, but if you want the results to be
accurate, you have to carefully edit the results, which is what I've
done with a number of documents and reports (and in one case a
complete book) at my site. It's a pain in the tuchas, but I have some
proofreading and editing experience, so it's not a big deal for me. It
may not be feasible when you're dealing with the volume of documents
that the Weisberg Archive contains.

Not to mention that, in the case of Weisberg's own voluminous
correspondence, you're dealing with a guy who insisted upon doing
everything with a beat-up, old typewriter, with all kinds of
misaligned characters, typos, misspellings, cross-outs, and
handwritten corrections: truly an OCR nightmare! (The personal
computer was not for him. Around 1997 or '98, I sent him an index I'd
created for his book OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS -- I was a rabid conspiracy
theorist at the time and thought OINO was a REALLY IMPORTANT BOOK --
and a floppy disk with the file in various formats. When it came to
the computer stuff, he told me, it was all Greek to him, the
difference being that at least when it came to the Greek language,
there were a few words he could recognize here and there.)

I only had just a very few written and telephone exchanges with him,
and they weren't always pleasant (I think Walt Brown once said
something about how getting a tongue-lashing from Harold was all a
part of "earning one's wings" as a researcher), but, even as much as I
have come to disagree with him about so much, it's hard not to miss
that cantankerous, obstinate man who fought hard and sacrificed much
to wrench documents from the grasping hands of bureaucrats and share
his findings with anyone who asked.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

Ah, yes, very good suggestion.

Dave

[bar...@comcast.net]

On 16 Mar 2012 18:32:53 -0400, "black...@aol.com"

Excellent info ... thanks!

Barb :-)

[bar...@comcast.net]

I have pictures of both Harold and of my son sitting at that old
typewriter taken on one visit to Harold and Lil's. He just loved that
thing, misaligned characters and all, said he just couldn't write on
anything else.

Harold was quite a character and whether one agrees with his take on
things or not, he amassed an incredible collection at a time when
documents weren't that easy to get hold of. He had a little note size
tablet page, framed and hanging on the little wall between his living
room and dining room .... I cannot think of who the author was, a
senator I think, on some committe Harold used to chase for things.
Across the page was scrawled something like, It's Harold. He's back!"
I think I took a picture of that note when at his house once ... I
should dig it out and see if I can see who wrote that note...

Gotta love him. He really was a marshmallow underneath, you know!

Bests,
Barb :-)

[Dave Reitzes]

Well, I never got to see the letters in question, so I can't say how
libelous they may or may not have been, but you have to laugh when,
given the seemingly endless supply of invective Weisberg had for those
responsible for the government's case against Oswald and those who
promoted it, the one person who threatened to sue over Harold's prose
is a conspiracy theorist.

Free the files, indeed.

Dave

[John McAdams]

On 18 Mar 2012 18:06:08 -0400, Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Mar 16, 6:31=A0pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 8:21=A0pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:

>>
>> > On Mar 15, 1:12=A0pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As you probably know, Dave, there was a brouhaha over on the Ed Forum
>> after certain members posted excerpts from Weisberg's letters in which he

>> quite possibly libeled another member. This led to this member threatenin=

>g
>> a lawsuit, and the removal of certain materials from the online archive.
>> My concern is that some beanie at Hood College has now questioned the
>> merit of having an online archive, in which a cranky old man complains
>> about many people still with us, and has chosen to shutter the whole
>> thing.
>>
>> If so, UGGGHHHHH!
>
>
>Well, I never got to see the letters in question, so I can't say how
>libelous they may or may not have been, but you have to laugh when,
>given the seemingly endless supply of invective Weisberg had for those
>responsible for the government's case against Oswald and those who
>promoted it, the one person who threatened to sue over Harold's prose
>is a conspiracy theorist.
>
>Free the files, indeed.
>

The other irony, of course, is that after the files are "freed," the
buffs refuse to believe them if they debunk some pet buff obsession.

Secret, now released CIA files, for example, say that Ferrie and
Banister were never CIA agents or assets. But the buffs just flat
refuse to believe that.

.John


The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ace Kefford]

Dave,

Thanks for the very nice discussion of Harold Weisberg and your
interactions with him. It seems his writing definitely reflected the man!

As a student, I wrote him a few letters with questions, and I always got a
reply -- usually a sentence pointing me in the "right" direction.

He definitely did an admirable job in prying documents loose from the
bureaucrats.

There were definite problems with his writing and style of argument and
reasoning, but I always got the sense his heart was always in the right
place.

When they make the great movie (non-fiction or fiction) about the first
generation critics, he will be the star role!

Ace

[Anthony Marsh]

And when the released files proved that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA you
guys refused to believe that.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Mar 2012 08:58:48 -0400, Anthony Marsh

He never "worked for" the CIA.

He was debriefed by the Domestic Contact Service.

It's not honest to try to inflate the importance of something by using
vague and imprecise language.

[Anthony Marsh]

You prove my point. When the documents are released you refuse to
believe them. His 201 file lists him as a "witting collaborator."

> He was debriefed by the Domestic Contact Service.
>

He was an informant.

> It's not honest to try to inflate the importance of something by using
> vague and imprecise language.
>

It's not honest to deny what the CIA already admitted.
You don't even know the correct technical language.
You intentionally try to confuse people about the difference between a
CIA officer and a CIA agent.

[Bud]

On Mar 19, 10:36 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2012 08:58:48 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 3/18/2012 6:14 PM, John McAdams wrote:

It`s not Tony to use precise and honest wording.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Mar 2012 18:31:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/19/2012 10:36 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2012 08:58:48 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> The other irony, of course, is that after the files are "freed," the
>>>> buffs refuse to believe them if they debunk some pet buff obsession.
>>>>
>>>> Secret, now released CIA files, for example, say that Ferrie and
>>>> Banister were never CIA agents or assets. But the buffs just flat
>>>> refuse to believe that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And when the released files proved that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA you
>>> guys refused to believe that.
>>>
>>
>> He never "worked for" the CIA.
>>
>
>You prove my point. When the documents are released you refuse to
>believe them. His 201 file lists him as a "witting collaborator."
>

Which just means he knew he was talking to the CIA.

>> He was debriefed by the Domestic Contact Service.
>>
>
>He was an informant.
>

Like thousands of other ordainary businessmen and tourists, he talked
to the Demestic Contact Service.

>> It's not honest to try to inflate the importance of something by using
>> vague and imprecise language.
>>
>
>It's not honest to deny what the CIA already admitted.
>You don't even know the correct technical language.
>You intentionally try to confuse people about the difference between a
>CIA officer and a CIA agent.
>

But Shaw was neither.

Tell the truth about the issue. Not only was he never a CIA agent or
asset, all contact with him ended in the 50s.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/19/2012 10:22 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2012 18:31:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/19/2012 10:36 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 19 Mar 2012 08:58:48 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The other irony, of course, is that after the files are "freed," the
>>>>> buffs refuse to believe them if they debunk some pet buff obsession.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secret, now released CIA files, for example, say that Ferrie and
>>>>> Banister were never CIA agents or assets. But the buffs just flat
>>>>> refuse to believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And when the released files proved that Clay Shaw worked for the CIA you
>>>> guys refused to believe that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He never "worked for" the CIA.
>>>
>>
>> You prove my point. When the documents are released you refuse to
>> believe them. His 201 file lists him as a "witting collaborator."
>>
>
> Which just means he knew he was talking to the CIA.
>

More than just talking. This was not one brief interview. This was long
term contact. He was an asset and informant.

>
>>> He was debriefed by the Domestic Contact Service.
>>>
>>
>> He was an informant.
>>
>
> Like thousands of other ordainary businessmen and tourists, he talked
> to the Demestic Contact Service.

And are those other ordinary businessmen and tourists sent on missions
to gather information and report it to their handlers?

>
>
>>> It's not honest to try to inflate the importance of something by using
>>> vague and imprecise language.
>>>
>>
>> It's not honest to deny what the CIA already admitted.
>> You don't even know the correct technical language.
>> You intentionally try to confuse people about the difference between a
>> CIA officer and a CIA agent.
>>
>
> But Shaw was neither.
>

And those are not the only two categories.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Mar 16, 6:32 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:

The site is still having problems, but I'm finding all sorts of
interesting stuff with this combination of domain and keyword.

Dave