The Jim Garrison / Johnny Carson Interview
David Von Pein
http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html
The link above provides access to several interesting Jim Garrison
audio files, including his entire interview with Johnny Carson in the
late 1960s....which I had never heard or seen in its entirety
heretofore.
The Carson/Garrison interview is fascinating, and I was very impressed
by Johnny Carson's depth of knowledge concerning the JFK case. Much
more so than I was with Mr. Garrison's paper-thin pro-conspiracy
arguments. (But then, too, I guess I would be inclined to be more
impressed by Johnny, even if he hadn't known the names of the two Nov.
22 victims, seeing as how I think Mr. Garrison is [was] a total loon
when it comes to anything the man ever said re. the assassination of
John Kennedy.)
About the only thing Johnny seemed unsure of (regarding any REAL
evidence in the case) was the mentioning of Dr. Humes burning his
notes, a topic that Garrison brought up to make things seem more
"shady" of course. Garrison lied (as usual) when he said he didn't know
why Humes burned his notes....even though he should have known full
well why Humes burned them, because Humes told the WC why he did so,
with the reason being: the notes were blood-stained and Humes didn't
want notes with the President's blood all over them to become a part of
the permanent record in the case. So, Humes re-copied (verbatim) many
of his original notes.
More on the Carson/Garrison interview --- Garrison likes to make huge
conspiracy-flavored mountains of out of things that can just as easily
be explained in non-hinky ways. E.G.: The differing eyewitness accounts
of the color of the Depository sniper's clothing. Garrison wants
Carson's audience to believe that just because a certain witness
described a "blue shirt" (vs. another color garment), this therefore is
absolute PROOF that it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald in the window.
That type of argument is nonsense for several reasons, of course....not
the least of which is the fact that eyewitness accounts re. "clothing"
and "hair color" and "height", etc., are almost always (in any criminal
case) going to differ whenever you get several witnesses together to
compare these things. People, in general, just do not recall details
like this very well (esp. under conditions when they have no real NEED
to notice these mundane things at the time they are seeing them).
The same goes for "timelines", which are hardly EVER exactly the same
from one witness to the next. In the JFK case for example, the
witnesses told of the shooting taking anywhere from 5 seconds to 5
MINUTES to complete. (One witness actually thought the shots were a
total of FIVE MINUTES apart; James Altgens thought the shooting took up
to a full thirty seconds as well, illustrating how people don't measure
"time" very well when they are asked to do so.)
Back to Oswald's clothing -- There were, indeed, varying versions from
the witnesses as to what the ONE ASSASSIN IN THE SNIPER'S NEST was
wearing. Meaning: somebody's got to be wrong. Unless Mr. Garrison (and
other CTers) actually want to believe that there were MULTIPLE KILLERS
jammed and squeezed into that teeny-tiny sniper's nook at the very same
time on 11/22.
Some CTers do seem to feel that there were multiple killers on the 6th
Floor at the very same time. But as far as I can recall, not ONE
witness reported seeing more than ONE single man in the SN at any given
time. Nobody ever saw TWO men at the same time in the SN, which IMO is
rather important. Because it means that there was most likely just ONE
man up there, period.*
* = Unless CTers want to purport that the TWO killers were very, very
careful about their movements as they approached the SE corner window
and the SN, making sure that just ONE of them at a time would ever be
seen by any witnesses, instead of somebody catching a glimpse of BOTH
of these men at the same point in time in the Nest.
But the bottom line is that the whole case against Oswald can't be
simply tossed into Garrison's trash bin just because of a witness'
description of the assassin's shirt.
Plus, there's the possibility (however remote) that Oswald DID have on
a different shirt when he was shooting JFK, and then changed to the
brown shirt in flight (just after leaving the Nest), possibly putting
on the brown shirt hastily as he descended the four floors to the
lunchroom. Why was that simplistic clothes-changing activity not
possible in Mr. Garrison's mind?
Granted, I don't think any other shirt was found discarded in the TSBD
that day. But, the more I think of this shirt-changing scenario, the
more sense it makes from Oswald's POV. For, it probably WOULD have been
a smart move on Oswald's behalf to want to change his outward
appearance somewhat after having just shot the President. Right?
(Similar to what he did to change his appearance when he tossed aside
his windbreaker jacket after shooting Officer Tippit.)
Another very real possibility is that Oswald shot JFK in his white
T-shirt ONLY....and then (after the shooting) hurriedly threw on his
brown shirt over the top of the T-shirt (hence, Officer Baker sees
Oswald with an untucked brown shirt that Baker thinks is a "jacket").
That seems the most likely "clothing discrepancy" scenario to me....and
is a scenario which does not require Oswald to ditch a second shirt
someplace. He merely puts on one shirt over another to change his
appearance slightly from 12:30 to 12:32.
In the Johnny Carson interview, Carson asks a very prudent question of
Garrison that's as true today as it was during that interview --- "What
makes it {meaning Garrison's overall belief in a JFK conspiracy} a
fact? Just because YOU say so?"
As Johnny was uttering the above words, I was nodding my head firmly,
in thorough agreement with Johnny's skepticism toward Mr. Garrison's
unprovable theories.
Another witness that Garrison spends a good deal of time on in the
Carson interview is Julia Ann Mercer (who claimed to have seen Jack
Ruby driving a green pick-up truck in Dealey Plaza about an hour before
the assassination).
It's quite interesting to take note of Mercer's apparent verbiage that
she used (as relayed by Garrison). Per those words of Mercer (as read
by Garrison), it would seem as if Mercer was actually claiming she
could RECOGNIZE Jack Ruby via facial features (et al) as Ruby was
killing Oswald.
That IDing of Ruby DURING the shooting of Lee Oswald is, of course, a
virtual impossibility, since Ruby was on camera for a mere fleeting
instant (with his back to the live TV cameras as well), and then Ruby
was wrestled to the ground by police and was then out of sight of the
cameras.
But does Garrison point out that apparent impossibility/discrepancy re.
Mercer's statement? Of course not. Because he wants America to believe
Mercer's entire account -- including the preposterous part that has a
batch of brain-dead assassins actually being stupid enough to take a
rifle from the back of a pick-up truck (being driven by Jack Ruby no
less -- how convenient there too -- that guy was EVERYWHERE it seems on
Nov. 22) in front of a gob of potential witnesses who were stalled in a
traffic jam near the Triple Underpass.
Brilliant "professional" assassination plan there, huh? Why not just
paste a sign on the truck too, which says in bold letters for all to
see -- "Ruby & Co. -- Assassins For Hire, Inc. -- We're Here To Unload
The JFK Murder Weapon And We Don't Give A Damn How Many Dallas
Motorists See Us With This Rifle!"
~LOL!~
More re. Johnny Carson......
The Garrison interview brought out a low-key and totally-serious side
of Mr. Carson that I don't recall ever seeing (or hearing) before. He
was restrained and completely serious and thoughtful throughout his
lengthy piece with Garrison. Usually there's a lot of comedy and
quipping going on in a Carson interview (even when the subject matter
is dead serious). But not in this footage with Garrison. Great archival
stuff, IMO. I'd recommend people give it a listen when they can. The
"Real Player" download is very fast, too.
Allow me to close this rambling message with this comment (which I
think applies aptly here, since I'm discussing a kook named Garrison
who disbelieved virtually all of the actual, documented evidence in the
Kennedy and Tippit murder cases)......
The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
that supports just one shooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald is too
overpowering to merely be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can. And
doubting (or denying) the veracity of ALL of this physical evidence,
sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is merely the cowardly act
of hardened conspiracy buffs who simply cannot face the raw fact that
the physical evidence in this case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the
Pope is Catholic.
David Von Pein
PF
David Von Pein wrote:
> Some stuff about Jim Garrison:
<snipped plenty of stuff about Garrison, old news ... few believe Ole
Garr credible anyway)
> The physical evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination
> that supports just one shooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald is too
> overpowering to merely be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can.
Lets grant you your conclusion. Now, what about a conspiracy?
> And
> doubting (or denying) the veracity of ALL of this physical evidence,
> sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is merely the cowardly act
> of hardened conspiracy buffs who simply cannot face the raw fact that
> the physical evidence in this case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the
> Pope is Catholic.
>
Mostly rhetoric to little effect.
No one doubts the "physical evidence".
They interpret it differently. Even the LNs.
LNs also believe some evidence destroyed.
Lol ... "hardened conspiracy buffs" !!!!!!
What word is usually associated with "hardened"????
How clever.
No is arguing the Pope is not Catholic, my friend.
> David Von Pein
PF
David Von Pein
More reasons why Jim Garrison was a true-blue kook.......
Robert Harris
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> Some stuff about Jim Garrison:
>
> http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html
>
> The link above provides access to several interesting Jim Garrison
> audio files, including his entire interview with Johnny Carson in the
> late 1960s....which I had never heard or seen in its entirety
> heretofore.
I saw that program David.
Back in those days, I really wasn't all that involved in the case. But
Carson was extremely rude, going so far as to try to physically prevent
Garrison from showing photos.
In fact, there were so many complaints from irate viewers, that NBC had
to mail out thousands of letters of apology.
>
> The Carson/Garrison interview is fascinating, and I was very impressed
> by Johnny Carson's depth of knowledge concerning the JFK case. Much
> more so than I was with Mr. Garrison's paper-thin pro-conspiracy
> arguments. (But then, too, I guess I would be inclined to be more
> impressed by Johnny, even if he hadn't known the names of the two Nov.
> 22 victims,
ROFLMAO!!
I'm beginning to understand what it takes to impress you, David. Was
Forest Gump a LNTer?
> seeing as how I think Mr. Garrison is [was] a total loon
> when it comes to anything the man ever said re. the assassination of
> John Kennedy.)
Garrison made mistakes but he was right about more things than he was
wrong, David.
If you look closely, you will find that almost all the horror stories
about Garrison came from people who were hired to infiltrate his
investigation, and from people whom he had convicted.
This was a guy who had a flawless record throughout his entire personal
and political life. It was only after he got involved in the JFK case,
that he suddenly became a lunatic, a racketeer, and a child molester.
>
> About the only thing Johnny seemed unsure of (regarding any REAL
> evidence in the case) was the mentioning of Dr. Humes burning his
> notes, a topic that Garrison brought up to make things seem more
> "shady" of course. Garrison lied (as usual) when he said he didn't know
> why Humes burned his notes....even though he should have known full
> well why Humes burned them, because Humes told the WC why he did so,
> with the reason being: the notes were blood-stained and Humes didn't
> want notes with the President's blood all over them to become a part of
> the permanent record in the case. So, Humes re-copied (verbatim) many
> of his original notes.
That's very poor reasoning, David.
Right or wrong, there is no reason on Earth to believe that Garrison
didn't believe Humes was told to make up that story, and that Garrison
didn't firmly believe everything else he stated.
OTOH, I would completely accept your accusations if you can show us that
Garrison used one tenth as much spin and distortion as you do, every
time you post something in the JFK newsgroups:-)
Robert Harris
--
There is no question an honest man will evade.
Gerry Simone (O)
than one person on the 6th floor at different windows.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161590651.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
jwrush
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1161590651.1...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I haven't heard the Garrison interview in many years. But I think it was
during that interview when Garrison accused Carson of being in on the
"coverup". When Carson asked why, Garrison said that Carson worked for
NBC, NBC was owned by RCA, and RCA had made radios for the US government
during WW II. Which, of course, sounded like a crackpot suggestion that
Johnny Carson somehow worked for the US government because RCA had made
radios for the government during WW II.
Back in the 1980s I found a source for Soviet propaganda books in the US,
and I ordered a few of them, including a copy of Petrusenko's and Losev's
book about the JFK assassination:
http://i13.tinypic.com/48yaizc.jpg
In that book Petrusenko and Losev said that they were TASS reporters in
New York at the time of the assassination. They sent dispatches to Moscow
about the assassination as soon as they heard about it, and they also
wrote some of the first conspiracy articles, which were published in the
Soviet press, starting on the day of the assassination.
They also said that Losev secretly met with Jim Garrison during the Clay
Shaw trial in New Orleans.
I ordered a couple of other books by Petrusenko, and in one book I found
an essay about how evil RCA was and about how it had made radios for the
US government. Well, what American would think it was wrong for an
American company like GE, or RCA, or Westinghouse, making radios for our
military?
Garrison, just like Petrusenko, tried to make it seem as if there was
something wrong with RCA making radios for the US government. It looked to
me like Garrison was publishing Petrusenko's Soviet anti-RCA propaganda.
Here are quotes from one of Petrusenko's books titled "The Monopoly Press"
from 1976, and one of Garrison's books "On the Trail of the Assassins",
1988. It's the same propaganda.
David Von Pein
you post something in the JFK newsgroups." <<<
This is a real howl!
~~Industrial-Sized LOL Icon Goes Here~~
Garrison has the massive gonads to go on National TV on the Carson show
and tell America that "Oswald never even fired a shot" (including the
Tippit murder)....and **I** am the one who is putting a "spin" on things??
That's 'rolling-in-the-aisles' hilarious, Bob.
Also -- Johnny Carson wasn't the slightest bit "rude" during that
interview. Not a bit. Johnny was merely calling a spade a spade...and
calling a kook named Garrison a kook.
Garrison had no hard evidence of a Shaw-authored conspiracy whatsoever,
and Carson was merely reminding Jimbo that his opinion did not constitute
"fact". Johnny didn't actually use the word "kook", but I would have loved
the interview even more if he had.
The best Carson question of Garrison (which is still true now) -- "What
makes these things FACTS? Just because YOU say so?"
Major kudos to Mr. Carson for not taking Garrison's never-ending
conspiracy crap lying down.
Dave Reitzes
David Von Pein wrote:
> Some stuff about Jim Garrison:
>
> http://www.prouty.org/garrison.html
>
> The link above provides access to several interesting Jim Garrison
> audio files, including his entire interview with Johnny Carson in the
> late 1960s....which I had never heard or seen in its entirety
> heretofore.
If anyone would prefer MP3 files over streaming audio, many of these
same interviews are available at my site:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfkaudio.html
Dave
Robert Harris
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I would completely accept your accusations if you can show us that
> Garrison used one-tenth as much spin and distortion as you do, every time
> you post something in the JFK newsgroups." <<<
>
> This is a real howl!
>
> ~~Industrial-Sized LOL Icon Goes Here~~
>
> Garrison has the massive gonads to go on National TV on the Carson show
> and tell America that "Oswald never even fired a shot" (including the
> Tippit murder)....and **I** am the one who is putting a "spin" on things??
He may not, David.
At most, he could only have fired one shot in DP.
And although I agree, that he shot Tippit, there is a very strong case
to be made, that he did not - based on witnesses who said the shooter
was not him.
>
> That's 'rolling-in-the-aisles' hilarious, Bob.
That's because you refuse to consider the facts and evidence, David.
There is something about this case, that seems to shut down all thought
process among Americans on both sides of the issue. It is an amazing
phenomena that as far as I can tell, is quite unique, and seems to
afflict both the well educated and the dummies, equally.
>
> Also -- Johnny Carson wasn't the slightest bit "rude" during that
> interview.
That's not what the viewers or the network thought, David.
But somehow, I suspect that if Carson had pulled out a gun and shot
Garrison, you would have thought that was not the slightest bit "rude"
either :-)
> Not a bit. Johnny was merely calling a spade a spade...and
> calling a kook named Garrison a kook.
People like Garrison and Posner are resources, David. We cherry pick
their work for useful information. At least, that's what we do if we are
honestly looking for the truth.
Learning to become objective is not easy David. But when I did it, it
was like the blinders were lifted, and the sun came out after a lot of
years of darkness.
Robert Harris
>
> Garrison had no hard evidence of a Shaw-authored conspiracy whatsoever,
> and Carson was merely reminding Jimbo that his opinion did not constitute
> "fact". Johnny didn't actually use the word "kook", but I would have loved
> the interview even more if he had.
>
> The best Carson question of Garrison (which is still true now) -- "What
> makes these things FACTS? Just because YOU say so?"
>
> Major kudos to Mr. Carson for not taking Garrison's never-ending
> conspiracy crap lying down.
--