>From: AnthonyMarsh <ama
...@quik.com>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>> >Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> >> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>> >> >John McAdams wrote:
>> >> >> AnthonyMarsh wrote:
>> >> >> > And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more?
>> >> >> If pointing out that a particular source is a Communist source, with
>a
>> >> >> dubious record for getting the facts straight, and one that has
>> >> >> supported communist repression is "red baiting" then I'm guilty.
>> >> >That is why I asked. If your only purpose was red baiting, then it has
>> >> >little to do with the facts and such a tactic seem outmoded after we
>won
>> >> >the Cold War. If you have some facts to support your contention that
>> >> >this particular newspaper, more than any other tabloid, has a
>consistent
>> >> >record of getting the facts wrong, then please enlighten us with the
>> >> >details. Otherwise it just sounds as if you want to dispute a claim by
>> >> >poisoning the well, by making false claims against the source. Have you
>> >> >even bothered to read the referenced article. Do you have any first
>hand
>> >> >knowledge about the tabloid or are you just basing your opinion on
>> >> >CIA-generated propaganda against such publications. Would you be more
>> >> >willing to believe the CIA-sponsored publications?
>> >> >> Why are you unhappy about this?
>> >> >> > At least you
>> >> >> > confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were
>claiming
>> >was
>> >> >> > non-existent.
>> >> >> Who has ever claimed that?
>> >> >I think if you read back through DejaNews you will see messages from
>> >> >people even doubting that such a newspaper existed.
>> >> >See A. below.
>> >> >> DiEugenio and Flammond claim the "Permindex" charges are from Paesa
>Sera
>> >> >> [sic]. No such paper exists, but they clearly have just mangled the
>name
>> >> >> of a real paper.
>> >> >A. And you just said that the source never existed.
>> >> >> What does that say about their reliability?
>> >> >Exactly. And if you ever make a typo or get the name of something
>wrong,
>> >> >you are forever listed as an unreliable source. Want to do a search
>from
>> >> >DejaNews of ALL your messages?
>> >> >> > Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
>> >> >> > not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about
>this
>> >> >> > tabloid if it never published the article?
>> >> >> Of course it published the article. That's long been known. See:
>> >> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lobster.htm
>> >> >OIC. The name of the publication was actually "Il Paesa Sera" and
>people
>> >> >had been calling it only "Paesa Sera" so you could claim that no such
>> >> >publication existed. Talk about semantics and splitting hairs! So,
>> >> >people talk about New York Times and frequently it is abbreviated as
>> >> >NYT, so you can claim that those people are unreliable and that no such
>> >> >publication called New York Times ever existed, because its proper
>title
>> >> >is The New York Times. Or you've never heard of Boston Globe, because
>> >> >its proper title is The Boston Globe. "Il" in Italian simply means
>> >> >"The." The same way the proper title of Boston Globe is "The Boston
>> >> >Globe." BFD.
>> >> >> > And if it was this tabloid
>> >> >> > which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why
>wouldn't
>> >> >you
>> >> >> > expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper?
>> >> >> That's the point. I *would* expect an article like that to come from
>> >> >> this type of newspaper.
>> >> >> > Would you have
>> >> >> > expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized
>> >> >newspapers
>> >> >> > or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>> >> >> OIC. You are going to believe a Communist tabloid over papers like
>(for
>> >> >> example) Corriere Della Sera?
>> >> >I never said that I believed the source or the claim. I have read only
>a
>> >> >few Italian publications. I have never heard of Corriere Della Sera. No
>> >> >doubt it is a fine publication, but not my cup of tea. Is that one of
>> >> >the CIA-sponsored publications? "Lobster" is your source? Then why
>can't
>> >> >I equally claim that Lobster is a CIA-sponsored publication. And
>> >> >naturally you would be more inclined to believe a CIA source? And whose
>> >> >word do we take for whether Il Paese Sera is a Communist party
>> >> >newspaper?
>> >> >> Why do you prefer Communist sources to non-Communist ones?
>> >> >I don't read Communist sources, so I wouldn't know. But in general I
>> >> >would rather read non-CIA sources than CIA sources. Sometimes I have to
>> >> >read CIA sources just to keep up with their latest propaganda.
>> >> >> .John
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> >> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>> >> >--
>> >> >Anthony Marsh
>> >> >The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>> >> Anthony,
>> >> I fail to see why you would assume a newspaper owned and operated by the
>> >> Communist Party of Italy to be in any way more or less reliable than an
>> >> independently owned and operated newspaper or the "CIA-sponsored
>> >publication"
>> >> of your choice. But that's not the central issue here.
>> >What proof is there that the newspaper is a Communist newspaper? Just
>> >propagands from the Lobster article? Is there any documentation offered
>> >in that, just as we demand documentation of the Permindex allegation? Do
>> >we just accept that characterization because it came from that
>> >intelligence journal?
>> A reliable source (<g>) informs me that the "'History of the Italian
>Press'"
>> (compiled by several authors and published between the 70 's and the 80's
>in
>> six volumes by Laterza, Bari)" notes that *Paese Sera* was "born on
>December 6,
>> 1949 on the Italian Communist Party's initiative."
>Interesting hearsay. Is that a direct quote from the Lobster article?
No. Why do you ask?
So,
>are you admitting that Lobster author only got his claim from your
>"History of the Italian Press" without bothering to attribute it or check
>it out himself?
No. Why do you ask?
>Sounds rather like what you are accusing others of doing.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you conflate these two sources.
>> Even if it were the worst propaganda arm of the
>> >worst Communist party in the world, if a fact is a fact, then just
>> >putting the fact in that newspaper does not change it to a lie. It just
>> >makes us suspicious and want to check it out for ourselves. Has anyone?
>> The allegation in question is that CMC/Permindex was a CIA front. No
>evidence
>> for this was advanced by *Paese Sera,* and CIA records, as we have them,
>> indicate that, if anything, the CIA and State Dept. were keeping an eye on
>CMC
>> and Permindex -- probably because of founder Ferenc Nagy's past -- not
>> sponsoring it.
>> >> Why do you complain when someone questions the accuracy of *Paese
>Sera's*
>> >> information, but display no sign of distress when well known authors
>> >> uncritically cite an unsubstantiated allegation of *Paese Sera's*? Why
>do
>> >you
>> >> demand to know if John McAdams has read the articles in question, but
>show
>> >no
>> >> curiosity as to whether Jim Garrison, Paris Flammonde, Jim DiEugenio or
>> >Bill
>> >> Davy have read them? If Garrison, Flammonde, et al., cite the
>newspaper's
>> >> unsubstantiated allegations, isn't the burden of proof on them?
>> >I am just asking that when someone debunks something that some type of
>> >proof be offered.
>> Isn't the burden of proof on the accusers? Aren't the accusers in this case
>> *Paese Sera* and those who uncritically cite that paper?
>No, the burden of proof about the debunking is on the people who make
>the allegation, just as the burden of proof about the original claim is
>on the people who make the original claim.
This appears to be an example of reactionary thinking. First of all, you
are mistaken in your characterization of the Lobster article, or John's
posting of it, as an attempt to "debunk" the Paese Sera material. Paese
Sera published claims without any substantiation; there is nothing to be
"debunked." It seems to me that Steve Dorril went above and beyond the
call of duty by writing an article attempting to explain the publication
of this unsubstantiated information.
Dorril's argument is, of course, only a theory, and it would be perfectly
reasonable for you to argue against it if you choose. But to imply that
Dorril's explanation of the motives behind the Paese Sera allegations has
anything to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of those articles, or with
any so-called attempts at "debunking" the articles, has no basis in logic.
>> There are thousands of baseless allegations in
>> >hundreds of books. I do not complain about all of them. I have often
>> >written that I am concerned about the way Garrison just accepted
>> >whatever ridiculous notions people fed him. I have cited some of the
>> >weaknesses of some of the other authors.
>> Yet you go ballistic when John McAdams points out that *Paese Sera* was not
>a
>> reputable newspaper, which it wasn't. (I know of two people who have tried
>to
>> track old issues of the paper down in Italy, and apparently there are damn
>few
>> libraries that see any value in stocking them.)
>"Ballistic"? Jeez, you haven't see me go ballistic. All I have been doing
>is asking the debunkers to provide some evidence. And especially pointing
>out that it seems silly to claim that something does not exist when there
>may be evidence that it does.
John McAdams has never claimed that. I have never claimed that. Either
take it up with someone who did, or get over it.
>> >I think it is particularly silly to claim that something does not exist
>> >when we have proof that it does.
>> I've never claimed that *Paese Sera* or their articles on CMC/Permindex
>don't
>> exist, but neither have I ever met or heard from a single person who has
>seen
>> any of these articles. Therefore, I'm not certain what proof you're
>referring
>> to.
>Doesn't the fact that you cite this book about the Italian press and
>supposedly it cites Il Paese Sera as a Communist newspaper confirm the
>existence of the newspaper Il Paese Sera? If so, then why should anyone
>claim that Paese Sera never existed?
This is looking less and less like a simple misunderstanding, and more and
more like a straw man argument.
>> Such as the WC defender claim that
>> >there was no real entry for Clay Shaw in Who's Who,
>> I don't know that one has to be a Warren Commission defender to question
>the
>> validity of the oft-cited entry, particularly as the Warren Commission
>never
>> even heard of Clay Shaw. Conversely, I don't know many Warren Commission
>> defenders -- or anyone -- who question the entry.
>WC defenders are one camp in the debate. Of course there have been later
>controversies, but they are still known as Warren Commission defenders. If
>you have not seen the WC defenders denying the existence of the Who's Who
>entry or the validity of the Permindex entry, try going back through the
>old messages using DejaNews. You know who the prime suspects are.
Did these suspects write the Lobster article? Did these suspects post the
Lobster article on-line? If not, why do you bring it up?
>> or that Permindex
>> >was not mentioned, or that someone else forged the Permindex entry
>> >and/or the Clay Shaw entry.
>> Same thing -- I know one person who's raised such issues. Why don't you
>take it
>> up with him, instead of demaning that all the "debunkers" get their stories
>> straight? If you don't want people inferring any paranoia in such
>statements of
>> yours, you really should think twice about making such statements.
>I could give a damn what you infer. I will not shut up and let people
>post their propaganda and red baiting unopposed.
No, you apparently prefer to post ill-conceived, incoherent arguments and
"let people post their propaganda and red baiting unopposed."
Same difference.
>> Likewise if someone wants to claim that the
>> >article in Il Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed
>> >up with some type of evidence.
>> Again, Anthony, I know exactly one person who's ever suggested this, and
>his
>> request that somebody produce a copies of these articles does not strike me
>as
>> being unreasonable, given the importance certain researchers place upon
>them.
>I have no problem with his request that someone produce the original
>article. I would like to see it too. I would not believe anything just
>because it is in that article. But I would like to see the way it is
>phrased.
>> Or if someone claimed that the newspaper
>> >Ul Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed up with
>> >some type of evidence.
>> Anthony, what on Earth is with all these straw men? No one claimed the
>> newspaper didn't exist. You misread a post of John's.
>No, I noticed a flaw in John's argument.
>> If someone wants to claim that the allegation in
>> >the article that Permindex was a CIA front is inaccurate, that's fine
>> >with me. They don't have to back up their opinion with any evidence
>> >whatsoever. They are entitled to their opinion.
>> But you don't think that people who insist that CMC/Permidex WAS a CIA
>front
>> should produce some evidence? You think a citation to an unsubstantiated
>series
>> of articles in a disreputable newspaper is good enough?
>I can not accept the idea that a fact is impossible simply because it came
>from what you call a disreputable newspaper. What proof have you offered
>that the newspaper is disreputable?
A quote from a book on the history of the press in Italy, which declared
that Paese Sera frequently fabricated material.
A quote from Andrew Tully, noting that Paese Sera was known to print false
stories about the CIA.
A quote from a Lobster article, citing an example of a false story about
the CIA printed by Paese Sera.
Wild speculation posted by Paese Sera as though it were fact, for example,
that Clay Shaw arranged JFK's Dallas trip, that the International Trade
Mart of New Orleans was affiliated with the Trade Mart in Dallas, and that
CMC/Permindex was expelled from at least one European country, among other
conspicuous errors.
Again, red baiting is no substitute
>for evidence. I never said anything about accepting the allegation as
>true.
However, you don't seem to have actually red, er, *read* the posts in
question, which contained evidence that you have not acknowledged.
Dave
