Lisa Pease wrote: >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
>Given that you have now lied twice about 1), why should we believe you on >this point? [That you are not a CIA agent]
I didn't lie about "1)", and I do not lie when I say I have no connection with nor desire to "protect" CIA.
>Nagell claimed to have a tape with Arcacha discussing with a fellow >conspirator the setting up of Oswald.
"Claimed to have a tape." I'll stand by my analysis until I hear the tape.
>Arcacha was one of the two people >with Rose Cheramie before she was thrown from the car and ended in a >hospital predicting in advance that Kennedy was going to be killed.
A now-dead bartender told Francis Fruge that he thought a picture of Arcacha looked like one of the people with Cheramie. Not very strong evidence against Arcacha, who by other accounts was long separated from anti-Castro activities and selling air conditioners in Houston.
>And >Arcacha had sewer maps of Dallas.
Source?
>You are simply trying to maintain your cover. But it's rather gossamer, >for any who know the game.
I have no cover. I am what I say I am. What qualifies you to be the ultimate detector of disinfo agents?
>No -[David Blackburst's study of the New Orleans aspects of the case] is
completely one-sided without acknowledgement of how past and
>new releases of documents support what Garrison was alleging in many areas.
I am only addressing certain specific areas where I believe the prevailing wisdom is contradicted by existing evidence. None of the new releases contradict any of the points I have made.
>Those who pretend to be fence sitters merely pose there so as not to make >their agenda to obvious.
I am not pretending. I am objective.
>There WAS a conspiracy. >There WERE multiple shooters. >There WAS a deliberate and thereby malicious coverup. >Anyone who researchers this case even for a short time with any honest >and sincerity rapidly concedes these three points.
Not true. There are many who do not find the evidence related to these areas compelling enough to embrace them with certainty.
>Those who do not pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded, unbiased. But >that's just blarney to the uninitiated.
How does one pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded and unbiased? I don't know about intellectual, but I AM fair-minded and unbiased.
>It's also standard procedure for >infiltration in this case.
Source?
>Many like you, who claimed to be unbiased and >fair minded have later proven to have connections with intelligence >agencies. These include Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Priscilla Johnson >McMillan, William F. Buckley, and many others.
I don't recall Aynesworth, Phelan, Johnson or Buckley ever claiming to be unbiased and fair-minded. They have never made any secret of their beliefs.
>You claim to respect my work so that you put me in the 'bad guy' seat >opposing you.
I DO respect your ability to ferret out facts, organize and present them in support of your theories. I do not respect your inclination to assault the motives of others.
>But I have no patience for those who deny evidence that >points to the conspirators while pretending to be simply open-minded.
I don't deny such evidence. I consider it in context.
>People who are informed about the >case have strong opinions.
Many do. Some, however, do care about an objective search for truth.
>Whether they share them [their opinions] or hide them differs >from person to person. But no one who has done this in the detail and to >the length that you claim to can be uncertain at this point. It defies >crediblity.
I may choose my words carefully, but I do not hide my opinions. There are few absloutely clear facts in this case. Over time, I have become only MORE objective.
Lisa Pease and I have been through this before, and it is pointless for me to address this to her, so I will address this to the group.
I am committed to finding the truth, no matter where the chips may fall. Sometimes, this includes correcting frequently-repeated information which is contradicted by the available evidence, including information offered by Garrison, Pease, DiEugenio and Probe. Sometimes this includes observations that their analysis of evidence may not be completely accurate or objective. But Lisa Pease is unable to accept informed criticism. She does not present facts - she just calls people names.
I have posted a few tidbits of information other posters find valuable, whether they agree with it or not. For this, Lisa Pease simply denounces me as "Spook #2" and often claims to have access to information which proves her to know the true facts of the case, very McCarthy-like. She seems to have given up trying to portray me as someone lacking in intellectual ability, or not in posession or command of the facts.
Lisa Pease and I have one thing in common: We both want to find the truth in this case. We have one major difference: She hurls false and unproven accusations against innocent people, both "suspects" in the case, and those in this newsgroup. I don't.
There is right and wrong here. I leave it to others to judge which is which. I call upon others in this group on all sides of the issue to support objective and respectful discussion and debate about this case, and to EXPRESS their disapproval of this anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-objective practice of name calling.
If others are offended by my attempts to offer some valuable information to the debate, I apologize. I was only trying to do what I thought was right. Thank you all for listening.
Not really, but I have things on several websites: JFK Place, The Assassination Web, Fair Play, JFK Lancer, Attention to Details.
Martin
James Crary wrote: > Mr. Shackleford : Do you have a website that provides general background > and orientation to the issues which interest you in this case?
> James MacRyland Crary
-- Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." -Obi-Wan Kenobi
I was explaining why finding the specific sources you requested was going to be difficult, not saying you asked for every source in the series. The series was posted at the request of the websites--I agreed, but at that time didn't have time to go back and source it all. As for 335 and 337, it doesn't appear that you can see the temple or forehead, as it's obscured by exploded matter from the wound.
What I've found regarding the sources is: Shaw and Army Counterintelligence: William Davy, Through the Looking Glass, p. 2 Shaw's trip paid for by CIA: "Clay Shaw's DCS Career: An Analysis of a Recent File Release," by Bill Davy, Probe, v. 3 #4 Shaw-Banister working relationship: Andrew Sciambra memo published in Probe, v. 3 #3, p. 16. Shaw and QK/ENCHANT: Davy, Through the Looking Glass, pp. 54 (note 17), 36 CIA document in Probe, v. 3 #2, p. 21. The ZR/CLIFF reference isn't one of the 235 I've sourced so far.
Martin
-- Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." -Obi-Wan Kenobi
When I haven't yet re-located the source for something, it doesn't matter that it's only one point--it's no easier to find on the spur of the moment. The Bringuier bit is one such--I thought it had come from Deadly Secrets by Hinckle and Turner (and it may have--I may just have missed it), but didn't find it the night I searched for it. I have a list of "toughies" that I need to go back and find.
> Have you considered possibly sourcing by request. By this I mean, let people > ask you about what particular claims they find important or revealing and then > sourcing just those. The one that comes to my mind is the claim that > Bringuier staged fake protest fights in Argentina. I'd like to get > documentation on that. But, at least from my perspective, and it's no offense > to you in any way, most of what you say doesn't sway or change my opinions > either way, or for that matter, greatly strengthen what I already know or don't > know. Some do, and since I don't doubt your integrity, I wouldn't mind knowing > if the source for you is, in fact, of great credibility.
> -Stu
> >Dave:
> > Have you ever tried to source a seven-part series AFTER the fact? > >I worked on it for a while, but got bogged down. I may resume when I > >have the opportunity. I'm not hiding anything, but I used hundreds of > >sources.
> >Martin
> >-- > >Martin Shackelford
> >"You're going to find that many of the truths we > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> ></PRE></HTML>
-- Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." -Obi-Wan Kenobi
Martin, Garrison's case has had 30 years of brilliant pro bono assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had. It was an abuse of power, and a violation of the public trust. He could have waited. Evidence eventually surfaced to convict Medgar Evers' killers. Had Garrison been in charge, that evidence would have probably had to be destroyed in order to protect HIM.
Lisa Pease wrote: > Dreitzes (dreit...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. > : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly > : above suspicion. But then, who is?
> There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to > look like a "buff". :D
> -- > Lisa Pease
> "Human history becomes more and more a > race between education and catastrophe."
More bullshit, Lisa. The article in question was an unfootnoted article for a popular publication, not a journal article. I've already given the cites in another post. You're slander attempts continue to be lame and uninformed. My journal articles are fully footnoted.
Lisa Pease wrote: > Martin Shackelford (msh...@concentric.net) wrote: > : I value many of Dave Blackbursts posts to this group. Color you too quick to judge.
> : Martin
> Color yourself "I can't name my sources because it wasn't my original > research."
> -- > Lisa Pease
> "Human history becomes more and more a > race between education and catastrophe."
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly : above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to look like a "buff". :D
-- Lisa Pease
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
Blackburst (blackbu...@aol.com) wrote: : Lisa Pease wrote:
: >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you : >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous : posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy. That can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions. But anything that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a misrepresentation through omission.
You claim to be objective, but you might as well claim to be handsome. Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence, who see what you omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
Objectivity cannot be claimed, only exhibited. Had you exhibited any, you would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and hypocrisy. You exhibit the latter while denying the former. A fact is a fact, whether admitted to or not. A lie is also a lie, whether admitted or not.
-- Lisa Pease
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
: Martin, Garrison's case has had 30 years of brilliant pro bono : assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his : direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar : circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that : Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had.
Three distinguished judges in New Orleans disagreed. That's why Garrison held a pre-trial hearing. Normally a defendant has to request that. But Garrison offered it to Shaw in good faith precisely to avoid any appearance of a witch hunt. The three judges agreed that he had a case worth having a trial over. That you cannot admit that does not obscure the original facts of the case.
-- Lisa Pease
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."
>: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. >: If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly >: above suspicion. But then, who is?
>There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to >look like a "buff". :D
>-- > Lisa Pease
> "Human history becomes more and more a > race between education and catastrophe."
Ms. Pease, I am going to re-read Heritage of Stone, and agree that if a Three panel jury of judges agreed to hear the case, there must have been SOMETHING, somewhere, to it. However, Dave Reitzes has repeatedly challenged anyone who wants to to make a line by line refutation of the evidence he presents in Shaw's favor. To the best of my knowledge no one has, and I am not prepared, nor presently inclined to.
Lisa Pease angrily wrote: >You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
No I don't. I only respond to items of information that are not supported by the evidence or are erroneous.
>That >can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions.
I'm not pushing anyone anywhere. Perhaps a few of my posts might help people think about erronoeous assertions.
>But anything >that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you >deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a >misrepresentation through omission.
I'm not with you at all on this. The scanty evidence on Arcacha does not convince me that he played a role in the assassination. Do you often refer to the evidence that Arcacha was long removed from anti-Castro activities and selling air conditioners in Houston in late 1963?
>Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will >be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence
I consider myself objective, and so do others. Objectivity requires one to challenge their own conclusions. Do you? Do you know the full scope of the evidence?
>who see what you >omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
You haven't specifically disproven anything I have posted. If you do, I will concede any errors.
>Had you exhibited any [objectivity], you >would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
I don't get your point. If I were more objective, that would please you?
>There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and >hypocrisy.
We agree.
>You exhibit [lies] while denying [hypocrisy].
Can you cite an instance where I lied? As for hypocrisy, yes, I would have to deny it. My posts are almost all soft-spoken and understated. I rarely come to conclusions in them. How can that be hypocritical?
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly : above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to look like a "buff". :D
My case officer asked me to find out if you have any actual evidence or just more paranoid bullshit. I say he's putting way too much faith in you, but hey -- a job's a job.
So? Where's all that evidence?
- Dave Reitzes gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
Now, now, Martin. No less an authority than Bill Cleere insists that Lisa 'knows what she's talking about.' Let's give her a chance; she's probably just getting warmed up. (Bill has sure been awfully quiet since she showed up, though, hasn't he?)
Lisa Pease wrote: > Dreitzes (dreit...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. > : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly > : above suspicion. But then, who is?
> There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to > look like a "buff". :D
> -- > Lisa Pease
> "Human history becomes more and more a > race between education and catastrophe."
Lisa, where exactly is the "heart" of the conspiracy? Your "research" fingers everyone from the Rockefellers to the oil barons to the stock exchange to the CIA to the major media to every prominent politician of the past four decades. Can you draw us all a diagram so we all know where it is "conspiratorially correct" to cast stones? Meanwhile, how does David Blackburst's insistence upon telling the truth -- regardless of where it leads -- make him some kind of spook? That sounds like rather un- "spooky" behavior to me. Is your infantile name-calling supposed to be the honest path to enlightenment?
Unlike you and your "Paranoid's Digest," PROBE, which blames everyone under the sun for every imaginable assassination committed over the past half-century.
Let's see your evidence, Lisa: Show us that Arcacha was at "the heart of the matter." What's the evidence? Rose Cheramie, perhaps? Do we just take Big Jim Garrison's word? Oops -- silly question. We ALWAYS take Big Jim Garrison's word. How about that Edgar Eugene Bradley, Lisa? Why did Big Jim apologize to him? Was the Jolly Green Giant just playin' possum with him?
We're waiting, Lisa. Where's that evidence? Why all the talk and no action? You're not stalling, are you? Not when fans such as Bill Cleere have been speaking so highly of you.
Sure, Lisa, your posts here at a.c.jfk are nothing if not the soul of objectivity and scholarship. And just look at all the evidence you've presented to support your views! Why it must be at least . . . well, none, actually. But that's going to change, right? Any minute now, right? You're NOT all talk and no action, right? It's just an illusion you've been cultivating to lure all us "spooks" into complacency, right?
Yeah, and denial is ugly whether in a CT or an LN. Now, where are all those FACTS you keep alluding to? Why are they such a secret? Did Big Jim take them all with him to that big den of paranoia in the sky?
He must have -- they're not in his books, his office files or his trial transcript.
Jim G and Lisa P -- All talk and no action.
- Dave Reitzes gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
: Martin, Garrison's case has had 30 years of brilliant pro bono : assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his : direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar : circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that : Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had.
Three distinguished judges in New Orleans disagreed. That's why Garrison
held a pre-trial hearing. Normally a defendant has to request that. But Garrison offered it to Shaw in good faith precisely to avoid any appearance of a witch hunt. The three judges agreed that he had a case worth having a trial over. That you cannot admit that does not obscure the original facts of the case.
Ms. Pease, I am going to re-read Heritage of Stone, and agree that if a Three panel jury of judges agreed to hear the case, there must have been SOMETHING, somewhere, to it. However, Dave Reitzes has repeatedly challenged anyone who wants to to make a line by line refutation of the evidence he presents in Shaw's favor. To the best of my knowledge no one has, and I am not prepared, nor presently inclined to.
Re-read Garrison's fiction all you want, James. Who know -- maybe someday you'll take my advice and compare it to Garrison's contemporaneous record of the case. Meanwhile, is there a "William Morris" mentioned in Garrison's first book? And do you think there is any truth to the rumor that Garrison only called for the preliminary hearing to avoid a wrongful prosecution suit later on? And why do you keep insisting these judges must have seen SOMETHING, James, when what they DID see is a matter of public record -- Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy? You surprise me, James: I thought no one SERIOUSLY used the old "he must have SOMETHING" line anymore.
- Dave Reitzes gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
More bullshit, Lisa. The article in question was an unfootnoted article for a popular publication, not a journal article. I've already given the cites in another post. You're slander attempts continue to be lame and uninformed. My journal articles are fully footnoted.
And I don't recall Martin writing any paranoia pieces like your unsupported insinuations about Clay Shaw and Freeport Sulphur. All the footnotes in Orleans Parish couldn't set that ship afloat.
- Dave Reitzes gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister. : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly : above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to look like a "buff". :D
> Yeah, and denial is ugly whether in a CT or an LN. Now, where are all > those FACTS you keep alluding to? Why are they such a secret? Did Big Jim > take them all with him to that big den of paranoia in the sky?
> He must have -- they're not in his books, his office files or his trial > transcript.
> Jim G and Lisa P -- All talk and no action.
> - Dave Reitzes > gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
Dave,
Don't you get it yet, Dave?
Big Jim had a terrific case - or would have had IF the bad guys had not refused to extradite the witnesses he wanted AND stolen the documents that proved conspiracy AND infiltrated his office and sent him off on wild goose chases.
His being smeared and subjected to exposes proves he was onto something BIG.
It was just a case where Big Jim was outgunned and a case of the bad guys winning out over the good guys!
We all know in our hearts that the assassination of JFK began at a party at Dave Ferrie's apt with a discussion between Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie of how JFK could be killed in a crossfire.
And then we have that soul of integrity Vernon Bundy testifying under oath - and even holding his hand over Clay Shaw's head so there could be no mistake - that in furtherance of the conspiracy that Shaw met with Oswald and handed him money to finance the plot.
All that stuff about Pete being a real junkie -- we can assume that the bad guys who infiltrated the office planted documents about this claim to undermine Big Jim.
Besides, we know that Big Jim was right about nearly everything because, as Martin Shackleford writes, his case is coming together as never before.
But above all, we know that Big Jim was right -- and even you have not been able to disprove it -- because Big Jim was later elected to a Judgeship.
And Oliver Stone vindicated Big Jim from all the nasty things that those turncoats, Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein wrote about him.
But beyond all that, Garrison has been vindicated because generations of critics have been enervated by his theories that the CIA dunnit and that it was a big Gov'ment plot that killed JFK, the man who was born to bring Peace On Earth and Goodwill to Man.
Of course, had he lived, universal peace would reign and there wouldn't be any need for weapons or armies of any kind.
So, OF COURSE, he had to be killed.
And, OF COURSE, any man bent on exposing the plot would be thwarted by the bad guys, at every turn.
So, it follows as the day the night, that since Garrison was thwarted, that he was onto something.
I urge you to adopt Martin Shackleford's MANTRA: Garrison's case is coming together like never before.
Mr. Reitzes, have you visited Ms. Pease's site and are you aware of the issues she is keeping updates on? It struck me, in some areas, as being very informative. For example, Ms. Pease discusses the San Jose Mercury News story concerning the CIA and crack trafficking. CIA involvement in the narco-syndicates is an interesting subject, and dovetails with the Kennedy Assassination. Knowing what the issues are is half the battle. Et tu, Dave?
