The Library Card Redux
Howpl
1. According to John Davis, an FBI agent asked Ferrie, upon his hasty return to
New Orleans if he loaned his library card to Oswald? If this is just a buff
factoid, where did this agent get his information from? Was Jack Martin also
spreading unfounded rumors about a library card?
2. Marcello's lawyer, Gill, told the FBI that he heard a rumor that Ferrie's
card was found in Oswald's possession, but couldn't remember from whom. Gill's
memory lapse naturally arouses suspicion (though some suspect the Dallas
police).
In addition, if such a rumor was afloat, that could explain why Oswald's former
landlady reported a visit from an agitated Ferrie asking if she found a library
card.
Here is another one of those motivational oddities this case presents. No
matter which way you turn, reported actions don't seem rational. If Ferrie was
in no way connected with Oswald, why would he go searching for a card.? If he
WAS connected with Oswald and believed the police found the card, why go
searching for what was already in custody?
Methodological Question:
If Ferrie's reported actions make no sense either way, is that sufficient
reason to discount the claims of these two witnesses?
3. Asked to produce his telephone records, Gill provided records for September
and October, but claimed November was not available. Is this true?
Methodological Question:
How many coincidences can the lone-nut/no cover-up case stand before one or
both beg for a conspiracist explanation? How many missing autopsy photos? How
many missing tissue samples? How many missing files? Or does it only seem like
much more evidence is missing in this case than in other cases because we are
looking so much harder and demanding so much more? Perhaps Dean Andrews never
had any Clay Betrand files to begin with, so they could not have been stolen.
Perhaps there was no brain… No, I'll stop there.
Howard
Dreitzes
below for the thousandth time. Please. I beg of you. Don't. Warning. Danger.
David Ferrie's Library Card
by David Blackburst
Several writers and commentators have made reference to an 11/25/63 FBI
interview with Ferrie's friend Layton Martens, and Martens' assertion that
he was told by Ferrie's lawyer and employer G. Wray Gill that Ferrie's
library card had been found on Oswald when he was arrested. This is a
reference to Commission Document 75. Let us follow the assertion through
the other pages of the document.
Martens told the FBI that Gill had stopped by Ferrie's apartment at about
1:00pm on 11/24/63, and that "Gill stated that he had gotten word that Lee
Oswald, when he was picked up, had been carrying a library card with David
Ferrie's name on it."
When the FBI asked Gill about this, he replied that he had spoken to a man
named Hardy Davis, who "informed him that he had learned through hearsay
when Oswald was arrested by the Police Department in Dallas, Texas, he had
in his posession a library card of David Ferrie."
The FBI then questioned Hardy Davis, who said that he had spoken to Jack
Martin, who "told Davis that (a) television program had reported that the
library card of David Ferrie had been found in the posession of Oswald in
Dallas, Texas upon the latter's arrest."
This led the FBI to Jack Martin, who told the agents that "he had several
phone conversations with Hardy Davis...regarding a television program
which mentioned the possibility that David Ferrie was associated with Lee
Harvey Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol, and Martin and Davis may have come
to the conclusion that Oswald had used or carried Ferrie's library card."
Let us reverse this evidence trail and follow it forward: Jack Martin came
to the conclusion that Ferrie's library card had been found in Oswald's
posession, and he told this to Hardy Davis. Davis repeated this assertion
to G. Wray Gill. Gill repeated the information to Layton Martens.
While there were references on New Orleans TV stations that Oswald may
have served under Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol, there is no record of
any reference to Oswald having Ferrie's library card. Could Jack Martin
have made the story up? Martin had briefly been a friend of Ferrie's but
had developed a grudge after Ferrie threw him out of Gill's office the
previous May. Over the years Martin gave numerous statements to
investigators about Ferrie which are filled with demonstrably erroneous
information. By any measure, Martin had a peculiar background. One
investigator wrote that "Martin is considered extremely unreliable and on
several occasions this man has himself been involved in matters which
bordered on extortion." Could these words have been written as part of a
cover-up/smear? Not likely - they were written nearly a year before the
assassination.
When Ferrie was questioned by the FBI, Ferrie said that "he has never
loaned his library card to Lee Harvey Oswald or any other person at any
time." It is not unreasonable to speculate that the FBI's reason for
asking this question was the assertion of Jack Martin, reported to the
Bureau by Martens, Gill, Davis and Martin himself. The Secret Service may
have obtained this information from the FBI. After Ferrie's 1967 death,
Oswald's landlady and a former neighbor told Jim Garrison's investigators
that Ferrie had visited them and inquired about a library card. (The
landlady said Ferrie's visit was on the night of the assassination, but
his whereabouts during that evening are accounted for.) Presumably, Ferrie
did visit the women a few days later in response to the allegation made by
Jack Martin.
[I would go even further: No one reported to the DPD, the FBI, the Secret
Service, the Warren Commission, or anyone else in 1963-64 that a strange
man was knocking on people's doors on Magazine Street, asking about Oswald
and a library card. Only after Ferrie was dead and couldn't contradict his
accusers did Garrison find anyone to say so. --DR]
Mrs. Jesse Garner testified at the Clay Shaw trial that a man she identified
from a photograph as David Ferrie visited her apartment asking about Oswald
sometime after dark the night following the assassination. As soon as she
ascertained that he was not with the FBI or Secret Service, she shooed him
away. She did not mention anything about a library card during her testimony.
Her story had undergone some changes by the time she spoke to the HSCA in 1978.
A. J. Weberman (www.weberman.com) writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mrs. Jesse Garner, OSWALD'S former landlady in New Orleans, told the HSCA that
David Ferrie visited her home on the night of the assassination and asked about
OSWALD'S library card, but she refused to speak with him: "I just opened the
door and he came in, and he said, 'I'm David Ferrie.' Well, I thought he was
one of the FBI men or newsmen . . . He just merely said, 'What's all this?' He
said they found his library card on OSWALD. When he said that, I knew he had
nothing to do like the other guys, the FBI, or anything like that. That's when
I get him off my back. I said, 'Get out.' He left right away." [HSCA testimony
of Mrs. Jesse Garner] David Ferrie was out of New Orleans when this allegedly
occurred.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But if David Ferrie visited her apartment, she did not report it to the
authorities in 1963, when the entire world was searching for possible Oswald
accomplices. She also did not mention it during her April 6, 1964, Warren
Commission testimony (10 H 264), though Wesley Liebeler had her describe every
visitor of Oswald's she could remember.
In 1978, one of Mrs. Garner's neighbors also had an odd story to tell. Weberman
writes:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OSWALD'S neighbor in New Orleans, Alexander Eames, stated: "One time I was down
to the main public library in New Orleans. I was going in and out browsing, and
I came face to face with OSWALD. After the assassination the local newspaper
picked-up this incident. The day after the newspaper came out relating the fact
I had seen OSWALD in the library - I wasn't home - but David Ferrie came to my
door and he stood out to my wife. He had a cheap wig and painted eyebrows. He
said, 'Is your husband home?' She said, 'No, what do you want?' He said, 'I
would just like to ask your husband if, when he saw OSWALD in the library,
whether he got close enough to see whether he used his own library card or my
library card?' I thought that was very interesting because a lot of people deny
there was even any connection between Ferrie and OSWALD. If they were
exchanging library cards there must have been some connection. I don't recall
when this happened . . ."
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coincidentally, Doris Eames came up during Mrs. Garner's Warren Commission
testimony, in relation to neighbors Mrs. Garner might have discussed Oswald
with.
Mrs. GARNER. I never talked [to my neighbors much], you know, unless I might
be talking to Miss Eames next door . . .
Mr. LIEBELER. Was that Mrs. Eames?
Mrs. GARNER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Doris E. Eames?
Mrs. GARNER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. She lives at 4907 Magazine Street?
Mrs. GARNER. Yes; right next to Oswald's apartment, in other words, and their
kitchen windows was even to each other, across from each other (10 H 274).
This was the only thing Mrs. Garner had to say about Mrs. Eames. If Eames and
Garner ever had occasion to compare notes about the funny little man who
allegedly visited them both after the assassination, Garner didn't mention it
to the Warren Commission, at the Shaw trial or even to the HSCA.
A. J. Weberman reaches the same conclusion about the alleged events as I do:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANALYSIS
Both of these stories about David Ferrie were false.
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FBI agent Manning Clements recorded the items in Oswald's possession at the
time of his arrest (WR 614-7). The list of items follows (with the descriptions
abbreviated).
Note the lack of a library card made out to one David William Ferrie, despite
the fact that SA Clements DID include three items with other people's names on
them: Oswald's own library card, signed by Oswald and his
Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall co-worker, Jack L. Bowen, and two cards bearing the name
"Hidell," whom the FBI believed the weekend of the assassination to possibly be
a real person. (Hoover asked in one FBI memo if "Hidell" couldn't be the Mexico
City "mystery man" at the Soviet Embassy, whose photo had just been received by
FBI HQ.)
Clements also included two items which could have posed a problem should Oswald
have turned out to be an agent of a conspiracy: a card bearing a handwritten
Russian address, and a card bearing a Japanese address printed on one side and
a handwritten Texas phone number on the other. (The Texas number was to a pay
phone in a building where his mother worked.)
SA Clements also included the DD 1173 ID card, considered by some to be the
"smoking gun" proving Oswald's alleged intelligence career.
Here are the items found on Oswald upon his arrest:
Social Security card, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, No. 433-54-3937
Photo of Selective Service card with photo of Oswald, name: ALEK JAMES HIDELL
Selective Service card (1959), name: LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Snapshot of Marina
Snapshot of June
White card with handwritten Russian address
DD ID card (DD 1173), LEE H. OSWALD
Dallas library card, issued to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, also signed by JACK L. BOWEN
US Forces, Japan ID card, LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Card with printed Japanese address, handwritten phone number on reverse
USMC discharge certificate, LEE HARVEY OSWALD
FPCC card, LEE H. OSWALD
FPCC card, L. H. OSWALD, also signed by "A. J. HIDELL"
Selective Service card (1960), LEE HARVEY OSWALD
$13.00 in currency
Dreitzes
DAnde9348
>From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
>Date: Mon, Jun 7, 1999 17:33 EDT
>Message-id: <19990607173335...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
>
>
>1. According to John Davis, an FBI agent asked Ferrie, upon his hasty return
>to
>New Orleans if he loaned his library card to Oswald?
Hello Howard,
I'm sure that Dave Ferrie was a shady character,.... probably an intelligence
agent and as such he would undoubtedly used an alias .... I've often wondered
if the name Jack L. Bowen was a Ferrie alias.... That was the name listed on
Oswald's Dallas library card as his "sponser" . I have never heard of an adult
needing a "sponser" to get a library card.
So perhaps the "library card" was in reality a secret ID card.
I don't know if Oswald had a New Orleans Library card in his possession when he
was arrested, but the FBI had his New Orleans library card on Nov 28.... They
visited the New Orleans library and confiscated all of the books that LHO had
checked out that summer.
In reading the FBI memo about picking up the books it's not clear whether they
had Oswald's Library card or they got it from the Librarian.
Ron Lewis who worked with Oswald in the summer of 63....said Oswald offered to
loan him a library card so he could check out a book from the library. When
Lewis looked at the name on the card that Oswald handed him he noticed that it
was David Ferries Card. He gave it back to Lee saying that he didn't need it.
Walt
Blackburst
>I'm sure that Dave Ferrie was a shady character
Dave Reitzes recent threads have caused me to rexamine much of my material
relating to Ferrie. When you look at his whole life, he seems like much less a
shady character than the cartoon image presented by some non-objective books.
>probably an intelligence
>agent
The evidence of a Ferrie intelligence connection is slim, but will be covered
in detail in my upcoming post "David Ferrie and the CIA". It is clear that, for
the period of late 1960 to early 1962, Ferrie used his connection as a
volunteer for the local office of the CIA-backed Frente Revolucionario
Democratico/Cuban Revolutionary Council to fancy himself as somewhat of an
intelligence agent.
>and as such he would undoubtedly used an alias
"Undoubtedly", like the word "obviously" used often by Garrison, is no
substitute for evidence. There is no standard, predictable way for an
intelligence agent, real or imagined, to act. In Ferrie's case, he always used
his real name, and extensive examination of all the available files and a few
interviews has revealed no connection between Ferrie and the Jack L. Bowen
name.
>So perhaps the "library card" was in reality a secret ID card.
ALL of the 1963 references to a Ferrie library card can be specifically traced
back to allegations which Jack Martin was unable to substantiate. So
speculation about the putative role of the non-existent library card seems
fruitless.
>I don't know if Oswald had a New Orleans Library card in his possession when
>he
>was arrested
There is no evidence that he did, beyond Martin's allegations.
>When
>[Ronald Levore] Lewis looked at the name on the card that Oswald handed him he
noticed that
>it
>was David Ferries Card.
Ronald Levore Lewis wrote a book entitled "Flashback" in which he claimed to be
a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963, and to have encountered
Ferrie, Banister and others. I regard Lewis' account with some degree of
caution: Virtually nothing in it is verifyable, a few sections are demonstrably
untrue, and much of it seems to simply draw from published assassination books.
I can't rule out Lewis' stories, but I will withhold judgement until I can
verify at least a few more parts of it.
oo
David
Dreitzes
>
>Walt wrote:
>>I'm sure that Dave Ferrie was a shady character
>
>Dave Reitzes recent threads have caused me to rexamine much of my material
>relating to Ferrie. When you look at his whole life, he seems like much less
>a
>shady character than the cartoon image presented by some non-objective books.
>
>>probably an intelligence
>>agent
>
>The evidence of a Ferrie intelligence connection is slim, but will be covered
>in detail in my upcoming post "David Ferrie and the CIA".
I'll be looking forward to that!
It is clear that,
>for
>the period of late 1960 to early 1962, Ferrie used his connection as a
>volunteer for the local office of the CIA-backed Frente Revolucionario
>Democratico/Cuban Revolutionary Council to fancy himself as somewhat of an
>intelligence agent.
>
>>and as such he would undoubtedly used an alias
>
>"Undoubtedly", like the word "obviously" used often by Garrison, is no
>substitute for evidence. There is no standard, predictable way for an
>intelligence agent, real or imagined, to act. In Ferrie's case, he always
>used
>his real name, and extensive examination of all the available files and a few
>interviews has revealed no connection between Ferrie and the Jack L. Bowen
>name.
>
It may be worth mentioning that Walt is not the first person to advance this
Ferrie-Bowen theory. It also overlooks the fact that the library card story
originated with Jack Martin -- Martin is the direct or indirect source for ALL
who heard the rumor (G. Wray Gill, etc. -- they ALL got the story from Martin).
If the story was true, how did an estranged associate of Ferrie's hear the news
before ANYONE else? Martin said he heard it on TV! (Bob Harris once asked how
we know Martin DIDN'T hear it on TV! Pardon me if I don't devote a post to that
subject.)
Ron Lewis says that Oswald discussed ROBERT MORROW with him on a few occasions.
Folks, even MORROW never alleged that he and Oswald knew each other!
DR
DAnde9348
>From: black...@aol.com (Blackburst)
>Date: Tue, Jun 8, 1999 08:58 EDT
>Message-id: <19990608085854...@ng-fh1.aol.com>
>
>
>Ronald Levore Lewis wrote a book entitled "Flashback" in which he claimed to
be a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963, and to have encountered
Ferrie, Banister and others. I regard Lewis' account with some degree of
caution:
I too shared your skeptisism whenI first read Lewis's book..... but I now
believe the basis of lewis's book....He did associate with Oswald in the summer
of 63. I believe he was a communist agent and was sent to N.O. to glean
what info he could about the anti Castro activities. He's now just an old man
who knows that we have a gapping hole in our history, and wants to record what
he knows before he dies.
Virtually nothing in it is verifyable, a few sections are demonstrably untrue,
Yes I agree some of his book is untrue but I don't believe those portions are
intentional malicious lies.....
and much of it seems to simply draw from published assassination books.
Again I agree.....There is little doubt that some of his material comes from
Pricilla Johnson's garbage book, Marina and Lee.
>I can't rule out Lewis' stories, but I will withhold judgement until I can
verify at least a few more parts of it.
I found that there are only a couple parts that are verifiable.....but I've
spent several hours with Lewis and after meeting him I'm convinced that his
story is basically true.
One point that he thinks supports his story is the reference to a "mystery man"
who showed up at Alba's garage on Saturday morning 11 / 23 / 63..... The
"mystery man" came to Alba's garage on Saturday morning and when he encountered
one of Alba's employees he told him that he was there to see Mr. Alba. The
employee told him he could wait in the customers lounge.
Ron Lewis claims that he is that mystery man and he was there because Lee had
told him if anything ever happened to him he (Ron) should check the "safe" ( a
space behind a loose cement block) because he was keping a record of his
dealing with Bannister and Ferrie.
When Lewis heard that Lee had been arrested for the assassination he went to
the Cresent City garage to retrieve the papers from the "safe". He was afraid
to go to the "safe" after encountering Alba's employee, so he pretended to be
there to see Mr. Alba. He waited in the customer lounge area pretending to
look at the gun magazines and then slipped out just before the FBI arrived.
Lewis thinks this is compelling evidence that he was there.....of course it
isn't, but the fact that he knows he was there and knows why the 'mysteryman"
was there makes it a fact in his mind. I use this to illustrate that Lewis
isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer....and that is what makes his story
believable for me.
>
>oo
>David
Walt
DAnde9348
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 1999 09:24 EDT
Message-id: <19990608092446...@ng-fk1.aol.com>
>From: black...@aol.com (Blackburst)
>
>Walt wrote:
>>I'm sure that Dave Ferrie was a shady character
>
>Dave Reitzes recent threads have caused me to rexamine much of my material
>relating to Ferrie. When you look at his whole life, he seems like much less
>a shady character than the cartoon image presented by some non-objective
books.
>
Well if Reitzes has you doubting that Garrison was headed in the right
direction then,... a) You are probably looking for a comfortable lie that will
allow you to escape having to face reality and ....b) Dave is making some
progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>>probably an intelligence agent
>
>The evidence of a Ferrie intelligence connection is slim, but will be covered
>in detail in my upcoming post "David Ferrie and the CIA".
Show me the files of just one CIA agent that verify he is /was an agent. Can
produce a black and white record which shows that Francis Gary Powers was a CIA
agent?
I'll be looking forward to that!
It is clear that, for the period of late 1960 to early 1962, Ferrie used his
connection as a
>volunteer for the local office of the CIA-backed Frente Revolucionario
>Democratico/Cuban Revolutionary Council to fancy himself as somewhat of an
>intelligence agent.
>
>>and as such he would undoubtedly used an alias
>
>"Undoubtedly", like the word "obviously" used often by Garrison, is no
>substitute for evidence. There is no standard, predictable way for an
>intelligence agent, real or imagined, to act. In Ferrie's case, he always
>used his real name, and extensive examination of all the available files and a
few
>interviews has revealed no connection between Ferrie and the Jack L. Bowen
>name.
>
Your statment seems to be based on rather weak reasoning..... I agree that
there is no standard, predictable way for an intelligence agent to act. If
they were predictable they would be very good spies now would they?? If
Ferrie was an intelligence agent where would you go to determine if he ever
used an alias? You said that he always used his real name....please verify
that statement.
It may be worth mentioning that Walt is not the first person to advance this
Ferrie-Bowen theory. It also overlooks the fact that the library card story
originated with Jack Martin -- Martin is the direct or indirect source for ALL
who heard the rumor (G. Wray Gill, etc. -- they ALL got the story from Martin).
If the story was true, how did an estranged associate of Ferrie's hear the news
before ANYONE else? Martin said he heard it on TV! (Bob Harris once asked how
we know Martin DIDN'T hear it on TV! Pardon me if I don't devote a post to that
subject.)
It would be interesting to know exactly what Martin said about Oswald carrying
Ferries library card.
If the library cards were a sort of secret Identity card ( which I believe they
were ) then it's entirely possible that Jack Martin knew that and may simply
have said " Oswald was carrying Ferries library card..... meaning that Ferrie
was Oswald's handler on this operation.
>>So perhaps the "library card" was in reality a secret ID card.
>
>ALL of the 1963 references to a Ferrie library card can be specifically
>traced back to allegations which Jack Martin was unable to substantiate. So
>speculation about the putative role of the non-existent library card seems
>fruitless.
We agree again..... unless someone finds Ferries library card tucked away in a
file cabinet at DPD or FBI headquarters all of this is pure speculation.
>
>>I don't know if Oswald had a New Orleans Library card in his possession when
>>he was arrested
>
>There is no evidence that he did, beyond Martin's allegations.
Maybe not but.... FBI agent James Hosty said that Oswald had 16 cards and
photographs in his wallet when he was arrested . When manning Clement
inventoried the contents for his report on 11 / 23 / 63 he listed only 14 cards
and photographs....what two cards were missing?
>
>>When [Ronald Levore] Lewis looked at the name on the card that Oswald handed
him
>he noticed that it was David Ferries Card.
>
>Ronald Levore Lewis wrote a book entitled "Flashback" in which he claimed to
>be a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald in the summer of 1963, and to have
encountered
>Ferrie, Banister and others. I regard Lewis' account with some degree of
>caution: Virtually nothing in it is verifyable, a few sections are
>demonstrably untrue, and much of it seems to simply draw from published
assassination
>books.
>I can't rule out Lewis' stories, but I will withhold judgement until I can
>verify at least a few more parts of it.
>
>oo
>David
Ron Lewis says that Oswald discussed ROBERT MORROW with him on a few occasions.
Folks, even MORROW never alleged that he and Oswald knew each other!
Dave Reitzes is being blatantly dishonest..... Oswald never claimed he knew
Morrow or they had any contact....Oswald had heard OF Robert Morrow from David
Ferrie.....
DR
Walt
Dreitzes
>
>Well if Reitzes has you doubting that Garrison was headed in the right
>direction then,... a) You are probably looking for a comfortable lie that
>will
>allow you to escape having to face reality and ....b) Dave is making some
>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
Lurkers, check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Bill Parker
>
>1. According to John Davis, an FBI agent asked Ferrie, upon his hasty return to
>New Orleans if he loaned his library card to Oswald? If this is just a buff
>factoid, where did this agent get his information from? Was Jack Martin also
>spreading unfounded rumors about a library card?
>
>2. Marcello's lawyer, Gill, told the FBI that he heard a rumor that Ferrie's
>card was found in Oswald's possession, but couldn't remember from whom. Gill's
>memory lapse naturally arouses suspicion (though some suspect the Dallas
>police).
>
>In addition, if such a rumor was afloat, that could explain why Oswald's former
>landlady reported a visit from an agitated Ferrie asking if she found a library
>card.
>
>Here is another one of those motivational oddities this case presents. No
>matter which way you turn, reported actions don't seem rational. If Ferrie was
>in no way connected with Oswald, why would he go searching for a card.? If he
>WAS connected with Oswald and believed the police found the card, why go
>searching for what was already in custody?
Perhaps Ferrie had been involved with LHO in some non-JFK related operations, was friendly with LHO,
and did at one time loan him his library card.
Ferrie may have been concerned that his connection to LHO would be discovered and he would be
falsely connected to the assassination, and truly connected to some other (perhaps yet unknown)
illegal or scandalous operation.
Bill Parker
Blackburst
>Well if Reitzes has you doubting that Garrison was headed in the right
>direction then,... a) You are probably looking for a comfortable lie that
>will
>allow you to escape having to face reality and ....b) Dave is making some
>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>
I had serious reservations long before reading Dave Reitzes material. I am
looking for truth, not lie, wherever the chips may fall. And I don't find the
evidence compelling that the core of the conspiracy was in Garrison's case.
>Show me the files of just one CIA agent that verify he is /was an agent. Can
>produce a black and white record which shows that Francis Gary Powers was a
>CIA
>agent?
>
This reference to my upcoming post on Ferrie and the CIA is based largely on
his actual connection to the CIA, through the Frente Revolucionario
Democratico, and a few statements he made to friends.
>If
>Ferrie was an intelligence agent where would you go to determine if he ever
>used an alias? You said that he always used his real name....please verify
>that statement.
>
I have about 2000 pages of documents on Ferrie, covering his whole life. There
is no indication that he ever used an alias. The only way I could verify this
negative is to post all 2000 pages! And a few of his friends claim he never
used an alias.
>Ron Lewis says that Oswald discussed ROBERT MORROW with him on a few
>occasions.
I have reservations about many of the things Ron Lewis wrote, and I am also
cautious about Morrow's accounts.
oo
David
Leo Sgouros
Blackburst wrote in message
<19990609000619...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>Walt wrote:
>>Well if Reitzes has you doubting that Garrison was headed in the right
>>direction then,... a) You are probably looking for a comfortable lie that
>>will
>>allow you to escape having to face reality and ....b) Dave is making some
>>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>>
>
>looking for truth, not lie, wherever the chips may fall. And I don't find
the
>evidence compelling that the core of the conspiracy was in Garrison's case.
>
Can
>>produce a black and white record which shows that Francis Gary Powers was
a
>>CIA
>>agent?
>>
>
on
>his actual connection to the CIA, through the Frente Revolucionario
>Democratico, and a few statements he made to friends.
>
>>Ferrie was an intelligence agent where would you go to determine if he
ever
>>used an alias? You said that he always used his real name....please
verify
>>that statement.
>>
>
There
>is no indication that he ever used an alias. The only way I could verify
this
>negative is to post all 2000 pages! And a few of his friends claim he never
>used an alias.
>
>>occasions.
>
>cautious about Morrow's accounts.
>
>oo
>David
Of what possible importance is Ron Lewis?
Did the FBI investigate him?
What does he have to do with anything?
I would think the Robert Schmidt story was worth effort, see he and Oswald
may have planned Walker's attack.
You know, something relevant.
Meester Sheeesh
Dreitzes
>>Well if Reitzes has you doubting that Garrison was headed in the right
>>direction then,... a) You are probably looking for a comfortable lie that
>>will
>>allow you to escape having to face reality and ...
Lurkers, if you're curious about whether Jim Garrison was headed in the right
direction, please check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
.b) Dave is making some
>>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
Why would I want to do that? This is precisely why mainstream USA thinks CTs
are all paranoid nuts.
Dave Reitzes
DAnde9348
>From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 1999 09:44 EDT
>Message-id: <19990609094437...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>
>
>.b) Dave is making some
>>>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>
>
>Why would I want to do that? This is precisely why mainstream USA thinks CTs
>are all paranoid nuts.
>
>Dave Reitzes
Wrong Mr. Reitzes.... The reason that "mainstream" America thinks that CT's
are paranoid nuts is because that's the picture the government has painted
for the last 35 years. All the government controlled media portrays CT's as
nuts. At the same time the media tells us that all those people, including
little kids, in the Branch Davidian refuge were evil and plotting against the
government. And they also tell us that the President wasn't lying when he
said he didn't engage in sex with Monica in the Oval Office.
They are in effect saying that CT's are Nuts and people who believe the lies
are sane.
It's a shame that Americans are so fat and indifferent that they'll believe
anything the government says just as long as they can sit in front of the boob
tube with a giant pepperoni pizza and half gallon of Pepsi and watch the Jerry
Springer show.....
Walt
Dreitzes
>
>>From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
>
>>.b) Dave is making some
>>>>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>>
>>
>>Why would I want to do that? This is precisely why mainstream USA thinks CTs
>>are all paranoid nuts.
>>
>>Dave Reitzes
>
>Wrong Mr. Reitzes.... The reason that "mainstream" America thinks that CT's
>are paranoid nuts is because that's the picture the government has painted
>for the last 35 years. All the government controlled media portrays CT's as
>nuts.
It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others were
making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay Epstein,
Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
questions they could not ignore.
It's really odd that ALL OF THAT ENDED when a crackpot named Jim Garrison came
along and gave everyone the impression that ALL CTs were crackpots.
It's to the everlasting shame of CTs that we continue to insist that Big Jim
"was right," or "started off in the right direction" or "must have had
SOMETHING," or take the pitiful position that "at least he said there was a
conspiracy."
It's just one more reason the mainstream will never take CTs seriously. Because
the mainstream was 100% right about Garrison. And they rightly dismiss anyone
who continues to argue Big Jim's so-called "case."
Lurkers who have any doubts about that, please check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Dave Reitzes
Leo Sgouros
Dreitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990609112415...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
The only one who posts anything about "Big Jim" is you.
Why dont you move on?
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <19990609112415...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Library Card Redux
From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
Date: Wed, Jun 9, 1999 11:24 EDT
Message-id: <19990609112415...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>From: dand...@aol.com (DAnde9348)
>
>>From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
>
>>.b) Dave is making some
>>>>progress in attempting to discredit the very core of the conspiracy....
>>
>>
>>Why would I want to do that? This is precisely why mainstream USA thinks CTs
>>are all paranoid nuts.
>>
>>Dave Reitzes
>
>Wrong Mr. Reitzes.... The reason that "mainstream" America thinks that CT's
>are paranoid nuts is because that's the picture the government has painted
>for the last 35 years. All the government controlled media portrays CT's as
>nuts.
It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others were
making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay Epstein,
Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
questions they could not ignore.
MAKING NOISES ABOUT REOPENING THE INVESTIGATION...is NOT the same as proceeding
regarless of what Jim garrison or anyboby else was doing.
You're not very good at problem solving are you Dave..... You can't seem to
stay focused on any aspect of the case and see it through to a final
conclusion. A logically thinking person would ask.... Well if the government
controlled media really wanted to get to the bottom of the assassination why
not join forces with the New Orleans District Attorney and help him ......
You're so intent on painting Garrison as a "crackpot" that you constantly shoot
yourself in the foot. Most researchers know that Jim Garrison was anything but
a "crackpot". A person doesn't need to know the life biography of Jim
Garrison to recognize that he was a man of integrity. You're trying
desperately to paint a different picture of him but you can't succeed, and
you're only making a fool of yourself by calling him a "crackpot". If you
sincerely think he was a crackpot then your view is directly opposite of the
vast majority of researchers.
Whether Garrison had all the details correct is immaterial he knew that the
Office of Guy Bannister was the epicenter of the conspiracy. Personally I've
always thought he was overshooting the target in looking beyond the firm of
Bannister/ Ferrie/ Ruby and associates, but nevertheless he was aware that
Kennedy had been murdered as the result of a conspiracy and that conspiracy
tracked back to New Orleans.
It's really odd that ALL OF THAT ENDED when a crackpot named Jim Garrison came
along and gave everyone the impression that ALL CTs were crackpots.
ALL OF THAT ENDED??? Why didn't it even get started? And did the media
expose it's real agenda when LIFE offered to "help" him and then proceeded to
wreck his investigation.
It's to the everlasting shame of CTs that we continue to insist that Big Jim
"was right," ..... WE ?? Your not fooling anybody Mr. Reitzes...... I'm
sorry thay you feel "shame"
but I guess I'd be ashamed of myself too if I couldn't hide my true colors any
better than you do.
or "started off in the right direction" or "must have had
SOMETHING," or take the pitiful position that "at least he said there was a
conspiracy."
It's just one more reason the mainstream will never take CTs seriously. Because
the mainstream was 100% right about Garrison. And they rightly dismiss anyone
who continues to argue Big Jim's so-called "case."
Lurkers who have any doubts about that, please check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
HEAR YE ....HEAR YE.... ALL READERS TAKE NOTE OF THE SITE THAT MR. REITZES
USES TO BOLSTER HIS B.S...... If you don't believe David the Depravid just
take a look at the perfesser's site.....
walt
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
You don't seem to see my point, Walt. Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
>You're not very good at problem solving are you Dave.....
Again, Walt substitutes ad hominem attacks for argument. If you took the
attacks out of Walt's posts, would there be anything left?
You can't seem to
>stay focused on any aspect of the case and see it through to a final
>conclusion. A logically thinking person would ask.... Well if the
>government
>controlled media really wanted to get to the bottom of the assassination why
>not join forces with the New Orleans District Attorney and help him ......
They did, Walt.
Life and the Saturday Evening Post both accepted Garrison's offer to pool their
resources with his office in exchange for the inside track to the scoop of the
century. NBC came to New Orleans with the same thing in mind.
Guess what?
They found out what a complete fraud Garrison was, and they left in disgust.
And if you had any faith in your convictions, you'd argue the facts of Saint
Jim's case. You'd start by debunking line-by-line this article by the
newsgroup's most vocal Garrison critic:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
If Garrison wasn't a total fraud, you should be able to debunk my post in about
ten minutes.
>You're so intent on painting Garrison as a "crackpot" that you constantly
>shoot
>yourself in the foot. Most researchers know that Jim Garrison was anything
>but
>a "crackpot".
Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac who, to quote Harold
Weisberg, "as an investigator, couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at
rush hour."
And here's the proof:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
A person doesn't need to know the life biography of Jim
>Garrison to recognize that he was a man of integrity.
Then you'll have no trouble debunking every word of this post:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Watch this, folks. How much do you want to bet Walt says that exact same thing
that Lisa Pease, Jim Hargrove, Derek Larsson, Haizen Paige and others have told
me: I'm just "not worth" their time -- not even to come to the defense of a man
they claim to have been a genuine American hero.
You're trying
>desperately to paint a different picture of him but you can't succeed, and
>you're only making a fool of yourself by calling him a "crackpot". If you
>sincerely think he was a crackpot then your view is directly opposite of the
>vast majority of researchers.
Walt, if you're right about that, it's the saddest commentary I've ever heard
on the so-called research community.
It's also a lame defense. If fifty million people all say a stupid thing, it's
still a stupid thing.
If Garrison had anything whatsoever going for him, you'd be eager to debunk my
Shaw defense:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
But you won't.
>Whether Garrison had all the details correct is immaterial he knew that the
>Office [sic] of Guy Bannister [sic] was the epicenter of the conspiracy.
Here's your chance to prove it, Walt. Just list all of your evidence.
Right here.
Go ahead.
What's stopping you?
Hello?
Personally I've
>always thought he was overshooting the target in looking beyond the firm of
>Bannister [sic]/ Ferrie/ Ruby and associates,
Your evidence that Jack Ruby knew either Guy Banister or David Ferrie, please.
No, none of your usual nonsense, just evidence.
Go ahead.
We're all waiting.
Hello?
but nevertheless he was aware that
>Kennedy had been murdered as the result of a conspiracy
So that gave him the right to railroad innocent people.
Yes, folks, some people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it's okay to ruin innocent
people's lives, just so long as you're RIGHT.
I'm sure Hitler would have heartily agreed.
and that conspiracy
>tracked back to New Orleans.
Uh-huh. And now you're going to list all your evidence for that . . .
Well?
Where is it?
Here, just plop it right on down, Walt. Let us see it so Big Jim can be
vindicated.
Just put it right here on the table.
Go ahead.
What's that?
"It's not worth it," you say?
"I'm not going to debate this matter with someone like YOU," you say?
"I could show you all my evidence, but you wouldn't appreciate it anyway," you
say?
Gosh. What a surprise.
Folks, for the truth about Jim Garrison, see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
And a number of other excellent articles at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
You'll even find links to Lisa Pease's pro-Garrison site, so you can go see how
her case for Big Jim stacks up.
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
That's a really interesting observation, Leo. I guess I'm just imagining all
the dozens of posts I see every week on this NG about Dave Ferrie, Guy Banister
and other folks from New Orleans. Last time I checked, these people were
considered suspects in the JFK assassination for one reason and one reason
only: because Jim Garrison said so. If I'm wrong, just show me the evidence
against them.
DR
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <19990609143014...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>
>
>Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac who, to quote Harold
>Weisberg, "as an investigator, couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at
>rush hour."
>
>And here's the proof:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1
WOW!! Visiting a liar's website is supposed to be proof..... Get real and get
out David...you're an idiot....
Walt
Dreitzes
>>Weisberg, "as an investigator, couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at
>>rush hour."
>>
>>And here's the proof:
>
>WOW!! Visiting a liar's website is supposed to be proof..... Get real and
>get
>out David...you're an idiot....
>
>Walt
Let's review.
I said:
>You don't seem to see my point, Walt. Once Garrison came along and made all
>CTs
>look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
Walt Cakebread responded:
>>You're not very good at problem solving are you Dave.....
I observed:
>Again, Walt substitutes ad hominem attacks for argument. If you took the
>attacks out of Walt's posts, would there be anything left?
Scroll back to the top of this post to see if I was was right or wrong.
Then Walt said:
>You can't seem to
>>stay focused on any aspect of the case and see it through to a final
>>conclusion.
O, the irony.
Then Walt continued:
A logically thinking person would ask.... Well if the
>>government
>>controlled media really wanted to get to the bottom of the assassination why
>>not join forces with the New Orleans District Attorney and help him ......
And I pointed out:
>They did, Walt.
>
>Life and the Saturday Evening Post both accepted Garrison's offer to pool
>their
>resources with his office in exchange for the inside track to the scoop of
>the
>century. NBC came to New Orleans with the same thing in mind.
>
>Guess what?
>
>They found out what a complete fraud Garrison was, and they left in disgust.
>
>And if you had any faith in your convictions, you'd argue the facts of Saint
>Jim's case. You'd start by debunking line-by-line this article by the
>newsgroup's most vocal Garrison critic:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
>
>If Garrison wasn't a total fraud, you should be able to debunk my post in
>about
>ten minutes.
No response from Walt. In fact, he snipped everything up to this point.
Walt had written:
>>You're so intent on painting Garrison as a "crackpot" that you constantly
>>shoot
>>yourself in the foot. Most researchers know that Jim Garrison was anything
>>but
>>a "crackpot".
This is when I said:
>Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac who, to quote Harold
>Weisberg, "as an investigator, couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at
>rush hour."
>
>And here's the proof:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Then Walt called me an idiot. Hmm.
Walt:
>A person doesn't need to know the life biography of Jim
>>Garrison to recognize that he was a man of integrity.
Me:
>Then you'll have no trouble debunking every word of this post:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
>
>Watch this, folks. How much do you want to bet Walt says that exact same
>thing
>that Lisa Pease, Jim Hargrove, Derek Larsson, Haizen Paige and others have
>told
>me: I'm just "not worth" their time -- not even to come to the defense of a
>man
>they claim to have been a genuine American hero.
Well, the actual response was:
>WOW!! Visiting a liar's website is supposed to be proof..... Get real and
>get
>out David...you're an idiot....
So, I dunno . . . you folks will have to judge for yourselves whether I was
right or wrong in my prediction.
Walt:
>You're trying
>>desperately to paint a different picture of him but you can't succeed, and
>>you're only making a fool of yourself by calling him a "crackpot". If you
>>sincerely think he was a crackpot then your view is directly opposite of
>the
>>vast majority of researchers.
Me:
>Walt, if you're right about that, it's the saddest commentary I've ever heard
>on the so-called research community.
No comment from Walt.
>It's also a lame defense. If fifty million people all say a stupid thing,
>it's
>still a stupid thing.
No comment from Walt.
>If Garrison had anything whatsoever going for him, you'd be eager to debunk
>my
>Shaw defense:
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
>
>But you won't.
Okay, it looks like I was right about that. Not that I'm keeping score or
anything.
Walt:
>>Whether Garrison had all the details correct is immaterial he knew that the
>>Office [sic] of Guy Bannister [sic] was the epicenter of the conspiracy.
Me:
>Here's your chance to prove it, Walt. Just list all of your evidence.
>
>Right here.
>
>Go ahead.
>
>What's stopping you?
>
>Hello?
>
>
>
Ouch. What happened?
Garrisonites don't much like sharing their evidence. Big Jim himself was much
the same way. For two years the line was, "Wait until the trial! Wait until the
trial!"
Then the trial came, and he had nothing.
Here's what a couple of the jurors at Clay Shaw's trial had to say about the
State's case:
Juror Charles Ordes told Kirkwood, "I kept waiting for the state to present a
case. I don't think they had enough to get this far. I was surprised that it
was even presented on this evidence. I was just waiting for something to
happen. I just kept waiting, you know, something's gonna come up. I just can't
see where they had a case. I feel the grand jury should have stopped him"
(Kirkwood, *American Grotesque,* 557).
James Kirkwood asked juror Larry Morgan what he thought the weakest part of
Garrison's case was. "Well, the whole thing," Morgan replied. "I was surprised.
I just couldn't picture the type of case the state put on. The caliber of
witnesses was totally unbelievable for the seriousness of the case. That's my
opinion. . . . After it was all over, it was, like -- wow, what happened! What
-- that's it? We just couldn't imagine the state had brought up a case against
Clay Shaw -- absolutely nothing! . . . There was just no possibility, there was
no question but what the jury would find Clay Shaw innocent" (Ibid., 550).
That case is summarized in my article, "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
It also examines all the allegations against Clay Shaw that have arisen since
his 1969 trial.
I'm explicit about all of my sources, so if anyone feels, as Walt Cakebread
does, that the honesty of either myself or Webmaster John McAdams is in
question, there's not a single thing I say that can't be easily double-checked.
I even include a link to a pro-Garrison Web site, so the reader can weigh that
view against mine.
>Personally I've
>>always thought he was overshooting the target in looking beyond the firm of
>>Bannister [sic]/ Ferrie/ Ruby and associates,
>
>Your evidence that Jack Ruby knew either Guy Banister or David Ferrie,
>please.
>
>No, none of your usual nonsense, just evidence.
>
>Go ahead.
>
>We're all waiting.
>
>Hello?
>
>
Yup. Not a shred of evidence.
>but nevertheless he was aware that
>>Kennedy had been murdered as the result of a conspiracy
>
>
>So that gave him the right to railroad innocent people.
>
>Yes, folks, some people ACTUALLY BELIEVE that it's okay to ruin innocent
>people's lives, just so long as you're RIGHT.
>
>I'm sure Hitler would have heartily agreed.
>
>
>
>
No comment from Walt.
>and that conspiracy
>>tracked back to New Orleans.
>
>
>Uh-huh. And now you're going to list all your evidence for that . . .
>
>Well?
>
>Where is it?
>
>Here, just plop it right on down, Walt. Let us see it so Big Jim can be
>vindicated.
>
>Just put it right here on the table.
>
>Go ahead.
>
>What's that?
>
>"It's not worth it," you say?
>
>"I'm not going to debate this matter with someone like YOU," you say?
>
>"I could show you all my evidence, but you wouldn't appreciate it anyway,"
>you
>say?
>
>Gosh. What a surprise.
I must be psychic.
Garrison continues to get precisely the defense he deserves -- none.
doug weldon
two individuals were the investigators she admired the most. Though the Garrison
investigation had flaws his conclusions were probably accurate. If you ever had a
sincere belief in Armstrong's work the conclusions point in the same direction. If
you disagree with John he deserves the opportunity to defend his position. You
know how to contact him. Ask him directly about your concerns. There may be things
that he is right about as well as possibly wrong. He is entitled to defend his own
position. Eyewitness evidence and scientific evidence can both be good or bad. It
is foolish to condemn or endorse either on their face.
I am puzzled by the relentless defense of Shaw and Ferrie. An uninformed
reader might believe that these men are being nominated for sainthood. Some of the
observations may have validity but there are alternate interpretations of much of
the supposition. Dean Andrews may have been inhibited by fear as much as making up
stories or perhaps something in between. I believe that New Orleans remains one of
the keys to the assassination. Jim Garrison subjected himself to tremendous
ridicule with little opportunity to gain anything. Right or wrong I sincerely
believe that his motives were pure. I have listened to countless hours of
interviews and speeches that he gave. He was a patriot. As he maintained, America
will never be the same or democracy survive until the people of the United States
are told the truth about who killed Jack Kennedy. Listen to the Johnny Carson show
with Garrison. It is obvious that there was a concerted plan to prep Carson to
destroy Garrison. Such an event alone should raise suspicion. I confess that I
have yet to read the Shaw transcripts. Garrison acknowledged afterward that Shaw's
involvement may not have been at a high level and accepted the verdict. We cannot
forget that Shaw clearly perjured himself. No matter how one dissects the
circumstances David Ferrie remains highly worthy of suspicion. I do not know if
the subject of the Shaw trial in total justifies such enormous scrutiny when the
bigger picture of the assassination better merits people's efforts. Perhaps that
same vigor might be directed at attacking the persecution of Oswald (whoever
he/they were), the accused assassin(s). He, like Shaw , may not be squeaky clean
but it is he, not Shaw, who the writers of history have sought to condemn. . Volume
of criticism does not change history. That was what the WC attempted to do with 26
volumes. A reasonable, impartial, intelligent examination of the evidence cannot
support those conclusions, nor can volumes of postings alone support the
destruction of Garrison. However, I admire your tenacity in uncovering facts. I
can often accept your analysis, but not your conclusions.
Haizen Paige
> >It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
> >York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others
> >were
> >making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
> >assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay
> >Epstein,
> >Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
> >questions they could not ignore.
> >
> >MAKING NOISES ABOUT REOPENING THE INVESTIGATION...is NOT the same as
> >proceeding
> >regarless of what Jim garrison or anyboby else was doing.
> >
>
> You don't seem to see my point, Walt. Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
> look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
> towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
Forgive my intrusion gentlemen, but I thought I would interrupt Mr.
Reitzes's tantrum to remind him that it was the infiltration of
Garrison's office by outsiders and the premature public exposure of his
investigation, and consequently the convenient 'suicide' of David Ferry
("I want to train killers"), that determined the outcome of Shaw's
trial, and his acquittal.
You see, Mr. Reitzes, when people like Ferrie are knocked off before an
important trial -- and Jim was sure to have called him -- they aren't
too chatty on the witness stand. For some researchers, the timing of
Ferrie's death is just too blatantly convenient for Shaw, considering
the negative position that Shaw was in at the time. GET IT? It's for
this reason that, under the circumstances, the coroner's determination
that Ferrie's convenient death was self-inflicted IS NOT CONVINCING TO
EVERYONE, AND WILL NEVER BE. And besides, control the coroner and you
can control the outcome of the autopsy.
Garrison did not make all CTs look like idiots. "Idiots" to whom? The
idiots at CBC or NBC? Who cares about them? I don't. Do you? None of
them -- neither the WC, nor the DPD, nor CBC, nor NBC EVER HELD ANYONE
MORALLY AND LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE DEATH OF JACK KENNEDY after
Oswald's convenient disposal by Jack Ruby. That's why Garrison went back
into the case, after believing that the gov't would never lie to the
country like that. Well, he found out different, didn't he?, or the
gov't WOULD HAVE LEFT NO STONE UNTURNED, FOLLOWED UP EVERY POSSIBLE
LEAD, CALLED ALL POSSIBLE WITNESSES AND INCLUDED THEM IN THE WR, PLUS
SUPPORTED GARRISON ALL THE WAY, IF THEY'D TRULY WANTED TO TAKE THE
INVESTIGATION OF JFK'S DEATH TO A FULL CONCLUSION. It should be clear to
any thinking American that this was never done -- not close, not even in
the ballpark, not even a bunt that stays inside the foul lines.
After Ferrie's death Garrison went after Shaw to see if he could rattle
him, because Garrison, who was eminently experienced in spotting a liar
when he saw one, felt that Shaw was lying about knowing Oswald and
Ferrie. It's no wonder Shaw's attorney, Irvin Diamond, devised a
strategy for Shaw to perjure himself with essentially one syllable
answers, under oath on the witness stand, about his ties with the CIA,
just for starters, or Shaw might have lost his famous sang-froid under
pressure. If the CIA had had no interest in Shaw, Richard Helms would
have never said that he wished the (CIA) Agency could have done more on
Shaw's behalf during the trial, or words to that effect. (Well, birds of
a feather flock together.)
Had Ferrie NOT DIED UNDER QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO CONVENIENTLY
TO BENEFIT MR. SHAW, the outcome of this trial might have ended in a
GUILTY verdict. That's the way I feel about it. It should be clear to
you and others just how effective and prevalent assassinations are in
the land of the free and the home of the brave. This is why so many
researchers ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY THE ACQUITTAL OF CLAY SHAW, NOR ARE
THEY CONVINCED OF OSWALD'S GUILT.
> >You're not very good at problem solving are you Dave.....
>
> Again, Walt substitutes ad hominem attacks for argument. If you took the
> attacks out of Walt's posts, would there be anything left?
>
> You can't seem to
> >stay focused on any aspect of the case and see it through to a final
> >conclusion. A logically thinking person would ask.... Well if the
> >government
> >controlled media really wanted to get to the bottom of the assassination why
> >not join forces with the New Orleans District Attorney and help him ......
>
> They did, Walt.
>
> Life and the Saturday Evening Post both accepted Garrison's offer to pool their
> resources with his office in exchange for the inside track to the scoop of the
> century. NBC came to New Orleans with the same thing in mind.
Who gives a damn about Life magazine and the Saturday Evening Post? YOU
do, that's who. The American people haven't forgotten what happened in
Dallas, and that's why this case is still open. So it doesn't much
matter about the Shaw trial because researchers can examine the Zapruder
film, review primary witness testimony, primary pictures, photos, etc.
and still come up with at least two shooters in at least two shooting
positions. This alone support the argument for conspiracy -- and this
affirms Garrison's conclusions as well. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROBLEMS IN
THE INVESTIGATION STARTED WAY BEFORE GARRISON WAS EVER ON THE SCENE. IT
STARTED WITH THE TAINTED WC REPORT WHICH THE PUBLIC NEVER ENTIRELY
ACCEPTED. The WC made liars out of too many good Americans, such as
witness Lee Bowers, and this cultural nightmare started THERE.
> Guess what?
>
> They found out what a complete fraud Garrison was, and they left in disgust.
They left in disgust because they never properly evaluated the death of
David Ferrie before Shaw's trial and its devastating impact on the
outcome... They left in disgust because, either on a conscious or
unconscious level, they had been brainwashed to believe that the
continual suppression of evidence of a political murder was good for the
country. This was Johnson's position or he wouldn't have gone along with
the whitewash of Oswald and sealed the assassination files for 75 years.
Johnson had to know there was more than one shooter by the afternoon in
Dallas because extra bullets were found and an attempt to conceal them.
(Refer to Griffith's articles on the number of shots.)
Had the WC looked into every possible lead (such as the evidence of a
second shooter in the knoll area), Garrison's efforts would have never
been necessary from day one of this assassination. Oswald, Ferrie,
Banister and Shaw -- all key suspects -- were BASED in N.O. before the
events in Dallas. And yet the WC never made much of anything out of it,
did they? But that was Garrison's home turf and he knew all these people
even before the murder of JFK -- and he could spot a liar when he saw
one, or he wouldn't have had such a high rate of convictions as D.A.
> And if you had any faith in your convictions, you'd argue the facts of Saint
> Jim's case. You'd start by debunking line-by-line this article by the
> newsgroup's most vocal Garrison critic:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Spoken like a true armchair researcher. When was the last time you
pounded the pavement to dig out a lead on a murder case? You remind me
of someone who sits in comfort in front of his computer, while listen to
his favorite CDs, writing serenely and intellectually about a brutal
murder.
So here are a few facts of life about investigative work, Dave Reitzes
-- and this goes for the Harvard graduate, McAdams, too...
Some people will talk to an investigator OFF THE RECORD ONLY because
they do not want to appear on the witness stand -- perhaps because they
fear for their lives. That these witnesses are unwilling to appear in a
court of law DOES NOT MEAN THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING OR HAVEN'T SEEN
ANYTHING or cannot corroborate someone's possible testimony.
Garrison pounded the pavement for days, weeks, months to follow up on
leads. That's how he and his team finally discovered that IT WAS COMMON
KNOWLEDGE IN THE GAY COMMUNITY SHAW WAS BERTRAND. But then, Mr. Reitzes,
you've never studied the culture of the homosexual community at the
time, have you? It was different era because some prominent gay
individuals were worried about exposure or public blackmail if it came
out they were gay, and so would assume another name, or identify, in an
effort to safeguard whatever privacy they had. That was the 1960s.
Clay Shaw had a PUBLIC LIFE; Clay Shaw also had a PRIVATE life -- a
private life in the gay community as Clay Bertrand. But nevertheless, as
private as he was, he was still found with his hand in the cookie jar as
far as his relationship with Banister, Ferrie and Oswald were concerned.
Jack Martin saw to that because Martin was enraged at the pistol
whipping Banister had given him on 11/22/63 over what Martin had
witnessed over the weeks at Banister's office. That this beating took
place is a matter of police record. Let's just say that little pitchers
have big ears, Mr. Reitzes, and there were people talking OFF THE RECORD
to Jim Garrison or his men. Never forget that not everything ends up in
a court of law. But it doesn't mean that people didn't see what they saw
and fill in some of the missing pieces. That's the difference between an
ivory tower, pot-shot, hot-shot researcher who relies on BOOKS, and
someone else who puts himself on the pavement to dig out a lead. These
off-the-record leads continued to point out to Garrison he was on the
right track. In fact, he was so convinced of what he knew -- that the
gov't was lying from Johnson on down -- that he could talk for an hour
on NBC by himself, naked and alone, and his voice never waver in his
presentation. This is one of the most courage acts I've ever seen, and
one of Jim's finest hours.
> If Garrison wasn't a total fraud, you should be able to debunk my post in about
> ten minutes.
How childish. As if a homicide could be decided by typewriters
exchanging "citations."
> >You're so intent on painting Garrison as a "crackpot" that you constantly
> >shoot
> >yourself in the foot. Most researchers know that Jim Garrison was anything
> >but
> >a "crackpot".
>
> Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac who, to quote Harold
> Weisberg, "as an investigator, couldn't find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at
> rush hour."
Perhaps Mr. Reitzes would like to share with the rest of us just how
many suspects Mr. Weisberg brought to trial and got convicted for
perjury in this assassination.
ZERO.
On other hand, Garrison nailed Dean Andrews for perjury in this matter
-- and it stuck. Dean Andrews lied to save his life and it was probably
a good trade-off considering the alternative.
Please tell us that if the jury at Andrew's trial thought there was
enough evidence to convict him for LYING, that this was good for
country... you who so strongly believes in the righteous outcomes of
trials.
> And here's the proof:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
"Gentlemen, start your typewriters."
> A person doesn't need to know the life biography of Jim
> >Garrison to recognize that he was a man of integrity.
>
> Then you'll have no trouble debunking every word of this post:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
You can "debunk" until the crows fly home, but you'll never pound the
pavement like a real investigator or respect an investigator who does.
You are spinning arguments in the air; you are flying off the handle
into the stratosphere with your constant haranguing of a man with far
more passion, complexity and conviction than you could ever possibly
understand.
Sorry, but he's too big a man for a computer cowboy such as yourself.
You might try taking a walk around the block to air out the space
between your ears.
> Watch this, folks. How much do you want to bet Walt says that exact same thing
> that Lisa Pease, Jim Hargrove, Derek Larsson, Haizen Paige and others have told
> me: I'm just "not worth" their time -- not even to come to the defense of a man
> they claim to have been a genuine American hero.
>
> You're trying
> >desperately to paint a different picture of him but you can't succeed, and
> >you're only making a fool of yourself by calling him a "crackpot". If you
> >sincerely think he was a crackpot then your view is directly opposite of the
> >vast majority of researchers.
>
> Walt, if you're right about that, it's the saddest commentary I've ever heard
> on the so-called research community.
Dave, prick your ear and let some of the air out of the ego, okay?
You've been K.O'd on the subject -- you just haven't hit the canvas yet.
Garrison's efforts are respected by any number of researchers -- who
lived through that period in history. You didn't. You only got into the
study of this case in '91. You're too young and too hot-headed to feel
your way around this case with anything but a flurry of words and upper
cuts hitting the air. In basketball it's called shooting "air-balls."
> It's also a lame defense. If fifty million people all say a stupid thing, it's
> still a stupid thing.
Your intellectual arrogance in is full flower -- no one can investigate
like Dave Reitzes, is that it? You post too much and YOU HAVE YET TO
PROVE YOU CAN INTEGRATE YOUR ARGUMENTS INTO A COHESIVE WHOLE -- and
that's why people don't want to take you on point by point because it IS
a waste of time. It's painful to watch others repeatedly pounding on you
because you have yet to develop a cohesive viewpoint on Oswald's
participation, or the possible underpinnings of a conspiracy. You are
caught between two bars stools and you shall remain there until you get
back to primary issues: "WHO STOOD TO GAIN THE MOST FROM KENNEDY'S
DEATH? WHO WAS IN THE GREATEST POSITION TO DESTROY OR CONCEAL EVIDENCE?
WHAT WERE THE CHANGES IN FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICIES AFTER THE
ASSASSINATION? If you think you can distract this newsgroup from these
issues by your continual, transparently hatchet job on the only man to
bring a conviction THAT STUCK in this case, you're in over your head.
People are not so easily fooled any more. This country has been through
too much over the last 35 years, probably before you were even born.
To understand this case, you have to start by understanding yourself.
The head alone is not enough to make a accurate evaluation of anyone's
motives, temperament, and character.
HP
>Dreitzes
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dreitzes wrote:
>>
>> >From: dand...@aol.com (DAnde9348)
>
>> >It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the
>New
>> >York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others
>> >were
>> >making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
>> >assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay
>> >Epstein,
>> >Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
>> >questions they could not ignore.
>> >
>> >MAKING NOISES ABOUT REOPENING THE INVESTIGATION...is NOT the same as
>> >proceeding
>> >regarless of what Jim garrison or anyboby else was doing.
>> >
>>
>> You don't seem to see my point, Walt. Once Garrison came along and made all
>CTs
>> look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>> towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
>
>Forgive my intrusion gentlemen, but I thought I would interrupt Mr.
>Reitzes's tantrum to remind him that it was the infiltration of
>Garrison's office by outsiders
Citation?
and the premature public exposure of his
>investigation
He's really got you snowed, Haizen. This little gem of his was debunked ages
ago. Lurkers, check out Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* for the truth about
Jim Garrison. Also check out this link:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
I'd be happy to debate Haizen point-by-point about Jim, but Haizen already told
me he absolutely will not do so. Go figure.
, and consequently the convenient 'suicide' of David Ferry
Convenient it was -- for Garrison.
You really should consult some primary sources instead of relying on Liar Jim
for your information, Haizen.
>("I want to train killers"),
Yeah, Ferrie was looking for military service at the time, so I can see why
he'd "inflate his resume" a bit.
that determined the outcome of Shaw's
>trial, and his acquittal.
Really, Haizen? Let's see what the Shaw jurors had to say about that.
Jury foreman Sidney Hebert told James Kirkwood, "Actually the whole case rested
on the testimony of Perry Russo. And his testimony didn't prove a thing to me"
(James Kirkwood, *American Grotesque,* 508).
Juror Oliver Schultz told Kirkwood, "[W]e all had the same opinion, that it
wasn't enough to convict him. As far as -- you know you had to have -- beyond a
reasonable doubt. Well, to me, I still had PLENTY of doubts [emphasis in
original]. I mean one way or the other. But we all had the same opinion. . . .
[B]eginning with Perry Russo. That was his main witness. And when he could come
up with that idea that it could have been a bull session. I mean to me, if I
was going to conspire to kill somebody I sure wouldn't let somebody in and out
like he [Russo] claimed he was walking in and out, especially on a party"
(Ibid., 512).
Juror David Powe asked Jim Kirkwood an extraordinary question: "I would still
like to know where Clay Shaw's name came from. . . . It was not brought out at
the trial. . . . How did his name get in the hat to be pulled out? This frankly
is the question that's being asked. If he's not guilty, why pick Clay Shaw? Why
not pick somebody else?" (Ibid., 518) Powe remarked upon the number of people
he met who believed Shaw was guilty simply because he'd been accused: "It's not
particularly Clay Shaw. It's anybody. If it was David Powe or Jim Kirkman [sic]
-- it's not a man, it's a name and it's not really a name anymore. It's the
government. . . . They feel like the man would have been proven guilty if the
government had said, Okay, take whatever you want out of the Archives, take
whatever you want" (Ibid, 517).
Kirkwood asked juror Larry Morgan what he thought the weakest part of
Garrison's case was. "Well, the whole thing," Morgan replied. "I was surprised.
I just couldn't picture the type of case the state put on. The caliber of
witnesses was totally unbelievable for the seriousness of the case. That's my
opinion. . . . After it was all over, it was, like -- wow, what happened! What
-- that's it? We just couldn't imagine the state had brought up a case against
Clay Shaw -- absolutely nothing! . . . There was just no possibility, there was
no question but what the jury would find Clay Shaw innocent" (Ibid., 550).
Juror Charles Ordes told Kirkwood, "I kept waiting for the state to present a
case. I don't think they had enough to get this far. I was surprised that it
was even presented on this evidence. I was just waiting for something to
happen. I just kept waiting, you know, something's gonna come up. I just can't
see where they had a case. I feel the grand jury should have stopped him"
(Ibid., 557).
Alternate juror Bob Burlet -- who, as a prank, submitted a GUILTY vote before
taking his leave of the proceedings -- told Kirkwood, "Yes, I thought the
verdict would be not guilty. . . . I'd have voted the same way" (Ibid., 554).
>You see, Mr. Reitzes, when people like Ferrie are knocked off before an
>important trial
David Ferrie died a natural death. Jim Garrison lied when he said otherwise.
I've posted the evidence for this a thousand times, and Haizen Paige has never
made the slightest attempt to refute it.
Here's a little snippet from the autopsy report, courtesy of researcher David
Blackburst:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Autopsy Protocol W67-2-255:
"Classification of Death: Natural"
Certificate of Death 670001526:
"Classified by Coroner as a natural death"
1976 Certified copy of Coroner's record, Frank Minyard M.D., Coroner, Louis
Ivon, Administrator:
"Describe how injury occurred...Natural"
(end quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anyone who needs more information, see a post of mine from two days ago, "Dave
Ferrie's natural death." Anyone need another repost?
You can check out this link as well, to find out why the account of Ferrie's
death in Garrison's memoir makes no sense:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death1.txt
>-- and Jim was sure to have called him --
Sure, Haizen. Big Jim also said he was planning to arrest Ferrie at the time of
Ferrie's death, but Assistant DA James Alcock -- a longtime Garrison loyalist
-- admitted in 1994 that it wasn't true: There were NO plans to arrest David
Ferrie.
There had never been a shred of evidence that he had anything to do with the
assassination.
He didn't.
Lurkers, see Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* for the full story, a story
supported by verifiable primary source evidence, as opposed to Haizen Paige's
story, which is only supported by Jim Garrison.
they aren't
>too chatty on the witness stand. For some researchers, the timing of
>Ferrie's death is just too blatantly convenient for Shaw, considering
>the negative position that Shaw was in at the time. GET IT?
No, I don't, Haizen. Shaw was an innocent man. Lurkers, for a full discussion
of the case against Shaw, see my article at this link:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
I'd be perfectly happy to debate it point by point with Haizen, but Haizen
won't do it. In fact, I'd be happy to debate it with anyone. But no one will
accept my challenge. I wonder why that is.
It's for
>this reason that, under the circumstances, the coroner's determination
>that Ferrie's convenient death was self-inflicted IS NOT CONVINCING TO
>EVERYONE, AND WILL NEVER BE.
Of course not. There will always be people who believe Jim Garrison, despite
the mountains of evidence that the man was a total fraud. That's life. The good
news is that we each can make up our own mind about the subject: We can read
Garrison's memoirs for his side of the story, for example, and then we can
consult the contemporaneous record of the Garrison investigation and find out
that Big Jim is simply lying about the entire thing.
And besides, control the coroner and you
>can control the outcome of the autopsy.
Sure, Haizen. Lurkers, check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death1.txt
Haizen, I notice you don't post any evidence to support your speculation. Why
is that?
>Garrison did not make all CTs look like idiots. "Idiots" to whom? The
>idiots at CBC or NBC? Who cares about them? I don't. Do you?
I think I've wasted enough time correcting Haizen's misinformation. If anyone
finds Haizen's views compelling, I'd be interested in hearing your reactions to
the evidence to the information contained at the links cited above as well as
Patricia Lambert's excellent new book, *False Witness.*
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>Weisberg's comment about Garrison is interesting. Marina Oswald told me that
>those
>two individuals were the investigators she admired the most. Though the
>Garrison
>investigation had flaws his conclusions were probably accurate.
I'm sorry; I don't agree.
If you ever
>had a
>sincere belief in Armstrong's work the conclusions point in the same
>direction.
I've seen where John is headed. He's using witnesses like Leander D'Avy without
telling people that D'Avy was another Jack Martin: an alcoholic whose story
changed on a regular basis, jumping from summer 1963 to spring 1962 to fall
1963, and with two of the "three tramps" making a cameo in one of them.
If
>you disagree with John he deserves the opportunity to defend his position.
>You
>know how to contact him. Ask him directly about your concerns.
I faxed him a detailed letter about two to three months ago. I haven't heard
from him.
There may be
>things
>that he is right about as well as possibly wrong. He is entitled to defend
>his own
>position.
I faxed him a copy of the article I posted on my reservations about his work,
and I offered to post in full his response. He never sent one.
Eyewitness evidence and scientific evidence can both be good or
>bad. It
>is foolish to condemn or endorse either on their face.
> I am puzzled by the relentless defense of Shaw and Ferrie.
Why?
An
>uninformed
>reader might believe that these men are being nominated for sainthood.
I expect that kind of reactionary response from some people, but you, Doug,
should know better. If you have the slightest whisper of evidence implicating
either man in the assassination, I suggest you post it. Otherwise, I cannot
understand why you would continue to imply that either one had anything to do
with that unspeakable crime.
Lurkers, for my analysis of the case against Shaw, based on verifiable primary
sources, many of them from Garrison's own files, please see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
I have posted dozens of articles about Jim Garrison's groundless smears of
David Ferrie. I would be happy to repost any and all of them upon request.
Some
>of the
>observations may have validity but there are alternate interpretations of
>much of
>the supposition. Dean Andrews may have been inhibited by fear as much as
>making up
>stories or perhaps something in between. I believe that New Orleans remains
>one of
>the keys to the assassination.
I'm sorry, Doug, but Jim Garrison never produced the tiniest bit of evidence
against Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, Novel, Thornley, or any of his other
"suspects." Moreover, in the thirty years since, nothing has come to light.
Check out Bill Davy's new book -- he tries and tries and tries to redeem
Garrison, and he comes up with absolutely nothing.
If anyone disagrees, I will happily debate anyone point-for-point about any
facet of the Garrison case. Name the time and the place, and I'll be there.
Any takers?
Jim Garrison subjected himself to tremendous
>ridicule with little opportunity to gain anything.
I disagree.
Right or wrong I
>sincerely
>believe that his motives were pure.
I wish I could agree with you, but I find it very difficult to understand why
anyone with pure motives would have coerced Perry Russo's story, would have
coerced Vernon Bundy's testimony, would have coerced Jessie Parker's testimony,
would have coerced James Hardiman's testimony, would have attempted to coerce
testimony from Dean Andrews, Kerry Thornley, Miguel Torres and John Cancler . .
. that's just for starters.
Questions? Comments? I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
I have listened to countless hours of
>interviews and speeches that he gave. He was a patriot.
He was a liar, Doug. Why did he tell *Playboy* that NBC lied when they said
that Russo and Bundy failed polygraph tests when he knew that Bundy had failed
one and Russo had failed two? Why did his staff order the polygraph
administrators not to talk about the tests?
What about all those witnesses Garrison says in his memoirs he had to Shaw
being "Bertrand," none of whom he saw fit to subpoena? We have official records
showing his investigators had turned up no evidence of ANY "Clay Bertrand." See
Lou Ivon's February 25, 1967, memo, reproduced in full at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
How about Garrison's claim that Eladio del Valle was a suspect in his
investigation and had either been questioned by his office or was being sought
at the time of his death (depending on which version you read)? Where's the
evidence for that? If del Valle was a suspect, there should be plenty of
paperwork to show it.
What about Garrison lying for almost three decades that he and his office had
decided the morning of February 22, 1967, to arrest Ferrie as an assassination
conspirator -- just hours before Ferrie was discovered dead? He lied. James
Alcock -- a staunch Garrison loyalist -- admits now that no such meeting took
place and no such decision was made. They had no case against Ferrie, as is
evident from even a cursory study of the historical record.
How about when Garrison later dragged out the *Councilor* pictures and said he
wished he had them for the trial -- when he DID have them sitting right in his
files, labeled with "Ferrie's" real name: Bob Brannon, a WDSU employee who died
in 1966? He was questioning people about them as early as March 1967.
Do you think Garrison wasn't aware that Perry Russo's story wasn't fiction from
start to finish? Are you aware that even AFTER Russo's sodium Pentothal
session, Russo still told Garrison and Richard Billings that he didn't know
anyone named "Bertrand"? Garrison shrugged it off as a side-effect of the drug.
It wasn't a side-effect of the drug -- Russo's WHOLE STORY was a side-effect of
the drug and Garrison knew it. Have you read about how he hauled Russo before
the grand jury and informed him that a perjury charge would await him if he
didn't stick to his story? He even dropped a hint about a possible "accessory"
charge -- to warn Russo off from blabbing his doubts to reporters as he'd been
doing. Read Lambert's book.
How about Garrison insisting that Shaw signed that VIP room guest register when
he had to fly in a self-proclaimed (untrained) "handwriting expert" from out of
town because he clearly couldn't find ANYBODY in New Orleans to ID the
signature as Shaw's? Elizabeth McCarthy's ID of the signature was so
unconvincing that James Alcock had to state in his closing remarks that Shaw
probably disguised his handwriting anyway.
How about James Hardiman, who reportedly delivered mail to "Clem Bertrand" at
Jeff Biddison's house? Do you think Garrison was unaware that Hardiman didn't
divulge this information until his 20-year-old son Terry was arrested on a
theft charge in April 1968? Was that just a coincidence? Was Garrison just such
a trusting fellow -- government agents aside -- that he didn't think it odd
that Hardiman came up with this story at this time? Too bad the defense didn't
know about Terry Hardiman when Hardiman was cross-examined -- James Kirkwood
found out about him later. Terry Hardiman never was indicted on that theft
charge.
How about Garrison's claim that he wasn't aware of Charles Spiesel's
shortcomings beforehand -- which he was -- or that it wasn't his decision to
put Spiesel on the stand -- which it was? What about his wholly unsupported
accusation that Spiesel was a plant by the defense? See Lambert for the truth
about all this.
How about his dredging up witness after witness for his 1988 memoirs that he
COULD have called to testify in 1969, but didn't? I refer to witnesses like
William Morris, David Logan and Jules Ricco Kimble.
How about him using Edward Whalen's story that Shaw and Ferrie PERSONALLY hired
Whalen to assassinate Garrison? Not only didn't Garrison call Whalen to testify
-- he didn't even seem to think it worth pressing charges over. He called
Nicholas and Mathilda Tadin to testify to a single Shaw-Ferrie sighting, but
not someone who said he'd spoken to both men at length together and said they
offered him a contract to assassinate a DA? We're supposed to believe this? Why
didn't he testify? Was he murdered? Did he run off? Garrison's book doesn't
say. Just like it doesn't say what harm befell Morris, Logan, Kimble and others
who could otherwise have testified?
What about Garrison pulling Anne Hundley Dischler off the Clinton investigation
so he could send Andrew Sciambra in to get the statements he wanted? How about
his straight-faced lies about the Clinton folks until the day he died -- and
his files revealed some of the truth and Dischler's notes revealed the rest?
This is just for starters -- see Lambert's book for a page-by-page Cliff's
Notes of Garrison's assorted lies from *OTTOTA.*
Doug, I respect your posts here on the newsgroups, and you're absolutely,
positively entitled to your opinion. I just will never understand how you can
defend this man.
As he maintained,
>America
>will never be the same or democracy survive until the people of the United
>States
>are told the truth about who killed Jack Kennedy. Listen to the Johnny
>Carson show
>with Garrison. It is obvious that there was a concerted plan to prep Carson
>to
>destroy Garrison.
I don't believe that for a second, Doug. I've listened to that tape at Len
Osanic's site. Garrison says things like, "employees of the Central
Intelligence Agency were involved in the assassination," Carson says, "That's
your opinion, right?" And Garrison says, "No, that's a fact. And I will prove
it." We gave him a chance to prove it, Doug. And he failed. Badly.
>Such an event alone should raise suspicion.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
I confess
>that I
>have yet to read the Shaw transcripts.
You really should read them. James Kirkwood's reporting was accurate;
Garrison's is not. (I've posted HUNDREDS of pages of Shaw trial testimony and
challenged people to show me a single instance where Kirkwood distorted the
record. I've never received even a single response.)
Garrison acknowledged afterward that
>Shaw's
>involvement may not have been at a high level and accepted the verdict.
That's not good enough, Doug. Show me some evidence that Shaw was involved at
all. How can you keep defaming the man when there is not a hint of evidence
against him?
If you haven't read my article on Garrison's case against Shaw, you might want
to check it out, especially if you haven't read the trial transcript.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
We
>cannot
>forget that Shaw clearly perjured himself.
You are mistaken, Doug. You've bought into a Garrison myth. Part four of my
article debunks it. I would be happy to discuss it with you, but I would ask
that you read it first.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw4.htm
No matter how one dissects the
>circumstances David Ferrie remains highly worthy of suspicion.
Again, Doug, I'm sorry, but there's just no evidence against Ferrie. "Worthy of
suspicion" doesn't cut it. Garrison CREATED those suspicions. Please read
Patricia Lambert's chapter on Ferrie and tell me where she errs. I don't
believe she does.
I've posted DOZENS of articles on Ferrie. I'll gladly repost them if you want.
Garrison made the whole thing up, Doug. If you study the ACTUAL CONTEMPORANEOUS
RECORDS of the case, you will see that -- they do not support the assertions in
Garrison's memoirs. That book is a complete work of fiction, Doug. I can name
dozens of MAJOR distortions -- distortions that make Gerald Posner look like a
Boy Scout -- and Patricia Lambert lists dozens of them in her book.
Doug, again, you're entitled to your opinion. But I suggest you consider
checking Garrison's assertions against the contemporaneous records from his
files and other primary sources. They contradict him time after time.
I propose that you've trusted the wrong person, Doug. Just as people used to
say the only way to believe the Warren Report is not to read it, the only way
to believe Garrison's case is to take Garrison's word for it. The record proves
him wrong every time.
I do not know
>if
>the subject of the Shaw trial in total justifies such enormous scrutiny when
>the
>bigger picture of the assassination better merits people's efforts.
I agree with you, but I believe we will never get to the truth if we don't
acknowledge that Garrison led us down the wrong path.
Perhaps
>that
>same vigor might be directed at attacking the persecution of Oswald (whoever
>he/they were), the accused assassin(s).
I've heard it all before, Doug. I never posted a word about Garrison until two
NG posters made an issue of it, and I continue to post about him for one reason
-- people won't stop asserting his fallacies, despite the fact that they've all
been discredited.
There is not a single Garrison supporter who will debate the facts with me,
Doug. That COULD be for the reason they say -- that I'm just not worth it --
but I think it's because no one can defend Garrison from the evidence.
He, like Shaw , may not be squeaky
>clean
>but it is he, not Shaw, who the writers of history have sought to condemn. .
>Volume
>of criticism does not change history. That was what the WC attempted to do
>with 26
>volumes. A reasonable, impartial, intelligent examination of the evidence
>cannot
>support those conclusions, nor can volumes of postings alone support the
>destruction of Garrison.
Doug, if you want to persuade me, you're going to have to deal with evidence,
not philosophy.
If you can show me I'm wrong about Garrison, I'll retract every word I've ever
said about him. If you wish to critique my Shaw defense, I will correct any
factual errors you point out. That's been a standing offer of mine to all NG
posters for seven months now, since the article was posted. No one's taken me
up on it. No one's critiqued my article -- although the attacks from people who
haven't read it have been quite interesting -- and not a single factual error
has been called to my attention.
I welcome you to give my article a look, Doug. I'd very much like to hear your
feedback.
However, I admire your tenacity in uncovering
>facts. I
>can often accept your analysis, but not your conclusions.
>
Fair enough. I appreciate the fact that you can agree to disagree with me about
Garrison, something many are not capable of doing. As you know from prior
posts, you and I agree about much.
Dave Reitzes
Blackburst
>the convenient 'suicide' of David Ferry
>("I want to train killers"), that determined the outcome of Shaw's
>trial, and his acquittal.
>when people like Ferrie are knocked off before an
>important trial -- and Jim was sure to have called him -- they aren't
>too chatty on the witness stand.
Suicide, murder or natural causes? The available evidence does not support a
suspicion of suicide. The two letters that were found in Ferrie's apartment,
described by some as suicide notes, do not read like suicide notes, and are
consistent with the farewell notes of a sick man.
The available does not support a suspicion of murder. The two areas of dryness
in Ferrie's mouth could have been caused by any number of things, such as an
ill-fitting denture, and the absence of other external marks of violence and
the absence of capsules in the stomach argues against Proloid or some other
drug being forced down his throat. Ferrie was found laying on the couch as
though he had retired for the night, and died in his sleep.
oo
David
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
>York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others
>were
>making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
>assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay
>Epstein,
>Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
>questions they could not ignore.
Source, please. (Not the questions part, the re-opening part. I looked on the
web site you quoted, but this particular information wasn't there?
>It's just one more reason the mainstream will never take CTs seriously.
So what? They never will. It's against their interests.
>Because
>the mainstream was 100% right about Garrison.
The mainstream is not 100% right about anything. Including Garrison.
- /< /\ /> -
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
>look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
I don't remember the mainstream media ever being skeptical of the Warren
Report. Again I ask for a citation from one of these media.
>Life and the Saturday Evening Post both accepted Garrison's offer to pool
>their
>resources with his office in exchange for the inside track to the scoop of
>the
>century. NBC came to New Orleans with the same thing in mind.
Sources, please. Not out of disbelief, I actually wouldn't be surprised if
Life and CBS wanted an "inside track" to Garrison's information.
>Guess what?
>
>They found out what a complete fraud Garrison was, and they left in disgust.
It's odd that you should say that Life (among others) found that Garrison was a
"fraud". Wasn't Time-Life the organization that "inadvertently" published the
Z-film frames out of sequence, giving the American public the impression for
years (along with good old Dan Rather from trustworthy CBS) that JFK's head
snapped *forward*? *IF* that wasn't "inadvertent", then it would be, well,
"fraud", wouldn't it?
Dave, as you know, I don't believe Garrison had a case against Shaw. But if it
comes down to trusting Garrison or the wonderful folks at Time-Life or NBC
(owned, BTW, by GE, one of the biggest weapons manufacturers on Earth, among
many other things), I have to tell you, I've got to go with Big Jim.
>Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac
Again the vehemence against Garrison. (Not that I'm against vehemence. I'll
match you adjective for adjective in my screeds against the CIA. ;-) I've
thought of another possible reason for your emotional response to him. I
hesitate to breach this subject, because I know it will be misconstrued by
someone, but the only way to do it is to just do it.
Is it the gay thing?
Some people have suggested that Garrison pursued Shaw because Shaw was gay and
he was prejudiced against homosexuals. Some people have said it was because
Garrison himself was gay, and wanted to cover it up. Is that the source of
your frustration with Garrison? You've answered this question for me before,
by saying "I just don't like to be lied to". Is that really all there is to
it? Do you *really* think the mainstream media was well on it's way to opening
an investigation of their own until Garrison?
(Please note that I am not suggesting that you might be gay, if that *is* the
reason for your vitriol. I don't care if you are or not. I hate to try to
re-assure you with a cliche, but some of my best friends are gay.)
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
>>York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others
>>were
>>making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
>>assassination in 1966-67, as authors like Harold Weisberg, Edward Jay
>>Epstein,
>>Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Sylvia Meagher and Leo Sauvage were raising
>>questions they could not ignore.
>
>Source, please. (Not the questions part, the re-opening part. I looked on
>the
>web site you quoted, but this particular information wasn't there?
Sylvia Meagher \:^) discusses some, possibly all of the above in *Accessories
After the Fact,* 458-64. I can dig for some more specific citations if you need
them.
>
>
>>It's just one more reason the mainstream will never take CTs seriously.
>
>So what? They never will. It's against their interests.
I don't believe that, Ric. The "controlled media" will happily report the story
of the century if the story is verifiable. Most of us are judging the media by
1999 standards, and the media in 1999 has long since given up on the claims
made on a regular basis by CTs.
That was not the case in 1966. Life and the Saturday Evening Post (which were
BIG) were cooperating with Garrison in late '66 and early '67 until the editors
became convinced -- for reasons I consider 100% valid -- that Garrison did not
have anything to offer them or the American public. NBC did not come to New
Orleans to wreck Garrison's case, as some would have us believe. They sent
Walter Sheridan -- obviously! -- because Sheridan was not only an ace
investigator, but had been a personal friend and associate of John and Robert
Kennedy. Sheridan learned the truth about Garrison, just as most everyone else
soon did.
If anyone wants to debate me about this, I would be happy to comply.
>
>>Because
>>the mainstream was 100% right about Garrison.
>
>The mainstream is not 100% right about anything. Including Garrison.
You'll have to prove it to me, Ric.
You know where to start, right?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
If Garrison was not a total fraud, it should be child's play to refute my
arguments.
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>
>Haizen Paige wrote:
>>the convenient 'suicide' of David Ferry [sic]
It's just amazing that, given a choice between the documented, verifiable,
empirical evidence and the unsupported opinion of Jim Garrison, some
people are inclined to go with the latter -- despite the fact that
Garrison could have ordered David Ferrie exhumed if he REALLY thought that
Ferrie's autopsy was inaccurate.
You'll notice that Garrison supporters like Haizen Paige will repeatedly
assert the "fact" of Ferrie's not-so-natural death, but when presented
with the actual evidence, they will not attempt to refute it.
Now, why would that be?
For anyone who missed it the last dozen times I posted it, here is . . .
REPOST OF INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DAVID FERRIE'S DEATH
Dr. Bob Artwohl writes:
>Seen in the BEST light, the Garrison handling of the proloid as cause
>of death evidence is the work of a completely incompetent
>investigator. In the very worse light (and more likely, IMO), the
>death by proloid is a completely bogus bit of fiction dreamed up by
>Garrison to subvert Ferrie's natural death to his own machinations.
>Futhermore, Oliver Stone's handling of this is "JFK" is yet more
>perfect example of the shoddy research and/or continuation of Garrison
>duplicity and deceit that can be found in this unfortunate piece of
>celluloid fantasy.
>
>One need look no further than Garrison's own book, On the Trail of the
>Assassins to uncover the dubious nature of Garrison's claims.
>According to his own account, Jim Garrison arrived at the scene after
>Chetta had already left with the body. Upon finding some bottles of
>medication in Ferrie's apartment, he POCKETS them and takes them back
>to office. (Fingerprints, anyone?) Once there, Big Jim "discovers"
>that one of bottles happens to be an empty bottle of thyroid
>medication, proloid, that, by one of those eerie JFK coincidences just
>so happens to be the exact same medication Garrison once took. Next,
>Big Jim does NOT call the coroner about his finding the empty Proloid
>and his suspicion of foul play. Instead, he calls an unnamed
>pathologist friend in Baton Rouge and make an inquiry as to how death
>by Proloid could be detected. According to Big Jim, the pathologist
>tells him the only way death by thyroid hormone could be detected
>would be analysis of blood or spinal fluid samples. He then he calls
>the coroner's office and asks if any blood or spinal fluid sample were
>saved. Upon finding that no samples were saved, Garrison throws the
>bottle of Proloid in his drawer, in disgust. "Many years later," Jim
>Garrison throws OUT the bottle of Proloid because he did "not want
>such a souvenir."
>
>Here's what Garrison did not do:
>
>1. He did not hand over the bottle of Proloid to a crime lab
>technician so it could be duly noted into evidence. Jim Garrison
>arrives at the crime scene, "discovers a bottle of Proloid," that
>according to Big Jim, had been treated by the coroner's men "with
>disregard." So how does super sleuth Big Jim handle this? Although
>Ferrie left "suicide notes" he takes the medicine bottles down to his
>own office, and sometime AFTER the autopsy, decides to go through
>them. According to Big Jim, Ferrie had never been diagnosed with a
>thyroid problem. Now, every bottle of prescription medication has the
>following information on it: the date of the presciption, the
>pharmacy where the presciprtion was filled, and the doctor who
>prescribed the medication. A little routine police work, involving a
>few phone calls could have cleared up this matter one way or another.
>
******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
In his memoirs Garrison questions whether Ferrie would have ever been
prescribed the drug. Patricia Lambert has confirmed from Ferrie's personal
correspondence that he was, in fact, being treated for a thyroid condition
no later than the early 1940s.
****************************************************************
>2. He did not call Chetta and inform the coroner of his suspicions
>that Ferrie may have died from a Proloid overdose. It is not
>astonishing that the District Attorney Jim Garrison's entire
>investigation of a suspected death of "history's most important
>individual" was two phone calls, neither of which was to the man
>responsible for determining the cause of death?
>
*********************************************************
DR responds:
But Garrison DID try to pressure autopsy pathologist Ronald A. Welsh into
changing the cause of death to suicide -- NOT, incidentally, murder, which
would become Garrison's pet theory only much later (Lambert, 64).
**************************************************************
>And now for the inconvenient facts:
>
>1. Proloid is a thyroid replacement drug that was commonly used in
>the 1960's. It contains T4 (thyroxine) and T3, triidothyroxine). T4
>is produced in the thyroid gland and is transported to peripheral
>tissues where it is converted to the active form, T3. A simple blood
>test, routinely performed in the late 1960's, or liver assay (even
>AFTER burial) could have detected abnormal levels of T3 and T4.
>
**************************************************************
DR responds:
And Garrison never lifted a finger to have the body of "one of history's
most important individuals" exhumed.
***************************************************************
>2. What's more, death by Proloid would not come quickly.
*************************************************************
DR responds:
If at all.
************************************************************
>Even if
>David Ferrie had been forced to ingest Proloid, it could not have been
>responsible for his death. T4, either taken orally, or injected
>subcutaneously will not begin to exert a metabolic effect for about
>one or two DAYS. T3 acts a little quicker, but will will not exert an
>effect until 6 to 12 HOURS after ingestion. Thus one must assume that
>whatever goons hung forced the proloid down Ferries throat, hung
>around his apartment 6-12 hours waiting for >him to die.
**************************************************************
DR responds:
Though, again, the contemporaneous record is perfectly clear that Garrison
never spoke of Ferrie having been murdered at that time -- he only spoke
of the death as a suicide. He later embraced a theory that Ferrie's berry
aneurysm ruptured due to a karate chop, a theory disproven by the utter
lack of bruising on Ferrie's body. Later, he reverted to the Proloid
story, this time theorizing it was forced down Ferrie's throat, again
something which the state of Ferrie's corpse tends to disprove.
************************************************************
>David Ferrie
>was last seen alive by George Lardner, Jr. at four am the day of his
>death. At that time, Ferrie was cool calm and collected, so it is
>safe to assume, no one had forced a bottle of Proloid down his throat
>before this. His body was discovered seven hours later, just about
>the time Proloid would BEGIN to exert an effect. However, Chetta, the
>coroner determined that Ferrie had been dead approximately SEVEN HOURS
>when discovered at 11 am that morning. Thus, Ferrie must have died
>SHORTLY after 4 AM, which was way too soon for any thyroid medication
>to even START to have an effect. Thus, it is simply not
>pharmakinetically possible for David Ferrie to have died by Proloid
>ingestion.
>
[匽
***********************************************************
DR responds:
David Blackburst has demonstrated that Garrison initially reported seven
Proloid tablets remaining in at the scene.
On Friday, February 17, 1967, few days before David Ferrie's death, he
invited reporter David Snyder over to his apartment for an interview.
Patricia Lambert writes that when Snyder arrived he found Ferrie
"physically ill . . . his voice was barely audible, his breathing
'unsteady.' . . . As they climbed the stairs to his second floor
apartment, Ferrie's 'steps were feeble' and he said he had encephalitis
[an inflammation of the brain]. He didn't mention it then but he had also
been having severe headaches. Without knowing it, he had suffered one,
perhaps two, 'small bleeds,' minor ruptures in a blood vessel at the back
of his head" (Lambert, 58, based on an interview with Snyder, also see
below).
Lambert's source on Ferrie's condition is Dr. Ronald A. Welsh, whom she
interviewed in 1993. Welsh told her that microscopic slides of Ferrie's
brain tissue indicated that in addition to blood vessel perforating, there
was "scar tissue indicating that Ferrie had had another bleed, a small
one, previously . . . at least one or two of them at least two weeks
before he died. This is a common occurence with Berry aneurysms," Welsh
told her, "people have one or two before they blow out completely . . .
His headaches were from the early bleeds" (Lambert, 302 fn.).
This supports what we have already learned about Ferrie's death:
"Though no evidence supported it, Garrison theorized that Ferrie had
deliberately overdosed on his thyroid medication, Proloid, a medical
improbability due to the slow-acting nature of the drug. One doctor
recently said that Ferrie could have swallowed an entire bottle of it
without an immediate effect. Garrison persisted in his contention,
however, and pressured the coroner to return a suicide verdict. Dr. Chetta
refused. The autopsy pathologist, Dr. Ronald Welsh, in a 1993 interview
with me, said he had been outraged by Garrison's campaign to make
something out of nothing and corrupt the scientific process" (Lambert,
64).
[Lambert adds in a footnote, "That Proloid could be fatal under any
circumstances is unlikely but, if possible, the experts say it would
require massive doses over a prolonged period. Garrison questioned
Ferrie's taking this medication at all and stated in his memoir that
Ferrie had no condition requiring it. But he did" (Lambert, 304 fn.). "As
a young man Ferrie had been diagnosed with a thyroid deficiency that was
believed to be the cause of his alopecia (hair loss)" (Lambert, 282, item
#28). Lambert cites three letters from Ferrie's father, James -- dated
1/29/44, 2/2/44 and 4/4/44 -- written to the administration at St. Charles
Seminary, which Ferrie was attending.]
"Garrison immediately announced that he and his aides had made the
decision that very morning 'to arrest' Ferrie early next week.' That was
not true. But for twenty-seven years, no one in the Garrison camp admitted
it publicly. In 1994 [former Assistant DA] James Alcock went on record
with the truth. 'To my knowledge,' he told me, speaking each word
deliberately, 'there was NO intent to arrest David Ferrie' [emphasis in
original]. Alcock should know. He was one of those Garrison said was
present when the "decision" was made" (Lambert, 65).
Dave Reitzes
Subject: Re: HOW DAVID FERRIE DIED
From: harg...@enteract.com (Jim Hargrove)
Date: 3/6/99 4:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <36e1a36f...@news.enteract.com>
[snip]
Despite the two typed suicide notes and the fact that a sheet was pulled
over Ferrie's naked body, coroner Chetta ruled death by natural causes.
Chetta died three months later, but his successor, Dr. Frank Minyard, some
years ago distributed photographs from Ferrie's autopsy. Photos of the
inside of Ferrie's mouth revealed recent wounds.
The bottle of Proloid pills was empty. Also missing entirely was a bottle
of 100 thyroid pills Ferrie purchased the day before he died. In a
1/31/92 interview with Jim DiEugenio, Dr. Minyard considered this a
possible scenario for the murder of Ferrie: The thyroid pills were mixed
with the Proloid and forced down Ferrie's mouth with a tube, which caused
the mouth wounds.
--Jim Hargrove
[Garrison would have to have been an utter moron to miss such obvious
signs of foul play. -- DR]
Subject: Re: HOW DAVID FERRIE DIED
From: black...@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 3/7/99 12:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <19990307004416...@ng29.aol.com>
Jim Hargrove wrote:
>Despite the two typed suicide notes
The farewell notes have not been established to be suicide notes. They are
consistent with the farewell notes of a dying man.
>and the fact that a sheet was pulled
>over Ferrie's naked body
Photographs taken by the coroner of Ferrie's body at the scene of his
death do not show a sheet pulled over Ferrie's body. They show Ferrie in a
traditional sleeping position with a sheet covering his naked body up to
the stomach. This is not inconsistent with dying in his sleep.
>Photos of the
>inside of Ferrie's mouth revealed recent wounds.
The "areas of dryness" or "lesions" inside Ferrie's lips were not
described as "wounds" and were not dated as time.
>The bottle of Proloid pills was empty
According to a memo from Garrison to Alcock, "a bottle of Proloid (with
only seven tablets found in it) was found in David Ferrie's apartment."
>In a 1/31/92
>interview with Jim DiEugenio, Dr. Minyard considered this a possible
>scenario for the murder of Ferrie: The thyroid pills were mixed with the
>Proloid and forced down Ferrie's mouth with a tube, which caused the mouth
>wounds.
>
Minyard never examined the body. Dr. Ronald A. Welsh did.
Four mistakes in one post.
oo
David Blackburst
Subject: Re: HOW DAVID FERRIE DIED
From: black...@aol.com (Blackburst)
Date: 3/7/99 12:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <19990307003113...@ng29.aol.com>
[snip]
Autopsy Protocol W67-2-255:
"Classification of Death: Natural"
Certificate of Death 670001526:
"Classified by Coroner as a natural death"
1976 Certified copy of Coroner's record, Frank Minyard M.D., Coroner, Louis
Ivon, Administrator:
"Describe how injury occurred...Natural"
These are the real records.
oo
David Blackburst
[Jim Hargrove never responded.]
Subject: Re: HOW DAVID FERRIE DIED
From: hale...@aol.com (Hale6968)
Date: 3/6/99 11:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <19990306230632...@ng-fw1.aol.com>
Captain Dave had told friends he was dying . . . . He purchased his grave
site in St. Bernard's Cemetery where he now resides. He signed over his
airplane to an acquaintance telling him he was dying and wouldn't need it.
He complained of pain with each step up to his 2cd storey apt. These signs
and symptoms are sign and symptoms of a leaking aneurysm. He actually had
evidence that he leaked a few weeks earlier which correlates with his
complaints before the final fatal rupture. Rupture of berry aneurysms
typically occurs in Ferrie's age group.
Jeffrey
Ferrie's "suicide" notes, posted by Barb Junkkarinen:
<quote on>
To leave this life is, for me, a sweet prospect. I find nothing in it
that is desirable, and on the other hand everything that is loathsome.
Daily we are propagandized more and more about a rising crime rate.
But how do we know it is true? We don't, for we Americans have little
or no access to the truth. Today I went to the police headquarters to
see these "public records" of this rising crime rate and nearly wound
up in jail for my trouble. I was searched, interrogated, verbally
abused, had my record checked, and finally threatened. Needless to
say, I did not see the "public records".
Still more irking is to hear a superintendent of police, who rose
through the ranks (thus proving that zero equals super zero) stating
that the solution to the crime problem was tightened and more
stringent laws. A somewhat messianic distict attorney concurred.
Together these men prove themselves utterly unfit for office, just as
they proved that an electorate cannot be depended on to pick the right
man. The problems of crime rest deep in society. The problems exist in
the existence of divorce and the absence of regulations.
No parents would send him [sic] child to an amateur for dental work,
nor a quack for an appendectomy. Yet what atrocious negligence is
permitting other amateurs to raise children. Mere kids are allowed to
marry because they have the "urge". How stupid can you get? Every
expert tells in detail how children must be cared for physically,
emotionally and intellectually. Yet society lets girls and boys, not
yet capable of lover [sic] begat [sic] children who, love-starved,
turn to crime for some sort of identification. However, I don't think
we will often see a district attorney or a police chief with brains to
realize this.
We pay so much attention to the law. I have not figured out the
reason. I have watched judges like...at work. The various police and
district attorneys and the like get to bend the judge's ear long
before the trial. These judges of today deny defendants due process of
the law. They permit the court to try the case in chambers, to have
district attorneys form their opinions and decisions long before the
defense gets a chance. Further, these same judges (and I am afraid it
pertains to nearly all of them) then comment, by word, glance, gesture
or remark, on the evidence in front of a jury. If the defendant wins,
these judges take it as a personal insult.
When I was a boy my father preached that in the "American way of life"
you are innocent till proven guilty. No greater lie has been told. The
man charged before the court has flat got to prove his innocence. Go
witness a criminal trial and watch. The state is supposed to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you read decisions of the various
courts of appeal and the Supreme Court you discover that truth and
falsehood, right and wrong have no place in court. All the state needs
is "evidence to support a conviction". If this is justice, then
justice be damned.
<quote off>
<quote on>
Dear Al:
When you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be
possible. I wonder how you are going to justify things.
Tell me you treated me as you did because I was the one who always got
you in trouble. The police arrest. The strip car charge. The deal at
Kohn School. Flying Barragona in the Beech.
Well, I guess that helps ease your conscience, even if it is not the
truth. All I can say is that I offered you love, and the best I could.
All I got in return in the end was a kick in the teeth. Thus I die
alone and unloved.
You would not even straighten out --- about me, though this started
when you were going steady.
I wonder what your last days and hours are going to be like. As you
sowed, so shall you reap.
<end quote>
More about Ferrie and the Jim Garrison investigation:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
DAnde9348
>Date: Thu, 10 June 1999 04:35 AM EDT
>Message-id: <375F7890...@sedona.net>
>You've been K.O'd on the subject -- you just haven't hit the canvas yet.
>Garrison's efforts are respected by any number of researchers -- who
>lived through that period in history. You didn't. You only got into the
>study of this case in '91. You're too young and too hot-headed to feel
>your way around this case with anything but a flurry of words and upper
>cuts hitting the air. In basketball it's called shooting "air-balls."
>
Hello Haizen....
This particular analogy really sums it up quite nicely..... Ol pretty boy
Reitzes has just got his ass kicked....he's out on his feet, he's still being
held up by his own inflated ego.
He fancies himself to be the greatest of them all but in reality he gets his
ass kicked every time he steps into the ring with someone with the facts.
Walt
Dave Reitzes
>
>>From: Haizen Paige <hai...@sedona.net>
>
>>You've been K.O'd on the subject -- you just haven't hit the canvas yet.
>>Garrison's efforts are respected by any number of researchers --
Joe McCarthy and Hitler both still have acolytes, too.
who
>>lived through that period in history. You didn't. You only got into the
>>study of this case in '91. You're too young and too hot-headed to feel
>>your way around this case with anything but a flurry of words and upper
>>cuts hitting the air.
Sure, that's why all Haizen can offer are ad hominem attacks like this one.
Well, hey, if it makes him feel like he's fooling anyone, what the hell?
>In basketball it's called shooting "air-balls."
Man, I hate to let a straight line like THAT go by. But I suppose I must . . .
>>
>Hello Haizen....
>
>This particular analogy really sums it up quite nicely..... Ol pretty boy
>Reitzes has just got his ass kicked....he's out on his feet, he's still being
>held up by his own inflated ego.
>
>He fancies himself to be the greatest of them all but in reality he gets his
>ass kicked every time he steps into the ring with someone with the facts.
>
>Walt
Yes, ad hominem attacks should win over lurkers by the dozen, assuming they
don't know that Walt and Haizen both refuse to debate me on any facts. Hey, my
offer's still open, but you won't see them do it. They can't. Jim Garrison
cannot be defended from the facts.
Lurkers can go see for themselves what I mean:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
And . . .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm
There are even links here to Lisa Pease's pro-Garrison Web site. (Pease is one
of the most vocal Garrison advocates alive.) I encourage people to check Lisa's
site out. The fact that she, too, refuses to debate the evidence with me should
give everyone a clue about Garrison's credibility.
We will never, ever know the truth about the John F. Kennedy assassination
until we acknowledge that Garrison was a fraud who led us nowhere but down a
long, dark blind alley.
Dave Reitzes
DAnde9348
>Date: Thu, 10 June 1999 04:03 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990610160332...@ng-fg1.aol.com>
>Yes, ad hominem attacks should win over lurkers by the dozen,
Is that what we're here for?? To win over lurkers??.... Hell here I thought we
were here to present facts and learn.....
But I wouldn't mind winnin a lurker....particularly if she is in her twenties
blond, blue eyed, well built, and knows how to cook...
Walt
K.B.
Walt it takes several years for a lurker to learn how to cook
properly, i think you have to aim for one in its 30's.
hehe
=keith= the sashoo chef.
=keith=
You can cut your throat with a sharp tongue.
Jean Davison
<19990610134715...@ng-cs1.aol.com>...
>Hi Dave,
Excuse me for jumping in, but ...
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
>>look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>>towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
>
>I don't remember the mainstream media ever being skeptical of the Warren
>Report. Again I ask for a citation from one of these media.
>
I can give you one -- Life, November 25, 1966.
Lead story, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt." The
headline over the article says:
>> AMID HEIGHTENING CONTROVERSY ABOUT
THE WARREN REPORT, GOVERNOR CONNALLY
EXAMINES FOR 'LIFE' THE ASSASSINATION FILM
The Commission said President Kennedy and Connally
were hit by the same bullet. Connally still vigorously
claims he was hit by a second bullet. That Lee Harvey
Oswald acted alone is..... A MATTER OF REASONABLE
DOUBT << [End Quote]
Epstein and Lane published their first books
in 1966, creating a lot of doubts about the WR.
Then along came a N.O. DA ....
>
>>Life and the Saturday Evening Post both accepted Garrison's offer to pool
>>their
>>resources with his office in exchange for the inside track to the scoop of
>>the
>>century. NBC came to New Orleans with the same thing in mind.
>
>Sources, please. Not out of disbelief, I actually wouldn't be surprised if
>Life and CBS wanted an "inside track" to Garrison's information.
>
>
>>Guess what?
>>
>>They found out what a complete fraud Garrison was, and they left in
disgust.
>
>It's odd that you should say that Life (among others) found that Garrison
was a
>"fraud". Wasn't Time-Life the organization that "inadvertently" published
the
>Z-film frames out of sequence, giving the American public the impression
for
>years (along with good old Dan Rather from trustworthy CBS) that JFK's head
>snapped *forward*? *IF* that wasn't "inadvertent", then it would be, well,
>"fraud", wouldn't it?
I think it was one of the WC's published volumes that
reversed two frames right after Z313. But reversing two
frames doesn't eliminate the backward snap, which
lasted much longer than that. And the error was easy
to spot, so it really accomplished nothing.
>
>Dave, as you know, I don't believe Garrison had a case against Shaw. But if
it
>comes down to trusting Garrison or the wonderful folks at Time-Life or NBC
>(owned, BTW, by GE, one of the biggest weapons manufacturers on Earth,
among
>many other things), I have to tell you, I've got to go with Big Jim.
>
Don't trust anybody would be my advice.
>
>>Garrison was a corrupt, morally bankrupt megalomaniac
>
>Again the vehemence against Garrison. (Not that I'm against vehemence. I'll
>match you adjective for adjective in my screeds against the CIA. ;-) I've
>thought of another possible reason for your emotional response to him. I
>hesitate to breach this subject, because I know it will be misconstrued by
>someone, but the only way to do it is to just do it.
>
>Is it the gay thing?
>
>Some people have suggested that Garrison pursued Shaw because Shaw was gay
and
>he was prejudiced against homosexuals. Some people have said it was
because
>Garrison himself was gay, and wanted to cover it up. Is that the source of
>your frustration with Garrison? You've answered this question for me
before,
>by saying "I just don't like to be lied to". Is that really all there is
to
>it? ....<snip>
With me, being lied to is a big part of it. (I'm not
gay, or even pro-gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
I used to think Garrison was "on to something," but then
around 1992 in another JFK forum someone posted
the "fact" that Perry Russo had told his conspiracy
story to the Baton Rouge press before he first talked to
Garrison -- this was Garrison's claim, repeated by
Jim DiEugenio. I'd just read an article by Epstein
saying that this claim was false. When I mentioned
that, people called Epstein a liar. Well. It was simple
enough to get copies of Russo's Baton Rouge
newspaper interviews to see who was right.
It turned out that Epstein was right. Garrison
lied about that.
It was all downhill from there. I read Kirkwood's
book and Garrison's, and compared each one
with the newspaper coverage of the Shaw
investigation/trial. Time after time, Kirkwood's
story was accurate, Garrison's wasn't.
But it's more than being lied to, for me.
Imagine for a moment that Clay Shaw had no
more to do with killing Kennedy than you did.
(You *are* innocent, right?<g>) Then suppose
a DA cooked up a case, put you on trial before
the world -- in effect, ruined your life -- and later,
suppose Hollywood made the DA a national hero?
When Garrison said "white is black and black is white,"
I don't think he had Shaw's nightmare in mind,
but that's how I see it. It's surreal.
Shaw is still apparently well-respected
in N.O., btw. There's a plaque in his honor on a
building in the French Quarter that he restored.
The plaque mentions his civic deeds, says
nothing at all about his trial, or so I've heard.
In American Grotesque Kirkwood quotes
a long interview with Jim Phelan, in which
Phelan talked about his many conversations
with Perry Russo. At one point Phelan said:
QUOTE:
>> [Russo] asked me once if I'd heard about
the Dreyfus case. He said, "What was it?
I hear people talking about it." I said, "Well,
it's a famous case, an instance of an innocent
man getting railroaded into prison, Devil's
Island, down in the Caribbean, a French guy
accused of selling out his country. It was a
famous case." I said, "He was finally sprung
by a writer by the name of Emile Zola, who
wrote a pamphlet called J'accuse." I said,
"It's interesting that you raise this, because if your
story is false and if Clay Shaw is innocent--
you're going to go down as a little footnote
in history as a piece of sh*t that turned Clay
Shaw into another Dreyfus." He said, "Oh!
[Phelan laughed] *OH!*" But after a while I lost
any sympathy I had. I really did. I think that
what he's done is too enormous. I'm sorry
for him--that he's capable of doing such
a thing--but I think he ought to be in jail. I
think it's a monstrous thing." [p. 169]
Jean
DAnde9348
>Date: Fri, 11 June 1999 10:46 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7jt0cr$1g...@enews2.newsguy.com>
> "I just don't like to be lied to".
> With me, being lied to is a big part of it.
DR
> But it's more than being lied to, for me.
>Imagine for a moment that Clay Shaw had no
>more to do with killing Kennedy than you did.
>(You *are* innocent, right?<g>) Then suppose
>a DA cooked up a case, put you on trial before
>the world -- in effect, ruined your life --
Hey DR..... If you don't like being lied to then why on earth would you read Mc
Adams stuff.....
If you don't like being lied to how can you stomach the big lie the Warren
Commission
dumped on you.
And if you think Shaw got a raw deal from Garrison how would you classify the
deal Oswald got from the authorities??
Walt
RicBissell
dav...@together.net wrote:
>>I don't remember the mainstream media ever being skeptical of the Warren
>>Report. Again I ask for a citation from one of these media.
> I can give you one -- Life, November 25, 1966.
>Lead story, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt." The
>headline over the article says:
>
>>> AMID HEIGHTENING CONTROVERSY ABOUT
>THE WARREN REPORT, GOVERNOR CONNALLY
>EXAMINES FOR 'LIFE' THE ASSASSINATION FILM
>The Commission said President Kennedy and Connally
>were hit by the same bullet. Connally still vigorously
>claims he was hit by a second bullet. That Lee Harvey
>Oswald acted alone is..... A MATTER OF REASONABLE
>DOUBT << [End Quote]
Well, the headline sounds pretty good. What about the text of the article?
(Do you have a scanner?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that the overall tone
of the article is conspicuously suspicious of conspiracy theories. Am I right?
(If you can't scan it in, I'll even accept to your critical opionion of the
slant of the article.)
>Epstein and Lane published their first books
>in 1966, creating a lot of doubts about the WR.
>Then along came a N.O. DA ....
I don't consider the publishing of a book to be "major media," per se. If you
are going to call Epstein and Lane's books evidence that there was a call for
an investigation pre-Garrison, then you can't say Garrison changed anything,
because there have been a lot of pro-conspiracy books post-Garrison, too.
Here's what I consider to be "major media" for the purposes of this discussion:
CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, and
Newsweek, AP and UPI.
> I think it was one of the WC's published volumes that
>reversed two frames right after Z313.
I think Life magazine pulled this stunt, too. (I could be wrong, that's from
memory.)
>But reversing two
>frames doesn't eliminate the backward snap, which
>lasted much longer than that.
But the backward snap wasn't seen by the American public for years. Geraldo
Rivera was the first time I saw it, and I think that was in the late 70's.
>And the error was easy
>to spot, so it really accomplished nothing.
Except for leaving the wrong impression in the American people's mind, until
they saw the film for themselves.
>Don't trust anybody would be my advice.
>
Hear! Hear! ;-)
> It was all downhill from there. I read Kirkwood's
>book and Garrison's, and compared each one
>with the newspaper coverage of the Shaw
>investigation/trial.
Which newspaper? Both New Orleans papers?
> Shaw is still apparently well-respected
>in N.O., btw. There's a plaque in his honor on a
>building in the French Quarter that he restored.
>The plaque mentions his civic deeds, says
>nothing at all about his trial, or so I've heard.
This is why I asked about the gay thing. I think there is a feeling among the
gay community in New Orleans that Garrison persecuted Shaw simply because he
was gay.
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>>It's really odd that "government-controlled media" organs like CBS, the New
>>>York Times, Life Magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, Esquire, and others
>>>were
>>>making noises about reopening the investigation of the John F. Kennedy
>>>assassination in 1966-67
>>Source, please. (Not the questions part, the re-opening part. I looked on
>>the
>>web site you quoted, but this particular information wasn't there?
>Sylvia Meagher \:^) discusses some, possibly all of the above in *Accessories
>After the Fact,* 458-64.
Here are some quotes from those pages in Meagher:
"The news media bear a large responsibility for the tranquilization of the
American public and its complacent acceptance of the Warren Report... The New
York Times, most venerated of American newspapers, assumed the role of
co-sponsor of the Warren Report, placing on it the stamp of both its own high
reputation and its unconditional endorsement...[In] "The Witnesses" [published
by the NYT], the testimony was very carefully selected and edited to present
only those passages which supported the Commission's assertions and conslusions
while excluding all inconsistent or inimical parts of the transcripts... "The
Witnesses", therefore, was one of the most biased offerings ever to masquerade
as objective information...The New York Times maintained a loyal silence about
the Warren Report... It became an open secret that the Times had initiated its
own investigation of the assassination IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESCUE THE WARREN
COMMISSION FROM ITSELF AND TO SILENCE THE CLAMOR OF CRITICISM [emphasis
added]...
"In terms of giving support and comfort to the Warren Report and the thesis of
the lone assassin, Life was the magazine counterpart of the New York Times..."
Granted, Meagher does go on to mention the Saturday Evening Post's questioning
of the Warren Commission (coincidentally, of course, this is the only one of
the three now out of business. But she also says of their scepticism:
"avoiding or rejecting the thought that anything but slovenliness was at
issue.)
Sorry, Dave, you're going to have to do better than Meagher as a source for the
mainstream media being anything but complicit in selling the Warren Report's
conslusions.
(BTW, magazines like Commentary, the Nation, and the Progressive are NOT
"mainstream media." If you defenition of "mainstream media" stretches that
far, then you can't say that the Garrison trial really changed anything,
because those magazines, I'm sure would *still* call for a re-opening.)
>I can dig for some more specific citations if you need
>them.
>
Please do. Cite for me a call for a re-opening of the case by any of these:
NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, Newsweek,
AP or UPI.
>>>It's just one more reason the mainstream will never take CTs seriously.
>>So what? They never will. It's against their interests.
>I don't believe that, Ric. The "controlled media" will happily report the
>story
>of the century if the story is verifiable.
Why didn't they print the stories they knew to be true about JFK's sex life,
then? Don't you think that would have sold a few newspapers? (We have recent
evidence that it will ;-)
>Most of us are judging the media by
>1999 standards, and the media in 1999 has long since given up on the claims
>made on a regular basis by CTs.
>
They haven't "given up" on them. They actively combat them, and always have.
Re-read Meagher.
>That was not the case in 1966. Life and the Saturday Evening Post (which were
>BIG) were cooperating with Garrison in late '66 and early '67
Again, source, please.
> until the editors
>became convinced -- for reasons I consider 100% valid -- that Garrison did
>not
>have anything to offer them or the American public.
Source, please. Kirkwood never metions "editors" becoming convinced Garrison
had nothing, he himself became convinced.
>NBC did not come to New
>Orleans to wreck Garrison's case, as some would have us believe.
Motivations are so very hard to discern, aren't they? Do you actually have a
source for this contention, or is that just your personal opinion? Tell me,
did NBC deliberately try to "wreck" GM's pick-up truck reputations when they
wanted to show the dangers of side tanks in pick-up trucks, but had to attach
an explosive to the tank to make it blow up? You really don't think NBC is
above slanting the news do you? Or above promoting their own agenda in their
news broadcasts?
>They sent
>Walter Sheridan -- obviously! -- because Sheridan was not only an ace
>investigator, but had been a personal friend and associate of John and Robert
>Kennedy.
There is a strong possibility that RFK endorsed the cover-up. What makes you
think Sheridan wouldn't be loyal to RFK? Having an RFK-intimate report on
Garrison by NBC is not at all re-assuring to me.
Dave Reitzes
Agreed 100%.
The New York Times maintained a loyal silence
>about
>the Warren Report... It became an open secret that the Times had initiated
>its
>own investigation of the assassination IN AN ATTEMPT TO RESCUE THE WARREN
>COMMISSION FROM ITSELF AND TO SILENCE THE CLAMOR OF CRITICISM [emphasis
>added]...
I respect Meagher, but I'm uncomfortable with unsourced "open secrets," which
often seem to reflect nothing more than opinions. (One example of such an "open
secret" is mentioned in my post, "Spaceman Oswald: NASA or NADA"?)
If there is any one single area that Meagher cannot be trusted, it would
concern her feelings about the Warren Commission and public response to their
Report.
In other words, what Meagher call an "open secret," others might call her
opinion.
>"In terms of giving support and comfort to the Warren Report and the thesis
>of
>the lone assassin, Life was the magazine counterpart of the New York
>Times..."
At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The Warren
Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
groundbreaking assassination-related articles. LIFE also was greatly supportive
of Jim Garrison's investigation from the beginning in late 1966 until reporter
David Chandler convinced LIFE's editors that Garrison had no case -- something
Richard Billings argued vehemently against. (Those who think Billings was some
kind of spook or infiltrator in the Garrison camp seem unaware that Billings'
adamant refusal to let the Garrison story go cost him his job at LIFE. He was
later Garrison's biggest advocate at the HSCA.)
LIFE thought were getting in on the story of the century. They only pulled out
when they saw what Garrison was really up to.
There's some reason to believe that LIFE was especially interested in Garrison
because of the claims he was making about the involvement of Cuban exiles, an
area their management and some of their reporters were extremely interested in.
>Granted, Meagher does go on to mention the Saturday Evening Post's
>questioning
>of the Warren Commission (coincidentally, of course, this is the only one of
>the three now out of business. But she also says of their scepticism:
>"avoiding or rejecting the thought that anything but slovenliness was at
>issue.)
That seems like a reasonable position to me, Ric. You may recall that Meagher's
position is that the Warren Commission deliberately covered up the truth about
the assassination. That's a fairly radical opinion even by today's standards.
>Sorry, Dave, you're going to have to do better than Meagher as a source for
>the
>mainstream media being anything but complicit in selling the Warren Report's
>conslusions.
I didn't recommend Meagher as "proof" the media was critical of the Warren
Commission, Ric -- I recommended Meagher as a convenient place for you to see
some where some of the items I refer to were published. I would hope you
wouldn't simply take Meagher's word for how effective or important these
articles were.
As I recall, CBS was also very interested in Garrison's investigation -- until
they wised up -- as was NBC.
>(BTW, magazines like Commentary, the Nation, and the Progressive are NOT
>"mainstream media." If you defenition of "mainstream media" stretches that
>far, then you can't say that the Garrison trial really changed anything,
>because those magazines, I'm sure would *still* call for a re-opening.)
I didn't cite those publications.
>>I can dig for some more specific citations if you need
>>them.
>>
>
>Please do. Cite for me a call for a re-opening of the case by any of these:
>NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, Newsweek,
>AP or UPI.
I suggest you start with the LIFE article I mentioned. If that article is not
mentioned in Meagher's book, I'll be happy to look up the exact date for you.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
And the New York Times coverage.
If that article is not
>mentioned in Meagher's book, I'll be happy to look up the exact date for you.
>
>Dave
You have to understand, Ric, that I just don't see this particular opinion
worth spending any time documenting, considering that in the wake of the Shaw
trial, even CTs tended to give up on the subject of the assassination. (How
many notable conspiracy books were written between the Shaw trial and the
Watergate revelations five years later? I can't think of a single one.)
Howpl
may be genuine: the fact that he seems not to understand Oswald though he's
convinced that they are best buddies. I still think there's a good chance of a
conspiracy (I'm sure you're thrilled to hear that) and that the key to it was
Oswald's getting caught up in something he didn't fully understand until it was
too late, i.e., he was a patsy. But not necessarily one operating from the
political right. Recall how insistent Lewis is that that his friend was
enticed into a right-wing conspiracy to kill Kennedy because he believed that
that was what Castro wanted, too. This stuff makes no sense at all unless you
begin to unscrew your head a bit and think like an Oswald -- not that I know
precisely what that means, but I do believe, and I think Lewis says as much,
that Oswald remained a leftist to his dying day.
Howard
Jean Davison
<19990613134013...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>Hi Jean,
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>>>I don't remember the mainstream media ever being skeptical of the Warren
>>>Report. Again I ask for a citation from one of these media.
>
>> I can give you one -- Life, November 25, 1966.
>>Lead story, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt." The
>>headline over the article says:
>>
>>>> AMID HEIGHTENING CONTROVERSY ABOUT
>>THE WARREN REPORT, GOVERNOR CONNALLY
>>EXAMINES FOR 'LIFE' THE ASSASSINATION FILM
>>The Commission said President Kennedy and Connally
>>were hit by the same bullet. Connally still vigorously
>>claims he was hit by a second bullet. That Lee Harvey
>>Oswald acted alone is..... A MATTER OF REASONABLE
>>DOUBT << [End Quote]
>
>(Do you have a scanner?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that the overall
>tone
>of the article is conspicuously suspicious of conspiracy theories. Am I
>right?
>(If you can't scan it in, I'll even accept to your critical opionion of the
>slant of the article.)
>
I don't have a scanner. The article mentioned some of the
same arguments we still hear today --the Parkland doctors'
thinking the throat wound was an entrance, the witnesses
who said a shot came from the front, etc. It ended by calling
for a reopening of the case, primarily because of doubts
about the SBT. The Life article mentioned the Lane & Epstein
books, calling Epstein's "the most nearly objective book so far."
It was critical of the books by Leo Sauvage and others, however.
>
>>Epstein and Lane published their first books
>>in 1966, creating a lot of doubts about the WR.
>>Then along came a N.O. DA ....
>
>I don't consider the publishing of a book to be "major media," per se. If
>you
>are going to call Epstein and Lane's books evidence that there was a call
>for
>an investigation pre-Garrison, then you can't say Garrison changed
>anything,
>because there have been a lot of pro-conspiracy books post-Garrison, too.
I cited Epstein and Lane to explain why some of the media
were calling for a new investigation around this time. I don't
remember who said what, but I do remember seeing articles
of this kind in the Reader's Guide to Periodicals
index ... in the NYTimes Index, too. As I remember,
you'll see a lot more of that in 1966-67 than in the post-Garrison
time, though I'm not certain the Shaw verdict was the reason. This
wasn't the argument I was making, actually. I was only trying to
explain why some people have a "thing" about Garrison, including
me.
>
>Here's what I consider to be "major media" for the purposes of this
>discussion:
> CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Life, and
>Newsweek, AP and UPI.
>
I don't remember specifics, but the reference books I
just mentioned should tell you what they were saying
back then, if you want to look into it.
>
>> I think it was one of the WC's published volumes that
>>reversed two frames right after Z313.
>
>I think Life magazine pulled this stunt, too. (I could be wrong, that's
>from memory.)
>
I don't remember that Life switched frames, though
this is often attributed to them.
>
>>But reversing two
>>frames doesn't eliminate the backward snap, which
>>lasted much longer than that.
>
>But the backward snap wasn't seen by the American public for years. Geraldo
>Rivera was the first time I saw it, and I think that was in the late 70's.
>
True, the public hadn't seen it, though researchers
who'd viewed it at the Archives had written about it -- Meagher,
e.g. She also mentioned that the WC volumes had switched
the two frames.
>
>>And the error was easy
>>to spot, so it really accomplished nothing.
>
>Except for leaving the wrong impression in the American people's mind,
>until they saw the film for themselves.
>
Very few people bought the 26 volumes. The
impression it made there was apparently "hey, they
switched two frames!"
>
>>Don't trust anybody would be my advice.
>>
>
>Hear! Hear! ;-)
>
>
>> It was all downhill from there. I read Kirkwood's
>>book and Garrison's, and compared each one
>>with the newspaper coverage of the Shaw
>>investigation/trial.
>
>Which newspaper? Both New Orleans papers?
>
The ones I got were mostly the two Baton Rouge
papers, which followed the trial fairly closely. Often
part of the testimony was quoted. Kirkwood quotes
some of the New Orleans coverage and it was
very similar. Now that the trial transcript (or most of
it) is available, it seems that the newspapers and
Kirkwood were the accurate reporters, not Garrison.
>
>> Shaw is still apparently well-respected
>>in N.O., btw. There's a plaque in his honor on a
>>building in the French Quarter that he restored.
>>The plaque mentions his civic deeds, says
>>nothing at all about his trial, or so I've heard.
>
>This is why I asked about the gay thing. I think
>there is a feeling among thegay community in
>New Orleans that Garrison persecuted Shaw
>simply because he was gay.
Could be that they feel this way, I don't know.
Jean
Dave Reitzes
>
>RicBissell wrote in message
Actually, the line of demarcation might not be the Shaw trial itself, but
possibly the April 1967 publication of James Phelan's article on Garrison's
star witness, Perry Raymond Russo. That article pretty much laid bare the
bankruptcy of Garrison's case and his investigative methodology as well.
The only major conspiracy books I can think of that came out between April 1967
and Watergate were directly related to aspects of the Garrison investigation --
Wardlaw & James, Flammonde, Brener, Kirkwood, Weisberg's *Oswald in New
Orleans* and Garrison's own *Heritage of Stone.*
Dave
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>I respect Meagher, but I'm uncomfortable with unsourced "open secrets," which
>often seem to reflect nothing more than opinions.
It was an open secret because people at the Times admitted it, most notably
Harrison Salisbury, at the time the NYT's assistant managing editor (Meagher,
and Newsweek, December 12, 1996.) I guess I should have quoted Meagher
sourcing of Salisbury when I was doing the excerpts.
>(One example of such an "open
>secret" is mentioned in my post, "Spaceman Oswald: NASA or NADA"?)
Haven't read it yet, but just from the title I hope you can agree that this
"unsourced" "open secret" *is* actually sourced.
>If there is any one single area that Meagher cannot be trusted, it would
>concern her feelings about the Warren Commission and public response to their
>Report.
Why?
>In other words, what Meagher call an "open secret," others might call her
>opinion
And yet Salisbury admitted it. Here's what he said abou the NYT's
investigation: "We will go back over all the areas of doubt and hope to
eliminate them."
>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The Warren
>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
What ground did they break in this article?
>LIFE also was greatly supportive
>of Jim Garrison's investigation from the beginning in late 1966
Source, please.
>(Those who think Billings was some
>kind of spook or infiltrator in the Garrison camp seem unaware that Billings'
>adamant refusal to let the Garrison story go cost him his job at LIFE. He was
>later Garrison's biggest advocate at the HSCA.)
For me, this is evidence of Life magazine's acceptance of the WR and it's
active role in the cover-up. They fired a guy who was raising real questions
about the JFK assassination.
>LIFE thought were getting in on the story of the century. They only pulled
>out
>when they saw what Garrison was really up to.
That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that LIFE didn't actively
support the conclusions of the WC.
>That seems like a reasonable position to me, Ric. You may recall that
>Meagher's
>position is that the Warren Commission deliberately covered up the truth
>about
>the assassination. That's a fairly radical opinion even by today's standards.
Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission. He deliberately, actively
covered up the truth about an important aspect of the assassination. That is
known history, not a "fairly radical position."
>I didn't recommend Meagher as "proof" the media was critical of the Warren
>Commission, Ric -- I recommended Meagher as a convenient place for you to see
>some where some of the items I refer to were published.
Well, obviously, I did look in Meagher, and her references don't support your
conclusions. The published items she mentioned that *were* critical of the WR
were in magazines like Commentary, the Nation, and the Progressive. They were
not then, and are not now (I don't even know if the Progressive is still being
published) "mainstream media." They are about as far up a minor tributary as
you can get in the political climate of this country. (However, you really
should check out The Nation's yearly report on the "mainstrem media," and who
ultimately controls them. It is fascinating, and has a direct bearing on the
issue we are discussing here.)
It seems to me that your contention is that the mainstream media were all
ready to challenge the conclusions of the WR and demand a new investigation or
start one of their own, and that all that changed because of Jim Garrison. I
think that contention is demonstrably wrong, and that it is mostly a result of
your negative emotional response to Garrison himself.
>I would hope you
>wouldn't simply take Meagher's word for how effective or important these
>articles were.
Well, I *do* take her word on how slanted the coverage was from the major
media, because that's the way *I* remember it, too. You say different, and I'm
still waiting for proof to change my mind. Show me an article in Newsweek or
the Washington Post, et al, that IN ANY WAY calls for a re-opening of the case,
a real investigation, a real trial. Show me anything from the corporate media
that even HINTS Oswald may not have acted alone.
>>(BTW, magazines like Commentary, the Nation, and the Progressive are NOT
>>"mainstream media." If you defenition of "mainstream media" stretches that
>>far, then you can't say that the Garrison trial really changed anything,
>>because those magazines, I'm sure would *still* call for a re-opening.)
>I didn't cite those publications.
No, but the source you did cite, Meagher, did. As I mentioned above those were
the only anti-WR published sources she mentioned, and they are NOT "mainstream
media".
>I suggest you start with the LIFE article I mentioned. If that article is not
>mentioned in Meagher's book, I'll be happy to look up the exact date for you.
OK, thanks. I think Jean Davison mentioned that article too. She might have
even cited the date.
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>You have to understand, Ric, that I just don't see this particular opinion
>worth spending any time documenting, considering that in the wake of the Shaw
>trial, even CTs tended to give up on the subject of the assassination. (How
>many notable conspiracy books were written between the Shaw trial and the
>Watergate revelations five years later? I can't think of a single one.)
>
Here are six:
Jim Bishop, The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1968)
Edward Jay Epstein, Counterplot (1969)
Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1969)
Jim Garrison, A Heritage of Stone. [Of course, you probably don't want to
count this one ;-) ]
David Jay, ed., The Weight of the Evidence: The Warren Report and Its Critics
(1968)
Mark Lane, A Citizen's Dissent (1968)
The reason you should consider this "worth spending any time" on is because you
made the claim that the mainstream media was just about to call for a
re-investigation of the JFK assassination, but that the Garrison case somehow
changed their collective minds and stopped them dead in their tracks. That
apparently makes Garrison in your eyes somehow more culpable in his treatment
of Clay Shaw. ("Not only did he prosecute an innocent man, he blew it for CT's
too!") The only problem with it is that it just isn't true.
Repeating this kind of mis-information is the same type of tactic that, well, a
guy like Jim Garrison would engage in.
RicBissell
I stand corrected.
dav...@together.net wrote:
> The [Life magazine] article... ended by calling
>for a reopening of the case, primarily because of doubts
>about the SBT.
I am truly amazed. I'll have to try to get a copy of that article. Who wrote
it?
>I cited Epstein and Lane to explain why some of the media
>were calling for a new investigation around this time.
>As I remember,
>you'll see a lot more of that in 1966-67 than in the post-Garrison
>time, though I'm not certain the Shaw verdict was the reason. This
>wasn't the argument I was making, actually.
Ah, OK. That's my whole problem with Dave here.
Dave Reitzes
>Date: Mon, 14 June 1999 01:10 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990614131042...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
Ric, I certainly can't prove that it was Garrison that, more than any other
factor, caused public interest in the assassination to plummet to an all-time
low in 1969-1974, but I think many who lived through that era would agree with
my conclusion.
Also, I agree with Jean that the trial verdict was not the decisive factor,
since public confidence in Garrison (except, very possibly, in New Orleans
itself) nearly died after James Phelan's April 1967 Saturday Evening Post
article exposed the DA's blatant manipulation of Perry Russo.
For the record, I agree with Meagher and others 100% that in the first year or
so following its publication, the major media in the US were as uncritical of
the Warren Report as can be imagined, and the New York Times *definitely*
stepped over the line on several occasions, particularly with their
indefensible publication, *The Witnesses,* in which they managed to include
precisely the testimony that supports the report -- and essentially nothing
else. Things began to change in 1966, as Weisberg, Lane and others began to
make an impact.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>You have to understand, Ric, that I just don't see this particular opinion
>>worth spending any time documenting, considering that in the wake of the
>Shaw
>>trial, even CTs tended to give up on the subject of the assassination. (How
>>many notable conspiracy books were written between the Shaw trial and the
>>Watergate revelations five years later? I can't think of a single one.)
>>
>
>Here are six:
>
>Jim Bishop, The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1968)
That's a conspiracy book?
>
>Edward Jay Epstein, Counterplot (1969)
Uhhh . . . that's a conspiracy book? (About JFK, I mean.)
>
>Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1969)
Another Garrison-related title.
>
>Jim Garrison, A Heritage of Stone. [Of course, you probably don't want to
>count this one ;-) ]
Remember I specified books that weren't related to the Garrison trial?
>
>David Jay, ed., The Weight of the Evidence: The Warren Report and Its Critics
>(1968)
You consider this a notable conspiracy book?
>
>Mark Lane, A Citizen's Dissent (1968)
I'll give you half a point for this one. I don't know how notable it is, seeing
as how it's never been reprinted, but I'll throw you a bone. \:^)
>
>
>The reason you should consider this "worth spending any time" on is because
>you
>made the claim that the mainstream media was just about to call for a
>re-investigation of the JFK assassination, but that the Garrison case somehow
>changed their collective minds and stopped them dead in their tracks.
Correct. An exaggeration on both counts, but essentially reflective of my
views.
That
>apparently makes Garrison in your eyes somehow more culpable in his treatment
>of Clay Shaw. ("Not only did he prosecute an innocent man, he blew it for
>CT's
>too!")
They are two separate issues. Neither one makes Garrison look very good.
>The only problem with it is that it just isn't true.
You haven't shown me that.
>Repeating this kind of mis-information is the same type of tactic that, well,
>a
>guy like Jim Garrison would engage in.
If you can prove that to me, I'll retract the statement. But, where conspiracy
books are concerned, you only posted one that is even arguably a notable,
non-Garrison-related conspiracy book. (I don't count the Garrison books because
they are about the Garrison case specifically, not the assassination. For
example, *Counterplot* is no more about the JFK assassination than Kirkwood's
book about the Shaw trial.
I stand by my opinion.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>I respect Meagher, but I'm uncomfortable with unsourced "open secrets,"
>which
>>often seem to reflect nothing more than opinions.
>
>It was an open secret because people at the Times admitted it, most notably
>Harrison Salisbury, at the time the NYT's assistant managing editor (Meagher,
>and Newsweek, December 12, 1996.) I guess I should have quoted Meagher
>sourcing of Salisbury when I was doing the excerpts.
>
>>(One example of such an "open
>>secret" is mentioned in my post, "Spaceman Oswald: NASA or NADA"?)
>
>Haven't read it yet, but just from the title I hope you can agree that this
>"unsourced" "open secret" *is* actually sourced.
>
>
>>If there is any one single area that Meagher cannot be trusted, it would
>>concern her feelings about the Warren Commission and public response to
>their
>>Report.
>
>Why?
>
>
>>In other words, what Meagher call an "open secret," others might call her
>>opinion
>
>And yet Salisbury admitted it. Here's what he said abou the NYT's
>investigation: "We will go back over all the areas of doubt and hope to
>eliminate them."
I don't hear in that at all what Meagher did.
>>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The Warren
>>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
>
>What ground did they break in this article?
Jean Davison just told you all about this article. You sounded reasonably
satisfied.
>
>>LIFE also was greatly supportive
>>of Jim Garrison's investigation from the beginning in late 1966
>
>Source, please.
Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* has the complete story; Tom Bethell's diary
contains scattered bits and pieces.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell1.htm
Richard Billings was a Garrisonite, Ric. He probably still is.
>>(Those who think Billings was some
>>kind of spook or infiltrator in the Garrison camp seem unaware that
>Billings'
>>adamant refusal to let the Garrison story go cost him his job at LIFE. He
>was
>>later Garrison's biggest advocate at the HSCA.)
>
>For me, this is evidence of Life magazine's acceptance of the WR and it's
>active role in the cover-up. They fired a guy who was raising real questions
>about the JFK assassination.
I, for one, certainly disagree with you. But I won't get into that unless you
feel it necessary. You might want to check out Patricia Lambert's book.
>
>>LIFE thought were getting in on the story of the century. They only pulled
>>out
>>when they saw what Garrison was really up to.
>
>That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that LIFE didn't
>actively
>support the conclusions of the WC.
I have to disagree. You could at least look into the matter before reaching any
conclusions, no?
>
>>That seems like a reasonable position to me, Ric. You may recall that
>>Meagher's
>>position is that the Warren Commission deliberately covered up the truth
>>about
>>the assassination. That's a fairly radical opinion even by today's
>standards.
>
>Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission. He deliberately,
>actively
>covered up the truth about an important aspect of the assassination. That is
>known history, not a "fairly radical position."
I'm afraid that Allen Dulles alone does not vindicate Meagher's argument --
though it certainly doesn't do it any harm either, if you catch my drift.
>
>>I didn't recommend Meagher as "proof" the media was critical of the Warren
>>Commission, Ric -- I recommended Meagher as a convenient place for you to
>see
>>some where some of the items I refer to were published.
>
>Well, obviously, I did look in Meagher, and her references don't support your
>conclusions.
Her references . . . or her opinions?
The published items she mentioned that *were* critical of the WR
>were in magazines like Commentary, the Nation, and the Progressive. They
>were
>not then, and are not now (I don't even know if the Progressive is still
>being
>published) "mainstream media." They are about as far up a minor tributary as
>you can get in the political climate of this country. (However, you really
>should check out The Nation's yearly report on the "mainstrem media," and who
>ultimately controls them. It is fascinating, and has a direct bearing on the
>issue we are discussing here.)
>
>It seems to me that your contention is that the mainstream media were all
>ready to challenge the conclusions of the WR and demand a new investigation
>or
>start one of their own, and that all that changed because of Jim Garrison. I
>think that contention is demonstrably wrong, and that it is mostly a result
>of
>your negative emotional response to Garrison himself.
You're going to have to prove that to me, Ric. You haven't even made a good
faith effort to check out the articles in the New York Times, Life, etc., for
yourself.
>>I would hope you
>>wouldn't simply take Meagher's word for how effective or important these
>>articles were.
>
>Well, I *do* take her word on how slanted the coverage was from the major
>media, because that's the way *I* remember it, too. You say different, and
>I'm
>still waiting for proof to change my mind. Show me an article in Newsweek or
>the Washington Post, et al, that IN ANY WAY calls for a re-opening of the
>case,
>a real investigation, a real trial. Show me anything from the corporate
>media
>that even HINTS Oswald may not have acted alone.
I'll look up some references for you if you like, Ric, but I'm not wasting a
lot of time on this issue. You don't seem to realize you're representing the
minority view on this. If you want to demonstrate that it's just a coincidence
that JFK assassination research almost vanished from the face of the earth
between 1967 and 1974, I think you have your work cut out for you.
Dave
Haizen Paige
Dave Reitzes wrote:
> If you want to demonstrate that it's just a coincidence
> that JFK assassination research almost vanished from the face of the earth
> between 1967 and 1974, I think you have your work cut out for you.
>
> Dave
You ever heard of Vietnam, Mr. Reitzes? The war was dividing the country
in those years and was continual front page news. It consumed the
country in the same way Watergate did. (You ever heard of Watergate, Mr.
Reitzes?) Or Clinton's impeachment hearings. Get your head out of the
sand and look at the broader cultural developments between '67 and '74.
Laying the lack of interest in the assassination of JFK during those
years solely at Jim's feet shows just one more gaping hole in your
comprehension of this entire period of history and the assassination in
general. This narrow minded viewpoint is not what the soul of America
needs to heal itself. Your insistence on formulation hatred toward one
man at the expense of exploring the larger and much more significant
issues surrounding this assassination investigation is your biggest
failing as a researcher [sic].
HP
PS. Some American veterans are convinced that had JFK lived this country
would never have sent over ground troops to Vietnam to begin with and
gotten involved with this tragic venture. Now that's a _real_ issue
worth exploring for any American who loves his country. Vietnam, Mr.
Reitzes, Vietnam.
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
>> If you want to demonstrate that it's just a coincidence
>> that JFK assassination research almost vanished from the face of the earth
>> between 1967 and 1974, I think you have your work cut out for you.
>>
>> Dave
>
>You ever heard of Vietnam, Mr. Reitzes? The war was dividing the country
>in those years and was continual front page news. It consumed the
>country in the same way Watergate did.
What's your point, Haizen? How does this relate to the subject under discussion
before said subject was changed by you?
(You ever heard of Watergate, Mr.
>Reitzes?)
Watergate was the instigating factor for renewed interest in the JFK
assassination I cited earlier in this thread, Mr. Paige. That WAS what we were
talking about before you waltzed in. I know all too well you don't actually
bother reading my posts before you respond, but do you have to broadcast it so?
Or Clinton's impeachment hearings. Get your head out of the
>sand and look at the broader cultural developments between '67 and '74
Uh-huh.
Do you know what an argument is, Mr. Paige? Do you what it is to assert a
thesis, then support it with evidence? Would you consider giving it a try
sometime?
>Laying the lack of interest in the assassination of JFK during those
>years solely at Jim's feet shows just one more gaping hole in your
>comprehension of this entire period of history and the assassination in
>general.
And your evidence for this is . . . ?
This narrow minded viewpoint is not what the soul of America
>needs to heal itself.
Sure, what we need is another good McCarthy-esque Garrison WITCH-HUNT, eh, Mr.
Paige? Maybe railroad a few innocent citizens with trumped-up charges, hmm?
Maybe coerce, extort, bribe, brainwash and otherwise manipulate a pack of
"witnesses" to herd unsuspecting citizens into jail, Mr. Paige? Or did you have
gas chambers in mind, Mr. Paige?
Your insistence on formulation hatred toward one
>man at the expense of exploring the larger and much more significant
>issues surrounding this assassination investigation is your biggest
>failing as a researcher [sic].
Haizen, if you could look me straight in the eye and discuss a single topic
without bolting in terror or trying to change the subject, perhaps I would
credit your opinion. As things stand, it's rather difficult.
>
>HP
>
>PS. Some American veterans are convinced that had JFK lived this country
>would never have sent over ground troops to Vietnam to begin with and
>gotten involved with this tragic venture. Now that's a _real_ issue
>worth exploring for any American who loves his country. Vietnam, Mr.
>Reitzes, Vietnam.
Just once I would like to see Mr. Paige try having a conversation without
changing the subject to one of his favorite soapbox rabble-rousers.
Dave Reitzes
Any newcomers who want to know why Haizen Paige can't look me straight in the
eye and defend his hero, Saint Jim, check out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
DAnde9348
>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>Date: Mon, 14 June 1999 03:54 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990614155417...@ng66.aol.com>
>
>
>Sure, what we need is another good McCarthy-esque Garrison WITCH-HUNT, eh, Mr.
Paige? Maybe railroad a few innocent citizens with trumped-up charges, hmm?
Sounds like you're talkin about Lee Oswald
Hell with im he's dead now.....let's dump on him... He was a no good sumbitch
anyway......Was that you talkin Mr. Reitzes ??
>Maybe coerce, extort, bribe, brainwash and otherwise manipulate a pack of
"witnesses" to herd unsuspecting citizens into jail, Mr. Paige? Or did you
have gas chambers in mind, Mr. Paige?
>
walt
Dave Reitzes
>
>>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>>
>>
>
>>Sure, what we need is another good McCarthy-esque Garrison WITCH-HUNT, eh,
>Mr.
>Paige? Maybe railroad a few innocent citizens with trumped-up charges, hmm?
>
>Sounds like you're talkin about Lee Oswald
>
>Hell with im he's dead now.....let's dump on him... He was a no good sumbitch
>anyway......Was that you talkin Mr. Reitzes ??
Why the double standard, Walt? Why should we defend Oswald but not Ferrie,
Banister, Shaw, etc. There's actual EVIDENCE against Oswald, Walt, whether you
personally find it compelling or not. If you believe there's any evidence
against any of Garrison's chosen suspects, you're going to have to prove it to
me.
And you're not very big on that sort of thing, are you? Actually forsaking your
usual cop-outs and insults for evidence, I mean.
Anytime you want, Walt. Name the suspect: Ferrie? Shaw? Banister?
Name the time and the place. I'll be there.
Dave
Jean Davison
<19990614131042...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>> The [Life magazine] article... ended by calling
>>for a reopening of the case, primarily because of doubts
>>about the SBT.
>
wrote
>it?
>
No author is listed, so it's apparently by
the editors of Life. You could probably get a
copy from Last Hurrah.
>
>>I cited Epstein and Lane to explain why some of the media
>>were calling for a new investigation around this time.
>>As I remember,
>>you'll see a lot more of that in 1966-67 than in the post-Garrison
>>time, though I'm not certain the Shaw verdict was the reason. This
>>wasn't the argument I was making, actually.
>
>Ah, OK. That's my whole problem with Dave here.
>
OK. Nice talking to you, Ric.
Martin Shackelford
Garrison investigation hit the papers.
Josiah Thompson, who had worked with LIFE, went off on his own and wrote
Six Seconds in Dallas.
Harrison Salisbury ended up going to Hanoi.
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
Martin Shackelford
Reasonable Doubt." A year later, a bland but valuable photo album.
Martin
RicBissell wrote:
> Jean, Dave,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> dav...@together.net wrote:
>
> > The [Life magazine] article... ended by calling
> >for a reopening of the case, primarily because of doubts
> >about the SBT.
>
> I am truly amazed. I'll have to try to get a copy of that article. Who wrote
> it?
>
> >I cited Epstein and Lane to explain why some of the media
> >were calling for a new investigation around this time.
> >As I remember,
> >you'll see a lot more of that in 1966-67 than in the post-Garrison
> >time, though I'm not certain the Shaw verdict was the reason. This
> >wasn't the argument I was making, actually.
>
> Ah, OK. That's my whole problem with Dave here.
>
> - /< /\ /> -
--
Haizen Paige
DAnde9348 wrote:
>
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: The Library Card Redux
> >From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> >Date: Mon, 14 June 1999 03:54 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <19990614155417...@ng66.aol.com>
> >
> >
>
> >Sure, what we need is another good McCarthy-esque Garrison WITCH-HUNT, eh, Mr.
> Paige? Maybe railroad a few innocent citizens with trumped-up charges, hmm?
That's what you got out of that?
Man O man.
No one suggested anything of the kind, except you within the "gas
chambers" (your phrase, not mine) of your mind. Try rereading with your
contact lenses on forward next time; but don't let anyone stop you from
witch hunting the "witch-hunters" if you're so inclined. No one stoops
as low as yourself to twist reality into an unrecognizable pretzel of an
untruth or turn certain people into monsters.
If you were a real researcher, you might be more concerned about the
shortened life span of some of the principle players in this
assassination, rather than obsessing about the only man who ever really
gave a damn about the death of Jack Kennedy and did something about it.
Just for starters:
JFK, 46 years,
LHO, 24 years,
Shaw, 61 years
Ferrie ?
Guy Banister, 63 years.
Jack Ruby ?
Lee Bowers ?
Roger Craig ?
etc.
Now I don't know the exact ages of all these folks, but it seems to me
that no one is even near the average life span of 72 years for the
average American male, is he?
I'm sure some other readers could add to the list.
> Sounds like you're talkin about Lee Oswald
>
> Hell with im he's dead now.....let's dump on him... He was a no good sumbitch
> anyway......Was that you talkin Mr. Reitzes ??
>
> >Maybe coerce, extort, bribe, brainwash and otherwise manipulate a pack of
> "witnesses" to herd unsuspecting citizens into jail, Mr. Paige? Or did you
> have gas chambers in mind, Mr. Paige?
Maybe, Mr. Reitzes, you ought to look more into those who 'coerce,
extort, bribe, brainwash and otherwise manipulate a pack of "witnesses"
to herd unsuspecting citizens into jail' [or an early grave] starting
with Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Charles Cabel,
Landsdale, Banister, Ferrie, and Clay Shaw, who wasn't honest enough to
admit _under oath_ he was even a Domestic Contact Agent for the CIA. If
he didn't have anything to hide, why did he lie about this simple fact
under oath? Maybe if you started hanging out with a higher quality of
people, instead this sorry ratpack of "honorable" men, you'd know that
some of the people you consider 'witches' were angels in disguise.
HP
PS. Hello to Walt. This country is in worse shape than one could ever
imagine, isn't it? Sick.
> >
>
> walt
RicBissell
Since the thrust of our coversation has deviated completely from the subject
title, I will reply in a new subject labeled "Garrison and the Mainstream
Media"
DAnde9348
>Message-id: <19990614192725...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>
>
>Anytime you want, Walt. Name the suspect: Ferrie? Shaw? Banister?
>
>Name the time and the place. I'll be there.
>Dave
Nope won't play your little game Dave.
It's pretty obvious that you're attempting to pull one of the oldest stunts in
the book....
redirect the focus by turning the prosecuter into the defendent..... I'm sure
you know this N.G. is alt.con.jfk, and it is not...... alt. Garrison was a
S.O.B.
If you want to defend Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, and the rest of the rotten
bastards who destroyed the trust of the people in their government and set us
on the road to the mess we are in today, that's your right, but don't expect
any support here in this group.
This group is alt CONSPIRACY jfk and almost everybody her believes that
Garrison was right in focusing on the pirates of New Orleans as the
perpe-traitors.
If you don't like that you can go to hell and take your weird theories with
you....
Walt
DAnde9348
>From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>Date: Mon, 14 June 1999 07:27 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990614192725...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>
>
>Why should we defend Oswald but not Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, etc. There's
actual EVIDENCE against Oswald, Walt, whether
>you personally find it compelling or not.
Yer right Davey.....I don't find the "evidence" against Oswald at all
compelling....
It's obvious to me the the "evidence" consists of lies, distortions, fabricated
evidence, and witness intimidation and murder...by the authorities..... Doesn't
that bother you more than a D.A. seeking justice within our judicial system.
regardless whether Garrison was on the right track or not ...he sought justice
as the law allows .....he didn't go outside of the law to bring Shaw to
trial.....You can't make that claim for the DPD and the FBI.....
Walt
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>Ric, I certainly can't prove that it was Garrison that, more than any other
>factor, caused public interest in the assassination to plummet to an all-time
>low in 1969-1974,
Actually, you haven't even proven that "public interest in the assassination
plummet[ed] to an all-time low in 1969-1974." I mentioned six fairly important
books published during this time. It would be interesting seeing a bar graph
of JFK assassination books, by year, and compare, say 1964-1969, 1969-1974, and
1974-1979. That's about the only thing that would prove it to me.
>but I think many who lived through that era would agree with
>my conclusion.
Well, I lived through that "era", and I certainly don't. That's why I
responded. Besides, those were the Vietnam and Watergate years. CT's had a lot
to keep up with in those days.
(It's like now, I would have read Lambert's book by now but I've been making my
way through "Arkansas Mischief", "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham", "Behind
the Oval Office", "The Year of the Rat", "All Too Human", "Uncovering Clinton",
and "No One Left To Lie To". It's tough keeping up with all the Clinton
conspiracies ;-)
>Also, I agree with Jean that the trial verdict was not the decisive factor,
But you do think it was the trial itself, or maybe just Garrison. Why else
would you have written this:
>Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
>look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
> (How
>>>many notable conspiracy books were written between the Shaw trial and the
>>>Watergate revelations five years later? I can't think of a single one.)
>>>
>>Here are six:
>>
>>Jim Bishop, The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1968)
>
>That's a conspiracy book?
It shows an interest in the assassination, and according to you, that interest
waned post-Garrison.
>>Edward Jay Epstein, Counterplot (1969)
>
>Uhhh . . . that's a conspiracy book? (About JFK, I mean.)
Isn't it? I thought it was a companion piece to "Inquest" and "Legend". In
fact, all three were published together at one time.
>>Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy (1969)
>
>Another Garrison-related title.
Which showed interest in the JFK assassination when you sid there was none to
speak of.
>>David Jay, ed., The Weight of the Evidence: The Warren Report and Its
>Critics
>>(1968)
>
>You consider this a notable conspiracy book?
It was published because the editors thought a JFK assassination conspiracy
book would seel at a time you say the interest in the JFK assassination was
waning because of Jim Garrison.
>>Mark Lane, A Citizen's Dissent (1968)
>
>I'll give you half a point for this one.
Oh Boy, a half a point! Are these points redeemable somewhere? ;-)
>I don't know how notable it is,
Ah, now the key point is the adjective "notable". So, it's not only Garrison's
fault that there was a dearth of conspiracy books, it's his fault that what
conspiracy books were published were "un-notable" too, huh? Well, you really
do have a Garrison jones, that's for sure.
>I don't know how notable it is, seeing
>as how it's never been reprinted, but I'll throw you a bone. \:^)
My heart is filled with gratitude. ;-) Now, how many "notable" conspiracy
books were published from 1964-1968?
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>And yet Salisbury admitted it. Here's what he said abou the NYT's
>>investigation: "We will go back over all the areas of doubt and hope to
>>eliminate them."
>
>I don't hear in that at all what Meagher did.
Well, did you make the "good faith" effort to get a copy of the December 12,
1966 edition of Newsweek and see for yourself? ;-)
BTW, just what do you hear in Salisbury's words if not an effort to eliminate
the doubts about the Warren Report?
>>>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The
>Warren
>>>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>>>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
>>
>>What ground did they break in this article?
>
>Jean Davison just told you all about this article. You sounded reasonably
>satisfied.
Yes, and I found out it was written by Richard Billings (are you reading this
Jean? ;-). The same Richard Billings who apparently lost his job at LIFE
magazine because of his views on the assassination conspiracy. This article is
looking more and more like the exception that proves the rule.
>>>LIFE also was greatly supportive
>>>of Jim Garrison's investigation from the beginning in late 1966
>>
>>Source, please.
>
>Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* has the complete story;
Let's see what Lambert has to say about the major media's interest in the JFK
assassination:
p. 41:
"Stirred by a series of critical books and articles, people everywhere were
debating the accuracy of the Warren Report. Mark Lane, in his 1966 bestseller
"Rush to Judgment", presented a serious challenge to the govermnent's
conclusions. But Lane's book was an advocate's brief. Harvard graduate student
Edward Epstein published "Inquest" that same year and it had no such down side.
Impressed by its balance and scholarly cachet, management at a number of
leading news organizations (among them Time magazine, the NewYork Times and the
Wall Street journal) sent their own investigative teams into the field to see
what they could find."
Now, Lambert actually sources this claim at this point. But is her source from
Time magazine, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal? No, it's none
other than David Chandler, writing in a publication called "Westword" in
*1992*. This is the same David Chandler that was writing anti-Garrison
articles even *before* the Shaw case. The very same guy, BTW, who brought
about the so-called by Lambert "deep...involvement" of Garrison with LIFE
magazine. (Which is a minor mystery in and of itself.) And, finally, just
another coincedence, he was a stringer for none other than LIFE magazine.
Lambert goes on to say:
p. 41:
"While Epstein influenced the members of the news media, it was the nation's
most popular magazines, those familiar and trusted publications found on coffee
tables everywhere, that swayed middle America. In November 1966, a milestone
article appeared in Life written by Richard Billings. Using frames from the
Zapruder film and citing John Connally's testimony disputing the single-buflet
theory, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" raised the possibility of a second
shooter and called for a new inquiry."
Again, this *one* article is used to support the thesis that the mainstream
media was starting to demand an inquiry. Billings eventually lost his job
over his JFK assassination views, which in my opinion, implicates LIFE more
than the publishing of a single article by a guy they later fired exonerates
them.
Lambert, again:
p. 45-46:
"Chandler was working as a stringer for LIFE magazine, which already had begun
its own inquiry into the assassination."
[Lambert gives no sources for this claim, it's proably Chandler again]
"... a 'secret deal was worked out. It was agreed that LIFE and Garrison would
"share all information" they might gather on the assassination."
The source of this info? Not surprisingly, Chandler again.
Regarding what both Garrison and LIFE got from the deal:
Lambert, p. 46, footnote:
"LIFE provided Garrison a variety of assisstance. In Miami, a LIFE researcher
[who?] investigated the alleged Latin assassins supposedly hiding there; LIFE's
lab provided photographic enlargements and prints, and wherever Garrison went
he was trailed by a LIFE photgrapher recording his activities for posterity.
In return, LIFE received a copy of Garrison's master file, which was mailed to
New York 'as things were printed'."
This information is not sourced either, but who would bet it didn't come from
Chandler?
BTW, Dave, who would you say got the better of this "greatly supportive" deal
with LIFE magazine? Garrison got one researcher, a few photos enlarged, and
his picture taken a lot. LIFE got everything Garrison had.
Sorry, Dave, the more I look into this, the less evidence I see that the
mainstream media EVER wanted to help Garrison, much less re-open the case and
was prevented from doing so by Garrison's by their shock at what Garrison was
doing.
How much do you know about Chandler?
>Tom Bethell's diary
>contains scattered bits and pieces.
Here are some excerpts from Bethell's diary, given in chronological order:
"The role of Life magazine was discussed. Sciambra was in favor of breaking off
diplomatic relations. However Garrison and Ivon are evidently in favor of
"keeping channels of communications open." I pointed out it seems they must be
holding back some information on Hall, Howard, and Seymour, as they seem so
interested in them. Sciambra said he got the impression from Boxley that Life
weren't giving us everything. Problem with Life, as Sciambra pointed out, and
Ivon later confirmed, is that they have a copy of our files whereas they have
given us very little."
"Mark Lane on WVUE TV 11 o'clock news, and alleged that Life's organized crime
series is in reality part of an "orchestrated attack" on Garrison, and said
that they (Life) had photos, etc. which would destroy the Warren Report, but
refused to publish them."
"It was pointed out by Boxley, (real name, it emerged, is Bill Wood) that Life
lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- good point."
[Note that this entry undermines your contention that LIFE magazine lost
interest when they saw what a lousy case Garrison had, Dave.]
"Chandler said that Life was going to come out with another 'mob' story soon,
which would specifically single Garrison out for attack. Then, probably after
the Shaw trial, there would be another story about the assassination
investigation. "
"It should be noted that a week ago we received word from the West Coast that
Life was preparing an article about the case which would be published at the
time of the Shaw trial, and which would cast the investigation in a derogatory
light. Also, on March 11, Federal District judge James Comiskey rules that Life
stringer David Chandler did not have to testify before the Orleans Parish grand
jury as to his alleged knowledge of organized crime in Orleans Parish."
[Boy, what a coincedence!] ;-)
"I met Billings at 7 pm. And we discussed the whole subject of the
assassination and the Garrison investigation for several hours. Clearly, he
position is that he wants to write a book about the subject, and he has already
approached about six publishers in New York, without receiving any
encouragement. He feels that his problem is that he is unable to reach any
conclusion on the subject. I am not too clear exactly what he means by this,
but my guess is that he does not feel that he can make any positive statements
about the validity of Garrison's case. (Later, 1969: Billings' position is
clearer to me now. His problem at that time was that he was trying to justify
-- both to himself and to his employers -- the position he had taken with
regard to the Garrison investigation; ie. He had failed to advise his editors
of the weakness of the Garrison case, and oversight which was, I believe, the
cause of his losing his job with the magazine. Billings held off and held off
blowing the whistle on Garrison for reasons which are probably complex.
Although this is speculation, my guess would be that billings did this (a)
because he thought there were genuine doubts about the assassination problem,
and that Garrison might eventually hit on the solution. (b) Billings evidently
had a great deal of information about Cuban exile-type plots in Miami -- I mean
solid evidence that such plots existed, and was hoping to see Garrison tie in
these plots to the Dealey Plaza outcome. He had half the story and he was
hoping Garrison would provide the other -- vital -- half. Boxley's remark --
Life lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- makes
sense in this context. (c) and this is probably by no means least -- Billings
undoubtedly liked and admired Garrison in many ways, and probably thought that
it would constitute betrayal if he informed his editors of some of the
realities of the Garrison investigation. And by the end of the evening, he had
convinced me that he was very well aware of the realities, probably more so
than any other journalist who has worked on the case.)"
[Dave, this seems to refute your contention that "Richard Billings was a
Garrisonite, Ric. He probably still is.", don't you think?]
"As for the Garrison investigation, Billings was more guarded, but I sense that
he believes that, 1. Shaw is completely innocent. 2. Garrison sincerely
believes everything that he says. 3. Garrison is not motivated by political
ambition, but that his motives are much more complex, or, maybe, much more
simple. 4. Garrison, regrettably, has too much of a butterfly approach, and
instead of concentrating on a few important areas, such as Oswald's Cuban
connections, hops around from storm drain theories to the Minutemen, without
ever really exhausting one line of inquiry. I agree with all these assessments,
including the first, in the light of what Billings told me later on in the
evening. "
[And this pretty much destroys that contention altogether]
"The only decision which they made about the film which cannot easily be
interpreted as simple commercial vested interest was their refusal to let CBS
show it on their "Special" on the Warren Report. Such a showing would almost
certainly have enhanced rather than diminished the value of the film. I asked
Billings about this and he said it was one of those rather mysterious
calculations made by the businessmen in the upper echelons, which, he agreed,
did not seem to make good sense."
[Mysterious indeed. This couldn't possibly be an effort by LIFE magazine to
prevent the American public from seeing the Z-film, would it? No, they just
acted against their own business interests because they knew Garrison would
come along later and ruin conspiracy theories for everyone. (just kidding!) ]
"He then said that Life has in fact been dickering with the project of making a
film, utilizing Zapruder and other footage which they possess, such as DCA,
Dorman, Hughes, etc. However the problem has been to find a producer for it. As
Billings said you cannot just splice the footage together and then shot it. You
have to analyze it and come to conclusions, etc., and this is precisely what
no-one in the magazine wants to do, not because anyone there knows there was a
conspiracy and is trying to hide it, but because it would represent a
controversial entanglement which they would rather avoid."
[Wait a minute, I thought "controversy" usually SOLD magazines. Hmmmm...]
"Billings said that he had suspicions about the New York Times aborted
investigation, and in particular their peculiar attitude towards Garrison. He
feels that many of the news media had adopted a negative attitude toward
Garrison before they had had a chance to come to a valid conclusion about his
evidence. I recall that this was my impression, too."
[Wow, Dave, are you *sure* you should have cited Bethell?!?]
"I told Billings what I knew about the New York Times story. In November, 1966,
before I was working for Garrison, and, I believe, almost before the Garrison
investigation began, I was in Dallas with Penn Jones. To be precise, this was
on November 22, 1966, at the assassination site. At that time I met Martin
Waldron of the NY Times, and, he had a four or five page questionnaire of
problems about the assassination he was looking into, as a part of the NY Times
investigation. Most of these questions were about New Orleans, and specifically
about David Ferrie. I did not see the list, but he showed it to Penn Jones.
Thus, it should be emphasized, the NY Times was investigating Ferrie
independently of Garrison, and possibly actually earlier than Garrison.
The next time I saw Waldron was on the day Jack Ruby died, Jan 3, 1967. Once
again I was with Penn Jones, and at that time I asked him if he had made any
headway with his list of questions. He told me that he had taken it to N.O.
police chief Giarrusso, who had given him hardly any information. This was
confirmed by Billings, who had seen a list, and I believe he said had obtained
a copy of it. It had Giarrusso's answers written against the questions. Most
were either "don't known", or "see Garrison" or "Garrison investigating". The
odd thing is, Waldron never did go and see Garrison, not once."
[Yep, the NYT, along with the rest of the mainstream media, was really on Big
Jim's side wasn't it?]
>>Well, obviously, I did look in Meagher, and her references don't support
>your
>>conclusions.
>
>Her references . . . or her opinions?
Her references.
>>It seems to me that your contention is that the mainstream media were all
>>ready to challenge the conclusions of the WR and demand a new investigation
>>or
>>start one of their own, and that all that changed because of Jim Garrison. I
>>think that contention is demonstrably wrong, and that it is mostly a result
>>of
>>your negative emotional response to Garrison himself.
>
>You're going to have to prove that to me, Ric. You haven't even made a good
>faith effort to check out the articles in the New York Times, Life, etc., for
>yourself.
There weren't any articles in the NYT that I know of, and Lambert doesn't
reference any, either.
BTW, what do you think of my "good faith effort" to check out Lambert and
Bethell? I hope checking into the LIFE magazine article doesn't bring the same
disappointment as checking those two sources did.
>I'll look up some references for you if you like, Ric, but I'm not wasting a
>lot of time on this issue. You don't seem to realize you're representing the
>minority view on this.
As Iv'e told you before, representing the minority view doesn;t bother me one
bit. The reason should be obvious, but if not, I'll mention that the "majority
view" *used* to be that the Earth was flat, the Sun was towed around in a
chariot, and there was no such thing as a CIA-Mafia plot to assassinate Castro.
(I bet Mr. McNally probably still believes that last one ;-)
> If you want to demonstrate that it's just a coincidence
>that JFK assassination research almost vanished from the face of the earth
>between 1967 and 1974, I think you have your work cut out for you.
>
Actually, you'll have to demostrate for me, first, that JFK assassination
researd DID "almost vanish from the face of the earth between 1967 and 1974".
Know how to make bar garphs? ;-)
Dave Reitzes
>>
>>Name the time and the place. I'll be there.
>
>>Dave
>
>Nope won't play your little game Dave.
Of course you won't. You can't.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>actual EVIDENCE against Oswald, Walt, whether
>>you personally find it compelling or not.
>
>Yer right Davey.....I don't find the "evidence" against Oswald at all
>compelling....
>
>It's obvious to me the the "evidence" consists of lies, distortions,
>fabricated
>evidence, and witness intimidation and murder...by the authorities.....
>Doesn't
>that bother you more than a D.A. seeking justice within our judicial system.
>regardless whether Garrison was on the right track or not ...he sought
>justice
>as the law allows .....he didn't go outside of the law to bring Shaw to
>trial.....
Yes, he did. See the 1971 Clay L. Shaw v. Jim Garrison transcript, or see
Lambert's chapter on that trial.
Dave Reitzes
>Date: Tue, 15 June 1999 02:54 AM EDT
>Message-id: <3765F918...@concentric.net>
>
>The LIFE article was published in November 1966. Cover story: "A Matter of
>Reasonable Doubt." A year later, a bland but valuable photo album.
>
>Martin
Correct. No coincidence. For the full story of LIFE's involvement with the
Garrison investigation, read . . .
Well, you know. \:^)
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>Ric, I certainly can't prove that it was Garrison that, more than any other
>>factor, caused public interest in the assassination to plummet to an
>all-time
>>low in 1969-1974,
>
>Actually, you haven't even proven that "public interest in the assassination
>plummet[ed] to an all-time low in 1969-1974." I mentioned six fairly
>important
>books published during this time.
Please read my responses, Ric.
I asked if you could name any "notable conspiracy books" published in that time
period, not counting topical works on the Garrison trial. You named one, and
since Mark Lane's book has never been reprinted, I'm not sure it qualifies as
notable.
Dave
It would be interesting seeing a bar graph
>of JFK assassination books, by year, and compare, say 1964-1969, 1969-1974,
>and
>1974-1979. That's about the only thing that would prove it to me.
>
>
>>but I think many who lived through that era would agree with
>>my conclusion.
>
>Well, I lived through that "era", and I certainly don't. That's why I
>responded. Besides, those were the Vietnam and Watergate years. CT's had a
>lot
>to keep up with in those days.
>
>(It's like now, I would have read Lambert's book by now but I've been making
>my
>way through "Arkansas Mischief", "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham", "Behind
>the Oval Office", "The Year of the Rat", "All Too Human", "Uncovering
>Clinton",
>and "No One Left To Lie To". It's tough keeping up with all the Clinton
>conspiracies ;-)
>
>
>>Also, I agree with Jean that the trial verdict was not the decisive factor,
>
>But you do think it was the trial itself, or maybe just Garrison. Why else
>would you have written this:
>
> >Once Garrison came along and made all CTs
>>look like idiots, that was the end of the line for the media's skepticism
>>towards the Warren Commission, which had been growing since early 1965.
>
Dave Reitzes
>
>> >From: drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
>> >Sure, what we need is another good McCarthy-esque Garrison WITCH-HUNT, eh,
>Mr.
>> Paige? Maybe railroad a few innocent citizens with trumped-up charges, hmm?
>
>That's what you got out of that?
>
>Man O man.
>
>No one suggested anything of the kind, except you within the "gas
>chambers" (your phrase, not mine) of your mind. Try rereading with your
>contact lenses on forward next time; but don't let anyone stop you from
>witch hunting the "witch-hunters" if you're so inclined. No one stoops
>as low as yourself to twist reality into an unrecognizable pretzel of an
>untruth or turn certain people into monsters.
>
>If you were a real researcher, you might be more concerned about the
Hi Haizen. If you can't face the truth about Jim Garrison, why not just admit
it, instead of changing the subject every time you allegedly "respond" to one
of my posts, okay?
Dave
> "Maybe the astrologers killed Kennedy"
> - David Ferrie to George Lardner, jr.
> Washington Post, February 26, 1967, posted by Jerry Shinley
Dave Reitzes
>>>>many notable conspiracy books were written between the Shaw trial and the
>>>>Watergate revelations five years later? I can't think of a single one.)
>>>>
>>>Here are six:
>>>
>>>Jim Bishop, The Day Kennedy Was Shot (1968)
>>
>>That's a conspiracy book?
>
>It shows an interest in the assassination, and according to you, that
>interest
>waned post-Garrison.
I asked for notable conspiracy books, Ric, not counting topical items on the
Garrison investigation.
If you can't name any, just say so.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>Date: Tue, 15 June 1999 03:21 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990615152134...@ng-xa1.aol.com>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>And yet Salisbury admitted it. Here's what he said abou the NYT's
>>>investigation: "We will go back over all the areas of doubt and hope to
>>>eliminate them."
>>
>>I don't hear in that at all what Meagher did.
>
>Well, did you make the "good faith" effort to get a copy of the December 12,
>1966 edition of Newsweek and see for yourself? ;-)
>
>BTW, just what do you hear in Salisbury's words if not an effort to eliminate
>the doubts about the Warren Report?
How does one eliminate doubts if the Report should turn out to be invalid?
>
>
>>>>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The
>>Warren
>>>>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>>>>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
>>>
>>>What ground did they break in this article?
>>
>>Jean Davison just told you all about this article. You sounded reasonably
>>satisfied.
>
>Yes, and I found out it was written by Richard Billings (are you reading this
>Jean? ;-). The same Richard Billings who apparently lost his job at LIFE
>magazine because of his views on the assassination conspiracy. This article
>is
>looking more and more like the exception that proves the rule.
>
How do you explain CBS and NBC's interest in the Garrison investigation --
until they found out what was going on in Jimbo's office?
Do you think NBC came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's investigation, Ric?
Do you think that's a bad thing? Would you yourself not have denounced the DA's
blantantly phony charges against his political enemies from the minute he took
office? Would you not have pilloried him for the SCEF raid? How about the
Gaslight episode? How about his adamant denial of the existence of organized
crime in New Orleans?
The very same guy, BTW, who brought
>about the so-called by Lambert "deep...involvement" of Garrison with LIFE
>magazine. (Which is a minor mystery in and of itself.)
If you say so. Your argument seems to be lacking in actual evidence, however.
Some of us don't take it for granted that Jim Garrison was the good guy and
everyone else was out to get him. There's a reason that is the minority view,
Ric, and it has nothing to do with any alleged media bias against Garrison,
much less against conspiracy theories in general.
And, finally, just
>another coincedence, he was a stringer for none other than LIFE magazine.
No kidding. Have you actually read her book, Ric? It doesn't sound like it.
>Lambert goes on to say:
>
>p. 41:
>
>"While Epstein influenced the members of the news media, it was the nation's
>most popular magazines, those familiar and trusted publications found on
>coffee
>tables everywhere, that swayed middle America. In November 1966, a milestone
>article appeared in Life written by Richard Billings. Using frames from the
>Zapruder film and citing John Connally's testimony disputing the
>single-buflet
>theory, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" raised the possibility of a second
>shooter and called for a new inquiry."
>
>
>Again, this *one* article is used to support the thesis that the mainstream
>media was starting to demand an inquiry.
No, but you seem to discount the short-lived about-face by the New York Times
on the basis of Sylvia Meagher's dismissal of same, and you seem unaware of the
interest paid in Garrison by CBS and NBC -- until they saw what was really
going on in New Orleans.
Billings eventually lost his job
>over his JFK assassination views, which in my opinion, implicates LIFE more
>than the publishing of a single article by a guy they later fired exonerates
>them.
That's because you believe that Jim Garrison was actually investigating the
assassination.
Frankly, Ric, that's your problem.
>
>Lambert, again:
>
>p. 45-46:
>
>"Chandler was working as a stringer for LIFE magazine, which already had
>begun
>its own inquiry into the assassination."
>
>[Lambert gives no sources for this claim, it's proably Chandler again]
>
>"... a 'secret deal was worked out. It was agreed that LIFE and Garrison
>would
>"share all information" they might gather on the assassination."
>
>The source of this info? Not surprisingly, Chandler again.
I see. Are you contesting the information? Please be clear.
>Regarding what both Garrison and LIFE got from the deal:
>
>Lambert, p. 46, footnote:
>
>"LIFE provided Garrison a variety of assisstance. In Miami, a LIFE researcher
>[who?] investigated the alleged Latin assassins supposedly hiding there;
>LIFE's
>lab provided photographic enlargements and prints, and wherever Garrison went
>he was trailed by a LIFE photgrapher recording his activities for posterity.
>In return, LIFE received a copy of Garrison's master file, which was mailed
>to
>New York 'as things were printed'."
>
>
>This information is not sourced either, but who would bet it didn't come
>from
>Chandler?
>
>BTW, Dave, who would you say got the better of this "greatly supportive" deal
>with LIFE magazine? Garrison got one researcher, a few photos enlarged, and
>his picture taken a lot. LIFE got everything Garrison had.
"Got everything he had"? Is that supposed to be sinister, Ric? Perhaps you'd
better define your terms. All I see is a DA who got his resources doubled and a
magazine that got an inside track to what they expected to be the scoop of the
century.
Who do you think benefited from the deal more, Ric?
>Sorry, Dave, the more I look into this, the less evidence I see that the
>mainstream media EVER wanted to help Garrison, much less re-open the case and
>was prevented from doing so by Garrison's by their shock at what Garrison was
>doing.
And, again, do you think that, for example, Walter Sheridan and Rick Townley
came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's case?
>How much do you know about Chandler?
How much do you know about Garrison? Do you actually believe he was seriously
investigating the assassination?
>
>>Tom Bethell's diary
>>contains scattered bits and pieces.
>
>Here are some excerpts from Bethell's diary, given in chronological order:
>
>"The role of Life magazine was discussed. Sciambra was in favor of breaking
>off
>diplomatic relations. However Garrison and Ivon are evidently in favor of
>"keeping channels of communications open." I pointed out it seems they must
>be
>holding back some information on Hall, Howard, and Seymour, as they seem so
>interested in them. Sciambra said he got the impression from Boxley that Life
>weren't giving us everything. Problem with Life, as Sciambra pointed out, and
>Ivon later confirmed, is that they have a copy of our files whereas they have
>given us very little."
>
>
>"Mark Lane on WVUE TV 11 o'clock news, and alleged that Life's organized
>crime
>series is in reality part of an "orchestrated attack" on Garrison, and said
>that they (Life) had photos, etc. which would destroy the Warren Report, but
>refused to publish them."
>
>
>"It was pointed out by Boxley, (real name, it emerged, is Bill Wood) that
>Life
>lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- good point."
>
>[Note that this entry undermines your contention that LIFE magazine lost
>interest when they saw what a lousy case Garrison had, Dave.]
Okay. Perhaps "lost interest" was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "stopped
believing Garrison's case to have had any merit" would have been more accurate.
Really, Ric, you wouldn't be grasping at straws, would you? Did you really
think LIFE would refuse to cover the investigation and trial just because they
didn't expect it to prove anything about who killed Kennedy?
>"Chandler said that Life was going to come out with another 'mob' story soon,
>which would specifically single Garrison out for attack. Then, probably after
>the Shaw trial, there would be another story about the assassination
>investigation. "
>
>"It should be noted that a week ago we received word from the West Coast that
>Life was preparing an article about the case which would be published at the
>time of the Shaw trial, and which would cast the investigation in a
>derogatory
>light. Also, on March 11, Federal District judge James Comiskey rules that
>Life
>stringer David Chandler did not have to testify before the Orleans Parish
>grand
>jury as to his alleged knowledge of organized crime in Orleans Parish."
>
>[Boy, what a coincedence!] ;-)
You don't get it, Ric. His testimony would have been damaging to Garrison -- he
alleged (correctly) that Garrison was coddling organized crime in New Orleans.
Ric, why do you ask questions about things when your mind is already made up?
Dave
DAnde9348
>From: Haizen Paige <hai...@sedona.net>
>Date: Tue, 15 June 1999 05:24 AM EDT
>Message-id: <37661BA6...@sedona.net>
>PS. Hello to Walt. This country is in worse shape than one could ever imagine,
isn't it? Sick.
>
>
SICK is right Haizen..... that's the only word that describes my feelings
about America and Americans.....What sorry bunch we've become.
I can't think of a more appropriate metaphor than the old saw.....
Americans are nothing but a bunch of mushrooms ....Just keep em in the dark and
feed em bullshit...they eat it up and eagerly await their turn to be plucked...
I tell ya Haizen it makes me ill to realize that I've been a sucker all these
years believing all that crap about our hallowed government institutions.
We are nothing but a nation of hyocrites we tell our young to be good boy
scouts and live decent moral lives like Abraham Lincoln and then we support a
no good worthless lying bastard like Bill Clinton ...just because he claims
credit for a soaring stock market.
Americans are more concerned about money than morals. And to top it off our
stupid bastard politicians think that depriving citizens of constitutionally
gauranteed rights ( gun laws) will compensate for the hypocrisy we dump on
our young people. The idiots can't see that people are getting fed up with
the lies from Washington....and that's what's causing young people lash out
blindly.
It all started on Friday afternoon November 22, 1963 when Hoover and Johnson
Circumvented the system and seized the reins that they had just shot out of the
hands of our president.
Walt
Jean Davison
<19990615152134...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
<snipping to this...>
>
>>>>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The
>>>>Warren
>>>>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>>>>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
>>>
>>>What ground did they break in this article?
>>
>>Jean Davison just told you all about this article. You sounded reasonably
>>satisfied.
>
>Yes, and I found out it was written by Richard Billings (are you reading
this
>Jean? ;-). The same Richard Billings who apparently lost his job at LIFE
>magazine because of his views on the assassination conspiracy. This
article is
>looking more and more like the exception that proves the rule.
>
This was news to me, but on checking Blakey and
Billings book, I see that you are correct. Billings didn't
get a byline in Life, but after checking the index I found
these two comments:
QUOTES:
>> [Billings] had actually covered the Kennedy
assassination for Life, having flown to Dallas from
the Miami Bureau, and he was responsible for
the magazine's thoughtful reappraisal of The
Warren Report. Billings' story, "A Matter of
Reasonable Doubt," was one of the first by a
national news organization to take a skeptical
view of the single-assassin verdict .... Billings
also covered for Life the assassination investigation
of [N.O. DA] Jim Garrison, though he soon determined
that probe was a fraud. << [p. xiii]
>> The publication of [Epstein's] Inquest inspired a
surge of assassination-related activity, not only by
"buffs," but by investigative journalists and other
members of the press, which had, to then, applauded
the [WR] as the final word. Epstein had academic
credentials, he was not considered biased (as were
Mark Lane and other critics), his book was accompanied
by an introduction by Richard H. Rovere, the respected
New Yorker writer, and it was favorably reviewed and
widely read. Soon the popular press began to pick
up the beat: in July 1966 Look featured an article,
"The [WC] Report on the Assassination Is Struck
By a Wave of Doubts"; Life, in November, produced
"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," an evaluation of the
single-bullet theory based on Governor Connally's
analysis of the Zapruder film; and on December 2,
1967, the Saturday Evening Post printed an excerpt
from Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, "The Cross
Fire that Killed President Kennedy." << [43-44]
END QUOTES
For those who don't remember, Look and
the SEP were two magazines widely read in
those days, as was Life.
Blakey also says that he'd known Billings
since 1967, when Billings was "an associate
editor of Life" and "in charge of a hard-hitting
series of articles on the Mafia." [xiii] Apparently
he wasn't fired immediately after his Reasonable
Doubt piece. Anyway, this article was presented
as *Life's* position on the issue, because it had
no byline, unlike some of the other articles in
this issue.
The reason I remember that these doubts were
raised about the WR is that this is around
the time I got interested in the subject. Then
Garrison came along and I thought, "Oh boy,
he's going to solve it." Oh boy, was I wrong.
Jean
Sam McClung
Walt,
I think it was Will Rogers who said something like it's
a good thing we don't get all the governement we pay for.
On the topic of LBJ, for some interesting reading some rainy
day, look at the circumstances surrounding his receipt of the
military service award he used to wear on his lapelk in civilian
garb.
One of my freinds (deceased) who had been a door gunner on UH-1s
said about Johnson "They ought to dig that %^& ^@ # $!)#~ up
and hang him to make sure he's dead."
Those are the exact same sentiments of another friend who was a
fighetr pilot shot down and then a POW for 6 and 1/2 years in the
Hanoi Hilton (Hua Lo).
No one I know comes to mind who fought LBJ's war and respected LBJ,
though given the law of averages I'm sure such persons exist.
JFK's policy in SE Asia is seen by some as limited war interventionism,
use elite troops (Special Forces - Green Berets) to train the locals to
fight their own war.
LBJ's policy was the exact opposite, and was based on the purported
attack on a U.S. military boat in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Soon after that, LBJ started Operation Rolling Thunder, escalated the
number of troops, poorly designed weapons killed many using them,
and high body counts were encouraged to feed the whole thing.
Some say LBJ (improperly and perhaps illegally) used money he got
for the war to fund his "great society."
I will be posting here soon some of the words of a former POW about the
matter in SE Asia.
Sam
Tony Pitman
>
>1. According to John Davis, an FBI agent asked Ferrie, upon his hasty return to
>New Orleans if he loaned his library card to Oswald? If this is just a buff
>factoid, where did this agent get his information from? Was Jack Martin also
>spreading unfounded rumors about a library card?
>
>2. Marcello's lawyer, Gill, told the FBI that he heard a rumor that Ferrie's
>card was found in Oswald's possession, but couldn't remember from whom. Gill's
>memory lapse naturally arouses suspicion (though some suspect the Dallas
>police).
>
>In addition, if such a rumor was afloat, that could explain why Oswald's former
>landlady reported a visit from an agitated Ferrie asking if she found a library
>card.
>
>Here is another one of those motivational oddities this case presents. No
>matter which way you turn, reported actions don't seem rational. If Ferrie was
>in no way connected with Oswald, why would he go searching for a card.? If he
>WAS connected with Oswald and believed the police found the card, why go
>searching for what was already in custody?
>
>Methodological Question:
>If Ferrie's reported actions make no sense either way, is that sufficient
>reason to discount the claims of these two witnesses?
>
>3. Asked to produce his telephone records, Gill provided records for September
>and October, but claimed November was not available. Is this true?
>
>Methodological Question:
>How many coincidences can the lone-nut/no cover-up case stand before one or
>both beg for a conspiracist explanation? How many missing autopsy photos? How
>many missing tissue samples? How many missing files? Or does it only seem like
>much more evidence is missing in this case than in other cases because we are
>looking so much harder and demanding so much more? Perhaps Dean Andrews never
>had any Clay Betrand files to begin with, so they could not have been stolen.
>Perhaps there was no brain… No, I'll stop there.
>
>Howard
I dont whink people should assume that Ferrie was looking for his
library card when he went around asking about it.
If he had been told by Gill that Gill had heard the DPD had found it
on Oswald then he would probably have been checking to see if anyone
else had seen Oswald with the card.
It would seem that the card must have been missing and that Ferrie did
not know for sure who had it.
It also seems from what Gill and the two ladies have said that Ferrie
wasn't asking how it could possibly have come into Oswald's posession.
Ie he doesn't seem to have been surprised that Oswald had it.
Tony
DAnde9348
>Date: Tue, 15 June 1999 09:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <37670068...@flash.net>
>
>
>One of my freinds (deceased) who had been a door gunner on UH-1s
>said about Johnson "They ought to dig that %^& ^@ # $!)#~ up
>and hang him to make sure he's dead."
My sentiments precisely !!>I will be posting here soon some of the words of a
former POW about the
>matter in SE Asia.
>Sam
Sounds interesting Sam anybody who would pee on LBJ's grave is a friend of
mine.
Also where can I find the story about the lapel pin?
walt
Sam McClung
> I will be posting here soon some of the words of a former POW about the
> matter in SE Asia.
posted:
...we came off a high
We had out fought the other side, across two oceans
We had outproduced the whole world
And that really killed everybody
And we all had a common background
And we were in a country which was untouched by the enemy
Except for a couple of flukes on the shore
We had most of the world's gold reserves
We were in prosperity and there was a feeling that made Camelot
seem real in the late 40s and the early 50s
All was well in America
And it's that feeling that i grew up in, I presumed it
I didn't realize until later on that it didn't necessarily have to be that way
We were a super power, a nd slowly but surely another superpower arose, the USSR
Which 74 years ago now, 73 years ago now
Embraced the communist doctrine
this ideal that was going to free the working man
this promise of valhalla right here in this world that was going to overthrow the
order of millennia
and make this world a better place to live
...
All of you were born under the guise of communism
And you have lived through the cold war
All of us have done this, and i will come back to that in a little bit
But something began to happen around 1950
Perhaps everything was too good
Perhaps we took for granted how we got where we were
...
And I almost think that America embraced an inferiority complex
Around 1963 I think it was that complex was put into a book called the Ugly American
We were good , we were successful, and we began to doubt ourselves
I remember I traveled overseas as a young lad a couple of times
And it was almost mandatory to try to dress like the natives
You didn't want to be called an American
Because you were too rich, too good, too carefree, too happy go lucky
We had everything everyone else wanted and we started to feel bad about it
That's a real head job
...
In 1961 in an incredible lack of willpower we allowed the other side to put up the
Berlin wall
...
We suffered another lapse of willpower, the ultimate sin
When we fumbled the ball with the Bay of Pigs in Cuba
Something we could have done quite nicely, but we doubted ourselves
We saw countries such as Italy, the country started to destabilize
We didn't know who was going to be in power, the good guys or the bad guys
And then we came to Indochina, after the French lost it
And we knew it as Vietnam, when they split up Indochina into 3 countries
Vietnam will go down as the lowest point in American history if we are lucky
Because in Vietnam everything went wrong
And unlike the war between the States where at least both sides were fighting
for something that they understood and believed in
In Vietnam we ceased to believe in everything and in everybody
Martin Luther King was assassinated, Bobby kennedy was assassinated
We got news of that in Hanoi
The Vietnamese took great great delight in telling us bad news
And there was a lot of bad news to tell in those days
...
We got into vietnam by a complete lack of exercise of national will
Lyndon Baynes Johnson campaigning against Barry Goldwater in 64
said words to the effect that we will not be sending american boys to asia
to do what asian boys ought to be doing for themselves
He had already allocated 2 billion dollars to build cam rahn bay
and some of the other bases, as he should have done
but he was telling you and me what we wanted to hear
we are responsible for that lack of exercise of will
The gulf of tonkin was perhaps the biggest disaster of the war
because we slid into the war sideways
with a little resolution in the Congress there was never a national debate
there was never an awareness of the american people that hey we're going to war
are we for this or against it, and if we're for it, let's saddle up the horse and all
let's all
get on it and ride together
We didn't do that
We slid in like cowards with the gulf of tonkin
and surely but truly
the troops began to go out, the aircraft began to g o out
and the coffins began to come in
and it wasn't until we started to pay in blood and taxes that this country was aware
or concerned about what was going on over there
I departed this country
...
and because I was an officer traveling alone and I had a Top Secret clearance they
made me a courier
on the way over to Japan and then down to the Philippines
for jungle survival school
...
Snake school we called it
And they drove me around to another part of the airbase
at Travis and it was foggy and the mercury lamps were there
it was eerie, you expected to see Dr. Jeckyl or Mr. Hyde come out of the corner at
any moment
we drove far far away form the terminal and around the other side of the hangar that
nobody could see
and there was a mountain of coffins
and I looked up at that and I will never forget that as long as I live
because i knew right then that something was happening that we were not aware of
...
and it became apparent very quickly that we were in a war without a strategy
we had no idea what we wanted to do over there
...
we were aimless, we were a ship without a rudder
...
and the Americans had never had a chance to support what we were
or were not going to do over there
so we began to generate statistics under Robert S. McNamara, then Secretary of
Defense
I want to make sure I hit everybody here and don't miss anybody
We devised statistics and statistics and statistics
We destroyed more trucks than the Soviets sent to North Vietnam
We probably destroyed their entire northern population 3 times if you believe our
figures
Those bodies had to come from somewhere
It was a lie
It was the worst of all lies because we believed it
...
We had a 100% shoot down rate and a 50% rescue rate
That will overhaul your perspective in a hurry
...
Well, the type of war we fought, you've heard the story, was fought with
one hand behind our back
we had a 15 and a 30 mile ring around the capital city of Hanoi that
we couldn't touch because we didn't want to alienate the enemy, we might kill
somebody there
...
We had aerial photographs of 216 SAMs surface to ar missiles sitting in the crates in
the streets of Hanoi
...
I had 8 of those SAMs fired through my flight from 2 different directions at one time
That will leave a lasting impression upon you
The day I was shot down
...
And then, Lyndon Johnson in his wisdom, supported by McNamara and the Bundys
Decided every few weeks to have a bombing halt
Because maybe they would want to talk to us
Well they didn't, if he'd just read their history ten minutes they were not going to
talk to us
There's one thing they respected and that's an iron fist
So what happened? They'd re-arm and reload for about 4 or 5 days
While we fiddled and Rome burned
...
I was shot down...I was held for...exactly 6 and a half years
Started off in soliitary confinement
They put us through the rope trick...they throw you down on the floor
they put your hands in wrist irons behind you
they put a rope around your elbows
and a bamboo pole between the rope
and they start cranking the bamboo pole around until it tightens up the ropes
...
and it pulls your elbows together
and at first you think your wrists are going to break or dislocate
sometimes they do
then your elbows
sometimes they do
you get to the point where you can't breathe very well
you're afraid that your shoulders will come out of the sockets, sometimes they do
and then they, with your face...
...
...led by a father figure Walter Cronkite which hurts most of all
took a position that the war was unwinnable and that the Viet Cong had scored a great
victory
and in short there was a presumption that we could no longer win this war
and even the intelligentsia, who have been described from time to time as that herd
of independent minds
jumped on the bandwagon and the prevailing thought was we can't win, let's get out
Sam McClung
> ><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: The Library Card Redux
> >From: Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net>
> >Date: Tue, 15 June 1999 09:39 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <37670068...@flash.net>
> >
> >
>
> >One of my freinds (deceased) who had been a door gunner on UH-1s
> >said about Johnson "They ought to dig that %^& ^@ # $!)#~ up
> >and hang him to make sure he's dead."
>
> My sentiments precisely !!>I will be posting here soon some of the words of a
> former POW about the
> >matter in SE Asia.
>
> >Sam
>
> Sounds interesting Sam anybody who would pee on LBJ's grave is a friend of
> mine.
>
> Also where can I find the story about the lapel pin?
It has been run on TV a few times. It may be in his biography by Doris Kearns
(Godfrey).
He was a bully and a coward.
Sam
>
>
> walt
Martin Shackelford
1963 II
1964 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1965 IIIIIIIIII
1966 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1967 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1968 IIIIIIIIIII
1969 IIIIIIIIIIII
1970 IIIIIII
1971 IIIIII
1972 III
1973 IIIIIII
1974 IIIIIIII
1975 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1976 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1977 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1978 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
1979 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Martin
RicBissell
Thanks for the bar graph.
From what I can count of those tiny tic marks ;-) here is the raw data:
1964 - 54
1965 - 10
1966 - 17
1967 - 24
1968 -11
1969 - 12
1970 - 7
1971 - 6
1972 - 3
1973 - 7
1974 - 8
1975 - 18
1976- 23
1977- 18
1978 - 15
1979 - 20
Two of the most commonly used statistical tests for the detection of outliers
are the 4d (where d is the average deviation, and any value four times d is
thrown out) and 3s (where s is the standard deviation and any value 3 times s
is deemed an outlier) tests.
The mean number of books per year from the above data is (I left out 1963,
because it was not a full year) 15.8 books per year. The average deviation for
the data is 7.8, and from the 4d test the ONLY year that can be thrown out as
being statistically deviant is 1964. The standard deviation is 11.9 and, once
again, the ONLY year that can be discarded as an outlier is 1964.
So much for Dave's claim that Garrison caused a real slowdown in JFK
assassination books.
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>I asked for notable conspiracy books, Ric, not counting topical items on the
>Garrison investigation.
>
>If you can't name any, just say so.
>
>Dave
I don't have to name any. Mr. Shackelford has provided the data, and I have
done a statistical analysis of it. Please see my response to him, it
mathematically refutes your claim about JFK assassination books in the wake of
the Garrison trial.
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>BTW, just what do you hear in Salisbury's words if not an effort to
>eliminate
>>the doubts about the Warren Report?
>
>How does one eliminate doubts if the Report should turn out to be invalid?
Do you really think that proving the Report invalid is what Salisbury had in
mind when he made that comment? "We will go back over the ares of doubt and
hope to eliminate them." Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
>How do you explain CBS and NBC's interest in the Garrison investigation --
News value, maybe?
>until they found out what was going on in Jimbo's office?
Source, please. Note that I checked up on your citation of a source that the
reason LIFE changed it's mind was because "Garrison had nothing" and it turns
out your source said some thing entirely different.
>Do you think NBC came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's investigation, Ric?
It's certainly possible. Weren't they trying to "wreck" GM's pick-ups
reputation with there fraudulent exploding side gasoline tanks story? Do you
really think it is beyond NBC or CBS to use there vast power to promote an
agenda? You must not watch the Evening News.
>>Now, Lambert actually sources this claim at this point. But is her source
>>from
>>Time magazine, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal? No, it's
>none
>>other than David Chandler, writing in a publication called "Westword" in
>>*1992*. This is the same David Chandler that was writing anti-Garrison
>>articles even *before* the Shaw case.
>
>Do you think that's a bad thing?
I think it's a suspicious thing.
>Would you yourself not have denounced the DA's
>blantantly phony charges against his political enemies from the minute he
>took
>office?
Yes, but after I had, if I got hired by a magazine to do a story on the guy, I
might suspect they knew my work, and had the same opinion of the man as I did.
Why else would they hire me, having read what I had previously written about
the man?
>How about his adamant denial of the existence of organized
>crime in New Orleans?
This is a very, very interesting aspect of the Shaw case, and of Garrison in
general. Shall we consider the possibilty that Big Jim was in the Mob's back
pocket? I have, and it's a theory that is growing on me. I don't think
Marcello's name was mentioned once in OTTOTA.
>Some of us don't take it for granted that Jim Garrison was the good guy and
>everyone else was out to get him.
Neither do I, as I've explained to you before.
>There's a reason that is the minority view,
Well, that's one minority view I *don't* hold. ;-)
>And, finally, just
>>another coincedence, he was a stringer for none other than LIFE magazine.
>
>
>No kidding. Have you actually read her book, Ric?
I read all her references to LIFE magazine, Richard Billings, Chandler, and the
media. Most of what she says about the media has one source: Chandler.
>and you seem unaware of the
>interest paid in Garrison by CBS and NBC
I'm not unaware of it, I'm suspicious of it.
>-- until they saw what was really
>going on in New Orleans.
>
That claim didn't work out too well regarding LIFE magazine, did it? But just
out of curiosity, do you have any sources for that claim? Lambert again?
Bethell's diary?
>That's because you believe that Jim Garrison was actually investigating the
>assassination.
Don't you? What was he investigating, if not the assassination?
>>The source of this info? Not surprisingly, Chandler again.
>
>I see. Are you contesting the information? Please be clear.
Yes. I'm contesting the idea that LIFE magazine's motivation for "helping"
Garrison is what Chandler says it is.
>>BTW, Dave, who would you say got the better of this "greatly supportive"
>deal
>>with LIFE magazine? Garrison got one researcher, a few photos enlarged, and
>>his picture taken a lot. LIFE got everything Garrison had.
>
>"Got everything he had"? Is that supposed to be sinister, Ric?
It's supposed to be factual, Dave. That's what happened. He sent them his
master file, with all the evidence he had obtained to that point.
>Perhaps you'd
>better define your terms. All I see is a DA who got his resources doubled
Doubled? That's sure not what it sounds like from Lambert. Source, please.
>and a
>magazine that got an inside track to what they expected to be the scoop of
>the
>century.
>
>Who do you think benefited from the deal more, Ric?
LIFE magazine, hands down.
>And, again, do you think that, for example, Walter Sheridan and Rick Townley
>came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's case?
I don't know.
>How much do you know about Garrison? Do you actually believe he was seriously
>investigating the assassination?
It's hard to tell. I believe he was wrong about Shaw. There are about four
possible motivations I can think of for Garrison. One, he was sincerely trying
to solve the case. Two, it was an ego trip or a political ploy, designed to
either win him the national spotlight or higher political office. Three, he
had a vendetta against Shaw, maybe because he was a homosexual, maybe something
personal. Four, he brought the trial and accused the CIA as a smokescreen to
divert suspicion from the true culprits, Marcello and his buddies.
>>"It was pointed out by Boxley, (real name, it emerged, is Bill Wood) that
>>Life
>>lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- good
>point."
>>
>>[Note that this entry undermines your contention that LIFE magazine lost
>>interest when they saw what a lousy case Garrison had, Dave.]
>
>
>Okay. Perhaps "lost interest" was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "stopped
>believing Garrison's case to have had any merit" would have been more
>accurate.
>
No, you still don't understand what Boxley (and Billings) are saying. It's not
because they thought Garrison's case didn't have any merit, its because he
wasn't pursuing the Cubans.
>Did you really
>think LIFE would refuse to cover the investigation and trial just because
>they
>didn't expect it to prove anything about who killed Kennedy?
Did LIFE "refuse to cover the investigation and trial"? (I didn't understand
the second part of your question.)
>Also, on March 11, Federal District judge James Comiskey rules that
>>Life
>>stringer David Chandler did not have to testify before the Orleans Parish
>>grand
>>jury as to his alleged knowledge of organized crime in Orleans Parish."
>>
>>[Boy, what a coincedence!] ;-)
>
>You don't get it, Ric. His testimony would have been damaging to Garrison --
>he
>alleged (correctly) that Garrison was coddling organized crime in New
>Orleans.
Well, I was thinking along the lines of Garrison and Comiskey both being in the
Mob's thrall. Dave, I was born and raised in Louisiana (in fact, I was in New
Orleans during the Shaw trial.) In Louisiana, we took a sort of twisted pride
in how corrupt our politicians are (Edwin Edwards, former governor, is a good
recent example of this, with his million dollar line of gambling credit in some
of Las Vegas' finest establishments.) I know you are going to find this hard
to believe, but by Louisiana standards, Garrison wasn't that bad. In fact, I
think he got re-elected several times after the Shaw trial.
>Ric, why do you ask questions about things when your mind is already made up?
My mind isn't made up, but when someone claims that the mainstream media was
going great guns with dynamic investigations of the JFK assassination, and that
those investigations were ruined by Garrison, it doesn't make sense to me on a
variety of levels, and I feel compelled to question it until it has been proved
to me.
So far, no dice.
RicBissell
dav...@together.net wrote:
>>> [Billings] had actually covered the Kennedy
>assassination for Life, having flown to Dallas from
>the Miami Bureau, and he was responsible for
>the magazine's thoughtful reappraisal of The
>Warren Report.
Yes, apparently he was SOLELY responsible for that "reappraisal." He also
apparently later lost his job at LIFE over these same views on the JFK
assassination, but LIFE magazine sure gets one heck of a lot of mileage from
their defenders from one article by a guy they later fired.
>Billings' story, "A Matter of
>Reasonable Doubt," was one of the first by a
>national news organization to take a skeptical
>view of the single-assassin verdict .... Billings
>also covered for Life the assassination investigation
>of [N.O. DA] Jim Garrison, though he soon determined
>that probe was a fraud.
That sort of blows a hole in Mr. Reitzes theory that "Billings is a
pro-Garrisonite. Probably still is." Doesn't it?
>in July 1966 Look featured an article,
>"The [WC] Report on the Assassination Is Struck
>By a Wave of Doubts"; Life, in November, produced
>"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," an evaluation of the
>single-bullet theory based on Governor Connally's
>analysis of the Zapruder film; and on December 2,
>1967, the Saturday Evening Post printed an excerpt
>from Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, "The Cross
>Fire that Killed President Kennedy."
Do you have copies of these article, Jean? If so, how did you get them, and
how much did they cost? I guess I better read them.
> Apparently
>he wasn't fired immediately after his Reasonable
>Doubt piece.
No, but just as apparently, he was fired for his belief in a conspiracy. See
Bethell's diary for a source of this claim.
> The reason I remember that these doubts were
>raised about the WR is that this is around
>the time I got interested in the subject.
Me too, but my interest was piqued by Meagher's book, and I shared her
contemporaneous view of the mainstream media's acceptance of the WR. That's
sure the way I remember it, anyway.
Dave Reitzes
For the third time, Ric, I didn't ask for JFK assassination books, Ric -- I
asked for notable conspiracy books, not counting books related to the Garrison
probe.
You really needn't waste people's time with questions if you're not interested
in hearing the answers.
Dave
Jerry
Ric,
OK, throw out 1964. Now, let's look at the aftermath of Garrison in
five year increments.
In the 5 years after his "investigation" the # of books shrinks from 74
to 21. And in the next 5 years the effect is played out and the # rises
again to 95.
So, before-during Garrison ..........................74 books
In the 5 yrs after ..................................21 books
In the next 5 years .................................95 books
It appears that Reitzes was only expressing the common wisdom that
Big Jim disgraced the research community -- as did Oliver Stone, who
has become a joke.
Jerry
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>BTW, just what do you hear in Salisbury's words if not an effort to
>>eliminate
>>>the doubts about the Warren Report?
>>
>>How does one eliminate doubts if the Report should turn out to be invalid?
>
>Do you really think that proving the Report invalid is what Salisbury had in
>mind when he made that comment? "We will go back over the ares of doubt and
>hope to eliminate them." Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
>
Then it appears we've reached an impasse. Unless you wish to cite the Times'
precise editorials on the subject, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
>>How do you explain CBS and NBC's interest in the Garrison investigation --
>
>News value, maybe?
What more could you reasonably ask of them?
>
>>until they found out what was going on in Jimbo's office?
>
>Source, please.
Look up what Walter Sheridan had to say about it.
Note that I checked up on your citation of a source that the
>reason LIFE changed it's mind was because "Garrison had nothing" and it turns
>out your source said some thing entirely different.
I don't think so. There's a big difference between what LIFE's editors thought
and what their reporters did. Have you read Lambert?
>
>>Do you think NBC came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's investigation,
>Ric?
>
>It's certainly possible.
It's also possible that Martians sabotaged the media coverage. If you're going
to assert something like that, let's see your evidence.
Weren't they trying to "wreck" GM's pick-ups
>reputation with there fraudulent exploding side gasoline tanks story? Do you
>really think it is beyond NBC or CBS to use there vast power to promote an
>agenda? You must not watch the Evening News.
As Ollie Stone tells us, Ric, the single bullet theory is theoretically
possible, but I still have a hard time accepting it. If you're going to allege
such actions, please make your case.
>
>>>Now, Lambert actually sources this claim at this point. But is her source
>>>from
>>>Time magazine, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal? No, it's
>>none
>>>other than David Chandler, writing in a publication called "Westword" in
>>>*1992*. This is the same David Chandler that was writing anti-Garrison
>>>articles even *before* the Shaw case.
>>
>>Do you think that's a bad thing?
>
>I think it's a suspicious thing.
Then I simply can't imagine you're familiar with Garrison's record.
>
>>Would you yourself not have denounced the DA's
>>blantantly phony charges against his political enemies from the minute he
>>took
>>office?
>
>Yes, but after I had, if I got hired by a magazine to do a story on the guy,
>I
>might suspect they knew my work, and had the same opinion of the man as I
>did.
>Why else would they hire me, having read what I had previously written about
>the man?
Does that mean that, since Jim Phelan wrote a very complimentary article on
Garrison prior to the JFK probe, he is absolved from all suspicion?
A simple yes or no will do.
>
>>How about his adamant denial of the existence of organized
>>crime in New Orleans?
>
>This is a very, very interesting aspect of the Shaw case, and of Garrison in
>general.
I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's denial of
organized crime in New Orleans.
Shall we consider the possibilty that Big Jim was in the Mob's back
>pocket? I have, and it's a theory that is growing on me. I don't think
>Marcello's name was mentioned once in OTTOTA.
Again, I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's
denial of organized crime in New Orleans -- for the entire length of his career
as a DA, a judge, and an author.
>
>>Some of us don't take it for granted that Jim Garrison was the good guy and
>>everyone else was out to get him.
>
>Neither do I, as I've explained to you before.
>
>
>>There's a reason that is the minority view,
>
>Well, that's one minority view I *don't* hold. ;-)
>
>
>>And, finally, just
>>>another coincedence, he was a stringer for none other than LIFE magazine.
>>
>>
>>No kidding. Have you actually read her book, Ric?
>
>I read all her references to LIFE magazine, Richard Billings, Chandler, and
>the
>media. Most of what she says about the media has one source: Chandler.
>
Are you talking about the media in relation to Garrison, or the media in
relation to the Warren Report?
>
>>and you seem unaware of the
>>interest paid in Garrison by CBS and NBC
>
>I'm not unaware of it, I'm suspicious of it.
Why?
>
>>-- until they saw what was really
>>going on in New Orleans.
>>
>
>That claim didn't work out too well regarding LIFE magazine, did it?
I don't think you are differentiating between the opinions of Chandler,
Billings and LIFE's editors.
But
>just
>out of curiosity, do you have any sources for that claim? Lambert again?
>Bethell's diary?
Tell you what, Ric. Since you seem to regard any source besides Garrison
himself as suspect, let's approach this in a different way. You can order the
full transcript of NBC's notorious "attack" on Garrison from the National
Archives, or you can pick out some of their major allegations from Garrison's
*Playboy* interview. Why don't we go over those allegations one by one, just
you and me, and see whether the allegations made in NBC's broadcast constitute
an attack on Garrison or an objective review of the facts. That way, neither
one of us has to rely on anyone else's opinions about NBC -- we can make our
own minds up.
Deal?
>
>>That's because you believe that Jim Garrison was actually investigating the
>>assassination.
>
>Don't you?
No.
>What was he investigating, if not the assassination?
He wasn't investigating a thing, any more than Joe McCarthy was investigating
Communist spies.
>
>>>The source of this info? Not surprisingly, Chandler again.
>>
>>I see. Are you contesting the information? Please be clear.
>
>Yes. I'm contesting the idea that LIFE magazine's motivation for "helping"
>Garrison is what Chandler says it is.
Do you also contest Billings' account?
>
>>>BTW, Dave, who would you say got the better of this "greatly supportive"
>>deal
>>>with LIFE magazine? Garrison got one researcher, a few photos enlarged,
>and
>>>his picture taken a lot. LIFE got everything Garrison had.
>>
>>"Got everything he had"? Is that supposed to be sinister, Ric?
>
>It's supposed to be factual, Dave. That's what happened. He sent them his
>master file, with all the evidence he had obtained to that point.
And . . . ?
If Louisiana granted the defendant the right to discovery, NBC could have
gotten that same information from the defense.
>
>>Perhaps you'd
>>better define your terms. All I see is a DA who got his resources doubled
>
>Doubled? That's sure not what it sounds like from Lambert. Source, please.
How many investigators did Garrison have of his own, Ric?
>>and a
>>magazine that got an inside track to what they expected to be the scoop of
>>the
>>century.
>>
>>Who do you think benefited from the deal more, Ric?
>
>LIFE magazine, hands down.
Well, I guess again we've reached an impasse. I don't see where LIFE got
anything out of the deal. They certainly didn't get a story.
>
>>And, again, do you think that, for example, Walter Sheridan and Rick Townley
>>came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's case?
>
>I don't know.
Would you care to look into it?
>
>>How much do you know about Garrison? Do you actually believe he was
>seriously
>>investigating the assassination?
>
>It's hard to tell. I believe he was wrong about Shaw. There are about four
>possible motivations I can think of for Garrison. One, he was sincerely
>trying
>to solve the case. Two, it was an ego trip or a political ploy, designed to
>either win him the national spotlight or higher political office. Three, he
>had a vendetta against Shaw, maybe because he was a homosexual, maybe
>something
>personal. Four, he brought the trial and accused the CIA as a smokescreen to
>divert suspicion from the true culprits, Marcello and his buddies.
If you wish to argue the first possibility, what evidence did this sincere
effort turn up?
>
>>>"It was pointed out by Boxley, (real name, it emerged, is Bill Wood) that
>>>Life
>>>lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- good
>>point."
>>>
>>>[Note that this entry undermines your contention that LIFE magazine lost
>>>interest when they saw what a lousy case Garrison had, Dave.]
>>
>>
>>Okay. Perhaps "lost interest" was a bad choice of words. Perhaps "stopped
>>believing Garrison's case to have had any merit" would have been more
>>accurate.
>>
>
>No, you still don't understand what Boxley (and Billings) are saying. It's
>not
>because they thought Garrison's case didn't have any merit, its because he
>wasn't pursuing the Cubans.
>
Hey, it's possible. I'm not going to take Boxley's word for it, though. And I
definitely would disagree with Billings about that. Billings had a bit of an ax
to grind in that area, and even he admitted that he thought Shaw was being
framed. You don't think LIFE took that into account?
>
>>Did you really
>>think LIFE would refuse to cover the investigation and trial just because
>>they
>>didn't expect it to prove anything about who killed Kennedy?
>
>Did LIFE "refuse to cover the investigation and trial"? (I didn't understand
>the second part of your question.)
Skip it.
>>Also, on March 11, Federal District judge James Comiskey rules that
>>>Life
>>>stringer David Chandler did not have to testify before the Orleans Parish
>>>grand
>>>jury as to his alleged knowledge of organized crime in Orleans Parish."
>>>
>>>[Boy, what a coincedence!] ;-)
>>
>>You don't get it, Ric. His testimony would have been damaging to Garrison --
>>he
>>alleged (correctly) that Garrison was coddling organized crime in New
>>Orleans.
>
>Well, I was thinking along the lines of Garrison and Comiskey both being in
>the
>Mob's thrall.
Good point.
Dave, I was born and raised in Louisiana (in fact, I was in
>New
>Orleans during the Shaw trial.) In Louisiana, we took a sort of twisted
>pride
>in how corrupt our politicians are (Edwin Edwards, former governor, is a good
>recent example of this, with his million dollar line of gambling credit in
>some
>of Las Vegas' finest establishments.) I know you are going to find this hard
>to believe, but by Louisiana standards, Garrison wasn't that bad. In fact, I
>think he got re-elected several times after the Shaw trial.
>
Of course he did. James Kirkwood's book has a section where he's questioning
various folks in New Orleans (including the Mayor) about Garrison, and
virtually everyone -- regardless of their opinion about the Shaw case -- is
predicting that Garrison will be reelected. Kirkwood can't believe it, but of
course, they were right.
>>Ric, why do you ask questions about things when your mind is already made
>up?
>
>My mind isn't made up, but when someone claims that the mainstream media was
>going great guns with dynamic investigations of the JFK assassination
WHOA, man!! I NEVER said that!!
I said that the media had become increasingly more skeptical of the Warren
Report, to the point where several major media outlets were calling for a new
investigation or launching investigations of their own, until Garrison came
along, at which point, IMO, CT credibility went up in smoke until Watergate
hit.
and
>that
>those investigations were ruined by Garrison,
Not directly, of course, but the impact he had couldn't have been more
destructive. I'm surprised you haven't heard this before -- I'm far from the
first person to say so. I think you could find similar statements from a few
respected conspiracy authors without much trouble. That doesn't make it true,
of course, but you seem to think I've originated this little theory. 'Tain't
so.
it doesn't make sense to me on
>a
>variety of levels, and I feel compelled to question it until it has been
>proved
>to me.
>
>So far, no dice.
Look, Ric, let me be frank. I don't think this issue is terribly important. I
think what's important is what Garrison himself accomplished. Everything else,
to me, is peripheral. When I argue against Garrison, I discuss his evidence,
not his long-term impact on the public perception of CTs. It's only when
someone comes along and champions Garrison as the Little DA That Could,
fighting a bitterly hostile, government-controlled media, that I feel compelled
to point out that the media were not hostile, not biased against him, and did
not conduct their coverage of Garrison in a manner that indicated they were
"controlled." IMO, the only primary source you're going to find for that
allegation is Jim Garrison himself.
If you think NBC's coverage, for example, was biased, just cite specifics, and
I'll respond to each. It looks to me like their coverage of Garrison was
accurate.
So let me be clear, here. If you want to continue with this topic, I'll do what
I can to support my opinion. But I'd much rather discuss Garrison's case, for
which he himself was directly responsible, than the public perception of CTs,
for which he himself was not directly responsible. Does that make sense to you?
In my opinion, the more one understands Garrison's case, the more the media
coverage of that case makes complete sense, and the more one can see where his
actions had the long-term effect of discrediting conspiracy theorists.
So unless you think I'm accusing Garrison of *deliberately* discrediting CTs,
could we possibly get back to the evidence?
Dave Reitzes
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Jean,
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>>>> [Billings] had actually covered the Kennedy
>>assassination for Life, having flown to Dallas from
>>the Miami Bureau, and he was responsible for
>>the magazine's thoughtful reappraisal of The
>>Warren Report.
>
>Yes, apparently he was SOLELY responsible for that "reappraisal." He also
>apparently later lost his job at LIFE over these same views on the JFK
>assassination, but LIFE magazine sure gets one heck of a lot of mileage from
>their defenders from one article by a guy they later fired.
>
>
>>Billings' story, "A Matter of
>>Reasonable Doubt," was one of the first by a
>>national news organization to take a skeptical
>>view of the single-assassin verdict .... Billings
>>also covered for Life the assassination investigation
>>of [N.O. DA] Jim Garrison, though he soon determined
>>that probe was a fraud.
>
>That sort of blows a hole in Mr. Reitzes theory that "Billings is a
>pro-Garrisonite. Probably still is." Doesn't it?
Sure, if it's wholly correct. However, I stand by my previous statement. You
might find the last few installments of Tom Bethell's diary enlightening on
Billings' views.
>
>>in July 1966 Look featured an article,
>>"The [WC] Report on the Assassination Is Struck
>>By a Wave of Doubts"; Life, in November, produced
>>"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," an evaluation of the
>>single-bullet theory based on Governor Connally's
>>analysis of the Zapruder film; and on December 2,
>>1967, the Saturday Evening Post printed an excerpt
>>from Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, "The Cross
>>Fire that Killed President Kennedy."
>
>Do you have copies of these article, Jean? If so, how did you get them, and
>how much did they cost? I guess I better read them.
>
>
>> Apparently
>>he wasn't fired immediately after his Reasonable
>>Doubt piece.
>
>No, but just as apparently, he was fired for his belief in a conspiracy. See
>Bethell's diary for a source of this claim.
>
>
>> The reason I remember that these doubts were
>>raised about the WR is that this is around
>>the time I got interested in the subject.
>
>Me too, but my interest was piqued by Meagher's book, and I shared her
>contemporaneous view of the mainstream media's acceptance of the WR. That's
>sure the way I remember it, anyway.
>
K.B.
Geez Dave, this almost looks like a "sashay"
On 16 Jun 1999 18:16:58 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>From: ricbi...@aol.com (RicBissell)
>>
>>Hi Dave,
>>
>>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>
=keith=
You can cut your throat with a sharp tongue.
Jean Davison
>Hi Jean,
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>> [Billings] had actually covered the Kennedy
>>assassination for Life, having flown to Dallas from
>>the Miami Bureau, and he was responsible for
>>the magazine's thoughtful reappraisal of The
>>Warren Report.
>
>Yes, apparently he was SOLELY responsible for that "reappraisal." He also
>apparently later lost his job at LIFE over these same views on the JFK
>assassination, but LIFE magazine sure gets one heck of a lot of mileage
from
>their defenders from one article by a guy they later fired.
>
Keep in mind that I was quoting Billings
and Blakey there, that's not me talking. I'm
not exactly "defending" Life, Ric -- you asked
for a cite, so I gave one. Even if he was
the SOLE writer of the piece, it wouldn't
have appeared without the blessing of the
management, would it? Some people
argue that Life was a knowing agent of
the cover-up, but if so, how'd the "Reasonable
Doubt" article squeak through?
>
>>Billings' story, "A Matter of
>>Reasonable Doubt," was one of the first by a
>>national news organization to take a skeptical
>>view of the single-assassin verdict .... Billings
>>also covered for Life the assassination investigation
>>of [N.O. DA] Jim Garrison, though he soon determined
>>that probe was a fraud.
>
>That sort of blows a hole in Mr. Reitzes theory that "Billings is a
>pro-Garrisonite. Probably still is." Doesn't it?
>
You'll have to fight that one out with Dave.<g>
Again, I was still quoting B&B, so it's not just Dave
and I who say this.
>
>>in July 1966 Look featured an article,
>>"The [WC] Report on the Assassination Is Struck
>>By a Wave of Doubts"; Life, in November, produced
>>"A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," an evaluation of the
>>single-bullet theory based on Governor Connally's
>>analysis of the Zapruder film; and on December 2,
>>1967, the Saturday Evening Post printed an excerpt
>>from Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, "The Cross
>>Fire that Killed President Kennedy."
>
>Do you have copies of these article, Jean? If so, how did you get them,
and
>how much did they cost? I guess I better read them.
>
The only one I have is Life. I'm not sure but
I think I bought it at the time, cost about35 cents.
It'd probably run you $8 - 10 now. Your library
may have these back issues, most college
libraries would, at least.
>
>> Apparently
>>he wasn't fired immediately after his Reasonable
>>Doubt piece.
>
>No, but just as apparently, he was fired for his belief in a conspiracy.
See
>Bethell's diary for a source of this claim.
>
Was the source Billings?
>
>> The reason I remember that these doubts were
>>raised about the WR is that this is around
>>the time I got interested in the subject.
>
>Me too, but my interest was piqued by Meagher's book, and I shared her
>contemporaneous view of the mainstream media's acceptance of the WR.
That's
>sure the way I remember it, anyway.
My interest was piqued by Lane's book. It's
true that the initial response to the WR by the
mainstream media was very favorable, but
there was this period during 1966-7 when
the WR came under attack. Jean
Paul Leonard
On 15 Jun 1999 19:21:34 GMT, ricbi...@aol.com (RicBissell) wrote:
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>And yet Salisbury admitted it. Here's what he said abou the NYT's
>>>investigation: "We will go back over all the areas of doubt and hope to
>>>eliminate them."
>>
>>I don't hear in that at all what Meagher did.
>
>Well, did you make the "good faith" effort to get a copy of the December 12,
>1966 edition of Newsweek and see for yourself? ;-)
>
>BTW, just what do you hear in Salisbury's words if not an effort to eliminate
>the doubts about the Warren Report?
>
>
>
>>>>At first, yes. But an article of theirs -- I believe it's called "The
>>Warren
>>>>Report: A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" -- is considered one of the
>>>>groundbreaking assassination-related articles.
>>>
>>>What ground did they break in this article?
>>
>>Jean Davison just told you all about this article. You sounded reasonably
>>satisfied.
>
>Yes, and I found out it was written by Richard Billings (are you reading this
>Jean? ;-). The same Richard Billings who apparently lost his job at LIFE
>magazine because of his views on the assassination conspiracy. This article is
>looking more and more like the exception that proves the rule.
>
>
> >>>LIFE also was greatly supportive
>>>>of Jim Garrison's investigation from the beginning in late 1966
>>>
>>>Source, please.
>>
>>Patricia Lambert's *False Witness* has the complete story;
>
>Let's see what Lambert has to say about the major media's interest in the JFK
>assassination:
>
>p. 41:
>
>"Stirred by a series of critical books and articles, people everywhere were
>debating the accuracy of the Warren Report. Mark Lane, in his 1966 bestseller
>"Rush to Judgment", presented a serious challenge to the govermnent's
>conclusions. But Lane's book was an advocate's brief. Harvard graduate student
>Edward Epstein published "Inquest" that same year and it had no such down side.
> Impressed by its balance and scholarly cachet, management at a number of
>leading news organizations (among them Time magazine, the NewYork Times and the
>Wall Street journal) sent their own investigative teams into the field to see
>what they could find."
>
>Now, Lambert actually sources this claim at this point. But is her source from
>Time magazine, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal? No, it's none
>other than David Chandler, writing in a publication called "Westword" in
>*1992*. This is the same David Chandler that was writing anti-Garrison
>articles even *before* the Shaw case. The very same guy, BTW, who brought
>about the so-called by Lambert "deep...involvement" of Garrison with LIFE
>magazine. (Which is a minor mystery in and of itself.) And, finally, just
>another coincedence, he was a stringer for none other than LIFE magazine.
>
>Lambert goes on to say:
>
>p. 41:
>
>"While Epstein influenced the members of the news media, it was the nation's
>most popular magazines, those familiar and trusted publications found on coffee
>tables everywhere, that swayed middle America. In November 1966, a milestone
>article appeared in Life written by Richard Billings. Using frames from the
>Zapruder film and citing John Connally's testimony disputing the single-buflet
>theory, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt" raised the possibility of a second
>shooter and called for a new inquiry."
>
>
>Again, this *one* article is used to support the thesis that the mainstream
>media was starting to demand an inquiry. Billings eventually lost his job
>over his JFK assassination views, which in my opinion, implicates LIFE more
>than the publishing of a single article by a guy they later fired exonerates
>them.
>
>
>Lambert, again:
>
>p. 45-46:
>
>"Chandler was working as a stringer for LIFE magazine, which already had begun
>its own inquiry into the assassination."
>
>[Lambert gives no sources for this claim, it's proably Chandler again]
>
>"... a 'secret deal was worked out. It was agreed that LIFE and Garrison would
>"share all information" they might gather on the assassination."
>
>The source of this info? Not surprisingly, Chandler again.
>
>Regarding what both Garrison and LIFE got from the deal:
>
>Lambert, p. 46, footnote:
>
>"LIFE provided Garrison a variety of assisstance. In Miami, a LIFE researcher
>[who?] investigated the alleged Latin assassins supposedly hiding there; LIFE's
>lab provided photographic enlargements and prints, and wherever Garrison went
>he was trailed by a LIFE photgrapher recording his activities for posterity.
>In return, LIFE received a copy of Garrison's master file, which was mailed to
>New York 'as things were printed'."
>
>
>This information is not sourced either, but who would bet it didn't come from
>Chandler?
>
>BTW, Dave, who would you say got the better of this "greatly supportive" deal
>with LIFE magazine? Garrison got one researcher, a few photos enlarged, and
>his picture taken a lot. LIFE got everything Garrison had.
>
>Sorry, Dave, the more I look into this, the less evidence I see that the
>mainstream media EVER wanted to help Garrison, much less re-open the case and
>was prevented from doing so by Garrison's by their shock at what Garrison was
>doing.
>
>How much do you know about Chandler?
>
>
>>Tom Bethell's diary
>>contains scattered bits and pieces.
>
>Here are some excerpts from Bethell's diary, given in chronological order:
>
>"The role of Life magazine was discussed. Sciambra was in favor of breaking off
>diplomatic relations. However Garrison and Ivon are evidently in favor of
>"keeping channels of communications open." I pointed out it seems they must be
>holding back some information on Hall, Howard, and Seymour, as they seem so
>interested in them. Sciambra said he got the impression from Boxley that Life
>weren't giving us everything. Problem with Life, as Sciambra pointed out, and
>Ivon later confirmed, is that they have a copy of our files whereas they have
>given us very little."
>
>
>"Mark Lane on WVUE TV 11 o'clock news, and alleged that Life's organized crime
>series is in reality part of an "orchestrated attack" on Garrison, and said
>that they (Life) had photos, etc. which would destroy the Warren Report, but
>refused to publish them."
>
>
>"It was pointed out by Boxley, (real name, it emerged, is Bill Wood) that Life
>lost interest in us when we lost interest in the Cuban exiles -- good point."
>
>[Note that this entry undermines your contention that LIFE magazine lost
>interest when they saw what a lousy case Garrison had, Dave.]
>
>"Chandler said that Life was going to come out with another 'mob' story soon,
>which would specifically single Garrison out for attack. Then, probably after
>the Shaw trial, there would be another story about the assassination
>investigation. "
>
>"It should be noted that a week ago we received word from the West Coast that
>Life was preparing an article about the case which would be published at the
>time of the Shaw trial, and which would cast the investigation in a derogatory
>light. Also, on March 11, Federal District judge James Comiskey rules that Life
>stringer David Chandler did not have to testify before the Orleans Parish grand
>jury as to his alleged knowledge of organized crime in Orleans Parish."
>
>[Boy, what a coincedence!] ;-)
>
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>I don't have to name any. Mr. Shackelford has provided the data, and I have
>>done a statistical analysis of it. Please see my response to him, it
>>mathematically refutes your claim about JFK assassination books in the wake
>>of
>>the Garrison trial.
>
>For the third time, Ric, I didn't ask for JFK assassination books, Ric -- I
>asked for notable conspiracy books, not counting books related to the
>Garrison
>probe.
Well, Dave, you can't legitimately ask the question that way from a statistical
standpoint. Trying to decide what is "notable" introduces something into the
ananlysis called "investigator bias" and CANNOT be used, in any honest way, to
analyze data and reveal unusual, outlying aspects of that data.
>You really needn't waste people's time with questions if you're not
>interested
>in hearing the answers.
>
What questions have I asked that I'm not interested in hearing the answers to?
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>I don't have to name any. Mr. Shackelford has provided the data, and I
>have
>>>done a statistical analysis of it. Please see my response to him, it
>>>mathematically refutes your claim about JFK assassination books in the wake
>>>of
>>>the Garrison trial.
>>
>>For the third time, Ric, I didn't ask for JFK assassination books, Ric -- I
>>asked for notable conspiracy books, not counting books related to the
>>Garrison
>>probe.
>
>Well, Dave, you can't legitimately ask the question that way from a
>statistical
>standpoint. Trying to decide what is "notable" introduces something into the
>ananlysis called "investigator bias" and CANNOT be used, in any honest way,
>to
>analyze data and reveal unusual, outlying aspects of that data.
>
>
Well, I think one possible sort of objective criteria for establishing a book's
importance would be whether it's been reprinted or not, but of course there are
various factors, commercial and otherwise, that would have to be computed into
even that.
So let's just make it "conspiracy books," not counting Garrison-related titles.
You named exactly one for the entire period of 1968-74. I'll bet I can name an
average of at least three or four conspiracy books A YEAR for the years 1964-67
and 1975-99.
Shouldn't that tell you something?
>>You really needn't waste people's time with questions if you're not
>>interested
>>in hearing the answers.
>>
>
>What questions have I asked that I'm not interested in hearing the answers
>to?
I think that should be fairly obvious, Ric.
Dave
RicBissell
drei...@aol.com wrote:
>>Do you really think that proving the Report invalid is what Salisbury had in
>>mind when he made that comment? "We will go back over the ares of doubt and
>>hope to eliminate them." Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
>Then it appears we've reached an impasse. Unless you wish to cite the Times'
>precise editorials on the subject, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Dave, the way debates work is that if the person you are debating cites a
reference you either have to contest the validity of the actual reference,
provide a counter reference of your own to refute the point or concede the
point. Looks like you've conceded the point to me.
>>>until they found out what was going on in Jimbo's office?
>>
>>Source, please.
>
>
>Look up what Walter Sheridan had to say about it.
>
Why don't you post it, if it helps to support your case.
>Note that I checked up on your citation of a source that the
>>reason LIFE changed it's mind was because "Garrison had nothing" and it
>turns
>>out your source said some thing entirely different.
>I don't think so. There's a big difference between what LIFE's editors
>thought
>and what their reporters did. Have you read Lambert?
Asked and answered.
>>>Do you think NBC came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's investigation,
>>Ric?
>>It's certainly possible.
>It's also possible that Martians sabotaged the media coverage. If you're
>going
>to assert something like that, let's see your evidence.
Dave, saying something is "certainly possible" is not the same thing as
"asserting" it. You understand this fine point of semantics, don't you?
>Weren't they trying to "wreck" GM's pick-ups
>>reputation with there fraudulent exploding side gasoline tanks story? Do
>you
>>really think it is beyond NBC or CBS to use there vast power to promote an
>>agenda? You must not watch the Evening News.
>
>As Ollie Stone tells us, Ric, the single bullet theory is theoretically
>possible, but I still have a hard time accepting it. If you're going to
>allege
>such actions, please make your case.
Again, I didn't "allege" that it happened. I said it's certainly possible.
Other frauds perpetrated on the American public by NBC is only my first
example. The reason courts allow "patterns of behavior" evidence is because if
someone does something once, or several more times, it makes it much more
likely that they did the similar thing they are being accused of now.
>>>>Now, Lambert actually sources this claim at this point. But is her source
>>>>from
>>>>Time magazine, the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal? No, it's
>>>none
>>>>other than David Chandler, writing in a publication called "Westword" in
>>>>*1992*. This is the same David Chandler that was writing anti-Garrison
>>>>articles even *before* the Shaw case.
>>>
>>>Do you think that's a bad thing?
>>
>>I think it's a suspicious thing.
>
>Then I simply can't imagine you're familiar with Garrison's record.
Dave, it's not a suspicious thing that Chandler wrote an anti-Garrison piece
pre-Shaw. What is suspicious is that LIFE magazine, who supposedly was going
into the Shaw case eagerly willing to help Garrison, would hire him to cover
the trial.
Let me ask you this: If you wanted to hire a reporter to cover Web Hubbell's
upcoming trial, and you wanted a fair report, would you hire Christopher
Hitchens to cover it? I sure wouldn't.
>>Yes, but after I had, if I got hired by a magazine to do a story on the guy,
>>I
>>might suspect they knew my work, and had the same opinion of the man as I
>>did.
>>Why else would they hire me, having read what I had previously written about
>>the man?
>Does that mean that, since Jim Phelan wrote a very complimentary article on
>Garrison prior to the JFK probe, he is absolved from all suspicion?
>A simple yes or no will do.
No.
>>This is a very, very interesting aspect of the Shaw case, and of Garrison in
>>general.
>I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's denial of
>organized crime in New Orleans.
Uh, Dave, what do you think the words "Garrison in general" mean? The Shaw
case?
>Shall we consider the possibilty that Big Jim was in the Mob's back
>>pocket? I have, and it's a theory that is growing on me. I don't think
>>Marcello's name was mentioned once in OTTOTA.
>Again, I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's
>denial of organized crime in New Orleans -- for the entire length of his
>career
>as a DA, a judge, and an author.
Uh, Dave, that appears to me to be precisely what I was commenting on. I know
you must actually be reading what I write, but sometimes it sure doesn't seem
like it.
>Are you talking about the media in relation to Garrison, or the media in
>relation to the Warren Report?
Both. I think they are inter-related.
>>>and you seem unaware of the
>>>interest paid in Garrison by CBS and NBC
>>I'm not unaware of it, I'm suspicious of it.
>Why?
My first reaction to anything the mainstream media does in this country is
suspicion, that's why. It's a good habit to get into.
>>>-- until they saw what was really
>>>going on in New Orleans.
>>That claim didn't work out too well regarding LIFE magazine, did it?
>I don't think you are differentiating between the opinions of Chandler,
>Billings and LIFE's editors.
Well, then, provide me a reference from a LIFE editor that says, in essence,
"We we're really looking forward to working with Garrison, but when we found
out he was just prosecuting Shaw because _____, we lost interest in the case.
Prove it to me, Dave.
>Tell you what, Ric. Since you seem to regard any source besides Garrison
>himself as suspect,
Really, Dave, that's uncalled for, and furthermore, you know it's not true.
It's that emotional response to Garrison that is getting in your way of clear
thinking again. I don't think I've even sourced Garrison, except in a negative
way to cast suspicion on his failure to even write the name Marcello once in
his book.
You seem to deliberately misunderstand that I am no fan of Garrison's.
>You can order the
>full transcript of NBC's notorious "attack" on Garrison from the National
>Archives, or you can pick out some of their major allegations from Garrison's
>*Playboy* interview. Why don't we go over those allegations one by one, just
>you and me, and see whether the allegations made in NBC's broadcast
>constitute
>an attack on Garrison or an objective review of the facts. That way, neither
>one of us has to rely on anyone else's opinions about NBC -- we can make our
>own minds up.
>
>Deal?
No deal. I've done plenty of good faith research on this topic and posted the
results as excerpts here. And low and behold, the sources you gave me ALL
disagree with your conclusions. You didn't make the good faith effort to look
up Salisbury's comments, I quote things from Meagher, Lambert, and Bethell's
diary, all sources you suggested for me, and I don't get anything like that
kind of effort in response.
I guess intellectual laziness can lead to physical laziness, too.
>>What was he investigating, if not the assassination?
>He wasn't investigating a thing, any more than Joe McCarthy was investigating
>Communist spies.
What verb would you use to describe what Garrison (and McCarthy) were doing,
then?
>Do you also contest Billings' account?
>
Bethell's diary was *your* source, Dave, remember? Are *you* now contesting
Bethell's diary, when once you cited it?
>>It's supposed to be factual, Dave. That's what happened. He sent them [LIFE
magazine] his
>>master file, with all the evidence he had obtained to that point.
>And . . . ?
And, therefore, they snookered him. The Billings article sure helped in this
regard, too, which may explain why it was the only article LIFE ever ran
questioning the conclusions of the WR.
>If Louisiana granted the defendant the right to discovery, NBC could have
>gotten that same information from the defense.
>
I don't think anyone in the country had the right to discovery in the late
60's. That's a recent development in jurisprudence, I think. (Of course, the
of state of Lousiana's Constitution, back then, was uniquely among the fifty
states, based on French law instead English law, so I could be wrong about
that.)
>>>Perhaps you'd
>>>better define your terms. All I see is a DA who got his resources doubled
>>Doubled? That's sure not what it sounds like from Lambert. Source, please.
>How many investigators did Garrison have of his own, Ric?
How many "investigators" did LIFE provide, Dave? One? That's what it sounds
like from your source Lambert.
>>LIFE magazine, hands down.
>Well, I guess again we've reached an impasse. I don't see where LIFE got
>anything out of the deal. They certainly didn't get a story.
They got Garrison's master file didn't they? That's nothing?
>>>And, again, do you think that, for example, Walter Sheridan and Rick
>Townley
>>>came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's case?
>>I don't know.
>Would you care to look into it?
Sure. Why don't you post something Sheridan said that supports your
contentions, and I'll consider it.
>Hey, it's possible. I'm not going to take Boxley's word for it, though. And I
>definitely would disagree with Billings about that. Billings had a bit of an
>ax
>to grind in that area,
Billings said that *before* LIFE fired him for his views on the JFK
assassination, according to Bethell.
>and even he admitted that he thought Shaw was being
>framed.
Which doesn't exactly put him in the "Garrisonite" camp, does it? ;-)
>>Well, I was thinking along the lines of Garrison and Comiskey both being in
>>the
>>Mob's thrall.
>Good point.
Well, then, let's discuss it. The idea that Garrison was acting on behalf of
Marcello actually fits in pretty well with your view of Big Jim and the media
trends of the times. Let's say Marcello (who, for the purposes of this
scenario, is complicit in the murder) starts reading in LIFE and the Saturday
Evening Post a groundswell of support for a new investigation. What to do? "I
know, we need another Jack Ruby who will take one on the chin for the Mob."
He calls in his toady DA, Big Jim, and says, "Look we need to nip this JFK
thing in the bud, we'll give you that little queer Ferrie. Make a case against
him, and the CIA." Now, Marcello knows Ferrie has had some dealings with the
Cuban underground, who has connections to the CIA. Garrison, who has something
personal against Shaw, and perhaps even knows that Shaw was an informant for
the CIA, decides to include him in the conspiracy charge, or even make him the
focus.
Here's the beauty of Marcello's plan: THE VERDICT DOESN'T MATTER! If Ferrie
and Shaw are found guilty, then Garrison can say he "solved" the crime of the
century, and no more suspicions of Mob involvement. If they are found
innocent, then the very idea of conspiracy becomes an object of ridicule in
the national press.
Of course, Ferrie dies of natural causes in the interim, but surprisingly, this
helps Marcello's effort because now Garrison can claim, knowing how silly it
sounds, that Ferrie was murdered by the CIA right before he was going to spill
the beans. This means that he will almost inevitably lose the case, but again,
that works just as well for Marcello.
> and
>>that
>>those investigations were ruined by Garrison,
>Not directly, of course, but the impact he had couldn't have been more
>destructive. I'm surprised you haven't heard this before -- I'm far from the
>first person to say so. I think you could find similar statements from a few
>respected conspiracy authors without much trouble. That doesn't make it true,
>of course, but you seem to think I've originated this little theory.
No, I don't think that, but you were the only person here defending that point
of view, and I couldn't let it go unchallenged because I don't believe it.
I've shown statistically that it had no impact on JFK assassination books, and
I don't really think it had very much of an impact on the view of the American
public, either.
Frankly, I think the case could be made that Garrison's Shaw trial *heightened*
interest in the JFK case. It certainly gave conspiracy researchers a lot more
avenues (blind as they may eventually turn out to be) to pursue didn't it?
RicBissell
jer...@my-deja.com wrote:
>OK, throw out 1964.
Statistically, you HAVE to. 1964, for understandable reasons, was wholely
unusual in the number of JFK assassination books published.
>Now, let's look at the aftermath of Garrison in
>five year increments.
There's no valid statistical reason for picking a five year period.
>In the 5 years after his "investigation" the # of books shrinks from 74
>to 21. And in the next 5 years the effect is played out and the # rises
>again to 95.
>
>So, before-during Garrison ..........................74 books
>
>In the 5 yrs after ..................................21 books
>
>In the next 5 years .................................95 books
Jerry, it is always VERY dangerous to conclude anything from just three data
points, but, just to humor you, I'll do the same type analysis (actually the Q
test, as opposed to the 4d or 3s test would be more appropriate here, but for
consistency, I'll do the same test.)
The average number of books for those three years is 63 books. the average
deviation is 28, therefore, none of the three years is sufficiently out of line
to reveal it as as outlier (4 x 28 = 112). The standard deviation is 38. 3 x
38 = 114. No outliers.
>It appears that Reitzes was only expressing the common wisdom that
>Big Jim disgraced the research community
"Common wisdom" is the reason statistics were invented. The human brain seeks
out patterns, and even sees them when they aren't there. That's why we even
notice constellations, and why we see in them things like fish, hunters, and
bears.
Leo Sgouros
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990618102143...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
RicBissell
dav...@together.net wrote:
>Keep in mind that I was quoting Billings
>and Blakey there, that's not me talking. I'm
>not exactly "defending" Life, Ric
I wasn't thinking of you when I was thinking of LIFE magazine's defenders.
But, after I started looking into it, it amazed me how often this ONE article
was cited as defense of the mainstream media. At least you did mention another
one, the Saturday Evening Post.
>- you asked
>for a cite, so I gave one.
And I thank you for it.
> Even if he was
>the SOLE writer of the piece, it wouldn't
>have appeared without the blessing of the
>management, would it?
No, but the question then becomes WHY did the editors at LIFE give their
"blessing"? Was it sincere, or were they trying to covertly ingratiate
themselves with Garrison to see exactly what he had?
Let's look at what subsequently happened: LIFE got Garrison's master file,
with *everything* Garrison had up to that point, and LIFE never printed another
article questioning the WR. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that's suspicious to me.
(Please note that I'm not saying that this subtrefuge by LIFE magazine
implicates them in the assassination. Their motive migt have been as simple as
wanting to scoop everyone else with Garrison's inside dope, and they were just
engaging in hard driving journalism. But it still looks pretty suspicious to
me.)
>Some people
>argue that Life was a knowing agent of
>the cover-up, but if so, how'd the "Reasonable
>Doubt" article squeak through?
As bait.
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Jean,
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>>Keep in mind that I was quoting Billings
>>and Blakey there, that's not me talking. I'm
>>not exactly "defending" Life, Ric
>
>I wasn't thinking of you when I was thinking of LIFE magazine's defenders.
>But, after I started looking into it, it amazed me how often this ONE article
>was cited as defense of the mainstream media.
Sure, Ric. We'll just pretend that the New York Times and NBC were immovable
rocks in defense of the lone assassin theory.
At least you did mention
>another
>one, the Saturday Evening Post.
As did I.
>
>>- you asked
>>for a cite, so I gave one.
>
>And I thank you for it.
>
>
>> Even if he was
>>the SOLE writer of the piece, it wouldn't
>>have appeared without the blessing of the
>>management, would it?
>
>No, but the question then becomes WHY did the editors at LIFE give their
>"blessing"? Was it sincere, or were they trying to covertly ingratiate
>themselves with Garrison to see exactly what he had?
>
What was the date of that LIFE article again, Ric?
>Let's look at what subsequently happened: LIFE got Garrison's master file,
>with *everything* Garrison had up to that point
Which was . . . nothing, correct? If not, just tell me -- I've asked you this
before -- exactly what evidence of conspiracy Garrison turned up.
, and LIFE never printed
>another
>article questioning the WR. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that's suspicious to me.
Why? Would that not be consistent with the precise scenario I suggested --
LIFE's editors turned off to conspiracy theories because of the corrupt New
Orleans DA they'd previously considered the most likely candidate to deliver a
real investigation?
>(Please note that I'm not saying that this subtrefuge by LIFE magazine
>implicates them in the assassination. Their motive migt have been as simple
>as
>wanting to scoop everyone else with Garrison's inside dope, and they were
>just
>engaging in hard driving journalism. But it still looks pretty suspicious to
>me.)
You really should look into the Garrison "probe," Ric.
>>Some people
>>argue that Life was a knowing agent of
>>the cover-up, but if so, how'd the "Reasonable
>>Doubt" article squeak through?
>
>As bait.
Well, that would seem to be bordering on paranoia -- even if the article hadn't
been published before Garrison launched his investigation.
You really ought to look into Big Jim's "case," Ric. If you think he was
actually investigating the assassination, you should understand that you're
only taking Garrison's word for that.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>drei...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>Do you really think that proving the Report invalid is what Salisbury had
>in
>>>mind when he made that comment? "We will go back over the ares of doubt
>and
>>>hope to eliminate them." Sure doesn't sound like it to me.
>
>>Then it appears we've reached an impasse. Unless you wish to cite the Times'
>>precise editorials on the subject, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
>
>Dave, the way debates work is that if the person you are debating cites a
>reference you either have to contest the validity of the actual reference,
>provide a counter reference of your own to refute the point or concede the
>point. Looks like you've conceded the point to me.
Have you cited a single word of the New York Times' editorials on the subject?
Have you read any of them?
>>>>until they found out what was going on in Jimbo's office?
>>>
>>>Source, please.
>>
>>
>>Look up what Walter Sheridan had to say about it.
>>
>
>Why don't you post it, if it helps to support your case.
Because I'm not posting several pages of material in support of a trivial
issue. If you want to believe that it was a complete coincidence that interest
in conspiracy theories waned in the years 1968-74, I'm not going to lose any
sleep.
>
>>Note that I checked up on your citation of a source that the
>>>reason LIFE changed it's mind was because "Garrison had nothing" and it
>>turns
>>>out your source said some thing entirely different.
>
>>I don't think so. There's a big difference between what LIFE's editors
>>thought
>>and what their reporters did. Have you read Lambert?
>
>
>Asked and answered.
If you say so, Ric.
>
>
>>>>Do you think NBC came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's investigation,
>>>Ric?
>
>>>It's certainly possible.
>
>>It's also possible that Martians sabotaged the media coverage. If you're
>>going
>>to assert something like that, let's see your evidence.
>
>Dave, saying something is "certainly possible" is not the same thing as
>"asserting" it. You understand this fine point of semantics, don't you?
Sure. But "It's certainly possible" didn't really answer the question I asked
you, did it, Ric?
Why? They sent in two reporters. Why shouldn't they send in one who had some
experience with Garrison? This is only suspicious if you actually believe that
LIFE had an agenda to sabotage Garrison's case, something you're going to have
to prove to me.
>Let me ask you this: If you wanted to hire a reporter to cover Web Hubbell's
>upcoming trial, and you wanted a fair report, would you hire Christopher
>Hitchens to cover it? I sure wouldn't.
You're implying that Chandler was biased against Garrison, Ric. I don't see it.
As far as you're concerned, anyone who writes anything critical of Big Jim is
biased, right?
>
>
>>>Yes, but after I had, if I got hired by a magazine to do a story on the
>guy,
>>>I
>>>might suspect they knew my work, and had the same opinion of the man as I
>>>did.
>>>Why else would they hire me, having read what I had previously written
>about
>>>the man?
>
>>Does that mean that, since Jim Phelan wrote a very complimentary article on
>>Garrison prior to the JFK probe, he is absolved from all suspicion?
>
>>A simple yes or no will do.
>
>No.
>
Then your argument for LIFE doesn't really work, does it?
>>>This is a very, very interesting aspect of the Shaw case, and of Garrison
>in
>>>general.
>
>>I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's denial of
>>organized crime in New Orleans.
>
>Uh, Dave, what do you think the words "Garrison in general" mean? The Shaw
>case?
Yet you go on to discuss nothing but the Shaw case, Ric. Look, it's right there
below. Take a look.
>>Shall we consider the possibilty that Big Jim was in the Mob's back
>>>pocket? I have, and it's a theory that is growing on me. I don't think
>>>Marcello's name was mentioned once in OTTOTA.
>
>>Again, I didn't ask you about the Shaw case. I asked you about Garrison's
>>denial of organized crime in New Orleans -- for the entire length of his
>>career
>>as a DA, a judge, and an author.
>
>Uh, Dave, that appears to me to be precisely what I was commenting on. I
>know
>you must actually be reading what I write, but sometimes it sure doesn't seem
>like it.
Whatever, Ric. These evasions are getting awfully tiresome.
>
>>Are you talking about the media in relation to Garrison, or the media in
>>relation to the Warren Report?
>
>Both. I think they are inter-related.
>
>
>>>>and you seem unaware of the
>>>>interest paid in Garrison by CBS and NBC
>
>>>I'm not unaware of it, I'm suspicious of it.
>
>>Why?
>
>My first reaction to anything the mainstream media does in this country is
>suspicion, that's why. It's a good habit to get into.
And do you also feel that initial reactions are best held on to firmly, or
perhaps researched in order to prove or disprove? Me, I go with the latter.
>
>>>>-- until they saw what was really
>>>>going on in New Orleans.
>
>>>That claim didn't work out too well regarding LIFE magazine, did it?
>
>>I don't think you are differentiating between the opinions of Chandler,
>>Billings and LIFE's editors.
>
>Well, then, provide me a reference from a LIFE editor that says, in essence,
>"We we're really looking forward to working with Garrison, but when we found
>out he was just prosecuting Shaw because _____, we lost interest in the
>case.
>
>Prove it to me, Dave.
>
I do believe you can find such a reference in Lambert, Ric. That's why I ask
you if you've read Lambert. If you read Lambert and then tell me that there's
not a thing in there to help us, then I'll see what I can do.
>>Tell you what, Ric. Since you seem to regard any source besides Garrison
>>himself as suspect,
>
>Really, Dave, that's uncalled for, and furthermore, you know it's not true.
>It's that emotional response to Garrison that is getting in your way of clear
>thinking again. I don't think I've even sourced Garrison, except in a
>negative
>way to cast suspicion on his failure to even write the name Marcello once in
>his book.
You don't have to cite Garrison, Ric. If you believe that the media -- in any
way, shape or form -- was sabotaging Garrison's case, your source for that,
directly or indirectly, is Jim Garrison. You don't seem to understand how many
thousands of people have simply come to accept his word as fact and report his
opinions without any reference to Garrison whatsoever. I can name dozens of
examples -- in fact, I'm putting together an article on the subject. Garrison
factoids, Ric -- how many have you swallowed whole? I'm still learning all the
time that things I've always thought were fact just happened to be nothing but
Big Jim's opinion.
>You seem to deliberately misunderstand that I am no fan of Garrison's.
It doesn't matter, Ric. I've had dozens of people tell me that, then go on to
say things that are 100% pure Garrison fiction. Do you consider David Ferrie a
suspect? Then you've been taken in by Garrison. Do you consider Guy Banister a
suspect? More Garrison BS. Do you consider David Ferrie's death to have been
mysterious? More Garrison BS. Do you consider Eladio del Valle a suspect? More
Garrison BS. Do you consider Gordon Novel or Sergio Arcacha Smith a suspect? Do
you think Garrison had trouble getting witnesses extradited to his parish? Do
you believe that Tom Bethell and Bill Gurvich are two shady characters? It's
all Garrison BS.
>
>>You can order the
>>full transcript of NBC's notorious "attack" on Garrison from the National
>>Archives, or you can pick out some of their major allegations from
>Garrison's
>>*Playboy* interview. Why don't we go over those allegations one by one, just
>>you and me, and see whether the allegations made in NBC's broadcast
>>constitute
>>an attack on Garrison or an objective review of the facts. That way, neither
>>one of us has to rely on anyone else's opinions about NBC -- we can make our
>>own minds up.
>>
>>Deal?
>
>No deal. I've done plenty of good faith research on this topic and posted
>the
>results as excerpts here.
If you say so. Maybe I missed that post.
And low and behold, the sources you gave me ALL
>disagree with your conclusions. You didn't make the good faith effort to
>look
>up Salisbury's comments, I quote things from Meagher, Lambert, and Bethell's
>diary, all sources you suggested for me, and I don't get anything like that
>kind of effort in response.
>
>I guess intellectual laziness can lead to physical laziness, too.
>
>
Ric, I believe in arguing issues. If you want to argue issues, fine. But this
topic does not concern me in the slightest. Why? Because Garrison could not
have intentionally discredited CTs had he tried -- it's not something for which
he can be held personally responsible. There are, however, hundreds of things
for which he CAN be held personally responsible. Those are the issues I find
worth pursuing.
Personally, I don't think you're interpreting properly any of those sources you
mention above, but I don't consider it worth my time to argue with you. If you
want to believe I'm talking out of my ass about Garrison's effect on the media,
so be it. I'll live.
>>>What was he investigating, if not the assassination?
>
>>He wasn't investigating a thing, any more than Joe McCarthy was
>investigating
>>Communist spies.
>
>What verb would you use to describe what Garrison (and McCarthy) were doing,
>then?
Persecuting innocent people? Conning the public? Conducting a witch-hunt?
Take your pick.
>
>>Do you also contest Billings' account?
>>
>
>Bethell's diary was *your* source, Dave, remember? Are *you* now contesting
>Bethell's diary, when once you cited it?
Nope. I'm contesting your interpretation.
>
>
>>>It's supposed to be factual, Dave. That's what happened. He sent them
>[LIFE
>magazine] his
>>>master file, with all the evidence he had obtained to that point.
>
>>And . . . ?
>
>And, therefore, they snookered him. The Billings article sure helped in this
>regard, too, which may explain why it was the only article LIFE ever ran
>questioning the conclusions of the WR.
What was the date of the LIFE article again, Ric?
>
>>If Louisiana granted the defendant the right to discovery, NBC could have
>>gotten that same information from the defense.
>>
>
>I don't think anyone in the country had the right to discovery in the late
>60's. That's a recent development in jurisprudence, I think. (Of course,
>the
>of state of Lousiana's Constitution, back then, was uniquely among the fifty
>states, based on French law instead English law, so I could be wrong about
>that.)
>
Way to sidestep the issue, Ric.
>>>>Perhaps you'd
>>>>better define your terms. All I see is a DA who got his resources doubled
>
>>>Doubled? That's sure not what it sounds like from Lambert. Source,
>please.
>
>>How many investigators did Garrison have of his own, Ric?
>
>How many "investigators" did LIFE provide, Dave? One? That's what it
>sounds
>like from your source Lambert.
>
>
Nope. I'm sorry, Ric. That's not what Lambert says, and you've personally named
a good deal more support than just one reporter.
>>>LIFE magazine, hands down.
>
>>Well, I guess again we've reached an impasse. I don't see where LIFE got
>>anything out of the deal. They certainly didn't get a story.
>
>They got Garrison's master file didn't they? That's nothing?
>
That's nothing. If I'm wrong, just tell me precisely what valuable information
they got.
>>>>And, again, do you think that, for example, Walter Sheridan and Rick
>>Townley
>>>>came to New Orleans to "wreck" Big Jim's case?
>
>>>I don't know.
>
>>Would you care to look into it?
>
>Sure. Why don't you post something Sheridan said that supports your
>contentions, and I'll consider it.
>
>
Okay, I'll consider it.
>>Hey, it's possible. I'm not going to take Boxley's word for it, though. And
>I
>>definitely would disagree with Billings about that. Billings had a bit of an
>>ax
>>to grind in that area,
>
>Billings said that *before* LIFE fired him for his views on the JFK
>assassination, according to Bethell.
I know. That's not what I was talking about.
>
>
>>and even he admitted that he thought Shaw was being
>>framed.
>
>Which doesn't exactly put him in the "Garrisonite" camp, does it? ;-)
>
>
>>>Well, I was thinking along the lines of Garrison and Comiskey both being in
>>>the
>>>Mob's thrall.
>
>>Good point.
>
>Well, then, let's discuss it. The idea that Garrison was acting on behalf of
>Marcello actually fits in pretty well with your view of Big Jim and the media
>trends of the times.
It doesn't fit in with my views regarding Garrison's "investigation."
There's just one problem, Ric.
Carlos Marcello was not considered a suspect in the assassination. I don't know
of a single article or book that named Marcello as a suspect, and I don't know
of a single Warren Commission critic who ever suggested Marcello as a suspect
at that time. Frankly, Ric, until Garrison came along, no one on Earth seems to
have considered New Orleans a likely place to look for such suspects. Garrison
was the person who started that ball rolling all by his lonesome.
>
>> and
>>>that
>>>those investigations were ruined by Garrison,
>
>>Not directly, of course, but the impact he had couldn't have been more
>>destructive. I'm surprised you haven't heard this before -- I'm far from the
>>first person to say so. I think you could find similar statements from a few
>>respected conspiracy authors without much trouble. That doesn't make it
>true,
>>of course, but you seem to think I've originated this little theory.
>
>No, I don't think that, but you were the only person here defending that
>point
>of view, and I couldn't let it go unchallenged because I don't believe it.
>I've shown statistically that it had no impact on JFK assassination books,
Well, maybe one day you'll decide to address the question I actually asked you,
which concerned conspiracy books.
>and
>I don't really think it had very much of an impact on the view of the
>American
>public, either.
>
>Frankly, I think the case could be made that Garrison's Shaw trial
>*heightened*
>interest in the JFK case.
Good luck proving that.
It certainly gave conspiracy researchers a lot
>more
>avenues (blind as they may eventually turn out to be) to pursue didn't it?
>
>- /< /\ /> -
Sure . . . too bad the other 99.9% of the world gave up on the entire issue of
a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.
Dave
Jean Davison
<19990618114114...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
>Hi Jean,
>
>dav...@together.net wrote:
>
>>Keep in mind that I was quoting Billings
>>and Blakey there, that's not me talking. I'm
>>not exactly "defending" Life, Ric
>
>I wasn't thinking of you when I was thinking of LIFE magazine's defenders.
>But, after I started looking into it, it amazed me how often this ONE
>article
>another one, the Saturday Evening Post.
>
Actually, I didn't remember that one --
that was from Blakey/Billings again.
>
>>- you asked
>>for a cite, so I gave one.
>
>And I thank you for it.
>
You're very welcome...:-)
>
>> Even if he was
>>the SOLE writer of the piece, it wouldn't
>>have appeared without the blessing of the
>>management, would it?
>
>No, but the question then becomes WHY did the editors at LIFE give their
>"blessing"? Was it sincere, or were they trying to covertly ingratiate
>themselves with Garrison to see exactly what he had?
One, I don't think they had to publish a
cover story 12 pages long, with photos from
the Z film and a theory that Connally was shot
by a different bullet, calling for a new
investigation.... to ingratiate themselves with
a N.O. DA.
Two, the timing's wrong. The issue was
11/25/66 and took at least several weeks to
prepare (Connally was interviewed in early
November, it says). More important, Garrison's
own account says that he didn't even *begin*
researching the JFK case until "late 1966,"
after a conversation with Russell Long that
fall. [OTTOTA, 13] His investigation hadn't
really begun, so how could it've been known
to Life?
If anything, I think it might've been the other
way around -- criticism of the WR like Life's
might've helped spark Garrison's interest
in looking into it.
>
>Let's look at what subsequently happened: LIFE got Garrison's master file,
>with *everything* Garrison had up to that point, and LIFE never printed
>another
>article questioning the WR. Maybe I'm paranoid, but that's suspicious to
>me.
>(Please note that I'm not saying that this subtrefuge by LIFE magazine
>implicates them in the assassination. Their motive migt have been as
>simple as
>wanting to scoop everyone else with Garrison's inside dope, and they were
>just
>engaging in hard driving journalism. But it still looks pretty suspicious
>to me.)
>
Skepticism is a good thing, but imo,
suspicion will tell you exactly what you want
to hear. You should regard it with suspicion. ;-)
Besides, what is this *everything*
that Garrison had? A good part of his
"master file" has become available, and
it's painfully clear that he had .... well,
you tell me! I'd say, and the jury
said, he had...... "NOTHING."
Jean
Dave Reitzes
>
>RicBissell wrote
>>Hi Jean,
>>
>>dav...@together.net wrote:
>>
>>>Keep in mind that I was quoting Billings
>>>and Blakey there, that's not me talking. I'm
>>>not exactly "defending" Life, Ric
>>
>>I wasn't thinking of you when I was thinking of LIFE magazine's defenders.
>>But, after I started looking into it, it amazed me how often this ONE
>>article
>>was cited as defense of the mainstream media. At least you did mention
>>another one, the Saturday Evening Post.
>>
>
> Actually, I didn't remember that one --
>that was from Blakey/Billings again.
>
Ric seems to overlooked my own mention of the Post article in one of the
earlier notes in our exchange. If memory serves, it was the Post article that
was either authored by Josiah Thompson or drew heavily upon his research of the
Z film. The Saturday Evening Post was one of the huge "establishment" news
weeklies of the time.
Dave Reitzes
Haizen Paige
Dave Reitzes wrote:
<snip>
>
> Sure . . . too bad the other 99.9% of the world gave up on the entire issue of
> a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.
>
> Dave
Mr. Reitzes,
"...gave up on the entire issue of a possible conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination"?
Study the Moorman photograph at the address below and notice the final
enlargement. Are you going to tell the people of America you don't see a
rifle braced on a tripod with a scope on top and a man's left hand
distinctly placed under the rifle? Don't give us an answer off the top
of your head. Let this photo sink in and haunt you for a few days until
it's perfectly evident what you're seeing. This is called facing
reality, Mr. Reitzes -- long overdue for the nation, and most certainly,
l-o-n-g overdue for you.
If it were photographic evidence alone showing a second shooter,
demonstrating conspiracy, that would be one thing; but the absolute fact
that there were witnesses (plural) who saw this same shooter, such as
the honorable Lee Bowers (and others), confirms conspiracy without any
shadow of a doubt whatsoever. End, period. The video, Rush to
Judgment, interviews some of these witnesses, and I doubly urge every
concerned American to view this testimony if they have not yet done so.
It's another real eye-opener to air out the cesspool of lies constantly
put forth as truth on this so-called public newsgroup.
The people of America can no longer afford people such as you who see
nothing, hear nothing, know nothing about what goes on in the real world
and, in essence, lead us back to the sick, false status quo of the WC
fairy tale of "the lone, crazed assassin." It leads to irresponsible
gov't, and that's all you've ever done. You have never singled out any
real suspects in this case and gone after them tooth and nail or with
passion and conviction. Those are the only kind of journalists worth
having in this country, and, sorry to say, you aren't one of them. "It
don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."
The Moorman photograph, in one fell swoop, renders null and void your
entire obscene and wrongheaded output on this newsgroup over the past
few tedious months. I consider you a willing or unwilling accessory
after the fact for not defending the interests of the American public
against the outright lies and fabrications of its own gov't. Read the US
Constitution and Bill of Rights, probably for the first time, and
perhaps you'll come to understand why some citizens feel such a
passionate conviction for the WHOLE truth about the awful day in Dallas
to come out. This nation can handle the truth. In fact, this nation will
not endure unless it's leadership starts leveling with its citizens and
we once again have responsible gov't.
Mr. Reitzes, you're either part of the solution, or your part of the
problem -- and right now you're part of the problem. The Moorman photo
is just one more blatant piece of evidence demonstrating conspiracy and
the paranoid fear the Federal gov't continues to have towards its very
own people. It has done this by denying what was an obvious coup d'etat
to remove John F. Kennedy as president.
If these conspirators hated him so much, they should have implemented
the articles of impeachment and tried to convict him for "high crimes
and misdemeanors." That they never did so demonstrates the
indefensibility of their own position and the wrongheadedness of their
actions. What this nation needs to get back on its feet is a decent
sense of shame and the willingness to own up to its mistakes.
Have a nice day.
The Moorman photo enlargement:
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/document1.htm
HP
PS. Perhaps when some the journalists in America start to grow up, the
rest of the country will have a fighting chance to do the same. In the
meantime, expect Mr. Reitzes to redouble his efforts to flood this
newsgroup with crappie and irrelevant journalism when he thinks no
one is looking. Mark Lane permitted Lee Bowers to expand his testimony
in great depth and it is this version that has the greatest value.
Considering the obvious incompetent or complicity in this assassination
by the DPD, the testimony of Mr. Boone's lack credibility. Bowers gave
exceedingly DETAILED testimony and that means he saw something without
any reason to be "mistaken" or "lie." That the testimony of Lee Bower's
is challenged by the testimony of much lesser witnesses, shows just how
bad a judge of character are some of the researchers on this newsgroup.
The Moorman photo enlargement: