A False Defector Program
jer...@my-dejanews.com
sam hitt <sam...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> laug...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Sam,
> >
> > Have you ordered your copy of False Witness by Patricia Lambert which
> > lists inaccuracies in OTTOTA?
> >
> > I first learned of the very early - I think a day or so - involvement of
> > the Secret Service in investigating whether there was an office of the
> > FPCC at 544 Camp St in Gus Russo's Live By The Sword.
> >
> > It has a lot of good information about who Banister was and what Guy
> > Banister and Associates were doing. I hadn't known previously that he
> > maintained close relations to the FBI and was one of the people who dug up
> > the dirt that Hoover was so fond of.
> >
> > Banister didn't know Oswald - tho he was certainly aware of him - and said
> > to his brother that he was sure that Oswald had used the address to
> > embarrass him.
> >
> > We don't know why Oswald did use the address - on a small batch of the
> > pamphlets. But, Banister may be right.
> >
> > Sam, please don't think you can take anything in Garrison's oeuvre at fact
> > value, much less the howlers in _JFK_.
> >
> > Perhaps you've come to the discussion late and don't know that Big Jim has
> > been - and Lambert delivers the coup de grace - thorough discredited from
> > A to Z.
> >
> > Most critics, however extreme, add something of value to the historical
> > discussion; Garrison was the exception.
>
> Since this and a note from Todd in this forum is leaning pretty heavily on
> Big Jim with virtually no prompting, I kinda infer something else
> operating here.
No prompting is needed. The Garrison investigation is a continuing topic
here. Garrison created the myth that was shot by Stone and that has been the
defining moment which has propelled many, many people here into a deep
interest in the case.
What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is
> worthy of particular censure?
Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's
apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and
Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from
Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
It seems to me that if BJ did nothing more
> than move the JFK coverup to heightened national consciousness, he did us
> all a service.
Garrison moved it "to heightened national consciousness" in the same way that
McCarthy's charges that the US Gov't was filled with red agents created for a
time a "heightened national consciousness."
Garrison loved to talk to the media. He would - a la McCarthy - claim that he
had "cracked the case" and knew the identities of all the shooters in DP, etc,
and that he was about to break it all wide open.
In reality, he had nothing. It was all lies.
And like McCarthy he - when shown to have nothing - remember the jury was out
for only 45 mins - claimed to be a victim/infiltrated and destroyed by his
enemies.
In reality, they both self-destructed.
And in the end, they both argued - as you do explicitly above - that the end
justified the means.
It doesn't.
As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison in
droves? That they turned on him?
Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I
> have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
"Nichts zu danken."
FWIW, in
> "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald,
> Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban
> Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during
> the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald
> during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses,
> Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in
> New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently
> denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration."
> Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
I know that these allegations have been made.
Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their
conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory.
Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
If you can get ahold of Jean Davison's Oswald's Game, I urge you to do so.
As to the Stone movie, I don't dare see it. I'm afraid I'll absorb too much
> rubbish.
> Sam
I've seen bits and pieces but there's no way I could sit through all of it.
It's worse than the worst Nazi or Soviet propaganda.
You know that Stone is still convinced that he - essentially - got it right?
That Ozzie was innocent and the Gov't killed JFK?
In fact, he sees history in general as one conspiracy after another.
He can be quite amusing until you realize the dude is dead serious.
Jerry
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Amethyst
I've gotta say that you bring a lot of insight to these issues and some
confusion, but, hey, you're still learning. As we all are.
Some comments:
wrote:
>
> jer...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <36D483C8...@mindspring.com>,
> > sam hitt <sam...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since this and a note from Todd in this forum is leaning pretty heavily on
> > > Big Jim with virtually no prompting, I kinda infer something else
> > > operating here.
> >
> > No prompting is needed. The Garrison investigation is a continuing topic
> > here. Garrison created the myth that was shot by Stone and that has been
> > the defining moment which has propelled many, many people here into a deep
> > interest in the case.
> >
> > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is
> > > worthy of particular censure?
> >
> > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's
> > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and
> > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
> >
> > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from
> > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
>
> Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not
> before.
But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim,
huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A)
Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out
was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous
person.
You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they
flatly conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look
> bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation
> began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his
> life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a
> suicide.
This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man
and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in
OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared
an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from
> Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with
the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if
there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
And then,
> OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole
> story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water,
> there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything
> is false.
Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if
perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
>
> > It seems to me that if BJ did nothing more
> > > than move the JFK coverup to heightened national consciousness, he did us
> > > all a service.
>
> > Garrison moved it "to heightened national consciousness" in the same way
> > that McCarthy's charges that the US Gov't was filled with red agents
> > created for a time a "heightened national consciousness."
>
> > Garrison loved to talk to the media. He would - a la McCarthy - claim that
> > he had "cracked the case" and knew the identities of all the shooters in
> > DP, etc, and that he was about to break it all wide open.
> >
> > In reality, he had nothing. It was all lies.
> >
> > And like McCarthy he - when shown to have nothing - remember the jury was
> > out for only 45 mins - claimed to be a victim/infiltrated and destroyed by
> > his enemies.
> >
> > In reality, they both self-destructed.
> >
> > And in the end, they both argued - as you do explicitly above - that the
> > end justified the means.
>
> Sorry, this last went over my head a bit.
Sam, I interpreted what you said to indicate an acceptance - often
expressed here - that however bad Garrison was in any particular way, in a
larger framework what he did was do "something" to advance... er ...
historical truth about the assassination ... or something.
I believe the opposite. That Garrison was such an aberation that he almost
killed research - which had a fallow period - until Groden managed to use
the Z-film to lobby congress to reinvestigate the case. bring about the
HSCA.
> > It doesn't.
> >
> > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison
> > in droves? That they turned on him?
>
> Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
>
> > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> >
> > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I
> > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> >
> > "Nichts zu danken."
>
> Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey
> Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine
> Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover
> capacity".
This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At
first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of
scepticism will serve you well.
She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz
> and Guy at Guy's office.
That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had
himself some kind of street action there.
Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he
stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
He had conversations with his brother on the topic.
I see them as the "real life" versions which are counterpointed by the
"fantasy life" versions of the two Delphines and others.
Now, why FPCC, I thought. Since the FBI and CIA
> were both trying to disrupt this New York organization at the time,
The FPCC was an international org - hence CIA's interest.
The FBI conducted several black bag jobs at the NY Office.
They had legitimate interests involving national security. IOW, this is
why we have a Bureau and an Agency.
which
> Banister probably knew, it wouldn't hurt a heck of a lot to misbehave in
> the name of the FPPC in New Orleans
Maybe it wouldn't have. But Oswald did what he did with no help from
anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend
of the Cuban Revolution.
I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt
for a Banister to pull.
New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles.
There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
> > FWIW, in
> > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald,
> > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban
> > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during
> > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald
> > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses,
> > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in
> > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently
> > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration."
> > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> >
> > I know that these allegations have been made.
> >
> > Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their
> > conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory.
> > Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
>
> The HSCA did not discuss witnesses.
I can't believe I'm reading this. Of course, they did!
Arcacha was the Cuban Revolutionary
> Council rep in New Orleans.
WRONG. He had been. He had been replaced for cause long before Oswald
arrived on the scene. He was living in Texas during he summer of '63.
The CRC, based in Miami, was founded by E.
> Howard Hunt and partly bankrolled by Carlos Marcello.
Maybe it had been; at least partly. I don't know. I know they were broke
and in disarray in the summer of '63.
The CRC was an
> ongoing enterprise of the CIA,
Not at all. They closest they came to anything like what you claim is
with the DRE.
and so the Secret Service was not about to
> blow the operation of its sister agency.
Sister Agency????
(doubles over with laughter)
There is no overlap between CIA and the SS. Unlike say between CIA and the
FBI.
Let me say one thing: the various agencies/services look out for their own
interests and in general to the degree they are rivals there is no love
lost between them.
Cover for one another? Not hardy, Sam.
The Secret Service office was
> directly across the street, as you recall.
This was a small group that tracked counterfeiting activities and other
treasury matters.
And another thing: this
> conspiracy business is primarily involves the mob and/or the US
> government.
It primarily involves the fantasies of paranoids - whose theories
flourish in the utter absence of evidence.
It seems to me bad form to uncritically reference the US
> government as a reliable source when it has been, and remains, in major
> CYA mode.
I knew they were just engaging in wishful thinking when they established
the JFK Records Act and released 100,000s of docs!!
So, they're damned if they do; damned if they don't?
> One of my CD-ROMs references Hunt's "Give Us This Day", pp.40-51 on the
> CRC. Other related references are Hinckle & Turner "Deadly Secrets",
> pp.229-36, Melanson "Spy Saga" p.34, and Tony Summers "Conspiracy", p.326.
> I haven't seen these yet, tho.
My advice: bring a lot of scepticism to all the books you reference
above. In fact, to all books on the assassination. As Marrs says, "Don't
believe this book!"
Read it, read others; test the theories; hold them all to the same high
standard of proof.
Avoid Good vs Evil styles of thinking. This is much harder than it
appears to be.
Hunt's book is a good insiders account of the BOP invasion.
His was a failed career at CIA.
Regards,
Jerry
sam hitt
Sam wrote:
> > > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is
> > > > worthy of particular censure?
> > >
> > > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's
> > > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and
> > > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
> > > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from
> > > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
> >
> > Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not
> > before.
>
> But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim,
> huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A)
> Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out
> was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous
> person.
Russo was discovered through a newspaper article found by Scambria. He
told BJ about it, who then sent Scambria to Baton Rouge to interview
Russo. This is the first contact with Russo and pre-hypnosis. I take no
position.
> You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they flatly
> conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
Threats against JFK were often to be heard, whether it occurred at this
party and/or elsewhere it seems to me to amount to zip. I got the
impression that Shaw was not the real target anyway, it was to display
evidence of conspiracy by getting Dallas people in on the show as well as
locals. In the end, BJ could not connect Dallas and N.O. events; but you
never know what might slink out from under the woodwork if enough uproar
is made. I thought it was a good ploy.
> To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look
> > bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation
> > began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his
> > life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a
> > suicide.
>
> This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
I didn't see where BJ lied; I alone inferred possibilities from OTTOTA,
that's all.
> Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man
> and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
I guess I don't see how one can so dogmatically assert this cause. It's
but one plausible explanation; its being the "official" one lends it no
special sanctity. Assume the N.O. coroners were crooks.
> Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in
> OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
>
> Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared
> an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
>
> From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from
> > Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
>
> This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with
> the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if
> there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
>
> And then,
> > OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole
> > story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water,
> > there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything
> > is false.
>
> Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if
> perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
"At the beginning" would be about the right time, I think, if not earlier.
> > > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison
> > > in droves? That they turned on him?
> >
> > Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
>
> We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
Some of us like being in the herd, I notice.
> > > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> > >
> > > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I
> > > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> > >
> > > "Nichts zu danken."
> >
> > Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey
> > Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine
> > Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover
> > capacity".
>
> This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At
> first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
>
> Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of
> scepticism will serve you well.
>
> She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz
> > and Guy at Guy's office.
>
> That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had
> himself some kind of street action there.
That's true, as I just found out.
> Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he
> stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
I don't know this story. Guy stopped the sale of jeeps?
> ...Oswald did what he did with no help from
> anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend
> of the Cuban Revolution.
>
> I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt
> for a Banister to pull.
>
> New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles.
> There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
If Oz was building patsy credentials, whether a chapter survives is moot.
He got himself on radio and TV, a success. The significance of what Oz
tells Marina depends upon whether he was a commie or building an image.
> > > FWIW, in
> > > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald,
> > > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban
> > > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during
> > > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald
> > > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses,
> > > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in
> > > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently
> > > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration."
> > > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> > >
> > > I know that these allegations have been made.
> > >
> > > Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their
> > > conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory.
> > > Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
> >
> > The HSCA did not discuss witnesses.
>
> I can't believe I'm reading this. Of course, they did!
I have a CD-ROM which bills itself as containing the WC and HSCA reports.
I have yet to figure out exactly what's missing, but I assume what I have
is the basic report, whatever that may be, which does not have anything
about disputing witnesses, except for some vague reference to the "riddle
of 544 Camp Street", and appears to draw on the Secret Service memo of
December, 1963 I already mentioned and goes no further. Also, in quoting
from "Kingfish" concerning witnesses, I did not ever find what witnesses
were being referred to, hoping, if it were germane, that someone might
clarify this. If they were the same as the HSCA worked specifically with,
I have nothing that says that. Also, I ran across what I think was an FBI
report or two regarding interview(s) with (Sam?) Newman, who owned the
building, and who confirmed that the Cuban Revolutionary Council, which
absorbed the Front in 1961 (?) rented office space from him during the
period Oz was in N.O., partly on recommendation of Banister. I think the
first infestation of the CRC in the building ended in 1962, as the Secret
Service report says, but they left owing rent or something, hence Newman's
reluctance. I'm vague here because I didn't intend to make a case, but
elicit information. What good does it do to refer to "so-called"
witnesses? Of what relevance is it that Delphine was reluctant? She
doesn't know whether the FPCC idea was hatched in Newman's building,
that's just an impression she got from whatever fragmentary info she
happened to encounter while in the site where discussions of interest
occurred.
> And another thing: this
> > conspiracy business is primarily involves the mob and/or the US
> > government.
>
> It primarily involves the fantasies of paranoids - whose theories
> flourish in the utter absence of evidence.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Well, so much for objectivity.
> It seems to me bad form to uncritically reference the US
> > government as a reliable source when it has been, and remains, in major
> > CYA mode.
>
> I knew they were just engaging in wishful thinking when they established
> the JFK Records Act and released 100,000s of docs!!
And the pupose of this observation is what? That after two prior
investigations there being 100,000s of docs to release is evidence of
openness and candor? I've seen a bit of grumping about leads not checked
by the ARRB, such as the possible involvement of Mac Wallace and multiple
murders that Billie Sol Estes referred to, including the JFK
assassination. In this last, the Justice Dept. could have granted Estes
immunity for his various stories, since it had no plans to prosecute him,
that I know of, in the absence of these stories. But perhaps you have
some anti-paranoid theory to offer here? I know about the time and money
shortage argument, to which I fail to be sympathetic.
Sam
Amethyst
Hey, Sam buddy, are you an uncle? <g>
Hey, I got my copy of False Witness today. Garrison and Stone are nuked.
The HSCA takes some serious hits regarding the Clinton, La, saga and
regarding he dubious methods they used to come up with some desperate
linkage between Ferrie and our boy Lee.
You can order it from B&N online. Get it in a couple days.
wrote:
>
> Amethyst wrote:
>
> Sam wrote:
>
> > > > What is it, somewhere between A and Z, inclusive, is
> > > > > worthy of particular censure?
> > > >
> > > > Let's say that it starts with a theory that there was a party at Ferrie's
> > > > apartment in which the JFK assassination was planned by Oswald, Shaw and
> > > > Ferrie. And that what they planned resulted in the DP murder of JFK.
>
> > > > That story is not only bogus, but, the manner in which it was gotten from
> > > > Russo is very damaging to Garrison.
> > >
> > > Big Jim says he did the hypnosis number after getting Russo's story, not
> > > before.
> >
> > But the Sciambra memo says otherwise. I guess we just can't trust Big Jim,
> > huh? <g> When Jim Phelan read the memo it was obvious to him that A)
> > Garrison hadn't bothered to read it and B) the story he was putting out
> > was completely bogus, and C) Garrison was a dangerous & unscrupulous
> > person.
>
> Russo was discovered through a newspaper article found by Scambria. He
> told BJ about it, who then sent Scambria to Baton Rouge to interview
> Russo. This is the first contact with Russo and pre-hypnosis. I take no
> position.
Just keep in mind the very limited scope of Russo's story at this time.
Shaw was not a part of it. An 'assassination party' was not a part of it.
> > You know the other people supposedly at the "assassination party" -- they flatly
> > conradict Russo -- the most dubious sort of witness.
>
> Threats against JFK were often to be heard, whether it occurred at this
> party and/or elsewhere it seems to me to amount to zip.
Very true. Remember back then good citizens would make comments about
presidents along the lines of, "Somebody oughta shoot that SOB"!
I got the
> impression that Shaw was not the real target anyway, it was to display
> evidence of conspiracy by getting Dallas people in on the show as well as
> locals.
I used to think along similar lines. BUT, further study shows that
Garrison wanted to get Shaw and would have done *anything* to do it.
Imagine the pursuit of a totally innocent man - year after year. A
nightmare.
In the end, BJ could not connect Dallas and N.O. events; but you
> never know what might slink out from under the woodwork if enough uproar
> is made. I thought it was a good ploy.
I see ... *sigh* ... the end justifies the means, huh?
> > To my mind, doing it at all, to his witness, makes the case look
> > > bogus no matter what other "facts" BJ has dug up. When his investigation
> > > began to involve Ferrie, publicly, Ferrie was evidently in fear of his
> > > life, and instead of protecting him, BJ seems to have let the mob fake a
> > > suicide.
> >
> > This is another one of Big Jim's lies that have been caught out.
>
> I didn't see where BJ lied; I alone inferred possibilities from OTTOTA,
> that's all.
OTTOTA is a pack of self-serving lies.
You probably think I'm exaggerating, right? Actually, it's more like the
opposite of that.
Get False Witness for a devastating page by page deconstruction of
OTTOTA!
You've got to see this for yourself. I'm sure, you have no idea.
> > Ferrie was not killed and did not commit suicide. He was not a healthy man
> > and the pressures of the Garrison investigation led to an aneurism.
>
> I guess I don't see how one can so dogmatically assert this cause. It's
> but one plausible explanation; its being the "official" one lends it no
> special sanctity. Assume the N.O. coroners were crooks.
OK, Sam ... just *assume* whatever you want.
I see you and Big Jim have a lot in common ... <g>
> > Garrison made various bogus claims. His treatment of this episode in
> > OTTOTA is gruesomely hilarious. And dubious in every way.
> >
> > Lots has been written about this topic. Our own Dave Reitzes has prepared
> > an excellent series of articles which I highly recommend.
> >
> > From that, I infer that whatever he might have obtained from
> > > Ferrie had to take second place to preserving BJ's mob detente.
What the hell are you talking about with this "preserving BJ's mob
detente" stuff??
What he "obtained from Ferrie" were public and private protestations of
total innocence. And what Ferrie did was to go public and try desperately
to get somebody to acknowledge that Garrison was persecuting him.
You probably think that Ferrie was some evil character. He was a much more
sympathetic guy than you think.
And, totally the victim of Jack Martin's lies. Now there was a guy who'd
spent time in both prison and a nut house. And a truly vicious and
slanderous guy.
Ferrie didn't know Oswald - he admitted of the possibility that the 25 yo
Oswald may have been - briefly - in a CAP unit he served - and had no
knowledge of the JFK assassination.
> > This whole witch hunt was outside any other 'arrangment' Big Jim had with
> > the mob. Hilariously, he and his staff publically offerred to resign if
> > there was any evidence that there even was a mob in New Orleans!
> >
> > And then,
> > > OTTOTA omits the mob ties, so that would have had to distort the whole
> > > story. OTOH, one shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water,
> > > there are plenty of leads there that may prove valuable and not everything
> > > is false.
> >
> > Sam I think at some point you're going to have to ask yourself if
> > perhaps there isn't any baby and it's all bath water!
>
> "At the beginning" would be about the right time, I think, if not earlier.
The best advice I can give you is "read False Witness"!
>
> > > > As for helping the case, are you aware that the critics fled from Garrison
> > > > in droves? That they turned on him?
> > >
> > > Yes. But I'm not looking for a herd to stampede with.
> >
> > We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, don't we.
>
> Some of us like being in the herd, I notice.
I see that quality among the Garrisonites ... *s*
>
> > > > Read any of the books. Are you familiar with Epstein's _Counterplot_?
> > > >
> > > > > As to whether Oz "worked for" Banister, a more careful reading of what I
> > > > > have does not support that, so thanks for challenging this idea.
> > > >
> > > > "Nichts zu danken."
> > >
> > > Ah, but my net keeps dragging in more data. In "The Search for Lee Harvey
> > > Oswald", Groden says that Tony Summers did some talking with Delphine
> > > Roberts, and she said that Lee was working for Banister in an "undercover
> > > capacity".
> >
> > This/She was investigated by the HSCA. They didn't find her credible. At
> > first she wouldn't even talk with them. Had to be 'wooed'.
> >
> > Sam, in this case, people 'say' a lot of things. A general attitude of
> > scepticism will serve you well.
> >
> > She said the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was dreamed up by Oz
> > > and Guy at Guy's office.
> >
> > That's refuted by the fact that Oswald was a member in Dallas and had
> > himself some kind of street action there.
>
> That's true, as I just found out.
Oswald was a guy who was always thinking, always planning this or that.
He didn't need anybody else to suggest all sorts of ways to make his
life interesting and, in his eyes, purposive.
His main problem was that he saw himself as a highly gifted and
important man and the world didn't do much to ... acknowledge that.
>
> > Guy himself thought that Oswald was out to embarrass him because he
> > stopped the sale of jeeps to Cuba.
>
> I don't know this story. Guy stopped the sale of jeeps?
Yes, that was one of his achievements.
I was just reading today that he was going broke towards the end. That
Sam Newman didn't receive the rent as regularly as he would have liked
and would have kicked him out, but, had trouble attracting tenents to
the run-down, seedy Newman Building.
> > ...Oswald did what he did with no help from
> > anybody - to, as Marina said - build credentials to show he was a friend
> > of the Cuban Revolution.
> >
> > I think Oswald's so-called FPCC 'Chapter' was too hair-brained a stunt
> > for a Banister to pull.
> >
> > New Orleans was second only to Miami in being inundated by Cuban exiles.
> > There was no way that a FPCC chapter could survive in New Orleans.
>
> If Oz was building patsy credentials, whether a chapter survives is moot.
Right. Not that he ever had a "Chapter". Well ... a real one, I mean.
> He got himself on radio and TV, a success.
Yes, indeed. He could be a clever guy at times.
The significance of what Oz
> tells Marina depends upon whether he was a commie or building an image.
The people who knew him knew him to be a Marxist. And, he was building
an image as a friend of the Cuban Revolution, as he didn't have a
sponsor, ie, somebody who knew him who could establish his bona fides.
I see you're familiar with Garrison's famous "black is white" theory.
> > > FWIW, in
> > > > > "Mafia Kingfish", Chapter 22, we see: "Witnesses reported seeing Oswald,
> > > > > Ferrie, Banister, and Sergio Arcacha Smith, leader of the Cuban
> > > > > Revolutionary Front, in the building together on several occasions during
> > > > > the summer of 1963." And "...Banister saw a good deal of Lee Oswald
> > > > > during the summer and fall of 1963. Twice, according to witnesses,
> > > > > Banister and Oswald visited the campus of Louisiana State University in
> > > > > New Orleans and held raucous discussions with the students, vehemently
> > > > > denouncing the civil rights policies of the Kennedy administration."
> > > > > Then, the Reily Coffee Company was two blocks away.
> > > >
> > > > I know that these allegations have been made.
> > > >
> > > > Have a look at the HSCA's comments on the so-called witnesses. On their
> > > > conclusions about the "Oswald had an office at 544 Camp" theory.
> > > > Arcacha did not even live in New Orleans during this period.
> > >
> > > The HSCA did not discuss witnesses.
> >
> > I can't believe I'm reading this. Of course, they did!
>
> I have a CD-ROM which bills itself as containing the WC and HSCA reports.
Well, let me explain. The Reports are summary documents. They are backed
up by 26 vols of exhibits and testimony for the WC and 15 for the HSCA.
> I have yet to figure out exactly what's missing, but I assume what I have
> is the basic report, whatever that may be, which does not have anything
> about disputing witnesses, except for some vague reference to the "riddle
> of 544 Camp Street", and appears to draw on the Secret Service memo of
> December, 1963 I already mentioned and goes no further. Also, in quoting
> from "Kingfish" concerning witnesses, I did not ever find what witnesses
> were being referred to, hoping, if it were germane, that someone might
> clarify this.
If you can find a copy of Case Closed, you can read a full treatment of
the witnesses used to build a MAFIA-centric theory.
If they were the same as the HSCA worked specifically with,
> I have nothing that says that. Also, I ran across what I think was an FBI
> report or two regarding interview(s) with (Sam?) Newman, who owned the
> building, and who confirmed that the Cuban Revolutionary Council, which
> absorbed the Front in 1961 (?) rented office space from him during the
> period Oz was in N.O., partly on recommendation of Banister.
You better read that over again. The CRC had left before the end of '62!
That side of the Newman Building - the Camp St side - had lots of empty
space.
I think the
> first infestation of the CRC in the building ended in 1962, as the Secret
> Service report says, but they left owing rent or something, hence Newman's
> reluctance.
The CRC didn't pay Sam Newman, Banister didn't pay him ... he had a nutty
janitor. Whatta life!
I'm vague here because I didn't intend to make a case, but
> elicit information. What good does it do to refer to "so-called"
> witnesses? Of what relevance is it that Delphine was reluctant?
Well, Sam, when she did open her mouth, you realize why she was wise to
keep silent at first.
I speak about "so-called" witnesses as being people who came - as you
mentioned earlier - 'out of the woodwork' - as always happens in highly
publicized cases.
The statements are never corroborated. There is no hard evidence behind
them. Most of the stories are dubious on their face.
They are the weakest kind of evidence.
And you'd need the strongest of evidence to prove the conclusion their
marshalled to reach - the black = white, Banister 'sheep-dipping' Oswald
story, the one where Oswald is a secret rightwinger.
Since *all we know* - and his life is documented to an extreme degree -
directly refutes this thesis, we'd need a lot more than a few guys who
claimed to see Banister and Oswald drinking coffee somewhere to establish
the B = W theory.
Remember two things: you can't prove a negative AND the burdon of proof is
on the claimant.
She
> doesn't know whether the FPCC idea was hatched in Newman's building,
> that's just an impression she got from whatever fragmentary info she
> happened to encounter while in the site where discussions of interest
> occurred.
I accord her comments zero credibility.
We know lots about what Oswald was doing regarding the FPCC and none of it
includes anything to do with Banister or the Newman building.
> > And another thing: this
> > > conspiracy business is primarily involves the mob and/or the US
> > > government.
> >
> > It primarily involves the fantasies of paranoids - whose theories
> > flourish in the utter absence of evidence.
>
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
> Well, so much for objectivity.
Yeah ... even paranoids have enemies ... very true.
> > It seems to me bad form to uncritically reference the US
> > > government as a reliable source when it has been, and remains, in major
> > > CYA mode.
> >
> > I knew they were just engaging in wishful thinking when they established
> > the JFK Records Act and released 100,000s of docs!!
>
> And the pupose of this observation is what?
To establish that the Gov't - however you define that term - has no
chance to convince those who think as you do.
Whatever it does is lambasted -- unless it reaches the desired
conclusion. That is, it establishes a gov'mental conspiracy.
So, I see there have been many efforts made to appease those who have
terminal scepticism ... and all to no avail.
That after two prior
> investigations there being 100,000s of docs to release is evidence of
> openness and candor?
Sam. I don't suspect the Gov't. I am not receptive to the kind of
imputations you are making.
Never before in all of history and on any topic has the gov't released
more documents -- yet, they don't confirm your suspicions. So, you have to
deal with that and consider that your suspicions may be misconceived.
I've seen a bit of grumping about leads not checked
> by the ARRB, such as the possible involvement of Mac Wallace and multiple
> murders that Billie Sol Estes referred to, including the JFK
> assassination.
It could go on and on without any limit at all ... for decades more. And
still the doubters will doubt.
The JFK assassination was a crime - a gunshot homicide.
It was investigated and Oswald was the obvious prime suspect.
The case against him is very solid.
And despite decades of effort nobody can place Oswald with any other
person in the fall of '63, ie, no evidence of a plot can be found.
The "usual suspects" have been investigated - deeply and widely. And
cleared.
Thats the way it is.
Human nature demands a big cause for a big event. But, a disaffected
person with a cheap rifle is all it takes to end Camelot.
It is disproportionate and unsatisfying.
We want more drama - as Manchester wrote - history disappoints.
In this last, the Justice Dept. could have granted Estes
> immunity for his various stories, since it had no plans to prosecute him,
> that I know of, in the absence of these stories.
I've never heard of a theory in which he was a suspect.
This is probably the Walt Brown theory that there was a one-armed Indian
and at least four people up on the 6th floor killing JFK.
Sam, there's no strong evidence for that/those theories.
And there is a strong case against Oswald.
So, I find it hard to take this kind of theory seriously. Not that they
even have a theory! They have only suspicions.
Adamantine, eternal suspicion.
But perhaps you have
> some anti-paranoid theory to offer here? I know about the time and money
> shortage argument, to which I fail to be sympathetic.
Let's focus on the events in Dealey Plaza. Namely, the shots Oswald took
from the 6th floor window. Two hit and caused all the wounds.
They tried to find others. Obiously Oswald didn't need anybody else to
do it, save a ride home to get the rifle. Some stolen wrapping paper to
hide it. A sniper's nest. And a bus and taxi 'home' to get his pistol.
Which he used to kill a cop.
Which he drew on the arresting officers.
Then, he told lies or was sullen to the homicide chief.
It doesn't look good, Sam.
So, rather than BEGIN with really wide-flung theories. Why not start with
Oswald. Start with the 24 hrs before the crime and the 24 hs after it.
Only move outward - to the mob, the gov't, the guys you named above - if
you have to. If you need them to explain any element of the crime.
You'll find that you dont need them In fact, they dont fit.
Jerry
ADemascal
there in regards to making a connection with NO and Dallas, in Garrison's
arrest of Shaw and in southern politics.
BJ (if this is Garrison?) hoped to tie Shaw with the CIA. The CIA was
decidedly in liason with the mob. The Mob's chieftan in NO, Marcello, employed
Oz during the summer of 63 as a 'runner'. Oz's Uncle worked the books for
Marcello's partner.
Bannister, ex FBI, as an investigator employed Ferrie and had Marcello as a
client.
Marcello owned the Dallas organization and Ruby was second in control in
Dallas. Ruby told an employee, Martin, "they're going to find out about New
Orleans," during his visit while Ruby was in jail.
BJ was unable to secure witnesses that were CIA or FBI, due to "national
security" and was therefore unable to prove Shaw's connection with the CIA.
However, later after it was long over, Richard Helm's testified that Shaw was
indeed employed by the CIA.
Therefore, Garrison was proven correct in his belief that Shaw was CIA, not
only CIA, but covert CIA.
Ruby was known to the Dallas Police as an informant to the FBI.
These are all facts.
Also the director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied even having a New
Orleans Chapter, much less a member by the name of oswald. Bet they didn't
have a florida chapter either.
Think about this, Ruby corrected Wade when Wade stated Oswald was a member of
the "Free Cuba Commitee." This was at the press conference, Ruby "hung around
for" the night before he killed Oswald.
I think there are links from Shaw to the CIA and the CIA to the anti-Castro
Cubans. The mob had a vested interest in all this. They had had very
prosperous casinos in Cuba before Castro. There are definite links from the
CIA to the Mob. Put Ferrie with Shaw, then enters Bannister (ex-FBI). Wish I
had a nickle for all the "ex-FBI" people! Incidently, Ferrie was believed to
have flown Marcello back from Guatemala to Shreveport.
I do not think Garrison was on a' witch hunt'. Shaw being a "respectable
businessman" is hogwash. He owned the Trade Center that Kennedy was to go
directly to from the Airport, until "pursuaded by Democratic Leaders.." to go
through downtown Dallas! He had as much interest in Cuba as any agency or
organization did. JFK stood in many people's way. I think that Garrison had a
very quick mind and he made these connections in his head, or by gut feeling.
I think that people of lesser mind would critizise his thinking, because they
could not conceive of it. He had a conviction to truth and I think the truth
was simply that our government killed our President. He believed this and
wanted to show the American public this was so. Shaw was all he had. He is
not necessarily wrong because he was unable to prove these connections.
Remember, Helms proved the Shaw CIA connection was right on! He did what he
could with what he had. The fact that it ruined Shaw does not necessarily mean
his nose was clean.
Forgive me for my babbling. I live just outside of Shreveport, LA. I am
within 3 hours of Dallas. I am very familiar with the racketerring in New
Orlean's and Louisiana politics. Infact, it is ongoing! Casino's are spreading
throughout hayseed towns! Edwards, the once governor of LA, is currently in
the midst of trials on indictments of racketeering charges. This isn't the
first time. Just think, if Garrison had been able to prove Shaw was involved
in a conspiracy...i think he would have talked. If so, things would be
decidedly different not only in Louisiana and Texas, but in Washington.
Amethyst
My basic reply to you is: where are you getting this stuff?
> Although I'm pretty new at this stuff, I should like to throw some points out
> there in regards to making a connection with NO and Dallas, in Garrison's
> arrest of Shaw and in southern politics.
>
> BJ (if this is Garrison?) hoped to tie Shaw with the CIA. The CIA was
> decidedly in liason with the mob.
The mob contracts were let very early. Under Ike. He and his vice
president were very down on Castro.
Obviously working with the mob was a recipe for disaster and it didn't
work out and Helms terminated it.
It probably would have died very early, but, the legendary Sheff Edwards
had a contact who had worked for the Bureau (Maheu) and he connected them
to Rosselli.
And Harvey and Rosseli got along very well.
The Mob's chieftan in NO, Marcello, employed
> Oz during the summer of 63 as a 'runner'.
No way. Oz worked for Reiley Coffee and then was content to collect
unemployment checks and plan his next defection - to Cuba.
Oz's Uncle worked the books for
> Marcello's partner.
Not true. He took some betting action and that was it.
> Bannister, ex FBI, as an investigator employed Ferrie and had Marcello as a
> client.
Banister was on his last legs and barely was able to pay the rent at
this time. In fact, Newman contemplated throwing him ot for nonpayment
but had a hard time renting his office space.
Marcello's lawyer was G Wray Gill.
> Marcello owned the Dallas organization and Ruby was second in control in
> Dallas.
Another guy who was down on his luck who was broke and owed the IRS a
bundle. He wasn't in the mob. Let alone second in a crime organization.
You have a big imagination!
Ruby told an employee, Martin, "they're going to find out about New
> Orleans," during his visit while Ruby was in jail.
The Secret Service was checking 544 Camp St to see if Oswald had had an
office there/or the FPCC.
There were no limitations to the investigation.
Almost everything was found out within days.
There was a strong case against Oswald by Saturday morning.
> BJ was unable to secure witnesses that were CIA or FBI, due to "national
> security" and was therefore unable to prove Shaw's connection with the CIA.
He wasn't "connected"; he gave the DCS info he picked up from his foreign
travels. So did thousands of people. > > However, later after it was long
over, Richard Helm's testified that Shaw was > indeed employed by the CIA.
No. He never said "employed by"; he said that Shaw provided info - was
an informant - for the DCS.
>
> Therefore, Garrison was proven correct in his belief that Shaw was CIA, not
> only CIA, but covert CIA.
No way. The DCS is overt and you can find them in the telephone book.
> Ruby was known to the Dallas Police as an informant to the FBI.
> These are all facts.
He had had some info to offer. At one time. That's not saying much.
> Also the director of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee denied even having a New
> Orleans Chapter, much less a member by the name of oswald. Bet they didn't
> have a florida chapter either.
Oswald was a MEMBER. He asked for a charter to have a Chapter and was
turned down. You had to have an org with a minimum number of members.
> Think about this, Ruby corrected Wade when Wade stated Oswald was a member of
> the "Free Cuba Commitee." This was at the press conference, Ruby "hung around
> for" the night before he killed Oswald.
Yes, info on Oswald was being dug up immediately after he was brought
in. Half the world knew about his affiliation with the FPCC by Friday
evening.
>
> I think there are links from Shaw to the CIA and the CIA to the anti-Castro
> Cubans.
Shaw didn't know Oswald.
Shaw had no role in the JFk assassination.
His info sharing with CIA had ended in the 50s. He had no ongoing
relationship with CIA.
The mob had a vested interest in all this. They had had very
> prosperous casinos in Cuba before Castro.
And were realistic enough to realize they had lost them and their loss
was irretrieveable.
There are definite links from the
> CIA to the Mob.
Sez you! *LOL*
Put Ferrie with Shaw, then enters Bannister (ex-FBI). Wish I
> had a nickle for all the "ex-FBI" people! Incidently, Ferrie was believed to
> have flown Marcello back from Guatemala to Shreveport.
I don't think so, but, suppose he had - so what?
>
> I do not think Garrison was on a' witch hunt'.
You have picked a very bad time to enter the debate, Al!
Shaw being a "respectable
> businessman" is hogwash. He owned the Trade Center that Kennedy was to go
> directly to from the Airport, until "pursuaded by Democratic Leaders.." to go
> through downtown Dallas!
Yeah, they had to twist JFK's arm to have a motorcade through downtown?
It was his Irish Mafia who came up with the idea.
The whole purpose of the trip was to be seen and heard and pick up
popular support.
He had as much interest in Cuba as any agency or
> organization did. JFK stood in many people's way.
JFK was obsessed with Cuba. His daddy had taught hm that you never walk
away from a fight. Never quit.
I think that Garrison had a
> very quick mind and he made these connections in his head, or by gut feeling.
> I think that people of lesser mind would critizise his thinking, because they
> could not conceive of it. He had a conviction to truth and I think the truth
> was simply that our government killed our President. He believed this and
> wanted to show the American public this was so.
The jury heard his case. It took less than an hour to acquit Shaw.
Shaw was all he had. He is
> not necessarily wrong because he was unable to prove these connections.
Garrison was not necessarily wrong?
You've picked a very bad time to enter the discussion.
> Remember, Helms proved the Shaw CIA connection was right on!
Aha. I guess that proves Shaw was some heavy dude. Probabally one o them
assassins that CIa sends around the world to whack people, huh?
He did what he
> could with what he had. The fact that it ruined Shaw does not necessarily mean
> his nose was clean.
So, you believe there is credible evidence that Shaw was at a party with
Ferrie and his roomate, Leon Oswald, and the three of them hatched an
assassination plot?
> Forgive me for my babbling. I live just outside of Shreveport, LA. I am
> within 3 hours of Dallas. I am very familiar with the racketerring in New
> Orlean's and Louisiana politics. Infact, it is ongoing! Casino's are spreading
> throughout hayseed towns! Edwards, the once governor of LA, is currently in
> the midst of trials on indictments of racketeering charges. This isn't the
> first time. Just think, if Garrison had been able to prove Shaw was involved
> in a conspiracy...i think he would have talked. If so, things would be
> decidedly different not only in Louisiana and Texas, but in Washington.
IF ... IF ... IF.
OTOH, maybe Garrison was a complete fraud and maybe Shaw was an innocent
victim of malicious prosecution.
That's what the evidence shows.
Jerry
Martin Shackelford
You're right that Ruby wasn't Marcello's second in command in
Dallas. Campisi and Civello were the two top Marcello lieutenants there.
You're misleading when you minimize Shaw's CIA connnections; we
still don't know what the nature of the QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF operations
were--both of which Shaw was cleared for. The CIA still considers both too
highly secret to reveal any details. Those cleared for QK/ENCHANT,
according to other documents, include a pilot.
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
sam hitt
Sam Hitt wrote:
> That after two prior
> > investigations there being 100,000s of docs to release is evidence of
> > openness and candor?
>
> Sam. I don't suspect the Gov't. I am not receptive to the kind of
> imputations you are making.
The basic idea is that elements of the govt killed the Prez, covered it
up, and continue to do so. I treat this idea, from what I currently know,
as a working hypothesis which I do not expect to see seriously challenged.
My questions run to the who, how and why of the thing. That does not
preclude the lone-assassin idea being my final assessment, and it helps to
see someone argue the LN case, both for perspective and because it might
turn out to be true. In your case, I put up with the attempts at ridicule
in the hope that it will pay off in data and perspective; while this has
happened, thanks, the ridicule, to my mind, makes you look like a nut
whose mind is made up and will not tolerate contrary ideas, someone I
can't hit with an idea and expect an unbiased response. Now, just because
one is a nut doesn't mean all that he says is lies and rubbish ("A to Z"
as you put it), like your characterization of Big Jim. All I want is to
get the best understanding that's possible without turning the quest into
a career.
It seems to me that there are many people who, for some reason I don't yet
understand, cannot tolerate a view of the U.S. government that includes
its being tyrannical, vicious, and murderous, on occasion. I say I don't
understand it because the actions of the government, regardless of the
intent of the Framers and the Congress, are carried out by people, some of
whom are tyrannical, vicious, and murderous, say people more or less like
your view of Oswald. Some people are nasty by nature, some because they
just carry out orders without any moral control from within, some because
it literally does not occur to them to acquire a sound moral philosophy
and/or use it in their public and private activity, some because they drop
scruples in order to pursue some supposedly noble goal and never look
back. That's just the way it is. As I see it, it's up to us, the good
guys, to see that the bad guys are found out and stopped in their tracks
before they do too much damage. Right here in the JFK assassination we
appear to have an opportunity to see how the bad guys operated, and still
do operate, and may operate in the future, or how unfounded suspicions of
evil activity propagate to destroy faith in our elected/appointed leaders,
so we can head that off as well. To understand which is the case here
requires an impartial look, not a heels-dug-in and ridicule-all-opposition
approach.
> Never before in all of history and on any topic has the gov't released
> more documents -- yet, they don't confirm your suspicions. So, you have to
> deal with that and consider that your suspicions may be misconceived.
Quantity of docs has no bearing on quality of info. And whether they
confirm my suspicions has yet to be seen.
> I've seen a bit of grumping about leads not checked
> > by the ARRB, such as the possible involvement of Mac Wallace and multiple
> > murders that Billie Sol Estes referred to, including the JFK
> > assassination.
>
> It could go on and on without any limit at all ... for decades more. And
> still the doubters will doubt.
>
> The JFK assassination was a crime - a gunshot homicide.
>
> It was investigated and Oswald was the obvious prime suspect.
So obvious that one should become instantly suspicious of anything so pat.
It's ham-handedly comprehensive.
> The case against him is very solid.
I don't think, from what I think I know, that there was much good
evidence. Saying it is "solid" does not make it so.
> And despite decades of effort nobody can place Oswald with any other
> person in the fall of '63, ie, no evidence of a plot can be found.
Evidence of a plot is abundant. Saying it is not does not make it
disappear.
> The "usual suspects" have been investigated - deeply and widely. And
> cleared.
Untrue, to the best of my knowledge.
> Thats the way it is.
>
> Human nature demands a big cause for a big event. But, a disaffected
> person with a cheap rifle is all it takes to end Camelot.
It wasn't Camelot, as in the musical of the same name.
> It is disproportionate and unsatisfying.
>
> We want more drama - as Manchester wrote - history disappoints.
>
> In this last, the Justice Dept. could have granted Estes
> > immunity for his various stories, since it had no plans to prosecute him,
> > that I know of, in the absence of these stories.
>
> I've never heard of a theory in which he was a suspect.
That makes two of us. On the other hand, once Billie starts talking, he
might become one.
> This is probably the Walt Brown theory that there was a one-armed Indian
> and at least four people up on the 6th floor killing JFK.
>
> Sam, there's no strong evidence for that/those theories.
Well, some people might disagree about "strong". Depending on the theory,
I think we have good leads that were not followed up properly.
> And there is a strong case against Oswald.
>
> So, I find it hard to take this kind of theory seriously. Not that they
> even have a theory! They have only suspicions.
>
> Adamantine, eternal suspicion.
>
> But perhaps you have
> > some anti-paranoid theory to offer here? I know about the time and money
> > shortage argument, to which I fail to be sympathetic.
>
> Let's focus on the events in Dealey Plaza. Namely, the shots Oswald took
> from the 6th floor window. Two hit and caused all the wounds.
Untrue, as far as I now know. It looks fairly certain he fired no shots.
My question is how witting a participant was he, if at all.
> They tried to find others. Obiously Oswald didn't need anybody else to
> do it, save a ride home to get the rifle. Some stolen wrapping paper to
> hide it. A sniper's nest. And a bus and taxi 'home' to get his pistol.
That's the theory. A gun around the TSBD is nothing out of the ordinary,
as I'm sure you know, and especially in Texas. I'm not sure it was "his"
pistol. Nothing said to the police was tape-recorded or taken by steno,
so anything that he was alleged to have said is no more than hearsay.
The capture scenario in the Texas theatre was sort of interesting, where
an officer with gun drawn walks from the front of the theatre towards the
rear, ready for any life-threatening eventuality, and stops to chat with a
couple of people in the audience before continuing his search for a
gate-crashing desperado. Then Oz waits until the ossifer is a foot away
and for no apparent reason, slugs ossifer. Poor ossifer really doesn't
know who he's looking for, let's face it. The story is for the grandkids
later, sitting around the fire in the ancestral home. One of many
hootlets.
> Which he used to kill a cop.
>
> Which he drew on the arresting officers.
>
> Then, he told lies or was sullen to the homicide chief.
This homicide chief shouldn't get no respect. He and his all-thumbs squad
bungled about every possible way, which I'm sure you can find on other
people's sites if you look.
Martin Shackelford
Regarding NO/Dallas ties, there are also Clint Murchison's
properties in the New Orleans area.
There are some errors, though. Ferrie apparently didn't fly
Marcello back from Guatemala. Shaw headed the International Trade Mart
in New Orleans; he didn't own the Dallas Trade Mart. Kennedy never
planned to go directly to the Trade Mart--the conflict was between
having the luncheon at the Trade Mart or the Women's Center in Dallas,
both choices involving motorcades; the other issue was the route, and
Stemmons Freeway was chosen (probably because it was a quick route from
downtown to the Trade Mart, as it still is today). The problem with the
prosecution of Shaw was that Garrison didn't really have a case against
him; and proving that Shaw was CIA wouldn't have proven he was involved
in a conspiracy to kill JFK. There's no automatic link there.
Amethyst
>
> Jerry:
>
> You're right that Ruby wasn't Marcello's second in command in
> Dallas. Campisi and Civello were the two top Marcello lieutenants there.
>
> You're misleading when you minimize Shaw's CIA connnections; we
> still don't know what the nature of the QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF operations
> were--both of which Shaw was cleared for.
Martin, when are you going to admit that you don't have the foggiest idea
what "being cleared for" an operation even means.
You don't know, do you? Let's be clear about that.
Read Lambert. The CIA's General Council warned that any admission by Shaw
regarding CIA -- any at all -- would *open the door* in legal jargon and
the next thing you know you have Helms down in New Orleans having to
testify under oath about operations that had no relevance to the JFk
assassiation.
And then you get questions about sources and methods which cannot be
answered in public.
And then ... and then ...
You probably think that Helms and Co would love to go down to New
Orleans and speak for a few weeks on the stand about every operation
ever conducted and revealing sources and methods.
Look, Martin. I'll say it once: dragging CIA into this is a "red
herring" fallacy.
It reveals your hand ... and that's not a pretty sight.
Jerry
Amethyst
Leo Sgouros
Amethyst wrote in message <36D973...@prodigy.net>...
>Martin Shackelford wrote:
>>
>> Jerry:
>>
>> You're right that Ruby wasn't Marcello's second in command in
>> Dallas. Campisi and Civello were the two top Marcello lieutenants there.
>>
>> You're misleading when you minimize Shaw's CIA connnections; we
>> still don't know what the nature of the QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF
operations
>> were--both of which Shaw was cleared for.
>
I would say judging from the number of lettersin the crypts, CLIFF and
RIFLE were tucked into the "intercept people" and ENCHANT may have been
either a Navy, Cia, Or NSA crypt. They each had their own, you know.
Leo
Tony Pitman
That would be right.
7 letters was probably to many for most CIA people to spell.
Tony
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Amethyst wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> >
> > Jerry:
> >
> > You're right that Ruby wasn't Marcello's second in command in
> > Dallas. Campisi and Civello were the two top Marcello lieutenants there.
> >
> > You're misleading when you minimize Shaw's CIA connnections; we
> > still don't know what the nature of the QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF operations
> > were--both of which Shaw was cleared for.
>
> Martin, when are you going to admit that you don't have the foggiest idea
> what "being cleared for" an operation even means.
>
> You don't know, do you? Let's be clear about that.
>
> Read Lambert. The CIA's General Council warned that any admission by Shaw
> regarding CIA -- any at all -- would *open the door* in legal jargon and
> the next thing you know you have Helms down in New Orleans having to
> testify under oath about operations that had no relevance to the JFk
> assassiation.
>
> And then you get questions about sources and methods which cannot be
> answered in public.
>
> And then ... and then ...
>
> You probably think that Helms and Co would love to go down to New
> Orleans and speak for a few weeks on the stand about every operation
> ever conducted and revealing sources and methods.
>
> Look, Martin. I'll say it once: dragging CIA into this is a "red
> herring" fallacy.
>
> It reveals your hand ... and that's not a pretty sight.
>
> Jerry
--
jer...@my-dejanews.com
I have to go with what you give me; frankly, you have not been
over-generous with facts.
Btw, from facts one draws INFERENCES.
Assumptions are another thing.
Jerry
In article <36DA4E3F...@concentric.net>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Martin Shackelford
us. Apparently my mistake.
Martin
questb...@gmail.com
Maiden name : DYER
Relation :CLOSE with RUBY
KNOWS VITAL INTEL./ACTIVE PARTY?
NOTE: VERY EVASIVE TO QUESTIONING
EGO is THE TRICK TO THIS one BUT not too thick
HOPE THIS OPENS SOME OF THOSE DOORS BUT THAT DEPENDS ON YOU.