Shackelford Article
Blackburst
Case Finally Coming Together" by respected assassination researcher Martin
Shackelford. Below are quotes from the article, followed by my comments.
"Perry Raymond Russo, the key witness who described conspiratorial
conversations including the defendant Clay Shaw and the deceased David Ferrie,
maintained the veracity of his testimony until his death in 1995."
This is not a fair accounting of the story of Perry Russo, who expressed doubts
about aspects of the story to several people over the years.
"As late as 1993...Garrison's critics were denying that David Ferrie was in the
Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans at the same time as Oswald (the mid-1950s)."
Well, one of Garrison's critics was, Gerald Posner. Long before the appearance
of the John Ciravolo picture of Ferrie and Oswald at a 1955 CAP bivouac,
serious researchers (myself included) had concluded that 1963 FBI documents
established that Ferrie had been a volunteer instructor for the Moisant Airport
CAP squadron "during the summer months of 1955", at the same time Oswald was a
member.
"Former Deputy Counsel Robert Tannenbaum of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations has stated that his staff located a film showing Oswald and
Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp near New Orleans in the summer of 1963."
Are we really to believe that the HSCA located a film of such significance, and
not only failed to publish it, but also failed to mention it? Where is the
film? Has anyone but Tannenbaum ( a conspiracy advocate) seen it? How can
Martin cite as evidence a film he has not seen?
[Shaw] "had a working relationship with former FBI agent Guy Banister"
Where is the evidence for this?
"Many of [Banister's] former employees now confirm that Banister employed
Oswald in the summer of 1963."
Delphine Roberts failed to come forward with this info, and did not mention it
in her interviews with Garrison's staff or her early HSCA interviews, and
expressed something less than certainty to at least one interviewer. Jack
Martin's statements are filled with demonstrable errors. Joe Newbrough has
given conflicting statements. Here he is less than certain: "I don't think it
is unreasonable that Banister knew Oswald." Neither Newbrough nor Dan Campbell
mentioned seeing Oswald to Garrison's investigators. Decker and Brengel are
only repeating hearsay from Roberts. The eyewitness testimony of Garrison's
former staff is less consistent than Martin lets on.
"Shaw had a 'covert security' classification for a top secret program called
QKENCHANT."
First, we don't know what QKENCHANT was. Second, Shaw was an "unwitting"
participant in it. Misleading.
"New Orleans CIA office Chief Lloyd Ray wrote...[that] the Garrison
investigation...is under a discreet and sensitive investigation by the FBI."
It reflects well on the FBI that they DID consider Garrison's evidence, even if
they did come up with a different conclusion.
"A September 1977 memo written by HSCA staff counsel Jonathan Blackmer
concluded: 'We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the
anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960s and possibly one of the
high-level planners or 'cut-out' to the planners of the assassination.'"
This is Blackmer's opinion. Where's the evidence? Keep in mind that some of
those involved with HSCA (Fonzi and Groden come to mind) were and are
conspiracy believers.
The upshot is that Martin says this (and a few unquoted points) show that
"Garrison's case [is] finally coming together". With the release of various
documents, some people feel that Garrison's case has been weakened. Some
examples:
* A chronological reading of the available Garrison documents shows that,
indeed, all Garrison had at the time of the arrest of Shaw was Russo's story,
and a suspicion that Shaw was Andrews' "Bertrand".
* Lou Ivon's recent claims that Ferrie "partially confessed" to him is in
direct conflict to Sciambra's contemporaneous memo of the conversation.
* The initial Clinton witness statements contradict each other, and contradict
some of their later statements.
Martin Shackelford is a serious and responsible researcher who has made
valuable contributions to the case. He is intelligent, articulate, honest, and
not reluctant to acknowledge information which conflicts with his sincere
beliefs. I was very surprised that this article overreached in it's
conclusions.
oo
David
Dreitzes
>From: black...@aol.com (Blackburst)
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 02:13 EST
>Message-id: <19981222021341...@ng98.aol.com>
>
>In the current edition of Fair Play appears an article entitled "Garrison's
>Case Finally Coming Together" by respected assassination researcher Martin
>Shackelford. Below are quotes from the article, followed by my comments.
>
>"Perry Raymond Russo, the key witness who described conspiratorial
>conversations including the defendant Clay Shaw and the deceased David
>Ferrie,
>maintained the veracity of his testimony until his death in 1995."
>
>This is not a fair accounting of the story of Perry Russo, who expressed
>doubts
>about aspects of the story to several people over the years.
>
>"As late as 1993...Garrison's critics were denying that David Ferrie was in
>the
>Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans at the same time as Oswald (the mid-1950s)."
>
>Well, one of Garrison's critics was, Gerald Posner. Long before the
>appearance
>of the John Ciravolo picture of Ferrie and Oswald at a 1955 CAP bivouac,
>serious researchers (myself included) had concluded that 1963 FBI documents
>established that Ferrie had been a volunteer instructor for the Moisant
>Airport
>CAP squadron "during the summer months of 1955", at the same time Oswald was
>a
>member.
>
****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Ferrie, it would seem, was actually involved with two different CAP units that
year, one of which -- I believe the Moisant unit -- was actually based on a
fraudulent charter. There is reason to believe that Oswald was involved with
both groups, although there is nothing to indicate any sinister connotations
about this -- necessarily. Dave, I've been trying to figure out more about
these two CAP units, as the issue is extremely poorly documented in the
literature (not excluding the HSCA report). Can you tell me anything about
them?
******************************************************************
>"Former Deputy Counsel Robert Tannenbaum of the House Select Committee on
>Assassinations has stated that his staff located a film showing Oswald and
>Ferrie at an anti-Castro training camp near New Orleans in the summer of
>1963."
>
>Are we really to believe that the HSCA located a film of such significance,
>and
>not only failed to publish it, but also failed to mention it? Where is the
>film? Has anyone but Tannenbaum ( a conspiracy advocate) seen it? How can
>Martin cite as evidence a film he has not seen?
>
*******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes re-posts:
Robert Tanenbaum had been the original Deputy Chief of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations, appointed by the original Chief Counsel, attorney
Richard A, Sprague. Tanenbaum had studied law at the University of California
at Berkeley and went on to work for District Attorney Frank Hogan in New York
County. While there Tanenbaum served as Bureau Chief of the Criminal Courts of
the Felony Trial Bureau, and Deputy Chief then Acting Chief of the Homicide
Bureau, where he tried several hundred cases to verdict. When Sprague -- who
Tanenbaum had never met -- called him out of the blue one day in 1976 and
offered him the position of Deputy Chief Counsel leading the Congressional
investigations of the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther
King, Tanenbaum didn't know a thing about these events except what he'd read in
the papers. He had only one question -- he "wanted assurance from the Committee
that whatever the facts were we would be permitted to tell the American people.
. . . The focus was to deal with these cases as homicides." Sprague, a highly
successful and rigorous prosecutor himself, assured him that was the case; he
was mistaken.
Tanenbaum resigned soon after he'd watched Sprague forced out by interests that
clearly feared the result of a thorough and honest investigation. "I wasn't
going to participate any longer when I found out that the Congress was not
going to tell the truth," he told the Assassination Records Review Board in
1996. "I didn't want to participate in a historical fraud. . . . My daughter,
when I was in Washington, was three years old. She is now a junior at UCLA. And
I did not want to look at her years later and [have her know that I] put my
rubber stamp on a report that I knew was a fraud."
Board member Dr. Kermit Hall asked, ". . . about what other materials might be
where -- You didn't speak to the question of the film that you were, that deals
with anti-Castro Cubans. . . . So I wonder if you could speak to that
particular matter."
". . . As far as where the film is, again, I can only tell you that all of the
material, I assumed was . . ." He laughed bitterly. " . . . in the same place.
. . ."
"And that film had been obtained from the Georgetown University Library?" Dr.
Hall asked.
"That is my best recollection. . . . Investigators and researchers found it in
the Georgetown Library archives."
"And just for the record, the significance of this film if it were recovered,
would be . . . ?
". . . On the one hand it shows a lot of anti-Castro Cuban players with CIA
contract people in a military setting. There was some speculation, somewhat
unclear, as to the direct identities of some of these people. And as I stand
here now, I am not going to tell you exactly who they were, but there were some
of the major players in this whole case."
The film was an 8 mm "home movie" from the summer of 1963. It vanished into
thin air, while in the HSCA's custody, sometime after Tanenbaum's departure.
Here is Tanenbaum's description of what the film contained, condensed from his
novel based in part on his HSCA experiences, Corruption of Blood. The plot of
the novel is fictionalized; the evidence discussed is not.
. . . The small square screen showed a shadowy landscape, some bushes and
trees, then a road. The film was black-and-white and grainy, or perhaps the
graininess was just an artifact of the ground-glass screen of the editing
machine. In any case, the film seemed to have been shot in bad light, at dusk
perhaps, or in moonlight.
The camera panned across dark woods that seemed vaguely tropical -- palmettos,
Spanish moss, and hanging vines -- past an open field, and onto the road again.
A line of two-and-a-half-ton military trucks appeared, moving slowly, their
headlights cut to thin slits. The trucks stopped and soldiers leaped out and
lined up on the road. They were dressed in fatigues and soft caps. Most carried
rifles, but there were some with machine guns and mortar components, and . . .
one with a folded bazooka.
The film now cut jerkily to maneuvers: the soldiers rushed across the field and
flung themselves down, while others provided covering fire. The film was
silent, but you could see the pinpoints of fire from the rifles and the
shimmering gouts of muzzle blast from the machine guns. It cut to a mortar team
firing, dropping the shells in odd silence down the tubes and shielding their
ears from the blasts. . . . they seemed well drilled.
. . . Now the camera was obviously in a vehicle of some kind, an open vehicle
because the camera could pan around 360 degrees. A jeep: the well-known square
hood flashed by and then the backs of the heads of two men with military caps
on. A white road sign loomed up and started to whip by. . . . The road sign had
the shape of Louisiana and a number.
This is by Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans. The jeep ride ended and the
camera cut to a group of five men standing around a jeep, talking, as troops
filed by in the background. There were two unidentified Cubans. There was a
"stocky guy with the round face" -- Antonio Veciana of the CIA-backed
anti-Castro squad, Alpha 66. There was a "tall, ugly guy" -- Guy Banister, the
notorious right-wing extremist whose 531 Lafayette Street office had a side
entrance at 544 Camp Street, the address stamped on a number of Lee Harvey
Oswald's PRO-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee literature. There was a figure
wearing civilian clothes, "a tall man with dark hair, a prominent nose, and
deeply impressed wrinkles under his eyes . . . turning away from the lens as
the shot opened, as if more interested in some background object than in the
conversation the men were having; that, or he had a predisposition to avoid
being the subject of photography. He resembled CIA officer David Atlee
Phillips.
"In the treacly movements of slow motion, the camera's view moved to another
group of men standing by a truck. One of the men in the group turned around and
smiled at the camera. It was actually more of a smirk than a smile, the famous
smirk. . . . Lee Harvey Oswald." There were several unidentified men.
". . . The screen brightened. It was full day. Some men were shooting pistols
at a crude outdoor firing range, firing at man-shaped targets nailed to trees."
Antonio Veciana appeared in civilian clothes now, "holding an .45 and smiling.
The view moved unsteadily at each soundless explosion. Two men, grinning, held
up a well-punctured target. A man in a black T-shirt and ball cap sat at a
table loading bullets into pistol magazines. He looked up for an instant,
frowned, spoke briefly, and lowered his head again so that the bill of the cap
obscured his face. He resembled Oswald, but not identically. Tanenbaum thought
it was Oswald, but it would have had "to be some time later than in the first
scenes, because his sideburns [had] grown longer. . . . More shooting, men
posing with weapons, then a close-up of a round-faced man with a fright wig and
patently phony, impossibly thick eyebrows. . . David Ferrie . . . nobody else
looked like Ferrie."
The film cut to a shot of the man who looked like Oswald in the ball cap and
black T-shirt. "The shot was taken from the rear and showed him standing,
aiming at a target twenty-five yards downrange and firing off seven shots
rapidly. . . . The camera moved in for a close-up of the head of the target
silhouette. It was shredded and flapping away from its fiberboard backing.
There was more target practice, then another twenty seconds of paramilitary
exercises. Then it ended."
Shortly before his death in 1990, longtime CIA hitman Colonel William Bishop
was asked by Dick Russell, in the presence of veteran researcher J. Gary Shaw,
if he'd ever used the alias "Maurice Bishop." The Colonel replied that he had,
but not exclusively: It was an alias he shared, as intelligence operatives are
wont to do, with David Atlee Phillips and Phillips' mentor (and Watergate
conspirator), E. Howard Hunt. When asked if he knew the Warren Commission's
accused assassin, Bishop said he did not, but offhandedly volunteered, "I did
look into Oswald's background. I'd never met him, but I'd seen him in a
training film in New Orleans the past summer. He just happened to be in the
group out there at the Pontchartrain camp. Trying to get in with the anti-Cuban
exiles" (Russell, The Man Who Knew Too Much, 508).
Delphine Roberts, Guy Banister's former secretary and mistress, also said that
Oswald accompanied Ferrie at least once to the Lake Pontchartrain camp (Anthony
Summers, Conspiracy, 1981 ed., 304). This may square with the very earliest
story that Jack S. Martin told the New Orleans DA's office following the
assassination - that Ferrie had trained Oswald with a rifle (Report of Secret
Service Agent Anthony E. Gerrets; Weisberg, Oswald in New Orleans, 177). Martin
later retracted the story.
New Orleans resident George Wilcox told historian Michael Kurtz that he
observed "Ferrie, Oswald, and numerous Cubans, all dressed in military fatigues
and carrying automatic rifles, conducting what appeared to be a 'military
training maneuver.' This event took place near Bedico Creek, a swampy inland
body of water near Lake Pontchartrain, about fifty miles north of New Orleans.
This occurred in early September 1963, two months after the final government
raid on anti-Castro guerilla camps in the United States" (Interview of
September 9, 1979; Kurtz, Crime of the Century, 203, 260 fn.).
********************************************************************
>[Shaw] "had a working relationship with former FBI agent Guy Banister"
>
>Where is the evidence for this?
>
******************************************************************
DR responds:
I think Martin is drawing from Bill Davy's book. If not, well, Martin . . . ?
********************************************************************
>"Many of [Banister's] former employees now confirm that Banister employed
>Oswald in the summer of 1963."
>
>Delphine Roberts failed to come forward with this info, and did not mention
>it
>in her interviews with Garrison's staff or her early HSCA interviews, and
>expressed something less than certainty to at least one interviewer. Jack
>Martin's statements are filled with demonstrable errors. Joe Newbrough has
>given conflicting statements. Here he is less than certain: "I don't think it
>is unreasonable that Banister knew Oswald." Neither Newbrough nor Dan
>Campbell
>mentioned seeing Oswald to Garrison's investigators. Decker and Brengel are
>only repeating hearsay from Roberts. The eyewitness testimony of Garrison's
>former staff is less consistent than Martin lets on.
>
*******************************************************************
DR responds:
There are others, but unfortunately they've said precious little for the
record.
*******************************************************************
>"Shaw had a 'covert security' classification for a top secret program called
>QKENCHANT."
>
>First, we don't know what QKENCHANT was. Second, Shaw was an "unwitting"
>participant in it. Misleading.
>
>"New Orleans CIA office Chief Lloyd Ray wrote...[that] the Garrison
>investigation...is under a discreet and sensitive investigation by the FBI."
>
>It reflects well on the FBI that they DID consider Garrison's evidence, even
>if
>they did come up with a different conclusion.
>
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
It's not clear what was being investigated. This statement could just as easily
refer to, say, the Houma burglary (which Garrison never linked to the
assassination treated as though it were part and parcel of the assassination
probe -- which is probably why his investigation of the Houma incident ran
aground).
*****************************************************************
>"A September 1977 memo written by HSCA staff counsel Jonathan Blackmer
>concluded: 'We have reason to believe Shaw was heavily involved in the
>anti-Castro efforts in New Orleans in the 1960s and possibly one of the
>high-level planners or 'cut-out' to the planners of the assassination.'"
>
>This is Blackmer's opinion. Where's the evidence? Keep in mind that some of
>those involved with HSCA (Fonzi and Groden come to mind) were and are
>conspiracy believers.
>
>The upshot is that Martin says this (and a few unquoted points) show that
>"Garrison's case [is] finally coming together". With the release of various
>documents, some people feel that Garrison's case has been weakened. Some
>examples:
>* A chronological reading of the available Garrison documents shows that,
>indeed, all Garrison had at the time of the arrest of Shaw was Russo's story,
>and a suspicion that Shaw was Andrews' "Bertrand".
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
I've been challenging Garrison advocates for several weeks now to prove the
above statement false. No one's even tried.
I must confess, Martin, as much as I respect your knowledge and the work you've
put into investigating the assassination, your silence on key points like the
above is rather disquieting, no pun intended.
*******************************************************************
>* Lou Ivon's recent claims that Ferrie "partially confessed" to him is in
>direct conflict to Sciambra's contemporaneous memo of the conversation.
>* The initial Clinton witness statements contradict each other, and
>contradict
>some of their later statements.
>
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
I agree, but I still wish to defer the Clinton debate until their statements
are available in full. From the bits that have been published, no firm
conclusions can be drawn.
*****************************************************************
>Martin Shackelford is a serious and responsible researcher who has made
>valuable contributions to the case. He is intelligent, articulate, honest,
>and
>not reluctant to acknowledge information which conflicts with his sincere
>beliefs.
*******************************************************************
DR responds:
Agreed.
******************************************************************
I was very surprised that this article overreached in it's
>conclusions.
>
>oo
>David
****************************************************************
DR responds:
Again, I must agree. I know you disagree with us, Martin, but now's as good a
time as any to back the above up, or at least name your sources as I've asked
you to.
Dave
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * \8^)
For my series on John Armstrong's Oswald research, please see:
gopher://gopher.freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
Martin Shackelford
I appreciate your comments. The Garrison piece was written in a
short period of time as a newsgroup post, primarily from memory, late at
night. John Kelin asked if he could run it, and I agreed. Clearly, I
should have gone over it more carefully before agreeing to publication.
As for the CAP photo, Posner continued to claim no evidence of an
Oswald-Ferrie connection after he was on the same "Frontline" program
that first showed the photo!
As for the anti-Castro film, I wasn't citing the film as
evidence, just noting Tannenbaum's statement. He apparently feels that
the film was "lost" during the Blakey period of the HSCA, along with
other early discoveries and reports (anyone seen the Fenton Report on
New Orleans activities yet?).
The evidence for a working relationship between Oswald and
Banister is at:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/Only/MS/Posner-Series/individual-posner/05.bannister
How do we know that Shaw was "unwitting" with regard to
QK/ENCHANT. And why don't we know what it is, if it was inconsequential?
Thanks again, Dave.
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
be a reference to Oswald-Banister. I may have referred to my Review
Series (on Assassination Web)--one of the original sources was probably
Davy, but I used others as well. Unfortunately, as the series was
written for a local bi-weekly newspaper, it wasn't footnoted.
Dreitzes
>From: Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net>
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 04:28 EST
>Message-id: <367F668C...@concentric.net>
>
>In my prior post, I missed the "Shaw-Banister" reference, assuming it to
>be a reference to Oswald-Banister. I may have referred to my Review
>Series (on Assassination Web)--one of the original sources was probably
>Davy, but I used others as well. Unfortunately, as the series was
>written for a local bi-weekly newspaper, it wasn't footnoted.
>
>Martin
>
****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Martin,
You've said at least three or four times that there were no sources required or
used for your original article. Fine. Now, what exactly is stopping you from
telling us what they are NOW?
James Crary
aggravating.
James MacRyland Crary
Blackburst
>Ferrie, it would seem, was actually involved with two different CAP units
>that
>year, one of which -- I believe the Moisant unit -- was actually based on a
>fraudulent charter.
You're confusing several things:
*Ferrie served with the Lakefront Airport squadron from 1952-April 1955, when
his commander declined to renew his membership.
*Ferrie then went to the Moisant Airport squadron for the summer months of 1955
on an unofficial basis.
*In 1958, Ferrie weaseled his way back into the Lakefront squadron
*In June 1960, he was again forced out of the Lakefront squadron
*In September 1960, he formed his own group, the Metairie Falcon Cadet
Squadron, which was unaffiliated with the CAP, but for which he obtained a
state corporate charter.
*The Falcons folded, to all intents and purposes, after Ferrie's arrests in
August 1961
>There is reason to believe that Oswald was involved with
>both groups,
There is evidence that Oswald attended a meeting of the Lakefront squadron
before settling on the Moisant squadron, all in 1955.
>The film was an 8 mm "home movie" from the summer of 1963. It vanished into
>thin air, while in the HSCA's custody, sometime after Tanenbaum's departure.
I'll reserve judgement until the film surfaces.
>Delphine Roberts, Guy Banister's former secretary and mistress, also said
>that
>Oswald accompanied Ferrie at least once to the Lake Pontchartrain camp
Delphine changed her story. Her stuff is interesting, but I am not completely
confident about it.
>This may square with the very earliest
>story that Jack S. Martin told the New Orleans DA's office following the
>assassination - that Ferrie had trained Oswald with a rifle
In context, this was Martin's erroneous belief that Oswald had been a member of
the Falcons in 1960-1
>I agree, but I still wish to defer the Clinton debate until their statements
>are available in full. From the bits that have been published, no firm
>conclusions can be drawn.
I have the Garrison stsements, the trial testimony and the HSCA statements. I
see substantial inconsistencies.
oo
David
Blackburst
I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I think
we agree on some things and disagree on others. I am neither a CT or an LN, I
am just committed to trying to refine the research to weed out the marginal
stuff to focus on the real stuff. And as I have said, my focus on New Orleans
has made me feel that a lot of little inaccurate nuggets are repeated over and
over, to the point where it confuses most observers.
>As for the CAP photo, Posner continued to claim no evidence of an
>Oswald-Ferrie connection after he was on the same "Frontline" program
>that first showed the photo!
I don't agree with many of Posner's assertions or his methodology. (There is a
very different thrust in info presented by an advocate, like Posner, than info
presented by an objective party. Maybe I'm too anal about it.) When I saw the
Ciravolo photo, it merely buttressed what I and others had deduced from FBI
documents. But Posner is the only one I know who flatly denied what was
provable, even before the photo.
> As for the anti-Castro film, I wasn't citing the film as
>evidence, just noting Tannenbaum's statement. He apparently feels that
>the film was "lost" during the Blakey period of the HSCA,
Besides not having a lot of faith in "lost" evidence of a sensational nature
(the alleged Oliver film and the Nagell tidbits, for example), I find
Tannenbaum just a littletoo far over the line into advocacy. He seems to enjoy
being the ultimate source for CTs.
>The evidence for a working relationship between Oswald and
>Banister is at:
Oh...I misunderstood. I thought you said Banister and Shaw, which is
specualtive, as I see it.
>How do we know that Shaw was "unwitting" with regard to
>QK/ENCHANT.
John M. Has cited a document (which I don't have) which uses the phrase. I
guess I shouldn't be too sure without the doc in my hands. Sorry.
>And why don't we know what it is, if it was inconsequential?
In retrospect, some CIA cryptonymed programs seem significant, and others
don't. I just think we are regarding QKENCHANT with suspicion when it could be
either something or nothing. I can think of benign reasons why CIA would not
want to disclose info about it (compromising sources and methods, embarrasment,
etc.), but you make a valid point: They've released a lot of stuff, important
and unimportant --- why can't they release this?
Maybe Dave R. can ask his case officer about this...JUST A JOKE, DAVE !!!
Thanks again, Martin. Keep up the stimulating research, and Merry Christmas to
you and yours.
with respect
David
Lisa Pease
: Martin:
: I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I think
: we agree on some things and disagree on others. I am neither a CT or an LN,
What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
--
Lisa Pease
"Human history becomes more and more a
race between education and catastrophe."
- H. G. Wells
Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
Robert Harris
> Dave B.:
>
> I appreciate your comments. The Garrison piece was written in a
> short period of time as a newsgroup post, primarily from memory, late at
> night. John Kelin asked if he could run it, and I agreed. Clearly, I
> should have gone over it more carefully before agreeing to publication.
> As for the CAP photo, Posner continued to claim no evidence of an
> Oswald-Ferrie connection after he was on the same "Frontline" program
> that first showed the photo!
> As for the anti-Castro film, I wasn't citing the film as
> evidence, just noting Tannenbaum's statement. He apparently feels that
> the film was "lost" during the Blakey period of the HSCA,
But others must have seen it.
Have you talked to Fonzi or any other HSCA people who might corroborate
this claim?
Bob Harris
> along with
> other early discoveries and reports (anyone seen the Fenton Report on
> New Orleans activities yet?).
> The evidence for a working relationship between Oswald and
> Banister is at:
>
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/Only/MS/Posner-Series/individual-posner/05.bannister
>
> How do we know that Shaw was "unwitting" with regard to
> QK/ENCHANT. And why don't we know what it is, if it was inconsequential?
>
> Thanks again, Dave.
>
> 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
--
Check out my website, The JFK Assassination Home Page
http://www.c-works.com/jfk/
the FTP site is:
ftp://www.c-works.com/
Blackburst
>What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
>You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
>nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
You are wrong.
1) I have not lied about anything.
2) I am not and have never been connected to nor sympathetic to CIA or any
government entity. I go with what the evidence shows.
3) I stand by my belief that the evidence on Arcacha does not prove a
connection to the assassination, and argues otherwise. You may interpret the
evidence differently.
4) I am not posing. I have no firm opinions, and I try to correct mistakes on
both sides, as a glance at Deja news will substantiate.
5) I have no agenda. I know you do not approve of my pointing out mistakes in
the garrison, case, but that's what the evidence shows. And my study of New
Orleans is as complete as anyone elses.
6) So that there is no misconception, I'll say it publicly in a way that cannot
be mistaken:
Oswald may have been innocent.
There may have been multiple shooters.
There may have been a conspiracy.
There may have been a malicious coverup.
Garrison may have been right about Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha and other
things.
I am just not as sure about it as you are. You are a talented researcher, but I
think you overreach in your conclusions sometimes, and you sometimes leave out
evidence which does not support your theses. But I respect your work, though I
do not like your tendency to denounce the motives or intellectual capacity of
others. There are others who know as much about aspects of the case as you do
who do not share your conclusions. I stand by my contributions to the search
for truth.
Lisa Pease
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
: >You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
: >nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
: You are wrong.
: 1) I have not lied about anything.
You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you
to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: 2) I am not and have never been connected to nor sympathetic to CIA or any
: government entity. I go with what the evidence shows.
Given that you have now lied twice about 1), why should we believe you on
this point?
: 3) I stand by my belief that the evidence on Arcacha does not prove a
: connection to the assassination, and argues otherwise. You may interpret the
: evidence differently.
Nagell claimed to have a tape with Arcacha discussing with a fellow
conspirator the setting up of Oswald. Arcacha was one of the two people
with Rose Cheramie before she was thrown from the car and ended in a
hospital predicting in advance that Kennedy was going to be killed. And
Arcacha had sewer maps of Dallas. Why would a New Orleans Cuban activist
have sewer maps of Dallas?
: 4) I am not posing. I have no firm opinions, and I try to correct mistakes on
: both sides, as a glance at Deja news will substantiate.
You are simply trying to maintain your cover. But it's rather gossamer,
for any who know the game.
: 5) I have no agenda. I know you do not approve of my pointing out mistakes in
: the garrison, case, but that's what the evidence shows. And my study of New
: Orleans is as complete as anyone elses.
No - it is completely one-sided without acknowledgement of how past and
new releases of documents support what Garrison was alleging in many areas.
: 6) So that there is no misconception, I'll say it publicly in a way that cannot
: be mistaken:
: Oswald may have been innocent.
: There may have been multiple shooters.
: There may have been a conspiracy.
: There may have been a malicious coverup.
: Garrison may have been right about Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha and other
: things.
I'll say it publicly too.
There WAS a conspiracy.
There WERE multiple shooters.
There WAS a deliberate and thereby malicious coverup.
Those who pretend to be fence sitters merely pose there so as not to make
their agenda to obvious.
Anyone who researchers this case even for a short time with any honest
and sincerity rapidly concedes these three points.
Those who do not pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded, unbiased. But
that's just blarney to the uninitiated. It's also standard procedure for
infiltration in this case. Many like you, who claimed to be unbiased and
fair minded have later proven to have connections with intelligence
agencies. These include Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Priscilla Johnson
McMillan, William F. Buckley, and many others.
You claim to respect my work so that you put me in the 'bad guy' seat
opposing you. But I have no patience for those who deny evidence that
points to the conspirators while pretending to be simply open-minded. I
haven't met a real personlike that yet. People who are informed about the
case have strong opinions. Whether they share them or hide them differs
from person to person. But no one who has done this in the detail and to
the length that you claim to can be uncertain at this point. It defies
crediblity.
Dreitzes
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 13:25 EST
>Message-id: <19981222132508...@ng-fb1.aol.com>
>
>Martin:
>I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I
>think
>am just committed to trying to refine the research to weed out the marginal
>stuff to focus on the real stuff. And as I have said, my focus on New Orleans
>has made me feel that a lot of little inaccurate nuggets are repeated over
>and
>over, to the point where it confuses most observers.
>
>>Oswald-Ferrie connection after he was on the same "Frontline" program
>>that first showed the photo!
>
>a
>very different thrust in info presented by an advocate, like Posner, than
>info
>presented by an objective party. Maybe I'm too anal about it.) When I saw the
>Ciravolo photo, it merely buttressed what I and others had deduced from FBI
>documents. But Posner is the only one I know who flatly denied what was
>provable, even before the photo.
>
>>evidence, just noting Tannenbaum's statement. He apparently feels that
>>the film was "lost" during the Blakey period of the HSCA,
>
>(the alleged Oliver film and the Nagell tidbits, for example), I find
>Tannenbaum just a littletoo far over the line into advocacy. He seems to
>enjoy
>being the ultimate source for CTs.
>
>>Banister is at:
>
>specualtive, as I see it.
>
>>QK/ENCHANT.
>
>guess I shouldn't be too sure without the doc in my hands. Sorry.
>
>
>don't. I just think we are regarding QKENCHANT with suspicion when it could
>be
>either something or nothing. I can think of benign reasons why CIA would not
>want to disclose info about it (compromising sources and methods,
>embarrasment,
>etc.), but you make a valid point: They've released a lot of stuff, important
>and unimportant --- why can't they release this?
>
>Maybe Dave R. can ask his case officer about this...JUST A JOKE, DAVE !!!
>
>Thanks again, Martin. Keep up the stimulating research, and Merry Christmas
>to
>you and yours.
>
>with respect
>David
******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
You switch CO's, Dave? I thought we were reporting to the same guy. Ah, well,
we'll get it sorted out at the Christmas party, to be held at an undisclosed
location sometime next spring, I believe.
We have every right to demand our governemt explain to us what was going on
with QK/ENCHANT, ZR/CLIFF, and anything else that provokes suspicion -- and
I've argued this numerous times, mostly on the mod page. My point is simply
that nothing Garrison or anyone else ever turned up warrants the "guilty until
proven innocent" posture of his accusers. If we disagree on that, no problem.
But I am troubled by your lack of response to our queries about sources, etc.
If you have documents to cite and quote, please cite and quote them. If not,
please tell us what your sources were so we can more accurately evaluate your
conclusions. If you are simply too busy to type documents up and post them, I
would be happy to do so -- 100% accurately -- if snail-mailed photocopies.
David Reitzes
21-24 30 Drive, Apt. 5-B
Astoria, NY 11102
Dreitzes
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 14:19 EST
>Message-id: <lpeaseF4...@netcom.com>
>
>Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Martin:
>: I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I
>think
>: we agree on some things and disagree on others. I am neither a CT or an LN,
>
>
>You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
>nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
>
>
*****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Why is it that the folks who proclaim themselves truth-tellers are invariably
the first to distort the views and smear the credibility of others? Do they
simply believe that no honest person could express dissenting opinions? Or does
the paranoia run deeper than that?
I, of course, have already been labeled a "spook" by Ms. Pease, so I hardly
expect a reasonable response from her. Perhaps others might learn from her
mistakes? Hope springs eternal, I suppose . . .
Dreitzes
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 15:14 EST
>Message-id: <19981222151401...@ng-fb2.aol.com>
>
>Lisa Pease wrote:
>>What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
>>You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
>>nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
>
>1) I have not lied about anything.
>government entity. I go with what the evidence shows.
>connection to the assassination, and argues otherwise. You may interpret the
>evidence differently.
>both sides, as a glance at Deja news will substantiate.
>the garrison, case, but that's what the evidence shows. And my study of New
>Orleans is as complete as anyone elses.
>cannot
>be mistaken:
>Oswald may have been innocent.
>There may have been multiple shooters.
>There may have been a conspiracy.
>There may have been a malicious coverup.
>Garrison may have been right about Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha and other
>things.
>
>I
>think you overreach in your conclusions sometimes, and you sometimes leave
>out
>evidence which does not support your theses. But I respect your work, though
>I
>do not like your tendency to denounce the motives or intellectual capacity of
>others. There are others who know as much about aspects of the case as you do
>who do not share your conclusions. I stand by my contributions to the search
>for truth.
****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister.
If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly
above suspicion. But then, who is?
Dreitzes
>Message-id: <19981222124033...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
*******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
I find Roberts more credible than many researchers do, for reasons I've
discussed some on the mod page. Should people be interested, I'd be glad to
discuss the issue here.
********************************************************************
>>This may square with the very earliest
>>story that Jack S. Martin told the New Orleans DA's office following the
>>assassination - that Ferrie had trained Oswald with a rifle
>
>In context, this was Martin's erroneous belief that Oswald had been a member
>of
>the Falcons in 1960-1
>
*******************************************************************
DR responds:
I don't place much weight on Martin as a witness, though I give his earliest
statements more credence than others. I'm not certain we can judge his
motivation for making the phone call to the DA's office about Oswald and
Ferrie. He *said* it had to do with seeing someone -- probably Ed Voebel -- on
TV talking about Oswald being in the CAP. I simply marvel at the coincidence
that Martin should place Oswald with Ferrie in 1963 a year before the "544 Camp
St" address of Oswald's was published.
*******************************************************************
>>I agree, but I still wish to defer the Clinton debate until their statements
>>are available in full. From the bits that have been published, no firm
>>conclusions can be drawn.
>
>I have the Garrison stsements, the trial testimony and the HSCA statements. I
>see substantial inconsistencies.
>
>oo
>David
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
I would be happy to type in and post -- *accurately* -- every word of the
statements you have if you'll snail-mail me photocopies:
David Reitzes
21-24 30 Drive, Apt. 5-B
Astoria, NY 11102
I would like to get to the bottom of the Clinton story (and the Jackson ones as
well), if at all possible.
Dreitzes
>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 19:13 EST
>: >What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
>: >You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
>: >nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
>
>: You are wrong.
>: 1) I have not lied about anything.
>
>to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
>
>: government entity. I go with what the evidence shows.
>
>this point?
>
>
>: connection to the assassination, and argues otherwise. You may interpret
>the
>: evidence differently.
>
>conspirator the setting up of Oswald. Arcacha was one of the two people
>with Rose Cheramie before she was thrown from the car and ended in a
>hospital predicting in advance that Kennedy was going to be killed. And
>Arcacha had sewer maps of Dallas. Why would a New Orleans Cuban activist
>have sewer maps of Dallas?
>
>
>on
>: both sides, as a glance at Deja news will substantiate.
>
>for any who know the game.
>
>in
>: the garrison, case, but that's what the evidence shows. And my study of New
>: Orleans is as complete as anyone elses.
>
>new releases of documents support what Garrison was alleging in many areas.
>
>cannot
>: be mistaken:
>: Oswald may have been innocent.
>: There may have been multiple shooters.
>: There may have been a conspiracy.
>: There may have been a malicious coverup.
>: Garrison may have been right about Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha and
>other
>: things.
>
>
>
>
>There WAS a conspiracy.
>There WERE multiple shooters.
>There WAS a deliberate and thereby malicious coverup.
>
>Those who pretend to be fence sitters merely pose there so as not to make
>their agenda to obvious.
>
>Anyone who researchers this case even for a short time with any honest
>and sincerity rapidly concedes these three points.
>
>Those who do not pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded, unbiased. But
>that's just blarney to the uninitiated. It's also standard procedure for
>infiltration in this case. Many like you, who claimed to be unbiased and
>fair minded have later proven to have connections with intelligence
>agencies. These include Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Priscilla Johnson
>McMillan, William F. Buckley, and many others.
>
>You claim to respect my work so that you put me in the 'bad guy' seat
>opposing you. But I have no patience for those who deny evidence that
>points to the conspirators while pretending to be simply open-minded. I
>haven't met a real personlike that yet. People who are informed about the
>case have strong opinions. Whether they share them or hide them differs
>from person to person. But no one who has done this in the detail and to
>the length that you claim to can be uncertain at this point. It defies
>crediblity.
>
>
>--
> Lisa Pease
>
Dave Reitzes responds:
Uh, Lisa? Wouldn't spooks tend to reinforce their cover by *defending*
Garrison? Or are we just too slick for that? (Damn spooks -- they think of
*everything!*)
Zecplus
<19981222195536...@ng-fr1.aol.com>...>>Date: Tue, Dec 22, 1998 14:19 EST
[snipped]
>Dave Reitzes responds:
>
>Why is it that the folks who proclaim themselves truth-tellers are
invariably
>the first to distort the views and smear the credibility of others? Do they
>simply believe that no honest person could express dissenting opinions? Or
does
>the paranoia run deeper than that?
You're a fine one to talk!
François Carlier
F-Ca...@wanadoo.fr
Martin Shackelford
Have you ever tried to source a seven-part series AFTER the fact?
I worked on it for a while, but got bogged down. I may resume when I
have the opportunity. I'm not hiding anything, but I used hundreds of
sources.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Martin:
> : I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I think
> : we agree on some things and disagree on others. I am neither a CT or an LN,
>
> What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
> You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
> nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
--
Martin Shackelford
I've written to Fonzi about it. I'll have to wait and see what he
says.
Martin
James Crary
and orientation to the issues which interest you in this case?
James MacRyland Crary
Marc Reitzes
Dave:
Have you ever tried to source a seven-part series AFTER the fact?
I worked on it for a while, but got bogged down. I may resume when I
have the opportunity. I'm not hiding anything, but I used hundreds of
sources.
Martin
****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Martin,
First of all, I am currently involved in sourcing much of a forty-part,
500-page series after the fact.
Second, I never asked you to cite sources for your whole series, although
I think it would be an excellent idea. I asked for sources for the Shaw
article only, and only specifically requested sources for the statements
regarding QK/ENCHANT, ZR/CLIFF, a trip which the CIA allegedly paid for,
and possibly Shaw's alleged relationship with Guy Banister. Unless I am
forgetting something, that's all I requested. Perhaps I asked for more
info on Shaw's OSS career.
I'll be up front with you, Martin. You say that sources weren't necessary
because these articles were popular pieces, for a local paper I believe,
and this I understand. But I never asked you why the original printings
did not have sources. I have only tried to hint at the problem of using
such material for posting on research-oriented Web sites without adding
those sources.
If I can clarify the matter any further, please let me know. To repeat, I
would like to see you cite and quote your sources for the two highly
controversial issues of QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF, the trip allegedly paid
for by the CIA, the alleged relationship with Banister, and whatever
you've found about Shaw's OSS records.
I also would like to repeat my request that you describe the condition of
the President's right temple and forehead area in frames 335 and 337 of
the Zapruder film, if not also the appearance of the large alleged wound
and the condition of the President's head in general. I am not asking for
a medical opinion or an explanation of any kind. I would like to know
what you personally observe.
- Dave Reitzes
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
Stugrad98
Have you considered possibly sourcing by request. By this I mean, let people
ask you about what particular claims they find important or revealing and then
sourcing just those. The one that comes to my mind is the claim that
Bringuier staged fake protest fights in Argentina. I'd like to get
documentation on that. But, at least from my perspective, and it's no offense
to you in any way, most of what you say doesn't sway or change my opinions
either way, or for that matter, greatly strengthen what I already know or don't
know. Some do, and since I don't doubt your integrity, I wouldn't mind knowing
if the source for you is, in fact, of great credibility.
-Stu
>Dave:
>
> Have you ever tried to source a seven-part series AFTER the fact?
>I worked on it for a while, but got bogged down. I may resume when I
>have the opportunity. I'm not hiding anything, but I used hundreds of
>sources.
>
>Martin
>
>--
>Martin Shackelford
>
>"You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
>"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
Blackburst
>I value many of Dave Blackbursts posts to this group. Color [Lisa] too quick
to
>judge.
>
Thanx for the defense, Martin. I reciprocate on the value of your work on the
case.
Merry Christmas.
oo
David
Blackburst
>You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you
>to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous
posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
>Given that you have now lied twice about 1), why should we believe you on
>this point? [That you are not a CIA agent]
I didn't lie about "1)", and I do not lie when I say I have no connection with
nor desire to "protect" CIA.
>Nagell claimed to have a tape with Arcacha discussing with a fellow
>conspirator the setting up of Oswald.
"Claimed to have a tape." I'll stand by my analysis until I hear the tape.
>Arcacha was one of the two people
>with Rose Cheramie before she was thrown from the car and ended in a
>hospital predicting in advance that Kennedy was going to be killed.
A now-dead bartender told Francis Fruge that he thought a picture of Arcacha
looked like one of the people with Cheramie. Not very strong evidence against
Arcacha, who by other accounts was long separated from anti-Castro activities
and selling air conditioners in Houston.
>And
>Arcacha had sewer maps of Dallas.
Source?
>You are simply trying to maintain your cover. But it's rather gossamer,
>for any who know the game.
>
I have no cover. I am what I say I am. What qualifies you to be the ultimate
detector of disinfo agents?
>No -[David Blackburst's study of the New Orleans aspects of the case] is
completely one-sided without acknowledgement of how past and
>new releases of documents support what Garrison was alleging in many areas.
I am only addressing certain specific areas where I believe the prevailing
wisdom is contradicted by existing evidence. None of the new releases
contradict any of the points I have made.
>Those who pretend to be fence sitters merely pose there so as not to make
>their agenda to obvious.
>
I am not pretending. I am objective.
>There WAS a conspiracy.
>There WERE multiple shooters.
>There WAS a deliberate and thereby malicious coverup.
>Anyone who researchers this case even for a short time with any honest
>and sincerity rapidly concedes these three points.
>
Not true. There are many who do not find the evidence related to these areas
compelling enough to embrace them with certainty.
>Those who do not pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded, unbiased. But
>that's just blarney to the uninitiated.
How does one pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded and unbiased? I don't
know about intellectual, but I AM fair-minded and unbiased.
>It's also standard procedure for
>infiltration in this case.
Source?
>Many like you, who claimed to be unbiased and
>fair minded have later proven to have connections with intelligence
>agencies. These include Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Priscilla Johnson
>McMillan, William F. Buckley, and many others.
>
I don't recall Aynesworth, Phelan, Johnson or Buckley ever claiming to be
unbiased and fair-minded. They have never made any secret of their beliefs.
>You claim to respect my work so that you put me in the 'bad guy' seat
>opposing you.
I DO respect your ability to ferret out facts, organize and present them in
support of your theories. I do not respect your inclination to assault the
motives of others.
>But I have no patience for those who deny evidence that
>points to the conspirators while pretending to be simply open-minded.
I don't deny such evidence. I consider it in context.
>People who are informed about the
>case have strong opinions.
Many do. Some, however, do care about an objective search for truth.
>Whether they share them [their opinions] or hide them differs
>from person to person. But no one who has done this in the detail and to
>the length that you claim to can be uncertain at this point. It defies
>crediblity.
>
I may choose my words carefully, but I do not hide my opinions. There are few
absloutely clear facts in this case. Over time, I have become only MORE
objective.
Lisa Pease and I have been through this before, and it is pointless for me to
address this to her, so I will address this to the group.
I am committed to finding the truth, no matter where the chips may fall.
Sometimes, this includes correcting frequently-repeated information which is
contradicted by the available evidence, including information offered by
Garrison, Pease, DiEugenio and Probe. Sometimes this includes observations that
their analysis of evidence may not be completely accurate or objective. But
Lisa Pease is unable to accept informed criticism. She does not present facts -
she just calls people names.
I have posted a few tidbits of information other posters find valuable, whether
they agree with it or not. For this, Lisa Pease simply denounces me as "Spook
#2" and often claims to have access to information which proves her to know
the true facts of the case, very McCarthy-like. She seems to have given up
trying to portray me as someone lacking in intellectual ability, or not in
posession or command of the facts.
Lisa Pease and I have one thing in common: We both want to find the truth in
this case. We have one major difference: She hurls false and unproven
accusations against innocent people, both "suspects" in the case, and those in
this newsgroup. I don't.
There is right and wrong here. I leave it to others to judge which is which. I
call upon others in this group on all sides of the issue to support objective
and respectful discussion and debate about this case, and to EXPRESS their
disapproval of this anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-objective practice of
name calling.
If others are offended by my attempts to offer some valuable information to the
debate, I apologize. I was only trying to do what I thought was right. Thank
you all for listening.
David Blackburst
12/25/98
Martin Shackelford
JFK Place, The Assassination Web, Fair Play, JFK Lancer, Attention to
Details.
Martin
James Crary wrote:
--
Martin Shackelford
I was explaining why finding the specific sources you requested
was going to be difficult, not saying you asked for every source in the
series. The series was posted at the request of the websites--I agreed,
but at that time didn't have time to go back and source it all.
As for 335 and 337, it doesn't appear that you can see the
temple or forehead, as it's obscured by exploded matter from the wound.
What I've found regarding the sources is:
Shaw and Army Counterintelligence:
William Davy, Through the Looking Glass, p. 2
Shaw's trip paid for by CIA:
"Clay Shaw's DCS Career: An Analysis of a Recent File Release," by Bill
Davy, Probe, v. 3 #4
Shaw-Banister working relationship:
Andrew Sciambra memo published in Probe, v. 3 #3, p. 16.
Shaw and QK/ENCHANT:
Davy, Through the Looking Glass, pp. 54 (note 17), 36
CIA document in Probe, v. 3 #2, p. 21.
The ZR/CLIFF reference isn't one of the 235 I've sourced so far.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
When I haven't yet re-located the source for something, it doesn't matter
that it's only one point--it's no easier to find on the spur of the moment. The
Bringuier bit is one such--I thought it had come from Deadly Secrets by Hinckle and
Turner (and it may have--I may just have missed it), but didn't find it the night I
searched for it. I have a list of "toughies" that I need to go back and find.
Martin
Stugrad98 wrote:
> Martin:
>
> Have you considered possibly sourcing by request. By this I mean, let people
> ask you about what particular claims they find important or revealing and then
> sourcing just those. The one that comes to my mind is the claim that
> Bringuier staged fake protest fights in Argentina. I'd like to get
> documentation on that. But, at least from my perspective, and it's no offense
> to you in any way, most of what you say doesn't sway or change my opinions
> either way, or for that matter, greatly strengthen what I already know or don't
> know. Some do, and since I don't doubt your integrity, I wouldn't mind knowing
> if the source for you is, in fact, of great credibility.
>
> -Stu
>
> >Dave:
> >
> > Have you ever tried to source a seven-part series AFTER the fact?
> >I worked on it for a while, but got bogged down. I may resume when I
> >have the opportunity. I'm not hiding anything, but I used hundreds of
> >sources.
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >--
> >Martin Shackelford
> >
> >"You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> >"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
> ></PRE></HTML>
Amethyst
You say that Garrisons case is looking better --
How was Perry Russo better lately than in the 70s?
Or Vernon Bundy? Or Chas Speisel?
Do you think the jurors are/were shaking their heads saying: Jeeze we
shouldn't listened to that Vernon Bundy!
Just ans me this one question: Was there a party at Ferrie's in which he
and Shaw and Oswald participated in a discussion about killing JFK?
DOES ANYBODY OUT THERE BELIEVE SUCH A PARTY TOOK PLACE???????????????
Jerry
wrote:
>
> Not really, but I have things on several websites:
> JFK Place, The Assassination Web, Fair Play, JFK Lancer, Attention to
> Details.
>
> Martin
>
> James Crary wrote:
>
> > Mr. Shackleford : Do you have a website that provides general background
> > and orientation to the issues which interest you in this case?
> >
> > James MacRyland Crary
>
James Crary
assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his
direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar
circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that
Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had.
It was an abuse of power, and a violation of the public trust. He could
have waited. Evidence eventually surfaced to convict Medgar Evers'
killers. Had Garrison been in charge, that evidence would have probably
had to be destroyed in order to protect HIM.
James MacRyland Crary
Martin Shackelford
to try to discredit those who challenge your beliefs?
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister.
> : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly
> : above suspicion. But then, who is?
>
> There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
> look like a "buff". :D
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
--
Martin Shackelford
publication, not a journal article. I've already given the cites in another post. You're
slander attempts continue to be lame and uninformed. My journal articles are fully
footnoted.
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Martin Shackelford (msh...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : I value many of Dave Blackbursts posts to this group. Color you too quick to judge.
>
> : Martin
>
> Color yourself "I can't name my sources because it wasn't my original
> research."
Lisa Pease
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy Banister.
: If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're hardly
: above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
look like a "buff". :D
Lisa Pease
: I value many of Dave Blackbursts posts to this group. Color you too quick to judge.
: Martin
Color yourself "I can't name my sources because it wasn't my original
research."
Lisa Pease
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you
: >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous
: posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy. That
can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions. But anything
that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
misrepresentation through omission.
You claim to be objective, but you might as well claim to be handsome.
Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will
be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence, who see what you
omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
Objectivity cannot be claimed, only exhibited. Had you exhibited any, you
would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and
hypocrisy. You exhibit the latter while denying the former. A fact is a
fact, whether admitted to or not. A lie is also a lie, whether admitted
or not.
Lisa Pease
: Martin, Garrison's case has had 30 years of brilliant pro bono
: assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his
: direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar
: circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that
: Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had.
Three distinguished judges in New Orleans disagreed. That's why Garrison
held a pre-trial hearing. Normally a defendant has to request that. But
Garrison offered it to Shaw in good faith precisely to avoid any
appearance of a witch hunt. The three judges agreed that he had a case
worth having a trial over. That you cannot admit that does not obscure
the original facts of the case.
Bob Vernon
news:lpeaseF4...@netcom.com...
>Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy
Banister.
>: If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're
hardly
>: above suspicion. But then, who is?
>
>
>There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
>look like a "buff". :D
>
>
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
>
I think he was standing underneath the sheep's rear flanks when he was
dipped.....
Dr. Truth
James Crary
Three panel jury of judges agreed to hear the case, there must have been
SOMETHING, somewhere, to it. However, Dave Reitzes has repeatedly
challenged anyone who wants to to make a line by line refutation of the
evidence he presents in Shaw's favor. To the best of my knowledge no
one has, and I am not prepared, nor presently inclined to.
James MacRyland Crary
Blackburst
>You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
No I don't. I only respond to items of information that are not supported by
the evidence or are erroneous.
>That
>can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions.
I'm not pushing anyone anywhere. Perhaps a few of my posts might help people
think about erronoeous assertions.
>But anything
>that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
>deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
>misrepresentation through omission.
I'm not with you at all on this. The scanty evidence on Arcacha does not
convince me that he played a role in the assassination. Do you often refer to
the evidence that Arcacha was long removed from anti-Castro activities and
selling air conditioners in Houston in late 1963?
>Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will
>be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence
I consider myself objective, and so do others. Objectivity requires one to
challenge their own conclusions. Do you? Do you know the full scope of the
evidence?
>who see what you
>omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
You haven't specifically disproven anything I have posted. If you do, I will
concede any errors.
>Had you exhibited any [objectivity], you
>would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
>
I don't get your point. If I were more objective, that would please you?
>There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and
>hypocrisy.
We agree.
>You exhibit [lies] while denying [hypocrisy].
Can you cite an instance where I lied? As for hypocrisy, yes, I would have to
deny it. My posts are almost all soft-spoken and understated. I rarely come to
conclusions in them. How can that be hypocritical?
>A lie is also a lie, whether admitted
>or not.
I agree.
oo
DB
Marc Reitzes
Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy
Banister.
: If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're
hardly
: above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
look like a "buff". :D
-- Lisa Pease
*****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
My case officer asked me to find out if you have any actual evidence or
just more paranoid bullshit. I say he's putting way too much faith in you,
but hey -- a job's a job.
So? Where's all that evidence?
Marc Reitzes
Do you have any principles at all, Lisa, or do you just say anything you
can think of
to try to discredit those who challenge your beliefs?
Martin
******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Now, now, Martin. No less an authority than Bill Cleere insists that Lisa
'knows what she's talking about.' Let's give her a chance; she's probably
just getting warmed up. (Bill has sure been awfully quiet since she
showed up, though, hasn't he?)
*****************************************************************
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy
Banister.
> : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're
hardly
> : above suspicion. But then, who is?
>
> There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
> look like a "buff". :D
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
--
Marc Reitzes
Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show
you
: >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in
numerous
: posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
*******************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Lisa, where exactly is the "heart" of the conspiracy? Your "research"
fingers everyone from the Rockefellers to the oil barons to the stock
exchange to the CIA to the major media to every prominent politician of
the past four decades. Can you draw us all a diagram so we all know where
it is "conspiratorially correct" to cast stones? Meanwhile, how does
David Blackburst's insistence upon telling the truth -- regardless of
where it leads -- make him some kind of spook? That sounds like rather un-
"spooky" behavior to me. Is your infantile name-calling supposed to be
the honest path to enlightenment?
******************************************************************
That
can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions.
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
Unlike you and your "Paranoid's Digest," PROBE, which blames everyone
under the sun for every imaginable assassination committed over the past
half-century.
**************************************************************
But anything
that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
misrepresentation through omission.
**************************************************************
DR responds:
Let's see your evidence, Lisa: Show us that Arcacha was at "the heart of
the matter." What's the evidence? Rose Cheramie, perhaps? Do we just take
Big Jim Garrison's word? Oops -- silly question. We ALWAYS take Big Jim
Garrison's word. How about that Edgar Eugene Bradley, Lisa? Why did Big
Jim apologize to him? Was the Jolly Green Giant just playin' possum with
him?
***************************************************************
You claim to be objective, but you might as well claim to be handsome.
**************************************************************
DR responds:
Interesting . . .
***************************************************************
Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will
be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence, who see what you
omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
***********************************************************
DR responds:
We're waiting, Lisa. Where's that evidence? Why all the talk and no
action? You're not stalling, are you? Not when fans such as Bill Cleere
have been speaking so highly of you.
**********************************************************
Objectivity cannot be claimed, only exhibited. Had you exhibited any, you
would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
***********************************************************
DR responds:
Sure, Lisa, your posts here at a.c.jfk are nothing if not the soul of
objectivity and scholarship. And just look at all the evidence you've
presented to support your views! Why it must be at least . . . well, none,
actually. But that's going to change, right? Any minute now, right?
You're NOT all talk and no action, right? It's just an illusion you've
been cultivating to lure all us "spooks" into complacency, right?
Sure is working like a charm . . .
***********************************************************
There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and
hypocrisy.
*********************************************************
DR responds:
Looking in the mirror must be a devastating experience for you. Which is
not to imply that you aren't a "handsome" woman.
*********************************************************
You exhibit the latter while denying the former.
*******************************************************
DR responds:
You exhibit both while denying both. You win, Lisa -- you are still the
reigning Queen of Denial. Cleopatra never had a chance.
*******************************************************
A fact is a
fact, whether admitted to or not. A lie is also a lie, whether admitted
or not.
******************************************************
DR responds:
Yeah, and denial is ugly whether in a CT or an LN. Now, where are all
those FACTS you keep alluding to? Why are they such a secret? Did Big Jim
take them all with him to that big den of paranoia in the sky?
He must have -- they're not in his books, his office files or his trial
transcript.
Jim G and Lisa P -- All talk and no action.
Marc Reitzes
James Crary (dea...@webtv.net) wrote:
: Martin, Garrison's case has had 30 years of brilliant pro bono
: assistance from countless people, who want the verdict skewwed in his
: direction. Any parking ticket would look better under similar
: circumstances of intervention. The point I am trying to make is that
: Garrison had no right to take it to trial on the basis of what he had.
Three distinguished judges in New Orleans disagreed. That's why Garrison
held a pre-trial hearing. Normally a defendant has to request that. But
Garrison offered it to Shaw in good faith precisely to avoid any
appearance of a witch hunt. The three judges agreed that he had a case
worth having a trial over. That you cannot admit that does not obscure
the original facts of the case.
-- Lisa Pease
***************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Original facts? Would those original facts involve a certain "William
Morris"?
Or just Lisa Pease
Or just Perry Russo, the Pentathol King?
Marc Reitzes
James MacRyland Crary
****************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Re-read Garrison's fiction all you want, James. Who know -- maybe someday
you'll take my advice and compare it to Garrison's contemporaneous record
of the case. Meanwhile, is there a "William Morris" mentioned in
Garrison's first book? And do you think there is any truth to the rumor
that Garrison only called for the preliminary hearing to avoid a wrongful
prosecution suit later on? And why do you keep insisting these judges
must have seen SOMETHING, James, when what they DID see is a matter of
public record -- Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy? You surprise me, James: I
thought no one SERIOUSLY used the old "he must have SOMETHING" line
anymore.
Marc Reitzes
More bullshit, Lisa. The article in question was an unfootnoted article
for a popular
publication, not a journal article. I've already given the cites in
another post. You're
slander attempts continue to be lame and uninformed. My journal articles
are fully
footnoted.
Martin
**************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
And I don't recall Martin writing any paranoia pieces like your
unsupported insinuations about Clay Shaw and Freeport Sulphur. All the
footnotes in Orleans Parish couldn't set that ship afloat.
Marc Reitzes
Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
: Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy
Banister.
: If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're
hardly
: above suspicion. But then, who is?
There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
look like a "buff". :D
-- Lisa Pease
*******************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Much better to follow the Garrison crowd like good little sheep.
"How about some evidence, Lisa?"
"Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!!"
"Yeah, that's what you always say."
Amethyst
>
> Yeah, and denial is ugly whether in a CT or an LN. Now, where are all
> those FACTS you keep alluding to? Why are they such a secret? Did Big Jim
> take them all with him to that big den of paranoia in the sky?
>
> He must have -- they're not in his books, his office files or his trial
> transcript.
>
> Jim G and Lisa P -- All talk and no action.
>
> gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/11/SIGS/JFK/Only/JA/DR
Dave,
Don't you get it yet, Dave?
Big Jim had a terrific case - or would have had IF the bad guys had not
refused to extradite the witnesses he wanted AND stolen the documents
that proved conspiracy AND infiltrated his office and sent him off on
wild goose chases.
His being smeared and subjected to exposes proves he was onto something
BIG.
It was just a case where Big Jim was outgunned and a case of the bad
guys winning out over the good guys!
We all know in our hearts that the assassination of JFK began at a party
at Dave Ferrie's apt with a discussion between Shaw, Oswald and Ferrie
of how JFK could be killed in a crossfire.
And then we have that soul of integrity Vernon Bundy testifying under
oath - and even holding his hand over Clay Shaw's head so there could be
no mistake - that in furtherance of the conspiracy that Shaw met with
Oswald and handed him money to finance the plot.
All that stuff about Pete being a real junkie -- we can assume that the
bad guys who infiltrated the office planted documents about this claim
to undermine Big Jim.
Besides, we know that Big Jim was right about nearly everything because,
as Martin Shackleford writes, his case is coming together as never
before.
But above all, we know that Big Jim was right -- and even you have not
been able to
disprove it -- because Big Jim was later elected to a Judgeship.
And Oliver Stone vindicated Big Jim from all the nasty things that those
turncoats, Harold Weisberg and Edward Epstein wrote about him.
But beyond all that, Garrison has been vindicated because generations of
critics have been enervated by his theories that the CIA dunnit and that
it was a big Gov'ment plot that killed JFK, the man who was born to
bring Peace On Earth and Goodwill to Man.
Of course, had he lived, universal peace would reign and there wouldn't
be any need for weapons or armies of any kind.
So, OF COURSE, he had to be killed.
And, OF COURSE, any man bent on exposing the plot would be thwarted by
the bad guys, at every turn.
So, it follows as the day the night, that since Garrison was thwarted,
that he was onto something.
I urge you to adopt Martin Shackleford's MANTRA: Garrison's case is
coming together like never before.
Jerry
James Crary
issues she is keeping updates on? It struck me, in some areas, as being
very informative. For example, Ms. Pease discusses the San Jose Mercury
News story concerning the CIA and crack trafficking. CIA involvement in
the narco-syndicates is an interesting subject, and dovetails with the
Kennedy Assassination. Knowing what the issues are is half the battle.
Et tu, Dave?
James MacRyland Crary
James Crary
James MacRyland Crary
Lisa Pease
: In article <367F658A...@concentric.net>, msh...@concentric.net wrote:
: > Dave B.:
: >
: > I appreciate your comments. The Garrison piece was written in a
: > short period of time as a newsgroup post, primarily from memory, late at
: > night. John Kelin asked if he could run it, and I agreed. Clearly, I
: > should have gone over it more carefully before agreeing to publication.
: > As for the CAP photo, Posner continued to claim no evidence of an
: > Oswald-Ferrie connection after he was on the same "Frontline" program
: > that first showed the photo!
: > As for the anti-Castro film, I wasn't citing the film as
: > evidence, just noting Tannenbaum's statement. He apparently feels that
: > the film was "lost" during the Blakey period of the HSCA,
: But others must have seen it.
: Have you talked to Fonzi or any other HSCA people who might corroborate
: this claim?
Groden vaguely remembered seeing it when asked about it by DiEugenio
about two years back...
Lisa Pease
: Ms. Pease, I am going to re-read Heritage of Stone, and agree that if a
: Three panel jury of judges agreed to hear the case, there must have been
: SOMETHING, somewhere, to it.
A three-judge panel held a hearing to determine whether they felt there
was sufficient evidence to recommend proceding to trial. They found there
was, and Garrison went ahead. That's part of the record. Don't tell me
Retizes denies that - that would be too lovely. ;)
Lisa Pease
: Lisa Pease angrily wrote:
: >You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
: No I don't. I only respond to items of information that are not supported by
: the evidence or are erroneous.
: >That
: >can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions.
: I'm not pushing anyone anywhere. Perhaps a few of my posts might help people
: think about erronoeous assertions.
: >But anything
: >that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
: >deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
: >misrepresentation through omission.
: I'm not with you at all on this. The scanty evidence on Arcacha does not
: convince me that he played a role in the assassination. Do you often refer to
: the evidence that Arcacha was long removed from anti-Castro activities and
: selling air conditioners in Houston in late 1963?
I will not take the word of a man in a car that tried to run over Rose
Cheramie, after which she complained that the men she was with were going
to kill Kennedy that he was ONLY selling air conditioners in late 1963.
Would you let OJ testify to the results of his own DNA test?
Lisa Pease
: Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
: : Lisa Pease wrote:
: : >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show
: you
: : >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: : No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in
: numerous
: : posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
: You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
: *******************************************************************
: Dave Reitzes responds:
: Lisa, where exactly is the "heart" of the conspiracy?
Heart was an exceedingly poor choice of words. The rot at the center of
the conspiracy points to the part of the CIA most actively trying to get
rid of Castro.
Martin Shackelford
posting the past few days. It's well beneath anything he would post, and he
is wise not to be associating himself with it.
Martin
Marc Reitzes wrote:
> Do you have any principles at all, Lisa, or do you just say anything you
> can think of
> to try to discredit those who challenge your beliefs?
>
> Martin
>
> ******************************************************************
>
> Dave Reitzes responds:
>
> Now, now, Martin. No less an authority than Bill Cleere insists that Lisa
> 'knows what she's talking about.' Let's give her a chance; she's probably
> just getting warmed up. (Bill has sure been awfully quiet since she
> showed up, though, hasn't he?)
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> Lisa Pease wrote:
>
> > Dreitzes (drei...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Good luck, Dave: You may as well be preaching racial tolerance to Guy
> Banister.
> > : If she can declare a dyed-in-the-wool "buff" like me a spook, you're
> hardly
> > : above suspicion. But then, who is?
> >
> > There you have it. By his own word, Dreitzes has been sheep-dipped to
> > look like a "buff". :D
> >
> > --
> > Lisa Pease
> >
> > "Human history becomes more and more a
> > race between education and catastrophe."
> >
> > - H. G. Wells
> >
> > Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
> >
> > Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
>
Martin Shackelford
on her website, and good things she has done in Probe. What we are talking
about is the kind of insanity she periodically erupts into on this
newsgroup.
Martin
James Crary wrote:
--
Martin Shackelford
Dave Phillips a prime suspect, for example; ditto Dave Morales), how am I
leading people away from "the heart of the conspiracy"?
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Marc Reitzes (ERX...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>
> : Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
> : : Lisa Pease wrote:
> : : >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show
> : you
> : : >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
>
> : : No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in
> : numerous
> : : posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
>
> : You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
>
> : *******************************************************************
>
> : Dave Reitzes responds:
>
> : Lisa, where exactly is the "heart" of the conspiracy?
>
> Heart was an exceedingly poor choice of words. The rot at the center of
> the conspiracy points to the part of the CIA most actively trying to get
> rid of Castro.
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
>
> "Human history becomes more and more a
> race between education and catastrophe."
>
> - H. G. Wells
>
> Real History Archives: www.RealHistoryArchives.com
>
> Probe/CTKA: www.webcom.com/ctka
--
Bob Vernon
news:17250-36...@newsd-132.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>Mr. Reitzes, have you visited Ms. Pease's site and are you aware of the
>issues she is keeping updates on? It struck me, in some areas, as being
>very informative. For example, Ms. Pease discusses the San Jose Mercury
>News story concerning the CIA and crack trafficking. CIA involvement in
>the narco-syndicates is an interesting subject, and dovetails with the
>Kennedy Assassination. Knowing what the issues are is half the battle.
>Et tu, Dave?
>
>James MacRyland Crary
Mr. JMC:
Please don't overlook Ms. Pease's OUTSTANDING piece of research on David
Atlee Phillips, Freeport-McMoran - Clay Shaw and etc. It's a MUST READ for
anyone seriously interested in the truth. A remarkable piece of work....one
of the best I've ever seen.
It's unfortunate old CIA asset DaveR doesn't have the integrity she has in
his own "research" - if you could call it that.
Dr. Truth
Marc Reitzes
Mr. Reitzes, have you visited Ms. Pease's site and are you aware of the
issues she is keeping updates on?
************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Yes. I also wish she would update her PROBE site already. We spooks love
the free articles.
************************************************
It struck me, in some areas, as being
very informative.
************************************************
DR responds:
Undoubtedly, when one can trust it.
***********************************************
For example, Ms. Pease discusses the San Jose Mercury
News story concerning the CIA and crack trafficking.
***********************************************
DR responds:
She and how many other people?
**********************************************
CIA involvement in
the narco-syndicates is an interesting subject, and dovetails with the
Kennedy Assassination.
*********************************************
DR responds:
What issue DOESN'T dovetail with the Kennedy assassination in your view,
James? The "great taste" vs. "less filling" debate? The decline of
quality on the daily comics page? The "mysterious death" of Kurt Cobain?
Why do you feel your speculation is worth any more than anyone else's?
*******************************************
Knowing what the issues are is half the battle.
******************************************
DR responds:
I know, I know, that's why you keep dragging out the warhorse topic of an
eight-year-old theatrical release, right?
*****************************************
Et tu, Dave?
James MacRyland Crary
******************************************
DR responds:
Sorry, James, if that's an accusation, you're going to have to be a
little clearer. Seeing as how you haven't been privy to anything I've
done previous to the last six months or so, I guess you've recanted on
your no-more-unwarranted-assumptions-about-people vow. Hey, it's your
life. You can always turn to Lisa for the truth, right?
Blackburst
>I will not take the word of a man in a car that tried to run over Rose
>Cheramie, after which she complained that the men she was with were going
>to kill Kennedy that he was ONLY selling air conditioners in late 1963.
You are taking one identification of a photograph, 4 years later, from a
now-deceased bartender who cannot be cross-examined, as PROOF POSITIVE that
Sergio Arcacha Smith was GUILTY of ATTEMPTED MURDER in trying to run down
Cheramie? That is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, in your eyes?
oo
DB
Blackburst
>Groden vaguely remembered seeing it when asked about it by DiEugenio
>about two years back...
>
Lessee: DiEugenio told you that Groden only "vaguely remembered" seeing a film
of such apparent importance. Well, that's certainly solid evidence and proof
positive of a film showing Ferrie and Oswald at a training camp...
oo
DB
Martin Shackelford
Sorry, musta stayed up too late that night. The comment was in response
to a Blackburst post.
As to whether I'm a "spook defender," it depends on whether your "spook"
accusations are accurate--and I've seen no evidence that they are.
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Martin Shackelford (msh...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : If we are in general agreement about that, too, Lisa (I've long considered
> : Dave Phillips a prime suspect, for example; ditto Dave Morales), how am I
> : leading people away from "the heart of the conspiracy"?
>
> When did I say YOU were leading people away from the conspiracy's center?
> I said that about Blackburst. I have called you a spook defender, and you
> are. Does that make you a spook? I don't know. But I know that when you
> defend peole who have misinformed, you do us no service. When you do
> straight research, that Is a service.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Lisa Pease wrote:
> Martin Shackelford (msh...@concentric.net) wrote:
> : No one is saying that Lisa hasn't done some good work. There are good things
> : on her website, and good things she has done in Probe. What we are talking
> : about is the kind of insanity she periodically erupts into on this
> : newsgroup.
>
> I understand how frustrating it must be when you've gotten a certain
> amount of agreement going about how the emperor is clothed, and then I
> come in saying he's buck naked. It must be really annoying. :)
Lisa Pease
Conclusive evidence in light of several unrelated events, only one of
which is this. If there was only one source on Arcacha, that would not be
enough. But when this is just one incredibly significant report out of
many equally significant reports as to his involvement from different
angles, either you have a massive, vast-ranging conspiracy of
unconnected, anonymous people to frame Arcahca, or he WAS part of the
conspiracy and the various accounts from people unfamiliar with each
other make sense.
This is typical. You isolated one of the several points I made and try to
single it out as if it stands alone. That's a standard disinfo combat tactic.
Even the Secret Service was onto him long before Garrison got involved.
Lisa Pease
: >about two years back...
: >
No. Tanenbaum's statement was all I needed for evidence. There are some
people whose recollection I would stake my life on, and he's one of them.
Lisa Pease
: If we are in general agreement about that, too, Lisa (I've long considered
: Dave Phillips a prime suspect, for example; ditto Dave Morales), how am I
: leading people away from "the heart of the conspiracy"?
When did I say YOU were leading people away from the conspiracy's center?
I said that about Blackburst. I have called you a spook defender, and you
are. Does that make you a spook? I don't know. But I know that when you
defend peole who have misinformed, you do us no service. When you do
straight research, that Is a service.
Lisa Pease
: No one is saying that Lisa hasn't done some good work. There are good things
: on her website, and good things she has done in Probe. What we are talking
: about is the kind of insanity she periodically erupts into on this
: newsgroup.
I understand how frustrating it must be when you've gotten a certain
amount of agreement going about how the emperor is clothed, and then I
come in saying he's buck naked. It must be really annoying. :)
--
Blackburst
>: You are taking one identification of a photograph, 4 years later, from a
>: now-deceased bartender who cannot be cross-examined, as PROOF POSITIVE that
>: Sergio Arcacha Smith was GUILTY of ATTEMPTED MURDER in trying to run down
>: Cheramie? That is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, in your eyes?
Lisa Pease replied:
>Conclusive evidence in light of several unrelated events, only one of
>which is this.
So you do take this one bit of evidence as sufficient to accuse a man of
attempted murder?
>But when this is just one incredibly significant report out of
>many equally significant reports as to his involvement from different
>angles, either you have a massive, vast-ranging conspiracy of
>unconnected, anonymous people to frame Arcahca, or he WAS part of the
>conspiracy and the various accounts from people unfamiliar with each
>other make sense.
No, they don't make sense. You failed to mention a third possibility: That the
evidence on Arcacha does not support the idea that he played a role in the
assassination.
>This is typical.
Of what?
>You isolated one of the several points I made and try to
>single it out as if it stands alone. That's a standard disinfo combat tactic.
In American jurisprudence, "several unrelated" fragments of evidence are not
considered in toto until they are first considered and tested individually.
None of the fragments of evidence to which you refer provide anything near
convincing evidence (in the legal sense) of guilt in the assassination on
Arcacha's part. You ought not accuse people of crimes until you have the proof.
>That's a standard disinfo combat tactic.
>
I don't engage in disinfo tactics. What qualifies you to be the ultimate
detector of them?
oo
DB
Blackburst
>When did I say YOU [Martin Shackelford] were leading people away from the
conspiracy's center?
>I said that about Blackburst.
You are wrong. I am not leading anyone anywhere. I have not addressed the
possibility of conspiracy. I have tried to correct a few inaccurate notions
about the New Orleans case.
>But I know that when you [Martin]
>defend people who have misinformed [presumably me, Blackburst].
I have misinformed no one. You have accused me of lying several times. Can you
tell me any bit of information I have cited that is a lie?
oo
DB
Blackburst
>Tanenbaum's statement [that HSCA had a film showing Oswald and Ferrie at an
anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get some
corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
By the way, if a film of such importance was in the posession of HSCA, why
didn't they produce it? Why didn't they even mention it in their report? Why do
some HSCA staffers know nothing about it? Does any of this suggest that
Tannenbaum may be mistaken?
oo
DB
James Crary
triumphed in his defense of Clay Shaw, and Lisa is convinced of Shaw's
guilt. Hence: the emporer has no clothes.
James MacRyland Crary
Lisa Pease
: Lisa:
: Sorry, musta stayed up too late that night. The comment was in response
: to a Blackburst post.
: As to whether I'm a "spook defender," it depends on whether your "spook"
: accusations are accurate--and I've seen no evidence that they are.
Which would fit, wouldn't it? :)
Lisa Pease
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >When did I say YOU [Martin Shackelford] were leading people away from the
: conspiracy's center?
: >I said that about Blackburst.
: You are wrong. I am not leading anyone anywhere. I have not addressed the
: possibility of conspiracy. I have tried to correct a few inaccurate notions
: about the New Orleans case.
No - you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvios to
most, so I won't belabor the point.
Lisa Pease
: anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
: Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get some
: corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell his
name right. He was one of the few people with the awesome integrity to
turn down the HSCA and leave when he saw that truth was no longer part of
the agenda. He is one of the few people on the planet who still thinks
honesty is next to godliness.
Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration. Your
(feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
Vern Pascal
personal...............................................Jeff
Marc Reitzes
>This is typical.
Of what?
************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Well thought out and well said. Even if the CIA or some other entity is
actively plotting against you, standards of jurisprudence cannot be
sacrificed for the sake of one's personal convictions, otherwise
democracy and human rights are sacrificed along with them. That's as true
of my own convictions or David Blackburst's as it is of Lisa Pease's or
Jim Garrison's -- or J. Edgar Hoover's or Lyndon B. Johnson's or Earl
Warren's.
Marc Reitzes
>This is typical.
Of what?
I don't engage in disinfo tactics. What qualifies you to be the ultimate
detector of them?
oo
DB
**************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
In my two months on this NG, I have never seen David Blackburst argue for
anything except reliance on the factual record. He has pointed out a
number of inaccuracies in my own posts and enriched my knowledge in
several ways relevant to the New Orleans mise en scene. Anyone who can't
deal with the facts should ask themselves if they're really up to this
task called research.
Personally, I figure it's Lisa's call whether or not she wants to have
any kind of civil relationship with Mr. Blackburst, as he's answering her
questions with far more patience than most people would. But if she
prefers an antagonistic relationship to one who only searches for the
truth, as Blackburst does, she's going to deprive herself of a remarkably
reliable source of information, if not much more than that.
Even Jim Garrison never said that "black is white" only when one wants it
to be. The historical record is there for those who hunt it out. Calling
someone names for quoting from it strikes me as being more than a little
counterproductive, not to mention disrespectful and potentially self-
destructive.
Marc Reitzes
Lisa Pease wrote:
>When did I say YOU [Martin Shackelford] were leading people away from
the
conspiracy's center?
>I said that about Blackburst.
You are wrong. I am not leading anyone anywhere. I have not addressed
the
possibility of conspiracy. I have tried to correct a few inaccurate
notions
about the New Orleans case.
>But I know that when you [Martin]
>defend people who have misinformed [presumably me, Blackburst].
I have misinformed no one. You have accused me of lying several times.
Can you
tell me any bit of information I have cited that is a lie?
oo
DB
*****************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Seeing how Blackburst generally restricts his posts to presenting the
historical record (in a forum that badly needs such posts), I would
suggest that Lisa's time might be better spent taking issue with the
record rather than smearing those who cite it. Is this really such a far-
fetched concept?
Marc Reitzes
Lisa Pease wrote:
>Tanenbaum's statement [that HSCA had a film showing Oswald and Ferrie at
an
anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get some
corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
By the way, if a film of such importance was in the posession of HSCA,
why
didn't they produce it? Why didn't they even mention it in their report?
Why do
some HSCA staffers know nothing about it? Does any of this suggest that
Tannenbaum may be mistaken?
oo
DB
****************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Robert Tanenbaum (One "N," like "Banister") is not the only person who
claimed to have seen it. Col. William Bishop, believed to be a longtime
CIA operative (no, I don't remember ever seeing any documentation for
this), offhandedly mentioned it to Dick Russell in a 1990 interview (see
*The Man Who Knew Too Much*). I don't claim that Bishop is especially
credible; he also claimed to have personally murdered Jimmy Hoffa. But I
believe that Bishop was dead before Tanenbaum went public with his story
about the film in the mid-1990s.
At any rate, no one contests that the alleged film disappeared sometime
after Tanenbaum resigned from the HSCA. Blakey and relevant others claim
no knowledge of it. Tanenbaum asked the ARRB to look for it. I trust that
they did -- they expressed interest in it when Tanenbaum appeared before
the Committee in LA -- see ARRB testimony at John McAdams' site:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
But obviously no trace of the film has ever turned up. The question is
not, therefore, whether Tanenbaum is mistaken, since no such film -- with
or without Oswald -- is known. The question is whether he (or an
associate) invented the story, and whether Col. Bishop somehow heard of
it and pretended to have seen it for whatever reason.
Newcomer's should check out the article entitled "The Memory Hole" at the
URL below for Tanenbaum's description of the film, taken from his novel,
*Corruption of Blood.* Tanenbaum told Jim DiEugenio (in an interview
available at the PROBE Web site) that the description in his novel was
accurate.
Marc Reitzes
Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >When did I say YOU [Martin Shackelford] were leading people away from
the
: conspiracy's center?
: >I said that about Blackburst.
: You are wrong. I am not leading anyone anywhere. I have not addressed
the
: possibility of conspiracy. I have tried to correct a few inaccurate
notions
: about the New Orleans case.
No - you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvios to
most, so I won't belabor the point.
-- Lisa Pease
*********************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Not all evidence that leads away from conspiracy is false. The choice is
whether to let the facts guide the theories or let the theories guide the
facts. If you can't disprove or even credibly dispute the facts, it
hardly takes a "spook" to win an argument, does it? Yet in your view this
NG is just flooded with spooks. Why is that? Is everyone who disagrees
with Lisa Pease a spook? Get over yourself.
Marc Reitzes
: anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
: Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get
some
: corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell his
name right. He was one of the few people with the awesome integrity to
turn down the HSCA and leave when he saw that truth was no longer part of
the agenda. He is one of the few people on the planet who still thinks
honesty is next to godliness.
Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration. Your
(feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
-- Lisa Pease
************************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
I can't speak for David Blackburst -- even if Lisa would assert we're
both "spooks" -- but I personally said in a post on the mod site about
month ago that "Tanenbaum's credibility is 100% as far as I'm concerned."
But my opinion does not make it fact. Even the corroborating evidence of
Col. William Bishop's claim (in 1990, to Dick Russell) that he'd seen
such a film himself in the summer of 1963 does not indicate for certain
that Tanenbaum's story is truthful or that Lee Harvey Oswald (or Ferrie
or Banister, etc.) was necessarily in the film. We have to be objective.
I believe the film existed and I present the evidence in my post entitled
"The Memory Hole" at the URL below. I do not, however, claim that the
film's existence or onetime existence is a fact beyond dispute. That
would seem to be a slightly unreasonable position, whatever my regard for
Tanenbaum -- or my belief in Col. Bishop's credibility, for that matter,
about which I would call myself 'undecided.'
Tony Pitman
> Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Lisa Pease wrote:
> : >Tanenbaum's statement [that HSCA had a film showing Oswald and
> Ferrie at an
> : anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
>
> : Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get
> some
> : corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
>
> You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell
> his
> name right. He was one of the few people with the awesome integrity to
>
> turn down the HSCA and leave when he saw that truth was no longer part
> of
> the agenda. He is one of the few people on the planet who still thinks
>
> honesty is next to godliness.
>
> Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
> honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration. Your
> (feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
>
> --
> Lisa Pease
Lisa,
Didn't the ARRB get hold of this film along with the rest of the stuff
from the HSCA?
Or is it still classified, or maybe, did they not get everything from
the HSCA after all?
Tony
Marc Reitzes
Lisa,
Didn't the ARRB get hold of this film along with the rest of the stuff
from the HSCA?
Or is it still classified, or maybe, did they not get everything from
the HSCA after all?
Tony
*****************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
No one contests that the film is "gone, Daddy, gone," and has been for
about twenty-one years.
Newcomers, please see "The Memory Hole" at the URL below.
Blackburst
>you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
>evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvios to
>most, so I won't belabor the point.
>
So basically, you are accusing me of something, but you won't provide any
specifics?
To whom besides you is it obvious?
oo
DB
Blackburst
>You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell his
>name right.
I apologize for holding the "n" key down a fraction of a second too long. As I
said, my eyesight is failing. By the way, you misspelled a couple of words in
another post.
>Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
>honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration.
The man alleges that a film of crucial importance existed, but it is now
missing. HSCA staffers like Fonzi and Lopez don't recall seeing it. Keeping in
mind that Tanenbaum is an ardent conspiracy advocate, you don't think a bit of
corobboration might be useful before we go pronouncing the film as proving
Ferrie's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
>Your
>(feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
>
I'm quite familiar with Tanenbaum. Why would I feign ignorance of him?
oo
DB
Martin Shackelford
I would agree on Tanenbaum. Everything I've seen, and my
contacts with him at conferences, suggest an individual of considerable
integrity.
Martin
Vern Pascal wrote:
> Tanenbaum exudes integrity. Seen it up close and
> personal...............................................Jeff
--
Martin Shackelford
something wasn't included in the files turned over to the Archives when the
HSCA went out of business (and the "Fenton Report" seems to be another such
example), it wouldn't be there for ARRB to release.
Martin
Tony Pitman wrote:
> Lisa Pease wrote:
>
> > Blackburst (black...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : Lisa Pease wrote:
> > : >Tanenbaum's statement [that HSCA had a film showing Oswald and
> > Ferrie at an
> > : anti-Castro training camp] was all I needed for evidence.
> >
> > : Most people would reserve judgement until they see the film, of get
> > some
> > : corobboration from someone less eager to please than Tannenbaum.
> >
> > You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell
> > his
> > name right. He was one of the few people with the awesome integrity to
> >
> > turn down the HSCA and leave when he saw that truth was no longer part
> > of
> > the agenda. He is one of the few people on the planet who still thinks
> >
> > honesty is next to godliness.
> >
> > Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
> > honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration. Your
> > (feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
> >
> > --
> > Lisa Pease
>
> Lisa,
>
> Didn't the ARRB get hold of this film along with the rest of the stuff
> from the HSCA?
> Or is it still classified, or maybe, did they not get everything from
> the HSCA after all?
>
> Tony
--
Martin Shackelford
I wouldn't expect Fonzi (working on Florida leads) or Lopez (focusing on
Mexico City materials) to have seen the film, which would have been more in the
area of Cliff Fenton and L.J. Delsa, who focused on New Orleans. Fonzi suggested
Delsa as the most likely person to have further information.
Martin
Blackburst wrote:
> Lisa Pease wrote:
> >You clearly don't know anything about Tanenbaum. You can't even spell his
> >name right.
>
> I apologize for holding the "n" key down a fraction of a second too long. As I
> said, my eyesight is failing. By the way, you misspelled a couple of words in
> another post.
>
> >Most people who knew Tanenbaum who felt similarly about the value of
> >honesty in these matters would need no further corroboration.
>
> The man alleges that a film of crucial importance existed, but it is now
> missing. HSCA staffers like Fonzi and Lopez don't recall seeing it. Keeping in
> mind that Tanenbaum is an ardent conspiracy advocate, you don't think a bit of
> corobboration might be useful before we go pronouncing the film as proving
> Ferrie's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
>
> >Your
> >(feigned?) ignorance of this about him speaks volumes.
> >
>
> I'm quite familiar with Tanenbaum. Why would I feign ignorance of him?
>
> oo
> DB
--
David Starks
> Does that make you a spook? I don't know.
Lisa,
You accuse Martin of being a spook, and
then back off into uncertainty. If you
weren't sure about it before, how could you
be so reckless and inconsiderate to accuse him
in the first place? That's cruel sloppiness!
Are you feeling foolish about all this yet?
If not, you should be. And... you owe many
people apologies now, don't you? Especially
Paul Hoch and Martin Shackelford. I'm still
waiting for you to accuse me of being a spook.
I'm a "spook-defender" in your book, right?
What does that make me? Go ahead and say it.
Or discover rationality, be sensible and
stop slandering and smearing good people.
You have no idea who is a spook and who isn't.
You're recklessly guessing. You are probably
wrong the *majority* of the time. This discredits
your otherwise interesting work in the eyes of
many resonable people. It's not too late to
realize your mistakes and take steps to make
amends. Think about it, seriously! Otherwise,
you are just going to continue to turn people
off to *everything* you say. Time to grow up.
--
David Starks
Visit The Assassination Web at: http://home.cynet.net/jfk/ and see:
The free Electronic Assassinations Newsletter:
http://home.cynet.net/jfk/front.htm
The Electronic Assassination Bookstore: http://home.cynet.net/jfk/eb.htm
Assassination documentary video and conference tapes available.
Information on how to support COPA, the Coalition On Political
Assassinations.
Blackburst
> I wouldn't expect Fonzi (working on Florida leads) or Lopez (focusing on
>Mexico City materials) to have seen the film, which would have been more in
>the
>area of Cliff Fenton and L.J. Delsa, who focused on New Orleans. Fonzi
>suggested
>Delsa as the most likely person to have further information.
>
A point well taken, Martin.
But my point was that this film of such crucial evidenciary importance,
allagedly showing Oswald at an anti-Castro training camp, and with Ferrie
nonetheless, would presumably have made quite an impression on the HSCA
investigators. But nobody seems to recall it except Tananbaum and perhaps one
other. Not only would it have been at least talked about by the investigators,
but I would presume HSCA would have at least memtioned it, if not published
stills from it.
And as for Delsa, I get the impression from the documents he generated that he
is also very eager to find conspiracy info.
None of which is to suggest that such a film does not exist, but the lack of
corroboration or even mention by others makes me wonder if such a film might
not be as conclusive as Tanenbaum and some in this group seem to think it is.
I'd rather see it before I go pronouncing Oswald an anti-Castro activist or
calling Ferrie guilty. Wishful thinking can sometimes turn grainy faces into
familiar faces. Consider the 1949 party pictures thought to show Shaw, Oswald
and Ferrie.
oo
David
Marc Reitzes
oo
David
**************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
A little caution, of course, never hurt anyone.
Martin Shackelford
Georgetown University Library, presumably by a staff researcher. Maybe
it was never shown to investigators--especially if it was discovered
shortly before Blakey took over and tightly compartmentalized the
investigation. Blakey, however, might know what happened to it. Don't
know if he'd tell, though.
Martin
