Paese Sera
John McAdams
Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
Just how reliable was the paper?
The following quotes are from “History of the Italian Press” (compiled
by several authors and published between the 70’s and the 80’s in six
volumes by Laterza, Bari).
Some of the points they make are:
-- “Paese Sera” was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
Party’s initiative.
-- Between the 60’s and 70’s it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
today around 800,000 copies a day.)
-- Its main style, “based on the exploitation of common crime news, on
some flexibility in the political evaluation of facts involving
left-wing parties, and, obviously, on a strongly polemical mien toward
the groups in power, was more suited to the readers of Rome.” (Ibid.,
vol. 5, p. 241.)
-- It sought a “popular and direct impact” and “the titles and the
editorials of ‘Paese Sera’ generally had a sarcastic and protesting
tone, as Romans like it best, whether they belong to the bourgeoisie
or to the proletariat, that sometimes turns into a left-winged
defeatism.” (Ibid., p. 248.)
-- In the description of the 60’s and 70’s press styles, it is said
that “magazines and sensationalistic evening papers [“Paese Sera” was
an evening paper – note mine] make the reader grow into the habit of
looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or made-up
backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
framework, with plenty of pictures and ‘disclosures,’ aggressive and
funny titles, and extremely lively page setups. Emblematic, with
regard to this, are “Milano Sera,” “Il Corriere Lombardo,” “Corriere
d’Informazione,” “La Notte” in Milan, “Paese Sera” in Rome. (Ibid.,
vol. 6, p. 342.)
-- In 1956, while “L’Unità” (newspaper organ of the Communist Party)
didn’t even mention the Khrushchev report. “Paese Sera,” against the
opinion of some of the leaders of the Communist Party, reprinted its
main passages, with the intent of not leaving its diffusion and
critique in the hands of the bourgeois papers. (Ibid., p. 280.)
-- With regard to the insurrection in Poznan, “Paese Sera”
acknowledged its popular origin, but held common front with Moscow and
with “L’Unità” as to the necessity of a repression. (Ibid., p. 282.)
So it seems to combine the style of an American tabloid with the
politics of the DAILY WORLD.
.John
AnthonyMarsh
confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
tabloid if it never published the article? And if it was this tabloid
which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Dave Reitzes
>
>And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more? At least you
>confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
>non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
>not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
>tabloid if it never published the article? And if it was this tabloid
>which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
>expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
>expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
>or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>
>
*Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
*Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
evidence for this assertion.
I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're taking the same stance as one or
two others around these parts have, which might be summed up as, "If we
can't disprove the article, it's only fair to assume it to be true."
I can't help but think that it is the burden of the accuser to produce
such evidence.
Dave
John McAdams
>
> And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more?
If pointing out that a particular source is a Communist source, with a
dubious record for getting the facts straight, and one that has
supported communist repression is "red baiting" then I'm guilty.
Why are you unhappy about this?
> At least you
> confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
> non-existent.
Who has ever claimed that?
DiEugenio and Flammond claim the "Permindex" charges are from Paesa Sera
[sic]. No such paper exists, but they clearly have just mangled the name
of a real paper.
What does that say about their reliability?
> Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
> not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
> tabloid if it never published the article?
Of course it published the article. That's long been known. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lobster.htm
> And if it was this tabloid
> which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
> expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper?
That's the point. I *would* expect an article like that to come from
this type of newspaper.
> Would you have
> expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
> or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>
OIC. You are going to believe a Communist tabloid over papers like (for
example) Corriere Della Sera?
Why do you prefer Communist sources to non-Communist ones?
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Stager
>*Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
>to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
>*Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
>evidence for this assertion.
And no one has produced an actual copy of the Paese Sera newspaper with
this story either.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
> >
> >And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more? At least you
> >confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
> >not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
> >which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
> >expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
> >or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
> >
> >
>
> to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
> *Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
> evidence for this assertion.
>
> two others around these parts have, which might be summed up as, "If we
> can't disprove the article, it's only fair to assume it to be true."
>
> I can't help but think that it is the burden of the accuser to produce
> such evidence.
>
> Dave
>
No, I am not the accuser. I am asking questions of the debunkers. I am
asking them to get their stories straight. Are they trying to claim that
such a newspaper never existed? Are they trying to claim that it never
wrote the article? Have they ever read the article themselves? If not, how
can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
offered, if any? I see nothing wrong with debunking phony stories, but
when people do so I hope they can stick to the facts.
It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
them directly and honestly.
Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
discrediting WC critics, to criticize anything which hints at a
conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
here actually read the Paese Sera article?
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>
>> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>> >
>> >And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more? At least you
>> >confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
>> >non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
>> >not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
>> >tabloid if it never published the article? And if it was this tabloid
>> >which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
>> >expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
>> >expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
>> >or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> *Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
>> to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
>> *Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
>> evidence for this assertion.
>>
>> I may be wrong, but it sounds like you're taking the same stance as one or
>> two others around these parts have, which might be summed up as, "If we
>> can't disprove the article, it's only fair to assume it to be true."
>>
>> I can't help but think that it is the burden of the accuser to produce
>> such evidence.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>No, I am not the accuser. I am asking questions of the debunkers. I am
>asking them to get their stories straight.
I see. The "debunkers" are a monolithic unit, sort of like a conspiracy.
Gotcha.
Are they trying to claim that
>such a newspaper never existed?
I know of one person who has made that claim.
>Are they trying to claim that it never
>wrote the article?
I don't know that anyone has ever made that claim.
>Have they ever read the article >themselves?
I do not know of a single person, on any side of the issue, who has read
any of the *Paese Sera* articles -- plural -- him- or herself. (The pool
of candidates, BTW, would be limited to those who read Italian. I know of
a couple Italian-reading people who have searched libraries in Italy for
copies of these articles and have come up empty-handed.) If anyone could
say he or she had read the articles, one occasional poster to this
newsgroup would have a difficult time questioning whether such articles
ever existed.
If not, how
>can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
>offered, if any?
English translations of some or all of the relevant articles have been
quoted and paraphrased at some length in one book, *The Kennedy
Conspiracy,* by Paris Flammonde, and have been cited in numerous other
works, including Jim Garrison's *On the Trail of the Assassins* and Jim
Marrs' *Crossfire.*
>I see nothing wrong with debunking phony >stories, but
>when people do so I hope they can stick to the facts.
I find your concern about "debunkers" more than a little odd. When it
comes to researching the facts alleged in the articles in question,
there's simply nobody here but us "debunkers." The people who cite these
claims in their work have not done that research, with the possible
exception of Paris Flammonde.
>It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
>about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
>them directly and honestly.
Which questions did you have in mind? Would you refer, for example, to one
that stems from a false assumption on your part, such as, "what is the
relevance of information [John McAdams] listed about this tabloid if it
never published the article?"
Or would you mean the ill-defined, accusatory query, "if it was this
tabloid which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why
wouldn't you expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper?"
Do you expect a direct answer to an unspecific question like, "Would you
have expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized
newspapers or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?"
How is anyone supposed to provide a direct answer when you do not identify
a single one of the allegedly CIA-subsidized newspapers to which you
refer, or any of the allegedly Mafia-controlled magazines you reference?
These sound like rhetorical questions, Anthony. They certainly seem to be
at least a little on the unanswerable side. Perhaps if you could be a
little more specific, your questions will be answered.
>Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
>thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
>it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
>read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
>to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
>discrediting WC critics,
Yes, Robert Harris and Jim Hargrove have previously described such a
campaign. I would have thought that any moderately well informed
researcher could disrupt any such campaign with factual, well reasoned
arguments to the contrary. You, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Hargrove would seem to
have less confidence in Warren Commission critics than I do. Of course,
all three of you have been at this longer than I have, so I suppose I
should take that into account.
to criticize anything which hints at a
>conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
>here actually read the Paese Sera article?
No, Anthony. No one here has. That's a point that at least one poster to
this newsgroup has been trying to make for some time.
We'd love to read these articles, Anthony, but to date, no one seems to
have turned up copies of these newspapers. As far as I can tell, none of
the authors who cite *Paese Sera* in their work have themselves read any
of the actual articles either, with the possible -- but not certain --
exception of Paris Flammonde. Other authors like Jim DiEugenio have been
content to cite Garrison and Flammonde.
Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
LN side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
contents of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who
have been attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common
is that they are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The
people who actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to
see any need to verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the
more provocative statements reported.
In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
don't care for people questioning the validity of a particular
unsubstantiated, unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you
would feel a similar distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that
same unsubstantiated, unverified source, without whom there would be
little need for any unfortunate "debunkers."
Dave
David Stager
wrote:
>Have they ever read the article themselves? If not, how
>can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
>offered, if any? I see nothing wrong with debunking phony stories, but
>when people do so I hope they can stick to the facts.
Have you ever seen a copy of the *original* article in Italian? The
actual page from the newspaper or a clipping of the actual story as it
supposedly appeared in Italy? No one has.
AnthonyMarsh
> >to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
> >*Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
> >evidence for this assertion.
>
> this story either.
And John MacAdams doubted that there was anyone so foolish as to claim
that the story never existed? What more proof do I need, John?
Dave Reitzes
>
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>
>> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>> >
>> >Dave Reitzes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>> >> >
>> >> >And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more? At least you
>> >> >confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming
>was
>> >> >non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article?
>If
>> >> >not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
>> >> >tabloid if it never published the article? And if it was this tabloid
>> >> >which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't
>you
>> >> >expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
>> >> >expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized
>newspapers
>> >> >or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>Permindex/CMC
>> >> to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
>> >> *Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
>> >> evidence for this assertion.
>> >>
>or
>> >> two others around these parts have, which might be summed up as, "If we
>> >> can't disprove the article, it's only fair to assume it to be true."
>> >>
>> >> I can't help but think that it is the burden of the accuser to produce
>> >> such evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >No, I am not the accuser. I am asking questions of the debunkers. I am
>> >asking them to get their stories straight.
>>
>> I see. The "debunkers" are a monolithic unit, sort of like a conspiracy.
>> Gotcha.
>>
>
>issues. Don't try to make things sound sinister when they are not.
>
>> Are they trying to claim that
>> >such a newspaper never existed?
>>
>> I know of one person who has made that claim.
>>
>
>existed.
That's not what he said at all, though I won't defend the statement he *did*
make.
>> >Are they trying to claim that it never
>> >wrote the article?
>>
>> I don't know that anyone has ever made that claim.
>>
>
>Stager seemed to be suggesting that in a recent message. Others have
>stated that. Use DejaNews to follow the thread.
I am familiar with what Mr. Stager has said. I'm not sure that your
characterizations of his statement aren't a little misleading, but I need not
put too fine a point on it.
>> >Have they ever read the article >themselves?
>>
>> I do not know of a single person, on any side of the issue, who has read
>any of
>> the *Paese Sera* articles -- plural -- him- or herself. (The pool of
>> candidates, BTW, would be limited to those who read Italian. I know of a
>couple
>> Italian-reading people who have searched libraries in Italy for copies of
>these
>> articles and have come up empty-handed.) If anyone could say he or she had
>read
>> the articles, one occasional poster to this newsgroup would have a
>difficult
>> time questioning whether such articles ever existed.
>>
>> If not, how
>> >can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
>> >offered, if any?
>>
>> English translations of some or all of the relevant articles have been
>quoted
>> and paraphrased at some length in one book, *The Kennedy Conspiracy,* by
>Paris
>> Flammonde, and have been cited in numerous other works, including Jim
>> Garrison's *On the Trail of the Assassins* and Jim Marrs' *Crossfire.*
>>
>
>Translations and quotations? Or synopses, biased by the beliefs of the
>authors?
I don't know. That's why I want to obtain new translations from the originals,
something I hope to be able to achieve in the not-too-distant future.
>> >I see nothing wrong with debunking phony >stories, but
>> >when people do so I hope they can stick to the facts.
>>
>> I find your concern about "debunkers" more than a little odd. When it comes
>to
>> researching the facts alleged in the articles in question, there's simply
>> nobody here but us "debunkers." The people who cite these claims in their
>work
>> have not done that research, with the possible exception of Paris
>Flammonde.
>>
>
>And so? If you want to debunk Garrison or Flammonde, fine with me, but
>how about some facts?
You're missing the point, Anthony. To the best of my knowledge, no one but we
"debunkers" are currently trying to obtain copies of these articles, so we can
settle these issues. Why don't you direct your criticism towards those who cite
second- or third-hand recountings of these unsubstantiated articles as factual
and reliable accounts? Why don't you ask Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio if
they've read these articles?
>> >It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
>> >about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
>> >them directly and honestly.
>>
>> Which questions did you have in mind? Would you refer, for example, to one
>that
>> stems from a false assumption on your part, such as, "what is the relevance
>of
>> information [John McAdams] listed about this tabloid if it never published
>the
>> article?"
>>
>> Or would you mean the ill-defined, accusatory query, "if it was this
>tabloid
>> which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
>> expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper?"
>>
>> Do you expect a direct answer to an unspecific question like, "Would you
>have
>> expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
>or
>> one of the Mafia controlled magazines?"
>>
>
>How about a direct question like, "Have you read the article for
>yourself?" And then no answer.
If you refer to me, I said that no one I know has read these articles. Which
part of that don't you understand?
>> How is anyone supposed to provide a direct answer when you do not identify
>a
>> single one of the allegedly CIA-subsidized newspapers to which you refer,
>or
>> any of the allegedly Mafia-controlled magazines you reference?
>>
>
>Neither did the other person specify which Communist newspapers I
>supposedly would be reading.
*Paese Sera,* owned and operated by the Communist Party of Italy, doesn't
count?
Just more red baiting. Obviously I have
>never read either of the supposed Communist newspapers mentioned in the
>Lobster article.
>
>> These sound like rhetorical questions, Anthony. They certainly seem to be
>at
>> least a little on the unanswerable side. Perhaps if you could be a little
>more
>> specific, your questions will be answered.
>>
>
>Rhetorical? Not exactly. Socratic. It is hard to be more specific than I
>have when dealing with people who like to argue with innuendo and do not
>answer directly and honestly.
I would think the former description might apply to someone making vague
allusions to CIA-controlled newspapers and Mafia-controlled magazines. No?
If you can be a little more specific with these questions, perhaps you can get
them answered. I'm really not sure what it is precisely you're objecting to at
this point.
>Gee, I wonder why. How many authors simply cite previous works without
>bothering to read all of the referenced material themselves?
Are you arguing in favor of that methodology, Anthony? I can't help but think
we agree on some of these issues, so I can't quite figure out who it is you're
arguing with.
>> Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
>LN
>> side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
>contents
>> of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who have been
>> attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common is that
>they
>> are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The people who
>> actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to see any
>need to
>> verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the more provocative
>> statements reported.
>>
>> In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
>don't
>> care for people questioning the validity of a particular unsubstantiated,
>> unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you would feel a similar
>> distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that same unsubstantiated,
>> unverified source, without whom there would be little need for any
>unfortunate
>> "debunkers."
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>Well, its fun and easy to try to discredit facts simply by red baiting,
>but does that qualify as research and does that show any real
>interesting in finding out what the facts are?
Please cite the precise examples of alleged Red-baiting you have in mind.
Perhaps from there we can find a way to proceed in some constructive direction.
Dave
AnthonyMarsh
>
> AnthonyMarsh wrote:
>
> >
> > And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more?
>
> dubious record for getting the facts straight, and one that has
> supported communist repression is "red baiting" then I'm guilty.
>
That is why I asked. If your only purpose was red baiting, then it has
little to do with the facts and such a tactic seem outmoded after we won
the Cold War. If you have some facts to support your contention that
this particular newspaper, more than any other tabloid, has a consistent
record of getting the facts wrong, then please enlighten us with the
details. Otherwise it just sounds as if you want to dispute a claim by
poisoning the well, by making false claims against the source. Have you
even bothered to read the referenced article. Do you have any first hand
knowledge about the tabloid or are you just basing your opinion on
CIA-generated propaganda against such publications. Would you be more
willing to believe the CIA-sponsored publications?
> Why are you unhappy about this?
>
> > At least you
> > confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
> > non-existent.
>
> Who has ever claimed that?
>
I think if you read back through DejaNews you will see messages from
people even doubting that such a newspaper existed.
See A. below.
> DiEugenio and Flammond claim the "Permindex" charges are from Paesa Sera
> [sic]. No such paper exists, but they clearly have just mangled the name
> of a real paper.
>
A. And you just said that the source never existed.
> What does that say about their reliability?
>
Exactly. And if you ever make a typo or get the name of something wrong,
you are forever listed as an unreliable source. Want to do a search from
DejaNews of ALL your messages?
> > Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
> > not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
> > tabloid if it never published the article?
>
> Of course it published the article. That's long been known. See:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lobster.htm
>
OIC. The name of the publication was actually "Il Paesa Sera" and people
had been calling it only "Paesa Sera" so you could claim that no such
publication existed. Talk about semantics and splitting hairs! So,
people talk about New York Times and frequently it is abbreviated as
NYT, so you can claim that those people are unreliable and that no such
publication called New York Times ever existed, because its proper title
is The New York Times. Or you've never heard of Boston Globe, because
its proper title is The Boston Globe. "Il" in Italian simply means
"The." The same way the proper title of Boston Globe is "The Boston
Globe." BFD.
> > And if it was this tabloid
> > which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
> > expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper?
>
> That's the point. I *would* expect an article like that to come from
> this type of newspaper.
>
> > Would you have
> > expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
> > or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
> >
>
> OIC. You are going to believe a Communist tabloid over papers like (for
> example) Corriere Della Sera?
>
I never said that I believed the source or the claim. I have read only a
few Italian publications. I have never heard of Corriere Della Sera. No
doubt it is a fine publication, but not my cup of tea. Is that one of
the CIA-sponsored publications? "Lobster" is your source? Then why can't
I equally claim that Lobster is a CIA-sponsored publication. And
naturally you would be more inclined to believe a CIA source? And whose
word do we take for whether Il Paese Sera is a Communist party
newspaper?
> Why do you prefer Communist sources to non-Communist ones?
>
I don't read Communist sources, so I wouldn't know. But in general I
would rather read non-CIA sources than CIA sources. Sometimes I have to
read CIA sources just to keep up with their latest propaganda.
> .John
> --
> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Dave Reitzes
Anthony,
I fail to see why you would assume a newspaper owned and operated by the
Communist Party of Italy to be in any way more or less reliable than an
independently owned and operated newspaper or the "CIA-sponsored
publication" of your choice. But that's not the central issue here.
Why do you complain when someone questions the accuracy of *Paese Sera's*
information, but display no sign of distress when well known authors
uncritically cite an unsubstantiated allegation of *Paese Sera's*? Why do
you demand to know if John McAdams has read the articles in question, but
show no curiosity as to whether Jim Garrison, Paris Flammonde, Jim
DiEugenio or Bill Davy have read them? If Garrison, Flammonde, et al.,
cite the newspaper's unsubstantiated allegations, isn't the burden of
proof on them?
Dave
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:44:34 GMT, AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> And no one has produced an actual copy of the Paese Sera newspaper with
> >> this story either.
> >
> >And John MacAdams doubted that there was anyone so foolish as to claim
> >that the story never existed? What more proof do I need, John?
>
> wrong. How else can you prove there even is an original?
I have no interest in proving you wrong. Someone just asked me if ANYONE
has suggested that the article never existed. So, do you want to just
state that you don't like the article and you think the article is wrong?
Or do you want to go out on a limb and state as a fact that the article
never existed? Now, surely you are aware of what we have in the US known
as a Guide to Periodicals, which lists newspaper and magazine articles.
Now, what if the same type of thing exists in Italy and someone finds that
news article listed? What do you do then? Do you claim that their
periodicals guide was published by Communists and falsely listed the Paesa
Sera article as part of some International Communist Conspiracy? What
constitutes proof for you?
David Stager
wrote:
>I have no interest in proving you wrong.
I also will reply at random on occasion.
>Someone just asked me if ANYONE has suggested that the article never existed.
I've never seen it in the original form, nor has the original been
re-printed anywhere I know of. Supposed, "translations" of what was
supposedly printed have appeared, but I know of no one who has an
actual copy of the paper, and I know of no library that has a copy
preserved in any form, sort, or nature. But since I have not
personally visited every library in the world and asked with tape
recording and video tapes of me holding a newspaper of the day I went
with affidavits from the librarians I asked, you may still have some
doubts about the matter.
>So, do you want to just state that you don't like the article and you think the article is wrong?
The article is meaningless. There is no source to verify assuming the
absolute validity of the translations. It's all "non-falsifiable"
stuff, and so can be neither true or false. It's not a matter of me
liking it, but it does make it yet another form of personal attack,
rather than a discussion of facts or issues or logic as would be
expected from someone as scholarly as you who always does the
research.
>Or do you want to go out on a limb and state as a fact that the article
>never existed? Now, surely you are aware of what we have in the US known
>as a Guide to Periodicals, which lists newspaper and magazine articles.
>Now, what if the same type of thing exists in Italy and someone finds that
>news article listed? What do you do then?
I have been to Rome and speak and read Italian, and it is not so
indexed. But then again, there is no such index for the National
Enquirer, Weekly World News, etc., either. Do you have a Guide to
Periodicals that lists the articles? Let me know about it
specifically and if it's something that can be checked, I'll check.
>Do you claim that their periodicals guide was published by Communists and falsely listed the Paesa
>Sera article as part of some International Communist Conspiracy? What
>constitutes proof for you?
Anything. You have not produced anything checkable. Please do so, so
I can check. Nothing constitutes no proof.
Seems like these articles are of critical national importance to all
the millions of buffs everywhere. Buffs who kept the prayer cards
from their local catholic churches and every bit of minutiae from the
case. Yet this newspaper clipping was never kept nor found by anyone
despite worldwide interest for over 30 years.
Dave Reitzes
>>
>> I fail to see why you would assume a newspaper owned and operated by the
>> Communist Party of Italy to be in any way more or less reliable than an
>> independently owned and operated newspaper or the "CIA-sponsored
>publication"
>> of your choice. But that's not the central issue here.
>>
>
>propagands from the Lobster article? Is there any documentation offered
>in that, just as we demand documentation of the Permindex allegation? Do
>we just accept that characterization because it came from that
>intelligence journal?
A reliable source (<g>) informs me that the "'History of the Italian Press'"
(compiled by several authors and published between the 70 's and the 80's in
six volumes by Laterza, Bari)" notes that *Paese Sera* was "born on December 6,
1949 on the Italian Communist Party's initiative."
Even if it were the worst propaganda arm of the
>worst Communist party in the world, if a fact is a fact, then just
>putting the fact in that newspaper does not change it to a lie. It just
>makes us suspicious and want to check it out for ourselves. Has anyone?
The allegation in question is that CMC/Permindex was a CIA front. No evidence
for this was advanced by *Paese Sera,* and CIA records, as we have them,
indicate that, if anything, the CIA and State Dept. were keeping an eye on CMC
and Permindex -- probably because of founder Ferenc Nagy's past -- not
sponsoring it.
>> Why do you complain when someone questions the accuracy of *Paese Sera's*
>> information, but display no sign of distress when well known authors
>> uncritically cite an unsubstantiated allegation of *Paese Sera's*? Why do
>you
>> demand to know if John McAdams has read the articles in question, but show
>no
>> curiosity as to whether Jim Garrison, Paris Flammonde, Jim DiEugenio or
>Bill
>> Davy have read them? If Garrison, Flammonde, et al., cite the newspaper's
>> unsubstantiated allegations, isn't the burden of proof on them?
>>
>
>I am just asking that when someone debunks something that some type of
>proof be offered.
Isn't the burden of proof on the accusers? Aren't the accusers in this case
*Paese Sera* and those who uncritically cite that paper?
There are thousands of baseless allegations in
>hundreds of books. I do not complain about all of them. I have often
>written that I am concerned about the way Garrison just accepted
>whatever ridiculous notions people fed him. I have cited some of the
>weaknesses of some of the other authors.
Yet you go ballistic when John McAdams points out that *Paese Sera* was not a
reputable newspaper, which it wasn't. (I know of two people who have tried to
track old issues of the paper down in Italy, and apparently there are damn few
libraries that see any value in stocking them.)
>I think it is particularly silly to claim that something does not exist
>when we have proof that it does.
I've never claimed that *Paese Sera* or their articles on CMC/Permindex don't
exist, but neither have I ever met or heard from a single person who has seen
any of these articles. Therefore, I'm not certain what proof you're referring
to.
Such as the WC defender claim that
>there was no real entry for Clay Shaw in Who's Who,
I don't know that one has to be a Warren Commission defender to question the
validity of the oft-cited entry, particularly as the Warren Commission never
even heard of Clay Shaw. Conversely, I don't know many Warren Commission
defenders -- or anyone -- who question the entry.
or that Permindex
>was not mentioned, or that someone else forged the Permindex entry
>and/or the Clay Shaw entry.
Same thing -- I know one person who's raised such issues. Why don't you take it
up with him, instead of demaning that all the "debunkers" get their stories
straight? If you don't want people inferring any paranoia in such statements of
yours, you really should think twice about making such statements.
Likewise if someone wants to claim that the
>article in Il Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed
>up with some type of evidence.
Again, Anthony, I know exactly one person who's ever suggested this, and his
request that somebody produce a copies of these articles does not strike me as
being unreasonable, given the importance certain researchers place upon them.
Or if someone claimed that the newspaper
>Ul Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed up with
>some type of evidence.
Anthony, what on Earth is with all these straw men? No one claimed the
newspaper didn't exist. You misread a post of John's.
If someone wants to claim that the allegation in
>the article that Permindex was a CIA front is inaccurate, that's fine
>with me. They don't have to back up their opinion with any evidence
>whatsoever. They are entitled to their opinion.
But you don't think that people who insist that CMC/Permidex WAS a CIA front
should produce some evidence? You think a citation to an unsubstantiated series
of articles in a disreputable newspaper is good enough?
>Sometimes a debunker and I might agree about the larger issue, but I may
>take issue with the way they arrived at the conclusion. Like the issue
>of Badge Man. I agree that there was not a man there, that it was only
>an optical illusion. But I have to disagree when people try to prove
>that by claiming that a shot from the Badge Man could not have hit JFK
>at Z-313. Simple geometry proves that a shot from that position was
>physically possible. But there was no one there to shoot it.
>
>
>--
>Anthony Marsh
>The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Perhaps I should reread John's original post, as I don't recall him
specifically claiming to debunk the contents of the article. Either way, I
still don't understand why you place the burden of proof on the accused rather
than the accuser.
Dave
sandr...@my-deja.com
repeating:
We are forever astounded by the lack of knowledge that surrounds the
Kennedy assassination. Take the ignorance which surrounds Jim Garrison.
Jim Garrison was a corrupt, New Orleans District Attorney who gave the
Mafia free reign in New Orleans. His tactic was very simple. By busting
low level criminals, Jim Garrison gave the Carlos Marcello Mafia
network the opportunity to dominate the rackets. At the same time, the
punks that he put behind bars, created the impression that he was an
aggressive, competent, law enforcement official. A former G-man, Jim
Garrison was forever loyal to tactics that J. Edgar Hoover practised on
the national level. Like J. Edgar Hoover, Jim Garrison, was a Mafia
asset -they both used the Mafia to suit their own, peculiar interests.
Hoover used the Mafia to target liberals or Communists -he did not
distinguish the difference, and Garrison always followed the track that
Hoover laid.
By the late 1960's, Kennedy assassination critics had successfully
chipped chipped away at the absurdity of the "single bullet theory" to
the point where two out of three Americans did not believe that Oswald
had acted alone. Elevating the meaning of "if you can't beat them, join
them" to the height of absurdity, Jim Garrison burst upon the trail of
the assassination critics with the bold assertion that he knew exactly
who had murdered John F. Kennedy, and that it was only a matter of days
before he exposed the entire plot -down to naming every single assassin.
While Jim Garrison hogged all the attention of the media circus that he
deliberately created, he simultaneously "put the squeeze" on witnesses
who knew Oswald. In essence, he treated every Kennedy assassination
witness the way that Ken Starr treated witnesses like Susan McDougal -
tell the truth and I'll prosecute you for perjury, give me what I want
and receive a 'get out of jail free' card. In particular, Garrison
targeted witnesses who were in a position to expose the obvious fact
that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Communist, and the only rationale
behind the fact that he had evidently defected to the Soviet Union was
that Oswald sought the sort of adventure that his fictional hero, James
Bond, scored in the movies. But this was not the movies, it was the
Cold War, and the effort to save the world, was waged in the shadows -
do not expect a textbook biography of Lee Harvey Oswald or anybody else
who engaged the battle to destroy Communism. Their lives have to be
reconstructed, the way a historian uncovers the unrecorded past -one
painstaking piece at a time.
Jim Garrison was a real piece of work -he makes Ken Starr look like a
boyscout. Jim Garrison used the Grand Jury to harass and intimidate
Oswald's acquaintances while witnesses who could not be controlled
through the manipulation of the legal system, were murdered. Garrison's
ruthlessness, power and obsession is perhaps manifested by the fact
David Ferrie conveniently died while he was under his protective
custody. Oswald and Ferrie were long time acquaintances who embraced
the shadowy world of every James Bond wanabe. But unlike Oswald who was
relatively mild mannered, David Ferrie was violently anti-Communist,
and if Oswald was indeed a Communist, as Hoover's propaganda machine
determined, Ferrie was the sort who would strangle him with his bear
hands.
If one carefully studies the abuse of power that Jim Garrison
exercised, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that he was a
brilliant disinformation agent who manipulated Kennedy assassination
evidence. And he did it, not because he wanted to expose the truth, but
because the astoundig frivolity of Warren Report conclusions were
exposed. If you want to get to the bottom of a huge fraud, timing is
everything:
For anyone who is interested in getting to the bottom of this massive
fraud, John F. Kennedy was murdered because he planned to pull out of
the Vietnam war by 1965, and the Godfather of the plot to kill him was
the tightnit group: Lyndon Johnson, McGeorge Bundy, Dean Rusk, and
Robert McNamara, and they all exploited the power of their respective
offices to cover up the truth. J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon and
his Watergate machine and the Mafia were lower level, cover up
co-conspirators. The actual assassins were probably imported French
Mafia -the best and the brightest did not leave anything to chance,
and foreign assassins who were ushered in and out of the country were
untraceable. These are the only people who had the obsession, the means
and the opportunity, to murder the President of the united States, and
to cover it up.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Clark
An entertaining piece. I find it highly amusing to watch two sides go to
battle over a newspaper article neither has ever read. My enjoyment
reached its peak when one one lone voice questioned even the existence of
the article.
However, I see where sanity is beginning to return and, therefore, I see
no alternative but to stir the hornet's nest back up again if my fun is to
continue. That shouldn't be too difficult.
Let's begin with the post that started it all:
John McAdams <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
news:378641ea....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
> and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
> in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
>
This is a true statement. I admit it. No contentions here. However,
some people will begin an argument with a true statement and then use that
statement to reach a wrong, or unjustified, conclusion (Louis Farakhan and
Lynden LaRousche come to mind). Let's see where John goes with this.
> Just how reliable was the paper?
>
John has raised a valid question. Let's see if he answers it.
> The following quotes are from "History of the Italian Press" (compiled
> by several authors and published between the 70's and the 80's in six
> volumes by Laterza, Bari).
John has produced a source. Now we can check with this source on the
reliability of Paese Sera's reporting. Let's see if John does this.
>
> Some of the points they make are:
>
> -- "Paese Sera" was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
> Party's initiative.
>
Here we have a Communist Party newspaper. This is not unusual. For
example, in Seattle, Washington, the two major newspapers are the Seattle
Times (a Republican Party newspaper) and the Post Intelligencer (A
Democratic Party newspaper). But the question was "How reliable was the
paper?" not what it's political persuasion was. The paper's political
persuasion only explains why it printed the story. It has nothing to do
with the reliability of the story. However, John seems to want you to
conclude otherwise. He has doffed the hat of Senator Joseph McCarthy and
Roy Cohn and made the 1950's scare statement that there are communists
underfoot and communists must, by some definition somewhere, be unreliable
in their newspaper stories. But does he offer proof? I'll bet he doesn't.
> -- Between the 60's and 70's it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
> a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
> today around 800,000 copies a day.)
The question was "How reliable was the paper?" Apparently, small papers
can't get stories right and are unreliable. I'm assuming that's John's
contention because I can't see anything else. But does John offer proof?
I'll bet he doesn't.
>
> -- Its main style, "based on the exploitation of common crime news, on
> some flexibility in the political evaluation of facts involving
> left-wing parties, and, obviously, on a strongly polemical mien toward
> the groups in power, was more suited to the readers of Rome." (Ibid.,
> vol. 5, p. 241.)
Did anyone see the words "unreliable" in here?
I didn't.
>
> -- It sought a "popular and direct impact" and "the titles and the
> editorials of 'Paese Sera' generally had a sarcastic and protesting
> tone, as Romans like it best, whether they belong to the bourgeoisie
> or to the proletariat, that sometimes turns into a left-winged
> defeatism." (Ibid., p. 248.)
>
You know? I still can't find the word "unreliable". That criticism
John's looking for seems to be missing. I wonder why?
> -- In the description of the 60's and 70's press styles, it is said
> that "magazines and sensationalistic evening papers ["Paese Sera" was
> an evening paper - note mine] make the reader grow into the habit of
> looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or made-up
> backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
> framework, with plenty of pictures and 'disclosures,' aggressive and
> funny titles, and extremely lively page setups. Emblematic, with
> regard to this, are "Milano Sera," "Il Corriere Lombardo," "Corriere
> d'Informazione," "La Notte" in Milan, "Paese Sera" in Rome. (Ibid.,
> vol. 6, p. 342.)
>
Finally! There was an insinuation here of the paper being unreliable (At
least the words "made up" appears). It's readers were looking for details
of popular news or, even worse, backgrounds, real or made up. John will
eventually compare this to tabloid journalism. The oddity here is that
this critic also complains that Paese Sera prints "real" backgrounds.
The statement that the newspaper "pursued news or, even worse, real or
made up backgrounds..." makes little sense. How can you complain about
real backgrounds being reported? Isn't that an indication of reliability?
Now notice that of the SIX VOLUMES John perused (And the volumes seem to
exceed 342 pages in length), only this one critic makes this comment about
Paese Sera and that critic still does not declare the paper to be
unreliable and even complains about "real" backgrounds being reported.
> -- In 1956, while "L'Unità" (newspaper organ of the Communist Party)
> didn't even mention the Khrushchev report. "Paese Sera," against the
> opinion of some of the leaders of the Communist Party, reprinted its
> main passages, with the intent of not leaving its diffusion and
> critique in the hands of the bourgeois papers. (Ibid., p. 280.)
Now where is that word "unreliable"? Wasn't that supposed to be in here
somewhere? Wasn't that the point of the post?
Now John seems to have in excess of 1,800 pages of journalistic comments
to draw upon to demonstrate the newspaper to be unreliable. If it is
unreliable, why doesn't someone in those 1,800 plus pages say so?
>
> -- With regard to the insurrection in Poznan, "Paese Sera"
> acknowledged its popular origin, but held common front with Moscow and
> with "L'Unità" as to the necessity of a repression. (Ibid., p. 282.)
At the risk of sounding monotonous...
Where is the word "unreliable"?
It appears that John has asked the question of just how reliable the Paese
Sera newspaper was and then introduced six volumes of evidence (1800 plus
pages by my estimate) demonstrating the paper has never been accused of
being unreliable outside of one possible comment regarding tabloid
journalism which seems to have been misconstrued in the translation.
It appears the evidence John has provided us in order to demonstrate the
Paese Sera to be unreliable, demonstrates exactly the opposite.
Now when we consider that John had the opportunity to cull the most
critical comments he could find for this post, we must also consider the
possibility that John had the equal opportunity to cull out comments by
fellow journalists praising Paese Sera for its reliability. Anyone think
that he might have done that?
>
> So it seems to combine the style of an American tabloid with the
> politics of the DAILY WORLD.
>
> .John
>
But what about it's reliability?
You ducked your own question.
Just an observation.
..Clark
"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theories is with his own evidence."
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>An entertaining piece. I find it highly amusing to watch two sides go to
>battle over a newspaper article neither has ever read.
It's nice that Mr. Wilkins finds amusement in the thought that it has as
yet proved impossible to verify the contents of an article that reportedly
libeled a US citizen thirty-two years ago, and which has been cited by
authors of conspiracy books ever since.
My enjoyment
>reached its peak when one one lone voice questioned even the existence of
>the article.
That person, who reads Italian, has gone so far as to visit several
libraries in Italy in search of a copy of this article. He couldn't find
it. Given Jim Garrison's documented history of utilizing fabricated
evidence and, in at least one documented case, fabricating evidence
personally, I can hardly blame someone for questioning the authenticity of
an article that no one in the on-line research community claims to have
ever seen.
>However, I see where sanity is beginning to return and, therefore, I see
>no alternative but to stir the hornet's nest back up again if my fun is to
>continue. That shouldn't be too difficult.
Beats working, I suppose.
>Let's begin with the post that started it all:
>
>
>
>John McAdams <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
>news:378641ea....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
>> and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
>> in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
>>
>
>This is a true statement. I admit it. No contentions here. However,
>some people will begin an argument with a true statement and then use that
>statement to reach a wrong, or unjustified, conclusion (Louis Farakhan and
>Lynden LaRousche come to mind). Let's see where John goes with this.
Notice that Clark resists commenting on the allegations attributed to
Paese Sera.
>> Just how reliable was the paper?
>>
>
>John has raised a valid question. Let's see if he answers it.
>
>> The following quotes are from "History of the Italian Press" (compiled
>> by several authors and published between the 70's and the 80's in six
>> volumes by Laterza, Bari).
>
>John has produced a source. Now we can check with this source on the
>reliability of Paese Sera's reporting. Let's see if John does this.
>
>
>>
>> Some of the points they make are:
>>
>> -- "Paese Sera" was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
>> Party's initiative.
>>
>
>Here we have a Communist Party newspaper. This is not unusual. For
>example, in Seattle, Washington, the two major newspapers are the Seattle
>Times (a Republican Party newspaper) and the Post Intelligencer (A
>Democratic Party newspaper).
Is it documented that that the Seattle Times is owned and operated by the
Republican Party?
Is it documented that the Post Intelligencer is owned and operated by the
Democratic Party?
Is either paper documented to have invented stories about members of the
allegedly opposing party, or about others presumably considered "the
opposition"?
But the question was "How reliable was the
>paper?" not what it's political persuasion was. The paper's political
>persuasion only explains why it printed the story. It has nothing to do
>with the reliability of the story. However, John seems to want you to
>conclude otherwise.
I suppose it would be an example of Red-baiting for me to note that,
according to two informed sources, Italian libraries do not make a
practice of stocking back issues of Paese Sera, though they do frequently
stock back issues of reputable, non-Communist Italian newspapers such as
Corriere Della Sera. (Corriere Della Sera, some might recall, is the
newspaper called "De La Sera" by Paris Flammonde, and which some
researchers claim collaborated the Paese Sera account. Corriere Della
Sera, however, did not report any allegations linking CMC/Permindex to the
CIA.)
He has doffed the hat of Senator Joseph McCarthy and
>Roy Cohn and made the 1950's scare statement that there are communists
>underfoot and communists must, by some definition somewhere, be unreliable
>in their newspaper stories. But does he offer proof? I'll bet he doesn't.
John McAdams has previously offered the argument that Paese Sera called
CMC/Permindex a CIA front without ever advancing any evidence. Clark
Wilkins himself scoffed at this, and insisted, for reasons that remain
unclear, that the Paese Sera articles were factual and correct.
There is no doubt that it would be preferable to demonstrate the factual
inaccuracies of the article, but as that is utterly impossible -- unless
anyone knows some way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
CMC/Permindex was not a CIA front (the most controversial assertion Paese
Sera made, and an allegation exclusive to that newspaper). Since no one,
not excluding the staff of Paese Sera, and not excluding Clark Wilkins,
has offered any evidence to support Paese Sera's assertion, it would seem
reasonable to dismiss the story as false, and to question the newspaper's
motives for printing this unsubstantiated material. One motive in this
case would appear to be highly probable, but Anthony Marsh and Clark
Wilkins insist that this argument is off limits, though neither one
challenges the veracity and/or accuracy of the allegations attributed to
Paese Sera. How convenient.
Clark invokes the specters of Roy Cohn and Joe McCarthy with regard to
John McAdams, but does not raise the slightest objection about a newspaper
using unsubstantiated allegations to smear, among others, a US citizen
named Clay Shaw. That sounds more like the McCarthy-Cohn methodology than
John McAdams' attempts to clarify the record. Apparently it's easier for
Mr. Wilkins to associate those with whom he disagrees with disreputable
figures like Cohn and McCarthy than actually produce any evidence
supporting the allegations of the newspaper he defends. Such insinuations
of guilt by association also sounds like a hallmark of Cohn-McCarthy
style. In my opinion, of course.
>> -- Between the 60's and 70's it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
>> a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
>> today around 800,000 copies a day.)
>
>The question was "How reliable was the paper?" Apparently, small papers
>can't get stories right and are unreliable. I'm assuming that's John's
>contention because I can't see anything else. But does John offer proof?
>I'll bet he doesn't.
John McAdams has previously cited an article which quoted a 1962 statement
from author Andrew Tully as stating that Paese Sera had "consistently
released and reported anti-American and pro-Soviet bloc stories which are
either distorted or entirely false."
John has previously cited an article by Steve Dorril that reads in part:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In 1961 French Generals prepared a putsch against President De Gaulle.
Within hours of the mutiny on April 22nd, rumours had begun to circulate
that the CIA had played a role in encouraging the revolt. Such rumours
appear to have been based on the slim evidence that (a) General Maurice
Challe, leader of the revolt, had been close to American military aides
during his term of service with NATO; and (b) that Richard Bissell, then
Director of the Plans Division of the CIA, had met with Jacques Soustelle
on December 7th 1960 (Soustelle was French politician who had planned a
previous unsuccessful putsch.) Significantly for us, the rumours first
appeared in print in the Rome daily, Il Paese Sera . . .
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dorril notes Paese Sera's claim that CMC/Permindex was expelled from
Basel, Switzerland. It was not.
According to Paris Flammonde, Paese Sera reported that Centro Mondiale
Commerciale was founded in 1961. It was not.
Paese Sera reported in 1967 that Clay Shaw, until "recently," had been
"working in Rome." He had not been.
Paese Sera claimed that Clay Shaw left the US on November 24, 1963, for a
visit to Europe, including Italy. He did not.
Paese Sera claimed that the International Trade Mart of New Orleans was
affiliated with the Trade Mart in Dallas. It was not.
Paese Sera claimed that Clay Shaw had been responsible for the planning of
President Kennedy's trip to Dallas in November 1963. He had not been.
Someone better acquainted with CMC/Permindex could perhaps pick out more
errors in Paese Sera's reporting. The above represent some of the more
obvious errors. All have been previously posted, some of them in earlier
posts in this thread.
Jim Garrison implies in OTTOTA that Paese Sera was source for the fallacy
that CMC/Permindex had been expelled from Italy. (Bill Davy and Jim
DiEugenio cite no source whatsoever for this claim; Jim Marrs appears to
cite Garrison's book.)
Bill Davy notes in his new book that the "credibility and accuracy of the
reporting" of Paese Sera and 'De La Sera' have "come into question." (He
falsely attributes the claim that CMC was "a creature of the CIA" to both
Paese Sera and "De La Sera." He notes that Canada's Le Devoir ran a
similar article, but doesn't mention that Paese Sera was Le Devoir's main
source.) Davy only concludes that "it seems quite clear that there was a
link between PERMINDEX and the French [OAS] assassination attempts."
Yet Clark Wilkins continues to insist that no one has presented evidence
that Paese Sera was an unreliable source of information, or that there is
anything suspicious about a newspaper owned and operated by the Italian
Communist Party reporting information linking the CIA to allegedly
nefarious activities in Italy, despite the fact that this same newspaper
had reported false information on the CIA on at least one previous
occasion.
Clark has just acknowledged evidence that demolishes his statement that
McAdams has offered nothing to cast doubt on Paese Sera's reliability. Yet
he does not delete his post in progress and move on to other pursuits, but
continues with his "fun" just the same.
The accusation Clark seizes upon, incidentally, would seem to involve a
lack of discrimination on the part of Paese Sera's writers and/or editors.
But Wilkins seems determined to grasp at straws, and I suppose he must
make the most of whichever meager straws are available.
>Now notice that of the SIX VOLUMES John perused (And the volumes seem to
>exceed 342 pages in length), only this one critic makes this comment about
>Paese Sera and that critic still does not declare the paper to be
>unreliable and even complains about "real" backgrounds being reported.
Here Clark is making a couple of assumptions that may be unfounded, but
John McAdams would be the one in a position to address them.
>> -- In 1956, while "L'Unità" (newspaper organ of the Communist Party)
>> didn't even mention the Khrushchev report. "Paese Sera," against the
>> opinion of some of the leaders of the Communist Party, reprinted its
>> main passages, with the intent of not leaving its diffusion and
>> critique in the hands of the bourgeois papers. (Ibid., p. 280.)
>
>
>Now where is that word "unreliable"? Wasn't that supposed to be in here
>somewhere? Wasn't that the point of the post?
How quickly Mr. Wilkins forgets that only a moment ago, he acknowledged a
report that Paese Sera had a reputation for fabricating material.
>Now John seems to have in excess of 1,800 pages of journalistic comments
>to draw upon to demonstrate the newspaper to be unreliable. If it is
>unreliable, why doesn't someone in those 1,800 plus pages say so?
So either Clark has suddenly suffered severe memory loss, or he honestly
does not see anything unreliable about a newspaper "making up"
information. Hopefully, Mr. Wilkins will clarify this for us all.
And again, John McAdams would be the appropriate person to address what
appears to be an assumption, possibly false, on Clark's part.
>>
>> -- With regard to the insurrection in Poznan, "Paese Sera"
>> acknowledged its popular origin, but held common front with Moscow and
>> with "L'Unità" as to the necessity of a repression. (Ibid., p. 282.)
>
>At the risk of sounding monotonous...
>Where is the word "unreliable"?
"Making up" information, again, would seem to constitute a reliable
practice in Clark's estimation.
>It appears that John has asked the question of just how reliable the Paese
>Sera newspaper was and then introduced six volumes of evidence (1800 plus
>pages by my estimate) demonstrating the paper has never been accused of
>being unreliable outside of one possible comment regarding tabloid
>journalism which seems to have been misconstrued in the translation.
>
>It appears the evidence John has provided us in order to demonstrate the
>Paese Sera to be unreliable, demonstrates exactly the opposite.
Clark likes to make such statements, but watch him cry foul when someone
quotes him "out of context," as he claimed when I reposted some previous
remarks of his stating that Paese Sera's reporting about CMC/Permindex was
accurate.
Clark seems unconcerned that he has just endorsed the practice of "making
up" information as "exactly the opposite" of "unreliable" journalism.
>Now when we consider that John had the opportunity to cull the most
>critical comments he could find for this post, we must also consider the
>possibility that John had the equal opportunity to cull out comments by
>fellow journalists praising Paese Sera for its reliability. Anyone think
>that he might have done that?
Again, John may choose to address these assumptions, possibly false, of
Clark's.
However, I'm beginning to wonder if such a response would even be
necessary.
>> So it seems to combine the style of an American tabloid with the
>> politics of the DAILY WORLD.
>>
>> .John
>>
>
>But what about it's reliability?
>You ducked your own question.
>
>Just an observation.
>
>..Clark
Just a self-evidently inaccurate observation.
>"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theories is with his own evidence."
Funny Clark should bring up the subject of evidence. I still await Clark
Wilkins' evidence that "the Centro was a creature of the CIA . . . set up
as a cover for the transfer of CIA . . . funds in Italy for illegal
political-espionage activities" (Paese Sera, March 4, 1967; Flammonde,
221), which, as Clark well knows, is a claim exclusive to Paese Sera, and
the claim of theirs that has created the most controversy.
Interesting that Clark Wilkins and Anthony Marsh refuse to address the
allegations attributed to Paese Sera, but have both been quite vocal in
their opposition to attempts made to correct the record about such
allegations. I wonder why that is.
Dave Reitzes
John McAdams
wrote:
>And what is the point? Only red baiting? Nothing more?
Tony, are you so comsumed with your distrust of the CIA that you think
*communist* sources are reliable?
Anybody but the CIA?
The Cold War is over, Tony. The anti-communists won. The communists
lost. Learn to live with it.
>At least you
>confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
>non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
>not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
>tabloid if it never published the article?
Are you suggesting that Flammonde and DiEugenio quoted an entirely
fictitious article?
Either:
1.) The quoted a nonexistent article, or
2.) the quoted an unreliable sensationalistic communist propaganda
organ.
And they couldn't even spell the name!!
But there is no doubt the paper ran such an article.
>And if it was this tabloid
>which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
>expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
>expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
>or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
>
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
>> and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
>> in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
>>
>> Just how reliable was the paper?
>>
>> The following quotes are from “History of the Italian Press” (compiled
>> by several authors and published between the 70’s and the 80’s in six
>> volumes by Laterza, Bari).
>>
>> Some of the points they make are:
>>
>> -- “Paese Sera” was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
>> Party’s initiative.
>>
>> -- Between the 60’s and 70’s it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
>> a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
>> today around 800,000 copies a day.)
>>
>> -- Its main style, “based on the exploitation of common crime news, on
>> some flexibility in the political evaluation of facts involving
>> left-wing parties, and, obviously, on a strongly polemical mien toward
>> the groups in power, was more suited to the readers of Rome.” (Ibid.,
>> vol. 5, p. 241.)
>>
>> -- It sought a “popular and direct impact” and “the titles and the
>> editorials of ‘Paese Sera’ generally had a sarcastic and protesting
>> tone, as Romans like it best, whether they belong to the bourgeoisie
>> or to the proletariat, that sometimes turns into a left-winged
>> defeatism.” (Ibid., p. 248.)
>>
>> -- In the description of the 60’s and 70’s press styles, it is said
>> that “magazines and sensationalistic evening papers [“Paese Sera” was
>> an evening paper – note mine] make the reader grow into the habit of
>> looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or made-up
>> backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
>> framework, with plenty of pictures and ‘disclosures,’ aggressive and
>> funny titles, and extremely lively page setups. Emblematic, with
>> regard to this, are “Milano Sera,” “Il Corriere Lombardo,” “Corriere
>> d’Informazione,” “La Notte” in Milan, “Paese Sera” in Rome. (Ibid.,
>> vol. 6, p. 342.)
>>
>> -- In 1956, while “L’Unità” (newspaper organ of the Communist Party)
>> didn’t even mention the Khrushchev report. “Paese Sera,” against the
>> opinion of some of the leaders of the Communist Party, reprinted its
>> main passages, with the intent of not leaving its diffusion and
>> critique in the hands of the bourgeois papers. (Ibid., p. 280.)
>>
>> -- With regard to the insurrection in Poznan, “Paese Sera”
>> acknowledged its popular origin, but held common front with Moscow and
>> with “L’Unità” as to the necessity of a repression. (Ibid., p. 282.)
>>
>> So it seems to combine the style of an American tabloid with the
>> politics of the DAILY WORLD.
>>
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>David Stager wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Jul 1999 02:53:16 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>>
>> >*Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
>> >to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
>> >*Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
>> >evidence for this assertion.
>>
>> And no one has produced an actual copy of the Paese Sera newspaper with
>> this story either.
>
>And John MacAdams doubted that there was anyone so foolish as to claim
>that the story never existed? What more proof do I need, John?
>
I didn't say it was foolish to doubt the existence of the article.
The whole thing has "factoid" written all over it.
But it so happens that the article exists.
John McAdams
wrote:
>Dave Reitzes wrote:
Tony, I've yet to see the article, but if it actually could support
its charges, don't you suppose that the likes of Flammonde would have
cited that evidence?
And why didn't any non-communist sources confirm the charges in the
communist press?
Corriere Della Sera denounced the charges against CMC and "Permindex."
The New Orleans STATES-ITEM said the charges were not well supported.
>It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
>about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
>them directly and honestly.
>
I've answered your questions directly and honestly.
Why won't you accept the answers?
>Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
>thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
>it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
>read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
>to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
>discrediting WC critics, to criticize anything which hints at a
>conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
>here actually read the Paese Sera article?
>
I haven't, but someone I know is working on getting it. When it's
available, the full English translation will be posted here.
It's not easy to get, since few libraries even in Italy seem to get
it. But few libraries here get the DAILY WORLD and NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Paese Sera seems to be a combination of both.
John McAdams
>>From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>>
>
>If not, how
>>can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
>>offered, if any?
>
>
>English translations of some or all of the relevant articles have been
>quoted and paraphrased at some length in one book, *The Kennedy
>Conspiracy,* by Paris Flammonde, and have been cited in numerous other
>works, including Jim Garrison's *On the Trail of the Assassins* and Jim
>Marrs' *Crossfire.*
>
One of the problems here is that conspiracy literature is *so* heavily
dependent on Flammonde, even repeating his misspelling of the name of
the paper as "Paesa Sera."
It's all to typical: things just get quoted and quoted, and enhanced
with each telling, with nobody bothering to check the primary sources.
>
>How is anyone supposed to provide a direct answer when you do not identify
>a single one of the allegedly CIA-subsidized newspapers to which you
>refer, or any of the allegedly Mafia-controlled magazines you reference?
>
>These sound like rhetorical questions, Anthony. They certainly seem to be
>at least a little on the unanswerable side. Perhaps if you could be a
>little more specific, your questions will be answered.
>
My sentiments entirely.
>
>>Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
>>thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
>>it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
>>read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
>>to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
>>discrediting WC critics,
>
>
>Yes, Robert Harris and Jim Hargrove have previously described such a
>campaign. I would have thought that any moderately well informed
>researcher could disrupt any such campaign with factual, well reasoned
>arguments to the contrary. You, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Hargrove would seem to
>have less confidence in Warren Commission critics than I do. Of course,
>all three of you have been at this longer than I have, so I suppose I
>should take that into account.
>
:-).
>
>to criticize anything which hints at a
>>conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
>>here actually read the Paese Sera article?
>
>
>No, Anthony. No one here has. That's a point that at least one poster to
>this newsgroup has been trying to make for some time.
>
>We'd love to read these articles, Anthony, but to date, no one seems to
>have turned up copies of these newspapers. As far as I can tell, none of
>the authors who cite *Paese Sera* in their work have themselves read any
>of the actual articles either, with the possible -- but not certain --
>exception of Paris Flammonde. Other authors like Jim DiEugenio have been
>content to cite Garrison and Flammonde.
>
Since Flammonde misspelled the name of the paper, it's questionable
whether he has read the articles.
>Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
>LN side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
>contents of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who
>have been attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common
>is that they are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The
>people who actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to
>see any need to verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the
>more provocative statements reported.
>
>In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
>don't care for people questioning the validity of a particular
>unsubstantiated, unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you
>would feel a similar distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that
>same unsubstantiated, unverified source, without whom there would be
>little need for any unfortunate "debunkers."
>
I really don't see why Tony should get upset at my posting information
showing PAESE SERA was an unreliable, tabloid-style, communist paper.
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 01:44:34 GMT, AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
> wrote:
>
> >David Stager wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >*Paese Sera* is, I believe, the only news organ that linked Permindex/CMC
> >> >to the CIA. (All other sources I'm aware of for this allegation cite
> >> >*Paese Sera.*) The paper never, as far as anyone has shown, produced any
> >> >evidence for this assertion.
> >>
> >> this story either.
> >
> >And John MacAdams doubted that there was anyone so foolish as to claim
> >that the story never existed? What more proof do I need, John?
> >
>
> I didn't say it was foolish to doubt the existence of the article.
> The whole thing has "factoid" written all over it.
>
> But it so happens that the article exists.
>
I believe you. Now, please tell it to the person who doubted that the
article even existed. Is there such a thing as a Guide to Periodicals in
Italy? All we need is a fax or Zerox of the page listing the article.
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
AnthonyMarsh
>
> On 11 Jul 1999 09:56:56 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
>
> >>From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
> >>
> >
> >If not, how
> >>can they be sure how the claim was phrased and what documentation was
> >>offered, if any?
> >
> >
> >English translations of some or all of the relevant articles have been
> >quoted and paraphrased at some length in one book, *The Kennedy
> >Conspiracy,* by Paris Flammonde, and have been cited in numerous other
> >works, including Jim Garrison's *On the Trail of the Assassins* and Jim
> >Marrs' *Crossfire.*
> >
>
> dependent on Flammonde, even repeating his misspelling of the name of
> the paper as "Paesa Sera."
>
That is possible, but I have not see the direct links. Can you trace the
chronology?
> It's all to typical: things just get quoted and quoted, and enhanced
> with each telling, with nobody bothering to check the primary sources.
>
What's new about that? I seem to remember the same thing happening with
WC defender books, like Posner, and with people here citing Posner et al
without bothering to check the facts for themselves.
> >
> >How is anyone supposed to provide a direct answer when you do not identify
> >a single one of the allegedly CIA-subsidized newspapers to which you
> >refer, or any of the allegedly Mafia-controlled magazines you reference?
> >
> >These sound like rhetorical questions, Anthony. They certainly seem to be
> >at least a little on the unanswerable side. Perhaps if you could be a
> >little more specific, your questions will be answered.
> >
>
> My sentiments entirely.
>
My point should be obvious. If you think that you can win an argument
simply with red baiting, without providing any facts, other can play the
same game and accuse your sources of being CIA-sponsored, likewise
without offering any proof.
> >
> >>Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
> >>thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
> >>it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
> >>read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
> >>to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
> >>discrediting WC critics,
> >
> >
> >Yes, Robert Harris and Jim Hargrove have previously described such a
> >campaign. I would have thought that any moderately well informed
> >researcher could disrupt any such campaign with factual, well reasoned
> >arguments to the contrary. You, Mr. Harris, and Mr. Hargrove would seem to
> >have less confidence in Warren Commission critics than I do. Of course,
> >all three of you have been at this longer than I have, so I suppose I
> >should take that into account.
> >
>
> :-).
>
> >
> >to criticize anything which hints at a
> >>conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
> >>here actually read the Paese Sera article?
> >
> >
> >No, Anthony. No one here has. That's a point that at least one poster to
> >this newsgroup has been trying to make for some time.
> >
> >We'd love to read these articles, Anthony, but to date, no one seems to
> >have turned up copies of these newspapers. As far as I can tell, none of
> >the authors who cite *Paese Sera* in their work have themselves read any
> >of the actual articles either, with the possible -- but not certain --
> >exception of Paris Flammonde. Other authors like Jim DiEugenio have been
> >content to cite Garrison and Flammonde.
> >
>
> Since Flammonde misspelled the name of the paper, it's questionable
> whether he has read the articles.
>
Quite possibly true. So, by the same token, if you or any other WC
defender misspells something, we can deduce that you never read it?
Well, at least we would hope that it gets proofread before getting into
print. The same can not be said of Case Closed.
> >Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
> >LN side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
> >contents of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who
> >have been attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common
> >is that they are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The
> >people who actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to
> >see any need to verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the
> >more provocative statements reported.
> >
> >In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
> >don't care for people questioning the validity of a particular
> >unsubstantiated, unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you
> >would feel a similar distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that
> >same unsubstantiated, unverified source, without whom there would be
> >little need for any unfortunate "debunkers."
> >
>
> I really don't see why Tony should get upset at my posting information
> showing PAESE SERA was an unreliable, tabloid-style, communist paper.
>
I object to people using red baiting to avoid having to present evidence.
Where is the proof that Il Paese Sera was a Communist paper? Just the
Lobster article? Where is the proof that it is accurate to describe it as
a tabloid-style paper? Where was the term "unreliable" ever used, except
invented here in this newsgroup?
I realize that WC defender need to make a preemptive strike against the
allegation that Permindex was a CIA front. But I would rather see
arguments supported by facts rather than just red baiting and innuendo.
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
AnthonyMarsh
>
> *communist* sources are reliable?
>
I am concerned with people like McCarthy who used red baiting to destroy
their enemies without bothering to provide proof to back up their wild
claims.
> Anybody but the CIA?
>
The CIA occassionally puts out some interesting facts. Part of
propaganda is white propaganda, verified facts. And it is important for
the public to keep track with the CIA's black propaganda to know to
believe the opposite.
> The Cold War is over, Tony. The anti-communists won. The communists
> lost. Learn to live with it.
>
That is what I was telling you. So, why the continued red baiting?
> >At least you
> >confirm the existence of the tabloid, which some people were claiming was
> >non-existent. Are you also confirming the publication of that article? If
> >not, then what is the relevance of information you listed about this
> >tabloid if it never published the article?
>
> Are you suggesting that Flammonde and DiEugenio quoted an entirely
> fictitious article?
>
Not I. Someone else was suggesting that.
> Either:
>
> 1.) The quoted a nonexistent article, or
>
> 2.) the quoted an unreliable sensationalistic communist propaganda
> organ.
>
Each time you write about it, you add another undocumented adjective.
What will it be next week, "irresponsible"?
> And they couldn't even spell the name!!
>
They ain't the only ones.
> But there is no doubt the paper ran such an article.
>
Tell that to your fellow debunkers.
> >And if it was this tabloid
> >which published the article linking the CIA to Permindex, why wouldn't you
> >expect it to be coming from this type of newspaper? Would you have
> >expected such an article to come from one of the CIA subsidized newspapers
> >or one of the Mafia controlled magazines?
> >
> >
AnthonyMarsh
> its charges, don't you suppose that the likes of Flammonde would have
> cited that evidence?
>
Doubtful. Many authors do not bother to go back to the original source
and only cite that. Many cite the source that someone else cited or
where they read it. Yes, that is sloppy. I am not defending the authors
who do that. You posted the Lobster article. Fine, thanks. But did you
bother to go back and check all the sources it used? Of course not. Did
you collect and read all those Swiss newspaper articles? Did you
interview their sources? Eventually we reach the point where we can not
dig farther back with our limited resources.
> And why didn't any non-communist sources confirm the charges in the
> communist press?
>
Why is it that only a couple of newspapers dared to publish the Bay of
Pigs information and the vast majority of the mainstream press in the US
had the story and did not run it?
> Corriere Della Sera denounced the charges against CMC and "Permindex."
>
That's nice. I might too. So what? What evidence did they offer?
> The New Orleans STATES-ITEM said the charges were not well supported.
>
Obviously. But that is no excuse for claiming that the charges could not
possibly be true because you label Il Paese Sera as a Communist
newspaper. Facts, please. Not simply red baiting.
> >It makes me a little suspicious when I ask people some standard questions
> >about their debunking efforts and they are unable or unwilling to answer
> >them directly and honestly.
> >
>
> I've answered your questions directly and honestly.
>
> Why won't you accept the answers?
>
What is your evidence that Il Paese Sera was a Communist newspaper?
What is your evidence that Paese Sera never existed?
What is your evidence that the article never existed in Il Paese Sera?
What is your evidence that the Il Paese Sera was "unreliable"?
What is your evidence that the Il Paese Sera article was inaccurate?
What is your evidence that the Lobster article is 100% accurate?
BTW, did you notice that the Lobster article stated as a fact that David
Ferrie had worked for the CIA during the Bay of Pigs? Is that 100%
accurate? I seem to remember that you WC defenders have always
vehemently denied that Ferrie was CIA. If that allegation about Ferrie
was wrong, why didn't the Lobster article disprove it?
> >Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
> >thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
> >it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
> >read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
> >to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
> >discrediting WC critics, to criticize anything which hints at a
> >conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
> >here actually read the Paese Sera article?
> >
>
> I haven't, but someone I know is working on getting it. When it's
> available, the full English translation will be posted here.
>
Is that anything like a Monty Python foreign translation?
> It's not easy to get, since few libraries even in Italy seem to get
> it. But few libraries here get the DAILY WORLD and NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
>
Exactly. But does that prove that the Daily World and National Enquirer
are Communist newspapers?
> Paese Sera seems to be a combination of both.
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
AnthonyMarsh
Interesting hearsay. Is that a direct quote from the Lobster article? So,
are you admitting that Lobster author only got his claim from your
"History of the Italian Press" without bothering to attribute it or check
it out himself? Sounds rather like what you are accusing others of doing.
> Even if it were the worst propaganda arm of the
> >worst Communist party in the world, if a fact is a fact, then just
> >putting the fact in that newspaper does not change it to a lie. It just
> >makes us suspicious and want to check it out for ourselves. Has anyone?
>
> The allegation in question is that CMC/Permindex was a CIA front. No evidence
> for this was advanced by *Paese Sera,* and CIA records, as we have them,
> indicate that, if anything, the CIA and State Dept. were keeping an eye on CMC
> and Permindex -- probably because of founder Ferenc Nagy's past -- not
> sponsoring it.
>
> >> Why do you complain when someone questions the accuracy of *Paese Sera's*
> >> information, but display no sign of distress when well known authors
> >> uncritically cite an unsubstantiated allegation of *Paese Sera's*? Why do
> >you
> >> demand to know if John McAdams has read the articles in question, but show
> >no
> >> curiosity as to whether Jim Garrison, Paris Flammonde, Jim DiEugenio or
> >Bill
> >> Davy have read them? If Garrison, Flammonde, et al., cite the newspaper's
> >> unsubstantiated allegations, isn't the burden of proof on them?
> >>
> >
> >I am just asking that when someone debunks something that some type of
> >proof be offered.
>
> Isn't the burden of proof on the accusers? Aren't the accusers in this case
> *Paese Sera* and those who uncritically cite that paper?
>
No, the burden of proof about the debunking is on the people who make
the allegation, just as the burden of proof about the original claim is
on the people who make the original claim.
> There are thousands of baseless allegations in
> >hundreds of books. I do not complain about all of them. I have often
> >written that I am concerned about the way Garrison just accepted
> >whatever ridiculous notions people fed him. I have cited some of the
> >weaknesses of some of the other authors.
>
> Yet you go ballistic when John McAdams points out that *Paese Sera* was not a
> reputable newspaper, which it wasn't. (I know of two people who have tried to
> track old issues of the paper down in Italy, and apparently there are damn few
> libraries that see any value in stocking them.)
>
"Ballistic"? Jeez, you haven't see me go ballistic. All I have been doing
is asking the debunkers to provide some evidence. And especially pointing
out that it seems silly to claim that something does not exist when there
may be evidence that it does.
> >I think it is particularly silly to claim that something does not exist
> >when we have proof that it does.
>
> I've never claimed that *Paese Sera* or their articles on CMC/Permindex don't
> exist, but neither have I ever met or heard from a single person who has seen
> any of these articles. Therefore, I'm not certain what proof you're referring
> to.
>
Doesn't the fact that you cite this book about the Italian press and
supposedly it cites Il Paese Sera as a Communist newspaper confirm the
existence of the newspaper Il Paese Sera? If so, then why should anyone
claim that Paese Sera never existed?
> Such as the WC defender claim that
> >there was no real entry for Clay Shaw in Who's Who,
>
> I don't know that one has to be a Warren Commission defender to question the
> validity of the oft-cited entry, particularly as the Warren Commission never
> even heard of Clay Shaw. Conversely, I don't know many Warren Commission
> defenders -- or anyone -- who question the entry.
>
WC defenders are one camp in the debate. Of course there have been later
controversies, but they are still known as Warren Commission defenders. If
you have not seen the WC defenders denying the existence of the Who's Who
entry or the validity of the Permindex entry, try going back through the
old messages using DejaNews. You know who the prime suspects are.
> or that Permindex
> >was not mentioned, or that someone else forged the Permindex entry
> >and/or the Clay Shaw entry.
>
> Same thing -- I know one person who's raised such issues. Why don't you take it
> up with him, instead of demaning that all the "debunkers" get their stories
> straight? If you don't want people inferring any paranoia in such statements of
> yours, you really should think twice about making such statements.
>
I could give a damn what you infer. I will not shut up and let people
post their propaganda and red baiting unopposed.
> Likewise if someone wants to claim that the
> >article in Il Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed
> >up with some type of evidence.
>
> Again, Anthony, I know exactly one person who's ever suggested this, and his
> request that somebody produce a copies of these articles does not strike me as
> being unreasonable, given the importance certain researchers place upon them.
>
I have no problem with his request that someone produce the original
article. I would like to see it too. I would not believe anything just
because it is in that article. But I would like to see the way it is
phrased.
> Or if someone claimed that the newspaper
> >Ul Paesa Sera never existed, I would like to see that backed up with
> >some type of evidence.
>
> Anthony, what on Earth is with all these straw men? No one claimed the
> newspaper didn't exist. You misread a post of John's.
>
No, I noticed a flaw in John's argument.
> If someone wants to claim that the allegation in
> >the article that Permindex was a CIA front is inaccurate, that's fine
> >with me. They don't have to back up their opinion with any evidence
> >whatsoever. They are entitled to their opinion.
>
> But you don't think that people who insist that CMC/Permidex WAS a CIA front
> should produce some evidence? You think a citation to an unsubstantiated series
> of articles in a disreputable newspaper is good enough?
>
I can not accept the idea that a fact is impossible simply because it came
from what you call a disreputable newspaper. What proof have you offered
that the newspaper is disreputable? Again, red baiting is no substitute
for evidence. I never said anything about accepting the allegation as
true.
> >Sometimes a debunker and I might agree about the larger issue, but I may
> >take issue with the way they arrived at the conclusion. Like the issue
> >of Badge Man. I agree that there was not a man there, that it was only
> >an optical illusion. But I have to disagree when people try to prove
> >that by claiming that a shot from the Badge Man could not have hit JFK
> >at Z-313. Simple geometry proves that a shot from that position was
> >physically possible. But there was no one there to shoot it.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Anthony Marsh
> >The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
>
> Perhaps I should reread John's original post, as I don't recall him
> specifically claiming to debunk the contents of the article. Either way, I
> still don't understand why you place the burden of proof on the accused rather
> than the accuser.
>
> Dave
There is nothing wrong with debunking a claim as long as the debunker does
not misstate the facts.
Clark
Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990715180840...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >From: "Clark" <clwi...@prodigy.net>
> >
> >
> >An entertaining piece. I find it highly amusing to watch two sides go to
> >battle over a newspaper article neither has ever read.
>
>
> It's nice that Mr. Wilkins finds amusement in the thought that it has as
> yet proved impossible to verify the contents of an article that reportedly
> libeled a US citizen thirty-two years ago, and which has been cited by
> authors of conspiracy books ever since.
Shaw was libeled? Please cite the courtcase in which Shaw proved Paese
Sera libeled him.
>
>
> My enjoyment
> >reached its peak when one one lone voice questioned even the existence of
> >the article.
>
>
> That person, who reads Italian, has gone so far as to visit several
> libraries in Italy in search of a copy of this article. He couldn't find
> it. Given Jim Garrison's documented history of utilizing fabricated
> evidence and, in at least one documented case, fabricating evidence
> personally, I can hardly blame someone for questioning the authenticity of
> an article that no one in the on-line research community claims to have
> ever seen.
Yes. That's why I found it entertaining. This whole argument may be over
a newspaper article that doesn't even exist.
>
>
> >However, I see where sanity is beginning to return and, therefore, I see
> >no alternative but to stir the hornet's nest back up again if my fun is
to
> >continue. That shouldn't be too difficult.
>
>
> Beats working, I suppose.
>
>
> >Let's begin with the post that started it all:
> >
> >
> >
> >John McAdams <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:378641ea....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >> Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
> >> and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
> >> in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
> >>
> >
> >This is a true statement. I admit it. No contentions here. However,
> >some people will begin an argument with a true statement and then use that
> >statement to reach a wrong, or unjustified, conclusion (Louis Farakhan and
> >Lynden LaRousche come to mind). Let's see where John goes with this.
>
>
> Notice that Clark resists commenting on the allegations attributed to
> Paese Sera.
I love this! Dave wants everyone to take note that I have resisted,
unlike himself, to comment on an article I've never read. I guess I just
don't meet his standards of integrity.
Savor the insanity, folks. And I thought I only got to read this kind of
stuff over at the "nuthouse".
>
>
> >> Just how reliable was the paper?
> >>
> >
> >John has raised a valid question. Let's see if he answers it.
> >
> >> The following quotes are from "History of the Italian Press" (compiled
> >> by several authors and published between the 70's and the 80's in six
> >> volumes by Laterza, Bari).
> >
> >John has produced a source. Now we can check with this source on the
> >reliability of Paese Sera's reporting. Let's see if John does this.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Some of the points they make are:
> >>
> >> -- "Paese Sera" was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
> >> Party's initiative.
> >>
> >
> >Here we have a Communist Party newspaper. This is not unusual. For
> >example, in Seattle, Washington, the two major newspapers are the Seattle
> >Times (a Republican Party newspaper) and the Post Intelligencer (A
> >Democratic Party newspaper).
>
>
> Is it documented that that the Seattle Times is owned and operated by the
> Republican Party?
>
> Is it documented that the Post Intelligencer is owned and operated by the
> Democratic Party?
No. Although I would not be surprised to learn their editors/owners
served on national committees of their respective parties.
So? What's your point?
>
> Is either paper documented to have invented stories about members of the
> allegedly opposing party, or about others presumably considered "the
> opposition"?
>
I assume you are implying you have documented evidence that Paese Sera
invented stories? This wouldn't be from the Lobster article, would it?
The one that stated that Paese Sera had, eight years earlier, written a
negative article on the CIA? Because that wasn't an invented story. It
was given at a press conference by a French gov't minister. Give us an
example of a story Paese Sera invented and that has been documented as
such.
>
> But the question was "How reliable was the
> >paper?" not what it's political persuasion was. The paper's political
> >persuasion only explains why it printed the story. It has nothing to do
> >with the reliability of the story. However, John seems to want you to
> >conclude otherwise.
>
>
> I suppose it would be an example of Red-baiting for me to note that,
> according to two informed sources, Italian libraries do not make a
> practice of stocking back issues of Paese Sera, though they do frequently
> stock back issues of reputable, non-Communist Italian newspapers such as
> Corriere Della Sera. (Corriere Della Sera, some might recall, is the
> newspaper called "De La Sera" by Paris Flammonde, and which some
> researchers claim collaborated the Paese Sera account. Corriere Della
> Sera, however, did not report any allegations linking CMC/Permindex to the
> CIA.)
>
I am not at all surprised that the Italian libraries stock Corriere Della
Sera over Paese Sera considering Della Sella had sixteen times the
readership. By comparison, I asked our friend Olaf to look up the two
German newspapers that printed the Walker story ahead of Marina's
confessing it. What I found was that German libraries did not stock back
issues in spite of one of the two papers having a reasonable circulation
exposure. Olaf assured me this was not unusual in Europe.
So what was your point again?
>
>
> He has doffed the hat of Senator Joseph McCarthy and
> >Roy Cohn and made the 1950's scare statement that there are communists
> >underfoot and communists must, by some definition somewhere, be
unreliable
> >in their newspaper stories. But does he offer proof? I'll bet he
doesn't.
>
My server will not allow me to post to an existing article unless my new
text added exceeds the amount of old text. Since my original post was of
8 KB and Dave's response is of 18KB, I have to either insert a whole of
new text or delete some of Dave's. Fortunately, Dave made that decision
very easy. He reintroduced arguments from an old post of John's
concerning the Lobster article. I have chosen to cut that portion out
because it of conveniently long length to do so (to get rid of that 18KB)
and:
1) John lost that debate IMHO.
2) Dave has admitted in the past that the Lobster article was not well
written and failed to support John's arguments.
3) The point of this debate is not some past article but the present article
John has posted and which is reproduced here. That argument questioned the
reliability of Paese Sera based upon the opinion of its peers.
So let's cut and get back to those opinions:
<SNIP>
Before we get to John's second point, let's note that the first point,
that Paese Sera is a communist owned paper, is not evidence in itself that
the paper is unreliable (Or, if it is, Dave failed to make a case for it).
So far then, John is batting zero for one in supporting evidence for his
argument. Now to his next point:
>
> >> -- Between the 60's and 70's it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
> >> a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
> >> today around 800,000 copies a day.)
> >
> >The question was "How reliable was the paper?" Apparently, small papers
> >can't get stories right and are unreliable. I'm assuming that's John's
> >contention because I can't see anything else. But does John offer proof?
> >I'll bet he doesn't.
>
Notice that Dave does not argue my observation that the evidence John
submits fails to support his case. John is now batting zero for two.
Now Dave wants to change the subject off the evidence John has submitted:
>
> John McAdams has previously cited an article ...<SNIPPING of John's
previous arguments which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.>
Let's stay on subject, Dave. If you want to create your own case for John
feel free to start your own thread. The subject here is John's latest
post and just how well documented it is.
Here is John's third point of supporting for his claim that Paese Sera is
unreliable:
> >> -- Its main style, "based on the exploitation of common crime news, on
> >> some flexibility in the political evaluation of facts involving
> >> left-wing parties, and, obviously, on a strongly polemical mien toward
> >> the groups in power, was more suited to the readers of Rome." (Ibid.,
> >> vol. 5, p. 241.)
> >
> >Did anyone see the words "unreliable" in here?
> >I didn't.
> >
Apparently Dave didn't the words "unreliable" either since he has posted
no objection. I will take that as evidence that John is now batting zero
for three.
Here is John's fourth supporting cite:
> >>
> >> -- It sought a "popular and direct impact" and "the titles and the
> >> editorials of 'Paese Sera' generally had a sarcastic and protesting
> >> tone, as Romans like it best, whether they belong to the bourgeoisie
> >> or to the proletariat, that sometimes turns into a left-winged
> >> defeatism." (Ibid., p. 248.)
> >>
> >
> >You know? I still can't find the word "unreliable". That criticism
> >John's looking for seems to be missing. I wonder why?
And look! Dave can't find it either.
Looks like John is batting zero for four.
Now John makes his fifth point:
> >
> >> -- In the description of the 60's and 70's press styles, it is said
> >> that "magazines and sensationalistic evening papers ["Paese Sera" was
> >> an evening paper - note mine] make the reader grow into the habit of
> >> looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or made-up
> >> backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
> >> framework, with plenty of pictures and 'disclosures,' aggressive and
> >> funny titles, and extremely lively page setups. Emblematic, with
> >> regard to this, are "Milano Sera," "Il Corriere Lombardo," "Corriere
> >> d'Informazione," "La Notte" in Milan, "Paese Sera" in Rome. (Ibid.,
> >> vol. 6, p. 342.)
> >>
> >
> >Finally! There was an insinuation here of the paper being unreliable (At
> >least the words "made up" appears). It's readers were looking for
details
> >of popular news or, even worse, backgrounds, real or made up. John will
> >eventually compare this to tabloid journalism. The oddity here is that
> >this critic also complains that Paese Sera prints "real" backgrounds.
> >The statement that the newspaper "pursued news or, even worse, real or
> >made up backgrounds..." makes little sense. How can you complain about
> >real backgrounds being reported? Isn't that an indication of reliability?
>
Finally! Dave has something he can object to (Of course, that won't last
for long). He notes:
>
> Clark has just acknowledged evidence that demolishes his statement that
> McAdams has offered nothing to cast doubt on Paese Sera's reliability. Yet
> he does not delete his post in progress and move on to other pursuits, but
> continues with his "fun" just the same.
>
> The accusation Clark seizes upon, incidentally, would seem to involve a
> lack of discrimination on the part of Paese Sera's writers and/or editors.
> But Wilkins seems determined to grasp at straws, and I suppose he must
> make the most of whichever meager straws are available.
I love this!!! The cite Dave refers to is a GENERIC comment applied to
five different newspapers. Paese Sera is not even mentioned at all!
Here's the extracted sentence in full:
"Magazines and sensationalistic evening papers make the reader grow into
the habit of looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or
made up backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
framework, with plenty of pictures and 'disclosures', aggressive and funny
tiles, and extremely lively setups."
This extract was referring to evening newspapers in general (John inserted
that Paese Sera was an evening paper for us). There is no specific
comment here that be attributed exclusively to Paese Sera other than the
fact that it's guilty of being an evening newspaper.
This is the shoe I tossed Dave to chew on. Watch how long he does so. I
hope he likes the flavor.
I just love this!!!
>
>
> >Now notice that of the SIX VOLUMES John perused (And the volumes seem to
> >exceed 342 pages in length), only this one critic makes this comment about
> >Paese Sera and that critic still does not declare the paper to be
> >unreliable and even complains about "real" backgrounds being reported.
>
>
> Here Clark is making a couple of assumptions that may be unfounded, but
> John McAdams would be the one in a position to address them.
The major assumption made is by John who assumed that his GENERIC citation
supported his case. All I've done is question his supporting evidence.
If I've assumed anything, it's that the wording of the quote John provided
us MAKES NO SENSE. It seems to have lost something in the translation.
Here is the quote again:
"Magazines and sensationalistic evening papers make the reader grow into
the habit of looking for obsessively pursued news or, even worse, real or
made up backgrounds, within an ever more imaginative and synthetical
framework, with plenty of pictures and 'disclosures', aggressive and funny
tiles, and extremely lively setups."
What does this mean? How does is a "real or made up" background become
"even worse"? What is the word "real" doing in that sentence? I'm willing
to bet that if Dave Stager gave his opinion on what this sentence means,
and Reitzes gave his, and I gave mine, the opinions wouldn't agree. And if
we don't know what the author is saying, or even what paper he is
referring to in his generic quote, how do we know the aim of the quote is
to identify Paese Sera as being unreliable?
John goes to his next point:
>
>
> >> -- In 1956, while "L'Unità" (newspaper organ of the Communist Party)
> >> didn't even mention the Khrushchev report. "Paese Sera," against the
> >> opinion of some of the leaders of the Communist Party, reprinted its
> >> main passages, with the intent of not leaving its diffusion and
> >> critique in the hands of the bourgeois papers. (Ibid., p. 280.)
> >
> >
> >Now where is that word "unreliable"? Wasn't that supposed to be in here
> >somewhere? Wasn't that the point of the post?
>
What? No comment from Dave? I guess that means that John's supporting
evidence fails again. That makes him zero for five (with one unknown).
>
> How quickly Mr. Wilkins forgets that only a moment ago, he acknowledged a
> report that Paese Sera had a reputation for fabricating material.
How does that shoe taste?
So, in sum:
>
>
> >Now John seems to have in excess of 1,800 pages of journalistic comments
> >to draw upon to demonstrate the newspaper to be unreliable. If it is
> >unreliable, why doesn't someone in those 1,800 plus pages say so?
>
>
> So either Clark has suddenly suffered severe memory loss, or he honestly
> does not see anything unreliable about a newspaper "making up"
> information. Hopefully, Mr. Wilkins will clarify this for us all.
There's that shoe again. But it seems Dave is the one to suffer memory
loss. Five of John's six supporting quotes/citations so far do not
support his claim that Paese Sera was unreliable and the sixth suffers
from 1) A generic quote referring to five newspapers 2) Confusion as to
meaning. Yet John still isn't finished. It gets better!
>
> And again, John McAdams would be the appropriate person to address what
> appears to be an assumption, possibly false, on Clark's part.
>
>
I prefer to think of it as John's assumption.
John now gives us his seventh cite:
> >>
> >> -- With regard to the insurrection in Poznan, "Paese Sera"
> >> acknowledged its popular origin, but held common front with Moscow and
> >> with "L'Unità" as to the necessity of a repression. (Ibid., p. 282.)
> >
> >At the risk of sounding monotonous...
> >Where is the word "unreliable"?
>
>
> "Making up" information, again, would seem to constitute a reliable
> practice in Clark's estimation.
Notice that, other than chewing on the one shoe, Dave has not refuted how,
once again, John's supporting evidence does not support his case. John is
now zero for six!
>
>
> >It appears that John has asked the question of just how reliable the Paese
> >Sera newspaper was and then introduced six volumes of evidence (1800 plus
> >pages by my estimate) demonstrating the paper has never been accused of
> >being unreliable outside of one possible comment regarding tabloid
> >journalism which seems to have been misconstrued in the translation.
> >
> >It appears the evidence John has provided us in order to demonstrate the
> >Paese Sera to be unreliable, demonstrates exactly the opposite.
>
>
> Clark likes to make such statements, but watch him cry foul when someone
> quotes him "out of context," as he claimed when I reposted some previous
> remarks of his stating that Paese Sera's reporting about CMC/Permindex was
> accurate.
>
> Clark seems unconcerned that he has just endorsed the practice of "making
> up" information as "exactly the opposite" of "unreliable" journalism.
Oh, I don't know. I thought I caught someone "making up" citations to
support an "unreliable" charge.
>
>
> >Now when we consider that John had the opportunity to cull the most
> >critical comments he could find for this post, we must also consider the
> >possibility that John had the equal opportunity to cull out comments by
> >fellow journalists praising Paese Sera for its reliability. Anyone think
> >that he might have done that?
>
>
> Again, John may choose to address these assumptions, possibly false, of
> Clark's.
Or possibly true?
>
> However, I'm beginning to wonder if such a response would even be
> necessary.
>
Yes. Going zero for six is not a good score.
I don't think he can recover from this one.
>
> >> So it seems to combine the style of an American tabloid with the
> >> politics of the DAILY WORLD.
> >>
> >> .John
> >>
> >
> >But what about it's reliability?
> >You ducked your own question.
> >
> >Just an observation.
> >
> >..Clark
>
>
> Just a self-evidently inaccurate observation.
>
>
> >"The simplest way to disprove an LNer's theories is with his own
evidence."
>
Below Dave practices what I call, "If you can't win the argument, change
the subject."
>
> Funny Clark should bring up the subject of evidence. I still await Clark
> Wilkins' evidence that "the Centro was a creature of the CIA . . . set up
> as a cover for the transfer of CIA . . . funds in Italy for illegal
> political-espionage activities" (Paese Sera, March 4, 1967; Flammonde,
> 221), which, as Clark well knows, is a claim exclusive to Paese Sera, and
> the claim of theirs that has created the most controversy.
For those curious, I did not say the above. Paese Sera said it (or
allegedly said it). I do not claim CMC was CIA.
>
> Interesting that Clark Wilkins and Anthony Marsh refuse to address the
> allegations attributed to Paese Sera, but have both been quite vocal in
> their opposition to attempts made to correct the record about such
> allegations. I wonder why that is.
>
> Dave Reitzes
>
Why it is? It's because if you're going to debunk claims you should at
least present some evidence supporting it. Otherwise, you're no better
than Jim Garrison. John has twice rolled out his evidence against Paese
Sera's reporting. The first time he produced the Lobster article as the
supporting cite. That proved to be an empty barrell. Now he has rolled
out that same barrell again, claiming six volumes of supporting evidence.
Yet the barrell is still empty.
It makes no difference to me if either John or you discredits Paese Sera's
reporting so long as you do it honestly. I have never read Paese Sera's
articles nor do I quote them to others. I do not claim that CMC or
Permindex assassinated JFK. However, do not expect me to praise your
effort to debunk Paese Sera when your efforts are based on such sloppy
evidence.
Just a thought.
..Clark
"Who speaks for Paese Sera?"
Dave Reitzes
No. Why do you ask?
So,
>are you admitting that Lobster author only got his claim from your
>"History of the Italian Press" without bothering to attribute it or check
>it out himself?
No. Why do you ask?
>Sounds rather like what you are accusing others of doing.
I'm afraid I don't understand why you conflate these two sources.
This appears to be an example of reactionary thinking. First of all, you
are mistaken in your characterization of the Lobster article, or John's
posting of it, as an attempt to "debunk" the Paese Sera material. Paese
Sera published claims without any substantiation; there is nothing to be
"debunked." It seems to me that Steve Dorril went above and beyond the
call of duty by writing an article attempting to explain the publication
of this unsubstantiated information.
Dorril's argument is, of course, only a theory, and it would be perfectly
reasonable for you to argue against it if you choose. But to imply that
Dorril's explanation of the motives behind the Paese Sera allegations has
anything to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of those articles, or with
any so-called attempts at "debunking" the articles, has no basis in logic.
>> There are thousands of baseless allegations in
>> >hundreds of books. I do not complain about all of them. I have often
>> >written that I am concerned about the way Garrison just accepted
>> >whatever ridiculous notions people fed him. I have cited some of the
>> >weaknesses of some of the other authors.
>>
>> Yet you go ballistic when John McAdams points out that *Paese Sera* was not
>a
>> reputable newspaper, which it wasn't. (I know of two people who have tried
>to
>> track old issues of the paper down in Italy, and apparently there are damn
>few
>> libraries that see any value in stocking them.)
>>
>
>"Ballistic"? Jeez, you haven't see me go ballistic. All I have been doing
>is asking the debunkers to provide some evidence. And especially pointing
>out that it seems silly to claim that something does not exist when there
>may be evidence that it does.
John McAdams has never claimed that. I have never claimed that. Either
take it up with someone who did, or get over it.
>> >I think it is particularly silly to claim that something does not exist
>> >when we have proof that it does.
>>
>> I've never claimed that *Paese Sera* or their articles on CMC/Permindex
>don't
>> exist, but neither have I ever met or heard from a single person who has
>seen
>> any of these articles. Therefore, I'm not certain what proof you're
>referring
>> to.
>>
>
>Doesn't the fact that you cite this book about the Italian press and
>supposedly it cites Il Paese Sera as a Communist newspaper confirm the
>existence of the newspaper Il Paese Sera? If so, then why should anyone
>claim that Paese Sera never existed?
This is looking less and less like a simple misunderstanding, and more and
more like a straw man argument.
>> Such as the WC defender claim that
>> >there was no real entry for Clay Shaw in Who's Who,
>>
>> I don't know that one has to be a Warren Commission defender to question
>the
>> validity of the oft-cited entry, particularly as the Warren Commission
>never
>> even heard of Clay Shaw. Conversely, I don't know many Warren Commission
>> defenders -- or anyone -- who question the entry.
>>
>
>WC defenders are one camp in the debate. Of course there have been later
>controversies, but they are still known as Warren Commission defenders. If
>you have not seen the WC defenders denying the existence of the Who's Who
>entry or the validity of the Permindex entry, try going back through the
>old messages using DejaNews. You know who the prime suspects are.
Did these suspects write the Lobster article? Did these suspects post the
Lobster article on-line? If not, why do you bring it up?
>> or that Permindex
>> >was not mentioned, or that someone else forged the Permindex entry
>> >and/or the Clay Shaw entry.
>>
>> Same thing -- I know one person who's raised such issues. Why don't you
>take it
>> up with him, instead of demaning that all the "debunkers" get their stories
>> straight? If you don't want people inferring any paranoia in such
>statements of
>> yours, you really should think twice about making such statements.
>>
>
>I could give a damn what you infer. I will not shut up and let people
>post their propaganda and red baiting unopposed.
No, you apparently prefer to post ill-conceived, incoherent arguments and
"let people post their propaganda and red baiting unopposed."
Same difference.
A quote from a book on the history of the press in Italy, which declared
that Paese Sera frequently fabricated material.
A quote from Andrew Tully, noting that Paese Sera was known to print false
stories about the CIA.
A quote from a Lobster article, citing an example of a false story about
the CIA printed by Paese Sera.
Wild speculation posted by Paese Sera as though it were fact, for example,
that Clay Shaw arranged JFK's Dallas trip, that the International Trade
Mart of New Orleans was affiliated with the Trade Mart in Dallas, and that
CMC/Permindex was expelled from at least one European country, among other
conspicuous errors.
Again, red baiting is no substitute
>for evidence. I never said anything about accepting the allegation as
>true.
However, you don't seem to have actually red, er, *read* the posts in
question, which contained evidence that you have not acknowledged.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>From: AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com>
>Date: Fri, 16 July 1999 05:07 PM EDT
>Message-id: <378F9F08...@quik.com>
Lurkers, please see earlier posts in this thread, which contain a number
of examples of why Paese Sera could be justifiably consider an unreliable
source. Why Anthony chooses to assert this information has not been
posted, I can't imagine.
Lurkers, notice that Anthony never seems to respond to the actual content
of a statement or question, but rather seems to invent a straw man
argument to address.
>Well, at least we would hope that it gets proofread before getting into
>print. The same can not be said of Case Closed.
Or perhaps he just changes the subject. That's also a possibility.
>> >Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
>> >LN side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
>> >contents of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who
>> >have been attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common
>> >is that they are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The
>> >people who actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to
>> >see any need to verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the
>> >more provocative statements reported.
>> >
>> >In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
>> >don't care for people questioning the validity of a particular
>> >unsubstantiated, unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you
>> >would feel a similar distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that
>> >same unsubstantiated, unverified source, without whom there would be
>> >little need for any unfortunate "debunkers."
>> >
>>
>> I really don't see why Tony should get upset at my posting information
>> showing PAESE SERA was an unreliable, tabloid-style, communist paper.
>>
>
>I object to people using red baiting to avoid having to present evidence.
Notice Anthony still insists no evidence has been offered of Paese Sera's
unreliability. Yet he is responding to an article and a post of John
McAdams', each of which cites several examples. Strange, isn't it?
>Where is the proof that Il Paese Sera was a Communist paper?
John cited some in the post that I believe launched this thread.
Just the
>Lobster article?
No, that's not what I was thinking of.
Where is the proof that it is accurate to describe it as
>a tabloid-style paper? Where was the term "unreliable" ever used, except
>invented here in this newsgroup?
Again, Anthony denies that evidence has been presented suggesting that
Paese Sera can reasonably be called unreliable. Has Anthony read the
Lobster article or the post of John McAdams that launched this particular
exchange? Has he read any of the posts in which I restated and added to
the previously posted information?
>I realize that WC defender need to make a preemptive strike against the
>allegation that Permindex was a CIA front.
How does one make a "preemptive strike" against an allegation published 32
years ago, and why would any "WC defender" be panicking over such an
allegation, which is taken seriously only by a rather puny community of
Garrison loyalists and the occasional LaRouche-ian?
But I would rather see
>arguments supported by facts rather than just red baiting and innuendo.
You should consider reading the posts you criticize.
Just a suggestion.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
This has been answered numerous times earlier in this thread. John McAdams
has quoted two independent sources.
>What is your evidence that Paese Sera never existed?
John McAdams has never made this claim.
>What is your evidence that the article never existed in Il Paese Sera?
John McAdams has never made this claim.
>What is your evidence that the Il Paese Sera was "unreliable"?
Numerous examples have been posted in this thread, and several in the
Lobster article.
>What is your evidence that the Il Paese Sera article was inaccurate?
Anthony still does not even seem aware that we are discussing a series of
articles. Has Anthony read the posts to which he is responding?
>What is your evidence that the Lobster article is 100% accurate?
I don't recall John McAdams making that claim. Can you repost a citation,
please?
>BTW, did you notice that the Lobster article stated as a fact that David
>Ferrie had worked for the CIA during the Bay of Pigs? Is that 100%
>accurate?
I do not believe John McAdams endorses either the opinions expressed or
the factual accuracy of everything on his Web site. He has been known to
post an article challenging another article on his own Web site. This is
another straw man argument from the poster who doesn't seem to have even
read the posts he's criticized at least a dozen times now.
I seem to remember that you WC defenders have always
>vehemently denied that Ferrie was CIA. If that allegation about Ferrie
>was wrong, why didn't the Lobster article disprove it?
Yadda yadda yadda . . .
The author of the Lobster article unequivocally stated that Garrison was
justified in pursuing Ferrie. Would Anthony Marsh prefer that John McAdams
censor all material he finds objectionable in the posts he selects for his
Web site?
>> >Remember that I did not debunk Posner's book until I had read it
>> >thoroughly. Remember that I did not debunk Fetzer's book until I had read
>> >it thoroughly. Remember that I did not criticize Russo's book until I had
>> >read it thoroughly. On the other hand, we have some people here who seem
>> >to be part of an organized campaign, following CIA guidelines for
>> >discrediting WC critics, to criticize anything which hints at a
>> >conspiracy, without bothering to read it for themselves. So, has anyone
>> >here actually read the Paese Sera article?
>> >
>>
>> I haven't, but someone I know is working on getting it. When it's
>> available, the full English translation will be posted here.
>>
>
>Is that anything like a Monty Python foreign translation?
Okay, I guess this is where I bail out. If Tony reads and writes Italian,
it's a shame he hasn't volunteered to provide his own translation, should
the articles ever actually materialize.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
>
>
>Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com>
>> >
>> >
>> >An entertaining piece. I find it highly amusing to watch two sides go to
>> >battle over a newspaper article neither has ever read.
>>
>>
>> It's nice that Mr. Wilkins finds amusement in the thought that it has as
>> yet proved impossible to verify the contents of an article that reportedly
>> libeled a US citizen thirty-two years ago, and which has been cited by
>> authors of conspiracy books ever since.
>
>
>Shaw was libeled? Please cite the courtcase in which Shaw proved Paese
>Sera libeled him.
Pity Shaw didn't live to pursue such a case, just as he didn't live to see
his lawsuit against Jim Garrison come to fruition. In the meantime, I am
confident that most people would regard insinuations and/or allegations of
involvement in assassination plots a form of libel.
>>
>>
>> My enjoyment
>> >reached its peak when one one lone voice questioned even the existence of
>> >the article.
>>
>>
>> That person, who reads Italian, has gone so far as to visit several
>> libraries in Italy in search of a copy of this article. He couldn't find
>> it. Given Jim Garrison's documented history of utilizing fabricated
>> evidence and, in at least one documented case, fabricating evidence
>> personally, I can hardly blame someone for questioning the authenticity of
>> an article that no one in the on-line research community claims to have
>> ever seen.
>
>
>Yes. That's why I found it entertaining. This whole argument may be over
>a newspaper article that doesn't even exist.
I can think of only one person who has ever questioned the article's
existence. Meanwhile, at least one of the participants in this argument is
currently seeking to obtain a copy of the article, something that can't be
said for the authors who cite this article in their work.
>>
>>
>> >However, I see where sanity is beginning to return and, therefore, I see
>> >no alternative but to stir the hornet's nest back up again if my fun is
>to
>> >continue. That shouldn't be too difficult.
>>
>>
>> Beats working, I suppose.
>>
>>
>> >Let's begin with the post that started it all:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >John McAdams <6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:378641ea....@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> >>
>> >> Paese Sera, of course, is the Italian newspaper that tied Permindex
>> >> and the CMC to the CIA, and accused Permindex and CMC of being engaged
>> >> in all kind of neo-fascist activities.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is a true statement. I admit it. No contentions here. However,
>> >some people will begin an argument with a true statement and then use that
>> >statement to reach a wrong, or unjustified, conclusion (Louis Farakhan and
>> >Lynden LaRousche come to mind). Let's see where John goes with this.
>>
>>
>> Notice that Clark resists commenting on the allegations attributed to
>> Paese Sera.
>
>
>I love this! Dave wants everyone to take note that I have resisted,
>unlike himself, to comment on an article I've never read. I guess I just
>don't meet his standards of integrity.
>
>Savor the insanity, folks. And I thought I only got to read this kind of
>stuff over at the "nuthouse".
That's the difference between Clark and a politician, I suppose. A
politician would at least *pretend* to be concerned with issues.
>>
>>
>> >> Just how reliable was the paper?
>> >>
>> >
>> >John has raised a valid question. Let's see if he answers it.
>> >
>> >> The following quotes are from "History of the Italian Press" (compiled
>> >> by several authors and published between the 70's and the 80's in six
>> >> volumes by Laterza, Bari).
>> >
>> >John has produced a source. Now we can check with this source on the
>> >reliability of Paese Sera's reporting. Let's see if John does this.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Some of the points they make are:
>> >>
>> >> -- "Paese Sera" was born on December 6, 1949 on the Italian Communist
>> >> Party's initiative.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Here we have a Communist Party newspaper. This is not unusual. For
>> >example, in Seattle, Washington, the two major newspapers are the Seattle
>> >Times (a Republican Party newspaper) and the Post Intelligencer (A
>> >Democratic Party newspaper).
>>
>>
>> Is it documented that that the Seattle Times is owned and operated by the
>> Republican Party?
>>
>> Is it documented that the Post Intelligencer is owned and operated by the
>> Democratic Party?
>
>
>No. Although I would not be surprised to learn their editors/owners
>served on national committees of their respective parties.
>
>So? What's your point?
My point was that I believed your analogies to be groundless, something
you have just confirmed.
>
>>
>> Is either paper documented to have invented stories about members of the
>> allegedly opposing party, or about others presumably considered "the
>> opposition"?
>>
>
>
>I assume you are implying you have documented evidence that Paese Sera
>invented stories? This wouldn't be from the Lobster article, would it?
No.
>The one that stated that Paese Sera had, eight years earlier, written a
>negative article on the CIA?
No, although that's an interesting incident as well.
Because that wasn't an invented story. It
>was given at a press conference by a French gov't minister. Give us an
>example of a story Paese Sera invented and that has been documented as
>such.
The allegation was made by the author of a book on the history of the
press in Italy. Off-hand, I suspect that Paese Sera invented the story
they printed about the International Trade Mart of New Orleans being
affiliated with the Trade Mart in Dallas, and Clay Shaw having been
personally responsible for planning JFK's Dallas trip, but I confess I am
speculating. It is perfecty conceivable that Paese Sera simply picked
these allegations up from an unreliable source.
>>
>> But the question was "How reliable was the
>> >paper?" not what it's political persuasion was. The paper's political
>> >persuasion only explains why it printed the story. It has nothing to do
>> >with the reliability of the story. However, John seems to want you to
>> >conclude otherwise.
>>
>>
>> I suppose it would be an example of Red-baiting for me to note that,
>> according to two informed sources, Italian libraries do not make a
>> practice of stocking back issues of Paese Sera, though they do frequently
>> stock back issues of reputable, non-Communist Italian newspapers such as
>> Corriere Della Sera. (Corriere Della Sera, some might recall, is the
>> newspaper called "De La Sera" by Paris Flammonde, and which some
>> researchers claim collaborated the Paese Sera account. Corriere Della
>> Sera, however, did not report any allegations linking CMC/Permindex to the
>> CIA.)
>>
>
>
>I am not at all surprised that the Italian libraries stock Corriere Della
>Sera over Paese Sera considering Della Sella had sixteen times the
>readership. By comparison, I asked our friend Olaf to look up the two
>German newspapers that printed the Walker story ahead of Marina's
>confessing it. What I found was that German libraries did not stock back
>issues in spite of one of the two papers having a reasonable circulation
>exposure. Olaf assured me this was not unusual in Europe.
>
>So what was your point again?
Well, it wasn't that disreputable Italian rags are as difficult to find in
libraries as disreputable German rags, but that suddenly seems like a
point worth making.
>>
>>
>> He has doffed the hat of Senator Joseph McCarthy and
>> >Roy Cohn and made the 1950's scare statement that there are communists
>> >underfoot and communists must, by some definition somewhere, be
>unreliable
>> >in their newspaper stories. But does he offer proof? I'll bet he
>doesn't.
>>
>
>My server will not allow me to post to an existing article unless my new
>text added exceeds the amount of old text. Since my original post was of
>8 KB and Dave's response is of 18KB, I have to either insert a whole of
>new text or delete some of Dave's. Fortunately, Dave made that decision
>very easy. He reintroduced arguments from an old post of John's
>concerning the Lobster article. I have chosen to cut that portion out
>because it of conveniently long length to do so (to get rid of that 18KB)
>and:
>
>1) John lost that debate IMHO.
"IMHO" being the operative phrase.
>2) Dave has admitted in the past that the Lobster article was not well
>written
Correct.
>and failed to support John's arguments.
Incorrect.
>3) The point of this debate is not some past article but the present article
>John has posted and which is reproduced here. That argument questioned the
>reliability of Paese Sera based upon the opinion of its peers.
>
>So let's cut and get back to those opinions:
>
><SNIP>
>
>Before we get to John's second point, let's note that the first point,
>that Paese Sera is a communist owned paper, is not evidence in itself that
>the paper is unreliable (Or, if it is, Dave failed to make a case for it).
>So far then, John is batting zero for one in supporting evidence for his
>argument.
Lurkers might want to read the posts in question, which I suspect would
put them a step or two ahead of Clark.
Now to his next point:
>
>>
>> >> -- Between the 60's and 70's it was selling more than 40-50,000 copies
>> >> a day (as a means of comparison, the best known newspaper in Italy is
>> >> today around 800,000 copies a day.)
>> >
>> >The question was "How reliable was the paper?" Apparently, small papers
>> >can't get stories right and are unreliable. I'm assuming that's John's
>> >contention because I can't see anything else. But does John offer proof?
>> >I'll bet he doesn't.
>>
>
>Notice that Dave does not argue my observation that the evidence John
>submits fails to support his case. John is now batting zero for two.
Notice that Clark snipped the evidence of John's that I reposted. Some
people would consider this a less-than-honorable methodology.
>Now Dave wants to change the subject off the evidence John has submitted:
>
>>
>> John McAdams has previously cited an article ...<SNIPPING of John's
>previous arguments which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.>
Lurkers might want to backtrack and see if they agree with Clark's
assessment that John McAdams has offered no evidence to support his
arguments. Pardon me if I don't repost it yet again. I can't imagine a
soul besides myself would even have read this far.
>Let's stay on subject, Dave. If you want to create your own case for John
>feel free to start your own thread. The subject here is John's latest
>post and just how well documented it is.
Mm-hmm. We'll just snip the information so we can claim anything we like
about it, eh?
>Here is John's third point of supporting for his claim that Paese Sera is
>unreliable:
>
>
>> >> -- Its main style, "based on the exploitation of common crime news, on
>> >> some flexibility in the political evaluation of facts involving
>> >> left-wing parties, and, obviously, on a strongly polemical mien toward
>> >> the groups in power, was more suited to the readers of Rome." (Ibid.,
>> >> vol. 5, p. 241.)
>> >
>> >Did anyone see the words "unreliable" in here?
>> >I didn't.
>> >
>
>
>Apparently Dave didn't the words "unreliable" either since he has posted
>no objection. I will take that as evidence that John is now batting zero
>for three.
I try to give Clark the benefit of the doubt that he is not posting merely
for the sake of being contrary -- he has, in the past, been known to post
some interesting material -- but I'm afraid my patience has its lamentable
limits. If anyone is impressed with Clark's argument that John McAdams
must be wrong in calling Paese Sera unreliable if no cited source of his
uses that precise word -- regardless of how many examples McAdams posts of
how unreliable Paese Sera is -- please do let us all know.
Dave
AnthonyMarsh
The Lobster article takes issue with one set of articles, only about the
Clay Shaw controversy. Where does it elaborate that Il Paese Sera was
known as "unreliable" before or after the Clay Shaw articles? Where else
besides your imagination does anyone else claim that Il Paese Sera was an
"unreliable" tabloid. Certainly you can disagree with one or two articles
in a newspaper because it links Clay Shaw to the CIA, but where is your
documentation that such a newspaper is known to be "unreliable"?
It is not a straw man argument, because I did not invent the idea that one
misspelling proves that the source is incompetent. That is what John
McAdams said and what I challenged by pointing out that we make mistakes
from time to time and if I wanted to, I could point out similar
misspellings by others here and likewise claim that the person is
incompetent. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why
don't you seem to understand common American colloguialisms like that?
> >Well, at least we would hope that it gets proofread before getting into
> >print. The same can not be said of Case Closed.
>
> Or perhaps he just changes the subject. That's also a possibility.
>
No, just another example of a book with errors in it. Finding one or two
errors like that can not be used to totally invalidate any book. Would
that it were that easy, so no WC defender would be able to accept anything
written in Case Closed. But the real world does not work that way. You WC
defenders are quick to spot the smallest speck on your opponents, but
unable to see the mote in your own eyes.
>
> >> >Meanwhile, I know of a couple researchers who most definitely fall on the
> >> >LN side of the argument that have been trying for some time to verify the
> >> >contents of these articles, and I know of at least a couple of CTs who
> >> >have been attempting to do the same. What these LNs and CTs have in common
> >> >is that they are skeptical of the claims attributed to this newspaper. The
> >> >people who actually CITE these articles, on the other hand, do not seem to
> >> >see any need to verify their contents, much less try to substantiate the
> >> >more provocative statements reported.
> >> >
> >> >In other words, Anthony, I believe your criticism is misdirected. If you
> >> >don't care for people questioning the validity of a particular
> >> >unsubstantiated, unverified source, it only seems reasonable that you
> >> >would feel a similar distaste for people who indiscriminately cite that
> >> >same unsubstantiated, unverified source, without whom there would be
> >> >little need for any unfortunate "debunkers."
> >> >
> >>
> >> I really don't see why Tony should get upset at my posting information
> >> showing PAESE SERA was an unreliable, tabloid-style, communist paper.
> >>
> >
> >I object to people using red baiting to avoid having to present evidence.
>
> Notice Anthony still insists no evidence has been offered of Paese Sera's
> unreliability. Yet he is responding to an article and a post of John
> McAdams', each of which cites several examples. Strange, isn't it?
>
Such as? Besides the complaints about the Clay Shaw articles, what
evidence has been offered that Il Paese Sera was "unreliable"?
> >Where is the proof that Il Paese Sera was a Communist paper?
>
> John cited some in the post that I believe launched this thread.
>
> Just the
> >Lobster article?
>
> No, that's not what I was thinking of.
>
Well, if you don't say it out loud, how are we supposed to know what you
were thinking of?
> Where is the proof that it is accurate to describe it as
> >a tabloid-style paper? Where was the term "unreliable" ever used, except
> >invented here in this newsgroup?
>
> Again, Anthony denies that evidence has been presented suggesting that
> Paese Sera can reasonably be called unreliable. Has Anthony read the
> Lobster article or the post of John McAdams that launched this particular
> exchange? Has he read any of the posts in which I restated and added to
> the previously posted information?
>
Yes, I read the Lobster article. Where did it state that the newspaper Il
Paese Sera was unreliable, except for what it thought were errors in the
Clay Shaw articles?
> >I realize that WC defender need to make a preemptive strike against the
> >allegation that Permindex was a CIA front.
>
> How does one make a "preemptive strike" against an allegation published 32
> years ago, and why would any "WC defender" be panicking over such an
> allegation, which is taken seriously only by a rather puny community of
> Garrison loyalists and the occasional LaRouche-ian?
>
The preemptive strike is by John's using red baiting instead of debating
the issues. And we can see how his position is unravelling when we
actually discuss the issues.
> But I would rather see
> >arguments supported by facts rather than just red baiting and innuendo.
>
> You should consider reading the posts you criticize.
>
Yeah, right. Another preemptive strike to avoid having to produce proof.
Just launch ad hominem arguments against your opponents so that you don't
have to back up your claims with any facts.
> Just a suggestion.
>
> Dave
Dave Reitzes
In the history of the Italian press that John cited in the post that I
believe started this thread. You're familiar with that post, right,
Anthony?
Certainly you can disagree with one or two articles
>in a newspaper because it links Clay Shaw to the CIA, but where is your
>documentation that such a newspaper is known to be "unreliable"?
Gosh, I dunno, Anthony . . .
You are mistaken. You do not take the time to read and understand the
material that so offends you. John cited the misspelling as evidence that
most or all of the secondary sources that claim to cite Paese Sera are
almost certainly actually basing their citations upon Paris "Paesa"
Flammonde's published translations of unknown origin and paraphrasings of
these unsourced translations.
and what I challenged by pointing out that we make mistakes
>from time to time and if I wanted to, I could point out similar
>misspellings by others here and likewise claim that the person is
>incompetent. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why
>don't you seem to understand common American colloguialisms like that?
If you would take the time to understand someone's arguments, you might
not be so befuddled about their reactions to your misguided criticisms.
>> >Well, at least we would hope that it gets proofread before getting into
>> >print. The same can not be said of Case Closed.
>>
>> Or perhaps he just changes the subject. That's also a possibility.
>>
>
>No, just another example of a book with errors in it. Finding one or two
>errors like that can not be used to totally invalidate any book. Would
>that it were that easy, so no WC defender would be able to accept anything
>written in Case Closed. But the real world does not work that way. You WC
>defenders are quick to spot the smallest speck on your opponents, but
>unable to see the mote in your own eyes.
Funny, I remember Jim Phelan once saying something similar to Mark Lane
during the Shaw trial. But I shouldn't digress.
Sorry, Anthony -- I think I've wasted enough time on someone who can't
even be bothered to read a post before leaping to attack it. So far, the
only memorable comment from you is that I don't know what I'm talking
about. I'll let lurkers go check out the earlier posts in this thread and
see which one of us that best describes.
>> >Where is the proof that Il Paese Sera was a Communist paper?
>>
>> John cited some in the post that I believe launched this thread.
>>
>> Just the
>> >Lobster article?
>>
>> No, that's not what I was thinking of.
>>
>
>Well, if you don't say it out loud, how are we supposed to know what you
>were thinking of?
You don't pay attention, Anthony. John posted the material -- to which you
allegedly responded, oddly enough -- and I reposted the information,
adding a few other tidbits for your benefit. If you can't be bothered to
actually read these posts, that's your problem. Sadly, I can't be too
surprised when someone on the pro-Garrison side of an argument exhibits
such a selective attention span.
>> Where is the proof that it is accurate to describe it as
>> >a tabloid-style paper? Where was the term "unreliable" ever used, except
>> >invented here in this newsgroup?
>>
>> Again, Anthony denies that evidence has been presented suggesting that
>> Paese Sera can reasonably be called unreliable. Has Anthony read the
>> Lobster article or the post of John McAdams that launched this particular
>> exchange? Has he read any of the posts in which I restated and added to
>> the previously posted information?
>>
>
>Yes, I read the Lobster article.
I suppose we'll have to take your word for that.
Where did it state that the newspaper Il
>Paese Sera was unreliable, except for what it thought were errors in the
>Clay Shaw articles?
It's a short article, Anthony. Read it again.
>> >I realize that WC defender need to make a preemptive strike against the
>> >allegation that Permindex was a CIA front.
>>
>> How does one make a "preemptive strike" against an allegation published 32
>> years ago, and why would any "WC defender" be panicking over such an
>> allegation, which is taken seriously only by a rather puny community of
>> Garrison loyalists and the occasional LaRouche-ian?
>>
>
>The preemptive strike is by John's using red baiting instead of debating
>the issues. And we can see how his position is unravelling when we
>actually discuss the issues.
Which issue would that be, Anthony? Your refusal to read someone's post
before attacking it?
>> But I would rather see
>> >arguments supported by facts rather than just red baiting and innuendo.
>>
>> You should consider reading the posts you criticize.
>>
>
>Yeah, right. Another preemptive strike to avoid having to produce proof.
>Just launch ad hominem arguments against your opponents so that you don't
>have to back up your claims with any facts.
A good description of your methodology, which is strikingly similar to
that of Jim Garrison and his acolytes. "Coincidence . . . or conspiracy?"
Dave
Clark
> >From: "Clark" <clwi...@prodigy.net>
> >
> >
> >Dave Reitzes <drei...@aol.com>
> >> >From: "Clark" <clwi...@prodigy.net>
> >> >
<SNIP>
> >
> >
> >I assume you are implying you have documented evidence that Paese Sera
> >invented stories? This wouldn't be from the Lobster article, would it?
>
>
> No.
>
>
> >The one that stated that Paese Sera had, eight years earlier, written a
> >negative article on the CIA?
>
>
> No, although that's an interesting incident as well.
>
>
> Because that wasn't an invented story. It
> >was given at a press conference by a French gov't minister. Give us an
> >example of a story Paese Sera invented and that has been documented as
> >such.
>
>
> The allegation was made by the author of a book on the history of the
> press in Italy. Off-hand, I suspect that Paese Sera invented the story
> they printed about the International Trade Mart of New Orleans being
> affiliated with the Trade Mart in Dallas, and Clay Shaw having been
> personally responsible for planning JFK's Dallas trip, but I confess I am
> speculating. It is perfecty conceivable that Paese Sera simply picked
> these allegations up from an unreliable source.
On this we agree. I volunteer Jim Garrison's office as that unreliable
source. Mention was made in the Lobster article (If we trust the article)
of a Soviet journalist calling Garrison's office repeatedly for an
interview. Perhaps he granted such an interview to Paese Sera or to
another journalist who sold the story to Paese Sera? If Garrison was the
source of this story it might explain why he never made much use of the
article by reprinting it in his books. After all, had Paese Sera revealed
him to be its source while Jim was quoting Paese Sera - well - that would
be a pretty big hole for him to dig his way out of.
<SNIP>
>
>
> Notice that Clark snipped the evidence of John's that I reposted. Some
> people would consider this a less-than-honorable methodology.
>
I explained my snip.
But now let us look at your methodology.
John posted a claim and then provided seven citations he stated to be in
supporting evidence.
Six of the seven points did not support his claim.
You do not argue this. John does not argue this.
The seventh point suffered from ambiguity.
You do not argue this. John does not argue this.
Did he use good methodology?
Do you endorse this method of debunking evidence?
Was I wrong to challenge him?
Just curious.
..Clark
Dave Reitzes
>From: "Clark" clwi...@prodigy.net
>Date: Sun, 18 July 1999 08:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7mts09$p3u$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>
You are incorrect.
>Did he use good methodology?
I thought the point John posted about *Paese Sera* fabricating material was
fairly compelling. You made fun of the wording of the statement and dismissed
the charge.
Methodologically speaking, that makes the score: John, 1. Clark, 0.
>Do you endorse this method of debunking evidence?
Which? The one actually being employed, or the one you're imagining?
>Was I wrong to challenge him?
Absolutely not, Clark. And when you're finished with John, I've got a big,
scary LN windmill for you to tilt at.
>Just curious.
>
>
>..Clark
Sour grapes, Clark. Get over it.
Dave