VIDEO -- "The JFK Conspiracy: The Case Of Jim Garrison" (1967 NBC-TV Special)
David Von Pein
"THE JFK CONSPIRACY: THE CASE OF JIM GARRISON" (1967)(NBC-TV):
David Von Pein
A CONVERSATION WITH A GARRISON-LOVING CONSPIRACY THEORIST AT
YOUTUBE.COM:
>>> "You are just being a slave to the "let's not make a fuss" machine, in particular by your unfounded, unjustified use of stereo-typical media-friendly "look at me I'm popular" phrases and sound-bites like 'KOOK' and 'FRAUD'. You are soooo gullible, and basing those slanderous statements on no solid evidence whatsoever. Jim Garrison was one of the genuine heroes. You are more biased than I thought you were in the first place, and my complaint/comment was about how you weren't and are still not presenting your videos fairly so the audience can judge for itself." <<<
LOL. A person who thinks Jim Garrison was a "hero" thinks I am the
"gullible" one. That's quite hilarious (and ironic, to boot).
>>> "Tell you what: why not just call me a 'conspiracy theorist'; that'll make you look good in others' eyes rather than view the evidence objectively and make sensible comments instead of just using natty little labels for people who aren't just taken in by political spin and controlled media." <<<
Okay. You're a "conspiracy theorist". And you're a really silly
conspiracy theorist too if you truly believe Jim Garrison was a
"genuine hero".
>>> "Just ponder for a minute that more people worldwide accept that 22Nov63 was a government conspiracy to remove a president from office via a coup than it was in any way the still-standing official 'story' of events." <<<
So what? If 80% of the world's population believed that water wasn't
wet, does that make the water coming out of my kitchen faucet bone-
dry?
That water thing is a pretty good analogy, because 95% of the people
in the world probably have very little knowledge of the details of the
JFK murder case.
I'd be willing to bet, in fact, that about 75% of the people who
insist a conspiracy existed in the Kennedy assassination wouldn't be
able to answer the following question -- Who was J.D. Tippit?
Also, it might interest you to know that one of the most-recent major
polls conducted in the United States (in November 2003, by ABC News)
reveals an interesting statistic: only 7% of the poll's participants
think that Lee Harvey Oswald was "Not Involved" as a gunman in Dealey
Plaza, which is in direct opposition to the insane theory espoused by
your "hero" named Jim Garrison, who was of the opinion that Oswald
didn't shoot anybody on November 22, 1963.
Unlike Garrison and many other members of the "Anybody But Oswald"
kook club, 83% of the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in 2003 think
that Lee Oswald was firing a gun at President Kennedy in Dallas on
11/22/63:
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "This public opinion which you're choosing to ignore and evidently laugh at, which is favouring the inside job explanation -- and in effect exactly what Jim Garrison (you know, your 'kook') was saying and had concluded over 40 years ago -- has being gaining for decades. They know this LHO / Warren Commission contrived rubbish is what it is, a white wash." <<<
See my last response, re: most people not knowing any of the details
or evidence connected with the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D.
Tippit.
Popular "conspiracies" (like the JFK assassination and 9/11) are
almost always totally untrue, and are almost always born out of the
"snowball" effect....i.e., a lot more people are likely to jump on the
snowballing conspiracy bandwagon, regardless of their personal lack of
detailed knowledge about the cases in question.
And this snowball effect has been particularly enormous and
unjustifiable in the JFK case, due to a film director named Oliver
Stone, who in December 1991 placed on the movie screen three-plus
hours of untruths and myths and nonsense (most of it based on the
theories of your hero Jim Garrison, who decided to put Clay Shaw on
trial in 1969, even though Garrison had to know that Shaw committed no
crime whatsoever).
My guess is that about 60% (probably even more) of the people who
participate in the various sample polls have obtained the majority of
their knowledge about the JFK assassination from the point-of-view of
Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison and Stone's ridiculous movie full of
lies.
But even though the above paragraph is probably true, we still find
that only 7 out of every 100 people in the 2003 ABC News poll were
willing to swallow Oliver Stone's and Jim Garrison's "Oswald Didn't
Shoot Anybody" tripe.
>>> "You are quite obviously oblivious to this and other clear indications that coup d'etats and other political wrong doings take place, and perhaps place far too much faith in the media. Hence the pity." <<<
Save your pity. The last thing I need is the pity of a Garrison-
admiring conspiracy kook.
>>> "On a now rather unrelated issue: show me exactly how Garrison is a fraud and a nut." <<<
He was a fraud because he obviously knew that the man he was
prosecuting in New Orleans in early 1969 (Clay Shaw) was completely
innocent of the charges that he was on trial for (i.e., the bogus
charge of "conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy").
Garrison never even told the jury HOW Clay Shaw was involved in this
so-called conspiracy plot to murder Kennedy. Garrison never once laid
out ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of Shaw's guilt. None. Zip!
Now, isn't that enough right there to justify my labelling Garrison a
"fraud"? If not, why not?
And how exactly was Garrison a "nut", you ask? Well, just for
starters, there are these side-splitting comments made by your "hero",
Mr. Garrison. And if these quotes aren't enough to qualify Garrison as
a "nut", I don't know what would be:
"Shots were fired at Kennedy from the Depository but also from
the grassy knoll and apparently from the Dal-Tex Building as well --
but not one of them was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald, and not one of
them from his Mannlicher-Carcano." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
"There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the
Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did
NOT." -- Jim Garrison; January 31, 1968
"There were at least five or six shots fired at the President
from front and rear by at least four gunmen, assisted by several
accomplices, two of whom probably picked up the cartridges and one of
whom created a diversion to draw people's eyes away from the grassy
knoll. At this stage of events, Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than a
spectator to the assassination." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
"The murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't
commit, was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation
in the Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off." -- Jim
Garrison; 1967
"The evidence we've uncovered leads us to suspect that two men,
neither of whom was Oswald, were the real murderers of Tippit. We
believe we have one of them identified." -- Jim Garrison; 1967
tomnln
are you who believe the WCR.
Not a single one of you are willing to debate that evidence/testimony with
mew.
The ONLY LN'r who debated me was John McAdams & he never gave one single
official Citation in 3 1/2 hours.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/invitation.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4581b6bc-e8ac-4e38...@l33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
My guess is that about 60% (probably even more) of the 1,031
respondents that comprise the previously-linked 2003 ABC News poll are
people who have obtained the majority of their knowledge about the JFK
assassination from the point-of-view of Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison
and Stone's ridiculous movie full of lies.
I'd love to see another poll sometime that includes this question:
HAVE YOU GAINED A LARGE SUM OF YOUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM OLIVER STONE'S 1991 MOTION
PICTURE, "JFK"?
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25c1e4514ec1f05f
CONTINUATION OF THE ABOVE-LINKED CONVERSATION BETWEEN MYSELF AND A
CONSPIRACY THEORIST AT YOUTUBE.COM:
>>> "Pick your fights carefully, as I could argue you into the ground on this one." <<<
Good luck trying. But you're out of your league. And that's because
ALL of the physical evidence tells any reasonable person that the late
Jim Garrison was a total nutcase, and that Jim did exactly what every
other "Anybody But Oswald" kook does every day of the week -- he chose
to completely ignore ALL of the evidence of Oswald's guilt. Just as
Oliver Stone has done as well.
And: What's your point regarding Stone's film being based on two books
written by utter kooks (Marrs and Garrison)? You think you've scored
some points by mentioning that the movie of lies was based on two
books written by crackpot conspiracy theorists? That's a real howl.
In short -- anyone who can still (in 2009) support the lying and the
tawdry tactics of Jim Garrison in his case against Clay Shaw is a
person who certainly deserves no respect in my book. Picking Garrison
as your hero is truly pathetic.
But you're not alone. There are plenty of Garrison-loving fools in the
world. James DiEugenio being another really silly one.
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
Try dismissing all of the evidence linked below. Being the outer-
fringe conspiracist you obviously are, I'm sure you'll give it the
college try, despite the fact that every bullet, gun, and bullet shell
leads straight to your favorite "patsy" named Lee Harvey. But I'm sure
all of that stuff was merely faked and manufactured by the good ol'
boys down at the DPD and FBI; right?
>>> "No evidence, zero, none whatsoever points to Oswald." <<<
Yep, you belong in bed with Garrison alright. Your ilk just loves to
ignore the evidence.
Conspiracists will forever ignore the C2766 rifle, the bullet shells,
CE399, CE567, CE569, the paper bag, the Tippit murder, the shells at
the Tippit murder scene, Oswald's guilty actions after the
assassination, the reams of lies told by Oswald after his arrest,
Oswald's attempt to kill Officer McDonald in the theater (THAT
incident points to LHO's innocence, does it? Please try to wiggle out
of that one), etc., etc.
Now, what were you saying about "no evidence" pointing to Oswald?
>>> "Go read Crossfire and actually analyze the evidence, NOT how it's reported in the Warren Commission report." <<<
Brilliant piece of advice!
You want me to analyze the JFK case by reading a book written by a guy
who thinks the Earth is inhabited by aliens and believes the moon
landing was a hoax, etc., instead of going to the book that solved the
case the very first year (the Warren Commission Report).
Thanks, but I'll pass on Mr. Marrs' version of events.
I suppose you put a lot of stock in Jim Fetzer's opinions over those
of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the Clark Panel and the
Rockefeller Commission too, right? Fetzer is the retard who thinks
that the Zapruder Film was "wholly fabricated". He sounds right up
your alley, come to think of it.
>>> "You are conveniently ignoring the questions about your age, location and occupation, because it's fairly obvious I am correct. You are a child, perhaps in many ways." <<<
If you were a decent researcher at all who could click a mouse, you
would have already known my age and general location. It's right there
on my main page here at YouTube. It looks like I'm nine years your
senior, kid.
As for my occupation....what business is that of yours? And what
possible difference does it make? No matter what my occupation might
be, how is that going to change the evidence in the JFK case?
>>> "Have you ever even fired a rifle?" <<<
No. And I never will.
Next silly question please....
>>> "Can you imagine the ridiculousness of 3 shell casings falling and lying as they allegedly did? Why would there be 3 on the ground anyway...think about it?" <<<
Yep, it's a silly one alright.
You're obviously suggesting the known physical evidence (the three
shells in the Sniper's Nest) was planted there by the cops, right?
Let's see you whip up even an ounce of proof to back up such an
allegation. Any chance of that happening?
And I'm pretty certain you think that the four shells that Oswald was
seen dumping onto the ground on Tenth Street by at least THREE
civilian witnesses were "planted" by the police too. Right? Because if
those shells aren't bogus too, then your patsy is positively guilty of
at least one murder on 11/22/63 -- Officer Tippit's.
>>> "Stop now before you make a fool of yourself..." <<<
Oh, please stop! My bladder is very weak! Pot is talking to kettle
here.
>>> "You are so absorbed in 'official' versions you can't see the wood for the trees." <<<
Just because it's "official" doesn't make it wrong, Mr. Conspiracy.
BTW, you also must think that all of the other "official" committees
screwed up (and/or lied) regarding the investigation of JFK's death
too, correct? Because the HSCA said Oswald was the only gunman who hit
anybody with any bullets on November 22nd. So those guys are all
rotten "official" crooks too, right?
Try again "sproggledaddy", because so far you aren't exactly digging
my grave here. In fact, you haven't even turned over a spadeful of
dirt yet.
Reprise:
Allow us all to bask in sproggledaddy's recent hunk of brilliance
(worthy of a replay due to its absurdity):
"No evidence, zero, none whatsoever points to Oswald." --
"sproggledaddy" from YouTube; 10/25/09
aeffects
> A CONVERSATION WITH A GARRISON-LOVING CONSPIRACY THEORIST AT
> YOUTUBE.COM:
you made-up discussions with any sort of conspiracy theorist
aside..... that's, no more advertising shithead.....
you really have to nad up shithead, how about trying the 50 questions
that you've fled from the past 2 years.... what-a-nutter-troll
pussy...
carry on moron.... (Vin ain't gonna save your sorry nutter-troll ass
either)