When did it become known that Oswald had been in the NOLA
Steve Thomas
Was this information out before Jack Martin made his phone call?
If not, how did Martin know Ferrie was in the same unit with Oswald?
black...@aol.com
> Was this information out before Jack Martin made his phone call?
> If not, how did Martin know Ferrie was in the same unit with Oswald?
Known that Oswald was in NOLA: Almost immediately after his name became
known. NO police intelligence remembered his arrest a few months earlier.
Martin's story metamorphosized over days, months, years. He initially
thought Oswald was a member of Ferrie's unauthorized Falcon Squadron and
had been a witness against him in his morals arrest. He was wrong - this
was Eric Michael C. (I don't want to use his last name here, but one can
find in in court records.) Martin loosely surmised that many of the young
boys Ferrie knew were in his various CAP units.
black...@aol.com
> If not, how did Martin know Ferrie was in the same unit with Oswald?
Sorry, answered too quickly:
News media sniffed out some CAP people who knew Oswald, and WWL-TV
interviewed Sidney Edward Voebel on Saturday November 23. In the
interview, Voebel said he had convinced Oswald to join CAP, and he
mentioned that Captain Ferrie was one of the leaders of the squadron.
Martin, by his own account, saw this interview on TV. THEN he began making
his phone calls.
Steve Thomas
Thanks for the info, was just wondering.
Anthony Marsh
Morals arrest? I thought you said that all of Ferrie's little boyfriends
were of legal age.
curtjester1
> Was this information out before Jack Martin made his phone call?
> If not, how did Martin know Ferrie was in the same unit with Oswald?
Martin would have had the opportunity to easily know. He was in with
Bannister from the early 60's. He knew of the Houma munitions heist was
headed by Ferrie, and the boxes of munitions stored in Bannister's office.
Coffey who drove with Ferrie to Houston after the assassination, was a CAP
member in Oswald's unit. That and all the Ferrie and Oswald sightiings in
Bannister's office. Jospeh Newbrough, Jr. worked for Bannister from 1958
to Bannister's death in 1964 said Bannister worked for the CIA and was a
conduit for CIA money for the camps at Lake Ponchartrain and said Ferrie
was in Bannister's office on a daily basis, and "believed Oswald was an
agent for the CIA acting under orders." When Ferrie got his windfall in
the form of a gas station, he told an employee, Lewis, that he was
Oswald's CAP instructor in 1964. Of course there were the two others in
Lee's school class that could corroborate that, as well as the many others
that did. And it stands to reason that Coffey was a little fuzzy on the
issue, since he was in the midst of all the damaging Ferrie testimony.
Steve Thomas
Can you cite him saying that or are you making things up again?
Steve Thomas
I think given the times they were more concerned about male on male
sexual relations than about age. I don't think it would have been as big a
deal in the 60's if it had been male on female. Just a note, oral sex was
a crime in Louisiana till a year or 2 ago, so was sodomy. Given that i
still cant find where Blackburst said they were legal age, can you point
it out Marsh?
black...@aol.com
> > Martin's story metamorphosized over days, months, years. He initially
> > thought Oswald was a member of Ferrie's unauthorized Falcon Squadron and
> > had been a witness against him in his morals arrest. He was wrong - this
> > was Eric Michael C. (I don't want to use his last name here, but one can
> > find in in court records.) Martin loosely surmised that many of the young
> > boys Ferrie knew were in his various CAP units.
>
> Morals arrest? I thought you said that all of Ferrie's little boyfriends
> were of legal age.
All 3 were 15. Illegal, but post-pubescent. Therefore, ephebophilia.
black...@aol.com
I didn't. Anthony is a know-it-all, and I pointed out his error in using
the wrong term. It doesn't change anything: it was still illegal, immoral
and disgusting, By Anthony can't concede his error.
black...@aol.com
However, Martin did not claim any of this in interviews in 1963 or
1966.
Anthony Marsh
That's my point. They weren't legal age. Hence the arrest. Hence the
firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
homosexual pedophile. That issue has nothing to do with assassinating
President Kennedy. I reject the so-called Garrison theory of a homosexual
thrill killing.
Anthony Marsh
He tried to exonerate Ferrie by saying his victims were older.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, his promise for anonymity was compromised. He had to
retract and stifle. For researches though, the cat was already out
of the bag.
CJ
William Yates
Something that Blackburst has mentioned and you can't understand. It's too
complicated for you. You should probably stick to making up bogus
statistics.
Hence the arrest. Hence the
> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
> homosexual pedophile.
Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the wrong
answer, by the way.
black...@aol.com
How am I making excuses? I'm documenting that he abused boys. The 3 who
brought the charges were 15 years old. The others are all in the 14-18
range. I'm saying the word ephebophilia is more accurate than pedophilia.
Anthony, you KNOW that I've always treated you like a gentleman, even in
the face of some provocative posts. I think you've been at this too long.
You see the world in black and white, us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys.
You come here armed for battle, and that emotion makes it hard for you to
hear what people like me are actually saying.
I am NOT defending Ferrie on the morals charges. I was merely stating the
correct term.
black...@aol.com
> > Can you cite him saying that or are you making things up again?
>
> He tried to exonerate Ferrie by saying his victims were older.-
They were all in the 14-18 range. What's the proper term?
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 4, 9:40=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > =A0 Can you cite him saying that or are you making things up again?
>>
>> He tried to exonerate Ferrie by saying his victims were older.-
>
>They were all in the 14-18 range. What's the proper term?
>
I imagine you are beginning to understand why I have Tony in my
killfile.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Aug 4, 9:40=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Steve Thomas wrote:
>> > On Aug 4, 9:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 2, 1:39 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>>> =A0 =A0Was this information out before Jack Martin made his phone ca=
>ll?
>> >>>> If not, how did Martin know Ferrie was in the same unit with Oswald?
>> >>> Known that Oswald was in NOLA: Almost immediately after his name beca=
>me
>> >>> known. NO police intelligence remembered his arrest a few months earl=
>ier.
>> >>> Martin's story metamorphosized over days, months, years. He initially
>> >>> thought Oswald was a member of Ferrie's unauthorized Falcon Squadron =
>and
>> >>> had been a witness against him in his morals arrest. He was wrong - t=
>his
>> >>> was Eric Michael C. (I don't want to use his last name here, but one =
>can
>> >>> find in in court records.) Martin loosely surmised that many of the y=
>oung
>> >>> boys Ferrie knew were in his various CAP units.
>> >> Morals arrest? I thought you said that all of Ferrie's little boyfrien=
>ds
>> >> were of legal age.
>>
>> > =A0 I think given the times they were more concerned about male on male
>> > sexual relations than about age. I don't think it would have been as bi=
>g a
>> > deal in the 60's if it had been male on female. Just a note, oral sex w=
>as
>> > a crime in Louisiana till a year or 2 ago, so was sodomy. Given that i
>> > still cant find where Blackburst said they were legal age, can you poin=
>t
>> > it out Marsh?
>>
>> That's my point. They weren't legal age. Hence the arrest. Hence the
>> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
>> homosexual pedophile.
>
>How am I making excuses? I'm documenting that he abused boys. The 3 who
>brought the charges were 15 years old. The others are all in the 14-18
>range. I'm saying the word ephebophilia is more accurate than pedophilia.
>
>Anthony, you KNOW that I've always treated you like a gentleman, even in
>the face of some provocative posts. I think you've been at this too long.
>You see the world in black and white, us vs. them, good guys vs. bad guys.
>You come here armed for battle, and that emotion makes it hard for you to
>hear what people like me are actually saying.
>
>I am NOT defending Ferrie on the morals charges. I was merely stating the
>correct term.
>
It's no use.
black...@aol.com
> On Aug 4, 6:22 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > However, Martin did not claim any of this in interviews in 1963 or
> > 1966.-
>
> Of course, his promise for anonymity was compromised. He had to
> retract and stifle. For researches though, the cat was already out
> of the bag.
>
> CJ-
I'd suggest that you look at Jack Martin's actual activities and
statements (all cataloged in my book!). He was calling everybody, trying
to nail Ferrie, but he just didn't have anything solid. The scene from the
movie JFK is very misleading.
Anthony Marsh
My God, man. Wake up. You claim there were only 3 victims?
Anthony Marsh
Not sure what your point is. Are you joining him in exonerating Ferrie?
Anthony Marsh
> On 5 Aug 2008 18:42:36 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 4, 9:40=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> =A0 Can you cite him saying that or are you making things up again?
>>> He tried to exonerate Ferrie by saying his victims were older.-
>> They were all in the 14-18 range. What's the proper term?
>>
>
> I imagine you are beginning to understand why I have Tony in my
> killfile.
>
Because I won't excuse Ferrie's homosexual pedophilia?
Anthony Marsh
I don't see the value in splitting hairs and denying what Ferrie did
just to exonerate him.
> Hence the arrest. Hence the
>> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
>> homosexual pedophile.
>
> Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the
> wrong answer, by the way.
>
And you are joining him?
William Yates
You're the only person who seems to think that using the term
"ephebophile" constitutes an exoneration. So why are you trying to
exonerate Ferrie?
>
>> Hence the arrest. Hence the
>>> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for
>>> a homosexual pedophile.
>>
>> Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the
>> wrong answer, by the way.
>>
>
> And you are joining him?
Yes, I'm joining him in not making excuses. You're on your own there.
black...@aol.com
> On 5 Aug 2008 18:23:29 -0400, "blackbu...@aol.com"
I just don't get it. All I did was state that I was informed by a
criminal psychologist that the correct trem for Ferrie is ephebophile,
not pedophile. Ferrie abused underage boys, in the 14-18 range. It was
wrong, illegal, immoral and he was a slime to do it. What does Tony
want me to do? Call him a pedophile? OK, he was a pedophile.
Thank God you can see this, .John, and presumably everybody else sees
that Tony is so fixated on a irrelevant point that he doesn't hear
what I'm saying.
black...@aol.com
No. I've identified about 15.
black...@aol.com
> William Yates wrote:
> > Something that Blackburst has mentioned and you can't understand. It's
> > too complicated for you. You should probably stick to making up bogus
> > statistics.
>
> I don't see the value in splitting hairs and denying what Ferrie did
> just to exonerate him.
>
> > Hence the arrest. Hence the
> >> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
> >> homosexual pedophile.
>
> > Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the
> > wrong answer, by the way.
>
> And you are joining him?
Just to make the record clear: ALL of this is Anthony Marsh claiming I
said something I didn't say.
Steve Thomas
> On Aug 5, 11:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > William Yates wrote:
> > > Something that Blackburst has mentioned and you can't understand. It's
> > > too complicated for you. You should probably stick to making up bogus
> > > statistics.
>
> > I don't see the value in splitting hairs and denying what Ferrie did
> > just to exonerate him.
>
> > > Hence the arrest. Hence the
> > >> firing. I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
> > >> homosexual pedophile.
>
> > > Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the
> > > wrong answer, by the way
>
>
> Just to make the record clear: ALL of this is Anthony Marsh claiming I
You dont have to make yourself clear Blackburst, everyone knows what you
mean, what you have said. Marsh likes to twist and make things up for no
reason other than to attack ANYONE who has doubts about Judyth Baker. You
should have never let that cat out of the bag if you were seeking Marsh's
approval.
alo...@maine.rr.com
postings here - an admirable and important thing - but more importantly,
Blackburst's trying to discredit Martin because he seemed to give a
scattershot accounting of the Oswald/Ferry assoications is exactly the
same thing as McAdams trying to discredit Milteer because not everything
he said was correct - when so much of it was PRECISELY as the event
happened. Informing, as Reitzes/Blacburst/McAdams don't seem to
understand, is not an exact science - many of these people are sociopaths
whose version of the truth is perverse and imprecise, but still contains
large portions of the truth nonetheless - hell, the CIA is a sociopathic
organization, based on lying and being unable to distinguish truth from
lies. The reality is that Martin pegged Ferry immediately and recognized
immediately the Oswald/Ferry/Assassination connection, and he told the
truth about what he saw of Banister and of Banister's activities - and we
know Banister spent time with Oswald, as Michael Kurtz has testified -
sadly for the Reitzes/ Blackburst/Mcadams truth squad, while they are
looking for parlor etiquette, this was a squalid atmosphere with squalid
and sad people, and Oswald spent more than his share of time amongst these
people - so face reality, boys, this is where the plot started -
-Allen Lowe
Anthony Marsh
Oh, I see. So now you claim that I claim you said something you didn't
say. But if I said that, your fellow WC defenders would be jumping on me
saying that I cry wolf. I didn't say that you said something. I was
questioning your attitude towards Ferrie's morals.
Anthony Marsh
You said "all 3" in response to my question about his victims. If you
idenfitified only 15 we can be sure there were many more and many younger.
So, what age do you think is ok?
Anthony Marsh
None of it is relevant to the JFK assassination. But I live in the Boston
area and saw how the Catholic Church tried to trivialize its crimes by
saying that it was ephebophilia, not pedophilia. The type of distinction
that NAMBLA would make.
black...@aol.com
> I'd suggest that you look at Jack Martin's actual activities and
> statements (all cataloged in my book!). He was calling everybody, trying
> to nail Ferrie, but he just didn't have anything solid. The scene from the
> movie JFK is very misleading.
Courtesy of Dave R's website, here's an archived NG post of mine,
detailing what Jack Martin actually said:
11/23/63 Martin to Maj. Presley J. Trosclair of NOPD
-Ferrie owned rifle similar to C2766 shown on TV
-Ferrie mentioned short story plot about shooting of a US president
-Heard on TV that Ferrie and Oswald were in same CAP unit
-Heard on TV that Oswald possessed Ferrie's library card
-Gill had made Ferrie remove Cuban propaganda from his office
-Ferrie was at that moment on his way to Texas
11/24/63 Martin to Herman Kohlman of New Orleans DA's office
-Ferrie is a degenerate capable of any crime
-Ferrie owned guns similar to C2766 shown on TV
-Gill made Ferrie remove Cuban propaganda from his office
-Ferrie was in Texas
11/25/63 Martin in letter to FAA and FBI
-Oswald was a member of Ferrie's phony CAP squadron
-Ferrie had a bunch of foreign rifles
-Ferrie was getting mail from the Cuban people Oswald was connected
with
-Ferrie was a professional hypnotist
-Ferrie had been in and out of town just prior to assassination
-Ferrie was dumped by Cubans because of his pro-Castro activity
-Ferrie "could have taught" Oswald to purchase and use such a rifle
-Ferrie helped Oswald get into the Marine Corps
-Ferrie is capable of assassination
11/25/63 Martin to SA Regis Kennedy and SA Claude Schlager of FBI
-Heard on TV that Ferrie and Oswald were in the same CAP unit
-Ferrie may have hypnotized Oswald to kill JFK
-May have seen a photo in Ferrie's home of Oswald in CAP unit
-Ferrie may have taught Oswald to purchase such a weapon
-Oswald may have been the witness against Ferrie in morals case
-Ferrie travelled to Texas
-Ferrie is capable of any crime
-Ferrie could be implicated in JFK assassination
11/27/63 Martin to SA Regis Kennedy and SA LN Shearer
-Never heard Ferrie say JFK should be killed
-May have come to the conclusion that Oswald possessed Ferrie's
library card
-Ferrie had guns similar to C2766
-Ferrie possessed Cuban propaganda in Gill's office
-Ferrie is a completely degenerate person capable of any crime
-Ferrie may have trained Oswald to shoot a rifle with telescopic sight
-Did not say Ferrie had flown Oswald to Texas
12/13/66 Martin to Pershing Gervais of NODA
-Arthus told him Oswald had office at 544 Camp
-Ferrie taught Oswald how to order guns
-Ferrie was in Dallas with his Stinson at time of assassination
-Ferrie knew Oswald intimately
-Oswald was in Ferrie's non-existent CAP group
-Ferrie introduced Martin to Oswald at his home (mother and Brownlee
present)
-Ferrie's black mechanic was in the TSBD
-Ferrie was in Dallas-Fort Worth on 11/20/63
12/14/66 Martin to Jim Garrison of NODA
-Oswald was in Ferrie's non-existent CAP group
-Ferrie introduced Martin to Oswald in Banister's office
-Oswald came to Banister's office to see Banister, with Arcacha
present
-Ferrie was pro-JFK, worshipped him like a god
-Saw Ferrie and Oswald together on other occasions
-Ferrie taught Oswald how to order rifles
-Oswald had an office at 544 Camp, Ferrie was in there all the time
12/26/66 Martin to Louis Ivon of NODA
-Saw Ferrie, Oswald, Brownlee enter Banister's office
9/19/77 Martin to Cliff Fenton of HSCA
-Ferrie's grave site was changed and body moved more than twice by
FBI
12/5/77 Martin to Robert Buras of HSCA
-Saw Oswald with Ferrie in Banister's office
-Saw rifle just like C2766 in Ferrie's apartment
-Gun Oswald used might have belonged to Ferrie
Stone's "JFK" makes it sound like Jack Martin called Garrison aide Lou
Ivon just after the assassination and gave him a coherent account of
Ferrie and Oswald associating together, by his OWN KNOWLEDGE; and that
Martin was intimidated by someone to downplay his story. But this was one
of Stone's dramatizations to make the story flow better and give it
melodrama. Martin's 1963 statements were really vague, because that's all
he had. By 1967, he started embellishing based on Garrison's probe. At one
point, he was incorporating names like George Lincoln Rockwell and Harold
"Kim" Philby. It is worthy of note that, as eager as Martin was to be one
of Garrison's witnesses, the DA didn't think enough of Martin's material
to use it.
Anthony Marsh
No, it's what the victims here in Boston felt. It's what many people
thought the Catholic Church was trying to do. It's what NAMBLA does.
John McAdams
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
I killfiled Tony when I said the Universe is the result of Intelligent
Design.
I also said I believe in evolution. He proceeded to insist that I
could not believe in evolution, and that I believe the Earth is 5,000
years old.
I tried to insist that I do believe in evolution a few times, and he
simply ignored me. It's massive chutzpah to insist that he knows what
I believe better than I know what I believe.
So I killfiled him.
I would frankly recommend that to anybody caught in this kind of
exchange with Tony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
William Yates
We all know that. But Tony will still accuse of saying things you never
said. it's the only way he can pretend to be right and everybody else
wrong.
paul seaton
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:X4adneyN16ASfgTV...@comcast.com...
What the hell has "what age Dave thinks is 'ok' " got to do with anything
? The trouble with you , Tony , what people find so infuriating, is your
habit of picking up on total trivia - something absolutely irrelevant to
anything that is being discussed - and harping on & on about it
obsessively as if you just discovered the lost continent of Atlantis.
What this trick of yours does is stall any reasonable discussion with you
of anything whatever, because no debate gets past the the first half
sentence before you have found a comma you don't like or an inference that
somebody who wasn't you once achieved something worth achieving, and off
you go into into some pointless, ridiculous harangue about something that
has no relevance whatever. And that's as far as anything ever gets with
you.
In the meantime, the larger point that is being made is lost in threads
3000 miles long full of you carping endlessly about nothing. Pretty soon,
everyone has forgotten what the point of the thread was in the first
place.
I never get the feeling with you that actually think you could possibly
LEARN anything from anyone here. (And incidentally trying to get you to
admit you picked up on someone else's idea to go get some damn Judyth
related piece of paper from the archives is like trying to squeeze beer
out of a bowling ball.)
We all know by now that your only reason for hanging around these threads
is to collar some inadvertent 'WC Defender' and irritate them to death
with nit picking trivia about nothing until they are weary of life itself.
In short, your contibution - in terms of INFORMATION provided - is zero
and your only effect here seems to be to clog threads up with your
interminable obsessive moaning about nothing whatever.
IMHO, it would be an excellent idea - for the sake of everyone's sanity if
nothing else - if people would make a point of ignoring you completely
until you find something worth saying & even then they should be VERY wary
of replying to you directly for fear of (see above).
Unfortunately my newsreader doesn't seem to have the capability to allow
me never to come across another post of yours again so long as I live, but
believe me , I wish it did.
I just don't have that amount of time to waste going round endlessly in
circles talking pointless obsessive crap.
paul seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a642affe-378d-402d...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
## You'll get used to it. It'll happen a lot.
paul seaton
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:30e9df25-e689-4e58...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
## They do indeed.
Anthony Marsh
As I warned everyone at the time, a Hollywood movie often telescopes
events and makes composite characters. It was not intended as a
documentary.
Anthony Marsh
Yes. You also have to factor in a couple of other things. Sometimes the
CIA is pressured to cook the books. In the case of the Anthrax attacks
Bush told them to forge documents linking that attack to Iraq as a pretext
for invading Iraq.
Another problem is rogue operations. Someone working in a particular
division wonders why the CIA is doing something that doesn't seem right,
only to find out that the operation was never approved from the top. Such
as the CIA training and providing high explosives to certain Middle East
terrorists groups. Another problem is when an organization the CIA is
backing goes off the farm or changes sides. Another problem is when the
head of a department is a double agent actually working for the enemy.
Another problem is when informants and contacts used by the CIA use that
cover to commit their own favorite crimes.
The best way to stop terrorism is to stop supporting it.
But if they do that then the public will realize that there is no longer
any need for the CIA.
black...@aol.com
In a separate post, I listed what Jack Martin actually said on each
date. Have you ever read any of Martin's actual interviews?
black...@aol.com
I just don't understand the rationale for making excuses for a
> >>>> homosexual pedophile.
> >>> Who is making excuses for a homosexual pedophile? Blackburst is the
> >>> wrong answer, by the way.
> >> And you are joining him?
>
> > Just to make the record clear: ALL of this is Anthony Marsh claiming I
> > said something I didn't say.
>
> Oh, I see. So now you claim that I claim you said something you didn't
> say. But if I said that, your fellow WC defenders would be jumping on me
> saying that I cry wolf. I didn't say that you said something.
You did. You claimed that by using the term ephebophile and noting the
correct ages of the victims, that I was minimizing it.
I was
> questioning your attitude towards Ferrie's morals.-
William Yates
Judyth will find it before Tony does. It's in Sweden.
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Atlantis-Genius-Madness-Extraordinary/dp/1400047528
>
> What this trick of yours does is stall any reasonable discussion with
> you of anything whatever, because no debate gets past the the first half
> sentence before you have found a comma you don't like or an inference
> that somebody who wasn't you once achieved something worth achieving,
> and off you go into into some pointless, ridiculous harangue about
> something that has no relevance whatever. And that's as far as anything
> ever gets with you.
>
> In the meantime, the larger point that is being made is lost in threads
> 3000 miles long full of you carping endlessly about nothing. Pretty
> soon, everyone has forgotten what the point of the thread was in the
> first place.
>
> I never get the feeling with you that actually think you could possibly
> LEARN anything from anyone here. (And incidentally trying to get you to
> admit you picked up on someone else's idea to go get some damn Judyth
> related piece of paper from the archives is like trying to squeeze beer
> out of a bowling ball.)
I have a better idea of what to do with that bowling ball. Tony may not
like it, though.
Steve Thomas
What documents were these? Bush told who to do this?
>
> Another problem is rogue operations. Someone working in a particular
> division wonders why the CIA is doing something that doesn't seem right,
> only to find out that the operation was never approved from the top. Such
> as the CIA training and providing high explosives to certain Middle East
> terrorists groups. Another problem is when an organization the CIA is
> backing goes off the farm or changes sides. Another problem is when the
> head of a department is a double agent actually working for the enemy.
> Another problem is when informants and contacts used by the CIA use that
> cover to commit their own favorite crimes.
>
> The best way to stop terrorism is to stop supporting it.
>
> But if they do that then the public will realize that there is no longer
> any need for the CIA.
Nonsense.
- Hide quoted text -
black...@aol.com
> >>> All 3 were 15. Illegal, but post-pubescent. Therefore, ephebophilia.
> >> My God, man. Wake up. You claim there were only 3 victims?-
>
> > No. I've identified about 15.
>
> You said "all 3" in response to my question about his victims.
You misunderstood me.
If you
> idenfitified only 15 we can be sure there were many more and many younger.
I wouldn't be sure of that at all. I think this covers most of them,
chronologically. And Ferrie didn't seem to have any relations with younger
boys.
> So, what age do you think is ok?-
Stupid question.
black...@aol.com
> None of it is relevant to the JFK assassination. But I live in the Boston
> area and saw how the Catholic Church tried to trivialize its crimes by
> saying that it was ephebophilia, not pedophilia. The type of distinction
> that NAMBLA would make.-
Why is it wrong for criminal psychologists to make a distinction? Look it
up on the internet.
black...@aol.com
> > Stone's "JFK" makes it sound like Jack Martin called Garrison aide Lou
> > Ivon just after the assassination and gave him a coherent account of
>
> As I warned everyone at the time, a Hollywood movie often telescopes
> events and makes composite characters. It was not intended as a
> documentary.
True, but I think Curt and Allen are basing their opinions of Martin
on the way Stone portrayed it.
Anthony Marsh
I have. I just note that those who make such a distinction use it to
trivialize the crime, as noted by various victim advocates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/05/ephebophilia-and-evolving-morality.html
http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/11/pedophilia-and-ephebophilia.html
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/044/The%20Courage%20to%20be%20Catholic-Crisis,%20Reform,%20and%20the%20Future%20of%20the%20Church%20George%20Weigel%20Book%20Reviewed%20By%20Theresa%20Zolner_044_28_.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 6, 5:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> All 3 were 15. Illegal, but post-pubescent. Therefore, ephebophilia.
>>>> My God, man. Wake up. You claim there were only 3 victims?-
>>> No. I've identified about 15.
>> You said "all 3" in response to my question about his victims.
>
> You misunderstood me.
>
You misspoke yourself.
> If you
>> idenfitified only 15 we can be sure there were many more and many younger.
>
>
> I wouldn't be sure of that at all. I think this covers most of them,
> chronologically. And Ferrie didn't seem to have any relations with younger
> boys.
>
>
>> So, what age do you think is ok?-
>
> Stupid question.
>
Evasion.
You are the one making the distinction. So, define it precisely.
Anthony Marsh
Told whom? The CIA.
The documents to link Iraq with the Anthrax attacks.
http://i4.democracynow.org/2008/8/5/headlines
Book: White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Intelligence
The White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to forge a letter from the head
of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein in an attempt to portray a false
link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The fake letter was backdated July 1,
2001, and it stated that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was trained for
his mission in Iraq. Those are the claims of the explosive new book, The
Way of the World, by journalist Ron Suskind. He reports the Bush
administration then used the forged letter to show there was an
operational link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, something the Vice
President’s Office had been pressing the CIA to prove since 9/11 as a
justification to invade Iraq. On NBC’s The Today Show, Suskind said
then-CIA Director George Tenet received orders directly from the White
House to forge the letter.
Ron Suskind: “Well, the CIA folks involved in the book and others
talk about George coming back—Tenet—coming back from the White House
with the assignment on White House stationary and turning to the CIA
operatives, who are professionals, saying, ‘You may not like this, but
here is our next mission.’ And they carried it through, step by step,
all the way to the finish. Ultimately, people even talked about it after
the fact. It was a dark day for the CIA. It was the kind of thing where
they said, ‘Look, this is not our charge. We’re not here to carry
forward a political mandate,’ which is clearly what this was, to solve a
political problem in America. And it was a cause of great grievance
inside of the agency.”
According to Ron Suskind, the CIA’s forged letter was passed on to Con
Coughlin, a reporter from the London Sunday Telegraph, who wrote a
front-page article titled “Terrorist Behind September 11 Strike Was
Trained by Saddam.” The story was published on Dec. 14, 2003, the same
day Saddam Hussein was captured. Coughlin’s article was picked up in the
US media, and he was interviewed on NBC’s Meet the Press. Suskind
reports the CIA forgery was likely produced in violation of statutes
that bar the agency from conducting covert operations intended to
influence US public opinion or the media. The White House described
Suskind’s report as absurd and accused Suskind of engaging in “gutter
journalism.”
Anthony Marsh
I think that is what you were doing. Others also think that is what the
distinction does.
Anthony Marsh
It was Dave who wanted to nitpick and niggle about a minor distinction.
> What this trick of yours does is stall any reasonable discussion with
> you of anything whatever, because no debate gets past the the first half
> sentence before you have found a comma you don't like or an inference
> that somebody who wasn't you once achieved something worth achieving,
> and off you go into into some pointless, ridiculous harangue about
> something that has no relevance whatever. And that's as far as anything
> ever gets with you.
>
We'll have to wait and see if Dave achieved something. He claims to have
proof that Ferrie was in direct contact with Oswald from June to September
which supports the claims of many conspiracy believers and has been
constantly denied by the WC defenders. He says he found a witness who
admitted to covering this up.
> In the meantime, the larger point that is being made is lost in threads
> 3000 miles long full of you carping endlessly about nothing. Pretty
> soon, everyone has forgotten what the point of the thread was in the
> first place.
>
Start by admitting simple facts and then we can move on.
> I never get the feeling with you that actually think you could possibly
> LEARN anything from anyone here. (And incidentally trying to get you to
> admit you picked up on someone else's idea to go get some damn Judyth
> related piece of paper from the archives is like trying to squeeze beer
> out of a bowling ball.)
>
> We all know by now that your only reason for hanging around these
> threads is to collar some inadvertent 'WC Defender' and irritate them to
> death with nit picking trivia about nothing until they are weary of life
> itself.
>
Well, it is fun to point out that the WC defenders don't know what the
Hell they are talking about.
> In short, your contibution - in terms of INFORMATION provided - is zero
> and your only effect here seems to be to clog threads up with your
> interminable obsessive moaning about nothing whatever.
>
> IMHO, it would be an excellent idea - for the sake of everyone's sanity
> if nothing else - if people would make a point of ignoring you
> completely until you find something worth saying & even then they should
> be VERY wary of replying to you directly for fear of (see above).
>
> Unfortunately my newsreader doesn't seem to have the capability to allow
> me never to come across another post of yours again so long as I live,
> but believe me , I wish it did.
>
Technochallenged?
> I just don't have that amount of time to waste going round endlessly in
> circles talking pointless obsessive crap.
You certainly don't spend any of that time researching.
Anthony Marsh
You didn't pay attention. The Judge in that case ruled that Intelligent
Design is just Creationism. And its advocates also admitted that fact.
Creationism rules out Evolution.
If you believe in Evolution that would make you a Secular Humanist.
> I also said I believe in evolution. He proceeded to insist that I
> could not believe in evolution, and that I believe the Earth is 5,000
> years old.
Creationists believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old. They do not
believe in Evolution. If you believe in Evolution that makes you a Secular
Humanist according to the Creatonists. Make up your mind which side you
want to be on. Seen any dinosaurs wandering around in your neighborhood?
Steve Thomas
There are no documents Marsh, its an allegation by Ron Suskind. If you
actually have documents post them. Otherwise its just hype with no
substance.
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
> On Aug 5, 10:39 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 6:22 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > However, Martin did not claim any of this in interviews in 1963 or
> > > 1966.-
>
> > Of course, his promise for anonymity was compromised. He had to
> > retract and stifle. For researches though, the cat was already out
> > of the bag.
>
> > CJ-
>
> I'd suggest that you look at Jack Martin's actual activities and
> statements (all cataloged in my book!). He was calling everybody, trying
> to nail Ferrie, but he just didn't have anything solid. The scene from the
> movie JFK is very misleading.
I think I have enough books on the matter, thank you. David Ferrie
was one easy person not to like...especially if you were straight.
CJ
black...@aol.com
> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> > Why is it wrong for criminal psychologists to make a distinction? Look it
> > up on the internet.
>
> I have. I just note that those who make such a distinction use it to
> trivialize the crime, as noted by various victim advocates.
>
That's not exactly like the cites say...
But I regard both as equally wrong, and I don't trivialize Ferrie's
activities. I was using what is currently accepted as the correct term
(as the Wikipedia article notes.)
curtjester1
> On 6 Aug 2008 10:16:03 -0400, "blackbu...@aol.com"
theroy evolution. If you unkillifile Tony, you probably could get
the pleasure of killifiling him up to a 100 times.
CJ
> I would frankly recommend that to anybody caught in this kind of
> exchange with Tony.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
black...@aol.com
> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 5:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> All 3 were 15. Illegal, but post-pubescent. Therefore, ephebophilia.
> >>>> My God, man. Wake up. You claim there were only 3 victims?-
> >>> No. I've identified about 15.
> >> You said "all 3" in response to my question about his victims.
>
> > You misunderstood me.
>
> You misspoke yourself.
You misheard yourself.
>
> > If you
> >> idenfitified only 15 we can be sure there were many more and many younger.
>
> > I wouldn't be sure of that at all. I think this covers most of them,
> > chronologically. And Ferrie didn't seem to have any relations with younger
> > boys.
>
> >> So, what age do you think is ok?-
>
> > Stupid question.
>
> Evasion.
> You are the one making the distinction. So, define it precisely.
18. And it's still a stupid question.
black...@aol.com
That's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive book dealing
with Ferrie. Almost all of them are superficial; many of them make
provable mistakes. The treatment of Martin in Stone's JFK bears very
little resemblance to what Garrison's files and other files actually
show. He did NOT have some magical solution to the assassination in
November 1963. He was very angry at Ferrie and made a few really loose
allegations. Please see the list I posted above. You can see how
Martin's story changed over the years. As for my book, I hope you
reconsider, because there'll be a few surprises for everybody, no
matter how they feel about the case.
David Ferrie
> was one easy person not to like...especially if you were straight.
That's part of the problem. The fact is, he WAS very unlikable in some
ways. And there are a few misperceptions that make him seem even more
unlikable. But unlikable is not evidence. What really matters is who
he really was and what he really did. You don't have your mind made
up, do you?
black...@aol.com
> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
I didn't say that you said something.
>
> > You did. You claimed that by using the term ephebophile and noting the
> > correct ages of the victims, that I was minimizing it.
>
> I think that is what you were doing. Others also think that is what the
> distinction does.
How many times do I have to say I think they're equally wrong? How
many times do I have to say a criminal psychologist corrected me?
alo...@maine.rr.com
"Martin's 1963 statements were really vague, because that's all he
had. "
well, David, reeading your own citations from Retize's site, I get the
opposite impression - that in 1963 Martin was giving info that turned out
to be interestingly accurate, like OIswald and Ferry's CAP association -
and if, as researchers often insist, the first evidence is the best, well,
the first evidence in this case indicates Martin believed strongly and
urgently in Ferry's attachment to the assassination - and yes, he wobbled
in his stories; so would I in that killing-field atmosphere, especially as
the "coincidental" instances of witness deaths began to mount -
-Allen Lowe
paul seaton
No but there's one snarling round on this ng....
black...@aol.com
> It was Dave who wanted to nitpick and niggle about a minor distinction.
>
> > What this trick of yours does is stall any reasonable discussion with
> > you of anything whatever, because no debate gets past the the first half
> > sentence before you have found a comma you don't like or an inference
> > that somebody who wasn't you once achieved something worth achieving,
> > and off you go into into some pointless, ridiculous harangue about
> > something that has no relevance whatever. And that's as far as anything
> > ever gets with you.
>
> We'll have to wait and see if Dave achieved something. He claims to have
> proof that Ferrie was in direct contact with Oswald from June to September
> which supports the claims of many conspiracy believers and has been
> constantly denied by the WC defenders.
Wrong. Ferrie taught at the CAP June-September 1955. Oswald joined on July
27. There are varying estimates about how many meetings he attended. Some
say 2 or 3. Some say 12-15.
He says he found a witness who
> admitted to covering this up.
Baloney. He was interviewed by a PRIVATE investigative firm in 1962,
BEFORE the assassination, and didn't want to say he had been molested
because he didn't want his parents to find out. Only a moron would have
the insensitivity to question that decision 46 years later.
He didn't report a Ferrie-Oswald link to the authorities in 1963-4 because
FERRIE'S NAME HAD NOT COME UP as far as he knew.
He didn't report it to Garrison because it was ALREADY IN THE NEWSPAPERS
in 1967. He did report it to HSCA in 1978.
Your mischaracterization of this is reprehensible.
Anthony Marsh
Of course there are documents. The ones the CIA forged. I do not have
the documents. It may be centuries before they come out.
As usual for deniers you attack the source. the way Dolan attacked
Seymour Hersh.
Anthony Marsh
Amend that to July 27 to September 1955.
curtjester1
> On Aug 8, 3:26 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 3:45 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > I'd suggest that you look at Jack Martin's actual activities and
> > > statements (all cataloged in my book!). He was calling everybody, trying
> > > to nail Ferrie, but he just didn't have anything solid. The scene from the
> > > movie JFK is very misleading.
>
> > I think I have enough books on the matter, thank you.
>
> That's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive book dealing
> with Ferrie. Almost all of them are superficial; many of them make
> provable mistakes. The treatment of Martin in Stone's JFK bears very
> little resemblance to what Garrison's files and other files actually
> show. He did NOT have some magical solution to the assassination in
> November 1963. He was very angry at Ferrie and made a few really loose
> allegations. Please see the list I posted above. You can see how
> Martin's story changed over the years. As for my book, I hope you
> reconsider, because there'll be a few surprises for everybody, no
> matter how they feel about the case.
>
I doubt the books have provable mistakes. I did read an online page with
your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
Ferrie was known to lie on all major points. Martin, like I said had to
retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
fear. Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
as far as my research goes. Nobody is going to spend a whole book on
Ferrie, but some good stuff I have gleaned is from Harvey and Lee, Mafia
Kingfish, and Betrayal.
> David Ferrie
>
> > was one easy person not to like...especially if you were straight.
>
> That's part of the problem. The fact is, he WAS very unlikable in some
> ways. And there are a few misperceptions that make him seem even more
> unlikable. But unlikable is not evidence. What really matters is who
> he really was and what he really did. You don't have your mind made
> up, do you?
I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination. Ferrie
was probably a militant homosexual and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
CJ
Steve Thomas
O i see, no evidence untill the book comes out huh, where have i seen
you slam someone for that? Nice of you to admit there ARE NO DOCUMENTS,
just allegations by Hersh, thanks for clarifying that.
Anthony Marsh
More likely an article, not a book. And such documents are never
published now.
And the Suskind book is out now.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 7, 11:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It was Dave who wanted to nitpick and niggle about a minor distinction.
>>
>>> What this trick of yours does is stall any reasonable discussion with
>>> you of anything whatever, because no debate gets past the the first half
>>> sentence before you have found a comma you don't like or an inference
>>> that somebody who wasn't you once achieved something worth achieving,
>>> and off you go into into some pointless, ridiculous harangue about
>>> something that has no relevance whatever. And that's as far as anything
>>> ever gets with you.
>> We'll have to wait and see if Dave achieved something. He claims to have
>> proof that Ferrie was in direct contact with Oswald from June to September
>> which supports the claims of many conspiracy believers and has been
>> constantly denied by the WC defenders.
>
> Wrong. Ferrie taught at the CAP June-September 1955. Oswald joined on July
> 27. There are varying estimates about how many meetings he attended. Some
> say 2 or 3. Some say 12-15.
>
Yes, I noted that Oswald didn't get there until July. But you are still
not answering my questions. What proof do you have that Ferrie was there
from June to September and came into direct contact with Oswald?
> He says he found a witness who
>> admitted to covering this up.
>
> Baloney. He was interviewed by a PRIVATE investigative firm in 1962,
> BEFORE the assassination, and didn't want to say he had been molested
> because he didn't want his parents to find out. Only a moron would have
> the insensitivity to question that decision 46 years later.
>
Didn't you just say that he lied to the WC and told his story to the HSCA?
black...@aol.com
> "Martin's 1963 statements were really vague, because that's all he
> had. "
>
> opposite impression - that in 1963 Martin was giving info that turned out
Let's take that as an example: Martin's accounts say nothing about the CAP
all day Friday and most of Saturday. Then, by HIS OWN ACCOUNT, he sees
Eddie Voebel on WWL-TV. Voebel mentions that he took Oswald to CAP
meetngs, and when asked who th commander was, he says it was Ferrie. By
Martin's account, that information "galvanized me." So it didn't come from
his own knowledge.
-
> and if, as researchers often insist, the first evidence is the best, well,
> the first evidence in this case indicates Martin believed strongly and
> urgently in Ferry's attachment to the assassination - and yes, he wobbled
> in his stories; so would I in that killing-field atmosphere,
HOW did they wobble? He had nothing until he learned it from other
sources. By 1968, he was claiming Kim Philby was behind it.
> -Allen Lowe
black...@aol.com
> On Aug 8, 12:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > That's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive book dealing
> > with Ferrie. Almost all of them are superficial; many of them make
> > provable mistakes. The treatment of Martin in Stone's JFK bears very
> > little resemblance to what Garrison's files and other files actually
> > show. He did NOT have some magical solution to the assassination in
> > November 1963. He was very angry at Ferrie and made a few really loose
> > allegations. Please see the list I posted above. You can see how
> > Martin's story changed over the years. As for my book, I hope you
> > reconsider, because there'll be a few surprises for everybody, no
> > matter how they feel about the case.
>
> I doubt the books have provable mistakes.
MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
it until his death.
I did read an online page with
> your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
> Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
payment after they left.
All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
Martin, like I said had to
> retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
> fear.
Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
inconsistencies.
Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
> as far as my research goes.
Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
Nobody is going to spend a whole book on
> Ferrie,
I am. It is time that someone went BEYOND the books, back to the
original documents, back to people who really knew him.
but some good stuff I have gleaned is from Harvey and Lee
I have only an early version, but there's nothing in there
establishing a relationship.
, Mafia
> Kingfish,
Great on Marcello, very weak and derivative on Ferrie. I wish Davis
had contacted me!
and Betrayal.
Utter horsecrap.
>
>
> I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
> wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
> he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination.
The only source we have for that is Martin, and he gave several different
accounts. You said above that the earliest accounts are best - but Martin
didn't say anything like that until 1967.
Ferrie
> was probably a militant homosexual
True, to some extent. He was not easily recognizable as gay, but he did
feel that it was the boys own choice to have any kind of sex they wanted.
and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
He voted for JFK, but became very pissed off after the BoP. He had cooled
a little by 1963, but he still thought JFK was "ball-less bastard."
> He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
> power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
1961.
> When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
> and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
> evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
> CJ-
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 8, 11:22 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 12:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive book dealing
>>> with Ferrie. Almost all of them are superficial; many of them make
>>> provable mistakes. The treatment of Martin in Stone's JFK bears very
>>> little resemblance to what Garrison's files and other files actually
>>> show. He did NOT have some magical solution to the assassination in
>>> November 1963. He was very angry at Ferrie and made a few really loose
>>> allegations. Please see the list I posted above. You can see how
>>> Martin's story changed over the years. As for my book, I hope you
>>> reconsider, because there'll be a few surprises for everybody, no
>>> matter how they feel about the case.
>> I doubt the books have provable mistakes.
>
> MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
> documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
Yes, some of what you say confirms what some conspiracy believers have
been saying for years which the WC defenders denied. So, if Ferrie was
no working for Bannister, who was paying him? The CIA? For what? Tell us
more about Ferrie's CIA flights to Cuba.
> employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
Well, I think the story was more that he ddi not actually fuck the kid,
but he was trying to seduce him.
> more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> it until his death.
>
He consistently denied ever being at the same place at the same time as
Oswald. Even to FBI. So that does not count as lying or obstruction justice?
> I did read an online page with
>> your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
>
>> Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
>
> That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> payment after they left.
>
> All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
> Martin, like I said had to
>> retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
>> fear.
>
> Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
> inconsistencies.
>
> Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
>> as far as my research goes.
>
> Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
> is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
>
What did Ferrie tell Garrison? Were all those storied lies?
You mean from when he said, "I'm gonna kill that bastard"?
>
>> He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
>> power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
>
> That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> 1961.
>
There you go again, admitting things that conspiracy believers have said
and WC defenders always deny.
>
>> When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
>> and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
>> evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
>
> That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
Did you ever make a list of the things that the Ferrie character said in
the movie and compare it to what Ferrie actually said? That could be an
interesting project.
>> CJ-
>
Steve Thomas
Not even a doctor bill from 63? No evidence it happened?
>
> Ferrie
>
> > was probably a militant homosexual
>
> True, to some extent. He was not easily recognizable as gay, but he did
> feel that it was the boys own choice to have any kind of sex they wanted.
>
> and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
>
> He voted for JFK, but became very pissed off after the BoP. He had cooled
> a little by 1963, but he still thought JFK was "ball-less bastard."
>
>
>
> > He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
> > power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
>
> That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> 1961.
>
>
>
> > When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
> > and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
> > evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
>
> That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
>
>
>
>
> > CJ-- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
> On Aug 8, 4:48 pm, alo...@maine.rr.com wrote:
>
> > "Martin's 1963 statements were really vague, because that's all he
> > had. "
>
> > well, David, reading your own citations from Reitzes's site, I get the
> > opposite impression - that in 1963 Martin was giving info that turned out
> > to be interestingly accurate, like Oswald and Ferrie's CAP association
>
> Let's take that as an example: Martin's accounts say nothing about the CAP
> all day Friday and most of Saturday. Then, by HIS OWN ACCOUNT, he sees
> Eddie Voebel on WWL-TV. Voebel mentions that he took Oswald to CAP
> meetngs, and when asked who th commander was, he says it was Ferrie. By
> Martin's account, that information "galvanized me." So it didn't come from
> his own knowledge.
Thats why i started the thread, its always made out like he knew
all along.
> -
>
> > and if, as researchers often insist, the first evidence is the best, well,
> > the first evidence in this case indicates Martin believed strongly and
> > urgently in Ferry's attachment to the assassination - and yes, he wobbled
> > in his stories; so would I in that killing-field atmosphere,
>
> HOW did they wobble? He had nothing until he learned it from other
> sources. By 1968, he was claiming Kim Philby was behind it.
>
>
>
> > -Allen Lowe- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
hahahahahahahahaha so mr dirty fingers Gumshoe Tony has no documents and
neither does Hersh and neither does Suskind. Why are you spreading rumor
and gossip Tony? Your suspicions are not enough, and neither is gossip
from Hersh or Suskind, or some "unknown" source, show me the documents
right here, right now or it proves your helping spread rumors.
black...@aol.com
Ferrie taught at the CAP June-September 1955. Oswald joined on July
> > 27. There are varying estimates about how many meetings he attended. Some
> > say 2 or 3. Some say 12-15.
>
> Yes, I noted that Oswald didn't get there until July. But you are still
> not answering my questions. What proof do you have that Ferrie was there
> from June to September
1955 FBI interview with the Commander, Jos Lisman.
and came into direct contact with Oswald?
I first found former cadets who rmembered Oswald there, then I later
saw the CAP picture.
>
> > He says he found a witness who
> >> admitted to covering this up.
>
> > Baloney. He was interviewed by a PRIVATE investigative firm in 1962,
> > BEFORE the assassination, and didn't want to say he had been molested
> > because he didn't want his parents to find out. Only a moron would have
> > the insensitivity to question that decision 46 years later.
>
> Didn't you just say that he lied to the WC and told his story to the HSCA?
1) Interviewed by Southern Research in 1962, he didn't mention the
sexual activity because he didn't want his parents to find out.
2) He didn't volunteer to the WC or anybody else in 1963-4 that Oswald
had been in the same CAP unit as Oswald because he didn't know Ferrie
had briefly been suspected in November 1963.
3) He didn't volunteer to Garrison in 1967 because the papers were
already stating as fact that Oswald had served in the same unit as
Ferrie.
4) HSCA got his name from another cadet, and they interviewed him.
black...@aol.com
> Yes, some of what you say confirms what some conspiracy believers have
> been saying for years which the WC defenders denied. So, if Ferrie was
> not working for Banister, who was paying him? The CIA? For what?
In September 1961, he was suspended by EAL. In March 1962, he began
working for Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill, Attorneys, until
December 1963. He worked on the Marcello deporation for Gill, and got
a bonus, as well as some back pay from EAL. He opened a gas station.
Tell us
> more about Ferrie's CIA flights to Cuba.
Not much to tell. He told one of his boys a lurid tale about flying
into Cuba and being stabbed, but the boys thought he was lying. The
rest is the tale told by Diego Gonzales Tendedera, about Ferrie making
flights with Eladio del Valle, three times a week in the last six
months of 1960 - impossible from his EAL work records. That's it for
flights into Cuba.
As for the CIA, Ferrie did volunteer with the local office of the
Frente Revolucionario Democratico from December 1960 to about
September 1961. The FRD was, in the words of CIA, "created, funded and
its activities guided, to some extent" by the CIA.
>
> > employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
>
> Well, I think the story was more that he ddi not actually fuck the kid,
> but he was trying to seduce him.
Not in an airplane or while working, as some books have claimed. EAL
suspended him because of newspaper articles of his arrests.
>
> > more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> > LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> > Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> > it until his death.
>
> He consistently denied ever being at the same place at the same time as
> Oswald. Even to FBI. So that does not count as lying or obstruction justice?
Absolutely wrong. He initially said he did not know Oswald. Then he
was told by several people (including Voebel) that Oswald had indeed
been in the Moisant CAP unit for a few weeks in 1955. Ferrie then
contatced the FBI and told them that Oswald had been in the same unit,
but he didn't remember him. And he said this right up to his death,
too. Even offered to take a polygraph or "truth serum.">
>
> > I did read an online page with
> >> your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> > Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
> >> Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
THAT is one of the errors many assassination books have made.
>
> > That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> > that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> > Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> > Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> > March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> > about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> > October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> > payment after they left.
>
> > All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
> What did Ferrie tell Garrison? Were all those storied lies?
He never spoke with Garrison, though he tried to. he told ADA John
Volz the same things: Oswald had been in his unit, but he didn't
remember him, and he gave a full account of his assassination trip to
Houston.>
>
>
> > and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
>
> > He voted for JFK, but became very pissed off after the BoP. He had cooled
> > a little by 1963, but he still thought JFK was "ball-less bastard."
>
> You mean from when he said, "I'm gonna kill that bastard"?
He WAS very angry at JFK in 1961, but there is no evidence he ever
said that.
Before a veterans group, he said (according to the best account I can
find) So the invasion of April 15 failed, many Cuban patriots died and
many more languish in prison. What caused that failure was a failure
of nerve, a failure to deliver the things promised to the Brigade. A
Commander-in-Chief who was more concerned with placating the UN than
in achieving victory. Maybe we should take the advice of the Cubans
when they find treason in their midst: To the Wall! [an apparent
reference to a firing squad.]
When one of Ferrie's friends saw him for the first time on 11/22/63,
he asked what Ferrie thought about the assassination. He said Ferrie
replied: He was a ball-less bastard, but nobody deserves to die like
that.>
>
> > That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> > with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> > 1961.
>
> There you go again, admitting things that conspiracy believers have said
> and WC defenders always deny.
I don't allege it, I prove it. What a terrible thing to do!>
>
> > That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> > inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> > silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
> Did you ever make a list of the things that the Ferrie character said in
> the movie and compare it to what Ferrie actually said? That could be an
> interesting project.
A LOT of the stuff was just invented by Sklar to make the film flow.
But some is just misrepresented. In 1967, Ferrie was convinced he was
very sick and dying, and may have said something to Lou Ivon like "I'm
a dead man." But Sklar/Stone/Pesci present it as Ferrie being afraid
"they" would kill him.>
black...@aol.com
> > > I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
> > > wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
> > > he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination.
>
> > The only source we have for that is Martin, and he gave several different
> > accounts. You said above that the earliest accounts are best - but Martin
> > didn't say anything like that until 1967.
>
> Not even a doctor bill from 63? No evidence it happened?
I'm sorry, I must have given the wrong impression. YES, Banister did
pistol-whip Martin. There are hospital records and police reports. But
in his early accounts, it was all over Martin making unauthorized long-
distance phone calls. By 1966, Martin was making it sound more
sinister.
black...@aol.com
> > Let's take that as an example: Martin's accounts say nothing about the CAP
> > all day Friday and most of Saturday. Then, by HIS OWN ACCOUNT, he sees
> > Eddie Voebel on WWL-TV. Voebel mentions that he took Oswald to CAP
> > meetngs, and when asked who th commander was, he says it was Ferrie. By
> > Martin's account, that information "galvanized me." So it didn't come from
> > his own knowledge.
>
> Thats why i started the thread, its always made out like he knew
> all along.
One of the best parts of the book, something nobody has ever done, is
present a chronology of what happend and whn on that assassination
weekend. It solves a lot of little mysteries. Martin DID have it in
for Ferrie, and he did start trying to tie Ferrie to the
assassination. But at first, he had nothing: Ferrie used the same
kinds of guns as Oswald, he was involved in Cuban activities, he once
outlined a short story plot about a presidential assassination.
Then he heard Voebel on TV tying Oswald to the CAP, and Ferrie's unit.
Then he heard Ferrie was on his way to Texas. The story built over
days and years, and I show it using the original documents - not
repeating mistakes from other assassination books.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 10, 6:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, some of what you say confirms what some conspiracy believers have
>> been saying for years which the WC defenders denied. So, if Ferrie was
>> not working for Banister, who was paying him? The CIA? For what?
>
> In September 1961, he was suspended by EAL. In March 1962, he began
> working for Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill, Attorneys, until
> December 1963. He worked on the Marcello deporation for Gill, and got
> a bonus, as well as some back pay from EAL. He opened a gas station.
>
Worked how? By flying Marcello back into the US?
Who gave Ferrie the money and how much was it to open a gas station?
> Tell us
>> more about Ferrie's CIA flights to Cuba.
>
> Not much to tell. He told one of his boys a lurid tale about flying
> into Cuba and being stabbed, but the boys thought he was lying. The
> rest is the tale told by Diego Gonzales Tendedera, about Ferrie making
> flights with Eladio del Valle, three times a week in the last six
> months of 1960 - impossible from his EAL work records. That's it for
> flights into Cuba.
>
So, you are saying that Ferrie was a chronic liar?
> As for the CIA, Ferrie did volunteer with the local office of the
> Frente Revolucionario Democratico from December 1960 to about
> September 1961. The FRD was, in the words of CIA, "created, funded and
> its activities guided, to some extent" by the CIA.
>
So, you are confirming that Ferrie was a CIA agent?
>>> employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
>> Well, I think the story was more that he ddi not actually fuck the kid,
>> but he was trying to seduce him.
>
> Not in an airplane or while working, as some books have claimed. EAL
> suspended him because of newspaper articles of his arrests.
>
Ok, not while flying the plane. That's a relief. Shades of Peter Graves
in Airplane!
>>> more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
>>> LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
>>> Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
>>> it until his death.
>> He consistently denied ever being at the same place at the same time as
>> Oswald. Even to FBI. So that does not count as lying or obstruction justice?
>
> Absolutely wrong. He initially said he did not know Oswald. Then he
> was told by several people (including Voebel) that Oswald had indeed
> been in the Moisant CAP unit for a few weeks in 1955. Ferrie then
And the WC defenders here always have said that Ferrie was not active in
that particular chapter when Oswald was in it.
> contatced the FBI and told them that Oswald had been in the same unit,
> but he didn't remember him. And he said this right up to his death,
> too. Even offered to take a polygraph or "truth serum.">
You've just yourself exposed Ferrie as a chronic liar.
Oh, and that's not a death threat? The SS investigates on even less.
> When one of Ferrie's friends saw him for the first time on 11/22/63,
> he asked what Ferrie thought about the assassination. He said Ferrie
> replied: He was a ball-less bastard, but nobody deserves to die like
> that.>
>
Ok, so we have to believe what your source says that Ferrie said, but
not what other sources say that Ferrie said? Is that only because
Blackburst says so?
>>> That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
>>> with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
>>> 1961.
>> There you go again, admitting things that conspiracy believers have said
>> and WC defenders always deny.
>
> I don't allege it, I prove it. What a terrible thing to do!>
I didn't say allege. I said admit.
>>> That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
>>> inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
>>> silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>> Did you ever make a list of the things that the Ferrie character said in
>> the movie and compare it to what Ferrie actually said? That could be an
>> interesting project.
>
> A LOT of the stuff was just invented by Sklar to make the film flow.
> But some is just misrepresented. In 1967, Ferrie was convinced he was
> very sick and dying, and may have said something to Lou Ivon like "I'm
> a dead man." But Sklar/Stone/Pesci present it as Ferrie being afraid
> "they" would kill him.>
>
There is a slight difference between, "If I talk I am a dead man" and
"My doctor says I am dying."
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 10, 12:36 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ferrie taught at the CAP June-September 1955. Oswald joined on July
>>> 27. There are varying estimates about how many meetings he attended. Some
>>> say 2 or 3. Some say 12-15.
>> Yes, I noted that Oswald didn't get there until July. But you are still
>> not answering my questions. What proof do you have that Ferrie was there
>> from June to September
>
> 1955 FBI interview with the Commander, Jos Lisman.
>
Please upload it.
Then how could the WC defenders get away with claiming that Ferrie and
Oswald were never there at the same time?
http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/ferrie.htm
Reports that Oswald and Ferrie were seen together at Camp Street and other
locations in 1963 have never been adequately substantiated. There were
also allegations that Oswald was linked to Ferrie eight years earlier,
prior to Oswald's service in the US Marine Corps. Ferrie was a volunteer
trainer with Moisant Airport squadron of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in
June-August 1955. Lee Harvey Oswald became a member of the Moisant
squadron on July 27, 1955 and served the summer with it. For thirty years
it was argued that there was no conclusive evidence that Oswald actually
met Ferrie in CAP, until PBS's Frontline in 1993 broadcast photographs
taken by a cadet named John Ciravolo showing Ferrie at a CAP bivouac in
early August 1955 with a small group of CAP cadets--amongst whom young Lee
Harvey Oswald is very visible. [ Photo of Ferrie and Oswald ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferrie
> and came into direct contact with Oswald?
>
> I first found former cadets who rmembered Oswald there, then I later
> saw the CAP picture.
>
Did you find the cadet who remembered that Ferrie had a photo of Oswald
in his home?
>>> He says he found a witness who
>>>> admitted to covering this up.
>>> Baloney. He was interviewed by a PRIVATE investigative firm in 1962,
>>> BEFORE the assassination, and didn't want to say he had been molested
>>> because he didn't want his parents to find out. Only a moron would have
>>> the insensitivity to question that decision 46 years later.
>> Didn't you just say that he lied to the WC and told his story to the HSCA?
>
> 1) Interviewed by Southern Research in 1962, he didn't mention the
> sexual activity because he didn't want his parents to find out.
> 2) He didn't volunteer to the WC or anybody else in 1963-4 that Oswald
> had been in the same CAP unit as Oswald because he didn't know Ferrie
> had briefly been suspected in November 1963.
> 3) He didn't volunteer to Garrison in 1967 because the papers were
> already stating as fact that Oswald had served in the same unit as
> Ferrie.
> 4) HSCA got his name from another cadet, and they interviewed him.
>
Please upload his HSCA affidavit.
>
Anthony Marsh
As I said before, the documents have not come out yet. But his source has.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tape_Top_CIA_officer_confesses_order_0808.html
Tape: Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came on
White House stationery
John Byrne
Published: Friday August 8, 2008
StumbleUpon
Print This Email This
In damning transcript, ex-CIA official says Cheney likely ordered letter
linking Hussein to 9/11 attacks
Enjoy this story? Get underreported Raw stories before they break.
A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was
ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of
Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a
conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief
of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer.
The transcript was posted Friday by author Ron Suskind of an interview
conducted in June. It comes on the heels of denials by both the White
House and Richer of a claim Suskind made in his new book, The Way of The
World. The book was leaked to Politico's Mike Allen on Monday, and
released Tuesday.
On Tuesday, the White House released a statement on Richer's behalf. In
it, Richer declared, "I never received direction from George Tenet or
anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document ... as
outlined in Mr. Suskind's book."
The denial, however, directly contradicts Richer's own remarks in the
transcript.
"Now this is from the Vice President's Office is how you remembered
it--not from the president?" Suskind asked.
"No, no, no," Richer replied, according to the transcript. "What I
remember is George [Tenet] saying, 'we got this from'--basically, from
what George said was 'downtown.'"
"Which is the White House?" Suskind asked.
"Yes," Richer said. "But he did not--in my memory--never said president,
vice president, or NSC. Okay? But now--he may have hinted--just by the
way he said it, it would have--cause almost all that stuff came from one
place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president."
"But he didn't say that specifically," Richer added. "I would
naturally--I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and
say it came from the vice president."
"But there wasn't anything in the writing that you remember saying the
vice president," Suskind continued.
"Nope," Richer said.
"It just had the White House stationery."
"Exactly right."
Later, Richer added, "You know, if you've ever seen the vice president's
stationery, it's on the White House letterhead. It may have said OVP
(Office of the Vice President). I don't remember that, so I don't want
to mislead you."
Suskind says decision to post transcript unusual
Suskind posted the transcript at his blog, saying, "This posting is
contrary to my practice across 25 years as a journalist. But the issues,
in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any
way." It was first picked up by ThinkProgress and Congressional
Quarterly's Jeff Stein.
Suskind's new book asserts that senior Bush officials ordered the CIA to
forge a document "proving" that Saddam Hussein had been trying to
manufacture nuclear weapons and was collaborating with al Qaeda. The
alleged result was a faked memorandum from then chief of Saddam's
intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush dated July 1, 2001, and written
to Hussein.
The bogus memo claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received
training in Baghdad but also discussed the arrival of a "shipment" from
Niger, which the Administration claimed had supplied Iraq with
yellowcake uranium -- based on yet another forged document whose source
remains uncertain.
The memo subsequently was treated as fact by the British Sunday
Telegraph, and cited by William Safire in his New York Times column,
providing fodder for Bush's efforts to take the US to war.
The Sunday Telegraph cited the main source for its story on Iraq's 9/11
involvement as Ayad Allawi, a former Baathist who rebelled against
Saddam and was appointed a government position after the US occupation.
Nothing in the story explains how an Iraqi politician was privy to the
fake memo, but the New York Times column alluded to Allawi and described
him as "an Iraqi leader long considered reliable by intelligence agencies."
"To characterize it right," Richer also declares in the transcript, "I
would say, right: it came to us, George had a raised eyebrow, and
basically we passed it on--it was to--and passed this on into the
organization. You know, it was: 'Okay, we gotta do this, but make it go
away.' To be honest with you, I don't want to make it sound--I for sure
don't want to portray this as George jumping: 'Okay, this has gotta
happen.' As I remember it--and, again, it's still vague, so I'll be very
straight with you on this--is it wasn't that important. It was: 'This is
unbelievable. This is just like all the other garbage we get about . . .
I mean Mohammad Atta and links to al Qaeda. 'Rob,' you know, 'do
something with this.' I think it was more like that than: 'Get this done.'"
Magazine asserts Feith created bogus document
Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the
forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas
Feith's Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source.
The source reportedly added that Suskind’s overall claim “is correct."
"My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery,
hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a
sensitive assignment," the magazine wrote. "Instead, he went to Doug
Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. … It was
Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the
media in Iraq. Unlike the [Central Intelligence] Agency, the Pentagon
had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information
to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office
specialized in such activity."
More of Suskind's transcripts are available here.
___________________________
So, now what are you going to say? No witty comebacks? Cat got your tongue?
black...@aol.com
> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> > In September 1961, he was suspended by EAL. In March 1962, he began
> > working for Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill, Attorneys, until
> > December 1963. He worked on the Marcello deporation for Gill, and got
> > a bonus, as well as some back pay from EAL. He opened a gas station.
>
> Worked how?
He went to Guatemala and secured info that Marcello's birth
certificate there was false. Thus, his deportation to Guatemala was
improper.
By flying Marcello back into the US?
Ferrie didn't fly (and couldn't have flown) Marcello back into the US.
A moot point, because he was fairly close to Marcello from 1962-1967.
> Who gave Ferrie the money and how much was it to open a gas station?
Gill, a $7500 bonus. EAL, $1600 back pay. Combined with about $6000.
from his partner (Al B.), they bought a Gulf franchise for $15,000.
from Lynn Bertaut.
>
> > Tell us
> >> more about Ferrie's CIA flights to Cuba.
>
> > Not much to tell. He told one of his boys a lurid tale about flying
> > into Cuba and being stabbed, but the boys thought he was lying. The
> > rest is the tale told by Diego Gonzales Tendedera, about Ferrie making
> > flights with Eladio del Valle, three times a week in the last six
> > months of 1960 - impossible from his EAL work records. That's it for
> > flights into Cuba.
>
> So, you are saying that Ferrie was a chronic liar?
A chronic exaggerator. In this case, he claimed to have been stabbed
and showed it to the boys. The boys said it didn't look like a stab
wound, more like a burn. They thought he had made it all up.
>
> > As for the CIA, Ferrie did volunteer with the local office of the
> > Frente Revolucionario Democratico from December 1960 to about
> > September 1961. The FRD was, in the words of CIA, "created, funded and
> > its activities guided, to some extent" by the CIA.
>
> So, you are confirming that Ferrie was a CIA agent?
Not as you define the term, no. He did VOLUNTEER to work for the LOCAL
branch of the FRD, whose activities were "TO SOME EXTENT" controlled
by the CIA. Those 3 qualifiers make it unclear if Ferrie was on the
record, or just a vest-pocket friend of Arcacha.
>
> >>> employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
> >> Well, I think the story was more that he ddi not actually fuck the kid,
> >> but he was trying to seduce him.
>
> > Not in an airplane or while working, as some books have claimed. EAL
> > suspended him because of newspaper articles of his arrests.
>
> Ok, not while flying the plane. That's a relief. Shades of Peter Graves
> in Airplane!
But it's one of those Ferie things that gets repeated from book to
book.
>
> >>> more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> >>> LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> >>> Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> >>> it until his death.
> >> He consistently denied ever being at the same place at the same time as
> >> Oswald. Even to FBI. So that does not count as lying or obstruction justice?
>
> > Absolutely wrong. He initially said he did not know Oswald. Then he
> > was told by several people (including Voebel) that Oswald had indeed
> > been in the Moisant CAP unit for a few weeks in 1955. Ferrie then
>
> And the WC defenders here always have said that Ferrie was not active in
> that particular chapter when Oswald was in it.
That's true. Until the picture surfaced, they argued that there was no
proof. But there was.
>
> > contatced the FBI and told them that Oswald had been in the same unit,
> > but he didn't remember him. And he said this right up to his death,
> > too. Even offered to take a polygraph or "truth serum.">
>
> You've just yourself exposed Ferrie as a chronic liar.
Exaggerating to impress boys is a bit different.
>
> > He WAS very angry at JFK in 1961, but there is no evidence he ever
> > said that.
>
> > Before a veterans group, he said (according to the best account I can
> > find) So the invasion of April 15 failed, many Cuban patriots died and
> > many more languish in prison. What caused that failure was a failure
> > of nerve, a failure to deliver the things promised to the Brigade. A
> > Commander-in-Chief who was more concerned with placating the UN than
> > in achieving victory. Maybe we should take the advice of the Cubans
> > when they find treason in their midst: To the Wall! [an apparent
> > reference to a firing squad.]
>
> Oh, and that's not a death threat? The SS investigates on even less.
There's no evidence that he threatened to do it himself. He was
repeating Cuban a military firing squad. (Again, according to the best
account I have of that unrecorded speech.)
>
> > When one of Ferrie's friends saw him for the first time on 11/22/63,
> > he asked what Ferrie thought about the assassination. He said Ferrie
> > replied: He was a ball-less bastard, but nobody deserves to die like
> > that.>
>
> Ok, so we have to believe what your source says that Ferrie said, but
> not what other sources say that Ferrie said? Is that only because
> Blackburst says so?
There's NO identifiable source for Ferrie threatening to do it
himself. The 11/22 quote I got was from his closest friend.
>
> >>> That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> >>> with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> >>> 1961.
> >> There you go again, admitting things that conspiracy believers have said
> >> and WC defenders always deny.
>
> > I don't allege it, I prove it. What a terrible thing to do!>
>
> I didn't say allege. I said admit.
Doesn't change anything. I don't just allege it, like SOME people here
do; I went out and got the proof.
>
> >>> That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> >>> inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> >>> silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
> >> Did you ever make a list of the things that the Ferrie character said in
> >> the movie and compare it to what Ferrie actually said? That could be an
> >> interesting project.
>
> > A LOT of the stuff was just invented by Sklar to make the film flow.
> > But some is just misrepresented. In 1967, Ferrie was convinced he was
> > very sick and dying, and may have said something to Lou Ivon like "I'm
> > a dead man." But Sklar/Stone/Pesci present it as Ferrie being afraid
> > "they" would kill him.>
>
> There is a slight difference between, "If I talk I am a dead man" and
> "My doctor says I am dying."-
There is, and that's the point. If you accept the autopsy, Ferrie died
of a stroke. The man who did the autopsy said Ferrie had had one or
two prior bleeds in his head. He had been complaining of being sick
for several months and thought he might be dying. He may have said
something along those lines to Lou Ivon.
black...@aol.com
> blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 12:36 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Ferrie taught at the CAP June-September 1955. Oswald joined on July
> >>> 27. There are varying estimates about how many meetings he attended. Some
> >>> say 2 or 3. Some say 12-15.
> >> Yes, I noted that Oswald didn't get there until July. But you are still
> >> not answering my questions. What proof do you have that Ferrie was there
> >> from June to September
>
> > 1955 FBI interview with the Commander, Jos Lisman.
>
> Please upload it.
> Then how could the WC defenders get away with claiming that Ferrie and
> Oswald were never there at the same time?
Lisman does not mention Oswald (this was 1955). It mention's FERRIE'S
dates. I compared this with a 1963 document giving Oswald's start
date.
> Did you find the cadet who remembered that Ferrie had a photo of Oswald
> in his home?
That doesn't ring a bell. Who do you mean?
alo...@maine.rr.com
Weisberg cites an anti-JFK speech that Ferrie made that was so
vitriolic that one of the sponsors asked him to stop -
also, I would do a lot more than quibble avbout your correction of
Ferrie from "chronic liar" to "chronic exaggerator." If he made up
stuff, as he clearly did, he was a liar. Probably one more sociopath
in that sordid New Orleans atmosphere, so you need to be cautious in
how you evaluate his claims - by the standards of Reitzes et al, once
a witness tells one lie he is never to be believed again, so don't
let Reitzes or McAdams review your book -
by the way, is it scheduled to be published?
-Allen Lowe
Anthony Marsh
You mean you haven't read the web page on McAdam's site?
It appears this came from Martin and not a cadet.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cap.txt
On November 25, Martin was interviewed by FBI Agent Regis Kennedy in
New Orleans and provided further information. He stated that he had
informed several people in the news media of his information about
Ferrie and Oswald and that he thought had once seen a photograph of
Oswald and other CAP members when he once visited Ferrie's home. Martin
stated that he had heard on television that Oswald had in fact belonged
to the New Orleans CAP and thus began to think that Ferrie had probably
known him. According to the FBI reports of his interview, Martin went on
to voice other suspicions about Ferrie:
curtjester1
> On Aug 8, 11:22 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 8, 12:49 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > That's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive book dealing
> > > with Ferrie. Almost all of them are superficial; many of them make
> > > provable mistakes. The treatment of Martin in Stone's JFK bears very
> > > little resemblance to what Garrison's files and other files actually
> > > show. He did NOT have some magical solution to the assassination in
> > > November 1963. He was very angry at Ferrie and made a few really loose
> > > allegations. Please see the list I posted above. You can see how
> > > Martin's story changed over the years. As for my book, I hope you
> > > reconsider, because there'll be a few surprises for everybody, no
> > > matter how they feel about the case.
>
> > I doubt the books have provable mistakes.
>
> MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
> documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
Most are interested in whether Ferrie was or wasn't involved with the
assassination. A lot of authors go into stuff that is probable but
yet inconsequential.
> employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
> more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> it until his death.
>
That would still be a lie when one would give an inch and say maybe he was
in the unit, when he would know he was positively. Ferrie being in
Oswald's company in the years after CAP and preceding the death of JFK
would still make that a lie.
> I did read an online page with
>
> > your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
It's apologetic when the theme gets on the exoneration side in this
case instead of what probably was.
> > Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
>
> That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> payment after they left.
>
See, your trying to make a way by reason that Ferrie should be there
(apologizing), and not going into the facts that he was there under
many circumstances with observations like the Houma arsenal theft,
that he was heading.
Ferrie was briefed by the FBI on November 25 and 26 after the return
of his trip. He denied knowing Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied Oswald
served under him in CAP. He denied he taught Oswald how to shoot a
high-powered rifle. He denied ever loaning him his library card.
All lies.
> All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
The statements that don't have any bearing on him that he could tell
the truth on?
> Martin, like I said had to
>
> > retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
> > fear.
>
> Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
> inconsistencies.
>
I call it the preponderance of the evidence and surrounding
circumstaces. Many things in the JFK are just that. It would be up
to you to explain that the feeling is not justified.
> Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
>
> > as far as my research goes.
>
> Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
> is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
>
Beverly Oliver who said he was at the Carousel enough to think he was the
manager. I have a cab driver that gave Oswald and Ferrie a ride to the
Carousel. I do believe there were also other sightings from Ruby girls if
I am not mistaken. Of course having a Dallasite, Breck Wall who received
a phone call from Ruby in Galveston when Ferrie and his car buddies
arrived there just prior is glaringly suspicious.
> Nobody is going to spend a whole book on
>
> > Ferrie,
>
> I am. It is time that someone went BEYOND the books, back to the
> original documents, back to people who really knew him.
>
Maybe for an Oswald and Ruby which is done because they are so prime for
allegation(s). As I said what has been written on Ferrie in books relates
to the JFK case, so introducing a solo Ferrie theme would need to be
looked on as a 'why'.
> but some good stuff I have gleaned is from Harvey and Lee
>
> I have only an early version, but there's nothing in there
> establishing a relationship.
>
Lots of Ferrie-Oswald stuff in there. Oswald in Cuba, Oswald in
Mexico (more than once), Ferrie and Oswald in numerous places and
situations....
> , Mafia
>
> > Kingfish,
>
> Great on Marcello, very weak and derivative on Ferrie. I wish Davis
> had contacted me!
>
Here is what is on Ferrie in the Index. 30 pages of general Ferrie.
activities after assassination about 10 pages, anti- Kennedy 7 pages,
background and character 7 pages, death nine pages, library card 7
pages, meetings with Marcello 24 pages, Oswald's association with 24
pages, questioned and investigated 14 pages, trip to Texas 15 pages.
> and Betrayal.
>
> Utter horsecrap.
>
A lot of background on Ferrie and his CIA assignments that were
obviously from people in the know.
>
>
> > I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
> > wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
> > he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination.
>
> The only source we have for that is Martin, and he gave several different
> accounts. You said above that the earliest accounts are best - but Martin
> didn't say anything like that until 1967.
>
The guy taking five hard shots to the head from a heavy pistol and
still has enough to say that he knew Ferrie and Oswald from CAP, and
goes to the DA and wants immunity makes me pay real close attention.
> Ferrie
>
> > was probably a militant homosexual
>
> True, to some extent. He was not easily recognizable as gay, but he did
> feel that it was the boys own choice to have any kind of sex they wanted.
>
And with the recent thread on Ruby and Oswald homosexuality, makes it
all the more juicy.
> and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
>
> He voted for JFK, but became very pissed off after the BoP. He had cooled
> a little by 1963, but he still thought JFK was "ball-less bastard."
>
They had to take off the stage for his hate rants. Then if you want
to tie in a Russo or Brousard....
>
>
> > He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
> > power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
>
> That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> 1961.
>
Are you saying that he didn't help get Castro into power?
>
>
> > When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
> > and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
> > evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
>
> That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
>
It would only be natural when one understands how New Orleans operated
and who was directly over on Mr. David Ferrie.
CJ
Steve Thomas
Thanks for finally admitting it.
> http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Tape_Top_CIA_officer_confesses_order_08...
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
I say thanks for admitting there are no documents, and that you are
just helping spread rumor.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> As usual for deniers you attack the source. the way Dolan attacked
> >>>> Seymour Hersh.
> >>>>>> Book: White House Ordered CIA to Forge Iraq Intelligence
> >>>>>> The White House ordered the CIA in 2003 to forge a letter from the head
> >>>>>> of Iraqi
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
black...@aol.com
> >> Did you find the cadet who remembered that Ferrie had a photo of Oswald
> >> in his home?
>
> > That doesn't ring a bell. Who do you mean?
>
> You mean you haven't read the web page on McAdam's site?
> It appears this came from Martin and not a cadet.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cap.txt
>
> On November 25, Martin was interviewed by FBI Agent Regis Kennedy in
> New Orleans and provided further information. He stated that he had
> informed several people in the news media of his information about
> Ferrie and Oswald and that he thought had once seen a photograph of
> Oswald and other CAP members when he once visited Ferrie's home. Martin
> stated that he had heard on television that Oswald had in fact belonged
> to the New Orleans CAP and thus began to think that Ferrie had probably
> known him. According to the FBI reports of his interview, Martin went on
> to voice other suspicions about Ferrie:-
Note that Martin said he heard about the Oswald-CAP connection from
television, and that THIS made him think there might be a Ferrie
connection.
Ferrie DID have a few CAP pictures in his belongings. The ones that
have survived (from Ferrie's collection) do not show Oswald. Martin
probably did see CAP pictures in Ferrie's posession. He elaborated on
this in a few interviews - he said the picture was of a boy who was a
complaining witness against Ferrie in a morals case in 1961, and was
"spirited" in the service in 1962. This was clearly not Oswald. It was
Al L.
black...@aol.com
> not sure if it is the same speech you are referring to, David, but
> Weisberg cites an anti-JFK speech that Ferrie made that was so
> vitriolic that one of the sponsors asked him to stop -
Yep, that's the same speech, beofe the Military Order of World Wars. A
couple of accounts in 70s-80s books were very sketchy as to what Ferrie
actually said. I acquired the minutes of the meeting, and that, too, does
not specify what he said. After many years, I finally found someone who
was there, and he has only the vaguest memory of what Ferrie said. It was
along the lines I posted, but the source said "Don't put quotation marks
around it, it's only a paraphrase." Ferrie described the invasion and how
it failed, in his opinion, mostly through being scaled back and the air
cover being withdrawn. He implied that the Administration was more
concerned with how things looked to the UN than with victory. He said the
Cubans dealt with such matters by sending the responsibel party "to the
wall," which most took as a suggestion that JFK face a firing squad. The
Commander then rose and told Ferrie his remarks were not suitable for an
official meeting of the group, but that they could adjourn and he could
finish his remarks. Ferrie replied that he had concluded.
I cannot verify that this is a complete and accurate account of what
happened, but the source was there, and his account is consistent with
other accounts, and a bit more detailed.
>
> also, I would do a lot more than quibble avbout your correction of
> Ferrie from "chronic liar" to "chronic exaggerator." If he made up
> stuff, as he clearly did, he was a liar.
That's one of the things I have a problem with. MANY books and individuals
have claimed that Ferrie lied repeatedly when questioned. I wanted to
prove this, so I got all his original statements (and by that time, I knew
a LOT about Ferrie.) I went through each of his statements, and everything
checks out! But let me give a few points of controversy:
He denied remembering Oswald. IF (and I stress IF) the dozen or so people
who have made direct allegations that the two knew each other IN 1963 (as
opposed to the CAP in 1955), then Ferrie clearly lied. The problem is,
some of them (such as Broshears and Robert Morrow) were, as I will show in
the book, probably not truthful. A few seem a bit more credible. But
balanced against this are a group of people who knew Ferrie well and
still, to this day, say they never saw or heard of Oswald, and after the
assassination, Ferrie gave no indication that he had associated with him.
There is a case to be made that Ferrie knew Oswald, but there is a case to
be made that he didn't. I know this annoys CTs and LNs, but because my
book is a biography, not an assassination book, I just report both sides.
The other one was whether or not Ferrie knew that Arcacha's FRD spent time
in the Newman Building. As I explained in an earlier post, there is a
window of possibility that this occurred between the time Ferrie was
kicked out by the Cubans, and the time he started working with Banister.
Not definite, but possible.
Beyond a few things like this, I can't find anything in Ferrie's
statements that doesn't check out. Again, I'm basing this on the actual
statements, NOT on what books say about them!
But let me add this: Ferrie WAS capable of lying like a champ. I have the
transcript of his Hearing with Eastern Air Lines and I know all the
backstory. Ferrie definitely twisted the truth and, in one case, tried to
get a boy to lie to support Ferrie's testimony. His attorney, Gill,
actually dropped Ferrie because the Hearings showed that he could be
dishonest. But I am trying to be objective about what he may have lied
about in November.
Probably one more sociopath
> in that sordid New Orleans atmosphere, so you need to be cautious in
> how you evaluate his claims - by the standards of Reitzes et al, once
> a witness tells one lie he is never to be believed again, so don't
> let Reitzes or McAdams review your book -
In this field, while I think most will appreciate all the new info in the
book, I'll probably get a few who will quibble with things. Oh, well.....
>
> by the way, is it scheduled to be published?
I'm still only abut 3/4 done with it. I have publisher interest, but no
guarantee. But it WILL get out somehow. All I ask is that you keep an open
mind. Some things we suspect about Ferrie are true. Others are open to
argument.
>
> -Allen Lowe
black...@aol.com
> > MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
> > documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
>
> Most are interested in whether Ferrie was or wasn't involved with the
> assassination. A lot of authors go into stuff that is probable but
> yet inconsequential.
Not sure what you mean. There are a lot of Ferrie mistakes in the
existing literature. I think it shows lack of research, a tendency to
just take what other books say as true.
>
> > employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
> > more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> > LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> > Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> > it until his death.
>
> That would still be a lie when one would give an inch and say maybe he was
> in the unit, when he would know he was positively.
Again, Ferrie said INITIALLY that he did not recognize the name or picture
of Oswald (now 8 years older). Ferrie had hundreds of boys in the CAP and
as a teacher. (As a former teacher, I know I can't remember every student
from 8 years ago.) Within a couple of days, Ferrie had learned from former
CAP people that Oswald had been in the unit, and he so informed the FBI.
But many assassination books erroneously state that he continued to deny
it. BIG difference.
Ferrie being in
> Oswald's company in the years after CAP and preceding the death of JFK
> would still make that a lie.
As I said in another post, IF the dozen or so people who claimed (after
Ferrie died) that he knew Oswald in 1963, then yes, his claim not to
remember Oswald would be a lie.
>
> > I did read an online page with
>
> > > your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> > Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
> It's apologetic when the theme gets on the exoneration side in this
> case instead of what probably was.
The only way for one to guess what probably "happened" is to know all the
available information. And I submit that my knowledge of Ferrie is very
extensive.
Look: CTs WANT Ferrie to be guilty, guilty, guilty. LNs want him to be
innocent. I am trying to establish which parts are probably true and which
aren't.
>
> > > Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
>
> > That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> > that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> > Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> > Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> > March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> > about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> > October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> > payment after they left.
>
> See, your trying to make a way by reason that Ferrie should be there
> (apologizing), and not going into the facts that he was there under
> many circumstances with observations like the Houma arsenal theft,
> that he was heading.
OK, first, the Houma heist was in the second week of September, 1961. I
talked with two of the people on it. The leader was Novel, not Ferrie.
This was one of the last times Ferrie worked with the Cubans. The
CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN record is very clear that Ferrie was bounced by
the Cubans shortly after his morals arrests. Some writers don't want to
accept this.
>
> Ferrie was briefed by the FBI on November 25 and 26 after the return
> of his trip. He denied knowing Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied Oswald
> served under him in CAP.
He denied remembering Oswald. But he told the FBI a day or so later
that he had learned that Oswald had been in his unit.
He denied he taught Oswald how to shoot a
> high-powered rifle.
There is no evidence that he ever did. People who were in the CAP at
the same time as Oswald said there was no arms training.
He denied ever loaning him his library card.
> All lies.
There is no evidence that Ferrie ever loaned Oswald his library card.
This was actually a story started by Jack S. Martin that didn't check
out.
>
> > All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
> The statements that don't have any bearing on him that he could tell
> the truth on?
Those plus some that you mentioned that cannot be shown to be lies.
>
> > Martin, like I said had to
>
> > > retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
> > > fear.
>
> > Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
> > inconsistencies.
>
> I call it the preponderance of the evidence and surrounding
> circumstaces. Many things in the JFK are just that. It would be up
> to you to explain that the feeling is not justified.
When you see the chronology of what actaually happened with Ferrie and
Martin that weekend (from the documents, not my opinion), you won't be
so sure.
>
> > Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
>
> > > as far as my research goes.
>
> > Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
> > is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
>
> Beverly Oliver who said he was at the Carousel enough to think he was the
> manager.
I don't think Oliver told the truth about that. How could none of
Ferrie's friends notice his absence to that degree?
I have a cab driver that gave Oswald and Ferrie a ride to the
> Carousel.
Raymond Cummings, also not a good witness.
I do believe there were also other sightings from Ruby girls if
> I am not mistaken. Of course having a Dallasite, Breck Wall who received
> a phone call from Ruby in Galveston when Ferrie and his car buddies
> arrived there just prior is glaringly suspicious.
Ferrie was traveling through this city of 50,000, and another person
received a call there. Is there any evidence that Ferrie ever knew
Wall? How is this glaringly suspicious?
>
> > Nobody is going to spend a whole book on
>
> > > Ferrie,
>
> > I am. It is time that someone went BEYOND the books, back to the
> > original documents, back to people who really knew him.
>
> Maybe for an Oswald and Ruby which is done because they are so prime for
> allegation(s). As I said what has been written on Ferrie in books relates
> to the JFK case, so introducing a solo Ferrie theme would need to be
> looked on as a 'why'.
One cannot look at the brief mentions of Ferrie in existing books and get
a sense of who he was and what is true about him. When I found all the
unpublished info in Ferrie documents, I decided to collate it and out it
on the record. Ferrie is a major character to some people.
>
> > but some good stuff I have gleaned is from Harvey and Lee
>
> > I have only an early version, but there's nothing in there
> > establishing a relationship.
>
> Lots of Ferrie-Oswald stuff in there. Oswald in Cuba, Oswald in
> Mexico (more than once), Ferrie and Oswald in numerous places and
> situations....
I'll look back over my verision.
>
> > , Mafia
>
> > > Kingfish,
>
> > Great on Marcello, very weak and derivative on Ferrie. I wish Davis
> > had contacted me!
>
> Here is what is on Ferrie in the Index. 30 pages of general Ferrie.
> activities after assassination about 10 pages, anti- Kennedy 7 pages,
> background and character 7 pages, death nine pages, library card 7
> pages, meetings with Marcello 24 pages, Oswald's association with 24
> pages, questioned and investigated 14 pages, trip to Texas 15 pages.
As I say, though, derivative. Davis did OK in getting a lot of the
accurate (if jumbled) Ferrie stuff from HSCA, but he included inaccurate
stuff from other books. Reading his book was one of my motivations to get
all the new accurate stuff on the record.
>
> > and Betrayal.
>
> > Utter horsecrap.
>
> A lot of background on Ferrie and his CIA assignments that were
> obviously from people in the know.
Impossible to explain in a short post, but Morrow is fine on the Kohly
stuff, but his Ferrie stuff is horsecrap. Ferrie did not consort with
Charles Tracy Barnes, for example.
>
>
>
> > > I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
> > > wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
> > > he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination.
>
> > The only source we have for that is Martin, and he gave several different
> > accounts. You said above that the earliest accounts are best - but Martin
> > didn't say anything like that until 1967.
>
> The guy taking five hard shots to the head from a heavy pistol and
> still has enough to say that he knew Ferrie and Oswald from CAP, and
> goes to the DA and wants immunity makes me pay real close attention.
Wow.
1) The police report said 3, as I recall.
2) Martin never said HE knew Oswald from the CAP.
3) What's your source on Martin asking for immunity?
>
> > Ferrie
>
> > > was probably a militant homosexual
>
> > True, to some extent. He was not easily recognizable as gay, but he did
> > feel that it was the boys own choice to have any kind of sex they wanted.
>
> And with the recent thread on Ruby and Oswald homosexuality, makes it
> all the more juicy.
>
> > and steady voicer of hate towards JFK.
>
> > He voted for JFK, but became very pissed off after the BoP. He had cooled
> > a little by 1963, but he still thought JFK was "ball-less bastard."
>
> They had to take off the stage for his hate rants. Then if you want
> to tie in a Russo or Brousard....
I have a bunch of new stuff regarding Russo. Not a good source.
Who's Brousard?>
> >
>
> > > He was so intuned to all that Cuba stuff from even getting Castro into
> > > power, and all the missions he flew for the CIA pre-BoP, and work after.
>
> > That's one of the misunderstandings I correct. Ferrie was associated
> > with the CIA through Arcacha from November 1960 to about September
> > 1961.
>
> Are you saying that he didn't help get Castro into power?
Yes. He wasn't involved in any Cuban activities until 1959 at the
earliest, more likely mid-1960.
>
> >
>
> > > When you get that deep involved with all that, and you have a big mouth,
> > > and you are going to have to testify, you get snuffed out....so the
> > > evidence like most in the JFK becomes strongly circumstansial.
>
> > That's part of the harm Stone's film did. To deal with Martin's
> > inconsistency, they made him into a fount of info who was terrorized into
> > silence, and this was picked up by a few authors.
>
> It would only be natural when one understands how New Orleans operated
> and who was directly over on Mr. David Ferrie.
???
>
> CJ-
Anthony Marsh
The two documents are A. The letter on White House stationary ordering
the CIA to fabricate an Iraqi memo and B. The fabricated Iraqi memo
liking Iraq to al Qaeda.
Anthony Marsh
Finally? I never said that the documents had been released.
curtjester1
> On Aug 12, 9:08 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
> > > documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
>
> > Most are interested in whether Ferrie was or wasn't involved with the
> > assassination. A lot of authors go into stuff that is probable but
> > yet inconsequential.
>
> Not sure what you mean. There are a lot of Ferrie mistakes in the
> existing literature. I think it shows lack of research, a tendency to
> just take what other books say as true.
>
or a Gus Russo might just be out to prove a premise and offer all
sorts of unknown before information but generally useless, and not
touch anything that becomes in the way or inconvenient.
>
>
> > > employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
> > > more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> > > LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> > > Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> > > it until his death.
>
> > That would still be a lie when one would give an inch and say maybe he was
> > in the unit, when he would know he was positively.
>
> Again, Ferrie said INITIALLY that he did not recognize the name or picture
> of Oswald (now 8 years older). Ferrie had hundreds of boys in the CAP and
> as a teacher. (As a former teacher, I know I can't remember every student
> from 8 years ago.) Within a couple of days, Ferrie had learned from former
> CAP people that Oswald had been in the unit, and he so informed the FBI.
> But many assassination books erroneously state that he continued to deny
> it. BIG difference.
>
But he was involved with Oswald in the present. Those guys that made
CAP had to do 90 days before they were even given Camp status. Then
Oswald was there for eight weeks.
> Ferrie being in
>
> > Oswald's company in the years after CAP and preceding the death of JFK
> > would still make that a lie.
>
> As I said in another post, IF the dozen or so people who claimed (after
> Ferrie died) that he knew Oswald in 1963, then yes, his claim not to
> remember Oswald would be a lie.
>
And it would be a huge lie. If he would lie about that, then where
else would the lying lead?
>
>
> > > I did read an online page with
>
> > > > your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> > > Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
> > It's apologetic when the theme gets on the exoneration side in this
> > case instead of what probably was.
>
> The only way for one to guess what probably "happened" is to know all the
> available information. And I submit that my knowledge of Ferrie is very
> extensive.
>
Like I said, knowledge can be a two-edged sword.
> Look: CTs WANT Ferrie to be guilty, guilty, guilty. LNs want him to be
> innocent. I am trying to establish which parts are probably true and which
> aren't.
>
I think there are enough for the surrounding players associated with
Ferrie to make them guilty, so it's not picking out just one guy....
>
>
> > > > Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
>
> > > That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> > > that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> > > Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> > > Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> > > March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> > > about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> > > October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> > > payment after they left.
>
> > See, your trying to make a way by reason that Ferrie should be there
> > (apologizing), and not going into the facts that he was there under
> > many circumstances with observations like the Houma arsenal theft,
> > that he was heading.
>
> OK, first, the Houma heist was in the second week of September, 1961. I
> talked with two of the people on it. The leader was Novel, not Ferrie.
> This was one of the last times Ferrie worked with the Cubans. The
> CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN record is very clear that Ferrie was bounced by
> the Cubans shortly after his morals arrests. Some writers don't want to
> accept this.
>
I doubt Novel was even the leader that day since Bannister went to
Washington to try to loosen the weapons by loophole first. The thing
is, Ferrie was there, the arsenal was brought into the Newman
building, and was known by lots of folks, and Ferrie was in charge of
appropriations, to the Lake Ponchartrain facility and to Guatemala.
>
>
> > Ferrie was briefed by the FBI on November 25 and 26 after the return
> > of his trip. He denied knowing Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied Oswald
> > served under him in CAP.
>
> He denied remembering Oswald. But he told the FBI a day or so later
> that he had learned that Oswald had been in his unit.
>
This is just being squeezed into an impossible corner, and letting a
little out.
> He denied he taught Oswald how to shoot a
>
> > high-powered rifle.
>
> There is no evidence that he ever did. People who were in the CAP at
> the same time as Oswald said there was no arms training.
>
Not true. There is a source from one of the cadets to an offical
body. Two kinds of rifles were used. In fact Robert Oswald said
Lee purchased a .22 rifle during that time period.
> He denied ever loaning him his library card.
>
Of course, that would break the case wide open. All the evidence
points to he did, which is a lot.
> > All lies.
>
> There is no evidence that Ferrie ever loaned Oswald his library card.
> This was actually a story started by Jack S. Martin that didn't check
> out.
>
That library card had to be a leak from Dallas. Heck, Ferrie was at
the doorstep wondering about that on the very day of the assassination
to Oswald's old place. How would Martin possibly know then? Gill,
the lawyer had the info and went to Ferrie's roomate Maerten's and
told him about it, and Ferrie called Maertens from Texas.
>
>
> > > All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
> > The statements that don't have any bearing on him that he could tell
> > the truth on?
>
> Those plus some that you mentioned that cannot be shown to be lies.
>
>
>
> > > Martin, like I said had to
>
> > > > retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
> > > > fear.
>
> > > Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
> > > inconsistencies.
>
> > I call it the preponderance of the evidence and surrounding
> > circumstaces. Many things in the JFK are just that. It would be up
> > to you to explain that the feeling is not justified.
>
> When you see the chronology of what actaually happened with Ferrie and
> Martin that weekend (from the documents, not my opinion), you won't be
> so sure.
>
Martin did a 360, obviously after the pressure was on. They had to
use Martin as a fall guy and they did IMO. They hid a lot. They hid
the phone records for November from the FBI. The interview with
Ferrie was secreted away.
>
>
> > > Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
>
> > > > as far as my research goes.
>
> > > Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
> > > is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
>
> > Beverly Oliver who said he was at the Carousel enough to think he was the
> > manager.
>
> I don't think Oliver told the truth about that. How could none of
> Ferrie's friends notice his absence to that degree?
>
And which friends might go out on a limb for his whereabouts if they
even could? I have read Beverly's book, and I believe she is quite
poignant to all she went through, yet there are those that even deny
she was even in Dealey filming the assassination.
> I have a cab driver that gave Oswald and Ferrie a ride to the
>
> > Carousel.
>
> Raymond Cummings, also not a good witness.
Why? He gave Oswald a ride before that ride, and had Marine
conversation with him.
> I do believe there were also other sightings from Ruby girls if
>
> > I am not mistaken. Of course having a Dallasite, Breck Wall who received
> > a phone call from Ruby in Galveston when Ferrie and his car buddies
> > arrived there just prior is glaringly suspicious.
>
> Ferrie was traveling through this city of 50,000, and another person
> received a call there. Is there any evidence that Ferrie ever knew
> Wall? How is this glaringly suspicious?
>
Wall was in with all the heavy mobsters. Wall even taking off from
his home city at that time is suspicious. So is his testimony with
the calls with Ruby. He actually forgot the 4 phone calls and what
they were about under oath. Then he remembers it was over not enough
time between dances for the girls. Brading who was another one very
suspicious shows up in Houston the next day also. Of course the
whole Ferrie crew and their vacation was highly suspicious with all
the phone calls from telephone booths.
>
>
> > > Nobody is going to spend a whole book on
>
> > > > Ferrie,
>
> > > I am. It is time that someone went BEYOND the books, back to the
> > > original documents, back to people who really knew him.
>
> > Maybe for an Oswald and Ruby which is done because they are so prime for
> > allegation(s). As I said what has been written on Ferrie in books relates
> > to the JFK case, so introducing a solo Ferrie theme would need to be
> > looked on as a 'why'.
>
> One cannot look at the brief mentions of Ferrie in existing books and get
> a sense of who he was and what is true about him. When I found all the
> unpublished info in Ferrie documents, I decided to collate it and out it
> on the record. Ferrie is a major character to some people.
>
>
Did you get the one with Ferrie and Oswald in Canada?
>
> > > but some good stuff I have gleaned is from Harvey and Lee
>
> > > I have only an early version, but there's nothing in there
> > > establishing a relationship.
>
> > Lots of Ferrie-Oswald stuff in there. Oswald in Cuba, Oswald in
> > Mexico (more than once), Ferrie and Oswald in numerous places and
> > situations....
>
> I'll look back over my verision.
>
>
>
> > > , Mafia
>
> > > > Kingfish,
>
> > > Great on Marcello, very weak and derivative on Ferrie. I wish Davis
> > > had contacted me!
>
> > Here is what is on Ferrie in the Index. 30 pages of general Ferrie.
> > activities after assassination about 10 pages, anti- Kennedy 7 pages,
> > background and character 7 pages, death nine pages, library card 7
> > pages, meetings with Marcello 24 pages, Oswald's association with 24
> > pages, questioned and investigated 14 pages, trip to Texas 15 pages.
>
> As I say, though, derivative. Davis did OK in getting a lot of the
> accurate (if jumbled) Ferrie stuff from HSCA, but he included inaccurate
> stuff from other books. Reading his book was one of my motivations to get
> all the new accurate stuff on the record.
>
>
I thought it was well done and when he couldn't be definitive he said
so...
>
> > > and Betrayal.
>
> > > Utter horsecrap.
>
> > A lot of background on Ferrie and his CIA assignments that were
> > obviously from people in the know.
>
> Impossible to explain in a short post, but Morrow is fine on the Kohly
> stuff, but his Ferrie stuff is horsecrap. Ferrie did not consort with
> Charles Tracy Barnes, for example.
>
>
How would you know over one who was contracted by the CIA?
>
> > > > I believe Martin knew his environment were major in JFK's demise, else he
> > > > wouldn't have said to Bannister that he was going to pistol whip him like
> > > > he murdered the President on the same day of the assassination.
>
> > > The only source we have for that is Martin, and he gave several different
> > > accounts. You said above that the earliest accounts are best - but Martin
> > > didn't say anything like that until 1967.
>
> > The guy taking five hard shots to the head from a heavy pistol and
> > still has enough to say that he knew Ferrie and Oswald from CAP, and
> > goes to the DA and wants immunity makes me pay real close attention.
>
> Wow.
> 1) The police report said 3, as I recall.
4 or 5 from the book I am reading. It was Ms. Roberts also who
basically stated it was a murder if she didn't step in.
> 2) Martin never said HE knew Oswald from the CAP.
I never said that. He, I am sure would know that he was a member with
Ferrie. Oswald and Ferrie were seen by people that frequented
Bannister's.
> 3) What's your source on Martin asking for immunity?
>
It was from Mafia Kingfish. I guess it said anonymity, which is not
exactly the same. Some Regis Kennedy move put the damper on that.
And of course we know who Beverly Oliver said confiscated her
film...don't we?...:)
CJ
Steve Thomas
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:30773a85-56f7-40c0...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Which only proves Oliver does not know what the hell she is talking about.
In Mafia Kingfish, Davis states that Regis Kennedy was in court in New
Orleans on the 22nd. So it would be impossible for the man to be in 2 places
at once, unless thats your theory from reading 2 different accounts that you
think are somehow BOTH correct. Are you not paying attention to the things
you read? Care to revise your thinking on this?
black...@aol.com
> On Aug 13, 7:34 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:> On Aug 12, 9:08 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > MANY of them, and I do the "proving" with original contemporanous
> > > > documents. A lot of it is inconsequential stuff: Ferrie was not Banister's
>
> > > Most are interested in whether Ferrie was or wasn't involved with the
> > > assassination. A lot of authors go into stuff that is probable but
> > > yet inconsequential.
>
> > Not sure what you mean. There are a lot of Ferrie mistakes in the
> > existing literature. I think it shows lack of research, a tendency to
> > just take what other books say as true.
>
> It's what pertinent knowledge might be. It's my opinion that a Posner
> or a Gus Russo might just be out to prove a premise and offer all
> sorts of unknown before information but generally useless, and not
> touch anything that becomes in the way or inconvenient.
I can see where you're going, that LN writers or "suspect" writers may
be writing to a bias, but don't you think the same might be true with
some CT or strongly "pro-Garrison" writers? That they might have a
point of view, and write to that POV? There are lots of bits of
evidence. Writers on both (all?) sides can and do pick and chose what
they use, and engage in the process of accepting some bits as genuine
and rejecting other bits. I respect DiEugenio, Davy, Pease, Mellen and
others, but they are SO convinced Garrison's case was right that they
pick only those things that support their bias, and often use things
uncritically.
>
> > > > employee, he wasn't fired for in-flight sexual antics, etc. But some is
> > > > more substantial: For example, while he initially said he did not remember
> > > > LHO from the CAP, he quickly corrected added that he had been told that
> > > > Oswald WAS in his unit. Most assassination books wrongly have him denying
> > > > it until his death.
>
> > > That would still be a lie when one would give an inch and say maybe he was
> > > in the unit, when he would know he was positively.
>
> > Again, Ferrie said INITIALLY that he did not recognize the name or picture
> > of Oswald (now 8 years older). Ferrie had hundreds of boys in the CAP and
> > as a teacher. (As a former teacher, I know I can't remember every student
> > from 8 years ago.) Within a couple of days, Ferrie had learned from former
> > CAP people that Oswald had been in the unit, and he so informed the FBI.
> > But many assassination books erroneously state that he continued to deny
> > it. BIG difference.
>
> But he was involved with Oswald in the present.
From a neutral perspective, we're not sure of that! Yes, about a dozen
people have made allegations that the two were associated in 1963
(almost all of them made after Ferrie died, and couldn't contest
them), but some of them are just plain wrong (I spoke with Broshears,
and his story is not true; others, like Morrow, have Ferrie in places
he could not have been in, according to work records), and none of the
others is unimpeachable. On the other hand, you have Ferrie
frantically denying it, and not one of his acknowledged associates saw
any trace of Oswald. One group of people must be telling it straight
and the other not. Which is which?
Those guys that made
> CAP had to do 90 days before they were even given Camp status. Then
> Oswald was there for eight weeks.
Again, we don't know. Oswald attended this bivouac less than 3 weeks
after he joined. Voebel thought he only attended a few meetings.
Another person thought he attended more. We just don't know. In any
case, Ferrie taught high school for three years and was a CAP officer
on and off from 1947-1961. He came into contact with hundreds of boys.
As a former teacher, I can verify that you can't remember them all,
especially after 8 years.
>
> > Ferrie being in
>
> > > Oswald's company in the years after CAP and preceding the death of JFK
> > > would still make that a lie.
>
> > As I said in another post, IF the dozen or so people who claimed (after
> > Ferrie died) that he knew Oswald in 1963, then yes, his claim not to
> > remember Oswald would be a lie.
>
> And it would be a huge lie. If he would lie about that, then where
> else would the lying lead?
Agreed. If Ferrie lied about knowing Oswald in 1963, all his other
statements are suspect.
>
> > > > I did read an online page with
>
> > > > > your research (Reitzes?), and found it 'apologetic' and implausible.
>
> > > > Only "apologetic" when I corrected some much-repeated inaccurate info.
>
> > > It's apologetic when the theme gets on the exoneration side in this
> > > case instead of what probably was.
>
> > The only way for one to guess what probably "happened" is to know all the
> > available information. And I submit that my knowledge of Ferrie is very
> > extensive.
>
> Like I said, knowledge can be a two-edged sword.
I agree, and I tried to leave that up to the reader in my manuscript.
Look, I went into this wanting to be the person wh "nailed" Ferrie,
who came up with the goods to establish his guilt. But in time, I
found the evidence leading down two possible paths. Since I'm not
writing an assassinaton book, per se, I stopped trying to pick one
possibility over the other. All I ask - even of strong Garrison
detrators and supporters - is that they acknowledge that the evidence
is not as clear as we all once thought.
>
> > Look: CTs WANT Ferrie to be guilty, guilty, guilty. LNs want him to be
> > innocent. I am trying to establish which parts are probably true and which
> > aren't.
>
> I think there are enough for the surrounding players associated with
> Ferrie to make them guilty, so it's not picking out just one guy....
But again, one has to try to establish what, if any, Ferrie's
relationships are with them. I spoke with people who knew both Ferrie
and Banister, and I found a few accounts from Ferrie and Banister,
too, for example. Their relationship was apparently not as books
portray it. Ferrie was not his employee; Banister had done work on
Ferrie's legal case, and Ferrie, out of money, did a few jobs for
Banister to offset his fee. Yes, they were in agreement on anti-
Communism, but Banister was against some things Ferrie strongly
favored. The more we know, the better we can understand.
>
> > > > > Ferrie was known to lie on all major points.
>
> > > > That's not true. The only one even close was when he said he didn't know
> > > > that Arcacha's FRD had an office at 544 Camp St. But here's what I found:
> > > > Ferrie was kicked out by the FRD shortly after his August 1961 arrests.
> > > > Both Ferrie and Banister said that they did not become associated until
> > > > March 1962. So Ferrie had no reason to be in the Newman Building from
> > > > about September 1961-March 1962. Guess when the FRD had an office there?
> > > > October 1961-February 1962. I have a copy of Newman's demand for rent
> > > > payment after they left.
>
> > > See, your trying to make a way by reason that Ferrie should be there
> > > (apologizing), and not going into the facts that he was there under
> > > many circumstances with observations like the Houma arsenal theft,
> > > that he was heading.
>
> > OK, first, the Houma heist was in the second week of September, 1961. I
> > talked with two of the people on it. The leader was Novel, not Ferrie.
> > This was one of the last times Ferrie worked with the Cubans. The
> > CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN record is very clear that Ferrie was bounced by
> > the Cubans shortly after his morals arrests. Some writers don't want to
> > accept this.
>
> I doubt Novel was even the leader that day since Bannister went to
> Washington to try to loosen the weapons by loophole first.
That's not at all like the story was told me by Novel and one other
person who was involved. Novel brought the matter to Arcacha, who got
Ferrie involved.
The thing
> is, Ferrie was there, the arsenal was brought into the Newman
> building, and was known by lots of folks,
He was. Ferrie was being severely criticized by the Cubans over his
morals arrests, and he relished the thought of being involved in
acquiring the arms for them. No doubt about it, Ferrie was very active
in anti-Castro activities in 1961.
and Ferrie was in charge of
> appropriations, to the Lake Ponchartrain facility
The 1963 one? The evidence is almost ALL against Ferrie being involved
with that camp.
and to Guatemala.
Prior to the Bay of Pigs? Nope, a huge mistake made in assassination
books. The Houma heist was in September 1961.
>
> > > Ferrie was briefed by the FBI on November 25 and 26 after the return
> > > of his trip. He denied knowing Lee Harvey Oswald. He denied Oswald
> > > served under him in CAP.
>
> > He denied remembering Oswald. But he told the FBI a day or so later
> > that he had learned that Oswald had been in his unit.
>
> This is just being squeezed into an impossible corner, and letting a
> little out.
One interpretation. It was either that, or the truth.
>
> > He denied he taught Oswald how to shoot a
>
> > > high-powered rifle.
>
> > There is no evidence that he ever did. People who were in the CAP at
> > the same time as Oswald said there was no arms training.
>
> Not true. There is a source from one of the cadets to an offical
> body. Two kinds of rifles were used. In fact Robert Oswald said
> Lee purchased a .22 rifle during that time period.
I've talked with about a dozen people who were CAP cadets at Moisant.
There was no arms training of any kind there.
>
> > He denied ever loaning him his library card.
>
> Of course, that would break the case wide open. All the evidence
> points to he did, which is a lot.
1) There is no evidence that such a card was found on Oswald
2) The source usually cited was Layton Martens. Martens was told this
by George Wray Gill Sr. Gill was told this by Will Hardy Davis. Davis
was told this by Jack Martin. When question, Martin said this was NOT
from his knowledge. He said he thought he heard it on TV. But there is
no evidence that this was ever said on TV.
3) Ferrie DID go around looking to see if there was such a card a few
days after his arrest, but this is because the Secret Service asked
him about it. Ferrie discussed it with friend Mo Brownlee. He said a
boy (Voebel) had told him that Oswald may have attended a party at
Ferrie's house in 1955. Ferrie wondered if Oswald had indeed been
there and stolen an old library card of his. I don't know if this is
true, but it's apparently what Ferrie told Brownlee, and it seems
plausible.
>
> > > All lies.
>
> > There is no evidence that Ferrie ever loaned Oswald his library card.
> > This was actually a story started by Jack S. Martin that didn't check
> > out.
>
> That library card had to be a leak from Dallas. Heck, Ferrie was at
> the doorstep wondering about that on the very day of the assassination
> to Oswald's old place. How would Martin possibly know then? Gill,
> the lawyer had the info and went to Ferrie's roomate Maerten's and
> told him about it, and Ferrie called Maertens from Texas.
Ferrie COULDN'T have been there on 11/22. All his movements are
accounted for by Beaubouef, Coffey and others from about 4pm Friday
until Monday the 25th.
>
> > > > All of Ferrie's other statements check out.
>
> > > The statements that don't have any bearing on him that he could tell
> > > the truth on?
>
> > Those plus some that you mentioned that cannot be shown to be lies.
>
> > > > Martin, like I said had to
>
> > > > > retract and make up a new story. It's obvious his about face was out of
> > > > > fear.
>
> > > > Obvious to who? That's your FEELING. That's how you explain the
> > > > inconsistencies.
>
> > > I call it the preponderance of the evidence and surrounding
> > > circumstaces. Many things in the JFK are just that. It would be up
> > > to you to explain that the feeling is not justified.
>
> > When you see the chronology of what actaually happened with Ferrie and
> > Martin that weekend (from the documents, not my opinion), you won't be
> > so sure.
>
> Martin did a 360, obviously after the pressure was on.
Not obvious at all.
They had to
> use Martin as a fall guy and they did IMO. They hid a lot. They hid
> the phone records for November from the FBI.
The phone records from November hadn't arrived yet at Gill's office!
They wouldn't have come until early December.
The interview with
> Ferrie was secreted away.
WHAT interview?
>
> > > > Ferrie, Oswald, Banister, and Ruby are easily all in the same bed
>
> > > > > as far as my research goes.
>
> > > > Ferrie met Oswald in 1955. Ferrie was fairly close to Banister. There
> > > > is no credible evidence that he knew Ruby.
>
> > > Beverly Oliver who said he was at the Carousel enough to think he was the
> > > manager.
>
> > I don't think Oliver told the truth about that. How could none of
> > Ferrie's friends notice his absence to that degree?
>
> And which friends might go out on a limb for his whereabouts if they
> even could?
Are you suggesting his old friends are lying, even today?
I have read Beverly's book, and I believe she is quite
> poignant to all she went through, yet there are those that even deny
> she was even in Dealey filming the assassination.
I have problems with Oliver. She said she used a camera which had not
yet been marketed. She said her film was confiscated by FBI agent
Regis Kennedy on a day when many records place him in New Orleans. Not
a good witness.
>
> > I have a cab driver that gave Oswald and Ferrie a ride to the
>
> > > Carousel.
>
> > Raymond Cummings, also not a good witness.
>
> Why? He gave Oswald a ride before that ride, and had Marine
> conversation with him.
He SAID he did. Do you take the position that anyone who made an
allegation in Garrison's probe is automatically telling a true and
accurate story?
>
> > I do believe there were also other sightings from Ruby girls if
>
> > > I am not mistaken. Of course having a Dallasite, Breck Wall who received
> > > a phone call from Ruby in Galveston when Ferrie and his car buddies
> > > arrived there just prior is glaringly suspicious.
>
> > Ferrie was traveling through this city of 50,000, and another person
> > received a call there. Is there any evidence that Ferrie ever knew
> > Wall? How is this glaringly suspicious?
>
> Wall was in with all the heavy mobsters. Wall even taking off from
> his home city at that time is suspicious. So is his testimony with
> the calls with Ruby. He actually forgot the 4 phone calls and what
> they were about under oath. Then he remembers it was over not enough
> time between dances for the girls. Brading who was another one very
> suspicious shows up in Houston the next day also. Of course the
> whole Ferrie crew and their vacation was highly suspicious with all
> the phone calls from telephone booths.
But beyond being in the same city, how do you tie Ferrie into any of
this? BTW, when you read the accont of the trip in my book, you may
not think it's so suspicious.
Look, Ferrie is the perfect villain. He was weird looking at times,
and the booking photos make him look sinister. He was a strong anti-
Communist and anti-Castro crusader. Through Arcacha, one could say he
was involved with the CIA in 1961. Later, he was involved with the
Marcello group. Ferrie had gotten very angry about the Bay of Pigs
invasion and said so publicly. He was gay and had been arrested for
sexual activities with underage boys. He had encounterd a 15-year old
Oswald in 1955. He occasionally visited the building whose address
Oswald had stamped on his literature in 1963. And he made a trip to
Texas on the night of the assassination. And the timing of his death
was striking. With all of this going against him, some people just
want to suspend any sense of objectivity about him and believe he must
have been guilty of something. They don't even want to consider any
evidence that might indicate otherwise, including Ferrie's own
protestations.
So let's put as much as can be learned about Ferrie on the record and
decide. I'm not saying the evidence proves him completely innocent.
But I'm not saying it convicts him, either.
curtjester1
>
> > 3) What's your source on Martin asking for immunity?
>
> It was from Mafia Kingfish. I guess it said anonymity, which is not
> exactly the same. Some Regis Kennedy move put the damper on that.
> And of course we know who Beverly Oliver said confiscated her
> film...don't we?..
>
> Which only proves Oliver does not know what the hell she is talking about.
> In Mafia Kingfish, Davis states that Regis Kennedy was in court in New
> Orleans on the 22nd. So it would be impossible for the man to be in 2 places
> at once, unless thats your theory from reading 2 different accounts that you
> think are somehow BOTH correct. Are you not paying attention to the things
> you read? Care to revise your thinking on this?
>
> .:)
>
Quite contrare`, as the film in question didn't get confiscated until the
Carousel opened back up. I believe that was Sunday if I'm not mistaken,
and that would be the 24th. I am not sure of all the details as Beverly
worked at The Colony a few doors down, but frequented the Carousel quite a
bit. I think I read on a site that some agents were waiting for her when
she arrived. Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with any timing
anomalies. And I know in Beverly's account it was not the same day....
CJ