BRINGUIER MISJUDGED
jwrush
fine person and a good family man. I knew him and saw him many times when I
worked in the media in and around New Orleans in the old days. But I've read
lies written about him in dozens of books by men who never met him and who
never bothered to interview him.
It was Oswald who first confronted him. It was not Bringuier who first
confronted Oswald. Bringuier wanted the New Orleans media to expose Oswald
as a "communist" and not give him any air time, but the media didn't pay
much attention to Bringuier.
In August of 1963 Bringuier issued a very small "press release" on a plain
sheet of white paper and asked for a Congressional investigation of Oswald.
Had such an investigation taken place, by the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, JFK might still be alive today.
John McAdams
>I've read so many lies about Carlos Bringuier over the years. He was a very
>fine person and a good family man. I knew him and saw him many times when I
>worked in the media in and around New Orleans in the old days. But I've read
>lies written about him in dozens of books by men who never met him and who
>never bothered to interview him.
>
>
I'm sure he was a fine man in a lot of ways. It is clear in the
debate with Oswald that he wasn't a good debater, and seemed rather a
hot-head.
Given what Castro had done to his country, maybe he had a right to be.
>
>It was Oswald who first confronted him. It was not Bringuier who first
>confronted Oswald. Bringuier wanted the New Orleans media to expose Oswald
>as a "communist" and not give him any air time, but the media didn't pay
>much attention to Bringuier.
>
>
>
>In August of 1963 Bringuier issued a very small "press release" on a plain
>sheet of white paper and asked for a Congressional investigation of Oswald.
>Had such an investigation taken place, by the House Committee on Un-American
>Activities, JFK might still be alive today.
>
>
But remember, HUAC did have basic information on Oswald, which some
staffer passed along to Butler to use in the debate.
I'm not sure what HUAC could or should have done about Oswald. Oswald
looked like little more than a left-wing malcontent, and (perhaps more
importantly) a very small-fry left wing malcontent. Doubtless not
worth picking on from an HUAC perspective.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
jwrush
> looked like little more than a left-wing malcontent, and (perhaps more
> importantly) a very small-fry left wing malcontent. Doubtless not
> worth picking on from an HUAC perspective.
>
> .John
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Yes, you are absolutely right. But I'm defending Bringuier, who has been
picked on too much in conspiracy books over the years. Bringuier was a very
astute observer of leftist troublemakers and activists like Oswald. He felt
that Oswald was very sneaky and possibly a dangerous person, and Bringuier
turned out to be correct. He should be thought of as a hero today, not as a
villain.
gary...@yahoo.com
a copy and asked him about a document. He responded cordially with a
hand-written note.
Robert Harris
>I've read so many lies about Carlos Bringuier over the years. He was a very
>fine person and a good family man. I knew him and saw him many times when I
>worked in the media in and around New Orleans in the old days. But I've read
>lies written about him in dozens of books by men who never met him and who
>never bothered to interview him.
This is not about integrity or character.
If you believed the country was run by a traitor who sold out to its
worst enemies and then betrayed your own people, resulting in the
deaths and enslavement of your homeland, would your consider it
morally OK to do him in?
The men behing this crime, very likely considered themselves to be
patriots and heros and hoped to free Cuba from tyranny.
>
>
>
>It was Oswald who first confronted him. It was not Bringuier who first
>confronted Oswald.
That is probably correct.
>Bringuier wanted the New Orleans media to expose Oswald
>as a "communist" and not give him any air time, but the media didn't pay
>much attention to Bringuier.
Bringuier lied and so did Oswald. They were both on the same side, and
both dedicated to doing in Castro.
Robert Harris
>
>
>
>In August of 1963 Bringuier issued a very small "press release" on a plain
>sheet of white paper and asked for a Congressional investigation of Oswald.
>Had such an investigation taken place, by the House Committee on Un-American
>Activities, JFK might still be alive today.
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
<gary...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119545812.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Bringuier is still around and is selling Red Friday on e-Bay. I bought
> a copy and asked him about a document. He responded cordially with a
> hand-written note.
>
That is great news! He must be about 71 years old by now. I need to track
him down and send him a copy of a 2 hour interview I did with him back in
1982. Do you have his address handy? If so, send it to me by email.
jwrush
> both dedicated to doing in Castro.
>
Oh, nonsense. Oswald was a leftist, a self-appointed Marxist "revolutionary".
He had a big ego and a desire to do something "important" for "the
revolution". I met him several times in New Orleans in Aug. of '63, and I
used to meet others just like him when I lived in San Francisco in the late
1960s. I knew others like them who eventually killed people "for the
revolution." There were all kinds of leftist crackpots like him living in
the Bay Area in the late '60s. Idiots dreaming of "revolution", but never
quite having enough fellow revolutionaries to actually overthrow the
government.
If you want to investigate real conspiracies, investigate the ones going on
right now. The oil and politics conspiracies, the corporate conspiracies,
the middle-east conspiracies, etc.
jwrush
but he sounds just like he did back in 1963!
He said he doesn't like Jefferson Morley because of Morley's phony stories
insinuating that Bringuier got money from the CIA and the Miami
anti-Castro group. He said he talked to Morley on the phone and canceled
an in-person interview with Morley because he didn't like the false
stories (or false insinuations) that Morley was writing about him in his
articles.
Carlos just told me that he collected money in 1963 - an average of about
$30 a month - and he sent all of it down to help out the anti-Castro
Cubans in Miami. He said he did NOT take money from the Cubans in Miami or
from the CIA.
If everyone is really nice, I might be able to talk him into coming here
and posting on this board.
Robert Harris
>> Bringuier lied and so did Oswald. They were both on the same side, and
>> both dedicated to doing in Castro.
>>
>
>Oh, nonsense. Oswald was a leftist, a self-appointed Marxist "revolutionary".
No sir, he was not.
By far, the greatest influence on Oswald's young life, was a
television program to which he was obsessed during the ages of 13-15.
His obsession was confirmed by both his mother and brother. This was a
program about the best known FBI informant in the organization's
history.The introduction to the program, repeated in every episode,
went like this,
"The fantastically true story of Herbert A. Philbrick, who for
nine frightening years did lead three lives - average citizen,
member of the Communist Party and counterspy for the F.B.I.:"
Philbrick was a hero during those years, who infiltrated communist
organizations during the 40's and testified before the House
Unamerican Activities Committee. His statements helped to convict and
imprison a number apparent communists.
His story was made into a best selling book, a hit movie, and the
television series that so enraptured the young and all too
impressionable Oswald.
By the time he wrote that phony letter to the Y.P.S.L, and assuming
his mother and brother was correct, Lee Oswald had viewed 117 first
run episodes of this program and nearly 200, counting reruns.
Week after we, he learned about communism. He learned that they gave
drugs to elementary school children, betrayed their own people, lied
incessantly, committed horrendous crimes and were generally, the scum
of the earth.
The format of this program bore no resemblance to James Bond. It was
extemely realistic and was nominated for an Emmy in its first year of
production. Each episode had to be approved by the FBI. It was VERY
well done, and VERY convincing.
Philbrick became Oswald's role model. He was obsessed and fanatical -
to the point that he tried to kill himself, when it looked like his
assignment in Russia would fall through, and nearly broke into tears,
when his opportunity to spy in Cuba, actually did.
>He had a big ego and a desire to do something "important" for "the
>revolution". I met him several times in New Orleans in Aug. of '63, and I
>used to meet others just like him when I lived in San Francisco in the late
>1960s.
Oswald fooled you just like he fooled everyone else, including his
wife. A critical part of Philbrick's story was that he lied to
everyone he knew, including his friends, family and his wife, telling
all of them that he was a bonafied commie. That was what the FBI
required him to do.
Oswald did exactly the same.
The only person who knew what he was up to, was not surpisingly, his
mother. She understood, long before the assassination.
> I knew others like them who eventually killed people "for the
>revolution." There were all kinds of leftist crackpots like him living in
>the Bay Area in the late '60s. Idiots dreaming of "revolution", but never
>quite having enough fellow revolutionaries to actually overthrow the
>government.
And exactly how many of them were equally obsessed with joining the
U.S. Marine Corps, an organization that trained itself to kill
communists, and the only place Oswald could go at such a young age, to
begin his career as a spook?
His mother recalled him reading the Marine corp manual and then
setting it down to read Das Kapital, all during the same session. BTW,
have you ever read this book which Oswald said was so important in
selling him on Marxism? This paragraph is typical of the entire book.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the young Oswald and tell me if this
stuff will outweigh those three years of your favorite television
series,
"In order to discover how the elementary expression of the value of a
commodity lies hidden in the value-relation of two commodities, we
must, in the first place, consider the latter entirely apart from its
quantitative aspect. The usual mode of procedure is generally the
reverse, and in the value-relation nothing is seen but the proportion
between definite quantities of two different sorts of commodities that
are considered equal to each other. It is apt to be forgotten that the
magnitudes of different things can be compared quantitatively, only
when those magnitudes are expressed in terms of the same unit. It is
only as expressions of such a unit that they are of the same
denomination, and therefore commensurable."
Oswald carried that book around with him, even in the Marine corps.
But it was there purely for show. For the rest of his life, Oswald
would dedicate himself to creating a legend for himself as a genuine
communist - just like his hero, Philbrick did.
>
>
>
>If you want to investigate real conspiracies, investigate the ones going on
>right now. The oil and politics conspiracies, the corporate conspiracies,
>the middle-east conspiracies, etc.
Ok, you haven't read the article about the shooting yet, have you?
If you won't do that, then you need to read the articles that appeared
in the Washington Post, by Ray and Mary La Fontaine, as well as their
superb book, *Oswald Talked*.
You will learn that Oswald really, really was an informant for the FBI
- just like Herbert Philbrick, except Oswald was doing a few things
for them that were a bit nastier than his hero.
Robert Harris
Michael O'Dell
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42bb...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Yeah, that's going to happen :-)
> ...I might be able to talk him into coming here and posting on this board.
>
>
>
Michael
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42bb8e4e...@news20.forteinc.com...
> On 23 Jun 2005 21:00:08 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>> Bringuier lied and so did Oswald. They were both on the same side, and
>>> both dedicated to doing in Castro.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, nonsense. Oswald was a leftist, a self-appointed Marxist
>>"revolutionary".
>
> No sir, he was not.
>
> By far, the greatest influence on Oswald's young life, was a
> television program to which he was obsessed during the ages of 13-15.
>
> His obsession was confirmed by both his mother and brother. This was a
> program about the best known FBI informant in the organization's
> history.
Strange thing. I saw an episode of "I Led Three Lives" on TV in 1953, and in
it was a kid of a Communist, a boy about 10 years old, and he started
lecturing an undercover FBI guy's little boy. The Communist boy told the
other kid that Washington and Jefferson were capitalist pigs who made money
exploiting the poor working class and slaves. I was about 11 years old at
the time. That was my first encounter with Communist indoctrination, and it
was by a kid, to a kid. I'll bet that episode impressed Oswald too. He didn't
want to be the FBI guy, he wanted to be one of the commies.
I knew all kinds of people back in the early '60s, from KKK killers to CPUSA
members. Oswald was a leftist, not a right-winger. I met him I talked to him
several times, and I know that for a fact. Listen to the Bill Stuckey
interview and you'll hear him talking about his own personal Marxist
philosophy. Oswald never tried to weasel his way into any Communist
organization to inform on anyone. He tired to form a group of his own but
failed. He was not "conservative", he was a radical Marxist.
Oswald interview:
jwrush
Robert Harris
wrote:
I'm afraid Mr. Bringuier will think that anyone who suggests that the
exiles were involved in the assassination, is not very nice:-)
But all the indignation in the world will never remove the fact that
many of the Cuban exile leaders expressed absolute hatred of JFK -
some openly stating that he should be murdered.
None of the exile groups were more radical or more openly hostile to
JFK than was Bringuier's DRE. You can read a great deal about them in
what is probably the best book ever written on the case - *Oswald
Talked* by Ray and Mary La Fontaine.
Oswald was working with Bringuier to bring down the FPCC, which was in
a veritable war with the FBI at the time. That is why he scammed V.T.
Lee - so he could get confirmation, in writing, that he was part of
their organization.
The Canal street altercation and the radio debate, were all as phony
as a proverbial three dollar bill. In fact, Oswald wrote V.T. Lee
about the fight, even before it happened. It was all about making it
appear that the FPCC was a communist organization.
Oswald tried to do the same kind of thing with the ACLU, when he
claimed on his PO box application that he was authorized to pick up
mail for them. Of course, he was creating a handy piece of evidence
that the FBI could later, "discover", linked another one of their
enemies to communism.
>
>
>> ...I might be able to talk him into coming here and posting on this board.
I think that would be terrific. I do have a couple questions for the
man:-)
Robert Harris
>>
>>
>>
>
>Michael
wco
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote >
>
>
>Oswald was working with Bringuier to bring down the FPCC, which was in
> a veritable war with the FBI at the time. That is why he scammed V.T.
> Lee - so he could get confirmation, in writing, that he was part of
> their organization.
>
> The Canal street altercation and the radio debate, were all as phony
> as a proverbial three dollar bill. >
>
>>>
>>>
LOL, Mr. Harris, you are a real hoot! You need to write some fiction
books. Maybe you could do a "Harry Potter" type fantasy series.... for
kids.
Martin Shackelford
and intrigue and all. I'm not sure that didn't play a greater role than
ideology.
Martin
Paul Seaton
Oswald was a leftist, a self-appointed Marxist "revolutionary".
> He had a big ego and a desire to do something "important" for "the
> revolution". I met him several times in New Orleans in Aug. of '63,
i for one would be very interested in whatever memories you have of those
meetings.
Paul Seaton
jwrush
>>
>> Oswald interview:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/audio/oswald1.rm
>
>
I just sent McAdams a 1981 interview I did with Stuckey talking about what
he was thinking when he conducted the Aug. 17, 1963 interview.
O'Dell and McAdams are checking into maybe linking my 1981 audio to the
McAdams website.
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Actually, Oswald identified with Herbert Philbrick, multiple identities
>and intrigue and all. I'm not sure that didn't play a greater role than
>ideology.
>
Oswald certainly loved to play "spy games," false IDs, the notation
"microdots" in his address book next to Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, his
alternate versions of draft responses to reporters on his return to
the U.S.
My guess is that this "fantasy life" was more basic to his personality
than ideology. He just happened to become a Marxist.
.John
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:d9imhk$t...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Actually, Oswald identified with Herbert Philbrick, multiple identities
> and intrigue and all. I'm not sure that didn't play a greater role than
> ideology.
>
> Martin
I think as a child, watching the show, Oswald identified with being
sneaky, being some kind of spy, and with intrigue.
jwrush
stories to tell. I hope he will come on this forum and tell his stories.
He's an interesting guy. A very nice guy.
jwrush
> meetings.
>
> Paul Seaton
>
>
I played a very minor role in Oswald's news coverage in 1963. I filmed him
for WDSU at the courthouse on Aug. 12, at the Trade Mart on Aug. 16, and I
was present in the WDSU newsroom when Mike Lala filmed him there on Aug.
21. I saved a copy of the Mike O'Connor film too. He filmed him at the
Trade Mart for WWL. I also have a copy of the Jim Doyle "tourist" film on
Canal Street on August 9th.
I think my best contribution to the case came during my investigation of
it in the 1980s. I think the Bill Stuckey interview and debate that is
available on the McAdams website came from copies I sent O'Dell a few
years ago. They are trying to make arrangements to put my 1981 interview
with Stuckey on the website too.
I'll try to write some stuff about my experiences with Oswald in '63, and
I'll post it here later.
What helped me during my investigation in the 1980s, was the knowledge of
the details of his news coverage in 1963, since I had already interviewed
Stuckey, Bringuier, and Butler about it. So I could reconstruct all the
news-related events.
But when I read conspiracy books in the 1980s, I found a lot of bad
information and lies about the news coverage. Seems that guys like Mark
Lane and Harold Weisberg were never interested in interviewing those of us
who were actually involved. Our factual information stood in the way of
their fantasy stories.
tomnln
Oswald was wearing his Marine Corps Ring & ID Bracelet on 11/22/63.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:42bd93ac...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Robert Harris
McAdams) wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2005 11:19:25 -0400, Martin Shackelford
><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>Actually, Oswald identified with Herbert Philbrick, multiple identities
>>and intrigue and all. I'm not sure that didn't play a greater role than
>>ideology.
>>
>
>Oswald certainly loved to play "spy games," false IDs, the notation
>"microdots" in his address book next to Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, his
>alternate versions of draft responses to reporters on his return to
>the U.S.
That is absolutely correct.
>
>My guess is that this "fantasy life" was more basic to his personality
>than ideology. He just happened to become a Marxist.
No, he did not.
Imagine any 15 year old kid, who had been fed a steady diet of
anti-communist programming for three years, and a hero who became
famous because he *pretended* to be a commie, so he could infiltrate
them.
Now, imagine that same 15 year old telling you that he suddenly
decided that he wants to become a communist.
Do you believe him?
If so, do you STILL believe him when he becomes so fanatically
interested in joining the Marine Corp, that he wants to fake his age
so he can get in??
His study sessions back then consisted of switching back and forth
between the Marine corp manual and Das Kapital. How many commies do
you know who are fanatically interested in joining the Marines - where
they can be trained to KILL COMMUNISTS????
Oswald was nutty as a fruit cake, John. He tried to kill himself when
his first chance at what he thought was a big mission, looked like it
would fall through.
When he returned to the US, he obviously, had learned nothing at all
that was of value to the CIA. Yet, when he was debriefed he gave them
what had to have been, 6 pages of worthless fluff, about the Minsk
radio factory (see WWLHO).
Tell me, john, is it just another one of those incredible billion to
one coincidences that you had to spend three futile years fighting the
evidence that Oswald was an FBI informant, and then discover that the
most powerful influence in Oswald's life just happened to be an FBI
informant???
Robert Harris
>
>.John
>
>The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Martin Shackelford
Martin
jwrush
>>than ideology. He just happened to become a Marxist.
>
> No, he did not.
>
Yes he did. I knew him. He was a Marxist. I knew other Marxists in the
1960s. I knew CPUSA members. I knew "fellow travelers".
I also knew right-winger, Klansmen, conservatives, etc.
You don't have a ghost of a clue as to who was or wasn't a Marxist in the US
in 1963.
Oswald WAS a Marxist.
Paul Seaton
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks it would make a pleasant change to
have some first hand contributions here, from both you & Mr Bringuier.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42bd...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jwrush
> M&A could also make this available as a CD.
>
> Martin
>
>
Yes, a CD would work for the audio interview.
But it's easier for me just to put everything on a DVD, and I have a small
title machine so that I can make up a title for the picture, stating the
names of the people in the interview and the date it was recorded. Copies
from copies from copies of a CD wouldn't carry the names of the people or
the date, whereas a copy of my DVD always would carry that information.
Russ Burr
In my conversations with Michael and Ruth Paine they all agreed he was
Marxist. And that was based on their many conversations with Oswald.
And all one has to do is read some of Oswald's letters to his family
while he was in the USSR as well as his "Historic Diary". And he
admitted it himself on a New Orleans TV broadcast that he was a Marxist.
Russ
>
>
>
jwrush
"Russ Burr" <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:42be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> In my conversations with Michael and Ruth Paine they all agreed he was
> Marxist. And that was based on their many conversations with Oswald.
>
> And all one has to do is read some of Oswald's letters to his family while
> he was in the USSR as well as his "Historic Diary". And he admitted it
> himself on a New Orleans TV broadcast that he was a Marxist.
>
> Russ
Yes, and it is very clear in the Stuckey interview that Oswald wasn't faking
it. Oswald had a perspective that was very similar to what we would later
hear among American radicals and other freelance Marxists in the late 1960s.
He was not speaking the CPUSA communist party line in 1963. No, he was
deviating from it and speaking an independent Marxist point of view, which
was very unusual and "advanced" for 1963. In other words, he read Marx and
did his own interpretation of how Marxism and "revolution" should be carried
out. He wasn't following the old Russian Marxist-Leninist party line.
His type of attitude and opinion eventually became very common in the late
1960s among the young new-left radicals in San Francisco, Berkeley, and New
York. I lived in San Francisco in the late '60s, and I heard a lot of
new-left speeches in those days, and I was a little surprised to hear so
many young radicals giving speeches that sounded just like Lee Harvey Oswald
talking to Bill Stuckey back in 1963.
Bringuier's theory is that had Oswald survived and not gotten into trouble,
if he had lasted until the late 1960s, he would have been out rioting in the
streets with the other new-left radicals. But he was all alone in 1963.
There was no Marxist new-left movement going on at that time, and none of us
saw it coming down the road during the next 5 or 5 years.
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:42bb8e4e...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 23 Jun 2005 21:00:08 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Bringuier lied and so did Oswald. They were both on the same side, and
>>>> both dedicated to doing in Castro.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, nonsense. Oswald was a leftist, a self-appointed Marxist
>>>"revolutionary".
>>
>> No sir, he was not.
>>
>> By far, the greatest influence on Oswald's young life, was a
>> television program to which he was obsessed during the ages of 13-15.
>>
>> His obsession was confirmed by both his mother and brother. This was a
>> program about the best known FBI informant in the organization's
>> history.
>
>
>
>Strange thing. I saw an episode of "I Led Three Lives" on TV in 1953, and in
>it was a kid of a Communist, a boy about 10 years old, and he started
>lecturing an undercover FBI guy's little boy. The Communist boy told the
>other kid that Washington and Jefferson were capitalist pigs who made money
>exploiting the poor working class and slaves. I was about 11 years old at
>the time. That was my first encounter with Communist indoctrination, and it
>was by a kid, to a kid. I'll bet that episode impressed Oswald too. He didn't
>want to be the FBI guy, he wanted to be one of the commies.
You know, I am sure I have heard things that made less sense that
that, but to save my life, I just can't think of any:-)
That show was designed and scripted to make sure you absolutely hated
the communists for screwing up that little boy's head. And week after
week, those dirty commies got their butts kicked by the show's hero.
The effect on Oswald was exactly the same as it was on the rest of the
country..
Read *Oswald Talked* and the excellent articles that were published in
the Washington Post by the same authors. Then, you will realize what
the result was, of a kid who was absolutely obsessed with becoming
just like his role model.
Robert Harris
>
>
>
>I knew all kinds of people back in the early '60s, from KKK killers to CPUSA
>members. Oswald was a leftist, not a right-winger. I met him I talked to him
>several times, and I know that for a fact. Listen to the Bill Stuckey
>interview and you'll hear him talking about his own personal Marxist
>philosophy. Oswald never tried to weasel his way into any Communist
>organization to inform on anyone. He tired to form a group of his own but
>failed. He was not "conservative", he was a radical Marxist.
>
>
>
>Oswald interview:
>
>
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/audio/oswald1.rm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
>jwrush wrote:
>> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:42bdc16e...@news20.forteinc.com...
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:28:39 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>McAdams) wrote:>>My guess is that this "fantasy life" was more basic to
>>>his personality
>>>
>>>>than ideology. He just happened to become a Marxist.
>>>
>>>No, he did not.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes he did. I knew him. He was a Marxist. I knew other Marxists in the
>> 1960s. I knew CPUSA members. I knew "fellow travelers".
>>
>> I also knew right-winger, Klansmen, conservatives, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't have a ghost of a clue as to who was or wasn't a Marxist in the US
>> in 1963.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oswald WAS a Marxist.
>
>In my conversations with Michael and Ruth Paine they all agreed he was
>Marxist. And that was based on their many conversations with Oswald.
Of course they did. So did Marina.
And so did Philbrick's entire family, including his wife and kids. So
did all of his friends.
NO-ONE knew that he was an FBI informant, except himself and a handful
of FBI people. Philbrick carried on this facade for NINE YEARS,
Russell. He had to - that was what the FBI mandated.
The only person who really caught on to it, despite all his denials,
was his mother. Long before the assassination, she was absolutely
certain that he was doing *something* for the government.
Robert Harris
>
>And all one has to do is read some of Oswald's letters to his family
>while he was in the USSR as well as his "Historic Diary". And he
>admitted it himself on a New Orleans TV broadcast that he was a Marxist.
>
>Russ
>>
>>
>>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
> On 26 Jun 2005 10:56:38 -0400, Russ Burr <rdc...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>jwrush wrote:
>>> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:42bdc16e...@news20.forteinc.com...
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:28:39 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
>>>>McAdams) wrote:>>My guess is that this "fantasy life" was more basic to
>>>>his personality
>>>>
>>>>>than ideology. He just happened to become a Marxist.
>>>>
>>>>No, he did not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes he did. I knew him. He was a Marxist. I knew other Marxists in the
>>> 1960s. I knew CPUSA members. I knew "fellow travelers".
>>>
>>> I also knew right-winger, Klansmen, conservatives, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't have a ghost of a clue as to who was or wasn't a Marxist in
>>> the US
>>> in 1963.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald WAS a Marxist.
>>
>>In my conversations with Michael and Ruth Paine they all agreed he was
>>Marxist. And that was based on their many conversations with Oswald.
>
> Of course they did. So did Marina.
>
> And so did Philbrick's entire family, including his wife and kids. So
> did all of his friends.
>
> NO-ONE knew that he was an FBI informant, except himself and a handful
> of FBI people. Philbrick carried on this facade for NINE YEARS,
> Russell. He had to - that was what the FBI mandated.
Geepers, now you're trying to make Oswald seem like a character in a TV
show. Shall we discuss the X-Files next? Maybe he was a reptilian alien.
Anyway, Philbrick had to pretend to be a Soviet-oriented Marxist-Leninist,
not an independent Marxist. Had Philbrick pretended to be an independent
Marxist, like Oswald, the CPUSA wouldn't have let him inside their group.
There were no independent-Marxist groups for Oswald to infiltrate in New
Orleans or Dallas in 1963, and he didn't infiltrate any group. The Cubans
wouldn't let him into Cuba, so he gathered no information about Cuba. The
Russians wouldn't let him back in the Soviet Union, so he gathered no
information about Russia. He was the only member of his FPCC in New
Orleans, so he gathered no information about that group. Carlos Bringuier
rejected his attempts to try to infiltrate the Cuban Student Directorate,
so he gathered no information about that group. He gathered no information
about any group or anybody worth informing about. But in killing the
President, he did get a lot more TV shows made about himself than Herbert
Philbrick did.
Robert Harris
You need to read *Oswald Talked* and the Washington Post articles I
told you about Mr. Rush.
If you did, you would understand a great deal more about what happened
there. And perhaps, you would realize how utterly preposterous it is
to imagine that Oswald thought he could infiltrate the DRE and then
obtain military secrets that he could use to impress the Cubans.
That is your theory, isn't it??
Perhaps, you can also tell us why Oswald immediately contacted the FBI
when he was jailed, and how he was able to write to V.T. Lee about the
Canal St. scuffle, even before it happened:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Your sarcasm is badly misplaced, sir. Oswald was only one of many
others who were affected by Philbrick in exactly the same way.
On November 19, 2002, a man named Craig Neil Ogan Jr. was executed
for the murder of Houston police officer, James Boswell. At the time
of the crime, Ogen was working as an informant for the Drug
Enforcement Agency and became agitated when the officer apparently,
didn’t respond quickly enough to Ogan’s request for assistance. During
his trial, Ogan testified to his reason for becoming an informant, and
revealed an enlightening parallel between his life and that of Lee
Harvey Oswald. This is from the website of the prosecutor who
convicted him:
"Ogan said his life was literally rerouted by reading the book 'I Led
Three Lives'. It concerns a man who infiltrated Communist
organizations, and from his teens that's the spy status Ogan strived
to attain. On the witness stand, Ogan testified he tried for years to
get an undercover job with the CIA. All his 1988-89 efforts for the
DEA were aimed at getting him a job reference. "
This from an article in the *Village Voice*, by Robert Friedman,
Roy Bullock wanted to be a spy since he was a teenager in Indiana and
read "I Led Three Lives" Herbert Philbrick's Cold War saga of
penetrating the Communist Party for the FBI...
"I was fascinated with Herbert Philbrick"Bullock recently told federal
investigators, "and so I thought I would try to infiltrate the
Communist Party. In 1957, I went to the Sixth World Youth and Student
Festival in Moscow with the American delegation. I gave them, the
FBI, a full report on it when I returned, along with some photos I
took of some Soviet military vehicles.".
(unquote)
Bullock went on to spend two years as a spy for the FBI and later, the
Anti Defamation League, where his espionage got more than a little out
of hand, and he wound up getting himself arrested
If you really want to be sarcastic, you should do so when you consider
the preposterous notion that a fanatical communist would be equally
fanatical about joining the United States Marine Corp - which just
coincidentally happened to be the ONLY place a 17 year old could begin
a career in intelligence.
>
>
>
>Anyway, Philbrick had to pretend to be a Soviet-oriented Marxist-Leninist,
>not an independent Marxist
> Had Philbrick pretended to be an independent
>Marxist, like Oswald, the CPUSA wouldn't have let him inside their group.
That has got to be the lamest argument I have heard this year:-)
>There were no independent-Marxist groups for Oswald to infiltrate in New
>Orleans or Dallas in 1963, and he didn't infiltrate any group.
Oswald hardly had the luxury of choosing his career path, Mr. Rush,
especially at his age. He took what he could get, when he could get
it.
And conditions were vastly different in the mid-fifties than they were
during the forties.
>The Cubans
>wouldn't let him into Cuba, so he gathered no information about Cuba. The
>Russians wouldn't let him back in the Soviet Union, so he gathered no
>information about Russia.
Oswald's CIA debriefing report was about six pages long, as confirmed
in the PBS *WWLHO* documentary. It was almost entirely, about the
Minsk Radio factory, and probably contained nothing of any value. But
obviously, Oswald gave them a LOT of info in an effort to make it look
like it did.
>He was the only member of his FPCC in New
>Orleans, so he gathered no information about that group.
Oswald's sole objective, and the reason he scammed V.T. Lee was to
connect himself to them to make them appear to be a communist
organization.
At that time, the FBI was in a veritable war with the FPCC. V.T. Lee
told researcher Dick Russell that this organization was driven out of
Tampa Florida, by the harassment of the FBI.
Oswald tried to do the same thing to the ACLU, when he falsely claimed
on his PO box application that he was authorized by them to receive
the organization's mail. He was creating the perfect opportunity for
the FBI to later "discover" this damning link to communism.
>Carlos Bringuier
>rejected his attempts to try to infiltrate the Cuban Student Directorate,
Carlos Bringuier lied about that. The whole story absolutely reeks.
Do you REALLY think that Oswald tried to infiltrate the DRE in the
hope that he would uncover military secrets that he could use to
impress Castro???
Is that your theory, sir:-)
Your realize of course, that Oswald wrote to V.T. Lee about getting
into a scuffle with the exiles, even before it happened, don't you :-)
And when he was tossed in jail, he didn't call his lawyer and he
didn't call his wife, did he? He called the good old FBI - the same
group that he *said* he hated and was threatening him and telling him
to stay away from commie organizations.
Why do you suppose he did that, Mr. Rush?
Robert Harris
>so he gathered no information about that group. He gathered no information
>about any group or anybody worth informing about. But in killing the
>President, he did get a lot more TV shows made about himself than Herbert
>Philbrick did.
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
> On 24 Jun 2005 23:46:42 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote >
>>>
>>>
>>>Oswald was working with Bringuier to bring down the FPCC, which was in
>>> a veritable war with the FBI at the time. That is why he scammed V.T.
>>> Lee - so he could get confirmation, in writing, that he was part of
>>> their organization.
>>>
>>> The Canal street altercation and the radio debate, were all as phony
>>> as a proverbial three dollar bill. >
>>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>LOL, Mr. Harris, you are a real hoot! You need to write some fiction
>>books. Maybe you could do a "Harry Potter" type fantasy series.... for
>>kids.
>
> You need to read *Oswald Talked* and the Washington Post articles I
> told you about Mr. Rush.
>
> If you did, you would understand a great deal more about what happened
> there. And perhaps, you would realize how utterly preposterous it is
> to imagine that Oswald thought he could infiltrate the DRE and then
> obtain military secrets that he could use to impress the Cubans.
>
> That is your theory, isn't it??
No, that's not my theory.
But I know what happened there. I was there. I was part of what happened
there. So were Bill Stuckey, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Bill Slatter, Mike
Lala, and Mike O'Connor. But nobody ever interviewed any of us for their
conspiracy books because our true facts got in the way of their crackpot
conspiracy theories.
Oswald was trying to cause trouble and get hassled by local citizens and
anti-Castro people in New Orleans so he could generate some newspaper
coverage. That's why he walked around in the French Quarter and on Canal
Street with the large "Viva Fidel" sign. He tried to instigate trouble on
the street so he could get some press clippings to take to the Cuban Embassy
in Mexico City, so he could show the Cubans that he was indeed for Fidel and
the revolution, so he could get a permit to get into Cuba.
First, he contacted reporters and editors at the Times Picayune newspaper,
asking for publicity, but they turned him down, so he had to try to do
something that would get him some notice and some newspaper clippings, so he
could take them to the Cuban Embassy. The newspaper never covered him, but
after his confrontation with Bringuier on Aug. 9, then he got a little TV
and radio publicity, and he put information about that in his pro-Castro
resume to take to the Cuban embassy. But that didn't work for him because he
had no real contacts with any of the standard communist organizations in the
US that were trusted by Cuba, and as far as the Cubans were concerned, he
was just some crackpot who just walked in off the street. So they turned him
away.
He would be very proud to see that you support him today and try to make him
seem like just a patsy. Your boy Oswald accomplished quite a lot with his
trickery. You guys need to give out little Oswald statuettes to each other
every year for "Best Propaganda of the Year."
jwrush
"Paul Seaton" <NOpaulse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:42be...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> jw,
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks it would make a pleasant change
> to
> have some first hand contributions here, from both you & Mr Bringuier.
>
I don't think Carlos will show up here. There are too many rude crackpots
here.
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
Man, Oswald conned you big-time. He would be very proud that his efforts
finally paid off.
Robert Harris
Mr. Rush - how can we trust your interpretation of events, when we see
you constantly, misunderstand what others have said, or not said?
I never stated that Oswald was a "patsy", did I? You presumed that,
because I disagreed with you - the same way you incorrectly presumed
that "Brokedad" was a conspiracy buff.
>Your boy Oswald accomplished quite a lot with his
>trickery.
Yes he did. He chronically and constantly lied - in his correspondence
with V.T. Lee, and the Young Socialist, in his attempt to link himself
with the ACLU and FPCC, and in his attempt to convince the Russians,
Communists and all the rest of us, that he was a Marxist/communist.
But that all went with the territory.
>You guys need to give out little Oswald statuettes to each other
>every year for "Best Propaganda of the Year."
I don't have anything like that, but I think there is an award for the
"most confused poster in the newsgroup", that needs to be passed out,
very soon:-)
Robert Harris
No sir, he would probably be rather unhappy, that we saw through his
charade:-)
But, do you suppose no-one notices that instead of refuting my
arguments, you had to snip them?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Why do the WC defenders have to resort to such ad hominem attacks? No
one is here to support Oswald. The idea that he was just a patsy has
nothing to do with supporting him.
How would you like it if I accused you of supporting the conspirators?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
jwrush
> "most confused poster in the newsgroup", that needs to be passed out,
> very soon:-)>
> Robert Harris
>
>
So, let me get this perfectly clear.... are you saying that we "disagree"?
:)
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> But, do you suppose no-one notices that instead of refuting my
> arguments, you had to snip them?
>
>
> Robert Harris
I've refuted your arguments several times. You can't base your assessment of
Oswald on your fantasy about an old 1950s TV show. I tried to explain the
difference to you between independent "Marxism" and "Marxism-Leninism", both
in the 1950s and in 1963, but I don't think you understand what I was
talking about. And I don't think you want to.
Robert Harris
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:d9imhk$t...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> Actually, Oswald identified with Herbert Philbrick, multiple identities
>> and intrigue and all. I'm not sure that didn't play a greater role than
>> ideology.
That television program was ALL about ideology.
>>
>> Martin
>
>I think as a child, watching the show, Oswald identified with being
>sneaky, being some kind of spy, and with intrigue.
Oswald got the same message the rest of the world got - that
communists were lying, treacherous scum, who infested the United
States for the purpose of sabotaging it and propagandizing its
citizens.
Philbrick's message repeated many times in his speeches, was that he
was only "one man", who could not begin to curb this massive
infestation, all by himself.
Within a few years, it was said that some branches of the CPUSA
contained more FBI informants than it did actual communists:-)
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:kLYve.4452$Bn6.1552@trndny08...
> Why do the WC defenders have to resort to such ad hominem attacks? No one
> is here to support Oswald. The idea that he was just a patsy has nothing
> to do with supporting him.
> How would you like it if I accused you of supporting the conspirators?
> --
> Anthony Marsh
Stop calling me a "WC defender". I take that as a personal insult.
I conducted my own investigation.
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42c05f2b...@news20.forteinc.com...
> But, do you suppose no-one notices that instead of refuting my
> arguments, you had to snip them?
>
> Robert Harris
>
What I snipped was not worth responding to. For example, your statement: "On
November 19, 2002, a man named Craig Neil Ogan Jr. was executed for the
murder of Houston police officer,"
This has nothing to do with anything about Oswald in 1963, so there is no
need for me to comment about it. You can post all sorts of stories about all
kinds of guys other than Oswald, and what they did for the DEA in the 1980s
or whatever, but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Oswald in New
Orleans in 1963.
I don't have the time to sit here and write detailed responses to each one
of your fantasies that are unrelated to this case. There seems to be no end
to them, plus there are several other people here who demand that I respond
to their fantasies too. Now, if you guys want to pay me, let's say, about
.15 cents a word for my replies, then I might consider it.
You need to understand that Oswald was not quite "normal", he was just a
little bit nutty. The guy was a crackpot and somewhat crazy, and he had all
kinds of "spy" fantasies. The thing with Bringuier on Aug 5th, came a few
days after an Aug. 1 Times Picayune report about a bunch of "bombs" being
found in a hideout across the lake. The bombs were believed to have some
association with some Cuban exiles. Oswald probably thought he could get
into Bringuier's group and "spy" on them, and then report his spy activities
to the FPCC headquarters in NY, or perhaps to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico
City. But Bringuier wasn't a "bomb" type of guy. He was a family man, and
not a guerrilla fighter of any kind.
If the FBI wanted to spy on Bringuier, they wouldn't send an Anglo guy like
Oswald into Bringuier's store to spy on him. They would send in an Hispanic,
preferably a Cuban Hispanic. Anyway, the FBI probably already knew that
Bringuier wasn't a mercenary or guerrilla type of guy.
Oswald's own "spying" was his own business for his own weird and mentally
distorted purposes.
Here, take a look at this advertisement in the Times Picayune on August 9,
1963:
LOL. This reminds me of Oswald and his own fantasies about being a
"revolutionary".
This type of stuff was in the news so much back then, because of the Bay of
Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis, Mattel was making Junior
Guerrilla Fighting outfits for American kids! LOL!
Paul Seaton
I think it's in the charter - you have to be a rude crackpot to post here
at all :-)
>
>
>
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> But, do you suppose no-one notices that instead of refuting my
>> arguments, you had to snip them?
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>I've refuted your arguments several times.
Well, I probably overlooked it then.
Would you mind reposting some of your more devastating refutations for
us:-)
>You can't base your assessment of
>Oswald on your fantasy about an old 1950s TV show.
Why can't I?
First of all, they were not "old" when Oswald watched them.
And secondly, if you talk to ANY child psychologist, you will learn
that television has a profound effect on young people - far greater
than it should.
I can also show you expert opinion, that dyslexic kids are even MORE
affected by the boob tube. Now, who does that bring to mind, Mr.
Rush:-)
Have you ever wondered why children's progamming contains so many
heros, Mr. Rush - why Superman, Batman, etc. dominate their TV shows?
It's because they desperately want someone to look up to. That goes
triple for kids with no father figure in their real lives.
You need to do your homework sir, before you try to tell us what
influences young people and what does not.
You also need to reread the cites I posted about other kids Oswald's
age who were driven to the same kind of fanatical lengths to emulate
their hero. One of them I cited wound up in prison - the other went to
the electric chair.
>I tried to explain the
>difference to you between independent "Marxism" and "Marxism-Leninism", both
>in the 1950s and in 1963, but I don't think you understand what I was
>talking about. And I don't think you want to.
I don't think Oswald gave a proverbial rats ass about this particular
distinction. He was probably pretty proud of himself just for making
it through *Das Kapital* :-)
jwrush
> On 26 Jun 2005 00:25:12 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:.
>
> Oswald got the same message the rest of the world got - that
> communists were lying, treacherous scum, who infested the United
> States for the purpose of sabotaging it and propagandizing its
> citizens.
>
Actually, the first Marxist/Communist message I ever got as a kid, I got
out of that TV show, when one of the Communist's kids told some other kid
that Washington and Jefferson were wealthy elite land owners who
subjugated their slaves, and all the rest of us Americans were lackeys to
the ruling class elite.
Dang! I saw that episode in 1953. I was 11 years old. And I never before
knew that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and I didn't even
realize I was a peasant-class lackey kid being abused and subjugated by
the wealthy ruling elite until I saw that show.
I think what Oswald liked in the show was the "spy" part of it. Some kids
liked "cops and robbers" shows. Some wanted to be the cops and others
wanted to be the robbers. Oswald liked the "spy" aspect of the show, and
he wanted to be one of the commies. He thought it was the ruling class
elite who were the liars and treacherous scum. That's why he fled to
Russia where he thought he would find a Marxist paradise. But he was
disappointed. So then he tried to go to Cuba. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't
have liked that place either. He was somewhat of a general malcontent.
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:42c05f2b...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
>> But, do you suppose no-one notices that instead of refuting my
>> arguments, you had to snip them?
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>
>
>
>
>What I snipped was not worth responding to. For example, your statement: "On
>November 19, 2002, a man named Craig Neil Ogan Jr. was executed for the
>murder of Houston police officer,"
>
>
>
>This has nothing to do with anything about Oswald in 1963,
It has EVERYTHING to do with Oswald in 1963.
Why do you pretend to be unaware of this?
"Ogan said his life was literally rerouted by reading the book 'I Led
Three Lives'. It concerns a man who infiltrated Communist
organizations, and from his teens that's the spy status Ogan strived
to attain. On the witness stand, Ogan testified he tried for years to
get an undercover job with the CIA. All his 1988-89 efforts for the
DEA were aimed at getting him a job reference. "
Ogen was affected by Philbrick's story, exactly as Oswald was.
This was the entirely predictable result of a very young and
impressioinable kid being exposed to something like that. Oswald was
absolutely obsessed with that program, which he viewed nearly 200
times before writing that phony letter to the Socialists.
The notion that he was a genuine communist who then became equally
obsessed with joining the Marine Corps, is so ludicrous that it should
never have even been considered. His mother knew it, long before the
assassination.
Tell me, Mr. Rush, have you EVER met a communist/marxist who expressed
an eagerness to join the Marines???
Ever??
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
>
> I think it's in the charter - you have to be a rude crackpot to post here
> at all :-)
>
>
What has been most amusing has been people like Herb lecturing me about
the "acoustics" evidence, when he didn't even realize that the motorcade
passed the Trade Mart on the way to Parkland. And Robert Harris thinking
he precisely understands Oswald's personality, based on something Harris
read about the old 1950s TV show, "I Led Three Lives." I've always found
it amusing that conspiracy guys would lecture me over the years about what
Oswald was really like, even though they never met him but I did. And that
kind of conspiracy buff never seems to want my personal opinion as to what
I think Oswald was really like. Most of them never wanted the opinions of
Bringuier, Butler, or Stuckey either. Harris claims he was exactly like
Herbert Philbrick. Lol.
jwrush
> that television has a profound effect on young people - far greater
> than it should.
>
> I can also show you expert opinion, that dyslexic kids are even MORE
> affected by the boob tube. Now, who does that bring to mind, >
>
First, you were an Oswald expert. And FBI expert. And a Communist expert.
And now you are a child psychiatrist and a media expert.
So why don't you just go ahead and tell us the Meaning of Life. Why are we
all here, Oh Wise One?
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
According to your media and child psychology theory, every kid in America
would grow up to hate Communists and join the FBI, and they'd all want to
be Superman and Wonder Woman. Thus, there would be no American communists
at all, no crime, and no criminals.
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Tell me, Mr. Rush, have you EVER met a communist/marxist who expressed
> an eagerness to join the Marines???
>
> Ever??
Yes. On August 12, 1963.
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:42c0c548...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 27 Jun 2005 18:14:35 -0500, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message> And secondly, if
>>>you talk to ANY child psychologist, you will learn
>> that television has a profound effect on young people - far greater
>> than it should.
>>
>> I can also show you expert opinion, that dyslexic kids are even MORE
>> affected by the boob tube. Now, who does that bring to mind, >
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>First, you were an Oswald expert. And FBI expert. And a Communist expert.
>And now you are a child psychiatrist and a media expert.
Have you noticed Mr. Rush, that in our discussions, I post endlessly
about Oswald and the assassination, while you post endlessly about
Robert Harris?
>
>
>
>So why don't you just go ahead and tell us the Meaning of Life. Why are we
>all here, Oh Wise One?
Well, that's an easy one, Mr. Rush. We are here to resolve mysteries.
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:42c0af3b...@news20.forteinc.com...
>> On 26 Jun 2005 00:25:12 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:.
>>
>> Oswald got the same message the rest of the world got - that
>> communists were lying, treacherous scum, who infested the United
>> States for the purpose of sabotaging it and propagandizing its
>> citizens.
>>
>
>Actually, the first Marxist/Communist message I ever got as a kid, I got
>out of that TV show, when one of the Communist's kids told some other kid
>that Washington and Jefferson were wealthy elite land owners who
>subjugated their slaves, and all the rest of us Americans were lackeys to
>the ruling class elite.
>
>Dang! I saw that episode in 1953. I was 11 years old. And I never before
>knew that Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, and I didn't even
>realize I was a peasant-class lackey kid being abused and subjugated by
>the wealthy ruling elite until I saw that show.
OIC, so now this program was *promoting* communism, is that right Mr.
Rush?
Do you think the FBI, which had to approve every episode, was behind
this devious effort to propagandize the viewers???
>
>I think what Oswald liked in the show was the "spy" part of it.
Mr. Rush, you seem to "think" a lot of things, that don't make a great
deal of sense:-)
If you watched that program, then you know that it was designed to
infuriate people, about communism. And it was very, very effective.
Robert Harris
>Some kids
>liked "cops and robbers" shows. Some wanted to be the cops and others
>wanted to be the robbers. Oswald liked the "spy" aspect of the show, and
>he wanted to be one of the commies. He thought it was the ruling class
>elite who were the liars and treacherous scum. That's why he fled to
>Russia where he thought he would find a Marxist paradise. But he was
>disappointed. So then he tried to go to Cuba. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't
>have liked that place either. He was somewhat of a general malcontent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>According to your media and child psychology theory, every kid in America
>would grow up to hate Communists and join the FBI, and they'd all want to
>be Superman and Wonder Woman.
That's not too far from the truth, sir. You should talk to a few kids,
sometime:-)
Fortunately, not all of them became quite as fanatical as Oswald was.
Robert Harris
>Thus, there would be no American communists
>at all, no crime, and no criminals.
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Robert Harris
Please be accurate.
You met a guy who SAID he was a communist, didn't you Mr. Rush?
But if you had met Mr. Philbrick, during those 9 years that he was an
informant, you'd be telling us the same thing about him, wouldn't you?
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Have you noticed that no-one is laughing with you, Mr. Rush:-)
jwrush
> On 28 Jun 2005 00:59:03 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Tell me, Mr. Rush, have you EVER met a communist/marxist who expressed
>>> an eagerness to join the Marines???
>>>
>>> Ever??
>>
>>
>>Yes. On August 12, 1963.
>
> Please be accurate.
>
> You met a guy who SAID he was a communist, didn't you Mr. Rush?
> >
>
No, Mr. Harris, he said he was a Marxist. There is a difference.
Robert Harris
For someone who has done more name-calling over the last couple weeks
than any other 10 posters combined, I don't think that will get you
much sympathy, Mr. Rush:-)
Robert Harris
>
>
>
>I conducted my own investigation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Brokedad
jwrush wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:42c16cb2...@news20.forteinc.com...
> > On 28 Jun 2005 00:59:03 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >>> Tell me, Mr. Rush, have you EVER met a communist/marxist who expressed
> >>> an eagerness to join the Marines???
> >>>
> >>> Ever??
> >>
> >>
> >>Yes. On August 12, 1963.
> >
> > Please be accurate.
> >
> > You met a guy who SAID he was a communist, didn't you Mr. Rush?
> > >
> > Robert Harris
> >
>
> No, Mr. Harris, he said he was a Marxist. There is a difference.
Just as there is a differenc between:
a. A "Marks-ist"
As in Sumpter Davis Marks!
and a:
b. Marxist.
A follower of the beliefs and doctrine of Karl Marks.
The question being, did LHO spell out which philosophy he followed?
Tom
tomnln
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42c0...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
YOU LEFT OUT WASHINGTON
Anthony Marsh
You espouse every position that the other WC defenders take.
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > For someone who has
> than any other 10 posters combined, I don't think that will get you
> much sympathy, Mr. Rush:-)
Your term "WC defender" is insulting to me. It's not true. It's misleading.
It's a false accusation. And it implies that I never did my own research. It's
a derogatory term that is intended to be meant as an outright insult. That
slanderous term gets past the moderators but my term "crackpot" seems to
offend them.
jwrush
"Brokedad" <tempty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1119977302.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The question being, did LHO spell out which philosophy he followed?
>
> Tom
>
Yes he did, many times.
Michael O'Dell
> On 27 Jun 2005 20:28:51 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>>news:kLYve.4452$Bn6.1552@trndny08...
>>
>>> Why do the WC defenders have to resort to such ad hominem attacks? No
>>> one
>>> is here to support Oswald. The idea that he was just a patsy has nothing
>>> to do with supporting him.
>>> How would you like it if I accused you of supporting the conspirators?
>>> --
>>> Anthony Marsh
>>
>>
>>Stop calling me a "WC defender". I take that as a personal insult.
>
> For someone who has done more name-calling over the last couple weeks
> than any other 10 posters combined, I don't think that will get you
> much sympathy, Mr. Rush:-)
>
>
Come on, I said he was entertaining. You have to keep a sense of humor
about these things. Probably the only person that writes better flames
around here is David Lifton. I wish he'd post more often too.
Michael
jwrush
> You espouse every position that the other WC defenders take.
>
> --
> Anthony Marsh
That's not true. And I'm not an amateur who reads reports and the either
agrees or disagrees with it. I do my own investigations. I was an
investigative journalist for many years. I spent a lot of money and time on
my own investigations. I had experience with recording sound of all kinds on
all kinds of machines for more than 45 years.
If Oswald did do it with three shots from the Depository, then anyone who
has figured that true fact out is going to agree.
Your attempt to stereotype every one who knows Oswald was the lone assassin
as some kind of "WC defender", is a deceptive and insulting tactic on your
part. I could just as easily call you guys "Cold War Soviet Propaganda
defenders," because you agree with the old Soviet KGB propaganda position of
a conspiracy.
Steve
>>>"Robert Harris" <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message> And secondly, if
>>>you talk to ANY child psychologist, you will learn
>> that television has a profound effect on young people - far greater
>> than it should.
>> I can also show you expert opinion, that dyslexic kids are even MORE
>> affected by the boob tube. Now, who does that bring to mind, >
>> Robert Harris
JW Rush wrote:
>First, you were an Oswald expert. And FBI expert. And a Communist expert.
>And now you are a child psychiatrist and a media expert.
Harris wrote:
Have you noticed Mr. Rush, that in our discussions, I post endlessly
about Oswald and the assassination, while you post endlessly about
Robert Harris?
Steve writes:
endless: : being or seeming to be without end
Bob, jwrush has only been here a few days. The appropriate use of the
word 'endless' may be applied to your *endless* barrage of posts
designed to try and get others to discuss your theories and
conclusions, to which the word *self-serving* may be a better choice.
Your pattern of absence, followed by *endless* subject postings devised
to elicit discussion of your theories have been well known and well
read for years. To much dismay, you've probably noticed that many do
not wish to discuss your theories with you any longer and have thus
resorted to verbal cues to instigate such discussions.
Your posts are well documented and *endlessly* recurring. One might
come to the eventual realization that if another poster wanted to
discuss yourconclusions, one might reply to your posts. Your
featherweight jabs to spur on discussion seem to carry little impact.
Thus, perhaps, you might consider that jwrush may not be interested in
your ideas and conclusions.
The problem, Robert, is that you've made up your mind and are only
interested in cultivating Robert Harris converts- which seem to be in
awfully short supply around here. Kudos, however, for the *endless*
repeat posts and *endless* supply of witty jabs designed to invoke such
conversion attempts.
jwrush
"Michael O'Dell" <ode...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:42c2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> Come on, I said he was entertaining. You have to keep a sense of humor
> about these things. Probably the only person that writes better flames
> around here is David Lifton. I wish he'd post more often too.
>
> Michael
Geeze, having a flame war with Lifton. I would consider that an honor. Maybe
we could charge an admission fee for that.
Brokedad
jwrush wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:g3owe.5396$Bn6.157@trndny08...
>
> > You espouse every position that the other WC defenders take.
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Marsh
>
>
> That's not true. And I'm not an amateur who reads reports and the either
> agrees or disagrees with it. I do my own investigations. I was an
> investigative journalist for many years. I spent a lot of money and time on
> my own investigations. I had experience with recording sound of all kinds on
> all kinds of machines for more than 45 years.
>
> If Oswald did do it with three shots from the Depository, then anyone who
> has figured that true fact out is going to agree.
As one who accepts the factual conclusion that LHO was the single
person to fire at; hit; and be responsible for the assassination of
JFK, I am also fully aware of the intentional misrepresentation of the
facts of the assassination by the WC.
In this regard, the WC is an intentional LIE!
In addition to that, with the same degree of certainty which states
that LHO was the lone/single shooter/assassin, I will state that JFK
was assassinated as a result of a "right-wing", extremely powerful
group who resided in New Orleans, LA.
Even though the "circumstantial evidence" of this conspiracy is exactly
that, it is so strong; indicative; and easily followable that there can
be little doubt left that LHO was "guided" if you will, into this
event.
Most probably for MONEY!
Tom
Anthony Marsh
I don't see how the term WC defender implies than you never did any
research of your own. Supposedly at least you did actually read the
Warren Commission Report.
WC defender has been used here for many years. Would you prefer the term
Lone Nutter or LN for short? I think people deserve to know where you
stand on the issues. Or do you think that you can pretend to be a
conspiracy believer just to mislead people?
I have seen plenty of crackpots on the WC defender side.
Robert Harris
>
>"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > For someone who has
>done more name-calling over the last couple weeks
>> than any other 10 posters combined, I don't think that will get you
>> much sympathy, Mr. Rush:-)
>
>Your term "WC defender" is insulting to me.
I feel terrible about that, Mr. Rush.
I would feel even worse if I had actually called you such a thing:-)
Robert Harris
jwrush
> jw,
>
> I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks it would make a pleasant change
> to
> have some first hand contributions here, from both you & Mr Bringuier.
There were at least 7 of us who had contact with Oswald in New Orleans
regarding his news media coverage: Bill Stuckey, Carlos Bringuier, Ed
Butler, Bill Slatter, Mike Lala, Mike O'Connor, and me. As far as I know,
Bringuier and I are the only ones still alive.
But where are interviews with any of us in all the conspiracy books
published during the past 42 years? There aren't any. Over the years, we
were almost never contacted by any conspiracy writers because they didn't
want our true factual information. That stood in the way of their conspiracy
lies.
Four of us continued to investigate the case over the years: Stuckey,
Bringuier, Butler, and me, but we were ignored. We had actually met Oswald
and talked to him and interviewed him, and we had some idea of what his
personality and his ability and talent for trickery was really like, but we
were ignored by all the conspiracy authors for the past 42 years, because
they didn't want to publish the truth, they wanted to publish lies, either
for political reasons or for profit. And you see how I've been treated here
on this forum by some of these people who believe in conspiracy .
Mike O'Dell and John McAdams are trying to make arrangements to post a link
to the audio of my one hour and 14 minute interview with Bill Stuckey that I
made in 1981, in which Stuckey talks about his Aug. 17 interview with
Oswald. It's very interesting.
I also have a 2-hour interview with Bringuier I conducted in 1982, but I'll
have to get his permission to release copies of it. I sent a copy to him
last week and I'm still waiting to hear back from him.
JW
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:g3owe.5396$Bn6.157@trndny08...
>
>
>>You espouse every position that the other WC defenders take.
>>
>>--
>>Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> That's not true. And I'm not an amateur who reads reports and the either
> agrees or disagrees with it. I do my own investigations. I was an
> investigative journalist for many years. I spent a lot of money and time on
> my own investigations. I had experience with recording sound of all kinds on
> all kinds of machines for more than 45 years.
>
I also do my own investigations. The difference is that I do not believe
something just because the government told me to believe it.
Your experience in recordings does not qualify you to understand the
acoustical evidence and you have already demonstrated that you do not
understand it.
> If Oswald did do it with three shots from the Depository, then anyone who
> has figured that true fact out is going to agree.
You can find about 10% of the populace who agrees with you. BTW, the
idea that Oswald fired three shots from the Depository is still part of
the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy. So, I guess that makes you a
conspiracy believer then, right?
>
> Your attempt to stereotype every one who knows Oswald was the lone assassin
> as some kind of "WC defender", is a deceptive and insulting tactic on your
> part. I could just as easily call you guys "Cold War Soviet Propaganda
> defenders," because you agree with the old Soviet KGB propaganda position of
> a conspiracy.
>
Except that my particular theories have nothing to do with old KGB
propaganda.
I see a lot of WC defenders complain that they do not want to be known
as WC defenders. What do you think is so shameful about being a WC defender?
jwrush
>
> I feel terrible about that, Mr. Rush.
Lol. Robert Harris, you are a rascal!
jwrush
>
> > In addition to that, with the same degree of certainty which states
> that LHO was the lone/single shooter/assassin, I will state that JFK
> was assassinated as a result of a "right-wing", extremely powerful
> group who resided in New Orleans, LA.
>
Name them please. And tell us exactly how they manipulated the Marxist
Oswald?
jwrush
Would you prefer the term
> Lone Nutter or LN for short? > --
> Anthony Marsh
Go to Google and type in "he is a nutter" with quotes around the phrase,
and see what turns up. It's a British term meaning "crackpot".
In fact, the term "lone nut" applied to Oswald is an American term meaning
"crackpot."
By calling us "LNs", for "lone nutters", that's the same as calling us
"lone crackpots."
Martin Shackelford
here.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
more. I doubt that a flame war with him would be anything but pointless.
Martin
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:da06mp$q...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Red-baiting anyone who believes there was a conspiracy doesn't work well
> here.
>
> Martin
I'm not "Red baiting" anyone. The Cold-War Soviet Communists and KGB started
the conspiracy myth and hoax in November of 1963. They lost interest in the
project in the late 1980s. But many American conspiracy buffs still promote
their old party line, apparently without realizing what they are doing.
Being "Red" is out of fashion anyway, but being "stupid" apparently is not.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:UrBwe.16464$fM6.6331@trndny04...
>
> Would you prefer the term
>
>>Lone Nutter or LN for short? > --
>
>
>>Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Go to Google and type in "he is a nutter" with quotes around the phrase,
> and see what turns up. It's a British term meaning "crackpot".
>
>
I am not talking about the British term. Lone Nutter has always been
used in this newsgroup and others to describe someone who believes that
Oswald was the Lone Nut shooter and that there was no conspiracy.
>
> In fact, the term "lone nut" applied to Oswald is an American term meaning
> "crackpot."
>
>
>
> By calling us "LNs", for "lone nutters", that's the same as calling us
> "lone crackpots."
>
No, we are not British here.
tomnln
Did the KGB Withold Evidence?
Did the KGB Lie about the Facts?
Did the KGB Steal Evidence outta Dallas Jurisdiction under Gun Point?
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42c4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:da06mp$q...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>> Red-baiting anyone who believes there was a conspiracy doesn't work well
>> here.
>>
>> Martin
>
Anthony Marsh
That is simply not true and it IS Red Baiting. Many politicians
immediately, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, as well as news
commentators immediately said that it was a conspiracy and thought that
racists were behind it.
jwrush
>
> That is simply not true and it IS Red Baiting.
Nope, it's not Red baiting.
But you are McCarthy baiting. Shame on you!
>Many politicians immediately, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, as well as
>news commentators immediately said that it was a conspiracy and thought
>that racists were behind it.
>
Of course. It was Dallas, 1963. Look at what had happened to Adlai Stevenson
just a few weeks earlier. General Walker lived there. Before the motorcade,
a lot of people expected the right-wingers to cause some trouble.
And Ozzie knew that. He knew what everyone would think.
Backstreet Aftermath
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:okZwe.7776$GP6.2734@trndny03...
>
>
>>That is simply not true and it IS Red Baiting.
>
>
> Nope, it's not Red baiting.
>
>
>
> But you are McCarthy baiting. Shame on you!
>
>
I forget what they call that in psychology. When someone is called on
the carpet for some misbehavior he simply accuses his accusers of doing
the same thing by accusing him. No one uses the term McCarthy baiting.
>
>
>
>
>>Many politicians immediately, such as Chief Justice Earl Warren, as well as
>>news commentators immediately said that it was a conspiracy and thought
>>that racists were behind it.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Of course. It was Dallas, 1963. Look at what had happened to Adlai Stevenson
> just a few weeks earlier. General Walker lived there. Before the motorcade,
> a lot of people expected the right-wingers to cause some trouble.
>
>
>
> And Ozzie knew that. He knew what everyone would think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>> news:okZwe.7776$GP6.2734@trndny03...
>>
>>
>>>That is simply not true and it IS Red Baiting.
>>
>>
>> Nope, it's not Red baiting.
>>
>>
>>
>> But you are McCarthy baiting. Shame on you!
>>
>>
>
> I forget what they call that in psychology. When someone is called on the
> carpet for some misbehavior he simply accuses his accusers of doing the
> same thing by accusing him. No one uses the term McCarthy baiting.
>
Hey, I just used it. Get used to it.
I'm not "red baiting" anyone. I don't see any "reds" here at all. Just
some "liberals" who got fooled by the "reds" of Russia and the CPUSA.
Being misled by the "reds" and the Russians doesn't make you a "red". But
it does make certain people a victim of the "reds" and their propaganda.
Mr. Holland has explained this very well in his articles about Jim
Garrison. I knew Jim Garrison in New Orleans back in the '60s. He wasn't a
"red". He wasn't even "liberal". But the "reds" got to him, tricked him,
confused him, and drove him sort of paranoid and bonkers. He still wasn't
a "red", just a victim of reds, much like Henry Wallace, a former US Vice
President, was a victim of the reds in 1948 when he ran for President on
the Progressive Party ticket. It was John J. Abt who put his name in
nomination. I've got an old Life Magazine article about it.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:cxhxe.227$vE5.114@trndny07...
>
>>jwrush wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>>>news:okZwe.7776$GP6.2734@trndny03...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is simply not true and it IS Red Baiting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope, it's not Red baiting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>But you are McCarthy baiting. Shame on you!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I forget what they call that in psychology. When someone is called on the
>>carpet for some misbehavior he simply accuses his accusers of doing the
>>same thing by accusing him. No one uses the term McCarthy baiting.
>>
>
>
> Hey, I just used it. Get used to it.
>
> I'm not "red baiting" anyone. I don't see any "reds" here at all. Just
> some "liberals" who got fooled by the "reds" of Russia and the CPUSA.
> Being misled by the "reds" and the Russians doesn't make you a "red". But
> it does make certain people a victim of the "reds" and their propaganda.
>
Well, please tell me, oh guru, who misled liberals before the "reds"
came along? There wasn't any KGB to whisper into Lincoln's ear to free
the slaves. There wasn't any KGB to mislead Mark Twain.
You seem to be a victim of someone's propaganda, constantly looking
under your bed for "reds."
> Mr. Holland has explained this very well in his articles about Jim
> Garrison. I knew Jim Garrison in New Orleans back in the '60s. He wasn't a
> "red". He wasn't even "liberal". But the "reds" got to him, tricked him,
> confused him, and drove him sort of paranoid and bonkers. He still wasn't
You have an overactive imagination.
> a "red", just a victim of reds, much like Henry Wallace, a former US Vice
> President, was a victim of the reds in 1948 when he ran for President on
> the Progressive Party ticket. It was John J. Abt who put his name in
> nomination. I've got an old Life Magazine article about it.
>
So what? And I believe there is a picture of Mark Lane and President
Kennedy together. So what?
jwrush
>>>>
>>>>>
> Well, please tell me, oh guru,
Yes, my son?
>who misled liberals before the "reds" came along?
Liberals weren't necessairly "misled" before the Communists started trying
to co-opt them.
>There wasn't any KGB to whisper into Lincoln's ear to free the slaves.
>There wasn't any KGB to mislead Mark Twain.
Before the Communists, there were plenty of other socially-minded groups,
such as the old American Socialist Party, which I think stared in the 19th
Century, and Teddy Roosevelt's old Progressive Party.
In the 19th Century there were many social-welfare groups, including many
religious groups that didn't like to see people exploited. Many of the
abolitionist groups of the North were Christian and religious groups, and
others were nice non-communist humanist groups. Even in the South there
were abolitionist and even race-mixing groups. Some of these were humanist
groups and others were religious groups.
Out here in the American Southwest, we've got groups that support the
illegal immigrants from Mexico. The immigration doesn't bother me. Most of
these people are family-oriented and are very nice people. My old pioneer
ancestors probably immigrated from England and Europe that way, as poor
peasants, 200 or more years ago. I worked with a Mission group that helps
poor people immigrate from Honduras and Nicaragua. But I'm not a "red",
and most of these immigrant-help groups out here aren't "reds" either.
>> Mr. Holland has explained this very well in his articles about Jim
>> Garrison. I knew Jim Garrison in New Orleans back in the '60s. He wasn't
>> a "red". He wasn't even "liberal". But the "reds" got to him, tricked
>> him, confused him, and drove him sort of paranoid and bonkers. He still
>> wasn't
>
> You have an overactive imagination.
I KNEW Jim Garrison BEFORE he went bonkers. I was in his office many times
filming interviews in 1963-65. He wasn't paranoid like he later became,
when I knew him in the mid-'60s. He was just a normal good D.A., with no
crackpot ideas that I recall. But he did become a little paranoid after
the "reds" got to him.
Martin Shackelford
dupes. They focus on the evidence, not on ideology.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:KfDxe.4226$kM5.829@trndny05...
>
>
>>Well, please tell me, oh guru,
>
>
> Yes, my son?
>
>
>
>>who misled liberals before the "reds" came along?
>
>
> Liberals weren't necessairly "misled" before the Communists started trying
> to co-opt them.
>
Your point was that liberals are always being misled by the "reds." That
they can't think for themselves. So, again, who misled them before there
were "reds"?
>
>
>>There wasn't any KGB to whisper into Lincoln's ear to free the slaves.
>>There wasn't any KGB to mislead Mark Twain.
>
>
> Before the Communists, there were plenty of other socially-minded groups,
> such as the old American Socialist Party, which I think stared in the 19th
> Century, and Teddy Roosevelt's old Progressive Party.
>
> In the 19th Century there were many social-welfare groups, including many
> religious groups that didn't like to see people exploited. Many of the
> abolitionist groups of the North were Christian and religious groups, and
> others were nice non-communist humanist groups. Even in the South there
> were abolitionist and even race-mixing groups. Some of these were humanist
> groups and others were religious groups.
>
OK, so those are your stand-in "reds" misleading all the liberals?
> Out here in the American Southwest, we've got groups that support the
> illegal immigrants from Mexico. The immigration doesn't bother me. Most of
> these people are family-oriented and are very nice people. My old pioneer
> ancestors probably immigrated from England and Europe that way, as poor
> peasants, 200 or more years ago. I worked with a Mission group that helps
> poor people immigrate from Honduras and Nicaragua. But I'm not a "red",
> and most of these immigrant-help groups out here aren't "reds" either.
>
Jeez, we ALL immigrated from somewhere at some time.
>
>
>>>Mr. Holland has explained this very well in his articles about Jim
>>>Garrison. I knew Jim Garrison in New Orleans back in the '60s. He wasn't
>>>a "red". He wasn't even "liberal". But the "reds" got to him, tricked
>>>him, confused him, and drove him sort of paranoid and bonkers. He still
>>>wasn't
>>
>>You have an overactive imagination.
>
>
> I KNEW Jim Garrison BEFORE he went bonkers. I was in his office many times
> filming interviews in 1963-65. He wasn't paranoid like he later became,
> when I knew him in the mid-'60s. He was just a normal good D.A., with no
> crackpot ideas that I recall. But he did become a little paranoid after
> the "reds" got to him.
Maybe he did become a little paranoid after the CIA went after him.
jwrush
> Many conspiracy believers in this case are neither left, liberal nor Red
> dupes. They focus on the evidence, not on ideology.
>
> Martin
>
On the evidence? LOL! What "evidence"?
Ok, where did the shots come from, specifically, other than from the book
depository?
Who were the conspirators? Name some of them.
Outline the conspiracy: 1) mafia, 2) right wing, 3) Cuba, 4) name someone
specific. Name a specific group.
What were the exact bullets used other than 6.5 Carcano.
Show me some rifles or pistols other than the 6.5 Carcano.
Name some names, get specific. Show me your "evidence". Don't show me
links to a thousand baloney conspiracy theories. So far, you've shown me
nothing at all.