Gus Russo On Bugliosi" He did a horrendous job"
lazu...@webtv.net
means as bad a job as you can do. From Dale Myers JFK Files...
David Von Pein
>>> "Gus Russo On Bugliosi: "He did a horrendous job". .... In reference to his own work, you know what that means Von Pein? That means as bad a job as you can do." <<<
Gus was only referring to what he believes was a "horrendous job" by
Vince of debunking the awful 2006 Wilfried Huismann documentary film
"Rendezvous With Death".
Here is the full Russo quote from October 29, 2008:
"Vince attempted to debunk the film, but in fact did a
horrendous job -- as I think you will agree when you read the book."
-- Gus Russo; 10/29/08
www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/10/brothers-in-arms-kennedys-castros-and.html
The "Rendezvous" film plays a very large part in Mr. Russo's 2008 book
"Brothers In Arms", wherein Russo tries desperately to link Cuban "G2"
agents with Lee Harvey Oswald in a plot to kill JFK.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00b5230ef8086426
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17699bb27eef2180
In his 2007 book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi uses up
10-plus pages of endnotes to dismantle (in a good bit of detail)
Huismann's "Rendezvous" documentary and, hence, along the way also
largely discredits Russo's identical (or nearly-identical) theory
about supposed Cuban "G2" involvement.
Far from doing a "horrendous job", Vince B. does a pretty good job
(IMO) of ripping apart the "G2/Oswald" theory that is alleged to be
the absolute truth in Huismann's film.
Here's a sampling of Bugliosi's comments on the subject:
================================================
"Unbelievably, out of all these fabricated statements and
nothingness, a reportedly well-credentialed German filmmaker, one
Wilfried Huismann, directed a one-hour documentary,
titled..."Rendezvous with Death", that was shown for the first time in
Berlin on January 4, 2006.
"The entire thrust of Huismann’s documentary is that Castro’s
Cuban intelligence people (G-2) used Oswald to kill Kennedy once he
made the offer at the Cuban consulate to kill Kennedy, and the person
who paid Oswald to do so was the black man with the reddish hair, who
is identified in the program as a top Cuban G-2 agent in Mexico named
Cesar Morales Mesa. Using Gilberto Alvarado Ugarte’s original
fabrication that the black man (Morales) paid Oswald $6,500 to kill
Kennedy (Huismann does not mention Alvarado by name in the
documentary), Huismann proceeds to build his entire show on this
nonexistent foundation.
"Huismann isn’t troubled by the fact that the basis for the
alleged offer was Oswald’s supposedly saying, “I’m going to kill
Kennedy for this” as he headed out of the Cuban consulate office after
his request for an in-transit visa to Cuba was turned down, and that
the only two people who we know were in the office at the time, Silvia
Duran and Eusebio Azcue, have said they never heard Oswald say any
such thing. Huismann, of course, doesn’t tell his audience this.
"Huismann is also not troubled by the fact that Oswald would
have had no reason to say he was going to kill Kennedy “for this,”
that is, for being turned down by the Cuban consulate for his in-
transit visa. And he sees nothing preposterous about the discussion to
murder the president of the United States and the payment to Oswald
taking place right outside the Cuban embassy, when Cuban intelligence
(the G-2 agent, Morales, who supposedly made the payment) had to know
that the lenses of CIA cameras were focused on that area.
"Nor does he apparently feel that Alvarado’s claim to have
actually seen (and apparently diligently counted out) precisely $6,500
in American bills ($1,500 for expense money, Alvarado says) being paid
to Oswald is preposterous on its face.
"Further, Huismann is not bothered by the fact that if a Cuban
G-2 agent gave Oswald $6,500 (at least the equivalent of $20,000
today) to kill Kennedy, what happened to all this money? Why was
Oswald virtually broke at the time of his death, he and Marina having
a grand total of $183.87 to their name? How did Oswald go through the
equivalent of $20,000 (or even $6,500) in less than two months? What
did he splurge this amount of money on?
"In addition, Huismann isn’t concerned by the fact that Alvarado
said he saw this alleged payoff to Oswald on September 18, 1963, when
we know Oswald wasn’t even in Mexico City, being present and accounted
for in New Orleans. Nor is Huismann troubled by the fact that Alvarado
took a CIA polygraph test in which the polygraph examiner concluded he
was probably lying, and that Alvarado said, “I must be mistaken.”
Huismann, naturally, doesn’t tell his audience any of this. ....
"None of these things troubled Huismann. Nothing was going to
stand in his way in his attempt to push his ridiculous story on as
many unsuspecting people as he could.
"Since, at its source, there was no basis for this TV
documentary, what did Huismann do to beef up a story worthless at its
core? He does what nearly all conspiracy authors, documentarians, and
motion picture directors do: embellish the story from the original nut
(in this case, Alvarado) with stories from other nuts or frauds, and
in this case with two former American public servants who should be
ashamed of themselves [former FBI agent Laurence Keenan and former
Secretary of State Alexander Haig]. ....
"Remarkably, Huismann, for all his labors, was able to come up
with only one new “face” to justify this “documentary,” an alleged
former Cuban G-2 agent who is the clear star of Huismann’s flick. He
is also a joke. I say “face” because for supposed fear of retaliation,
the man’s face is bathed in shadows on the screen. And his name, Oscar
Marino, is not his real name (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by
author on January 15, 2006), though Huismann isn’t kind enough to tell
his audience (or researchers who want to check out Marino’s
background) this.
"So we have a faceless, nameless person as the star of
Huismann’s shameless “documentary.” That itself would be bad enough,
but Marino has absolutely nothing to say. “Oswald volunteered to kill
Kennedy,” Marino tells the audience. When I asked Gus Russo if Marino
was basing this on something other than Alvarado’s original
allegation, he said he was not, that Alvarado was Marino’s source for
this (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on January 15, 2006).
Since we know that Oswald never made the threat to kill Kennedy that
Alvarado claims (but later retracted) he made, we thereby know at this
point that everything Marino says thereafter has to be a
fabrication. ....
"So we learn from Marino that with or without Castro, Cuban G-2
agents planned to murder Kennedy (and thereby ensure their deaths at
U.S. hands, or if Castro never approved of the operation, at his hands
if he found out what they did or attempted to do without his
authorization), and Oswald simply “adopted” G-2’s “plans.” Since we
know that Oswald himself bought the murder weapon (Cuban G-2
apparently wanted Oswald to have the absolute cheapest, most
inexpensive rifle that could be found) and, through Ruth Paine’s
suggestion, got himself the job at the Book Depository Building, one
wonders what “plans” of the G-2 Oswald “adopted,” and how G-2 helped
Oswald in “carrying out the assassination.”
"Just as Marino could tell Huismann with “complete certainty”
that Kennedy’s death was a G-2 agency operation, I can tell Huismann
with even more “complete certainty” that even though Marino, in
effect, confessed to complicity with other G-2 members in Kennedy’s
murder, he actually knows (even if Huismann doesn’t) that he has
absolutely nothing to fear.
"Marino certainly would realize that if Cuban G-2 and Castro
were vindictive enough and powerful enough to wipe out the president
of the United States in the United States, they would be vindictive
and powerful enough to wipe out non-entities like himself in Mexico
for squealing on them.
"If Huismann could find the supposedly ailing Marino, surely
they could. But Marino knows he doesn’t have to worry a whit since he
knows his story is fabricated nonsense that only nonsensical
conspiracy theorists would have any interest in, not very serious
people like Castro and his G-2. You can’t squeal on someone when there
is nothing to squeal on. ....
"And even though there is no statute of limitation for murder in
the United States, Marino also knows he doesn’t have to worry about
FBI agents knocking on Huismann’s door to obtain Marino’s identity and
whereabouts (by court order if necessary) so they could arrest him and
extradite him back to the United States for prosecution for Kennedy’s
murder. Why? Because Marino, I, and virtually all other sensible
people know that no one in authority would take him seriously. The
authorities, including Castro, only deal harshly with real people
telling real stories, not humbugs like Marino. Huismann is either
pathetically gullible or a fraud. ....
"So what we have here with Huismann’s Rendezvous with Death is a
very trite rendezvous with a foundationless base (Alvarado’s recanted
allegation), old witnesses whose stories have already been
discredited, a star witness without a name or face and nothing to say
other than to make a naked declaration, and two former American public
servants, tossed in for cachet purposes, who made fools of themselves.
"The question is how did Huismann convince his Japanese and
German benefactors to part with close to $1 million on something as
patently worthless as this “documentary”? A related question is why
would Gus Russo, a respected assassination researcher, lend his name
to a project as insubstantial and sophistical as this?
"In defense of Russo, he pointed out to me that he felt the
Cubans in the documentary had credibility because they had to be
pressured (some for months) to participate in the program, so they
weren’t seeking notoriety. Also, he says, they got no pay, and wanted
their names changed. And they spoke in a way, he added, that was
believable to him. (Telephone interview of Gus Russo by author on
February 8, 2006)" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Pages 731-733, 735-737, and
741 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
================================================
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/dffb53d9dde8b76d
lazu...@webtv.net
half a dozen posts? Gus was right, he just misspelled the word it's
Whorendous...
David Von Pein
>>> "Why is it Von Pein, I can say more in a couple of lines than you can in half a dozen posts?" <<<
Another retarded comment from another resident kook here at acj.
I don't think I've ever seen "Laz"/Jeff post ANY evidence here. Ever.
Anybody ever see a "Laz" post that actually relies on the real, hard,
BEST evidence in the case? Laz's posts are almost identical to
Healy's--filled with virtual nothingness.
I post the real stuff (aka: the real evidence about who killed JFK).
Laz, OTOH, posts 100% chaff (like all CT-Kooks).