Not "LibertyLobby" Theory!
Drei...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Not "LibertyLobby" Theory!
From: Michael Collins Piper <pip...@mailcity.com>
Date: 4/13/99 8:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <3713E444...@mailcity.com>
John McAdams is getting into name calling with this use of the term
"Liberty Lobby stuff." My book was not published until 1994. There was a
lot floating around about Permindex long before that and John knows it.
He's skating on thin ice here with a lot of people and trying to "connect"
them to Liberty Lobby. I guess he figures that if he starts smearing
anybody who talks about Permindex with the "Liberty Lobby" smear that he
can scare them off and shut them up since nobody wants to be targeted as
being a promoter of a "theory" that has been "connected" to Liberty Lobby.
******************************************************************
DR responds:
Would you prefer he associate Permindex with the majority of those who
cite it in their conspiracy theories: the Freemason crowd? (Again, any Web
search for "Permindex" will show you who's talking about it the most, at
least if the Internet is the slightest example. Are you and the
Garrisonites going to insist that I post such material to the JFK
newsgroups?)
I notice you tend not to respond to my posts on Permindex, Michael. Is
there a reason for that? Is a repost in order? Coming right up . . .
>Subject: McAdams&Permindex
>From: Michael Collins Piper <pip...@mailcity.com>
>Date: 4/10/99 2:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <370F994C...@mailcity.com>
>
>"At some point, I'll probably press the Liberty Lobby folks about the
>silly "Permindex" stuff."
>
>--So said Mr. McAdams in another posting on another newsgroup
>
>Now, Mr. McAdams, I want to let you in on a little secret, I heard about
>
>Permindex for the first time in about 1972 or so when I read about it in
>
>Paris Flammonde's book, THE KENNEDY CONSPIRACY--and that was long before
>
>I ever came to work for Liberty Lobby. So don't try to suggest that the
>"evil" Liberty Lobby is behind the 'silly Permindex stuff.' You know
>better than that, but you are playing a little game here and that's not
>intellectually honest.
>
>There's a lot of people who have NO ASSOCIATION WHATSOEVER with Liberty
>Lobby who have been looking into Permindex for years. And to the best of
>
>my knowledge there are no other "Liberty Lobby folks" who have been up
>here other than myself, although apparently "Congo Mama" (who has been
>supportive of my thesis) does read Liberty Lobby's newspaper.
>
>Any way . . .
>
>Tell us precisely what Permindex was, Mr. McAdams, and why it is "silly"
>to mention it in reference to the JFK assassination. Enlighten us. What
>was it, a cooking society?.
>
>Even if you think Clay Shaw was innocently associated with this outfit,
>do you still think it was some benevolent organization?
>
>Come on, Mr. McAdams, start pressing!
>
*******************************************************************
MCP --
As much as I personally would like to examine all of CMC/Permindex's
records (preferably in the company of someone who speaks the language
they're written in, which is unlikely to be English much of the time) and
I am extremely interested in finding out what our CIA knows about them,
there are two reasons I can offer for some people thinking the Permindex
issue "silly," as well as irrelevant to any discussion of the John F.
Kennedy assassination.
One, no one has ever proven that Clay Shaw had anything to do with
CMC/Permindex beyond the consultancy he claimed his position on the board
of directors to be. In fact, no one has ever offered a single reason we
should *suspect* Shaw of anything nefarious, with or without
CMC/Permindex.
People allege that the Shaw-Permindex relationship can hardly be an
"innocent" association for, I believe three reasons:
1) Shaw is alleged to have been a CIA agent.
2) CMC/Permindex is alleged to have been a CIA front.
3) CMC/Permindex is alleged to have provided funds (I believe the figure
bandied about is $200,000) to the OAS, an illegal French terrorist
organization named as plotters against the life of Charles De Gaulle.
Now, I must confess, spook that I am, according to some people (your pal
Robert Harris being one of them -- nice guy, isn't he?), that even if all
three of the above statements are 100% true, I still see no reason why
CMC/Permindex should be considered relevant to the John F. Kennedy
assassination. To make CMC/Permindex relevant, I would have to add the
following two statements to the list:
4) Clay Shaw is alleged to have been a JFK assassination conspirator by
Jim Garrison and his followers.
5) The CIA is alleged to have been behind the assassination, in whole or
in part, by Jim Garrison and his followers, among others.
Now the relevance seems clear, doesn't it? We've only got five problems:
1) No one has ever turned up the slightest hint of evidence that Clay Shaw
was a CIA agent. We only know that he provided information to the CIA's
Domestic Contacts Service -- without financial remuneration -- on a number
of occasions between 1948 and 1956. (Most scholars agree the JFK
assassination did not occur between the years 1948 and 1956.) CIA reports
prepared from Shaw's information are now available. They concern
international trade with Latin America -- Clay Shaw's field of expertise.
Of course, Jim Garrison told us that the mere repetition of a charge lends
it credence, since people have a tendency to assume that where there's
smoke, there is fire; and indeed many people persist in believing that
Shaw was a CIA agent, even though the two CIA-related allegations against
Shaw seem to have been debunked. (I refer to the QK/ENCHANT and ZR/CLIFF
things. Should anyone wonder why I consider these to be dead issues, I'll
repost the relevant info at the end of this post.)
Many people also believe that CIA agents are inherently bad people, very
likely involved in assassinations of political figures. (Strangely, no one
has ever criticized the CIA for its blatant discrimination in employing
such people to the exclusion of honest, decent, life-respecting folks.)
So even if we assume that where there's smoke, there is fire, and conclude
that Clay Shaw must have been an evil, murderous CIA agent, I have asked
repeatedly for someone to post the tiniest shred of evidence that Shaw
ever did anything to harm another human being in his entire life. No one
has ever offered any -- not even a wisecrack about Shaw's military
service, which earned him a few awards. (One person did respond with a
quip about Shaw's S&M activities, however this person's source was Bob
Vernon, who is hardly my idea of a reliable source.)
2) No one has ever offered any evidence that CMC/Permindex was a CIA
front. Never. If anyone has and I missed it, will somebody please repost
it?
3) CMC/Permindex may have indeed provided funds to the OAS; I believe
there may be some documentation on this. If so, would someone post it? But
the OAS is not known to have been behind the John F. Kennedy
assassination. I think the closest anyone's come to accusing them is the
unsubstantiated theory that a person alleged to have been involved with
the OAS was one of the gunmen. It seems to me quite a leap in logic to
then say that this corporation, Permindex, had anything to do with the
assassination. Wouldn't a more likely suspect be the Texas School Book
Depository? After all, one of their employees has some fairly solid
evidence linking him to the assassination. In addition, strong evidence
indicates that the TSBD may actually be IN Dealey Plaza!
Coincidence -- or conspiracy?
4) No one has ever produced the tiniest shred of evidence that Clay Shaw
conspired to assassinate John F. Kennedy. Two witnesses who claimed to
have overheard Shaw discussing such a matter -- Perry Russo and Charles
Spiesel -- were both discredited on the stand.
5) If the CIA killed John F. Kennedy, we still await some evidence. The
three highest CIA executives in 1963 had been handpicked by President
Kennedy for their positions. If rogue elements of the Agency killed
Kennedy, as some theorize, we're back to the OAS-Soeutre argument: does
the complicity of CIA employee(s) in the assassination link any CIA front,
real or alleged, to the assassination? If not, how does Permindex and/or
its parent company, Centro Mondiale Commerciale, fit in?
We seem to have something of a circular argument: Permindex is relevant to
the John F. Kennedy assassination because of Clay Shaw, whose "spookiest"
association in 1963 was Permindex.
Mr. Collins, it is my understanding that you have written a book that is
based in no small part in the idea that Clay Shaw and/or Permindex was
important to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Can you please explain
to me where I am going wrong in my above argument?
Meanwhile, try this little experiment: Select your favorite search engine
and do a Web search under "Permindex." Having done this myself with a few
different search engines, I can predict you will get "hits" on a handful
of JFK-related URLs, including part four of my "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
article. But I suspect the majority of sites you come up with will give
you an idea of why at least some people consider the Permindex issue
"silly."
Dave Reitzes
"Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
P.S. With regard to a question you ask below: In my entire life, I have
only heard a single person imply that the John F. Kennedy assassination
was the work of a Jewish conspiracy. I believe this was Dave Sharp, who
I'm fairly certain is the person on a.c.jfk who noted the significance of
the religion or ethnicity connecting such suspects as members of the
Mossad, Jack Ruby and another Jewish individual, possibly Bernard
Weissman. If it was not Mr. Sharp who said this, I offer him my sincere
apologies in advance.
*******************************************************************
>And I should note that McAdam's references to Permindex came in a little
>
>give-and-take with the esteemed Robert Harris who was worrying about
>"neo-Nazis" who have "infested" JFK newsgroups "trying to blame the
>Jews" for JFK's assassination.
>
>Since I have been on this newsgroup, I have never seen anybody "trying
>to blame the Jews" for the assassination. I have seen people (including
>myself) posting information about the connections of the Permindex group
>
>to the Israeli lobby and the Mossad and the Meyer Lansky money
>laundering operations in Europe. That's true.
>
>Is Robert Harris saying that those allegations constitute "trying to
>blame the Jews" for JFK's assassination. Surely not. Meyer Lansky
>doesn't represent the avereage Jew any more than say, James Jesus
>Angleton, Israel's devoted loyalist at the CIA, represents the average
>Roman Catholic.
*******************************************************************
REPOST:
Was Clay Shaw a CIA agent?
>From 1948 to 1956, Clay Shaw was one of thousands of US businessmen with
international contacts providing routine business-related intelligence to
the CIA as part of the Domestic Contact Service. If the information was
deemed useful, a report would be written. He was never paid a dime.
>From Patricia Lambert, *False Witness* . . .
"Shaw's contacts with the CIA's Domestic Contact Service were summarized
in a memorandum released by that agency in 1992; some of the reports based
on Shaw's information were released in 1994. Shaw was first contacted by
the CIA's New Orleans office in December 1948; between 1949 and May 25,
1956 (when Shaw ceased to be a contact), he was contacted a total of
thirty-six times. Eight reports were written based on Shaw's information.
Six of those were "on hand" and described in the 1992 memorandum. Three
concerned a trip Shaw made in March through May, 1949, to the West Indies,
Central America, and Northern South America; and a fourth concerned a 1951
trip to Central and South America and the Caribbean area. The fifth report
advised that Shaw had leased to the "CSR government" space for merchandise
display in New Orleans for one year beginning in April 1949. The sixth, in
March 1952, concerned a letter to the public relations director of the
International Trade Mart from a trade consultant to the Bonn Government
(CIA document, "Subject: Clay L. Shaw [201-813493]," "Enclosure 21";
"Approved for release 1992 CIA Historical Review Program"; Lambert, 325
fn).
Shaw ceased to be a contact in 1956, when the Agency decided his
information was no longer of value. Throughout the early Sixties, when
certain conspiracy theorists would have us believe Shaw was a CIA agent
working with the infamous CMC/Permindex (alleged but never demonstrated to
be a "CIA front") on assassination-oriented spookiness, Clay Shaw had no
connection whatsoever to the CIA.
What other allegations have been put forward?
Lisa Pease, Jim DiEugenio and others claim that Shaw was a CIA agent on
the basis of a document granting Shaw "covert security clearance" for a
CIA operation called QK/ENCHANT. He wasn't; that's not what the document
says. The documents says that Shaw was "granted covert security approval
for use under Project QK/ENCHANT on an unwitting basis."
ON AN UNWITTING BASIS: He was an unwitting source of information.
We also know that J. Monroe Sullivan, onetime director of the San
Francisco World Trade Center had been granted a "covert security approval"
for QK/ENCHANT. Sullivan told Patricia Lambert in 1997 that he'd never
heard of any such thing and that he'd never worked for the CIA. That's a
reasonable enough claim: Like Shaw, Sullivan was approved for "unwitting"
use.
Now, you ask, what exactly was QK/ENCHANT? We don't know; the CIA isn't
talking. If two men involved in international trade were unwittingly
involved, one might guess that QK/ENCHANT had something to do with
business-related intelligence. Why don't we ask the authority on Shaw's
purported CIA connections, Mr. Bill Davy. From "Through the Looking
Glass," p. 54 fn. 16:
(quote) - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CIA Information and Privacy coordinator, John Wright, has written to the
author that information on QK/ENCHANT is still classified. Yet, an
admitted ex-CIA employee has broadcast on a popular computer Bulletin
Board System, that QK/ENCHANT involved routine debriefing of people in the
trade industry. Either this person has violated his/her secrecy agreement
by revealing classified information or is deliberately spreading false
information. Time will tell.
(end) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What about that other notorious "CIA connection" that's been cited with
regard to Shaw -- a certain ZR/CLIFF?
Martin Shackelford writes in Fair Play: "Another recently released
document connects Shaw to the top secret project ZR/CLIFF, which was run
out of William Harvey's super-secret Staff D along with the ZR/RIFLE
assassination program."
A friend was kind enough to go through Davy's book (which I believe Martin
named in a newsgroup post as his source) and hunt down a citation. The
only relevant passage in "Through the Looking Glass" seems to be from page
9. I'm trying to confirm that it's correct, however, since -- as I
received it -- it only seems to indicate that a Leslie Norman Bradley
(described as a "soldier- of-fortune and freelance pilot") was alleged by
Klansman/Minuteman Jules Ricco Kimble to have known Clay Shaw, and that
NORMAN "was once considered for employment as a pilot in Project ZR/CLIFF,
but for unknown reasons the offer of employment was withdrawn."
This can't be the source Martin Shackelford is citing in his Fair Play
article, can it?
Martin, are you out there?
There's also the allegation that Shaw once received plane tickets from the
CIA. One day we may get a citation for that as well.
Last, in a 1967 CIA internal memorandum turned up by Bill Davy and posted
numerous times by Jim Hargrove, the chief of the CIA's New Orleans office
is perplexed by the allegation that Clay Shaw was using the name "Clem
Bertrand" in December 1966 at the Eastern Airlines VIP room. At one point
he asks if "Clay Shaw and Clem Bertrand might have been both present" in
the VIP room.
"Bertrand" also doesn't seem to have rung any bells at CIA headquarters.
HQ wrote back that "it makes no sense for Clay Shaw to use the name Clem
Bertrand at such a meeting so we assume they were two different people,
but if Moran [an informant] could confirm this it might be a very
important point."
Odd that neither the CIA at HQ or in New Orleans is aware of Shaw's
infamous "code name" that he allegedly used while pursuing all sorts of
nefarious CIA endeavors. Or was the Agency just playing dumb in case one
day its internal memoranda should see the light of day? Anything's
possible.
To this day, Garrisonites claim Clay Shaw a perjurer for denying under
oath that he'd ever worked for the CIA. As Patricia Lambert notes, had
Shaw simply said at his trial, "I have never worked for the Central
Intelligence Agency, but I have provided them with information from time
to time," this would be a dead issue -- as dead as JFK, I imagine.
Dave Reitzes
"Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw1.htm
Dreitzes wrote:
> Subject: Re: Time-Life Exec Gives Cold War Speech at ITM 1948
> From: drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes)
> Date: 4/13/99 1:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> Message-id: <19990413010135...@ng36.aol.com>
>
> >Subject: Re: Time-Life Exec Gives Cold War Speech at ITM 1948
> >From: 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
> >Date: 4/13/99 12:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3712c926...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >
> >On 14 Jan 1999 22:27:22 -0600, Tony "Snap Judgment" Pitman
> <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>Well there you go folks. That shows you what the International Trade Mart
> >>was all about. Fighting the Russians. Now you can plainly see why an
> >>outfit like Permidex [sic] was a European branch of this org.
>
> Permindex was not affiliated with the International Trade Mart.
>
> >Permindex traded
> >>the arms, without being too concerned who was on the end user cerificates
> >>as long as they weren't communist.
>
> And who would your source be -- Robert Morrow?
>
> >Tony, there you go again.
> >
> >The fact that one speaker used cold-war rhetoric at the opening of the
> >Trade Mart hardly makes the Trade Mart a CIA operation.
>
> If the Pease-DiEugenio camp is so convinced that Shaw's position was
> nothing but a CIA cover, how come they're not actively investigating the
> ITM (now known as the World Trade Center) at this very moment? Tony also
> has questioned whether Shaw could have had only one secretary when Guy
> Banister had more. I suppose it will do little good, but if Tony would
> like to find out what the Trade Mart is about -- and see for himself some
> of the, oh, six or seven hundred ways it differed from Guy Banister's PI
> office -- he can always surf over to:
>
> http://www.wtc-no.org/
>
> In this era,
> >the average high school dedication or shopping center opening had some
> >Cold War rhetoric.
> >
> >And what is your source for Permindex "trading arms."
> >
>
> Robert Morrow, I imagine.
>
> >Every time I press you on something like this, you Sashay(tm) and fail
> >to post a citation. For a change, please give me a source. Or just
> >admit that you *have* no source.
> >
> >And I trust you are aware that it needs to be a *primary* source. A
> >secondary quote from Liberty Lobby stuff, or a guy who wrote a book
> >about UFO's (as Flammond did) isn't going to be convincing.
> >
> >.John
>
> Actually, John, have you read Flammonde's book? It's perfectly reliable;
> its failing is simply Flammonde's lack of interest in any serious
> investigation. Its only ambition seems to be to present the state's case
> and some background information on the relevant parties. That it does
> reasonably well.
>
> I do wish Tony would respond to the last item I posted to him on the
> Garrison issue. He's a bright guy; I'd like to know that he's willing to
> examine Garrison's case objectively, regardless of whether he agrees with
> me or not in the end.
>
> Dave Reitzes
John McAdams
>
[snipping]
>
> What about that other notorious "CIA connection" that's been cited with
> regard to Shaw -- a certain ZR/CLIFF?
>
> Martin Shackelford writes in Fair Play: "Another recently released
> document connects Shaw to the top secret project ZR/CLIFF, which was run
> out of William Harvey's super-secret Staff D along with the ZR/RIFLE
> assassination program."
>
> A friend was kind enough to go through Davy's book (which I believe Martin
> named in a newsgroup post as his source) and hunt down a citation. The
> only relevant passage in "Through the Looking Glass" seems to be from page
> 9. I'm trying to confirm that it's correct, however, since -- as I
> received it -- it only seems to indicate that a Leslie Norman Bradley
> (described as a "soldier- of-fortune and freelance pilot") was alleged by
> Klansman/Minuteman Jules Ricco Kimble to have known Clay Shaw, and that
> NORMAN "was once considered for employment as a pilot in Project ZR/CLIFF,
> but for unknown reasons the offer of employment was withdrawn."
>
> This can't be the source Martin Shackelford is citing in his Fair Play
> article, can it?
>
> Martin, are you out there?
>
I'd certainly like to know whether Martin has a better source for this.
Martin is so sensible on so many issues, I'm having trouble believing he
buys the Pease/DiEugenio line on Shaw.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Michael Collins Piper
1.) In my book, FINAL JUDGMENT, I state flat out that I am not necessarily
convinced that I (me, little old me) think that Clay Shaw was necessarily
involved in plotting the ASSASSINATION of John F. Kennedy. (That alone, I
suppose, makes me a "traitor" to the Garrison camp, and I know Dave Sharp
bitched about that). However, I generally think that Clay Shaw was moving
in the circles of the conspiracy or those who were involved (perhaps
unwittingly) in the conspiracy and that, in some way, he probably helped
facilitate the so-called "sheep-dipping" of LHO in New Orleans. Therefore,
if I am right (or, if the hard-core Garrisonites are right), then
Permindex is relevant for it points to Shaw's political connections.
2). If Shaw was completely, totally innocent of any involvement in the JFK
affair in any way, shape or form, his presence on the board of Permindex
is interesting since Permindex was the point of contact for a lot of
international intrigue involving a lot of "interesting" people. I don't
buy the argument (obviously) that Permindex was some sort of "remnant of
the SS" as somebody somewhere once opined. In my book I outlined the
Israeli and Lansky mob connections of the Permindex principles. My
perception is that Clay Shaw (even if innocent of involvement in JFK) was
some sort of liaison TO Permindex. What? Perhaps on behalf of the CIA. (I
know somebody who believes that Shaw was actually in charge of the
Permindex operations against Charles Degaulle. If so, that would explain
how he got caught up in the Permindex web vis-a-vis JFK since--as you note
below, Dave--that there is some evidence of Permindex being involved in
anti-Degaulle activities.
3) I simply find it hard to believe that Shaw's ties to Permindex were as
minimal and innocent as you suggest. At the very least he was on the board
for reasons other than getting a plane ticket to Rome.
4) The most common references to Permindex that I have found on the Net
appear in the writings of 1) William Cooper, who is, in my humble opinion,
a madman. He bases his material on material written by one John Coleman.
2) John Coleman is, in my opinion--and in the opinion of people I know who
have had dealings with John Coleman-- primarily a master of the re-write,
taking materials by the LaRouche group (which has referenced Permindex)
and then puts his own twist on them. Coleman has created a "Committee of
300" and he claims that he is the only one who has ever discovered the
committee's existence and Permindex just happened to be their
assassinations bureau. Sure.
Incidentally, Cooper says that the organization I work for, LIBERTY LOBBY,
is a masonic front. Coleman has said (in writing) that LIBERTY LOBBY is a
Soviet black propaganda organization (making the reference very clear
without mentioning LIBERTY LOBBY directly by name) and when I confronted
him in a telecon about it, he denied it. So these birds don't have much
credibility with me for these and other reasons too numerous to mention.
The late Mae Brussel and some of her followers say Permindex is a "Nazi"
or "SS" operation and that Clay Shaw was a closet Nazi. Essentially, as I
understand it, that is a variation of the DiEugenio thesis which is a bit
more refined. As I've said elsewhere, DiEugenio is actually the JFK
hagiographer that he claims not to be, and he sees the world in
"liberal-conservative" and "Republican-Democrat" and as a consequence
misses some of the more fine points.
5) Considering all of the above, and to repeat what I have said before,
the OVERALL THESIS that I present in FINAL JUDGMENT could stand alone,
with or without the Clay Shaw connection.
6) My perception, in years of retrospect, is probably that Clay Shaw was
more "Mossad" than "CIA" -- if he was anything at all (which would account
for the fact that, as you and other Shaw defenders say, Shaw's CIA
contacts and affiliations had virtually disappeared by the time of the JFK
assassination).
7) Guy Banister is probably more of a key (in my mind) to the whole Oswald
connection than even Shaw in light of Banister's apparent ties to
Permindex through the plots against Charles Degaulle. I remain convinced
beyond question that Banister did know Oswald and that there was probably
even more "spooky" stuff going on between Oswald and Banister than even
most of our most ardent Garrisonites would be prepared to admit (and I
explore/theorize on this in my book).
8) If the allegations that Banister and his colleagues were involvedin the
Permindex hits on Charles Degaulle, it does indeed tie in to the so-called
"French" connection which I explore at great length in my book and which I
believe that firmly tie in to Israel and the Mossad--and then right back
to permindex.
So, in a sense, I'm taking a middle ground here, Dave Reitzes. On the one
hand, I do think that there is a lot to suggest that Clay Shaw may not
have been precisely guilty of plotting the JFK assassination, but I do
believe that the permindex operation (to which Shaw was connected) was
part and parcelof the JFK plot (and the plots against Degaulle) and that
it therefore does tie together and back to Oswald and Banister.
Cordially,
MCP
So, basically, what I'm saying is
Dreitzes
>Message-id: <37153914...@mailcity.com>
>
[snip]
I generally think that Clay Shaw was moving
>in the circles of the conspiracy or those who were involved (perhaps
>unwittingly) in the conspiracy and that, in some way, he probably helped
>facilitate the so-called "sheep-dipping" of LHO in New Orleans.
Your evidence, please, Michael. Do you believe that well know New Orleans civic
leader Clay Shaw used the alias "Clay Bertrand"? Do you believe he would phone
a sleazy lawyer WHO COULD IDENTIFY HIM to represent the President's accused
assassin? Do you believe he knew Lee Harvey Oswald? Do you believe he was
photographed with David Ferrie?
Some evidence, please, Michael. Your opinions alone won't cut it.
Therefore,
>if I am right (or, if the hard-core Garrisonites are right), then
>Permindex is relevant for it points to Shaw's political connections.
Wrong. You're make an interesting leap in logic. You're saying that if Shaw is
connected to the assassination or Oswald (something you haven't presented any
evidence for), then anyplace he worked is "relevant."
I believe he worked for Western Union for a number of years before World War
II. Why isn't anyone investigating Western Union? Are you aware, Michael, that
Oswald is alleged to have tried to cash a check at a Western Union office
shortly before the assassination? Hmm? Isn't that suspicious, Michael? Isn't
this Western Union connection worth looking into? Shaw barely had any contact
with the Permindex people; he was intimately involved in overseeing a number of
Western Union offices; shouldn't we be checking into the possibility that
Western Union was some kind of covert armaments conduit? Hmm?
I know, I know, I hear it coming a mile away: "But Dave, Western Union isn't
known to have been involved in assassinations."
And neither is Permindex. The company is alleged to have supplied funds --
$200,000 is the figure I keep seeing -- to the OAS. That's sort of like
Domino's Pizza contributing money to a pro-life group; it's something Domino's
customers should know about, but it doesn't exactly implicate Domino's Pizza in
any clinic bombings, does it?
Your formula seems to be: IF Factoids A, B and C are true, then Factoid D MAY
be true, which would make Factoid E RELEVANT, which MAY prove Factoid F,
depending on how Factoids G, H and I play out and ignoring the fact that
Factoids A, B, C, D and E were discredited years ago and Factoids G, H and I
are completely unverifiable.
It's a familiar formula, Mike -- the Garrisonites would shrivel up and die
without it. Since you have a vested interest in promoting your theory and your
book, I don't expect you to take a hard, critical look at the lies that are the
Garrison case. I fully expect you to continue to evade my questions and
specific points as you've been doing. If the average Garrisonite can't face
reality, why should I expect you to do so?
>2). If Shaw was completely, totally innocent of any involvement in the JFK
>affair in any way, shape or form, his presence on the board of Permindex
>is interesting since Permindex was the point of contact for a lot of
>international intrigue involving a lot of "interesting" people.
This is pure paranoia, Michael. You're a heartbeat away from talking about the
Masons and the Illuminati, and so are the rest of the Garrisonites. All this
CIA-Permindex-Mossad spookiness is no more meaningful than the nutball theories
about Jews or Jesuits or Catholics or Knights Templar or Rosicrucian -- and I
don't regard it as a coincidence that the word "Permindex" pops up as often on
looney-tunes UFO-Masons-mind control Web pages as JFK sites. (Need some
citations for that?)
Show me some primary sources proving that Permindex was the big sinister entity
you say it may or may not be. I don't want to hear about "intrigue" -- show me
documents; show me statements. Don't tell me who worked for them; tell me what
they DID that was so spooky. Support your assertions, Michael; you're a
published author; how alien can the process of documentation be to you?
I don't
>buy the argument (obviously) that Permindex was some sort of "remnant of
>the SS" as somebody somewhere once opined. In my book I outlined the
>Israeli and Lansky mob connections of the Permindex principles. My
>perception is that Clay Shaw (even if innocent of involvement in JFK) was
>some sort of liaison TO Permindex. What? Perhaps on behalf of the CIA.
Prove it, Michael. Show me some evidence. I don't ask for anything conclusive,
just something to support your assertion that Shaw's connection to Permindex
MEANS something.
(I
>know somebody who believes that Shaw was actually in charge of the
>Permindex operations against Charles Degaulle.
Sounds like you know some real crackpots, Mike. Pardon me for being blunt. You
are aware, though, that there are people on this newsgroup who assert that I'm
a CIA agent; Jim Hargrove has questioned whether "Dave Reitzes" is only a
single person, as opposed to, say, a whole team of CIA disinformation agents.
He's referred to my posts as "hate speech." Lisa Pease has called me a CIA
disinfo agent. Derek Larsson has called me a CIA disinformation specialist and
likened me to a Nazi. Bob Vernon has called me both a CIA agent and an asset --
one day he'll make up his mind. Robert Harris says I work for John McAdams.
If these charming folks can assert such things about me, Mike, do you think I'm
going to take any of you seriously when you tell me to take your word that Clay
Shaw was a CIA agent and Permindex was a CIA front?
Do you think I'm going to give your friend any credence? Clay Shaw was in New
Orleans working at the ITM for nineteen years except for his travels, which are
pretty well documented. Where's your evidence for any of this nonsense, Mike?
I'm sorry, but if you can't answer these questions, I'm going to have to file
your theories next to the Umbrella Man and William-Greer-did-it absurdities in
my "out" box.
>If so,
IF so! IF your friend's crackpot theory is so!
>that would explain
>how he got caught up in the Permindex web
So would an evil Shaw twin. So would aliens controlling his brain. So would --
imagine! -- his being approached by Centro Mondiale Commerciale (World Trade
Center) because of his successful experience with New Orleans' International
Trade Mart.
Where's your evidence, Michael?
> vis-a-vis JFK since--as you note
>below, Dave--that there is some evidence of Permindex being involved in
>anti-Degaulle activities.
Only if you can prove it, Mike. All I've ever heard is that they gave some
money to a dissident French organization, and I've never seen any proof that
Shaw had anything whatsoever to do with such decisions. You MUST have some
evidence to assert such things, right?
Are you sure it was Shaw, Michael? Are you sure it wasn't "Clem Bertrand"? Or
"Elton Bernard"?
>3) I simply find it hard to believe that Shaw's ties to Permindex were as
>minimal and innocent as you suggest.
Your beliefs don't impress me, Mike. Scholarship impresses me. Research
impresses me. Evidence impresses me. Got any?
At the very least he was on the board
>for reasons other than getting a plane ticket to Rome.
>
"At least"? Where's your PROOF for that, Michael?
>4) The most common references to Permindex that I have found on the Net
>appear in the writings of 1) William Cooper, who is, in my humble opinion,
>a madman. He bases his material on material written by one John Coleman.
>2) John Coleman is, in my opinion--and in the opinion of people I know who
>have had dealings with John Coleman-- primarily a master of the re-write,
>taking materials by the LaRouche group (which has referenced Permindex)
>and then puts his own twist on them. Coleman has created a "Committee of
>300" and he claims that he is the only one who has ever discovered the
>committee's existence and Permindex just happened to be their
>assassinations bureau. Sure.
>
>Incidentally, Cooper says that the organization I work for, LIBERTY LOBBY,
>is a masonic front. Coleman has said (in writing) that LIBERTY LOBBY is a
>Soviet black propaganda organization (making the reference very clear
>without mentioning LIBERTY LOBBY directly by name) and when I confronted
>him in a telecon about it, he denied it. So these birds don't have much
>credibility with me for these and other reasons too numerous to mention.
>
Don't you just HATE it when people say things they can't back up?
Or do you?
>The late Mae Brussel and some of her followers say Permindex is a "Nazi"
>or "SS" operation and that Clay Shaw was a closet Nazi. Essentially, as I
>understand it, that is a variation of the DiEugenio thesis which is a bit
>more refined. As I've said elsewhere, DiEugenio is actually the JFK
>hagiographer that he claims not to be, and he sees the world in
>"liberal-conservative" and "Republican-Democrat" and as a consequence
>misses some of the more fine points.
>
But you buy into the same infantile Garrison mythology as DiEugenio. You look
for spooky "connections" and hints about who people KNOW or MET or are RELATED
TO instead of examining the historical record of what people actually have
DONE.
Have you studied Clay Shaw's career, Michael? Can you show me where we have
week- or month-long gaps for him to be off plotting intrigue with other
nefarious ne'er-do-wells? Can you explain how NONE of his co-workers at the ITM
knew about any of this?
>5) Considering all of the above, and to repeat what I have said before,
>the OVERALL THESIS that I present in FINAL JUDGMENT could stand alone,
>with or without the Clay Shaw connection.
Glad to hear it. But you still haven't shown me any evidence that Permindex is
even relevant to a discussion of the JFK assassination, much less a likely
suspect.
>6) My perception, in years of retrospect, is probably that Clay Shaw was
>more "Mossad" than "CIA" -- if he was anything at all (which would account
>for the fact that, as you and other Shaw defenders say, Shaw's CIA
>contacts and affiliations had virtually disappeared by the time of the JFK
>assassination).
>
So where's your evidence that he had any connection whatsoever to the Mossad?
Do you just believe that repeating your opinions makes them more factual?
>7) Guy Banister is probably more of a key (in my mind) to the whole Oswald
>connection than even Shaw
I used to think there was something there too. Even when I did, though, I had
to admit that there was no way to tie Oswald to Banister after the summer of
1963. Most scholars agree the assassination didn't occur in the summer.
in light of Banister's apparent ties to
>Permindex through the plots against Charles Degaulle.
Michael, if you answer only a single point in this entire post, please answer
this one: Please cite a primary source that money changed hands from Guy
Banister to Permindex. All I've seen are unsourced allegations that Maurice
Gatlin left Banister's office with $100,000 and that at some point, $200,000
was transferred from Permindex to the OAS. What's the connection? I've seen a
dozen people connect the two alleged incidents without being able to cite
primary sources.
Go for it, Mike.
I remain convinced
>beyond question that Banister did know Oswald and that there was probably
>even more "spooky" stuff going on between Oswald and Banister than even
>most of our most ardent Garrisonites would be prepared to admit (and I
>explore/theorize on this in my book).
>
I'm there for you, Mike. At least, I used to believe that and I'm still more
than open to suggestions. But SO WHAT? Can you connect Banister to the
assassination? Can you connect Banister to Oswald after the summer of '63? Can
you connect ANYONE of relevance to Oswald in the third week of November 1963?
>8) If the allegations that Banister and his colleagues were involvedin the
>Permindex hits on Charles Degaulle,
IF!!!
it does indeed tie in to the so-called
>"French" connection which I explore at great length in my book
Which is another big IF!!!
and which I
>believe that firmly tie in to Israel and the
Another big IF!!!!
Mossad--and then right back
>to permindex.
>
And yet another big IF!!!
I don't know, Mike -- I think your theories are kind of "iffy." \:^)
>So, in a sense, I'm taking a middle ground here, Dave Reitzes.
Between what? Edward Epstein and Whitley Strieber? Mark Lane and Lyndon
LaRouche? Reality and fantasy?
On the one
>hand, I do think that there is a lot to suggest that Clay Shaw may not
>have been precisely guilty of plotting the JFK assassination, but I do
>believe that the permindex operation (to which Shaw was connected) was
>part and parcelof the JFK plot (and the plots against Degaulle) and that
>it therefore does tie together and back to Oswald and Banister.
>
>Cordially,
>
>MCP
>
You're striking out, Mike. "Speculation plus speculation plus speculation plus
speculation" does not equal fact. And you seem unable to get your head out of
the ether and back up any of your interesting opinions.
Dave Reitzes
Martin Shackelford
cited as "a new CIA document" (in an unfootnoted article published in a
local weekly). I would have to do some digging to get the document
reference again.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
John McAdams
>
> Davy wasn't cited as a source on Shaw's link to ZR/CLIFF. The source was
> cited as "a new CIA document" (in an unfootnoted article published in a
> local weekly). I would have to do some digging to get the document
> reference again.
>
Thanks for the forthright response.
But just what is the likelihood of a reporter for a "local weekly"
knowing about some smoking gun document that ties Shaw to the CIA that
people on the newsgroups don't know about?
Could it be that you *did* get this from Davy -- but *indirectly*
filtered through the local reporter?
If I were you, I would call the reporter, and find out where he got
this. If it's something besides the highly tendentious Davy line of
"logic," you've got a real researcher working for a local weekly!
Martin Shackelford
What the hell are you talking about. There was no "local reporter."
I wrote the series. It has been on the Net for three years now.
Martin
John McAdams wrote:
--
Dreitzes
>John:
>
> What the hell are you talking about. There was no "local reporter."
>I wrote the series. It has been on the Net for three years now.
>
>Martin
>
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>> Martin Shackelford wrote:
>> >
>> > Davy wasn't cited as a source on Shaw's link to ZR/CLIFF. The source was
>> > cited as "a new CIA document" (in an unfootnoted article published in a
>> > local weekly). I would have to do some digging to get the document
>> > reference again.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the forthright response.
>>
>> But just what is the likelihood of a reporter for a "local weekly"
>> knowing about some smoking gun document that ties Shaw to the CIA that
>> people on the newsgroups don't know about?
>>
>> Could it be that you *did* get this from Davy -- but *indirectly*
>> filtered through the local reporter?
>>
>> If I were you, I would call the reporter, and find out where he got
>> this. If it's something besides the highly tendentious Davy line of
>> "logic," you've got a real researcher working for a local weekly!
John mistook this:
"a new CIA document" (in an unfootnoted article published in a local weekly)
. . . for this:
"a new CIA document (in an unfootnoted article published in a local weekly)"
Dave
Bill Parker
>John:
>
> What the hell are you talking about. There was no "local reporter."
>I wrote the series. It has been on the Net for three years now.
>
>Martin
You don't expect McAdams to remember what a "buff" like yourself has written and posted on the
internet do you? He has made it very clear that he feels all "buffs" are ignorant lunatics.
Are you ever going to provide citations for your articles?
Bill Parker
Martin Shackelford
Turns out that one of the hardest things I've ever had to do is
looking up citations after the fact. I've done a bunch of them, others
are much harder to find again (some were from obscure locations).
Martin
John McAdams
>
> John:
>
> What the hell are you talking about. There was no "local reporter."
> I wrote the series. It has been on the Net for three years now.
>
I know that Martin. The question is "where did you get your claim?"
See below, where you mentioned "an unfootnoted article published in a
local weekly." If you were being sarcastic, I'm afraid I didn't pick it
up.
Now what was the basis for your claim that Shaw was linked to ZR/CLIFF?
If you have some CIA document that indicates this, how about positing
it, or offering to mail a copy to anybody interested?
I'm sure you understand as well as I do the massive problem that
unsourced secondary assertions are in this case.
> Martin
>
> John McAdams wrote:
>
> > Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > >
> > > Davy wasn't cited as a source on Shaw's link to ZR/CLIFF. The source was
> > > cited as "a new CIA document" (in an unfootnoted article published in a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > local weekly). I would have to do some digging to get the document
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > reference again.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the forthright response.
> >
> > But just what is the likelihood of a reporter for a "local weekly"
> > knowing about some smoking gun document that ties Shaw to the CIA that
> > people on the newsgroups don't know about?
> >
> > Could it be that you *did* get this from Davy -- but *indirectly*
> > filtered through the local reporter?
> >
> > If I were you, I would call the reporter, and find out where he got
> > this. If it's something besides the highly tendentious Davy line of
> > "logic," you've got a real researcher working for a local weekly!
> >
Michael Collins Piper
Dreitzes wrote:
>Subject: Re: Not "LibertyLobby" Theory!
>From: Michael Collins Piper <pip...@mailcity.com>
>Date: 4/14/99 8:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <37153914...@mailcity.com>
>
[snip]
I generally think that Clay Shaw was moving
>in the circles of the conspiracy or those who were involved (perhaps
>unwittingly) in the conspiracy and that, in some way, he probably helped
>facilitate the so-called "sheep-dipping" of LHO in New Orleans.
Your evidence, please, Michael.
Generally believing the BASIS (if not the entirety) of the Garrison case (which WAS
flawed in MANY ways), I think that Garrison, as someone once said, must have had
"something" if you look at the big picture.
Do you believe that well know New Orleans
civic leader Clay Shaw used the alias "Clay Bertrand"?
I can't honestly answer "yes" or "no" to this question. However, I have never seen
what I perceive to be FIRM evidence that he DID NOT.
Do you believe he
would phone a sleazy lawyer WHO COULD IDENTIFY HIM to represent the
President's accused assassin?
There are as many arguments in favor of Dean Andrews being credible (vis a vis his
story regarding "Bertrand" and Oswald) as there are arguments AGAINST.
Do you believe he knew Lee Harvey Oswald?
I have come to believe that Shaw probably knew about activities that others were
conducting involving Lee Harvey Oswald or, in the alternative, an "Oswald double."
Whether he actually knew him personally, I'm not sure.
Do
you believe he was photographed with David Ferrie?
I don't anymore, if the most recent information I have heard is correct. (Referring
to the famous "party photo.") However, Ms. Lambert, in her pro-Shaw book, goes to
great
extremes to try to suggest that the photo of Ferrie and Oswald together (back in
the 50s) "doesn't prove" that Ferrie knew Oswald.
Some evidence, please, Michael. Your opinions alone won't cut it
You are right. My opinions alone won't cut it. But my opinions are based on a lot
of reading about the Garrison case.
More recently, I have read your work, Dave, with great interest, and I believe that
your -- for want of a better description -- "microstudy" of the Garrison affair
does expose
a lot of the flaws in the Garrison case, but I don't believe that they necessarily
discredit Garrison's focus on Clay Shaw.
In my own experience, including my involvement in a number of legal controversies,
I have found that you can find "evidence" or find information which appears to
DISCREDIT "evidence" that--if you know the whole story--is not really "evidence"
(either incriminating or exculpatory" at all.
So, in the instance of Garrison, I have to rely on my own experience (and gut
feeling), however wrong it may be.
.
Therefore,
>if I am right (or, if the hard-core Garrisonites are right), then
>Permindex is relevant for it points to Shaw's political connections.
Wrong. You're make an interesting leap in logic. You're saying that if
Shaw is connected to the assassination or Oswald (something you haven't
presented any evidence for), then anyplace he worked is "relevant."
In this case, that's YOUR opinion Dave. Since I work for LIBERTY LOBBY, people make
assumptions about my political views, etc. Their basic premise, I suppose, is on
the
mark, in that my basic political persuasion can be defined as that of the
organization for which I work. However, on the other hand, there are many people
who have
mistaken assumptions about what LIBERTY LOBBY is--or isn't--and that's where THEY
go wrong. For example, I have seen LIBERTY LOBBY repeatedly lumped in with the
John Birch Society, etc, when, in fact, LIBERTY LOBBY has many disagreements with
the Birchers. Those who believe, for example, that "right wingers" were involved
with
the JFK assassination then turn around and say, "Well, since Guy Banister was a
right winger and he was a member of the Birch Society, then it is impossible for
Piper to be
a 'genuine' JFK researcher since, after all, LIBERTY LOBBY and the Birchers are
both right wing and since Banister was tied in with the assassination, then,
therefore . . ."
So I can see where YOU are coming from. Yet, while I can see where the others
(referred to above) are coming from, I also know that their presumptions are based
on
misinformation. However, Shaw, by being associated with Permindex, was opening
himself up to charges of "complicity" with a motley crew of characters. I contend
that
those characters with which he was associating were essentially fronting for the
Mossad.
I believe he worked for Western Union for a number of years before World
War II. Why isn't anyone investigating Western Union?
As you point out, it was BEFORE World War II. I would contend that Shaw's political
associations and connections AT THE TIME OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION were
relevant then and only then.
Are you aware,
Michael, that Oswald is alleged to have tried to cash a check at a Western
Union office shortly before the assassination? Hmm? Isn't that suspicious,
Michael?
That's stretching things, Dave, and you know it.
Isn't this Western Union connection worth looking into? Shaw
barely had any contact with the Permindex people;
How do you KNOW that Shaw "barely had any contact with the Permindex people"? Are
you basing that on what Shaw said? Why MUST Shaw be believed on that point?
he was intimately
involved in overseeing a number of Western Union offices; shouldn't we be
checking into the possibility that Western Union was some kind of covert
armaments conduit? Hmm?
I would be willing to bet that if you looked hard enough you would probably find
Western Union mixed up in nogoodnik activity. But I don't think it's relevant here.
I know, I know, I hear it coming a mile away: "But Dave, Western Union
isn't known to have been involved in assassinations."
Where did you hear that? Are you hearing things, Dave?
And neither is Permindex.
Yet, I think there is strong evidence that Permindex was linked to both the Mossad
and the Lansky syndicate and both of them have been tied into -- shall we say --
"spooky"
things, including, in the case of Lansky, involvement in the CIA-Mob plots against
Castro.
The company is alleged to have supplied funds --
$200,000 is the figure I keep seeing -- to the OAS.
That's sort of like
Domino's Pizza contributing money to a pro-life group; it's something
Domino's customers should know about, but it doesn't exactly implicate
Domino's Pizza in any clinic bombings, does it?
That's not the same thing. You're stretching again, Dave. Maybe you are right and
Shaw was an all-around good guy who didn't do anything to hurt anybody. But that
doesn't
mean that Permindex was not a bunch of nice people. Robert Harris has been linking
me to "skinheads" but I certainly haven't done anything like some skinheads have
done.
Your formula seems to be: IF Factoids A, B and C are true, then Factoid D
MAY be true, which would make Factoid E RELEVANT, which MAY prove Factoid
F, depending on how Factoids G, H and I play out and ignoring the fact
that Factoids A, B, C, D and E were discredited years ago and Factoids G,
H and I are completely unverifiable.
What can I say?
It's a familiar formula, Mike -- the Garrisonites would shrivel up and die
without it. Since you have a vested interest in promoting your theory and
your book, I don't expect you to take a hard, critical look at the lies
that are the Garrison case.
As I have said on this newsgroup and as I say repeatedly in the book, my theory can
stand alone WITHOUT THE CLAY SHAW CONNECTION! And I have said repeatedly,
to the distress of some die-hard Garrison fans, that I don't buy Garrison's entire
case (detail by detail) lock-stock-and-barrel.
I fully expect you to continue to evade my
questions and specific points as you've been doing.
I really don't think I've been 'avoiding' your questions. I have been answering
them as best I can. But then, you seem to be trying to totally discredit the idea
that Permindex
was anything other than a group of nice guys.
If the average
Garrisonite can't face reality, why should I expect you to do so?
I really don't expect you to.
>2). If Shaw was completely, totally innocent of any involvement in the JFK
>affair in any way, shape or form, his presence on the board of Permindex
>is interesting since Permindex was the point of contact for a lot of
>international intrigue involving a lot of "interesting" people.
This is pure paranoia, Michael.
I don't think so.
You're a heartbeat away from talking about
the Masons and the Illuminati, and so are the rest of the Garrisonites.
A heartbeat away is a big difference between life and death. I've never heard any
convincing evidence that the Masons or the Illumnati were behind Permindex.
All this CIA-Permindex-Mossad spookiness is no more meaningful than the
nutball theories about Jews or Jesuits or Catholics or Knights Templar or
Rosicrucian -- and I don't regard it as a coincidence that the word
"Permindex" pops up as often on looney-tunes UFO-Masons-mind control Web
pages as JFK sites. (Need some citations for that?)
Oh, you are absolutely right about a lot of nutty web sites that talk about
Permindex and what I myself consider crazy or inaccurate theories. I also know that
at least one of
the websites you have posted in your (very interesting) posting about these
websites--no, make that several of the websites referred to--often come out of the
"Torbitt"
document which I have no use for whatsoevert.
Show me some primary sources proving that Permindex was the big sinister
entity you say it may or may not be. I don't want to hear about "intrigue"
-- show me documents; show me statements. Don't tell me who worked for
them; tell me what they DID that was so spooky. Support your assertions,
Michael; you're a published author; how alien can the process of
documentation be to you?
I don't have any PRIMARY sources proving anything about Permindex more than anyone
else has any PRIMARY sources of evidence proving that either the Mafia or the
KGB or the CIA or anybody else killed JFK. You know that and I know that and even
Robert Harris knows that.
I don't
>buy the argument (obviously) that Permindex was some sort of "remnant of
>the SS" as somebody somewhere once opined. In my book I outlined the
>Israeli and Lansky mob connections of the Permindex principles. My
>perception is that Clay Shaw (even if innocent of involvement in JFK) was
>some sort of liaison TO Permindex. What? Perhaps on behalf of the CIA.
Prove it, Michael. Show me some evidence. I don't ask for anything
conclusive, just something to support your assertion that Shaw's
connection to Permindex MEANS something.
It means that the Permindex sponsors were interested in Clay Shaw and vice versa.
(I
>know somebody who believes that Shaw was actually in charge of the
>Permindex operations against Charles Degaulle.
Sounds like you know some real crackpots, Mike. Pardon me for being blunt.
I don't "know" the individual. I spoke to him on the phone one time. Obviously, I
can't vouch for him. YOU -- even though we disagree on points big and small -- have
more
credibility with me than he does, if only because I have communicated with you on
this newsgroup and have watched your communications with others. I was simply
pointing
out that there was yet another "theory" out there that is rather interesting (I
thought) in this whole debate (or non-debate as the case may be).
But I do know some real crackpots. That's true. No apology necessary.
You are aware, though, that there are people on this newsgroup who assert
that I'm a CIA agent; Jim Hargrove has questioned whether "Dave Reitzes"
is only a single person, as opposed to, say, a whole team of CIA
disinformation agents.
That's an enticing theory, but I kind of doubt it.
He's referred to my posts as "hate speech."
Fighting "hate speech" is a big thing these days. Ask Robert Harris. He also says
I'm guilty of "hate speech" although Robert has never (to the best of my memory)
used
precisely that terminology. But he means the same thing.
Lisa
Pease has called me a CIA disinfo agent.
You sound hurt. Is she cute?
Derek Larsson has called me a CIA
disinformation specialist and likened me to a Nazi.
Yeh, I think I heard that you were also a "Nazi." Welcome to the club. Hell, I
thought you were Jewish based on something you wrote up here. But then, of course,
even Mark
Lane has been called a 'self-hating' Jew for saying unpleasant things about Israel.
You can't win 'em all.
Bob Vernon has called
me both a CIA agent and an asset -- one day he'll make up his mind.
A lot of people confuse the terminology.
Robert
Harris says I work for John McAdams.
I think that might just be an insult. But coming from Robert Harris . . .
If these charming folks can assert such things about me, Mike, do you
think I'm going to take any of you seriously when you tell me to take your
word that Clay Shaw was a CIA agent and Permindex was a CIA front?
Well, I wouldn't expect you to take me seriously. But I don't think Permindex WAS a
CIA front. If anything, I think it was a Mossad front. A lot of your critics won't
go that
far. As far as Shaw being a CIA agent, I have said before that everything I have
seen you post (and things that others have written) actually makes an argument that
Shaw
was NOT actually connected with the CIA in 1963, but it doesn't PROVE that he WAS
NOT working for the Mossad. However, I do think the evidence of Shaw's past
association with the CIA is very strong and I find it unlikely that the CIA is
about to be releasing ANY data which WOULD prove him was affiliated with the CIA in
1963, for
example. I don't buy the argument that there might be a "smoking gun" in "the
files." A lot of people do buy that argument. I don't.
Do you think I'm going to give your friend any credence? Clay Shaw was in
New Orleans working at the ITM for nineteen years except for his travels,
which are pretty well documented. Where's your evidence for any of this
nonsense, Mike? I'm sorry, but if you can't answer these questions, I'm
going to have to file your theories next to the Umbrella Man and
William-Greer-did-it absurdities in my "out" box.
Wasn't Greer Mossad? Wasn't the Umbrella Man Greer's brother-in-law?
>If so,
Yes.
Or do you?
>The late Mae Brussel and some of her followers say Permindex is a "Nazi"
>or "SS" operation and that Clay Shaw was a closet Nazi. Essentially, as I
>understand it, that is a variation of the DiEugenio thesis which is a bit
>more refined. As I've said elsewhere, DiEugenio is actually the JFK
>hagiographer that he claims not to be, and he sees the world in
>"liberal-conservative" and "Republican-Democrat" and as a consequence
>misses some of the more fine points.
>
But you buy into the same infantile Garrison mythology as DiEugenio. You
look for spooky "connections" and hints about who people KNOW or MET or
are RELATED TO instead of examining the historical record of what people
actually have DONE.
Have you studied Clay Shaw's career, Michael? Can you show me where we
have week- or month-long gaps for him to be off plotting intrigue with
other nefarious ne'er-do-wells? Can you explain how NONE of his co-workers
at the ITM knew about any of this?
I doubt he would tell all. I have never known a single intelligence type who tells
everything.
Go for it, Mike.
The sources I've seen are probably the same ones you are familiar with. You can't
prove it didn't happen and I can't prove that it didn't.
I remain convinced
>beyond question that Banister did know Oswald and that there was probably
>even more "spooky" stuff going on between Oswald and Banister than even
>most of our most ardent Garrisonites would be prepared to admit (and I
>explore/theorize on this in my book).
>
I'm there for you, Mike. At least, I used to believe that and I'm still
more than open to suggestions. But SO WHAT? Can you connect Banister to
the assassination? Can you connect Banister to Oswald after the summer of
'63?
What I have said about Shaw and Oswald also applies to the question of Banister and
Oswald. Frankly, I don't think that Guy Banister KNEW that John F. Kennedy was
slated for
assassination. Banister was probably just as rattled as dozens of others who were
connected to Oswald in the days, weeks and months before the assassination when
Oswald was linked
to the Kennedy assassination. And then, again, that brings up the point that
perhaps Shaw didn't directly know Oswald (either personally or by name). So perhaps
he could have honestly
said under oath that he did NOT know Oswald.
To repeat: I don't swallow the Garrison case whole as do many others. The reason
why I don't is because (contrary to what you might think based on these postings of
mine)
is that I assume (without having been there myself) that I don't think the
intelligence community works that way and that it is so compartmentalized that a
lot of people "do
things" for the intelligence community without knowing they are being manipulated.
That probably applies to Oswald as much as it applies to anybody. I was once
offered the
chance to participate in a covert operation in Africa by a friend who was involved
in some intrigue. I assumed that he was probably working with or "connected" to the
CIA,
but I really don't know and I didn't want to find out. Hell, he was probably
working for the Mossad and he didn't know it himself. But it would have been quite
lucrative and
while I would have liked the money, I didn't like the mystery. I'm an independent
kinda guy.
Can you connect ANYONE of relevance to Oswald in the third week of
November 1963?
>8) If the allegations that Banister and his colleagues were involvedin the
>Permindex hits on Charles Degaulle,
IF!!!
it does indeed tie in to the so-called
>"French" connection which I explore at great length in my book
Which is another big IF!!!
and which I
>believe that firmly tie in to Israel and the
Another big IF!!!!
Mossad--and then right back
>to permindex.
>
And yet another big IF!!!
I don't know, Mike -- I think your theories are kind of "iffy." \:^)
I don't think a lot of those "ifs" are realy that "iffy."
>So, in a sense, I'm taking a middle ground here, Dave Reitzes.
Between what? Edward Epstein and Whitley Strieber? Mark Lane and Lyndon
LaRouche? Reality and fantasy?
That sounds like one of Edward Albee's lines that Liz Taylor mouthed so well in
WHO'S AFRAID . . .
On the one
>hand, I do think that there is a lot to suggest that Clay Shaw may not
>have been precisely guilty of plotting the JFK assassination, but I do
>believe that the permindex operation (to which Shaw was connected) was
>part and parcelof the JFK plot (and the plots against Degaulle) and that
>it therefore does tie together and back to Oswald and Banister.
>
>Cordially,
>
>MCP
>
You're striking out, Mike. "Speculation plus speculation plus speculation
plus speculation" does not equal fact. And you seem unable to get your
head out of the ether and back up any of your interesting opinions.
But I'm not inhaling the ether!
Cordially, MCP
Dave Reitzes
Dreitzes
Message-id: <371BBEC0...@mailcity.com>
Dreitzes wrote:
[snip]
I generally think that Clay Shaw was moving
>in the circles of the conspiracy or those who were involved (perhaps
>unwittingly) in the conspiracy and that, in some way, he probably helped
>facilitate the so-called "sheep-dipping" of LHO in New Orleans.
Your evidence, please, Michael.
Generally believing the BASIS (if not the entirety) of the Garrison case (which
WAS
flawed in MANY ways), I think that Garrison, as someone once said, must have
had
"something" if you look at the big picture.
***********************************************************
Dave Reitzes responds:
Michael, for the umpteenth time: Your evidence, please.
***********************************************************
Do you believe that well know New Orleans
civic leader Clay Shaw used the alias "Clay Bertrand"?
I can't honestly answer "yes" or "no" to this question. However, I have never
seen
what I perceive to be FIRM evidence that he DID NOT.
***********************************************************
DR responds:
You lose, Michael. If you think it anyone's responsibility to prove Shaw's
innocence, you are not someone I can see any point in debating.
***********************************************************
Do you believe he
would phone a sleazy lawyer WHO COULD IDENTIFY HIM to represent the
President's accused assassin?
There are as many arguments in favor of Dean Andrews being credible (vis a vis
his
story regarding "Bertrand" and Oswald) as there are arguments AGAINST.
*************************************************************
DR responds:
This will likely be my last post to you re: this issue, Mike. You just do not
seem capable of responding with a straight answer.
**************************************************************
Do you believe he knew Lee Harvey Oswald?
I have come to believe that Shaw probably knew about activities that others
were
conducting involving Lee Harvey Oswald or, in the alternative, an "Oswald
double."
Whether he actually knew him personally, I'm not sure.
***************************************************************
DR responds:
Yet you continue to argue that Shaw is somehow a link in this assassinations
chain you posit. Interesting.
***************************************************************
Do
you believe he was photographed with David Ferrie?
I don't anymore, if the most recent information I have heard is correct.
(Referring
to the famous "party photo.") However, Ms. Lambert, in her pro-Shaw book, goes
to
great
extremes to try to suggest that the photo of Ferrie and Oswald together (back
in
the 50s) "doesn't prove" that Ferrie knew Oswald.
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
This is lame as hell, Michael. Given the "great extremes" you and your fellow
Garrisonites go to in order to smear Clay Shaw as an accomplice to murder --
without success, may I add -- I don't see where you have a leg to stand on.
*****************************************************************
Some evidence, please, Michael. Your opinions alone won't cut it
You are right. My opinions alone won't cut it. But my opinions are based on a
lot
of reading about the Garrison case.
*****************************************************************
DR responds:
Yes!! EVADE that question! Way to go, Michael.
****************************************************************
More recently, I have read your work, Dave, with great interest, and I believe
that
your -- for want of a better description -- "microstudy" of the Garrison affair
does expose
a lot of the flaws in the Garrison case, but I don't believe that they
necessarily
discredit Garrison's focus on Clay Shaw.
****************************************************************
DR responds:
Yet you won't post even a single item of evidence to bolster your assertion.
Why is that, Michael? Too much trouble for a published author to go to?
****************************************************************
In my own experience, including my involvement in a number of legal
controversies,
I have found that you can find "evidence" or find information which appears to
DISCREDIT "evidence" that--if you know the whole story--is not really
"evidence"
(either incriminating or exculpatory" at all.
So, in the instance of Garrison, I have to rely on my own experience (and gut
feeling), however wrong it may be.
****************************************************************
DR responds:
A typical Michael Collins Piper non-response. I'll credit you this much, Mike
-- you're consistent.
****************************************************************
.
Therefore,
>if I am right (or, if the hard-core Garrisonites are right), then
>Permindex is relevant for it points to Shaw's political connections.
Wrong. You're make an interesting leap in logic. You're saying that if
Shaw is connected to the assassination or Oswald (something you haven't
presented any evidence for), then anyplace he worked is "relevant."
In this case, that's YOUR opinion Dave. Since I work for LIBERTY LOBBY, people
make
assumptions about my political views, etc. Their basic premise, I suppose, is
on
the [typical Piper evasion snipped for space]
***********************************************************
DR responds:
You discredit yourself with every word you type, Michael. You repeatedly seem
to be asserting that evidence is irrelevant as long as one KNOWS the truth.
Tell that to the folks whose lives were ruined by Jim Garrison.
***********************************************************
I believe he worked for Western Union for a number of years before World
War II. Why isn't anyone investigating Western Union?
As you point out, it was BEFORE World War II. I would contend that Shaw's
political
associations and connections AT THE TIME OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION were
relevant then and only then.
Are you aware,
Michael, that Oswald is alleged to have tried to cash a check at a Western
Union office shortly before the assassination? Hmm? Isn't that suspicious,
Michael?
That's stretching things, Dave, and you know it.
********************************************************
DR responds:
In my world, yes. But not in yours, where it is more compelling "evidence" of a
Shaw link to the assassination than anything I've seen you put forward.
**********************************************************
Isn't this Western Union connection worth looking into? Shaw
barely had any contact with the Permindex people;
How do you KNOW that Shaw "barely had any contact with the Permindex people"?
Are
you basing that on what Shaw said? Why MUST Shaw be believed on that point?
************************************************************
DR responds:
Michael, read my lips, because I have asked you this question numerous times,
you have never attempted to answer it, and I do not intend to waste my time
asking it again:
Where is YOUR evidence to the contrary? YOU are Shaw's accuser; show us your
evidence.
*************************************************************
[snip for space]
Yet, I think there is strong evidence that Permindex was linked to both the
Mossad
and the Lansky syndicate and both of them have been tied into -- shall we say
--
"spooky"
things, including, in the case of Lansky, involvement in the CIA-Mob plots
against
Castro.
**************************************************************
DR responds:
Where's your evidence, Mike? In your book? Are you only here to promote your
book or do you actually wish to discuss issues as well? If the latter, please
present your evidence.
**************************************************************
The company is alleged to have supplied funds --
$200,000 is the figure I keep seeing -- to the OAS.
That's sort of like
Domino's Pizza contributing money to a pro-life group; it's something
Domino's customers should know about, but it doesn't exactly implicate
Domino's Pizza in any clinic bombings, does it?
That's not the same thing. You're stretching again, Dave. Maybe you are right
and
Shaw was an all-around good guy who didn't do anything to hurt anybody. But
that
doesn't
mean that Permindex was not a bunch of nice people. Robert Harris has been
linking
me to "skinheads" but I certainly haven't done anything like some skinheads
have
done.
**********************************************************
DR responds:
Michael, I'm beginning to wonder where you were a few months ago when Bill
Clinton needed you; you seem to evade questions so easily.
**********************************************************
Your formula seems to be: IF Factoids A, B and C are true, then Factoid D
MAY be true, which would make Factoid E RELEVANT, which MAY prove Factoid
F, depending on how Factoids G, H and I play out and ignoring the fact
that Factoids A, B, C, D and E were discredited years ago and Factoids G,
H and I are completely unverifiable.
What can I say?
***********************************************************
DR responds:
Prove me wrong, Einstein.
It's a familiar formula, Mike -- the Garrisonites would shrivel up and die
without it. Since you have a vested interest in promoting your theory and
your book, I don't expect you to take a hard, critical look at the lies
that are the Garrison case.
As I have said on this newsgroup and as I say repeatedly in the book, my theory
can
stand alone WITHOUT THE CLAY SHAW CONNECTION! And I have said repeatedly,
to the distress of some die-hard Garrison fans, that I don't buy Garrison's
entire
case (detail by detail) lock-stock-and-barrel.
I fully expect you to continue to evade my
questions and specific points as you've been doing.
I really don't think I've been 'avoiding' your questions. I have been answering
them as best I can. But then, you seem to be trying to totally discredit the
idea
that Permindex
was anything other than a group of nice guys.
***************************************************************
DR responds:
It just never ends. I'm bailing out here, Michael. If your intention is to
demonstrate that your book is worth purchasing, you're failing painfully.
Take care,
Dave Reitzes
>If so,
Yes.
Or do you?
Go for it, Mike.
[snip for space]
>8) If the allegations that Banister and his colleagues were involvedin the
>Permindex hits on Charles Degaulle,
IF!!!
it does indeed tie in to the so-called
>"French" connection which I explore at great length in my book
Which is another big IF!!!
and which I
>believe that firmly tie in to Israel and the
Another big IF!!!!
Mossad--and then right back
>to permindex.
>
And yet another big IF!!!
I don't know, Mike -- I think your theories are kind of "iffy." \:^)
I don't think a lot of those "ifs" are realy that "iffy."
[. . .]
Michael Collins Piper
Such is life.
--MCP
Tony Pitman
<pip...@mailcity.com> wrote:
>Well, obviously, Dave, you aren't about to endorse my book.
>
>Such is life.
>
>--MCP
>
>Dreitzes wrote:
Tony Writes;
A few days ago Dave you told me that you havn't yet got round to
reading Michaels book.
Now I was thoroughly roasted on one or two of these groups a few years
back for attacking something that I hadn't looked closely enough at.
this was long before you showed up but I learned my lesson.
As I said to you, you should read it.
I just read that long post full of questions you reposted for again
and I cant for the life of me think why you assume that everything I
have to say about the New Orleans scenario has something to do with
Garrison.
Most of the things I know about what happened down there came from
other scources and I notice you doing the same thing in this reply to
Michael.
I am not what you call a Garrisonite altho you seem to think that
anyone who says a word against Shaw is is one this species whatever
they are.
You are right to a certain extent when you say Mike is ducking some of
your questions here but I have seen him post at length on this and
maybe he cant be bothered any more. I dont know. He does go into
length about it in the book.
In this post I see you say that Shaw had practically nothing to do
with Permindex. How can you possibly know that unless you youself have
those very connections yourself.
As a former wartime Intel man for both the military and OSS and with
later connections to the CIA, What gives you the idea that he could be
on the board of this outfit and not have a clue as to what he was
involved with? Even Oswald was not that stupid.
i thing you are taking this aspect personally for some reason Dave. Is
that the case and if so why?
Tony
Dreitzes
>
>A few days ago Dave you told me that you havn't yet got round to
>reading Michaels book.
>Now I was thoroughly roasted on one or two of these groups a few years
>back for attacking something that I hadn't looked closely enough at.
>this was long before you showed up but I learned my lesson.
>As I said to you, you should read it.
>
Tony, if Michael can't give me a direct answer to any of the questions I ask
him -- and he can't -- there's not a chance in hell I'm going to pop for his
book.
>I just read that long post full of questions you reposted for again
>and I cant for the life of me think why you assume that everything I
>have to say about the New Orleans scenario has something to do with
>Garrison.
Tony, do you or do you not believe in Garrison? He made up all that horseshit
about Permindex. He made it up and a whole lot of authors -- like Mr. Piper --
pretend what Garrison asserted is fact. Open your eyes, Tony -- you've been
played for a sucker.
>Most of the things I know about what happened down there came from
>other scources and I notice you doing the same thing in this reply to
>Michael.
What are you talking about? If you want to debate my facts, debate them? Don't
give me these unanswerable generalities.
>
>I am not what you call a Garrisonite altho you seem to think that
>anyone who says a word against Shaw is is one this species whatever
>they are.
>
Yup. If you don't believe Garrison fabricated his entire case against Clay
Shaw, you are a Garrisonite. You have been taken in by Big Jim.
>You are right to a certain extent when you say Mike is ducking some of
>your questions here
I'll say.
but I have seen him post at length on this and
>maybe he cant be bothered any more.
Show me where he has ever answered either of these questions:
1. How can Permindex be relevant to the assassination if one admits (as he
does) that Clay Shaw is not crucial to his theory?
2. Why does he insist on libeling Clay Shaw if Shaw is not essential to
his theory?
I dont know. He does go into
>length about it in the book.
>
I'm not paying for his book if he can't answer a few BASIC questions up front.
Only frauds and liars evade basic questions like that.
>In this post I see you say that Shaw had practically nothing to do
>with Permindex. How can you possibly know that unless you youself have
>those very connections yourself.
??????????????????????????????????
Do I sense you calling me something, Tony?
>As a former wartime Intel man
Citation please! And it had better be from a primary source.
>for both the military
Citation, please! Primary source.
> and OSS
Citation, please! Primary source.
and with
>later connections to the CIA,
Citation, please! If he was anything but a contact from 1948-56, I need to see
a citation. Primary source only, please. Just because you read it in a book
doesn't make it true.
>What gives you the idea that he could be
>on the board of this outfit and not have a clue as to what he was
>involved with?
The burden of proof is on you, Tony. You're the accuser. Your speculative
questions do not equal evidence. Where is your evidence? Michael Collins Piper
already told me he has no evidence that Shaw was an intelligence agent of any
kind. What does that tell you, Tony? What do you know that he doesn't?
>Even Oswald was not that stupid.
Trying to shoot your way out of a theater loaded with cops is stupid. Gunning
down a cop in broad daylight is stupid. Bringing a rifle to work and leaving it
in the building after a shooting are stupid.
>
>i thing you are taking this aspect personally for some reason Dave. Is
>that the case and if so why?
>
>
>Tony
Because I AM SICK AND TIRED OF BEING LIED TO. Jim Garrison was the BIGGEST LIAR
who ever cast his shadow across this case, and Michael Collins Piper is
building upon Big Jim's lies, just as Robert Morrow and others have in the
past. There is NO EXCUSE for telling lies. I don't give a damn whether you are
a CT or an LN or just totally oblivious to it all -- a lie is a lie. And Jim
Garrison's entire case was built on lies, from the bottom to the top. He made
it all up.
You want to be a sucker, Tony, you go ahead and be a sucker. I won't do it. I
refuse. Garrison made the entire thing up -- Ferrie, Arcacha, Shaw, Novel, del
Valle, he MADE IT ALL UP. And if you read my posts, you will see that I can
prove it.
Snap out of it, Tony. You believe anything you read in conspiracy books. Try
checking the endnotes in Michael's book, look up his sources, see where they
lead. You and your "connections" . . . what a paranoid Garrisonian crock.
Dave Reitzes