Cliff Varnell

Members
  • Content count

    3,933
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cliff Varnell

  • Rank
    Super Member

Recent Profile Visitors

22,496 profile views
  1. The scope of the Garrison investigation beyond Clay Shaw and the plot to kill Oswald.
  2. I said "I stand corrected" on the Garrison investigation. Have you ever made such an admission?
  3. From the Spartacus page on Eladio Del Valle: <quote on, emphasis added> (2) Fabian Escalante, Cuban Officials and JFK Historians Conference (7th December, 1995) Eladio Del Valle worked for two police services - military intelligence and the traditional police. He was in charge of narcotics. He was also a legislature in the government - a representative. He was from a little town from the south of Havana. He was a captain in the merchant marines. In 1958 he was doing business dealings with Santos Trafficante in a little coastal town south of Havana. There he brought in contraband whose destination was Santos Trafficante. <quote off> The guy was a dope smuggler, which, according to my bloated polemics, is what all of Kennedy's killers from top to bottom had in common.
  4. Ah, I just noticed this post. So anti-Castro Cubans lied about seeing weapons used in Dealey Plaza and had pictures of the scene and diagrams of the sewer system. Makes them Persons of Interest, but it's a stretch to claim they were shooters or master planners. In the Operation Northwoods playbook "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists." Had Oswald been gunned down within an hour of Kennedy further patsies would have to turn up to account for the multiple shots. Were these Cubans set up as back up patsies? Were they asked if they'd taken an active part in the assassination? Didn't Arcacha Smith have an alibi? I stand corrected. Too bad none of this was brought out in the Shaw trial, but polygraphs aren't admissible and sewer diagrams aren't enough to hang a guy.
  5. Excuse me? Go back and read the post -- I was responding to Sandy's hypothetical. You haven't posted any actual evidence at all. Why are you so reticent about making an actual argument? You continue to refer to non-specific "declassified files" and "testimony that directly relates to exhibits that witnesses saw" -- wtf are you talking about? That was not the money quote. "Who killed Kennedy...The shooters don't even know -- don't you get it?" Evidence of what? Ferrie was a shooter? Master-planner? Provide a quote or a link at least.
  6. In this case one could as easily speculate that these anti-Castro Cubans were set up to be gunned down post JFK-assassination -- patsies to make a case against Castro.
  7. A demonstration of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations. "The fk'n shooters don't even know -- don't you get it?"
  8. Indicted for the murder of Kennedy, as opposed to merely suspected? Based on what -- or is it too much trouble for you to make the case?
  9. Then it's just idle speculation. My argument is that the historical record indicates Persons of Interest -- Averell Harriman, McGeorge Bundy, MKNAOMI -- who deserve greater study. That's a long way from claiming there's information regarding Kennedy's killers. Hey, I'd be happy to declare "I stand corrected" if DiEugenio could make a cogent argument. He doesn't seem up it it, alas.
  10. How do you provide information regarding the killers without a degree of identification? Why does he cite declassified files without specifics? What is holding him back from making a calm, adult argument instead of getting nasty?
  11. James DiEugenio's research hasn't brought him to understand the concept of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security) When asked to provide the facts upon which he drew his conclusions DiEugenio gets nasty, demanding I prove a negative (Garrison didn't get close to Kennedy's killers) rather than present a positive (the facts leading to the conclusion Garrison identified JFK's killers). Most folks are more than happy to lay out their arguments -- but not DiEugenio. His resentment in the face of a challenge is startling. And as he's demonstrated, DiEugenio has nothing to say in support of his claim Garrison identified Kennedy's killers. If we don;t take his "expert" view on the subject he resorts to slimy rhetoric.
  12. In other words, you don't have a case to make that Garrison's investigation into Oswald got anywhere near Kennedy's killers. It's interesting that David Lifton makes his case with relish, while you repeat your conclusions over and over with resentment when someone doesn't buy them.
  13. Ron, I think it probable that the folks who set up the Paines as Oswald handlers were the same breed of folks who set up Hinckley. Untouchable WASP Skull & Bones types.