Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Michael, in the context of Vince Salandria's comments, he was talking about Garrison's case being

"complex and prolix" not Jim's contribution, which I sure you meant.

Hi Ray, I understood that it referred to Garrison's case; and not to Jim's work. It was a new word for me. I asked a few other people if they had heard of it, and none had. So I just figured I would share the definition.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited April 22, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ray Mitcham]

2 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Hi Ray, I understood that it referred to Garrison's case; and not to Jim's work. It was a new word for me. I asked a few other people if they had heard of it, and none had. So I just figured I would share the definition.

Cheers,

Michael

[James DiEugenio]

Varnell:

Your utter arrogance on the whole subject of JFK is staggering.

You are telling me what Jim Garrison investigated and what he did not?

How many of his assistants did you talk to?  How many files of his did you read?  How many New Orleans witness transcripts did you survey? How many doors did you knock on in the Crescent City?  From what you wrote above, the answer is zero, zero, zero, and zero.

The main point of the Garrison inquiry is not what he did in Dealey Plaza, or with Ruby.  Anybody who says that is simply ignorant, being obfuscatory, or displaying their own agenda.  (The last is your main preoccupation.)

Th importance of Garrison's inquiry was that, for the first time, he was actually going forward with investigators and attorneys to locate and determine who the actual killers of President Kennedy were.  Considering what he was up against, he made some remarkable progress.  As Vince notes above, the incredible size and scope of the reaction to his inquiry indicates just how dangerous it was.  

Now maybe you do not know this, but I actually wrote two editions of a book on this subject, and various essays in both Probe Magazine, and at my former web site called CTKA. So I know of what I speak.  You do not.

Edited April 22, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Varnell:

Your utter arrogance on the whole subject of JFK is staggering.

You are telling me what Jim Garrison investigated and what he did not?

How many of his assistants did you talk to?  How many files of his did you read?  How many New Orleans witness transcripts did you survey? How many doors did you knock on in the Crescent City?  From what you wrote above, the answer is zero, zero, zero, and zero.

The main point of the Garrison inquiry is not what he did in Dealey Plaza, or with Ruby.  Anybody who says that is simply ignorant, being obfuscatory, or displaying their own agenda.  (The last is your main preoccupation.)

Th importance of Garrison's inquiry was that, for the first time, he was actually going forward with investigators and attorneys to locate and determine who the actual killers of President Kennedy were.

I don't question that was his intention, but as a practical matter he investigated people associated with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Clay Shaw wasn't brought to trial because Garrison had evidence Shaw was associated with Kennedy's killers, but because he had evidence Shaw was associated with Oswald.

Garrison assumed that Oswald's handlers were Kennedy's killers, which ignores the intelligence tradecraft of compartmentalization.

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

 Considering what he was up against, he made some remarkable progress.  As Vince notes above, the incredible size and scope of the reaction to his inquiry indicates just how dangerous it was.  

He had the CIA freaked out, since their fingerprints were all over the patsy.

But it's a mistake to conflate the operation to frame and kill Oswald with the operation to kill Kennedy.

 

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now maybe you do not know this, but I actually wrote two editions of a book on this subject, and various essays in both Probe Magazine, and at my former web site called CTKA. So I know of what I speak.  You do not.

You are making baseless assumptions and digging endless rabbit holes.

JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

James DiEugenio could apparently care less, so obsessed with the patsy as he is.

[James DiEugenio]

  No point in arguing with a guy who thinks he knows everything about everything.  And yet with every sentence he writes, he shows he knows next to nothing. Garrison only had the CIA freaked out?  And it was only about Oswald?  

Blah, blah blah Cliff.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

  No point in arguing with a guy who thinks he knows everything about everything.  

Contrary to reports, irony is not dead.

Quote

And yet with every sentence he writes, he shows he knows next to nothing.

This from a guy who disputes the primacy of physical evidence in a murder case; who claims JFK was first shot in the back rather than the throat; who evinces little understanding of "compartmentalization" of intel ops; brags about ignoring SE Asia in his analysis of Kennedy's foreign policy; pooh-poohs the very brief FBI investigation into high-tech weaponry which pointed to a CIA funded project called MKNAOMI.

Quote

Garrison only had the CIA freaked out? 

I didn't say he only had the CIA freaked out.

Quote

And it was only about Oswald?  

The Clay Shaw trial was about Oswald.

Quote

Blah, blah blah Cliff.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

DiEugenio will never go there.

You can't discuss the case, Jim, when you have nothing to say.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about JFK's killers other than the time and place of the assassination?

Nothing.

Two separate operations controlled from the very top.

[James DiEugenio]

To get to the issue of the filing cabinets and Mr. Walthers.  

Its clear from his testimony that Wesley Liebeler and the WC were worried about two main points with Walthers.  First, the Barrett slug, and second the filing cabinets.  Through the  DPD and FBI investigation by Mark Oakes, we know how the former was deliberately concealed.  And we can see in the testimony that someone has talked to Walthers in advance.  A good parallel being Weitzmann and the whole Mauser identification.

Liebeler, of course, wants to quickly dismiss the issue. As does the Commission in its Rumors and Speculations section. For instance, in the WR, it says the evidence was found at Oswald's rooming house.  Not so.  It then shifts to the Paine garage but attempts to get rid of the issue by saying these letters and books etc.  belonged to Mrs. Paine.  And that there were no lists found.  (WR, p. 666)

The problem with this is that the report then gives the wrong reference.  It does not refer you to any evidence about the search.  It refers you to the DPD inventory list.  Which, of course, is perfectly sensible in regards to what LIebeler's intent was.

But if you go to the correct reference, which would be the actual report by the witness, the result is quite different. In his report, the detective wrote that they found "records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers."  (Vol. 19, p. 520)

Therefore, its clear from its own presentation that somehow the Commission did not want the reader to know about this, and neither did the DPD. Because that is who Walthers gave the cabinets to.  And, as we know, they disappeared after that.

I do not have Tagg's biography of Walthers. But Larry Hancock read it for his book Someone Would Have Talked. Tagg did some real research by not just going through the record, but by interviewing his subject's friends and his family. He came to the same conclusion about the evidence and the lists of Cuban sympathizers.  According to Tagg, other policemen saw the metal cabinets; and like Oswald's Minox camera, it created some local buzz. (Hancock, pgs. 552-53) Which, we know, Liebeler was out to eliminate.

If anyone here wants to go along with Liebeler, for whatever reasons, then fine.  But please do not use DVP, or the WR as your source to discredit the original info, and then say that its all just a "speculation and rumor".  Because that is not the case.

The real issue, once all the disinfo is expelled, is this:  who did the materials belong to?  If they  did belong to the Paines--as I think they did--then this was of genuine significance. And as I have noted above,  the FBI knew about Michael Paine and his provocative conversations with SMU students at Luby's Restaurant. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 198)  And we know today about Ruth writing notes and names of Sandinista sympathizers in Nicaragua. (ibid, p. 199)  But further, if they were Oswald's, why would they disappear?  Because this is what the WC and FBI drew him as: a Castro sympathizer. In fact, it would alleviate a problem for them:  Oswald being a commie in isolation to anyone else.

This whole incident presents some very troubling issues.  And whatever some people want to do to dismiss it, it will not go away.

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

Cliff Varnell said:

JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

James DiEugenio could apparently care less, so obsessed with the patsy as he is.

I haven't encountered a CTer yet who gives a damn about the question of "WHERE DID THOSE TWO BULLETS GO?" They just don't care, and I usually get raked over hot coals for even having the gall to ASK such an obviously pertinent question. What I usually get from the clueless CTers is: Well, Davey, what happened to the third bullet that you say missed the whole limousine? -- as if that's even remotely similar to asking about TWO separate bullets that the silly CTers insist went into JFK's body but never exited and yet were never to be seen again.

The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the SBT. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited" hogwash. (Go figure.)

Edited April 22, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about JFK's killers other than the time and place of the assassination?

Nothing.

Two separate operations controlled from the very top.

Cliff,

I don't understand the point of your arguments with Jim D.

You seem to be saying that the need-to-know feature of compartmentation precludes the possibility of cracking the case, or learning the identities of the culprits, by investigating anyone below the top.

You also seem to be saying that understanding the physical evidence -- the wounds in particular -- is more important.

My question is, how will understanding the wounds lead to cracking the case any better than investigating those below the top? Especially given that those who created the wounds were among the lower-level participants..

Jim D. chooses to focus on the bigger picture and making sense of circumstantial evidence (as well as hard evidence) in his writings. I've never seen him say that studying the physical evidence is a waste of time. (Though it does seem like you say or imply that what he does is a waste of time) Isn't there value in doing both?

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cliff,

I don't understand the point of your arguments with Jim D.

You seem to be saying that the need-to-know feature of compartmentation precludes the possibility of cracking the case, or learning the identities of the culprits, by investigating anyone below the top.

No, I'm saying that obsessing on Oswald is a dead end.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You also seem to be saying that understanding the physical evidence -- the wounds in particular -- is more important.

Absolutely!

The night of the autopsy the prosectors asked the FBI men if there was high tech ordnance which wouldn't show up in the body or on x-ray.

They took that scenario very seriously.

The FBI men took the question seriously.

But Big Name Researchers, in their infinite ignorance, do not take the scenario seriously.

Why?

Such weapons were employed by an elite death squad called MKNAOMI -- a much more solid lead than anything Garrison uncovered.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My question is, how will understanding the wounds lead to cracking the case any better than investigating those below the top?

The best we can do is study legitimate Persons of Interest indicated by the historical record, such as MKNAOMI.

We can also study high level prevaricators, such as McGeorge Bundy and Averell Harriman, whose lies are also a matter of historical record.

Bundy has been quoted as the source of the call to Air Force 1 telling LBJ there was no evidence of a conspiracy.

That was a lie.

Harriman has been quoted as telling LBJ that the US gov't's top Kremlinologists were unanimous in the belief that the Soviets had nothing to do with the assassination.

That was also a lie.

DiEugenio is ignorant of the role Harriman had in SE Asia policy, his relationship with his Skull & Bones brother Bundy, and his career in general.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Especially given that those who created the wounds were among the lower-level participants..

Jim D. chooses to focus on the bigger picture and making sense of circumstantial evidence in his writings.

Blaming Allen Dulles makes no sense at all.

Do you think he'd actually set up family friends of his mistress as Oswald's handlers, which might blow back on him?

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never seen him say that studying the physical evidence is a waste of time.

He compares it to a "Model T" and brags about ignoring it.

The primacy of physical evidence in a murder case is eternal.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(Though it does seem like you say or imply that what he does is a waste of time).

Chasing Oswald is a big waste of time, yes.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Isn't there value in doing both?

Sure, as long as you're "doing both" in a competent manner.

[James DiEugenio]

And the above is a perfect example of why its better to ignore CV.

 

[James DiEugenio]

To get to the issue of the filing cabinets and Mr. Walthers.  

Its clear from his testimony that Wesley Liebeler and the WC were worried about two main points with Walthers.  First, the Barrett slug, and second the filing cabinets.  Through the  DPD and FBI investigation by Mark Oakes, we know how the former was deliberately concealed.  And we can see in the testimony that someone has talked to Walthers in advance.  A good parallel being Weitzmann and the whole Mauser identification.

Liebeler, of course, wants to quickly dismiss the issue. As does the Commission in its Rumors and Speculations section. For instance, in the WR, it says the evidence was found at Oswald's rooming house.  Not so.  It then shifts to the Paine garage but attempts to get rid of the issue by saying these letters and books etc.  belonged to Mrs. Paine.  And that there were no lists found.  (WR, p. 666)

The problem with this is that the report then gives the wrong reference.  It does not refer you to any evidence about the search.  It refers you to the DPD inventory list.  Which, of course, is perfectly sensible in regards to what LIebeler's intent was.

But if you go to the correct reference, which would be the actual report by the witness, the result is quite different. In his report, the detective wrote that they found "records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers."  (Vol. 19, p. 520)

Therefore, its clear from its own presentation that somehow the Commission did not want the reader to know about this, and neither did the DPD. Because that is who Walthers gave the cabinets to.  And, as we know, they disappeared after that.

I do not have Tagg's biography of Walthers. But Larry Hancock read it for his book Someone Would Have Talked. Tagg did some real research by not just going through the record, but by interviewing his subject's friends and his family. He came to the same conclusion about the evidence and the lists of Cuban sympathizers.  According to Tagg, other policemen saw the metal cabinets; and like Oswald's Minox camera, it created some local buzz. (Hancock, pgs. 552-53) Which, we know, Liebeler was out to eliminate.

If anyone here wants to go along with Liebeler, for whatever reasons, then fine.  But please do not use DVP, or the WR as your source to discredit the original info, and then say that its all just a "speculation and rumor".  Because that is not the case.

The real issue, once all the disinfo is expelled, is this:  who did the materials belong to?  If they  did belong to the Paines--as I think they did--then this was of genuine significance. And as I have noted above,  the FBI knew about Michael Paine and his provocative conversations with SMU students at Luby's Restaurant. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 198)  And we know today about Ruth writing notes and names of Sandinista sympathizers in Nicaragua. (ibid, p. 199)  But further, if they were Oswald's, why would they disappear?  Because this is what the WC and FBI drew him as: a Castro sympathizer. In fact, it would alleviate a problem for them:  Oswald being a commie in isolation to anyone else.

This whole incident presents some very troubling issues, in more than one way.  And whatever some people want to do to dismiss it, it will not go away.

(I usually  do not bump anything, but in this case I would like to get the debate back on track to a genuine evidentiary point.)

Edited April 22, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I haven't encountered a CTer yet who gives a damn about the question of "WHERE DID THOSE TWO BULLETS GO?" They just don't care, and I usually get raked over hot coals for even having the gall to ASK such an obviously pertinent question. What I usually get from the clueless CTers is: Well, Davey, what happened to the third bullet that you say missed the whole limousine? -- as if that's even remotely similar to asking about TWO separate bullets that the silly CTers insist went into JFK's body but never exited and yet were never to be seen again.

The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the SBT. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited" hogwash. (Go figure.)

DVP,

C'mon, I've read plenty of theories about what happened to the throat bullet and to the back bullet.  Are you kidding?  There are so many.

One says the back bullet fell out during heart massage at Parkland Hospital, and was even reported, but the FBI hushed it up.

Another says the throat wound was made by a frangible bullet.  Another says it was made by a missle other than a bullet.  Another says an ice bullet.

There are so many.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Varnell:

Your utter arrogance on the whole subject of JFK is staggering.

You are telling me what Jim Garrison investigated and what he did not?

How many of his assistants did you talk to?  How many files of his did you read?  How many New Orleans witness transcripts did you survey? How many doors did you knock on in the Crescent City?  From what you wrote above, the answer is zero, zero, zero, and zero.

The main point of the Garrison inquiry is not what he did in Dealey Plaza, or with Ruby.  Anybody who says that is simply ignorant, being obfuscatory, or displaying their own agenda.  (The last is your main preoccupation.)

Th importance of Garrison's inquiry was that, for the first time, he was actually going forward with investigators and attorneys to locate and determine who the actual killers of President Kennedy were.  Considering what he was up against, he made some remarkable progress.  As Vince notes above, the incredible size and scope of the reaction to his inquiry indicates just how dangerous it was.  

Now maybe you do not know this, but I actually wrote two editions of a book on this subject, and various essays in both Probe Magazine, and at my former web site called CTKA. So I know of what I speak.  You do not.

James,

Compared to your one-sided, biased, dogmatic opinions about the JFK murder -- including your failed Probe Magazine and CTKA web site -- Cliff Varnelli is a genius.

You've read Jim Garrison's works thoroughly -- and you've misinterpreted them thoroughly.   Jim Garrison also made many mistakes in his JFK research, and you remain faithful to those mistakes.  He can be forgiven since he was an innovator -- you cannot.  

Listen to David Lifton -- re-read the Lopez Report -- re-read Bill Simpich's State Secret, re-read Ruth Paine's WC testimony and FBI interviews. Set aside your dogmatism for a change.   And curb your dog.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo