Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Brancato

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

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And as he's demonstrated, DiEugenio has nothing to say in support of his claim Garrison identified Kennedy's killers


Cliff,

Where did Jim D. claim that Garrison identified Kennedy's killers? I thought he said (or implied) only that Garrison had information regarding the killers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:


Cliff,

Where did Jim D. claim that Garrison identified Kennedy's killers? I thought he said (or implied) only that Garrison had information regarding the killers.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Cliff,

Where did Jim D. claim that Garrison identified Kennedy's killers? I thought he said (or implied) only that Garrison had information regarding the killers.

 

How do you provide information regarding the killers without a degree of identification?


For example, one could investigate the anti-Castro Cubans and have information regarding them that looks suspiciously like they were involved in killing Kennedy. But not have proof or maybe even insufficient information to make an indictment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Sandy, its true that David Ferrie was actually Garrison's prime suspect at the time of his "whatever you want to term it" death.  Garrison had planted two moles on Ferrie in late 1966 and had unearthed some pretty interesting evidence against him.  Which I think Ferrie would have had a hard time dealing with on the stand.  There is little doubt today that Garrison made a large error in not indicting Ferrie.

Shaw presented a much more serious problem because not only were the stakes raised because of Ferrie's bizarre death, but also because not only was the CIA going to go all out--along with the FBI and Justice Dept.--but so was the upper class of New Orleans.  Since Shaw was a member of the club.  Which is why both  newspapers turned against him. With all of those factors poised against him, it was going to be uphill all the way.  And because of the infiltration, Garrison could not even protect his own witnesses or his evidence.

Garrison came to believe that, as you term it,  Shaw formed a minor part of the plot.  But even at that, Shaw decided to lie about everything, knowing he would be protected.  BTW, even the CIA was surprised that Shaw did not tell his own lawyers he worked for them.  But JG figured, this was probably the last chance anyone would ever have to to pry the case open, even at the edges.  Which, of course, it was. But the Power Elite in both Washington, and later in New Orleans was dead set against convicting the guy the MSM portrayed as Mr. Clean.  Even when Dean Andrews was convicted of perjury, that carried no weight at all.  Just think a jury said he was lying about Bertrand.  Which, if you read my reply to Carpenter at Kenendysandking, he was.  Shaw was Bertrand. But Garrison never got to ask him the oh so pregnant question: Why did you call Andrews to go to Dallas and defend Oswald?

If Garrison had been left alone, I think he could have convicted Shaw.  And there was no doubt he would have  convicted him at the perjury trial.  But as I explain in Destiny Betrayed, that was not going to happen.  And also, as Garrison concluded, the conspiracy to kill Kennedy was much larger and more complex than he or anyone else suspected at  that time.  In fact, if you ask me, if Garrison had known what was going to happen, he would have never pursued it.  And would have ended up as governor or senator.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


For example, one could investigate the anti-Castro Cubans and have information regarding them that looks suspiciously like they were involved in killing Kennedy. But not have proof or maybe even insufficient information to make an indictment.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I retract everything I said about it being impossible for the bullet to have not hit the knot in Kennedy's tie. This photo shows otherwise:


jfk2.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Sandy, its true that David Ferrie was actually Garrison's prime suspect at the time of his "whatever you want to term it" death.  Garrison had planted two moles on Ferrie in late 1966 and had unearthed some pretty interesting evidence against him.  Which I think Ferrie would have had a hard time dealing with on the stand.  There is little doubt today that Garrison made a large error in not indicting Ferrie.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This below is bumped for the simple reason that Cliffie likes to make believe  that anything that directly counters his bloated polemics, does not exist. It is not in any way idle speculation. Not when you are doing polygraphs, and the people end up lying about not seeing the weapons used in Dealey Plaza. And there are also pictures of the scene and diagrams of the sewer system underneath. I mean what the heck else do you want?

First, Garrison did a pretty thorough investigation into Dealey Plaza.  Much better I think than the HSCA, and of course rocket miles above the WC.  If you look at Bill Davy's book, on the bottom of page 287, you will see that he had centered on the Cuban exiles as being part of the hit team in Dealey Plaza.  To the point of asking them during polygraphs if they had seen any of the weapons used during the assassination, prior to the assassination. Also, Bernardo De Torres, who the HSCA discovered had pictures of the assassination in a safe deposit box, was an early infiltrator into his inquiry, and was very likely involved in the death of Eladio Del Valle.

To sketch one last detail, Fruge found out that Santana and Arcacha Smith were the two guys with Rose Cheramie talking about killing JFK on the way to Dallas.  And that Smith had maps of the sewer system under Dealey Plaza in his apartment in Dallas.  I could go on with this even further.  And you can see more details that I have in my critique of Epstein at Kennedysandking.  But the point is, Garrison did do an investigation into how the actual mechanics of the murder of JFK worked. To any objective person, he went further than any other inquiry and came up with some real evidence and suspects.

To my knowledge and from what I have seen in his extant files, there was no corresponding inquiry into the death of Oswald.  Probably because that was out of his jurisdiction and located in Dallas.  As anyone can see from his attempt to get Sergio Arcacha Smith back, or even question him, the Dallas Police were quite hostile.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
32 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

For example, one could investigate the anti-Castro Cubans and have information regarding them that looks suspiciously like they were involved in killing Kennedy. But not have proof or maybe even insufficient information to make an indictment.

 

Then it's just idle speculation.


You'd have to define what "idle speculation" is. But there is nothing wrong with speculation if there is evidence supporting it. In which case it's just another word for hypothesis. Which are commonly employed in investigations and scientific inquiry.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A demonstration of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

"The fk'n shooters don't even know -- don't you get it?"

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


You'd have to define what "idle speculation" is. But there is nothing wrong with speculation if there is evidence supporting it. In which case it's just another word for hypothesis. Which are commonly employed in investigations and scientific inquiry.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"The fk'n shooters don't even know -- don't you get it?"


Oh, I get it. Ive been saying that from the beginning... from when I first suspected it was a CIA operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:


You'd have to define what "idle speculation" is. But there is nothing wrong with speculation if there is evidence supporting it. In which case it's just another word for hypothesis. Which are commonly employed in investigations and scientific inquiry.
 

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.


Why? Is there evidence for that?

Let's be clear... the word speculation is used even when there is no evidence to support it. I used the word with the expressed qualification that there be evidence to back it up. (And said it would then be a hypothesis.) I don't know what you are doing in that regard. So I can't agree or disagree with you.

(Well, you did say "In this case..." which might mean that you have some evidence. But I'm not sure.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 2:38 AM, David Von Pein said:

And every one of them is too silly to consider for more than two seconds.

But you're changing the topic, DVP.  You said that you never saw any CT's about the missing bullets from the throat and back wounds -- and I proved that some do exist.

Whether they are substantial CT's or not is a separate question.   Like Sylvia Meagher said, only one of them can be correct.

Yet the mismatch between the back wound and the throat wound (as proved by the clothing holes) is positive proof against the SBT.

Look -- Governor Connally was there.  He was in the limo.  He was actually shot himself.   And Governor Connally says the SBT theory is wrong.

What does it take for the LNer to get off the Warren Commission SBT?

Even Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren himself said that the truth was being withheld for 75 years.  Don't you get it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Governor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2017 at 3:34 PM, Paul Trejo said:

BUMPED again for James DiEugenio

During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, without having seen a doctor yet, and with Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?

Yes or no?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

BUMPED yet again for James DiEugenio

This is the fourth time I've posed this simple question to you, James.  Why are you ducking it?

During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, without having seen a doctor yet, and with Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?

Yes or no?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...