James DiEugenio Posted September 16, 2018 Author Share Posted September 16, 2018 Its neat that Mort is still around though sad he is not nearly at 100 per cent. About DeGaulle, there was a falling out between the two after 1961. It was due to JFK's manifest anti colonialism about Africa. Then, in 1963 JFK actually wanted suggestions from the State Department to further dislodge the still maintained ties between the former French colonies and Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted September 18, 2018 Share Posted September 18, 2018 On 9/15/2018 at 8:54 PM, James DiEugenio said: Its neat that Mort is still around though sad he is not nearly at 100 per cent. About DeGaulle, there was a falling out between the two after 1961. It was due to JFK's manifest anti colonialism about Africa. Then, in 1963 JFK actually wanted suggestions from the State Department to further dislodge the still maintained ties between the former French colonies and Paris. I guess this "rattling" of the State Department was maybe another last straw regarding the establishment pro colonialism view. Endangering their rubber, mining and oil interests in particular might have concerned some deeply. If one considers the Wall Street/CFR implications it's suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 18, 2018 Author Share Posted September 18, 2018 I agree with that. And if that was not enough, Kennedy offered Portugual 4 billion in aid if they would set free Angola and Mozambique. They said no, so JFK sent aid to the rebels. Wall Steet got the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Baumann Posted September 20, 2018 Share Posted September 20, 2018 (edited) On 9/14/2018 at 10:01 AM, James DiEugenio said: Or how about this one: Garrison had a job application Oswald filled out naming Ruby as a reference. Hello James, would you care to you elaborate on this? What's your source for this? What happened to the document? Why did Garrison not go public with this explosive Information? Did the application refer to Ruby specifically or just one of his clubs? Edited September 20, 2018 by Mathias Baumann typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 21, 2018 Author Share Posted September 21, 2018 This came from an FBI interview with one of the justices down in New Orleans. He was not dealing with the Shaw case. Garrison showed him some of the stuff he had. Mellen mentions it in her book. As to your questions, I have no doubt that once the FBI learned about it they sent in, or got in contact with one of the various infiltrators in Garrison's office, and it disappeared. Which happened to a good deal of the evidence he had. As per your other question 1.) I don't think Garrison liked admitting the fact that so much valuable evidence was gone, and 2.) Garrison had so much fascinating stuff that there just was no way he could present it in an interview anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 On 9/20/2018 at 7:20 PM, James DiEugenio said: This came from an FBI interview with one of the justices down in New Orleans. He was not dealing with the Shaw case. Garrison showed him some of the stuff he had. Mellen mentions it in her book. As to your questions, I have no doubt that once the FBI learned about it they sent in, or got in contact with one of the various infiltrators in Garrison's office, and it disappeared. Which happened to a good deal of the evidence he had. As per your other question 1.) I don't think Garrison liked admitting the fact that so much valuable evidence was gone, and 2.) Garrison had so much fascinating stuff that there just was no way he could present it in an interview anyway. One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members. (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.) It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation. It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees. If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation? It makes no sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 24, 2018 Author Share Posted September 24, 2018 That stuff is all true. Garrison's phones were tapped by two sets of tappers, Gordon Novel for the CIA, and also by the FBI, which went through the actual phone lines. BTW, two people have emailed me about this article. One sent it to the original publisher, and asked if I could reply and one sent it to the author. As per the former, on a cold day in Hades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 On 9/22/2018 at 3:55 PM, W. Niederhut said: One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members. (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.) It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation. It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees. If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation? It makes no sense at all. It makes perfect sense in terms of power and control. Public execution of the new frontier. No matter how suspicious it seems, the Official finding, just a lone nut. No significant questioning by the corporate owned mass media. Any such is squashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted September 25, 2018 Share Posted September 25, 2018 On 9/22/2018 at 1:55 PM, W. Niederhut said: One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members. (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.) It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation. It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees. If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation? It makes no sense at all. It makes sense if the government knew the Warren Commission was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted September 25, 2018 Author Share Posted September 25, 2018 That was one of the reasons Hoover did it. Because Garrison was showing him up by pointing out all the flaws in the Warren Report. Bill Turner later told me he recognized one of the guys who the FBI used to do the tapping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Prutsok Posted September 26, 2018 Share Posted September 26, 2018 On 9/22/2018 at 4:55 PM, W. Niederhut said: One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members. (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.) It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation. It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees. If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation? It makes no sense at all. Carl Bernstein revealed in the 70s the extent of intelligence infiltration in the media — that hundreds of “journalists” were active intelligence assets, taking dictation, basically, from the CIA to be spread throughout the world. The Washington Post was particularly so, with both Bradlee and Woodward being “former” Naval Intelligence folk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now