Dawn Meredith

As I noted earlier, I think the timing of Joan Mellen's book and the sudden appearance of this "Canadian researcher" who has NOTHING TO SAY except trash Garrison is quite interesting. OK Lynne, we know you like and trust "Life" magazine.... Now do ou have ANYTHING to contribute to the debate on the murder of JFK??? We know you detest Garrison, but is that the only song you know? Do you actually have any other thoughts on this matter? Dawn

Why don't you just order Joan Mellen's book and read it. He did prosecute corruption. He could not be bribed or bought. As for Life mag, pleeeeease. If you believe anything Life has to say on the assassination you have done no homework. Dawn

[quote name='Tim Carroll' date='Nov 4 2005, 11:58 AM' post='44099'] So who are you going to listen to, the spin mongers or Fitzgerald? Read the indictment: www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/index.html Tim Great response Tim. Yor clear logic will be much needed as the rabid right goes into non stop spin mode over this. Especially if Fitzgerald actually DOES indict Rove. I saw that bore Ann Coulter on tv a few nights ago calling Ms Plame "Flame" in a mocking manner and calling Ambassador Wilson "A clown". Of course the right will "blame the victim: it's what they do. It's trademark. Dawn

I hope this forum does not turn into a FIles fight. Jim Marrs does answer questions. Tosh has his email address. Dawn

[quote name='Stan Wilbourne' date='Nov 2 2005, 04:54 AM' post='43784'] Tim, Mellen's book is very well sourced. My only complaint about the book is the manner in which it's footnoted. Instead of having FN numbers at the end of an allegation, which correspond to the number you look up in the notes portion of the book, the text itself is sans numbers. Compounding this when one goes to the FN section, the notes/sources are given like this: p.56 line 21. I am finding this quite annoying, as it necessitates actually counting down the lines on a particular page to see what has been sourced and what has not been. Otherwise I love the book. Dawn Stan: I will email you re Dallas as it gets closer and I know if I can go. Sounds like we both had terrific birthdays!! Tim G: I do NOT understand how your brain works, but NO reading of this book would lead one to believe your silly Castro did it "theory" is in any manner correct. Mellen substantiates just how right Garrison was!! The interview with the "Rabbi" at the end had me in tears. (I read the last two chapters first, based on stuff you posted re this book). I have come to a conclusion on you: that you are a disinformationist.

I still well remember seeing Phil Agee on the Tom Snyder show back in 1975. He described in chilling detail what our government had been doing in Latin America. It was one of televesion's FINEST moments. Agee had joined the Company, never imagining the murderous acts to which he would become a party. His shame and remourse were evident. I thought about that show for a long time to come, and what a hero Agee was to expose this on national tv. The next evening, prior to my government class- (ironically enough in Latin American studies)- the professor joined myself and another student who had also seen the broadcast , and a lively discussion ensued. My professor- (who I will forever view as CIA)- was livid. To the point that he stormed away from the table, and was literally 45 min late for class and spent the entire class literally ranting and raving about "conspiracy theorists in rose colored glasses". The class members had not a clue what he was so riled up about. Dawn

Thanks Tim. You write what I was trying to say so well. I find it very interesting that just as the new Joan Mellen book is out we suddenly have all this Garrison bashing on this forum. Hmmmm, interesting timing. I just got the book via Amazom and read the last two chapters, and am about to read the first now, (ya I know, I'm doing it backwards...but some post from Tim Gratz gave the impression that this might somehow be an anti-Garrison book). It's NOT. I highly recommend it to all here (especially Lynne!!!) I am so impressed by it that I am now plannning to try to get to Dallas just to hear her speak. I have way too much going on right now, including three trials this month, a friend visitning from Boston 11/21-30 and contractors from Home Depot coming, who might choose that weekend (of the conference) to be here, so cannot make any firm plans to go to Dallas...but this book has me strongly leaning in that direction. For those interested, I spoke with John Judge at COPA a bit ago and Joan will be speaking Sunday morning. Perhaps John can repost the other speakers. I know Walt Brown will be speaking right after the keynote, by Cynthia McKinny. Dawn

JFK was murdered because of his planned, out by 65, Vietnam policy, and Johnson proved it when he reversed HIS POLICY --CASE CLOSED. JFK was killed for a lot of reasons. Viet Nam is one such reason. I also agree with Terry and Chuck. JFK was pissing off the powers that be in all areas. Have you ever seen the film"Executive Action" Lynne? It gives a very good account of what JFK was up to, and could be instructive. I hve no idea what you have read on this case. Your bio says zero about who you are in reference to this debate. Instead of arguing over which action by JFk got him killed, we need to be focussed on ways to solve this case. Name calling and belitting the thoughts, posts and work of others' is a total waste of time. Why don't you update your bio and tell us what you have actually DONE in connection with this case, if anything. Dawn ps I happen to strongly suspect Wellstone was murdered too. (But have not researched it a lot)

[quote name='JL Allen' date='Nov 1 2005, 12:34 PM' post='43708'] Mr. Adams, The guidelines are not too restrictive - I hope you will continue to post your views as I have personally always found your research and revelations to be important stuff - examining areas which seem to be ignored by many but are very relevant. I seem to recall reading that Bell Helicopter (owned by Howard Hughes?) was in great financial difficulty (verge of bankruptcy?) at the beginning of Vietnam - but that Bell copters were used extensively throughout the war and by it's end - Hughes had accrued another tremendous fortune... Bruce I concur with JL above. Please continue to post. Those who don't wish to see your website don't have to click on it. Dawn

Opps, Sorry John, I posted before I saw your post. I will just ignore her, and Purvis as well. Being a LNer you'd think he maight be happier on a forum run by McAdams.... Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Oct 31 2005, 12:07 AM' post='43503'] There is no rebuttal for a man without integrity. Nothing on this website has been effectively refuted, although the zeal to defend the man who effectively covered up the truth is indeed interesting. http://www.geocities.com/zzzpeace/garrison.htm Also, the claim that Garrison discredited the warren Commission is silly. The only thing that Garrison ever discredited is the truth -that's why David Ferrie dropped dead while in his custody: I think the little high school student ought to go back to school. Do you have anything meaningful to say about the assassination of JFK? You are a very hateful person. Why are you really here on this forum? The "high school student" could take you on intellectually with not a second's difficulty. As for David Ferrie, Terry answered you there. You're a bit out of your league here, in fact some of us wonder if you are who you say you are. Have you considered therapy or anger management? Your attitude certainly suggests that you could benefit from such. I shall ignore futhre post from you. Dawn

[quote name='Lynne Foster' date='Oct 30 2005, 12:53 AM' post='43454'] Karl Rove is a master strategist who sets a goal and implements it by any means, there is no history of accountability in his life. Why expect any different this time around? Even tho Ms. Foster and I disagree on Jim Garrison, we are in total agreement here. It will be most interesting to see if this case grows the way Watergate did. I agree with John that it has such potential. Poppa Bush must be rather unhappy with the current state of affairs. "When will they ever learn?" Dawn

To answer your rhetorical question, no, that article is not, in fact, the truth about Jim Garrison. I will now proceed to lay out why it is not the truth. I would like to start off by noting the author's contention that "ronically, it was not the CIA... which was responsible for the Kennedy assassination cover up." This strikes me as frankly bizarre. It was not the FBI or Lyndon Johnson who engineered the Oswald-in-Mexico-City deception, but our friends at the CIA. This should be kept in mind as we continue. I pass over the CIA's allegation that Jim Garrison was in contact with Johnny Roselli, which hardly deserves credence (Larry Hancock, who apparently has access to Joan Mellen's book, has stated in this thread that the story at first was that Garrison met with the CIA's own Robert Maheu and that Counter-Intelligence decieving Plans is perhaps not so unusual), to address the seemingly more credible but no less false allegations of mob ties. Garrison was not "the most loyal Mafia ally imaginable." I quote here from Bill Davy's book, Let Justice Be Done, pages 154-155, "One has only to look at the New Orleans Times-Picayune of the day [Note: during Jim Garrison's "war on French Quarter vice"] to see through this charge. Garrison gave the green light to padlocking at least four Marcello connected bars: The Flamingo, The Old French Opera House, The 500 Club and The Sho-Bar. In the case of the Flamingo, Garrison sought to close that bar down for a year and directed his Assistant D.A., Denis A. Barry, to prove in court that the owner, Frank Sinopoli, was only a front for Marcello." Additionally, Garrison did look into Mafia connections during his assassination probe. Davy quotes from a four page memo Jim Garrison wrote to his staff in December 1967, titled, "Organized Crime Aspects of the Assassination": "It cannot be denied, for example, that there is evidence which appears to indicate some involvement of individuals who seem to have organized crime connections. Furthermore, we cannot arbitrarily assume that, even if the militant right wing factor continues to develop effectively, involvement of organized crime elements may not be an additional factor as a product of joint interest." (Davy 155) In addition to this, why would Garrison go after Ferrie, who was tied in with Marcello? I could cite many more example of Garrison's lack of connection to the mob and Marcello specifically, but this should be enough. Next, the author implies that the only evidence that Garrison really had against Clay Shaw were the items seized from Clay Shaw's residence. This ignores the testimony of Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, the Clinton Witnesses, Clay Shaw's booking card, and much else. Yes, Garrison did indeed state that he has great respect for the FBI, understandable as he had once worked for them, but this is not the full story. For instance, Garrison brought William Walter's information (which certainly doesn't make the FBI look good in regards to the assassination) to light in his appearance on the Johnny Carson show (this was rebroadcast on Black Op Radio and can be accessed at http://www.blackopradio.com/inc_archives2005.html, go down to show #214). This also ignores the concentrated efforts on the part of the FBI to subvert Garrison's investigation. As an example, Joan Mellen quotes from an FBI document wherein J. Edgar Hoover directs his field agents to "Give Garrison Nothing!" (this can be found on the front page of Joan Mellen's website, http://www.joanmellen.net). Of course, this hardly fits with the author's contention that Garrison conducted his investigation on behalf of the FBI for the purposes of obfuscation. For the second time in the article we find the author exonerating the CIA from blame. The author quotes Jim Garrison's statements regarding the lack of involvement of Lyndon Johnson, but leaves out the more famous part of those comments, namely, "[Who is] the one man who has profitted most from the assassination-your friendly president Lyndon Johnson." Garrison made this statement to show what sort of conclusions could be drawn since the files were sealed, which he was advocating opening. If Lyndon Johnson was actually guilty of JFK's murder, as the author contends, Jim Garrison's advocation of the opening of the files could hardly help him in any case. The author next quotes convict Miguel Torres regarding alleged criminality on Garrison's behalf. What the author of this little essay does not inform the reader is that after Torres made these allegations on NBC's fraudulent white paper, he refused to repeat these charges before the Orleans Parish Grand Jury. He was subsequently cited for contempt of court and had his prison sentence extended. His grand jury appearance can be read here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...orres_0001a.htm. Garrison commented on him, as well as another giver of false testimony, John Cancler, in his famous Playboy interview as follows, "Of course, these two convicts have been used against my office in a variety of respects. Miguel Torres also claims I offered him a full pardon, a vacation in Florida and an ounce of heroin if he would testify that Clay Shaw had made homosexual overtures to him on the street. What on earth that would have established relevant to this case I still don't know, but that's his story. I think it was actually rather cheap of me to offer Torres only an ounce of heroin; that wouldn't have lasted out his vacation. A kilo would be more like it. After all, I'm not stingy. Torres' friend John Cancler, a burglar, has also charged that one of my investigators tried to induce him to burglarize Clay Shaw's house and plant false evidence there, but he refused because he would not have such a heinous sin on his conscience. I suppose that's why Cancler's prison nickname is 'John the Baptist.' I can assure you, if we ever wanted to burglarize Shaw's home --- which we never did --- John the Baptist would be the last man on earth we'd pick for the job. By the way, Mr. Cancler was called before the grand jury and asked if he had told the truth to NBC. He replied; 'I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer might incriminate me' --- and was promptly sentenced to six months in prison and a $500 fine for contempt of court" (http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html). Next under the author's cosshairs is Garrison's chief witness, Perry Raymond Russo. "Under repeated cross- examination," Russo did not "basically admitted the fact that he did not know anything about the Kennedy assassination" and that "he disseminated rehearsed lies." This can be easily verified by reading his trial testimony. The author makes it seem as though Russo was approached by Garrison to give false testimony when, in fact, Russo approached Garrison with his testimony first. As for the "demanding press that essentially exposed the fact that his testimony was not genuine," that was one James Phelan, an FBI informant [the documents are reproduced here: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/media/phelan.htm]. Again, this undercuts the author's charge that the FBI was behind Garrison probe. As for Phelan's charges, Lisa Pease rebuts them at http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo3.htm and http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect.../jfk/russo4.htm. Davy and Jim DiEugenio also rebut these charges in their respective books, and soon Joan Mellen will do the same to an even greater extent, if her Taking Aim interview is anything to go on. Also of interest is this interview with Russo: http://www.redshift.com~damason/lhreport/articles/perry.html. As for the allegation that former CIA/NSA "newsman" Walter Sheridan trying to bribe Russo is "absurd", well, it really isn't. Russo made out an affidavit to this fact (as did many other witnesses, ie Fred Leeman and Marlene Mancuso, who Sheridan and his buddy Richard Townley attempted to bribe). Regarding William Gurvich, he was an infiltrator who pilfered many of Garrison's files and turned them over to the defense team (there were no discovery laws in La. at the time). He said he had no confidence in Garrison's investigation, despite many statements to the press to the contrary prior to his defection. Read his Grand Jury testimony for a laugh here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...rvich_0001a.htm and here http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr...vich2_0001a.htm. He is unable to substantiate any of his charges of illegal acts on Garrison's part.. An example: "Q: You don't know the names of the 2 members of the staff who did illegal acts that you were referring to in your telecast? A: I am sure I can think of them. Q: Well would you please think of them now and give us the names? A: Well, if you will continue I will think while you talk" (page 62 of the 1st transcript). Later, "Q: Did 2 members of Garrison's staff perform illegal acts on his orders? A: I don't remember - I am having trouble with that - Q: Do you know? Is the answer yes, no, or I don't know? A: I don't remember" (page 72 of the 1st transcript). And again, "Q: Give us one fact, you are supposed to be an investigator. You have not given us one single fact. I am trying to lay it on the line. You go around and say what all these people are saying - that is unimportant. I think every one of the Jury are thinking what I am telling you and I think I am speaking for all of them when I say you don't have nothing. You haven't given us one thing to go on. A: Well, they are entitled to their opinion and I am entitle to mine. Of course I did not expect you to act on this, but I thought they were serious things" (p. 86.1). Garrison did not charge RFK with being behind the assassination of his brother, but rather obstructing his investigation. This doesn't seem all that unlikely as Walter Sheridan was RFK's right hand man in his war against Hoffa. During Sheridan's all-out assault on Garrison's investigation, RFK vouched for his integrity. More on Sheridan and his NBC white paper can be found in "'Shoot Him Down' NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison" by Bill Davy, which is a very condensed version of his chapter in Let Justice Be Done, minus the footnotes, on the media assault on Garrison (the link is here: http://www.abclies.net/nbc_cia.html). Particularly laughable is this passage, "On March 2nd, shortly after Garrison arrested Shaw, Attorney General Ramsey Clark indicated that Shaw had been investigated and cleared of any connection to the assassination. But on June 2nd, the Justice Department, obviously on the prodding of J. Edgar Hoover, indicated that Clay Shaw had never been investigated. In other words, despite the Warren Commission investigation, Justice Department Czar J. Edgar Hoover was giving Jim Garrison the official green light to "investigate" the Kennedy assassination." This is a half-truth at best. The unusual thing was that prior to Ramsey Clark's statement, officially Clay Shaw had never been investigated by the FBI (Clark did not say it was the Warren Commission who investigated Shaw, as the article falsely states). Ramsey Clark stated that not only had Clay Shaw been cleared by this investigation, but that, in fact, he and Clay Bertrand were one and the same (Clay Bertrand is the person who called attorney Dean Andrews to represent Oswald prior to his being shot by Ruby and who Garrison had charge with being an alias of Clay Shaw's). The Justice Department subsequently confirmed this. The New York Times of March 3, 1967: "A Justice Department official said tonight that his agency was convinced that Mr. Bertrand and Mr. Shaw were the same man, and that this was the basis for Mr. Clark's assertions this morning." Once it had been realized what kind of blunder had been made, it was retracted. Billy Davy, in his book, quotes from a memo by Cartha DeLoach to Clyde Tolson on March 2, 1967, "The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw." Hoover himself signed off on the memo as follows, "I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H." (Davy 170) Well, this pretty much undercuts the article's assertions, doesn't it? In fact, it shows them to be the reverse. Number three man in the FBI Cartha DeLoach gave this information to Ramsey Clark. He recounted this to Clyde Tolson, Hoover's no. 2. Hoover, understanding what Cartha had done, hopes that Clark doesn't "peddle" the information he has recieved. When he did, he is made to recant, thus undercutting any help Clark's statements might have inadvertantly given Garrison. The intention of Clark's statements had been to help Shaw by clearing him, and the FBI had him withdraw them because they actually helped Garrison and violated the official history. Next, it is recounted how Garrison had made comments about possible "racketeering influences of our eight vacationing judges." The reader is not told that these comments came about because the judges refused to fund his organized crime investigations (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, page 9 - this is still a very good book with an immense amount of detail and information despite its age). Again, isn't Garrison supposed to be flacking for the mob? Subsequently he had his right to criticize the judges upheld in the Supreme Court. Does anything more really need to be said about this incident? As for the conflict between Garrison and Police Chief Giarrusso, Mellen notes in Black Op Radio #144 (not currently accessible) that Giarrusso was the one who actually took the bribes that the federal government brought Garrison to court over (and of which he was subsequently acquited). Despite their not being on good terms, Giarrusso investigated and cleared Garrison's Assistant D.A.'s of bribery charges brought against them and also cleared Officer Habighorst (who took Clay Shaw's booking card, wherein Shaw gave Clay Bertrand as an alias) of any misconduct (Paris Flammonde, The Kennedy Conspiracy, pages 245 and 298). Aaron Kohn. Aaron Kohn was brought before the Grand Jury to provide evidence that Garrison and Governor McKeithen were under the mob's influence, as he charged (he contended that the aforementioned stripper, Linda Brigette, was Marcello connected). I quote Davy here, "When one of the executives of Kohn's Crime Commission appeared before the Grand Jury, he admitted, 'No, we have nothing, we have no evidence to present before the Grand Jury'" (Davy 158). Kohn was not squashed by the Grand Jury, he simply didn't present any evidence, as Garrison said. Kohn subsequently resurfaced to make more unsubstantiated allegations of Garrison's mob connections after Garrison's probe was made public. As for perjury charges against Kerry Thornley, these were accurate. Thornley denied having any contact with Oswald while both were in New Orleans. As Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy note, "Garrison had no less than eight witnesses who said they had seen Oswald and Thornley together in New Orleans in 1963. And some of them went beyond just noting the association between the two. Two of these witnesses, Bernard Goldsmith and Doris Dowell, both said that Thornley told them Oswald was not a communist. This is amazing since, as noted earlier, the Warren Commission featured Thornley as its key witness to Oswald's alleged commie sympathies" (http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr599-lambert.html). Next, we come to a charge that is totally false. Garrison did not, ever, have a witness who claimed to be Julius Ceasar and wore a toga. This claim originates with Robert Sam Anson, who wrote that this alleged witness appeared in court and testified to that effect (Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, page 370, note 101). Just take a look through the trial transcripts. You will find absolutely nothing like this. I repeat, this charge is a 100% fabrication. We are told of "psychiatric patients who offered hypnotically induced testimony." Garrison did not have witnesses who were psychiatric patients. The only witness who underwent hypnosis was Perry Russo, and he told Garrison's investigators his story before the hypnosis sessions. The hypnosis was to verify Russo's conscious recollections, one of the "independent verifying tests, including polygraph examination, truth serum and hypnosis," as Garrison stated in his Playboy interview. "We thought this would be hailed as an unprecedented step in jurisprudence; instead, the press turned around and hinted that we had drugged our witnesses or given them posthypnotic suggestions to testify falsely." Lastly, the author says that "when Garrison was arrested on bribery and tax evasion charges, he claimed that the American government had framed him because it did not want him to continue to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy." The reader is given only half the story. Garrison was acquitted and the Federal Government did, in fact, attempt to frame him. Peter Whitmey wrote a good, lengthy article about this scheme, "Pershing Gervais and the Attempt to Frame Jim Garrison" (it can be read here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/W...ey/Gervais.html). So, in all, there is really nothing to the article but smoke and mirrors, falsehoods and half-truths. The article contains "factual assertions," as Tim Gratz puts it, only in that these charges were made against Garrison. That is, indeed, factual. What are not factual are the charges themselves and the way in which the author spins things, such as Ramsey Clark's comments to the press, which can only be described as deceptive. In addition, two blatantly false charges are made ("Julius Caesar" and alleged hypnotically induced testimony provided by psychiatric patients). The article is, indeed, "rubbish." I also note that I have independently come to the same conclusions as Dawn Meredith. So now it is two-to-two, and by your logic, I (and Dawn Meredith) know just as much about JFK's assassination as you and Thomas Purvis. Not that there is any scientific weight whatsoever to that contention. Owen: What a breath of fresh air!!! I read thru your post, so happy that someone went to all the trouble that you did to refute this total defamation of Garrison by Purvis and our young Canadian "plant", Lynn. ((??). Then I clicked on your bio, expecting to see that you are a Phd or MA in history. Instead, a high school student! Wow!!! You write with such maturity and wisdom. After only a two year study of this case, you have an incredible command of some rather complex issues. (And you've read the great Paris Flammonde even, a very hard to come by work.) Your post made my day. It is just so encouraging to know that there are young kids out there who care enough about learning the truth about our government and its sordid past. I hope our other youthful member, Nic, sees this. She is 18 and very knowledgable about the case. As to mentioning your youth, I don't not mean it in any disparaging way, but as a compliment. I respesent a lot of teens and most don't read anything, let alone truthful US history. I am impressed. Thanks also for providing the links for your points. Maybe the Garrison haters in our midst will aquire an education. With appreciation, Dawn ps I hope you someday run for office!!!

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin. The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right. Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple. Is this the only song you know? Don't you get tired making the same old post day after day, week after week, month after sorry month? You have it backwards: SImkin is right. Trento is wrong. BORING.....is an understatement. Dawn

I will forever blame Earl Warren and Gerald Ford for not taking Jack Ruby seriously in all that he was telling them. "A whole new form of government" is exactly what occurred. Ford I get, he's "one of them" and his payback was to be president, but why Warren participated in this total travesty of justice has always been beyond my comprehension. I know that it's generally believed that he emerged from the room in tears because he was persuaded that he needed to head the WC in order to avoid some sort of (fake) nuclear war, but I have always suspected that they had something BIG on him and that was the reason for the tears. Blackmail. Just my opinion, nothing to base this on... Hunter, Koethe and Howard clearly knew something rather substantial. Here's a question for you Tim- (another you won't answer I am sure): If your theory is correct, then who killed all the witnesses???? Castro Dawn

As Robert points out, Cram is an important investigator that should not be ignored. It should also be remembered that when Cram wrote this he did not know it would one day enter the public domain. Cram does not take the view that Epstein was fooled by Angleton. Instead he believes he was a willing conspirator in the plan to mislead the American public. According to Cram, Epstein virtually admitted this in an interview in May 1989 when he confessed that he never really believed Angleton’s stories. The important point is that researchers like Gus Russo and Joe Trento (another one that Cram criticizes for believing Angleton's disinformation stories) continue to write books and articles claiming that Angleton was telling the truth about Cuban and KGB plots to kill JFK. This in turn helps to convince others like Tim Gratz to believe this nonsense. A very important point John. This is exactly how disinformation works and so well at that. One "writer" such as Epstein pubishes an ok book (Inquest) to gain trust, then comes the bait and switch. Other "authors" add to the disinfo and before you know it, we have a bunch of right wingers like Gratz saying Castro and/ or the KGB killed JFK. As much as I love the work of Robert I have to agree here with Mark that one's ideaology does seem to influence how they feel about who killed JFK. If the person is more to the right they tend to believe the Castro disinfo, as this comforms to their ideaological view of how things work. People on the right don't question our leaders (unless they are Democrats of course, which is why you see Gratz pointing to the dirty dealing of LBJ-and rightly so.) I vacillate between believing that Tim does not REALLY believe this crap; he's clearly too well read on this subjct, and the idea that TIm is being truthful here: he does believe it. And precisely because his ideaological thinking does not permit him to accept the truth: that JFK was killed by the powers that be in the US. Dawn

This is a very important post. I agree 100% Ron. Scary times these. Your post sums up the situation perfectly, imo. Dawn

This manuscript was that of Steve Pegues, also a friend of Jay Harrison. He and J were to meet in Dallas in Dallas on 9/4/97 to exchange and update each other's work. Jay made the meetig but Steve did not. He died that day. One of the last things he did was to contact the daughter of Mac Wallace. Pegues, at age 46, died of a heart attack. The manuscript was later missing from his home. J's copy was left to Walt Brown and Walt was to edit and publish it. This was J's dying wish. In Walt's recent DPQ newsletter (October) he states that such will not be forthcoming as now the copyrght has been purchased by none other than Billie Sol. This just gets more and more curious. When I asked Barr why he had "hired" Caddy to do the Mac Wallace print match conference his response was that he'd been Billie Sol's atty. therefore familiar with these allegations. But Caddy was a no show... And the actual conference a joke, but that's another matter entirely that I don't feel comfortable addressing publicly, beyond what I write here. Nothing's ever quite what it may appear to be in Tx. Dawn

The CIA create false information...gee I hd never thought of that.... And to smear Garrison....what a novel concept!! And here I thought Garrison and the CIA were pals. I have this book on order and I will carefully review her research, but documentation from the CIA to "prove" anything about Garrison will be given the credit it deserves (very little). And whether or not Garrisn ever met someone from OC or not is really not relevent to the issue of who killed JFK and why. I am not interested in all these side issues. LIke VInce Salandria called it, (quoted in FOnzi's Last investigation" ) "microanalysis" of the case. Purvis and Lynn are welcome to their views, and I am alowed to profoundly disagree. This is a debate, is it not? Dawn

John et al: I admire trying to prove Tim is a right wing extremist. I have a cousin in Nova Scotia who is exactly like this. We email and argue regularily. But it is pointless. We just see the worlld differently. It can never be reconciled. After receiving his reply early this morning to the article I sent him about record breaking profits by the oil companies, and him responding that this is, fine, an example of Capitalism at work I have decided to call it quits. We just have no business trying to communicate, it's a waste of time for both of us. He has this notion that if he sends me enuf Rush and Ann Coulter I will "see the light". I just turned 56 and I truly doubt I will ever change in my political views. Nor will Tim. The problem with the extreme right is that they just don't think the are extreme, merely "right". Maybe it's a gene or something, but I listen to say Sean Hannity on cable tv and his brain is just wired differently from mine. He also lies and cuts off his guests the second they begin to make a valid point. Rush does the same. The right is the most intellectually dishonest group around. What is going on with the Plame matter is a simple case in point. Wilson disagreed with the faked evidence. The administration and its bulldogs attacked. They are neither conservative (in the true sense) nor compassionate. They are power hungry and will stop at NOTHING to achieve their goal. Very scary. Let's hope FItzgterald does something to set this gang back a tiny bit; tho I'm not overly optimistic. Tim is steeped in this kind of thinking; it's how his brain is wired and all the logical arguments to the contrary are not going to "englighten" him in the least. I knew at age 11 that Nixon was a crook. My Pastor's wife told me recently that she supported this man right up til his regisnation. Our brains are just not wired the same. (Or some people are very easily brainwashed and are greatly lacking in discernment). I'm sure Tim will take great issue with ths. But know what, Tim: you know what I do for a living and I work about 13 hours a day. When I have asked you what you do your response is that you have an office in Langley. So you cannot/will not even answer that simple question. You, like the other Tim here complain that I don't read every word of your every post, like I don't have a LIFE and a real JOB...but when I ask you a question I DO read your response. And I don't mean to be ganging up on you here, it probably looks that way. I actually like you, but find your political thinking a total mystry . Dawn sorry this is so long

Tim: Jim Garrison absolutely denies this meeting in a personal letter to me in 1986. The letter is actually posted at Wim's site, just click on "Jim Garrison" (-on the left panel) and read his actual words. If you still presist in this, then you'll be calling the DA himself a xxxx. Your pro- CIA bias is so annoying. Otherwise, I love this forum. Am too busy with work of late to keep up the way I'd like... great posts folks. Lots of good work being done here!! John this group may just solve this damn case. Now we've gotta get the media to get on board. Tim what happened to your Discovery Channel idea? It seems you have lots of time to post here with your anti Garrison, the KGB/Castro- did- it nonsense, but do you ever do anything to advance the solving of this case? You had a gret idea there, it would be terrific to see you put your words into action. (Also glad you weathered the storm). ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison??? Dawn

[quote name='James Richards' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:16 AM' post='42997'] Hi Dawn, Here is Ralph Geb from the mid 1940's. I do not believe this to be the Mexico Oswald. Cheers, James [/quote] Very interesting James. Unless he has had plastic surgery this is not the same man in the pic in "Sixth Floor". What this book has is not a very good reprint but I will try to scan it and see it comes out. The noses are very different. Tho at a closer look the noses of Mexico City LHO pic and Geb also look different, so perhaps it's not Geb after all. YOu'd think after all these years someone would have come forward to id this pic!!! Dawn James, you just never cease to amaze me: Say a name, any name and you come up with a pic!!!! You rock!!

Wow!!! Ball's in your court Tim. You have indeed some serious explaining to do. (Tho he may be someplace where there's no power at the moment). I have always just hated Buckley, he's so arrogant and so right wing, and he just seemed ot ooze evil.... What a great post John!! Dawn