Lynne Foster

You certainly proved your point ther.

In fact, John McAdams is a cover up artist who spends his time debunking obvious falsehoods as well as the truth. He has certainly brainwashe you, hasn't he?

I think you need to think for yourself.

Mat Wilson's online disinfo book?

I think Jim Garrison, Gerald Posner, John McAdams and the like, promote disinformation.

I haven't read any disinformation by Mat Wilson.

How do you identify what you call a Mat Wilson site?

Owen, in my opinion, given your objections, you are just a Kennedy hater who masquerades as an admirer. Like Jim Garrison, you are all diversion and no substance.

I am absolutely convinced.

Owen, are all the sites that link to all the garbage and the propaganda that John McAdams promotes about the Kennedy assassination, John McAdams sites?

Jim Garrison did not get press attention when it mattered the most.

I think you have to make a clear distinction between publicity seekers and competent investigators.

Oh well, sometimes i agree with what you say and sometimes i do not.

This time, I do not.

Owen, I asked you a question, can you please answer it?

I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else.

Owen, can you point to ANY other site on the entire Internet that quotes that very same, February 12, 1960 Kennedy speech I directed your attention to, in its entirety?

My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words."

I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder.

I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else.

Do you have a problem with that?

I have no problem reading JFK quotes, since I admire the man. Why you chose that site of all the possible sources is what bugs me.

I do find it passing strange that every link you have posted and position you have taken comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway".

Well, it doesn't bug me, and if you object to popular Kennedy sites, I think that you can't stand the man.

My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words."

I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder.

I directed your attention to a link which quotes John F. Kennedy and nobody else.

Do you have a problem with that?

Owen, can you point to ANY other site on the entire Internet that quotes that very same, February 12, 1960 Kennedy speech in its entirety?

My feeling is that this website contains the most truth, especially the link, "in his own words."

I think we need to understand John F. Kenedy before we can understand the reason behind his murder.

What is your point?

Don't insult Gregory peck.

Like you, Garrison trashed himself.

[i rest my case. An elderly egotist in search of an audiance, and I guess he thinks he's found one. good luck people, hope youv'e brought bedding its going to be a loooooong night.

I agree Steve. Let the lunatics here rattle on to each other. They can each pat each other on the back, use potty language and the rest of us can continue to rise above this mentality.

I don't even bother to read thier posts...

Dawn

I thought your attacks were all based on what you read.

If that's not true, you have some other agenda then.

What is your agenda, since it is obviously not to respond to a reasonable assessment of Jim Garrison's role genuine role in the Kennedy assassination investigation?

Ms Foster let me make one thing clear to you, Because of the nature of this Forum (education) the use of swear words is not tolerated. If you can not make your case without resorting to gutter language, then you do not have a case. The same goes for Mr Hemming, although I guess his potty mouth is over looked because people believe he may just "cough" up something immportant. I hope you are all blessed with the patience of Saints, your going to need it.

Give me a break. If Harold Weisberg can say that Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse, the word "bullxxxx" is too kind.

You can call that a swear word, if it makes you happy, but your "bullxxxx" amuses me.

In the meantime, those who are genuinely interested in advancing the truth about the assassination of a beloved President, which is in fact, what education is about, ought to keep these salient facts in mind:

Jim Garrison was, in New orleans, what Jack Ruby was in Dallas.

David Ferrie proved to be, in New Orleans, what Lee Harvey Oswald proved to be in Dallas.

In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie were arrested for the same reason.

The arrest records of Howard Hunt and Sturgis have disappeared.

When it comes to understanding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, a "legitimate" arrest is about covering up the truth, and "enforcers" like Jack Ruby and Jim Garrison, sound like their apologists.

.

So if someone does not agree with Dawn's view of Garrison, he or she must be a conspirator? Holy cow! Seek help.

My point is that I see here a concerted attempt at undermining Joan Mellen's new book.

I also believe that there will soon be proof of this. NOT by me, but by others who also have this belief.

I am not trying to be coy.

Gratz, you're the poster here who is the minority of one who believes Castor did it. And Purv is a LN guy....

Not exactly sound thinking, reasoning or intelligent conclusions, based on the evidence.

Dawn

Anybody who knows anything about the Kennedy Assasination takes Jim Garrison as serious as they take Gerald Posner.

Who published Joan Mellen's book and why was it published?

Jim Garrison was, in New orleans, what Jack Ruby was in Dallas.

David Ferrie proved to be, in New Orleans, what Lee Harvey Oswald proved to be in Dallas.

In 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie were arrested for the same reason.

The arrest records of Howard Hunt and Sturgis have disappeared.

If you want to know the truth about Jim Garrison, try the first post on this thread.

Did Joan Mellen mention all this in her book aboiut Jim Garrison?

Mellen gives the full story on the pedophilia accusation and shows why it isn't all that credible. Doubtless, this will not stop those who already have it in for Garrison from using it, but what can you do?

Dawn: You're right of course, but you do realize this thread will become "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" part II, don't you?

If Garrison is a pedophile, then a cross-dresser was a perfect fit.

Are you here to discuss the Kennedy assassination or are you here to facilitate this circus you encourage?

The above question is directed to Owen Parsons who makes the STUPID accusation:

"Mellen gives the full story on the pedophilia accusation and shows why it isn't all that credible. Doubtless, this will not stop those who already have it in for Garrison from using it, but what can you do?"

Let me make one thing clear to you Owen, because I don't have time for your bullxxxx. You or one of your 'spam proxies' have claimed that I introduced the allegation that Jim garrison was a pedophile

on this thread.

Don't you ever misrepresent ANYTHING I say again.

John;

The "balls" of the matter are difficult for most to swallow!

That being, that there was only a single/lone assassin, and to an extremely high degree of certainty, that assassin was LHO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is irrelevant as to whether one thinks "outside the box" to resolve the issues of this matter, however, in event that they do not take off their "blinders" and recognize that there are many and varied motives for all the items which they wish to combine into one "GIANT" conspiracy theory, then it all probability, they will still be lost 42 years from now as well.

________________________________________________________________________________

_________

(to be called ingnorant is not necessarily an insult. Tom demonstrates a degree of preciscion that makes it possible to take it just as a statement of fact. As Gerry suggests, different languages express things differently. Ignorance in strict definition is just lack of knowledge. Hanging on to conclusions based on ignorance in the face of knowledge is something else entirely (stupidity? : not perhaps all that simple, I think there are degrees of attachments and ego that need to be factored in, but for someone earnestly looking for truth, time deals with)

Tom, ok, let's assume this is correct: (I'm not 'arguing' for arguments sake, just trying to understand exactly what you're getting at)

Is there a conspiracy here? WHAT was Garrison leading anyone away from?

And my initial question was really : (if there was/is a conspiracy of some kind), why do those pointing in the right direction get away with doing so today, when for Garrison it was a matter of life and death. What has changed?

Nothing has changed. The truth is still mired in the bullxxxx that the arrests of Lee Harvey Oswald and Clay Shaw have produced.

And those who have taken the time to read all the books on Garrison, the first thread on this post is a good summary of Garrison, in historical context.

I will read Joan Mellen's book, if I here that she has uncovered ANYTHING that is relevant to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

So far, all I have heard is that she has proved that Jim Garrison was not a pedophile -making him a glorified, Tom Sneddon who did not expose the fact that his secret pal Hoover, was allegedly a cross-dresser, and that should make us all sleep better -our tax dollars at work, giving the Mafia, Richard Nixon and his November 22nd plummers, Lyndon Johnson and his November 22nd, freedom to "continue" the Vietnam war, the opportunity to shape the national security of the United States, for years to come.

Is that what you were asking?

"Since it is extremely doubtful and unlikely that either JEH or LBJ had anything to do with the assassination of JFK..."

Purvis, Johnson and Hoover controlled the Warren Commission Whitewash, how can you say that it is doubtful that they had anything to do with the assassination?

I think the cover up is far more insightful than the actual crime because it provided the opportunity to get away with it.

I mean, all you have to do is think about all the time spent dicussing the arrests of scapegoats like Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald and compare that to the ocassional speculation that makes sense.

Forget about the phony arrests, focus on the cover up and I think the truth will surface, without effort.

One thing that I've always wondered about the Garrison investigation is that it took place right there in the backyard or bailiwick of Carlos Marcello, but you would never know from the investigation that Marcello himself was a prime suspect in the JFK assassination. One may legitimately ask exactly what was going on here. How could a New Orleans DA set out investigating this case with any confidence that it would not lead straight to Marcello (among the other usual suspects)? Would the DA have to ignore such a lead? Would Marcello even let him get that far? Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA? (Did the CIA in turn, through Blakey's HSCA, direct blame or suspicion back at Marcello and the Cosa Nostra?) And why would Marcello feel a need to do this? What heat was he, or anyone else, feeling about the JFK case at that time, that he, through Garrison, would pick a fight with the CIA? One question leads to another.

Perhaps I'm giving Marcello too much credit. Perhaps he was really just a "tomato salesman" after all. But it's odd that RFK would bother deporting tomato salesmen to Central American jungles. The Garrison investigation, while it left us knowing more than we knew before about the JFK murder, has the rather odd look of the mouse (Garrison) playing while the cat (Marcello) is not away. This seems surreal unless there was something going on beneath the surface. Why did the Jolly Green Giant have a green light from Carlos?

Perhaps Tom Purvis, so familiar with the NO "system," may provide some insight here, or perhaps Mellen's book deals with the Marcello aspect (or lack thereof) in the Garrison investigation.

This is your answer Ron:

"Or was Garrison actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA?""

You hit the nail on David Ferrie's coffin -Purvis has it right and the only right answer to your reasonable speculation is, to use your own words in the affirmative, Garrison was "actually doing this for Marcello, to direct blame or suspicion from Marcello to the CIA."

Please understand that i do not pretend to be an expert, but when Harold Weisberg says Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse, he knew what he was talking about.

Now, Purvis is suggesting that Garrison could not find the "pubic hair/Marcello organization" because he didn't want to, and those who suggest otherwise need to develop some respect for brilliant people like Harold Weisberg and Jay Epstein, because they are far more knowledgeable than any person who is seeking to resuscitate the reputation of an exhaustively deceptive person.

Funny thing is that Garrison's apologists are adopting his tactics, they make things up like all their delusions of this so called, brilliant book by this author who evidently does not know what she is talking about, because Jim Garrison is anything but Oliver Stone's, Jim Garrison.

Of course, if youonly read "on the trail of the assassins" and assume that garrison is a genuine person, you will reach a different conclusion, but if you dig as deepas you have in your above post, you will get closer to the truth.

Thanks for this post, I was planning to ignore this stupid thread until I read about your insight.

xxxxx ALERT!!!!! ABONDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE.

Just for the record youv'e proved NOTHING, except your own strange hang up with Garrison.

Please people, no more post's on this thread. let it slowly fade to grey.

***********************************************************

Please people, no more post's on this thread. let it slowly fade to grey.

You're absolutely right, Stephen. This is nothing more than a feeding frenzy for these trolls.

We'd be better off allowing them to crash and burn on their own.

I just love these Emoticons!

Well, I have to get to work right now. Check back with you this evening, on the Murgado thread, of course.

Ter

---------------------------

"ALPHA MIKE FOXTROT" Ye of the great hot flatulent winds.

We'll miss you so velly mucho !! NOT !!

The Galls' stones -- the Pot-Trolls calling the newbie kettle a xxxxx.

The Kostner worshipers from afar -- the "Garrison Groupie Glee Club" has finally bid us fond adieu !!

Lynne -- Never fear whilst the genuine seekers of truth remain onboard -- even should they only be "lurking" !!

"....Don't you realize the damge you've done..??" [Cliff Robertson to Redford in "3 Days of the Condor"]

"...Don't you know how you have hurt da poor widdle feewins of the "Big Gumbo/Jimbo/Kostner" group glee club ??!! Shame! Shame! My fat gut is aching from laughing right now.

Adios MoFos -- see ya on Murgado, pictures at 11:00 PM news !!

Keep on trucking Lynne,

GPH

_________________________

Thanks pal.

The trolls are really funny, aren't they? No wonder they are all such huge Garrison fans -their my way or highway attitude clearly explains David ferrie's lifespan, doesn't it?

No doubt, they have done everything they can possibly think of to label me a xxxxx, which is pretty funny given the fact that I hardly ever post.

I think their posts, promising never to post on this thread again, outnumber all my posts.

Regardless, I think it is clear and obvious that Garrison's only intent, as betrayed by his amnesia regarding why he started investigating the Kennedy assassination, was to cover up the truth -there is no other plausible explanation.

It is therefore vital for anybody who is interested in discovering the truth, to be very careful when assessing what Jim Garrison has said over the years, because when it comes to unravelling this mystery, the truth is not obvious.

Start with the fact that Garrison's only intention was to protect Hoover and Johnson, and then, you might be able to begin to discern the truth.

Steve,

It's quite clear she's only here because of JOan Mellen's new book. She has NOTHING to say on the assassination of JFK. SHe cites known disinfo people like Epstein. And to say that we are trying to "obscure the truth about the assassinaion of John F> Kennedy" is such a vile absurd comment, it did not warrant a response.

It's clear she has not the slightest interest in this case, only smearing Garrison. If we all ignore her she WILL go away. Internet trolls come and go.

Dawn

What on earth are you talking about. Jim Garrison was a certified crackpot, and I have relied on his words to prove that.

As far as I am concerned, Jim Garrison has obstructed justice by covering up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and your peculiar obsession with a person who is trying to resuscitate the reputation of a disgraced prosecutor is very strange, to say the least.

Next, you'll be promoting some peculiar book that seeks to rescusitate the reputation of a fool like Ken Starr, like Jim Garrison, he too has his obsessibve, apologists.

If you think I'm here because of some person that I just recently heard of, keep it to yourself because it's not true and unless it is your intention to misrepresent things here, I'd stick to what you are in a position to prove.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the Internet is becoming a major source of disinformation. I think the following story illustrates how easy it is to create the false impression that a crackpot like Jim Garrison was dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (United News Service) -- The George W. Bush Campaign's strategy to get their message out to the nations internet chat rooms and message boards appears to be a huge success. Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet operations staff, said his organization's latest research shows that fully 80 percent of messages favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.

The entire operation is run out of basement offices in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports. "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain a presence on all message boards."

"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them. We think they're doing a bang up job."

He said the first goal of Bush public relations staff is to post a lot of messages. "The paid posters thus make it seem as though there is overwhelming support for the candidate," We have the money to bury the opposition and we're prepared to shovel tons of it into the effort," he said. The second major goal of the Bush Internet 2000 team is to smear President Clinton and Vice President Gore and, increasingly, Bill Bradley, Straight said. "We'd also like them to go after the other candidate's posters and rough them up a little bit to show them that we mean business," added Straight.

By the way, where does Joan Mellen get off crediting Jim Garrison with this:

"Garrison began by exposing the contradictions in the Warren Report, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was an unstable pro-Castro Marxist who acted alone in killing President Kennedy. "

Jay Epstein discredited the Warren Report in "Inquest" is she also going to give him credit for inventing the Internet?

Even Jim Garrison disputes Joan Mellen:

GARRISON: No, please don't put words in my mouth. The works of the critics --- particularly Edward Epstein, Harold Weisberg and Mark Lane --- sparked my general doubts about the assassination; but more importantly, they led me into specific areas of inquiry.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the Internet is becoming a major source of disinformation. I think the following story illustrates how easy it is to create the false impression that a crackpot like Jim Garrison was dedicated to authentic research into the JFK Assassination:

WASHINGTON, D.C. (United News Service) -- The George W. Bush Campaign's strategy to get their message out to the nations internet chat rooms and message boards appears to be a huge success. Edward Straight, chairman of Bush's internet operations staff, said his organization's latest research shows that fully 80 percent of messages favorable to Bush on Bush message boards are put there by paid staff of the Bush Campaign. Upwards of 40 percent of pro-Bush messages posted on other non-Bush controlled boards are posted by hired Bush public relations personnel, Straight said.

The entire operation is run out of basement offices in a downtown Pittsburgh, Pa. bank, Straight reports. "the cost advantages of this kind of campaign are enormous," said Straight. "For a few hundred thousand dollars we have been able to hire nearly 400 internet users to repost our campaign materials and to maintain a presence on all message boards."

"Make no mistake about it," Straight said, "The postings you see extolling and defending the candidacy of George W. Bush Jr. are not for the most part posted by amateurs -- they're paid professional and there are a lot of them. We think they're doing a bang up job."

He said the first goal of Bush public relations staff is to post a lot of messages. "The paid posters thus make it seem as though there is overwhelming support for the candidate," We have the money to bury the opposition and we're prepared to shovel tons of it into the effort," he said. The second major goal of the Bush Internet 2000 team is to smear President Clinton and Vice President Gore and, increasingly, Bill Bradley, Straight said. "We'd also like them to go after the other candidate's posters and rough them up a little bit to show them that we mean business," added Straight.

You have me convinced, Garrison's apologists are merely trying to divert attention away from the truth.

Clearly, brilliant researchers like Harold Weisberg have exposed Garrison for the crackpot that he was, and for your information, when you lose your reputation, you can't get it back.

I think you have reached that stage as well, if you disagree with Harold Weisberg's assessment.

As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."

Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.

Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?

Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.

Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.

Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".

In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.

Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.

Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".

Good Post, now you are thinking like a good investigator Purvis.

That is what I call an intelligent response.

I really don't know how anybody can possibly respect a prosecutorial jackass, but then again, even ken Starr has his fans. Oh well, I guess some people are here for political, rather than investigative purposes.

Funny when they deny the obvious... why bother?