Lynne Foster

My defense of the CIA is not spirited. I merely pointed out the fact that the CIA has the right to defend against preposterous allegations.

I wish you people would stop distorting everything, you are beginning to sound just like Jim Garrison.

The CIA had every right to investigate Jim Garrison because he made outrageous claims about them.

I didn't know that the CIA was in the business of investigating U.S. citizens. I thought that the CIA's job was to "collect information" on foreign governments (which of course soon turned into overthrowing them).

Garrison targeted the CIA and I believe they had every right to know what that was all about.

I do not blame the CIA for investigating the man who essentially accused them of covering up the plot to murder the President of the United States.

But to suggest that he was on to something, simply because he goaded the CIA...that's not reasonable.

I don't know what your point is. The CIA had every right to investigate Jim Garrison because he made outrageous claims about them. Try and keep it short, will you, I think your posts are quite pointless.

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

The media had orders to take him down?

That's strange. In fact, the media was at Jim Garrison's beckon call.

Like he said, if I listen to you all, "black is white and white is black".

Forgive me for popping in here, but this topic/thread just seems so polarized.

Is there no middle ground? Does one have to loathe or love Garrison?

Could he have been sincere? Could he have unearthed some interesting material? Could he have made mistakes?

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out.

In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them.

That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent.

I don't understand this. On what basis do you conclude this re: Garrison's Playboy interview? Is it his eloquence? His incisive analysis of the national security state means that he must have some sort of inside knowledge of it? This is nonsense.

As for Garrison being loyal to Hoover; this is also nonsense. I refer you back to my original rebuttal.

Again, you state what you "believe;" that Garrison spied on Warren Report critics. This speculation is unaided by any facts. You appear to be totally spellbound by this Mat Wilson person and his various articles (virtually everything you post is derived from one of these), he must be a close personal friend of yours.

The only things I am finding disturbing are your posts, in that they are so reckless, baseless, and hard-headed. Consider this my last response to you.

It sounds like I am supposed to agree with you. That's what Dawn Meredith said, but she keeps posting.

It sounds like you have a grievance with Mat Wilson, I don't know what that has to do with me.

As far as I am concerned, the only reliable investigator on this board is Joshiah Thompson, I don't know why you are hung up about Mat wilson, an investigator that I was introduced through the Spartacus website.

Maybe,you should complain to the moderator about that.

When I assess Jim Garrison. I compare his general [eloquent & "visionary"] rhetoric with his specific actions and the combination is so disjointed, I cannot possibly believe that he is not acting on behalf of somebody like J. Edgar Hoover.

You may not share my belief, but without a significant RFK-like campaign to fight the mafia, I see no distinction between J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Garrison.

I am surprised Rusk pushed the treaty. I thought he opposed it.

Forgive me for popping in here, but this topic/thread just seems so polarized.

Is there no middle ground? Does one have to loathe or love Garrison?

Could he have been sincere? Could he have unearthed some interesting material? Could he have made mistakes?

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out.

In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them.

That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent.

The polarization on this board has caught me off guard, I think Jim Garrison is smiling.

I think a xxxxx is somebody who posts stuff that is boring, like your above post that I did not bother to read, past the first 2 sentences.

Moreover, I think the fact that you people are evidently hero-worshiping Jim Garrison is disturbing.

Hitler condemned Communism in the name of Democracy, and in a similar fashion, Garrison condemned Fascism, in the name of Democracy.

That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.

At best, Jim Garrison was an incompetent DA. At worst, he was affiliated with the mob.

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter --he proved to be useless.

Where did that 1971 picture of Bill Lovelady wearing Oswald's shirt come from?

Over the years, researchers have been asking the wrong question; Was it Oswald or was it Bill Lovelady in the doorway?

We now know that it was both. and that is a stunning development.

The Kennedy assassination mystery was like a one thousand piece puzzle with 10,000 pieces, and that has changed.

Now, the Kennedy assassination is still a one thousand piece puzzle, but we can now discard about 5000 pieces.

I know tht John McAdams publishes that 1971 picture of Bill Lovelady to "prove" that the man in the doorway had Lovelady's hairline, but what is the source of that picture?

Why did Bil Lovelady where a shirt to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald in 1971?

I can't disagree more. Oswald's picture was plastered in the newspaper on November 23, 1963, and if Tppit was even mentioned, he was a footnote.

The claim that a Communist shot Kennedy was the big story.

And don't forget, Nixon called Hoover pretending that he wanted to learn about the assassination and Hoover told him that a Communist had killed Kennedy.

I think Tippit got in the way of the plot to implicate the "Communist".

Of course was LHO picture in every newspaper on November 23, he just shot the President one day ago and everybody wanted to know who this guy was. The fact that Oswald killed a cop was, as you mentioned, a footnote but used to show what a dangerous person he was and that he would not hesitate using a weapon if necessary. I’m no lawyer so I might get this completely wrong but IMO without the Tippit killing the case against Oswald was not very strong.

A/Nobody saw him firing the rifle, those who claimed they did weren’t very credible. (Brennan)

B/They had the Carcano rifle that was traced back to Oswald but no fingerprints on it.

C/No paraffin was found on Oswald's face which would have not only shown he had recently fired a rifle but comparison analysis of the unburned and partially burned powder residue would have established a forensic connection between the man and the rifle.

D/The timeline between the last shot and the encounter with DPD Marion Baker in which Oswald

looked calm would rather speak for his innocence than his guilt.

I think Tippit got in the way of the plot to implicate the "Communist".

What is your theory to that? Did he get in the way by coincidence or as a part of his role in the plot?

George

I disagree, the case was very strong because they had the so-called snipers nest.

I should qualify that. Oswald had to be dead for the case against him to be strong.

As for theories regarding Tippit, there are many possibilities. He could have been instructed to shoot Oswald and declined, he could have overheard something about the Kennedy assassination, about cop-friendly, Jack Ruby, etc. etc. etc.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to say for sure, without a good lead.

Or perhaps, as you suggest, it was just an effort to create the impression that Oswald was violent, so they pinned the death of one innocent man on him, to make his alleged complicity in the Kennedy assassination more believable. It certainly fooled Jackie, didn't it?

Jim Garrison attacked Robert Kennedy when Kennedy had the unmitigated

gall to speak up in defense of his friend Walter Sheridan after Garrison charged

Sheridan for public bribery.

Paris Flammonde reports in *The Kennedy Conspiracy* that Robert F. Kennedy

responded in this way to the charges against Sheridan:

"I have been fortunate to know and work with Walter Sheridan for many years.

Like all of those who have known him and his work, I have the utmost confidence

in his integrity, both personal and professional."

"This view was shared by President Kennedy himself, with whom Mr. Sheridan was

associated for many years in a relationship of utmost trust and affection."

Flammonde writes, "Sheridan, a former official of the Department of Justice,

was chief investigator for the Senate Rackets Committee was its chief counsel.

He later served under the late Senator when he was the Attorney General of the

United States."

When Jim Garrison attacked the Federal government, he was as credible as

Carlos Marcello's claim that he was a tomato salesman. Garrison and Marcello

were evidently cut from the same cloth.

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the Jolly Green giant was not affiliated

with the mob.

I think Life magazine is a very good source.

New Orleans was the Big Easy and Jim Garrison was the Big Boss who didn't rock the boat.

He may have talked about Huey Long, but he survived because Garrison, the man who was affiliated with the mob served their interests well --as long as he was the DA, Carlos Marcello had nothing to worry about.

The only think that is dead is the credibility of anybody who still claims that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the 6th floor when Kennedy was shot.

Lovelady wore Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt in 1971 LOL.

John McAdams kills me !

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Three witnesses confirm the fact that Lovelady was with them on the steps of the Depository, William Shelley (6H328), Sarah Stanton (22H647), and Wesley Frazier (22H675). But in the WCH, Shelley testified under oath that Lovelady was SITTING DOWN on the top step directly in front of Shelley, and that is why the man pictured in the Doorway is not Lovelady, and J. Edgar Hoover knew it. Even Lovelady claimed that he was with Shelley, and the man in the Doorway appears to be alone and he is wearing Lee Harvey Oswald's shirt.

You trust the Warren Commission Report?

I really do not think that it is very credible to rely on the Warren Commission report, to "debunk" the very real possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed witnessing the Kennedy assassination.

Lynne,

I believe the Warren Report is full of excellent information and should not be dismissed. Do you really think every witness lied, or every document is false? The WCR is one of the best sources FOR a conspiracy I know of. It's their conclusion I don't agree with.

Regarding "debunking" the "real possibility" that LHO was photographed standing on the steps, you must think that Billy Lovelady committed perjury. If you read his testimony, HE drew the arrow pointing to himself in the photo when asked to identify where he was. He's given many interviews over the years, and was photographed with the now famous red checkered shirt. There is no "real possibility". There is only speculation, innuendo, and supposition. Time for a reality check.

Do you realize it's this kind of thing that makes CTs look like a bunch of loonies? Geez, just jump at anything no matter how far out. It WAS Billy Lovelady in the doorway of the TSBD. What anyone believes about the Warren Report is immaterial.

RJS

You make it sound as if everybody who testifies in a court of law tells the truth.

In this case, I don't think that the prospect of being charged with perjury is even relevant. Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered to place him on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository and you actually think that Lovelady was in a position to tell the truth? Not quite.

Lovelady was there to support Warren Report conclusions. Period.

Now if Lee Harvey Oswald was alive, he would place the arrow exactly where Lovelady placed his, and he would say, "What's Lovelady's mugshot doing on my body?"

Clearly, to believe Lovelady's coached testimony you would also have to believe that he and Lee Harvey Oswald wore the same clothes, on November 22nd, 1963 and that is not the case.

Lovelady pointed exactly where the Warren Commision wanted him to point, and Oswald would have done the very same thing if Jack Ruby had not pointed a gun at him.

Like I said, the only "POINT" of the Warren Commission is to mislead, and when you understand that, you will understand the fact that it was clearly Oswald in the doorway.

That's absolutely incredible, Lee, I missed your point when I initially viewed your animation. Lovelady was in fact right beside Oswald, in the doorway, his head was cut and pasted onto Oswald's body in the doorway.

No wonder the doorway is not full of heads, as one would expect.

That is a genius animation as far as I am concerned, because you have captured Oswald and the clothes he wore in the doorway as was initially pictured.

KUDOS !

The Oswald version looks more authentic than the publicized, Lovelady photo, how did you get it so perfect?

Your agenda is an anti-Garrison one, of course.

I am not anti-Garrison. I am trying to make sense of Jim Garrison, and I genuinely believe that it is not posible to deny his affiliation to the Marcello organization.

Face it, organized crime ruled in the 1960's, even J. Edgar Hoover WAS NOT interested in fighting it.

Robert F. Kennedy is the only one who was interested in fighting organized crime, and the suggestion that he interfered in a genuine investigation against organized crime is not credible.

Perhaps, Robert Kennedy understood those who called Garrison's investigation a hoax and a charade.

Garrison did look at Cosa Nostra and Marcello connections to the assassination (Davy, Mellen etc. I'm sick of citing pages by this point, but these names specifically).

I don't think that this means very much. Garrison even claimed that Robert F. Kennedy had a hand in his own brother's murder, I don't think that Garrison was seriously interested in investigating the Marcello organization, and if he was affiliated with it as all the evidence strongly suggests, he did not have to investigate Marcello.

He merely had to pretend to investigate Marcello, to control his critics.

Excuse me? What is my own agenda?

Also, if you think so highly or Aaron Kohn, perhaps you would like to know that Kohn originally shared my opinion of Garrison and offered him much praise.

I can understand that. Garrison the great pretender, deserves a great deal of praise, you have to unravel his intentions to understand the real person, and that is not always easy.

Federal government only attempted to frame him for bribery and tax evasion

I don't agree with that. If the government failed to convict just one more tax evader, that's no big deal -it happens all the time.

But to suggest that this is evidence that Garrison was a serious investigater -now that's stretching it, as far as I am concerned.

As far as Posner trashing Garrison, I don't think he minded because both Posner and Garrison thrived on trashing honest people. The fact that they trashed each other is merely a consequence of their peculiar intentions -to obscure the truth, no matter what it took. Isn't that what tax evaders do?

You know, when I was in New orleans, I noticed that many of the restaurants did not take credit cards. I wonder why?

In television interviews in September 1963, Kennedy said, " ...in the final analysis it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it".

Right, that is subject to interpretation but I also think it was a signal to the decision to withdraw troops and to let the Vietnamese sort out their own problems.

When Kennedy visited Canada and asked for Prime Minister Pearson's advice, Pearson said, "I think you should withdraw."

Kennedy responded by saying that any fool knows that, but the question is "how" to withdraw.

Vietnam was not an American military problem, as far as Kennedy was concerned, it was a political problem, and when you understand that, I think his September comments are much clearer.

As for all the other conspiracies that people seek to sell on this thread, I don't see ANY evidence forknocking of a fiscal conservative like John F. Kennedy.

If that was their intention, they would have killed Johnson for destroying the economy throught the massive deficit he created.

I really think that Aaron Kohn was genuinely concerned about fighting organized crime.

I also think that if Garrison had genuinely tackled adversaries like organized crime and those who killed Kennedy, he would not have lived to be able to talk about it -he would have been buried and called a useless drunk by the likes of Gerald Posner and others who slandered intelligent people like Dorothy Killgalen after she was found dead.

I don't think that it is possible to conclude that Garrison was serious about fighting organized crime

or about solving the Kennedy assassination, if you study the bizarre quotes that have come out of his mouth -he is directly responsible for turning the Kennedy assassination investigation into a circus, and i don't care if i am banned from this message board for saying so.

Serious investigators do not talk the way Jim Garrison talked, they prosecute criminals, and you can't dance around his pathetic record -it speaks for itself.

You trust the Warren Commission Report?

What strikes me is that when John McAdams, "a base propagandist in scholars robes", tries to prove that it was not Oswald, he goes into this strange, "debunk" mode.

I really do not think that it is very credible to rely on the Warren Commission report, to "debunk" the very real possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed witnessing the Kennedy assassination.

As you can see from the above link, John McAdams calls the claim that lee Harvey Oswald was at the doorway a "factoid" that needs to be debunked. But if you study the facts very carefully, a factoid appears to be the truth that needs to be aggressively opposed.

That is what this link evidently proves in very convinving terms.