Owen Parsons

I was careful to make a fine distinction. I didn't say you hated Habeas Corpus, just that you didn't believe in the validity of it. Also note the qualifiers I added. How else am I supposed to read it when you claim you schooled some "Habeas Corpus law professor" in the context of a post that threatens some future revelation that will devastate the research community? You really didn't provide much in the way of detail, in "plain english" or otherwise. To answer your question; what I was trying to get was some clarification on your posisition. Thanks for providing it and showing me wrong.

Mark: Actually, if I understand Gerry correctly (and he can be difficult to understand), he doesn't believe in the validity of Habeas Corpus. He went on a rant (directed at me, incidently) in the best books thread. During the course of this, he related how during some unspecified time he confronted some unnamed "Habeas Corpus law professor" and totally debunked and disgraced him, sending him back to the books.

I'd also like to note that the only real reason David Lifton is so anti-Garrison is because Garrison charged Oswald's Marine buddy Kerry Thornley with perjury for denying he knew Oswald while living in New Orleans, a thing he was almost certainly guilty of. David Lifton had been growing chummy with Thornley and went ballistic over this.

If I had to point the finger at any one person in the research community as being disinfo, it would be Lifton. In addition to his explicitly stated goal of clearing the Warren Commissioners of complicity, after the fact, in the cover up, he seems to point the finger of guilt at shadowy non-entities. Add to this his creation of the body alteration theory, the men-in-paper-mache-trees theory, his support of Zapruder film alteration, and his seemingly arbitrary belief that there were no shots from behind. I really can't find anything in this resume that will stand the test of time. Then there is his somewhat nasty disposition. I don't put much stock in David Lifton's judgements on what is and isn't fraudulent.

Owen wrote to me:

"Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked." [Quoting Mellen's book.] This passage makes it quite clear that the warning was given before any declassifying work had started. It is not about the ARRB, and it is not a request to ARRB members to keep quiet about documents they had not declassified. "No one talked" means that this abortive National Archives declassification effort was not made public, obviously. Try paying closer attention to what you are reading.

Owen, tell you what, let us stake our dispute whether Mellen's book is credible or not on your defense in the above post.

Why are we staking our dispute on the credibility of an entire book on this one point?

You claim that Mellen was refering to some "declassification effort" undertaken under the auspices of the National Archives [in the year 2000 as Mellen writes]. You state that this effort was "not made public, obviously" so by your analysis Professor Mellen was refering to a top-secret effort by the National Archives, so secret that not a soul in the assassination research community has yet heard of it. That claim is preposterous on its face. Moreover, the National Archives does not have any statutory authority to declassify documents. The only reason the AARB had such authority is that they were given it by Act of Congress.

This isn't what I claim. Its obvious that this is what she is referring to just by reading the text. I did not say it was "top-secret," this is a straw man you have built. I said it was "abortive." An internal NARA effort that never went anywhere. I suppose the reason the research community has not yet heard of it (until now) is because most researchers haven't bothered to interview NARA employees like Mellen did. Add to that the alleged veiled threats of the CIA man and I think you've got your answer. I don't know a lot about how the National Archives operates, having never been there, but they do unseal document. See Gerry's post [Gerry makes a point about how only the NARA director can declassify the documents, which is all fine and good, but this team's purpose was to make a recommendation, not to declassify], or, better yet, check out this example. In 1999, after the closure of the ARRB, NARA released this series of documents pertaining to the disposal of JFK's ceremonial casket off the coast of Maryland. You sure like making loud declarations about how "preposterous" things are.

I suggest you try paying closer attention to your brain! I know you are too intelligent to really believe what you just posted had you taken the time to think about it!

To everyone else: Is anyone aware of as highly secret effort by the National Archives to declassify documents?

Use your own brain, Tim. You're the one who spent your initial post implying that Mellen was spinning a tale about the ARRB, when she clearly wasn't. I pointed out to you what she was actually saying and suddenly I'm not utilizing my mental faculties.

Gerry, I don't really care if you think I'm your arch-nemesis Weberman, Mellen's research assistant, or even (as Lynne Foster suggested) Nation Review hack Jonah Goldberg. None of it bothers me as I know, from personal knowledge, that my biography is correct. If you or anyone else wants to think otherwise, be my guest.

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullxxxx about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!!

Maybe you just haven't noticed this "Stalinist" ranting against either specific individuals, or an agency in general. And where is the "solid" evidence ??

Oh, give it a rest Gerry. There is nothing "Stalinist" about what I posted. I just pointed out that there is no reason why Bohning shouldn't be called "CIA linked," in answer to Tim's objections. I don't think that makes Bohning, or anyone else the CIA wants to utilize, a bad person. Nothing to do with "Enemies" or "Evil doers."

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

A CIA media asset isn't pledged to do whatever the CIA tells them. The CIA is satisfied that they will report in the way the CIA wants them to and feeds them information accordingly. The issue of whether or not Bohning was being paid by the CIA or whether or not his editors knew and approved of his CIA contacts is pretty irrelevant. Bohning had a cryptonym (AMCARBON-3), Covert Security Approval, and was DDP approved. If this doesn't make someone at least "CIA linked" (which is the actual word Mellen uses) or "CIA sponsored" (the original word), I don't know what does.

Ayton doesn't mention any of this and trys to make it sound like Mellen has made a totally baseless, McCarthyite charge, supposedly because Bohning is inconvenient to her thesis (which he isn't). His entire review (and just about everything else he has written relevant to the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations) is like this. Mel likes to ignore inconvient information (like when he talks about the LAPD and Sandy Serrano re: the RFK case) and make emotional appeals (he talks about Mellen "play[ing] with people's lives..." in alt.assassination.jfk). He also calls Mellen's book, in one of his posts, "a complete fabrication from start to finish."

None of the defenders of this book have yet responded to my Post 37 in this thread, so I will repeat them and renew my request for a response from Professor Mellen, Owen, Howard or anyone else:

The simplest answer to this is that she is not talking about the ARRB. There are quite a few difference between this National Archives effort and the ARRB. Its as easy as reading the paragraph and yet its exactly that hard. I didn't bother responding to this before because I thought it would be fairly obvious to the casual reader, nothing to do with avoiding it. Talking to ARRB members would probably get you nowhere.

"Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked." This passage makes it quite clear that the warning was given before any declassifying work had started. It is not about the ARRB, and it is not a request to ARRB members to keep quiet about documents they had not declassified. "No one talked" means that this abortive National Archives declassification effort was not made public, obviously. Try paying closer attention to what you are reading.

I too would welcome more information from Mellen, however.

Thats great, Tim. Bill's having sex with Monica led to Al Qaeda growing and 9/11 (which happened under BUSH'S WATCH).

Dr. Gary Aguilar has written pretty much the ultimate treatment of Max Holland here.

I would note that Lynne and I have independently come to the same conclusion about your being James Dobson. I think there is some scientific weight to that.

Anyone who does not independently verify that James Dobson and Stephen Turner are the same man are yins and do not know anything about the murder of Laci Peterson.

Stephen, are you really James Dobson? Somebody, and unfortunately like Lynne Foster, I cannot divulge my source, claims that you are Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family.

Now, I don't know anything about this person, but if anybody has any information regarding this strange allegation, please dispute or verify.

Is James Dobson an evangelical? Is he a yin or a yang?

Also, why is no one talking about the--- BIG YIN! I suggest you study this article very very carefully

I am trying to stay on topic here

"If he truly was concerned about KEEPING THE TRUTH BURIED......"

Is that what you meant to say? Having a little problem with the English language are we?

Dawn

no what she meant to say is obious to anyone who isnt a nixon lover

why doesnt anyone talk about this link--- BIG YIN!

your politically motivated posts tell me everything I need to know about you, Ms. Garrison

"That's right, I am a Yang."

No. I wrote you off as a "Wang".

In addition to her skill at posting utter BS, Ms. Foster has shown herself to have quite a talent for misreading words. "Wry" becomes "shy," "wang" becomes "yang," etc. Its really amazing.

You're just about the most obnoxious person I've ever encountered. Go away.

The CIA certainly thought Don Bohning was an asset ("AMCARBON-3"), even if Bohning disagrees with them. Mellen draws a perfectly reasonable conclusion from the documents.

Oh yeah, you're a treasure all right.

I had a pleasant enough Thanksgiving dinner, just enough to make my stomach hurt.

You know you've really "made it" once anonymous sources start putting forward false information about you. If, when you speak of Jonah Goldberg, you mean the National Review commentator, then I would answer that 1) I am not him 2) Jonah Goldberg ain't a high school student and 3) I would probably classify him as a Yin.

Just look at any of Garrison other comments about the files. Read Garrison's introduction to Harold Weisberg's Oswald in New Orleans. He was not shy about voicing his objections on this subject. The word I used was "wry." Look it up.

Who said he was comfortable with it? If you had any reading comprehension whatsoever, you would see that that is clearly a wry dig at the actions of the government in regard to the assassination. The sealing of the files was always one of his major talking points.

There is never any substance to anything you say because all your opinions are drawn from the various tripod/geocities/angelfire sites of some character named "Mat Wilson."

Garrison's actions in 1963 make perfect sense. He didn't know then what we know about the FBI now, and trusted them to pursue the Ferrie lead, as he assumed leaving no stone unturned in Kennedy's assassination was in their interest. Besides, if Garrison were really working for Hoover (this is pure BS, as I have shown with FBI documents time and time again), he wouldn't even have bothered to take Ferrie into custody in the first place.

And duh, where do you think Garrison would get his hands on the calls Ferrie made from Gill's office except from Gill?

Also, your hero "Oswald-Did-It-for-the-KGB" Epstein is wrong about Ferrie dropping dead "several hours" after Lardner left. Lardner left at 4 a.m. 4 a.m. is the last possible time Ferrie could have been alive, according to the autopsy report.

Her "agenda", and she does have one, is so transparent it's downright silly. I say we just ALL ignore her.

If you respond she comes right back. When she begins a new thread we all know where it will go eventually: back to her anti Garrison , hey let's all read Mat Wilson, crap . Don't feed her hysteria.

Dawn

Yes, I know I shouldn't feed her fire, but this thread was so silly I couldn't help myself.

Owen wrote:

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody.

The first point I wish to make is that if what Beckham says is true, it implicates Marcello (through Gill) not Shaw. Any evidence linking Marcellos or Gill to Shaw is doubtful at best.

So Beckham's story is really consistent with my conclusions re who the conspirators were (Trafficante and Marcello).

I think you should note that Beckham also places Shaw in Gill's offices at the time the assignment was given. I don't really know how you can say his story doesn't implicate Shaw.

First, I do not think the Mafia normally involves its attorneys in its criminal enterprises. If the attorney is good, the Mafia wants to keep him clean so he is available for legal defense.

People don't always think ahead or operate at the peak of their mental faculties.

Second, your argument that Beckham was being set up as a backup patsy sounds good at first, but not if you give it any thought. Beckham was going to be set up as an alternate patsy through his delivery of the documents? How so? Who was going to prove that he had delivered such documents? Only another conspirator could so so. So do you think Gill of Ferrie was going to come forwward and say, "I did it, but Beckham helped"? How would that make him a patsy?

Beckham was also being endowed with a dubious profile through his checking into mental hospitals at Jack Martin's urging, part of the "sheep dipping" process. If Beckham were to come forward, he could easily be discredited with this information. This is what I am getting at when I talk about him being set up as a backup patsy.

Third, why would the conspirators set Beckham up by giving him the plans for the assassination, thereby risking ruination of the plan if Beckham was caught? I am sure that if indeed (as I and most suspect) Oswald was a patsy: 1) he had not met the actual conspirators; and 2) had he for whatever reason been "caught" before November 22nd, I am sure he had no documents on him from which the assassination plans could have beeb inferred.

I don't think that there is a great deal of chance that he would be caught for delivering an envelope. And even if he was "caught" the conspirators had already succeeded in making him look like a nut. I think Beckham would be a pretty safe bet. Also, there is quite a bit of evidence placing Oswald in the presence of conspirators. As an example, I think most researchers credit the Antonio Veciana story, and you yourself have said that Mellen did good work on the Clinton incident.

Fourth, you state Beckham lied before the jury because Chrisman had threated his life. But the only substantiation to that threat comes from Beckham himself. You can hardly use the statement of the man himself to bolster his credibility.

I didn't say it bolstered his credibility, but its a perfectly feasible answer to your objection.

Finally, you stated that "the whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody". If by that you are refering to the Gill client who claimed she saw Gill's attorney going through his desk drwer to clean it up of incriminating documents, that story is, I submit, as preposterous as Beckham's. An attorney as skillful as Gill would leave in his desk documents incriminating him in a murder? And even if he had, rather than disposing of the documents himself he has his secretary do it, and do it in front of a witness? For heaven's sake, Owen, if you can believe that, I can now understand how you could belive Shaw was guilty.

Read her story again. It is Ferrie's material that is being cleaned out of the office, not Gill's. Gill apparently went into panic mode after Ferrie was taken into custody, and quickly moved to sweep everything relating to Ferrie up. Apparently it occured to him that Ferrie might not have been so careful as he was. I am also impressed with how well this story supports Beckham's, though it is independent of it.

Larry: Oh, believe me, I'm quite familiar with Crisman's various activities and life story. I have a few thoughts on it. I think its quite likely that the UFO-spewing-molten-slag story was just cover for something more prosaic, namely the dumping of toxic waste. Mellen suggests this and I think Crisman himself later said as much. I would also note that his tales of fighting robots ("Deros") in underground caverns sent via letter to one of Raymond Palmer's magazines, came right on the heels of the UFO story, before any real investigation of it had started, and were later mocked in a major magazine, Harper's, seemingly to impeach the value of his UFO testimony further.

I don't know about his demonstrated ability to forge documents on government stationary (I wouldn't put it past him), but I assume you are talking about the "Easy Papers," which speak of Crisman's alleged efforts to undermine the Tacoma School Board on behalf of the CIA. First, these aren't, to my knowledge, on government stationary, second, though probably written by him, they have not been successfully linked to him. I would note that the Easy Papers seem to have been produced shortly after he was called before the Grand Jury in Re: Garrison's investigation and after Garrison's office had called him an "industrial espionage agent," or something to that effect. It would appear to me that the purpose of this document is to make suggestions that he is an intelligence agent appear absurd. Crisman actually talks about these (probably self-perpetuated) allegations in his autobiography, Murder of a City, Tacoma, noting how silly they are. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of method in Crisman's madness.

Crisman's whereabouts on November 22 are really only of importance if one believes Crisman was one of the tramps (which I don't). Crisman had always maintained that he was in school on November 22. Beckham's story does not place him elsewhere, nor does Crisman need to be elsewhere.

---merged with bottom post---

I don't know, he is pretty proactive in getting his point across. In addition, he stated "very simply, if that was the conclusion that the FBI was going to come to, then the public had to be satisfied that was the correct conclusion." And remember, he arrived at this conclusion only three days after the assassination. What sort of "integrity" is this? Some one who's only contribution to JFK assassination research was ensuring that the public accept that Oswald acted along doesn't belong on the list, let alone as a "Yang."

And really, if you think its so appalling that Garrison believed the Warren report until 1965, how can you honestly excuse Katzenbach?