Owen Parsons

As for my earlier questions about the evidence that General Walker was a visitor to Banister's office, there is no cited evidence whatsoever.

Tim, Mellen goes over the Walker-Banister connection in a paragraph in the "Unsung Hero" chapter.

The segment mentioned by Owen asserts that Banister attended a speech given by Walker in Baton Rouge. Attendance at a speech isn't the same sort of connection that a meeting at Banister's office would connote. The Notes section erroneously has this as page 223 rather than 224.

Tim Carroll

This is true, of course. The source for this, police officer Joseph Cooper, also said that Banister and Walker knew each other. The gist of the connection is there, though it is not exactly as presented (in a sentence which chiefly rattles off names). This is hardly a grievous sin.

It is unfortunate that the footnotes start screwing up half-way through the book, but this does not make the information of the footnotes incorrect. This will undoubtedly be fixed in the next edition.

Professor Mellen spent years working on the book and interviewing witnesses. It is unfortunate she cheapened and discredited her own work by including such peposterous tales. Even more unfortunate, some gullible readers will "suspend disbelief" and taken them at face value.

From:

To:

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:14 PM

Subject: Re: New book, A Farewell To Justice by Prof. Joan Mellen

______________,

As always, thanks for the information. There is a serious problem with the footnotes. About midway in the book, they do not correspond to the correct page making it tedious, if not impossible to check her sources. Incredible that the publisher would let this happen. I believe this begins with Chapter 12.

One thing that caught my attention very early (Jim Root's too, I'd well imagine): Edwin Walker made visits to Guy Banister's place in New Orleans.

What evidence does Mellen cite that shows Walker at Banister's office in New Orleans?

Tim, from page 69: "Other visitors to Banister's office included Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell, in town to protest the screening of Leon Uris' Exodus, and who was introduced to Banister by Jack Martin; General Edwin Walker; the ubiquitous Ed Butler; and Klan stalwarts Alvin Cobb and A. Roswell Thompson, who drove up in a big black Cadillac.... I saw no reference at the back of the book for this claim.

Now that I've purchased the book, the footnoting/sourcing problem in Ms. Mellen's book is immediately apparent. As the reviewer quoted by Gerry observed, "about midway in the book, [the footnotes] do not correspond to the correct page...." As for my earlier questions about the evidence that General Walker was a visitor to Banister's office, there is no cited evidence whatsoever. It also appears that the book relies too heavily on single-sourced assertions which don't meet the minimum standards of journalism. All of that said, I'll now shut up and read the book.

Tim Carroll

Tim, Mellen goes over the Walker-Banister connection in a paragraph in the "Unsung Hero" chapter.

A few quick comments on the Lambert review. First, she is very deceptive in mentioning Judge Christenberry's dismissal of the Shaw perjury charges. She doesn't mention that the good Judge was a Clay Shaw buddy and that his wife wrote a congratulatory letter to Shaw after the charges were dismissed.

Lambert is not a trustworthy source. She seriously misrepresented Anne Dischler's information to suite her anti-Garrison thesis, as Mellen shows. Unsurprisingly, Lambert doesn't mention this in her little review (which really just picks around the edges of Mellen's book).

I think that the evidence of the loan would be less impressive if it wasn't for all the independent confirmation of Ferrie's Dallas trip, a week before the assassination, from other witnesses. So yes, I do believe it.

Lambert also doesn't tell much about Beckham that isn't already in Mellen's book. What Lambert's rendition lacks is context.

Lynne wrote:

Richard Nixon was propelled to power by destroying Alger Hiss. do you have any doubt that he was in fact involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Ms. Foster,

Hiss was as guilty as hell. That fact is now beyond dispute.

And even if Nixon had framed Hiss (now a preposterous claim) what possible connection is there between that and your equally preposterous claim that Nixon was a conspirator in the Kennedy case? In a court of law, evidence of past crimes are allowed only, for instance, to show a pattern. There is no nexus between a claim that someone framed someone for perjury and a claim that twenty years later he murdered someone. It's like trying to argue that someone robbed a 7-11 because ten years earlier he was ticketed for speeding.

Certain individuals would like the public to think that Hiss was "guilty as hell," and it is most certainly a cornerstone of the Buckley faith. Doesn't make it true, however.

Interested readers should check out this link.

Wasn't it you that was whining about your "free speech" in the media thread, when you have been able to spam unimpeded here? You are in no place to accuse others of whining.

Richard Nixon is not my hero, so I am under no obligation to debunk your favorite Mat Wilson article. I already rebutted one garbage article and you pretty much ignored it. Why should now be different? I have better things to do with my time.

Your comment about David Ferrie is nonsensical. David Ferrie was supposed to have debunked the Warren Report (before the Commission had even started, before the Zapruder film, before any of the evidence was in) for Garrison during the brief time he was in his custody in November 1963? Is this what you are getting at? Again, where does David Ferrie even fit into your theory anyway?

Funny you recommend Joan Mellen's book, haven't heard anything about it in the media. Guess it's only a matter of time before she appears on CNN, isn't it?

I recommend this because it is relevant to the conspiracy to assassinate the President of the United States, and that is why I read and post on this message board --to share information about that.

Frankly, I genuinely believe that Nixonian, media tactics are conspiring to cover up the truth, and recommending a foolish book that I will never read because it is about a foolish man, is frankly so silly, that I cannot possibly contain the opportunity to declare it. It is easy to hide admiration for Richard Nixon but it is not possible to hide Nixonian tactics.

From Patrick J. Buchanan to Richard Nixon, November 10, 1972:

"A small, ideological clique has managed to acquire monopoly control of the most powerful medium of communication known to man; and they regularly use threat unrivaled power to politically assault the President and his Administration. This is not a question of free speech, or free press -it is a basic question of power.... What I would like to do in this area is work with those of a similar cast of mind to develop, quietly, a media strategy for dealing with the Left combination of the networks - and other powerful organs of opinion. It would include our defences against the network, a strategy against their monopoly control, and a thought-out program for cleaning out public television of that clique of Nixon-haters who have managed to nest there at taxpayer expense."

Frankly, I am a little surprised by the fact that the board has failed to clean me out, in true, Buchanan style. I don't know why free speech is still tolerated, given the obsession to disseminate the pre-packaged message -"oh, I know Nixon was involved in the Kennedy assassination, but the tape was erased LOL, so get over it Lynne, Nixon may be guilty, but you can't prove it." Needless to say, there are two, divergent opinions here. You can either believe that the dots are impossible to connect because the tape has been erased or you can think that there are more than enough dots to complete the picture as clearly as one can expect, given the obsession to cover up the truth.

Now those who think that the dots are impossible to connect do not in fact belong here because they have nothing to contribute.

In my opinion, those who value power and personal assault more than truth and principle are trying to control every medium, even this thread on this message board.

If I hear one more word about the effort to rehabilitate a loser/xxxx like Jim Garrison, [he said he believed in the Warrent Report until 1966, helloooo] I will not be able to contain myself.

Jim Garrison believed in the Warren Report for as long as he did because he hadn't bothered to actually read it before then, helloooo. You still have not engaged with the rebuttal to your Mat Wilson Jim Garrison article that I posted weeks ago.

If you expect any conspiracy oriented book on the JFK assassination to end up on CNN, you haven't seriously followed this case. Only Posner and McAdams end up on the major news networks.

Stop spamming the Mat Wilson link, everyone has seen it by now.

To which Owen Parsons replied:

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA.

Owen, I take it, then, that you: (a) do not believe that LBJ was involved in the Kennedy assassination (if he was surely he should not have won); and

( do not agree with John Simkin's assessment that LBJ was one of the most corrupt American politicians.

Of course, if you disagreed with Goldwater's politics but thought LBJ was corrupt, you would have, I suspect, quite a difficult choice.

I suspect this is more revealing than anything you will get from Owen.

You're most certainly correct. You will never get anything like that from me. All you can to do is attack my age, not my arguments. Who is really being infantile here?

What kind of "educator" are you if you tell a high schooler (me) to drop out of school?

Edit: Correction, I suppose the "pithy" stuff was for Frank Agbat.

Mr. Parsons, have you read "A Farewell to Justice"? I certainly believe it attacks Mr. Turner quite directly.

Yes, of course I have read it. Have you read my post?

Edit: Thanks for telling your side of the story Mr. Turner.

Goldwater should have won.

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA.

I did not defend the CIA. The FACT that the CIA was not officially involved in the Kennedy assassination is besides the point. The CIA is the suspect that EVERYBODY LOVES TO BLAME, but it is Hoover's FBI that covered up the Kennedy assassination, so I think that it is ABSOLUTELY STUPID to blame the CIA for HOOVER'S COMPLICITY IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION COVER UP.

One more thing -rest assured, if Garrison blames the CIA, the CIA was not involved -other than rogue CIA operatives like Hunt, Sturgis and perhaps others, the official hands of the CIA are clean.

Rogue operatives like Nixon, Sturgis, Hunt and the like had access to Hoover's FBI, they would never even think about getting Kennedy's CIA involved, after he fired Dulles.

Don't forget the smoking gun memo, where Nixon talks about the FB, ah, CIA. That's right,it wasn't the CIA, Nixon's slip of the tongue was on the money, it was Hoover's FB...

What splendid logic you employ here ("if Garrison blames the CIA, the CIA was not involved"). Nevermind that you haven't bothered to defend this Garrison hatred of yours after I have repeatedly challenged it. But so be it. If Mat Wilson/You say Garrison is a Hoover stooge (nevermind all the internal FBI evidence, some even originating from Hoover himself, to the contrary) then it must be so.

I don't think anyone has ever said "Kennedy's CIA" (by this I suppose you mean John McCone) killed Kennedy, but rather the Helms-Angleton faction. No strawmen, please.

Also, please explain why Goldwater should have won. His politics seem rather far to the right of what one would expect from an alleged Kennedy admirer.

Goldwater should have won.

This may be even more revealing than your defense of the CIA.

Hello Bill Turner, a true Friend of JFK, and one of my personal heros.

I reading Joan Mellon's "Farewll to Justice" I expected her to have an attitude towards some of those who undermined Garrison's investigation, and to pinpoint the press that was bought off and the infiltrators who disrupted justice, but I was kind of surprised at some of her insinuations, especially towards Bill Turner.

In calling attention to Edgar Eugene Bradley, Carl MacIntyre's California assistant, Turner investigaged a legitimate suspect, and Garrison indicted him, but Mellen says, "...Neither Ivon nor Alcock would have been capable of the incompetence volunteers William Turner and 'Bill Boxley' now exhibited...No agreater disservice was done to Jim Garrison's work than Turner's and Boxley's targeting of Edgar Eugene Bradley..."

(p. 264)

There are official documents that reflect the fact and Mellen herself speculates that Edgar Eugene Bradley was mistaken or confused with Eugene Hale Brading - aka Jim Braden - who was taken into custody as a suspicous person at Dealey Plaza, and MacInytre was certainly a major operatior (more on that if requested), and Turner was certainly justified to investigate him.

I could not agree more. Bill Turner is also one of my heroes. It should not be forgotten the role that people like Turner and Hinckle played in challenging the Warren Commission report. Their work at Ramparts was vital in keeping the investigation alive. For example, Penn Jones's work was only known to a few hundred people (the readers of the Midlothian Mirror), most of whom who were completely uninterested in the case, until Ramparts publicised his articles.

Bill Turner's book (The Fish is Red : the Story of the Secret War Against Castro, 1981) also focused attention towards the role that the anti-Castro Cubans played in the assassination.

Bill Turner is also the most generous of writers. He never fails to respond to my questions concerning his investigations. I have not been able to get a copy of Joan Mellen's book yet, but if she does attack important researchers like Bill Turner, her own credibility will be seriously undermined.

Mellen doesn't really "attack" Bill Turner (you'll notice she contributed a blurb to the back cover of Rearview Mirror and cites it positively in her bibliography; Mr. Heidenheimer cites this very instance) so much as his work on this particular lead. Most of the blame falls on "Bill Boxley," with Turner pursuing Bradley because of his Minutemen connections. If Mellen seems just a little passionate about this particular incident, this is probably Vincent Salandria's influence rubbing off, since she is part of his circle. David Boylan is also correct that it wasn't really a matter of confusing Bradley and Braden, as there were many dubious witnesses against Bradley.

Edit: I'm also a big admirer of Bill Turner's work and own both Deadly Secrets and The Assassination of Robert Kennedy.

Blah!

For someone who has never professed to have any serious bonafides, you sure do make a lot of noise. You treat every single one of your writings as if God himself had etched it in stone with his finger. I am not even going to pretend any longer that there is a distinction between "Mat Wilson" and yourself; your ability to quote from such rare works as Paris Flammonde's Kennedy Conspiracy (as you did awhile ago in your Jim Garrison thread) has shown me that you are fully capable of both writing "his" articles (when "he" isn't plagiarizing) and citing the sources that "he" cites (when "he" bothers to cite sources).

There is never going to be a "good reason" that is good enough for you to back down on anything. Your behavior here has not been that of the disinterested searcher for truth that you like to pretend to be. The only reason for your presence here that I have been able to discern is to cause distraction and confusion through your repetitious, contentless, sometimes nonsensical, spam. You have become so obnoxious that even Hemming, a former defender of yours, has turned against you.

The real question I have for you, Ms. "Foster", is "[a]re you ever serious?" I tend to think the answer is no and that "you are full of yourself."

I expect Ms. "Foster" to reply by insinuating that I adore Nixon, hate Kennedy, and should focus my energies on reading that wonderful "Mat Wilson" piece that "she" enjoys spamming unrelated threads with.

You are too weird.

I rest my case.

By the way, are you also proud of the fact that your hero, Jim Garrison, was the "official" version of Jack Ruby?

Jim Garrison was not "the 'official' version of Jack Ruby." You can imply Garrison had David Ferrie killed all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Where does David Ferrie fit in your Hoover-Johnson assassination theory anyway?

I really hope I haven't been "too weird." My question, which you have not yet answered, is do you agree with the Wilson-network viewpoint that Scott did not murder Laci Peterson?

Mr. Wilson or whoever?

Please don't let the facts get in the way here, Mr. Garrison....

if you really want to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discuss this.

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison."

I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda.

Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

You are stubborn. I already told you that you are trying to divert attention from the Kennedy assassination by discussing things that I know nothing about.

I think your extreme, political views are getting in the way here.

The only person being stubborn here is you in not answering a simple question. If you really know as little about the Peterson case as you imply, posting your opinions on what little you do know should be no problem. This is the last question I'm going to ask you.

What, pray tell, are my extreme political views (my alleged secret hatred of Kennedy aside)?

Edit: You can find a whole list of links on the Peterson case just from the Wilson McAdams FAQ reprint alone.

"Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline 1/30/03 DIVERTING BLAME

2/21/03 EARLY REPORTS

3/03/03 PLANTING LACI'S HAIR

3/16/03 SUSPICIOUS MINDS: KEY REPORT

3/21/03 AMBER FREY

4/04/03 MEDIA SPIN

4/10/03 SMOKING GUN?

3/16/03 MARK GERAGOS

6/03/03 WAS LACI SHOT?

9/23/03 JAILHOUSE SNITCHES

10/05/03 FRAMING SCOTT PETERSON

09/20/03 ANATOMY OF INQUISITION

10/20/03 LARRY KING LIVE TAKEOVER

11/22/03 CONNER PETERSON

01/14/04 CENSORING THE TRUTH

02/06/04 THE REAL SCOOP

02/16/04 VIVIAN MITCHELL DIES

02/18/04 WHO IS FRAMING SCOTT

08/22/04 AMBER FREY TAPES

09/20/04 AMBER FREY'S LIES

10/22/04 TAMPERING WITH THE JURY

12/27/04 AND JUSTICE FOR ALL --DENIED."

What is your opinion of all this?

Mr. Wilson or whoever?

Please don't let the facts get in the way here, Mr. Garrison....

if you really want to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discuss this.

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison."

I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda.

Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

Well, Mr. Parsons, you are giving me the distinct impression that you are here today, stalking me without pause, because you want to bury the memory of President John F. kennedy.

In my opinion, Republicans who repeatedly wish to talk about Howard Dean, have no other agenda beyond the effort to use him, to ridicule the Democratic Party.

Now of course, you are going to tell me that you are a Card Carrying Democrat, aren't you?

In other words, you take Mr. Wilson's position on Howard Dean, what a startling surprise.

Now, do you think Scott murdered Laci Peterson?

I'm getting quite a few "distinct impression" from you.

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I did not know that Mat Wilson had a position on Howard Dean and I don't care.

I do think you are very strange, trying to shift from a discussion of the Kennedy assassination, to something that I know nothing about.

No wonder you are such a big Garrison fan, you use his tactics.

I'm just probing you for independent thought process here. What is your position on Laci Peterson's murder? Mr. Wilson (or whoever) provides plenty of links to his opinions on it on the bottom of many of the sites you have posted. What is your opinion?

Edit: You do raise a point about the discussion though. Sorry Dawn if I have derailed your thread.

Well, Mr. Parsons, you are giving me the distinct impression that you are here today, stalking me without pause, because you want to bury the memory of President John F. kennedy.

In my opinion, Republicans who repeatedly wish to talk about Howard Dean, have no other agenda beyond the effort to use him, to ridicule the Democratic Party.

Now of course, you are going to tell me that you are a Card Carrying Democrat, aren't you?

In other words, you take Mr. Wilson's position on Howard Dean, what a startling surprise.

Now, do you think Scott murdered Laci Peterson?

I'm getting quite a few "distinct impression" from you.

Mr. Parsons, your political views do not interest me -I understand.

Aaah, but your political views interest me. I want to see if your opinion of Howard Dean diverges from Mr. Wilson's (or any of the other various names that pop up on his network).

Well Dawn, I think this is the closest independent researchers ever come to actually determining what happened to John F. Kennedy.

What do you think about that?

Another part of the Mat Wilson network. You can tell this because of the recycled image at the bottom and the link to Mr. Wilson's book.

Ms. Foster: I challenge you to post a non-Mat Wilson link.

Also, what are your opinions on current DNC Chairman Howard Dean?

Actually, Lane has never turned on Garrison. Epstein was against Garrison pretty much from the word "go."

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.

Neat, Mr. Wilson has posted the John McAdams FAQ (without permission, I'm sure). Here is an alternate link (since the Mat Wilson link appears to have quickly gone down). Perhaps it would also interest you to know, Ms. Foster, the person who rescued the FAQ from oblivion and whose name appears on Mr. Wilson's site, Jim Hargrove, is a Jim Garrison supporter (though his main interest is John Armstrong's research). Two of the people whose info on McAdams is featured in the FAQ, Lisa Pease and Dr. Gary Aguilar, are also Jim Garrison supporters.

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?

I don't think I even need to address your absurd allegation that I secretly hate Kennedy.

I can tell something is a Mat Wilson site because they reuse the same graphics and link to each other. The biggest giveaway for this particular site you posted is the link to Mat Wilson's online disinfo book. It is presented as all a part of the same website, not as something separate.

No, of course not all sites that link to John McAdams' site belong to McAdams.

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?

This question you asked was only later edited into your post. I didn't notice it until this post of yours that I am now responding to. Your tactics are somewhat dishonest.

In any case, a quick search is proving fruitless. Not that it really matters. My point is there are numerous other JFK speeches and quotes online, but you will always pick the ones Mat Wilson reprints. I have never seen you post a non-Mat Wilson link. I have never seen you post an opinion that has not previously appeared on Mat Wilson's site(s).

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.

Please tell me how it constitutes a popular Kennedy website. Do a google search on Matt Wilson and John Kennedy and see how long it takes you to find anything. Its a disorganized mess of a network consisting of various websites located on various servers. It contains many dishonest articles (on Garrison for instance). Even when he is right (like on Alger Hiss' framing by the FBI) he defends his position so poorly, I can't help but wonder if his argument wasn't meant to be knocked down as a strawman. The only encounter I had with his website before you started heavily pimping it here was an article he reprinted by Vincent Palamara.

Nice insinuation there, that if I object to your lack of original thought and frequent parroting of a dubious source, I must, contrary to my stated feelings, dislike JFK.

Edit: Actually, you can find Mr. Wilson on google, this error results from my consistently spelling "Mat" as "Matt." The main thrust of my post stands.

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 on any issue comes straight from one of Mr. Wilson's various sites, be it Garrison, Monroe, Chappaquiddick, or "Oswald in the Doorway".

Cool! Another link to a Matt Wilson (whoever he is) webpage. Do you have an original thought in your head?