Owen Parsons

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

Lynne: Excuse me, I never accused you of saying this, I was just addressing the pedophilia issue because Ron Ecker brought it up. Look in my post, where do I say you introduced the allegation? Jeez. I don't have time for you. Purvis: I did not say that the word "cleared" carries with it connotations of being a CIA agent, it is what he was cleared for. Again, you build a strawman.

http://www.quatloos.com/pinnacle_quest2.htm Quatloos has all sorts of material on the PQI scam. As for eugenics, you can see Ruppert softpeddling, but not denying, his comments here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041023055719/...questions.shtml Ruppert wants "to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction." One of his favorite quips is "we can do this nice, or we can do this nasty." He thinks eugenics advocate Charles Galton Darwin (one of Darwin's grandsons) is "distinguished" and quoted him in one of his speeches (showing he is familiar with the "nasty" view of population reduction).

You are building a straw man. I never said Shaw knew everything, as you seem to be implying. This is beside the point, in any case. The point is that being cleared for an operational project is quite a bit above and beyond being a mere contact. And yes, I did know what "need to know" is, thank you. You can stop being condescending any time you feel like it.

You show your ignorance of the material. As an example, Shaw was cleared for CIA project QKENCHANT, an "operational" project. In addition to this, Mellen ties in both the International Trade Mart and PERMINDEX with the CIA. Mellen does not go into "expenses and 'allowances.'" I find it strange that, despite all I have heard about Shaw's alleged O.S.S. connections, I have seen no one but you bring the "Art Recovery" stuff up. Unusual if this was a "common 'rumor.'"

I just did a quick Google search and it would appear that you are right. That Purvis would make this kind of error after going through the I.G. Farben box is strange to say the least (yes, this is innuendo).

While I certainly have no objection to accepting this (it seems to fit in with the Shaw timeline), I have only your word to go on here. How Shaw's files became boxed with "I.G. Farbin" and how you found this out I don't know. How this would help in making Clay Shaw look like a spook is also a mystery, since no one prior to you ever brought this "Art Recovery" stuff up. As for Clay Shaw being a mere C.I.A. informant, Mellen has shattered this myth with actual C.I.A. documents which she quotes and cites. But of course, that pales next to your high standards (typically insinuation and innuendo).

Purvis: I would like to see your evidence that Shaw ever worked for the O.S.S. He did work in military intelligence during WWII, but the evidence of his O.S.S. connection appears to be non-existant. I would be fascinated to see whatever you may have. The relevance of the Claverie's or Perez to the assassination is not readily apparent to me, even less so than the "Law Firm."

Garrison did look into Marcello/Cosa Nostra connection to the assassination, Mellen shows this and I have cited a few examples in Lynne Foster's thread. Mr. Purvis won't help you re: Garrison and Marcello. He apparently believes that Garrison was covering for some New Orleans law firm (he calls it the "Law Firm") of which one of Oswald's uncles was a member (just about the only connection between Oswald and the "Law Firm" that he has). He also believes that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Len: this association with Ruppert caused me to raise an eyebrow. I came to the conclusion a while ago that Ruppert is a hardcore disinformationist, and not just because he is a eugenics advocate, has a website that looks like an infomercial, advocates gold investments, and pimps what is essentially a glorified pyramid scheme ("Pinnacle Quest International").

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?

Gerry, this is certainly a far cry from denying "ever hinting at said statement." Your story appears to be mutating.

Bill, It's worth noting that in his ARRB interview, when asked if he would identify the "acquaintance" who corroborated that it's Landale in the photo, Prouty said, "No. No, that's a personal matter." Why would Prouty say that when his identification of this person as Krulak was a matter of public record? Also, Gerry Hemming, who apparently knows Krulak and tells of a recent fall that he suffered, has stated on the forum that Krulak "denies ever even hinting at said statement." Gerry may wish to clarify whether he heard this denial from the horse's mouth. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4588 IMO (thanks to James Richards first pointing out the resemblance) the man in the photo looks more like Maxwell Taylor (the hair, plus a drooping shoulder just like Lansdale's) than Lansdale (again, the hair). Certainly a significant find. Do you have details as to how Newman discovered this, etc.? Stone's people were able to trace Lansdale through a "claim check" to the Hotel Texas where JFK stayed, but didn't have the date he was there. The ARRB considered looking into Lansdale's travel records on this question, but unfortunately decided that the records "are not worth our checking out." Ron I don't consider Hemming's information on this point, and many others (Esterline as Maurice Bishop, Garrison placing Ferrie under house arrest, etc.), valid. Here is a transcript of Krulak's letter to Prouty with his identification of Lansdale. Prouty has a much better record than Hemming (as entertaining as he is), IMO. Newman's information about Lansdale is indeed significant, I'd like to hear more about it.

I think at this point I'll be renewing my vow of no-response to Foster and join Dawn, Terry, and Ron.

Ferrie never made out an affidavit, to my knowledge, but the DA's office did interview him, and shortly thereafter, according to Ivon, Ferrie confessed to him that he, Oswald, and Shaw, were all CIA, and that Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand and hated Kennedy. Still no confession of involvement in the assassination. Please read up a bit before making false statements.

-------------------------- Negatory Owen [and this is one of the many snivel factors by Mellen] I asked Jim how they got a judge to sign a criminal complaint affidavit to execute even a "house arrest ??" Lou interrupted to explain that pursuant to the "Napoleanic CIVIL Code" under which LA still operates, they had utilized a "material Witness" warrant; the same kind that hundreds of Muslim detainees were grabbed by the FBI since post-9/11. The "screw-up" was in saving the overtime buck$ for a baby-sitter, which bail bondsman [like my nephew] use renta-a-pigs or P.I.s instead of regular [or reserve] cops/constables. That is why every Cajun in N.O. still has a constable's badge, unless Katrina washed it away !! Cheers, GPH _______________________ Its not just Mellen, but every other book and account, pro- or anti-Garrison. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your presence here, but I don't attach a lot of credibility to this account. And really, I have no problem with accepting it either, if you can back it up.

http://www.wsnjam.com/laneslaw.htm is the website for his show. You can listen to it from here.

Well, I don't know Hemming. The fact is that Ferrie wasn't under house arrest. They might have wanted him to stay in one place, but its not the same thing. You either misheard or misremembered what Ivon said.

On a slightly unrelated matter, Tim Gratz has often claimed that Gus Russo's book was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. This is false. I've been meaning to point this out for a while and this thread is as good as any.

The FBI says Harold Weisberg knows more about the Kennedy assassination than the FBI itself. Who do you work for? I've already said Weisberg was a very good researcher. That doesn't make his Garrison turnaround valid. Who do I work for? I don't think the FBI (if that is who you are implying) has much interest in recruiting high school students. This is a silly question and you know it.

The opinions of Summers' and Weisberg are no more than their opinions. Like I have said, the Garrison investigation was made into an albatross around the necks of the critics by the media (see Summers passage, which you quote, about "discrediting... genuine researchers for a full decade.."). I have asked you to deal with the facts.

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend. With all due respect, there was absolutely nothing cranky about Harold Weisberg --his response was very appropriate, when you consider the subject matter. Notice I said "latter-day." Weisberg produced a great deal of very good work. One of his books, Oswald in New Orleans, had a foreward by Jim Garrison and supported the case against Clay Shaw. I haven't really looked into his change of heart, but his original position is very factually based. Maybe he thought by that point that disavowing Garrison would increase his credibility, since the Sheridan-NBC viewpoint had pretty much become the dominant one. Who knows? Point is, he offers no factual support for your position.

Mark Lane noted in his book, "A Citizen's Dissent" that during the period when public confidence in the Warren Report was high in America and low in Europe, the major media trumpeted the line that Americans, versus Europeans, are a naturally level-headed people. When American public confidence in the Warren Report plummetted, suddenly Americans had always been naturally conspiratorial. The media creates and recreates its reality as necessary.

Harold Weisberg's latter-day cranky remarks do not provide any sort of factual backup to your position or the article you posted and failed to defend.

Thanks. I hope that there is a substantial new generation of JFK assassination researchers. I sometimes fear that my generation, not having been alive when the assassination occured, will be taken in by the phony computer models and the like that the media enjoys trumpeting. That, coupled with what strikes me as the increasing insularity of the research community, is worrying. This has already occured with another interest of mine, the Alger Hiss case, which was buried by very loud assertions of Alger Hiss' guilt and lack of interest on the part of the public. Hopefully time proves my pessimism wrong. Every contention of which I have debunked and which you have failed to engage in any serious fashion. You cannot debunk the truth. If Garrison was a serious investigator, he would have conclusively proved that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot the President of the United States. The "truth," as you fashion it, is very easy to debunk when it is not, in fact, truthful. Garrison did as good a job as anyone in proving Oswald's innocence, especially considering that he was prosecuting Clay Shaw and not defending Lee Harvey Oswald (who was, of course, dead).