Owen Parsons

One could interpret this as a friendly contact between Novel and Dulles, but one could not rule out the possibility that Novel was trying to create a smokescreen that he was "CIA connected" to eventually use it to intimidate Garrison. I confess I do not really understand your point. Smoke screen or not (and I'm not clear on how this "smoke screen" would work), it remains a "friendly contact" with Dulles and I don't see how this can be spun any other way. And this was during a time when Novel's lawyer Herbert Miller was acting as a courier between Novel and the CIA's Richard Lansdale (who was Lawrence Houston's assistant council.) See same article, same page. I had correspondence and meetings with Novel, as well as people who knew him, and I came away with some strong impressions. To avoid liability, shoot me an e-mail (blackburst@aol.com) and I'll try to fill you in. Just send me a private message through the forum. Ferrie allegedly said that he was acquainted with Shaw and Oswald, and that they were all CIA. How could that NOT have helped Garrison's case? The issues of Ferrie being acquainted with Shaw and Ferrie, at least, were central to the case. My initial thought was that this was hearsay, but I had heard that hearsay can be admissible if it is a deathbed confession. I asked the head of my County Bar Association, omitting all names and identifying characteristics, and he said this would be something a prosecutor would almost certainly use under Louisiana law. Yes, it would be useful if the deathbed confession (assuming you are accurate here about what qualifies as a death bed confession under Louisiana law; its certainly not what I would think of as a deathbed confession, since Ferrie wasn't on his deathbed literally or figuratively; I'd appreciate it if you'd post some specifics about this) came from outside Garrison's own circle. If the Clinton witnesses couldn't do the job, I don't think the jury is going to be swayed by the "deathbed confession" given to one of Garrison's men. The February 18 interview? Can you cite a passage? He denies knowing Oswald and indicates Shaw is unfamiliar. (Joking reference to Ferrie in "JFK": "Really? What part?") I'm also factoring in some unpublished interviews with people Ferrie interacted with in this period. I am not talking about what he says about Oswald and Shaw in the interview, I am speaking of what he is saying about the mechanics of the assassination. In the interview, he debunks the single bullet theory, which contrasts very much with his later statements after fleeing the hotel. My point is that Ferrie's various interviews are not uniform and they can be divided into pre- and post-Fontainbleu Motel. To my mind, Ferrie's sudden turn to the lone assassin line indicates that he felt he'd said too much. Speculative, I'm sure you'd agree. If Shaw was not a conspirator, I can see him being casual about it. If he was a conspirator, I can't understand not being ahead of the curve. But we may disagree on this. Yes, I agree, but your query can only be answered with speculation by its very nature. But on the face of it, we have evidence that Bertrand was investigated, not Shaw (in 1963). So that only leaves us to speculate. We do have evidence that Shaw was investigated (and one can assume connected with the Bertrand alias) in 1963; the aforementioned memo. In the memos following Clark's disclosure to the press, quoted briefly in Mellen, Hoover is only complaining that Shaw made the disclosure in the first place (as he worried he would in the first memo), not that any of his facts are wrong. These memos circulated at the upper echelons of the FBI and I don't think they would be operating under such an easily dispelled illusion. We may just have different global views on this whole matter. I went into this convinced that Garrison was right. When I the documents from his investigation were released, I re-evaluated my position, and decided to take nothing for granted without challenge. Then when I did interviews (some who supported his case and some who did not), I was again convinced that one had to be cautious in this case. Maybe he was right, but "his" evidence needs to be challenged in the same way the WC evidence is. I suppose it's always dicely tring to categorize things, but I see research in this field polarized into the following groups: 1) Those who think Garrison was totally wrong, evil, crazy, what-have-you. 2) Those who think Garrison may have been made mistakes in his pursuit of Shaw, but who uncovered some valuable stuff. 3) Those who think Garrison was sincere in pursuing a conspiracy, but didn't uncover "the" right conspiracy. The right ta-ta but the wrong ho-ho. 4) Those who think Garrison was totally right, even prescient. Some in this group equate dissent with cover-up. Groups 1 and 4 will never make progress with each other. It sometimes makes it hard for those of us in the middle: In my case, wanting to have damn solid proof before making charges. What's your overall take? I pretty much agree with the Probe magazine crew's take, which I suppose puts me close to 4, but I don't think Garrison was totally right, just correct in all the essentials. Carroll: I've dealt with this Marcello stuff before, do a search.

DOUBLE POST (again) Sorry.

The impression I get is that Novel was a name-dropper who wasn't really connected with the CIA. Do you buy his story? (I can understand if you do, but I'm not sure for personal reasons. But you're right, if he was CIA connected, he acted arrogantly. There is a great deal of evidence of Novel's connections to the CIA. One example (among many) comes from Jim DiEugenio's article, "The Obstruction of Garrison," printed in The Assassinations. The following excerpt may be found on pg. 42: Do you have a print source on this? On what? What he told to Weisberg? Weisberg recounted this to Dave Reitzes (here) and Joan Mellen (see pg. 197 of her book and the accompanying footnote). What do we make of the autopsist who was certain it was a stroke, and saw evidence of prior bleeds? Our own Greg Parker made a great deal of very interesting posts on Ferrie's death in alt.conspiracy.jfk advancing a very credible and persuasive case for the Proloid theory a few years back. Here are some of the things he writes: But the nature of the alleged comments was sensational, and could have "made" his case. It was tantamount to a deathbed confession to a cop. The fact that this didn't come out until so much later, and that there is not trace of it in the files makes me wonder. So many other things are recorded in memos. But this is just my opinion. I don't think it would have "made" his case at all. Rather, it would look awfully convenient (for Garrison) if Garrison trotted out Ivon to recount the self-incriminating things he said that Ferrie had said to him. Ivon may have been a cop, but he was still on Garrison's team. When you look at the Ivon conversation in chronological context, Ferrie 1) denied all, 2) told all to Ivon, and 3) denied all again. On the 20th, he was planning a lawsuit against Garrison and Martin, telling Bringuier he was not involved in the assasination, visiting the FBI and denying all. On the 21st, he said much the same to Pena, Snyder and Lardner. It just seems odd that this happened in between all his denials. Hey, we have his NODA interview from the 18th (with Ivon and Sciambra) and he was denying all then, too. It just seems anomalous. It isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. In the NODA interview, Ferrie pretty strongly hints at a broader conspiracy and he actually asked Garrison's people for protection because he feared for his life. Ferrie only started up on his previous spiel of Garrison trying to frame him after he had fled from the very protection (at the Fontainbleu Motel) that Garrison had given him. It seems to me like he was trying to send a strong message with this, namely that he'd be holding to the line from here on out. But even his wording quoted here shows that he saw it as some horrible thing that came out of left field. Thus, I can't see him being too casual about dropping the alias. The alias primarily centered around Shaw's homosexual identity. Even the Andrews call uses this persona, as it was under the alias Clay Bertrand that he sent the "gay kids" over to Andrews for legal aid. It does not center primarily around his assassination activities and he probably didn't associate it much with the assassination. I hadn't noticed that. But there is no record of Shaw being investigated in 1963, is there? Released records no, but then there are lots of records the government chooses not to release. I think the FBI knows who it investigated and when.

DOUBLE POST, SEE ABOVE

Again, though, wouldn't you expect a guy of Shaw's ability, even drunk and tired, to be aware of the idiocy of giving the whole game away to a complete stranger? People do all sorts of really stupid things when they are drunk/tired. Still, Shaw did very little talking and Russo himself says that he was in and out of the apartment during the conversation. If Shaw was the conspirator who called Andrews, one presumes he would be interested in what Andrews had to say to the FBI and WC. Wouldn't SOMEONE who read the WC materials have called Shaw and said "Guess who the WC was looking for...?" There is a possibility of this, but then, the matter was assumed to be settled and of little interest. Both the government and the media were fully behind the WC no conspiracy verdict and the FBI, in those very reports, had dismissed Dean Andrews' story as a drug-induced fantasy. I'm just wondering what you base this supposition on. Do you have any other examples of such arrogance? Gordon Novel comes readily to mind. Are you saying there are no other possible reasons? I would dispute that. I suppose some other explanation can always be contrived, but I think its the only good one. Eugene Davis (who Andrews said was Bertrand at some point) would have no reason to make this call. Nor does it fit with a publicity stunt of some kind. Andrews only contacted the authorities after Oswald had been shot to say he had seen Oswald on three occasions, thinking his information would be useful. He didn't mention then that he had been asked to represent Oswald. But he changed it in 1963, then reverted to it in 1964, then changed it again, reverted to it in 1966, played "can't say he is/ain't" in 1967, then finally changed to the story he went to his grave with. It's hard to fit your theory into that chronology. His "change" in 1963, so far as I can see, is saying that he could have dreamed it up under sedation as the FBI suggested (in contradiction to the evidence it had collected). His descriptions of Bertrand got fuzzier and fuzzier after this. Later he would say that he made it up for attention (if I remember correctly) and/or that it was Eugene Davis. This, one assumes, is when the death threats from D.C. really kicked in (not MY theory, this is what Andrews told to Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Anthony Summers). The story he went to his grave with is apparently that Shaw and Bertrand are the same and that the call is real, as he told Weisberg. How did the CIA cause him to have a burst aneurysm? There are many ways you can go about this. Let's see what Dimitri Contostavlos M.D. has to say about Ferrie's death. What follows is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Richard A. Sprague: In 1969 I wrote to Jim Garrison of New Orleans to inform him about a theory which I had developed concerning the death of David Ferrie, one of Oswald's circle of acquaintances who died suddenly on the eve of his official questioning by Garrison's investigators. After some confusion, during which it was originally alleged that he had committed suicide by poisoning, a pathologist ruled that the cause of death was subarachnoid hemorrhage. At the time of my communication Garrison was preoccupied with getting re-elected, and may have passed me off as just another crank or he may have checked out my theory and ruled it out; in any case I got no response to the letter or to a telphone call which his secretary answered. The cause of my concern in this case is that, although fatal subarachnoid hemorrhage (a bleeding into one of the spaces around the brain) is usually due to natural causes, namely rupture of aneurysm or other arterial abnormality, it is recognized by Forensic Pathologists as occuring in certain forms of blunt trauma. In the year prior to my communication to Garrison, I had encountered while working in Dade County, Florida, 3 cases of this condition all resulting from punches or karate blows to the side of the neck and had demonstrated for the first time the exact site and nature of the injury. My scientific paper on this subject was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and resulted in widespread recognition of the lesion and in a number of additional published case reports. It should be emphasized that the injury may be occult, manifesting only as the brain hemorrhage which may be, and to my certain knowledge has been in the past, labeled as a stroke due to normal causes. The New Orleans district is served, or was during the period in question, by a coroner system, with autopsies performed by hospital pathologists who are usually not experienced enough in the pathology and investigation of trauma cases. It is for these reasons that I became concerned that possibly a homicide had been missed in the Ferrie case, particularly in view of the timing of his death at such a critical moment during the Kennedy assassination investigation. The injury involves the fracture of a small bone in the neck, and may therefore be detected in the skeleton many years after death. Provided that the body has not been cremated or buried at sea, the deceased can be exhumed for reexamination. (link) For the benefit of others, Lou Ivon claimed in the early 90s that Ferrie all but confessed to him on Feb 19-20, 1967. I have a few problems with that: If he DID confess, he was immediately back to denial the very next day. Also, I wonder why THIS important conversation, among all others, appears nowhere in the Garrison documents, and why it wasn't used in court. (Lawyers tell me that it would qualify in Louisiana as a deathbed confession.) "So there would be no leak, Ivon decided not to have his report typed by an office secretary but to give Jim Garrison his handwritten notes directly." (Mellen 105) Mellen notes that these notes have vanished. Partial corroboration of this comes from Jim Garrison himself in OTTA, pg 376, where he writes that many of his notes were stolen. As for why it wasn't used in court, its not hard to see why, for me at least. For such a sensational piece of evidence against Ferrie, I think Garrison would want a source beyond the word of one of his assistant D.A.s to present to the Jury. His other witnesses had been pilloried enough. On a minor point, Garrison wanted to avoid bringing the CIA (which figures in the confession) into the case, as he felt that to the Jury this would seem like "talking about UFOs." Then why did Ferrie deny all until his death? Are you referring to Ferrie's final interview with George Lardner in which he says that he and Oswald were in different CAP units and that he and his buddies went "goose hunting" on the weekend of the assassination? Ferrie would of course have an interest in sending a different signal to the press. You don't think it represents how he perceived things at that time? Why? I think the first three paragraphs sum it up well: And so it begins... this Journal which is to be a record of the most horrifying, unbelievable, nightmarish experience through which I have ever lived. March the first will be certainly the great day in my life. That water shed from which all events must be dated before and after. For it was on March 1 that I was arrested "for conspiring with others to murder the President, John F. Kennedy." Even as look at the words now it seems absolutely unbelievable that such a thing could come about. But it has, and it is important that I try to set down for myself and possibly others, the Kafkaesque horror which began on this date. But, when the mind is numbed with horror, the heart frozen with apprehension, where does one find words to describe that which is almost indescribable? (link) He explicitly says that he is writing this not only for himself but "possibly others." All these melodramatic adjectives he uses I find to be quite overdone; they have very little to do with the reality of how Garrison conducted his case and I think Shaw knows this. Its a literary production (and not a very good one) with an audience in mind. It is also written on a type-writer, which is not suggestive of intimacy. As I read the FBI/DoJ traffic from 1967, it was a misunderstanding, and I don't think Bill or Joan proved otherwise. I am referring to this, excerpted from a memo to Clyde Tolson from Cartha DeLoach of March 2, 1967: The AG then asked whether the FBI knew anything about Shaw. I told him Shaw's name had come up in our investigation in December, 1963 as a result of several parties furnishing information concerning Shaw. [Hoover appended the following] I hope a.g. isn't going to peddle this information we send him. H. This can be found on page 192 of Davy's book. There is a case to be made that he did, and that he didn't sign it. Lacking certainty, I still find it an incredibly stupid thing to do. (Sorry, I think I deleted your comment by mistake.) Stupid thing to do or not, I think all the evidence leads to one, and only one, conclusion. Reitzes tried to make a case that Shaw didn't sign it, and Biles pretty much destroyed it. But the absence of awareness of it at least raises the possibility that it was added later. Maybe, but the point is moot. BTW, thanks for a civil discussion on the evidence. This is the way it should be! You're welcome, and I agree.

I don't think many people believe it was Shaw himself who "pulled off a presidential assassination," which would indeed require him to be a very clever person. He was just one player in a larger conspiracy. This incident occurred very late in to the night (when peoples' judgements are perhaps not so good) in the context of a party that had mostly dispersed. Russo described the conversation as being like a "bull session" at the trial; not really a planning session, per se. Clay Bertrand is only mentioned in one of the many, many, volumes of supporting evidence, not the main report. I do not know when or how Shaw would find the time or interest to dig through all the volumes just to make sure his alias doesn't pop up. The conspirators (I would not class Shaw as a major figure among these) were probably pretty confident that they were able to foist one on the American people with the WC, and the media was very active in supporting the WC conclusions. So, for these people, the case has been "closed" quite satisfactorily and there isn't much reason to worry anymore. As for the guestbook, I will take the testimony of the two people who witnessed Shaw signing it or saw him in the VIP room that day (one of which denied knowledge to Garrison's people but told the real story to his CIA employers) and expert testimony of the documents analyst who wasn't involved in framing Bruno Hauptmann and wasn't a good buddy of J. Edgar Hoover (which apply to Team Shaw's expert) as pretty much definitive. Reasons can be offered as to why Shaw signed the book, but I don't think its needful since the weight of the evidence against Shaw is already so heavy. Because these people think they're teflon, which, in view of the trial outcome and WC (among many other things), is probably close to the truth. Shaw most likely knew the CIA wouldn't let him out to dry, and they didn't. Dean Andrews' original story is more accurate because there are independent witnesses (three of them) to confirm it. Dean Andrews wouldn't have called Eva Springer from the hospital in regards to representing Oswald on behalf of Bertrand at 4:00 on the 23rd if the call was something he made up. Dean Andrews had a good reason to change his story (namely, death threats from "Washington D.C." as he told Mark Lane). You're right. Ferrie wasn't bailed out by the CIA; in all probability he was murdered by them. However, Ferrie was probably not regarded as as much of a team player as Shaw, which is demonstrated by his confession to Ivon, although I am aware you won't credit that. Ferrie wasn't "one of the boys" and couldn't be relied upon. Besides that, the CIA would probably not risk another assassination so soon after Ferrie and in the context of Garrison's investigation. BTW, having read Shaw's diary, I don't regard it as a serious document. But that's just my opinion. If Clark ever did say this, that would be incorrect, as the FBI's own memos, reprinted in Davy's book, show (i.e. that Shaw's name came up in connection to the assassination in 1963 and this is what Clark was told). However, Clark has come clean about this issue. See Mellen pg. 128-9. That's because you want to see it like that, but there is not a great deal of wiggle room, IMO. Mellen has only further solidified this (DiEugenio calls her work here "quite solid"). Because Garrison's team wasn't aware of the booking card at the time and Habighorst wasn't aware of its significance. In any case, this is irrelevant, because it is conclusively not an ad hoc forgery.

No, the story was first made public in 1968, whereupon it was verified by police chief Giarusso. Five copies of the card were made; one was kept by the NOPD, one was sent to the FBI, and one was sent to the state police. Officers Habighorst and Millet each kept a copy. There is simply no way this could have been fabricated ad hoc, which is probably why Shaw's lawyers didn't contest that the card was filled out on the day of Shaw's arrest, as you are now doing. You are looking extremely silly right now.

You are right, probably no researcher believes that. This is a straw man that you have built. As for why Shaw was stupid enough to give his alias to Habighorst... The alias and Shaw's use of it (for which there is abundant evidence beyond the booking sheet, detailed by both Davy and Mellen) was primarily for his homosexual activities and Dean Andrews' story, buried as it was in the many volumes of Warren Commission exhibits, does not appear to have been common knowledge in New Orleans. Garrison only became aware of it by actually going through the 26 volumes. Shaw doesn't strike me as a particularly clever man, IMO, but who knows. In addition, there is the precedent of the VIP room incident (see here). Beyond that, however, the theory of the Shaw defense team isn't credible. The theory was that Habighorst had supposedly copied the alias off the Arrest Register during Shaw's processing, as was sometimes done in the NOPD. The Arrest Register, in turn, typically uses information copied from the Field Arrest Report. Now: 1. Lou Ivon testified that he had only filled out the papers, which included the Field Arrest Report, after turning Shaw over to Central Lockup. [1] After dropping Shaw off with Habighorst, Ivon filled out the paper work. [2] This agrees with Habighorst's statement that he only viewed the Report sometime after booking Shaw. Captain Louis Carole, consistent with this, testified that it is uncommon, but not unknown and unusual, for the Field Arrest Report to be filled out after the arrestee is turned over to Central Lockup. [3] Habighorst expedited the process by questioning Shaw and taking the information down because the Arrest Register had not yet arrived. [4] 2. In any case, the Arrest Register did not in fact include the alias, as the blue copy of the Arrest Register shows and as even Shaw's lawyer Wegmann [5] and Clay Shaw himself confirmed. [6] So, Habighorst, even if he did have the Register before filling out the booking sheet, would not have been able to obtain the alias from it, regardless of which time line is correct, Shaw's or Habighorst's. In addition the Field Arrest Report is not sent to the Fingerprinting Department (which would be where Habighorst was), so Habighorst could not somehow have obtained the alias from that. [7] 3. Shaw himself actually said that Habighorst (who, as Robert Charles-Dunne points out, received three letters of commendation a year for his work) asked him NO questions whatsoever [8], which contradicts even Sgt. Butzman's foggy and vague memories. [9] 4. Shaw signing a blank booking card, as alleged, would not have been standard procedure. "A police information officer said the directions in the Manual of Procedure 'indicate' by the order in which the words appear, that all cards should be typed first and then signed by the arrested. He said this is 'indicated' twice on page 227 of section 9 in the manual, and this is the procedure that has been followed by officers." [10]

Of course I know Garrison won a perjury conviction against Andrews (because he had, in fact, committed perjury). The conviction was "thrown out" because Garrison was concerned about Andrews' health. The Supreme Court remanded the conviction to Garrison's office and Garrison himself threw it out. This is simply not "persecution." Garrison didn't "recognize the inevitable." Rather, it was Andrews' lawyers who did. The appeal of Andrews' conviction had already been lost in the lower courts, so they approached Garrison, who signed the remand out of the goodness of his heart (as corny as that sounds).

Ok so, let's assume Aloyisius Habighorst was a crooked cop. Considering the importance and high profile of this case, what could motivate Aloyisius Habighorst to fraudulently alter the arrest record? If he received a bribe or a promotion, is there evidence of this? I've gone over this with Mr. Carroll before. I will just add that not even Shaw's defense time could argue, as Carroll seems to be doing now, that Habighorst had fabricated the booking sheet (just that he had obtained the information for the card from some source other than Shaw himself, and that Shaw had signed a blank booking sheet ). NOPD chief Giarrusso, a political opponent of Garrison, has verified it as authentic in 1968 (see here).

Dean Andrews' doctor J.D. Andrews said that he did not believe it was possible for Dean Andrews to make phone calls with the level of sedation Andrews' was under (here). Therefore, it follows Andrews was not sedated at the time, consistent with the medical records. Dr. Andrews, btw, was the the one who authorized the hospital librarian to furnish the medical records for the 23rd. I don't think anyone has implied anything overtly "sinister" about Andrews. There was something sinister about the call he received, however. And Garrison didn't persecute Andrews; in fact, he signed the petition of remand for Andrews' perjury conviction (here).

I'm not saying they're infallible (by no means!), I am saying that the context and wording of the information in the report show this to be the case and that the the FBI would have no incentive or logical reason to arbitrarily limit the time period of the medical information covered. AND the fact that Andrews was able to use the telephone indicate that he wasn't sedated at the time. You seem to have left that last part out.

If this was the case, this would have been reflected in the hospital records cited by the F.B.I. report. As should be obvious from the report itself, the records pertain to all medication "on November 23, 1963" and not to any specific and limited time period of that day (which in any case, would be an odd thing for the F.B.I to request; of course they are interested in ALL the medication Andrews had received that day). Besides that, the very fact that Andrews was even able to pick up the phone and call Eva Springer about Clay Bertrand at 4:00 (as confirmed by both of them) indicates that he was not sedated at the time, consistent with the hospital records.

He DID receive medication, but it was at a later time than when he recieved the phone call and informed his secretary Eva Springer about it at 4:00. All of this should have been clear from reading my post. The information about his medication comes from "Commission Document 126 - FBI Reynolds Report of 06 Dec 1963 re: Oswald" p. 27, which I will excerpt below: Reitzes mentions this in his magnum opus "Who Speaks for Clay Shaw?". I would note that Weisberg's opinion of Andrews is just that. Its his information that's valuable.

This series by Peter Whitmey is very relevant, to say the least. Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 1 Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 2 Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Part 3 Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination - Update Priscilla Johnson McMillan and the CIA Subsequent Letters to the Editor

Peter Whitmey wrote an article about his correspondence with Aline Mosby, which may be found here.

Perhaps you are unaware, but the FBI reports of December 1963, using information from the hospital, show that Dean Andrews was not "medicated" at the time of the call. In addition, Andrews told three other people in his law office about the call before any of this was public, thus invalidating Carroll's theory. Andrews called his secretary Eva Springer at 4 pm on the 23rd, the day of the call and before he was medicated at 8 pm. He would also tell Sam "Monk" Zelden and Sergeant R.M. Davis about the call on the 24th. As for why Andrews recanted his story, variously saying he had either made it up or that Eugene Davis was "Clay Bertrand," I will quote Davy and DiEugenio: Later, Andrews would tell Harold Weisberg that the call was real and that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were one and the same. Weisberg recounted this to both anti-Garrison "researcher" Dave Reitzes and Joan Mellen. Dean apparently did know the name of the "big enchillada."

This is a myth. Arab bodies were recovered.

Very sad. I can't say I expected this to happen. He put out uniformly high quality and informative books (e.g. Shadow Play).

My post from the History Books section: Huh. I was just wondering yesterday what Jim has been up to and where the Probe site had gone. Good to see the site back (and updated!) and good to see this article. It outlines the real problems with AF2J, unlike some of the anti-Garrison rantings that punctuate this thread (yes, you know who you are). I agree with most of what he says about Mellen's book. Its a shame she had to mix all the valuable and new information she has on Garrison with a few dubious assertions and much RFK-bashing. I think the review is particularly dead-on about Ralph Schoenmann's influence on Mellen's view of the Kennedys. I came to this same conclusion a while ago and told Dawn about it. Its still a valuable book for research purposes (with a good deal of suplementary reading and familiarity with the case) and the new edition should at least improve its aesethetic qualities, if nothing else. Unfortunately, the book isn't the thorough and definitive take on Garrison's investigation that many of us were hoping it would be. Nor is it a particularly good overview and introduction for the newcomer.

This is a good move. Hopefully he won't be "persuaded" to back down. Its a rare thing for a public official to oppose the neo-liberal agenda.

I think Denham is at least a little tarnished.

IDF commander: We fired more than a million cluster bombs in Lebanon

I cant argue with that Owen. Ridiculously trivial is accurate. Yes, and that's why I chose it. It shows just how deep the thread actually runs, not limited merely to the big issues.

The only (possible) "consequences" that you will face is loss (or lessening) of my previous high opinion of you, whatever that may be worth. Also, you are correct that your post wasn't quite so sweeping as I rendered it (working from my impressions of your post, a little time removed), so apologies for that. Andy has nothing to do with my postings. "Revisionist" is the title Holocaust deniers like to use. For more on this, see here. I have already shown the evidence Sid has presented to be composed of laughable frauds and "a lot of rubbish," such as the Auschwitz 4 million red herring (also used by Piper). These aren't issues over which there is any legitimate debate. There is no evidence to support holocaust "revisionism." As the afore-linked webpage says: "...so-called 'Holocaust revisionism' is not history at all; it is dishonest. Calling their efforts "revisionist history" is like calling the Piltdown man hoax 'revisionist science.' It's not history. It's fraud. " In the main it is simply crude apologetics for National Socialism; Sid uses it because he has an axe to grind with the international Zionist cabal, so far as I can tell. I've already provided an example, outside of the Holocaust, of Sid's intellectual dishonesty, and about a ridiculously trivial matter. I'll repeat it: Who else but an intellectually dishonest person would request an opponent to 1. "Blow me" after complaining of "smutty language" being directed at him 2. Deny the sexual connotations to the phrase after his hypocrisy is pointed out 3. Point to some song lyrics that include the phrase "blow me away" as an indication of what he really meant (!?) 4. Dismiss the issue as some weird hang up on the part of his opponent (as if his initial obsession with "smutty language" wasn't). EDIT: And Sid doesn't really "irritate the hell" out of me anymore. I'm inviting (not threatening) you to take another look at Sid and his M.O., which is why my posts are adressed directly to you, not him.