Mike Williams
-
Posts
1,023 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mike Williams
-
-
Journalist James Phelan was in Jim Garrison's favor because of an article he wrote for the Saturday Evening Post puffing Garrison's "cleanup" of the French Quarter. When the Clay Shaw case "broke" in the media, and Phelan was assigned to cover it, Garrison arranged to meet him in Los Vegas, and brief him on the case. Quoting Phelan:
We arranged to meet again early in the evening in his room at the Sands. When I came in, he had his jacket off, and had a holster strapped on him, with a gun in it. He pulled it out and came over to me. "Let me show you something," he said, and broke the gun open. He examined the bullets and handed one of them to me. "That's a magnum load," he said, "and my gun can't handle it. If I used it, the gun would blow up on me. I can't figure out who inserted that one shell into my gun." Then he put all six shells back into his gun.
James Phelan, Scandals, Scamps, and Scoundrels, p. 149.
:ice -
Is Jim Garrison Out of His Mind?
By David Lifton
[Originally published in the May 31 and June 6, 1968 issues of Open City, a Los Angeles underground newspaper. This article is © 1968 by David Lifton, and is posted here with permission. A companion article by Kerry Thornley was published by Open City at the same time.]
Kerry Thornley is one of four defendants who have been charged in DA Jim Garrison's New Orleans assassination investigation. The other defendants are Clay Shaw (for conspiracy); Edgar Bradley (for conspiracy); and William Gurvich, a former investigator, (for theft).
When he defected from the Garrison probe in June 1967 and publicly denounced it, Gurvich allegedly took with him a copy of the master file valued at, according to Garrison, $10.
The crime of which Thornley is accused is perjury, based on his testimony before New Orleans Grand Jury on Feb. 8, 1968.
For those who have been following the controversy surrounding the Warren Report and who optimistically believe that Jim Garrison will bring the Kennedy assassins to the bar of justice, the Thornley case is crucial.
It has been instrumental in convincing me that Garrison is an investigative impresario who has enveloped himself in the rhetoric of the stylishly New Left politics pursued by most critics of the Warren Report, many of who he has seduced into thinking that he has "solved" the assassination; that he is a man subject to a considerable amount of self-induced paranoia (to such an extent that he is incapable of distinguishing plot from circumstance) and that he is now trying to weave meaningless threads of information -- threads which go off into the nowhere land of right wing militant subculture -- into a braid of assassination conspiracy.
Furthermore, I think that any credibility that he does have stems largely from the manner in which he has associated himself with the published critics of the Warren Report, some of whom worship him as some sort of Messiah who is their only hope for catching the assassins, and whose published critical literature has been responsible for creating much of the credibility gap that exists in this country with respect to the Warren Report.
Unlike other Warren Report critics who have had to budget their time and money to pursue a serious research interest, Garrison's thing is chasing assassins on company time. The company is the Office of the District Attorney, City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana. Its facilities include one Grand jury, the power of subpoena, a court system, and facilities for the issuance of arrest warrants which are teletyped anywhere in the country. Garrison is having a ball doing his thing.
I am afraid that before it is over, he will either have become a laughingstock (and in the process may bring to disrepute much valid research by serious critics of the Warren Report) or innocent men such as Kerry Thornley may be sent to prison.
If the above sounds harsh, it is perhaps best to postpone further opinions of Garrison and his investigation until the reader can be acquainted with the story of Kerry Thornley.
Like most other aspects of the assassination, it is still another detail-filled microcosm, loaded with names, dates, and events, with which the average reader is simply not familiar.
Kerry Thornley was a Marine who met Lee Harvey Oswald in the service in the spring of 1959. Their paths crossed briefly at that time when they were both stationed at El Toro Marine Base in Orange County.
Thornley was about to leave with his unit for a tour of Japan; Oswald had just returned from such an overseas tour. At El Toro, for about three months, Thornley became a close acquaintance of Oswald. Thornley found Oswald to be an interesting character who professed beliefs quite the opposite of his own.
Oswald read Russian newspapers, and professed a devotion to Marxist ideals. Thornley, a right winger, and Oswald, the professed Marxist, discussed philosophy, politics, and religion.
During these discussions, Oswald would tell Thornley about the insulting manner in which Marines stationed in Japan behaved towards the Japanese. "If you ever go overseas, Thornley, you'll see what I mean," said Oswald, according to Thornley, who added; "He said in effect . . . that my fellow Marines equaled any Nazi storm trooper for brutality, given the opportunity to get away with it. His face became chalky as he discussed this matter and he appeared to be genuinely sickened; so I did not press him for details." ("Oswald," by Thornley).
Since Thornley's ambition had been for many years to be a writer, and since going to Japan was the first thing that had ever happened to him which he could imagine as an interesting starting place for a book, he went there with "a definite desire and indefinite plan to write a book about some aspect of Japan."
After his arrival, Thornley became increasingly perturbed over the incidents he saw, and which he and Oswald had discussed: ". . . I came to feel that the book I was to write should deal with this problem as well as other things centering around the existence of peace time Marines in Japan." Thornley decided title his book "The Idle Warriors."
"Yet I still lacked an essential ingredient for a good novel," he said. "I needed a central theme that would tie in all the many minor themes I wanted to handle."
Three months passed. It was now September 1959.
"One afternoon, in the barracks, after work, a friend of mine who had also been in MACS-9 (Thornley's unit) and who had known Oswald handed me a copy of "The Stars and Stripes." There, on page three, was an article about a United States Marine who, after getting out of the service, had gone to Russia and requested Soviet citizenship. Of course it was Oswald."
"It was not until then that I really believe his commitment to communism was serious. I was surprised. I wondered how he had come to his decision. I began to ponder the problem, And then I sat down and began work on 'The Idle Warriors.' I had my theme."
Convinced that the "Idle Warrior" experience played a key role in Lee's disillusionment with the United States . . ." Oswald become one of the key characters in Thornley's original manuscript. There he appears, under the fictional name of Johnny Shellburn.
And so, in the fall of 1959, five months before John F. Kennedy would announce (in Jan. 1960) his intention to seek the Democratic nomination at the convention the following summer, 17 months before Kennedy's inauguration, and at a time when Dwight D. Eisenhower was still President, a Marine named Kerry Thornley had started work on a manuscript built around a character who would become the accused assassin of the next President of the United States four years later.
Shortly after his release from the Marines, Thornley studied at USC for a while, then decided to leave school and finish the book he had started. He left home and, with a friend, went to New Orleans, where he completed "The Idle Warriors" in February of 1962. He submitted it for publication and it was rejected twice. He put it aside for an eventual rewrite. In June of 1962, Oswald returned to the United States. Kerry's parents clipped the news story about that event, and Kerry seriously considered going to Dallas/Ft. Worth to meet Oswald again, and to find out if his reasons for defecting agreed with Thornley's reasons for the defection of Johnny Shelllburn, his hero in his unpublished manuscript.
At the end of the book Johnny Shellburn defects to Russia.
Thornley never did go, but he crossed Oswald's path again in September of 1963.
Kerry, who in the meanwhile had returned to California, went back to New Orleans. Because he had taken Spanish in high school, he went there by bus via Mexico City. He arrived in New Orleans the first week in September, 1963. Oswald was spending the last two weeks of an intriguing summer there, participating in various provocative left-wing activities.
Just two weeks before Kerry's arrival, Oswald has been in a radio debate with Carlos Bringuier, on the merits of US foreign policy.
The first two weeks of Kerry's stay marked the last two weeks of Oswald's summer stay there.
Kerry had not the slightest idea that Oswald was in town at that time. He later wrote:
"He (Oswald) was even repeatedly stopping in now and then at the bar where I hung out. We may have passed on the streets but, if so, we didn't recognize each other. Only after the assassination did I learn that Oswald had been right under my nose for over two weeks!" (Source: "Oswald," by Thornley.)
On the day Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas and Oswald was arrested as the accused assassin, Thornley, still in New Orleans, learned for the first time that Oswald had been there and found himself the possessor of an unpublished manuscript which contained a study of the accused assassin of the President of the United States, written almost two years before the fact!
He testified about his before the Warren Commission.
He told the Commission: "I was entirely caught unaware when it turned out that Oswald was involved in the assassination, to such an extent that for some time afterwards, I though he was innocent. But at the facts came in, as the evidence piled up, I decided there must have been more violence in him than I thought."
Thornley retitled his book, "Oswald," and completely rewrote it. It was now the strange story of the crossed paths of two men, the evolution of his old manuscript, and an attempt on Thornley's part to explain to the reader how the Oswald he knew might have evolved into an assassin. The new book contained certain key material from the old manuscript, without any changes, so that the reader might see for himself the Johnny Shellburn Thornley knew from 1959. Thornley testified before the Warren Commission attorney Albert Jenner, on May 19, 1964. The published 33 page transcript starts on page 82 of Volume II, of the Commission's 26 volumes.
The portion of Thornley's book, and his testimony, in which he speculates as to how the left winger he knew could have evolved into an assassin has deeply offended certain critics of the Warren Report.
To them, Thornley was a callous right wing Marine, capitalizing on a relationship with a left wing patsy. It was easy to conceive of Thornley's book as part of some type of plot to help create a left wing image for Oswald. These same critics do not seem to be disturbed by the fact that if Oswald was indeed a CIA agent, he created his own left wing cover, and Thornley's book is as much a part of the objective reportage of how that cover looked at that time, as were the news reports that resulted when Oswald "defected" to Russia, or handed out Fair Play for Cuba literature, or debated on the radio with anti-Castro Cubans.
But the offense was felt. For at the time Thornley's book appeared, the anti-Commission literature which would appear on the national scene one year later was then in the stage of evolution. And if this literature is correct, then Oswald was innocent, was elaborately framed, and was probably some type of agent.
Thornley's book did very poorly. So poorly that he received no royalties whatsoever, and the publisher wrote him a letter apologizing for the low sales figures and saying that he could not afford the advertising Kerry wanted.
Yet in history, it is a most valuable document. For if Oswald was establishing himself as a left winger at that time, Thornley's reportage represents an invaluable account of how he appeared in the spring of 1959. And, as has been stressed, some of this was written before the assassination.
I first read Kerry's book in June of 1965. I, too was offended by it. I had just been put in touch with California critics of the Warren Commission who had convinced me that the official assassination story was false. And, just then, I read Kerry's book,, or rather, a series of articles run in "The National Insider" with very grotesque headlines implying Oswald was some type of psychotic idiot who had lurked in the woodwork, to come out on November 22 and assassinate the President. To read a book at the time which accepted Oswald's guilt aroused me enough to attempt to find the author and discuss the matter. It turned out that Kerry lived nearby, and I visited him.
We spent several hours going over the evidence. He had never seen any of this material before. It blew his mind and deeply disturbed his girl friend (now his wife) who was crying when I left.
During the next two years, I spoke to Kerry regularly and got to know him quite well. Thornley's position changed on the Warren report. He expressed some of those changed opinions in a KPFK radio interview on the Harry Pollard show, on the Joe Dolan show (summer of 1966), in a Fact Magazine interview of Dec. 1966, and in an article he himself wrote for "Innovator," and a newsletter he edited. The article was entitled: "'Oswald' Revisited."
In my discussions with Thornley, back in 1965 when I first met him, he told me about his experiences in testifying before the Warren Commission. Oswald, he said, used to speak Russian in the ranks at El Toro with some Marine whose name he thought was John Renee Heindel.
This was quite surprising to me. First of all as will be presently explained, the name Heindel figures in the Kennedy case in an important way. Secondly, Kerry's Warren Commission testimony showed no such thing, although there is a portion where he is trying to recollect the name of the man who speaks Russian with Oswald, but cannot do so. Kerry then remembered what had happened: he had recollected the name afterwards; he and attorney Jenner went out to lunch together after his deposition and, at lunch, Jenner provided Thornley with the name. Thornley was positive Jenner had given him the name he had been trying to recollect.
John Renee Heindel is a former Marine who lives in New Orleans. In an affidavit filed with the Commission, he reveals that his nickname in the Marines was "Hidell."
"Hidell" was the name used which appears on the order for the "assassination rifle" which was shipped to Oswald's post office box, and allegedly found in the Book Depository. The commission said that "Hidell" was merely an alias used by Oswald, ignoring the fact that a real person exists who once knew Oswald who used Hidell as a nickname.
Since John Heindel lived in New Orleans, when the Garrison probe hit the newspapers in February 1967, I had the idea of going to Garrison with the information. Heindel lived right in Garrison's jurisdiction, and I felt he might call in Heindel for questioning.
After all, Russian speaking Marines are pretty rare. Perhaps he had been another "agent in training" stationed, like Oswald, at El Toro.
I called Garrison's office several times in mid-September, 1967 about this matter, as Kerry was about to move from LA to Tampa, Fla.
On the strength of the information I had transmitted in the phone call, Garrison called in Heindel and questioned him. On September 20, I spoke to the man who was performing liaison work for Garrison's office.
He told me that Garrison had just questioned Heindel; that Garrison thought Heindel was "lying through his teeth," that he had something to hide, and that the office already had evidence of meetings between Heindel and Oswald at several New Orleans bars during that summer of 1963.
Garrison wanted Kerry to come to New Orleans and "confront" Heindel and "identify" him. But short of that, he wanted Thornley to fill out some statements summarizing the entire incident, and send them to Garrison.
The statements took several days to prepare. They were mailed to Garrison's office on September 28, 1967. Three weeks later, Garrison was here in Los Angeles, staying at the Century Plaza Hotel under the alias of Frank Marshall. I spent over 15 hours in private meetings with Garrison. What he said and how he acted are a small story in themselves.
In his memoir, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison claims that his own staff discovered and located Thornley, and completely conceals the fact that Lifton brought Thornley to Garrison's attention, and put Thornley in touch with him.
Suffice it to say, that I have never seen a man so utterly frightened, and so convinced that he was constantly followed, bugged, etc. If a man walked by with a briefcase, Garrison would point to him and whisper, "That's an FBI agent." Any skeptical looks on my part were greeted with: "I know. I once worked for the bureau."
During one of our conversations, Garrison told me that his office had established an ironclad link between Ruby and Oswald. As evidence, he cited the fact that a Ft. Worth telephone number PE 8-1951, was listed in Oswald's address book and also was found on Ruby's phone bill. Astonished, I went home and checked it out. That telephone number, as clearly indicated in Oswald's address book, is television station KTVT, Channel 11, Fort Worth Texas.
If there's any doubt in your mind that KTVT has this telephone, instantly erase it by calling Ft. Worth information (area code 817-555-1212, it's a toll free call) and ask for Channel 11's number. But don't tell Jim Garrison you did it. He may charge you with being an accessory after the fact.
I confronted Garrison with this the next day. He became very truculent and annoyed.
"David, stop arguing the defense," he would say.
"But what does it mean, Jim?" I demanded. "Is there someone at the TV station whom you can prove knew both men?" "It means whatever the jury decides it means," he said, adding that "Law is not a science."
Finally, I asked: "But what do YOU think, Jim? What is the TRUTH of the matter."
His answer is one I will never forget. He said, with considerable annoyance and contempt, "After the fact, there IS NO truth. There is ONLY what the jury decides."
From what I have seen in the Thornley case, this statement explains much of what has happened. It is a convenient and accurate synopsis of Jim Garrison's approach to fact-finding, truth-finding, and justice.
Meanwhile, Garrison spent much time explaining to me that he wanted to get Kerry to come to New Orleans and "identify" Heindel. He then wanted to call Heindel before the Grand Jury, have him swear under oath what he had told him in his office (that he did not know Kerry) and then prosecute Heindel for perjury. Thus, Garrison had a theory, provided by me, about Heindel's involvement in the assassination. He wanted Thornley to repeat the statement he had given Garrison regarding Heindel and then get Heindel to read HIS written statement to the jury. The two statements contradicted each other and Garrison then planned to charge Heindel with perjury.
There was only one thing wrong. Kerry never did like Garrison; it was only with the reluctance that he had agreed to go ahead with the notarized statements about Heindel. I knew that he would have objections to going to New Orleans. Kerry knew Garrison from New Orleans. He had once been his waiter when he was there. Kerry had done me a favor, but I knew he just didn't want to go any further.
But Garrison insisted. "You tell Thornley," he said, "that if he cooperates with me, we can throw a couple of bricks through the window of the establishment."
Garrison was insistent. "Tell Thornley," he said, "that I am a libertarian. Tell him that I read Evergreen Review." It was such an odd boast.
I finally got Kerry to agree to respond to a telegram that Garrison would send him in Tampa, Fla.
Garrison left town, and I expected to hear about the arrest of John Heindel in hours. Garrison had bragged to me that he could charge a man right there from that hotel room, by phone. He mused aloud that the New York Times would handle the story of "John Renee Heindel, alias Hidell, being arrested by DA Garrison in the continuing investigation of Kennedy's assassination (I confess to a considerable amount of after-the-facts shame, for not having recognized this for what it was at the time, and for continuing to have anything to do with this man.)
That night, I succeeded in locating another Marine who had witnessed the incidents in which Oswald spoke Russian with Heindel. His description of the other person involved cast doubt on the validity of Thornley's identification of Heindel. I immediately sent a telegram to Garrison explaining the matter, as I had no intention of being responsible for false arrest. I followed that up with a phone call the next day.
Meanwhile, Garrison and Thornley had a failure of communication. Thornley had, in effect, told Garrison to shove off.
Garrison was furious, and by November 6, Kerry had been taken from the Garrison's star-witness-to-be list and transformed into a culpable defendant, the object of investigation.
Unknown to me, Garrison had formulated an entirely new theory about Thornley, since Thornley's "insult." When he came back to Los Angeles a few weeks later, I met with him at his room at the Century Plaza Hotel.
Whereas the man who was staying there as Frank Marshall in October wanted Thornley as a prosecution witness, it was apparent that Claude Culpepper (the Nov. 19 alias) was an entirely different individual: truculent, suspicious, and annoyed. I didn't believe that Claude Culpepper and Frank Marshall were the same Garrison.
"Thornley lied," he said. He stretched out the word lied, by pausing on the "i" sound for about a second or two.
"Why?" I asked.
Pause.
"Thornley lied," he repeated as if to gain validity. "Thornley lied when he said he didn't know Oswald in September 1963." Again, I was dumbfounded. I felt that I had been "used" to mislead or trick Garrison by giving him false information about Heindel. I politely offered the thought that I would go wherever the evidence led; what evidence did he have that this was the case?
"We have so many witnesses who was them together at that time we have stopped looking for more," said Garrison.
Then, another pontifical pronouncement:
"Thornley's with the CIA."
"But why do you say that, Jim?" I asked.
"Thornley worked at a hotel in Arlington, Virginia."
"So what?" I asked.
He said nothing but seemed to be thinking: "Fool, don't you realize what this means?"
When I left the hotel room, I drew up a set of notes on what had just transpired. (A third party who accompanied me was a witness to this scene.)
In January, Kerry was subpoenaed to appear before the New Orleans Grand Jury. Before he went, I made out a complete statement on the ideas Garrison had expressed to me on November 19 and had it notarized. The statement shows that Garrison's theory about Thornley preceded his grand jury appearance by several months.
Garrison now did to Kerry Thornley what he had intended to do to John Heindel.
Garrison had a theory about Heindel, a theory which presupposed Heindel's involvement in the assassination, at least after the fact. Garrison thought Heindel "knew something" and was "hiding" it.
The method for "breaking" Heindel was to get Heindel to testify and then to get Thornley to testify, establishing a conflict of testimony. Then Heindel was to be charged with perjury, with Kerry (and presumably others) being the witnesses against Heindel.
Now, Garrison called Kerry to New Orleans to do the same thing to him. Kerry, in order to prove he had nothing to hide, went voluntarily and testified. The trap was triggered.
When Kerry said he had not had anything to do with Oswald in their two week overlap period in New Orleans in September, 1963 -- which, as far as Kerry is concerned is the truth, with absolutely no qualification -- there was then established a conflict in testimony with another witness who said otherwise. Kerry committed the crime of giving testimony that is in stark contrast to Garrison's theory concerning the assassination which "proves" his involvement.
Garrison's office issued a press release explaining why Thornley was accused of perjury. It's another of those documents that would be amusing were it not for the fact that Thornley was thrown in jail (although only briefly) on this basis of this sort of "logic."
In New Orleans, that crime is known as perjury. On Feb 22, two weeks after he testified, and without the Grand Jury having reviewed the testimony, voting on the matter, and returning an INDICTMENT for perjury signed by its foreman, Garrison personally filed a "CHARGE" of perjury against Thornley. He then issued a warrant for his arrest on a felony charge, which was teletyped to Tampa, causing Kerry to be slapped in jail the next morning until he could scrape together $3,000 bond.
The "other witness" whose testimony Thornley's contradicts, (if not the key witness) is Barbara Reid, an alleged practitioner of witchcraft in the French Quarter. And the sad thing about it is that Garrison will probably have "evidence" against Thornley, just as he would have had "evidence" against Heindel, had he chosen to prosecute in that direction.
For to understand where Garrison's witnesses come from is to understand that his "investigation" should be more accurately termed a "Witness Recruitment Program" in which his investigators, many of whom have now become low grade Warren Report critics, armed with assassination theories to which they are deeply committed, go out and roam the French Quarter and other areas of New Orleans and try to convince people, 4 years after the assassination, that way back in September 1963 they just may have witnessed part of the crime of the century being plotted before their eyes in a restaurant, bar, or some other place.
The witness recruitment program for Kerry Thornley is now on in full force. Barbara Reid and Harold Weisberg are now turning up "witnesses."
Fringe benefits for such testimony include the dropping of charges, plus one fantastic ego trip on the witness stand, as you chip in your portion of Garrison's solution to the assassination.
Having dredged the depths of New Orleans for his witnesses, Garrison then modestly points out that it is not his fault if the plot he has uncovered wasn't witnessed by bank presidents.
The question, unfortunately, is not why bank presidents didn't witness these incidents, but whether these incidents exist at all!
Garrison has become the victim and the creature of his own techniques and associations.
Lifton has continued to speak out against Garrison's abuses, as shown in this widely-circulated e-mail exchange between Lifton and Garrison supporters Lisa Pease and Gary Aguilar..
It would be unduly malevolent to describe the Thornley affair as a dirty and calculated frameup. That would be to ignore the tragi-comical aspects of a phenomenon that is at work here that is probably inconceivable in most situations:
1) An unsolved murder of President Kennedy with vast political implications.
2) The presence of the accused assassin of Kennedy, viewed by the critics of the Warren Report as some type of CIA agent, in New Orleans for several months before the assassination.
3) A Cuban exile colony in New Orleans complete with its own cast of characters and its non-assassination related connections to the U.S. government.
4) District Attorney Jim Garrison, the Warren Report critic in action.
If Garrison does not bring high enough standards of analysis to this situation, it is extremely easy to forgive him because he is in hot pursuit of a "solution" to the "crime of the century." The basis for the solution eventually may turn out to be nothing more than a mass of totally irrelevant and peripheral threads, left behind from an inadequate and incomplete investigation done by the Warren Commission of Oswald's activities in New Orleans, threads which lead into nowhere-land of militant right-wing activities.
Garrison has taken the time not only to acquaint himself with the published literature critical of the Warren Report, but also with the authors of the various books and articles involved.
He is capable of making a fairly good presentation of it before the press, or in debate, or on TV.
As he himself admits, he is a frustrated playwright and actor. Flamboyance is his forte. Unfortunately, it is no substitute for evidence, rationality, and justice. Garrison's public performances have little to do with any evidence he may or may not have in his capacity as DA of New Orleans, a law enforcer who claims to have solved the assassination of President Kennedy by discovering a conspiracy.
Garrison's political credentials as DA do not imply the existence of correspondingly valid intellectual credentials. And it is by the standard of the intellect that his case must be judged, not by the applause level of a sympathetic crowd, screaming for the scalp of anyone Garrison's office calls "assassin."
Nor should Garrison's theories be prejudged as valid, simply because he precipitates such a violent reaction on the part of the establishment. That entity, because of the way it is structured, would react the same way no matter who claimed to have found a right wing plot, whether or not the man's case was a valid one.
The DA of New Orleans, unfortunately, now wears a three sided hat. He is a Warren Report critic, an actor who is filling a role in a script he is constantly rewriting, and DA with the power of subpoena. This is dangerous, no matter how psychologically satisfying it may be to those who want to see the establishment's foggy-minded equanimity given a thorough jolt.
From what I have seen in the case of Kerry Thornley, when a gap exists between what Garrison wants to prove and what the evidence justifies that gap is petulantly bridged with the flamboyant use of unjustified charges, grandiose statements preceded by the phrase "our office has shown that . . ." and recruited witnesses who appear out of the woodwork.
Meanwhile, an important segment of the community of Warren Report critics have suspended judgement of Mr. Garrison, as they anxiously await his day in court. A mystique has been created. Garrison can do no wrong.
There is nothing but one exception allowed after another, where Garrison is concerned to the very high methods and standards brought by this same group of people to the just criticism of the Warren Commission and its Report.
The motto seems to be: "Rally round the plot, boys. It's not much of a plot, but it's the only plot we've got."
Garrison may seriously hurt innocent people before he reaches the end of his own rope, and becomes a laughing stock. Does it really matter if he "means well" if, in his own bumbling way, he inflicts severe damage on a single innocent individual?
It is not possible for the DA to be "just mistaken" on Thornley. A fork in the road has been reached, for those who want to judge Mr. Garrison. Either Garrison now convicts Thornley (and he just might) or he backs off.
If he convicts him, I think that enough information will come out to show any objective observer that Garrison's Thornley theory makes no sense and is a creature of his mind, his ego, and the false Oswald theories of Harold Weisberg.
On the other hand, if Garrison drops charges, or a jury frees Thornley, Garrison will go down with a thud. The statements he has already made about Thornley, the charge for perjury, the arraignment -- these are events that have already passed. They cannot be undone. To reject the Thornley affair is valid as to indict Garrison as a reckless, irrational, even paranoid demagogue.
Garrison's foot is too far into his mouth on this one. Someone recently expressed the opinion that the only thing that will save him is either a false conviction, or a can of raspberry flavored Desenex.
My apologies to Max Shulman. My regrets to Mr. Garrison. My sympathies to Kerry Thornley.
(Open City plans to carry future developments in the Thornley case.)
Why yes Mr. Lifton, he was.....out of his mind....
-
Brilliant thread, Mike..Garrison was corrupt....that's it....brilliant analysis, richly annotated, filled with disturbing factoids...Oh Wait..you haven't done anything but started a provocative thread title.
Never came across you before..be sure to ignore your posts in the future, so, something came outta this..
If thats all you have to offer Steve please do disregard my posts. I dont think I would even notice.
-
I am curious to hear the thoughts of the forum about the Testimony of Joseph Nicol. He was at the time of his testimony, the most experienced ballistic examiner to study the bullets removed from JDT. He testifies that he positively matched one bullet, to the exclusion of all others.
Is this not a strong indication that Oswald was in fact guilty of the murder of JDT?
-
I have no control over what he posts, or the time it takes him to do it.
Sometimes i believe you have no control over your postings, Mike. Mhh
Why is that Martin?
I simply wanted others take on Garrison.
-
Mike:
You ignored my first post showing how Garrison could not be corrupt.
Now you ignore this one showing, with primary sources, what was behind the mildewed accusations by the three people you recycled from decades ago.
Good, because its pretty clear you don't do any research.
But you like to publicize the fact that, on almost any aspect of this case, you are an ignoramous.
Jimmy,
From what I have read so far, you have not been very convincing. Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long. You have yet to prove otherwise.
What the hell have you started this thread for? Just to get up everyone's noses and antagonise other members?
You were asked to provide specifics in the post immediate after you started the thread. You've provided nothing.
Jim takes the trouble and a heap of time to provide you with specifics and what is the response from you? You call him a "kook."
I started this thread to give my take on Garrison, and to hear others take as well. Is this not what a forum is for?
Jimmy could just as well said that he disagreed, and left it at that, as many others have done in this thread. I have no control over what he posts, or the time it takes him to do it.
-
Mike:
You ignored my first post showing how Garrison could not be corrupt.
Now you ignore this one showing, with primary sources, what was behind the mildewed accusations by the three people you recycled from decades ago.
Good, because its pretty clear you don't do any research.
But you like to publicize the fact that, on almost any aspect of this case, you are an ignoramous.
Jimmy,
From what I have read so far, you have not been very convincing. Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long. You have yet to prove otherwise.
-
Kamikaze Mike: There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.
If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.
1. Sam Holland's hearing shots from and detection of smoke form behind the grassy knoll and his finding of weird prints there.
2. Lee Bowers testimony about the cars coming into that area, the flash of light, and then the man shoving something back into the trunk of the car.
3. Joe Smith's testimony about the false SS men up on the knoll.
4.The testimony of Newman, Hudson and Zapruder about the shots coming form behind them.
5. J.C. Price's testimony about a man running toward the parked cars near the rail line with something in his hand that may have been a head piece.
6. The FBi report declassified in 1977 about a couple of men behind the picket fence who appeared to be aiming a wooden stick or something two days before the murder.
7. The gaping avulsive wound to the rear of Kennedy's skull.
8. The rocketing back of Kennedy's entire body in the Zapruder film therefore obeying the laws of physics and Newton's laws of motion. Plus the fact that the neuromuscular reaction, jet effect and goat films have all been exposed as being BS.
9. THe fact that there is simply too much brian damage as reported by Doug Horne and others to account for just one bullet. Plus the fact that John Stringer disowned the brain photographs in the Archives.
10. Tom Robinson's testimony before the ARRB.
11. The fact that in the Z film, the explosion near the front of the head resembles that of a frangible bullet.
12. Jackie crawling out the back of the car to pick up debris expelled from the exploding skull. Plus the fact of her uncensored testimony about the appearance of JFK's head to her right afterwards.
13. How David Mantik has fit the Harper fragment into the rear of the skull.
Not one shred of evidence huh? You are such a joke you make DVP look sophisticated.
1. Yet there is no evidence that what Holland says it true. There is nothing to support it.
2. Lee Bowers only says that he felt something had happened there. He was not certain of what happened. As for the people in the cars, is there any evidence that this was sinister?
3. Is there any evidence that this ever happened? Or is Smith being as presumptuous as you are Jimmy?
4. This one always gives me a laugh. You do realize that the TSBD is behind them, yes?
5. That may have been? What the hell is that? It may have been a transistor radio, or any number of other things. People were running all over the place. Only you Jimmy would consider this evidence.
6. Id love to see the source of that report. I can destroy it in 30 seconds.
7. Well here is a two fold doosey just for you. One I do not believe that wound exists. I believe the wound was to the side of the head. However even if it did exist, this would well have been an entrance of a full metal jacket bullet.
8. Ahhhhh Finally something we partially agree on. Those notions were BS. However, I fear you are in woefully over your depth if you really believe that the backward motion we see is justification of a shot from the front. But I will be happy to educate you.
We know that a bullet only transfers .1 to .3% of its energy to the target.
This is generally less than 10 ft lbs of force in a transiting shot. The human punch is 110 ft lbs on average.
So in order for a transiting bullet to transfer the same amount of force as a punch:
Lets take the Carcano as an example:
As we can see the impact energy at 90 yards is 1328 ft-lbs since we are passing through skull we should use the higher end at .3%
So
1328*.003= 3.98 ft-lbs of energy to the target, and a human punch on average is 110 Ft. Lbs.
With the above considered how many Ft-Lbs of energy would a transiting bullet have to strike with in order to transfer 110ft-lbs to the target?
37,000*.003=111Ft.-Lbs.
How would we achieve this?
An 800 grain .50 cal BMG has an energy of 14,895 ft-lbs at the muzzle.
So lets grab 2 of those for a total of 29790 ft-lbs
which leaves us 7210 ft-Lbs.
7.62x51 nato (.308) is 175 grains and 2627 ft.-lbs at the muzzle.
so lets grab 2 of those and we are up to 35,044 ft lbs
We still need another 1956 ft lbs......hmmmm.....
how about the .45 acp in 230 grains as it has a muzzle energy of 352 ft lbs
so lets grab 5 of those
we are now at 36,804 ft lbs.
damn still short......by......196 ft lbs!
so lets go back shopping and get......
1 32 grain .22 cal with 191 ft lbs of energy
We are still short by 5 ft lbs, so I suppose we could shoot with a carcano as well which adds another 3.98 ft lbs....
So in order to hit a target with enough transiting shots to equal a human punch we need to hit them with:
2-.50 cals
2-.308cals
5-.45 acp's
1-.22 cal
and a carcano
all at the same time.
really now.........
Oh yes and your "frangible bullet idea"?
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons."
9. This is comical. From what I have read, almost every single doctor who worked on JFK agree that the photos, and xrays are authentic, and resemble what they saw. I was not aware that Horne was a wound ballistics expert.
10. An Embalmer? Now thats rich. I think first you better settle the issues you have with the medical professionals.
11. No frangible bullet: See number 8.
12. Well then by all means, show me this material on the trunk.
13. Man you really are behind the times huh?
There is nothing of substance in any of your items here Jimmy.
-
Blood should have streamed from the hinged bone flap opening.& the fist size opening above the ear on the right
If so shouldn't we be able to see it all over the right shoulder. ( left looking from the front )
This area should have been drenched in blood.
Robin,
No. Not at all.
Look at how far JFK is leaning left. Almost on his side.
I would think we would see very little blood on the right shoulder, and a mass on the left, just as we do see.
-
Nice point, Robin. The blood pattern supports a blow-out to the left/rear, not to the right/front nor from the top or the side.
On the shirt, if kennedy was hit in the back of the head WHY IS THERE SO MUCH BLOOD MAINLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY ?
If there was a fist sized hole behind the ear on the right side shouldnt there be more blood on the right shoulder area. ?
Fetzer once again shows his inept powers of deduction.
The man is shot, and immediately falls left, where do you think the mass of blood, pulled by gravity, will go?
This is certainly no indication of a shot from the front exiting the rear left.
Jim if you really taught critical thinking, you need to be handing out some form of rebate.....
Say what was it like to meet Ventura?
-
Small GIF ( photo's not resized to fit exactly )
Bullit hole aligned ( place your mouse cursor on the hole )
Robin,
That is a pretty good gif, and useful as well.
It shows two separate patterns.
The pattern we see on the Jacket was from the backspatter of the bullet.
The blood on the shirt from gravity.
Nice work on that one buddy.
Mike
-
Nice point, Robin. The blood pattern supports a blow-out to the left/rear, not to the right/front nor from the top or the side.
On the shirt, if kennedy was hit in the back of the head WHY IS THERE SO MUCH BLOOD MAINLY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY ?
If there was a fist sized hole behind the ear on the right side shouldnt there be more blood on the right shoulder area. ?
Fetzer once again shows his inept powers of deduction.
The man is shot, and immediately falls left, where do you think the mass of blood, pulled by gravity, will go?
This is certainly no indication of a shot from the front exiting the rear left.
Jim if you really taught critical thinking, you need to be handing out some form of rebate.....
-
It appears to me that the kill shot on JFK was in his front right temple. And the blowout was to the back of his head. It could have very well been a blowout in the lower right rear area OR the lower left rear area ... remember when JFK is shot in the head he is leaning forward, he is being shot at an angle.
As for blood flow out - most of it seems to be coming from the back of his head and not from the shot into his back. JFK slumped over to his left onto Jackie, and gravity would have taken the blood out of his head to flow down on his left side, whether or not the blow out hole to the rear of JFK's head was the "right rear" OR the "left rear."
Also, regarding the blowout to the rear of JFK's head - it may NOT have been that big in the first few seconds. I imagine the bullet blew out part of his occipital bone - the Harper fragment, but is very possible the big blowout hole that became apparent LATER had not yet developed; thing of the back of JFK's head at that moment as a broken eggshell consistency with scalp skin still holding it *together* temporarily until the effects of gravity and outward blood flow eventually make the back blowout would more apparent.
Robert Groden has showed me a close up of the Zapruder film with a frame (when it is blown up) that clearly shows a volcano cone effect coming out the back of JFK's head. This is one reason I do not think the Zapruder Film was fake or fabricated. JFK's blowout wound on his rear - although there like a broken eggshell still clinging together, did not make itself strikingly visisble in the first few seconds after the JFK murder at 12:30 PM Central time. By the time they got to Parkland it was obviously apparent to all.
After a few minutes of gravity and blood outflow, the blowout rear wound on the head was much more apparent. And I think it was a blowout wound in the lower right REAR of the head.
There is absolutely not one shred of evidence of a shot from the front.
If you are to disagree please post what you consider to be evidence of a shot entering the front. I caution you, the old arguments of back and to the left are ridiculous.
-
Well, here we go again. Williams does his usual Chaplin's cannon routine. He makes a big claim and produces just about nothing of substance. Except tired old accusations from decades ago. While he ignores all the new material I quoted showing that it would be impossible for JG to be corrupt, since he passed up many opportunities to capitalize on his position--including making tons of money-- and then threw away a promising political career that would have resulted in the governorship. To Kamikaze Mike, that just bounces off. Because it undermines his point completely.
What does he come up with? Three mildewed quotes from Meagher, Weisberg, and Summers. Yawn.
But let us deal with them. Since he won't.
1. Even Sylvia Meagher's close friends, colleagues and idolators thought she was just irrational when it came to Garrison. This includes Ray Marcus, Roger Feinman, Jerry Policoff, and Margie Fields. Some of these people were with her before the news of Garrison's probe ever broke. In fact, Margie was in her kitchen with Sylvia when they heard the radio announcement.
As time went on, and Garrison began to be frustrated and obstructed by the huge and complex covert operation that had been assembled in New Orleans and within the MSM to make sure Shaw was acquitted and Garrison was discredited, Sylvia began to drink the Kool Aid. Understand, there is no doubt that JG made some big mistakes, that he listened to people he should not have,that he said things he should not have, that he trusted people he should not have. But also understand that the operation assembled against him was pretty much unprecedented at the time. So its true that JG made some major errors. But its also true that many of these were either created or magnified by the other side. ANd it is those that the MSM played up.
Well Sylvia made no allotment for that. In fact, Ray Marcus finally decided she was too far around the bend on JG and they split up after five years of friendship. In his letter to her, he specifically harped on that particular point: the unfairness of her judgment. In other words, whenever JG made a mistake e.g. the Bradley imbroglio, she would blast him for it. But whenever his witnesses were harassed or attacked or suborned or bribed, or when a governor refused to return a witness or suspect, she said nothing. He went on like this with specifics for over a page in his single spaced typewritten letter. He then concluded that although it was painful to do so, he would not talk to her again until it was all over. In fact he did not talk to her again for ten years.
Question for Mr. Williams: Did you read this letter? Did you talk to Ray or Margie?
2. Mr. Weisberg: Anyone who knows anything about the Garrison office, which neither DVP or Kamikaze Mike do, understands that there came to be a rivalry there for Garrison's ear. This occurred in about the middle of 1968. Garrison had become so frustrated by the number of infiltrators who had betrayed him--especially in the wake of Epstein's long New Yorker article--that he called in everybody's deputy badge. THis was a very low point for JG.
Now, at about this time there began to be friction between Harold and Salandria over the direction the inquiry and JG should go in. Wesberg, as always, was very micro oriented, a detail guy, who wanted to accrue as many pieces of evidence as possible. VInce was beginning to grow out of that and into a combination micro/ Big Picture view: that is, What were the forces who killed Kennedy, and why did they do it, and why did they do it in such a spectacular way? Around this time, Salandria smelled another rat in the office. It was Boxley. JG was not convinced. And neither was Harold (even though Boxley had tried to sandbag Harold already by denying that the proprietor of a print shop identified Thornley and not Oswald as the guy who had picked up some flyers.) Salandria had brought an essay by Trotsky about how he understood that Stalin had boxed him in back in 1927. Garrison read it and understood. Salandria asked him to call Boxley now and ask him to come down to the office. The rest of the scene played out just like in Garrison's book. Boxley disappeared, and it turned out that he never lived at the address he gave JG. This was a turning point for JG. From here on in VInce had his ear and Harold did not. And it was VInce who supervised the (impressive) Dealey Plaza portion of the trial, not Harold--even though that was his metier. Weisberg never got over this, and he and VInce were never friends again.
Question for Mr. Williams: Did you interview Vince or Harold on this point?
3. Mr. Summers: Its funny that Tony says there are very few references to JG in his book. That may be technically true. But his whole New Orleans aspect is right out of Garrison: David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clinton/Jackson, and in fact he begins it with the famous 544 Camp Street Flyer that Garrison discovered!
As for the rest, well to use someone like Anson, I mean are you serious? The whole Mafia influence angle has been shown to be nothing but a fraud created by JG's enemies. (See Bill Davy's excellent take down of this in his book Let Justice be Done pgs. 149-167) As per the charges of "psychotherapy", Garrison suffered from battle fatigue when he volunteered for Korean War duty. If you ever read what he did in WW 2, you would understand why it gave him nightmares.
And I was really disappointed to see Tony use those income tax evasion trials. Anyone who studies them will see that this was part of the CIA's years long effort not just to acquit Shaw but to bury Garrison--literally. For once Shaw was acquitted the CIA began to plan to get JG out of office so what he did could never happen again. But they knew they could never do it on the up and up, since JG was too popular. So they found a guy who was in trouble: Gervais. They then bought him and suborned him and wired him. THey then altered the tapes, since in their original form there was nothing to them. THey then got him out of the country so he could not be deposed. But even with all that, the whole thing fell apart at trial. It was just too obvious. What is important though is that teh CIA was ready to frame and send to a jail an innocent man over his crusade on the JFK case.
But the point is that this weakened JG so badly since it was on the eve of the election. So the guy the CIA got, Connick--who helped present Shaw's lawyers' case--got in. What did he do? HE set about to literally incinerate what was left of Garrison's JFK case files. And if it had not been for the courageous Gary Raymond, we may never have found out about this. He refused to burn what Connick told him to burn. ANd when I went down to interview Connick I discovered that he had missed some more stuff the HSCA had discovered.
Question for Kamikaze Mike: Did you talk to Gary Raymond, I mean do you know who he is? Did you study what the government did with Gervais at the trial? Did you read the interview with him in the local New Orleans papers? Or did you just buy Summers because that is what you wanted to hear?
4. As for little Mike, Pauly, I mean to dredge up something from daffy John McAdams' web site and present it with no background? I mean McAdams has even less credibility than Gary Mack. I mean would you quote Allen Dulles or DIck Helms if they were alive?
There is next to no doubt in any objective person's mind today that LHO was a CIA agent provocateur. And he doubled as an FBI informant. Which is why he was perfect for Angleton to set up since it made sure Hoover would cover his ass. Which he did. If you know anything about the Chicago Plot, you know that the informant who tipped off the FBI was "Lee". And JG also thought that Oswald tried to thwart the Dallas plot through the Walter telex. If it was Oswald in Chicago, then by blowing the whistle, he made sure Dallas would go through. Which assured his own death.
That is one definition of the heroic.
Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that.
-
Mike quick question
Have you ever read "A Heritage of Stone" or "On the Trail of the Assassins"?
Dean,
I have read a little bit of them, but not in entirety.
I just find it interesting that the bedrock CT's such as I posted earlier have such harsh things to say about him.
How so many people here hail him a hero is just lunacy in my opinion.
-
What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?
( left side if looking from the front )
Robin,
Please do not tell me that people actually still contend this is the entrance of a bullet!
Hi Mike.
It's an anomily, i don't know what it is.
maybe it's the small shrapnel wound that Robinson mentioned.
Quote:
PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.
PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
PURDY: On his right side?
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
PURDY: Approximately what size?
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.
Robin,
I tend to agree it is some sort of anomaly. I am sure that many here contend this is an entrance, which is moronic, unless JFK was shot with a deer slug.
-
What's this black circle on the right temple at the hairline. ?
( left side if looking from the front )
Robin,
Please do not tell me that people actually still contend this is the entrance of a bullet!
-
This makes for interesting reading, I find: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm.
This quote always makes me chuckle, for some reason:
"[Oswald] was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency and was obviously drawn into a scapegoat situation and made to believe ultimately that he was penetrating the assassination. And then when the time came, they took the scapegoat ... and killed him real quick. And then the machinery, disinformation machinery, started turning and they started making a villain out of a man who genuinely was probably a hero."- Jim GarrisonPaul,
Only Jim Garrison could claim a zero like Oswald, was a hero.
I share in your chuckle at that quote.
-
CT Sylvia Meagher:
. . as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment (Accessories After the Fact, 1992 ed., 456-7).
CT Harold Weisberg:
as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour" (Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991; reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film, 221). "Garrison was a tragedy," Weisberg wrote in a letter in 1998.
Anthony Summers writes in Conspiracy (First Paragon House paperback edition, 1989), in "Update . . . November 1991:"
Those who have long labored to uncover the truth about Dallas might be expected to be happy about [the movie] J.F.K. In a sense they are . . .
[but] three-time Oscar winner Oliver Stone . . . has made some bizzare decisions. From a vast array of scholarship, he picked a book by Jim Garrison, former District Attorney of New Orleans, as his main source work. . . .
You will find only a sprinkling of references to Garrison in this book. His probe has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles. As Esquire magazine pointed out this November, there were things director Stone did not at first know about Garrison. About his separation from the U.S. Army, "following diagnosis that he was in need of long-term psychotherapy." About his "close association with organized crime, whose soldiers and capos he rarely prosecuted . . . " About "the bribery and income-tax evasion trials in which he was exonerated."
Yet, even when he did learn these things, Stone persisted in his association with Garrison and a bunch of other buffs, so-called witnesses and experts whom serious observers dismiss as cranks or worse. . . .
Can anybody rationally explain how Jim DiEugenio endorses Garrison and defends him almost religiously? Of course DiEugenio also believes in 8-10 shots from three different locations. Leads me to ask....who's the more serious "nut".......Garrison or DiEugenio?
Thoughts on this from CT's?
-
Wow what a great turn out of responses. How would I have ever guessed that Jimmy D. would be a worshiper of Garrison?
Garrison was nothing more than a corrupt DA. He appears quite unstable mentally, and in fact if I were to be one to believe in reincarnation, he does seem a bit like Jimmy D himself in this regard.
Why am I not surprised that he has so many supporters?
The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
-
I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......
-
It's not for anyone to prove the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination. That's where the evidence leads. It's up to you to prove the misalignment of the scope occurred after the shooting.
Wow talk about a bold claim on your part!
And how exactly does the evidence lead there, when there is no evidence what so ever to indicate the condition at the time of the assassination? My whole point, is that there is no way to tell when the misalignment occurred. In as much as the Buffs, such as yourself, would like to prove that the scope was misaligned during the event, there is no evidence to support that from a ballistic standpoint.
And you have no evidence in support of this beyond Frazier's GUT FEELING or guess that shims were removed in Dallas.Um....What shims in Dallas? Frazier testified that it was apparent the scope was removed, I am not aware of him ever making a comment about shims being in the rifle before then. He does tell us that on 3/16/64, it required shims to be sighted correctly. How do we know that it required shims during the assassination? We don't, simply because it was not tested before it was disassembled and fingerprinted, just as Frazier tells us.
Well, two days after Frazier testified, Lt. Day testified. Now, get this, he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately. He did, however, volunteer that he never got a chance to inspect the area of the rifle by the scope.Now this is an interesting statement, and may be a severe indication of tunnel logic. Tunnel logic exists when someone is so locked into a thought or idea, that they see no other logic or reason.
So let me ask you.
How do you know that Day did not process the scope, and scope area prior to removing the stock?
Generally an examination of evidence, and this applies to fingerprinting as well, should be done from top to bottom, then outside to inside. This is to avoid ruining anything in an attempt to get to something else.
Another indication of tunnel thinking can be found in your comment that"he was NEVER ASKED if he'd removed the scope and lost the shims needed for the rifle to fire accurately."
How do you know that the scope required shims to fire accurately at that point in time? How do you know that there were shims in the rifle during the assassination?
Is it possible that the idea of a misaligned scope is so ingrained in your thinking that you just do not examine other aspects and possibilities?
When one follows his testimony, moreover, and reads other interviews with Day, it's clear as...Day... that he would like us to believe that when he was working on the rifle, he 1) dusted the rifle, and photographed the trigger guard prints, 2) spotted part of a print on the underside of the barrel peaking out from beneath the wooden stock, 3) removed the barrel from the stock, and dusted the area around this print, 4) lifted this print, and prepared to photograph it, 5) was told not to proceed any further, 6) put the barrel back in the stock. Per his testimony, he NEVER got any further.Again, how do you know he did not follow the procedure and examine the top first, before he was told to stop?
Now, if you choose to believe he removed the scope and lost shims, that is up to you. But if you do, you should acknowledge that 1) Lt. Day, through whom most all the evidence against Oswald flowed, was both incompetent and deceptive about the processing of the rifle, and 2) the Warren Commission deliberately avoided the question of whether or not shims were removed.
I have to tell you, I find that a person involved with the rifle, Frazier, said it is apparent that the scope was removed for printing. That is very compelling.
Moreover, can you offer any supporting evidence, testimony will do, that indicates Day did NOT remove the scope? Earlier on, you told us that he said that, however, your misinterpretation of the testimony in regard to the top and bottom of the barrel, is glaring.
And oh yeah, by the way, while Oswald ordered the rifle with a scope, the scope was not sighted-in before delivery, and this scope/rifle combination could not fire accurately without shims. There is, furthermore, no evidence Oswald ever had the rifle sighted-in.
So...there's no evidence the shims Frazier claimed were removed in Dallas ever actually existed.
Again, how do you know this particular rifle could not fire accurately without shims? Can you support this claim? How do you know it ever had shims before 3/16/64? Can you support that claim?
I would be interest to hear what gives you the impression that the scope and rifle would not have been at least bore sighted before delivery? You do know this is a common practice when mounting a scope. This was a cheap rifle, granted, and to keep costs down it is possible they would skirt this step. I would just like to see the supporting documentation, no offense, but really your ability to understand the evidence about the rifle has been a bit contaminated by your ingrained belief that it had been misaligned all along.
I really want you to know that I mean no disrespect in saying that Pat. I do not agree with you, but I do follow your line of thought. Few Ct's have your tenacious and methodical approach. Hell truth be told, many Ln's lack your tenacity as well.
We have an old saying.
An inch at the muzzle is a mile at the target.
-
Pat,
You never learn.
The 15 yard and 25 yard targets were fired for speed, and not accuracy. Try actually reading Frazier.
Frazier tells us that the first time the weapon is fired for accuracy is on 3/16/64, at 100 yards. Also in Fraziers testimony, and quite easy to comprehend.
In fact the 15 and 25 yard tests were very good for being fired in under 5 seconds. Again, these were fired for speed, and not accuracy.
Now who says that the shooting time was limited to 5.6 seconds? I have often speculated that the event was closer to 8 seconds. So then, how do your shooters compare to that? Quite well actually.
Pat,
I challenge you to find one piece of testimony that says that rifle was fired for accuracy before 3/16/64. Of course you can not. Within 72 hours of that rifle being found it had already been transported to Washington and back.
I am still waiting for you to offer just one single piece of conclusive evidence that the scope was defective at 1230 on 11/22/63.
So far you have not given one credible argument for said same.
DJ,
Man Im sorry I had a hectic day the last few. I will go back over your post and try to catch up.
Mike, while my previous responses were sufficient to prove you wrong, Frazier's testimony in the Shaw trial should make this 100% clear, even to you.
Q: Now, did you conduct any firing speed tests and accuracy tests with the rifle which you examined?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Where were these tests conducted?
A: In the indoor range in the F.B.I. Building, Washington, D.C. and the outdoor range, the F.B.I. range at Quantico, Virginia.
Q: Tell us the mechanics and extent of the tests and give us the result of the tests.
A: The first test performed was performed primarily, primarily for accuracy but also for maintaining a rapid rate of fire. These tests were performed at 45 feet in the indoor range with artificial light firing at a target with the rifle and with the four-power telescopic sight mounted on it. The tests which I fired at that 45-foot distance consisted of three shots fired in a span of 5.9 seconds, that is from the time the first shot was fired until the third shot was fired. The tests consisted of firing, reloading and firing, reloading and firing the third time so that a total of three shots were fired. The tests conducted at the 75-foot distance consisted of two three-shot groups also fired for accuracy and speed. These consisted of a group fired in approximately a 2 inch circle at 75 feet in a period of 4.8 seconds, and a series of shots fired in a group which would be all-encompassed in a 5 inch circle which was fired in a time of 4.6 seconds.
I believe I left out the accuracy measurement for the first 45 foot target. In that target the three shots fired could be covered by a quarter. The third set of tests consisted of four targets situated at 300 feet in the outdoor range in daylight. In those four targets, first I'll give you the time interval and then the size of the pattern formed by the three shots that were fired in each of those tests. These three shots in the first test were fired in 5.9 seconds and they landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle; the second test was fired in 6.2 seconds, the three shots landed in a 4 inch circle and -- I should say 4 1/2 to 5 inch circle. The third test was fired in 5.6 seconds, the three shots landed in a 3 inch circle and these shots landed in a 3 1/2 inch circle. This test also was conducted both for accuracy and for speed.
Q: Now, Mr. Frazier, what was the reason for choosing those particular distances for these tests?
A: The first distances were chosen by me mainly to determine whether the weapon was accurate and were the two distances available in the F.B.I. indoor range, that is, 45 feet and 75 feet and artificial light for targets. The outdoor distance was chosen as 100 yards or 300 feet as being longer than any distance at which President Kennedy could have been fired upon from a person firing from the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Amazing!
You crack me up.
You chose a testimony that is some 5 YEARS 2 MONTHS and 25 DAYS.....AFTER the first rifle tests, and find that to be conclusive? You are kidding me right?
Clearly some time had gone by since the tests.
How about if we look at what Frazier had to say about the tests, just 4 Months and 4 Days after they were conducted, Shall we?
Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
So you seem to be a bit confused as to what rapid fire accuracy means. Clearly, as you have proven time and again, your inexperience precedes you!
SO you went and found a testimony more than 5 years after the fact, and still struggle to understand what Frazier is telling you. Impressive!
So lets look at what Frazier does say here.
He says the tests, and he is talking about all the tests, were conducted for accuracy and speed. True
Some of these tests were conducted for rapid fire accuracy. This is not pin point precision shooting. It is as it implies, rapid fire.
He also says the First tests were conducted for accuracy and maintaining a rapid rate of fire. Oh there is that word RAPID again!
Accuracy under rapid fire conditions, what does this mean to you? Is it in fact pin point precision shooting? (spoiler: no its not)
The only issue I have with Frazier here is that he says the tests were conducted for accuracy with speed secondary. This is a direct contradiction to his much earlier testimony.
Mr. FRAZIER - The second test which was performed was two series of three shots at 25 yards, instead of 15 yards. I fired both of these tests, firing them at a cardboard target, in an effort to determine how fast the weapon could be fired primarily, with secondary purpose accuracy.
We did not attempt- I did not attempt to maintain in that test an accurate rate of fire.
So what do you make of this Pat? What does your logical mind tell you is correct?
Do you accept the testimony closest to the event, some 4 months after, of a misstatement made in testimony more than 5 years after the fact?
The obvious answer is that it was as Frazier claimed--that the tests were performed to determine both speed and accuracy. The problem for you is that you claimed he didn't test for accuracy at all before March 64, when he claims he did...repeatedly. You were 100% wrong. And are apparently not ready to admit it.
As far as your claim rapid fire tests don't count--or whatever nonsense you're trying to spew--you keep ignoring that three top shooters fired three rounds apiece with the rifle at targets 15 yards away, and ALL nine shots impacted 2 1/2 or more inches high and an inch to the right, and that this tendency was corroborated by six more shots at 25 yards. That's 15 shots at close range, all landing substantially high and to the right. While you, apparently, think this was but a coincidence, that's awfully hard to believe. For even after the FBI fiddled with the screws, and made the scope as accurate as possible, the rifle still fired 4 inches high and an inch to the right at 100 yards. This tendency, moreover, was not a defect in the scope, which could have occurred subsequent to the assassination. It was inherent in the scope as mounted on the rifle, and could only be offset through the use of shims.
Is it any wonder then that Frazier later claimed that someone in the Dallas PD had removed the scope and lost the shims used in the shooting...
Apparently, he, as yourself, just could not accept that the scope was as useless as it was when first tested, and found it easier to invent events--such as the scope being removed and the shims being lost--than to follow the evidence where it leads...to the conclusion reached by the HSCA's experts--that the scope was not used.
Pat,
You seem to be struggling with terminology.
Do you know the difference between firing for accuracy and firing for accuracy under rapid fire conditions?
Additionally there is nothing to be gained from the rifle tests, and why is that?
Because as Frazier clearly tells us someone removed that scope.
There is no two ways about that, and thus, the old CT drivel about a misaligned scope is hogwash purely because there is no way to prove that.
So again, I ask, Can you provide me with one shred of proof that the rifle scope was misaligned at the time of the assassination?
Frazier clearly tells us there is no way to know.
What do you say?
Ugh,
Now back to removing a virus on the work servers.......good lord.....
-
OF COURSE NOT!!!! Lamson is wrong, wrong, wrong!
BULL! Speer is WRONG WRONG WRONG!
There is NO PROBLEM with the size of the bag as seen outside the TSBD. It is 8.5 inches wide. Speer just used a "method" that is faulty to "measure". HIS method is in direct violation with well established and PROVEN photographic principles.
Despite Speers uninformed attempts at spin, this has been well proven.
But of course Speer can undertake the tests and provide the the graphics required to TRY and prove his position is correct. So far he has NOT done so.
We are all WAITING Pat...
Pat seems to be going through a lot of this lately LOL
:ice
Joseph Nicol
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Michael,
Interesting that Nicol finds 7 points of match on that one bullet. Also interesting that Nicol is by far the more experienced examiner of the group.