Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

John McAdams? I am going to BUY that book of his and then I am going to REVIEW that book. And I encourage students of the JFK assassination to BORROW that book from me and others and write REVIEWS of the book and stick it all over the internet, especially Amazon.

[Guest Tom Scully]

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

I know Jim DiEugenio challenged Mike quite convincingly when it came to the above post by Mike.

What is the deal here, Mike? Are you trying to deliberately deceive our JFK Debate forum readers, or were you just misinformed until Jim DiEugenio set you straight about Phelan, and several members attempted to educate you about Garrison and his motives and expertise?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22phelan+should+be+closely+held+in+each+office+and+not+disseminated%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a

Real History Archives Media Collection: James Phelan, FBI Informant

The information furnished by Mr. Phelan should be closely held in each office and must not be disseminated outside the Bureau. According to Phelan ...

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/media/phelan.htm

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=775687

FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 126 pg 1

Found in: FBI JFK Assassination File (62-109060)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1196

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/19990220121914/http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr196-starrep.html

Probe From the January-February, 1996 issue (Vol. 3 No. 2)

Star Reporters

or

Government Flaks?

James Phelan & Bob Woodward

....As with his 1967 caricaturing of Garrison, those interested in what really happened at Watergate and what really transpired between the CIA and Hughes had to settle for personality sketches, vague generalities, and Phelan's own cleverly disguised biases. On the two great traumatic shocks to the system-Watergate and the JFK conspiracy-Phelan has been anything but what Random House billed him as: an investigative reporter.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Tom Scully

[David Von Pein]

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE

E-Mail From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time

------------------------

Hello Dave,

What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]?????????

Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny?

For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a [deleted, so I don't get kicked off The Edu. Forum] when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great.

These people are just [deleted]. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud".

Regards,

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time.

Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.)

So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that.

By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't get it either.

I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film.

But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.'

Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene.

Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film.

But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~

And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended!

How's that for deliberate time-warping deception?

Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her.

Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times.

I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary,

Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)?

Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Sorry, I don’t. She [beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper.

And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends.

But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968.

I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too.

DVP

[My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]

Edited April 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jim, without intending to stir up avoidable bad blood, what is your take on what the dynamic is in the "research" community? How does one have any idea about who is a reliable source or the opposite, or a 'tweener?

Dr. Fetzer has not seemed to come to a definite judgment about the agenda of Mr. Lifton, as an example. Gary/Larry is in a class all by himself. Von Pein is out and obvious, as is "The Marquette Warrior" and of course, wikipedia's gamaliel.

47-1/2 years of it, and they just keep on coming....

http://www.ctka.net/pr599-lambert.html

Probe From the May-June 1999 issue (Vol. 6 No. 4)

False Witness: Aptly Titled

By Jim DiEugenio and Bill Davy

....Patricia Lambert is a longtime friend and colleague of David Lifton who helped him on his manuscript for Best Evidence. Predictably, Lambert begins the book by saying that she was a believer in Garrison at the start of his probe who gradually grew disenchanted with him as his probe expanded and unraveled and finally ended with the failure of the Clay Shaw trial. This approach always leaves us a bit suspicious since, as with Sylvia Meagher, it always leaves out the overpowering attack on Garrison that took pains to ensure his failure. Lambert, working from a stacked deck, ignores that attack and its origins and motive. Therefore, the picture drawn is already skewed and distorted...

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Lambert is a real weird one.

She not only helped Lifton but she also edited John Newman's masterly JFK and Vietnam. And she also did a nice article on the Secret Service which Duke Lane has on his site.

I think what happened was her association with Phelan. Which was really close.

Phelan always threatened to write something new when Stone's movie came out. But the declassified FBI docs kind of exposed him.

So I think Lambert took up the cause. BTW, she was not upfront about herself and Phelan and how close they were. Phelan's daughter told me she was like her godmother.

Garrison was a polarizing figure because of the combination of errors he made plus the attack on him. But also because he was taking the whole thing to another level.

Allen Dulles challenged the critics: If they have suspects let them name names.

Well Garrison named Allen Dulles. And IMO, he was right.

Why do I think that? Because Dulles himself hired one of the infiltrators into Garrison's office.

But when you do names names it means you have to carry the burden of proof. The combination of the classification process plus the unrelenting attack on JG stopped him from crossing that barrier. And Dulles knew that would be the case. After all, he was one of the main authors, some would say THE main author, of the original cover up.

As per Gary Mack, I tried to explain what happened to this clown in my article, "How Gary Mack became Dan Rather". The guy did a back flip. With the help of Dave Perry. He used to say that what the JFK case was about was democracy in America.

Now he has dedicated his life to covering up the true circumstances of Kennedy's death.

Hey,money talks.

I think it is a real possibility that Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles were the co-CEOs of the JFK assassination. And I don't mean *just* the cover up. I mean the assassination. For the new folks: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Tom:

Let me add one more point as to why many critics are still polarized about JG, (but not as bad as before.)

See, when I started speaking at conferences way back in, I think it was 1993, no one else was addressing what was in Garrison's files.

But I happened to have someone in DC who was going through the preliminary releases of the JFK Act, before the ARRB was actually established. And then Lyon Garrison let me copy what he had of JG's files.

See, no one had ever done this before. Because people like Phelan, Aynesworth, and Sheridan and Kirkwood had done such a good job of discrediting JG, even the critics, in 1993-AFTER STONE"S FILM--still were not convinced about JG. But as I went through these thousands of pages, I saw a ton of great stuff. So, Probe began to do articles based on this newly declassified and recovered material..it was that rich. And I began to see why the CIA wanted Connick to burn it.

And I also began to talk about this stuff at conferences. It literally stunned some people. In fact, Wallace Milam--a good researcher from Tennessee--who was a pal of Lifton's, once asked me to send him some stuff from these files. I did so. About a week later, he called me and said, "Garrision had stuff like this?" I said, "Yep, and a lot more." Bill Davy's book is full of this stuff and you cannot understand JG unless you read it. (Its on Kindle now.)

But even better, Bill is going to update and revise that book and make it much longer so more of this stuff will be in it.

But let me add one more point. Even what we have now is only a fraction of what Garrison discovered. Because as I wrote it my Bugliosi review, so much of Garrison's stuff was burned, lost, and pilfered. What do I mean by that?

1. Connick burned much of it when he got in office. In fact, that is why he was in office.

2. Garrison gave some file cabinets of it to a friend for storage. It ended up being "lost".

3. The CIA agents in JG's office walked off with a lot of it e.g. Boxley and Gurvich. This was made easier since JG made Tom Bethell his archivist. ( I can just see Bethell leaning out a window at night, dropping stuff down to Gurvich.)

So this is another reason why the critics were split on JG. Almost none of them understood how much really good stuff was in his files. (To give you one example, I know there was even more stuff on Thornley because Weisberg told me about it. But its not there today.)

And I should add that Stone's "Book of the FIlm" did not do a real good job in correcting this. For two reasons. First, it was published before the ARRB. Second, I do not think that Jane Rusconi ever tried to systematically recover JG's extant files and rebuild them. Which is something I tried to do. This is how I met Connick in person. And I began to realize what an ass he was.

Today, I am utterly convinced from what I have seen that whatever is now assembled at NARA representing what JG had, what he really did have without the losses was at least twice as large and as good. And if you can write a book as good as Bill Davy's Let Justice be Done, imagine the book one could write if everything was there. What a barn burner it would be.

Jim,

Just as an FYI, I have a set of the Boxley files. Boxley gave Mary Ferrell a set and my set is a copy she made for Larry Harris.

Have you ever seen the Boxley set?

Todd

[Stephen Roy]

Jim (and other interested parties):

This is probably a good time and place to float an idea I've had for some time. There are Garrison files (and files related to the New Orleans investigation) scattered all over the place: NARA, AARC, History Matters/Mary Ferrell Collection, Billings/Georgetown, Weisberg/Hood, the agencies themselves, private researchers, and probably other places. Some documents seem to be in some collections but not in others. Some are online, some are not. Some of the online ones are easily searchable but some are not. I wonder if it would be possible to gather all of the available Garrison/New Orleans resources together, to make as complete an archive as possible; and, if feasible, make them available online.

I would like to see them all available at one place. Further, today's technology should make it possible to organize the contents into a database, so that a researcher could bring up an index of anything (examples: All documents on Thornley, Chronological list of NODA memos, All FBI documents on Bringuier - you get the idea) and allow the user to click to see and print each document.

As well, there are other materials which do not fit the definitions of Garrison files or related files: pictures, news clippings, a/v materials, testimonies, interviews conducted by non-government entities (like researchers) and many other ancillary materials.

(While I find current online sources useful, they can be problematic: NARA has little actually online; AARC/History Matters stuff is limited; the Ferrell collection is extensive, but hard to search and not capable of printing multi-pagers (as far as I know); the Weisberg collection has a bunch of Garrison stuff, but it is scattered in the most unlikely places; and so on.)

Perhaps a system like the one I propose could use existing online resources, simply "by pointing at their URLs," with the addition of many materials not now online. Once I publish my Ferrie research, I'd be willing to donate my materials (where they are not merely duplicates) to such an archive. It seems to me that this could be a great resource for people interested in the Garrison/New Orleans investigation. It almost seems inevitable, that someday somebody will do this. What do you think?

[Michael Hogan]

1. Connick burned much of it when he got in office. In fact, that is why he was in office.

2. Garrison gave some file cabinets of it to a friend for storage. It ended up being "lost".

3. The CIA agents in JG's office walked off with a lot of it e.g. Boxley and Gurvich. This was made easier since JG made Tom Bethell his archivist. ( I can just see Bethell leaning out a window at night, dropping stuff down to Gurvich.)

Speaking of Harry Connick Sr, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote just gave the ex New Orleans DA a huge pass.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Supreme_Court_Majority_Rules_DA_is_not_Responsible_for_His_Prosecutors_Misdeeds_110407

Jim, do you know when Davy's book is coming out?

I think Stephen Roy's idea is a good one, if implementing it would prove to be practical.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Jim (and other interested parties):

This is probably a good time and place to float an idea I've had for some time. There are Garrison files (and files related to the New Orleans investigation) scattered all over the place: NARA, AARC, History Matters/Mary Ferrell Collection, Billings/Georgetown, Weisberg/Hood, the agencies themselves, private researchers, and probably other places. Some documents seem to be in some collections but not in others. Some are online, some are not. Some of the online ones are easily searchable but some are not. I wonder if it would be possible to gather all of the available Garrison/New Orleans resources together, to make as complete an archive as possible; and, if feasible, make them available online.

I would like to see them all available at one place. Further, today's technology should make it possible to organize the contents into a database, so that a researcher could bring up an index of anything (examples: All documents on Thornley, Chronological list of NODA memos, All FBI documents on Bringuier - you get the idea) and allow the user to click to see and print each document.

As well, there are other materials which do not fit the definitions of Garrison files or related files: pictures, news clippings, a/v materials, testimonies, interviews conducted by non-government entities (like researchers) and many other ancillary materials.

(While I find current online sources useful, they can be problematic: NARA has little actually online; AARC/History Matters stuff is limited; the Ferrell collection is extensive, but hard to search and not capable of printing multi-pagers (as far as I know); the Weisberg collection has a bunch of Garrison stuff, but it is scattered in the most unlikely places; and so on.)

Perhaps a system like the one I propose could use existing online resources, simply "by pointing at their URLs," with the addition of many materials not now online. Once I publish my Ferrie research, I'd be willing to donate my materials (where they are not merely duplicates) to such an archive. It seems to me that this could be a great resource for people interested in the Garrison/New Orleans investigation. It almost seems inevitable, that someday somebody will do this. What do you think?

I think that's a great idea.

Mark Lane is also supposed to be in possession of Garrison files.

[Pat Speer]

Jim (and other interested parties):

This is probably a good time and place to float an idea I've had for some time. There are Garrison files (and files related to the New Orleans investigation) scattered all over the place: NARA, AARC, History Matters/Mary Ferrell Collection, Billings/Georgetown, Weisberg/Hood, the agencies themselves, private researchers, and probably other places. Some documents seem to be in some collections but not in others. Some are online, some are not. Some of the online ones are easily searchable but some are not. I wonder if it would be possible to gather all of the available Garrison/New Orleans resources together, to make as complete an archive as possible; and, if feasible, make them available online.

I would like to see them all available at one place. Further, today's technology should make it possible to organize the contents into a database, so that a researcher could bring up an index of anything (examples: All documents on Thornley, Chronological list of NODA memos, All FBI documents on Bringuier - you get the idea) and allow the user to click to see and print each document.

As well, there are other materials which do not fit the definitions of Garrison files or related files: pictures, news clippings, a/v materials, testimonies, interviews conducted by non-government entities (like researchers) and many other ancillary materials.

(While I find current online sources useful, they can be problematic: NARA has little actually online; AARC/History Matters stuff is limited; the Ferrell collection is extensive, but hard to search and not capable of printing multi-pagers (as far as I know); the Weisberg collection has a bunch of Garrison stuff, but it is scattered in the most unlikely places; and so on.)

Perhaps a system like the one I propose could use existing online resources, simply "by pointing at their URLs," with the addition of many materials not now online. Once I publish my Ferrie research, I'd be willing to donate my materials (where they are not merely duplicates) to such an archive. It seems to me that this could be a great resource for people interested in the Garrison/New Orleans investigation. It almost seems inevitable, that someday somebody will do this. What do you think?

I think this is a great idea. It wouldn't surprise me, considering the scope of her book, if Joan Mellen has some files as well.

[Pat Speer]

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE

E-Mail From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time

------------------------

Hello Dave,

What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]?????????

Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny?

For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a [deleted, so I don't get kicked off The Edu. Forum] when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great.

These people are just [deleted]. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud".

Regards,

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time.

Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.)

So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that.

By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't get it either.

I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film.

But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.'

Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene.

Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film.

But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~

And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended!

How's that for deliberate time-warping deception?

Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her.

Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times.

I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary,

Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)?

Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Sorry, I don’t. She [beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper.

And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends.

But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968.

I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too.

DVP

[My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]

Dave, perhaps you don't understand movie-making 101. A feature film BASED on a true story is not a documentary. Stone acknowledged this from the get-go. He changed names, he merged characters, he created conversations that never happened, he presented events that did happen out of order. The Beverly Oliver character in the movie is not even named Beverly Oliver. Stone added her character and others, most notably Mr. X, into the story so he could present an OVERVIEW of the claims regarding a conspiracy. That was the purpose of his film--an OVERVIEW of claims regarding a conspiracy. That was why he cited Marrs' Crossfire as a source, and not just Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. Garrison's book was just his VEHICLE for discussing the claims presented in other books.

If you read the published script, in fact, you'll see something you won't find elsewhere...FOOTNOTES. HUNDREDS of them. You see, while it's true that the film itself is, as Stone says, a counter-myth to the myth created by the Warren Commission, his film was not unlike the Warren Commission's report in that it was based on the statements and testimony of real people, and NOT made up from whole cloth, as so many like to claim.

So, while one can criticize the way Stone, and for that matter Garrison, put the evidence together, the charge that they invented the evidence is just not true.

[Greg Burnham]

Oliver Stone on "JFK" --

Part One:

Part Two:

.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[David G. Healy]

JIM GARRISON & OLIVER STONE

E-Mail From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

Date: 4/6/2011 3:09:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time

------------------------

Hello Dave,

What now? Ruby should have been noticed because he didn’t have a camera, according to Gil in [an Education Forum] post [linked here]?????????

Gee, none of the newspaper reporters held cameras, nor did any of the radio or TV reporters. In fact, there were only three photographers in that basement: Bob Jackson, Jack Beers and Frank Johnston. Just three cameras out of what, 30 reporters and technicians? Why would Ruby stand out for extra scrutiny?

For that matter, what would be accomplished by a “nighttime transfer” in an enclosed basement lit by artificial light vs. a daytime transfer? And how would an armored car have helped since Oswald was shot before he reached where the vehicle would have been parked?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Gary. Gil Jesus is a [deleted, so I don't get kicked off The Edu. Forum] when it comes to anything about the JFK case--just like DiEugenio The Great.

These people are just [deleted]. Let's face it. There is no hope for them. Particularly when they've peddled two conspiracy books in the past, as DiEugenio has. He wouldn't turn against Garrison now if he suddenly found a tape recording made while Garrison was on his deathbed telling the world "I had no case against Shaw; I'm a fraud".

Regards,

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Here’s what I don’t understand. Virtually every conspiracy researcher who worked with/for Garrison bailed out because they knew he had no case whatsoever. I’ve heard that directly from Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell. Mary admitted that in an interview about Garrison’s death that ran at the local TV station I worked for at the time.

Lifton walked out, Meagher, and many many more. Mark Lane laughed at him in his PBS/Oswald’s Ghost interview. Weisberg was so offended at Oliver Stone’s plans he leaked an early JFK script to George Lardner of the Washington Post to expose Garrison’s failures to the world. (Harold and I were very good friends from the mid-80s until he died; he told me the story, though not who sent him the script.)

So why are these folks so delusional about Garrison? So what if Shaw had dealings with CIA that he wouldn’t admit to during the trial days? Such an action isn’t, in and of itself, suspicious unless….unless….the CIA is connected to the assassination. Despite so many people trying, no one has been able to do that.

By all accounts, Clay Shaw was a decent resident of New Orleans filled with community pride and integrity. Any city would appreciate having a man like that. But the kooks overlook all of Garrison’s faults because of Clay Shaw? Why? I don’t get it. There is absolutely nothing about Shaw that is sinister in any way.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't get it either.

I really think that, to a large degree, Oliver Stone's movie brainwashed Jim DiEugenio (and others like him). I, myself, was even bowled over at first by the "scope" and "grandeur" (for lack of better terms) of Stone's slick Hollywood film.

But when a person examines the sheer number of distortions, misrepresentations, omissions, and outright lies that are placed on the screen in Mr. Stone's movie, it should make any sensible and reasonable person sit up and say -- 'Hey, that's not right.'

Stone's distortions regarding J.D. Tippit's murder are laughable, with Stone in one scene suggesting that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene.

Although, to cut Oliver Stone some slack here, Jim Garrison too claimed that Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, which is a ridiculous notion as we all know. But since Stone was essentially filming GARRISON'S kooky account of JFK's murder and its aftermath, I guess I can't rake Stone over the hot coals too much for some of the silliness that he put in his film.

But what's truly surprising is that Stone would choose GARRISON, of all people, to prop up and glorify. Surely Stone must have known, deep down, that Garrison was an empty vessel when it came to his JFK assassination investigation and that Garrison had prosecuted an innocent man in New Orleans in 1969. I guess Oliver just didn't care about that little detail at all. ~shrug~

And one of the biggest distortions and misrepresentations in Stone's movie is when Stone decided to put Beverly Oliver in a scene, supposedly having a conversation with Jim Garrison in the late '60s, even though Beverly didn't pop up out of the woodwork with her phony baloney story about being the Babushka Lady until a year AFTER the Shaw trial ended!

How's that for deliberate time-warping deception?

Footnote -- In March 1992, David Belin of the Warren Commission made an appearance at the National Press Club (see video HERE), and he did a nice job of setting the record straight about Stone and his distortion-filled movie.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Believe it or not, David, Stone left out a lot of stupid stuff. Jane Rusconi was his research coordinator. She’s the one who spoke to all of us in town looking for assistance. Some--Dave Perry and I plus a few others--wanted no part of it. But we soon realized we were the ones who could at least help get some of it right. So we all helped, and Jane confirmed many things were dropped because of things we passed on to her.

Dave and I weren’t paid, by the way, and we didn’t want anything. We received two passes to the Dallas premier and we went. I stood in line right behind Jim Bowles, whom I hadn’t met face to face but we had spoken on the phone many times.

I understand Stone’s need to use Garrison, for there simply is no other person in that long story who could even play the part of hero AND who was a public figure. It’s basic story-telling. I met Stone briefly, but we didn’t talk. He really does believe most of the major conspiracy tales and needed a hero to provide focus for all of them. Garrison was it, by default.

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gary,

Do you have any idea why Oliver Stone decided to include Beverly Oliver in his movie (an actress portraying Beverly, that is)?

Stone obviously wanted to place yet another "conspiracy" witness in his film. But Beverly Oliver never talked to Jim Garrison prior to the Clay Shaw trial. She wasn't "discovered" until 1970.

DVP

==================================

GARY MACK SAID:

Sorry, I don’t. She [beverly Oliver] was hired as an advisor [on Stone's film "JFK"] and that probably made sense for some of the club scenes, though she was never a stripper.

And of course there was no meeting with Ruby, Jada and Oswald. She did, of course, talk with Gary Shaw and Dick Sprague, both of whom knew Garrison. Does that count?

Gary

==================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not unless she talked with them prior to March 1, 1969, which is the day when Oliver Stone's movie ends.

But even then, Stone would still be guilty of trying to pull the wool over his audience's eyes--because Stone has Beverly Oliver sitting down and talking with Garrison PERSONALLY in circa 1968.

I'm surprised Stone didn't toss in a scene with Gordon Arnold too.

DVP

[My thanks go out to Gary Mack for taking the time to write me four very interesting e-mails on April 6, 2011, on the topics of Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone's JFK movie, and Jack Ruby.]

Dave, perhaps you don't understand movie-making 101. A feature film BASED on a true story is not a documentary. Stone acknowledged this from the get-go. He changed names, he merged characters, he created conversations that never happened, he presented events that did happen out of order. The Beverly Oliver character in the movie is not even named Beverly Oliver. Stone added her character and others, most notably Mr. X, into the story so he could present an OVERVIEW of the claims regarding a conspiracy. That was the purpose of his film--an OVERVIEW of claims regarding a conspiracy. That was why he cited Marrs' Crossfire as a source, and not just Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins. Garrison's book was just his VEHICLE for discussing the claims presented in other books.

If you read the published script, in fact, you'll see something you won't find elsewhere...FOOTNOTES. HUNDREDS of them. You see, while it's true that the film itself is, as Stone says, a counter-myth to the myth created by the Warren Commission, his film was not unlike the Warren Commission's report in that it was based on the statements and testimony of real people, and NOT made up from whole cloth, as so many like to claim.

So, while one can criticize the way Stone, and for that matter Garrison, put the evidence together, the charge that they invented the evidence is just not true.

you just blew Von Pein out-of-the-water...

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Oliver Stone documented everything in his movie; and I think that JFK the movie is one of the best things that has ever been done on the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

JFK: The Book of the Film

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Book-Film-Applause-Screenplay/dp/1557831270

Product Description:

A documented screenplay of the Oliver Stone film, complete with historical annotation, with 340 research notes and 97 reactions and commentaries by Norman Mailer, Tom Wicker, Gerald R. Ford, and many others. "It's a lesson in craft to watch JFK on video while reading along, charting what got cut, softened, and rethought." -Entertainment Weekly

[Mike Williams]

I would certainly be agreeable to an attempt to locate all the extant JG files and place them online somewhere to make them accessible.

The problem is in locating them first, and then finding place to to put them that is above reproach.

I actually tried to do this many years ago. But the guy I was thinking of using as a repository ended up not being trustworthy.

I guess one place to ask would be Rex Bradford, but I am not so sure he would be eager to do it.

But to my knowledge no one has better scanning capability.

So first you have to locate them all, then you have to find a way copy them all, then you have to scan them all.

It is not an easy job to do.

But I am all ears.

Quite, and with nothing in between!