Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?

[David Von Pein]

Why are all of Jim DiEugenio's posts gone? The only way I can see them is when another poster is responding and included Jim's post in his/hers. Jim did not take them down.

I've wondered the same thing, Dawn. Many of Jim's posts that I had linked to on my own site are now AWOL for no reason whatsoever--even within threads that are still open (but expelled member Tom Scully's posts all still remain). But many threads have now disappeared completely, which I don't understand either.

But, Dawn, there is still a way to recover old threads and posts -- via Archive.org's "Wayback Machine". (Although the long threads are never all there; usually just 3 or 4 pages remain; but at least it's something I can attach my links to, because I hate dead links.)

Here's an example of one of DiEugenio's threads (that he started) that is recoverable via the "Wayback":

http://web.archive.org/web/20130512094853/http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110

http://archive.org/web/web.php

It would sure be nice to get all of the old threads back in their entirety, however. Can that be done?

Moreover, why on Earth were a whole bunch of threads that were there 2 or 3 months ago now completely gone, with only this message available when clicking the thread's link?:

Sorry, we couldn't find that!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=150&p=203628entry203628

Edited August 2, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Thomas H. Purvis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company

The Garrison Investigation:

Smoke; mirrors; & Land Sharks!

[B. A. Copeland]

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."

Hey Lee, my guess? Trolling just as DVP was on another topic....sigh it never ends. Mike stop acting the burden of proof in on those who researchers who have already disproven your case, all yoiu have to do is read a bit. In fact I am usually suspicious of anyone calling Garrison a phony, attacking him or calling him corrupt because we saw various individuals do just that so long ago and we clearly know what the point was to all of it.

[B. A. Copeland]

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."

Hey Lee, my guess? Trolling just as DVP was on another topic....sigh it never ends.

Mike stop acting the burden of proof in on those who researchers who have already disproven your case, all yoiu have to do is read a bit. In fact I am usually suspicious of anyone calling Garrison a phony, attacking him or calling him corrupt because we saw various individuals do just that so long ago and we clearly know what the point was to all of it. You have not once given any credible or strong evidence to support your view.

Edited August 3, 2013 by B. A. Copeland

[Thomas H. Purvis]

JG was on the right track and a true American Defender.

Special Forces = Disinformation

It is not my problem if you are confused by simple facts.

[Pat Speer]

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."

Hey Lee, my guess? Trolling just as DVP was on another topic....sigh it never ends.

Mike stop acting the burden of proof in on those who researchers who have already disproven your case, all yoiu have to do is read a bit. In fact I am usually suspicious of anyone calling Garrison a phony, attacking him or calling him corrupt because we saw various individuals do just that so long ago and we clearly know what the point was to all of it. You have not once given any credible or strong evidence to support your view.

FYI, Mike Williams sent me an email a few months back telling me he was in extremely poor health. He was apologetic for the harsh tone he'd adopted online, and wanted to make sure there were no hard feelings between us. I've noticed that he's stopped posting on Duncan's forum, and suspect he's not coming back.