Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?

[David Von Pein]

How about the application form in New Orleans where Oswald wrote down the name of Jack Ruby as a reference?

LOL. What the hell? Where did that ridiculous rumor come from? No such application form exists and everybody knows it.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

This is VB being channeled through his puppet Davey.

Since VB says in his book RH that this does not exist, then Davey, strings pulled, says the same.

The problem is a judge in New Orleans saw it. It so upset him that he went to the FBI and told them about it. He started by saying that with the evidence JG had, Shaw would be surely convicted. He described some of it but then added, the crown jewel in Garrison's case would be the application he had seen, with Ruby's name on it. Yeah Davey, that all sounds made up, right?

What happened of course is that when the FBi got wind of this, one of their assets inside JG's office pilfered it.

It probably ended up on Hoover's desk.

And BTW, this is the kind of stuff I found much of that eventually disappeared. There was something even better than this. THere was a backyard film of Shaw with Oswald. It was on a lead sheet that JG would make out about once a week for his investigators to check out. I actually told Anne Buttimer of the ARRB about this one and sent her the memo. But she quit later, so the ARRB could not follow it up.

BTW Davey, how many original Garrison staff memos have you inspected? Any? One, or two? Your knowledge of the JG files is about as extensive as Mikey's.

Which means its nada.

Regarding Oswald's application with Jack Ruby as a reference: did Jim Garrison mention that in any of his books or in any public interview after the Clay Shaw trial?

It seems so blockbuster that surely Garrison would have been telling folks about that Oswald application that went missing for years.

And what was the judge's name who saw that application?

Edited April 8, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Martin Hinrichs]

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.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• 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.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

[Paul Baker]

But I am all ears.

Makes a change from being all mouth I suppose.

[Ian Kingsbury]

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.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• 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.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

Martin

I am sure that Jim Garrison made a few enemies among all sorts of folk .But how many of his convictions were overturned due to his "crookedness"?. Perhaps we could compare it to other DA"s like............Wade .Which one had the scruples?.

I always thought Garrison was depicted as a hero before he became a D.A?.

what was the perception of Garrison before the trial?.

If you cannot refute his evidence attack him .Thats innovative and still works today !

Ian

Edited April 8, 2011 by Ian Kingsbury

[Mike Williams]

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.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• 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.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

Martin,

No offense taken my friend. I only post what I find and have interest in. I simply offer my view and ask others for theirs.

[Mike Williams]

Duncan:

SHow me something that I wrote that has no back up?

If not, then go back to your xxxxx forum.

ANd take Pauly Boy with you.

Sure, Jim.

Back this up "your xxxxx forum"

Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009.

Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts.

He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

[Mike Williams]

Duncan:

SHow me something that I wrote that has no back up?

If not, then go back to your xxxxx forum.

ANd take Pauly Boy with you.

Sure, Jim.

Back this up "your xxxxx forum"

Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009.

Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts.

He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

You're not all right in the head, are you? I can't believe someone like you was ever given a gun on purpose.

Great forum? Facts? Who from? Brian Walker? The biggest imbecile that has ever managed to survive three trimesters? Bill Brown? Who repeatedly asks the same idiotic questions over and over and over again in some vain hope that he will outlast the "debate" through others simply giving in to his stamina? Paul May? Who writes under dozens of aliases and has in the past accused other researchers of child molestation (the way you have today with Jim Garrison) and like his hero John McAdams? Mark Henceroth? Another idiot who won't put his real name to his thoughts and ideas, and has started some incredibly valuable and mature threads with titles such as "Should all CT's be executed as being un-American?" Ross Lidell? Who starts about 10 threads a day and calls them things like "Where was Oswald going after the Theater?", "Oswald's smirk, sign of a maniac?", "Yes or No, would the CT's let Oswald go from custody?"

And you. The incredible Mike Williams. Who acts like a five year old each and every day. Who scuppers any chance of reasonable discussion and debate because you'd prefer to act like a child. You're top dog over there Mike, and rightly so. Out of a group of tossers, there is always one tosser who is bigger and messier than the rest. The Alpha-male toss pot, Mike Williams.

Now piss-off back to your haven where you can contribute to JFK research by replying to and applauding some of the mentally healthy people over there who claim that not supporting the "official view" is unpatriotic and un-American and who once told me that it was "obvious that I hate America."

So I suppose this means you can not refute one single word I posted. Thanks Lee. Just the kind of answer I expected from an over inflated pompous ass such as yourself. Lifton has you nailed.

[Mike Williams]

Duncan:

SHow me something that I wrote that has no back up?

If not, then go back to your xxxxx forum.

ANd take Pauly Boy with you.

Sure, Jim.

Back this up "your xxxxx forum"

Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009.

Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts.

He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

You're not all right in the head, are you? I can't believe someone like you was ever given a gun on purpose.

Great forum? Facts? Who from? Brian Walker? The biggest imbecile that has ever managed to survive three trimesters? Bill Brown? Who repeatedly asks the same idiotic questions over and over and over again in some vain hope that he will outlast the "debate" through others simply giving in to his stamina? Paul May? Who writes under dozens of aliases and has in the past accused other researchers of child molestation (the way you have today with Jim Garrison) and like his hero John McAdams? Mark Henceroth? Another idiot who won't put his real name to his thoughts and ideas, and has started some incredibly valuable and mature threads with titles such as "Should all CT's be executed as being un-American?" Ross Lidell? Who starts about 10 threads a day and calls them things like "Where was Oswald going after the Theater?", "Oswald's smirk, sign of a maniac?", "Yes or No, would the CT's let Oswald go from custody?"

And you. The incredible Mike Williams. Who acts like a five year old each and every day. Who scuppers any chance of reasonable discussion and debate because you'd prefer to act like a child. You're top dog over there Mike, and rightly so. Out of a group of tossers, there is always one tosser who is bigger and messier than the rest. The Alpha-male toss pot, Mike Williams.

Now piss-off back to your haven where you can contribute to JFK research by replying to and applauding some of the mentally healthy people over there who claim that not supporting the "official view" is unpatriotic and un-American and who once told me that it was "obvious that I hate America."

So I suppose this means you can not refute one single word I posted. Thanks Lee. Just the kind of answer I expected from an over inflated pompous ass such as yourself. Lifton has you nailed.

Maybe one day when you manage to finish reading a book you'll be able to post your own ideas and thoughts? Maybe you and Robert Morrow can start a night school class on "How to not stop reading until you come to the last page."

Lifton sure does. He has me completely nailed. I'm glad you're backing him. Maybe he'll nail me some more over the coming weeks once he presents some evidence and answers one of the 200 questions he's been asked? In fact, I think he's at Home Depot right now stocking up.

Refute one single word you posted? What the hell for? It's already been refuted. I consider you a waste of space bullet-boy and Jim was too considerate to you by actually offering you his time.

Read The Assassinations or Destiny Betrayed and you may get up to speed on what Garrison was up against. What's that? You'll never read them because the editor and author is a "kook"? Oh I see.

Well how about Let Justice Be Done by Bill Davey? What's that? He's a "kook" as well?

Well how about A Farewell to Justice by Joan Mellen? Another "kook" eh? Oh dear.

How about Garrison's own two books? No? Why would you want to read them?

How about some of the ARRB documents? Not got time, eh? Too busy still trying to sell the SBT?

Just keep pretending you're interested in history. And I'm so glad you didn't try to defend the muppets you associate with. Keep on tossing, Mike. You're the best.

Well Lee,

Since you dont have anything productive to add, I am not at all concerned that I should not hear from you on this subject again. Please, by all means, feel more than free not to waste anymore time on me.

To the rest of you who replied with things to consider, I appreciate your time and effort and will certainly be considering these things.

[Pat Speer]

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.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• 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.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

Martin,

No offense taken my friend. I only post what I find and have interest in. I simply offer my view and ask others for theirs.

Not completely true, my friend. If you take a good look in a mirror I suspect you'll realize that you used to enjoy sharing ideas, but now mostly enjoy insulting people. Why does it have to be "Garrison's a nutcase, who built his case on nothing!" Which you KNOW isn't true. Why can't it be "I beg to differ with Jim DiEugenio; I'm just not convinced Garrison was rational or sincere"?

In my diagnosis, you've been bitten by the LN bug. Once bitten, the victim has a hard time accepting new ideas, and promoting fresh arguments, but delights instead in cutting and pasting bits of info from sacred LN texts, many of which are completely out of date, or have since been discredited. Once bitten by this bug one's demeanor becomes nasty; often, in extreme cases, the victim froths at the moth and spews bile. Of course, Bugliosi is just a foreign word for bug.

There's a CT bug, too, of course. But that's another matter.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Martin Hinrichs]

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.

Let me try to explain Mike.

Excuse me to take a swing.

Some but few researchers here know each other in person from meetings in DP or elsewhere

but the vast majority is anonymous.

As an anonymous Poster on the Internet, your Reputation is all you have.

In particular here some threads were read 1000'es times from many people. I believe more then

on any other Forum.

As a neutral observer i see often the same negative empty and heartless platitude from you.

Here a little taster from this thread:

• Garrison was as corrupt as the day is long
  
• Garrison was as much of a kook as you are Jimmy D. No two ways around that
  
• 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.
  
• The mentality of the conspiracy buffs never cease to amaze me.
  

I don't want copy tasters from Duncan's forum over here. You know.....

Quantity is not quality. Ok, that was flat but true.

I mean at some point, when people have read enough from a person, they take him/she not serious anymore.

I hope you take this not as offense but as a hint from me.

Martin

Martin,

No offense taken my friend. I only post what I find and have interest in. I simply offer my view and ask others for theirs.

Not completely true, my friend. If you take a good look in a mirror I suspect you'll realize that you used to enjoy sharing ideas, but now mostly enjoy insulting people. Why does it have to be "Garrison's a nutcase, who built his case on nothing!" Which you KNOW isn't true. Why can't it be "I beg to differ with Jim DiEugenio; I'm just not convinced Garrison was rational or sincere"?

In my diagnosis, you've been bitten by the LN bug. Once bitten, the victim has a hard time accepting new ideas, and promoting fresh arguments, but delights instead in cutting and pasting bits of info from scared LN texts, many of which are completely out of date, or have since been discredited. Once bitten by this bug one's demeanor becomes nasty; often, in extreme cases, the victim froths at the moth and spews bile. Of course, Bugliosi is just a foreign word for bug.

There's a CT bug, too, of course. But that's another matter.

Surely you've explained it better then me Pat.

I wish i would have a better english.

Martin

[Martin Hinrichs]

Martin

I am sure that Jim Garrison made a few enemies among all sorts of folk .But how many of his convictions were overturned due to his "crookedness"?. Perhaps we could compare it to other DA"s like............Wade .Which one had the scruples?.

I always thought Garrison was depicted as a hero before he became a D.A?.

what was the perception of Garrison before the trial?.

If you cannot refute his evidence attack him .Thats innovative and still works today !

Ian

Hi Ian, sure Jim Garrison was pretty much alone during the trial.

Almost ervery CT'er left him after that. Even Mark Lane laughed after it.

I don't know that much about this fellow Clay Shaw and what is fiction or not.

I was informed by Gary Mack that Clay Shaw's life was ruined after that trial.

If that is true, i have trouble with Garrison.

Do i know the truth: Certainly not. I was not there.

Mhh, i have the Garrison tapes here on video and can say that i raised may eyebrow more then once.

He exaggerated i believe but in the end he was right. It was a conspiracy.

Too much victims he stepped over. But as you said perfect:

Compare him with Henry Wade.

How many death convictions? How many were wrong? How many people died because of his character.

I make it simple: A world without Wade would be have been a better one.

best to you

Martin

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Duncan:

SHow me something that I wrote that has no back up?

If not, then go back to your xxxxx forum.

ANd take Pauly Boy with you.

Sure, Jim.

Back this up "your xxxxx forum"

Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009.

Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts.

He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

I signed up at Duncan McRae's forum and got kicked off for posting defense of Madeleine Duncan Brown over HERE at Education Forum. I didn't violate the rules of any forum - certainly not his as I rarely posted there - McRae just arbitrarily kicked me off his board for political reasons. I guess I must be too potent in my presentation of the facts.... Hey, who can't handle the truth?

[Mike Williams]

Duncan:

SHow me something that I wrote that has no back up?

If not, then go back to your xxxxx forum.

ANd take Pauly Boy with you.

Sure, Jim.

Back this up "your xxxxx forum"

Oh. Paul is already there, and has been there since August 2009.

Duncan I think Jimmy is begging us to go because he has no desire to deal with the facts. He is only at home in a house full of nuts.

He would not dare come to your great forum, and try selling his crap, he would be eaten alive by facts.

I signed up at Duncan McRae's forum and got kicked off for posting defense of Madeleine Duncan Brown over HERE at Education Forum. I didn't violate the rules of any forum - certainly not his as I rarely posted there - McRae just arbitrarily kicked me off his board for political reasons. I guess I must be too potent in my presentation of the facts.... Hey, who can't handle the truth?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Even IF Jim Garrison were "corrupt" and even IF Garrison was a "pedophile" it does not mean Garrison was not DEAD ON RIGHT about the JFK assassination. Garrison said that the CIA murdered John Kennedy, that Lyndon Johnson knew all about it and that Lyndon Johnson was protecting the CIA murderers of John Kennedy. Garrison was making these comments in late 1967 and early 1968, just as Johnson's approval ratings were heading to rock bottom.

3 big things came out of the Garrision investigation: he pretty much proved that there was a high level government conspiracy to murder John Kennedy; that JFK was killed by a shot from the front which the non-innocent government knew; that Lee Harvey Oswald was US intelligence.

Also, I highly recommend the book The Dark Side Of Lyndon Johnson by Joachim Joesten which came out in 1968. It is an almost impossible to find book - I have recently acquired a xeroxed copy; Joesten was watching the Garrison investigation closely and he printed his book perhaps a month before LBJ pulled out of the US presidential race on 3/31/68. http://www.amazon.com/DARK-SIDE-LYNDON-BAINES-JOHNSON/dp/B0000COCJP/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302490591&sr=1-2

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison at his press conference on 12/26/67:

“President Johnson is currently the most active person in the country in protecting the assassins of John Kennedy.”

“President Johnson must have known by the time of the arrest that Oswald did not pull the trigger.”

“You are being fooled. Everyone in America is being fooled. The whole world is being fooled.”

“Why? Because of power – becaue if people knew the facts about the assassination they would not tolerate the people in power today. Keep in mind who profits most. Who appointed the Warren Commission? Who runs the FBI? Who runs the CIA? The President of the United States.”

Jim Garrison in his Playbody interview:

“President Kennedy died because he wanted peace.”

UPI dispatch from New Orleans dated 2/20/68:

Jim Garrison accused Attorney General Ramsay Clark “doing his best to torpedo the case of the state of Louisiana” because “apparently it is felt in Washington that if the truth of President Kennedy’s murder can be kept concealed, President Johnson’s promotion to the presidency will appear more legitimate.”

2/21/68 Netherlands Television broadcast and interview of Jim Garrison

Jim Garrison: “President Kennedy was murdered by CIA elements. Those who were involved in the murder worked laboriously to give such a presentation that the suspicion would rest on others. This manner of organizing a murder is standard procedure within the CIA."

Joachim Joesten, The Dark Side of Lyndon Johnson, p. 267: “Garrison also said in this context that he had to assume that President Johnson knew that the CIA killed Kennedy because he appointed an investigation committee composed of mainly pro-CIA persons.”

Joachim Joesten (p. 267): “Garrison was quoted in the Dutch interview as saying that he had to speak out in Europe ‘because it is impossible in America. The U.S. press is controlled to such an extent by the CIA that we no longer can say the truth. They throttled us.’”

Joachim Joesen (p. 268): Garrison stated early in his inquiry, that in due course ‘every individual involved,’ including all accessories after the fact, would be arrested and brought to trial. 'The only way they can escape is to kill themselves,’ he added significantly. He wasn’t just thinking of David Ferrie.

If Lyndon B. Johnson has any brains left, he’ll blow them out before the law gets to him. That way he could at least escape the pinnacle of infamy and save his country from foundering in an abyss of national shame. [Joachim Joesten, The Dark Side of Lyndon Johnson, p. 268]

Edited April 11, 2011 by Robert Morrow