Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?


Recommended Posts

Guest Robert Morrow

From what folks have told me Dave Perry is the one in charge of Gary Mack. In other words Gary Mack is subordinate to Dave Perry in some way. That is like saying the village idiot is your mentor.

I emailed Dave Perry one time, and in credit to him, he replied back. I asked well who do YOU think killed JFK. Perry replied back he thought it was Oswald but that Oswald's visit to the Russian embassy merited scrutiny and they could have been involved. In other words - according to Perry, Oswald did it all by himself but the Russians (may have told him, edit by Morrow) to assassinate JFK. I apologize if I stated Perry's views incorrectly; that was the gist of what I understood.

I give that theory a one in 100 billion chance of being correct. This is the guy, Dave Perry, who mentors Gary Mack. You can see the results of the hysterically inaccurate propaganda on display at the Sixth Floor Museum. That place is a propaganda vehicle to protect the murderers of John Kennedy. And there are 3 folks today who I think either have criminal liability in the JFK assassination OR who know who killed JFK: George Herbert Walker Bush (born 1924) (whose son lives in Dallas, GWB), David Rockefeller (born 1915) and Henry Kissinger (born 1923) who was extremely close to Nelson Rockefeller (1908-1979) who I think was one of the sponsors of the JFK assassination. David Rockefeller is the younger brother of Nelson Rockefeller.

The Rockefellers, their Texas oil friends, LBJ and the CIA were all are sharp odds with the Kennedy brothers in 1963. And the Rockefellers have deep, deep CIA and intelligence ties (as did Texas oil barons Clint Murchison and H.L. Hunt to intelligence/military).

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

Wow, if Dave Perry said Oswald did it for the Russians, he now is up there with Ed Epstein

This is what Epstein did in his disinfo, Angelton inspired book Legend.

About the time whe Epstein was writing Legend, JFK researcher Jerry Policoff called up a retired James Angleton (notorious former head of CIA counterintelligence, protege of Allen Dulles, and in fact carried Allen Dulles' cremated ashes at his funeral) who was publicly listed in the phone book. Angleton answered the phone and had a conversation with Policoff. Angleton admitted that he was working with Edward Jay Epstein.

Policoff is convinced that Legend is a "black book," meaning a piece of CIA disinfo/propaganda. I believe it too. Epstein went to Russia once - I think when he was a student at Cornell and folks speculate that the Agency paid for his trip. Later when Epstein tried to go to Russia again ... he was REFUSED by Russian authorities. I think they figure out who he was and what he was all about (spying for the CIA).

Also, if anyone reading this has not read Jerry Policoff's deconstruction of the media's treatment of the JFK assassination, please do! Everything that Policoff has written in the early 1970's has withstood the test of time.

Here is a sample:

JFK: HOW THE MEDIA ASSASSINATED THE REAL STORY*

Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff

[Editor's Note: Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff trace

the role of the media, especially THE NEW YORK TIMES,

TIME-LIFE, and CBS, in distorting and misrepresenting

information about the death of JFK to the American people,

another sad chapter in dereliction of duty by the press.]

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/mediaassassination.html

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh yes and by the way. You did nothing to convince anyone that Garrison was not a nut case, but you did plenty to lead me to believe you are!

So I hold Garrison is still a loon, what else do you have to support that he was not?

In 47 years not one shred of evidence exists of a conspiracy, and you keep chasing the breeze....

1. Garrison was most assuredly a "loon".

2. Question is: Was he merely a "lone loon", or a somewhat "guided loon"?

3. Considering that he/his own coroporation profited from the investigative fees he spent, perhaps he was merely a "smart loon" who was guided along into this neverland scenario.

Tom

P.S. It is getting awfully crowded out here on my limb, with you being camped out here as well.

P.P.S. Somewhere, long ago on this forum, I discussed those menacing "Land Sharks", which are prevelant throughout New Orleans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

It's a shame Garrison discussion is so polarized: He's evil, he's perfect.

I don't think the discussion is as polarized as you make it seem. Mike Williams said there's nothing to believe about Garrison. His thread title was, "Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?" without specifying what part of his work was hard to believe. Are there people on the other side claiming that everything Garrison claimed is true? I am not sure, but I highly doubt that Jim DiEugenio, for example, has praised every single bit of evidence presented by the prosecution in the Garrison trials. This thread should be about Mr. Williams' blanket statement.

Are the Clinton witnesses all lying about seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw? Does Mike Williams distrust all of them?

I do not believe the pro-Garrison witness who was a heorin addict, for example; but that is only one person. The Clinton witnesses, on the other hand, gave solid testimony IMO.

Edited by Andric Perez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marguerite Oswald was onto David Ferrie, although not by name, in February/March 1964.

When she appeared on a Cleveland Radio Show, Harv Morgan's "Contact", on Februray 24, 1964, Marguerite made the following statement to a caller's question:

"Q. KARL: Was Lee OSWALD a "loner" and did not have close friends?

A: I will bring this out in another program. It is too long a story for the present program. I have a wonderful thing to relate that happened to Lee, and it is something that has never been made public. I intend to make this known on Radio Station WBZ, Boston, on Bob Kennedy's "Contact" program next Wednesday (2/26/64) from 6:30 to 8:)) PM or, if we cannot do the program on this date, it will be on the following Monday (3/2/64). He had a normal relationship with all people."

The transcript for the show is here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=97 (This runs for 15 pages)

When she appeared on Bob Kennedy's show at the beginning of March, Marguerite's "wonderful thing" was the following (taken from an FBI report):

"Mrs Oswald then indicated that she was sure her son was in the employ of the U.S. Government, and then said she was going to to divulge information she had never before discussed. This information consisted of a statement by Mrs. Oswald to the effect that Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was 15 1/2 years of age, was a Civil Air Patrol cadet. She said that while he was in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian who she believes was associated with the Civil Air Patrol, induced Lee Oswald to join the United States Marines. Mrs. Oswald said she was living in New Orleans at that time, and that her son had left school without her knowledge and tried to obtain her consent to have him enlist in the U.S. Marines. She stated that a Marine Recruiting Officer also appeared at her home and tried to get her permission to allow Lee Oswald to enlist in the Marines, however, she refused. She said that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the age of 15 or 16, was reading communist books, and that she knew he was reading these books. According to Mrs. Oswald, her son obtained these books in the public library, and was also studying a Marine Manual that had been left in her home by another son, who was a member of the United States Marines at that time. The point Mrs. Oswald said she wanted to make was that at the age of 16, Lee Harvey Oswald was studying communism and the Marine Manual to become an agent for our intelligence services."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=89 (Last paragraph of document)

Unfortunately, I cannot find any sort of show transcript for the Bob Kennedy show so do not know the specifics of what has been paraphrased by the FBI. I'm sure most of us would agree that she is talking about David W. Ferrie and it was he that was instrumental in "grooming" Oswald leading up to his enlistment in the United States Marines. And also the reason why Guy Banister was using Oswald's name whilst Oswald was in the Soviet Union. But it would take another three years for Marguerite's "wonderful thing" to be fully realised.

All pages of FBI report:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=87

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=88

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=89

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=90

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=91

Related documents:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=92

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=93

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=94

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=95

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=96

Newspaper report of WBZ "Contact" show:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=737113

Why do I, and many others, believe Jim Garrison? For the very simple reason that he was right...

Was Marguerite Oswald ever asked if she recognised Ferrie (after Garrison's probe went public)?

I personally doubt she would have ever met Ferrie, Martin, but the best person to answer your question would probably be Jim DiEugenio. So over to him...

Hey Lee, hope Jett and the rest of your family are doing well. Your posts underscore what an incredible resource the Mary Ferrell Foundation website is.

I always take the time to read the links you provide.

I think your doubt is well-founded; if Lee Oswald's mother had ever met (or recognised) Ferrie it's likely we would all know about it. And while Jim's knowledge

of Garrison is well-established, I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Yes, he does. He is also the person wanting to cast the argument regarding Garrison as "polarized". Implicit in that is that his is a voice of reason and calm. As Andric pointed out, it really isn't all that polarized. The likes of Reitzes and McAdams like to portray Garrison's supporters as having lifted Garrison to Sainthood, but they do so for propaganda purposes. Stephen Roy serves to legitimize that propaganda whenever the call of "polarization" is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marguerite Oswald was onto David Ferrie, although not by name, in February/March 1964.

When she appeared on a Cleveland Radio Show, Harv Morgan's "Contact", on Februray 24, 1964, Marguerite made the following statement to a caller's question:

"Q. KARL: Was Lee OSWALD a "loner" and did not have close friends?

A: I will bring this out in another program. It is too long a story for the present program. I have a wonderful thing to relate that happened to Lee, and it is something that has never been made public. I intend to make this known on Radio Station WBZ, Boston, on Bob Kennedy's "Contact" program next Wednesday (2/26/64) from 6:30 to 8:)) PM or, if we cannot do the program on this date, it will be on the following Monday (3/2/64). He had a normal relationship with all people."

The transcript for the show is here:

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=97 (This runs for 15 pages)

When she appeared on Bob Kennedy's show at the beginning of March, Marguerite's "wonderful thing" was the following (taken from an FBI report):

"Mrs Oswald then indicated that she was sure her son was in the employ of the U.S. Government, and then said she was going to to divulge information she had never before discussed. This information consisted of a statement by Mrs. Oswald to the effect that Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was 15 1/2 years of age, was a Civil Air Patrol cadet. She said that while he was in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian who she believes was associated with the Civil Air Patrol, induced Lee Oswald to join the United States Marines. Mrs. Oswald said she was living in New Orleans at that time, and that her son had left school without her knowledge and tried to obtain her consent to have him enlist in the U.S. Marines. She stated that a Marine Recruiting Officer also appeared at her home and tried to get her permission to allow Lee Oswald to enlist in the Marines, however, she refused. She said that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the age of 15 or 16, was reading communist books, and that she knew he was reading these books. According to Mrs. Oswald, her son obtained these books in the public library, and was also studying a Marine Manual that had been left in her home by another son, who was a member of the United States Marines at that time. The point Mrs. Oswald said she wanted to make was that at the age of 16, Lee Harvey Oswald was studying communism and the Marine Manual to become an agent for our intelligence services."

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=89 (Last paragraph of document)

Unfortunately, I cannot find any sort of show transcript for the Bob Kennedy show so do not know the specifics of what has been paraphrased by the FBI. I'm sure most of us would agree that she is talking about David W. Ferrie and it was he that was instrumental in "grooming" Oswald leading up to his enlistment in the United States Marines. And also the reason why Guy Banister was using Oswald's name whilst Oswald was in the Soviet Union. But it would take another three years for Marguerite's "wonderful thing" to be fully realised.

All pages of FBI report:

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=87

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=88

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=89

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=90

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=91

Related documents:

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=92

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=93

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=94

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=95

http://www.maryferre...12&relPageId=96

Newspaper report of WBZ "Contact" show:

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737113

Why do I, and many others, believe Jim Garrison? For the very simple reason that he was right...

Was Marguerite Oswald ever asked if she recognised Ferrie (after Garrison's probe went public)?

I personally doubt she would have ever met Ferrie, Martin, but the best person to answer your question would probably be Jim DiEugenio. So over to him...

Lee,

Ferrie was known to encourage the cadets to join the Marines, so his encouraging Oswald to do the same is probably not that startling in and of itself. That doesn't take away from your find. I think you have nailed what was once speculation and elevated it to a near certainty that it was indeed, Ferrie.

What is telling is that I'd wager none of the others he encouraged, studied both the Marine manual and Karl Marx.

Jim may have specific knowledge - and if so - I would defer to that - but at this point, I would not write off Ferrie as being the "recruiting officer" who turned up to speak to Marguerite. From what I gather, the mid 1950s version of Ferrie was not the freaky looking character he may have appeared to be later in life, and he could also have used an alias. He had no qualms about impersonating a doctor or a psychologist. Why not a Marine recruitment officer? It makes more sense to me than a real recruitment officer trying to sign up an under-age kid.

Both the attempted false enlistment and the study of Marx do fit together. And Ferrie may also fit into that larger picture. His background in Ohio in relation to the military may be the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Yes, he does. He is also the person wanting to cast the argument regarding Garrison as "polarized". Implicit in that is that his is a voice of reason and calm. As Andric pointed out, it really isn't all that polarized. The likes of Reitzes and McAdams like to portray Garrison's supporters as having lifted Garrison to Sainthood, but they do so for propaganda purposes. Stephen Roy serves to legitimize that propaganda whenever the call of "polarization" is made.

I want to make it clear that my comment about Stephen had nothing to do with Jim Garrison, "polarization" or Andric's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Yes, he does. He is also the person wanting to cast the argument regarding Garrison as "polarized". Implicit in that is that his is a voice of reason and calm. As Andric pointed out, it really isn't all that polarized. The likes of Reitzes and McAdams like to portray Garrison's supporters as having lifted Garrison to Sainthood, but they do so for propaganda purposes. Stephen Roy serves to legitimize that propaganda whenever the call of "polarization" is made.

I want to make it clear that my comment about Stephen had nothing to do with Jim Garrison, "polarization" or Andric's post.

Michael. Re-read the first sentence of my reply. I was agreeing with you. The rest was by way of a caveat. It is impossible to discuss Stephen Roy and David Ferrie sensibly without knowing that wittingly or not, he serves to legitimize the propaganda spewed by Reitzes and McAdams.

The title of his Ferrie manuscript is "perfect Villain". Clever as the title is, it's really another attempt to suggest polarization among the critics (pro-Garrison) while claiming, as he puts it, to be taking "a middle-of-the-road approach" himself.

Let me tell you Michael, the middle of the road is no more or less likely a place to find the facts than anywhere else.

But you are more likely to find a dead skunk stinkin' to high heaven...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Yes, he does. He is also the person wanting to cast the argument regarding Garrison as "polarized". Implicit in that is that his is a voice of reason and calm. As Andric pointed out, it really isn't all that polarized. The likes of Reitzes and McAdams like to portray Garrison's supporters as having lifted Garrison to Sainthood, but they do so for propaganda purposes. Stephen Roy serves to legitimize that propaganda whenever the call of "polarization" is made.

I want to make it clear that my comment about Stephen had nothing to do with Jim Garrison, "polarization" or Andric's post.

Michael. Re-read the first sentence of my reply. I was agreeing with you. The rest was by way of a caveat. It is impossible to discuss Stephen Roy and David Ferrie sensibly without knowing that wittingly or not, he serves to legitimize the propaganda spewed by Reitzes and McAdams.

The title of his Ferrie manuscript is "perfect Villain". Clever as the title is, it's really another attempt to suggest polarization among the critics (pro-Garrison) while claiming, as he puts it, to be taking "a middle-of-the-road approach" himself.

Let me tell you Michael, the middle of the road is no more or less likely a place to find the facts than anywhere else.

But you are more likely to find a dead skunk stinkin' to high heaven...

Greg, I don't need to read anything again. And I don't need you to tell me anything. You should have responded to Andric's post if that's what you wanted to discuss.

And you could have quoted me in full just as easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to mention that Stephen Roy also knows a lot, particularly about David Ferrie.

Yes, he does. He is also the person wanting to cast the argument regarding Garrison as "polarized". Implicit in that is that his is a voice of reason and calm. As Andric pointed out, it really isn't all that polarized. The likes of Reitzes and McAdams like to portray Garrison's supporters as having lifted Garrison to Sainthood, but they do so for propaganda purposes. Stephen Roy serves to legitimize that propaganda whenever the call of "polarization" is made.

I want to make it clear that my comment about Stephen had nothing to do with Jim Garrison, "polarization" or Andric's post.

Michael. Re-read the first sentence of my reply. I was agreeing with you. The rest was by way of a caveat. It is impossible to discuss Stephen Roy and David Ferrie sensibly without knowing that wittingly or not, he serves to legitimize the propaganda spewed by Reitzes and McAdams.

The title of his Ferrie manuscript is "perfect Villain". Clever as the title is, it's really another attempt to suggest polarization among the critics (pro-Garrison) while claiming, as he puts it, to be taking "a middle-of-the-road approach" himself.

Let me tell you Michael, the middle of the road is no more or less likely a place to find the facts than anywhere else.

But you are more likely to find a dead skunk stinkin' to high heaven...

Greg, I don't need to read anything again.

Then stop acting like I wasn't directly responding to something you said, Michael.

And I don't need you to tell me anything.

I was using a figure of speech, and no offence meant.

You should have responded to Andric's post if that's what you wanted to discuss.

Why? I don't see where Andric recommended Stephen Roy in regard to Ferry. Again - I was responding directly to a comment YOU made. My response was by way of agreement with a caveat - that the caveat touched on comments made by Andric is immaterial. The caveat was not in RESPONSE to anything he said.

And you could have quoted me in full just as easily.

Yes, I could have. But I quoted only that to which I was responding. That is the norm, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That incident that Lee describes with a guy who is probably Ferrie is in Bill Davy's book.

And he thinks it is Ferrie.

BTW, there is no reason not to have Davy's book. It is in E format and very cheap. I still think its the best book on Garrison.

This is what Bill Davy wrote about it:

During Oswald's tenure in the CAP his mother Marguerite recalled being visited by a man in uniform who she presumed was a Marine Corps recruiter. Her visitor encouraged her to allow her son Lee

to quit school and join the Marines (24) As this was a clear violation of the law (Oswald was only 16 at the time) it is doubtful Mrs. Oswald's visitor was a legitimate Marine recruiter. Could it have been Ferrie?

Considering the statements that Ferrie often posed as a military officer, his domineering and commanding behavior toward his cadets, and his encouragement of others to join the Marines, Ferrie's appearance

at the Oswald home cannot be ruled out.

(24) Robert Groden, The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald, (New York Penguin 1995) p 21

From Groden, p 21:

Marguerite spoke of a uniformed recruiting officer (Ferrie?) who had tried to get Lee to join the marines while he was still in the CAP.

The man visited their apartment and tried to get her to allow Lee to enlist while he was under-age. An authentic marine recruiter would

never have attempted to have a mother break the law.

Lee and David Ferrie would meet again eight years later. There is no evidence that the two had met or maintained a relationship of any kind

between the summer of 1955 and the summer of 1963. The sole exception of this is a rumor that Ferrie had piloted Oswald to Cuba sometime in 1959.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marguerite Oswald was onto David Ferrie, although not by name, in February/March 1964.

When she appeared on a Cleveland Radio Show, Harv Morgan's "Contact", on Februray 24, 1964, Marguerite made the following statement to a caller's question:

"Q. KARL: Was Lee OSWALD a "loner" and did not have close friends?

A: I will bring this out in another program. It is too long a story for the present program. I have a wonderful thing to relate that happened to Lee, and it is something that has never been made public. I intend to make this known on Radio Station WBZ, Boston, on Bob Kennedy's "Contact" program next Wednesday (2/26/64) from 6:30 to 8:)) PM or, if we cannot do the program on this date, it will be on the following Monday (3/2/64). He had a normal relationship with all people."

The transcript for the show is here:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=97 (This runs for 15 pages)

When she appeared on Bob Kennedy's show at the beginning of March, Marguerite's "wonderful thing" was the following (taken from an FBI report):

"Mrs Oswald then indicated that she was sure her son was in the employ of the U.S. Government, and then said she was going to to divulge information she had never before discussed. This information consisted of a statement by Mrs. Oswald to the effect that Lee Harvey Oswald, when he was 15 1/2 years of age, was a Civil Air Patrol cadet. She said that while he was in the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian who she believes was associated with the Civil Air Patrol, induced Lee Oswald to join the United States Marines. Mrs. Oswald said she was living in New Orleans at that time, and that her son had left school without her knowledge and tried to obtain her consent to have him enlist in the U.S. Marines. She stated that a Marine Recruiting Officer also appeared at her home and tried to get her permission to allow Lee Oswald to enlist in the Marines, however, she refused. She said that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the age of 15 or 16, was reading communist books, and that she knew he was reading these books. According to Mrs. Oswald, her son obtained these books in the public library, and was also studying a Marine Manual that had been left in her home by another son, who was a member of the United States Marines at that time. The point Mrs. Oswald said she wanted to make was that at the age of 16, Lee Harvey Oswald was studying communism and the Marine Manual to become an agent for our intelligence services."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=89 (Last paragraph of document)

Unfortunately, I cannot find any sort of show transcript for the Bob Kennedy show so do not know the specifics of what has been paraphrased by the FBI. I'm sure most of us would agree that she is talking about David W. Ferrie and it was he that was instrumental in "grooming" Oswald leading up to his enlistment in the United States Marines. And also the reason why Guy Banister was using Oswald's name whilst Oswald was in the Soviet Union. But it would take another three years for Marguerite's "wonderful thing" to be fully realised.

All pages of FBI report:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=87

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=88

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=89

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=90

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=91

Related documents:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=92

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=93

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=94

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=95

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=58212&relPageId=96

Newspaper report of WBZ "Contact" show:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=737113

Why do I, and many others, believe Jim Garrison? For the very simple reason that he was right...

Nice find!

In her WC testimony, Marguerite Oswald was less clear about it, blurring the distinction between the Civil Air Patrol guy and the "Marine recruiting officer." This clarifies that "a civilian, who she believes was associated with the Civil Air Patrol, induced Lee Oswald to join the United States Marines." And because this is from 1964, before the publicity concerning Ferrie, it carries added weight.

One more point to consider: Oswald joined the CAP at Moisant Airport on July 27, 1955, during the "three summer months" that Ferrie was associated with the unit (and confirmed by the Chuck Francis picture, often referred to as the Ciravolo picture). In his October 3, 1956 letter to the Socialist Party of America, Oswald stated that he had "been studying socialist principles for well over fifteen months," which one might reasonably interpret as more than 15 months but less than 16 months. Counting backward, that would place the start of his studies at about July-August 1955, just about the time he encountered Ferrie in the CAP. Interesting timing.

You never know what you're going to find at the Ferrell site. I do wish, however, that they had an archive of Garrison files online there. I'd contribute copies of the ones I have. There are few on the Weisberg site, but only a small percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just saying that, in most of the online JFK discussion groups, there are a lot of people with uncompromising positions for or against Garrison, which makes it hard to opine that Garrison was a smart and sincere guy who deeply believed in his case and who peeked under rocks not yet examined, but that he made a few mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just saying that, in most of the online JFK discussion groups, there are a lot of people with uncompromising positions for or against Garrison, which makes it hard to opine that Garrison was a smart and sincere guy who deeply believed in his case and who peeked under rocks not yet examined, but that he made a few mistakes.

we can opine re Garrison till doomsday, Blackburst... what IS clear is this, lone nuts see the WCR slipping away from them. It ceased being a "report," now it's a contested, flimsy article of blind faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...