Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why in the World would anyone believe Jim Garrison?


Recommended Posts

The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK.

Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event.

Many? I don't know anybody that believes the FBI was involved in the assassination. Nor have I ever spoken to anyone who believes the CIA as an agency was involved.

Does anyone here believe the FBI or CIA were involved in the assassination?

I believe the FBI was involved before the fact only in so much as they failed to alert the Secret Service to credible threats on the president's life several times--a serious failure no matter the cause. This indicates possible foreknowledge, negligence, or complicity. However, it is unclear which of these is most appropriate. I do not believe they or the agency were "operationally" involved in Dallas. In 2011 there should remain no doubt as to the extensive cover-up (obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct) that was practiced by both the FBI and the CIA after the fact. However, this last item begs us to ask, "why?" In American jurisprudence, destruction of evidence in order to obstruct justice is considered tantamount to commission of the original crime itself, else why bother with obstruction. The signature of a coup`de tat is that the perpetrators' plan (assassination) must succeed and those responsible must never be brought to justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......

AND, THE ANSWER IS (or at least includes):

(1). Lack of ability to properly research exactly who and what Garrison was.

(2). Grasping for any straw of "conspiracy", which Garrison fully expoused and promoted.

(3). Lack of ability to research all of those whom Garrison attempted to "tie" into the big/giant conspiracy.

(4). It promotes the BS theory that some giant conspiracy existed which included almost everyone with the possible exception of you and me.

(5).__________________________________fill in the blank with whatever assinine theory and/or concept one can think of.

And if 1-5 are true in your mind would they have still existed if he'd have been backed by certain Governmental Institutions rather than scuppered by them every single step of the way?

Step off the narrow minded soap box for half an hour.

What would your work look like if you were undermined in a thousand different ways? If everyone was out to get you? If your offices were bugged? If your family was threatened? If you were offered bribes? If people you were relying on to support you were murdered?

That is what comes from an "overdose" of watching the movie JFK far too many times, to the extent that one begins to think it is actual reality.

Why not include:

If you set up a completely phony investigative service in which your company could charge up large amounts while investigating the death of JFK!!!

Why, Thomas, how many times have I watched Stone's JFK?

Sufficient number to gullibly believe it! Unknown as to whether this took 1 or 25 viewings.

I await your reply.

And how many times have I read Joan Mellen's and Jim DiEugenio's books?

Same answer as above, merely that it applies to reading ability (as opposed to reading/comprehension ability) rather than visual stimuli.

As long ago posted on this forum, the Garrison Investigation was a pure "smoke screen" in which the intention was (and pretty well succeeded) in diversion of attention of exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans.

The "land sharks" most certainly baited a lot of dumb-assess into chasing the Garrison Investigation and it's completely worthless concepts.

Of course, it also got Clay Shaw out of their hair as well.

Some questions if I may Tom...

1. How do you rate your own objectivity against others in this case on a scale of 1 to 10?

2. Why, in 1967, would anyone need to divert attention away from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans."

3. Why, as the documentary evidence indicates, did the FBI and CIA seek to scuttle Garrison's investigation, when the CIA in particular, have historically sought to protect the types of "land sharks" and "aristocracy" aka big business that you say were using Garrison as a "diversion"?

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

That remains about one of the most "open-ended" questions one could ask.

"others" could include anyone from those who are sufficiently ignorant enough to accept and believe the Warren Commission, to those who believe that the Warren Commission was a lie, yet are sufficiently ignorant enough to fall for and believe in such mythical creatures as multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists.

Along with I might add, the concept that about every government agency as well as organized crime were all in this together.

Black really is white? It is not an open ended question at all. It is in fact the exact opposite, Tom.

I had a particular reason for asking based on an exchange we had a few years back in which you tried every which way to avoid reality.

Because LHO was from NO. This was his home as well as the location of about the only persons whom he knew and trusted.

Which would have included the only ones who could have dragged him into this event.

That doesn't answer the question. Why in 1967 did these powerful individuals need to divert attention away from who Oswald was? Why not in 1964 or 1966 or 1970? As far as I can tell, there was no reason that made that year in particular, a year that needed a diversion from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was"

The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK.

Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event.

As others have pointed out, that is little, if any, evidence to support your claim here.

And, yet, these two government agencies were so impotent that they could not do anything about the great "Jimbo" Garrison and his crusade for the truth?

Give me a break!

His office was infiltrated and his case was sabotaged and he lost the case. My own belief is that he would have lost the case against Shaw anyway, but potentially exposed Oswald's ties to intelligence agencies.

The great "Jimbo" Garrison lead many off into the "dismal" swamp, and thereafter abandoned them to flounder like fools in the garbage that he had concocted into his assassination scenario.

Jimbo! You did one hell of a good job there!

You have the reason for Garrison's case as being a diversion from Oswald's real background... what you haven't given is any reason why that was necessary in 1967. The reality is that Garrison's case was white-anted by the CIA to prevent Garrison finding any links between Oswald and that agency, and to stop any other "National Security" information from getting out. Read "Cuba".

You have done some great work on NO angles, but you refuse to look beyond familial and other non-spooky relationships to see the extensive ties between the people you've named and (in particular) the CIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading a bit lately about Jim Garrison. I find it amazing that anyone would buy into his rubbish. Garrison appears to be one of the most corrupt people I have looked at in this case......

AND, THE ANSWER IS (or at least includes):

(1). Lack of ability to properly research exactly who and what Garrison was.

(2). Grasping for any straw of "conspiracy", which Garrison fully expoused and promoted.

(3). Lack of ability to research all of those whom Garrison attempted to "tie" into the big/giant conspiracy.

(4). It promotes the BS theory that some giant conspiracy existed which included almost everyone with the possible exception of you and me.

(5).__________________________________fill in the blank with whatever assinine theory and/or concept one can think of.

And if 1-5 are true in your mind would they have still existed if he'd have been backed by certain Governmental Institutions rather than scuppered by them every single step of the way?

Step off the narrow minded soap box for half an hour.

What would your work look like if you were undermined in a thousand different ways? If everyone was out to get you? If your offices were bugged? If your family was threatened? If you were offered bribes? If people you were relying on to support you were murdered?

That is what comes from an "overdose" of watching the movie JFK far too many times, to the extent that one begins to think it is actual reality.

Why not include:

If you set up a completely phony investigative service in which your company could charge up large amounts while investigating the death of JFK!!!

Why, Thomas, how many times have I watched Stone's JFK?

Sufficient number to gullibly believe it! Unknown as to whether this took 1 or 25 viewings.

I await your reply.

And how many times have I read Joan Mellen's and Jim DiEugenio's books?

Same answer as above, merely that it applies to reading ability (as opposed to reading/comprehension ability) rather than visual stimuli.

As long ago posted on this forum, the Garrison Investigation was a pure "smoke screen" in which the intention was (and pretty well succeeded) in diversion of attention of exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans.

The "land sharks" most certainly baited a lot of dumb-assess into chasing the Garrison Investigation and it's completely worthless concepts.

Of course, it also got Clay Shaw out of their hair as well.

Some questions if I may Tom...

1. How do you rate your own objectivity against others in this case on a scale of 1 to 10?

2. Why, in 1967, would anyone need to divert attention away from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was, as well as his direct connections to those who were in positions of the "aristocracy" of New Orleans."

3. Why, as the documentary evidence indicates, did the FBI and CIA seek to scuttle Garrison's investigation, when the CIA in particular, have historically sought to protect the types of "land sharks" and "aristocracy" aka big business that you say were using Garrison as a "diversion"?

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

That remains about one of the most "open-ended" questions one could ask.

"others" could include anyone from those who are sufficiently ignorant enough to accept and believe the Warren Commission, to those who believe that the Warren Commission was a lie, yet are sufficiently ignorant enough to fall for and believe in such mythical creatures as multiple assassins; body snatchers; and wound alteration specialists.

Along with I might add, the concept that about every government agency as well as organized crime were all in this together.

Black really is white? It is not an open ended question at all. It is in fact the exact opposite, Tom.

I had a particular reason for asking based on an exchange we had a few years back in which you tried every which way to avoid reality.

Because LHO was from NO. This was his home as well as the location of about the only persons whom he knew and trusted.

Which would have included the only ones who could have dragged him into this event.

That doesn't answer the question. Why in 1967 did these powerful individuals need to divert attention away from who Oswald was? Why not in 1964 or 1966 or 1970? As far as I can tell, there was no reason that made that year in particular, a year that needed a diversion from "exactly who; what; where; when; and how; LHO actually was"

The "oxymoron" here is that many believe that the FBI as well as the CIA were firmlly involved in the assassination of JFK.

Yet, to have done so would mean that they were so efficient that no one to date could tie (absolutelyl) either to the event.

As others have pointed out, that is little, if any, evidence to support your claim here.

And, yet, these two government agencies were so impotent that they could not do anything about the great "Jimbo" Garrison and his crusade for the truth?

Give me a break!

His office was infiltrated and his case was sabotaged and he lost the case. My own belief is that he would have lost the case against Shaw anyway, but potentially exposed Oswald's ties to intelligence agencies.

The great "Jimbo" Garrison lead many off into the "dismal" swamp, and thereafter abandoned them to flounder like fools in the garbage that he had concocted into his assassination scenario.

Jimbo! You did one hell of a good job there!

You have the reason for Garrison's case as being a diversion from Oswald's real background... what you haven't given is any reason why that was necessary in 1967. The reality is that Garrison's case was white-anted by the CIA to prevent Garrison finding any links between Oswald and that agency, and to stop any other "National Security" information from getting out. Read "Cuba".

You have done some great work on NO angles, but you refuse to look beyond familial and other non-spooky relationships to see the extensive ties between the people you've named and (in particular) the CIA.

And the answer is:

1. LHO was definitely and definitively being "processed" by someone, for some reason.

2. A complete study of the activities of LHO will lead one to believe that these activities were ultimately directed at getting him into Cuba, and in all probability for the purpose of assassination of Fidel Castro.

3. When all plans to get into Cuba fell flat, LHO's direction turned to JFK.

Now!

The remaining questions being, did those (in New Orleans) who were directing the activities of LHO in regards to a potential assassination of Castro, thereafter change his target to JFK, or did LHO go "rogue" and take this action upon himself as an act of vengence for his "time in service" expended/wasted in attempt to get to Castro.

Either way, it constitutes the old "incoming, run for cover" for those who were behind/directing the actions of LHO up to and including his Mexico trip.

For the "official record", Garrison was merely another of those who was convinced (by those who placed him in the position to begin with) to launch the completely preposterous "Clay Shaw" trial.

He (Garrison) most certainly knew little about LHO and his true/factual activities.

And, he (Garrison) most certainly avoided any "finger-pointing" at those who were in fact in position to manipulage/guide LHO into such a scheme.

In that regards, one can rest assured that a whole lot of people working at 321 St. Charles in New Orleans, were not too happy when Castro confiscated all of their holdings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A complete idiot?

I don't see how anyone couldl read the Playboy interview, or Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins and say that.

Question for Tom Purvis: Do you think Oswald shot Kennedy, or was at least one of the shooters?

1. All eveidence points to LHO as having been the (lone) shooter responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

2. All evidence points to LHO as having been the person responsible for the shooting death of Police Officer Tippit.

3. All evidence points to LHO as having been involved in this event up to his ass.

4. Had LHO been ONLY the designated "rabbit", then the shooting of officer Tippit would have been a completely stupid move.

5. Those who were behind the initial actions of LHO (excluding the planning and executuion of the assassination), most assuredly had the experience and knowledge necessary to place LHO into the position of "scapegoat".

We will, in all probability, never know the final answer as to whether LHO was or was not the person who pulled the trigger.

If one assumes that LHO was in fact the shooter, we will, in all probability, never know if he merely took it upon himself to accomplish this or whether he was in fact lead into these actions by others.

Tom

P.S. The first (and single most) important aspect of resolution of a murder is to resolve exactly how the event actually occurred.

It is as useless as looking for a shotgun in what was a murder by a pistol, as it is looking for mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza when in fact all shots fired in the assassination came from the sixth floor window and the recovered Carcano Short Rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A complete idiot?

I don't see how anyone couldl read the Playboy interview, or Garrison's On the Trail of the Assassins and say that.

Question for Tom Purvis: Do you think Oswald shot Kennedy, or was at least one of the shooters?

1. All eveidence points to LHO as having been the (lone) shooter responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

BK: If you mean ALL of the evidence then it point to LHO as not even being on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.

2. All evidence points to LHO as having been the person responsible for the shooting death of Police Officer Tippit.

BK: If you mean ALL of the evidence, then you must include the OTHER Oswald seen driving the car of Tippit's good friend Carl Mather not far from the scene, so which Oswald do you mean?

3. All evidence points to LHO as having been involved in this event up to his ass.

BK: ALL evidence points to whatever it is you believe happened at Dealey Plaza as being a covert intelligence operation designed to protect those actually responsible for what occurred.

4. Had LHO been ONLY the designated "rabbit", then the shooting of officer Tippit would have been a completely stupid move.

BK: Had LHO been ONLY the designated patsy or "rabbit" the shooting of officer Tippit called attention to that neighborhood and away from the scene of the first crime, and IF Oswald was responsible for both crimes,

as you attest, then he would not only have been a political assassin but a spree killer responsible for more than one crime at more than one crime scene, and thus an historical anomaly with no previous precedent.

5. Those who were behind the initial actions of LHO (excluding the planning and executuion of the assassination), most assuredly had the experience and knowledge necessary to place LHO into the position of "scapegoat".

BK: Absolutely. Oswald was selected to be the designated patsy or "rabbit" because of his background and the information contained in government files about him.

We will, in all probability, never know the final answer as to whether LHO was or was not the person who pulled the trigger.

BK: We already know that he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination and therefore was not the person who pulled the trigger.

If one assumes that LHO was in fact the shooter, we will, in all probability, never know if he merely took it upon himself to accomplish this or whether he was in fact lead into these actions by others.

BK: If one assumes that LHO was in fact the shooter, one must ignore the most relevant evidence that exonerates him.

Bill

Tom

P.S. The first (and single most) important aspect of resolution of a murder is to resolve exactly how the event actually occurred.

It is as useless as looking for a shotgun in what was a murder by a pistol, as it is looking for mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza when in fact all shots fired in the assassination came from the sixth floor window and the recovered Carcano Short Rifle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

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

Todd:

Very interesting post. I wonder if it was not Ferrell who sent Boxley to be a spy as she did Tom Bethel.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met one of his former investigator's and he provided info and documentation that he will not allow to be shared until he is dead, but CIA was constantly sabotaging his investigation which they would not have done if he had nothing.

And his former employee that I met could be a poster child for integrity and would have not have stayed around if Garrison was a crook.

A lot of info not published exists about Ferrie's "impromptu" trip to Texas and the fact that Oswald had his library card because it would send up a lot of warning flares in the intell community and could be his get out of jail free card. Of course, he did not expect to be framed as the lone assassin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a question for Garrison fans:

Garrison learned about the Milteer tapes AFTER he indicted Clay Shaw.

The Milteer tapes first received wide publicity (if you can call it that) when mentioned in a footnote in Sylvia Meagher's

Accessories After the Fact in 1967. It seems the book was ready for printing when Meagher learned about Milteer, and only footnotes could be added.

But according to researcher Barbara La Monica, Garrison's files contain extensive information on the Milteer tapes including the diary of the Florida judge (name escapes me) who was monitoring the issue.

Although he appeared extensively on television and in interviews, and had a public platform at his disposal, Garrison never breathed a word about the Milteer tapes, not even in his book ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS.

I would like to know how Garrison could, in effect, suppress his knowledge of the Milteer Tapes, in which Milteer predicted, on November 9, 1963 that JFK would be shot from a tall building, with a rifle dis-assembled and smuggled into the building. How could he suppress the Milteer tapes and still be considered a serious inquirer into the assassination of JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a question for Garrison fans:

Garrison learned about the Milteer tapes AFTER he indicted Clay Shaw.

The Milteer tapes first received wide publicity (if you can call it that) when mentioned in a footnote in Sylvia Meagher's

Accessories After the Fact in 1967. It seems the book was ready for printing when Meagher learned about Milteer, and only footnotes could be added.

But according to researcher Barbara La Monica, Garrison's files contain extensive information on the Milteer tapes including the diary of the Florida judge (name escapes me) who was monitoring the issue.

Although he appeared extensively on television and in interviews, and had a public platform at his disposal, Garrison never breathed a word about the Milteer tapes, not even in his book ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS.

I would like to know how Garrison could, in effect, suppress his knowledge of the Milteer Tapes, in which Milteer predicted, on November 9, 1963 that JFK would be shot from a tall building, with a rifle dis-assembled and smuggled into the building. How could he suppress the Milteer tapes and still be considered a serious inquirer into the assassination of JFK?

we're to assume Garrison suppressed his knowledge of Milteer tapes because of Barbra LaMonica unpublished, non-cited research? C'mon... Your question is irrelevant. btw and who is Barbara LaMonica?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're to assume Garrison suppressed his knowledge of Milteer tapes because of Barbra LaMonica unpublished, non-cited research? C'mon... Your question is irrelevant. btw and who is Barbara LaMonica?

Barbara LaMonica is known for her research, along with her friend Carol Hewitt, into the Paine family. Unlike Barbara, I personally do not suspect the Paines, but I respect Barbara's research, and consider Barbara and her husband Bob Young to be good friends, along with Carol Hewitt.

As far as I know, no one disputes what is in the Garrison files now available in the National Archives. I have not been to see the Garrison files myself, but Barbara La Monica and Bob Young have, and I believe made copies of all the Milteer documents in Garrison's files.

And Milteer's predictions are irrelevant because.........???

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
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...