Stephen Roy Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Just a quick note about searching the Weisberg Archive: I seem to get better results when I do a Google search, but on the advance options page, I limit it to the domain jfk.hood.edu It depends on optical character recognition, but it turns up some interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Stephen, I can appreciate your being influenced by Harold Weisberg. I considered him a personal hero, and meeting him and having dinner at his home remain a highlight in my life. However, he gave new meaning to the phrase "grumpy old man" and seemed to become increasingly bitter as time went on, feeling perhaps that the research community had never given him the accolades he deserved. I suspect that Weisberg's animosity towards Garrison was probably at least partially based on simple jealousy. Especially when Stone decided to make Garrison his protagonist (Weisberg probably felt that he should have been the hero), I think Weisberg went a bit over the edge. Leaking the advance script of "JFK" to George Lardner of all people, was an inexcusable, inexplicable act. Despite all that, Weisberg's work is crucial for the serious JFK assassination student. "Oswald In New Orleans" was extremely important. Garrison was in good company regarding Weisberg's opinion of him; other than Howard Roffman, who was kind of surrogate son to him, he seemed to resent every other researcher. Weisberg had some reason to be bitter; while Lane, Thompson and others had mainstream publishers, his own research had to be primarily self-published, the manuscripts typed by his wife. His acerbic style turned off some, but I found it strangely intoxicating. His books are still my favorites on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Jim, If I understand your question, I would think Harold was more of a Felix Unger type (Lemmon). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 I can appreciate your being influenced by Harold Weisberg. I considered him a personal hero, and meeting him and having dinner at his home remain a highlight in my life. However, he gave new meaning to the phrase "grumpy old man" and seemed to become increasingly bitter as time went on, feeling perhaps that the research community had never given him the accolades he deserved. ......Despite all that, Weisberg's work is crucial for the serious JFK assassination student. "Oswald In New Orleans" was extremely important. Garrison was in good company regarding Weisberg's opinion of him; other than Howard Roffman, who was kind of surrogate son to him, he seemed to resent every other researcher. Weisberg had some reason to be bitter; while Lane, Thompson and others had mainstream publishers, his own research had to be primarily self-published, the manuscripts typed by his wife. His acerbic style turned off some, but I found it strangely intoxicating. His books are still my favorites on this subject. And of course Gerald McKnight was a friend and neighbor of Weisberg's. However, this letter from Weisberg to McKnight displays some of the grumpiness and bitterness that Don mentioned. http://jfk.hood.edu/...rry/Item 05.pdf "....Well, if it's the Manuel Garcia Gonzalez that I told him, he's got the right Ta-ta but the wrong Ho-ho." Courtesy DVP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCkw8zWmQD8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 That is some letter, Michael. I'd like to read McKnight's response. Such a shame to realize that Harold Weisberg probably died a really bitter and lonely man (he had no children). Still, no one can deny his importance as a researcher. I sadly believe that Weisberg would fit right in on this forum; calling people names, questioning their motives, jealously staking a claim to any and all research on this subject. I'm glad he stayed away from the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I sadly believe that Weisberg would fit right in on this forum; calling people names, questioning their motives, jealously staking a claim to any and all research on this subject. I'm glad he stayed away from the internet. If this is aimed at me (and given you have had the gall to lecture me and not the person actually guilty of staking a false claim, why wouldn't I believe it is?), please summon the courage to say so. If you want to stir the pot, you shouldn't be surprised at what comes out and bites you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 19, 2012 Author Share Posted September 19, 2012 Greg, Maybe it is you who are being "super sensitive." I didn't have any particular individual in mind. This forum is full of difficult personalities with huge egos, who insist upon polluting even the most productive posts with childish insults and transparent arrogance. I think most readers of this forum can recognize these familiar traits in Weisberg's letter to McKnight. People usually say this to me- don't be so paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Greg, Maybe it is you who are being "super sensitive." I didn't have any particular individual in mind. This forum is full of difficult personalities with huge egos, who insist upon polluting even the most productive posts with childish insults and transparent arrogance. I think most readers of this forum can recognize these familiar traits in Weisberg's letter to McKnight. People usually say this to me- don't be so paranoid. In your novel "Front Row at the Loony Bin," will you be drawing on (or, as the movie credits say, "be inspired by") any material from the London forum? DSL 9/19/12; 2:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Greg, Maybe it is you who are being "super sensitive." I didn't have any particular individual in mind. This forum is full of difficult personalities with huge egos, who insist upon polluting even the most productive posts with childish insults and transparent arrogance. I think most readers of this forum can recognize these familiar traits in Weisberg's letter to McKnight. Since you very recently attempted to chastise me for this alleged behavior, it is a bit disingenuous to say now I would not suspect you were referring in whole or in part, to me. The larger point is that, no matter who you were referring to, your words are inflammatory - tempting someone to take the bait. Which was why I was careful to use qualifiers. If you are going to go this route, you should name names - otherwise keep your opinions to yourself. People usually say this to me- don't be so paranoid. Wow. What a surprise you'd come out with that. Just itching to say it from the time you made the post... In your novel "Front Row at the Loony Bin," will you be drawing on (or, as the movie credits say, "be inspired by") any material from the London forum? Wonderful! I object to lies being told and get informed I'm being juvenile by the Keepers of "Free Speech within a Framework of Rules". But this garbage from Lifton is apparently not only not juvenile, it is routinely given tacit approval, and thereby encouraged. DSL 9/19/12; 2:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Edited September 19, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I have to admire your steadfastness, Don. Others may have been keen to show I'm wrong; that you really don't give tacit approval to Mr Lifton's bile. But do keep up the good work in never missing an opportunity to lecture me for the hideous crime of stating the facts. Greg, Maybe it is you who are being "super sensitive." I didn't have any particular individual in mind. This forum is full of difficult personalities with huge egos, who insist upon polluting even the most productive posts with childish insults and transparent arrogance. I think most readers of this forum can recognize these familiar traits in Weisberg's letter to McKnight. Since you very recently attempted to chastise me for this alleged behavior, it is a bit disingenuous to say now I would not suspect you were referring in whole or in part, to me. The larger point is that, no matter who you were referring to, your words are inflammatory - tempting someone to take the bait. Which was why I was careful to use qualifiers. If you are going to go this route, you should name names - otherwise keep your opinions to yourself. People usually say this to me- don't be so paranoid. Wow. What a surprise you'd come out with that. Just itching to say it from the time you made the post... In your novel "Front Row at the Loony Bin," will you be drawing on (or, as the movie credits say, "be inspired by") any material from the London forum? Wonderful! I object to lies being told and get informed I'm being juvenile by the Keepers of "Free Speech within a Framework of Rules". But this garbage from Lifton is apparently not only not juvenile, it is routinely given tacit approval, and thereby encouraged. DSL 9/19/12; 2:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Robert Morrow Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Shaw/Bertrand-and I don't even know why we have to use the slash, since its overwhelming now that Clay Shaw was Bertrand and the FBI knew it--was not aware of who's plot was the one that killed JFK. He was aware that there were other ones afoot. But since he was only in on the New Orleans angle, and not the end game, he didn't know who, or how Dallas was constructed. And they were not going to tell him, of course. So not knowing all the ins and outs, he made this call. Why Andrews? Shaw called Andrews thinking that Andrews would be a poor criminal lawyer for Oswald. And that he could be intimidated, which of course he was. This was one of the many loose appendages in the plot e.g. like the Odio incident. Adding my .02 : With the plotter's attention to detail, it would seem obvious to make sure LHO's legal counsel could be manipulated. Why even risk the possibility of a top-notch lawyer defending Oswald -- Someone who might bring uncomfortable facts into the public's view? This could have been much more important if Ruby had failed in his mission. Manipulating LHO's legal counsel would be the real reason. It is the exact same reason Lyndon Johnson put Abe Fortas as the lawyer for Bobby Baker. And LBJ lawyer John Cofer as the lawyer for Billie Sol Estes. Control the lawyer and you can control the client for someone ELSE'S benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) If I read your comments correctly, Don, I share your confusion about the Andrews story. On the face of it, it makes no sense at all. Why would the conspirators engage an attorney of Andrews' flamboyance/eccentricity, and one based in New Orleans, to boot? What made them think they could trust him as part of the plot? If he was part of the plot, why would he immediately contact FBI Special Agent Regis Leo Kennedy and tell him about it, blowing the whole thing? If Andrews was determined to tell Kennedy about it, why didn't he name Shaw? Why were his earlier descriptions of Bertrand so different from Shaw? Why, from time to time, did Andrews even suggest that he may have misunderstood or mischaracterized the call in the first place? Why didn't the conspirators find a way to shut Andrews up? Why, after Orleans Parish DA Jim Garrison started questioning him about it and speculated that it might be Shaw, did Andrews (by his own account) deny that it was Shaw, and stick with that position? How about to make it look like Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination? --Tommy Edited October 28, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 The reason Shaw did what he did was because he did not understand just how high up the plot went. As per picking someone elite Andrews, he knew that if Andrews took the case, he could be compromised. If he decided to talk he could be intimidated. I mean who did Andrews have behind him? As per the changing description, Roy always used this and the reply is that Andrews was threatened with his life, if he identified Shaw as Bertrand. I mean how many different witnesses do you need on this one? I mean, there is Lane, Garrison, and Summers. I detail this in the first version of Destiny Betrayed. As per making Marcello look like he was behind it, I don't understand that one. Shaw was involved at the bottom level. I don't see how he, at this time, would be involved in misdirection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted October 29, 2015 Share Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) [...] As per picking someone elite Andrews... [...] Jimbo, Huh? Thanks, --Tommy Edited October 29, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Roy Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 If I read your comments correctly, Don, I share your confusion about the Andrews story. On the face of it, it makes no sense at all. Why would the conspirators engage an attorney of Andrews' flamboyance/eccentricity, and one based in New Orleans, to boot? What made them think they could trust him as part of the plot? If he was part of the plot, why would he immediately contact FBI Special Agent Regis Leo Kennedy and tell him about it, blowing the whole thing? If Andrews was determined to tell Kennedy about it, why didn't he name Shaw? Why were his earlier descriptions of Bertrand so different from Shaw? Why, from time to time, did Andrews even suggest that he may have misunderstood or mischaracterized the call in the first place? Why didn't the conspirators find a way to shut Andrews up? Why, after Orleans Parish DA Jim Garrison started questioning him about it and speculated that it might be Shaw, did Andrews (by his own account) deny that it was Shaw, and stick with that position? How about to make it look like Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination? --Tommy Oh, I see what you're saying: That the plotters called a lawyer who was known to be an associate of Marcello (Andrews). I've been over the New Orleans evidence in deep detail, and I think it's unlikely that Andrews was brought in in this way, for some of the reasons I stated in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now