Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Micah has now made that David Lifton quote about Garrison, from Lifton's mildewed  "Open CIty" attack article, his signature line.

To go into the whole background of this dispute, would be much too long, and prolix, for a post.

But in the interest of the long lost Fairness Doctrine, and equal time, let me quote Garrison himself on this issue,  Something that too few people on this forum will do:

"As a district attorney, I accept the verdict of the jury.  However, to misconstrue this verdict as an acquittal of the federal government in its involvement in the assassination of the President and in its suppression of the evidence would be a serious mistake."  Jim Garrison, A Heritage of Stone, p. 19

In reality, Garrison indicted Shaw for perjury and was ready to go trial, and he was not going to make the same mistake he did the first time by not calling enough witnesses.

If everything had been declassified, Shaw would have been convicted on about six counts.  Therefore, what was his testimony worth?  It  surprises me that supposedly intelligent and informed people, after all the ARRB declassifications about New Orleans, would still quote Lifton from 1968 on Jim Garrison. For objective purposes,  you might as well quote Epstein or Hoch.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 6/12/2020 at 3:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:

 

If this is indeed an accurate from Garrison as quoted by Lifton, then it is one of the best quotes ever. Let me copy a previous comment of mine which is relevant:

 

The best way to combat censorship is to have people taught HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Take this to the literal extreme - "HOW to think" is NOT a pretentious dressed up way of saying "WHAT to think". I think it is wrong to blame the promoters of misinformation for the prevalence of misinformation. Do not blame the anti-vaxxer for the popularity of anti-vaxx information. When you see an argument in a forum thread, and one of the users links to a secondary source that is obviously biased - do not make fun of them for "believing" fake news. People need to understand the "two-step" process for fat-checking. First of all, it is literally impossible for a single person to know an objective fact. Their knowledge is only as good as their source. It takes more information to prove ONE fact than there is room in the human mind to recall information. Even if we posit something obvious, like "the sky is blue", we can never prove that to be 100% reality because someone could just argue "how do you know you aren't a brain in a jar being fooled into thinking the sky is blue?". It's like the speed of light - if the speed of light were the objective truth of reality, it would only be possible for a single person to get to 99.9999etc. percent. The blind spots in a person's knowledge could just be a confidence trick. There's a story is a person being hypnotized into thinking a $100 piece of monopoly money is a $25,000 check. A person holds the monopoly money up to their eyes and says "don't you see where it says $100?" and the subject insists "No! It's a $25,000 check!".

When somebody is seeking information about a controversial subject matter in history, I think the easiest way to research would be to start with an obviously-biased source. Then, they should try their best to fact check that biased source. BEWARE of sources that claim to be unbiased, like "encyclopedia" websites or "historical journals". THAT is the confidence trick. NOBODY can do the fact-checking for you, any one single source should only be considered 99.999% convincing MAXIMUM.

 

I have no reason to think this is too much to ask of people. People should have a healthy sense of what they know, what they don't know, and what nobody knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel privileged to have the opportunity to watch so many people seeking truth and traveling conscientiously on their own individual paths, yet having the courtesy to appreciate that while others' paths may not mirror their own, they are making contributions to understanding nonetheless.  The truth "will out" only if the confirmation bias is recognized as a threat and conscientiously thwarted as the enemy of understanding, no matter the path being taken.  Special thanks to Micah and all of the others here who appreciate what I'm talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah

As a physicist, I couldn't resist addressing the topic of why the sky appears "blue":

Before white light reaches the Earth’s surface, the light waves collide with the nitrogen and oxygen atoms in the atmosphere. The light scatters or is re-emitted at different frequencies (or colors). Higher frequencies or smaller wavelengths (blue and purple) are more intensely scattered and thus bounce in all directions more than lower frequencies (red or orange). The scattering of high frequencies alone would cause the sky to appear blue and purple, but our eyes work better (because our retinal cones are more receptive) at frequencies near the middle of the spectrum. Since the color blue is closer to the middle of the light spectrum than purple is, the sky we see appears blue.

The secret to a blue sky is the size of air molecules... they are the perfect size for scattering blue light out of the incoming sunlight. Not all wavelengths in the visible light spectrum scatter equally. Shorter, more energetic wavelengths - toward the violet end of the spectrum - scatter better than those toward the longer, less energetic, red end. This tendency is due in part to their higher energy, and in part to the geometry of the particles that they interact with in the atmosphere.  In 1871, Lord Rayleigh derived a formula describing a subset of these interactions, in which atmospheric particles are much smaller than the wavelengths of the radiation striking them. The Rayleigh scattering model shows that, in such systems, the intensity of scattered light varies inversely with the fourth power of its wavelength. In other words, shorter wavelengths - like blue and violet - scatter almost an order of magnitude more than long ones when interacting with particles such as oxygen and nitrogen molecules which are relatively small (i.e. one-tenth the size of the wavelength).

I do like your challenge about how we confirm source accuracy.  That's a staple of the business that I'm in, and we have a fairly rigorous process used for fact-checking.  In the nuclear industry, when we provide information to our regulator, we do so under oath and affirmation that its complete and accurate.  So, we go to great pains to validate that information before we docket it.  We do this using an expert panel of knowledgeable individuals, to whom we present the actual source of the information to ensure that we know where it comes from.  Typically, that "source document" has been rigorously prepared, independently reviewed, and approved by a manager.  We would rarely use and submit information that is hearsay, second-hand, or questionably obtained. 

Best

Gene Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2020 at 2:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:
On 6/10/2020 at 3:31 PM, Micah Mileto said:

It's been my signature for like a year. I think the quote is good if you acknowledge the many interpretations it could have.

 

Revised and updated, 1/16/21, 4:15 AM PST

"After the fact, there is no truth.  There is only what the jury decides."

Yes, that is exactly what Garrison said to me --in the late 1960s --when I was meeting with him (and debating with him), and when the subject was Kerry Thornley, a Marine who knew Oswald and who was a subject of interest (to Garrison).  

Why was Garrison interested in Thornley?  Because, in the year before the assassination (around late 1962), Thornley had completed the manuscript for a novel called The Idle Warriors -- inspired by his service in the Marines-- and one of the characters in his book (a Marine named Johnny Shellburne) was based on Oswald.  

Thornley knew Oswald in the Spring of 1959, about 5 months prior to his defection, when both were serving at a USMC radar station in Southern California (specifically, at El Toro Marine Base); and one can read all about this by reading Thornley's testimony, which can be found in Volume 8 of the Warren Commission.   Now let's turn to Oswald. Oswald was a pretend Marxist.  His fake defection to the USSR would occur the following September (1959).  The previous Spring (of 1959), when both were stationed at El Toro,  Oswald would argue with Thornley about the superiority of Marxism as an ideology; and the Soviet Union, as a country.  Thornley thought Oswald was "all talk" (my quotes); a "parlor" Communist (Thornley's quote).

 Consequently, when Oswald defected (9/11/1959) Thornley was astounded.  "OMG," he thought, "He [Oswald] really meant it!  And now he's done it!  He's acted on these beliefs."  Anyway, Thornley finished his novel, with its character (Johnny Shellburne)  who defected.  It was in the fall of 1959 that Thornley read about Oswald's defection (in the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, and after that, Thornley lost track of Oswald. . . for several years.

Now move forward to November 1963.  Thornley, then living in New Orleans, was astounded when --now at least a year after  his manuscript was completed-- he learned from the major media that Oswald (his acquaintance from the Marines, four years earlier) was arrested as the accused assassin of JFK!  It was as if someone who was on the pages of his manuscript (i.e., Johnny Shellburne, the Oswald character)  had walked off those pages, and gone off and murdered the President Kennedy! 

** ** ** ** 

I met Thornley in 1965, in Los Angeles.  I looked him up after reading something he had written about Oswald, which portrayed him as an irrational psychopath.  Over the course of several months -- and during this period, my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence, "The Case for Three Assassins", was published in Ramparts (magazine) -- I pretty much changed his views about Oswald being JFK's assassin. Now move forward several years.

Around March 1967, along came Garrison, and his announcement that he had "solved" the JFK assassination.  This was about five (5) months after I made my basic discoveries (Nov 1966) that JFK's body was altered (bullets removed, wounds altered); and that was the basic method by which the Bethesda autopsy had been falsified). At this time, as I understand it, DiEugenio was either an undergraduate student or already teaching sixth grade somewhere in Los Angeles.

 Because of my Dec 1966 Ramparts article ("The Case for 3 Assassins")  I arranged for a private meeting with Garrison, and my purpose was to speak with him about Thornley.  By that time, I had heard that Garrison was viewing Thornley with suspicion. I knew Thornley to be, politically,  a libertarian --an admirer of laissez faire economics.  He  viewed JFK as anti-business (which I believe to have been quite incorrect). But so what?  He certainly had nothing to do with JFK's murder.  But then along came a number of JFK researchers, who had Garrison's ear (e.g., the late Vincent Salandria, am ACLU lawyer from Philadelphia) and then -- years later -- came Jim DiEugenio, with his more simple-minded view of reality and, concomitantly, the assassination.  

I have always believed that one way to judge the ability of those who set to to investigate the JFK assassination is to accurately judge whether they have the ability to distinguish between what is the result of coincidence, and what is the  consequence of design.  The situation of Thornley and Oswald provides a good example.  From my standpoint, Oswald's mission --to go to Russia and fake a defection --had its roots going back to 1958, when LHO was in Japan, and stationed at Atsugi Naval Air Station.  By the Spring of 1959, Oswald --now stationed at El Toro Marine Base, in Southern California --was involved in learning how to read and write Russian (another subject).   The point is: Oswald was already "role-playing" (and spouting Marxism)--and in front of other Marines --by the time he was stationed at El Toro, and came to know Thornley.  Thornley found him so interesting as to cause him to include a character ("Johnny Shellburne") based on the real Lee Harvey Oswald, in the novel that he was writing ("The Idle Warriors").

What I have just written requires a certain amount of sophistication to comprehend; and if everything is taken at face value, the true significance can be lost.  So now, with these preliminary remarks, the reader of this post can perhaps better understand what follows.

** ** **. 

DiEugenio's view of the situation: "Thornley was writing about Oswald?  Before Dallas?!  Impossible!  This could not be innocent!   This had to be part of a set-up! (i.e., of Oswald)."  This simple minded imbecilic view laid the foundation for what happened next: Garrison calling Thornley before a Grand Jury (Feb. 1968), charging him with perjury, issuing a libelous accusatory press release about him, the implication being that Thornley was somehow connected with the (or "a")  JFK plot.  Certain other JFK researchers believed this.  DiEugenio-- not exactly blessed with an overabundance of skills when it came to critical thinking -- bought into much of this nonsense years later.

Thornley passed away years ago, so the way is now clear for DiEugenio to say whatever he wishes.  I don't know all the details of what he's currently writing, but its my understanding he's working on a film project, that Oliver Stone is involved, and that the Thornley situation is (also) involved.  

Again:  I knew Thornley quite well, and this goes back to 1965, two years before Garrison launched his investigation.  Once or twice, I had dinner at his home, and met his wife and child.  I have little doubt that Kerry Thornley had anything -- anything whatsoever -- to do with JFK's death.  Further:  I have little doubt that whatever it is that DiEugenio is writing will be the equivalent, historically, of a Nothing Burger.  But that doesn't mean that there won't be "film rights" to such a Nothing Burger.  0r that it might not be sold to some producer in Hollywood.  Especially if it is brought to the Big Screen by a prominent film maker who has a serious interest in the JFK assassination.  Of course, such a film project would not be advertised by saying: "Now, the full truth about the JFK case! The Nothing Burger -- soon coming to a theater near you!"  No, not at all.  That may be the truth, the reality, but that's not how it will be packaged. It will be packaged in ways that will afford this falsity some level of verisimilitude.  The whole situation is unjust and exasperating.

Go away Jim DiEugenio.  If you behaved this way towards someone who was still alive, and had assets, you -- along with any financial backer with whom you are affiliated -- would have serious legal exposure.  In plain English, you'd risk being sued.  But Thornley is dead, and so it is now possible to ride this false hobby horse -- this Nothing Burger-- and perhaps even create a screenplay falsely implicating Kerry Thornley in President Kennedy's murder.  It may be nonsense, but that doesn't mean it might not be saleable.  And, of course, the usual precautions will be take to avoid lawsuits.

Will there be a name change, if this travesty is filmed?  Perhaps a box at the beginning, with text that states: "This film is based on a true story, (or, more conservatively stated, "inspired by" true events)?"  Whatever the details, the reality is this: with the passage of enough time,  Kerry Thornley's character can now be safely "assassinated from a distance," and by the anonymity afforded by the passage of time.

But, Jim D., I must ask: is this your idea of "the facts", and history?  Is this the proper way for a school teacher to behave?  Is this your idea of "destiny betrayed" (whatever that means)?

As I understand it, the current state of our currency is: $1, $2, $5, $20, $50, and $100.  The thesis you re propounding is as phony as a $3 bill.

You're a real profile in courage, Jim DiEugenio.  The bottom line:  it doesn't take much courage to defame the dead.

DSL  (1/11/21; Revised, 1/16/21, 4:15 AM PST)

Edited by David Lifton
Correct spelling, and other typos.
Link to post
Share on other sites

David - when will Final Charade be released? 
I must have missed something. Didn’t you start a thread a few years ago saying you were coming out with a new book? Perhaps Final Charade isn’t the title, or it’s an update. What’s the story! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - when will Final Charade be released? 
I must have missed something. Didn’t you start a thread a few years ago saying you were coming out with a new book? Perhaps Final Charade isn’t the title, or it’s an update. What’s the story! 

Please send me your email address. Put "JFK" in the subject line.  DSL (dlifton@gmail.com)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 7:53 PM, Adam Johnson said:

Who says ya cant learn anything new on this forum, ladies and gentlemen i give you the word "verisimilitude"

 

Two comments:  "cant" is not the word you seek; correct spelling: "can't"; or, better yet: "can not".  As to "verisimilitude, here's the definition, from the Internet:

What does verisimilitude mean?

  • From its roots, verisimilitude means basically "similarity to the truth". Most fiction writers and filmmakers aim at some kind of verisimilitude to give their stories an air of reality. END OF DICTIONARY DEFINITION.
  •  
  • Here's my attempt to use the word in a sentence: "By placing three shells near the sixth floor window, stashing a rifle mail-ordered to Oswald's post office box elsewhere on the sixth floor, and then removing bullets and altering wounds on the body of the assassinated president,  the false appearance was created that Oswald was the assassin.  By which I mean: the foundation was laid for a false version of the shooting, based on false autopsy conclusions (about the gunshot trajectories, based on a body from which the original bullets had been removed, and with altered wounds).  But it was all a deception.   However, because of the falsification of the "best evidence," this false appearance --this crude frame-up, this false "solution" to the JFK assassination-- seemed genuine and credible and projected an underserved appearance of verisimilitude." 
  •  
  • FWIW: I could probably improve on this, but my New York Times was just thrown up against my door, and at 5 A.M. that takes precedence over all else. (Perhaps I can improve on this later.  Others may wish to chime in. DSL)
 
P.S.  Changing the subject (completely): I can hardly believe  that POTUS is consulting with the "My Pillow" guy (Michael Lindell) on the subject of whether martial law should be invoked here in the U.S.  Really?!  The "My Pillow" guy now conferring with POTUS about invoking martial law?  Is this what has become of our politics?   Gary Trudeau please note!  Has our politics been reduced to something out of Doonesbury?  Will the My Pillow guy be weighing in on whether Iran should be permitted to have nuclear weapons?  Woody Allen: please include this in your next movie!  Yee Gads!  I was thinking of ordering two of his pillows, but now I think I may go to the nearest Target, instead. 
Edited by David Lifton
additional thoughts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 11:55 AM, Paul Brancato said:

David - when will Final Charade be released? 
I must have missed something. Didn’t you start a thread a few years ago saying you were coming out with a new book? Perhaps Final Charade isn’t the title, or it’s an update. What’s the story! 

 

On 1/12/2021 at 11:55 AM, Paul Brancato said:

David - when will Final Charade be released? 
I must have missed something. Didn’t you start a thread a few years ago saying you were coming out with a new book? Perhaps Final Charade isn’t the title, or it’s an update. What’s the story! 

Could you please send me your email?  I have a question.  Best,  DSL (dlifton@earthlink.net)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 7:53 PM, Adam Johnson said:

Who says ya cant learn anything new on this forum, ladies and gentlemen i give you the word "verisimilitude"

 

1. I was taught, back in high school, that "words are the tools of thought." (Sorry if that offends).

2. I was also the managing editor of my high school newspaper, and often had the responsibility of reviewing copy, and --where necessary --improving it.

3. I don't remember the word we were taught to use to describe someone who mocks another's use of proper vocabulary.

4. In the interest of not appearing "overly educated," do you also omit ZIP codes when mailing letters? How about when you go camping?  Do you avoid bringing a map, or a compass?

I'm glad you're not an astronaut. . . or even a librarian.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...