JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

In all the years that I have studied the Garrison memos, and I was the first to have them directly from the family, I never found one by Garrison to that effect.

In all the assistant DA interviews I did, more than anyone around today, no one ever said any such thing to me.

I am sorry if I do not consider the pack of wolves in the media, who did all they could to destroy Garrison to be credible. Since I found them to be chronic XXXXX. 

As I have written, the person who started all this was Clay Shaw.  And this is why he commissioned Kirkwood to write American Grotesque after Herlihy turned him down. It was no coincidence that all three men were gay, as this was what the defendant wanted: a narrative  geared around Shaw being singled out for his sexual orientation. Which was utterly false.  How else does one explain that the FBI came to the same conclusions that Garrison did? About both Shaw and Ferrie. Which is why DeLoach called off the FBI inquiry in early 1967.  The reason he did was that he ran the FBI's anti FPCC campaign. So he had to have known what Oswald was doing in New Orleans that summer.

To say the least, Kirkwood's book has not stood up very well.  Its an obsolete disinformation relic. As Shaw intended it to be.

Edited February 4, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add this:  When i first got into this field, as far as I was concerned, the conspiracy side was almost as bad as the Ozzy did it side on New Orleans and Garrison.

Why? Since they had swallowed the MSM rubric about Garrison.  Without looking at the primary sources.

I mean what the heck was Oswald doing in New Orleans that summer?  He sure had some strange acquaintances, some who had CIA code names.   So when I first started making presentations, people were shocked.  They had never heard this stuff. So I began to turn the paradigm around, and then Bill Davy's book came out and that set a new paradigm.

[Sandy Larsen]

30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

In all the years that I have studied the Garrison memos, and I was the first to have them directly from the family, I never found one by Garrison to that effect.

In all the assistant DA interviews I did, more than anyone around today, no one ever said any such thing to me.

I am sorry if I do not consider the pack of wolves in the media, who did all they could to destroy Garrison. to be credible. Since I found them to be chronic XXXXX. 

As I have written, the person who started all this was Clay Shaw.  And this is why he commissioned Kirkwood to write American Grotesque after Herlihy turned him down. It was no coincidence that all three men were gay, as this was what the defendant wanted: a narrative  geared around Shaw being singled out for his sexual orientation. Which was utterly false.  How else does one explain that the FBI came to the same conclusions that Garrison did? About both Shaw and Ferrie. Which is why DeLoach called off the FBI inquiry in early 1967.  The reason he did was that he ran the FBI's anti FPCC campaign. So he had to have known what Oswald was doing in New Orleans that summer.

To say the least, Kirkwood's book has not stood up very well.  Its an obsolete disinformation relic. As Shaw intended it to be.

 

Thanks Jim.

What you just told me makes me wonder why there are still CTers who believe this nonsense about a homosexual assassins theory. Because obviously, since you say this wasn't a thing with Garrison, that means that there is no official document showing that he ever had that theory. (Because if there was such a document, someone would have used it  to prove you wrong.) And this means that Kirkwood had no source. And so he was just lyjng in his book.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

Given that Garrison still had somewhat of a bad reputation with CTers around 1990, do you know how it came about that Oliver Stone chose to use his book as a basis for the film JFK?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

Given that Garrison still had somewhat of a bad reputation with CTers around 1990, do you know how it came about that Oliver Stone chose to use his book as a basis for the film JFK?

The story goes that someone gave Stone a copy of Garrison's book. 

But Sandy, Jim is misleading you. There have been two books written now on the Garrison homophobia. Jim is correct that there is no memo, but he doesn't tell you about the rest of the evidence. Check out this series by Fred:

Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Jim,

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. The claim that Jim Garrison at one time had a theory about a homosexual assassination conspiracy... is that untrue? I've seen it mentioned so many times by CTers that I thought it must be true. Yet I never heard Garrison say a word about it, so I figured it must have been an old, undeveloped theory.

 

Early in his investigation, Garrison realized that there were a number of claims that Oswald and Ruby were gay. And he put that together with Shaw and Ferrie being gay and publicly mused (In a number of interviews and articles) that maybe they were part of a homosexual thrill kill cult. I'm sure Jim D knows the exact chronology, but this thought soon passed. Ultimately, he was far more suspicious of the intelligence and Cuba connections of the men than he was their sexuality. 

But this didn't stop a number of journalists, gay and otherwise, from claiming Garrison persecuted Shaw because he was gay. It seems this is something they think will work in today's world, with everyone so obsessed with homophobia and racism. It's kinda like the old canard about Mark Lane's suspicions being fueled by the Russians, because the KGB gave a couple of hundred bucks to an organization to which he belonged. In short, it's nonsense. To my eyes, and I suspect clear eyes, Garrison went after Shaw because he believed he was Clay Bertrand, the man Dean Andrews said had hired him to represent Oswald, and because Shaw appeared to be lying about this and his connections to Ferrie. 

And no, I don't believe this is all a myth created to discredit Garrison, and that the interviews and articles were all faked. Garrison was bit of an odd duck, prone to crawl down rabbit holes. At one point, he publicly claimed a phone number in Oswald's phone book was really a different number, only in some obscure code that Garrison thought he'd cracked. Footage of him discussing this was used by Robert Stone (a gay film-maker) in his film Oswald's Ghost. And it worked. It made Garrison look like a loon. (As opposed to an odd duck...) 

But he wasn't a loon. Dean Andrews claimed someone hired him to represent Oswald, and Garrison had reason to believe this man was Shaw. So why did Shaw lie about this, if he wasn't hiding something? 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

I will be doing a follow up on my Kirchick piece soon.

I will issue my formal challenge to debate him.

Does anyone think he will take me up on it?

I don't.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW recall when Steve Roe said that JFK Revisited had not made an impact, it failed.

As anyone can read in my article, that was baloney.

Stone went around the MSM to reach a potential audience of ten million. 

It was so successful that Kirchick had to attack it with something THAT IS NOT IN THE FILM AT ALL!

So not only was Roe wrong, the MSM is now grabbing at straws.

And recall, the four hour version, which essentially  took  Australia by storm, has not debuted yet.

As they say that is high cotton.

Edited February 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Micah Mileto]

Aaaand Goldberg just slipped and fell into the diarrhea like Frodo in the marshes.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[James DiEugenio]

My article on James Kirchick now has 26, 354 impressions on Twitter.  One of the highest tallies I have ever gotten.  I have also asked to debate him.  I predict he will not do it.

BTW, let me add this: if you needed more convincing of how JFK Revisited has upset the Power Elite, get a load of the new article up at Air Mail..  Another Mimi Alford comes forth after 60 years.

Graydon Carter and Alessandra Stanley are worried.  Which means the Power Elite is worried. Make no mistake about it.

Oliver did it again.👏

Edited February 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Fact Checking James DiEugenio (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[James DiEugenio]

My article on Kirchick is now up to 32, 354 impressions on Twitter.

And there is more to come on this guy.

Edited February 6, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

On 2/4/2022 at 10:54 PM, Pat Speer said:

Early in his investigation, Garrison realized that there were a number of claims that Oswald and Ruby were gay. And he put that together with Shaw and Ferrie being gay and publicly mused (In a number of interviews and articles) that maybe they were part of a homosexual thrill kill cult. I'm sure Jim D knows the exact chronology, but this thought soon passed. Ultimately, he was far more suspicious of the intelligence and Cuba connections of the men than he was their sexuality. 

But this didn't stop a number of journalists, gay and otherwise, from claiming Garrison persecuted Shaw because he was gay. It seems this is something they think will work in today's world, with everyone so obsessed with homophobia and racism. It's kinda like the old canard about Mark Lane's suspicions being fueled by the Russians, because the KGB gave a couple of hundred bucks to an organization to which he belonged. In short, it's nonsense. To my eyes, and I suspect clear eyes, Garrison went after Shaw because he believed he was Clay Bertrand, the man Dean Andrews said had hired him to represent Oswald, and because Shaw appeared to be lying about this and his connections to Ferrie. 

And no, I don't believe this is all a myth created to discredit Garrison, and that the interviews and articles were all faked. Garrison was bit of an odd duck, prone to crawl down rabbit holes. At one point, he publicly claimed a phone number in Oswald's phone book was really a different number, only in some obscure code that Garrison thought he'd cracked. Footage of him discussing this was used by Robert Stone (a gay film-maker) in his film Oswald's Ghost. And it worked. It made Garrison look like a loon. (As opposed to an odd duck...) 

But he wasn't a loon. Dean Andrews claimed someone hired him to represent Oswald, and Garrison had reason to believe this man was Shaw. So why did Shaw lie about this, if he wasn't hiding something? 

Ditto. 

Garrison liked to think aloud at times, as many do. Speculate, and he speculated about Shaw and Shaw's connections. Yes, it was the 1960s, and people used different language back then, and perhaps were not as sensitive as they should have been to the gay community.

But Garrison was barking up the right tree. True, it does not appear Shaw was connected to the actual JFKA.

My guess is Shaw was a mid-stage handler, but he did have CIA connections and he did lie about that, and well as his alter-ego Clay Bertrand. 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I think that Shaw was actually a low level handler, that is on the ground level.

I would call someone like Phillips a mid level guy.  Recall, he had likely been in Banister's office talking about a city wide telethon with Banister and Butler. 

And there is that one witness the FBI found out about, who worked for Shaw at the ITM. She said words to the effect that Ferrie was in Shaw's office so often she thought he had secret access.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Fact Checking James DiEugenio, Part Two (onthetrailofdelusion.com)