My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Joseph McBride]

I too appreciate vigorous argument

on this usually scholarly site and am not just interested

in hearing from people I agree with but also in

listening to serious researchers who

may make reports I hadn't known about

or disagree with. These reports ought

to be based in demonstrable fact. I take them more seriously when they are.

 

Vague charges about members being influenced

by Russian or Iranian propaganda (or

Scientology or any other religion

or ideology) smacks of McCarthyite tactics.

And a broad-brush charge of "anti-Americanism"

is pointless and offensive; this is (still) a

(relatively) free country, and anyone has a right

to criticize American history, policies, or values.

It would be better to stick to disputing arguments you don't

agree with and factually debunking what you see as

false claims than to making such charges.

 

Let's hear facts brought forth to support

criticisms of other members' posts, rather than

simply one-liners saying, "That's not true," which

I know you don't indulge in yourself, Pat, though

some other posters make a habit of it and so

are not worth taking seriously. You generally

argue your points by adducing research, Pat,

so your posts are always worth reading, even

if one disagrees with them.

Edited October 7 by Joseph McBride

[Bill Brown]

57 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

I too appreciate vigorous argument

on this usually scholarly site and am not just interested

in hearing from people I agree with but also in

listening to serious researchers who

may make reports I hadn't known about

or disagree with. These reports ought

to be based in demonstrable fact. I take them more seriously when they are.

 

Vague charges about members being influenced

by Russian or Iranian propaganda (or

Scientology or any other religion

or ideology) smacks of McCarthyite tactics.

And a broad-brush charge of "anti-Americanism"

is pointless and offensive; this is (still) a

(relatively) free country, and anyone has a right

to criticize American history, policies, or values.

It would be better to stick to disputing arguments you don't

agree with and factually debunking what you see as

false claims than to making such charges.

 

Let's hear facts brought forth to support

criticisms of other members' posts, rather than

simply one-liners saying, "That's not true," which

I know you don't indulge in yourself, Pat, though

some other posters make a habit of it and so

are not worth taking seriously. You generally

argue your points by adducing research, Pat,

so your posts are always worth reading, even

if one disagrees with them.

 

 

I'm curious, do you still believe J.D. Tippit was shooting at the President from behind the fence atop the knoll using his service revolver?

This may sound like I'm trolling you but I assure you that I am not.  I'm curious as to your answer.

 

[Pat Speer]

On 10/7/2024 at 11:38 AM, Joseph McBride said:

I too appreciate vigorous argument

on this usually scholarly site and am not just interested

in hearing from people I agree with but also in

listening to serious researchers who

may make reports I hadn't known about

or disagree with. These reports ought

to be based in demonstrable fact. I take them more seriously when they are.

 

Vague charges about members being influenced

by Russian or Iranian propaganda (or

Scientology or any other religion

or ideology) smacks of McCarthyite tactics.

And a broad-brush charge of "anti-Americanism"

is pointless and offensive; this is (still) a

(relatively) free country, and anyone has a right

to criticize American history, policies, or values.

It would be better to stick to disputing arguments you don't

agree with and factually debunking what you see as

false claims than to making such charges.

 

Let's hear facts brought forth to support

criticisms of other members' posts, rather than

simply one-liners saying, "That's not true," which

I know you don't indulge in yourself, Pat, though

some other posters make a habit of it and so

are not worth taking seriously. You generally

argue your points by adducing research, Pat,

so your posts are always worth reading, even

if one disagrees with them.

Thanks, Joe. I was not charging anyone here of spreading Russian or Iranian or scientology propaganda. I mentioned Russia because I was approached by a Russian media company that assured me some publicity if I gave them some comments that reflected negatively on the CIA, or America, or some such thing. (I know others took them up on it.) And I mentioned Iran because a former member was featured at a conference in Iran, in which he denounced the American government. And I mentioned scientology because we had a prominent member who sought to re-invent the wheel and convince everyone the JFK assassination and Watergate were connected by a long-hidden conspiracy in which the U.S. government sought to suppress remote viewing techniques invented by L. Ron Hubbard (or something like that) who I exposed as a scientologist using a fake name in an effort to sell some of his spy novels (or something like that). 

Edited Friday at 04:22 PM by Pat Speer

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/7/2024 at 2:56 AM, Joe Bauer said:

I think most here accept that Fruge did indeed call up the hospital in Jackson and told them to "not" turn Rose Cheramie loose right after JFK was killed.

And that he did suspend his regular duties to drive there to see and talk to her one-on-one just days later.

To me, this proves something important.

That Fruge did hear something so remarkably intriguing ( ominously so? ) from Cheramie during his personal time with her on November 20th, that he felt compelled to seeing her in person again asap when JFK was gunned down on the 22nd.

And to "tell" the hospital not to release Rose is a pretty aggressive and out-of-the ordinary action on Fruge's part as well.

What motivated Fruge to take this extra duty action?

What other part of Rose Cheramie's story tidbits she shared with Fruge while they were together days before 11,22,1963 could be so important for Fruge to want to know more and right away?

It's definitely more reasonable than not, to consider Rose told Fruge something so shocking ( way more so than her mistreatment by her two "Italian" escorts ) to motivate him to do what he did regards his call to the hospital and rushing back to see her in person there.

Even Rose's revelation of a drug deal going down in Galveston in the following days wouldn't be that motivating to inspire Fruge's call to the hospital to hold her until he could talk to her personally imo.

If it was, wouldn't have Fruge reacted to Rose's drug deal story ( informing his superiors ) much sooner than 4 or 5 days later?

Fruge didn't call and go back to the hospital where Rose was being treated because of the Galveston drug deal. He had no plans to do so "until" JFK was shot and killed in Dallas.

And isn't it also a proven fact that Fruge and his superior officer did contact the Dallas PD about Cheramie and her pre- and post JFKA claims?

Does anyone here think Fruge would have bothered Fritz ( and Curry? ) with a Galveston drug deal plot ( alone ) knowing that Curry and Fritz were frantically immersed in the biggest American crime event of the century right in their own city?

The Dallas PD couldn't have given two hoots about a drug deal "possibly" going down in Galveston 300 miles away especially right at that chaotic time.

Fruge and his boss contacted Fritz because of what Rose Cheramie shared about the JFKA and probably Jack Ruby as well.

Can anyone here offer some other strong reasons besides JFK's murder on the 22nd, to explain Fruge's aggressive Rose Cheramie and Dallas PD contacting actions right after that event?

 

 

 

I know my Fruge/Cheramie story input here isn't deep research born and weighty, yet I still feel the questions and facts I pose here are valid enough to deserve some feedback from those here who totally discount the idea that Rose C. did indeed share with others that JFK was going to be hit in Dallas on the day he was...before he was.

IMO...Fruge's beyond regular duty actions of calling the hospital so soon after JFK was killed and telling them not to release Rose, then driving to see her in person again, then convincing his boss to contact the Dallas PD ( Will Fritz) to tell them what they knew about Cheramie's revelation story strongly proves that this was all motivated by something much more important than Cheramie sharing about her sad past and a heads up about a possible drug deal going down in Galveston the following week.

Which of course would have been met with irritated dismissal by a Dallas PD frantically immersed in the most important criminal case in their history let alone the entire US history.

Fruge and his boss would have known this. The only thing that makes sense here is that they felt what they had to share with Fritz and the Dallas PD was in some way connected to the JFKA ... and was important enough to share with them.

And the only thing that could have been that important was a pre-knowledge of the JFKA told to them and others by Cheramie.

The Dallas PD/Will Fritz contact effort by Fruge and his superior officer just days after 11,22,1963, if true, is a keystone event in validating the Cheramie story regards her sharing with others the JFKA before it happened.

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:59 AM by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/1/2024 at 4:45 PM, Fred Litwin said:

The CIA and the FBI did not infiltrate and sabotage Garrison's investigation. He did that himself.

You really should read some non-conspiracy books.

The plain fact of the matter is that Garrison came up with absolutely nothing. 

And Garrison wasn't sabotaged by false lead tips! He was the one who continually believed every wacky theory to come his way. From the sewer shot, the ridiculous notion of code linking Oswald with Shaw, the indictment of Edgar Eugene Bradley for conspiring to kill JFK, using sodium pentothal and hypnosis to implant false memories, believing the silly Slidin' Clyde Johnson, thinking that Kerry Thornley was the second Oswald.

I could go on an don. There is nothing that Garrison wouldn't believe.

fred

Fred, are you aware that three--not one or two, but three--HSCA staffers said they saw a CIA document that showed the CIA planted moles in Garrison's office? Lopez, Delsa, and Tanenbaum said they saw this document. Do they think they were all just lying?

I see no credible, believable innocent explanation for the fact that Wendell Roache confirmed Orest Pena’s account about seeing Oswald in the New Orleans INS office when Roache was interviewed by the Church Committee. Roache said that he had “frequently” seen Oswald in the INS office and that Oswald even had an office there. Roache stated in another Church Committee interview that during INS surveillance, Oswald was seen going into the offices of David Ferrie’s anti-Castro group in New Orleans, and that “Oswald was known to be one of the men in the group.”

Similarly, I see no credible, believable innocent explanation for the evidence that puts Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw in Clinton, Louisiana, in 1963. Even the super-cautious HSCA found the six Clinton witnesses credible and significant. Those witnesses included a state representative, a deputy sheriff, and a county registrar. The HSCA “Summary Memorandum” said there was “clear indication” that Oswald was with Ferrie and Shaw in Clinton during that period. This is by far the most reasonable, logical conclusion.

If the HSCA was quite cautious, historian David Kaiser is uber cautious. Yet, even Kaiser says that “from all the available evidence it is clear that Oswald knew Ferrie, and Ferrie in turn was closely linked to both Marcello and the New Orleans anti-Castro Cuban community” (The Road to Dallas, p. 203). Kaiser also concludes that Oswald associated with Guy Banister (pp. 204-205). And, as you probably know, one of Banister’s former informants, Daniel Campbell, told Anthony Summers that he once saw Oswald using the phone in Banister’s office (Not in Your Lifetime, p. 275).

And then there's the fact that not one of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test managed to duplicate Oswald's alleged shooting feat. As I document in detail in A Comforting Lie, they did not even come close.

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:20 PM by Michael Griffith

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/1/2024 at 2:21 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.

Bill Brown has a problem calling Operation Mockingbird guano in relation to the possibility Fred's book could be perceived by some as a Mockingbird type effort, sponsored by them or not.

He calls a reference to Jim DiEugenio's work, by name, tripe. 

He doesn't see any difference and now calls me a hypocrite for warning him about it.  

[Jean Ceulemans]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bill Brown has a problem calling Operation Mockingbird guano in relation to the possibility Fred's book could be perceived by some as a Mockingbird type effort, sponsored by them or not.

He calls a reference to Jim DiEugenio's work, by name, tripe. 

He doesn't see any difference and now calls me a hypocrite for warning him about it.  

IMO W. was clearly referring to Fred in person, calling Fred´s reaction guano cfr.  :

"Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.   Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?"

That´s an insult, no matter how I look at it, you can cover it, it still stinks (the guano).

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

IMO W. was clearly referring to Fred in person, calling Fred´s reaction guano cfr.  :

"Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.   Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?"

That´s an insult, no matter how I look at it, you can cover it, it still stinks (the guano).

 

 

 

Jean,

        I'll stand by my inference, based on James DiEugenio's detailed analysis of Mr. Litwin's published JFKA propaganda during the past six years, (and the associated M$M WaPo article by Mr. Litwin's colleague, Alecia P. Long.)  You claim to have read it, but your repeated trolling on the topic this week indicates that you either haven't read DiEugenio's analysis of Litwin-ism, or you haven't understood it.

       Also, for your tireless Belgian support of putative CIA disinformation ops, I think you should be nominated for a Mobutu Award... 🙄

Edited Friday at 02:25 PM by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

The anti-conspiracy view began to crumble when the evidence of the Oswald-Ferrie-Banister connection became too compelling to credibly, rationally deny. There comes a point when you can't honestly, sensibly keep falling back on the "they were mistaken" argument, much less the "they were all lying" argument. There also comes a point when you can't honestly, sensibly claim that clearly suspicious actions "must have" an innocent explanation. 

Typically, WC apologists use one standard for judging pro-WC witnesses but use a very different standard for judging pro-conspiracy witnesses. Over and over, we see WC defenders pounce on every little discrepancy or variation in a pro-conspiracy witness's story as an excuse to reject the story, while ignoring the fact that the essential elements of the story are consistent. Yet, when dealing with a pro-WC witness's story, WC defenders overlook glaring problems and conclude the story is reliable.  

There is no believable, logical explanation for David Ferrie's highly suspicious car trip from New Orleans to a skating rink in Houston hours after JFK's assassination. Ferrie drove through a severe thunderstorm to get to the rink, then nervously made and received calls on a pay phone in the rink for several hours, and then returned to New Orleans. When questioned by law enforcement authorities, Ferrie offered two explanations for the trip: he said he was going goose hunting, and he said he was gathering info on how to run a skating rink! I mean, really? When the rink's manager was questioned, he said Ferrie never spoke with him, but that Ferrie made and received calls on a pay phone in the rink for several hours.  

Edited Friday at 02:35 PM by Michael Griffith

[Robert Morrow]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The anti-conspiracy view began to crumble when the evidence of the Oswald-Ferrie-Banister connection became too compelling to credibly, rationally deny. There comes a point when you can't honestly, sensibly keep falling back on the "they were mistaken" argument, much less the "they were all lying" argument. There also comes a point when you can't honestly, sensibly claim that clearly suspicious actions "must have" an innocent explanation. 

Typically, WC apologists use one standard for judging pro-WC witnesses but use a very different standard for judging pro-conspiracy witnesses. Over and over, we see WC defenders pounce on every little discrepancy or variation in a pro-conspiracy witness's story as an excuse to reject the story, while ignoring the fact that the essential elements of the story are consistent. Yet, when dealing with a pro-WC witness's story, WC defenders overlook glaring problems and conclude the story is reliable.  

There is no believable, logical explanation for David Ferrie's highly suspicious car trip from New Orleans to a skating rink in Houston hours after JFK's assassination. Ferrie drove through a severe thunderstorm to get to the rink, then nervously made and received calls on a pay phone in the rink for several hours, and then returned to New Orleans. When questioned by law enforcement authorities, Ferrie offered two explanations for the trip: he said he was going goose hunting, and he said he was gathering info on how to run a skating rink! I mean, really? When the rink's manager was questioned, he said Ferrie never spoke with him, but that Ferrie made and received calls on a pay phone in the rink for several hours.  

Btw, none of that provides any evidence that David Ferrie was involved in the JFK assassination, because Lee Harvey Oswald sure as heck was not. 

Clay Shaw most definitely was not involved in the JFK assassination because he was desperately trying to get LEGAL COUNSEL for Oswald with a hospital ridden Dean Andrews.

As for Ferrie, maybe he drove to Houston in some weird low chance hopes he could help Oswald in his predicament, which in no way proves either Oswald or Ferrie were involved in the JFK assassination. Maybe David Ferrie was worried that HE could be framed for the JFK assassination because of his associations with Lee Harvey Oswald. Ditto the behaviors of Clay Shaw in getting Oswald a lawyer.

Edited Friday at 06:25 PM by Robert Morrow

[Jean Ceulemans]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Also, for your tireless Belgian support of putative CIA disinformation ops, I think you should be nominated for a Mobutu Award... 🙄

Thank you for confirming my POV with this reply. This was sooo easy. Made my day for sure. So long.

Edited Friday at 03:35 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[Kirk Gallaway]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bill Brown has a problem calling Operation Mockingbird guano in relation to the possibility Fred's book could be perceived by some as a Mockingbird type effort, sponsored by them or not.

He calls a reference to Jim DiEugenio's work, by name, tripe. 

He doesn't see any difference and now calls me a hypocrite for warning him about it.  

That was a curious response. So make Brown the issue, for simply asking the question Ron?

I see you're a free speech absolutist!    heh heh

Joe was asked the question. As a researcher, don't you have any curiosity if Joe thinks  Tippit was shooting at JFK from behind the grassy knoll? Well I sure would!

Joe if that's true, could you tell us how you came to that conclusion?

 

5 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

IMO W. was clearly referring to Fred in person, calling Fred´s reaction guano cfr.  :

"Geez...more guano from Operation Mockingbird Redux.   Can we get another Education Forum clean up on Aisle Litwin?"

That´s an insult, no matter how I look at it, you can cover it, it still stinks (the guano).

 

 

 

I agree Jean Paul, That is a very insulting response. Particularly from a moderator.

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'll stand by my inference, based on James DiEugenio's detailed analysis of Mr. Litwin's published JFKA propaganda during the past six years,

You have to keep in mind W. Most of us don't necessarily worship everything Jim says. Much less, use it for an excuse to insult another member.

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/11/2024 at 7:58 AM, Robert Morrow said:

Btw, none of that provides any evidence that David Ferrie was involved in the JFK assassination, because Lee Harvey Oswald sure as heck was not. 

Clay Shaw most definitely was not involved in the JFK assassination because he was desperately trying to get LEGAL COUNSEL for Oswald with a hospital ridden Dean Andrews.

As for Ferrie, maybe he drove to Houston in some weird low chance hopes he could help Oswald in his predicament, which in now proves either Oswald or Ferrie were involved in the JFK assassination. Maybe David Ferrie was worried that HE could be framed for the JFK assassination because of his associations with Lee Harvey Oswald. Ditto the behaviors of Clay Shaw in getting Oswald a lawyer.

Okay, so none of this Oswald, Ferrie, Banister, Clay Shaw, Dean Andrews, Jack Martin, Carlos Bringuier and probably even some FBI connection stuff equates into a JFKA involvement plot.

What is DOES CLEARLY show however, is there is SO MUCH MORE to the Oswald In New Orleans the Summer of 1963 story.

So much more about his actions there and who he interacted with. Witnesses to his interactions with these nefarious persons included Jack Martin, Delphine Roberts, Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, etc.

Most of which was so incongruously mismatched in personalities and interests you have no choice but to consider it all with great logical suspicion.

Oswald's job cleaning coffee machines at agency connected Reilly Coffee company ( which he brazenly neglected ) was just another crazy part of the New Orleans circus of incongruous intrigue he was jumping in and out of.

So much more about Oswald that totally deflates the official Warren Commission finding that depicts Oswald as just this often unemployed, minimum wage earning, wayward, inner rage and frustration, misguided, attention seeking, pathologically non-social nut case with no connections to anyone up through his sniper nest shooting and his impossibly improbable, calmly walking away, city bus and taxi ride home to his $8 a week room just minutes after the shooting.

There's just TOO MUCH suspicious actions and connections with Oswald in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 to pretend it all means nothing in the larger picture of his involvement in the 11,22,1963 world changing event affair.

 

Edited Saturday at 04:14 PM by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Okay, so none of this Oswald, Ferrie, Banister, Clay Shaw, Dean Andrews, Jack Martin, Carlos Bringuier and probably even some FBI connection stuff equates into a JFKA involvement plot.

What is DOES CLEARLY show however, is there is SO MUCH MORE to the Oswald In New Orleans the Summer of 1963 story.

So much more about his actions there and who he interacted with. Witnesses to his interactions with these nefarious persons included Jack Martin, Delphine Roberts, Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, etc.

Most of which was so incongruously mismatched in personalities and interests you have no choice but to consider it all with great logical suspicion.

Oswald's job cleaning coffee machines at agency connected Reilly Coffee company ( which he brazenly neglected ) was just another crazy part of the New Orleans circus of incongruous intrigue he was jumping in and out of.

So much more about Oswald that totally deflates the official Warren Commission finding that depicts Oswald as just this often unemployed, minimum wage earning, wayward, inner rage and frustration, misguided, attention seeking, pathologically non-social nut case with no connections to anyone up through his sniper nest shooting and his walking away city bus and taxi ride home to his $8 a week room just minutes after the shooting.

There's just TOO MUCH suspicious actions and connections with Oswald in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 to pretend it all means nothing in the larger picture of his involvement in the 11,22,1963 world changing event affair.

 

I think this is correct. There are a lot questions about Oswald's visit to New Orleans, his interactions with others, and the behavior of still others after his arrest, that can not be adequately answered by "Business as usual."

[Robert Morrow]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Okay, so none of this Oswald, Ferrie, Banister, Clay Shaw, Dean Andrews, Jack Martin, Carlos Bringuier and probably even some FBI connection stuff equates into a JFKA involvement plot.

What is DOES CLEARLY show however, is there is SO MUCH MORE to the Oswald In New Orleans the Summer of 1963 story.

So much more about his actions there and who he interacted with. Witnesses to his interactions with these nefarious persons included Jack Martin, Delphine Roberts, Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, etc.

Most of which was so incongruously mismatched in personalities and interests you have no choice but to consider it all with great logical suspicion.

Oswald's job cleaning coffee machines at agency connected Reilly Coffee company ( which he brazenly neglected ) was just another crazy part of the New Orleans circus of incongruous intrigue he was jumping in and out of.

So much more about Oswald that totally deflates the official Warren Commission finding that depicts Oswald as just this often unemployed, minimum wage earning, wayward, inner rage and frustration, misguided, attention seeking, pathologically non-social nut case with no connections to anyone up through his sniper nest shooting and his walking away city bus and taxi ride home to his $8 a week room just minutes after the shooting.

There's just TOO MUCH suspicious actions and connections with Oswald in New Orleans the Summer of 1963 to pretend it all means nothing in the larger picture of his involvement in the 11,22,1963 world changing event affair.

 

I happen to agree with that. I just think none of those New Orleans folks mentioned were actually involved in the JFK assasination.

Carlos Bringuier of the DRE called Oswald CIA in the NYT 11/23/63

 

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5196

 

John Navin:

 

“Carlos Bringuier is quoted in the New York Times THE DAY AFTER the assassination that he thought Oswald was working for the CIA. It's on the front page. I have a copy of that paper sitting in a plastic wrapper in my closet. I've always felt that it showed how anyone could figure out the basics of what happened almost immediately. I'm sure a few intelligence folks in Washington freaked out.”

 

John Navin:

 

“Okay, here it is. I pulled it out of the closet and took it out of the plastic cover. Yes, it's the New York Times for Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. "Leftist Accused" is the headline on the top half of the front page. The reporter is Gladwin Hilll.

The quote from Bringuier appears in that article -- but further in the paper where the article continues from the front page onto page 4.

Amazing, huh? Next day, complete "leftist" profile with Bringuier making the intelligence connection.”

 AP

 11/22/63 New Orleans – [From interview with Carlos Bringuier, New Orleans delegate for the Cuban Student Directorate, a Miami-based anti-Castro organization]

"He offered himself as a former Marine to train Cubans for an invasion. … I was suspicious of him from the start. ... Frankly, I thought he might be an agent from the FBI or the CIA trying to find out what he might be up to." AP, 7:09 p.m. EST, Tom Dygard