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

[Cliff Varnell]

An "A" for effort! 

The bullet hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the jacket collar, not the upper margin of the scapula.

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

A child could figure out the clothing evidence.

 

I don't know, Cliff. What if the clothing was starched around the collar and that's how a peculariar bunching situation could've happened? Have experiments been done on replicating the clothing holes and motorcade photos by playing around with starch on the fabric?

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/4/2024 at 11:20 PM, Pat Speer said:

He was a public servant for the city of New Orleans and could not investigate the case if he didn't pursue Shaw, since Ferrie and Bannister were dead. Many researchers and onlookers at the time assumed he was pursuing Shaw even though he didn't believe his involvement, because he was hoping to publicize the problems with the lone-nut scenario and unveil a conspiracy.  

I am ambivalent about this possibility. If true, it was wrong for Garrison to pursue Shaw with such vigor. BUT...it can not be doubted that Shaw had CIA ties and quite possibly ties to Ferrie and Oswald, and failed to be forthcoming about all this. And it can not be doubted that Garrison's investigation created a response from Washington--which proved that the government had not earnestly investigated the case the first time and was actively involved in a propaganda campaign/cover-up. 

So the eyes of history will be kind to Garrison, IMO, even if he was a bit of a charlatan/wackadoodle. 

Getting back to the topic of Garrison. I think Pat encapsulates my view on Garrison here. 2 chief suspects in the plot had died and by the time Ferrie died Garrison was already very publicized and felt he had to go through with his prosecution  of Clay Shaw, who although he has international business ties to the CIA*. I think Garrison can  ethically can be assailed for.** 

From what I've seen, there is a difference between Di Eugenio and Talbot involving the Garrison case involving Walter Sheridan. Sheridan had extensive intelligence ties to the  CIA, NSA and FBI (where he had disagreements with JEH over his anti communist stance to the detriment of prosecution of Organized Crime) when he was recruited by RFK in 1957 before he became  AG.  After RFK, stepped down from AG and became Senator,  Sheridan took a job at NBC , at the height of Operation Mockingbird and produced the NBC special "The JFK Conspiracy, The case of Jim Garrison." 

Jim Di sees   Sheridan,  with his intelligence ties as a plant to divert and fool AG RFK away from the Garrison investigation. Which is sort of consistent with Jim Di's view of the Kennedy's being Little Red Riding Hood consistently being betrayed by their own appointments and the Washington Power structure in general, until their end. Ok, IMO!

Talbot cites an interview with Sheridan's wife after his death that RFK knew exactly what he was doing, had implicit trust in Sheridan*** , admired his intelligence background and both wanted to prosecute his brother's death when he got elected President. Sheridan was assigned to look into Garrison's case and determined it was weak and a potential  embarrassment and impediment to RFK's future prospects of prosecution, and at the time, he turned out to be right.

 

 

* Richard Helms, former Director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service (DCS) of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly from Latin America.  Which puts him in a class of an estimated 150,000 businessmen and journalists. I always notice people bring up Shaw's ties to the Permindex corporation, which infers a great internationalist globalist plot to kill JFK that I completely reject. Are we to assume everybody who may not have liked JFK's politics or have directly or indirectly profited from JFK's death was part of the conspiracy?

**It would seem even Oliver Stone acknowledged this in his script, with Kevin Costner telling Donal Sutherland "I really don't have much of a case."  He didn't have to write that in. 

***Interesting, I now see RFK and Sheridan were born on the very same day!

 

Here's Sheridan's NBC special. I couldn't find it on youtube. But got it from DVP's site.

You can draw your own conclusions.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-conspiracy-case-of-jim-garrison.html

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/11/2024 at 9:23 AM, W. Niederhut said:

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.

I think that's what this all comes down to.  Jim's analysis of Fred's work.  Who has more long-term credibility on the subject, has done way more research, written more extensively.  Then destroyed Fred's teenage conspiracy freak show?  Semantics and terminology?   Guano and tripe?  Then a mod is called a hypocrite for not warning another mod after  warning him.

Then the mod, me, receives a FB friend request tonight from Bill Brown.  Ironic?  Given an adversarial relationship on the forum?

Seems kind of like trolling or stalking both forum rule violations.     

Edited yesterday at 01:22 AM by Ron Bulman

[Micah Mileto]

21 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Which, of course, is also provably incorrect. There was no "right rear lower occipital" head wound at all.....as proven by the X-rays:

I am not a back-of-head wound theorist. But to be fair, nobody has disproven that a staged x-ray could be made using a substitute brain like James Curtis Jenkins suggested, or merely re-arranged brain or other matter like plaster. Humes said they assisted the morticians, and I think it was either Paul O'Connor, Tom Robinson or John Van Hoesen who at one point said that they had to remove excess plaster from the skull cavity because they used too much at first. Then, what if the skull and skull fragments were rearranged? And we already know the HSCA's interpretaton of the open-cranium photos are impossible unless a piece of the back of the skull was replaced after removing to fit the brain through. If you have no specific answer but to say that back of the skull on the x-rays looks "too smooth", wouldn't that just sound like the earlier conspiracy researchers who incorrectly argued the black patch on the face represented damage rather than trapped air which created an illusion of a "smooth" looking black hole thorugh the skull bone?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I don't know, Cliff. What if the clothing was starched around the collar and that's how a peculariar bunching situation could've happened?

A starched jacket collar?  Starching the jacket collar -- which never happens -- would cause the back of the shirt and jacket to ride up 2+ inches and occupy the same physical space as the collar itself?

Discrete physical objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time, whether they're starched or not.

 

Edited Sunday at 07:00 AM by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Here's Sheridan's NBC special. I couldn't find it on youtube. But got it from DVP's site.

FYI....

It's been on my YouTube channel for 11 years....

 

Edited Sunday at 08:59 AM by David Von Pein