Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone

[Lynne Foster]

The most compelling motivation to account for the murder of JFK was his planned withdrawal from the Vietnam war. Even Oliver Stone got that right...

Jim Garrison knew that, he just did not want to provide the clarity that is necessary to end the debate in regards to the necessity to dismiss less convincing speculation.

Did the mob hate Kennedy enough to kill him? Of course they did, but could they possibly pull it off alone?

Not if they couldn't even kill Castro.

I disagree with those who think that any other motivation other than support for the Vietnam war, could possibly provide the resources that were necessary, to get away with the murder of John F. Kennedy.

(read the Nixon thread, doesn't that explain his November 22nd amnesia?)

Jim Garrison vaguely alludes to the same, but the circus ringleader was like the proverbial boy who called wolf and all the false links in his chain had brilliantly made the truth irrelevant.

[Tim Gratz]

Tim's posts were excellent, I thought.

I notice that when I asked Mark to dispute any of the factual assertions in the article Lynee posted, he singularly failed to refute a single one.

Which is not to say that I agree with the article in its entirety, nor that I doubt that at least some of the factual assertions therein cannot be effectively disputed.

It is curious however that Mark can dismiss the article as "rubbish" in his first post on this thread but is apparently unwilling or unable to refute the facts on a point-by-point basis. I would like to see a refutation of the facts, not the author's opinions. For instance, did Garrison meet Rosselli in Las Vegas or not?

Edited October 26, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Tim, the Pearson article blaming Bobby for his brother's death was almost certainly planted by LBJ as a political reprisal for Bobby's coming out against the war. Pearson had sat on the story for months but only put it out the day after Bobby's speech. Pearson personally met with LBJ to discuss the Rosselli story, only it wasn't actually the Rosselli story, it was the Maheu story, per the Church Committee testimony of both Morgan and Rosselli. Should one doubt that Pearson would perform such hatchet-work on behalf of LBJ one should be aware that Pearson had a secret meeting planned at LBJ's ranch on the night of November 22nd, 1963, (per Pearson's Oral History at the LBJ Library. The purpose of the meeting? A brainstorming session on how to protect LBJ from the Bobby Baker scandal, Don Reynolds' testimony in particular. Pearson subsequently ran a series of articles attacking the credibility of Mr. Reynolds.

Lookat the opening line of the article: LBJ is sitting on an H-bomb... This is an obvious effort to distance LBJ from the leak. The timing of the article and the spin blaming Bobby was LBJ all the way.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim's posts were excellent, I thought.

I notice that when I asked Mark to dispute any of the factual assertions in the article Lynee posted, he singularly failed to refute a single one.

Which is not to say that I agree with the article in its entirety, nor that I doubt that at least some of the factual assertions therein cannot be effectively disputed.

It is curious however that Mark can dismiss the article as "rubbish" in his first post on this thread but is apparently unwilling or unable to refute the facts on a point-by-point basis. I would like to see a refutation of the facts, not the author's opinions. For instance, did Garrison meet Rosselli in Las Vegas or not?

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these? The CIA said Garrison met Rosselli, eh? The CIA is an organisation of such unimpeachable integrity that everything they claim must be a "fact", right? And I always thought that the burden of proof lay with the claimant.

Prove Garrison met Roselli, Tim. Garrison was accusing the CIA of murdering JFK wasn't he?

[John Simkin]

Tim, the Pearson article blaming Bobby for his brother's death was almost certainly planted by LBJ as a political reprisal for Bobby's coming out against the war. Pearson had sat on the story for months but only put it out the day after Bobby's speech. Pearson personally met with LBJ to discuss the Rosselli story, only it wasn't actually the Rosselli story, it was the Maheu story, per the Church Committee testimony of both Morgan and Rosselli. Should one doubt that Pearson would perform such hatchet-work on behalf of LBJ one should be aware that Pearson had a secret meeting planned at LBJ's ranch on the night of November 22nd, 1963, (per Pearson's Oral History at the LBJ Library. The purpose of the meeting? A brainstorming session on how to protect LBJ from the Bobby Baker scandal, Don Reynolds' testimony in particular. Pearson subsequently ran a series of articles attacking the credibility of Mr. Reynolds.

Lookat the opening line of the article: LBJ is sitting on an H-bomb... This is an obvious effort to distance LBJ from the leak. The timing of the article and the spin blaming Bobby was LBJ all the way.

Fascinating. I did not know about this meeting. However, I do know about the numerous phone-calls that LBJ made to journalists and politicians about the Don Reynolds problem. In fact, it has been noted that in the weeks following his arrival in the White House he was far more concerned about Reynolds than he was about Oswald. Understandably, given the testimony that Reynolds gave to the Senate Rules Committee on the day JFK was assassinated.

On 17th January, 1964, the Senate Rules Committee voted to release to the public Reynolds' secret testimony. LBJ responded by leaking information from Reynolds' FBI file to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. On 5th February, 1964, the Washington Post reported that Reynolds had lied about his academic success at West Point. The article also claimed that Reynolds had been a supporter of Joseph McCarthy and had accused business rivals of being secret members of the American Communist Party. It was also revealed that Reynolds had made anti-Semitic remarks while in Berlin in 1953.

A few weeks later the New York Times reported that LBJ had used information from secret government documents to smear Reynolds. It also reported that Johnson's officials had been applying pressure on the editors of newspapers not to print information that had been disclosed by Reynolds in front of the Senate Rules Committee. The story never took off but when the LBJ tapes were released, it was clear that the New York Times story was completely accurate.

What is also interesting is that in his book "Forty Years Against the Tide", Carl Curtis, who was one of those senators calling for a full investigation into the Don Reynolds affair, admitted that he and John Williams had been relying on leaks coming from Robert Kennedy.

Does anyone know what happened to Don Reynolds? I assume he must have had an accident in about 1964/65.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKreynoldsD.htm

[Tim Gratz]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?

Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.

And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?

Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.

And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.

Tim:

Jim Garrison absolutely denies this meeting in a personal letter to me in 1986. The letter is actually posted at Wim's site, just click on "Jim Garrison" (-on the left panel) and read his actual words.

If you still presist in this, then you'll be calling the DA himself a xxxx.

Your pro- CIA bias is so annoying.

Otherwise, I love this forum. Am too busy with work of late to keep up the way I'd like... great posts folks. Lots of good work being done here!! John this group may just solve this damn case.

Now we've gotta get the media to get on board. Tim what happened to your Discovery Channel idea? It seems you have lots of time to post here with your anti Garrison, the KGB/Castro- did- it nonsense, but do you ever do anything to advance the solving of this case? You had a gret idea there, it would be terrific to see you put your words into action. (Also glad you weathered the storm).

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Dawn

[John Simkin]

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Interesting comparison. Are you following this thread on George Bush and the CIA?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297

The 2000 figure is of course an under estimate. For example, Elaina Morton's name does not appear on the list. She was a 23-year-old lab technician from Kansas who committed suicide after hearing her husband, Ben Morton, had been killed in Iraq.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Interesting comparison. Are you following this thread on George Bush and the CIA?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4297

The 2000 figure is of course an under estimate. For example, Elaina Morton's name does not appear on the list. She was a 23-year-old lab technician from Kansas who committed suicide after hearing her husband, Ben Morton, had been killed in Iraq.

Although it will certainly "ire" many, may I point to the simple fact that:

Had US forces engaged in "Live Fire" training exercises, conducted only within the boundaries of the Continental United States, for the period of time and with the numbers of forces which are in Iraq, then the causualy rate would quite possibly have been close to 50% of the 2,000 figure as quoted.

And, this is without any engagement with enemy forces.

Whereas approximately 50% of the casualties suffered in Vietnam were "SIW/SIC" (self-inflicted wounds/self-inflicted casualties), one must assume that a considerable amount of those casualties suffered in Iraq are of somewhat the same nature.

Not to mention the numbers of those who died as a result of such intelligent activities as over-inflation of a tire which blew up and killed the perpetrator; general traffic accidents; etc, etc, etc.

As any "turkey hunter" in South MS will inform you, when one plays with live bullets, someone or something is going to get shot.

By comparison, the 1860's population of the United States lost 620,000 of it's "American citizens" in the Civil War, to free from slavery the black race of it's population. Which today has ultimately resulted in their rights to vote in free elections in this country.

Even by 1860's population figures, 2,000 casualties is only 0.32% of those americans who died in the Civil War over the "freedom" issue.

And, if one were to fully check the statistics, they would find that murder alone in the US, during the period of 1990 to 1994, accounted for 119,700 documented deaths, or a documented rate of 23,940 murders per year.

Were these figures to be repeatedly "waved" into the face of the American public, then one could rest assured that the increase in "capital punishment"/aka imposition of the death penalty would rise proportionally.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm

Just may place some of this into it's proper perspective.

The "civilized" world sat by, and in many instances helped fund the Hitler activities against a few million jews, only to become fully engaged against Germany when it imposed a threat to their own government/country borders.

Anyone out there who desires to wait again for such actions?

Perhaps some of those of you who have never experienced the unpleasant activity of having been shot at would rather wait until such activities draw us into a conflict in which many, many thousands of american lives will have to be lost.

If so, please be the first to volunteer, as it is your freedoms as well as mine that are being infringed upon.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?

Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.

And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.

Tim:

Jim Garrison absolutely denies this meeting in a personal letter to me in 1986. The letter is actually posted at Wim's site, just click on "Jim Garrison" (-on the left panel) and read his actual words.

If you still presist in this, then you'll be calling the DA himself a xxxx.

Your pro- CIA bias is so annoying.

Otherwise, I love this forum. Am too busy with work of late to keep up the way I'd like... great posts folks. Lots of good work being done here!! John this group may just solve this damn case.

Now we've gotta get the media to get on board. Tim what happened to your Discovery Channel idea? It seems you have lots of time to post here with your anti Garrison, the KGB/Castro- did- it nonsense, but do you ever do anything to advance the solving of this case? You had a gret idea there, it would be terrific to see you put your words into action. (Also glad you weathered the storm).

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Dawn

"Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???"

Surely, this comment must be a "joke"!

[Lynne Foster]

The real Jim Garrison was a man without courage and without integrity --a coward --so much unlike Oliver Stone's version.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The real Jim Garrison was a man without courage and without integrity --a coward --so much unlike Oliver Stone's version.

Shall we say that he knew exactly which person to "kiss" on the hand and which person to "kiss" on the "A".

Of course, that is politics anywhere, not just in New Orleans.

However, he certainly deserves high marks for showmanship.

[Larry Hancock]

Mark Stapleton wrote:

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?

Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.

And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.

Tim:

Jim Garrison absolutely denies this meeting in a personal letter to me in 1986. The letter is actually posted at Wim's site, just click on "Jim Garrison" (-on the left panel) and read his actual words.

If you still presist in this, then you'll be calling the DA himself a xxxx.

Your pro- CIA bias is so annoying.

Otherwise, I love this forum. Am too busy with work of late to keep up the way I'd like... great posts folks. Lots of good work being done here!! John this group may just solve this damn case.

Now we've gotta get the media to get on board. Tim what happened to your Discovery Channel idea? It seems you have lots of time to post here with your anti Garrison, the KGB/Castro- did- it nonsense, but do you ever do anything to advance the solving of this case? You had a gret idea there, it would be terrific to see you put your words into action. (Also glad you weathered the storm).

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Dawn

[Larry Hancock]

OK, this time maybe I'll get my reply in the correct place when I post the message.

Dawn, Joan Mellen covers this subject in some good detail in her book, she

describes Garrison's denial, Roselli's denial and some of the CIA internal memoranda

on the subject. It's one of those places where I'd like to have the actual CIA documents

in my hands though because it does appear to be an internal CIA communication - raising

the question of why would the CIA lie to itself (or create internal disinformation?).

Now if it were CI lieing to Plans I suppose that would not be unusual...grin. Or if

it were CIA pitching ot to their media outlets. But at that point in time of course the last thing

the CIA would seem to want to do is to get anybody to take a close look at Roselli

and possibly stumble up against the Castro assassination projects.

There also seems to be a little confusion in the whole thing in that at first the

story was that Garrison had met with Meheu.

Of course the background for all this is that this is the same period in which

Roselli took his little "team turned by Castro onto JFK" story to Warren, and

Warren took it to SS and FBI and they all ignored it. Roselli had to shop the

story through Davidson to his office mate Jack Anderson and Anderson then

wrote his little bombshell which put Johnson in motion. That certainly was not

a happy thing for the CIA and led eventually to the Church committee, a very

unhappy outcome for them.

As usual nothing is simple... Larry

Mark Stapleton wrote:

HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?

Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.

And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.

Tim:

Jim Garrison absolutely denies this meeting in a personal letter to me in 1986. The letter is actually posted at Wim's site, just click on "Jim Garrison" (-on the left panel) and read his actual words.

If you still presist in this, then you'll be calling the DA himself a xxxx.

Your pro- CIA bias is so annoying.

Otherwise, I love this forum. Am too busy with work of late to keep up the way I'd like... great posts folks. Lots of good work being done here!! John this group may just solve this damn case.

Now we've gotta get the media to get on board. Tim what happened to your Discovery Channel idea? It seems you have lots of time to post here with your anti Garrison, the KGB/Castro- did- it nonsense, but do you ever do anything to advance the solving of this case? You had a gret idea there, it would be terrific to see you put your words into action. (Also glad you weathered the storm).

ON a different note 2,000 dead Americans over the lies of this most corrupt administration. Will there be indictments? Is Fitzgerald made of the courage that was the late great Jim Garrison???

Dawn

[Ron Ecker]

one should be aware that Pearson had a secret meeting planned at LBJ's ranch on the night of November 22nd, 1963, (per Pearson's Oral History at the LBJ Library. The purpose of the meeting? A brainstorming session on how to protect LBJ from the Bobby Baker scandal, Don Reynolds' testimony in particular.

The night of 11/22 seems like an odd time for LBJ to schedule a meeting at the ranch with Pearson or anyone else on how to save his political hide, since he was supposed to play host to JFK at the ranch that night. No big deal, but I would think it more likely that LBJ would wait till JFK left the next day before having Pearson drop in.

Maybe LBJ planned to have his lookalike cousin entertain JFK that night while he met with Pearson. Or perhaps, more likely, Pearson didn't know JFK was supposed to be at the ranch on 11/22 when he told this story.