Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think Life magazine is a very good source.

New Orleans was the Big Easy and Jim Garrison was the Big Boss who didn't rock the boat.

He may have talked about Huey Long, but he survived because Garrison, the man who was affiliated with the mob served their interests well --as long as he was the DA, Carlos Marcello had nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think Life magazine is a very good source.

New Orleans was the Big Easy and Jim Garrison was the Big Boss who didn't rock the boat.

He may have talked about Huey Long, but he survived because Garrison, the man who was affiliated with the mob served their interests well --as long as he was the DA, Carlos Marcello had nothing to worry about.

Lynne,

To claim that Garrison was affiliated with the mob and "served their interests well" is a very long stretch.

Earlier in this thread Mark Knight, in referring to Jim Garrison, used the expression "he let his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass". Mr. Knight was obviously quite pleased with his efforts as he referred to the expression again on another thread shortly thereafter. However, I think the expression more aptly fits Mark Knight rather than Jim Garrison. Garrison's not a suspect, he was an investigator. Although long dead, he contributed more to the case than Mark Knight or yourself ever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Garrison attacked Robert Kennedy when Kennedy had the unmitigated

gall to speak up in defense of his friend Walter Sheridan after Garrison charged

Sheridan for public bribery.

Paris Flammonde reports in *The Kennedy Conspiracy* that Robert F. Kennedy

responded in this way to the charges against Sheridan:

"I have been fortunate to know and work with Walter Sheridan for many years.

Like all of those who have known him and his work, I have the utmost confidence

in his integrity, both personal and professional."

"This view was shared by President Kennedy himself, with whom Mr. Sheridan was

associated for many years in a relationship of utmost trust and affection."

Flammonde writes, "Sheridan, a former official of the Department of Justice,

was chief investigator for the Senate Rackets Committee was its chief counsel.

He later served under the late Senator when he was the Attorney General of the

United States."

When Jim Garrison attacked the Federal government, he was as credible as

Carlos Marcello's claim that he was a tomato salesman. Garrison and Marcello

were evidently cut from the same cloth.

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the Jolly Green giant was not affiliated

with the mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

".

I believe that Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans who put local businessman Clay Betrand on trial in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, sums it all up perfectly in the October 1967 Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Many of the professional critics of the Warren Commission appear to be prompted by political motives: Those on the left are anxious to prove Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy within the establishment; and those on the right are eager to prove the assassination was an act of "the international Communist conspiracy." Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?

JIM GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the State and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity . . .

I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change, there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow men.

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly eroding into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the State. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and the Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.

In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here the process is more subtle, but the end results are the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the State and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

Robert:

Thank you so much for posting this portion of Garrison's magnificent "Playboy" interview. (I still have mine in a file). His words "fascism will come to America in the name of national security" have been quoted by me countless times over the years as Ihave watched, in horror, at just HOW bad this nation has become. Garrison was almost psychic in preceiving where we were headed.

Dawn

When Jim Garrison attacked the Federal government, he was as credible as

Carlos Marcello's claim that he was a tomato salesman. Garrison and Marcello

were evidently cut from the same cloth.

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the Jolly Green giant was not affiliated

with the mob.

As I noted earlier, I think the timing of Joan Mellen's book and the sudden appearance of this "Canadian researcher" who has NOTHING TO SAY except trash Garrison is quite interesting.

OK Lynne, we know you like and trust "Life" magazine....

Now do ou have ANYTHING to contribute to the debate on the murder of JFK???

We know you detest Garrison, but is that the only song you know? Do you actually have any other thoughts on this matter?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

".

I believe that Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans who put local businessman Clay Betrand on trial in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, sums it all up perfectly in the October 1967 Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Many of the professional critics of the Warren Commission appear to be prompted by political motives: Those on the left are anxious to prove Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy within the establishment; and those on the right are eager to prove the assassination was an act of "the international Communist conspiracy." Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?

JIM GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the State and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity . . .

I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change, there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow men.

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly eroding into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the State. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and the Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.

In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here the process is more subtle, but the end results are the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the State and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

Robert:

Thank you so much for posting this portion of Garrison's magnificent "Playboy" interview. (I still have mine in a file). His words "fascism will come to America in the name of national security" have been quoted by me countless times over the years as Ihave watched, in horror, at just HOW bad this nation has become. Garrison was almost psychic in preceiving where we were headed.

Dawn

When Jim Garrison attacked the Federal government, he was as credible as

Carlos Marcello's claim that he was a tomato salesman. Garrison and Marcello

were evidently cut from the same cloth.

I think it's a stretch to suggest that the Jolly Green giant was not affiliated

with the mob.

As I noted earlier, I think the timing of Joan Mellen's book and the sudden appearance of this "Canadian researcher" who has NOTHING TO SAY except trash Garrison is quite interesting.

OK Lynne, we know you like and trust "Life" magazine....

Now do ou have ANYTHING to contribute to the debate on the murder of JFK???

We know you detest Garrison, but is that the only song you know? Do you actually have any other thoughts on this matter?

Dawn

Ditto, I would ask our "newest member" if she is familiar with the term "Internet xxxxx," you should look into it. The forum membership you save may be your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Life magazine is a very good source.

New Orleans was the Big Easy and Jim Garrison was the Big Boss who didn't rock the boat.

He may have talked about Huey Long, but he survived because Garrison, the man who was affiliated with the mob served their interests well --as long as he was the DA, Carlos Marcello had nothing to worry about.

Then why did Marcello attempt to remove Garrison from office? Jeez. You aren't even trying to support this garbage anymore.

How you can say Life is a good source after the information I have posted about their hit piece is beyond me. You have now moved into the stage of saying that you "think" or "genuinely believe" these allegations without bothering to support the validity of your belief.

I also see that you have somehow gotten hold of Paris Flammonde's book. That's very selective quoting there. If you were honest with yourself you would know that Flammonde pretty much destroys Sheridan's whitepaper (with a point-by-point refutation) and reveals his unethical tactics (giving the full accounts of those witnesses Sheridan tried to bribe).

If you are interested in any sort of truth, I suggest you take Dawn's advice and read Mellen's book.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At best, Jim Garrison was an incompetent DA. At worst, he was affiliated with the mob.

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter --he proved to be useless.

I think the New Orleans electorate disagreed with you re: Jim Garrison's "incompetence."

It's nice to know that you are now at least holding out the option that Garrison was not mob connected. You seemed so totally sure of yourself just a short while ago.

Perhaps Jim Garrison has proved useless to you because he doesn't help the LBJ/FBI/Mob (pick one, two, or all of these together) did it crowd, but that does not make any of what he uncovered "useless."

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Earling Carothers "Jim" Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans who put local businessman Clay Betrand on trial in connection with the assassination of John F. Kennedy, sums it all up perfectly in the October 1967 Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: Many of the professional critics of the Warren Commission appear to be prompted by political motives: Those on the left are anxious to prove Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy within the establishment; and those on the right are eager to prove the assassination was an act of "the international Communist conspiracy." Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum--right, left or center?

JIM GARRISON: That's a question I've asked myself frequently, especially since this investigation started and I found myself in an incongruous and disillusioning battle with agencies of my own Government. I can't just sit down and add up my political beliefs like a mathematical sum, but I think, in balance, I'd turn up somewhere around the middle. Over the years, I guess I've developed a somewhat conservative attitude--in the traditional libertarian sense of conservatism, as opposed to the thumbscrew-and-rack conservatism of the paramilitary right--particularly in regard to the importance of the individual as opposed to the State and the individual's own responsibilities to humanity . . .

I was with the artillery supporting the division that took Dachau; I arrived there the day after it was taken, when bulldozers were making pyramids of human bodies outside the camp. What I saw there has haunted me ever since. Because the law is my profession, I've always wondered about the judges throughout Germany who sentenced men to jail for picking pockets at a time when their own government was jerking gold from the teeth of men murdered in gas chambers. I'm concerned about all of this because it isn't a German phenomenon; it's a human phenomenon. It can happen here, because there has been no change, there has been no progress and there has been no increase of understanding on the part of men for their fellow men.

What worries me deeply, and I have seen it exemplified in this case, is that we in America are in great danger of slowly eroding into a proto-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the State. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and the Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.

In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here the process is more subtle, but the end results are the same. I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the State and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

That is a tremendous passage. It's hard to believe Garrison said this off the cuff in an interview, as it doesn't sound like spontaneous musings. It's a very well written essay. In any case, it's right on, words truer today than when Garrison said them four decades ago. Impressive and depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At best, Jim Garrison was an incompetent DA. At worst, he was affiliated with the mob.

In the final analysis, it doesn't matter --he proved to be useless.

********************************************************

Debra Conway posted this description, explaining the modus operandi

of "Internet Trolls" on her JFKLancer site, a few months back.

I find it quite apropo with regard to your not-so-subtle attempts to distract, disrupt, and provoke other forum members with your haughty, abusive retorts by which you persist in claiming to be done in the name of, research(?).

__________________________________________________________

Subject: "What is an Internet xxxxx?" Previous topic | Next topic

Debra Conway Wed Jul-20-05 07:51 PM

Member since Dec 31st 2002

650 posts

#33535, "What is an Internet xxxxx?"

Excerpts from the article

"Internet Trolls"

Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell

July 13 2001 Edition

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

What is an Internet xxxxx?

An Internet "xxxxx" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Why does it Matter?

Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a xxxxx and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

<...snip...>

The Webmaster's Challenge

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a xxxxx's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the xxxxx.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a xxxxx based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a xxxxx does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the xxxxx can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a xxxxx that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the xxxxx actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.

What about Free Speech?

When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.

While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.

Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.

The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.

When a xxxxx attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a xxxxx that he is not welcome, the xxxxx has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the xxxxx might be justified in asking for a refund.)

Conclusion

Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a xxxxx, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "xxxxx Alert" and type only this:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

By posting such a message, you let the xxxxx know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.

Read whole article:

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

---

Please visit the rest of our website

at http://www.jfklancer.com

Alert | IP Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a xxxxx is somebody who posts stuff that is boring, like your above post that I did not bother to read, past the first 2 sentences.

Moreover, I think the fact that you people are evidently hero-worshiping Jim Garrison is disturbing.

Hitler condemned Communism in the name of Democracy, and in a similar fashion, Garrison condemned Fascism, in the name of Democracy.

That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.

What if Garrison had never been born? What would you find disturbing then? Well, let's see, there's Lovelady. You find it disturbing that people believe anything that xxxx said about being in the TSBD doorway, along with the other 5 liars who were on the same step. What if Lovelady had never been born? What would you find disturbing then? Never mind, I'm sure you'd find something if you don't have a list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a xxxxx is somebody who posts stuff that is boring, like your above post that I did not bother to read, past the first 2 sentences.

Moreover, I think the fact that you people are evidently hero-worshiping Jim Garrison is disturbing.

Hitler condemned Communism in the name of Democracy, and in a similar fashion, Garrison condemned Fascism, in the name of Democracy.

That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.

You can't win. The Forum's well informed about Garrison. You can't run this line. You won't be able to post on other assassination issues because no one will listen--you'll have no credibility in the tank. Someone's led you up the wrong path, Lynne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Stapleton, I think you have misunderstood my comments about Jim Garrison.

I believe that Jim Garrison's investigation served a very worthy purpose, in that it brought out information that might otherwise have remained buried. Without Jim Garrison's investigation, there would have been no "JFK" movie, which reignited public interest in the assassination and prompted the release of reams of previously classified documents.

But I also can see that Jim Garrison did not deliver what he promised. His investigation resulted in NO convictions, and due to the characterizations in the press of the investigation and prosecution as "half-baked," did much to discredit ALL critics of the Warren Commission whitewash.

It is in respect to the failure to deliver any convictions that my comments about "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass" were aimed. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to making grandiose claims that one is unable to back up. In that respect, I stand by my comments.

The fact is, I think Garrison WAS on the right track, at least initially. I think that Garrison was valuable to ALL researchers, because of both his initial revelations AND by what has come from NARA, for which Garrison is indirectly responsible.

In that light, I don't quite understand your attack on me personally. Just because I don't think Garrison delivered what he promised, and because I don't deify Garrison, doesn't mean that my aim is to trash Garrison, as is the apparent aim of Lynne Foster. Had Garrison's investigation resulted in ONE conviction, I might be bowing down at the altar of Garrison, as many apparently are. But while I'm not canonizing Garrison, neither am I attempting to throw out his contributions to the assassination investigation with the garbage. I'm just trying to call it fairly and honestly.

And Garrison delivered less than he promised. In redneck terms, that is the definition of "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass." Happens all the time in this part of the world, and often to good people, or to people with good intentions and lots of confidence. It just means that had he not built such grandiose expectations, folks like Lynne Foster might have been a bit more charitable toward Garrison and his intentions...which is what I think he deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...