Jump to content

Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone


Lynne Foster
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Forgive me for popping in here, but this topic/thread just seems so polarized.

Is there no middle ground? Does one have to loathe or love Garrison?

Could he have been sincere? Could he have unearthed some interesting material? Could he have made mistakes?

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out.

In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them.

That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent.

The polarization on this board has caught me off guard, I think Jim Garrison is smiling.

Edited by Lynne Foster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for popping in here, but this topic/thread just seems so polarized.

Is there no middle ground? Does one have to loathe or love Garrison?

Could he have been sincere? Could he have unearthed some interesting material? Could he have made mistakes?

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out.

In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them.

That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent.

I don't understand this. On what basis do you conclude this re: Garrison's Playboy interview? Is it his eloquence? His incisive analysis of the national security state means that he must have some sort of inside knowledge of it? This is nonsense.

As for Garrison being loyal to Hoover; this is also nonsense. I refer you back to my original rebuttal.

Again, you state what you "believe;" that Garrison spied on Warren Report critics. This speculation is unaided by any facts. You appear to be totally spellbound by this Mat Wilson person and his various articles (virtually everything you post is derived from one of these), he must be a close personal friend of yours.

The only things I am finding disturbing are your posts, in that they are so reckless, baseless, and hard-headed. Consider this my last response to you.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me for popping in here, but this topic/thread just seems so polarized.

Is there no middle ground? Does one have to loathe or love Garrison?

Could he have been sincere? Could he have unearthed some interesting material? Could he have made mistakes?

When I read Garrison's Playboy interview, I came to the conclusion that he knew who murdered John F. Kennedy, but like Jack Ruby indicated, the people who did it were so powerful, that they would never let the truth come out.

In Garrison's case, some of those people, J. Edgar Hoover in particular, were his formar employers, and he was forever loyal to them.

That is why I believe Garrison essentially spied on the critics -he was a double agent.

I don't understand this. On what basis do you conclude this re: Garrison's Playboy interview? Is it his eloquence? His incisive analysis of the national security state means that he must have some sort of inside knowledge of it? This is nonsense.

As for Garrison being loyal to Hoover; this is also nonsense. I refer you back to my original rebuttal.

Again, you state what you "believe;" that Garrison spied on Warren Report critics. This speculation is unaided by any facts. You appear to be totally spellbound by this Mat Wilson person and his various articles (virtually everything you post is derived from one of these), he must be a close personal friend of yours.

The only things I am finding disturbing are your posts, in that they are so reckless, baseless, and hard-headed. Consider this my last response to you.

It sounds like I am supposed to agree with you. That's what Dawn Meredith said, but she keeps posting.

It sounds like you have a grievance with Mat Wilson, I don't know what that has to do with me.

As far as I am concerned, the only reliable investigator on this board is Joshiah Thompson, I don't know why you are hung up about Mat wilson, an investigator that I was introduced through the Spartacus website.

Maybe,you should complain to the moderator about that.

When I assess Jim Garrison. I compare his general [eloquent & "visionary"] rhetoric with his specific actions and the combination is so disjointed, I cannot possibly believe that he is not acting on behalf of somebody like J. Edgar Hoover.

You may not share my belief, but without a significant RFK-like campaign to fight the mafia, I see no distinction between J. Edgar Hoover and Jim Garrison.

Edited by Lynne Foster
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.

Mr. Knight, (since you appear to insist on this formality when referring to me)

No, I didn't misunderstand your post. I read it carefully and understood it fully. Also, I do know what the expression means. Why would I have posted if I didn't know what it meant, but thanks anyway for patronisingly defining it for me.

Far from bowing at the altar of Garrison, as "many apparently are", I was simply responding to what I considered to be a cheap shot at a person to whom I have high regard. If I wanted to worship Garrison I would probably be constantly starting threads about him. The thread was initiated by Lynne Foster who, with Tom Purvis, appears to harbor a visceral dislike of Garrison. That's fine. I don't know why they feel that way and I don't really care but I've always considered your posts rational and perceptive. That's why I immediately suggested you may be being a bit tough on him, considering the unfavorable circumstances under which the investigation was conducted. Insofar as Garrison building grandiose expectations, how many investigators, when prosecuting a case of such international importance, are going to talk down their chances prior to the trial?

I fully acknowledge Garrison failed to achieve a conviction, the most important of his intended aims. But he still achieved plenty, even though it doesn't show on the official scorecard. Some focus only on the scorecard and disregard everything else. Unfair, IMO. I'm just trying to call it fairly and honestly too, as you claim to be doing. From my perspective, Lynne and Tom are not being fair and honest and your joining their chorus, even as a minor player, and with a smart-ass comment thrown in, warranted my response.

Like you, I also stand by my comments.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
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.

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

"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."

Yes, and that's exactly the point. The media already had orders to take him down, by way of character assassination and by discrediting his work, on behalf of their sponsors. His case didn't stand a "snowball's chance in hell", to quote another metaphorical phrase. Whose does, and even after all these years?

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.

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

"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."

You would, wouldn't you? That's because you're just as boring in your insistence upon remaining so uninformed.

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

I find the brand of "democracy" being tossed around by the Bush administration today, to be equally disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media had orders to take him down?

That's strange. In fact, the media was at Jim Garrison's beckon call.

Like he said, if I listen to you all, "black is white and white is black".

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

Why was the media at his beckon call.? See for yourself.....the why..

"The Media, the CIA and the JFK Assassination"

In the JFK case, we find many journalists were serving two masters - the press and the FBI or the CIA, depending on which journalist you are talking about. For example: Jack Anderson, famous for his 'breakthrough' investigative journalism, briefed the FBI after talking to Jim Garrison. He told the FBI Garrison had quite a case, and was quite serious in his efforts. [FBI document from 4-4-67, referenced in Unreliable Sources] But what did Anderson tell the American public? That it looked like the president had been killed in what might have been a Communist plot!

During the Garrison investigation, worried about public opinion, the CIA sent out this operational memorandum instructing media assets how to respond to critics of the Warren Commission's lone assassin verdict. Instructions include trying to associate critics with Communists, and trying to insinuate that the critics are only in it for money (neither of which has any bearing on reality, if my own experiences are worth anything!)

Leading the charge against Jim Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans in Louisiana, when he attempted to prosecute Clay Shaw along with others on the charge of conspiracy to assassination President Kennedy, was Saturday Evening Post writer James Phel an. Like Priscilla, Phelan proved to be serving two masters. While ostensibly working as a journalist, Phelan was also informing to the FBI on Garrison's case, sending them copies of documents from Garrison's case files. Here are a couple of FBI documents on Jim Phelan:

Jim Phelan FBI documents

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/media.htm#Wh...s%20the%20Truth

"The CIA's Interest in Garrison's Case"

Once Garrison started looking into the case, people affiliated with the CIA kept popping up over and over. Garrison came to believe the CIA had direct involvement in the assassination. Garrison's interest in the CIA was returned in kind. This file from the Assassination Archives in Washington demonstrates the CIA's keen interest not just in the defendent Clay Shaw, who had covert security clearance to operate with the CIA, but in a man solely called to testify about the impossibility of the "single bullet theory".

That Counterintelligence Director for the CIA Jim Angleton would find it necessary not only to spy but to work with Hoover's FBI in an attempt to dig up dirt on this innocent man's background is key to understanding the nature of (and perhaps reason for) the CIA's intense interest in wrecking Garrison's case.

Angleton Spying on Garrison's Witness

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/...fk/garrison.htm

"Media Distortions"

When JFK was assassinated, Dan Rather was a small town TV newscaster in Texas. It was he who, immediately after viewing the Zapruder film, reported to all America that John Kennedy's head was "rocketed forward" by the head shot.

The Zapruder film then vanished into TIME/Life's vaults, never to be publicly seen until the Jim Garrison trial subpoenaed it, and Dan Rather leapt to network status.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/lie.html

"Mockingbird"

""An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable

behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign

against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie

was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months

before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft

of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the

Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this

article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile

statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner

does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a

U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government

witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted

under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television

reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case

against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the

Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently

asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered

it (*71).""

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...ockingbird.html

""I only wish the press would allow our case to stand or fall on its merits in court. It appears that certain elements of the mass media have an active interest in preventing this case from ever coming to trial at all and find it necessary to employ against me every smear device in the book. ""...Jim Garrison

Jim Garrison, whether we agree with all or not, was the only official within the Unites States to ever

bring anyone, to trial for being involved in the Assassination of President John F.Kennedy..

The man named Clay Shaw, alias Clay Bertram, upon information found in documents that were later released,

was also proven to have been a C.I.A. employee....

Had this information been allowed, as it should have been at the trial....Jim Garrison

would have had a conviction, as it was the proof, that connected, Clay Bertram,

to the assassination dealings....Clay Shaw was Clay Bertram....

B..

B)

Edited by Bernice Moore
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.

Is there an echo in here? Are you merely a parrot and can only say three sentences?

B-O-R-=I-N-G.

Just what is your purpose here Lynne?

Every word you write is a lie.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The media had orders to take him down?

That's strange. In fact, the media was at Jim Garrison's beckon call.

Like he said, if I listen to you all, "black is white and white is black".

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

Why was the media at his beckon call.? See for yourself.....the why..

"The Media, the CIA and the JFK Assassination"

In the JFK case, we find many journalists were serving two masters - the press and the FBI or the CIA, depending on which journalist you are talking about. For example: Jack Anderson, famous for his 'breakthrough' investigative journalism, briefed the FBI after talking to Jim Garrison. He told the FBI Garrison had quite a case, and was quite serious in his efforts. [FBI document from 4-4-67, referenced in Unreliable Sources] But what did Anderson tell the American public? That it looked like the president had been killed in what might have been a Communist plot!

During the Garrison investigation, worried about public opinion, the CIA sent out this operational memorandum instructing media assets how to respond to critics of the Warren Commission's lone assassin verdict. Instructions include trying to associate critics with Communists, and trying to insinuate that the critics are only in it for money (neither of which has any bearing on reality, if my own experiences are worth anything!)

Leading the charge against Jim Garrison, District Attorney for New Orleans in Louisiana, when he attempted to prosecute Clay Shaw along with others on the charge of conspiracy to assassination President Kennedy, was Saturday Evening Post writer James Phel an. Like Priscilla, Phelan proved to be serving two masters. While ostensibly working as a journalist, Phelan was also informing to the FBI on Garrison's case, sending them copies of documents from Garrison's case files. Here are a couple of FBI documents on Jim Phelan:

Jim Phelan FBI documents

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/media.htm#Wh...s%20the%20Truth

"The CIA's Interest in Garrison's Case"

Once Garrison started looking into the case, people affiliated with the CIA kept popping up over and over. Garrison came to believe the CIA had direct involvement in the assassination. Garrison's interest in the CIA was returned in kind. This file from the Assassination Archives in Washington demonstrates the CIA's keen interest not just in the defendent Clay Shaw, who had covert security clearance to operate with the CIA, but in a man solely called to testify about the impossibility of the "single bullet theory".

That Counterintelligence Director for the CIA Jim Angleton would find it necessary not only to spy but to work with Hoover's FBI in an attempt to dig up dirt on this innocent man's background is key to understanding the nature of (and perhaps reason for) the CIA's intense interest in wrecking Garrison's case.

Angleton Spying on Garrison's Witness

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/...fk/garrison.htm

"Media Distortions"

When JFK was assassinated, Dan Rather was a small town TV newscaster in Texas. It was he who, immediately after viewing the Zapruder film, reported to all America that John Kennedy's head was "rocketed forward" by the head shot.

The Zapruder film then vanished into TIME/Life's vaults, never to be publicly seen until the Jim Garrison trial subpoenaed it, and Dan Rather leapt to network status.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/lie.html

"Mockingbird"

""An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable

behavior is George Lardner Jr's contribution to the Post's campaign

against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie

was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months

before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft

of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the

Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this

article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile

statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner

does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a

U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government

witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted

under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television

reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government's case

against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post's 1973 account of the

Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently

asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered

it (*71).""

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/P...ockingbird.html

""I only wish the press would allow our case to stand or fall on its merits in court. It appears that certain elements of the mass media have an active interest in preventing this case from ever coming to trial at all and find it necessary to employ against me every smear device in the book. ""...Jim Garrison

Jim Garrison, whether we agree with all or not, was the only official within the Unites States to ever

bring anyone, to trial for being involved in the Assassination of President John F.Kennedy..

The man named Clay Shaw, alias Clay Bertram, upon information found in documents that were later released,

was also proven to have been a C.I.A. employee....

Had this information been allowed, as it should have been at the trial....Jim Garrison

would have had a conviction, as it was the proof, that connected, Clay Bertram,

to the assassination dealings....Clay Shaw was Clay Bertram....

B..

B)

HI B.

You don't post a lot but when you do it's always great. Not that this will shut up our own little net xxxxx.

Thanx Ter for the description of such a character. Of course Lynne did not read it: it hit home too hard.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA had every right to investigate Jim Garrison because he made outrageous claims about them.

I didn't know that the CIA was in the business of investigating U.S. citizens. I thought that the CIA's job was to "collect information" on foreign governments (which of course soon turned into overthrowing them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA had every right to investigate Jim Garrison because he made outrageous claims about them.

I didn't know that the CIA was in the business of investigating U.S. citizens. I thought that the CIA's job was to "collect information" on foreign governments (which of course soon turned into overthrowing them).

Garrison targeted the CIA and I believe they had every right to know what that was all about.

I do not blame the CIA for investigating the man who essentially accused them of covering up the plot to murder the President of the United States.

But to suggest that he was on to something, simply because he goaded the CIA...that's not reasonable.

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...