Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone

[Terry Mauro]

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).

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

"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).

They weren't supposed to be, but we now know, after 40 years of researching, that they did the FBI's job better than Hoover could have ever hoped to.

Hey Bernie, good to see you stepping up to the plate, and just in the knick of time, too, I might add.

Keep on slugging, Dawn! I'm right behind you gals.

Don't worry, Mark S. I believe we've got it covered. But thanks again, for the support. You too, Mark K.

Nobody's worshipping at anyone's altar, here. We're merely offended by the mendacious attitude projected by "Know-It-All" Foster, and the rest of her cheering squad. But then again, we are here to debate, are we not? Therefore, let us be masterful about it. I've found Mr. Parsons and Mr. Brooks to be quite adept at the art, on par with another excellent debater, Mr. Robert Charles Dunne, and truly welcome the skillfulness they've exhibited in this arena.

Ter

Edited November 6, 2005 by Terry Mauro

[Owen Parsons]

Well, I know I said I wouldn't respond to her again, but I can't help but voice my amusement: Ms. Foster has really shown her true colors now with that spirited defense of the CIA.

Ditto with her advice to Bernice to "try and keep it short" because Bernice's posts are "pointless." Apparently Ms. Foster would like everyone to be like her and type up short, vitriolic, fact-free posts.

She hasn't even bothered to reconcile the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison with her (actually Mat Wilson's) thesis, nor do I expect her to.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Dawn Meredith]

Well, I know I said I wouldn't respond to her again, but I can't help but voice my amusement: Ms. Foster has really shown her true colors now with that spirited defense of the CIA.

Owen, I was just about to point out the same. It's one thing to name call, but to defend the friggen CIA!!! I think she's really blown her cover. Not to say I think anyone at Langley would bother to actually employ at this caliber- but this CIA cheerleading smacks of- dare I say it? Infiltration of the Ed Forum.

Anyone but me noticing that it's a bit hard to follow Hemming's posts.? Strange writing style....coupled with diminished interest on my part ....wish Tosh would come back and put another face to this. Hey Tim (Carroll), since Tosh isn't posting for the time, perhaps you can represent his viewpoint. Just a suggestion....

Dawn

[Tim Carroll]

Anyone but me noticing that it's a bit hard to follow Hemming's posts.? Strange writing style....coupled with diminished interest on my part ... wish Tosh would come back and put another face to this. Hey Tim (Carroll), since Tosh isn't posting for the time, perhaps you can represent his viewpoint.

I don't represent anyone's viewpoint but my own.

Tim

[Terry Mauro]

Anyone but me noticing that it's a bit hard to follow Hemming's posts.? Strange writing style....coupled with diminished interest on my part ... wish Tosh would come back and put another face to this. Hey Tim (Carroll), since Tosh isn't posting for the time, perhaps you can represent his viewpoint.

I don't represent anyone's viewpoint but my own.

Tim

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

"I don't represent anyone's viewpoint but my own.

Tim"

An honorable answer.

[Lynne Foster]

My defense of the CIA is not spirited. I merely pointed out the fact that the CIA has the right to defend against preposterous allegations.

I wish you people would stop distorting everything, you are beginning to sound just like Jim Garrison.

[Owen Parsons]

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

Sounds spirited to me. The fact that you would dismiss the CIA's connections to the assassination as "preposterous" says a lot about the opinion you hold them in.

Also, please explain how the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison fit into your "Hoover is behind Garrison" scenario.

I know I'm just kicking at the pricks here, but refuting you has become such an effortless action at this point.

[Lynne Foster]

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

Sounds spirited to me. The fact that you would dismiss the CIA's connections to the assassination as "preposterous" says a lot about the opinion you hold them in.

Also, please explain how the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison fit into your "Hoover is behind Garrison" scenario.

I know I'm just kicking at the pricks here, but refuting you has become such an effortless action at this point.

I think everything is relative. Compared to the wholesale assault on the CIA, a single sentence is a rather muted response.

As for the FBI, even J. Edgar Hoover could not control all his agents. If there were a number of "spirited" ones who investigated Garrison the hoaxter, kudos to them as well.

As far as I am concerned, Garrison was useless because he did not even prove Oswald's innocence. Instead, David Ferrie died in his custody.

I am sure that J. Edgar Hoover did not have to investigate Garrison, he was too busy investigating real, Kennedy assassination investigators. He didn't bother with a hoaxster like Garrison because he knew what he was all about.

I really do not understand all this hero-worship regarding Jim Garrison, maybe you are all Kevin Costner fans or something... but don't expect me to get on your bandwagon.

[Tim Carroll]

As far as I am concerned, Garrison was useless because he did not even prove Oswald's innocence. Instead, David Ferrie died in his custody.

Lynne may need to explain further what she means by her strange assertion that David Ferrie died in Garrison's custody.

Tim

[Owen Parsons]

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

Sounds spirited to me. The fact that you would dismiss the CIA's connections to the assassination as "preposterous" says a lot about the opinion you hold them in.

Also, please explain how the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison fit into your "Hoover is behind Garrison" scenario.

I know I'm just kicking at the pricks here, but refuting you has become such an effortless action at this point.

I think everything is relative. Compared to the wholesale assault on the CIA, a single sentence is a rather muted response.

As for the FBI, even J. Edgar Hoover could not control all his agents. If there were a number of "spirited" ones who investigated Garrison the hoaxter, kudos to them as well.

As far as I am concerned, Garrison was useless because he did not even prove Oswald's innocence. Instead, David Ferrie died in his custody.

I am sure that J. Edgar Hoover did not have to investigate Garrison, he was too busy investigating real, Kennedy assassination investigators. He didn't bother with a hoaxster like Garrison because he knew what he was all about.

I really do not understand all this hero-worship regarding Jim Garrison, maybe you are all Kevin Costner fans or something... but don't expect me to get on your bandwagon.

Hoover himself is the one who gave the order to stonewall Garrison ("Give Garrison nothing!"). David Ferrie did not die in Garrison's custody, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Please explain why implicating the CIA is any more of an odious crime than implicating LBJ and the FBI, as you do.

As far as proving Oswald's innocence, the prosecution debunked the magic bullet and showed the Zapruder film, for the first time publically, to the jury.

I started studying the Garrison investigation long before I watched JFK. Though I liked the movie, I really wasn't all that impressed with Costner's performance as Garrison (I thought Tommy Lee Jones was very good as Clay Shaw, though).

I don't expect you to get on the "bandwagon," you are all too obviously not budging. I would like you to defend your position with something resembling fact, but I don't expect it.

Edited November 6, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[James Richards]

I started studying the Garrison investigation long before I watched JFK. Though I liked the movie, I really wasn't all that impressed with Costner's performance as Garrison (I thought Tommy Lee Jones was very good as Clay Shaw, though). (Owen Parsons)

Hi Owen,

Not to distract from the thread, but in fairness to Kevin Costner, I think he was miscast. You are right about Jones though, he was very good.

BTW, a belated welcome to the forum. I very much enjoy your posts as they are intelligent and well crafted. I am happy to see that along with yourself and the other young people contributing to this most important aspect of history, the future of JFK assassination research is in most capable hands.

James

[Gerry Hemming]

KUDOS TO THE CIA FOR INVESTIGATING JIM GARRISON.

Sounds spirited to me. The fact that you would dismiss the CIA's connections to the assassination as "preposterous" says a lot about the opinion you hold them in.

Also, please explain how the FBI's stonewalling and wiretaping of Garrison fit into your "Hoover is behind Garrison" scenario.

I know I'm just kicking at the pricks here, but refuting you has become such an effortless action at this point.

I think everything is relative. Compared to the wholesale assault on the CIA, a single sentence is a rather muted response.

As for the FBI, even J. Edgar Hoover could not control all his agents. If there were a number of "spirited" ones who investigated Garrison the hoaxter, kudos to them as well.

As far as I am concerned, Garrison was useless because he did not even prove Oswald's innocence. Instead, David Ferrie died in his custody.

I am sure that J. Edgar Hoover did not have to investigate Garrison, he was too busy investigating real, Kennedy assassination investigators. He didn't bother with a hoaxster like Garrison because he knew what he was all about.

I really do not understand all this hero-worship regarding Jim Garrison, maybe you are all Kevin Costner fans or something... but don't expect me to get on your bandwagon.

------------------------------

Ms. Lynne:

You got real close to getting it right. I have been a member of the South Florida Research Group for many years. One of the leading members is a co-founder of C.O.P.A. along with John Judge. However, I am not so sure about Judge sometimes, he reminds me of quite a few seemingly intelligent and skilled researchers [but not skilled pro-Invstigators of the Fonzi class] -- but somewhere along the line they have found it either convenient or urgent to team up with some very strange folks -- and since I include myself as strange; I know them well !!

Oftentimes they have reached the "burnout point" [as John Newman told me years ago -- had happened to him]; so they network with people that operate on their "wavelength" -- which some "shrinks" claim is a form of "holding on to their Linus blankets".

Some indeed actually do see Kostner as the "real" Garrison, and because they never dealt with the actual man; they quickly become "music" and "movie star" groupies. Much of this is quite positive, as close friends [and many on this forum] only began their quest because of Oliver Stone's courage in undertaking the filming of "JFK". While I was working on the movie, I had arguments with folks who had worked on other films with Stone -- were almost family to him; but ranted that: "....This whole project is a bunch of phony bullxxxx!!"

I first thought, yeah guys, your just probing to see if I am a "team player"; and this is your technique for uncovering dissidents or disgruntled employees who might want to do a "Lardner" and sabotage the "Camelot Project". WRONG !! They were then, and remain today, convinced that "JFK" is totally fiction; outrageously absurd, and edifies a probably corrupt and mentally disturbed publicity seeker.

Two of these folks joined us from having just finished putting "Backdraft" in the can, and I was a bit upset that they, having arrived just few some weeks into filming, had quickly formulated any opinion at all. I later discovered that working with the Chicago Fire Department, and seeing famous actors doing their own very dangerous stunts ["Gags"]; they must have expected a more serious-faced crowd on the lots and sets.

Maybe they had other reasons, but one still owes me a "Backdraft" black T-shirt !!

I have received dozens of e-mails from people who "lurk", and members who post. Some forward articles of a psychology 101 nature, which I have trouble relating to; while others send items such as: the "Internet xxxxx" article; which I found easy to read and grasp. However, as I stated in a different thread, somehow the wrong party was being identified as "Trolling" -- but, then again -- I might just be misinterpreting things.

Others have put it more simply: You have people that are obviously very bright, and who have invested enormous amounts of time [and money]; and what do they face? More questions than answers. So, they take the easy way out -- enough is enough, I've arrived at a definite conclusion; here is what happened to JFK, and here is who did it, and here is the WHY !!

Hell, both petit and grand juries do it all the time -- the "O.J. Case" is the classic example. However, many forget that the burden is on the prosecution in a criminal case.

And that burden is to "prove-guilt-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt"!!

Moreover, the defendant doesn't have to "prove" anything. Using the term "found innocent" is a misnomer, nobody is EVER found innocent -- they are found "Not Guilty"; and innocence has nothing to do with the case at all. The prosecution failed to "prove" its case to the jurors [or judge in a Bench trial] that its case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Some of the CT researcher/writer/groupie element have long ago cast their ballots for "Guilty on all counts", but when queried [as some jurors are on 60 minutes, etc.] they fail to explicate or expound upon what was the crucial piece(s) of evidence which convinced you to vote out "Guilty" ?? Or, what was the admixture of singular pieces of evidence [which includes testimony not stricken as hearsay] and after finally having been thrown together, swung your vote -- that is: if you didn't lie on voire dire that you had no bias or preconceived notions of guilt ??

So far, for over 40 years, I have yet to see, or hear for that matter: any of their alleged solid evidence!! Just endless speculation and wild guesswork theorems. And whose fault is that, pray tell ?? Why you know, it's all a gigantic cover-up by hundreds of Cabals [not just individuals or entities]; but seeming "Cartels" of evil demons who have conspired, one with the other, to commit horrendous crimes -- and then blatantly proceed to cover it all up with lies and thousands of shredding machines !!

Evidence ?? One scribbler confabulates "insider" [almost whistle-blower level] tips in a tabloid, a magazine, a book, and shortly thereafter; more scribblers hit their keyboard and repeat the same "evidence", but with more page-filling embellishments. And once again another "Eric Brockevitch" clone is off to save the world.

My feeble conclusions, albeit rather limited in scope -- don't want to keep you up all night.

The first major myth: The CIA [per the 1947 statutes, as later amended] "expliciitly" states a prohibition against "investigating U.S. Citizens, especially those who are domiciled within the U.S., its Territories, and Possessions.

WRONG !! The whole of the CIA "charter" forbids investigations for "law enforcement purposes", and this has been unchanged -- even after the passage of the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. Even Congress has shown displeasure with that last "catch-all" caveat in the Charter: "...and other matters of which the President shall so direct"!!

But, they have never seen fit to repeal or amend those few words. Far too many people, with absolutely not even the barest grasp of either law or government -- rant that: "...It is all a conspiracy !!" Could be, but I am still awaiting that sworn conclusive testimony and other evidence which proves same.

The CIA does exactly what the President directs it to do, and oftentimes this is amended via the National Security Council; just as the statutes command.

An old phrase comes to mind; '...There are no bad Regiments...only bad Colonels". If the CIA violates its charter under orders, than file a "Bill of Impeachment" in the House of Representatives" -- even Cynthia McKinney knows how to type one up !!

Finally, pay no mind to the real TROLLS, and continue with any iconoclastic missives; and don't feel sorry or pity for the gullible idol worshipers; you didn't force them to buy the wrong books, or listen to the bullxxxx artists, they screwed up -- TOUGH !!

From one who is: "....the prime suspect [along with his buddies] in this whole matter"...er.. for a while I thought that I was the guy that Posner described as "self-interposing into a matter not related to him at all".

Even the ad hominems are confusing and contradictory -- Imagine that.

Keep on truckin'

Gerry Hemming

__________________________

[Lynne Foster]

Thank You Very Much !

[Larry Hancock]

It seems like this discussion might really be livened up by a read of the various

CIA "Garrison Team" meeting minutes...all of which are released and available

as part of the Russ Holmes work files from Rex Bradford's History Matters web site.

Perhaps the first item of discussion would be that the very first meeting

was opened by with a message delivered to the group by Ray Roca, speaking

as Angleton's top CI deputy.

Roca advised the group that "Garrison would indeed

obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy."

.......given Angleton's ties to FBI security people it would be pretty interesting

to know what Angleton and Roca were using as the basis for opinion.

Angleton himself worked with the FBI to develop background information on

targeted Garrison witnesses.

Other than exposure of operational personnel and CIA Cuba activities out of New Orleans

it appears that perhaps the biggest CIA fear was that Garrison might serface information

which would expose CIA Castro assassination projects.

-- Lrry

[Terry Mauro]

My defense of the CIA is not spirited. I merely pointed out the fact that the CIA has the right to defend against preposterous allegations.

I wish you people would stop distorting everything, you are beginning to sound just like Jim Garrison.

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

My friend Dixie is having trouble posting on Simkins' forum since he had the software reconfigured. She uses webtv and it's not responding to the new software. She asked me to post this under the Garrison thread for her.

I have asked Terry to post this for me, since my own system won't work

right. and i am unable to do so!

Ms Lynne

I have read this entire thread, some of the posts, including yours, more

then once. I do not really understand where you are coming from

except that the mention of trolls came to my mind.

Now there are some things in regard to Jim Garrison that most of us can

agree on. I have also been reading Joan Mellon's new book. I had not

actually noticed this before, but from what she says, I am frankly

rather disgusted with what was Garrison's personal life. But, as one of

my researcher friends, who is also a poster in this thread told me, his

personal life was not a part of his professional life or what he was

trying to accomplish with the JFK Assn. investigation....in other words,

his personal life was none of our business..:-)

I do believe as most will agree, Garrison did make mistakes, even some

bad mistakes. However, from what all I have read, his intentions were

most honorable. What I do see that also occurred, is that he was

surrounded by turkeys and wart-hogs, with obvious agendas. This is only

an opinion, which some may disagree, but it would seem that Garrison,

had a knack for trusting and believing the wrong people...perhaps

because he was so gung-ho, in his endeavors. A lot of bad press about

Garrison, was the result then and is still with us today. Of course that

leads right into your own opinions about Garrison.

Lynne, many here have addressed your issues with Garrison. It is alright

to have a different viewpoint then everyone else and even to express

them. It is also alright for us to disagree with you However, I have

also noticed that some, particularly Bernice, has gone out of her way

to look for some answers to back up her beliefs about Garrison. Bernice

is not content to simply say, "I think" or "I believe." So many of your

own posts are full of "I think" or "I believe." Frankly, no one really

cares what you think or believe, Where is your documentation, to back up

your thinks and beliefs? What is even worse, you even redicule someones

honest efforts, by calling it boring!!! So evidently, your intentions

are not to actually learn anything that maybe you did not previously

know about...or heaven forbid, would cause you to actually look at

something that might actually change your opinions. Even I read both pro

and con of many JFK research issues, before having my own opinions.

..

Obviously, you will not even look at anything except what might endorse

your own prejudices against Garrison. I know you will disregard my post

too! Problem is that I do not even know why any of us has even bothered

to respond to you...like who really cares what you think or believe?

Why then, did I post this message? That would be a good question, but I

suppose I just wanted to stick my 2 3/4 cent nose in, just as everyone

else has done. Afterall, this thread has become sorta like a parlor game

where we each take a turn, swatting at the fly....or is it the xxxxx?

;-)

__________________

Dixie