Jim Garrison and the Cuban Operation

[Guest Matt Allison]

Just curious, but does anyone know *for a fact* that this "Lynne" is a real person?

It's hilariously obvious that it/she/he is here for the sole purpose of getting hysterically angry at Jim Garrison.

History tells us that "people" like this tend to pop out of nowhere everytime the general public is reminded of Mr. Garrison's patriotic and noble efforts in getting the United States government to reveal everything it has on the Kennedy assassination.

So while I sincerely doubt that this it/she/he obsessive is real, if "she" was, I'd be trying to contact any family "she" might have to see if they've made sure she's not a danger to herself and/or those in close proximty to "her".

[Tim Gratz]

Matt, it's not just Garrison; it's Hoover and Nixon and who knows who else.

But Matt, respectfully, Garrison got it ALL wrong (and I say so without necessarily impugning the sincerity of his motives).

Read "Ultimate Sacrifice", IMO the definitivew work on the assassination to date.

Then try to find Shaw in the book. He's on all of one page!

[Lynne Foster]

Just curious, but does anyone know *for a fact* that this "Lynne" is a real person?

It's hilariously obvious that it/she/he is here for the sole purpose of getting hysterically angry at Jim Garrison.

History tells us that "people" like this tend to pop out of nowhere everytime the general public is reminded of Mr. Garrison's patriotic and noble efforts in getting the United States government to reveal everything it has on the Kennedy assassination.

So while I sincerely doubt that this it/she/he obsessive is real, if "she" was, I'd be trying to contact any family "she" might have to see if they've made sure she's not a danger to herself and/or those in close proximty to "her".

Like I said, and this is the last time I am going to say it, Garrison was as bad as J. Edgar Hoover was, and YOU CANNOT CHANGE HISTORY !

Edited December 18, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Stephen Roy]

Why don't you explain this then?

GARRISON: Until as recently as November of 1966, I had complete faith in the Warren Report. As a matter of fact, I viewed its most vocal critics with the same skepticism that much of the press now views me --- which is why I can't condemn the mass media too harshly for their cynical approach, except in the handful of cases where newsmen seem to be in active collusion with Washington to torpedo our investigation. Of course, my faith in the Report was grounded in ignorance, since I had never read it; as Mark Lane says, "The only way you can believe the Report is not to have read it."

But then, in November, I visited New York City with Senator Russell Long; and when the subject of the assassination came up, he expressed grave doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin...

Even

Dorothy Kilgallen clearly understood the fact that Oswald was just a Patsy, and that was in 1963.

Why did Jim Garrison pretend to be clueless until 1966?

What is there to explain? I know a few writers date Garrison's epiphany earlier, but I see his real change to doubting the WCR occuring after his lunch with Dean Andrews, apparently in late October 1966. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Stephen Roy]

Let me try one last time to reason with you, Lynne.

I noted that you came out here recently, bashing Garrison, but you immediately incurred the ire of those who think he could do no wrong, or who was essentially right in spite of his errors. I have some empathy for your position, as I think it likely that Garrison did not find "the" conspiracy. But I base this not on a few books or websites. I base it on obtaining most of the documents of his investigation, and on personal interviews with some of those involved. You must certainly agree that such primary sources are more compelling than most books or websites.

One of my major issues is that Garrison's books make assertions that are contradicted by his own files. And in a few cases, his books are misleading by citing evidence out of chronological sequence, giving the impression that he knew more than he did at certain critical times.

And in a broader sense, my very deep study of all sorts of primary materials on Ferrie indicates that, while some of the "mythology" about him in assassination books turns out to be true, some of it is plainly wrong. And I take a lot of crap when I point these things out.

Just a few days ago, I had to explain to my 6-year-old daughter that some people know more than others: Adults know more than kids, and people who study something know more than those who don't. More time = more input data = more knowledge = more accurate conclusions. Especially for people who specialize in study of such topics. To be blunt, I probably know a lot more about Garrison than you do.

I am more than willing to engage in a discussion and offer any insights I can, and listen to your observations and look for common ground. You would probably learn things that would support some of your theories. But you need to learn how to LISTEN before you go shooting your mouth off. I extend the offer. If you want to respond like a smartass, I withdraw the offer.

[Lynne Foster]

Garrison was just a cover up artist who protected Mafia interests and concealed the truth to protect illegalities and David Ferrie was also a sleazy, Carlos Marcello, Mafia asset.

I don't even understand why anybody would bother to write a book about these criminals...I don't think you will find the truth about them in any document -criminals don't document their criminal activity.

On January 21, 1969, after nearly two years of concocting and playing out his bizarre charges in the national media, Jim Garrison finally tried the accused, Clay Shaw, in a court of law in New Orleans. Even though Garrison had announced on February 24, 1967, that he had "positively solved the assassination of President John F. Kennedy" -and one week later, arrested Clay Shaw for conspiring to kill the president because that's what people do when they want the actual culprit to get away with murder, they produce a smokescreen. Jim Garrison provided cover for co-conspirators like David Ferrie when he handed him over to the FBI in 1963, because reports that Oswald carried Ferrie's library card threatened to unravel the case.

The last known person to speak to Ferrie was George Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post, whom Ferrie had met with from midnight to 4:00 a.m. on February 22, 1967. During this interview, Ferrie described Garrison as "a joke". Several hours later, Ferrie died of a cerebral hemorrhage [he was probably murdered because that's what "the joke" needed, to promote his bizarre allegations] Jim Garrison was clearly the hero of those who conspire to bury the truth about the Kennedy assassination -the way Ferrie was buried.

TRUTH SUCKS, when they can get away with this.

Edited December 23, 2005 by Lynne Foster

[Stephen Roy]

Completely ignored my message and offer.

Garrison was just a cover up artist who protected Mafia interests and concealed the truth to protect illegalities and David Ferrie was also a sleazy, Carlos Marcello, Mafia asset.

Lynne has spoken. To hell with evidence. With documentation. With scholarship. Her opinion is more valid than that of people who know much more than her.

I don't even understand why anybody would bother to write a book about these criminals...I don't think you will find the truth about them in any document -criminals don't document their criminal activity.

Correct. They don't. That's why others who encounter them DO.

I sometimes wonder if you're just one of those people who gets a charge out of being contrary. Shame. I was just going to offer you a juicy unpublished Garrison nugget to help you with your case, but you were too arrogant to accept it.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Completely ignored my message and offer.

Garrison was just a cover up artist who protected Mafia interests and concealed the truth to protect illegalities and David Ferrie was also a sleazy, Carlos Marcello, Mafia asset.

Lynne has spoken. To hell with evidence. With documentation. With scholarship. Her opinion is more valid than that of people who know much more than her.

I don't even understand why anybody would bother to write a book about these criminals...I don't think you will find the truth about them in any document -criminals don't document their criminal activity.

Correct. They don't. That's why others who encounter them DO.

I sometimes wonder if you're just one of those people who gets a charge out of being contrary. Shame. I was just going to offer you a juicy unpublished Garrison nugget to help you with your case, but you were too arrogant to accept it.

Stephen, I did warn you what the likely outcome would be about ten posts back. Lynne, by virtue of visiting a few websites, and reading a couple conspiracy books knows more about this subject than all the seasoned researchers on this forum put together. Leave her to wallow in her own crapullance. Wouldnt mind the juicy Garrison nugget though. Reguards, Steve.

[Steve Thomas]

Stephen,

But I base this not on a few books or websites. I base it on obtaining most of the documents of his investigation, and on personal interviews with some of those involved. You must certainly agree that such primary sources are more compelling than most books or websites.

I recently ran across one of those raw FBI files in which the memo said that there had been allegations that Jack Ruby was running drugs through the training camp near Lake Ponchatrain in the summer of 1963. In the same memo I think it was, it was also alleged that Lee Harvey Oswald sometimes used the alias, Tom Kane.

Have you ever heard of these allegations before?

Steve Thomas

[Dawn Meredith]

Stephen:

I look forward to your book on Ferrie. Sounds like it will be exahustive.

I see that Ms. Foster-Dules does not even have the sense

to thank you for your kind offer. (I can read her post if I hit reply;

otherwise she's blocked). She has zero desire to learn anything,

and is here merely to disrupt the forum. SHe seems to delight in

antagonizing people here. SOme sort of personality disorder.

Dawn

[Lynne Foster]

Stephen:

I look forward to your book on Ferrie. Sounds like it will be exahustive.

I see that Ms. Foster-Dules does not even have the sense

to thank you for your kind offer. (I can read her post if I hit reply;

otherwise she's blocked). She has zero desire to learn anything,

and is here merely to disrupt the forum. SHe seems to delight in

antagonizing people here. SOme sort of personality disorder.

Dawn

I would be wary of any books that you promote, when you get on that track, you never get off

-like when you were using Mellen's book to suggest that Garrison was a hero.

I understand the fact that Oliver Stone has done a great deal to advance the suggestion that Jim Garrison was a genuine hero, but his words and actions prove otherwise, and that is what counts.

[Owen Parsons]

Matt, it's not just Garrison; it's Hoover and Nixon and who knows who else.

But Matt, respectfully, Garrison got it ALL wrong (and I say so without necessarily impugning the sincerity of his motives).

Read "Ultimate Sacrifice", IMO the definitivew work on the assassination to date.

Then try to find Shaw in the book. He's on all of one page!

You go on and on about how wrong Garrison was without adressing his evidence (except to say that Garrison's case against Shaw boils down to Perry Russo, which is wrong). And why is the number of times Shaw is mentioned in Ultimate Sacrifice of any significance?

Also, Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink? I doubt this, as Rowland Rolland, the president of the rink, only recalled Ferrie approaching him and mentioning his name a few times, in addition to the incessant phone activity (which I'm sure you are aware of). I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

This is priceless John, give Dawn and Owen the opportunity to turn this thread into a vehicle for perpetual, meaningless speculation.

The fact is, Garrison's intent has to be surmised because he was a "Cuba Operation' criminal who worked through Guy Banister, Carlos Marcello and other delightful fellas who didn't leave any records for all the brilliant researchers on this message board.

I think you are handing them the opportunity to revive the character of a criminal, and if that's what you want to do, just ban me because and allow this board to continue to misrepresent the truth -that's what is happening here.

Why doesn't that Garrison expert tell us anything about his 1971 arrest, if he's so brilliant?

edited by admins to remove obscenities

[Tim Carroll]

...Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink?... I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.

T.C.

[Owen Parsons]

...Stephen, do you still hold that Ferrie made his November 22 trip because he was interested in purchasing a skating rink?... I find it odd that Ferrie wouldn't bother to bring this interest up with him. Also, as Mellen points out, Ferrie later dropped this aspect of his story.

Have any of the people who take Ferrie's involvement in the assassination for granted, including Professor Mellen and Jim Garrison, ever tried to explain why Ferrie was suddenly so concerned that Oswald had his library card? If Ferrie had foreknowledge of a plot involving Oswald, he wouldn't have been scrambling to regain the card after the assassination.

T.C.

Probably because if Oswald ever had Ferrie's card in the first place (which I am not sure of), Ferrie would have forgotten about it. It is a pretty minor detail, you must admit. Jack Martin had to start circulating this story before Ferrie grew so concerned. It wasn't just something that came to his mind after he heard that Oswald had allegedly assassinated the president. More to the point, one wonders why Ferrie would become so worried about something that only links him to Oswald and not an assassination plot. This takes a great deal of paranoia.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Owen Parsons