On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jerry Freeman]

I remain puzzled, completely, as to why Garrison never considered *any* role of organized crime, of elements of the mob, in the assassination. None.

There is a book about that very subject----
 

....the answers detailing why New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and the U.S. Justice Department refused to investigate Mafia boss Carlos Marcello in connection with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of official corruption and deception over decades where the very existence of organized crime was denied by Garrison, the city's Superintendent of Police, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in New Orleans, and other U.S. Justice Department officials, even though Carlos Marcello was named as a possible "conspirator" in JFK's assassination by the U.S. House Committee on Assassinations.

Falsely Accused: Jim Garrison's Investigation of JFK's Assassination and the United States of America Versus R.E. Payne : the Mafia's Influence in New Orleans

Garrison had a tiger by the tail just like JFK did. His ideas about elements of the CIA being involved... were laughed at by and large through the media. Thanks to the assistance of CIA insiders.
It was a chaotic freak show...we know it... so why does this 50 year old garbage have to get stirred up thread after thread? 
I would like to know where Paul Bleau got his information-------
 

The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism” and the JFK Assassination
Written by Paul Bleau ---------
As with many things, Jim Garrison was the first investigator to elucidate a three-sided conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, the three participants being the CIA, the Cuban exiles, and the Mob. He had done this unearthing during his inquiry, but he formally announced it in a famous cover story for New Orleans Magazine in 1976. 

It should now seem so obvious that rogue CIA, the old Havana connected Mafia, and anti-Castro Cuban mercenaries were involved but...I can't find that interview.

[Fred Litwin]

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, misleads on CIA involvement in the coup attempt against de Gaulle. In fact, the CIA did not help the four generals who revolted. Here is the full story of the rumors and speculation from the coup attempt.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-supposed-cia-support-of-the-1961-coup-attempt-in-france

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Very good article Fred. A lot of work obviously went into it.

[Sean Kneringer]

JFK Unsolved (Josiah Thompson's project) ain't much better.

[Jon Banks]

JFK Unsolved (Josiah Thompson's project) ain't much better.

“JFK Unsolved” is great!

It’s fine to disagree with Thompson’s conclusions but at least give the film credit for objectively presenting both sides.

JFK Revisited was great too but not nearly as fair to the counter-arguments from LN’ers.

[John Iacoletti]

I thought this Oswald photos article was interesting from over 40 years ago.
. . .
Dallas police evidently found three negatives and at least two prints. The Warren Commission got only two prints and only one negative. Besides the traces of the one Sgt. Kirk uncovered, the evidence of another negative having been seized by police was obtained by the committee from two other sources.

That's such BS.  The "blowup" was a Warren Commission exhibit, CE134.  Kirk didn't "uncover" it.  And the original negative is "missing".  Damn the luck.

Handwriting expert Joseph P. McNally agreed that it was not her writing.

Funny.  I thought "Richard" was a fan of handwriting "analysis".  But he still thinks it's "likely" that Marina wrote this anyway.  Go figure.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too.

But my difficult observation is still there. Instead of cash, why not gift me an answer?

Again, I'll go slow (my fingers are typing real slow; so it left here that way):
If Oswald is dead then the conspirators can say he admitted that the BYP were authentic. Why say he denied their authenticity? Telling the public he denied their authenticity opens the door to them being challenged. If they say - again he is dead; they can say anything (remember they're pure evil) - he admitted to taking them then we lone nutter morons can say, "But he said they were authentic."

If you prefer to send cash that'll be fine anyway.

It's always been a mystery to me why the "Oswald did it" faithful are so fond of the "a conspiracy would have done X instead of Y" argument.