JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on October 09, 2020, 08:39:46 PM
-
My Review of On The Trail of Delusion is online at:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2020/10/book-review-on-trail-of-delusion.html
-
Joan Mellen and Jim D won't like that book.
-
Joan Mellen and Jim D won't like that book.
True enough. To attack a person’s delusions is to attack a person’s soul.
-
Jim Garrison (and later Oliver Stone, who resurrected Garrison) is the "Donald Trump" of JFK research. Like Trump, the populist JFK-CT draws in both kooks and ordinary citizens with niche concerns, and embraces any angle that keeps the notion of "conspiracy" alive, including themselves being a victim of the media and government agencies.
In the end, a jury of citizens brought down the charade in New Orleans, just as the forthcoming election will allow the vox populi to (probably) remove Trump. In both cases, somewhat hollow victories. Joe Biden is yesterday's man.
Mr O , If you only had the guts to escape your fantasy world and see the world at it truly is.......Then you know that John Kennedy was murdered by a powerful gang that feared that JFK was ruining their empire. Whether you believe that Lee Oswald was the trigger man or not ( he wasn't) even the "Blue Ribbon" Committee that was created by the conspirators knew that they dared not assign a motive that could be challenged to Lee Oswald's alleged act. They knew that if the question of motive was examined they would be found to be the guilty culprits.
-
Well stated, Mr Parnell.
Garrison sent many people down the rabbit hole.
Sad, that he is still a topic for discussion, while Vincent Salandria passed on recently, and his great - though not without flaws- work seems to have been forgotten.
-
Well stated, Mr Parnell.
Thank you.
-
Well stated, Mr Parnell.
Garrison sent many people down the rabbit hole.
Sad, that he is still a topic for discussion, while Vincent Salandria passed on recently, and his great - though not without flaws- work seems to have been forgotten.
Mr. Salandria was a consultant to Garrison on his (Garrison's) Shaw/NO investigation. Is there any record of him criticizing Garrison on the matter? I understand a number of noted conspiracy believers such as Lifton, Weisberg and Meagher did so. Did Salandria?
And where did Salandria's view of who was behind the assassination differ from Garrison's later view? That is that JFK was killed by the "national security state" because he was going to (somehow) end the Cold War? That's essentially Garrison's view.
-
Litwin's book simply ignores the bulk of the relevant evidence, some of which was documented by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Garrison made many mistakes, but he also got many things right, and many subsequent disclosures have confirmed Garrison's essential case.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/case-distorted-posner-connick-and-the-new-york-times
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/lambert-patricia-false-witness
I discuss some of the attacks on Jim Garrison in chapter 14 of my online book Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hastyjudgmentbook.pdf
I would also recommend Joan Mellon's book A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History:
https://www.amazon.com/Farewell-Justice-Garrison-Assassination-Changed-ebook/dp/B005CWHKYA
-
Mr. Salandria was a consultant to Garrison on his (Garrison's) Shaw/NO investigation. Is there any record of him criticizing Garrison on the matter? I understand a number of noted conspiracy believers such as Lifton, Weisberg and Meagher did so. Did Salandria?
I don't know if Salandria criticized Garrison, but he was aware that his investigation was skewed at least. Litwin describes one instance where (over the objections of his staff) Garrison wanted to charge Robert Perrin (who was dead), Edgar Eugene Bradley and the three tramps in the assassination. Salandria and Weisberg went to New Orleans and talked Garrison out of it by convincing him that Boxley (who had hatched the scheme) was a CIA plant. Sciambra promised Weisberg "the best Italian dinner" as a reward.
-
I don't know if Salandria criticized Garrison, but he was aware that his investigation was skewed at least. Litwin describes one instance where (over the objections of his staff) Garrison wanted to charge Robert Perrin (who was dead), Edgar Eugene Bradley and the three tramps in the assassination. Salandria and Weisberg went to New Orleans and talked Garrison out of it by convincing him that Boxley (who had hatched the scheme) was a CIA plant. Sciambra promised Weisberg "the best Italian dinner" as a reward.
Tom Bethell, who worked for Garrison before quitting in disgust over the entire farce, recounted an episode where Salandria was introduced to the Garrison staff for a sort of "pep talk" (my words not his). Here's Bethell's account:
"Salandria started off by telling us that we were in much better shape now than on the occasion of his earlier visit, in July. I had accompanied him around at that time, and I recall he was shown the Shaw file. He looked through it, and was rather rueful about it to me. He admitted to me that there wasn't much there. Now, however, it was a different story, or so he seemed to think. He could tell by the expressions on our faces. The case against Shaw was now looking much more solid, he told us, and we were beginning to work as a team.
He then started to urge us that the only trouble was we weren't going far enough, and he then started to work himself up into a harangue about Michael and Ruth Paine. "They're agents," he said, "I know they're agents. I've got the proof." He went on at some length about how he had met the Paines, and he produced some quasi-evidence suggesting they were agents etc. Then he told us to go ahead and charge the Paines -- "You've got all the evidence you need." He exhorted us to charge some others too, Marina Oswald, and Allan Dulles. Don't worry about anything, just go ahead and charge them, "the evidence is THERE!"
Garrison sat next to Salandria through all this, calmly smoking his pipe. Salandria was getting really worked up by this time, and was actually shouting at us. Someone asked him to tell us some of the evidence, and then he pulled out a few card indexes -- seemingly a little annoyed at being distracted by such trivia -- and then started off on his stuff about troop increases in Vietnam, the radio message to Airforce One, the same stuff he had shown me earlier on when he was working on the manuscript on WHY Kennedy was killed with his friend Tom Katen.
When he finished he was fairly attacked by several members of the staff, notably Jim Alcock and Charlie Ward....."
The rest here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bethell4.htm
I'd suggest that's not the words of someone who was critical of Garrison in this farce <g>. But maybe he had second thoughts.
-
I'd suggest that's not the words of someone who was critical of Garrison in this farce <g>. But maybe he had second thoughts.
Looks like you're right!
-
How do you know I ignore anything - since you haven't read my book?
fred
-
Looks like you're right!
Right, but the Garrisonites (some) claim that Bethell (and others) were CIA agents or assets sent to disrupt the investigation. As you know, Garrison himself made this claim (not about Bethell I don't think).
So Bethell's account can simply be dismissed as disinformation. Or something. It's always something with the conspiracy crowd.
For the conspiracy believer every piece of evidence indicating there wasn't a conspiracy is in fact evidence that there was. Because it's planted, faked, falsified, et cetera by "them".
And round and round we go.
-
What "evidence indicating there wasn't a conspiracy"?
-
Re Salandria: this is from Thomas Mallon's book, "Mrs. Paine's Garage" (pg.168).
"Almost three years later, on April 1968, a week and a half before Ruth's appearance in New Orleans, Salandria visited her mother in Ohio. He upset Mrs. Hyde [Ruth's mother] - as she reminded him in a letter the next day - with "some very serious charges concerning my daughter and her husband. In effect you have said they are or were working for the CIA, and as undercover agents were not to be trusted." Mrs. Hyde had called Ruth after Salandria's visit, and she now reported to him her daughter's own puzzlement over "why in the world she would consider working for the CIA. What possible motive could she have? It was obvious that she could think of none. However, when I said you [Salandria] wanted her to take a lie detector test, she was willing.'"
Apologize to Mr. Litwin for taking this away from the Garrison investigation.
-
What "evidence indicating there wasn't a conspiracy"?
Yes, that's an interesting turn of phrase.
Actually, it's quite possible to believe that:
1) Garrison was just grandstanding, as part of a conspiracy.
2) Oswald was part of a conspiracy.
:)