Gerry Simone – June 15
I’ve read your selective info but don’t buy the spin Professor.
Just like the incredible SBT, I don’t believe that a transcript can be confused with a tape and especially a voice not sounding like Oswald. Hoover and others in earlier reports might have made errors like confusing the 5th floor for the 6th floor, but they weren’t material mistakes to the LN scenario. But to say that a transcript doesn’t look or sound like Oswald is a leap. Moreover, and this is even more incredible, you have to have not just Hoover making the same mistake, but also his underlings, which is B.S.!
Jim Garrison’s conclusions were based on ‘the totality of the evidence’, and Rex Bradford does a fine job of doing that in his article here, which I buy.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap/FourteenMinuteGap.htm#_ftn18
“When everyone except the public and JFK assassination researchers hold close for decades the same sensitive information, it is a sign of cooperation in prearranged deception, an appearance of opposition where there is in fact, little or none.” ~Tom S.
Is the above a statement of fact? Or is it a hypothetical stated as if it were fact?
I am just asking, because I am not sure that this “prearranged deception” is proven objectively.
\\][//
Tom csn you summarize what your research has led you to believe regarding Garrison motives and possible sponsors. Your research skills are very impressive IMO . On this site in my limited expuerences here it seems the most accurate statements are the ones where an individual is called out to contradict but does not do so, lol.
Btw IMO , it’s clear from purely an evidence standpoint LHO was impersonated in Mexico City. We have confirmation from 2+ documents ( several investigators ) and I don’t see IMO how such statements can be misunderstood . I understand several members on here will disagree . This was the most important ( and dangerous ) part of the assassination IMO . Did LHO lead back to Cuba / Russia or not ? No chance such a serious information is misunderstood at the President and FBI director level ( at lower levels maybe but not with the nuclear code man ). Like someone else said 5th floor vs 6th floor ok , but zero chance hard and direct evidence implicating a WWIII possibility is overlooked so routinely , zero chance on this matter.
If you wish to discuss the Mexico City tapes, please comment in the thread linked below, (including replying to off-topic comments displayed above):
https://jfkfacts.org/rob-tannenbaums-spellbinding-presentation-hscas-thwarted-jfk-investigation/#comment-883201
I quoted Gerry Simone’s entire comment in this week’s “Comment of the week,” article, but I intended the discussion here to be on the question of whether Gerry’s or Dr. McAdams’s opinions of Jim Garrison’s investigation align with the facts, or if a discussion of that question is even practical, or appreciated.
I think you have your answer.
Crickets! (Few commentors submit original research or opinions, or seem interested in questioning or discussing the scant original research that is submitted. Orthodoxy reigns, dampens, stifles, insults are vigorously traded. How many ways are there to disagree about CE399? I guess we eventually will find out how many ways there are.)
Pat Speer :
It turns out the wrong Leake is described, it is actually Leake II, not III.:
The great grandfather.:
Judge William Walter Leake –
Date: Monday, July 13, 1936 Paper: Times-Picayune
Of interest in Leake II’s 1936 wedding announcement is that his father was Dr. William Walter Leake, son of the Hunter C. Leake described above. William P Hagerty was best man, and his cousin Katie Tack, daughter of his father William’s sister, Mary Ellis Leake Tack, as well as his future CIA “boss” Lloyd Ray, were attendants in Hunter Leake II’s wedding.
Next up, Leake II’s first cousins, the Tacks….
Hunter C Leake’s brother, William was a groomsman of groom Edward A. Carrere in the wedding of the Leake brothers’ cousin, Mary Ellen Tack. An internet search with the terms, PETER DALE SCOTT Ernest Carrere Empire Trust, yields some interesting, but sparse search results. One of the other groomsmen is a Strauss, a family linked closely to the JFK assassination in Greg Parker’s recent book.
Sunday, April 13, 1941 Paper: Times-Picayune
Half brother of Tack sisters became world leader of Augustinian Order.:
http://midwestaugustinians.org/theodore-e-ted-tack-osa/
The point of presenting the details in the last few comments is that the NOLA domestic office of CIA was tight knit, the chief Ray and assistant, Leake, if that was the actual command order, had a history dating back to the early 1930’s. Leake’s best man, William P Hagerty, was prosecuted by Jim Garrison’s office on official corruption charges after his 1964 arrest. He served three years imprisonment and died a few months after his release in late 1973.
Leake was conceivably connected through his first cousin Tack sisters to the Ryans and other Standard Oil fortune heirs, and to the Empire Trust through Carrere. There are more NOLA secret society connections in Leake’s family, and to a lesser extent in Lloyd Ray’s, than seems inconsequential or easily dismissed.
Another agent in the NOLA office, Dorothy Brandao, when she was still Mrs. John Miceli, happened to spend three days in 1946 on a ship en route to New Orleans from Honduras. (Image link – https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vl2-QVs9m7s/V3F2JeipjqI/AAAAAAAAEqo/KoY-CBczdMIl5itkstdPUw7ji-dP2n0HwCCo/s912/BrandaoCate1946.jpg )
The only other passenger on that ship was Charles Edward Cate, a civil engineer residing in Guatemala in 1952, per his mother’s obit. Thirty years before, Cate was the superintendent of his grandfather, Charles Emery Cate’s Hammond, LA estate. He attended school with Dr. William W Leake, father of the Leake brothers.
Grandfather and Hammond, LA history, locale of Hunter Leake estate.:
concise
[adjective]
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive.
“a concise account of the country’s history”
synonyms: succinct, pithy, incisive, brief, short and to the point, short and sweet
. . . .
\\][//
Yeah Willy, are your examples of “short and sweet,” the presentations of your heroes, Garrison or Prouty, or perhaps Stone’s three hours long infotainment film? Or does your criticism only apply to details you have no informative response or rebuttal to?
You’re persistently pushing back, Willy, but as you commented, you’ve “proved” the case! I am learning quite a lot from your comments, Willy.
I expect you will reply more than once on your dissolving “proof”, attempting to further obscure the details in this thread, as you did by trying to present a second discussion here earlier on the Mexico City tapes.
“I expect you will reply more than once on your dissolving “proof”, attempting to further obscure the details in this thread, as you did by trying to present a second discussion here earlier on the Mexico City tapes.”~Tom
No, my only reply is this:
Where are you going with all of this?
And when do you think you might arrive there?
\\][//
Tom S.
June 27, 2016 at 3:27 pm
“short and sweet”
“Yeah Willy, are your examples of “short and sweet,” the presentations of your heroes, Garrison or Prouty, or perhaps Stone’s three hours long infotainment film?”
“Or does your criticism only apply to details you have no informative response or rebuttal to?”
I don’t believe Willy has such a detail. He always knows everything there is to know about the details and he can, and usually does, rebut all he doesn’t agree with. This is particularly funny when you read his junk on Vietnam War under JFK.
I had just about given up on this site, but must confess, I do find the Leakes and Kurtz information thought provoking and warranting further study on my part. Thanks for the links.
Tom S:
As we read your posts on this subject – “Jim Garrison’s Conclusions” – what are we supposed to be considering? (a) that all of this is an ultra elaborate CIA limited hangout? (b) that people lie and embellish for various reasons? (c) that researchers perpetuate mistakes when they cite sources of questionable veracity?
Bill, that is what the facts are telling me, at least. Cecil Shilstone, cofounder of the private group that funded the Garrison investigation, was as close to the closest friends of CIA’s Hunter C. Leake, as Leake was!
http://jfk.pics/hunterleake.html
It was a campaign in vogue at the time, the nip it in the bud stage.:
The film:
June, 1967 A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report
…and the book:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000579387
Should we now believe the Warren report? Pref. by Walter Cronkite.
Main Author: White, Stephen, 1915-
Language(s): English
Published: New York, Macmillan [1968]
Subjects: Kennedy, John F. > (John Fitzgerald), > 1917-1963 > Assassination.
United States. > Warren Commission. > Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy.
Note: Transcripts of the 4 one-hour television broadcasts collectively called “A CBS news inquiry: the Warren report” presented on the CBS network in June 1967: p. 209-303.
Physical Description: x, 309 p. illus., ports. 24 cm.
“what are we supposed to be considering? (a) that all of this is an ultra elaborate CIA limited hangout?”~Bill Pierce
Tom replies:
“Bill, that is what the facts are telling me, at least. Cecil Shilstone, cofounder of the private group that funded the Garrison investigation, was as close to the closest friends of CIA’s Hunter C. Leake, as Leake was!
http://jfk.pics/hunterleake.html
It was a campaign in vogue at the time, the nip it in the bud stage.:”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well then alright…
Now we DO have a succinct summation of where Mr Scully is going. THAT is all I wanted to read.
Thank you Tom!
\\][//
All that matters is what Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, “Mr. X”, William Davy, Joan Mellen, and Jim DiEugenio told us? Really?
Follow the money and the ideology. Willy believes the political establishment in New Orleans funded a sincere, transparent investigation by sincere transparent Jim Garrison.
I have to go with the facts and the facts contradict such belief.
January 12, 1964 :
October 22, 1965 :
January 25, 1971, Page 1 : http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Shaw%20Clay%20Perjury%20Trial%203-4-69/Item%2071.pdf
January 25, 1971, Page 2 : http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Shaw%20Clay%20Perjury%20Trial%203-4-69/Item%2071.pdf
Willard Everett Robertson’s father-in-law in 1963.:
Both the obituaries of CIA officers Burke and Ray managed to include the detail of their membership in the New Orleans country club long managed
by Ernest Gossom.:
Obit William Burke: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4DhEMjD39kc/V3l3HvEs7AI/AAAAAAAAEzk/PFA3h1dOD14E8YAp-2cBIpMra_Zas4APQCCo/s512/WilliamPburkeObit07Dec1980.jpg
Obit Lloyd A. Ray : https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-irsiX763IJY/V3l3NF9xZpI/AAAAAAAAEzo/Hj0l1vA0NMY6Udus7E2z7CrWv9fbz_vAwCCo/s512/LloydRayObit14April1982.jpg
The 1940 US Census indicates Willard was a $35 per week restaurant manager who had married Sally Moss of New York. In 1964 he was appointed by Gov. McKeithen as DMV commissioner of Louisiana.
http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=114647472
Death: 1983 New Orleans Orleans Parish Louisiana, USA
Burial: Conway Village Cemetery Conway Carroll County New Hampshire, USA
Earlier today, I was about to point out that William Burke, Lloyd Ray, and Hunter Leake all made a choice of best man in their wedding ceremonies of batchelor gentlemen, and that Clay Shaw happened to be one, as well. Ray and Leake chose the same person, Hagerty, Burke chose
Spencer. But then I looked a bit further and found even more intriguing “coincidence”.:
By “Tom S.” © 2016 :
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000621349.pdf
Approved for release 09/23/2009
………..
https://books.google.com/books?id=sRFbAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA27&dq=hill+school+brainard+roomed+phil+strong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB6LiE4PjNAhUIcj4KHTgkBawQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hill%20school%20brainard%20roomed%20phil%20strong&f=true
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/Security-CIA-II/CIA%20II%20064.pdf
So…Tom’s theory is indeed Biblical in scope. So far we seem to merely have had a preview of Genesis, sans the ‘Creation’ event.
There is the proposition of INTENT.
Prove God first, THEN assert His intent.
\\][//
Willy, a theory is a thing that has not yet been proven. I am wondering now whether Clay Shaw was actually billed by his
defense attorney, Dymond.
No melted away, untraceable flechette assertion in these presentations.:
July 3, 1936:
Mac W. Burke and Michael Whittington Burke, were one and the same. In your belief system, Willy, Jim Garrison as presented by Mellen, Sklar with Stone, and DiEugenio, would have had to have been a clueless moron considering the evidence presented in this discussion thread. The same could be said for a sincere, silent Clay Shaw. Everyone played their part well enough to end any eagerness for government led reinvestigation, anytime soon. LBJ and Nixon both enjoyed a pass….
When Lloyd A. Ray married on 30 July, 1938 to Louella Everett, of course Ray chose, just as Hunter C. Leake II and Phelan H. Hunter had chosen earlier, William P. Hagerty as best man in Ray’s wedding.
Lloyd A. Ray background, begins in lower left column.:
October 22, 1968:
The close network of friends supports the idea that the Nola CIA office was regularly communicating with, through Irvin Dymond, Clay Shaw and his defense team. IOW, Ray and Leake II knew that David Baldwin had informed Shaw that he was godfather and first cousin of Jim Garrisons wife, Lee Ziegler Garrison.
When everyone except the public and JFK assassination researchers hold close for decades the same sensitive information, it is a sign of cooperation in prearranged deception, an appearance of opposition where there is in fact, little or none.
Let me point out to the forum here that the ‘dissolving fletchette’ is NOT an assertion from Prouty nor Garrison, but in fact comes from testimony before the Church Committee from from ex-CIA directors William Colby and Richard Helms and weapon developer Charles Senseney.
Here is their testimony before the Church Committee on September 16 to 18, 1975, as published in Volume One (1976) of that Committee’s final report, under the title, “Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
NOTE: The link above is NOT Fletcher Prouty’s website.It does contain links to Prouty’s works and videos.
\\][//
Willy, exactly who stated that there was a disappearing flechette?
And where is the actual description or diagram of the umbrella launcher- not the fantasy of the author of this piece of tripe but a real piece of evidence- like the Bulgarian weapon used in London which required contact with the dissident victim.
Having stated that, what would have been the point of trying to paralyze a victim when the same action could have introduced a fatal poison, obviating the need for the insanely complex assassination scenario you favor-when in the history of sniping we have never seen an episode of a sniper requiring his target to be paralyzed? If the conspiracy was so overwhelming and complex, why didn’t they know that JFK wore a back brace that made him relatively immobile-and making any attempt to “paralyze” him completely pointless-as demonstrated by his behavior after being hit in the back? If he was paralyzed, why did his arms rise up?
So it seems that the Richard Sprague of the HSCA took the flechette firing umbrella seriously.
(Tom S. note: Willy Whitten’s reply, in a thread devoted to the flechette weapon topic.: https://jfkfacts.org/22740-2/#comment-884267 )
“I quoted Gerry Simone’s entire comment in this week’s “Comment of the week,” article, but I intended the discussion here to be on the question of whether Gerry’s or Dr. McAdams’s opinions of Jim Garrison’s investigation align with the facts, or if a discussion of that question is even practical, or appreciated.”~Tom S.
I for one do not like rule by fiat. Whether by government or moderation. Some may be unwilling to speak up about this, but I thing your riding your hobbyhorse too high in the saddle.
\\][//
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870505
Yes indeed Tom, take from that what you will.
\\][//
Willy, I would prefer to read an actual justification for your objections and protests.
Did Bill Kelly have particular standing in the thread in which he submitted this objection?
https://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870073
April 16, 2016 at 9:53 am
I thought Bill did have standing because the author of the article, Jeff, had written;
Who authored the article above the current discussion thread, Willy?
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/
Comment of the week
June 21, 2016 Tom S.
Willy, considering the examples I’ve presented above, what I have already communicated in this thread,
and….
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
What is your standing, Willy? Are you demanding my standing should be lower than Bill Kelly’s or yours? I made a reasonable presentation in this comment, Willy. Have you commented reasonably in this thread, how, where?
“What is your standing, Willy? Are you demanding my standing should be lower than Bill Kelly’s or yours?”~Tom
We all have EQUAL STANDING as far as I am concerned Tom.
\\][//
LBJ: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason-we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.[1]
Tapes of Oswald calling the Soviets not matching his voice? But hasn’t the CIA declared since the beginning that these tapes were routinely recycled prior to the assassination, leaving only transcripts as evidence on November 22, 1963? When the above LBJ-Hoover conversation was first revealed a few years ago, many assumed that Hoover was being typically loose with his facts. But last November, Newman presented a good deal of evidence which corroborates Hoover’s astounding statement that the taped calls did indeed survive the assassination and were listened to by FBI agents. Some of this comes from the Lopez Report, the long-suppressed House Select Committee on Assassinations staff report on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City. More still comes from newly released FBI materials, some only available for the first time last year. The Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBI’s Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:
…..Inasmuch as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,…..[2]
Also in the Lopez Report is the following excerpt of a memo from Hoover to Secret Service Chief Rowley on 11/23:
…..The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual indentified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald…..[3]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap/FourteenMinuteGap.htm#_ftn18
\\][//
Willy, you prefer to present/discuss the identical points already under discussion, here –
https://jfkfacts.org/rob-tannenbaums-spellbinding-presentation-hscas-thwarted-jfk-investigation/
Rob Tannenbaum’s ‘spellbinding’ presentation on the HSCA’s thwarted JFK investigation
Why?
One thing I find curious is there was no journalistic fact checking in the newspapers that published this in June, 1967.:
I was under the impression that the topic of discussion is the Mexico City tapes that were claimed to have been erased. But if you want to revisit the Garrison trial yet again be my guest.
\\][//
Gerry Simone presented some of his opinions to Dr. McAdams. Dr. McAdams replied with his own observations. I thought it would do a disservice to let it go at
that, or to reply to their presented beliefs, in depth, in the Mexico City tapes discussion thread.
It was not as if there was not journalism presented earlier in 1967, reporting on similar controversies Garrison was describing in his complaint to the FCC.:
You probably don’t understand the irony of this, Tom, but the National Student Association was a leftist organization.
Poor innocent taxpayer’s dollars at work.
This is an assertion by whom? Garrison, right?
Dr. McAdams, yes, Garrison in his complaint letter to the FCC was describing Stephen B. Lemann, brother-in-law of David Baldwin, but not naming him.
I find it interesting that CIA’s Dorothy Brandao married John Miceli in 1939. He died in 1953. His brother Augusto was best man in their wedding. Augusto was Standard Fruit’s in-house counsel, Garrison’s law partner, Deutsch was hired counsel.:
Is your curiousity at all heightened considering Joan Mellen met Garrison in 1970, claimed she interviewed 1200 people in the course of writing her book on Garrison, yet she told Rex Bradford in the 2006 interview I linked to, that;
From what they’ve said and written, it appears that Garrison kept this from two people, Ms. Mellen and Jeremy Sklar, who have given all appearance of having been taken into Garrison’s confidence.:
SS Chief Rowley spelled the name wrong… McChann, and has the subject’s age wrong (too young) by at least five years…..reported as age 26 in 1964:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11341&search=walter_mcchann#relPageId=2&tab=page
http://phw01.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_003162016_1918_47709_859.pdf
Date: Thursday, April 23, 1964 Paper: Times-Picayune
This is has no more credibility than any other claim of Garrison’s:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/suspects.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jim-shoot.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon3.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon4.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Dr. McAdams, is there someone directed by CIA you can point us to, who does have credibility? You have more in common with those who accept Garrison was
straightforward than you do with my well supported, and thus reasonable observations.
Is there an alternative explanation for why Joan Mellen said to Rex Bradford, “these are the CIA people.” that is reasonable, other than that Garrison misled
her? Why did he mislead those who were sincerely assisting in preserving what they believed was his legacy, for posterity?
My point is I’ve made a well supported case for your opinions being divorced from the facts. Fonzi at least detected the involvement of the CIA. You’ve continued to insist Garrison was some mad dog properly responded to by independent actors in government and corporations such as NBC, WDSU, Newsweek, Saturday Evening Post, etc., but the devil is in the details and if you are reasonable, should influence you to be responsive to them.
This whole exchange is getting odd.
Are you actually saying Garrison would not mislead anybody?
Garrison was a crackpot, who believed all kind of crazy things. Look at the links I posted.
He believed spooks were behind every bush, and under every bed.
I am saying, considering the facts as I presently attempt to weigh/account for them, Garrison misled everyone, including the editor of his book, Jeremy Sklar,
and his friend of 20 years, Joan Mellen. This is in consideration of what Ms. Mellen and Sklar have written, vs.:
I would prefer to believe other things, high opinions of Garrison’s motives and accomplishments. The facts get in the way of that.
No, he fantasized it.
We know what the CIA was doing. Spinning their wheels.
Flummoxed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
But go ahead and ignore the actual evidence in favor of believing Garrison.
– McAdams
So Garrison was a crackpot and Tanenbaum was a fanatic.
Oh, let’s not forget that Oswald was a lone nut.
Hmmm, sounds like a pattern here.
You are just citing stuff that has been posted here over and over.
And you are ignoring the best evidence on the issue, which is two documents produced before any of the Mexico City materials made it to Dallas.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf
Newman is just being a hack, and making claims debunked since the HSCA:
Quoting the Report:
“this stuff has been posted here over and over.” You ought to know. You’ve spent more time here since the site was started than you have on your own between graduate assistants and those funded by the koch’s.
I guess it’s to be expected of Operation Mockingbird as you go way back beyond the site 20 years plus total defending the Warren Omission since the subject began rising to prominence on the internet in the mid 90’s.
One more time Johnny.
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
Don’t you know it’s obvious that you resort to ad hominem attacks when you get your ass kicked on evidence?
It’s happened over and over on this board.
You don’t deny being a Mockingbird?
You don’t deny turning to insults because you have gotten your ass kicked on the evidence?
Could we not rephrase professor’s comment and say :
Don’t you know it’s obvious that one calls ‘ad hominem’ when their ass is being kicked on evidence?
And, what might one call the professor’s rebuttal “Garrison was a crackpot”? Evidence?
“Newman is just being a hack, and making claims debunked since the HSCA”~McAdams
Bunk “professor” Newman is presenting brand new material. You would know that if you would actually read it.
\\][//
The only material saw was various memos and phone conversations where somebody in the FBI said that tapes had made it to Dallas.
But all of these accounts came directly or indirectly from Alan Belmont.
Good Lord, John, you’re not suggesting there was a conspiracy taking place, are you?
Link to prior Cotw – https://jfkfacts.org/22675-2/
This “Comment of the week,” is an experiment. Doubt is creeping in that it is even possible for a facts influenced discussion to develop, a discussion in which side driven sentiment is overwhelmed by what no participant in the discussion particularly relishes, what the facts actually are telling us if we choose to consider them.
What’s the evidence of this?
Is this the fellow who was drummed out of the CIA in the early 50s?
Or is it his friend?
You understand, Tom, that Mellen is absurdly unreliable in her interpretation of evidence, so her opinion means nothing.
So post evidence for that assertion.
Dr. McAdams, both Garrison and Shaw were aware of what you do not want to discuss. Instead you declare Gaeton Fonzi was wrong.
Fonzi was mistaken, but not to the extent you are. You claim the CIA had no role. Yes, the details indicate the CIA did not infiltrate
Garrison’s investigation and prosecution, the actual details indicate Garrison and Shaw were wisps of a CIA smokescreen.:
https://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comment-880760
https://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comment-880767
I consider what I would have to minimize or ignore to write what Gerry did about Garrison, or your response to Ronnie,
(see – https://jfkfacts.org/rob-tannenbaums-spellbinding-presentation-hscas-thwarted-jfk-investigation/#comment-882661 )
and I cannot relate to either of your scenarios because they are incompatible with what I’ve presented. I restrict myself to opinions supported by the details. The details and the behavior of Garrison and Shaw indicate they were similarly restricted, they kept identical secrets, despite this friendly advice.:
Who had the influence to put both of them on short leashes for the rest of their lives, to bring them both to heel?
What in the world does that mean, Tom?
How about stating in plain English what your position is?
Which proves what? That some anti-Communists who supported INCA also gave money to Garrison.
You are aware, I assume, that most business corporations give money to both Republican and Democratic candidates.
That’s known as “hedging you bets.” Or perhaps, “seeking favor wherever you can find it.”
Are you claiming these “associates” were CIA stooges?
Dr. McAdams, do you deny that from the outset, funds raised and provided by the T&C Committee made Garrison’s investigation possible, protecting it from the
political backlash over funds expended, a condition later hampering the HSCA, and sustained the ongoing investigation?
You describe the funding as “hedging their bets,” as is done in reaction to political campaigns. You are attempting to minimize the financial influence of the T&C Committee by making a poor comparison. Political campaigns have alternative donors, depending on candidate performance. Can you describe the alternative to the T&C Committee funding of Garrison’s investigation?
I am fascinated because you claim you are on no side other than that which the evidence supports, yet you stubbornly react to this particular controversy similarly to anyone else who “knows what they know,” what they are already inclined to embrace.
You reflexively dismiss what doesn’t fit. Why not attempt to work it in, before dismissing or ignoring it…. the plainly observable evidence that Garrison
misled Sklar, Stone, and Mellen?
OK, so you think the people who donated to Truth or Consequences were CIA stooges, financing a Garrison “investigation” that targeted the CIA.
So you think the Garrison investigation was itself a CIA operation?