Re: ABC News Declares "JFK shot himself"

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Awake) wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick) wrote:
> >Mike1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick) wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >Have you read "Case Closed"?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Why should I read propaganda?
> >
> >I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging you haven't read it. I
> >didn't think so.
> >
> >Do you consider yourself intellectually honest? Are you willing to put
> >aside any personal agenda and really get to the bottom of the issue,
> >even if it means you might have to change your mind? 
> 
> You didn't answer my questions of November 10th:
> 
> *What doesn't "make sense" about "JFK"?
> 
> Be precise and don't give me any references from the pathological liar's
> "book".
> 
> Just explain the scenes in "JFK" that do not "make sense" and state why
> you feel or think this way.*
> 
> If you're "intellectually honest" and without an "agenda" then answer the 
> questions.
> 
> Discuss "JFK".

He hasn't yet, but I certainly will.  Repeated from 2 articles I posted 
yesterday:

**********

> Put in DVD of "JFK".
> 
> Go to Costner in court holding pointer and describing "Magic Bullet Theory"

And see how the Single Bullet Theory as proposed by practically all of
its proponents is completely misrepresented there.  I know of no
serious researcher who believes in the SBT who has proposed that the
bullet did all that stopping & turning; certainly the Warren
Commission proposed no such thing, nor did the House Assassinations
Committee (HSCA).  In stark contrast, proponents of the theory go with
things like the alignment & graphics submitted to the HSCA by Canning,
in which Connally is merely far enough inboard for the top rear of his
right armpit (which is indeed exactly where the bullet entered his
body) so that the entry point is almost directly in line with the JFK
throat exit & the sniper's window in the Depository.  I know of none
of the most common versions of the theory which propose all that silly
stopping & turning shown in that scene in the movie.  Stone et al
would have us believe that *that* is what the SBT proposes.  In
reality, it proposes no such thing.

Not that I especially believe in the SBT, mind you.  I think it more
likely that Connally was indeed hit by a separate bullet in the back. 
But Costner's demonstration is NOT the SBT proposed by the WC, or the
HSCA, or any other major proponent of the theory.

...

> Watch "JFK" again, it's all true.

Oh, it's "all" true, is it?  I've just given one example of it being
blunderingly inaccurate.

Let's talk about another.

In a latter scene not long before the trial, one of Garrison's
staffers is asking him why they aren't doing more investigation of the
Mafia.  Among several lines given to Costner in reply to the staffer
is something to the effect of, "Could the Mob change the motorcade
route?"  This comes straight from Garrison's book, which goes into
more detail about this matter.  Garrison opined that because the map
contained on the front page of the Dallas Morning News on 11-22-63 did
not show the turns for the motorcade route onto Houston & then onto
Elm, this was powerful evidence that the route was unexpectedly
changed so late that the papers were not informed.

But the truth of the matter is that this is merely a myth, absolutely
& provably false.  The motorcade route as it actually occurred was
announced to both Dallas papers on the evening of 11-18-63, & both
papers published the exact route, including both of those turns, in
text articles in their morning editions of the following day, 3 days
before the assassination.  In addition, the Dallas Times Herald
published a map of the route on 11-21-63 which *also* quite clearly
shows both of those turns.  A mere unintentional error was made by the
person at the News who drew their map, which was to begin with a very
small-scale map, covering only about 1/16th of the page, so small in
scale that it would have been difficult to show those turns anyway.

There was no "change" to the route.  It remained exactly as first
announced 4 days before the assassination, & on the day itself, the
motorcade traveled precisely that route, with no difference
whatsoever.

**********

> I don't see why anyone would quibble with "JFK".

Perhaps one "quibble" might be that the movie was based on the account 
of a pathological liar, the very person who is the film's protagonist, 
Jim Garrison?

Let's discuss a very obvious bold-faced lie that he told.

In his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins" (one of the very 2 books 
upon which the opening of the picture flatly states the film was based, 
the other being a Jim Marrs opus which postulates that practically every 
group in the U.S. with any grievance whatsoever against JFK was directly 
involved in the assassination) Garrison claimed that the map of the 
motorcade route in the 11-22-63 edition of the Dallas Morning News took 
up "five-sixths" of the page, an incredibly humongous map for a 
newspaper to publish.  Anyone who is aware of this claim of his would 
probably burst into instant racous laughter at viewing any extant copy 
of that page, for it is immediately plain as day that the map is quite 
tiny, taking up no more than 1/16th of the page.  Yet from this 
"evidence," Garrison blithely informs the reader, comes the "proof" that 
the motorcade route was "changed" at the last minute, too late for the 
papers to be informed, since this map, whose size Garrison tremendously 
inflated, did not show the 2 turns onto Houston & Elm that would take 
the motorcade right past the front entrance to the Depository, though in 
reality it is of such a small scale that it would be nearly impossible 
to show those turns in it.  Never mind that (as Garrison utterly fails 
to make even the slightest mention of) BOTH Dallas papers had previously 
published 3 days earlier text articles which specifically mentioned both 
of those turns, & never mind that the day BEFORE the assassination the 
Dallas Times Herald published a *larger* map which quite plainly showed 
both those turns.

But to lie about the size of a mere newspaper map might be considered a 
falsehood of somewhat "lesser" consequence.  In that light, let's now 
discuss one of far more major consequence to Garrison's investigation.

In precisely the same book, Garrison claimed that many of his documents 
relating to the case were "stolen."

It is therefore exceedingly strange that exactly these same documents 
were released publicly after his death, having been obtained directly 
from the effects he left behind.

And they tell a story of egregious deception.

If one is to believe the movie & Garrison himself, the lynchpin of the 
case against Shaw (aside from Perry Russo, the man who said both "yes" & 
"no") is several witnesses from Clinton, Louisiana, who claimed at the 
Shaw trial (& dutifully portrayed in the film similarly) that Lee Harvey 
Oswald showed up in their very small town in the company of 2 men 
remarkably similar to the very unique-appearing David Ferrie, & the 
distinguished "white-haired" gentleman, Clay Shaw, these same witnesses 
pointing to Shaw when asked if they saw this same man in the courtroom.  
Some additional details given by these witnesses were that all 3 men 
arrived in a black Cadillac, driven by Mr. Shaw, & that Oswald got out & 
stood in a voting registration line composed otherwise almost entirely 
of blacks.

The problem with all this is instantly revealed in Garrison's OWN 
private papers released after his death.

The same ones he said were "stolen" more than 2 decades before his death.

For in the EARLIEST statements given by precisely these SAME witnesses, 
a rather different story was told.

Almost 2 years before the trial, in his initial interview with the 
Garrison staff, one of these witnesses said that Oswald arrived, not 
with 2 other men, but instead with a woman & a baby, & not in a 
Cadillac, but instead in a station wagon.

With, moreover, Oswald driving the vehicle.

The same Oswald who never got a driver's license, & according to several 
people who had known him for years, including his own wife, had never 
learned to drive.

It is quite fascinating how Oswald's 2 companions had metamorphed, by 
the time of the trial, into one companion of the opposite gender, & 
another whose age had increased rather dramatically from infancy to 
middle age.  Not to mention that Oswald changed from the driver into a 
passenger, & that the vehicle changed its shape almost as much as the 
change required to turn a pickup truck into a sedan.

Not to mention becoming a completely different color.

But does Garrison in his book, or the movie "JFK," make the slightest 
mention of any of this?

Nopers.

In addition, we are asked to believe with this scenario that it is even 
remotely plausible that the very accused assassin of the President of 
the United States, whose face, beginning immediately after the 
assassination & continuously for many months afterward, saturated the 
media, would appear in such a small town only 2 months before the 
assassination, & that yet his "appearance" there would *not* be the 
biggest piece of gossip ever to hit that tiny burgh in its entire 
history, & that not a single person in the entire town would make the 
slightest mention of it to the media, and/or to law enforcement, for 
nearly 4 years following the assassination, & that additionally, of all 
those Black people in the voting registration line who "saw" this one 
White man in the line with them, whose face was all over the media not 
long afterward, not a single one has come forward to the present day to 
claim that they saw Oswald in that line with them, & even so, he was 
"there."

Oh but no: far from telling all & sundry, from the moment they first saw 
Oswald's face on the telly right after the assassination, that they had 
SEEN this very man right in their own little town only a couple of 
months earlier, one of whom later claimed to have *additionally* seen a 
cancelled Navy card carried by Oswald with his full name on it, these 
"witnesses" to his "appearance" in that town remained utterly silent, 
until, astoundingly later, only in 1967, when approached by Garrison's 
staff, they suddenly "remembered" Oswald having "been" there.

Try to imagine ANY small town in the entire United States (the 1990 
Census put Clinton's population at a meager 1904 souls) which is small 
enough for most of the people to know most of the other people's 
business, for the appearance of the accused assassin of the President 
only 2 months before he supposedly murdered NOT to be all over town 
within 24 hours of the assassination.  Yet if we are to believe Garrison 
& "JFK," that is exactly what happened.  In this little town, NO ONE 
talked about the assassin's "appearance" there for almost 4 years.  
Patricia Lambert, who authored a book about the Garrison case, was 
utterly unable to locate even a single person in Clinton (aside from 
these trial "witnesses") who recalled hearing even the slightest breath 
of a rumor that Oswald had "been" in their town before 1967.

We're instead expected to believe that it wasn't ALL OVER TOWN already, 
even before Ruby shot Oswald less than 48 hours after the death of JFK, 
in such a SMALL town, & yet that Oswald "still" was "really" there in 
September 1963, & not just in a "private" venue, but in a voting 
registration line of great interest to both Blacks & Whites.

But no; instead of being "all over town," to the present day a group of 
residents of that town, present or former, living or deceased, numbering 
in no more than single digits, remain the only ones ever documented as 
"recalling" Oswald's presence there.

Dunno about y'all, but I've personally seen, in towns up to 4 times this 
population, matters of tremendously lesser significance than the 
appearance of a presidential assassination being quite literally "all 
over town" in an amount of time many orders of magnitude shorter than 4 
years.

A city councilman in a town of 8000 shows up drunk at the county fair, & 
everyone & their dog's mother knows about it by sunset of the following 
day.

In a town of less than 1/4th that population, a man who had been seen in 
public 2 months earlier, is suddenly prominently displayed on all 3 
television networks, & every major print publication, continuously for 
months in a row, accused of being the assassin of the Head of State of 
this country...

...& yet NOBODY talks about it at the local barber shop, at the grocery, 
or indeed at any other venue in town...

...until almost 4 years later.

And then ONLY to Garrison's investigators initially.

But very oddly, their wifes, siblings, children, parents, friends, etc., 
have heard nothing about it until then.

**********

Oh, & I didn't get even a single shred of this from Posner.

It is awfully strange that you call Posner a "pathological liar," when 
Jim Garrison represents the very definition of that word.  He's been 
proven beyond all possible doubt to have told a good many more 
bold-faced lies than Posner.

-- 
"During the school year I am a teacher, but during June & July I am a CIA
operative." - me, on 6-11-03.