+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB (/thread-15403.html)
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Jim DiEugenio - 24-03-2017
It never fails to amaze me how the Dark Syde will always have their knives out for Jim Garrison. In this case its Max Holland.
And how they will always be ready to recycle journalistic cliches from decades ago that have been discredited.
Plus, they will always ignore the ARRB discoveries which fortify his case. I guess you can call it playing to the crowd's ignorance. Anyway here is my response to the latest flatulent attempt to recycle 1969.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-holland-and-donald-carpenter-vs-jim-garrison-and-the-arrb
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Tom Scully - 25-03-2017
Jim, nothing would please me more than actually having a discussion in this thread, one in which facts restrain passions.
Please ask questions. I keep being impressed with the idea that Stone made a movie about a CIA production, a production in
which all key players were actually on the same side. A brilliant distraction directed and front financed by Willard E. Robertson.
Quote:https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-holland-and-donald-carpenter-vs-jim-garrison-and-the-arrb
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs. Jim Garrison and the ARRB
[FONT=&]Written by James DiEugenio
........
......But actually it's even worse than that. As Joan Mellen later discovered, the CIA had hidden away documents that proved that Shaw was a highly paid, valuable contract agent from early in the fifties. This document was not declassified until a historical review program did so in the nineties. (Joan Mellen, Our Man in Haiti, pp. 54-55) This information corresponds with what Gordon Novel revealed in a written communication made back in the seventies. There he wrote that, back in 1964, the CIA had sent out an order through Director of Security Howard Osborn to conceal Shaw's true Agency status from inquiries into the JFK murder. To say this tactic was successful does not really do it justice. But it shows the price the public must pay for the almost maniacal secrecy the national security state demands.......
[/FONT]
Quote:http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2017/03/garrison50.html#more
by Donald H. Carpenter
........
In the late 1980s, Garrison wrote his own account of the case, On the Trail of the Assassins, to no acclaim. The book was riddled with striking inaccuracies and outright lies. Garrison placed himself in the courtroom when Clay Shaw took the stand, when in fact he had absented himself and declined to cross-examine the alleged mastermind of the conspiracy. Garrison also pretended that he had only found out after the 1969 trial about Shaw's alleged work as a CIA operativeeven though a journal kept by Life's Richard Billings irrefutably proves the DA learned about this spurious allegation very soon after the Paese Sera article was published in March 1967.[6]......
..........
The one salutary effect the film had was to pressure Congress into enacting the John F. Kennedy Assassination Materials Act of 1992, which eventually resulted in the declassification of nearly all federal records pertaining to the assassination. Today these records are preserved (along with archival documents from other sources) in a special collection at the National Archives. The FBI, CIA, House Select Committee on Assassinations, and Justice Department documents have not been kind to Garrison. Together with the letters of Clay Shaw and Garrison's own records, the paper trail damns the prosecutor who perpetrated this crime against an innocent man.....
Jim, I put into practice my commitment to fight the good fight. As you can see, I was shot down in my following effort to edit in what seems to me to be reliable and significant. I ardently attempt to maintain a perspective open to considering all information, much of which a less involved student of these controversies might chalk up to an outsized parade of coincidences.
Tom Scully Wrote:........https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clay_Shaw&action=history&year=2013&month=-1&tagfilter=
.......Facts - C.D. Jackson was very intelligent and an opportunist.
These attributes did not escape the notice of Henry Luce and likely also not the notice of two older Hill school classmates who roomed together at Princeton for two years, Walker Brainerd Spencer and Philip Grandin Strong.
In 1927 Spencer was best man in the New Orleans wedding of his lifelong friend, CIA's William P. Burke. In 1954, Philip G. Strong set in motion through meetings with his friend Kelly Johnson and a memo to Allen Dulles the development of an airplane
that earned Phil Strong the title, "Father of the U2".
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingr...0000621349.pdf
Approved for release 09/23/2009
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clay_Shaw&diff=578430849&oldid=578382128
Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clay_Shaw#Is_this_Revert_misleading.3F_Aftermath:_......Americans_.28businessmen.2C_journalists.2C_etc..29_had_provided_such_information_to_the_DCS.
Is this Revert misleading? Aftermath: ......Americans (businessmen, journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS.[edit]
17:38, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,143 bytes) (-300)‎ . .Quote:(Undid revision 578382128 by Ruidoso (talk) WP(cur | prev) 17:37, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,443 bytes) (-1,166)‎ . . (→‎Further reading: rm unrelated or low quality sources) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:36, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,609 bytes) (-394)‎ . . (→‎External links: rm dubious links) (undo | thank)RIMARY) (undo | thank)
I edited the Aftermath section because in a 1992 CIA document released in 1998, "in 1992, J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian, wrote a memo based on his review of CIA records, released in 1998, stating Shaw had been a "highly paid CIA contract source." Administrator Gamaliel promptly relegated this contraty opinion of Shaw's volunteer status to the basement and actually added this comment to his "undid revision" of my edit. "(→‎Further reading: rm unrelated or low quality sources)" Gamaliel, author of John C. McAdams took action to maintain this ".Americans (businessmen, journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS. (as volunteers)" in lieu of a determination made and written in 1992 by a CIA historian privy to review of classified information in CIA records, in a CIA document kept classified until 1998, available at a link I had edited in.
Will the information and supporting cites Gamaliel and John C. McAdams agree with be displayed prominently while equally or better sourced information is displayed less prominenlty in wikipedia articles, or not at all? Ruidoso (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I always thought this content is totally irrelevant: "By the mid-1970s, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS." This statement feels like wikipedia is biased towards Shaw. Not encyclopaedic. usernamekiran (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Harold Weisberg was taken in (blinded) by both Paul Rothermel and by Jesse Core
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Albert Doyle - 25-03-2017
In my constant vigilance on the internet I am regularly responding to Lone Nutter types who trash Garrison. Amazingly, being familiar with the subject, I see the same old tired propaganda being used against him that hasn't changed since CIA issued it back in 1967. Whenever I confront those comments section anti-Garrison trolls I try to mention that he was actually correct and had found some of the culprits and that most of what Oliver Stone showed was based on fact.
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Jim DiEugenio - 25-03-2017
There is an old CIA dictum that says once a disinformation story is set in play, it can be reactivated later for the same uses.
To write an article about the Garrison investigation today, and to use exactly zero from the mass of declassified documents that the ARRB released on the subject, to me that says all you need to know about Holland and Carpenter. In my piece I used over a dozen of those documents. Just for the reason they represent facts, not passions. Its clearly Carpenter and Holland who are arguing from passions. One of the achievements of the Garrison investigation, as I clearly implied, is that he was just one step away from David Phillips. Which was the next level of the plot.
As per the discrepancy about Permindex, if you watch the link in that article to the Holland/Aguilar debate, Gary explains that in two ways. Either Garrison did not refer to his files, and understandably over a twenty year lapse made an error. Or he did not want to explain that he could not finance a research trip to Italy to gain the firsthand info to eliminate the objection of hearsay in court.
But to me, that dodges the point that, which as I wrote in my essay is this: all the implications of the articles turned out to be accurate. They were not, as Holland says, KGB planted stories. How could they be if they were commissioned six months prior to Shaw being arrested? Also, if you watch that debate you will see that Holland's source on this is Dick Helms, who used the same KGB smear when Paesa Sera accused the CIA of trying to overthrow DeGaulle, which also turned out to be true.
FInally, I got an email yesterday from a reader who said, Jim, I have emailed Carpenter several queries about his book through his publisher. He has yet to reply.
I don't have that problem. I reply to every query I get. Most of them on the air through BOR.
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Jim DiEugenio - 26-03-2017
BTW, does anyone know anything about Holland?
I mean from before his Wilson Quarterly days before he started attacking the critics? All I could find out was he graduated from Antioch College and wrote a decent book on the decline of industrial jobs in America called When the Machine Stopped.
That is supposed to be a good book about his father's company and how it was sold into salvage by corporate and junk bond LBO's. Its ironic that his book would be critical of that policy in that JFK's policy was much different toward economics as Don Gibson depicted in Battling Wall Street.
Anyway, just who was he before 1994?
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Scott Kaiser - 26-03-2017
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:BTW, does anyone know anything about Holland?
I mean from before his Wilson Quarterly days before he started attacking the critics? All I could find out was he graduated from Antioch College and wrote a decent book on the decline of industrial jobs in America called When the Machine Stopped.
That is supposed to be a good book about his father's company and how it was sold into salvage by corporate and junk bond LBO's. Its ironic that his book would be critical of that policy in that JFK's policy was much different toward economics as Don Gibson depicted in Battling Wall Street.
Anyway, just who was he before 1994?
If you want to dig up some information regarding Holland, I would suggest you start here. I did the same thing on someone else, but I used the Liebengood files, information that had been suppressed. Then, I made the mistake of releasing some of those documents. I suppose I was in a hurry to explain why Watergate. I think I've saved the best for last, information I have not released, mind blowing information, really....
If you are able to somehow take a look inside this NARA Finding Aid, AARB box listing 72, you just may find what you're looking for, I know I did. Or, do what I did, I contacted the LOC, (Library of Congress) for information I needed, in this case, you'll need to contact NARA. Good luck!
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Tom Scully - 31-03-2017
From page 11 of 15.... http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/H%20Disk/Holland%20Max/Item%2001.pdf
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Albert Doyle - 31-03-2017
All potential Intel influenced sources...Especially Voice Of America....
Thomas Graves drops the kimono:
Quote:Dear James,You don't seem to realize that in order for one to believe in Harvey and Lee and the Two Marguerites, one must not only read the book, but be of a gullible, paranoiac, "We Live In A Deep State!" disposition, as well.
Vladimir Putin loves it, because he knows that that kind of thinking (which he engenders and makes palatable to both the Alt Right and the Alt Left, through his xxxxx factory in Saint Petersburg, and by Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear through Gucccifer 2.0 and Assange) is tearing this country apart.
How does it feel to know that you might be doing Putin's dirty work for him, unwittingly of course?
The contorted apology and outright attack on truthful reportage of a classic Intel infiltrator (or perhaps trollish gadfly)
.
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Jim DiEugenio - 31-03-2017
Thanks for that Tom. Should have known Weisberg had it.
I have no idea what Graves meant by that fruity binge about Putin.
Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB - Scott Kaiser - 01-04-2017
Albert Doyle Wrote:In my constant vigilance on the internet I am regularly responding to Lone Nutter types who trash Garrison. Amazingly, being familiar with the subject, I see the same old tired propaganda being used against him that hasn't changed since CIA issued it back in 1967. Whenever I confront those comments section anti-Garrison trolls I try to mention that he was actually correct and had found some of the culprits and that most of what Oliver Stone showed was based on fact.
I have to disagree simply because the work shown within Stone's JFK movie was what I believe to be a presentation of every possible conspiracy under one umbrella. The signature conversation at the horse track, the dark and mysterious conversation on the park bench, the ever so popular meeting in the hotel room.
And, none of it provided the motive. Why would anyone want JFK killed? There has got to be a book coving the facts, a motive, and expose the assassins. I have one in mind I believe does all that and goes beyond the call of duty.