25-03-2017, 08:15 PM
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.
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.