Max Holland and Donald Carpenter vs Jim Garrison and the ARRB

[Scott Kaiser]

Someone once said to me, if you want to catch a criminal, you have to think like one. If you want to catch an assassin, you have to think like one. I keep reminding myself everyday, whose son am i?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Those three scenes you refer to are not from "everything under the sun".

They are all a part of Garrison's experience in investigating the JFK case.

One can argue about the use of dramatic license. But they all happened.

And the film does show a motive for the crime. One which Garrison believed in. Namely, the expansion and the eventual monumental escalation of the Vietnam War.

The triumph of the film, and of Prouty's and John Newman's work, is that this idea finally made it out into the MSM, the public and, most incredible of all, even the world of academia. And it caused the release of about seven books on the subject. I have read most of them. The totality proves that Stone was correct on this, as was Prouty. LBJ did break with what Kennedy's policy was. This is a fact which Johnson deliberately tried to disguise by saying he was continuing JFK's policy. Which is a Texas sized lie.

But further, today, with all we have, it is now possible to actually trace the line of this withdrawal plan as it progressed.

[Albert Doyle]

All pretty much accurately covered in Stone and Douglass, as realized by anyone who has studied assassination literature in depth...

[Jim DiEugenio]

Douglass gets most of it.

But there is even more out there now because others have gotten into it since Jim's book came out.

I mean Kennedy even ordered an evacuation plan in November, in case Saigon fell too soon. Like in 1964.

[Scott Kaiser]

Those three scenes you refer to are not from "everything under the sun".

They are all a part of Garrison's experience in investigating the JFK case.

One can argue about the use of dramatic license. But they all happened.

And the film does show a motive for the crime. One which Garrison believed in. Namely, the expansion and the eventual monumental escalation of the Vietnam War.

The triumph of the film, and of Prouty's and John Newman's work, is that this idea finally made it out into the MSM, the public and, most incredible of all, even the world of academia. And it caused the release of about seven books on the subject. I have read most of them. The totality proves that Stone was correct on this, as was Prouty. LBJ did break with what Kennedy's policy was. This is a fact which Johnson deliberately tried to disguise by saying he was continuing JFK's policy. Which is a Texas sized lie.

But further, today, with all we have, it is now possible to actually trace the line of this withdrawal plan as it progressed.

Well, I could mention more, I thought three were enough, you say they all happened? How would you know?

[Scott Kaiser]

It was a three ring circus for Jim Garrison a comical litigation. Then the movie followed.

[Scott Kaiser]

And, you NEVER saw him coming, I mean how could you? When no one has ever heard of him?

[Scott Kaiser]

I keep telling you the assassination had nothing to do with Vietnam but you're not listening.

mr. Garrison never provided a motive nor did the movie JFK ever provide a motive for the assassination only glimpses of movie shots of Vietnam what's that supposed to mean?

[Scott Kaiser]

Even in the movie Nixon they shot the scene where some youth campers were protesting against the Vietnam War and Nixon approach them, tell me why is it that I can't even find the historical reference under the Lincoln memorials record of protests when anti-castro Cubans and eight busloads showed up to protest the release of Orlando Bosch at the Lincoln Memorial?

That happened also.

[Dawn Meredith]

All potential Intel influenced sources...Especially Voice Of America....





Thomas Graves drops the kimono:

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)




.

OMG Just when I did not think Tommy was any more of a nut....
So let me get this straight. If one believes John Armstrong's work this means you are "doing Putin's dirty work". Is he on really bad drugs?
Is this in jest? Does he really not believe in the deep state? ::