Jim Marrs latest stuff. Is there a consensus?

[Seamus Coogan]

I'm interested in canvassing peoples opinions on Jim Marrs work. His name of course crops up all over the show nowadays. I personally think he's a great guy. Crossfire aided JFK which in turn aided the ARRB. Jim will always be given credit for that.

But it's your opinions on his latest stuff I am really interested in as it plays a part in my up coming piece on the MJ-12 Documents. I'm going too post this up at Lancer. I'm not looking into a big debate and I'll use the best ones in my essay.

I'll get the ball rolling but is Jim Marrs one of the reasons why an increasing number of kooks are trying to bust in on the scene? Also why does he hang out with Gordon Novel and David Icke is he concerned with book sales. Because thats credibility killing stuff IMO.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Seamus - are you able to point members towards some articles where you consider Jim Marrs may have gone too far, and briefly articulate why?

Thanks in advance.

[Peter Lemkin]

I see I'm likey to get involved in this thread.....as I'm likely the only one here, other than J. White who had once worked with him rather intensely for a few years [n my case - decades for Jack]. So I know the man more than just the rep and books. I can say that he is not under anyone's control and believes in what he writes - or he wouldn't write it; that said I don't agree with all of his analyses or choice of topics and associates on some subjects - on others I have no problems at all and can, personally, reconcile the apparent contradiction others might feel. I'd say you never should forget that all who get into this kind of stuff seriously [and are on the truth finding - rather than truth obfuscation side of things] have at least one [and sometimes more than unity] strange character traits. Dull normals need not apply and wouldn't even think of it.hock::p

[Seamus Coogan]

Seamus - are you able to point members towards some articles where you consider Jim Marrs may have gone too far, and briefly articulate why?

Thanks in advance.

I didn't want to do that. I thought I mentioned enough in the above post. There's enough examples of Marrs on the internet. Basically it can cover everything and anything from Alien Agenda onwards. His associations with Gordon Novel (poor judgement and Alex Jones for instance) Thats what I want comments from people about. Also his work.

[Phil Dragoo]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2625[/ATTACH]

One of the earliest books on the JFK assassination I bought was Jim Marrs' Crossfire. I found it enormously important in the destruction it wrought upon the official propaganda.

With the further research in the twenty-three years since, the release of millions of pages of documents through FOIA and ARRB, we know much more.

Being in Texas and drawing this much heat requires a level of courage--Jack knows and history shows.

As for Jim Marrs' subsequent excursions through various wormholes--that's the man and what he does. If he's occasionally on the cover of World News Weekly with Alex Jones and Gorden Novel--well, we all saw Hillary's Alien Baby.

[Charles Drago]

Sorry, but this thread bugs the hell out of me.

It's not that Jim Marrs is above criticism. But there are deeper issues to deal with here.

We ultimately are self-destructive in the extreme when we contribute to the public perception that internecine warfare is tearing apart the "research community" (once an oxymoron, always an oxymoron).

So too when we allow the argument to migrate from the facts to the folk.

This shouldn't be about Jim Marrs or anyone or anything else but TRUTH and JUSTICE.

In most but not all cases, this MUST BE about the evidence -- NOT the evidence presenters.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to defend an argument that a presenter is an enemy agent -- witting or otherwise.

Don't play the enemy's game. Don't go hunting for your own. Stick to the evidence.

If you've got the goods on a mole in our midst, go for the jugular. But you damn well better be prepared to make your case.

Don't let the enemy deflect attention from the facts.

One more thing: Robert Morningstar is my dear friend. He is George Michael Evica's dear friend. I have no reason to suspect his motives. And while we do not see eye to eye on a number of issues, we do stand as allies on many others.

Have at Robert's arguments. They are fair game.

But be certain that, if you do, you can demonstrate a comprehensive familiarity with and understanding of those arguments.

[Seamus Coogan]

Sorry, but this thread bugs the hell out of me.

It's not that Jim Marrs is above criticism. But there are deeper issues to deal with here.

We ultimately are self-destructive in the extreme when we contribute to the public perception that internecine warfare is tearing apart the "research community" (once an oxymoron, always an oxymoron).

So too when we allow the argument to migrate from the facts to the folk.

This shouldn't be about Jim Marrs or anyone or anything else but TRUTH and JUSTICE.

In most but not all cases, this MUST BE about the evidence -- NOT the evidence presenters.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to defend an argument that a presenter is an enemy agent -- witting or otherwise.

Don't play the enemy's game. Don't go hunting for your own. Stick to the evidence.

If you've got the goods on a mole in our midst, go for the jugular. But you damn well better be prepared to make your case.

Don't let the enemy deflect attention from the facts.

One more thing: Robert Morningstar is my dear friend. He is George Michael Evica's dear friend. I have no reason to suspect his motives. And while we do not see eye to eye on a number of issues, we do stand as allies on many others.

Have at Robert's arguments. They are fair game.

But be certain that, if you do, you can demonstrate a comprehensive familiarity with and understanding of those arguments.

Very interesting take on it. I'm a bit of a critic of Morningstar as you know. But cheers for getting your feedback. I don't think it's neccessarily going down that track and I am not 'hunting' for Marrs. I'm just interested in what he evokes. I really like him myself. Not in the BS Dave Perry 'I'm his friend' sort of thing. I really do think he's a good guy and contributed a lot like what Phil says. I'm just interested in his 'new direction'. I also think he was a bit silly for going along with the MJ-12 stuff. But I'm here nor there. Whats concerned me is that Dave Perry really carried the whole 'he's lost it with UFO's' line in 2000.

That piece was a terrible load of shit. But what concerned me is the dialectic used. Since Perry made the first big public criticism. What it did was get in the way of legitimate researchers at the time (much like you CD) voicing concerns about Marrs content. Well people need too take stock. Dave Perry's criticisms were for completely the wrong reasons with regard to Marrs. They were to confuse and obfuscate and also too make people think 'hmmmm siding with Dave Perry' not a good look and dare I say it's not. What need's to happen is that the power of critique and review needs to be taken back by us. If we let the John McAdams and Perry's of the world pass comment and not engage in critique ourselves who is? Hell I didn't see those guys go after John Hankey lol.

In saying that Marrs was excellent on Ventura's show and came along just at the right time.

[Seamus Coogan]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2625[/ATTACH]

One of the earliest books on the JFK assassination I bought was Jim Marrs' Crossfire. I found it enormously important in the destruction it wrought upon the official propaganda.

With the further research in the twenty-three years since, the release of millions of pages of documents through FOIA and ARRB, we know much more.

Being in Texas and drawing this much heat requires a level of courage--Jack knows and history shows.

As for Jim Marrs' subsequent excursions through various wormholes--that's the man and what he does. If he's occasionally on the cover of World News Weekly with Alex Jones and Gorden Novel--well, we all saw Hillary's Alien Baby.

Cheers mate.

[Bernice Moore]

'' phil quote; Being in Texas and drawing this much heat requires a level of courage--Jack knows and history shows.

As for Jim Marrs' subsequent excursions through various wormholes--that's the man and what he does. If he's occasionally on the cover of World News Weekly with Alex Jones and Gorden Novel--well, we all saw Hillary's Alien Baby.''

that about says it for moi......Marrs the man is entitled to believe in exactly what he wants, and that's a given,but in the research world seldom accepted or respected, as far as critical articles, that is nothing new, only perhaps a few more on the payroll now and on the web than in the past, well money talks, so, so do they.....as well they often now take the opportunity to critique posts on forums,to the point where, research stands still nothing is accomplished, but wasted resources, i have wondered what would happen if people were able to completely ignore them.they strive for and grow in importance with attention. imo..:hitball:

[Seamus Coogan]

It was a concern of mine when I originally posted this that it came across as a hit piece on Marrs. Thus I'm glad that people haven't taken it as such.

The real hit piece on him was done by Robert Wilonsky and Dave Perry in 2000 (I don't have the heart to promote their dirty work and it's just a Google search away anyhow) In hindsight JM should have done a little backtracking before he invited the guy into his home.

You'll see in my spare time, that I've done a background check on RW's previous stuff and there was no way in 'hell' Mr Wilonsky was ever going to do an objective piece. The stuff below needs to be edited and may not make the final cut when it's submitted in it's present form. But I hope it's useful to you all. I apologise for any of my usual poor grammar lol.

"Prior too the Marrs article in 2000 Wilonsky had been on the Kennedy beat for sometime before his big break on Marrs. He and Dave Perry's articles had appeared in Steve Gerlach's Probable Cause' magazine in November of 1994. Wilonsky was interviewing General Edwin Walker (http://roswell.fortunecity.com/angelic/96/pcissu8.htm). He then wrote a glowing tribute to Mailers Oswald's Ghost in 1995 (http://www.dallasobserver.com/1995-05-11...d-s-ghost/) there's an interesting interview he did with Jesse Curry's son Gene in which Wilonsky condemns the critics for ruining Curry's career when in fact it was actually the Dallas Citizens Council, and his buddies at the DPD, Hoover at the FBI and then the Warren Commission whom essentially scapegoated him. (http://www.dallasobserver.com/content/pr...ion/273975/) Curry in all reality is one person the average critic' regards as one of the few members of the DPD whom came away with his dignity intact. Wilonsky never mentions that Curry in his biography stated "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."(Groden & Livingstone; High Treason, pg 237) And as can be seen here in his interview with Peter Dale Scott discussing a shot from the right front in Dealey Plaza circa 1977. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Zk5LNWY8U).

He can also be seen making odd jibes about Neil Burgers Interview With an Assassin'. Which Wilonsky, also a film critic (and a rather poor one at that) praised this lame conspiratorial variation of the infinitely better Belgian Man Bites Dog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103905/) as poking fun at conspiracy theorists' when it was merely a mockumentary that implied the central character was a shooter, capturing a juxtaposition as to whether the character was for real or not. He also took a mean spirited swipe at COPA that very same year (http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-11-28...-the-dark/)

It should be no surprise he has given ever so kindly' coverage (http://www.houstonpress.com/2003-03-13/film/kill-shot/) to Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum a number of times in a highly favourable manner. (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa...nal_ge.php) Of note is his touching article detailing Bill Paxtons photographed attendance at JFK's Fort Worth Address the morning of the Assassination of which the 6th Floor Museum cashed in on (Paxton is behind the current Bugliosi inspired Hanks production). (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa...john_f.php) He's also given favourable reviews of Bugliosi's awful tome (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa..._na_na.php). Wilonsky still wasn't finished with Jim Marrs. He browbeat him again in 2006 (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpa..._marrs.php)"