I was on The New JFK Show #211 the other night with Jim Fetzer, Gary King, and Larry Rivera, and it was very interesting- for me. What I brought to the discussion was the article by Tim Cwiek from the Third Decade from 1995 in which he challenged the authenticity of the Bob Jackson photo of Oswald being shot. Fake, fake, fake. But, I was very interested in what Gary King brought to the table: a recent article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune about Jim Garrison.
I knew, of course, it that it had to be derogatory. That was a given. But, why would they publish such an article now?
The gist of it was that Garrison was a publicity hound, who was very adept at manipulating the media. No attempt was made to delve into the case, although one line jumped out at me.
Shaw, a retired business executive and gay man who was mercilessly outed at the time of his arrest, was alleged to have participated in an assassination-related discussion with two co-conspirators, Oswald and David Ferrie, both by then deceased.
Deceased? By then? But, one got shot right in police custody after, supposedly, gargantuan and unsurpassed security precautions. And the other died mysteriously right after Garrison announced publicly his intention to go after him, David Ferrie, who left behind two suicide notes that were found in his apartment (although was more of a longing-for-death note). The coroner decided that Ferrie died of a ruptured aneurysm (stroke), therefore, natural causes, but how could Ferrie anticipate that? Garrison stated cynically that perhaps it was an odd coincident that Ferrie wrote two suicide notes and then promptly died of natural causes. So, he intended to kill himself, but then it turned out that he didn't need to, that Nature helped him out.
Look at this utterly stupid reasoning by Professor John McAdams:
"It's possible that Ferrie was aware of his failing health, and wrote the (suicide) notes in the expectation that he would soon die — but not by his own hand. Journalist David Snyder reported that Ferrie told him that he had encephalitis, that Ferrie's voice was barely audible, his breathing unsteady and his "steps were feeble." Not only had he been complaining about headaches, when two Garrison aides visited him the Saturday before his death, he "moaned and groaned with each step he took up the stairs" and told them that he had not been able to keep food on his stomach for a couple of days."
Sounds pretty bad, but then in the next breath, McAdams says:
"The last person to see him alive, George Lardner, Jr., reported him to be in good spirits. And several people who talked to him in the last week of his life reported that, in spite of his health problems, he was in a combative mood, intent on fighting Garrison's charges against him. Indeed, he was preparing to sue Garrison."
How could he sue Garrison if he was dead? Law suits take months and sometimes years, and if he died, the suit would die with him. If he really thought he was imminently dying, then the second paragraph makes no sense. Good spirits, combativeness, fighting, and suing don't go along with imminent dying. You can't have it both ways, John. And, you can't tell me that Ferrie anticipated that he was going to have a stroke. That is ridiculous. Not even old people anticipate they are going to have a stroke, let alone young people, and Ferrie was young. And therefore, what did he expect to die of?
But, admittedly, I digress. My point is that the author of the article, who is a female history professor from a Louisiana college, just glibly sauntered over the deaths of Oswald and Ferrie as if, "nothing to see here."
My question is: why would they spew out another article about Jim Garrison now? What provoked it?
And here's something else to think about: How is it possible that not a single reporter, editor, or commentator at any major newspaper in the United States has not got the slightest doubt or reservation about the official story of the JFK assassination? Think about the mathematics of that. With so many Americans doubting the official story of the JFK assassination, how is it that none of them work for newspapers? How is it that every major newspaper in the country is monolithic in its support of the official story? Do you realize how controlled the press is in our country?
Here is the link to the show: