Thursday, November 21, 2013

Glenn Garvin: "Facts Don't Matter in JFK Conspiracies" - Maybe Not To A Warrenite Dupe!

My impatience with certifiable hacks and know-nothings in the media grows daily as we approach the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination tomorrow. I don't mind, or wouldn't, if these ignorant tools would keep their unsupported (except by the now defamed Warren Commission Report) hogswill  to themselves but they never do. They present it as "gospel" and also cite the top Warren apologists such as Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi.

No surprise as a result, way too many incompetent commenters - like on the WaPo  NY Times and UK Guardian forums- parrot this BS, including that "Occam's razor applies". Uh, no, it doesn't! (See the last Mail Brane blog.).  Another dope on The Guardian site actually insisted:  "The Edward Snowden revelations show conspiracy can't work!"  Huh! Have you lost all your neurons? Or is it too much nose candy that blew them out?  Here's a clue: if a person is going to wax forcefully on the JFK case, at least make sure you know some basic facts, i.e. like Oswald's Mannlicher- Carcano didn't even work properly and the telescopic sight shims had to be rebuilt for the Warren Commission test trials! (See my FAQ,  Part 6)

Sadly - and possibly partly to do with the raft of ignorant comments in so many online news forums-  the pro-Warren malarkey is being recycled with revived intensity, especially as the current polling shows those who accept conspiracy has plummeted to 61% - from 81% in 1988. So the media brainwashers are feeling powerful and like they're making headway.  For example, Miami Herald hack Glenn Garvin in his recent piece: "The JFK Conspiracies: Facts Don't Matter" - which I happened to spy in today's online Denver Post. As I read through Garvin's tripe it immediately became evident to me the guy isn't qualified to write about the minerals in dog poop far less the JFK assassination.

What got my dander up? Let's see some of the codswallop on offer from this Mockingbird imitator:

He begins by citing the master disinfo hotshot Vince Bugliosi (who I will have a separate FAQ on) from a History Channel documentary to be shown tomorrow who cites "42 different conspiracy theories involving 82 assassins and 214 accomplices".  This, of course, is intended to make heads explode and sneer instantly at any suggestion of conspiracy. But note, this is coming from a liar who couldn't even get basic facts straight in his brick-sized tome 'Reclaiming History' - including insisting that some guy named "Miller" succeeded in duplicating Oswald's rifle feat, when the Warren Commission's own sharpshooter team couldn't do it! (which I elaborated in FAQ, Part 6) .

I also noted already the reason for a disjunctive plurality of theories which mainly arose during the three decades or so when no critical files on Oswald were available  I noted in my Nov 20 post (to do with TIME's nonsense)  how this changed after the JFK Records Act was passed to make available millions of files by 1993. These included Oswald's CIA file : 201-289248 CI/SIG, as well as others, which finally opened the window on Oswald to serious researchers - showing he wasn't the "lone commie nut" portrayed by the Warrenites and their apologists and enablers.  This was the first breakthrough paving the way to the CIA as the primary culprit.

Thus, the Oswald focus became much clearer with the HSCA's exposure (mainly thanks to brave investigators like Gaeton Fonzi, Danny Hardway, Ed Lopez (author of the Lopez Report) and others, when we finally saw how David Atlee Phillips used forged cable to frame Oswald for the hit. With the actual released photos of an Oswald impostor in Mexico City the framing became more evident, and the path led to assets of the Mexico City Station’s Chief of Covert Action and Cuban Operations, David Atlee Phillips.  Has Garvin done any research into this area? Not bloody likely!

My point is that the serious researchers have pinpointed the CIA as the top culprit. But let's examine some of Garvin's further bollocks, in fact to do with the CIA:

"The CIA did it because Kennedy was going to end the Vietnam War and cost the military-industrial complex a lot of potential profits! (No word yet on why the CIA didn't kill President Eisenhower a decade earlier for ending the Korean war. Maybe its profit margins were smaller?"

How do we teach this little twerp how to approach the document base? Is it even possible? Though the guy mocks the Kennedy intent to end the Vietnam War, he's blinded by his own arrogance and egoism. Does he even know where to look for the FACTS?  What we are referencing here is National Security Action Memorandum 263 - but alas, it is presented in a manner that is not amenable to lazy wannabe journalists, or dimwits.

What is often actually cited as the NSAM, i.e.

Is in fact only the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy. It has only passing relevance to the actual content of the NSAM, but it does clearly state “the President approved sections IB(1-3) of the report". Which report? To find these, the researcher must turn to Document 142 in The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'. Then the serious researcher will read:

IB(2) A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel by that time.

IB(3): In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

Note the wording and that a partial drawdown of 1,000 was due for the end of 1963 and the bulk by 1965. Most lazy wannabes never get this far while some others that do mistake the "1,000" total for the entire intended lot. I dispute that Garvin even got beyond the cover letter. If he did he'd never spout the ignorance he does.

Then there is the snide remark on 'why the CIA didn't kill Ike a decade earlier for ending the Korean War'. In fact, this idiot doesn't even know history since technically that war NEVER ended!  Instead a temporary truce was signed (never mind its duration) that was never considered as final or total, certainly not by Ike.

In addition, there were things JFK did to piss the Agency off, that Ike didn't do. One of them was firing its Director, Allen Dulles, after the Bay of Pigs debacle.  Dulles had virtually become the Company's identity since its early (post WWII) days as the O.S.S. (Office of Strategic Services) Another was firing the deputy director, Charles Cabell. The Agency also wasn't exactly thrilled when Kennedy vowed to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds". Unlike today's blow dried morons in media, the spooks took those words very seriously, not just as beer talk, or hyperbole.

While Ike was irritated at the CIA for its  overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) leading him to regard the Agency as "dangerously out of control"- and thus establishing  'The President's Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activity' - JFK went much further.  He created the Defense Intelligence Agency, responsible only to him, and mandated all over flights of Cuba be done by the Strategic Air Command, not the CIA. He also defined a list of directives on what the CIA could and could not, do. By the end of 1961, JFK's 'Special Group' had no less than 17 recommendations for the "reorganization and redirection of the CIA.

The CIA, however, retaliated by withholding intelligence from Kennedy. By June, 7, 1961, Kennedy was complaining that he was receiving "inadequate developments" concerning events in a number of countries. As his ally, Gen. James H. Doolittle had put it, it was a case of the  "covert operations dog wagging the intelligence tail".

Does Garvin know any of this? Evidently not. It's far easier to shoot from the hip for a callow wannabe than to dig up FACTS.

But let's continue since having wallowed in initial foolishness, Garvin clearly isn't about to stop - as when he writes:

The Vietnam War theory is a good example of how conspiracy-itis is immune from either evidence or rational argument. Kennedy was elected president as a militant Cold War hawk who pledged an America that would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe" in the fight against communism

So let's see. Garvin is too dumb to acknowledge or perceive  that Kennedy, realizing he'd never be elected going against 'Tricky Dick' as a peacenik,  chose to portray himself as "Cold warrior" - could change stripes? And yet we know this happened - again because the document base supports it. The pivotal event was the October 1962 Cuban Missile crisis. Of course, one would need to get up off his lazy ass and consult a book with the transcripts of the tapes from the time: The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis’, by Ernest R. May and Philip K. Zelikow (1997, President and Fellows of Harvard College).

On p. 183 one sees LeMay saying that "we have got to do more than take out the missiles" and he demands a massive air strike as well. Afterward,  we see  JFK choosing a naval blockade option.This leads  LeMay to actually compare JFK to Neville Chamberlain, and referring to his actions as “appeasement”.  According to one of the first major mainstream news releases after the tapes in the WH situation room were released (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 26, 1996, 'Bomb Cuba!Le May Urged JFK', p. 2A):

"Blasting Kennedy's cautious approach, the Air Force Chief, Gen. Curtis LeMay, told the President at a White House meeting on Oct. 19, 1962, "This is almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich......"

Through those days Kennedy was fending off strong pressure for an attack on Cuba from congressional and military leaders such as LeMay, who told him, 'We don't have any choice but direct military action...I see no other solution

The upshot is that the close approach to the precipice of nuclear war had changed Kennedy to a confirmed fighter for peace, who was all about disarmament. (Noted and mentioned in his famous "Pax Americana" speech at American University in June, 1963).  Could Garvin even have gotten himself to a newspaper archives to check this out? Clearly not!

Garvin bloviates onward:

Just three weeks before his assassination, Kennedy's administration helped to instigate a coup in South Vietnam in hope of installing a government that would press the war against the communist North more aggressively. The idea that he was killed because he was soft on communism is preposterous.

Well, what's really preposterous, Glenn, is your abysmal ability to track down files, documents and check facts. Can we say you are incompetent? Yes, I believe so. In fact, it was the CIA that instigated the coup and murder of the Diem brothers and this also has been made known in sundry released files,  Some of the key ones are located in the book, JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass.

As Douglass notes (op. cit. p. 192): Kennedy got his  final wake up call on who was controlling his government when, in an early September, 1963 meeting he was informed by a David Bell of AID (a CIA cover organization) that the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program had “already been cut off”,  essentially assuring a coup would ensue with the Diem government in South Vietnam. The Diems were killed on Nov. 2, 1963 and the CIA had planned for Kennedy to be taken out the same day in Chicago, except that trip was cancelled. The lone assassin set up for that hit was Thomas Arthur Vallee. (About whom details more will be provided in the next FAQ, Part 9)

Kennedy was evidently livid and directly asked Bell who had told him to do that, to which Bell replied, “No one(ibid.). The will to power disclosed here indicates the CIA felt it more powerful than Kennedy himself or his decision-making authority.  If they felt that way, there is nothing that they wouldn’t do to prevent the President from getting in their way.  The incident was confirmed by New York Times journalist Arthur Krock  in his piece  ‘The Inter-Administration War in Vietnam’, The New York Times, Oct. 3, 1963). wherein he wrote:

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA

This followed his observation  that:  "the CIA had flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.”

This in regard to disbursing the funds from the Commodity Import Aid Program . So what do we know now? We know Garvin is full of shit, has no ability to probe documents to any depth and is hostage to slipshod journalism. I would call it "yellow" but don't wish to insult the real  yellow journalists

Not prepared to quit while he's ahead Garvin babbles on:

Even more outrageous is the belief that a lifelong Marxist like Lee Harvey Oswald would be the trigger man in a plot supposedly aimed at making America more anti-communist.

But if Garvin had taken the time and trouble to examine Oswald's 201 CI/ SIG files as well as the HSCA findings on David Atlee Phillips and his band of CIA renegades,  he'd see this is tommyrot and that Oswald  been actually sheep-dipped by the CIA to present this fictitious front. See e.g.

Let's take one more hit on this character, given he opens the way:

What's been largely lost in all the conspiracy hoo-hah over motives is that the forensic evidence tying Oswald to the assassination is mountainous and indisputable. The murder weapon was purchased by Oswald through the mail with an order-form filled out in his handwriting and his wife took photos of Oswald posing with it months before the assassination. It bore his palm print and was found in a room in the building in which he worked.

Now, in the first case, the forensic evidence is certainly not "indisputable"   - though I do concede the false evidence is mountainous. For a rundown of the crap trotted out by the Warrenites  including altering the original autopsy notes, faking the autopsy photos, see my FAQ - Part 5. As to the alleged "murder weapon" - I already showed (in FAQ, Part 6) it couldn't have hit the broad side of a barn since the crack team of sharpshooters recruited by the Warren Commission couldn't even begin to USE the weapon for their trials until they had "rebuilt the shims" since the sighting was so far off!

As for the backyard photos, I already dealt with those including the use of the Oswald "ghost" photo which good ol' Glenn appears never to have heard of, e.g.

This had been  recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image.

Photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture.  Hester has surmised and many researchers agree, that the blank photo was intended to deliberately set up Oswald.

Finally, Glenn proclaims:

But conspiracy theories never expire at the hands of evidence and logical refutation. Mostly, they don't expire at all. Thirty years ago, the theory that Oswald wasn't really Oswald at all, that he'd been bodysnatched (by the KGB or the CIA, take your pick) and replaced with a trained-assassin imposter

Well, first he conflates the Oswald imposter with the Oswald double.  Maybe a couple of pictures - since they're worth a thousand words each- can assist. The imposter, Glenn, is the one shown entering the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City - a heavy set guy who claimed he was Lee Harvey Oswald and the one Philip Shenon insists threatened the life of Kennedy openly. Below I show the actual Oswald at left and the one who claimed to be him approaching the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City:

Now, the Oswald double - who went around Big D making all kinds of outrageous statements (and which I will detail in the next FAQ) was actually photographically exposed through the efforts of Jack White by taking two separate Oswald photos- claimed to be the same person- and overlaying them at the chin line so that they match, or are perfectly integrated.

The result is shown below which clearly displays the difference in height that the witnesses cited in James Douglass book allude to:

Never mind! With brainwashed, conspiracy phobic media hacks like Garvin, one can't expect a changeling. All we can expect, and have seen this whole past week, is lying babble out of the mouths of the whole constellation of corporatized media - whose main job is now propaganda.

No comments: