debunking jfk conspiracy theories (video on youtube ) a review

[fobrien1]

here is the video in question

i view a lot of videos on youtube related to jfk and his assassination . i read comments posted on them and often i post comments or i reply to other peoples comments .

some people like me are happy to have a discussion , others who are entrenched in their view point on this case (quite often entrenched with very little knowledge of the case ) very often immediately attack you . i get attacked a lot for daring to post and say SORRY BUT YOU ARE INCORRECT THERE . some video uploaders also are only too happy to have people post comments on their videos , and why not ? , its a free world RIGHT ? . so what is wrong with differing opinions ? we all have them , its normal . and sane and rational people can have different opinions , disagree and yet do so in a cordial and civil manner . and some video uploaders disable comments . i think that is rather childish and in a way smacks of censorship . after all i could make a video that is rife with inaccuracies , falsehoods and lies , upload it to youtube and then refuse (by disabling comments ) to allow people to comment and correct those inaccuracies and lies . the above mentioned video uploader DISABLED COMMENTS , that is the first point here in my review .

the us mainstream media certainly is renowned now for not allowing any sort of fair and balanced discussion on tv of the evidence in this case . what they give you is gerald posner , bugliosi , gus russo , max holland etc etc and that leads to a completely one sided very biased agenda driven program . i mean the 1967 cbs program where they did the rifle tests (its on youtube) was made with a warren commission man as ADVISOR . now it that didnt tell you there was an agenda there what would ? , but then it was cbs so what else should we have expected ? .

i noticed by the way that the program is called THE AGENDA lol lol , i know its the program name in general and not just for this video but well i think the name is very apt , given the carry on in it .

let me just say that some 13 minutes in to the video (with 8 minutes to go ) and not ONE SINGLE THING has been debunked . but then by disabling comments they made sure that if they did speak inaccurately or god forbid lie that we have no way of correcting them . well i have , and its right here .

now the person being interviewed is a gay man , i have no issues at all with that . well except one , not that he is gay NO , that he is using being gay to support another gay man , in this case clay shaw . and that the interviewee being gay taints his view on this case because part of this case involved a gay man (clay shaw ) being charged with being in some way party to a conspiracy that led to jfks death . ive written many posts , comments and pieces on jfks death and people and witnesses etc related to it , not once did i write about them or speak about them based on my sexuality or theirs . if i say someone is a liar , its because they provably lied and i can prove it . its not about opinions , beliefs , sexuality , religion , its about facts , truth , what we can prove and what we can disprove . if shaw was a catholic and the interviewee a catholic , would he be saying shaw was innocent based on that ? i would hope not , so then why do so based on both of them being gay ? .

contrary to what many falsely believe , because they were lied to , jim garrison did not charge shaw with conspiracy because he was a gay man . in fact garrison went out of his way to try and ensure that shaws sexuality was not brought into it . however that was difficult given that in his gay life if you will he used the alias clay bertrand . but he also used that alias in ways that tie in with the reason he was arrested and charged .

when shaw was arrested he was put through a booking procedure , just as anyone else arrested would be . this was not questioning or interrogation , just standard booking procedure . shaw VOLUNTEERED when asked if he ever used any alias that he used the name CLAY BERTRAND . shaw signed not one but atleast 3 booking sheets with the alias clay bertrand on them . the jury in the case however were denied the right to see or know about this vital evidence . so when they reached a verdict it was without them knowing that shaw LIED about using the alias clay bertrand . and having being allowed to hide that LIE from the jury that then allowed him to lie further . we cant blame the jury however , they did their best .

the judge , that is judge haggerty however knew all the evidence and he knew shaw lied , and he told us so . here is an excerpt from an article

" In a 1992 interview, Edward Haggerty, who was the judge at the Clay Shaw trial, stated: "I believe he [Shaw] was lying to the jury. Of course, the jury probably believed him. But I think Shaw put a good con job on the jury"

so the jury in acquitting shaw never knew that HE ADMITTED that he was clay bertrand , so unknown to them it was INDISPUTABLE that shaw was bertrand , as he admitted it himself . the jury heard from witnesses from clinton , one of them a sheriff that they saw oswald standing in line in a black voter registration drive . of course for obvious reasons he stood out like a sore thumb . but he wasnt the only one . the sheriff noted a fancy car nearby and two other white men in it . he approached the driver and asked him his business there , remember now this was 1963 in the deep south , a very different time . the man told him his name was shaw and that he was connected to the international trade mart . he later pointed out in court clay shaw as the man he spoke to . and from witness descriptions the odd looking man sat  in the car with shaw can only have been dave ferrie .

the jury decided for reasons known only to them to not believe the clinton witnesses , but then again they again were not allowed to know the full truth . but lets see what the hsca in 78/79 said about the clinton witnesses

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that available records "lent substantial credence to the possibility that Oswald and David Ferrie had been involved in the same Civil Air Patrol (CAP) unit during the same period of time."[62] Committee investigators found six witnesses who said that Oswald had been present at CAP meetings headed by David Ferrie.[63]

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton, Louisiana in late August, [or] early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination"

what did dick helms of the cia say about shaw ?

"During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America."

the cia volunteer very little in regard this case , so the above admission by helms is surprising . in addition we also have former cia man victor marchetti who knew shaw was connected to the cia . he mentioned a conversation in cia offices where they spoke about given shaw all the help he needed . marchetti said that shaw in cia terms may have been a dangle . so shaw in saying he had no cia connections once again lied .

so now we know a lot more about mr shaw than the jury did . we knwo he lied about being bertrand , we know he lied about being connected to the cia , we know he lied when he said he did not know either oswald or ferrie . and we know the hsca with benefit of far more evidence than the jury had believed the clinton witnesses to be credible and truthful .

just to add a bit more , here is a small bit by jim di eugenio on clay shaw

" Its not speculation.  Shaw was Bertrand. Period.  End of story.

The FBI and Garrison had upwards of ten sources on this, including WR loyalist Larry Schiller. In fact, even Ed Guthman knew, and he told Liebeler.

As I noted, Litwin disguises this in his book with a bit of trickery that reminds me of Jerry Posner, and  I pointed out in my review precisely how he did it. But let me quote the FBI document itself. "On February 24, 1967, we received information from Aaron Kohn and from NO 1309-C that Clay Shaw is identical with an individual by the name of Clay Bertrand...." "

when shaw was arrested the name bertrand was not mentioned to him , garrison kept that quiet . so at that point shaw would not have felt that giving his alias would harm him . the judge ruled that the jury could not hear from officer al habighorst and see or hear about shaws admission that he was clay bertrand , he did so incorrectly , he ruled so because shaws lawyers claimed that shaws lawyer was not present when he was questioned . such a ruling only applied to actual interrogation and questioning about THE CRIME . it did not apply to standard booking procedure . in any case shaws lawyer was mere feet away by the door , neither man complained at the time . only when garrisons files were stolen and given to shaws lawyers would the importance of that alias become evident and a problem .

the interviewee fred litwin says that shaw was a good man , DOES HE MENTION ANY OF THE ABOVE ?. and its clear that he is arguing that shaw was victimized for being gay , and that is absolute nonsense . in fact when shaw was arrested his new orleans home was searched . this fine upstanding man had a room containing shall we say items where a person would be tied up , whipped or tortured . if garrison wanted to attack shaw because he was gay he would have let all that be known , but he didnt .

when litwin speaks who are his sources ? , well i can tell you his sources are some of the most dubious . for example one of his sources is clay shaws friend who shaw had write a book ABOUT SHAW called american grotesque . he used harry connick senior the DA after garrison , hacks like billings and hugh aynesworth and shaws lawyers .

this is a guy who in the video above says that he has spoken to people that REFUSE to read , view or research books , articles and sources etc OTHER THAN THOSE that have the view that oswald didnt do it , that shaw was bertrand etc . yet i can not see an instance where litwin cites any source that disputes him . that is plain old hypocrisy is it not ? .

OH YES the idiot interviewing him at no point questioned litwin and said WELL HANG ON NOW A MINUTE , JIM DIEUGENIO FOR ONE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF HIGHLIGHTING HOW YOU MISLED AND OMITTED ETC IN YOUR BOOK , CAN YOU ANSWER THAT ? . there was no one there to speak for the other side of the argument . and the interviewer himself showed his leanings by saying he read posners case closed and how good a book it was (litwin agreed) and by completely AND FALSELY labeling the movie jfk as complete fiction . so much for unbiased journalism . they mentioned non conspiracy books , such as case closed mentioned above , another being bugliosis reclaiming history , which is for many the holy grail for those that believe oswald did it alone , in that sense im certain litwin will have read it . and remarkably they made no mention of that fact that bugliosi attacked posner FOR THE DECEPTIONS HE EMPLOYED IN HIS BOOK . and the interviewer attacked alex jones as reprehensible . usually honest and fair journalism prohibits such behavior , ever seen an interviewer say LOOK THAT GUY IS NOT HERE SO WE CANT TALK ABOUT HIM AS HE IS NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF ? . if they cant do honest , open and unbiased tv they should not do any .

posner provably lied to congress about what jfk witnesses said . he falsely claimed that he interviewed witnesses who when asked said THEY NEVER EVER SPOKE WITH HIM . he provably twisted , distorted and omitted and deceived in his book . other better books prove this , but hey LETS NOT MENTION THAT .

they mentioned that jackie gave very little testimony to the warren commission . this is true , but if you read her testimony you wont notice that the commission CENSORED IT . yes they decided to take out the bit where she talked about jfks head wound . in which she said she was trying to hold his head on , from the back there was nothing . DONT BELIEVE ME ? just go and google jackie kennedy censored testimony , you can find it also on jfk lancer .

21 minutes of video about debunking jfk conspiracies and not one thing was debunked , in fact as we can see above quite a bit was omitted . shaw was not victimized by garrison , and certainly not for being gay . garrison never said that shaw shot jfk or that he was party to that shooting , just that he played some part however peripheral it may have been . even if it was only sheep dipping oswald and getting him ready for his final acts in this tragic story . what ? so garrison knew that shaw had some vital information relating to jfks assassination and the accused assassin that he lied through his teeth about , and garrison should just have said IT DOES NOT MATTER  ?  . he was new orleans DA just as with any DA anywhere he had a duty to investigate . when he did he offered to give the fbi the case to investigate , prosecute or throw out if they saw fit . THEY DECLINED and let him go to trial . so the fbi could have ended it before it began and they chose not to .

and all of this is just the tip of the garrison / shaw iceberg . if litwin wont tell you all this what else is he hiding ? . well a far better man , far better researched man mr james di eugenio can go a long way to answering that question. so i will leave this in james very capable hands . here he is

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27126-jim-dieugenio-vs-fred-litwin/