Gerald Posner Reviews "On The Trail of Delusion"

Post by f***@gmail.com
https://quillette.com/2020/11/22/on-the-trail-of-delusion-a-review/
I'm really delighted that Gerald Posner has reviewed my book, "On The
Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser."

Excellent review.

Posner admits that you went much deeper into the insanity than he did.
That's pretty much the virtue of the book. It shows that the
"investigation" was not merely insane in its main thrust, or in
Garrison's public statements, but insane in essentially every detail.

Including details nobody knew before, because they did not have the
documents.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Ace Kefford

2020-11-25 03:26:33 UTC

This is great. Some actual new stuff about the assassination instead of
such topics as Trump, whether socialism is a good form of government, who
Oswald would have voted for, etc.

This site is deader that Kelsey's nuts. I've been forced to go to the ED
Forum for any entertainment. Pick up your game, people.

Sounds like an interesting book. I've seen some of the blog posts of
ridiculous Garrison memos.

Excellent review.
Posner admits that you went much deeper into the insanity than he did.
That's pretty much the virtue of the book. It shows that the
"investigation" was not merely insane in its main thrust, or in
Garrison's public statements, but insane in essentially every detail.
Including details nobody knew before, because they did not have the
documents.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2020-11-26 01:05:48 UTC

Post by Ace Kefford
This is great. Some actual new stuff about the assassination instead of
such topics as Trump, whether socialism is a good form of government, who
Oswald would have voted for, etc.
This site is deader that Kelsey's nuts. I've been forced to go to the ED
Forum for any entertainment. Pick up your game, people.

The problem is you can only go over the same issues so many times before
they become stale. It's even becoming harder for CTs to come up with new
angles that haven't been tried before. A few years ago Doug Horne polished
up David Lifton's body snatching theory and that was a topic for a while.
Recently Don Willis came up with the theory that Oswald was part of the
conspiracy but shot JFK from the fifth floor and the cops for unknown
reasons moved all the evidence to the sixth floor. That's how bizarre one
has to get to come up with something new. We spent several months beating
that one to death.

What more is there to talk about concerning the assassination that hasn't
been talked to death? It is the most investigated crime in the history of
the human race. Everything there is to know is out there despite CT claims
that the good stuff is still being withheld. If that were true, how would
they know about it? The cards are on the table and they are all face up.
People will interpret them as they see fit but I would be shocked if
anything of any substance came to light at this late date.

Mark

2020-11-23 03:49:39 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.

America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.

Posner:

"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."

Mark

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-11-24 00:58:55 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.

The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

John Corbett

2020-11-25 03:18:41 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

Stone's movie has proven to be nothing more than a blip on the radar
screen. It temporarily raised public interest in the assassination and the
question of conspiracy but it has not lasted. More time has elapsed since
that movie came out than elapsed between the assassination and the release
of the movie. While the movie got great fanfare when it came out, it's
lasting impact has been no more than that of Executive Action, which IMHO
was a better movie. Both were BS, but Executive Action had a more
interesting script. Stone's movie was a waste of a lot of top notch acting
talent. It might have been the worst performance of Costner's career
although I didn't see either Robin Hood or Waterworld which both got
panned by the critics. To be fair, was probably one of the worst casting
choices ever for a major motion picture. Costner was just wrong for the
part.

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-11-26 01:06:03 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

Stone's movie made more than $200 million at the box office - at about $5
bucks a pop that's more than 40 million viewers - and was distributed
around the world. Around the world. And received quite favorable reviews.
And was shown/taught in history classes - not film classes but history -
around the country. I don't know if it's still being shown in schools but
the fact that it was is pretty appalling. Executive Action was pulled from
many theaters and was widely criticized for the nonsense it was. Comparing
the effect on the country that this had with Stone's farce is quite a
stretch, John.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 19:32:33 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

Stone's movie has proven to be nothing more than a blip on the radar

Stone's novie was the main reason why the public supported the HSCA to
reopen the case. Maybe you are againsst investigating the case.

Post by John Corbett
screen. It temporarily raised public interest in the assassination and the
question of conspiracy but it has not lasted. More time has elapsed since
that movie came out than elapsed between the assassination and the release
of the movie. While the movie got great fanfare when it came out, it's
lasting impact has been no more than that of Executive Action, which IMHO
was a better movie. Both were BS, but Executive Action had a more
interesting script. Stone's movie was a waste of a lot of top notch acting
talent. It might have been the worst performance of Costner's career
although I didn't see either Robin Hood or Waterworld which both got
panned by the critics. To be fair, was probably one of the worst casting
choices ever for a major motion picture. Costner was just wrong for the
part.

Please tell us which actors you would have selected for those roles.

morga...@yahoo.com

2020-11-27 21:20:02 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Stone's novie was the main reason why the public supported the HSCA to
reopen the case. Maybe you are againsst investigating the case.

Stone's film, "JFK" was released more than a decade AFTER the HSCA had
completed its investigation and published its finding. The film had no
bearing whatsoever on the creation of the HSCA; but did in the creation of
the ARRB.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-29 01:59:44 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Stone's novie was the main reason why the public supported the HSCA to
reopen the case. Maybe you are againsst investigating the case.

JFK Reords Act.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-25 03:26:41 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

OMG, how diagusting. Almost as bad as you quoting yourself and replying
to yourself.

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-11-26 01:06:08 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

OMG, how diagusting. Almost as bad as you quoting yourself and replying
to yourself.

I think lying to kids about who killed JFK is wrong. You think it's a
hobby. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 23:39:52 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that
time he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good
grief, what a fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based
on his claims about solving the murder; but when they found out that
he had nothing they turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame
the CIA for that. But of course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is).
And Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching
guide" with the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that
is disgusting to realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to
history - maybe a footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone
movie.

OMG, how diagusting. Almost as bad as you quoting yourself and replying
to yourself.

I think lying to kids about who killed JFK is wrong. You think it's a
hobby. So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sop misrepresenting. There are no kids here. How would kids even know
about the CIA? How would kids know things that YOU don't know?
Are You a kid?

So you think it's just a hobby? I don't. It's my damn country.

Mark

2020-11-25 21:03:41 UTC

I can see why you're delighted. Posner shows how you use documents and
clippings no else has to show Garrison's mental shortcomings, and his many
victims.
America endured numerous national tragedies in the 60s and Garrison's
"investigation" has to be numbered among them.
"After finishing ON THE TRAIL OF DELUSION, most readers are likely to
conclude that the only person who should have been charged and imprisoned
as a result of Garrison's investigation was Jim Garrison himself."
Mark

I think the Oliver Stone movie based on the Garrison investigation has
done more harm than what Garrison himself did. It seems that at that time
he was eventually exposed as the fraud that he was. And good grief, what a
fraud. The press gave him early favorable coverage based on his claims
about solving the murder; but when they found out that he had nothing they
turned on him. Garrison and his followers blame the CIA for that. But of
course.
The Stone movie was actually shown in high schools (maybe still is). And
Stone and his co-writer Zachary Sklar put together a "teaching guide" with
the movie that was also distributed to schools. Now that is disgusting to
realize. Garrison would just be a small footnote to history - maybe a
footnote to a footnote - were it not for the Stone movie.

Yeah, I think you're right. Garrison's travesty will live as a poster-boy
for prosecutorial abuse and madness, but what Stone and Sklar did for him
-- their dynamiting of the historical record -- is also a tragedy. Mark

Pamela Brown

2020-11-25 03:17:51 UTC

For those of us who saw through Posner a long time ago, this is definitely
a time-saver.

allan...@yahoo.com

2020-11-25 03:26:28 UTC

I still don't understand his, Garrison's, motive for the going after
Shaw. Was he just going for the attention and Shaw was a good target, or
did he really believe there was a conspiracy with others involved? Why
didn't he have more proof and more defendants before he took it to trial?
He must have known it was getting nationwide attention and he didn't want
to look foolish loosing so he ended up grasping at straws at the end. He
did stick to his guns after the trial and still insisted there was a
conspiracy, maybe just to save face. Either way in the end, as they say
in Texas, he was all hat and no cattle.

Anthony Marsh

2020-11-26 19:32:37 UTC

I still don't understand his, Garrison's, motive for the going after
Shaw. Was he just going for the attention and Shaw was a good target, or

CIA. David Ferrie. Guilt by association.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
did he really believe there was a conspiracy with others involved? Why
didn't he have more proof and more defendants before he took it to trial?
He must have known it was getting nationwide attention and he didn't want
to look foolish loosing so he ended up grasping at straws at the end. He
did stick to his guns after the trial and still insisted there was a
conspiracy, maybe just to save face. Either way in the end, as they say
in Texas, he was all hat and no cattle.

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-12-04 20:50:11 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I still don't understand his, Garrison's, motive for the going after
Shaw. Was he just going for the attention and Shaw was a good target, or

CIA. David Ferrie. Guilt by association.

No. Garrison accused Shaw of being involved in the assassination well
*before* he believed the CIA was involved. Garrison said the
assassination was a "homosexual thrill kill" or a "sadist" act - he
specifically compared it to the Leopold and Loeb murder - that involved
Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald. Again, a homosexual kill of JFK. Nothing about
the CIA. He didn't connect Shaw to the CIA or the CIA to the assassination
until someone sent him a Italian communist newspaper article claimed that
Shaw was associated with the CIA through an Italian trade group.

John McAdams

2020-12-03 03:07:46 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Why
didn't he have more proof and more defendants before he took it to trial?
He must have known it was getting nationwide attention and he didn't want
to look foolish loosing so he ended up grasping at straws at the end.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?

Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2020-12-04 01:55:25 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.

It think every CT I've even encountered over the years truly did believe
they were in search of the truth. I've never questioned their motivations.
I do question professional hucksters like Jim Marrs and Alex Jones. I
don't think they care what the truth is. They just latch onto any and
every conspiracy theory they come across because they know conspiracy
theories sell. CTs buy books and listen to wacky radio programs.

allan...@yahoo.com

2020-12-05 19:33:08 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

He said he thought it was a "homosexual thrill kill" similar to the
Leopold and Loeb murder of that boy. I think he actually believed it. I
mean there's wacky and then there's Garrison level wackiness. It's on
another level like Dante's circles of hell (the 9th circle was treachery).

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it. It's not
like today when anyone at anytime can claim or do anything over the
internet, smart TV's, i-phones, facebook, twitter, etc. (instant
communications), you can't believe anything at face value from those
sources. Back then, unless you truly had something to say or stood out in
some way, it wasn't easily communicated or even ignored (national news
shows were only 15 to 30 minutes long and newspapers were a day late in
most cases). Knowing he was getting the attention, that could help him
win his case, I don't think he would put his credibility at risk unless he
thought he was right.

John Corbett

2020-12-06 00:53:07 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

It even got him a gig on the Tonight Show. Johnny booked him at the urging
of Mort Sahl. I never did get Mort Sahl. He was supposedly a comedian who
did politically oriented material but I never thought it was very funny.

It's not
like today when anyone at anytime can claim or do anything over the
internet, smart TV's, i-phones, facebook, twitter, etc. (instant
communications), you can't believe anything at face value from those
sources.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

Back then, unless you truly had something to say or stood out in some
way, it wasn't easily communicated or even ignored (national news shows
were only 15 to 30 minutes long and newspapers were a day late in most
cases). Knowing he was getting the attention, that could help him win
his case, I don't think he would put his credibility at risk unless he
thought he was right.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

Mark

2020-12-07 02:52:30 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

To his credit, Carson didn't treat him with kid gloves. Word was getting
out about Garrison's methods. Mark

John Corbett

2020-12-07 19:06:00 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

To his credit, Carson didn't treat him with kid gloves. Word was getting
out about Garrison's methods. Mark

No, he didn't. He expressed a good deal of skepticism about Garrison's
claims. I meant to make that point but got sidetracked with my comments
about Mort Sahl and lost my train of thought. When he announced that
Garrison would be appearing, he expressed some reservations about putting
Garrison on. He said he didn't want to put Garrison on if all he was going
to do was repeat some of the conspiracy theories that had already cropped
up. I think it was Mort Sahl who convinced Johnny that Garrison had
something of substance. After it was over, I got the feeling Johnny wished
he hadn't listened to Mort Sahl.

Here's an audio recording from from Garrison's 1968 appearance on the
Tonight Show. I remember watching the show but I didn't remember that
Johnny had given Garrison so much time. The Tonight Show ran 90 minutes
back then and Johnny gave Garrison almost an hour minus commercial breaks.
At the very beginning Johnny explained why it was he decided to bring
Garrison on the show:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jim+garrison+tonight+show&docid=608003499435033803&mid=8BCDDA068DAD075CF1578BCDDA068DAD075CF157&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Carson Entertainment Group owns the rights to past Tonight Shows from
Johnny's reign as host. Time/Life purchased the rights to sell selected
episodes which they sold on one of the many informercials they do for
classic audio and video recordings. I'm guessing that the reason the video
of Garrison's appearance is not available is because of copyright issues.
I just learned an interesting bit of info. While Carson Entertainment
Group owns the rights to the videos, NBC still owns the right to The
Tonight Show title so those episodes can't be marketed as The Tonight
Show. Back in 2015, Antenna TV, an online channel, started airing complete
episodes billed only as Johnny Carson.

Here is a transcript of an interview with Mort Sahl in which he talks
about his involvement with Garrison. The YouTube video is no longer
available.

https://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/mort-sahl-interview-about-jfk-jim-garrison-and-hollywood-blacklisting-with-elliot-mintz

David Von Pein

2020-12-08 21:24:30 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

To his credit, Carson didn't treat him with kid gloves. Word was getting
out about Garrison's methods. Mark

FYI --- Since the time I posted the above video in 2013, I've put up an
updated version of the Garrison/Carson interview, which includes a little
bit of video footage at the very beginning....

Mark

2020-12-08 21:24:41 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

To his credit, Carson didn't treat him with kid gloves. Word was getting
out about Garrison's methods. Mark

No, he didn't. He expressed a good deal of skepticism about Garrison's
claims. I meant to make that point but got sidetracked with my comments
about Mort Sahl and lost my train of thought. When he announced that
Garrison would be appearing, he expressed some reservations about putting
Garrison on. He said he didn't want to put Garrison on if all he was going
to do was repeat some of the conspiracy theories that had already cropped
up. I think it was Mort Sahl who convinced Johnny that Garrison had
something of substance. After it was over, I got the feeling Johnny wished
he hadn't listened to Mort Sahl.
Here's an audio recording from from Garrison's 1968 appearance on the
Tonight Show. I remember watching the show but I didn't remember that
Johnny had given Garrison so much time. The Tonight Show ran 90 minutes
back then and Johnny gave Garrison almost an hour minus commercial breaks.
At the very beginning Johnny explained why it was he decided to bring
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jim+garrison+tonight+show&docid=608003499435033803&mid=8BCDDA068DAD075CF1578BCDDA068DAD075CF157&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
Carson Entertainment Group owns the rights to past Tonight Shows from
Johnny's reign as host. Time/Life purchased the rights to sell selected
episodes which they sold on one of the many informercials they do for
classic audio and video recordings. I'm guessing that the reason the video
of Garrison's appearance is not available is because of copyright issues.
I just learned an interesting bit of info. While Carson Entertainment
Group owns the rights to the videos, NBC still owns the right to The
Tonight Show title so those episodes can't be marketed as The Tonight
Show. Back in 2015, Antenna TV, an online channel, started airing complete
episodes billed only as Johnny Carson.
Here is a transcript of an interview with Mort Sahl in which he talks
about his involvement with Garrison. The YouTube video is no longer
available.
https://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/mort-sahl-interview-about-jfk-jim-garrison-and-hollywood-blacklisting-with-elliot-mintz

Thanks for the transcripts. And I agree with you about Sahl's "comedy."
Mark

allan...@yahoo.com

2020-12-07 02:52:33 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive. If I remember correctly, I think Garrisons appearance on the
Tonight Show was the beginning of him losing his credibility. Johnny
questioned and doubted many of his claims and evidence.

It is a sign of the times that today most so called news and
information outlets and stations are slanted to one political side or the
other. The bias is obvious when it comes to political news or trending
subjects. Example, you can't have a crime news story about a white cop
arresting or confronting a black or other minority without them mentioning
the races, but when there is a story about black on black, white on white,
black on white crime, etc, the races aren't mentioned, so it's already
assumed an arrest or confrontation with a minority person by a white cop
is because of race, not because the police are just trying to do their job
responding to a call and there's a smart phone around. There are of
course bad cops who do the wrong thing and that's unacceptable, but when
you consider all the calls police respond to on a daily basis all over the
country in a single day and you only see an occasional questionable
incident I don't think it's as bad as the media plays up. Sorry for the
off subject, but it was just an attempt to point out the difference in
media coverage today as compared to 50 years ago. Today it's all about
ratings and selling commercials.

John Corbett

2020-12-08 03:19:02 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive. If I remember correctly, I think Garrisons appearance on the
Tonight Show was the beginning of him losing his credibility. Johnny
questioned and doubted many of his claims and evidence.
It is a sign of the times that today most so called news and
information outlets and stations are slanted to one political side or the
other. The bias is obvious when it comes to political news or trending
subjects. Example, you can't have a crime news story about a white cop
arresting or confronting a black or other minority without them mentioning
the races, but when there is a story about black on black, white on white,
black on white crime, etc, the races aren't mentioned, so it's already
assumed an arrest or confrontation with a minority person by a white cop
is because of race, not because the police are just trying to do their job
responding to a call and there's a smart phone around. There are of
course bad cops who do the wrong thing and that's unacceptable, but when
you consider all the calls police respond to on a daily basis all over the
country in a single day and you only see an occasional questionable
incident I don't think it's as bad as the media plays up. Sorry for the
off subject, but it was just an attempt to point out the difference in
media coverage today as compared to 50 years ago. Today it's all about
ratings and selling commercials.

I agree with everything you wrote here. I think there has always been a
left wing bias with the print and electronic media but they would at least
make an effort to be fair. The media now have a constituency and they
pander to that constituency. They only report stories that are favorable
to their constituency. That's true of all three cable political outlets. I
refuse to call them cable news. It's true only to a slightly lesser degree
with the networks. It's absolutely true of fish wrappers like the New York
Times and Washington Post. These were once respected news organizations
even if they did have a left wing bias. No more. They have an agenda and
they slant their reporting to further their agenda.

John Corbett

2020-12-08 03:19:12 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive.

Here's a brief clip of Mort Sahl on the Smothers Brothers, apparently
shortly after Nixon was elected:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mort+sahl&docid=608036673729201142&mid=65C7E9DAE86DF163776865C7E9DAE86DF1637768&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

His act reminds me of what you might here from some smarmy left wing
political science professor. I guess those with a similar point of view
might find him mildly amusing. I use to be a liberal and even then didn't
think he was that funny. I'd watch him and think to myself, "I thought
this guy was a comedian.". Real good comedians can make people laugh
regardless of their political POV. Johnny Carson, George Carlin, and Jon
Stewart were all very liberal but they could still make me laugh because
it seemed to me their mine focus was trying to get people to laugh, not
push an agenda. Not so for somebody like Steven Colbert. I think that guy
is repulsive.

Steven M. Galbraith

2020-12-08 03:19:26 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive. If I remember correctly, I think Garrisons appearance on the
Tonight Show was the beginning of him losing his credibility. Johnny
questioned and doubted many of his claims and evidence.
It is a sign of the times that today most so called news and
information outlets and stations are slanted to one political side or the
other. The bias is obvious when it comes to political news or trending
subjects. Example, you can't have a crime news story about a white cop
arresting or confronting a black or other minority without them mentioning
the races, but when there is a story about black on black, white on white,
black on white crime, etc, the races aren't mentioned, so it's already
assumed an arrest or confrontation with a minority person by a white cop
is because of race, not because the police are just trying to do their job
responding to a call and there's a smart phone around. There are of
course bad cops who do the wrong thing and that's unacceptable, but when
you consider all the calls police respond to on a daily basis all over the
country in a single day and you only see an occasional questionable
incident I don't think it's as bad as the media plays up. Sorry for the
off subject, but it was just an attempt to point out the difference in
media coverage today as compared to 50 years ago. Today it's all about
ratings and selling commercials.

Tom Bethell, who worked for Garrison and the investigation before quitting
in disgust, said that Sahl would show up at Garrison's office and shoot
the breeze with everyone. Bethell said Sahl knew absolutely nothing about
the assassination. He said that Sahl met with Carson and recommended to
him that he have Garrison on the show. Sahl also believed that RFK and
King were murdered by the "same people" who killed JFK and that he wanted
to see "them" hanged for it. So, he was in the deep waters here.

From Bethell's account (February 5, 1968): "Mort Sahl came in waving
newspaper with Herman Deutsch favorable comment on the Carson show. No
doubt about it, Sahl sees the investigation purely as a publicity
struggle, and not at all in terms of the facts or truth -- exactly
contrary to what you would suppose. Mark Lane is the same. This would be
OK if we were running, say, a TV station."

Mark

2020-12-08 21:24:48 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive. If I remember correctly, I think Garrisons appearance on the
Tonight Show was the beginning of him losing his credibility. Johnny
questioned and doubted many of his claims and evidence.
It is a sign of the times that today most so called news and
information outlets and stations are slanted to one political side or the
other. The bias is obvious when it comes to political news or trending
subjects. Example, you can't have a crime news story about a white cop
arresting or confronting a black or other minority without them mentioning
the races, but when there is a story about black on black, white on white,
black on white crime, etc, the races aren't mentioned, so it's already
assumed an arrest or confrontation with a minority person by a white cop
is because of race, not because the police are just trying to do their job
responding to a call and there's a smart phone around. There are of
course bad cops who do the wrong thing and that's unacceptable, but when
you consider all the calls police respond to on a daily basis all over the
country in a single day and you only see an occasional questionable
incident I don't think it's as bad as the media plays up. Sorry for the
off subject, but it was just an attempt to point out the difference in
media coverage today as compared to 50 years ago. Today it's all about
ratings and selling commercials.

Tom Bethell, who worked for Garrison and the investigation before quitting
in disgust, said that Sahl would show up at Garrison's office and shoot
the breeze with everyone. Bethell said Sahl knew absolutely nothing about
the assassination. He said that Sahl met with Carson and recommended to
him that he have Garrison on the show. Sahl also believed that RFK and
King were murdered by the "same people" who killed JFK and that he wanted
to see "them" hanged for it. So, he was in the deep waters here.
From Bethell's account (February 5, 1968): "Mort Sahl came in waving
newspaper with Herman Deutsch favorable comment on the Carson show. No
doubt about it, Sahl sees the investigation purely as a publicity
struggle, and not at all in terms of the facts or truth -- exactly
contrary to what you would suppose. Mark Lane is the same. This would be
OK if we were running, say, a TV station."

That pretty much fits with what I know about Sahl and the assassination.
He was an airhead who was all emotion and no fact. Mark

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-08 21:24:52 UTC

Perhaps because he really believed he was on the trail of the
assassins.

But did he know he looked foolish? Or was he too deluded to
understand that?
Never underestimate pure irrational fanaticism.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I think your right about that. He must have truly believed in what he
was doing. He was getting nationwide attention and relished it.

I don't believe anything I hear from the mainstream media at face value.
That wasn't always the case. The media has always had a left leaning basis
but there was a time they still had integrity.

We have lots of people who put their integrity at risk because they know
BS sells. Sadly, some of them are posing as journalists.

I never did get Mort Saul, I thought he was a negative person and manic
depressive. If I remember correctly, I think Garrisons appearance on the
Tonight Show was the beginning of him losing his credibility. Johnny
questioned and doubted many of his claims and evidence.
It is a sign of the times that today most so called news and
information outlets and stations are slanted to one political side or the
other. The bias is obvious when it comes to political news or trending
subjects. Example, you can't have a crime news story about a white cop
arresting or confronting a black or other minority without them mentioning
the races, but when there is a story about black on black, white on white,
black on white crime, etc, the races aren't mentioned, so it's already
assumed an arrest or confrontation with a minority person by a white cop
is because of race, not because the police are just trying to do their job
responding to a call and there's a smart phone around. There are of
course bad cops who do the wrong thing and that's unacceptable, but when
you consider all the calls police respond to on a daily basis all over the
country in a single day and you only see an occasional questionable
incident I don't think it's as bad as the media plays up. Sorry for the
off subject, but it was just an attempt to point out the difference in
media coverage today as compared to 50 years ago. Today it's all about
ratings and selling commercials.

Tom Bethell, who worked for Garrison and the investigation before quitting
in disgust, said that Sahl would show up at Garrison's office and shoot
the breeze with everyone. Bethell said Sahl knew absolutely nothing about
the assassination. He said that Sahl met with Carson and recommended to
him that he have Garrison on the show. Sahl also believed that RFK and
King were murdered by the "same people" who killed JFK and that he wanted
to see "them" hanged for it. So, he was in the deep waters here.
From Bethell's account (February 5, 1968): "Mort Sahl came in waving
newspaper with Herman Deutsch favorable comment on the Carson show. No
doubt about it, Sahl sees the investigation purely as a publicity
struggle, and not at all in terms of the facts or truth -- exactly
contrary to what you would suppose. Mark Lane is the same. This would be
OK if we were running, say, a TV station."

Yep. Mort Sahl was also responsible for at least one false claim
concerning the JFK assassination that got repeated by a prominent
conspiracy theorist.

I pointed that out here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/62KJbQVydDo/m/0Bj-9quzBwAJ

In short, Sahl, as part of his broadway show, *made up* a funny story
about the Warren Commission, and that story got adopted -- without any
attempt at verification -- as the truth and repeated by Gaeton Fonzi as a
true story. Ironically -- but perahps not surprisingly -- Fonzi related
the false claim in a speech upon accepting the Mary Ferrell-JFK Lancer
Pioneer Award (21st November, 1998) for "Lifetime Achievement in the
Investigation of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy".

Peter Whitmey covered the facts concerning the false story here:
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/creatingapatsy.htm

See the links above for further details.

Hank

John Corbett

2020-12-09 23:37:19 UTC