An Interview With Joan Mellen - Oct.4, 2008

[reprehensor]

(Last weekend, I traveled to the Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, PA, to attend the Making Sense of 60s conference. On Saturday, I had a chance to speak with author Joan Mellen about Jim Garrison, and the pioneering work he did revealing Oswald's links to the CIA. Mellen has authored two books on Jim Garrison. The first, A Farewell to Justice (2005), won the critical acclaim of such JFK researchers as Gaeton Fonzi and Gary Aguilar, and director Oliver Stone. It focused on Garrison's JFK investigation and the Trial of Clay Shaw. Mellen has now followed up with a prequel bio of Garrison, Jim Garrison: His Life and Times - The Early Years. Throughout this short interview, 9/11 researchers should be able to see parallels between what they are doing, and what has been experienced by JFK researchers.)

Joan, why did you feel that there was a need for a Garrison bio?

The reason I had the prequel published is that many people didn't understand Jim Garrison's motivation. Why would he investigate the Kennedy assassination? Why would he risk his political career? Why would he give up his entire political career just for this? What did he get out of it?

It must be that he's covering up for the mafia... it must be that he's getting paid... it must be something. So, the book is a biography of Jim Garrison's life apart from the assassinations investigation, and is meant to answer that question.

Many people were introduced to Jim Garrison by Oliver Stone's JFK. Did it seem like the real Jim Garrison to you, up on the screen?

It didn't. However, Oliver Stone created a marvelous film, I think. He did an extraordinary thing, and he too took a tremendous risk, he risked his entire career as a film director, and suffered for years as a result of it. Stone's film is about the investigation, much more than it is about Jim Garrison the man, so it didn't really matter. I asked Stone the question, is this really Jim Garrison? Because I know things about Garrison's life that are not in this film... and Stone said, 'Well, I could have added 15 minutes about his life...' but it didn't make any difference, what counts is the dynamic of the investigation in that film, and also how it all played out in the city of New Orleans.

Some of the best scenes in that film have nothing to do with Jim Garrison. They were in Guy Banister's office, they have to do with the pistol-whipping of Jack Martin, because Martin knew about Banister's associations with Lee Harvey Oswald... and for those not familiar with this aspect of the case, Martin was the one who went to Garrison and told him about David Ferrie, a contract CIA pilot who lived in New Orleans and knew Lee Harvey Oswald, and really helped Garrison get his investigation going.

In my prequel, I've added an appendix; 'Who Was Jack Martin?' Because new documents have come out, CIA documents, which explain that they used the name Jack Martin "in a generic way". They had so many 'Jack Martins' that nobody could know, if they really were to investigate what happened, which was the correct 'Jack Martin'. One of the Watergate burglars was referred to sometimes as a 'Martin'.

When Stone's movie first came out, there were so many attacks on him, including attacks from the New York Times, Stone called up the publisher of Garrison's book, 'On the Trail of the Assassins' and said, 'Why didn't you tell me so many people hated Jim Garrison?' That was humorous, but I think he might not have been prepared for what happened...

Continued...
http://911blogger.com/node/18136

[defendandprotect]

1. The JFK assassination is still actively being covered up ---

because that was only one of the primary moves . . .

the ongoing assault on democracy and capturing the wealth and resources of the nation --

the Drug War -- 9/11 -- and attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq -- all ongoing.

Of course, Iran-Contra/BCCI, VN/Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, financial thefts that go on

and on, are all connected to the few who want to dominate.

CIA should never have been created and if we ever had the opportunity it should be one

of the first to go -- and how many more intelligence organizations?????????

[Octafish]

2. Kick for History.

Thank you, reprehensor.

Thank you, Professor Mellen.

This should be on the front page of The New York Times.

[MinM]

3. "Shoot Him Down": NBC, the CIA and Jim Garrison

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/MinM/69

http://www.ctka.net/nbc_cia.html

[k-robjoe]

5. Jesse Curry

This one was new to me :

"Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry comments on the probability of a frontal shot in the assassination of President Kennedy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWtlkyCDRzU ( 0:30 )

“But just in my mind and by the direction of the blood and brain from the President from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to be fired from the front rather than from behind.”

[William Seger]

4. By now, 9/11 researchers should also be able to see parallels

... between the JFK assassination researchers and their own most likely future: a quasi-religious sect.

[noise]

7. Does the failure of these efforts

rehabilitate government findings? Would you have us believe that power=truth? The JFK/9/11 movements have failed to date so that must mean both movements are no better than religious cults? Marginalized=wrong?

One can find fault in aspects of such movements and also find the government's accounts dishonest. For some reason some people appear to get more upset with the faulty aspects of such movements or pursuits than they do with dishonest government conduct.

[William Seger]

8. Perhaps I wasn't clear

... or perhaps you prefer to argue with a straw man.

The "JFK/9/11 movements have failed to date" because they have failed to establish any need to "rehabilitate government findings." Pursuing "dishonest government conduct" is a worthy cause; chasing wild geese is not.

[noise]

9. The magic bullet theory

is absurd. The improper watchlisting/cable trafficking procedures theory is absurd.

If you are satisfied with lies then so be it. IMO, the bar you set for government conduct is extremely low.

[William Seger]

10. Yes, the "magic bullet theory" is absurd

However, the "single bullet theory" is not. Given the relative positions of Oswald, Kennedy, and Connelly, and the fact that the metal-jacket bullet mostly went through soft tissue, it makes perfect sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIRB3lvFvw

One of the reasons that Stone took a lot of well-deserved criticism for his movie was for including long-debunked bullshit like the "magic" "pristine" bullet and the "back and to the left" nonsense (i.e. the Zapruder film does show JFK's head snapping forward when the bullet hit, as should be expected) to con a lot of gullible people. It appears that a lot of JFK conspiracists like Reprehensor don't really care that gullible people were conned with bullshit, so long as they are now JFK conspiracists, too, and I see a lot of that same attitude in the "truth movement." That's one of the reasons why I say the most likely future for the "truth movement" is the same.

And sorry, but I don't think the "improper watchlisting/cable trafficking procedures" is a "theory" -- it's just a lame excuse.

[noise]

11. I could understand if people

made the argument that it isn't productive to seek accountability for these issues as government secrecy and unrelenting conditioning (propaganda, authoritarianism, fearmongering and intimidation) are too great to overcome.

Yet for some reason the argument many "conspiracy debunkers" make is to suggest that 2+2=5. The single bullet theory is a lie. It's an absurd explanation put forth for only one reason...to deny that there was more than one shooter. Tenet's "lame excuse" is his explanation for the death of almost 3,000 people. He declared war on al Qaeda in 1998. He told us he and the CTC were freaked out about a possible al Qaeda attack in the summer of 2001. Yet he and the CTC sat on intel. The contradiction is absurd.

[William Seger]

12. The "magic" bullet

... is a great example of what happens when people start with a conclusion and work backwards looking only for evidence to support it, ignoring any that does not (because if must be wrong), then become absolutely convinced that they have found it: They will cling to their beloved "evidence" like a pit bull with a rope toy, regardless of having it proved to be nonsense. As that video I linked to clearly shows, it's virtually impossible for a bullet coming from Oswald's position through the base of Kennedy's neck to go anywhere except into Connelly, and virtually impossible that the bullet could have come from the other direction unless it came from inside the limo. Nonetheless, and even though there is exactly zero credible evidence of a bullet going to or coming from anywhere else, and even though ALL of the photographic evidence shows that Stone's recreation of Garrett's recreation of the event cannot be right because his positioning of JFK and Connelly is simply wrong, "conspiracy theorists" refuse to let go of their "evidence." Likewise, once it has become firmly attached to their egos, they will doggedly cling to "back and to the left" no matter how many times you show them that the Zapruder film actually shows JFK's head snapping forward when the bullet hit, in accordance with the laws of physics, and point out that any movement that happened after that could not have been caused by the bullet impact:



They hate it when you point this out, but that behavior in the face of reason is one of the defining characteristics of those who have come to be known as "conspiracy theorists." The "9/11 truth movement" has come up with its own "magic bullets" and "back and to the left," which is another reason why, if they can't do better than that, they can look forward to a future similar to that of the "JFK truth movement."

[Realityhack]

14. Excelent post. And thanks for the Vid link. n/t

[noise]

15. We must not question authority

The "magic" bullet is a great example of what happens when people start with a conclusion and work backwards looking only for evidence to support it, ignoring any that does not

That is exactly what the Warren Commission did. They started with the premise that Oswald was the lone assassin and any evidence that suggested otherwise had to be fitted to their fiction. Thus we had the BS about one bullet impacting several times while the bullet jacket was barely damaged.

The Warren Commission lied. Yet due to the effects of authoritarianism and propaganda, anyone who challenges authority is considered a conspiracy theorist.

[William Seger]

16. There's absolutely nothing at wrong with "questioning authority"

That's gotta be the most damn annoying straw man that conspiracists throw up when they've run out of facts and valid arguments. Yes, "questioning authority" is a Good Thing, but that is certainly NOT the definition of a "conspiracy theorist." Conspiracists only use "questions" disingenuously, to imply that there's only one plausible answer -- which they have apparently determined by the power of superior and infallible intuition, since their most incriminating answers are never based on sound reasoning from solid evidence -- so the questions are intended to be self-evident and persuasive rhetorical questions. But that pretense of "questioning authority" is just a self-flattering game of make-believe hero and a brave fight against the "powers that be." Unfortunately, when they ignore the logical non-conspiratorial answers to their "questions," the game is revealed. When they refuse to see the problems with their evidence and reasoning, the game is up. When they run around the barn asking other "questions" and eventually come back to the same failed evidence and arguments, hoping no one will argue against it this time, it's time to hit the showers. I've watched this "questioning authority" game played out for several decades now, and the whole time the thing that was missing was a plausible hypothesis backed by convincing evidence. Instead, what we get is the assurance that the all-powerful conspirators must have faked all the evidence that tells the "official story" and covered up almost all of the "real" evidence -- leaving just barely enough for these super-Sherlocks to figure out what "really happened" -- and that's why its unfair to ask the conspiracists to actually prove their contentions.

You can yammer all you want about how the Warren Commission started with a conclusion and "fitted {the evidence} to their fiction" but I've looked at it very closely and reached my own opinions, my friend, as objectively as I possibly could, because I sincerely wanted my own best estimate of the truth. I've read their complete report, and I've read a great many of the conspiracy theories and a great many of the attempts to prove the Commission lied. And it always comes down to this: They must have lied because they reached a different conclusion than the infallible intuition of the conspiracists, even though the Commission's conclusion was the only one that could actually be supported by credible evidence. If the Commission wasn't willing to just assume that all that evidence was faked by the all-powerful conspirators and accept dubious claims and bullshit as evidence, then they must be "in on it." And that's good enough for you accuse the most progressive Chief Justice we've every had of being a liar and an accessory to murder? I don't think so.

But maybe the Warren Commission got it wrong, and maybe there was a conspiracy. And maybe some people are "psychics" too (but there just weren't any on the Commission). Reasoning from the available evidence never guarantees correct answers. The question remains, what better method have you found, and why should anyone believe it?

[noise]

17. The single bullet theory

is backed by solid evidence? Why because the Warren Commission said so? Because they had experts analyze the angles and conduct tests?

The Bush administration produced experts that claimed the aluminum tubes were designed for enriching uranium and the mobile labs were for chemical weapons. Governments lie.

[William Seger]

18. Nope! Not "because the Warren Commission said so"!

There is a lot of evidence -- photos and films -- that will allow you to determine the proper relative positions of JFK and Connelly. Garrison didn't do that. You've been lied to, alright, but it wasn't by the Warren Commission. As I said, if you put them in the right positions, then a bullet from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository through the base of JFK's neck couldn't go anywhere except into Connelly. Watch the video I linked to, and if you don't believe they got the right positions, then look around on the Web or do your own analysis, as I have. There was nothing "magic" about it.

[k-robjoe]

21. The bullet

Dr. Gregory treated the wounds in the wrist of the Governor.

" Dr. Gregory : The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself...I mean one that has been destorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile."

http://www.jfk-info.com/wcgregry.htm

This doesn´t seem like this bullet ( And Gregory didn´t believe it was either ) :



Making the wound of entrance in the wrist, it must have been still totally intact :

The ABC meassured the fragments that were removed from Connallys wrist and came to this conclusion :

" That the "weight of fragments found in Connelly's wrist precisely match the missing fragments from the bullet" ".

This makes perfect sense if the fragments were "scraped" off the bullet by the FBI, and put in the place of the (one single) fragment that was removed from Connallys wrist.

It does not make sense if you believe it came from the CE-399, magic bullet, since the ABC forgot about the fragments that were not removed :

"Mr. FITHIAN: The other fragments were not removed?

Dr. BADEN: The other fragments were not removed and are still present as demonstrated on subsequent X-rays available to the committee when the Governor's arm was healing."

http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm ( With x-ray pic. )

And when you realize that what hit Connallys thigh was not a whole bullet :

"The Warren Commission was sent more evidence about the wound to Connally's thigh by the FBI. Another Parkland doctor, Dr. Jack Reynolds, sent a note to the FBI describing the wound and with an X-ray of Connally's left thigh attached. He described the thigh wound as round, 1cm diameter and containing a roughly oval fragment, 3.5mm long, 1.3 mm wide lying on the axis of thigh (a shape not consistent with lead extruded from base). The note and X-ray were forwarded to the Warren Commission, however, they chose not to use this information."

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html

[William Seger]

24. The bullet would have been tumbling by the time it hit Connelly's wrist

... so it shouldn't be expected to look like a direct hit from a bullet. It would have also slowed down considerably by then -- it would have been moving too slow to deform the jacketed bullet very much at all when it hit the wrist bone.

You don't believe the "single bullet" theory is possible? Well, on offense, but so what? Arguments from "personal incredulity" are never convincing, but they are especially pointless when the hypothesis you disbelieve is actually perfectly logical, if all the factors are taken into consideration.

I'm sure you'll have much more that you'll want throw up, but I'm really not interested in getting sucked into another one of those never-ending debates. If you can PROVE that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, where all others have failed, then write your own book and become fabulously famous and wealthy. I might even buy a copy.

[k-robjoe]

25. A lot more

Sure there´s a lot more, but there is no point. Very cute, this "I´m sure you´ll have much more that you´ll want throw up" as if you had debunked my first post.

[tetedur]

19. The bullet went through soft tissue?

Can you explain this cross-section of a cat scan of the magic bullet's trajectory?



How did the bullet not hit cervical vertebrae?

[William Seger]

20. Yes the bullet went through soft tissue

But no, I'm not wasting any more time debunking JFK "magic bullet" bullshit. Do you own research, but do it on a site that doesn't "forget" to tell you important details.

[tetedur]

22. You say the bullet went through soft tissue but you don't answer my question

By all means, don't waste any time "debunking JFK 'magic bullet' bullshit." That's not my question.

But given this illustration of the bullet's path through JFK's body,
and noting that a bullet passing through that man's body on that
trajectory must hit bone, I thought it would be enlightening if you could
explain your comment about the bullet going through "soft tissue."

Perhaps you can point me to a site that doesn't forget to tell "important details."

From Assassination Science, edited by James H. Fetzer Ph.D., Article "Optical Density Measurements of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays and A New Observation Based on the Chest X-ray" by David W. Mantik M.D., Ph.D. pp. 157-158.

"This path would have caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest x-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine. Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse processes up and down the entire the cervical spine and because of the total width of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead , the upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, the another problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung damage of this type was seen by the pathologist and none is seen on the X-rays either. This "magic " bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then exit through the throat would without hitting the spine--or else causing major lung trauma!"

[William Seger]

23. Here's why it's a waste of time

That diagram appears to be from Fetzer's discredited "Assassination Science" book, or one like it. It was produced by Dr. Mantic, who also claims the autopsy x-rays were altered, although most experts disagree with him (some rather strongly). The problem is that it shows a two-dimensional section through a three-dimensional cervical bone. If you'll please consult an anatomy reference (or if you prefer, this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDvbAvBLQuM ), you'll see that those white sections that Mantic's line passes through are actually knobby protrusions (called the traverse process and the superior anticular process). If Mantic had taken a section either higher or lower, then his red line would pass through the gap between those protrusions and the similar ones on the bones above or below. According to the "official story," the bullet did in fact slightly nick a cervical bone, and Mantic's diagram certainly does not disprove that, because he does not prove that he has taken the section at the right level. (That's not even JKF, btw; it's a person of "similar proportion.")

So, why do Fetzer and Mantic claim that misleading diagram as being proof that the bullet would have solidly hit a bone and therefore disproves the "official story," when in fact it proves nothing of the sort? Because they're only looking for validation of their "conspiracy" speculations, and they are very disingenuous about what they find because the only thing they're interested in is convincing others to believe what they believe.

And I've found that same pattern in virtually every line of JFK "conspiracy evidence" that I've looked into. Either the evidence is too dubious to prove anything, or it just doesn't conclusively prove what the conspiracists so adamantly claim it does.

And that's why I no longer waste time on it. I got burned out on JFK conspiracy nonsense years ago on Usenet, and I have no interest in returning to it. If you want to continue arguing about it, then you might try some JFK assassination forum.

[tetedur]

26. Perhaps if Bethesda had bothered to do a professional autopsy

they would have dissected the bullet path through the president's body. Maybe then we'd all have the evidence that would settle such questions once and for all. Isn't it too bad that such evidence just doesn't exist?

I quoted Dr. Mantik's statement from the book I cited. I repeat, "Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat." Dr. Mantik has a Ph.D. in physics and is board certified in radiation oncology.

So you say a bullet can pass between such anatomical structures without major damage and Dr. Mantik says a bullet cannot.
I think I'll go with his credentials until someone can name someone that "discredits" his work.



By the way, there was no attempt at "misleading" any one about the cat scan taken of a man whose "upper chest and neck dimensions were the same as those of JFK." That fact was stated up front in the books edited by Fetzer.

I did look up the "superior anticular process" but could only find references to the "superior articular process."






Why is Assassination Science discredited and by whom?
Who are the "experts" that disagree with Dr. Mantik about x-ray alteration? Have they taken optical density measurements on the JFK x-rays and not found the anomalies that Dr. Mantik found?

[William Seger]

27. Yeah, well, suit yourself

You own photo shows the protruding sections of bone C7 that Mantik's red line crosses, as do these:



So, if you can convince yourself that the bullet couldn't possibly have gone above or below those protrusions just because Mantik says so, then you're welcome to your beliefs. I don't have a PhD in physics, but I do have a pair of functioning eyes, so I think I'll pass, thanks.

Of course, that means that Mantik has either proved that the bullet really was "magic" and curved around the spine, or that JFK was shot from both the front and the back by bullets that disappeared after penetrating very short distances, or that the conspirators completely faked the back and neck wounds for some unknown and completely baffling reason. Not that it's required to make any sense, being a JFK conspiracy theory and all... but you're welcome to it.

[tetedur]

28. Not your either/or

For the record, the Parkland doctor's said the throat wound was an entry wound through which they performed a tracheotomy. Humes thought the wound was a tracheotomy. Two FBI agents reported that the autopsy doctor, Humes, "stuck his finger in the rear entry wound and found it went in only 'a short distance...the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.'" When Humes was told of the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland, he connected the bullet with the shallow wound in JFK's back.

Researchers who have studied the wounds have noted the discrepancies between the wounds the Parkland doctors saw and the wounds that the Bethesda doctors saw. Reasons one might have for altering wounds, removing bullets are not "unknown and completely baffling", that is of course, if you can imagine a powerful group who had the means, the motive and the opportunity to frame a lone Communist nut job for the murder of the President. I don't think bullets "disappeared" on their own.

As for a bullet that "curved", I haven't seen the movie "Wanted" but I understand that super-duper agents can do such things in the movies. I understand the difference between fantasy and reality, sense and nonsense.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. I'll be looking forward to 911blogger's publishing an interview with Sean Fitzgerald.

Oh, memory hole, you are so hated until needed!

[HamdenRice]

13. Thanks! Very interesting interview

I was surprised to learn she is married to Ralph Schoenman.