Lisa Pease vs. David Blackburst
Subject: Re: Whatever happened to David Lewis?
Date: 16 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <1998061605525900.BAA28563@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Lisa Pease wrote:
>David Phillips was working with Guy Banister
>and Sergio Arcacha Smith,
It is true that David Phillips was the Headquarters Chief of Propaganda for the Frente Revolucionario Democratico, the CIA-created political action group for the Cuban invasion. It is true that Sergio Arcacha Smith was the New Orleans delegate of the FRD and it's successor, the Cuban Revolutionary Council in 1960-61, and that Banister assisted Arcacha at that time. Whether Phillips was acquainted with Arcacha and Banister or was "working with" them is not established.
>Sergio Arcacha Smith, the man who held the office at 544 Camp St.
>before Oswald did.
Arcacha held the office until January 1962, 18 months before Oswald used the address.
>Sergio Arcacha Smith and Emilio Santana
>were identified to Fruge as the two men at the bar with Rose Cheramie
>just before she was killed.
The bar owner, Mac Manual (since deceased) identified the men from photos about 3 1/2 years later. Arcacha denies being the man in question.
>Phillips was seen with Oswald,
If you accept an apparently off-the-record identification of Maurice Bishop as Phillips by Antonio Veciana.
oo
Dave
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Sergio Arcacha Smith
Date: 05 Dec 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19971205052301.AAA17764@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>HSCA Statement of Mrs. Arcacha,
>Did she produce any records to document that?
No, it was a statement. It is supported by documents from Ronny Caire and Calvin Clausel, two of his employers.
> I would hesitate to accept
>the word of the wife of a man who may have been involved in something so
>serious as an assassination.
I don't see any involvement in the assassination, so I have no reason to doubt her word, or Caire's, or Clausel's.
>How much work did Ferrie do for Marcello?
HSCA had several letters from Ferrie in Guatemala to one of Marcello's lawyers that, on the face of it, seem to document a lot of activity in connection with Marcello's false Guatemalan birth certificate.
>Davis, however, has reason to lie about this, to distance himself and his
>activities from that group.
What reason?
>If you continue in this manner, ....
:)
I calls them as I sees them. There are lots of questions about certain of the New Orleans characters, as you and I know, but the evidence with respect to Sr. Arcacha is slim indeed.
oo
David
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: Sergio Arcacha Smith
Date: 24 Nov 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19971124052101.AAA17580@ladder02.news.aol.com>
> Re: Sergio Arcacha Smith
>He was, however, in Dallas on Nov 22
He was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963.
Document from the files of Orleans Parish District Attorney Jim Garrison:
Letter from Calvin Clausel, "To Whom It May Concern"
"Sergio Arcacha Smith was employed by my company from March 1, 1963 to January, 1964...
"On the day, at the hour and moment President Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Mr. Arcacha was with me in my office at Suite #107,3100 Audley Street, Houston, Texas. This fact can also be corroborated by Mrs. Art Magee, formerly Mrs. Rima Bredelhoeft, who at that time was my secretary."
If Clausel and Magee were being truthful, your information about Arcacha being in Dallas at the time of the assassination appears to be incorrect.
Thanks.
oo
Dave
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: By Popular Demand: OT Mystery Theater Part I
Date: 25 Jan 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19980125054700.AAA00987@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Young Ms. Pease wrote:
>I could have predicted that, given that you don't think Arcacha had
>anything to do with the assassination, despite his presence at a bar with
>Rose Cheramie the night she was killed.
>
>Or was that information not in your otherwise prolific files?
Gee, my otherwise prolific files relate that Lt. Francis Fruge, in attempting to find corroboration for Rose Cheramie's story, interviewed Silver Slipper bar owner Mac Manual during the Garrison investigation, and that Manual picked Arcacha's picture as one of the men who accompanied Cheramie to the bar on 11/20/63. The HSCA report notes that "corroboration of Fruge's identification of Cheramie's travelling companion as Sergio Arcacha Smith and further substantiation of Cheramie's allegations remained elusive." On the other hand, as I have noted, Arcacha denies any connection with Cheramie. He also denies being in Dallas or New Orleans at the time of the assassination, and statements of his ex-wife and employer appear to corroborate this.
However, it is interesting to hear that you have unearthed evidence that Arcacha absolutely, positively WAS with Cheramie that night, and WAS involved in the assassination. Will you share it with us?
Thanks:)
oo
David
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
You are wrong.
I am just not as sure about it as you are. You are a talented researcher, but I
think you overreach in your conclusions sometimes, and you sometimes leave out
evidence which does not support your theses. But I respect your work, though I
do not like your tendency to denounce the motives or intellectual capacity of
others. There are others who know as much about aspects of the case as you do
who do not share your conclusions. I stand by my contributions to the search
for truth.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: Garrison had a good chance to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, but
Another lie. Garrison had some of his best evidence stolen out of his
office by infiltrators Gurvich, Bethell and others. [Actually, not even Jim Garrison himself ever made this allegation.--DR] David Ferrie was
killed before Garrison could get him on the stand. [False. Garrison could have called Ferrie before the Grand Jury, but chose to question him privately in his office instead.--DR] CIA people infiltrated
Garrison's office. [Any evidence for this?--DR] CIA and FBI and DOJ people worked with Shaw's defense
team to obstruct Garrison's case. [This is ridiculous. The FBI and Department of Justice's assistance were solicited by Clay Shaw's defense team, and the request was flatly refused.--DR] Witnesses were intimidated (and in one
case beaten). [If this is true, why does Pease not detail specifics? The only intimidation of witnesses going on in New Orleans was being conducted by the DA's office on Garrison's behalf. (See also the NODA's attempt to bribe Alvin Beauboeuf.--DR]
He failed? Or the system failed him? Think about it. Never mind, spook.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous
posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
>Given that you have now lied twice about 1), why should we believe you on
I didn't lie about "1)", and I do not lie when I say I have no connection with
nor desire to "protect" CIA.
>Nagell claimed to have a tape with Arcacha discussing with a fellow
"Claimed to have a tape." I'll stand by my analysis until I hear the tape.
>Arcacha was one of the two people
A now-dead bartender told Francis Fruge that he thought a picture of Arcacha
looked like one of the people with Cheramie. Not very strong evidence against
Arcacha, who by other accounts was long separated from anti-Castro activities
and selling air conditioners in Houston.
>And
Source?
>You are simply trying to maintain your cover. But it's rather gossamer,
I have no cover. I am what I say I am. What qualifies you to be the ultimate
detector of disinfo agents?
>No -[David Blackburst's study of the New Orleans aspects of the case] is
I am only addressing certain specific areas where I believe the prevailing
wisdom is contradicted by existing evidence. None of the new releases
contradict any of the points I have made.
>Those who pretend to be fence sitters merely pose there so as not to make
I am not pretending. I am objective.
>There WAS a conspiracy.
Not true. There are many who do not find the evidence related to these areas
compelling enough to embrace them with certainty.
>Those who do not pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded, unbiased. But
How does one pretend to be intellectual, fair-minded and unbiased? I don't
know about intellectual, but I AM fair-minded and unbiased.
>It's also standard procedure for
Source?
>Many like you, who claimed to be unbiased and
I don't recall Aynesworth, Phelan, Johnson or Buckley ever claiming to be
unbiased and fair-minded. They have never made any secret of their beliefs.
>You claim to respect my work so that you put me in the 'bad guy' seat
I DO respect your ability to ferret out facts, organize and present them in
support of your theories. I do not respect your inclination to assault the
motives of others.
>But I have no patience for those who deny evidence that
I don't deny such evidence. I consider it in context.
>People who are informed about the
Many do. Some, however, do care about an objective search for truth.
>Whether they share them [their opinions] or hide them differs
I may choose my words carefully, but I do not hide my opinions. There are few
absloutely clear facts in this case. Over time, I have become only MORE
objective.
Lisa Pease and I have been through this before, and it is pointless for me to
address this to her, so I will address this to the group.
I am committed to finding the truth, no matter where the chips may fall.
Sometimes, this includes correcting frequently-repeated information which is
contradicted by the available evidence, including information offered by
Garrison, Pease, DiEugenio and Probe. Sometimes this includes observations that
their analysis of evidence may not be completely accurate or objective. But
Lisa Pease is unable to accept informed criticism. She does not present facts -
she just calls people names.
I have posted a few tidbits of information other posters find valuable, whether
they agree with it or not. For this, Lisa Pease simply denounces me as "Spook
#2" and often claims to have access to information which proves her to know
the true facts of the case, very McCarthy-like. She seems to have given up
trying to portray me as someone lacking in intellectual ability, or not in
posession or command of the facts.
Lisa Pease and I have one thing in common: We both want to find the truth in
this case. We have one major difference: She hurls false and unproven
accusations against innocent people, both "suspects" in the case, and those in
this newsgroup. I don't.
There is right and wrong here. I leave it to others to judge which is which. I
call upon others in this group on all sides of the issue to support objective
and respectful discussion and debate about this case, and to EXPRESS their
disapproval of this anti-intellectual, anti-truth, anti-objective practice of
name calling.
If others are offended by my attempts to offer some valuable information to the
debate, I apologize. I was only trying to do what I thought was right. Thank
you all for listening.
David Blackburst
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: No, you are wrong. I am telling the truth. And I have so stated in numerous
You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy. That
can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions. But anything
that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
misrepresentation through omission.
You claim to be objective, but you might as well claim to be handsome.
Your objectivity will not be judged by your own proclamations, but will
be judged by those who know the full scope of evidence, who see what you
omit, twist, deny despite the inconvenient supporting facts.
Objectivity cannot be claimed, only exhibited. Had you exhibited any, you
would not have been the subject of the last several of my posts here.
There's only two things I really detest in this life: lies, and
hypocrisy. You exhibit the latter while denying the former. A fact is a
fact, whether admitted to or not. A lie is also a lie, whether admitted
or not.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: No I don't. I only respond to items of information that are not supported by
: >That
: I'm not pushing anyone anywhere. Perhaps a few of my posts might help people
: >But anything
: I'm not with you at all on this. The scanty evidence on Arcacha does not
I will not take the word of a man in a car that tried to run over Rose
Cheramie, after which she complained that the men she was with were going
to kill Kennedy that he was ONLY selling air conditioners in late 1963.
Would you let OJ testify to the results of his own DNA test?
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: You are taking one identification of a photograph, 4 years later, from a
Conclusive evidence in light of several unrelated events, only one of
which is this. If there was only one source on Arcacha, that would not be
enough. But when this is just one incredibly significant report out of
many equally significant reports as to his involvement from different
angles, either you have a massive, vast-ranging conspiracy of
unconnected, anonymous people to frame Arca[ch]a, or he WAS part of the
conspiracy and the various accounts from people unfamiliar with each
other make sense.
This is typical. You isolated one of the several points I made and try to
single it out as if it stands alone. That's a standard disinfo combat tactic.
Even the Secret Service was onto him long before Garrison got involved.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: You are wrong. I am not leading anyone anywhere. I have not addressed the
No - you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvio[u]s to
most, so I won't belabor the point.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: Unfortunately, my vision focus is getting weak. I'm gonna have to get glasses.
I don't think glasses will help your vision focus in this case.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
If it is so obvious to you that I am "Spook #2" (untrue) or that I have posted
lies (untrue) or that I am maliciously trying to post information that points
exclusively away from conspiracy (untrue) or that I am closed-minded to the
possibility of conspiracy (untrue) or the possibility that Garrison may be
proven right someday (untrue) or that I am somehow lacking in intellectual
capacity or not as conversant with the facts as you or others (untrue), then
why do you continue to "belabor the point" by responding to my posts several
times a day?
Why don't you just put me in your killfile, let me continue to offer useful
information while you continue with your posts of information, and let readers
decide what to believe or not believe? If I annoy you so much, why don't you
just ignore me, as you say you are inclined to do?
oo
P.S.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: There is a post from you in DejaNews which I have not seen on my AOL, in which
As you know perfectly well, I was not referring to any physical disability.
From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease)
Blackburst (blackburst@aol.com) wrote:
: If it is so obvious to you that I am "Spook #2" (untrue) or that I have posted
Because you are more subtle than say a McAdams. He's so overtly
propagandistic and dishonest that I think most people will readily spot
it. You, on the other hand, are far more sophisticated, so I think it
takes some effort to expose what you do here, and not many have access,
for example, to Flammonde or some of the other hard to find evidence
about the New Orelans aspects of the case. In addition, few have the
stomach for taking someone like you on.
: Why don't you just put me in your killfile, let me continue to offer useful
Were you offering useful information on a non-partisan basis, I wouldn't
have needed to expose what you are doing.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
So basically, you are accusing me of something, but you won't provide any
specifics?
To whom besides you is it obvious?
oo
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
Subtle? Sophisticated? At what? Is that a compliment or a "diss"?
> I think it
First of all, you haven't exposed anything about me. All you have done is call
me names, with nothing at all to back it up. Again, who appointed you as the
one to "take me on"?
I say: Let's call it off. I'll post my stuff - which is probably having zero
influence on anyone - and you post yours. No more name calling.
oo
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Lisa Pease wrote:
Since my screen name was taken in vain at the outset of this thread, I'll
respond::
I WANT people to consider the evidence of conspiracy. I also want them to
consider evidence which contradicts it, and make up their own minds. It is
axiomatic of advocacy of a position that it has to withstand a reasoned
challenge. Checks and balances, keeps us honest and accurate.
oo
[Webmaster's note: Lisa Pease is co-editor of Probe, the journal of Citizens for Truth in the Kennedy Assassination. The July-August 1999 issue featured a cover story on Rose Cherami that repeated many of Pease's above allegations. Arcacha's side of the story was omitted.]
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Martin:
: I meant what I said, that I have a great deal of respect for your work. I think
: we agree on some things and disagree on others. I am neither a CT or an LN,
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 22 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981222151401.13848.00000237@ng-fb2.aol.com>
>What a liar. Color this guy Langley. I saw what you did re Arcacha.
>You can pose all you want, but you are a here with an agenda that has
>nothing to do with telling the whole truth.
1) I have not lied about anything.
2) I am not and have never been connected to nor sympathetic to CIA or any
government entity. I go with what the evidence shows.
3) I stand by my belief that the evidence on Arcacha does not prove a
connection to the assassination, and argues otherwise. You may interpret the
evidence differently.
4) I am not posing. I have no firm opinions, and I try to correct mistakes on
both sides, as a glance at Deja News will substantiate.
5) I have no agenda. I know you do not approve of my pointing out mistakes in
the garrison, case, but that's what the evidence shows. And my study of New
Orleans is as complete as anyone elses.
6) So that there is no misconception, I'll say it publicly in a way that cannot
be mistaken:
Oswald may have been innocent.
There may have been multiple shooters.
There may have been a conspiracy.
There may have been a malicious coverup.
Garrison may have been right about Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha and other
things.
Subject: Re: Who squeaks for Clay Shaw?
Date: 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: he failed.
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 25 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981225024306.21151.00001474@ng95.aol.com>
>You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you
>to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
>this point? [That you are not a CIA agent]
>conspirator the setting up of Oswald.
>with Rose Cheramie before she was thrown from the car and ended in a
>hospital predicting in advance that Kennedy was going to be killed.
>Arcacha had sewer maps of Dallas.
>for any who know the game.
completely one-sided without acknowledgement of how past and
>new releases of documents support what Garrison was alleging in many areas.
>their agenda to obvious.
>There WERE multiple shooters.
>There WAS a deliberate and thereby malicious coverup.
>Anyone who researchers this case even for a short time with any honest
>and sincerity rapidly concedes these three points.
>that's just blarney to the uninitiated.
>infiltration in this case.
>fair minded have later proven to have connections with intelligence
>agencies. These include Hugh Aynesworth, James Phelan, Priscilla Johnson
>McMillan, William F. Buckley, and many others.
>opposing you.
>points to the conspirators while pretending to be simply open-minded.
>case have strong opinions.
>from person to person. But no one who has done this in the detail and to
>the length that you claim to can be uncertain at this point. It defies
>crediblity.
12/25/98
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 28 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >You lie when you claim you are neither a CT nor LN. Your posts show you
: >to be a LNer, desipite your sly evasion.
: posts. I cite evidence that supports and contradicts both CTs and LNs.
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 28 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Lisa Pease angrily wrote:
: >You cite anything that points away from the heart of the conspiracy.
: the evidence or are erroneous.
: >can lead you to push people in wrong conspiracy directions.
: think about erronoeous assertions.
: >that touches on the heart of the matter, such as Arcacha and others, you
: >deny and claim to be citing evidence when you are simply creating a
: >misrepresentation through omission.
: convince me that he played a role in the assassination. Do you often refer to
: the evidence that Arcacha was long removed from anti-Castro activities and
: selling air conditioners in Houston in late 1963?
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 30 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >I will not take the word of a man in a car that tried to run over Rose
: >Cheramie, after which she complained that the men she was with were going
: >to kill Kennedy that he was ONLY selling air conditioners in late 1963.
: now-deceased bartender who cannot be cross-examined, as PROOF POSITIVE that
: Sergio Arcacha Smith was GUILTY of ATTEMPTED MURDER in trying to run down
: Cheramie? That is CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE, in your eyes?
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 30 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >When did I say YOU [Martin Shackelford] were leading people away from the
: conspiracy's center?
: >I said that about Blackburst.
: possibility of conspiracy. I have tried to correct a few inaccurate notions
: about the New Orleans case.
Subject: Re: Who Speaks for David Ferrie?
Date: 28 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: Yo Lisa
Date: 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981231015925.15305.00004593@ng96.aol.com>
>No - you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
>evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvio[u]s to
>most, so I won't belabor the point.
DB
There is a post from you in DejaNews which I have not seen on my AOL, in which
you respond to my statement that it is getting hard for me to post material due
to failing vision focus, with some snide little remark that it's obvious that I
lost my vision focus some time ago. Thank you for your sensitivity.
Subject: Re: Yo Lisa
Date: 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: you respond to my statement that it is getting hard for me to post material due
: to failing vision focus, with some snide little remark that it's obvious that I
: lost my vision focus some time ago. Thank you for your sensitivity.
Subject: Re: Yo Lisa
Date: 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID:
: Lisa Pease wrote:
: >No - you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
: >evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvios to
: >most, so I won't belabor the point.
: lies (untrue) or that I am maliciously trying to post information that points
: exclusively away from conspiracy (untrue) or that I am closed-minded to the
: possibility of conspiracy (untrue) or the possibility that Garrison may be
: proven right someday (untrue) or that I am somehow lacking in intellectual
: capacity or not as conversant with the facts as you or others (untrue), then
: why do you continue to "belabor the point" by responding to my posts several
: times a day?
: information while you continue with your posts of information, and let readers
: decide what to believe or not believe? If I annoy you so much, why don't you
: just ignore me, as you say you are inclined to do?
Subject: Re: Shackelford Article
Date: 31 Dec 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19981231012410.15305.00004569@ng96.aol.com>
>you have tried to supplant evidence that leads to conspiracy with
>evidence that you feel leads away from conspiracy. This is obvios to
>most, so I won't belabor the point.
DB
Subject: Re: Yo Lisa
Date: 01 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990101025221.00800.00005368@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>you are more subtle than say a McAdams.
>You, on the other hand, are far more sophisticated
>takes some effort to expose what you do here, and...>few have the
>stomach for taking someone like you on.
>Were you offering useful information on a non-partisan basis, I wouldn't
>have needed to expose what you are doing.
DB
Subject: Re: Who Speaks for David Ferrie?
Date: 01 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990101033254.00800.00005369@ng-fv1.aol.com>
>You might as well call any who keep essential truth from being recognized
>as "lone nutters". They don't care that we believe Oswald did it alone,
>but they do not want us to find the conspiracy either. So why make
>useless distinctions and pretend these are in any way different from the
>lone nutters?
It is not fair to say that I ">do not want us to find the conspiracy".
DB