Stephen Roy

Congrats on the nice article, Pamela. You've done a nice job at becoming the authority on the limo. It must have been a bit eerie but rewarding to have been there to experience the replica and chat with interested viewers.

So, while most CIA and FBI people took the position that Oswald was neither a KGB or US agent, a small group held out the possibility that he may have been a KGB agent.

Perhaps, but I find it hard to believe that any "group" at the CIA or FBI was that naive, when those two organizations (or "rogue agents" therein) were suspects in the assassination for very good and obvious reasons. I believe it was Whitten (sp) who said that around the part of the CIA where he worked, it was taken for granted that Oswald was CIA. That makes sense to me; any CIA section thinking that Oswald could be KGB doesn't. But then I never worked at Langley or Hoover's domain so what do I know.

US intelligence is tightly compartmented, even within the agencies affected. If Oswald was a US agent, it is quite possible, even likely, that it was very tightly held. What's the point of a guy being a double agent if any Tom, Dick or Harry in the DDP can defect to the Soviets and blow it? Presumably, only a small group knew about it. It's impossible for us to speculate, as outsiders and many years after the fact, WHO ran Oswald, who knew and who didn't. CI seems likely, but maybe it was some part of the SB division. Or Staff D. Or some entity that we still don't know existed.

And it's reasonable to presume that, after the assassination, the people who knew didn't advertise that fact. They would have clamped the lid shut to prevent it from being widely known. So the universe of people who knew/know could be very small.

Ron: I can only reply based on published accounts of what CIA thought at the time.

In late 1961, Anatoli Mikhailovich Golitsyn defected to the CIA in Helsinki. Initially, he provided info pointing to several agents, mostly in Europe. But he was a very difficult man. He demanded money to start his own anti-KGB organization, he demanded a personal audience with JFK and, by many accounts, when his genuine information dried up, he began "spinning," making all sorts of charges he couldn't prove. Many CIA and FBI people became very frustrated with him. He charged that CIA had a mole, and a massive mole hunt at CIA destroyed a number of careers.

Most important, he charged that other KGB/GRU officers who would come after him to work for the US (either agents in place or defectors) would be phonies, sent by the KGB to deflect HIS information. This brush tarnished Fedora, TopHat, Penkovskiy and others, and it was in this atmosphere that Nosenko, who had been an agent in place, defected in January 1964.

A few people like Angelton, Bagley and Dave Murphy immediately thought Nosenko's defection was a phony. Over the years, Bagely catalogued a long series of reasons why Nosenko must have been a phony. It was in THIS atmosphere that Nosenko made his Oswald statements. If Nosenko was phony, then his Oswald statements must be phony. People like Bagley then "mirror-read" them: If the statement that Oswald was not a Soviet agent is a phony, then maybe he really WAS a Soviet agent, and the Sovs sent Nosenko to deflect suspicion.

So, while most CIA and FBI people took the position that Oswald was neither a KGB or US agent, a small group held out the possibility that he may have been a KGB agent. And they tried to "break" Nosenko and get him to confess. I believe that Nosenko was a genuine KGB officer and that his defection was genuine, but that he lied about a number of things to puff up his importance, including his closeness to the Oswald case.

Pat:

I could be wrong, just a shot in the dark...

Did Alyea work for WFAA? In the 1993 WFAA "Kennedy Tapes" special, showing the 1963 tapes, a number of newsfilms were rush-developed and shown on the air unedited. That might be worth checking as a source.

Unfortunately, there are some 14 hours of tape to slog through, and my copy is an atrocious multi-generation VHS dub (from the Canadian source).

Steve

I don't understand your first paragraph about tiptoeing through the raindrops. I am certainly trying to weigh evidence and will report that to readers. As I've said many times before, some things we think we know about Ferrie pan out, and some don't.

I HAVE presented the evidence regarding the mice and cancer issues. Do a newsgroup search. Rather than just quoting other book, I have hunted down and quoted the primary sources. A few people who knew Ferrie said he was interested in medicine and wanted to find a cure for cancer (from which his mother suffered.) And there is one document that seems to indicate that he had mice in his Vinet Avenue apartment in 1957. I've said all this before.

Haslam DOES have a tendency to reach, and to state as fact things that are only speculations. All I am saying is: Be cautious in reading his books, seek alternate sources.

Did Steven say that he doesn't see any connections between Ferrie and LHO?

That's certainly not the case, as we have at least one photo of them together and multiple witnesses who place them together both during the CAP days and the Summer of '63.

I thought Steven said that he found no research associations between Ferrie and Mary Sherman and that Ferrie had no caged mice in his apartment.

I don't mean to jump in front of Steven here, but I too would dissagree with the narrow view of Ferrie that ignores his known associations with LHO.

BK

Stephen is not revealing much about Ferrie's connections, or lack of them. I guess we all have to wait for the book to find out what he really thinks. But for the time being it seems to me that based on his posts here and on aaj that he sees a squeaky-clean Ferrie who has no connections to anybody, including mice or cancer research. So far, I am finding this orientation rather flat and uninteresting, and certainly unhelpful. I would be delighted to be mistaken.

I've been working on this on and off for more than 20 years. I've shared many things with many researchers and a bunch of stuff on the Internet. I have to keep at least a few things for the book.

I present all the allegations about a Ferrie-Oswald relationship in great detail. Most are presented in a "let the reader decide" fashion. In a few cases (4, off the top of my head) I argue against them because I've had personal followup and think the source is crazy. But this is NOT an assassination book; it is a biography. I would be remiss if I did not note that Ferrie agreed almost from the beginning that he served in the same CAP unit as Oswald, but vehemently denied having a relationship with him in 1963, and he twice offered to take a polygraph and "truth serum." (And that none of his acknowledged friends knew of any Ferrie-Oswald relationship at that time.) Approaching it from a historian's perspective, I feel compelled to acknowledge and consider Ferrie's own assertions. But I don't draw conclusions in the book.

I acknowledge that Pamela McElwain-Brown (who is admittedly in touch with Baker) feels that there is a POSSIBILITY that Ferrie had a lab and white mice in 1963 in his apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway. As Haslam actually presents no evidence to prove this, I have tried to verify it by other sources (friends, landlord, pictures, documents and other sources) but have thus far been unable to prove it. And in fact, there are quite a few who assert that there were no mice or labs there at that time.

It may well be that a cautious historical approach is "flat and uninteresting," but it's important to get a detailed and verifable picture of Ferrie on the record. I suspect that people on "all sides" of the issue will find new material of interest in my book.

We get hung up on this mice/laboratory thing sometimes. All I'm saying is that the allegations are VERY hard to pin down, and I have not been able to verify it.

Maybe he's on to something, maybe not. I must caution people to regard his book with caution.

Since your view of Ferrie is so narrow you refuse to see any connections of him to LHO or anyone else involved in the assassination, perhaps it is we who should be cautious about what you have to say.

How can you know how I treat those alleged connections - including some I found by interviewing people - in a book I haven't even finished yet?

But you're right in one regard. People SHOULD be cautious in reading my book. And Haslam's book. And ANY book. Jim Marrs said it in the intro to Crossfire. Don't trust this book. Find out for yourself. Sage advice.

As a specialist on David Ferrie who is seriously interested in separating fact from fiction, let me give an opinion. But bear in mind that my impressions of the book come from Haslam's first edition.

In my opinion, Haslam treats Ferrie very superficially and repeats information about him that I believe to be erroneous. I see a pattern emerge in his first edition: He posits a (loaded) question about Ferrie; a few pages later, this hardens into a strong possibility; still a few pages later, it becomes a fact, which leads to OTHER questions which become possibilities, then facts.

It is true that Ferrie was interested in medicine at one time, and that he kept some white mice, claiming they were for cancer research in his Vinet Avenue apartment IN 1957: Six years and three residences earlier. I believe Jim Garrison's claim that Ferrie had mice in 1967 at Louisiana Avenue Parkway was a misunderstanding of something one of his aides told him. There were no such mice there at the time of Ferrie's death. Of the many Ferrie associates and friends I have interviewed, I can find NONE who recollect him ever having mice on Louisiana Avenue Parkway, having a laboratory in his apartment or associating with Dr. Sherman. I know others who have investigated Sherman's life and death, and they are likewise unable to uncover any reliable infomation that she worked with Ferrie. I can't guarantee that he had no mice/lab/relationship with Sherman, but the available evidence falls far of short proving he did. I tried to communicate this to Haslam, but to no avail.

Maybe he's on to something, maybe not. I must caution people to regard his book with caution.

There's one other tangential Wackenhut connection to the case:

One group who pops up is a Shreveport/New Orleans based detective agency named Southern Research Company. They appear in 1962-3 investigating David Ferrie on behalf of Esatern Air Lines. Then in late 1966, Jim Garrison appears to have engaged them to surveil Ferrie for a short time. But a few weeks later, they were engaged by the Shaw defense team and conducted numerous investigations on their behalf.

In an FBI memo, SRC is referred to as Wackenhut, as if the two were interchangable. I suspect this was just an erroneous assumption by the FBI, but I'm not sure. I contacted both SRC and Wackenhut, and they both deny ever being connected.

In 1956, a former FBI SA named A. Harry Roberts formed General Investigations and Security Corp in Shreveport. On 12/2/58, Roberts joined with other former SAs and former NOPD officer Joe Oster to form SRC in Shreveport. They grew to open offices in Houston (1960), New Orleans (1962-3), Baton Rouge (1963) and Lake Charles (1965). When the New Orleans office was chartered on 8/26/63, the listed officers were Roberts, Edward E, Parent, Shirley Riggs and Charles R. Carson.

I need to find a fairly high resolution copy of one of the portraits of LHO in his Civil Air Patrol uniform (NOT the Ciravolo "cookout" group picture). I thought there was one, but I see a very hi-res one in the Peter Jennings program that looks like a different pose.

I need it for a demo edit of a proposed TV program. It will not be broadcast, just used to interest a backer.

Anybdy have a clear version of one of these photos???

Hi Stephen:

These, I am afraid are not high resolution,perhaps they may serve of some use to you....

B.....

Bernice:

THANKS! Maybe someone will come up with a really sharp one, but if not, I can work with these. Thanks again!

Steve

I need to find a fairly high resolution copy of one of the portraits of LHO in his Civil Air Patrol uniform (NOT the Ciravolo "cookout" group picture). I thought there was one, but I see a very hi-res one in the Peter Jennings program that looks like a different pose.

I need it for a demo edit of a proposed TV program. It will not be broadcast, just used to interest a backer.

Anybdy have a clear version of one of these photos???

Here are some slightly better versions of the New Orleans Times-Picayune photos:

Discussing the "Crusade to Free Cuba," a campaign to warn of the menace of the Castro government, are (from left) Sergio Arcacha, Manuel Gil and Carlos Quiroga. The campaign was begun Friday in the Monteleone hotel. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2 Dec 1961)

Anti-Castro Cubans meet at International House Friday in connection with the current Crusade to Free Cuba movement. From left are Carlos Quiroga, Sergio Arcacha, delegate to the Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front here; Dr. Gilbert Mellin and Manuel Gil. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 10 Dec 1961)

Roger:

I just noticed the upgrades you posted. Thank you! These are MORE than "slightly better" than the crappy photostats I had!

Quiroga was really an inscrutible character in all this. He was talking to the authorities immediately after the assassination, but they always seemed to protect his identity. Even now, he seems to have never been contacted by anybody (outside of NODA and HSCA.)

I am referencing YOUR words: That one cannot be familiar with the case and have a contrary opinion without being cognitively imparied (stupid) or complicit. This is a premtive putdown of contrary opinion.

If your access to the JFK evidence is reasonable and you do not conclude that he was killed by conspirators, then there remain two -- and only two -- possible explanations for your alternative conclusion.

Either you cannot fathom the truth, or you can, but instead choose to embrace and espouse what you know to be untrue.

All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.

But NOT the "how" of the case.

"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.

No other "opinion" held by someone in a position to know the truth and capable of knowing the truth is to be respected.

What's your opinion on the flat earth question?

My teeth are starting to hurt.

Upon further review...

I've just re-read this topic, mostly my give-and-take with Charles, and it seems to be at the point of diminishing returns. It is impossible for him to convince me that he's right, and I suspect the inverse is true, too. We've each had a few members of the Forum support our sides, with a little commonsense middle-road stuff from a few others. I don't want to keep repeating myself or be drawn into matters peripheral to my original point, so I plan to leave things as they stand. Which is good, since I'm off on a business trip with very limited Forum access.

I do not withdraw my original comments: I think it is wrong to set up a false given, where dissent MUST equal stupidity or complicity, or that respect is limited in some way. Charles is free to feel otherwise, as he has stated. I made my point.

Plus, I don't want to make his teeth hurt any more.

Thank you, Kathy. I KNOW for a fact that many of us have differing opinions that would not fit into the slim continuum offered by Charles, but too many of us are reading these words without speaking up. Charles is wrong to believe that everybody out here agrees with him. I just thought it was tme to speak up in the defense of freedom of expression.

Sonny,

I have had it up to HERE with your misrepresentations of my position -- not to mention with your martyr complex.

Pay attention: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspiracy is fact is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Therein may be found the beginning and ending of my sense of certitude in this case.

I could not care less if you agree with me on this issue.

I have no interest whatsoever in your cognitive abilities or your criminal status in terms of this case.

I could not care less if you do not understand that we are at war with the killerS of JFK.

I would defend to the death (not necessarily my own, but that's another story) your right to your personal opinions.

You have no right to your personal facts.

So de-nail yourself, jump down from the cross, and either join the fight or skulk away.

Point out who you are charging with an attack on freedom of expression.

But if you level such a charge at me, you'd best be prepared either to prove it, or to be drawn and quartered. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Charles

Now we start getting into putdowns like "Sonny." I leave it to the reader to decide who crossed the line.

I am referencing YOUR words: That one cannot be familiar with the case and have a contrary opinion without being cognitively imparied (stupid) or complicit. This is a premtive putdown of contrary opinion.

By the way, I am entitled to the comfort of knowing or saying whatever I bloody well please. Understand?

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Good, then. I've made my point. Nobody here is the arbiter of universal truth. People are free to express what they feel, right or wrong. Let's solve this case and stop attacking each other.

We're in a gunfight here, folks. With all due respect, I wish the folks on my

side would show up in the foxhole with more in their hands than a butter knife.

There are few of us willing to fight, Cliff, but we're righteous and strong.

Even in the face of yahoos who play semantic games or who state we should keep an open mind on the "question" of conspiracy.

On it goes.

Sure. They're not only idiots and conspiarators, but yahoos as well. As strong as your feeling of righteousness may be, I feel even more righteous in fighting for freedom of expression.

Denuciation is wrong. Period.

Thanks from me as well. This is , alas, my life story as well. The fence sitters...(fill in the blank yourselves) I agree with Charles' take.

Dawn

And I respect you opinion. Maybe fence-sitter do suck, or whatever you were implying. But they have a right to believe as they wish, without demands to orthodoxy. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know this.

Stephen/Jim, et al,

No one is suggesting you don't have a right to any opinion you arrive at. However, when you claim to have studied this case for years and are still acting as if it's an open question whether or not there was a conspiracy, don't expect others to respect that.

For most of us, this is a very emotional issue. I can only speak for myself, but my overriding interest in the JFK assassination cost me friends (especially girls) in my youth, and it didn't exactly endear me to my employers. Once I found out exactly how clear and obvious this conspiracy was, I naively went on a crusade to try to enlighten people. This included local news reporters and members of Congress. I spent a few years as a teenager lobbying Congress for Mark Lane's group The Citizens Committee Of Inquiry. I've been in so many debates about this subject over the years, in bars and at parties, and on various job sites, that it has unfortunately become pretty tiresome to hear this "fence sitting" mantra from people who claim to have studied the evidence.

Charles has his own line about this, and I pretty much agree with that. I'll rephrase it to say: anyone who was interested enough in this case to have read the early classic works like "Accessories After The Fact," the "Whitewash" books by Weisberg or "Rush To Judgment" and then maintains that there is the slightest chance that Oswald acted alone is simply not credible.

Don,

I believe that Stephen is just arguing that this is an improper way to react.

(Quotes are Stephen's)

"This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly."

"Opinion IS of import, even on central matters. None of us holds the truth in his vest pocket, and to deny this is to hold one's self above others.

Your comment that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be either cognitively impaired or complicit is tantamount to calling them stupid or evil. There are NO other possibilities? Like somebody having a different opinion? That is a classic case of peremptorily defining the playing field so as to exclude. It is anti-intellectual and wrong."

I am sorry Don, that in your life, you have had great problems because of your convictions...truly. But sacrifice is part and parcel of conviction. That is not the problem here--it goes much deeper-- to give a differing opinion opens one up to being called names and/ or derogatory remarks.

It should not be this way.

I think we are better than this, all of us.

I agree with you Stephen, and your excellent way of putting those thoughts into words.

Don, twice you have started a post with persons names grouped together, speaking to all of them. I would consider it an honor, should you decide to address another post to Stephen, et al, if my name were added to that list.

Kathy Beckett

Thank you, Kathy. I KNOW for a fact that many of us have differing opinions that would not fit into the slim continuum offered by Charles, but too many of us are reading these words without speaking up. Charles is wrong to believe that everybody out here agrees with him. I just thought it was tme to speak up in the defense of freedom of expression.

Stephen/Jim, et al,

No one is suggesting you don't have a right to any opinion you arrive at. However, when you claim to have studied this case for years and are still acting as if it's an open question whether or not there was a conspiracy, don't expect others to respect that.

For most of us, this is a very emotional issue. I can only speak for myself, but my overriding interest in the JFK assassination cost me friends (especially girls) in my youth, and it didn't exactly endear me to my employers. Once I found out exactly how clear and obvious this conspiracy was, I naively went on a crusade to try to enlighten people. This included local news reporters and members of Congress. I spent a few years as a teenager lobbying Congress for Mark Lane's group The Citizens Committee Of Inquiry. I've been in so many debates about this subject over the years, in bars and at parties, and on various job sites, that it has unfortunately become pretty tiresome to hear this "fence sitting" mantra from people who claim to have studied the evidence.

Charles has his own line about this, and I pretty much agree with that. I'll rephrase it to say: anyone who was interested enough in this case to have read the early classic works like "Accessories After The Fact," the "Whitewash" books by Weisberg or "Rush To Judgment" and then maintains that there is the slightest chance that Oswald acted alone is simply not credible.

Don:

I appreciate your moderate tone and inclination to understand my POV.

The point of this whole effort is to make others understand what happened on 11/22/63. To wrap it in emotion, denouncement, demands to orthodoxy and litmus testing will NOT convince those outside our circle. In a sense, it IS incumbent upon us to police ourselves, and the notion that anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a conspirator is simply wrong and indefensible.

Here's an example: You implied in your final phrase that Oswald may have been involved in some way. To certain others, not accepting Oswald's complete innocence is heresy. But aren't you entitled that THAT opinion?

This even transcends the JFK and gets into intellectual objectivity. It is a FACT that WE don't all agree on every detail, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be bullied into groupthink or see people's character assassinated. Now is not the time for men and women of conscience to remain silent.

Charles:

I stand by what I said. I disagree with what you are doing and I think it is wrong.

I'm not as young as you think. I've been involved in this since 1963. But thanks for the compliment.

This is not a war, where innocent people can be unjustly hurt. It is a quest for justice.

Your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your take on the case MUST be either cognitively impaired (stupid, not as smart as you) or complicit (guilty) is unaduterated crapola. It is this kind of thinking that hurts the JFK assassination research community. It is McCarthyite illogic.

JFK may very well have been whacked by more than one guy, and there may have been a conspiracy and coverup. But within that continuum are many diverse opinions on sub-issues of the case. One of them is the role of Lee Harvey Oswald. I've done some informal polling in the research community, and there is a wide disparity of belief among conspiratorialists on Oswald's role. Some think he was completely innocent. Some think he was involved, but unwittingly and not as a shooter. Some think he was wittingly involved but still not a shooter. Some think he was a shooter, but others were involved. Ask around. Are all these people cognitively impaired or complicit?

Can't you understand how some people, including conspiratorialists, might feel that Oswald was involved in some way? This is certainly what the mainstream media feel, given the empirical evidence. Maybe all that evidence is fake. Or maybe it's not.

I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't respect the hubris and arrogance that cause someone to denounce others. Others who may have better knowledge of the case, better analytical power and higher integrity. Denouncing other people is wrong. Understand?

OK, Old Timer,

I'll take the blame for not making my major point with sufficient clarity. So I'll try again.

I'll retype what you wrote above for the sake of emphasis:

"JFK may very well have been whacked by more than one guy, and there may have been a conspiracy and coverup."

"May"???

WRONG!!!

JFK WAS whacked by more than one guy, and there WAS a conspiracy, and there IS an ongoing coverup.

I so state not out of hubris or arrogance.

I so state out of knowledge. Period.

And I shall not be a party to the reduction of the investigation of this case to a "whodunit" game.

Not by you. Not by anyone.

I DENOUNCE all who, despite reasonable access to the evidence in JFK's murder, maintain either that one guy did it, or that the jury is out on the "how" question. or that we must keep an open mind.

I know -- and so should you -- that LHO never fired a shot at JFK. But I'm willing to let that one slide for a bit.

I challenge you, not-so-young man: Declare yourself. Do you acknowledge conspiracy in JFK's death?

Take a position. You are obliged to do so. You are not entitled to the comfort of not knowing. Of not saying.

Understand?

Charles

I'm not obliged to do diddley. It's not for you to decide. But for the record, I was giving pro-conspiracy presentations in the early 1970s. Do I pass your litmus test?

Your anger is focused in the wrong direction, denouncing members of our community for the temerity of disagreeing with you. 1953: "Anyone who can't see this is either mentally deficient or part of the conspiracy." Who said that?

By the way, I am entitled to the comfort of knowing or saying whatever I bloody well please. Understand?

Charles is correct. TRUTH IS TRUTH. Some see it clearly. Some through a glass, darkly*.

Some not at all. Opinions that do not discern truth are useless. Opinion is not research.

Truth is not changed by those who study it or opine about it.

Jack

*courtesy St. Paul

Sure, fine. There is only ONE TRUTH. Agree with me and you're OK; interpret the same evidence in any other way, and you get denounced in the war.

Heaven help us.

[quote name='Charles Drago' post='137661'

Stephen,

You appear to be young, so I'll take your tender years into account and gently admonish you.

We are at war, young man.

We are at war with the conspirators who killed John Kennedy. The conspiratorial truth of this matter is not in my vest pocket or in anyone else's.

It is truth.

When you avail yourself of the evidence of this case, you either conclude conspiracy or you are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

This isn't some post-modern exchange on the nature of knowledge and knowing.

JFK was hit by more than one guy. Period.

Play whodunit and howdunit games elsewhere.

This isn't about opinions. Your opinion on the shape of the earth is of no consequence.

This, again, is war.

Charles

Charles:

I stand by what I said. I disagree with what you are doing and I think it is wrong.

I'm not as young as you think. I've been involved in this since 1963. But thanks for the compliment.

This is not a war, where innocent people can be unjustly hurt. It is a quest for justice.

Your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your take on the case MUST be either cognitively impaired (stupid, not as smart as you) or complicit (guilty) is unaduterated crapola. It is this kind of thinking that hurts the JFK assassination research community. It is McCarthyite illogic.

JFK may very well have been whacked by more than one guy, and there may have been a conspiracy and coverup. But within that continuum are many diverse opinions on sub-issues of the case. One of them is the role of Lee Harvey Oswald. I've done some informal polling in the research community, and there is a wide disparity of belief among conspiratorialists on Oswald's role. Some think he was completely innocent. Some think he was involved, but unwittingly and not as a shooter. Some think he was wittingly involved but still not a shooter. Some think he was a shooter, but others were involved. Ask around. Are all these people cognitively impaired or complicit?

Can't you understand how some people, including conspiratorialists, might feel that Oswald was involved in some way? This is certainly what the mainstream media feel, given the empirical evidence. Maybe all that evidence is fake. Or maybe it's not.

I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't respect the hubris and arrogance that cause someone to denounce others. Others who may have better knowledge of the case, better analytical power and higher integrity. Denouncing other people is wrong. Understand?

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions.

What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts.

Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar

dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St.

One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid

objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple

inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the

base of JFK's neck at the same time.

Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

I'm not sue I buy the bunching theory or not, but there IS room for different opinions, given various pictures that show it bunched in one place and not in another.

The point is that Mack believes what he believes, right or wrong.

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his. He's been researching this for a long time; his organization is engaged in acquiring and preserving evidence in this case, and presenting it to the public; and his job allows him to focus fulltime attention to some of these matters. Let him state his opinions, and we are free to agree or disagree.

What he focused on, in the given quote, is what MOST mainstream media think about the assassination: the empirical evidence, if it is genuine, leads to Oswald. We can argue if it is genuine or not, or if others were involved, or if Oswald was a witting or unwitting part of this. This is the way the establishment media and intelligentsia see it, and this is the obstacle to overcome. Mack was acknowledging this, but he left the window open a crack.

This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly. It makes us all look paranoid. The energy should be better spent building our case and presenting it in the best possible way.

Sorry, Stephen.

"Opinion" in terms of how JFK was killed is of no import. The fact is that his death was the result of a criminal conspiracy.

There are no honest, informed, rational arguments for the LN position or for Oswald having fired at JFK.

"Our" case has been built, tested, and proven. Conspiracy is historical fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

I see no other explanations.

But hey, that's just me, man.

Sorry, Charles.

I just disagree with you on a couple of points. Opinion IS of import, even on central matters. None of us holds the truth in his vest pocket, and to deny this is to hold one's self above others.

Your comment that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be either cognitively impaired or complicit is tantamount to calling them stupid or evil. There are NO other possibilities? Like somebody having a different opinion? That is a classic case of peremptorily defining the playing field so as to exclude. It is anti-intellectual and wrong.

I respect that you feel that way - that's just me. You should respect those who don't.

I KNEW my comment would light a fire, but it needs to be said. Again and again. Respect others' opinions even if you don't understand them.

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his. He's been researching this for a long time; his organization is engaged in acquiring and preserving evidence in this case, and presenting it to the public; and his job allows him to focus fulltime attention to some of these matters. Let him state his opinions, and we are free to agree or disagree.

What he focused on, in the given quote, is what MOST mainstream media think about the assassination: the empirical evidence, if it is genuine, leads to Oswald. We can argue if it is genuine or not, or if others were involved, or if Oswald was a witting or unwitting part of this. This is the way the establishment media and intelligentsia see it, and this is the obstacle to overcome. Mack was acknowledging this, but he left the window open a crack.

This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly. It makes us all look paranoid. The energy should be better spent building our case and presenting it in the best possible way.