Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Carroll

Members
  • Posts

    994
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tim Carroll

  1. Tim, It is heart breaking to read this. I just do not understand Stanford in not getting back to you. Perhaps

    Chris should call them and see what the hold up is. While I am glad you got Hospice and that you will be comfortable and cared for, I am holding out for a miracle. The fight re JFK will continue. There are just no words Tim. love, Dawn

    I heard from the head of the transplant team at Stanford a couple of days ago and haven't been able to make sense of what he was saying. He informed me that I have a coronary lesion over the left ventricle which would lessen the chances of a successful outcome from a single lung transplant. Since my family history has had me convinced that there was a coronary element to all of this, and because a lung transplant is one of the most dangerous and extensive surgeries being performed, I countered with the whole shebang: how about a heart/lung transplant? His response was that I am now too ill to withstand that surgery. I have read too many case studies of lung transplant patients who died due to the damage to the heart caused by the lungs to be able to elect a surgery with such poor odds and with new problems being found in my heart.

    Tim, I'm sorry to hear what you're going through. Of course I'll come visit when I get back to northern California from my tour. You clearly have a lot of people in this forum sending you their best thoughts -- and you can count me as one of them. Please email me at talbotd@salon.com and tell me where you live. We conspiracy freaks have to stick together.

    David, I will definitely send you my e-mail address and would welcome a visit. My daughter and granddaughter live just minutes from SF, in Alameda, and I hate to think that I've seen SF for the last time, so perhaps we could get together for lunch without you having to drive the three hours to Chico. I enjoyed our exchange at the Adolphus Hotel at the '04 seminar, when I cited Allard Lowenstein as a counterpoint to Jeff Morley's assertion about RFK's relationship with the NY liberals, and discussed with you the seldom considered notion that Bobby and Jack weren't necessarily working off the same page.

    By the way, I enjoyed your article in Salon about Chris Matthews. He was obviously livid and treated you very badly on his own program which had you debating Bugliosi. Between Matthews' animosity and Bugliosi's prosecutor-on-meth behavior, you were hardly allowed to speak.

    T.C., just to let you know, I'm working on making the Eugene trip. Don't worry, I've got a sleeping bag, and love "roughing it." I'll keep you posted. Since I'll have a full week of employment waiting for me at "The Hill," [July 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] that should help to cover it. I'll keep you posted as to the details. Love always, Ter

    Ter: mi casa es su casa. If I'm actually able to make the Oregon trip during the first week of July, I will certainly be home for those dates. I have to work on my caregivers to prescribe a bit of an upper for such special occasions so that I can be at my best for an hour or two (which is pretty much the limit).

    Thank you all for your kind wishes and expressions of sympathy.

  2. Hello David. Yes, there are very many "strange" possible connections. I however have been prone to maintain that many possible connections have been purposely implanted into this case, by agents of the conspiracy, to muddy up the water. I feel that the continued success of this cover however relates back to the very simplicity of its basics.

    I will agin briefly repeat what I think those basics are / were.

    1) only a handful at the very top who were essential to the COVER (not the shooting) had to be in place. These few did not even know the specifics of the "kill"!

    2) Below them was "the" planner coordinator.

    3) Then degrees of the typical intelligence agency multi layering, that insured that those involved knew no more than "their own" particular role.

    4) Persons with the ability to terminate threats...these persons would have no idea of the "WHY" of their hits.

    This is why I am one of the few who believe that the introduction of Mafia and Anti Castros was only a clever and successful tactic to misdirect thinking and investigation.

    There was nothing that the Mafia or the Anti Castros could provide that couldn't have been better and more surely handled by trusted government assets. The "TONGUES" of the mobsters and Cubans was too hard to control. They were bragging about the hit while not even having anything to do with it. All that they knew is what was purposely trickled down to them to satisfy them that "the thing" was going to happen. The total "brilliance and continued success" of this Coup was a result of its "Simplicity". The research community has self destructed as a result of not believing this pure simplicity ! This of course is just "my speculation"! Charlie Black

    I agree that the massively extensive roster of possible conspirators has significantly contributed to the general ridicule of conspiracy theorists. While I generally agree with the above points numbered 1-4, the exception is the complexity of the sheepdipping performed on Oswald. The representation of Oswald as a disgruntled, sexually-inadequate stock clerk just doesn't hold water. As if the production by the CIA of the misidentified Mexico City Saul photos wasn't enough, how about the invoice, initialed by Hoover ("JEH") while Oswald was in Russia, naming Oswald as the buyer in Florida of a number of trucks on behalf of an anti-Castro organization?

    Tim

  3. I am currently reading Talbot's book and will certainly comment when I am able. Attending the Dallas COPA conference in '04, when he was a presenter, he made a point to tell me that he appreciated my assertion that it is too easily assumed that the brothers were on the same page on all matters.

    On a personal note, the widow of Peter Benchley (author of Jaws), who died from the disease assaulting me (IPF), was caused by bad scuba air which, at "99' deep, is driven into the lungs at four times the surface level. I wish I had the time to develop and promote a personal device for testing the tank air, especially in some of these fleabag Third World scuba operations.

    Such a device makes a world of sense and, given divers' general love of gadgetry, would sell like hot cakes! We could call it a Scuba Quality Unit Air Tester (SQUAT). But on a more personal note even still, after all of the above, my brother died of a heart attack just last night. I kind of thought that the end of my own life was the only big drama left. Just goes to show that it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

    post-3567-1179704303_thumb.jpg

    To David: I'd love to get together for lunch if possible when you come through the Chico area in a few weeks. I'm not able to use the personal message function on the forum, but I see my e-mail everyday, the address being posted in my profile.

    post-3567-1179728206_thumb.jpg

    The scuba photo was taken just last year, showing me waving to you all across time and space from a place called Joy. Thank you all so much for your kindness and devotion to our mutual interest. It has really been an honor to have the chance to work on so important an issue with you all. My special thanks to John Simkin for allowing me that chance.

    Tim

  4. While I don't want to be dismissive at all of the power of prayer and loving best wishes, I have acquired something appropriate to my personal weirdness: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Many diseases are incurable and many diseases have unknown causes, but this one is unique in that there is no treatment. It also happens to offer one of the ugliest deaths I can imagine. I read one case study which described a 50 year old man's last day as suffocating and panicky.

    As Dawn mentioned, Tosh had a unique thought about the cause, which could possibly be right on target, but it doesn't matter because the damage is already done and there is no known remedy to stop the destruction. I have less than 20% of my lungs left, if they could be saved, but that small percent still has to process the oxygen from small spots still left, winding through the maze of what is referred to as "honeycomb lung."

    When I spent a week at Stanford University, which is supposed to be the Olympus of transplants, on the last day of testing, an 80% blockage was found in the left ascending artery to my heart. They fixed that right then with a couple of stents, but it did throw a wrench into my candidacy for transplant. I haven't heard back yet with any decision. The committee was to meet on May 7, so I still don't know what to think about having not heard back.

    The hospice people come in to set up the house this Monday and I will require 24/7 care, ultimately dying from sepsis-caused morphine usage. A legal client of mine who I helped years ago has arranged everything and there is a loving karmic aspect to that. So with the damage to my lungs already pervasive and with the unlikeliness of a transplant, I hope the prayers and well-wishes will influence a gentle crossing of the river.

    I'm very emotional these days and especially touched by expressions of affection and remembrance. To see that I have had a fairly full life already, please check my website at www.myspace.com/waterbro. My Kennedy essay is located there as well. One of the oddest things about this disease is that it bloats the fingertips, making typing a frustratingly difficult activity. Thus, my ability to participate is diminished.

    All of us here share a passion for exposure of the truth about the JFK assassination. This is especially true for patriots who believe that Dallas was a coup d'etat. While Tony Summers' newest and retitled edition, Not In Your Lifetime, applies to me, I urge all forum members to not let this go; please keep up the good fight. It's so important.

    Tim

  5. Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963.... Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."
    Tim, have you ever wondered why it is that crime scenes are supposed to be well documented as they were found? It's because circumstances beyond control can cause them to change over time, thus a record of the original event is most always all we have to go on. Now what you have not said about the trees in the plaza is that they have been trimmed back several times in the past. The people who oversee their care have specialist come in and trim them as far back as possible without damaging the tree itself.

    Either Bill is falling down on his reading comprehension or is creating a straw man issue in order to divert the issue with a personal attack. His own remarks would be better addressed to his alter ego, Gary Dunkel/Mack. As was quoted above, Mack acknowledged that "it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63." In other words, in landscaping terms, it is too late. So there is an asserted effort to maintain the Plaza, as best as possible, in its 1963 condition. The two trees in which this effort has been ignored in the extreme are two particular Live Oaks, the one shading the "west end of the colonade" (grassy knoll) and the one blocking the supposed sniper's nest view.

    post-3567-1174060651_thumb.jpg

    Tim Carroll

  6. Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963.... Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."
    Tim, have you ever wondered why it is that crime scenes are supposed to be well documented as they were found? It's because circumstances beyond control can cause them to change over time, thus a record of the original event is most always all we have to go on. Now what you have not said about the trees in the plaza is that they have been trimmed back several times in the past. The people who oversee their care have specialist come in and trim them as far back as possible without damaging the tree itself.

    Either Bill is falling down on his reading comprehension or is creating a straw man issue in order to divert the issue with a personal attack. His own remarks would be better addressed to his alter ego, Gary Dunkel/Mack. As was quoted above, Mack acknowledged that "it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63." In other words, in landscaping terms, it is too late. So there is an asserted effort to maintain the Plaza, as best as possible, in its 1963 condition. The two trees in which this effort has been ignored in the extreme are two particular Live Oaks, the one shading the "west end of the colonade" (grassy knoll) and the one blocking the supposed sniper's nest view.

    post-3567-1174060651_thumb.jpg

    Tim Carroll

  7. Just one example of the ongoing propaganda effort is the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Visitors are shocked when the keepers of the sniper's nest do not acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have fired a shot on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. This, even though the federal government has formally announced that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy."

    Despite the governmental findings of a conspiracy, the Sixth Floor Museum promotes books that are counter-historical. As in the following, one can see Pat Speer equates this judgment to the practicalities of commerce, neglecting the self-designation as a "museum."

    There's what is called a proper fit--where the social context of the record matches the social views of the store owner, and the clientele of the store....

    Granted, a fair rendition of the history may not fit well with the Dallas Citizens Council's desired self-image.

    Because of the corporate nature of the museum, its high volume of traffic, and the mainstream views of many of its customers, it makes sense that the museum book store is selective about what it carries. To many of the customers in that store, each book carried there will be carrying an invisible seal of approval. The museum has the right to be selective how they use that seal.

    The museum, being a non-profit entity, is prohibited from engaging in any activity which promotes a particular political perspective. A conservative perspective of the Kennedy assassination is the Lone Nut Theory, which also conveniently absolves the "City of Hate" from any responsibility for the "Wanted For Treason" flyers, General Walker's activities and the extreme right-wing politics of the City's leaders, such as H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Ted Dealey. That perspective is political. The landlord of the Museum is the County of Dallas. Is the Museum realistically independent of its sugar daddy landlord? The "seal of approval" implicitly applied to the books sold in the Museum's bookstore amounts to a predatory propagandizing of a general public largely unaware of the complexities of this matter.

    And Tim, rather than have people crowding the sniper's nest, which would distract from the other exhibits [like the falsely labeled window], the museum opted to put a webcam in the window.

    Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963. When I was in Cozumel recently, and saw the repair efforts following the three days Category 5 Hurricane Wilma hung over the island in October, the tree trimming and replacement was extensive. Yet we are to believe that this highly profitable non-profit Museum, which has enough money to loan to other city refurbishments, can't afford to apply the slightest landscaping effort to trimming a few particular trees as part of its stated goal of preserving the Plaza to reflect its 1963 condition.

    We also know that the "sniper's window," which is a glass-enclosed exhibit unquivocally stating that it is the window through which Oswald shot, has at times been claimed to be genuine by Gary Mack and times he has admitted that he cannot be sure. Yet the presentation of the questionable evidence maintains its certainty.

    Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."

    So the Museum generates enough profits to provide loans to other resoration projects in the City, but just can't manage to "keep the foliage trimmed." Is that credible? No. And neither is Gary Mack credible as a curator. He carries the water for the Dallas Citizens Council, runs a non-museum as if it were a store-front, located on the top floors of the Dallas County Building, and dutifully represents the assassination according to the dictates of the the Boss Hogs of Dallas. If he suddenly grew a conscious, how long would he last with the political appointees who issue his paycheck?

    Tim

  8. I have had the experience of asking Gary, to his face and in the presence of my wife, about quotes attributed to him by Bill. He disavowed the wording, if not the substance, alluding to how Bill can get pretty carried away sometimes. Now, in this case, we have Dunkle calling Jack White a xxxx through a deniable third party. That is despicable.
    Tim, As I recall ... it was during that time that you were the one who was thinking the sunspots on the wall of the shelter was the "classic gunman" [bill convinced me that the spot of light that would be in the left arm position remained long after; he did not convince me that there was no Classic Gunman. If he believes that people who research light and shadow in the photos and films deserve ridicule, he needs to include his own belief in Badge Man]. I also recall you thinking that Mack drove some white van [bill can produce the quote in which I ever had Dunkel driving a "van" or admit he's either mistaken or lying now], which he did not and that somehow the city of Dallas controlled him [there are other threads which detail why my evaluation of this holds more water than Bill's], which they do not. Now I do not know the specifics of your conversation with Mack concerning me [my wife does, ask Dunkel], but what I post concerning the information I request from Gary most always comes from direct quotes unless I say otherwise [and Bill's witnesses are whom?]. And if I ever got carried away about anything [as Dunkel said] ... it is the way I express my disatisfaction over some of the poor research practices and ridiculous way you jump to conclusions that I have witnessed in your postings [but it's lying if Bill quotes Dunkel as saying it and Dunkel says he did not].
    Is this Bill speaking, or Gary speaking thru Bill? I can't tell anymore.

    Myra isn't the only person who has experienced difficulty distinguishing which statements are Miller's and which are Dunkel's. I know, face-to-face, that Dunkel doesn't stand by all of Miller's so-called quotes.

    Tim

  9. Hello Tim

    Sorry to find out that you have been ill. I sincerely wish you the best.

    Thanks Charles. I will do my best to maintain a semblence of a sense of humor here. The reason I chose this thread was the inticing language of "ONE simple unanswered question." But the thing about the Kennedy assassination is that it falls into the more you know, the more you know you don't know category. I now take the title of Anthony Summers' book, Not In Your Lifetime, very personally.

    When I speak of the "certainty of who dun it", I didn't mean to imply that they were ALL necesarily

    cowboys OR indians. Just as I did not mean to imply that there were not very many media interests other than those of Luce, which have and continue to aid the "cover up". The "who dun it" that I refer to, perhaps too casually, is "The Power" factions, whether they be media, industrialist, banking, oil interests, etc. In the many specifics involved in the coup d'etat, there were areas in which the interests of both the Cowboys and Indians were mutually served.

    While having been guided by Carl Oglesby's The Yankee And Cowboy War for over three decades, I believe that Carl might also agree that there was a mutuality of interests served by killing Kennedy. While he was more Eastern Establishment, he was still only one generation away from The Irish Need Not Apply era.

    As Carl describes it, the Senate hearings rigged against Howard Hughes (the persona of the military industrial complex) by the corporatist monopolists, well portrayed in the movie The Aviator, was the opening salvo in the struggle between the Yankees and Cowboys. Of course, Hughes' wealth was highly liquid, as was the wealth of the others of the new breed of wildcatters such as H. L. Hunt. This is an important contrast when one follows the money, especially as it was being doled out to the anti-Castro mercenaries who felt so betrayed by JFK. On the other hand, we have the specific example of Clare Boothe Luce with a heavy finger in that pie. During their last lunch with JFK, the Luces stormed out.

    Though the specific interests of these power bases may have varied, they were united, by their worship of money and power.

    When Kennedy made a Secret Deal to remove our missiles from Russia's border to resolve the Missile Crisis, he committed what many mainstream Americans would have at the time considered treason. An agreement by Yankees and Cowboys that Kennedy was unfit to wield the nuclear deterrent (a theory well-presented by Shanet Clark), either because of his drug-taking, his risk-taking that last year with an East German spy, or his actual fear of using the nuclear arsenal, would have been met by the military with an eager, can-do plan to fix the problem.

    Tim Carroll

  10. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory".
    Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.
    Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece.

    Bill Miller serving as Gary Dunkle/Mack's mouthpiece are numerous and ongoing. I have had the experience of asking Gary, to his face and in the presence of my wife, about quotes attributed to him by Bill. He disavowed the wording, if not the substance, alluding to how Bill can get pretty carried away sometimes. Now, in this case, we have Dunkle calling Jack White a xxxx through a deniable third party. That is despicable.

    If Jack's story is not true and Gary wanted to refute it without crossing his self-imposed line of posting on forums, he could provide the best evidence available to Bill Miller and then Bill could report the evidence on its own merits, without resorting to the "Gary said" bastion. I welcome clarifications, and Gary Mack is in a position to provide them at times, but if he is unwilling to do so without using buffers, then he should just let them go. Plenty of misrepresentations are made about Robert Groden, but you don't see him sending out a deniable mouthpiece to defend himself.

    Tim

  11. "I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ?"

    You're asking, "the identity to which you refer when you assert with absolute certainty." Asserting with certainty, although I'm not so sure I would call it absolute. But, since you've asked, how about Allen Dulles, at the behest of Rockefeller [David], and McCloy. With E.H. Hunt in charge of the mechanics' detail, and paymaster of that payroll. Just to mention a few names.

    I thought I was asking about Charles Black's assertion of certainty, not Terry Mauro's. Nor do I understand the underlying reason for her answering for Mr. Black. I understand that Terry gravitates to the Sullivan and Cromwell axis, representatives of old monied eastern establishmentarians such as the Rockefellers, Harrimans, United Fruit, etc. My question was addressed to the following statement:

    I know "WHO" did it, other than the mechanics who actually pulled the trigger. I merely need a way to show the world that the conspiracy of Z film alteration could "only" be accomplished by those "Elite Few" who controlled the assassination and cover up. I know of no other way that there exists an opportunity of proving it.
    "(I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing)."

    Not as astonishing as I found the fact that Zap sold the film to Time for $1.00, to be. I found that to be downright incredulous, but true!

    Not true! It was Time that sold the film back to Zapruder for $1.00.

    "Another question: do you intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?"

    James Richards? Never, will I EVER "be so smugly dismissing of" James Richards' work, nor person, for that matter. I owe him too much for his time and consideration. Not to mention his unflagging dedication to this, as well as to the three other forums I belong to, and to which he's unselfishly contributed over the years.

    How can one so single-mindedly support film alteration and simultaneously support the advancements James Richards has made?

    Larry Hancock? I've never read his book, never claimed to have done so, and have never recommended it, having not read it, myself. Therefore, I have no comment, except that he seems like a sincere enough person.

    Bill Miller? Well, after a long talk on the phone today with my good friend, Bernie [bernice Moore], who happened to have pointed out this fact: that in all her research [and believe me, Bernice has been doing some very intensive research work over these past five years], she has come to the conclusion that if there's one thing Bill Miller has gotten correct, it has been with the trajectories of the crossfire, or the triangulation, however you want to phrase it. And Bernie, I hope you don't get pissed at me for using your name in this post, but you made me proud to have known you all these years. Especially, after having taken the time to explain all of that to me, today.

    Robert Groden? Is a cheap, petty larcenist for having absconded with Mo Weitzman's copy of the film. Then, turning around and using it as his own, proceeding to go around passing himself off as some kind of cinematographic expert? He's nothing more than a hawker, or a barker, who'd be much more at home in front of one of those strip joints in New Orleans, or Dallas, if you ask me. And no. I do not know him, and personally do not care to, either. But, since you did ask... And yes, Dawnie knows what I think of him, and we agree to disagree on Groden.

    Charles' proposition that finding who controlled the Zapruder Film is intrinsic to finding the conspirators has plenty of merit. I have felt the same way about the autopsy photos. But to blame Groden rather than the government (not just the Luce empire) is rather like killing the messenger. Why was the American public kept from seeing the film for almost 12 years? I believe that Groden performed a deed of patriotism, as did his accomplices Dick Gregory and Geraldo Rivera, when they showed the film to the public late one night in March, 1975. It's viewing singularly reawakened the public to the duplicity of the cover-up.

    I can't really respond to views of Bill Miller as they relate to Bernice Moore's support or lack thereof. That would be basing one's view of history on who they hang out with in the schoolyard. I have had vociferous arguments with Bill Miller, and consider him too often to take on the role of shill for Gary Mack. But I do recognize his expertise with the film work and do not consider his opinions to be the products of a dishonest promotion of the Secret Government.

    Finally, regarding which matters Dawn and Terry "agree to disagree," I have to assume that, according to Carl Oglesby's framework, Dawn considers it Cowboys and Terry considers it Yankees. I am closer to Dawn's position on that one and find the subsequent history to be supportive of the idea that the nouveau riche Big Oil, now aligned with the Saudis, overthrew President Kennedy's Yankees.

    Tim

  12. ...They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6. The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.
    But if they looked at Altgens 6 and put the bogus issue to rest then they couldn't use it as yet another tool to muddy the water with so many conflicting contrasting confounding theories and counter-theories that the general public recoils from the subject and concludes it's unsolvable. That wouldn't suit their objective.

    Holland's theory is the same as Posner's, simply replacing the metal traffic arm for the Live Oak tree. But the way Gary Mack goes along with such nonsense whenever there's abit of air-time to be had leaves one to wonder if he isn't so crooked he has to screw his pants on one leg at a time.

    Tim

  13. Tim. What I truly don't understand is why you have taken it upon yourself to critique my writing style and to correct my sentence structure. I feel that it has been a needles waste of forum time and space to do this, since you added nothing substantive to the discussion. Tim, I don't wish to burst your bubble, but if I truly gave a damned about improving my writing style and sentence structure, I probably would have continued my education and at leaste attempted to go on to high school !

    Point taken. Charles has no use for education. What seduced my interest in this thread was the title about "ONE simple unanswered question." Rather than finding a single such a question, I found numerous issues raised, ranging from film alteration to the nature of all centuries-old evidence being first person witnessing. Rather than finding a simple question, none was ever posed. I do see a particular emphasis on the Parkland witnesses and their appropriate standing with regard to subsequent evidence from the Bethesda autopsy and the use of altered films of the events in Dealey Plaza.

    My "critique" of Charles' writing style was/is directed at the heavy-handed attack on so many sincere researchers who don't consider these matters "simple," and whose efforts were treated in the opening post of this thread as easily dismissible. While admittedly having a strong respect for education and its emphasis on development of critical reasoning, I consider the only "simple" thing about this case to be those who consider it simple. The condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with Charles on any point is glaring.

    I am ill beyond my own ability to absorb the prospects, and have now acquired a laptop so that I may occupy my time from bed. I tried to find the "ONE simple question" and sincerely could not. I see references to earlier threads, of which I'm admittedly not familiar, and shouldn't have to be, given the title of this thread. But now that I have really tried to "infer" the intended point I can easily say that Ron Ecker's point about Jackie possibly closing the head flap truly is the Occam's Razor explanation. Similarly, Pat Speer has done excellent work toward understanding how the Parkland witnesses could have gotten plenty wrong. I made my own point about how so many witnesses could have heard so few shots without any acknowledgment from Mr. Black.

    I am not certain of any point that you were attempting to make, but did you infer that I was attacking the non altered Z film theory at a time when most of its defenders were not present on the forum....which is unfair? Regardless of what your intent, is or was, in choosing to attempt to ridicule me...I suppose that you have that right !

    Gee thanks.

    If you are attempting to ask me a question, I'm afraid that you must lower yourself to a level which I might be able to comprehend.

    After working through this thread following the false inducement that it came down to "ONE simple question," I do have a question as to the identity to which you refer when you assert absolute certaintly about who ordered the assassination. W-H-O W-A-S I-T ? (I also found the assertion that there is no room for doubt about Zapruder's complicity quite astonishing).

    Another question: do intend to be so smugly dismissing the work of James Richards, Larry Hancock, Bill Miller, Robert Groden, ad infinitum?

    As for your repeated questioning of my contribution to an understanding of this case, if you have looked at the seminars you've seen that the one I wrote on "The Whole Bay Of Pigs Things" had far more viewings and participation of any seminar by anyone who isn't a forum administrator.

    Tim Carroll

  14. For years I have on this forum and on two others asked one simple question, which for all of these years and literally thousands of posts, never has been satisfactorily answered by anyone. By a "satisfactory" answer, I mean an answer that could reasonably be believed by reasonably educated and reasonably sound minded persons world wide.

    Among the latest of these has been the "Craig Roberts, Kill Zone" thread. I have asked "dozens" if not a hundred or more times, for one simple explanation. I have received only "One and The Same Answer", which I feel that most people, with the ability to reason for themselves, should find ABSURD.

    In advance I shall tell you the "ONLY" answer that I find unrealistic, unreasonable and absurd. That pat answer is simply that "ALL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE". Not minding being redundant, I shall say one more time, that if this ridiculous statement were true, that there should be no reliable History recorded before the mid nineteenth century, since all historical events were based on eyewitness descriptions.

    My "ONE" point in fact is this and please do not attempt to change "any" of the wording.

    All of the dozens of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses which gave testimony "ON THE AFTERNOON OF 11/22/63 ONLY", reported something not only UNLIKE, but CONTRADICTORY, to what is exhibited on the extant Zapruder film. I cannot allow testimony that may have been "later changed" as the result of a multitude of reasons. None of those reasons howevever will express the theory that, MEMORY IMPROVES with the passage of time !

    I am not going to be ridiculous enough to to requote these testimonies and the times that they were given, because everyone to whom I am delivering this message, has long been aware of

    them.

    NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,

    reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 !

    If you want a secondary matter to toss about regarding eyewitness testimony, contrast the eyewitness descriptions at Parkland Trauma versus some of the Bethesda photos. Really think about this if one of your answer is going to be that one piece of scalp is being held up at Bethesda and another was patted down at Parkland. Why would the Bethesda autopsy team be innocently holding up this piece of scalp. I thought that the purpose of autopsy photos was to "record factually" the wounds.... not to disguise them.

    I am willing to wager that not many of you researchers, who "truly" have an open mind, will be very impressed with the explanations given.

    Yet you continue to shy away from the obviously "ONLY" answer ! It is as if unswerving belief in the truth of all film, and the lack of certain films "successful alterability", is a faith that must be maintained for those truly seeking a passage to heaven.

    How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers ?

    Charlie Black

    I could find in the above verbiage not "ONE single" question, answered or not, other than the final sentence: "How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers?" A simple question is neither compound nor run-on. What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner?

    Tim

    Hello Tim

    You could have at least thanked me for providng you the opportunity of disecting my post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding my "verbiage".

    Other than yourself, I don't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been my "inferred" question!

    Since you asked (quote) "What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner ? ", I will attempt to explain to you, providing I have the "abilities", the question which if too "compound and run on" for your comprehension, that I was attempting to infer and relay.

    My question is a little complicated, so in the hope that you will be able to absorb its elusiveness, I will attempt to break it down into a series of simple statements and questions.

    On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, eyewitnesses to the shooting in Dealey Plaza made statements regarding what they observed during the shooting sequence. On the AFTERNOON of 11/22/63, members of the Parkland Hospital trauma team which attended JFK, gave statements regarding the wounds which they observed at close range for approximately 30 minutes. I personally feel that the Parkland testimony would probably be accepted as "expert" as any that could have been given. The bullet strikes which the Dealey Plaza eye witnesses reported on that afternoon, are considered by most who have studied this event, to generally coincide with the wounds to the President, as described by the Parkland Team.

    In contrast to the statements given by these two separate sets of witnesses to the shooting of and the wounds incurred by JFK, there was an 8mm Kodacolor II home movie said to have been taken by a Dallas business man named Abraham Zapruder. Immediately after this film was taken, it came into the temporary posession and complete control of U.S. Govenment agencies.

    This film became exposed to the world public appx. thirteen years later. The compound question which I ask is "Why Does This Zapruder Film Depict Something Which Does Not Correspond With The Testimonies Given On The Afternoon Of 11/22/63, By Both The Dealey Plaza Witnesses, And What Must Be Considered Expert Testimony, By The Parkland Trauma Staff?"

    I have suggested by both inferrence and direct statement, that I consider those immediate testimonies of both of these sets of witnesses, to be much more reliable than the film which had been in the control of U.S. Govt. agencies for 13 years and which has a "very questionable" chain of posession.

    My "compound question" therefore is which depiction of these events do the forum members consider more reliable.....and WHY? Do forum members believe this Zapruder film, and the timing of events and the reactions of JFK which it represents, to be more believable than the witness testimony given on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

    Not to further compound or confound the question, but to further "infer" something nefarious....why do some of the photographs, purported to have been taken "during" the Bethesda autopsy, differ from the wounds described by the two previously mentioned sets of witnesses ?

    I hope this clarifies to Tim and others who may not have understood the complications of my original post, what my unanswerable compound question was !

    I would also like to ask Tim, if he feels that his prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?

    Charlie Black

    While I consider it absurd that I should "have at least thanked [Charles] for providing [me] the opportunity of disecting [his] post in order to give the forum a journalistic lesson regarding [his] "verbiage," I certainly will address the assertion that other than myself, Charles doesn't feel that many failed to grasp what may have been [emphasis added]his "inferred" question when I find a great many of the non-film alterationists absent. Charles asserted that he "will attempt to explain ... the question which if too "compound and run on" he was in fact attempting to infer and relay. A "simple" question (Charles' word, not mine) is not compound and doesn't assume a particular inference by a reader. Charles proceeded to refer to his "compound question," thereby admitting that it wasn't "ONE" question at all. He seems to be implying that the witnesses were undermined by manufactured evidence, which might well be true, but it is far from proven, and I have long been disturbed by the numbers of witnesses who reported hearing only three shots. As to the final question of whether or not I consider that my "prior post aided in any way the research and analysis of this assassination?: It has very little to do with the research and analysis of this assassination, but plenty to do with refining the nature of historical discourse. Conversely, unfounded assumptions have done a great deal to harm the research and analysis of this assassination. Charles's entire thread was based on "ONE simple question" which is now admitted to be a "compound question" which is "complicated" and more of an assumed inference than a question at all. Charles can feel free to thank me for this lesson in historical discourse and manners.

    Tim

  15. For years I have on this forum and on two others asked one simple question, which for all of these years and literally thousands of posts, never has been satisfactorily answered by anyone. By a "satisfactory" answer, I mean an answer that could reasonably be believed by reasonably educated and reasonably sound minded persons world wide.

    Among the latest of these has been the "Craig Roberts, Kill Zone" thread. I have asked "dozens" if not a hundred or more times, for one simple explanation. I have received only "One and The Same Answer", which I feel that most people, with the ability to reason for themselves, should find ABSURD.

    In advance I shall tell you the "ONLY" answer that I find unrealistic, unreasonable and absurd. That pat answer is simply that "ALL EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY IS UNRELIABLE". Not minding being redundant, I shall say one more time, that if this ridiculous statement were true, that there should be no reliable History recorded before the mid nineteenth century, since all historical events were based on eyewitness descriptions.

    My "ONE" point in fact is this and please do not attempt to change "any" of the wording.

    All of the dozens of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses which gave testimony "ON THE AFTERNOON OF 11/22/63 ONLY", reported something not only UNLIKE, but CONTRADICTORY, to what is exhibited on the extant Zapruder film. I cannot allow testimony that may have been "later changed" as the result of a multitude of reasons. None of those reasons howevever will express the theory that, MEMORY IMPROVES with the passage of time !

    I am not going to be ridiculous enough to to requote these testimonies and the times that they were given, because everyone to whom I am delivering this message, has long been aware of

    them.

    NO WITNESS on the AFTERNOON of November 22, 1963,

    reported A HEADSNAP as seen after Z frame 312 !

    If you want a secondary matter to toss about regarding eyewitness testimony, contrast the eyewitness descriptions at Parkland Trauma versus some of the Bethesda photos. Really think about this if one of your answer is going to be that one piece of scalp is being held up at Bethesda and another was patted down at Parkland. Why would the Bethesda autopsy team be innocently holding up this piece of scalp. I thought that the purpose of autopsy photos was to "record factually" the wounds.... not to disguise them.

    I am willing to wager that not many of you researchers, who "truly" have an open mind, will be very impressed with the explanations given.

    Yet you continue to shy away from the obviously "ONLY" answer ! It is as if unswerving belief in the truth of all film, and the lack of certain films "successful alterability", is a faith that must be maintained for those truly seeking a passage to heaven.

    How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers ?

    Charlie Black

    I could find in the above verbiage not "ONE single" question, answered or not, other than the final sentence: "How many of you, at this moment, expect to hear what you consider to be acceptable and believable answers?" A simple question is neither compound nor run-on. What is this question whose answer is so elusive that even the direct asking of it appears to be beyond the abilities of the questioner?

    Tim

  16. There's what is called a proper fit--where the social context of the record matches the social views of the store owner, and the clientele of the store....

    Granted, a fair rendition of the history may not fit well with the Dallas Citizens Council's desired self-image.

    Because of the corporate nature of the museum, its high volume of traffic, and the mainstream views of many of its customers, it makes sense that the museum book store is selective about what it carries. To many of the customers in that store, each book carried there will be carrying an invisible seal of approval. The museum has the right to be selective how they use that seal.

    The museum, being a non-profit entity, is prohibited from engaging in any activity which promotes a particular political perspective. A conservative perspective of the Kennedy assassination is the Lone Nut Theory, which also conveniently absolves the "City of Hate" from any responsibility for the "Wanted For Treason" flyers, General Walker's activities and the extreme right-wing politics of the City's leaders, such as H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Ted Dealey. That perspective is political. The landlord of the Museum is the County of Dallas. Is the Museum realistically independent of its sugar daddy landlord? The "seal of approval" implicitly applied to the books sold in the Museum's bookstore amounts to a predatory propagandizing of a general public largely unaware of the complexities of this matter.

    And Tim, rather than have people crowding the sniper's nest, which would distract from the other exhibits [like the falsely labeled window], the museum opted to put a webcam in the window.

    Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963. When I was in Cozumel recently, and saw the repair efforts following the three days Category 5 Hurricane Wilma hung over the island in October, the tree trimming and replacement was extensive. Yet we are to believe that this highly profitable non-profit Museum, which has enough money to loan to other city refurbishments, can't afford to apply the slightest landscaping effort to trimming a few particular trees as part of its stated goal of preserving the Plaza to reflect its 1963 condition.

    Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."

    So the Museum generates enough profits to provide loans to other resoration projects in the City, but just can't manage to "keep the foliage trimmed." Is that credible?

    Tim

  17. The museum does not specialize in RESEARCH of the assassination, it does not advertise itself as a library. We do not need to see the President's brain matter on his wife's dress in the interest of research. We don't need to force the Zapruder film on EVERYBODY in the interest of research. For interested parties, they can BUY the whole thing and watch it to their heart's content.

    It might come as news to Gary Mack that he and his facility do not specialize in research of the assassination, and while the museum doesn't "advertize itself as a library," it does have a bookstore with an imbalanced selection of available books.

    History is both the good and the bad, I agree. Historians have failed before, I agree on that as well. However, you don't have to shove the brutal realities of everything in the face of every unsuspecting person just because you think it's not a big deal and because it doesn't effect you. JFK's death is tragic, but you don't have to shove the autopsy photos in the face of everybody for them to understand that.

    This thread was initiated on the specific topic of the lack of availability at the museum bookstore of books that deviate from the Lone Nutter stance. Nobody has argued that the autopsy photos or the Zapruder Film should be displayed, but to argue that such photos and film frames shouldn't be contained in books sold there is a more rigidly nonforthcoming standard than that found at any common Barnes & Noble. The first time I saw the autopsy photos, I was standing in line at a grocery store glancing at a tabloid.

    Nic is intelligent enough and has been around long enough that I have no use for cutting her the slack she has benefited from, at times, until now, on the basis of her youth. Hopefully she can understand that as respectfulness.

    People go to museums to learn. When a museum skews its presentation to represent the local, right-wing community in the best possible light, when it misrepresents the validity of its number one exhibit (the plexiglass enclosed window), it should be seen for what it is: The Dallas Citizens Council's Lone Nut spin on the assassination.

    I have demanded and received, under rule of law, the tax records of this non-profit organization, with its token board of directors unapologetically appointed by the politically elected Dallas County Commissioners. It generates profits which are used to refurbish other historical society projects while ignoring the fundamental objective of maintaining the plaza as closely as possible to its 1963 condition.

    A few particular trees have flagrantly gone untrimmed such that re-enactments involving lines of sight and light and shadow issues are all but impossible. Is the re-enactment of the sniper's lair, glassed off from the viewing public, a valid display or an obstacle to allowing visitors to see for themselves the unlikeliness of the deed being accomplished by a single individual from that location?

    Nic's inappropriately gender-based, Texas resident-based comments and sensitivities are argumentative and naive.

    It's truly an embarrassment how many 60+ men on this forum act like catty little schoolgirls.

    Since gender was raised as an issue of intended ridicule, how many women have supported Nic's position on this issue? While I concede expertise about the nature of "catty little schoolgirls" to Nic, where are they on this issue? Have "60+ men" expressed themselves on this thread? Here's what the one other female said:

    If the 6th floor Museum had any interest in covering the debate about who killed JFK and why, all the critical books would be displayed. Even books which are out of print can be obtained online via Amazon. But there is an agenda, which is that the assasination took place on the 6th floor. I have never gone up to the Museum for this reason. I consider it a money making farce designed to continue the disinformation WC view about this case.

    Dawn

    Tim

  18. The declassification that Don refers to in 1998 spurred a new round of revisionism, one of the most glaring of these attempts was by former Col. Jack Hawkins, who was assigned to the CIA in early 1961. His story is revealing of the disingenuous manipulations of the CIA before, during and after the Bay of Pigs.

    Kennedy never gave up on his prohibition of American military forces. The president was therefore strongly influenced by a telegram he received from Col. Jack Hawkins, who, after inspecting the Cuban exile force, wrote that they “do not expect help from the U.S. armed forces.” Ken O’Donnell, the president’s Chief of Staff, recalled that the colonel’s report “glowed with approval, and that Kennedy told him it was “this impressive message . . . that finally prompted him to give the go-ahead.” Interestingly, Hawkins himself recorded after 35 years of silence (in 1998), following the declassification of his information, that he had quite a different story to tell. He claimed that he and the Chief of the Cuba Project went to the CIA’s Richard Bissell, “to attempt to dissuade him from continuing with the operation.” He asserted that their motive was that they “did not want to be parties to the disaster believed lay ahead.” Hawkins’ appraisal was that “it had become obvious that the military requirements for a successful operation and the President’s insistence on plausible deniability were in irreconcilable conflict.” Nowhere in his 1998 article did Col. Hawkins seek to address the discrepancy between his glowing telegram to the president and his warning to the Deputy Director for Plans of the CIA. The contradictory versions of people such as Hawkins, who were responsible for the information upon which Kennedy had to rely, are indicative of the kind of the duplicity practice by the CIA, both then and now.

    Ken O'Donnell said this: ". . . the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA must have been assuming all along that the President would become so worried at the last minute about the loss of his own prestige that he would drop his restriction against the use of U.S. forces and send the Marines and the Navy jets into the action."

    I understand that many felt betrayed by Kennedy, but a great deal of that is nonsensical, given the findings of the Taylor Report, including the part I've mentioned about the CIA encouraging the Cubans to launch the invasion, even if Kennedy ordered otherwise. But these Cubans, like Luis Posada Carilles and his decades of resentment, were well described by Michael Moore:

    "A quick look at their efforts resembles an old Keystone Kops movie. The Bay of Pigs is their best-known fiasco. It had all the elements of a great farce—wrong boats, wrong beach, no ammo for the guns, no one shows up to meet them, and finally, they are left for dead, wandering around a part of their island completely unfamiliar to them (their limo drivers, I guess, had never taken them there in the good old days). This embarrassment was so monumental the world hasn’t stopped laughing—and the Miami Cubans have never forgotten or forgiven this. Say “Bay of Pigs” to any of them, and you might as well be a dentist with a drill on a raw, decaying nerve."

    In remarkable contrast to recent assertions on another forum that over 2,000 men involved in the Bay of Pigs were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's assassination squads," only 114 of the men in the Brigade died. That's about five percent of the exaggerated figure. 1,189 men were captured and later freed. 150 were unable to land or were never shipped out or were able to make their way back.

    Tim

  19. Damn good thing most museums don't shirk their responsiblities: the good, bad AND the ugly... as most of us know, most, if not ALL history is written by victors. That's telling in and of itself, don't you agree? Now, WHO we're the victors? I will say, City of Dallas PR efforts are getting better....

    Good point! The idea that children should be taught the Dallas Citizens Council version of the event is an abomination.

    Tim

  20. A movie about baseball in the 90's forget its name and I think it was actually Kevin COster who said something really stupid like "two things I am sure of: 1...bla bla bla and 2. Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy".

    That was Kevin Costner's rant of things he believes in Bull Durham, a list which included slow wet kisses that last a week....

    Tim

  21. As far as Tim's proposal on what books should be in the store, I disagree with some of his selections. As a matter of taste, I'm not sure I'd carry books on the medical evidence in the store, either.

    The point about autopsy photos being readily viewable at a museum devoted to Kennedy's death, as is the case in any bookstore, may be a valid consideration of taste. But I doubt that Pat would assert that those photos aren't crucial to an understanding of what occurred in Dealey Plaza. So a prohibition of the autopsy photos would apply to Groden's TKOAP. What other books that I named would not be worthy of availability at the Sixth Floor Museum? Marrs' Crossfire or Summers' Not In Your Lifetime?

    For Larry Hancock's upcoming book, he needs to get a proficient editor to attain the degree of professionalism required for mainstream publication. The substance is there, generally, but the grammar and the detailed fact-checking have been problematic in existant publications.

    Tim

  22. I don't see how anyone can honestly claim Case Closed is a better book than The Last Investigation. Was Fonzi's book ever carried in the book store? If Gary agrees to carry Larry Hancock's updated Someone Would Have Talked then he'll have proved his point, at least to me. What about it, Gary?

    Gary Mack would have my support if he did the following:

    Carry books by Marrs, Summers, Fonzi, Hancock, Waldron, Trask and Groden's TKOAP;

    Reword the caption about the window exhibit that more honestly reflects the uncertainty; and

    Put more money and effort into getting the landscaping back to 1963 levels.

    Since the corner of the museum is blocked off, no one can look out that window and see what an impediment the tree would have been. That aspect was critically absent from the re-enactments in the Magic Bullet program. This is especially relevant if Kennedy was hit before emerging from under the tree. But even if visitors could peer out the window, the degree of overgrowth of the Live Oak would usefully prevent analysis of the visual range available to a 1963 shooter.

    Tim

  23. It seems that Gary Mack does not allow the Sixth Floor Museum to sell "conspiracy" books. Len Osanic has called for the museum to be boycotted. Do you agree?

    It would be great if a boycott could be initiated that would draw some scrutiny to the skewed history being promulgated on behalf of Dallas' image. To not have Jim Marrs' or Tony Summers' books there is flagrant and inexcusable.

    The late Bill Hicks said that he was amazed when he visited the sixth floor museum. And awed by the painstaking reproduction of the snipers nest. And do you know how to tell it was painstakingly authentic, just like the day JFK was killed? Because Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't there.

    That's funny! But on a serious note, the physical reproduction of the sniper's nest is anything but precise. There is a photo of it, taken in 1963, which has boxes turned different ways than in the current physical representation.

    Far worse, is the misrepresentation of certainty that the window encased in the plexiglass exhibit is the actual 1963 SE corner window. A 2005 article, entitled "Stained Glass," first published by the Dallas Observer, Nov 27, 1997, written by Ann Zimmerman, notes:

    "Displayed halfway through the tour in the Sixth Floor Museum is one of the most famous windows in the world--the perch from which Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy with a cheap Italian mail-order rifle. Behind a thick wall of Plexiglass, the window has been exhibited here since 1995, and since then, more than a million visitors have scrutinized it, studied it, even venerated its tragic place in history. The window, located in the southeast corner of the museum, sits only a few feet from where Oswald killed Kennedy--allegedly, of course. It bears the caption 'The Original Window from the Sniper's Perch.' But is it?....

    First, there is ... James Bagby, ... former security guard at the museum. After overhearing some museum visitors question the authenticity of the window last March, Bagby studied the window for himself. He first noticed that the one-inch thick, salmon-colored smudge of paint and putty on the display window isn't apparent on an old picture of the real window. The smudge, which is on what would have been the outside of the glass, matches the color of the wooden trim on the outside of the window. A note on the exhibit points out that the 'paint on the exterior trim is original to the time of the assassination.' After studying pictures of the real window taken the day of the assassination, Bagby also noticed the distinct markings on the wooden sash along the bottom of the window that do not appear on the window on exhibit.

    Bagby first brought these discrepancies to the attention of museum archivist Gary Mack eight months ago. 'What you've discovered is quite important,' Bagby says Mack told him. 'But I wouldn't be telling anyone about this.' Jeff West, [former] executive director of the Sixth Floor, and Mack now admit they have questions about the authenticity of the window--no, make that doubts. 'We have concerns,' West says. 'It definitely bears scrutiny.' 'It's a corner window,' Mack adds. 'Whether it's the window where shots were fired, we're not sure.'"

    What kind of curatorial integity is that?

    Tim

×
×
  • Create New...