Wim Dankbaar

Right: James Files

Left: The man that shot J.D. Tippit, according to Files

The CIA meets the mob

Operation Mongoose was a ill conceived operation, an operation between

organized crime and the CIA to actually simply kill Castro, and they had

some various memo's, as a matter of fact I have a few memo's how I ended

up, how they were talking about what they were going to do and so forth...

VO: Here are some of the memo's Chauncey refers to (picture of memo's).

These men participated in a meeting held at a small airport between Palm

Springs and Indio California, the name: Bermuda Dunes.

That meeting......Peter Licavoli and I flew in from Arizona. Sam

Giancana and Johnny Roselli came in from Chicago (pictures of Giancana and

Roselli). William King Harvey came in from Langley. William King Harvey was a

legend in the CIA. He was the only member, he was the only CIA-member

there, but of course he was the one that was laying out the plans.

VO: Who was William King Harvey? (picture of William King Harvey)

Chauncey was well aware of his involvement in other CIA operations.

William King Harvey was the head of Taskforce W. That has been

renamed, originally, that was a part of ZR/Rifle, an Operation called ZR/Rifle, ZR/Rifle was nothing more than an assasination group, that went around the world assasinating people, and

Harvey happened to be the head of ZR-Rifle.

VO: On December 14th 1961 top echelon leaders of the CIA and the mafia

met at Bermuda Dunes airport in Palm Springs to discuss groundrules for

operation Mongoose (picture memo's). Chaunceys memo's of that meeting

show an executive action was planned, executive action means

assasination. The target: The Beard, Castro. The ground rules: CIA only,

maximum security, non attributability, plausible denial, need to know

basis. Harvey set the tone of the meeting at the Bermuda Dunes airport.

They were going to eliminate the Beard and how was going to be done and

just starting as to what personel they were going to hire.

First of all they were trying to decide what cryptonym they were

going to use, because they had decided that they would assign a cryptonym

to end up in the official CIA-files. AM, normally, operations involving Cuba had an AM-start to their cryptonym. So well, we don't wanna use AM, all we anted to do is to start looking down the vest, and MO was some cryptonym for some secure place way out in the Pacific somewhere. So everyone says: Hey, why don't we use the MO and so I said “Well, what (word) is going to go with, what goes with MO, so that it flows, you know? And somebody said: Hey, how about Mongoose? You know, the Mongoose never looses, you know, so that's a good one, you know? So everybody said, everybody agreed: Hey, we call it Operation Mongoose.

VO: (picture of William King Harvey) It is also decided any further

discussions about operation Mongoose would be face to face, nothing in

writing. The CIA's William King Harvey was clearly in charge.

It was a very short meeting because of the fact that, 20 minutes to an hour, it didn't take very long, I mean, he layed it out in precise terms, but these these guys wanted to get out, you know, and take off and uh.....guys like Giancana and Roselli, they were reluctant to get together, and Licavoli too, these high-ranking mobsters

don't like to meet with each other and they rarely do that, so we kept it

short and sweet and that was it.

VO: (picture of CIA-memo) an August 14th 1962 inter office CIA-memo from

William King Harvey to the Director of Clandestine Operations says in part:

Our contract agents in Miami and in Los Angeles have been assured by me

that no reference to this operation appears in our central files.

Dear Kathy,

I don't need ad space here. Just wanted to remind you that the outside world finds Files more credible than some people

here. I can't deny I enjoy that, yes

I hope you don't deny me the right to promote what I believe is important info? Can I state and argue here that most people who absorb that info find it credible? Or do you rather see that I leave uncontested the unsubstantiated statements that most "credible researchers" (like Gary "no shot from the knoll" Mack) dismiss the Files story as a hoax?

Bla bla is just to illustrate that the quote is incomplete, nothing to do with disrespect. You know the quote, right? Did you not grasp that I respect the quote?

Was Gary Mack's presence and input appreciated there in the crowd mourning JFK's loss? Or was he just a spectator through a 6th floor window, as he is here?

Wim

Stephen, a new generation Nazi's will not wear uniforms and swastika's.

Evil will always rise with a new mask on. Never with the old mask that people recognize and know how to stop.

I love America, my friends are in America, that's why I hate to see it go down the drain.

I love Germany, I have lived and worked in Germany. Germans are not worse or better than Americans.

You can say the same about Russians and almost any people. Go to a middle east country or a third world country on vacation, and you'll come back with memories of how nice the people are, maybe nicer than you are used to.

Kennedy understood that. We all breath the same air bla bla. It's dangerous and polarizing to think in countries, especially when people are told that their country is superior. Think in people, not in countries. It's always the leaders that put their people to sleep and program them for evil. They prove time and again they can dupe ANY people, whether they be Dutch, American or German. In every country there are good people and bad people. Also in America!

Haha, why would I dislike Americans if I see another nice review today:

The truth finally comes out, November 25, 2008

By Kay T. Brown (Norman, OK) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Files on JFK (Paperback)

As someone who has purchased all of Wim Dankbaars books and videos on JFK,s assasination.. I would say this, the truth finally comes out. James Files.. an underling in the Mob and CIA.. put a bullet in JFK,s head from the grassy knol. I worked in Corrections for many many years and have heard a lot of stories from inmates.. you get a sence of when they are bull crapping or telling the truth. When I watched the 1994 video confession and subsequently the 2003 video confession of James Files of shooting Kennedy I would say I senced absolutely no deception what so ever in him. He is credible. And what is also believable is that there are still forces today that are trying to cover up the truth and discredit and misinform the public on Wim Dankbaars credibility. It goes alot higher than James Files.. clear to the top office in the land.. who succeeded Kennedy.. the FBI and CIA.. read Jims Mars book ..Crossfire and all of Wim Dankbaars books and videos.. you will pretty much no the how and the why after that.

Paul, in chapters 10 through 12c at patspeer.com, I examine the single-bullet theory in detail, and demonstrate as well as anyone I think that the theory is extremely problematic, and that TV shows making it seem nice and logical are deliberately deceptive. If you're short on time you may wish to just look at the slides, as they pretty much tell the story.

I trust you'll find it interesting.

Pat

Pat,

"Extremely problematic" is still a euphemism, saying it nicer than it is. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE! The SBT requires the bullet to have traveled THROUGH Kennedy. In every autopsy involving gunshot wounds it is a mandatory requirement to probe the wounds in order to determine bullet trajectories. Thus there are two possibilities for the SBT to hold water.

1) They did not probe the wounds (which would be extremely neglectful if not ridiculous)

2) They did probe the wounds and found that the bullet path went through Kennedy's torso.

So the unwitting observer might ask: Which of the two was it?

Answer: None of the two! For the correct answer we need to add a third option:

3) They did probe the wounds and found that the bullet path did NOT go through Kennedy's torso.

Hence, they knew right away that the SBT was not possible. Still they went ahead having Specter fabricate it.

After all, the preconceived conclusion had already been written:

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. ...We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Does that sound like somebody's jobdescription at the sixth floor?

Conclusion: The SBT is a LIE, proven with documentary ironclad evidence from the WC's own archives. The kind of hard evidence that conspiracy believers can only dream of. Namely a report made by FBI agents, SPECIFICLY assigned to monitor the autopsy and make a report of it. Paul Baker may not know this report by Sibert and O'Neill, but Gary Mack does!

Wim

Steve,

I take your thorough analysis as a compliment. Very well put. Don't worry about your wife. I won't steal her job.

Now, to the core of your point:

"Plus I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible."

It depends on the definition of the word lie. Some definitions assume that every false or untrue statement is a lie, whether the author of the statement believes it or not. With that definition my statement stands. IF someone in the middle ages would have said: The earth is flat! he probably believed his statement to be true. But it would still be false and with this definition it would be a lie.

However, most definitions of the word require the author to know that his statement is false:

lie

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

ly·ing

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

With this definition, I would have to tone down my statement. Not everyone who says that the SBT is possible, would be a xxxx. After all, it is possible that the author does not have enough information to know that the statement is false. He is then excused by lack of knowledge, just like our medieval friend.

I trust you would agree that Gary Mack does not fall in that category. Maybe I could force myself to be less harsh (or clear, however you want to put it) if the possibility of the SBT would not be such a crucial issue. The lone assassin theory rests on the SBT. Without the SBT the lone assassin falls apart. Without the SBT, you have more gunmen and thus a conspiracy. The initial fabricators and supporters of the SBT knew this very well. That is why they fabricated the lie. If the SBT is a lie, the lone assassin is a lie. Therefore, it is not only important to identify the lie itself (in this case the SBT) but also the authors and supporters of the lie. A lie has a motive.

If Gary Mack would have to say that the SBT is a lie, then he would not even be able to make programs promoting the likelyhood of Oswald being the lone assassin, no additional shots bla bla bla ....

I just find it odd that so many here have no problem to embrace the statement that the SBT is not possible, but cannot approve the statement that Gary Mack issues a lie about it. I say: Tell it like it is. I guess Al Gore would call it an inconvenient truth.

Wim

Harold Weisberg?

I do not know very much about him and his work. But what I do know about him is:

GREAT, GREAT, GREAT !

Same for Penn Jones.

Just two more hard workers that didn't live to see the truth come about. Will there ever be one?

Wim

We will be spending some time Monday evening remembering the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, using materials provided by Judyth Baker, who speaks out on his behalf despite trials and hardships imposed on her by some who have tried to block her coming forward.

"Some who have tried to block her coming forward."

Uhh, don't blame me ! I don't fit that shoe !

Wim

Wim,

hi there.

When Peter R. DeVries (sp ?) did his documentary for dutch television,I think it was about James Files, was your role also that of an advisor in regard of Files,the assassination,witnesses,experts on the case ?

I never thought much about my role, but I guess that seems a fair assessment.

I did not see that documentary in full yet , but I remember seeing a short part of it in which Peter talks with Gary Mack inside the former TSBD.

The fragments you speak of are here:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm

Were you angry at Peter that he used an interview with Gary Mack in his documentary ,maybe even telling him to grow up or even to get dust under his heels as fast as possible and that you can not take serious anyone who spreads Macks words (selective or not) ?

I was not at all angry with Peter, why should I?

Did the dutch audience learn about Macks real agenda in that documentary you were involved in ?

What is Mack's real agenda? Uwe? The voice-over introduced Mack as a supporter of the Warren Report. You think that's a fair statement?

Remember, Files (according to him and you) shot and killed JFK,

Correct, although he was just one of the shooters.

according to him brought down Allende,

Incorrect. He was a spoke in the wheel of the CIA and David Phillips.

killed Ferrie (maybe I made that one up),

No, you recall correctly.

was involved in the Marylin Monroe thing that ended her up dead,

His involvement was limited to driving the hitteam to the airport.

turned down a contract to kill Miss Baker (aka the good deed),plus harming and killing numerous others (according to him).

I don't think anyone doubts that Files killed numerous others.

Mack on the other hand, is a real evildoer,right ? According to you.

He sure is ! According to me ! But then again, I believe Specter, LBJ, Bush, Phillips , Ochsner, etc were worse than Holt and Files. These puppetmasters will always find their puppets and keep themselves clean and off the hook. I say that Mack - although he's just a valet for the Kings - fits right in with them. What they have in common is that they are still respected, I say wrongly so!

Yet you call Files your friend and the other, Mack seems to be your foe.

Files was a killer for the mob and the CIA. I like him for telling the truth about JFK, or what I perceive to be the truth (right Kathy?) I don't believe I ever called him my friend, did I? Should I find Mack worse than Files? That's a good question, Uwe!

After all, Phillips reportedly said to Files: I can kill more people with my typewriter than you running around with a shotgun. Doesn't that sound like Phillips, Uwe? The propaganda expert? Mack could have been his pupil, were it not that I know Phillips died before Mack crossed over to the other side.

Wim

There were 3 murders that weekend: JFK, Tippit and Oswald. Possibly even four! A Secret Service agent called Chuck Robertson is believed by some to have been killed for trying to warn the president...

Wim

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Stephen,

In Europe it's the same.

Jim Marrs told me once: We defeated Germany, but not the Nazi's. They just moved to the USA.

Something to ponder.

Google for "Freedom to fascism"

I dare question anyone's factual knowledge, intellectual capacity, or sincerity, who says that Arlen Specter is entitled to his opinion about the SBT. Plus I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible. I have layed out my reasonings more than exhaustively. If you have an opinion, you should at least have the guts to defend it. Specter runs away. Ask Cyril Wecht! So far, Mack is hiding too.

You disagree, period? Then I disagree, period!

How would I feel if my opinion would not be tolerated? I would feel like Nelson Mandela felt for 25 years.

Wim

Duke,

I will apologize for teasing you with your picture. I should not have done that and I deleted it. You're right, that's not an issue. The rest of my posting stands.

Wim

No name calling here, Kathy . Just an analogy to illustrate that someone that appears to be nice and friendly, can be less than nice and honest on issues beyond your vision. You may think of Gary Mack as a nice person, that's fine, but I don't buy that at all. I say he is one of the of the most prominently visible current cover-up artists, blocking the path to the truth. in the the realm of Gerald Posner, Dave Perry, and Dale Myers. He's just more friendly to the research community.

Why not answer the key question?

You started with "I don't have all the answers". Neither do I. But you do have an answer on whether the single bullet theory is possible, don't you? What does it mean if the single bullet theory is not true? Tell me what your answer is, and then tell me again whether Gary Mack is truthful.

Wim

PS: Please encourage your behind-the-scene emailers to state their opinions here.

I've made no false allegations anywhere; if you can prove that Carr saw the unseeable, then you're certainly welcome to disprove my analysis. So far, you've only "disproved" something I'd never said.

Wel, you started this thread with the claim (or at least the allegation) that Carr could not have witnessed what he describes from his position.

When I return, we'll see why it is impossible for Carr to have seen what he claims to have seen. Note the verb: "see."

I think the picture that Steve posted proves that claim wrong.

Wim

Wim,

Most of the people here are intelligent and knowledgeable.

I don't claim to have all of the answers, not at all. I have to read voraciously just to keep up with most folks here, and I have a long way to go.This Forum is a great learning tool, and I proud to be a member here.

Kathy, I did not say you cannot be proud to be a member of this forum. Heck, I would not even post here, if I subscribe to that. I was not talking about most of the members of this forum, I was talking about the average american out there. Gary Mack couldn't care less about the members of this forum, that's not his target audience. You would be amazed with the compliment emails I receive behind the scenes from credible researchers, including members of this forum. I wish they would say it here!

When there is an historical question, or when someone needs a photo identified, or when an event occurred, Gary helps them. He is a fantastic resource. I think having him here is a blessing. I find him a very good and kind, helpful man. I can't think of anyone better to be the Museum curator. As for his beliefs, he goes where the evidence leads him.

I'm sure that Hitler's dog loved his boss too. As for Gary Mack going where the evidence leads him, I respectfully disagree.

And once again, I do not believe that he has backed down from his belief in Badge Man, or the acoustic evidence. I also think that if the kill shot came from the TSBD, or all hits came from there, that does not negate conspiracy.

If I were Gary Mack, I would not back down from Badgeman either, for he knows it's a red herring. A myth, that has been proven to be just that. But if he has not backed down from the acoustic evidence, why does he lend himself for TV shows that conclude there was no shot from the grassy knoll? Did the acoustic evidence not indicate a four shots, one from the knoll? You can't have it both ways, Kathy, yet you're giving it to him.

You talk of truth, and say it is unmovable, but your truth is that Files did it, and mine is that he did not. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Some of us are emotively attached to a theory, and sometimes we cannot or will not budge because of this.

The truth is indeed unmovable, and you're mistaken in saying that I say the truth is that Files did it. Yes, I believe his story thusfar, because I have thoroughly researched it and tried to punch holes in it, and found no evidence that it cannot be true. On the contrary, I found only supporting evidence. I also use my common sense and analysis of the way he tells his story: Can you invent a detailed story like that, repeat it and keep it consistent over the years? The fact that Gary Mack and his pals try to ignore and discredit it, is only more evidence to me that Files may be telling the truth.

That is when we need input from as many sources as possible, in order to make real, rational decisions. Gary supplies historical data, and whether you agree is up to you. That does NOT make him untruthful.

You started with "I don't have all the answers". Neither do I. But you do have an answer on whether the single bullet theory is possible, don't you? What does it mean if the single bullet theory is not true? Tell me what your answer is, and then tell me again whether Gary Mack is truthful.

You don't have to believe anything I say, to admit that Gary Mack is not truthful. Separate issues.

Wim

Exactly the point of a recent article y'all might enjoy. In it, the operative assumption is that the James Files story is correct and accurate. Enjoy!

Well, Duke, that shines on you !

Promoting Gary Mack's pal Dave Perry's propaganda:

In the 1996 MPI video Confession of an Assassin Files’ indicates he was sent to Dallas with fellow mobsters John Roselli and John Nicoletti by the Chicago mob. Files was there for the purpose of killing Kennedy.

Who is John Nicoletti? A brother of Charles? Was Files sent to Dallas with Roselli? Gee, I didn't know that!

Files was sent to Dallas for the purpose of killing Kennedy? Has Dave actually seen the Files confession? I'm beginning to wonder now.

By the way, if you like Dave's tales so much, please ask him to put this

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=8250980122157253214

on his Chauncey Holt page. If he is the "objective researcher" he purports himself to be, he would do that, don't you think?

If you can present the story of the man himself, why discredit the people that believe his story to be credible? Maybe he could also explain why those five star raters are bigger suckers than him?

Duke, I am still figuring out what your colors are. I think you're showing them more and more.

Are you also man enough to apologise for your false allegation about Richard Carr in the other thread?

Wim

Steve,

Many thanks for that photo. FWIW? A picture says more than Duke's thousand words.

Duke,

You would grow on me if you could withdraw your allegation that Carr could not have seen the windows of the 6th floor.

And maybe a posthume apology to the man?

The rest of your allegations may stay up for debate, but I think it's fair to admit that this one has been discounted.

Wim

There is no alternative theory of the SBT (or SBF, as I prefer to call it) I can see here, let alone a plausible one. And thanks for the advice on growing up, I hope you don't mind if I choose to ignore it. It's a shame that sense seems to go out of the window so quickly around here. Multiple shooters!

Thanks for the clarification. That at least permits me to say that the statement that deserves to be ignored here, is the quote above. By prefering to call the SBT SBF (I take it you mean Single Bullet Fact) you do not only admit ignorance (or need to grow up) but even disagreement with Gary Mack, who says: Is it likely? No

Your SBF defies the laws of science, mathematics, chemistry and physics.

I repectfully suggest you make some changes in your bio information in order to reflect your nature a bit more accurately:

I hail from a scientific background - mathematics, chemistry and physics - so approach problems rationally. I'm not a serious researcher, more an observer, but will always interject with a sensible argument if I have one.

Wim

By the way, Hoover's first lie held so long that postcards were made of it:

We may safely assume that Mr. Mack knows about this more plausible lie, as these cards hang in his museum.

Yet he defends the even less plausible lie till this day.

Peter,

Let's not not jump the gun on Paul. Let's take into account that he may not know the things that Gary Mack does, but didn't tell him.

Things like this:

The report of FBI Agents Sibert and O'neal reads in part:

"Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile had entered at a downward position for 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit."

Hoover explains to his friend and neighbour Lyndon Johnson, ON TAPE, that both Kennedy and Connally were wounded by a total of three bullets that all hit their target. This is right after the assassination. However, after more than 6 months the Warren Commission can no longer ignore the testimony of James Tague and is forced to put him on the stand.

James Tague was standing under the triple underpass and was slightly injured on the cheek by a flying piece of concrete from a bullet that missed and hit a sidewalk curb.

The trajectory for such a shot through the presidential limousine, lines up better for a shot from a low floor in the Daltex building, than a high floor in the book depository, but this is ignored by the warren Commision.

Now the Commission is faced with the dilemma to explain all the wounds of the two men with only two bullets. It is only then that the infamous single bullet theory is born, with Mr. Arlen Specter giving birth to it. The far more logical route in any proper investigation would have been to account for more bullets, and thus more gunmen, and thus a conspiracy. But since the predetermined conclusion of the Commission was to convict Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin, the Commission desperately clings to Specter's single bullet theory. This THEORY asserts that one bullet emerged in almost undamaged condition, traversing through Kennedy's neck, without hitting any bone, then piercing Connally's torso, then shattering his wristbone and ending up in his thigh, thus causing a total of SEVEN wounds.

I think that Paul will agree that Hoover's first scenario (3 hits) was more plausibe than the scenario Specter was forced to create 6 months later (2 hits, 1 miss). If that is the case, he will now see that a more plausible alternative for the SBT came up before the world had even heard of the SBT. That alternative was still a lie, but at least a more plausible lie.

Wim

I wonder how many members of this forum dare to say that the single bullet theory is possible.

Wim

I not only believe it's possible, I believe it happened. No-one has yet come up with a plausible alternative theory.

Paul, maybe you're just the living proof for my point?

"I'm not a serious researcher, more an observer, but will always interject with a sensible argument if I have one."

Please, by all means, proceed with a sensible argument .........

"The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds."

John F. Kennedy

Wim,

You ask for someone to tell the truth. I have to ask, whose truth? We, as CTs, cannot agree on alot between ourselves. Who has the mandate on who has the truth?

I appreciate Gary's input, and weigh what he says, as well as others here. And I make up my own mind.

Kathy, the truth is not something that is moldable or variable. Interpretations and opinions are. Misinterpretations of the truth can have negative consequences. Say for example you are next to truck on your bike at a crossroads, and you are assuming that the truck driver has seen you and wants to go straight ahead as you do. What can happen if both of your assumptions are wrong? In that case the driver has not seen you and wants to turn right.

I am saying this: The larger the audience that someone has, the greater the responsibility to not tell lies. Gary Mack violates that rule by telling us that the single bullet theory is not impossible (to give just one example). The significance of this cannot be overstated. The more so because he is aware of the evidence that disprove that statement. It would be different if he genuinly believes it himself. But even then, an erroneous assumption, as illustrated in the example above, can have devastating results.

You say you appreciate Gary's input and weighs what he says, and then make up your own mind. First of all, that assumes that every member of his audience is as intelligent and knowledgeable as you, secondly that means you forgive him for being untruthful about the most significant issue that defines whether the JFK killing was a conspiracy or the act of a lone deranged nut. I don't.

I wonder how many members of this forum dare to say that the single bullet theory is possible.

Wim

I was talking about casting aspersions on other people in this field. But since you bring it up, should I disregard anything Specter says because he devised the SBT? No. He is entitled to that opinion, and there is a case to be made for it.

I say he is NOT entitled to that opinion and there is NO case to be made for it, except to an unwitting audience with little or no knowledge of the accompanying facts. Arlen Specter and Gary Mack do not fall in that category. They are very cognizant about the facts that refute the SBT. To maintain that the SBT is possible (or to state that it is "not impossible") is a willfull lie. Anyone that does that AND is as knowledgeable as Mack, is an accessory to the cover-up It is the same thing as making a case for the theory that the earth is flat. That requires an audience of toddlers too. It's an insult to any person with an IQ above XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Which is exactly the reason that they refuse to discuss it with people outside those categories.

I can accept trajectory and timing, but I'm leery of the deformation issue (lack of). Is he part of a conspiracy to cover up? What if he genuinely believes what he avocates?

You can safely assume he does not genuinely believe what he advocates. He knows full well it was a lie to deceive the american public and conceal the true causes of the murder of their chosen president. He also knows that no bullet traversed through JFK's body and that the backwound and throatwound could not be connected. The fact that this man is now a senator instead of an inmate, illustrates EXACTLY the problem.

Some opinions should not be tolerated. Likewise I would opt that Hitler was not entitled to his opinion that Jews are inferior people comparable to rats. Yet that opinion was tolerated and even cheered by many.

Wim

Post edited by moderator due to offensive vocabulary.

Pamela, I would like to reproduce your nail on the head hitting statement above for my website. May I?

Wim

In invite Gary Mack to help end Conspiracy Theory ™ and espouse freely in an open debate.

The fact that he doesn't take that invitation, yet lends himself for national propaganda, should tell you enough.

He's no better than Arlen Specter, another coward that doesn't dare to debate the veracity of his fairy tales.

Disgruntled Wim