Otto B Cornejo

Jim Marrs believes apparently that the alleged second-floor encounter between Baker and Oswald occurred.

I don't believe it occurred, based on Baker's same-day affidavit.

I think the whole story of the encounter, every piece of it, is a comfortable lie.

Comfortable because surely neither Truly nor Baker wanted to stand up against McGeorge Bundy, LBJ, the DPD, or the Warren Commission.

Jon -

I'm a bit confused. What the was original source for those authors and film makers who use the "lunch room" encounter as part of their "theory"? Also, did Truly verify the encounter or not?

thanks, Otto.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery Jack.

The wi-fi Kindle is $139. The 3G is $189. How much lower do you think it needs to go to break into the kind of mainstream that causes what Jim called, a revolution?

Let's see...the first DVD player I bought was around $200...now I can get one for under $20...so I'd say about $15 bucks would be a good prioce for a Kindle...

Interesting. Thanks. I think it's going to be a while before e-book readers are so ubiquitous that the cost will be that low. and I wonder if DVD players are that low because the they are outdated by the advent of blu-ray players. which would mean that something better would have to be on the market for e-books to become that cheap. I suppose the iPad and the Sony Reader as well as others have already started bringing competition to the market.

we'll see.

The wi-fi Kindle is $139. The 3G is $189. How much lower do you think it needs to go to break into the kind of mainstream that causes what Jim called, a revolution?

I can't speak to how the moderators of this forum arbitrate disputes regarding it's rule about questioning the veracity of someones belief, it is not for me to decide. If, in their wisdom, they think that my thread is egregious in any way, let them do as they please. But I will make these points in defense of my initial inquiry:

- Gary Mack is a member of this forum because he filled out the necessary form and it was accepted by the moderators. He hasn't participated in any conversations that I know of. It strains credulity, in my opinion, to make the assumption that he is a participating member here.

- Gary Mack is a public figure in the history of the JFK assassination. His full-time job is to represent everything that happened that day (if you believe what the Sixth Floor Museum touts). He has participated in numerous media events as a paid consultant for his opinons about this case. In my mind he is a historical figure in the history of this case, and thus open to debate regarding his opinons. In fact, one could argue, since he has been granted such a public forum as TV to espouse what he believes, it is almost mandatory for those who believe otherwise to speak up.

- Having said that, my initial question was simply to find out where Gary stood at this point in time. I was confused. I did know that asking my question in a public forum might spark some heated replies, but I felt that I might be able to sift through personal opinons and get some facts from people who were not the man himself.

- and on that score, Gary did send me a personal message answering the question himself. We exchanged a few messages and that was that. He was cordial in his tone and I have nothing bad to say about what he wrote. It was never my intention to vilify or demonize him personally.

- so I think that my initial question was harmless and made no attempt to question his veracity. If SUBSEQUENT POSTS defy the rules of this forum, perhaps they should be evaluated individually - dont you think?

Otto

Thanks Harry. That last sentence, especially meaningful.

Otto

John and Jim, thanks for your comments. Jim, I will keep your post in mind as I continue my reading. I have the Douglass book and will get to it soon. I am very encouraged by what others (whom I respect) have had to say about it. Even among CTrs who don't agree on certain points, agree that the Douglass book is very good.

Otto

But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance.

That is a cop out , and you are against us.

Peter, what a strange accusation. It eschews logic so succinctly, I hardly know where to begin. But I'l try;

- I said that I still believe in conspiracy. And since I am still researching from a CT point of view and trying to find a conclusion, that makes me a conspiracy theorist by definition..

- so who are the US you are talking about? CT's don't agree on everything, except that they don't believe in the WC version of what happened. I don't believe the WC version, so who am I against.

- What's wrong with skepticism? Doesn't it help refine our perception by reexamining the evidence, and thereby, hopefully, assuring we have solid evidence to hang our opinion on? Am I supposed to swallow everything hook, line and sinker? Do you? If I do believe that the CIA was involved, but don't believe that the Zapruder film was altered, does that kick me out of HALF the club, or a 1/3. Or do I have to believe in everything in order to be NOT against US?

- But perhaps it was my comment about the CT community not having a chance that offended you. Thats what I believe when I observe the present state of things regarding how likely it is that the WC will be overturned anytime soon. Is that what I want? No. Does that stop me from siding with conspiracy? No. I hardly think making this observation pits me against the CT community. Is there a rule among the CT community that one cannot speak such things without having their membership revoked?

I admire your CT patriotism, but find it rather narrow minded.

Otto.

Duke said: CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised.

Peter responded You talk too much "Duke" and I am not really sure what side you are on.

How in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright.

But what is clear and not open to debate is what the United States Secret Service did and did not do on November 22, 1963.

This will show anyone’s true colors, for if anyone denies that, they are against us not for us.

I agree with both points being made by Duke and Peter in the above quote. I don't think the CT community will ever pose a serious threat to the established account of what happened until they can collectively agree on what happened (aside from the fact that they don't believe the Warren Commission) and move forward. When I started investigating the JFK assassination I was firmly in the CT camp. But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance. Don't get me wrong, I still believe there was a conspiracy. But I don't think that there single coherent group of people and events that can be proved guilty. Not with the evidence available.

This is just a guess, but I think there is no statute-of-limitation in a murder case. So, I imagine those who conspire to commit murder are subject to prosecution at any time. If I understood your question correctly.

However, is the case of the murder of JFK closed - officially? I guess I should know that. Was the Warren Commission an official legal closing of the case? Were the subsequent assassination boards an official reopening/and closing of the case?

I assume you are asking why they are silent about JFK's murder. Perhaps the Kennedys don't believe in conspiracy. Have they ever gone on record about what they think happened?

There is nothing curious about it David. In that massive thread in which you and Jim go at it, did I make a post like a did here? Even though negative personal comments were made by all sides in nearly every post, there was also substance. I have come to learn that the nature of the this subject and the people who have spent a greater portion of their time (lives) researching it (you included) are going to create strong opinions about it. So it seems that dealing with personal jabs are a part of it and a relative neophyte, such as myself, will just have deal with it.

But most your posts in this thread bespeak of someone insecure, or just out to badger people. And I don't believe that because you have made posts of substance elsewhere that gives you the right to make the posts you have made in this "silly" thread, as you call it. I am surprised that someone who has worked as hard as you have representing your side, would want to unravel as you have. It doesn't make sense.

Simple put, I was annoyed by your posts this thread and I exercised my right as a forum member to say so.

But I will rest here for fear of diluting this thread any further. If you wish to make another comment about what I have said you can send it in a private message - please.

***EDIT: sorry ,the quoted piece below was removed and a small part added. My apologies***

This VonPain's assignment is to cause researchers to waste as much time as possible.

That's quite a belly laugh, White. You JFK CT mongers have the patent on "wasting time". You've been doing it for almost 50 years. And you'll keep doing it for another 150, I surmise.

David, as someone who is only a CT'er by one fact (the single bullet theory - which I don't believe), I am still very interested in hearing from people who believe in the Warren Commission version of what happened in the murder of JFK. You are really doing your side a huge diservice by posting what you do. You offer nothing in this thread that makes me interested in your point of view. So I can only assume that you don't care what your point of view is. So it seems that your only motive for coming here is to heckle people. This, in internet parlance, is trolling.

What good can come from a LN'r who represents themselves as a xxxxx?

And I find it ironic that someone who believes that all CT'rs are wasting their time, comes here to waste their time saying so.

Again, one must conclude: xxxxx.

I must ask in all sincerity: did you ever think your life would come to this? Not sarcasm. I can't imagine at my age that I would ever want to make a public spectacle in the manner you have.

François -

Thank you for your reply. As long as I have been at this forum I have seen LN'rs and CT'rs attack each other with the same vigor. There is no use is saying who started it or who does more of it, those are childish arguments. The subject of JFK assassination is deeply personal for most people here whether they are CT or LN, so I am not surprised that along with factual information there are personal attacks made. I don't enjoy reading them but it's a part of human nature. Any egregious slurs can and should be reported.

You have said that you made some post with comments about the assassination itself. Thank you for providing that information. If I have the time I will go back and read them. I suggest you continue to address your efforts to facts relating to the case. Ignoring people who make personal comments at you, will only make you look better. If they attack you, report it. You have already displayed your contempt for people who don't believe as you do. If it pains you, or angers you to the point of hysterics, to read the theories presented by people who believe in conspiracy, then I wouldn't come here at all.

And now I will kindly bow out of this conversation as it has thrown the original intent of this thread way, off. My apologies to all.

Otto

François Carlier, as someone who reads both sides of the argument and isn't really sure what to believe (which is why I am learning) you are offering nothing worth reading. In fact it seems like you are trolling and I am surprised that the moderators of this forum have given you as much latitude as they have. At least DVP offers some content, even if many here think it false content. But that's why these issues are discussed. If you want to make a better case for your cause, please issue an intelligent response of some sort.

Hello Mister Cornejo,

Thank you for your message. It is a reasonable message, humbly and well written. That's rare in this forum.

Mind you, I DID write some good, well-reasoned messages a few weeks ago (look for them), only to receive out-of-context, mean-spirited, dull and empty answers from the likes of Dean Hagerman, or Lee Fearley, or Bernie Laverick, who are the ones who really are trolling here.

So I got mad.

Contrary to what you say, those people are not here to discuss. They are here to (try to) make fun of anybody writing in defense of the official version.

Now, it is very true that the last posts I wrote here were not meant to start any debate on any topic, but just to show that not everybody is taken-in by the disinformation spread by conspiracy theorists.

I have a long and argumentative message ready to be posted. But I know, unfortunately, that for one serious member who will read it, there will be 10 silly members who will just want to "fight" me, without even reading my arguments.

This forum, as I discovered, is not a good place to debate seriously. It is a hive of conspiracy theorists who can't even accept the possibility that they might be wrong.

That's very sad.

/F.C./

François Carlier, as someone who reads both sides of the argument and isn't really sure what to believe (which is why I am learning) you are offering nothing worth reading. In fact it seems like you are trolling and I am surprised that the moderators of this forum have given you as much latitude as they have. At least DVP offers some content, even if many here think it false content. But that's why these issues are discussed. If you want to make a better case for your cause, please issue an intelligent response of some sort.

I was gone for a few days, but thank you Terry for your response to my request.

Terry, could you give us your theory of what happened to JFK in a few words, or point us to somewhere you might have already discussed you beliefs? Your responses in this thread have gotten me curious.

thanks

Otto

The Museum Of Ancient History is open!

Didn't Howard Hunt tell his son on his death bed that the assassination started with LBJ and went down through people like Cord Meyer and others? Of course the veracity of his statements is suspect considering his character, but why would he lie at such a late date, with nothing to lose or gain?

First of all sorry Otto for getting off topic. I hope you don't mind.

To stay on Topic for a moment, i think you've asked reasonable questions and they were well deserved.

Your attitude is excellent. Congrats.

Dear Josiah,

thank you for this insight about your thoughts to update Six Seconds.

To be honest, in my journey the last 2 years on the JFK assassination research i've read a lot

of books and neglected until the last 2 months almost every book of the first generation researchers.

I thought that they were simply outdated but i was wrong.

John Kelin's "Praise from a Future Generation" had changed my view and has drawn my attention

to the work of Silvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten and you.

So i've bought the books "Oswald: The Truth", "Accessories After the Fact" and "Rush to Judgement".

I was surprised how many new happenings i've discovered and how well and precise the research of this

first generation researchers was even at that time. Sure, some aspects are simply outdated but we have to consider

how little time after the assassination has passed by when these books were published.

I have great respect what these persons worked out under pressure. And i believe it was not just time pressure.

I was always suspicous about your Six Seconds in Dallas cause you've mentioned on the forum a couple of times

that there were here and there mistakes in the book. Don't get me wrong, i admire your forward step and see it as a strenght

and not as a weakness. It's more than reasonable to get the facts not always correct in 1967.

It was a coincidence that a good friend has send me your book as a gift a few weeks ago.

I've started a few days ago and just half way down (i'am currently at the stretcher chapter in Parkland)

and your work captivating me. It's extremely interesting cause it covered my point of interest.

The killing zone "Dealey Plaza" among the photographic evidence, you're take care of important witness reports, the ballistic

evidence and trajectories. Many pictures, many diagrams and well researched it provided excellent footnotes to crosscheck

where it all come from.

If i would write a book, the design would be similar. (It's the reviewed version from 1976).

You raised for the first time doubts in my mind that the current thinking of the shooting sequence of 8.3 seconds is

accurate. You've provided relevant witness reports (and not less) to support your theory, that the first show occured not at

around Z#160 but much more later- at Z#210-224. The current thinking that the first shot occured at around Z#160 is just supported

by the fast head turns of Connally and Kennedy at this time. And of course Rosemary Willis interview in 1978 (your book was written ealier and you was not aware of it) which was at the Willis home where she said she stopped running after hearing the first sound.

I was, to be frank, not aware of all the other witness reports supporting a later first shot happening.

The number of this witnesses in your book trumps the Rosemary Willis report and the head turns of JFK and JBC.

Is this part of your book still your current thinking or has it been updated?

If not, if would have change the title from Six Seconds to Eight seconds in an updated version.

You have put also eyewitness S.M Holland on a high level credible podest. I think the same.

You have met him. You have known him.

I found til today no mistake or flaw in his words. Everything fits the photographic evidence.

An argument that a puff of smoke is not visible in the photos is obsolete. No camera at that time would be able to

capture it.

My question is: How much of your book would you update right now?

30, 50 or even 80 percent? Or propably just 15?

I'am asking just for a rough estimate.

I have no evil intention. I will only know how you see it currently.

Thanks a lot forward

Martin

Martin, thank you for your concern regarding staying on topic and your kind words. Threads tend to take on a life of their own sometimes, which can be interesting. So no worries. Thanks again.

When I started this thread I thought the name, "The Curious Case..." was a little flashy or dramatic. After reading the PM's from Gary Mack and reviewing all the posts and links here I have to say I think the title fits perfectly. His change from hard core CTer to whatever you might categorize him now is rather startling. Reading his PM's he sounds confident in what he believes, which seems to be a mix of things. And yet one can't help thinking there are conflicts deep inside (or maybe not so deep), something of a war between what he believes privately and what he espouses publicly. Like Pat I have some sympathy for his position as curator of The Sixth Floor Museum, and what he is compelled to represent. It's either that or he is out on the grass, as Jim said. I know many of you think my sympathy is wasted. More than a few of you feel that his position is duplicitous. If most of what has been written here is true, I can see why you feel that way.

A curious case indeed.

Ultimately it is a matter of what "story" about the assassination gets the most exposure. Because I am a CTer I believe that every effort must be made to combat the Lone Nut/Warren Commission conclusions. So, contrary to what Dr Thompson feels about the silly war over The Sixth Floor Museum (this is not the same as personal attacks on individuals, which I don't condone) I think it's important to voice ones opinion and perhaps make change in places where change is needed.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded in this thread, it has been an enlightening, if somewhat dizzying journey.

Otto.

The war against the 6th Floor Museum is silly. The Museum is a Dallas institution and as such is run by a board of Dallas citizens. As a museum, it sees its task as making available to visitors to the Museum a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts surrounding the assassination while placing the event in mid-20th Century history. As far as I know, it tries to stay away from taking a position with respect to any of the many controversies and opinions that swirl around the event. You can declare war on the Museum but your declaration has no impact. That's why it's silly. As a Dallas civic museum it will continue to do what it's doing independently of what you say about it. To expect a city museum to take controversial stands with respect to an event that happened in the city is illogical. It is what it is and Gary Mack is not responsible for that fact.

Once again, I fail to see why some need to vent their spleen at Gary Mack. He has helped innumerable people with their research independent of what tribe they come from. That's his job and he does it really well.

JT

Josiah,

While I don't condone direct personal attacks against anyone, if nothing else they don't serve to make an argument, I fail to see why one shouldn't take on the Sixth Floor Museum's stance on the assassination. Let's forget about the word "war", it's divisive and implies, perhaps, physical harm. Instead I ask you why it is illogical to challenge an institution which many people feel is misrepresenting what they believe to be the truth about what happened on the day JFK was killed? And we are not just talking about a few CT'ers. Statistics show that many people in this country believe that there was a conspiracy and subsequent cover up in the murder of JFK.

When you say:

As a museum, it sees its task as making available to visitors to the Museum a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts surrounding the assassination

Are we not allowed as citizens of this country to ask who said these facts were good and how they came about? Shouldn't we investigate the investigators when there is reason to believe that there was foul play or ineptitude? In fact isn't it our patriotic duty speak out when we believe that facts have been mishandled and are being misrepresented, especially when it involves the killing of our country's leaders?

The Sixth Floor Museum is not a museum showing the history of tin foil. It is a representation of an event that has haunted this country's psyche since that tragic day. I can't think of a better target for people to question, in hopes that future generations will know we got it right.

Otto

Otto,

I've had my differences with Gary but I don't dislike the guy and he has often sent me helpful messages - whether I asked him to or not. I'm not so sure there really is a contradiction between his private and public statements. As I understand it, Gary believes Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy and a second unknown grassy knoll gunman fired a shot that missed. This is what I've gathered from both his public and private statements.

Martin -

Thanks for your input. I should say right off that my intention in starting this thread was not to vilify Gary or defend him. I wanted to get to the bottom of his position regarding the assassination of JFK because I think Gary is an important figure in the history of research regarding the murder of JFK. And he is involved with the Sixth Floor Museum, which is important. Information posted in this thread has suggested, among other things, that Gary made comments on broadcast television that basically echoed what the WC has said about the case. I haven't seen these documentaries, so I will reserve final judgement. Gary has written me three times and his stance, as I understand it, is that he is compelled only to back what are the facts in the case and not what it is theory, even if its a theory he personally believes in. This would mean that when he addresses the public he must represent what can be scientifically proved, or, I imagine, what the WC says. He says that something like Badgeman is not introduced as fact because we don't know if it is or not.

This is what I understand from what he has told me.

Of course there are a lot of questions one can come up with in the wake of such comments, like who decides what is fact and what is not? and if those people are corrupt or involved in a cover up, the facts that they represent are bogus or misrepresented.

Hence the struggle of conspiracy research to make itself heard.

Regardless of what I conclude regarding Gary's stance it will not be personal with me, as it is for some. I have not invested my time and passion in a manner that makes these things take on a very serious tone. Maybe it should and maybe it will for me one day. But I will say this, after reading Dr. Thompson's comments above

Josiah said: The war against Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum is just silly.

On one hand it does seem silly to get upset and angry to a degree that we lash out and those we don't agree with. But on the other hand we are dealing with an event that changed the course of history and affected lives around the globe, for the worse. And the facts of this event, the truth, as some believe, have been covered up, by people who are still in power. In that light it seems we can never be passionate enough in our search for the truth.

Otto.

Dawn -

Thank you for your comments and I agree. As I said in that post you quoted there seems to be some contradiction in what he says personally and what he represents to the media at large (through the Sixth Floor Museum). Thanks to some here, the evidence seems to support this contradiction, but I am just getting into it now, whereas for many of you this is fact. It's too bad, for whatever reason, he can't take one stance across the board and represent what he truly feels (whatever that may be - conspiracy, he says). It obvious that he has lost the confidence of the CT community, and even garnered anger for what many see as a betrayal.

Otto

Like Dr. Thompson,

I, too, have had completely positive experiences corresponding with Dave Perry and Gary Mack. They have always treated me courteously, directly, and promptly. I have appreciated the information or views they have expressed. And both are engaging and wonderfully personable company.

Whether or not I agree with everything they offer is irrelevant. No one has a monopoly on the truth in this case. But attempting to advance a particular position by denigrating their or anyone else's character is the antithesis of a scholarly approach and reprehensible.

Advancing the understanding of what happened requires dispassionate deliberation; we have egos protecting turf, injecting invective in place of gentile collaboration. As long as this continues, for those who believe the powers that be have a vested interest in subverting the truth, they will smile because critics will remain marginalized.

Until such a time arrives that the critics can present a cohesive presentation of verifiable facts that demonstrably shows the official versions are incorrect and can prove an alternative scenario, the Warren Commission or the House Select Committees version of the assassination will remain history. With the current methodology represented on assassination forums, this won't likely be accomplished.

I have digressed. Gary and Dave are treasures of knowledge. Agree or disagree with them, but assaulting their motives or character is wrong regardless of what their views are.

Dave Curbow

Dave -

I applaud your sense of decency and call for gentle collaboration. But not all that has been said against Gary Mack is without merit, despite that it is sometimes peppered with angry personal comments that are unnecessary in my opinion. And I would caution against making it sound as if one side is altruistic and the other side full of egos defending their turf simply because someone was cordial to you in your relations with them. What concerns me is the search for the truth. And that is worked at by presenting facts. While it pains me to see both sides acting on their emotions and battering each other senselessly, considering the history of human nature and the epic nature of this subject, it's difficult to see how it could be otherwise.

Otto