Greg Burnham
-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
Lyndon Johnson, since the early 1950's, was one of a handful of senators/congressmen giving congressional oversight over the newly created CIA.
Also, Lyndon Johnson and his aide Walter Jenkins had "Q clearance" for atomic and nuclear material related matters. That was the highest clearance given at that time and it was the equivalent of what President Eisenhower himself had. In other words, LBJ and Walter Jenkins had access to *everything* relating to nuclear/atomic matters. My source for this was someone who worked for Lyndon Johnson (not privileged to say who, yet).
Q clearance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_clearance
Additionally, during the 1950's, there was no more powerful figure in Congress who was an advocate for CIA/military spending than Lyndon Johnson. By the late 1950's, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson was wielding power in Washington, DC that was not much less than President Dwight Eisenhower.
Lyndon Johnson during these times was establishing deep CIA/military ties that paid off in spades for him during the JFK assassination. Here is a passage that illustrates LBJ's associations at the highest levels with CIA/military. LBJ was their congressional "go to guy" for enormous amounts of money including black budget intelligence funding.
[Evica, "A Certain Arrogance," p.215]
When Senator Lyndon B. Johnson became chair of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Science, the Texas powerbroker had been able to wear two significant military/intelligence hats, chairing both the Senate Preparedness Subcommittee and Aeronautical and Space Science. In 1959 and then in 1960 during Senate hearings called "Missiles, Space, and Other Major Defense Matters," Johnson gave a splendid "I'm shocked" response to testimony from the Bureau of the Budget, the Joint Chiefs, and from a raft of "military experts." Even Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense cooperated with Senator Johnson in establishing the fictional but crucial "missile gap." A typical LBJ topic- how big was his "missile" opposed to any one else's- had been established (despite its military fiction), and, given LBJ's enthusiastic support, it became a major political argument in the JFK/LBJ presidential campaign, an issue often mistakenly attributed to John F. Kennedy himself.
LBJ, the Bureau of the Budget, and Funding the CIA and the Pentagon
Having for several years tanked in every encounter with the Pentagon, the Bureau of the Budget took another dive during the 1960 LBJ Senate hearings as the Bureau wore the somber colors of Eisenhower's "administrative failures." Senator Johnson was able to generate "a litany of military requests" that became, in fact, a Defense Department "shopping list." Throughout the Eisenhower Administration, Senator Johnson was the crucial ally of the military/intelligence coalition as it collected its funding from inside the Pentagon budget, especially after the heavily publicized threats of Soviet space and missile programs. The softest entry for the U.S. intelligence's black budget operations then became the hot areas of "air" and "space," specifically through the U.S. Air Force's programs in research and development, and then through NASA, hence Johnson's 1959-1960 Senatorial pressure on the Eisenhower White House that was topped by his 1960 Senate hearings.
What followed were the "research and analysis" contracts (with their significance intelligence dimensions) for aircraft and space companies and think tank/development corporations funded by the Pentagon, all of them ostensibly working for the Air Force and the U.S. "aerospace" program. For LBJ and Texas, following his collaboration with the USAF, aerospace research and development (both in the government and business), the Budget Bureau, and with covert intelligence operations hidden inside persistent Pentagon funding appeals, the payofff was staggering: "As President, [LBJ] .... helped engineer the greatest Pentagon raid on the [u.S.] treasury since World War II. Among other results was a gigantic defense-industry boom for his home state, Texas."
Johnson had elected to join the Budget Bureau/Pentagon/black budget intelligence team in the early 1950's, collecting Senatorial power and privilege; then as Vice President he acquired more potency for U.S. space and missile programs, the only areas that really mattered to him and Texas, unti he "rode the tiger of military [and covert intelligence] spending into the White House ...[and] it rode him out."
[Evica, "A Certain Arrogance," p.215]
So many problems with your post...so little time to address them all. First off, you are not taking George Michael's work within the context in which it was written. LBJ was always the consummate "worker bee" for the powers that be. In other words, he was a facilitator. He was not born of that aristocratic class. His only ticket inside, that was itself a product of his own self delusion, was his willingness to become the lackey for those in REAL power. They are the faceless and nameless SPONSORS of the apparent movers and shakers. Without LBJ they would have found another different individual to fill the role. He was not a self made man, rather he was a created man--created in the image and likeness of one who would perform exactly as he was told to perform. Even as a senator he was about the business of his masters. He was no more than "the face" of the beast. He was not the beast itself. The sooner you understand that the sooner you will stop looking for sharks in swimming pools.
-
Tom,
In my opinion, Morrow has LONG AGO earned permanent moderation of his posts. I do understand that such an action by the moderation team would not be decided upon lightly. I also understand that it would be time consuming, annoying, and "should" not be necessary. However, in this case it is very necessary. In my opinion, if ANY member's behavior becomes too high maintenance to manage reasonably well, they have earned a permanent boot in lieu of the ability to babysit the offending party on a daily basis.
-
I hope that David's interview was heard by both veteran and newbie researchers. There is pertinent "information a plenty" for all. David's arguments and conclusions are firmly based in SCIENCE and hard evidence--not speculation...
-
Show notes...
Dr. Mantik:
Is a practicing Medical Doctor
Is Board Certified in Radiation Oncology
Has a PhD in Physics
Became seriously interested in the assassination with Stone's movie
Performed x-ray measurements at the National Archives,
JFK Assassination Logic (McAdams 2011), How to Think Like John McAdams
Six Seconds in Dallas (Thompson 1967) touted as the best, forty years later
Overview, logic in the title, but not in the book, he does commit logical fallacies
Why he omits data, culling evidence, no citation, no rules, inconsistent
After all of the data that we have accumulated, he does seem to be stuck in the past
He seems to just regurgitate second hand evidence, no real research of his own
Do not trust eyewitnesses, except for those approved by McAdams
Elizabeth Loftus, 10 closest witnesses to the limousine, it stopped, ignored
Tippet, ejected spent cartridges, Don Thomas, three irreconcilably different opinions
Back of JFK's head, McAdams argues no damage, witnesses report the opposite
Right-rear head wound descriptions, exit wound, orange or palm sized, McClelland
The right temple/forehead, identified by witnesses to the body and to photographs
Press conference, Malcolm Kilduff pointing, Chet Huntley, George Burkley
Seth Kantor, Charles Crenshaw pointed to right hair line just above the eye socket
Robinson, near the hairline, Joe O'Donnell, Robert Knudsen photographs
Above the right eye, an entry wound, Dennis David, William Pitzer
Ed Reed, Doug Horne, Reed, Robinson, saw Humes sawing into the skull
Dr. Mantik observed a trail of apparent bullet fragments on the skull x-rays
The largest fragment at the back of the head, larger pieces go farther, from the front
At the autopsy, there was no fragment on the x-rays, children can find it
Dozens of, experts could not see the fragment that night, the Clark Panel report
Double exposing an x-ray, John Ebersole, discussion ended at the mention of fragment
Assassination Science (Fetzer et al 1998), John Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist
McAdams acknowledges no fact checker, Dr. Mantik thanks Millicent Cranor
Assumes 20 conspirators, 96% probability that it would get out, standard deviation
Gilbert Welch (2004), a list of bad facts in the book
Photos of back of the head, stereo viewer, paired images, hair looked flat
5x7 transparencies of JFK's back, left upper back, a small dark spot, a lighter spot
Color prints, an inconsistent set of photographs, authentic? impossible
Abnormally dark area, hair washed, no autopsy witnesses saw hair washed,
Keeping major secrets, autopsy personnel, Parkland doctors, kept their secrets
Manhattan Project, Mrs. Groves was shocked, My Lai, People of the Lie (1998)
Fingerprint and palmprint evidence, Carl Day refused to sign a statement
Fingerprint identification has come under increasing skepticism as unscientific
The provenance, a print under the wooden stock, one on the trigger guard
Dr. Mantik reviews his summary, Attention Deficit Disorder, critical thinking
Dr. Mantik also appeared on Black Op Radio shows: #453, #395, #331, #127 and #029
Greg Burnham also appeared on Black Op Radio shows: #509, #081, #037, #034 and #001
John McAdams appeared on Black Op Radio shows: #443 and #442
-
No shots were fired from that window so it's a moot point.
-
Good to see you, David. You're welcome.
-
David Mantik and his lovely wife, Pat, visited me and my wife here in San Diego last week. I suggested to Len Osanic that David be interviewed from my home office regarding his
recent review of John McAdams' book, JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC. David's review, "How to Think Like John McAdams" has been discussed on this forum previously. As I said on
the show, I was the first person to ever debate John McAdams on the air. This was way back in about 1999 or so. Since then I have learned a great deal of information that I did
not then know. Indeed, in the intervening years I have perhaps learned as much, if not more, new information above and beyond that of which I was then currently aware.
It is simply stunning that McAdams or anyone who wishes to be taken seriously on this subject, continues to make the same out dated claims today as he did over a decade ago.
The amount of new information that he either chooses to ignore or of which he is simply unaware for lack of effort to research is voluminous. It is like he has been stuck in neutral
since about 1967.
The show will air this Thursday evening.
David Mantik on Black Op Radio
Kudos to David for another job well done.
.
-
Thanks for the update, Bill--
-
Tonight's Black Op Radio Show with Len Osanic's interview of Doug Horne is a MUST hear.
It is show #569.
http://blackopradio.com/archives2012.html
Doug is at his best. His interpretation of the evidence is stellar. His conclusion is very
astute, namely that: Those in government, most notably those in relevant government
positions post 1975 era, are cowards. They know the truth and are simply too petrified
of the ramifications to reveal the truth. Indeed, they are much too petrified to allow the
records themselves (even minus any logical damning conclusions) to be released to
the public.
This dovetails nicely with the sentiments of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who said:
"If these things became widely known...what really happened...the fear is that it could
bring down the entire government. It is primarily for this reason that the cover up is still
perpetuated."
Thanks for that Greg,
I too think its an important issue and hope we can develop it further.
BK
From what I understand the program was very successful, Doug touched on a lot of important points, Len asked good questions, and the show was listened to by a lot of people from all over North American and Europe.
The map at the bottom of this post shows the locations of those who tuned in live:
JFKcountercoup: Doug Horne on Black Op Radio
Here's the synopsis:
Show #569
Original airdate: March 8, 2012
Guest: Doug Horne
Topics: Transcripts of the Air Force One Tapes
Play Part One - Doug Horne (3:00:00) RealMedia or MP3download
Doug performedstaff work on the ARRB andwrote a five volume book (2009)
Air Force One audio tapes, Cedar Rapids, theFishbowl, call-sign Liberty, Collins Radio,Bill Kelly
SAM
, David Lifton,the AP article,Clifton, 2:20 long, on-line recordings,2 mp3's Doug's blog, take off/landing timesfor Air Force Two, Col. Dorman tryingto get hold of Gen. LeMay
MSgt. Trimble,4 simultaneous frequencies, the 02:17:00flight should have 6 hrs of recorded conversation
Still missingmessages, to Salinger and Asst. Sec. State Robert Manning fromWH Situation Room
The Making of thePresident 1964,Oswald guilty message passed to Air Force One
General LeMay,what was he doing the day of the assassination?
Airman Gilmore,contact LeMay, log bookrescued from trash, Chuck Holmes
Airplane sent to Toronto,diverted to Wairton, Secretary ofthe Air Force orders plane to Andrews
Lands at National,a civilian airport in a military craft at 5:12 PM EST, 52 minutes before AF1 lands
Warren Kozak book,p356, "on a hunting trip in Michigan", a strong dislike between LeMayand JFK
JCS, SAC, Gen. Power, Seven Daysin May (1962), LeMay calling Kennedy a coward
Missile Crisis,quotes from transcript, Timothy Naftali, Munich,Cuba had tactical nuclear weapons
Russian Beartesticles, "We've won", "We've been had", LeMay,"Won, hell!, We lost", first strike
Paul O'Conner, Navy man atautopsy, LeMay was at the autopsy, smoking a cigar,
Why is LeMays aidenot with him?, Why a special flight to get him? Lying about where he was thatday
67 Japanese citiesdestroyed by firebombing,a cheerleader of the coup, SIOP-62
The autopsy site andthe mode of transportation forthe body
Context, threecasket entries to the morgue, 6:35 pm,cheap metal shipping casket, 6:55, 8:15
Kellerman to Behn,"Waiting for swearing in", "After the uh, body"
Aft starboardgalley door, Dr. Rose,Aubrey Rike, Mrs. Kennedyon board, flying command post
Col. Hornbuckle,where will the autopsy be? Kellerman, Adm. Burkley,ambulance to Walter Reed
Behn, "No, byhelicopter to Bethesda",Burkley, to Walter Reed, "Choppered to South Grounds"
"Body by heloto Bethesda", Clifton/Watchman, Heaton,ambulance to Walter Reed,
Mortuary ambulance,"Black car...black Cadillac", Col. Swindal, rampforward on starboard side
NBC,6:04 pm, AF One rolls to a stop,"an Army helo has just landed", gray Naval ambulance
6:09 ambulance departs, Jackie stayed with the coffin,"ambulance to helicopters"
6:20 TV coverage is cut, Lifton/Lancer 1996,interviewed a Marine helicopter pilot
Hid his chopperbehind some trees, to approach unnoticed if possible, fly body to Bethesda
HMX Squadron, Anacostia,the Hot Team, flew back to Quantico,motorcade took 45 or 46 minutes
The actual intentof those controlling theautopsy, Gawler's FuneralHome, Tom Robinson
The body wasremoved before the swearing-in,reunite his body with the casket at Walter Reed
Early entry toperform inspection, post-mortem/pre-autopsy surgery, remove evidence of frontalshots
Walter Reed, 1997Dr. Dick Davis, AFIP,all set to do a craniotomy, the body never arrived
Originally to go toWalter Reed, altered there, then Humes and Boswell toserve as dupes,
Dallascasket/ambulance lost andfound on Bethesda grounds, signed letters ofsilence
Lipsey (HSCA)mentions decoy ambulance, diagram ofwounds description, three hits from behind
Humes told FBI twoshots, the chain of custody was broken, a clandestine operation was afoot
Remaining minutesof the recording? recordings made at Liberty, WHCA property
Salandria,White, Manning,fingering the lone assassin way too early in the game, absurd
Crown/Behn/Bundy,sceptical, wonderful if another tape showed up, government search, they refused
Behind a wall ofsilence, risk, blame and exposure, raise a massive uproar, political cowardice
Covered up in the60's by guilty men and to prevent WWIII, perpetuated by cowards
We don't need to beprotected from the truth, AARB cop-out, no official investigation orconclusions
Anna Nelson, DeMohrenschildt linkedto VP Johnson, FBI bugged KBG,Johnson responsible
SS InspectorGeneral Tom Kelley opposeda bill making Pres. assassination afederal crime
Melvin Eisenberg memo, EarlWarren, to shut down rumors Johnson was involved
Brain, tissueslides, photographs, x-rays missing, altered, accessory after the fact
Pre-autopsysurgery? Robinson sawhead sawed open, x-raytechnician Ed Reed, the forehead, photographs, x-rays
8:00 "autopsy", altering the wounds, expand thehead wound, destruction ofevidence, a charade
Secret or shadowgovernment still in control? Eisenhower warned us,Military/Industrial complex
Jeremy Gunn,ARRB charter forbade investigation and conclusions, Blakey,a limited hangout
Autopsy attendees?A list,unusual, LeMay was there to gloat, the gallery wasfull, Galloway/Burkley
Thomas Jefferson,
Hooverand Johnson, essential enablers, Sibert and O'Neill report,"surgery of the head area"
The WC buried thatevidence, Ebersol,Gerald Custer,story kept changing, Ed Reed,occipital
Boswell ARRB deposition,bone missing, but it looked intact, burning ofautopsy notes
Fink's notesdisappeared, a first draft reviewed without Fink, Capt. Canada,Capt. Stover
Galloway,third written version, Doug's book, Joannides,assigned as CIA liason toHSCA
A big conspiracy, amassive government cover-up, implemented immediately, too soon
Do notblindly accept the pronouncements of authority, demand the right to know
Bill,
You've been extremely instrumental in bringing all of this Collin's Radio business to light. It is far more important than
most researchers first imagined it to be. Your pursuit of relevant information about it over the years has led us to a whole
new understanding of what this means.
Kudos--
-
Wow.
I thought Tom was being rather kind in his inquiry. Where was the "smack" talk in his post?
-
Probably before the end of the year, Alford's book will be available at AbeBooks.com for a dollar.
And it would be extremely expensive even at one tenth of that price!
-
Thank you, Michael.
I wrote the following piece back in 1999. It might be what you are remembering:
Since Oswald Didn't Do It...
By Gregory Burnham ®
11-4-99
We all know that is, in fact the case, don't we?
Yes. We've known that for a very long time, indeed.
What does that mean to us on the 36th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy? Why are the records not released in full? What does the statement:
"Those files are postponed in full for reasons of National Security" ... actually mean?
If those files contained evidence, in support of the "official version" -- then exactly "which Nation's Security is being assured" by the continued classification of these
"innocuous" documents?
Not mine.
For those of us in the JFK Assassination Research Community, the events of November 22, 1963 -- do NOT exist in a vacuum. They exist in the "present tense" but,
they belong in the past. Until we can write the "true history" of those events, our history will remain in a state of flux; ever evolving into what the media can get us to
agree to accept.
Is the time required to investigate the life history of OSWALD, time well spent? Will we find clues to the real culprits by studying the "records" on this man? Records which
either prove his guilt -- (of course why hide them if that is true?), or they prove his innocence. Are we perhaps playing into the hands of the cabal who "created a patsy"
for this very purpose, (details be damned)?
I do not ask these questions frivolously or to be argumentative in any way, but rather for clarification.
Since almost all of us agree that OSWALD did not act alone, why is that not enough? Most of the "in-fighting" occurring amongst JFK researchers is not as a result of any
disagreement on that most fundamental issue, namely: the OSWALD story -- as the Warren Commission Reported it -- is nothing more than fiction.
The in-fighting is due to the constant debate over the details of "the how" (not the "if") a conspiracy -- was responsible for murdering the 35th President. Some believe the
Zapruder film is a hoax, AND obviously they also believe there exists a conspiracy. Others believe the film is authentic AND most of them STILL believe there exists a conspiracy.
Some believe there are at least two OSWALDS, AND they obviously also believe there exists a conspiracy. Others do not believe, have grave doubts, or are just undecided if there
was more than one OSWALD, but STILL they too, believe there exists a conspiracy.
Should we perhaps refrain from researching OSWALD? I do not mean to say that the subject was never important, but that the research which has already been done in this regard
has not affected the "collective awareness" of the people, no matter how strong or weak the evidence discovered has been.
Finally, the "politicians" and others in government DO NOT need convincing! They already are absolutely POSITIVE that a conspiracy exists! Why? Because, that is, by its very nature,
a PRIMARY ingredient required for a coup d'etat to be a success. Such a violent takeover is not supposed to be a temporary thing, rather it is carefully orchestrated to last indefinitely.
That's why those remaining within the surviving "political structure" are made to know that a "power-base" exists; that it is responsible for the coup; and that it is in CONTROL. No lone
nut, at all. The knowledge that those who would resist this power-base are under the same guns as were JFK, RFK, & MLK, stays the hand of our elected Representatives to this day...
"If the politicians really believed that a lone nut was responsible, this would still be a Nation of, by, and for 'We The People' -- but, they don't believe it either..."
The Lone Nut Theory is designed to fool the people not the politicians...
For if the people were to refuse to accept it, they would rise up and take their country back. Then the "power-base" would cease to exist.
When the truth is finally admitted that: "Yes, there was a conspiracy" -- and it will be admitted [one day], the operative word in the admission will be, WAS -- as in, past tense.
And if "we the people" simply accept it, then darker days than we've ever imagined, shall be upon us...
Greg Burnham
_____
An excerpt from Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty...
"Since World War II, there have been hundreds of "coups d'etats" - a euphemism for assassination. That list will grow as long as the United States does its diplomatic work clandestinely. Why else
did Henry Kissinger 'shuttled' from country to country in the Middle East? If his relationship with each of these countries is an undercover relationship, then he cannot meet with them publicly and
in a group.
"Eventually, practitioners of assassination by the removal of power reach the point where they see that technique as fit for the removal of opposition anywhere."
That was why President Kennedy was killed.
"He was not murdered by some lone, gunman or by some limited conspiracy, but by the breakdown of the protective system that should have made an assassination impossible.
"Once insiders knew that he would not be protected, it was easy to pick the day and the place. In fact, those responsible for luring Kennedy to Dallas on November 22, 1963 were not even in on the
plan itself. He went to Texas innocuously enough: to dedicate an Air Force hospital facility at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio. It was not too difficult then to get him to stop at Fort Worth - 'to
mend political fences.'
"Of course, no good politician would go to Fort Worth and skip Dallas. All the conspirators had to do was to let the right 'mechanics' know where Kennedy would be and when and, most importantly,
that the usual precautions would not have been made and that escape would be facilitated. This is the greatest single clue to that assassination.
"Who had the power to call off or drastically reduce the usual security precautions that always are in effect whenever a president travels? Castro did not kill Kennedy, nor did the CIA. The power source
that arranged that murder was on the inside. It had the means to reduce normal security and permit the choice of a hazardous route. It also has had the continuing power to cover up that crime for [36]
years."
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, USAF [ret.]
-
In my view, the main pertinent conclusion is this:
Those in relevant POSITIONS of government are too cowardly to accept the ramifications of what revelation of the TRUTH to the citizens might encompass.
This is huge.
It is also very simple.
But, it is huge... and very necessary.
-
Tonight's Black Op Radio Show with Len Osanic's interview of Doug Horne is a MUST hear.
It is show #569.
Doug is at his best. His interpretation of the evidence is stellar. His conclusion is very
astute, namely that: Those in government, most notably those in relevant government
positions post 1975 era, are cowards. They know the truth and are simply too petrified
of the ramifications to reveal the truth. Indeed, they are much too petrified to allow the
records themselves (even minus any logical damning conclusions) to be released to
the public.
This dovetails nicely with the sentiments of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who said:
"If these things became widely known...what really happened...the fear is that it could
bring down the entire government. It is primarily for this reason that the cover up is still
perpetuated."
-
I was looking through some assassination images and looked at this McIntire image that we are all familiar with.
Suddenly I saw this image which I wonder if it is a person. At first I dismissed the image because the building is behind the Records building. I do not know what the name of this building is. But then I noticed that the building is to the left of the Records building. And then I realised that actually although further back from the Records building a person in that position would have a clear line of sight to Elm Street.
So do fellow members think this a person and if so what are they doing on the roof of this building?
James.
Is he wearing a V-neck T-shirt?
-
geez, Morrow--
Such completely tardy observations. We've known these things (at least the ones that you are correct about) for over 15 years!
-
A private telephonic conversation posted:
-
Mr. Hogan, isn't that a pretty calorie empty post?
Perhaps, it is. Then again, he is simply REPEATING what you have yourself claimed!
-
Good luck, Duncan. Best wishes--
-
Well said, David. Good to see you posting, my friend--
-
Santorum is employing a classic example of the straw man, wherein he exaggerates Kennedy's position in order to weaken and/or distort its true meaning.
JFK never said that a person of faith has no place in public service. He said that a person's choice of faith (or lack of a faith) should not have a bearing on
his or her electability; and the decision making of a person of faith who holds public office should not be unduly influenced by leaders of his own church.
Santorum would be a disastrous choice for president for several reasons including his lack of comprehension of--and appreciation for--the Constitutionally
imposed separation of church and state.
“I think it’s so unfair of people to be against Jack because he is a Catholic. He’s such a poor Catholic.”
-- Jackie Kennedy (1960)
-
Great summary, Chris! KUTGW...
-
Robert Morrow said:
And I don't believe everything Madeleine says. For example I think she might be inserting herself into a party on 11/21/63 that may or may not have happened
as she related.
Robert,
Even though you don't believe everything she says, you are convinced that this "xxxx or embellisher" is a reliable witness. If you are correct and she is, in fact,
inserting herself into an alleged party, then the remainder of her testimony is forever tainted.
If we were on a jury and it came to be known that she had perjured herself in that instance the judge would instruct us that we could disregard the remainder
of her testimony--all of it--and reject her as a reliable witness.
In other words, the prosecution could never get a conviction if her testimony had been heavily relied upon before discovery of the fraud.
...
-
Gary Mack's position about JFK is incoherent
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.
Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.
Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.