Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm out of this thread.

Bye!

[Stephen Roy]

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

Stephen,

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

We are at war, young man.

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

It is truth.

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

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

JFK was hit by more than one guy. Period.

Play whodunit and howdunit games elsewhere.

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

This, again, is war.

Charles

Charles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Roy]

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

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

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

Jack

*courtesy St. Paul

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

Heaven help us.

[Charles Drago]

Charles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, Old Timer,

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

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

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

"May"???

WRONG!!!

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

I so state not out of hubris or arrogance.

I so state out of knowledge. Period.

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

Not by you. Not by anyone.

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

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

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

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

Understand?

Charles

[Jim Root]

Charles Drago wrote:

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

"I so state not out of hubris or arrogance.

"I so state out of knowledge. Period."

Since you "state out of knowledge. Period."

Exactly who were the shooters?

Exactly where did each shoot from?

Exactly who was involved in the conspiracy?

Exactly who is in charge of the ongoing coverup?

Thes questions should be simple for you to answer after all that I have read on this thread.

Can't wait for all these answers after all these years!

Jim Root

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm in bit of a hurry, so we'll cut to the chase and pursue the rest of

this later (I especially want to see that spring clamp on a tucked-in shirt!)

Craig wrote:

Here the the actual bulge as seen in all of the images

Its not the collar Cliff.

And here is how it all works out, as is seen in all the images,

(excuse my crude drawing)

Back in the real world, here is Willis #5, taken at Z202, less than a second after

the Betzner.

So where is this bulge at the right side of JFK's neck in Willis #5, Craig?

The shadow you call "bulge" forms a convex curve at the right base

of JFK's neck.

But in Willis #5 the curvature at the base of JFK's neck is concave.

Of course, we shouldn't expect much from you here, Craig. After

all, on the "Eject! Eject! Eject!" thread you claimed that the shirt collar

visible in this Towner frame showed the left side of JFK's head.

Keep 'em comin', Craig!

Thanks so much for posting more images that support my position and destroy yours Cliff.

Truck on Cliff!

Thank you for your input, Craig.

Thanks for drawing a convex curve in the exact location Willis #5 shows

a concave curve.

Don't let the door nick you on the way out, pal.

I'm out of this thread. If you want to play elsewhere, be my guest.

Of course you're out of this thread.

You bailed out of the "Eject!" thread at the same time -- when photos

clearly show the opposite of what you claim.

The object lessons for CTs here is that when you want to shut an LNer

up just cite the holes in the clothes.

They fall all over themselves demolishing their own opinions.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Now I fully expect you to continue to pimp your theory regardless. You really have no choice do you Cliff? You are fully vested. Thats a pretty bad position for someone who claims to be about finding the truth.

Classic psychological projection.

Craig Lamson is so invested in LN theory he is cognitively impaired as

to the difference between a convex curve and a concave curve.

[Charles Drago]

Charles Drago wrote:

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

"I so state not out of hubris or arrogance.

"I so state out of knowledge. Period."

Since you "state out of knowledge. Period."

Exactly who were the shooters?

Exactly where did each shoot from?

Exactly who was involved in the conspiracy?

Exactly who is in charge of the ongoing coverup?

Thes questions should be simple for you to answer after all that I have read on this thread.

Can't wait for all these answers after all these years!

Jim Root

Mr. Root,

I have neither the time, the inclination, nor the good will to educate you -- especially in light of the manner in which you demonstrate your, well, limitations by conflating evaluations of the "how" of the assassination with studies of the "who" and the "why" of the crime.

"Who" equals more than one -- the inescapable conclusion based on review of the evidence.

"More than one" equals conspiracy.

"Conspiracy" is actively denied, and evidence of "conspiracy" is actively suppressed or falsified, by the parent state and its wholly owned subsidiaries.

Beyond this: Educate yourself.

Charles Drago

Edited February 21, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

Now I fully expect you to continue to pimp your theory regardless. You really have no choice do you Cliff? You are fully vested. Thats a pretty bad position for someone who claims to be about finding the truth.

Classic psychological projection.

Craig Lamson is so invested in LN theory he is cognitively impaired as

to the difference between a convex curve and a concave curve.

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there. And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my being a LN you would have found I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because I simply don't care. I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us. The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about the images in question really make you look the fool.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there.

Welcome back! There's nothing wrong with this thread. The subject is

hard evidence of two shooters and Gary Mack's inability to address this

evidence.

It appears there are a lot of people who can't address this evidence.

And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my

being a LN you would have fo0und I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because

I simply don't care.

You don't care to the tune of -- what? a quarter million words between Della Rosa

and Simkin?

I've been reading you for years, Craig (I'm a big fan of the motorcade photo

evidence, too). You care very deeply about the LN, not just the authenticity

of the DP photo evidence.

You can fool yourself about that all you want.

I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us.

The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

It's not any sort of "label" that's getting slapped here, Craig.

Let's return to Betzner.

The red arrow points to a horizontal fold on the midline of the jacket.

According to your scenario the right side of the jacket rode up 2-3" into a

convex shape at the right base of JFK's neck.

How did the fold on the midline stay horizontal when the fabric a few inches

away was pushed up several inches? Such a movement of fabric on the

right side would have pulled that fold on the midline up from horizontal to

diagonal.

The horizontal Betzner fold had to have been diagonal if what you say were true.

What you say is false, Craig, obviously. To say nothing of your inability to

tell the difference between a convex and concave curve.

(Own it, man, you'll be better for it.)

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about

the images in question really make you look the fool.

...Uh, ouch?

[Craig Lamson]

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there.

Welcome back! There's nothing wrong with this thread. The subject is

hard evidence of two shooters and Gary Mack's inability to address this

evidence.

It appears there are a lot of people who can't address this evidence.

And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my

being a LN you would have fo0und I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because

I simply don't care.

You don't care to the tune of -- what? a quarter million words between Della Rosa

and Simkin?

I've been reading you for years, Craig (I'm a big fan of the motorcade photo

evidence, too). You care very deeply about the LN, not just the authenticity

of the DP photo evidence.

You can fool yourself about that all you want.

I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us.

The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

It's not any sort of "label" that's getting slapped here, Craig.

Let's return to Betzner.

The red arrow points to a horizontal fold on the midline of the jacket.

According to your scenario the right side of the jacket rode up 2-3" into a

convex shape at the right base of JFK's neck.

How did the fold on the midline stay horizontal when the fabric a few inches

away was pushed up several inches? Such a movement of fabric on the

right side would have pulled that fold on the midline up from horizontal to

diagonal.

The horizontal Betzner fold had to have been diagonal if what you say were true.

What you say is false, Craig, obviously. To say nothing of your inability to

tell the difference between a convex and concave curve.

(Own it, man, you'll be better for it.)

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about

the images in question really make you look the fool.

...Uh, ouch?

No more on this thread...

[Cliff Varnell]

Feel free to start a new thread and I'll be happy to rip you a new one there.

Welcome back! There's nothing wrong with this thread. The subject is

hard evidence of two shooters and Gary Mack's inability to address this

evidence.

It appears there are a lot of people who can't address this evidence.

And if you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my

being a LN you would have fo0und I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because

I simply don't care.

You don't care to the tune of -- what? a quarter million words between Della Rosa

and Simkin?

I've been reading you for years, Craig (I'm a big fan of the motorcade photo

evidence, too). You care very deeply about the LN, not just the authenticity

of the DP photo evidence.

You can fool yourself about that all you want.

I'm just looking at some images and dealing with what they tell us.

The truth is the truth, regardless of the "label" you might want to slap on it.

It's not any sort of "label" that's getting slapped here, Craig.

Let's return to Betzner.

The red arrow points to a horizontal fold on the midline of the jacket.

According to your scenario the right side of the jacket rode up 2-3" into a

convex shape at the right base of JFK's neck.

How did the fold on the midline stay horizontal when the fabric a few inches

away was pushed up several inches? Such a movement of fabric on the

right side would have pulled that fold on the midline up from horizontal to

diagonal.

The horizontal Betzner fold had to have been diagonal if what you say were true.

What you say is false, Craig, obviously. To say nothing of your inability to

tell the difference between a convex and concave curve.

(Own it, man, you'll be better for it.)

PS, you really need to look closely at the images you post. Your statements about

the images in question really make you look the fool.

...Uh, ouch?

No more on this thread...

You wish. I'm just getting started, and this thread has all your prior arguments, Craig.

Why do you want to run away from what you've already claimed?

[Don Jeffries]

Stephen/Jim, et al,

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

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

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

[Miles Scull]

Oswald acted alone is simply not credible.

Why do you want to run away from what you've already claimed?

Cliff, et al.:

Is there alteration afoot here?

Looks like someone added a strange Napoleon collar.

OOPS - misspelled 'vertical' in the pic.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Charles Drago]

The grey rectangle obscuring the shirt collar, Miles, is most noticeable and most worthy of investigation.