Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, et al.:

Is there alteration afoot here?

No, it's his jacket. Remember that jackets have padded shoulders

and short tails. Shirts and jacket don't move the same.

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The

Towner film was taken 5 seconds before the shooting and clearly

shows the shirt collar and a fraction of an inch fold.

I think the alteration argument is a black hole distraction, frankly.

[Charles Drago]

C'mon, Cliff, we're looking at a perfectly rectangular add-on obscuring the key area of the image.

[Cliff Varnell]

"This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup

is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly."

The cover-up thrives on Parlor Games. False debates. The collateral

damage of good research can often be obfuscationary.

I admit that in my 9 years on usenet Iserved an obfuscationary

purpose by making an open and shut case a question of "debate."

Any intellectually dishonest motive or assertion serves the cover-up,

obfuscationary.

In my case, my intellectually dishonest motive is that I enjoyed getting

people to make fools of themselves.

I still do.

I'm one of the worst, frankly.

We're all human.

Gary Mack, for whatever reason, said something intellectually dishonest

when he claimed that there is "virtually no evidence" of two shooters.

My purpose here is to correct this record.

"History" is not up to Gary Mack. The people know the fact of conspiracy,

which is why that opinion places high on periodic polls.

I don't have anything against Gary Mack personally.

I don't buy that "disinfo agent" crap about anybody.

I think the cover-up crew discovered early on that with hundreds

of armchair detectives out there raising pet theories, nothing clear

would ever penetrate the din.

[Charles Drago]

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.

Thanks, Don, for understanding my point and expressing it simply and clearly.

Charles

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Looks like someone added a strange Napoleon collar. [/color][/b]

THe photo made me think of JFK's back brace.

Has this question been answered: Was JFK wearing a back brace in Dealey Plaza?

If so, was it examined for bullet holes?

[Don Jeffries]

Kathy,

I didn't think if including your name; Stephen and Roy seemed to feel more strongly about this. I'm not used to being on the opposite side of you- we have to make sure this doesn't happen often.

I'm not claiming that any poster here who doesn't beileve there was defintely a conspiracy is a disinfo agent. I'm not alleging that Gary Mack is one. For all I know, Stephen is the nicest guy in the world. Gary Mack, while infuriating me with his apologist emails, was always very civil and reasonable in tone. I know he has also been very helpful in assisting researchers with generic information. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm personally atatcking anyone.

That being said, the state of the evidence is beyond dispute in the most important regard; the official version of events is impossible. Period. The condition of the "magic bullet" shows this. The bullet holes in the clothing show this. The backwards head snap shows this. There are a myriad of facts and theories that can be debated, and certainly Oswald's role can be, but to maintain that there is the slightest chance that this assassination was merely the act of a lone assassin is not an intellectually honest position to take. Now, I have no way of knowing why anyone woudl take such a position. I suspect that those who proclaim to be "on the fence" haven't read the essential critical works on the subject, or examined the Hearings And Exhibits for themselves.

I have a neighbor who is strident in his view that Oswald acted alone. It took me a long time to get him to admit that the only book he'd read on the subject was "Case Closed." I have a hunch that a lot of people who are unsure about whether there was a conspiracy started out by reading this thoroughly discredited book. They might possibly have read a few of the newer pro-conspiracy books, but unless you have read some of the classics, you have no real idea of just how impossible the offical story is. Those early works concentrated on picking apart the 26 volumes of Hearings And Exhibits, and comparing the conclusions stated in the Warren Report to their alleged supporting evidence in the actual record.

I don't mean to doubt anyone's word, but it just defies belief to think that having read "Accessories After The Fact," for instance, a person could have the slightest doubt about there being some kind of a conspiracy.

Jim asked Charles to name the specifics of the conspiracy. Obviously, it isn't our obligation to prove who killed JFk. The fact is, it has been shown beyond any doubt that the crime could not have been committed by any one individual. Thus, as Charles says, that means conspiracy. This murder took place over 44 years ago, and was never investigated at the time. So it would be pretty difficult for any forum poster-even one as clear-headed as Charles-to identify the shooters now. That would be just a bit beyond the means of any individual citizen.

[Pat Speer]

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.

You're right, Miles. That is most positively NOT the appearance of the frame from the Jefferies film when it caused all the hubbub upon first release. It appears someone has went back in and added that gray block to lift the collar. I was gonna say something about it earlier but these alteration threads get so annoying.

Still, it needed to be said. Thanks.

P.S. The object in question is the collar. It appears that the collar was visible but that someone added a block of gray to cover it up. I'm looking through all the versions on Youtube to see if the original film is there.

P.P.S. I found a clearer version of the film on the MSNBC website, and it seems the gray blocks on the collar come from people blowing up the low res version on the sixth floor site.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

P.S. The object in question is the collar. It's clear that the collar was visible but that someone added a block of gray to cover it up. I'm looking through all the versions on Youtube to see if the original film is there.

Pat

I've had a look too Pat, and can only find 2 so far from over a year ago. Here's some more frames.

Duncan

I think part of the "gray block" problem comes from the widespread use of the low resolution version of the film on the Sixth Floor website. I found the film as it was first released on MSNBC, here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17229693/

I'm still not so sure it's all legit, but the frames are a lot clearer and the "bunch" is not a rectangle.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

"and then maintains that there is the slightest chance that Oswald acted alone is simply not credible."

There exists a considerably difference between being the "lone shooter" and acting alone to get oneself into the position to be that person.

That I am aware of:

I am most probably the only person on this forum to have ever discussed the autopsy issues with any of the autopsy surgeons.

I am most probably the only person on this forum to have discussed various ballistic issues and CE399 with FBI Agent Robert Frazier, as well as examination of JFK's clothing.

I am most probably the only person on this forum to have discussed the anterior neck wound with Dr. Perry as well as some of the Parkland Nurses.

I am most probably the only person on this forum to have discussed the original NAA work with FBI Agent John F. Gallagher.

I am most probably the only person to have ever discussed the issue of the FBI laboratory examination of the clothing of JFK with those agents from the FBI spectrographic lab. (Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger: etc;)

I am, quite obviously, the only person to recognize the significance of the importance of the Survey Information and thusly not only secure these materials from Mr. West, but to also expend the time in discussion with him on the subject matter.

I am most probably one of the few persons here to have ever spoken directly with Dr. Cyril Wecht on the subject matter of the JFK assassination.

I am the first, and probably the only person, to have provided ABSOLUTE evidence of alteration to WC evidence, as well as demonstrate how such evidence was "slipped" in, and by everyone else.

I am one of the few persons here who even actually owns even a single Carcano rifle, not to mention actually owning six of them for conduting testing as well as comparative evaluation.

I am one of the few persons around who has even held a WCC 6.5mm Carcano bullet, not to mention actually having conducted ballistic testing with them.

I am one of the few persons to have discussed the JFK medical aspects of the assassination with Dr. Russel Buhite.

I am one of the few persons to have discussed the JFK medical aspects of the assassination with Dr. William Eckert.

I am one of the few persons to have discussed the JFK medical aspects of the assassination with Dr. Thomas Noguchi.

I am one of the few persons to have discussed the JFK medical aspects of the assassination with Dr. Clyde Snow.

I am one of the few persons to have discussed the JFK medical aspects of the assassination with Dr. Charles Wilbur.

I am one of the few persons to has taken the time to speak with Abraham Zapruder's wife as well as his son, in verification of Abraham Zapruders height.

I am, that I am aware of, one of the few persons who has ever been willing to take their "hypothesis" and have it picked apart by those who possess the true qualifications in the fields of forensics; ballistics; and pathology, as well as having the materials reviewed by various agents of the FBI; retired Military Surgeons who in addition to being "hunters" are quite familiar with gunshot wounds.

NOW!

Based on this "very limited" research, JFK was assassinated by three shots which were fired from above and behind.

Two of these shots were ABSOLUTELY fired from the 6.5mm Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

The third/final/"Magic Bullet"/aka the one that disappeared, for all characteristics, bore the shape of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet.

Although no one can state as an "ABSOLUTE" that LHO was the "LONE SHOOTER", the evidence that he was this shooter is convincing beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

Just as is the evidence which clearly indicates that LHO was, prior to the assassination of JFK, involved in a series of events which were ABSOLUTELY related to some covert operation on the part of some entity.

FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE HAS NO BEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THAT EVIDENCE.

AS A GENERAL RULE, IT MERELY MEANS THAT ONE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE.

And, thusly, rather than admit that Arlen Specter & Company, to include GERALD FORD, were smarter than the individual who can not resolve the issues, we have "GIANT CONSPIRACIES"; "MULTIPLE ASSASSINS':, and, even "BODY SNATCHERS"

*Watching the movie JFK thirteen times does not constitute research!

[Charles Drago]

And yet you get it wrong.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Looks like someone added a strange Napoleon collar. [/color][/b]

THe photo made me think of JFK's back brace.

Has this question been answered: Was JFK wearing a back brace in Dealey Plaza?

If so, was it examined for bullet holes?

Was JFK wearing a back brace in Dealey Plaza?

Yes!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm

I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, you mentioned the President's brace. Could you describe that as specifically as possible?

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I did not examine it. I noted its presence only in an effort to reach the femoral pulse and I pushed it up just slightly so that I might palpate for the femoral pulse, I did no more examination.

The topic of the back brace has been previously discussed, to include a photo of JFK wearing it at "poolside" with Earl Smith, as well as the WC Exhibit number.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

And yet you get it wrong.

Yep!

And I too would go to my grave never admitting that Gerald Ford could outsmart me.

"Cognitively Impaired" due to old age, but thanks be to my creator, I never was just plain ole everyday stupid!

And especially not stupid enough to fall for the extremely poor means and methods of evidence manipulation as designed and impletmented by Specter & Company.

So, exactly who's epitath will read: "Gerald Ford was smarter than this person"?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

Mr. GAUTHIER. This is a copy of the tracing measuring 40 inches in width, 72 inches in length. It is made to a scale of 1 inch equals 10 feet. From the data compiled on that day by the surveyor, this tracing was prepared.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

*NOTE: No one to "run interference" needed thereafter!

Personally Charles, I would hide my head in shame were it that I could not figure out what this was all about, and had allowed "Specter; Hoover; Ford; & Company" to have pulled this one off.

[Miles Scull]

And yet you get it wrong.

Yep!

[Charles Drago]

T'weren't God what done the wroughtin'.

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

Thanks, Don, for understanding my point and expressing it simply and clearly.

Charles

Thanks from me as well. This is , alas, my life story as well. The fence sitters...(fill in the blank yourselves) I agree with Charles' take.

Dawn