Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Miles Scull]

And yet you get it wrong.

Yep!

Pat, Duncan, Charles, et al.:

This might be a back brace.

However, I recall seeing somewhere a pic of JFK's back brace & it seemed not as tall, as it were.

Also, why would a brace be designed to be so pronouncedly visible through JFK's suit coat?

Also, why is this brace seen here & not later?

If it is not a brace then what the Dejesus is it?

Duncan, Dread Thane, got any more screen captures?

Cheers

Miles

Edited February 21, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Charles Drago]

It is my understanding that the back brace did not extend upwards past mid-abdomen, and primarily consisted of ACE bandages.

If memory serves, there are photos of brace components post-removal at Parkland. I also believe that the brace in its entirety is held at the National Archives.

So ... My vote is that a prototype headrest for a BMW concept car was thrown at JFK and -- lucky shot of all time -- somehow lodged beneath his suit coat.

[Charles Drago]

From JFK Lancer.

[Mark Stapleton]

And yet you get it wrong.

Yep!

Pat, Duncan, Charles, et al.:

This might be a back brace.

However, I recall seeing somewhere a pic of JFK's back brace & it seemed not as tall, as it were.

Also, why would a brace be designed to be so pronouncedly visible through JFK's suit coat?

Also, why is this brace seen here & not later?

If it is not a brace then what the Dejesus is it?

Duncan, Dread Thane, got any more screen captures?

Cheers

Miles

There's no way JFK's back brace extended that far. It was back support not neck support.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Miles Scull]

There's no way JFK's back brace extended that far. It was back support not neck support.

RIGHT!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

RESEARCH NOTHING, BELIEVE & REPEAT ANYTHING (as if true) Options Track this topic

Email this topic

Print this topic

Download this topic

Subscribe to this forum

Display Modes

Switch to: Outline

Standard

Switch to: Linear+

Thomas H. Purvis

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Nov 13 2007, 05:16 PM

Post #5

Please document your "original work" that referenced Warren Commission and/or ARRB testimony in which "subcutaneous" appears in relation to the chest tubes, and where "emphysema" appears at all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...rt=#entry126254

Time's up, Purvis.

So!

Whatever they're paying you, it's too much.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0029b.htm

"Telephone communication with Dr. Perry on Nov. 23, 1963, developes the following information"

"Incisions were made in the upper anterior chest wall bilaterally to control possible sub-cutaneous emphysema".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that someone did not do their "reading assignment" prior to insertion of foot into mouth, and still did not do it even after having been informed of the subject matter.

================================================================================

Medical Error at Parkland Hospital, (from the chest incisions topic)

Well!

One would think that after some 40+ years, it would be difficult to come up with any "new" information relative to the medical treatment of JFK.

Obviously not!----Provided of course that one actually reviews the factual evidence.

Which by the way will demonstrate that the words "subcutaneous emphysema" is clearly written two separate times (handwritten autopsy notes as well as final autopsy report), as well as multiple other references to "emphysema".

================================================================================

Remember all of this Charles? The 'Non-Subcutaneous Emphysema" Researcher who apparantly had either never read the autopsy report, or else did not understand what they were reading.

Is your research done by osmosis? You sleep with the WC documents and whatever manages to soak in, you call research.

Even if you do not understand it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Miles Scull]

The only kind of back brace which could have caused the bunching we see, other than the jacket simply bunching because of JFK'S movements, would have been something like this.

Duncan

Too true.

Duncan,

What's this all about?

Edited February 21, 2008 by Miles Scull

[Charles Drago]

Now Thomas,

All you're managing to do here is to further explain the nature of America's military failure in Vietnam.

You probably shot the VC as effectively as you're shooting this messenger.

Run along now and play with your maps.

[Cliff Varnell]

The only kind of back brace which could have caused the bunching we see, other than the jacket simply bunching because of JFK'S movements, would have been something like this.

JFK wore his back brace around his waist.

The back brace did not cause "the bunching we see."

Other photos of JFK on Main St. show the jacket riding up to his hairline.

All the Elm St. photos show the jacket collar riding in a normal position

at the base of his neck and a fraction of an inch fold in the jacket.

To gauge how effective the presentation of this simple evidence can be,

I'd like to point out the manner in which Craig Lamson was sent snarling

out of this thread -- he twice declared victory and departed the field with

his tail between his legs.

Gary Mack had a similar meltdown when I discussed this with him a year

ago.

There is no other topic in the case that will reduce LNers to babbling

self-contradictions, non sequiturs, and other acts of intellectual buffoonery

nearly as well as citing the HARD EVIDENCE of 2+ shooters: the holes

in the clothes and the motorcade photos which redundantly prove the jacket

dropped in Dealey Plaza.

We're in a gunfight here, folks. With all due respect, I wish the folks on my

side would show up in the foxhole with more in their hands than a butter knife.

[Charles Drago]

We're in a gunfight here, folks. With all due respect, I wish the folks on my

side would show up in the foxhole with more in their hands than a butter knife.

There are few of us willing to fight, Cliff, but we're righteous and strong.

Even in the face of yahoos who play semantic games or who state we should keep an open mind on the "question" of conspiracy.

On it goes.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now Thomas,

All you're managing to do here is to further explain the nature of America's military failure in Vietnam.

You probably shot the VC as effectively as you're shooting this messenger.

Run along now and play with your maps.

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

P.S. All of my "encounters/engagements" were with Regular "Hard Core" North Vietnamese Army Units. No "VC"!

Which demonstrates about how much you know in regards to this event in history as well.

Exactly when was it that one could expect to hear of all of those "Primary Source" references which you have contacted and spoken with in determination of your ever so coherent presentation?

As my college professor once stated "outhouse sources" do not carry much weight, and are graded accordingly.

You do not even know enough about the subject matter to ask the question as to exactly why JFK had such a large incision at the location of the anterior neck wound/aka the trachea incision.

And, since you have quite obviously either never read the evidence within the WC, not to mention taking the time and effort to speak with those such as Dr. Perry, then you will continue, not unlike many, to yell "FIRE", when in fact there is not even any smoke.

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.

Addendum: In some cases, it means that one has not even bothered to study and/or research the evidence!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Having waded through ten pages of mostly bile and invective, one is amazed how much heat can be generated over so philosophical a point, with so little resulting light.

[Also, having read Cliff Varnell’s passionate reasoning over the “bunch” issue for about ten years now, I can only marvel at Cliff’s stamina in dealing with people who presumably have never been fitted for tailor-made clothing. It is to laugh, were one not inclined to weep.]

In the interests of full disclosure, about a decade ago I was a member of Rich Della Rosa’s forum, where I had the chance to deal directly with Gary Mack. On several occasions, he provided me with some research assistance, without knowing the use to which that assistance would be put by me. I was and remain thankful for that aid, yet couldn’t help but notice that his postings at that forum served more to diminish interest in various research avenues than to pique interest in them. Gary had seemed to become a self-anointed traffic warden, pointing the interests of others in directions he alone determined to be worthy, while attempting to steer fellow Forum members away from directions he found untenable.

Fair enough. Those who have done much research and have vast resources at their disposal do their fellows a great service by pointing out the dead ends, blind alleys and cul de sacs that bedevil us all. Fraudulence should be exposed, where it can be demonstrated, for the common good.

Yet, it became apparent to my satisfaction – on the topic of John Armstrong’s research – that Gary Mack was alleging shoddiness and fraud where it couldn’t be demonstrated, and had no basis upon which to make certain of his allegations. When confronted on that forum with taped and filmed interviews conducted by Armstrong with various persons, Gary Mack and his then-partner Dave Perry indulged in much “woulda-coulda-mighta” reasoning to rebut Armstrong’s findings, yet without the slightest evidence. It was nothing more than mere spit-balling various ideas and conjectures to ridicule Armstrong. [Rather like the in-person smearing and sliming by Mack and Perry of people presented by Jim Marrs, about which one can read much. What an odd way for researchers to comport themselves.]

I argued strongly that one needn’t accept Armstrong’s hypothesis of two Oswalds in order to learn much from the work Armstrong had done, dealing as it did with first person interviews and parsing original documents, rather than the final documentary product provided for consumption by the Commission and, hence, by us. It seemed reasonable to me that we could learn much from Armstrong’s efforts, without necessarily embracing his conclusions, and that if Armstrong had indulged in any chicanery in his work, we were clever enough - collectively - to detect it. [Full disclosure: I find Armstrong informative, but unpersuasive on his key thesis.]

I always thought Gary’s responses were disproportionate to the point of being nearly hysterical. At some point about this time, Gary was promoted at the 6th Floor Exhibit [not museum, please!] and ceased to post at that forum or elsewhere. More’s the pity, because his subsequent use of proxies and surrogates hasn’t served anyone well, least of all himself.

Now, to the point at hand. I cannot fathom why there has been so much umbrage over what Mack has said on this occasion.

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald."

Why, yes it does. In fact, I would remove the word “virtually.”

Gary Mack should not be pilloried for stating the obvious, but we should leave open the option to recall him for further questioning once we’ve investigated the hard evidence.

There was a weapon found in the TSBD that was uniformly and consistently identified as a Mauser – by all DPD personnel and the Dallas DA – for a full day. [News accounts of Enfields and other rifles cannot be blamed upon DPD unless we can demonstrate DPD personnel were responsible for those misstatements.]

Upon FBI’s alleged discovery that Oswald had mail-ordered a Mannlicher Carcano rifle of a different caliber, it was now alleged that all DPD personnel and the Dallas DA had misidentified the weapon for a full day. This would be a remarkably stupid error for all involved to commit, given that the MC was clearly stamped, thereby alerting anyone who held it that it was not a Mauser.

At this point, we have several options. One of the following must be true. 1) More than one rifle was found, but the Mauser was made to evaporate; 2) Only a Mauser was found, but a MC rifle was substituted and all subsequent evidence and testimony was tailored to support that fabrication; or, 3) everyone on the DPD payroll who came into contact with the rifle was a blind idiot. From all I’ve read of his comments, Gary Mack seems to prefer the final option and discourages people from giving too much consideration to the two prior options. If I have misstated his position, I’m sure he will dispatch a minion to clarify. [Any and all private correspondence from Mack will be reproduced here, thereby negating any “no posting” rules that presumably apply to him.]

There was a partial palm print found on the rifle that could be traced to Lee Harvey Oswald.

This would certainly constitute hard evidence of Oswald having at least handled the rifle, if not necessarily owned it. However, like all other “hard” evidence in this crime, it is left open to question for a variety of reasons.

When the rifle was sent to FBI on the night of 11/22/63, the Bureau found no prints identifiable as Oswald’s. In fact, in the area where the partial print was allegedly discovered, FBI was unable to locate any evidence that it had been dusted or that tape had been applied to either lift or preserve the print.

Since the rifle was transferred from DPD to FBI possession not long before midnight on 11/22/63, if DPD located a partial palm print on the rifle, it must have transpired at some prior point in time. The man in charge of seeking those prints was Lt. Day, who testified to the WC that he had stopped working on the rifle at about 8 pm because he’d been told to go no further by Chief Curry, and also told the FBI that he had received those orders from Curry at about midnight. Needless to say, both accounts cannot be true, but then very little of what Lt. Day had to say could be easily mistaken for what a reasonable mind would think “true.”

Lt. Day was adamant that he had found partial a latent partial palm print on the underside of the rifle, had dusted the area and was about to photograph and tape it when he was ordered to stop the process. It was only once the rifle was returned to DPD, after Oswald’s death, that the partial palm print was first disclosed. And yet, Day maintained in his WC testimony that a print had been located on the night of the assassination and that he had told both Chief Curry and Captain Fritz the print belonged to Oswald. The Commission provided no clues as to how it is possible to definitively identify a print that was never lifted by comparing it to the exemplar provided by Oswald upon his arrest.

Despite this astonishing development, Curry refrained from advising the press that DPD had all but put the rifle into Oswald’s hands. [Oddly, a half dozen years later Curry penned a book in which he famously claimed: "We never could place Oswald in that window with a gun in his hand." That seems to repudiate Lt. Day’s tale in its entirety.] Whilst making a number of pronouncements to the press – true and untrue – about what DPD had found, there would be no mention of the latent partial palm print until after FBI denied such a possibility, and until after Oswald was dead. In point of fact, NBC’s Dallas affiliate WBAP TV announced: "No fingerprints on it-sent to FBI here in Washington for analysis."

We are confronted with a variety of possibilities.

1) That DPD found no such print on the night of the assassination, which explains why FBI found no such print nor even evidence that such a print had been sought, let alone found, on a portion of the rifle that couldn’t be tested without first disassembling it. Once Oswald was dead, facing mounting pressure to prove that the man who had just died in DPD custody was the assassin, the fingerprint evidence was manufactured. In order to bolster the bona fides of this counterfeit evidence, statements and testimony by those involved were tailored for the purpose, but nevertheless remained contradictory on key points.

2) That despite having taken FBI courses on the protocols of processing fingerprints, Lt.. Day managed to observe those protocols in all areas of processing the weapon except the area that yielded the “now you see it, now you don’t” print.

3) That DPD found a print, identified it as belonging to Oswald, yet refrained from mentioning this key salient fact to the FBI when transferring the weapon to the Bureau, and failed to mention it to the press until after Oswald was dead; yet FBI was so incompetent that it couldn’t find the print, or even any trace it had ever existed, been sought or been lifted by DPD.

I do not know where Gary Mack stands on this piece of hard evidence, but given its preposterously absurd nature, I think it is safe to declare that it is moreso evidence of bungling, at a minimum, or fraud, at a maximum, than it is evidence of Oswald’s guilt, irrespective of the intentions of those involved.

There were shells located in the purported sniper’s nest on the 6th floor.

This would tend to indicate, but does not prove, that shots were fired from there. Unfortunately, we have two different DPD evidence manifests, identical in all respects save one: the first such manifest indicates the discovery of only two shells, whereas a subsequent manifest discloses three shells.

Again, we have multiple options from which to choose. 1) Only two shells were found, but when it was subsequently determined that two shots couldn’t account for all the damage done – hence, a second gunman firing from elsewhere – the paperwork was forged to include a third shell and bolster the case against a single gunman; 2) Three shells were found, but one was retained by Captain Fritz – without advising FBI that he was doing so – in order to locate the Dallas firearms dealers who sold such ammunition; or, 3) DPD personnel were somehow incapable of telling the difference between two and three.

From what I’ve read of his comments, including his own arguments to my posts over the years, Gary Mack is inclined to prefer option number 2. He contends Captain Fritz withheld the third shell in order to locate the Dallas gun dealer who sold the ammunition to Oswald.

I would be friendlier to Gary’s reading of this evidence were there the slightest indication in any of the extent record that: 1) Fritz advised FBI he was withholding a third shell, which is a rather inexplicable omission from so seasoned a homicide detective; 2) Fritz and his men undertook any demonstrable effort to locate such a gun dealer, a contention for which there is no evidence; 3) There was any DPD documentation that the third shell had been dusted for prints while in DPD custody, which seems a most fundamental piece of police detection. Gary discourages people from giving too much consideration to what I find the likelier option, #1. But then, Gary’s idea of what constitutes probative evidence is remarkably elastic when it serves his purpose.

There was a bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital that was tied by ballistics to the Mannlicher Carcano allegedly found at the TSBD.

This piece of evidence seems remarkably probative. Unless one, again, bothers oneself to actually examine the provenance of the bullet and what is offered to explain its appearance there, and the feats ascribed to it, despite it being so inexplicably intact.

To spare all here the book-length arguments that have been and could be written about this piece of evidence, let’s simply focus upon the single key item that impeaches its provenance.

The bullet was handled by Parkland Hospital orderly Darrell Tomlinson and PH security chief O. P. Wright. It is often neglected in recounting the story that Wright was a former police officer and well familiar with firearms, itself a rather telling omission, for in the absence of such information, Wright might be misconstrued as just a citizen unfamiliar with such matters. The extent record includes an FBI allegation that both had been shown the bullet by the Bureau, and had acknowledged that while they couldn’t definitively identify the bullet to the exclusion of all others, it seemed to be the one they had handled on 11/22/63.

Yet the Bureau agent who allegedly showed them this bullet denies having done so, or ever even having said bullet in his possession. And both men, to varying degrees, deny that the bullet in evidence is the one they handled on the day in question, with Wright – the more familiar with such matters - being the more outspoken on the topic. Given so shoddy a pedigree, and further given evidence of FBI perfidy in trying to falsely establish that pedigree, and given that any substitution that might have taken place must have transpired while the bullet was in the possession of federal government agencies, this is not evidence against Oswald so much as it is evidence of tainting the legal record to falsely implicate Oswald. [Whatever quibbles Gary Mack might have with this point should be addressed to his colleague Tink Thompson, who has been dogged in at least this aspect of the case.]

And so it goes. Other equally damnable “hard evidence” includes the mail order forms for the weapons purportedly ordered by Oswald; the information and evidence which should exist, but doesn’t, regarding his use of post office box[es]; the existence and provenance of the backyard photographs; the existence and provenance of various pieces of ID that were self-defeatingly obvious forgeries, et al.

Gary Mack is right to claim all the hard evidence points to Oswald. Where we are wrong by inferring incorrectly, and where Gary Mack is wrong by omitting the key detail, is this: no single piece of “hard evidence” withstands the slightest scrutiny. It cannot do so without militating more for fabrication, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of evidence, in a pattern of concerted effort to falsely accuse Oswald, than it does for Oswald’s guilt.

All of this has been more than self-evident since September of 1964, if not earlier, and hasn’t been resolved by the WC, the HSCA, the ARRB or any other governmental effort. That is why we are still here. It would be helpful if Gary Mack’s pronouncements to the media were to include a caveat that, while all the hard evidence points to Oswald’s sole guilt, there is good reason to question the provenance of each such piece of hard evidence, and the motives of those who have provided it.

[Stephen Roy]

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

I'm not obliged to do diddley. It's not for you to decide. But for the record, I was giving pro-conspiracy presentations in the early 1970s. Do I pass your litmus test?

Your anger is focused in the wrong direction, denouncing members of our community for the temerity of disagreeing with you. 1953: "Anyone who can't see this is either mentally deficient or part of the conspiracy." Who said that?

By the way, I am entitled to the comfort of knowing or saying whatever I bloody well please. Understand?

[Charles Drago]

By the way, I am entitled to the comfort of knowing or saying whatever I bloody well please. Understand?

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Don:

I appreciate your moderate tone and inclination to understand my POV.

The point of this whole effort is to make others understand what happened on 11/22/63. To wrap it in emotion, denouncement, demands to orthodoxy and litmus testing will NOT convince those outside our circle. In a sense, it IS incumbent upon us to police ourselves, and the notion that anyone who disagrees must be an idiot or a conspirator is simply wrong and indefensible.

Here's an example: You implied in your final phrase that Oswald may have been involved in some way. To certain others, not accepting Oswald's complete innocence is heresy. But aren't you entitled that THAT opinion?

This even transcends the JFK and gets into intellectual objectivity. It is a FACT that WE don't all agree on every detail, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be bullied into groupthink or see people's character assassinated. Now is not the time for men and women of conscience to remain silent.