Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Harry J.Dean]

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.

RCD

Yours above, should be read by everyone concerned with the 22 Nov. 1963 assassination.

H.J. Dean

[William Plumlee]

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.

RCD

Yours above, should be read by everyone concerned with the 22 Nov. 1963 assassination.

H.J. Dean

I too second that..., old man. We would do well to focus on those points and go from there.

Two girls at the photo studio..., "Be still honey, hes gonna focus..... bow'fuss?

[Stephen Roy]

I am referencing YOUR words: That one cannot be familiar with the case and have a contrary opinion without being cognitively imparied (stupid) or complicit. This is a premtive putdown of contrary opinion.

If your access to the JFK evidence is reasonable and you do not conclude that he was killed by conspirators, then there remain two -- and only two -- possible explanations for your alternative conclusion.

Either you cannot fathom the truth, or you can, but instead choose to embrace and espouse what you know to be untrue.

All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.

But NOT the "how" of the case.

"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.

No other "opinion" held by someone in a position to know the truth and capable of knowing the truth is to be respected.

What's your opinion on the flat earth question?

My teeth are starting to hurt.

Upon further review...

I've just re-read this topic, mostly my give-and-take with Charles, and it seems to be at the point of diminishing returns. It is impossible for him to convince me that he's right, and I suspect the inverse is true, too. We've each had a few members of the Forum support our sides, with a little commonsense middle-road stuff from a few others. I don't want to keep repeating myself or be drawn into matters peripheral to my original point, so I plan to leave things as they stand. Which is good, since I'm off on a business trip with very limited Forum access.

I do not withdraw my original comments: I think it is wrong to set up a false given, where dissent MUST equal stupidity or complicity, or that respect is limited in some way. Charles is free to feel otherwise, as he has stated. I made my point.

Plus, I don't want to make his teeth hurt any more.

[Charles Drago]

Two girls at the photo studio..., "Be still honey, hes gonna focus..... bow'fuss?

How about the minuet?

How about the men you ... ?

Edited February 22, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.

But NOT the "how" of the case.

"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.

I have to quibble with your choice of words. IMO you have the right answer but the wrong question.

"Who" killed JFK? That's the question you've answered. Criminal conspirators. We just aren't sure who they were and how many make a bunch.

"How" was JFK killed? The correct answer is "with bullets." But we don't know using what guns, how many shooters, from what positions, and with whose help.

"Why" was JFK killed? We aren't sure about that either. All we positively know in detail after 44 years is when and where.

Thanks, Ron. I appreciate your perspective on this.

We clearly have an argument over semantics -- nothing more profound.

If I ask what I currently term the "HOW" question as "WHO killed JFK?" and if your answer, "criminal conspirators," is to stand, then it prematurely enlarges the argument by focusing on individuals rather than method, and begs the logical demand that, in terms of our new strategy, must be put off for just a bit longer: "Okay, then, IDENTIFY the 'who' if you're so smart!"

I haven't answered the "who" question. Yet. A proper answer requires the presentation of proper names. And then we move on inevitably to discussion of what, to my mind, is the three-tiered structure of the conspiracy: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics (from the top down), with sub-strata in each category.

And God knows we're not at the point where we can attain ultimate truth and effect justice by laying THAT BUSINESS on the public.

My point is to narrow the focus in order to present a basic reality to the people of world.

Let us establish for all time the METHOD of JFK's removal.

HOW was JFK killed?

AS THE RESULT OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Because we cannot hope to move from our current position until conspiracy is accepted as historical fact. Such is my goal.

Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant.

Charles

Charles, you know I'm the least informed member here on JFK. Accepting this clear and present proviso, for me the questions remain "who" and "why"? For me they are the only truly important questions that still need to be answered with clarity. If they are ever answered, the "how" becomes secondary.

Yours in willful ignorance,

David

[Charles Drago]

David,

I fear I haven't sufficiently explained the basis for my reasoning.

As a public relations strategy for us, "keep it simple" cannot be improved upon.

I cannot remember a discussion about the JFK case with a civilian that did not immediately prompt his or her "whodunit" question and my careful, nuanced response.

In almost every instance, the civilian was sufficiently disappointed by my reluctance to provide facile answers to cast doubt on my overriding "howdunit" declaration (conspiracy ... in case you couldn't guess).

Accordingly, and given that the fruition of our work -- the attainment of truth and justice -- cannot take place absent the support of an enlightened and enraged citizenry, our primary tactic must be to eliminate ALL doubt regarding the LN/conspiracy "question."

Our success will be measured in direct proportion to our ability to narrow our initial focus to what I continue to term (Ron's thoughtful objection notwithstanding) the "how" question.

Another KEY tactic in the struggle to enlighten and fire up the citizenry regarding the answer (see above) to that question -- along with offering the proof we have at hand -- is to disrespect the LN lie and excoriate its proponents, who, if they enjoy reasonable access to the evidence yet maintain the LN position, are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

So it isn't about the questions that you or I need answered.

The ultimate goal of the killers in terms of the cover-up is to keep the guessing game alive: LN or conspiracy?

To the degree that they can create a level playing field for both solutions to that false mystery -- in other words, CHARACTERIZE FALSELY EITHER SOLUTION AS A MATTER OF BLOODY OPINION -- the killers succeed. The cover-up continues. Truth and justice are denied.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Period. To argue otherwise is to endorse the flat earth theory. No more debate on this relatively narrow "how" issue can be tolerated.

And if anyone persists in describing what I'm demanding as an attack on freedom of expression ... then my response can be only this: seek psychiatric help, and/or charge the killers of JFK a higher rate for your services.

Please share your thoughts, my friend.

Charles

Edited February 22, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Guest David Guyatt]

David,

I fear I haven't sufficiently explained the basis for my reasoning.

As a public relations strategy for us, "keep it simple" cannot be improved upon.

I cannot remember a discussion about the JFK case with a civilian that did not immediately prompt his or her "whodunit" question and my careful, nuanced response.

In almost every instance, the civilian was sufficiently disappointed by my reluctance to provide facile answers to cast doubt on my overriding "howdunit" declaration (conspiracy ... in case you couldn't guess).

Accordingly, and given that the fruition of our work -- the attainment of truth and justice -- cannot take place absent the support of an enlightened and enraged citizenry, our primary tactic must be to eliminate ALL doubt regarding the LN/conspiracy "question."

Our success will be measured in direct proportion to our ability to narrow our initial focus to what I continue to term (Ron's thoughtful objection notwithstanding) the "how" question.

Another KEY tactic in the struggle to enlighten and fire up the citizenry regarding the answer (see above) to that question -- along with offering the proof we have at hand -- is to disrespect the LN lie and excoriate its proponents, who, if they enjoy reasonable access to the evidence yet maintain the LN position, are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

So it isn't about the questions that you or I need answered.

The ultimate goal of the killers in terms of the cover-up is to keep the guessing game alive: LN or conspiracy?

To the degree that they can create a level playing field for both solutions to that false mystery -- in other words, CHARACTERIZE FALSELY EITHER SOLUTION AS A MATTER OF BLOODY OPINION -- the killers succeed. The cover-up continues. Truth and justice are denied.

Conspiracy in the death of JFK is historical truth. Period. To argue otherwise is to endorse the flat earth theory. No more debate on this relatively narrow "how" issue can be tolerated.

And if anyone persists in describing what I'm demanding as an attack on freedom of expression ... then my response can be only this: seek psychiatric help, and/or charge the killers of JFK a higher rate for your services.

Please share your thoughts, my friend.

Charles

Charles, I do accept that the assassination of JFK was undoubtedly (in my opinion) a conspiracy - not the act of a lone nut (ergo: I don't have to search for my NASA flat earth photo - phew!). Accepting this as my beginning position, my interest remains on the who and why questions. But that's just me.

I'll skip off now and play with some venomous snakes...

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff: Ignore them and they will go away. Engage them and they will wear you

down. They have all the time in the world.

Dawn

Dawn, normally I would agree with you, but in the case of the clothing evidence

it's different. LNers always trip themselves up, and it's a gas to watch.

For instance, in order begin to make his case, Craig Lamson

must claim that JFK's shirt tail was out, at least partially.

Think about this a sec.

According to David Powers, JFK changed his shirt on the flight from Fort Worth

to Dallas.

According to Craig's theory, JFK had to leave his shirt tail partially out even though

doing so might ruin the lines of his slim-cut European dress jacket.

The chances of that ever happening were nil.

JFK didn't appear in public with his shirt tail out.

And yet Gary Mack et al assume that he did.

Any theory that rests on such a scenario is a monument to the power of

intellectual dishonesty.

It's "cognitive impairment" -- as Charles so rightly has it.

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

Charles, I do accept that the assassination of JFK was undoubtedly (in my opinion) a conspiracy - not the act of a lone nut (ergo: I don't have to search for my NASA flat earth photo - phew!). Accepting this as my beginning position, my interest remains on the who and why questions. But that's just me.

And valid questions they are -- for all thinking and honorable folk.

I'll skip off now and play with some venomous snakes...

I thought you said you were done with "Colby"?

[Guest David Guyatt]

I'll skip off now and play with some venomous snakes...

I thought you said you were done with "Colby"?

Fetish is a character defect...

Sometimes I dress up in rubber and live on the wild side.

Then I wake up - in suburbia dressed in a three piece wool suit, a rolled umbrella, bowler, wide colourful fashion braces, tucked hankerchief - and I think, hell, who needs rubber!

Ahem...

[Charles Drago]

That's what the seamstress saw. A hem.

Then there was the nearsighted seamstress who couldn't mend straight.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Lest one forget exactly how this started!

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

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

Thus Gary Mack gives away his game.

Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC.

Once more for emphasis:

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

Contrast this with the truth:

No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme.

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

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

Then there came:

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

Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant.

Charles

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

Personally, about all that I observe that is "irrelevant" is Charles again attempting to impress with his newfound words "Cognitively Impaired", which Fetzer & Company wore out long ago.

Charles, are you still going around repeating that everything is a "Win/Win" situation as well?

Or, have you moved on up to the "Win/Win/Win" level of exclamatory remarks?

Personally, I had great hopes that before I die of old age, that I would actually see the day come when you would post something here of some evidentiary value.

Guess that I may as well go ahead and kick the bucket as it certainly is beginning to look as if the other event is most unlikely to ever occur.

[Charles Drago]

Personally, I had great hopes that before I die of old age, that I would actually see the day come when you would post something here of some evidentiary value.

You go first. Age before beauty.

We're still waiting ...

Guess that I may as well go ahead and kick the bucket as it certainly is beginning to look as if the other event is most unlikely to ever occur.

Promises, promises ...

I might add, on an equally serious note, that the key word in Tom Not-So-Terrific's bleating is "value."

Simply typing sections of the Warren Commission Report ad nauseam may indeed be described as "posting evidence." But then definitions are begged.

Then of course we are left with Lone Nut in the Green Beret's "conclusion" regarding wound locations and shot sequence.

Again, I'm reminded of the "scientist" who trained a flea to obey commands. He'd say, "Fly, flea," and the flea flew. Then one day he removed the flea's wings before he said, "Fly, flea." But the flea wouldn't fly.

The "scientist" quickly made an entry in his lab book: "I conclude that when one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf."

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Mr. Purvis.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Personally, I had great hopes that before I die of old age, that I would actually see the day come when you would post something here of some evidentiary value.

You go first. Age before beauty.

We're still waiting ...

Guess that I may as well go ahead and kick the bucket as it certainly is beginning to look as if the other event is most unlikely to ever occur.

Promises, promises ...

I might add, on an equally serious note, that the key word in Tom Not-So-Terrific's bleating is "value."

Simply typing sections of the Warren Commission Report ad nauseam may indeed be described as "posting evidence." But then definitions are begged.

Then of course we are left with Lone Nut in the Green Beret's "conclusion" regarding wound locations and shot sequence.

Again, I'm reminded of the "scientist" who trained a flea to obey commands. He'd say, "Fly, flea," and the flea flew. Then one day he removed the flea's wings before he said, "Fly, flea." But the flea wouldn't fly.

The "scientist" quickly made an entry in his lab book: "I conclude that when one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf."

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Mr. Purvis.

You are the laughing stock of this Forum, Mr. Purvis.

In event that one loses the ability to laugh at themselves, then they most assuredly will not maintain the ability to laugh at those who claim great abilities, yet can not even take the time and effort to read and comprehend much of the factual evidence found within the WC Documents.

Not to mention the quite obvious inability to recognize that in order to conduct proper research, one must read; comprehend; and thereafter seek the remaining "Primary Source" knowledge which remains available on the subject matter.

Of course some, merely like to sit around and dream up things. Or else, not unlike our resident "Pascagoula UFO" kidnap victims, are "Cognitively imparied" due to consumption of some first run "shine".

Now, had they bothered to drink some that had been run through an automobile radiator, (for cooling condensation purpose), then they would not have seen anything, as the lead solder usually makes one blind also.

I have made an excuse for them, exactly what was your excuse for not having conducted factual research?

"Inquiring Minds Want to Know"

However disfuntional they may or may not be!

P.S. Please try "See Spot Walk" in the event that SEE SPOT RUN is too advanced.

[Mark Stapleton]

All other aspects of the case remain open to honest differences of opinion.

But NOT the "how" of the case.

"How" was JFK killed? By criminal conspirators.

I have to quibble with your choice of words. IMO you have the right answer but the wrong question.

"Who" killed JFK? That's the question you've answered. Criminal conspirators. We just aren't sure who they were and how many make a bunch.

"How" was JFK killed? The correct answer is "with bullets." But we don't know using what guns, how many shooters, from what positions, and with whose help.

"Why" was JFK killed? We aren't sure about that either. All we positively know in detail after 44 years is when and where.

Thanks, Ron. I appreciate your perspective on this.

We clearly have an argument over semantics -- nothing more profound.

If I ask what I currently term the "HOW" question as "WHO killed JFK?" and if your answer, "criminal conspirators," is to stand, then it prematurely enlarges the argument by focusing on individuals rather than method, and begs the logical demand that, in terms of our new strategy, must be put off for just a bit longer: "Okay, then, IDENTIFY the 'who' if you're so smart!"

I haven't answered the "who" question. Yet. A proper answer requires the presentation of proper names. And then we move on inevitably to discussion of what, to my mind, is the three-tiered structure of the conspiracy: sponsors, facilitators, and mechanics (from the top down), with sub-strata in each category.

And God knows we're not at the point where we can attain ultimate truth and effect justice by laying THAT BUSINESS on the public.

My point is to narrow the focus in order to present a basic reality to the people of world.

Let us establish for all time the METHOD of JFK's removal.

HOW was JFK killed?

AS THE RESULT OF A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Because we cannot hope to move from our current position until conspiracy is accepted as historical fact. Such is my goal.

Toward that narrow but ultimately significant (at this point in time) end, the "who" question remains irrelevant.

Charles

An excellent point, Charles.

The LNers, and even the 'I don't knows' must be kicked off the field. It's a conspiracy. To suggest otherwise is insulting. It's just a matter of drumming this into the public until they demand answers. Not easy when the media is structurally interposed and filters the message accordingly.

As for the who, why and how, the problem with focussing on the how is that it's the trickiest piece of the puzzle, imo. I sometimes think there is something fundamentally wrong about our understanding of what actually happened in DP but I don't know what it is. I guess this is why altering the evidence was so important for the conspirators.

I speculate the who and why have probably been correctly identified many times over in the millions of words written about this issue over the last 44 years. Without knowing how it was done, the who and why could be debated forever.