Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[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 believe that Stephen is just arguing that this is an improper way to react.

(Quotes are Stephen's)

"This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly."

"Opinion IS of import, even on central matters. None of us holds the truth in his vest pocket, and to deny this is to hold one's self above others.

Your comment that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be either cognitively impaired or complicit is tantamount to calling them stupid or evil. There are NO other possibilities? Like somebody having a different opinion? That is a classic case of peremptorily defining the playing field so as to exclude. It is anti-intellectual and wrong."

I am sorry Don, that in your life, you have had great problems because of your convictions...truly. But sacrifice is part and parcel of conviction. That is not the problem here--it goes much deeper-- to give a differing opinion opens one up to being called names and/ or derogatory remarks.

It should not be this way.

I think we are better than this, all of us.

I agree with you Stephen, and your excellent way of putting those thoughts into words.

Don, twice you have started a post with persons names grouped together, speaking to all of them. I would consider it an honor, should you decide to address another post to Stephen, et al, if my name were added to that list.

Kathy Beckett

Thank you, Kathy. I KNOW for a fact that many of us have differing opinions that would not fit into the slim continuum offered by Charles, but too many of us are reading these words without speaking up. Charles is wrong to believe that everybody out here agrees with him. I just thought it was tme to speak up in the defense of freedom of expression.

[Charles Drago]

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.

As one of the torch-bearers, I'll take my share of the heat. So to speak.

[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.]

To borrow a lyric: I'm laughing with tears in my eyes, too.

...

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.

So: There is NO hard evidence -- sustainable-in-the-face-of-challenge evidence -- pointing to Oswald.

Unless "hard evidence" is defined as "evidence promoted by the state."

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.

I truly pray, Robert, that you and I live long enough to witness so long-anticipated an epiphany.

Does Canada have an equivalent of the AARP?

Thanks for making sense -- again.

Best,

Charles

[Stephen Roy]

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

And I respect you opinion. Maybe fence-sitter do suck, or whatever you were implying. But they have a right to believe as they wish, without demands to orthodoxy. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know this.

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Sure. They're not only idiots and conspiarators, but yahoos as well. As strong as your feeling of righteousness may be, I feel even more righteous in fighting for freedom of expression.

Denuciation is wrong. Period.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Kathy. I KNOW for a fact that many of us have differing opinions that would not fit into the slim continuum offered by Charles, but too many of us are reading these words without speaking up. Charles is wrong to believe that everybody out here agrees with him. I just thought it was tme to speak up in the defense of freedom of expression.

Sonny,

I have had it up to HERE with your misrepresentations of my position -- not to mention with your martyr complex.

Pay attention: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspiracy is fact is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Therein may be found the beginning and ending of my sense of certitude in this case.

I could not care less if you agree with me on this issue.

I have no interest whatsoever in your cognitive abilities or your criminal status in terms of this case.

I could not care less if you do not understand that we are at war with the killerS of JFK.

I would defend to the death (not necessarily my own, but that's another story) your right to your personal opinions.

You have no right to your personal facts.

So de-nail yourself, jump down from the cross, and either join the fight or skulk away.

Point out who you are charging with an attack on freedom of expression.

But if you level such a charge at me, you'd best be prepared either to prove it, or to be drawn and quartered. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Charles

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Good, then. I've made my point. Nobody here is the arbiter of universal truth. People are free to express what they feel, right or wrong. Let's solve this case and stop attacking each other.

[Stephen Roy]

Thank you, Kathy. I KNOW for a fact that many of us have differing opinions that would not fit into the slim continuum offered by Charles, but too many of us are reading these words without speaking up. Charles is wrong to believe that everybody out here agrees with him. I just thought it was tme to speak up in the defense of freedom of expression.

Sonny,

I have had it up to HERE with your misrepresentations of my position -- not to mention with your martyr complex.

Pay attention: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude that conspiracy is fact is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Therein may be found the beginning and ending of my sense of certitude in this case.

I could not care less if you agree with me on this issue.

I have no interest whatsoever in your cognitive abilities or your criminal status in terms of this case.

I could not care less if you do not understand that we are at war with the killerS of JFK.

I would defend to the death (not necessarily my own, but that's another story) your right to your personal opinions.

You have no right to your personal facts.

So de-nail yourself, jump down from the cross, and either join the fight or skulk away.

Point out who you are charging with an attack on freedom of expression.

But if you level such a charge at me, you'd best be prepared either to prove it, or to be drawn and quartered. Rhetorically speaking, of course.

Charles

Now we start getting into putdowns like "Sonny." I leave it to the reader to decide who crossed the line.

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Craig didn't go snarling out of the thread,

Oh?

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

you had the brains to check before you posted your nonsense about my being a LN y

ou would have found I have no dog in this hunt, LN or CT because I simply don't care.

"I'll rip you a new one...if you had the brains to check..."

I know the rhetoric is weak, but a snarl none the less.

and I suspect that your use of these words is a ruse to try to get him to come back in to the debate. Like Craig, and with respect, I believe you are wrong, and interpreting the photographic evidence wrongly.

Duncan

Well, Duncan, if and when you develop a photographic analysis, we'll discuss it.

In order for you to do that, however, you should share with us your methodology

for making the determination that this photo, say, shows 2-3" of JFK's jacket/shirt

bunched up entirely above the base of his neck.

After you...

[Charles Drago]

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.

[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.

Duncan

Too true.

Duncan,

What's this all about?

Miles,

The white bit there is his shirt collar.

The blackish band appears to be the darker under-side of the jacket collar.

The jacket bulge on Main St. pushed the collar into the hairline and it appears

that the collar flipped up a bit.

The other arrow seems to point to a random blur.

[Cliff Varnell]

while all the hard evidence points to Oswald’s sole guilt,

Robert, it pains me to disagree with you so wholeheartedly, but I do.

The clothing holes and the motorcade photos are hard evidence of

2+ shooters.

We will see opinions to the contrary posted all day -- but what we'll never

see is an actual fact based argument that JFK's clothing was elevated more than

an inch in Dealey Plaza.

At 4 inches below the collar, the holes in the clothes constitute prima facie

evidence of 2+ shooters.

The burden of proof lies not with the critics of the SBT -- the burden of proof

of 2-3" "bunch" on Elm St. lies with those who make the claim.

Craig Lamson's spectacular failure in this regard should demonstrate something...

Edited February 22, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Craig started a thread for both of you.

If my posts on this thread are moved I'm not going to appreciate

it very much, to say the least.

I find it interesting that Charles Drago, who started this thread, hasn't

asked me to take it elsewhere.

btw, for all of those crying about my posting the HARD EVIDENCE directly

debunking Mack's comments, I did start a seperate thread which

drew no comments.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12289

[Ron Ecker]

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.

[William Plumlee]

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.

Very good points Ron.... I call that "focusing on the objective". something we seem to loose sight of in this FORUM

[Charles Drago]

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

Edited February 21, 2008 by Charles Drago