Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Kathleen Collins]

"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.

Charles:

Gary has his had in the monkey trap and can't let go of the peanuts even if he wanted to. He does not know if he should sling sand or dig dirt. I think he is a good man and does mean well... BUT he cannot pull back at this late date even if new evidence comes forward or it is proved beyond doubt that Oswald never shot anyone.... to much to loose including his established reputation, not to mention his and Dallas's investment in that thing he has up there. I see the thing up there as a clean up and a clearing house where he knows it or not. I remember when he used to be very objective. But objectivity does not pay the rent or please Dallas's special interest... I feel sorry for him and others who have walked or put their hands into that trap.

Maybe Gary fears the Murchisons, so influential in Dallas.

Kathy

[Kathleen Collins]

Well that is MOST disappointing about Keith. He can tell the truth about W on tv but lie about the assassination. Out of fairness however I am willing to bet that he is not permitted to go there. The media is totally controlled on this issue. Whatever personal beliefs a commentator may hold must remain private if he wants to continue on the air.

Dawn

Have you watched Hannity and Colmes? Hannity hand-picked Alan as his liberal partner. You can see how puny he is. When 9/11 comes up, Alan starts off by saying, we all know our govt has nothing to do with 9/11. The only one I believe on that station is Greta Von Susteren. Geraldo has come out several times with "Oswald killed Kennedy." I guess everyone has a price.

Kathy

[William Plumlee]

Well that is MOST disappointing about Keith. He can tell the truth about W on tv but lie about the assassination. Out of fairness however I am willing to bet that he is not permitted to go there. The media is totally controlled on this issue. Whatever personal beliefs a commentator may hold must remain private if he wants to continue on the air.

Dawn

Have you watched Hannity and Colmes? Hannity hand-picked Alan as his liberal partner. You can see how puny he is. When 9/11 comes up, Alan starts off by saying, we all know our govt has nothing to do with 9/11. The only one I believe on that station is Greta Von Susteren. Geraldo has come out several times with "Oswald killed Kennedy." I guess everyone has a price.

Kathy

I know how to stop the gossip and dirt, name calling found on this thread.... I'll just post on this thread AND THAT WILL ABOUT DO IT.

[Kathleen Collins]

Just received from Mr. Mack:

I'm not playing games, Charles, nor should you. Two major investigations concluded Oswald shot JFK. I am familiar with the evidence they used to reach that conclusion and so are you.

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can.

Gary

I can give you hard evidence. What about badgeman? You know, the man with the badge, dressed like a cop, firing a gun in the Moorman photo?

Kathy

[Cliff Varnell]

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can.

Gary

JFK changed his shirt a few minutes before landing in Dallas

and tucked his shirt in so he'd look sharp, like he always did.

The location of the holes in the clothes are 2-3" below the SBT

location and tailored shirts only have 3/4" of slack.

If anyone wants to call this into question the burden of proof

is one them to reconcile this 2-3" shirt and jacket movement

with the motorcade photos.

Otherwise, the clothing evidence stands as prima facie evidence

of conspiracy.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

Well that is MOST disappointing about Keith. He can tell the truth about W on tv but lie about the assassination. Out of fairness however I am willing to bet that he is not permitted to go there. The media is totally controlled on this issue. Whatever personal beliefs a commentator may hold must remain private if he wants to continue on the air.

Dawn

Have you watched Hannity and Colmes? Hannity hand-picked Alan as his liberal partner. You can see how puny he is. When 9/11 comes up, Alan starts off by saying, we all know our govt has nothing to do with 9/11. The only one I believe on that station is Greta Von Susteren. Geraldo has come out several times with "Oswald killed Kennedy." I guess everyone has a price.

Kathy

I know how to stop the gossip and dirt, name calling found on this thread.... I'll just post on this thread AND THAT WILL ABOUT DO IT.

*****************

Now William......

That was a good one.... ..and as we all know, none of this will change anyones mind..so.....??

What it comes down to.......is.....

Edited February 24, 2008 by Bernice Moore

[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.

I third the motion. The LNs and Don't Knowers would have us go back endlessly to 'square one' so we never make progress and have nothing to report. Bull. We have a conspiracy and overthrow and cover-up we can PROVE. The details are important for the experts, but not ready for prime-time, on some. On others there is more than enough work done...but it is complex and too 

much so for short attention spans and people who expect simple answers. It is NOT a 'who done it' for intellectual exercise...it is the fate of our Nation - past, present and future at stake here and ACTION on what we can now prove and prove to those not willing to engage all the detail

.

The Borg who maintains the LIE(s) keep pumping in false info; false leads; false documents and other falsehoods - and started before the event. Time to grab the ball and run for the goal line...folks...one more 9/11-like event and this will all be academic from your detention camp or house arrest.

Exactly, Peter.

I don't think the US public is aware of the importance of discovering who was responsible for killing JFK and how it has a real impact on contemporary US politics. It's too big to be swept aside. It's much more than a Government covering up some bureaucratic fiasco, or corruption of a Government official, as they often do. It's a massive black hole on the political and historical landscape, which succesive Presidents, and everyone else in the power loop, simply dances around, pretending it's not there. They obviously believe that if they ignore it long enough, and show solidarity, it will eventually fade into insignificance. As far as I'm concerned, no subsequent US Administration is or will be legitimate until the matter is finalised. In all the high sounding words of the US Constitution, there's nothing about the Government keeping secrets of this magnitude from the people---the murder of a popular President who the people had elected. The Government's mendacity concerning Dealey Plaza broke the pact.

If our Government here in Australia pulled a stunt like that, there would be blood on the streets. Americans must be such a law abiding people. Quite amazing.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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.

I third the motion. The LNs and Don't Knowers would have us go back endlessly to 'square one' so we never make progress and have nothing to report. Bull. We have a conspiracy and overthrow and cover-up we can PROVE. The details are important for the experts, but not ready for prime-time, on some. On others there is more than enough work done...but it is complex and too 

much so for short attention spans and people who expect simple answers. It is NOT a 'who done it' for intellectual exercise...it is the fate of our Nation - past, present and future at stake here and ACTION on what we can now prove and prove to those not willing to engage all the detail

.

The Borg who maintains the LIE(s) keep pumping in false info; false leads; false documents and other falsehoods - and started before the event. Time to grab the ball and run for the goal line...folks...one more 9/11-like event and this will all be academic from your detention camp or house arrest.

Exactly, Peter.

I don't think the US public is aware of the importance of discovering who was responsible for killing JFK and how it has a real impact on contemporary US politics. It's too big to be swept aside. It's much more than a Government covering up some bureaucratic fiasco, or corruption of a Government official, as they often do. It's a massive black hole on the political and historical landscape, which succesive Presidents, and everyone else in the power loop, simply dances around, pretending it's not there. They obviously believe that if they ignore it long enough, and show solidarity, it will eventually fade into insignificance. As far as I'm concerned, no subsequent US Administration is or will be legitimate until the matter is finalised. In all the high sounding words of the US Constitution, there's nothing about the Government keeping secrets of this magnitude from the people---the murder of a popular President who the people had elected. The Government's mendacity concerning Dealey Plaza broke the pact.

If our Government here in Australia pulled a stunt like that, there would be blood on the streets. Americans must be such a law abiding people. Quite amazing.

Americans must be such a law abiding people

Nah!

Just try to interrupt those important items such as Pro-Football/Golf/NASCAR/etc; and all hell will break loose and it will be every man, woman, & child for themselves.

Obviously, those of you from "down under" have little appreciation for what is actually of importance up here in the Northern Hemisphere.

P.S. Could I get some "true" Fosters Lager sent to my home address. My old aussie friends used to keep me frequently "cognitively impaired" with it, and it always helps when one begins to think about such intense subjects as the JFK assassination.

Foster's Lager & Kangaroo tail soup, will certainly give one a completely different perspectibve on life and what is of actual importance.

[Ron Ecker]

The circumstantial evidence for conspiracy is overwhelming. It is so overwhelming that it is misleading to restrict the discussion to "hard evidence," by which I assume is meant physical evidence you can hold in your hand. But if that is the litmus test, then I agree with Cliff that the clothing, when coupled with the known location of the back wound (per the statements of numerous witnesses corroborated by a photograph of the back that you can hold in your hand) constitutes hard evidence. The known, photographed location of the back wound would be hard evidence even if JFK had been riding butt naked.

Conversely, all the so-called hard evidence against Oswald is evidence that was manipulated or manufactured and rife with chain of custody problems, e.g. the almost pristine 399 with its impossible trajectory, and a handsome Mauser that turned into an ugly Carcano at midnight.

IMO the large exit wound in the back of JFK's head is as compelling as evidence of conspiracy as the location of the back wound. But there is no photograph of this wound (indeed there is a photograph doctored to conceal it) to corroborate the many statements of credible witnesses. But I know that Gary considers this wound in the back of the head to be significant evidence of conspiracy (whether it can be called "hard evidence" or not), because he has told me so.

[Kathleen Collins]

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions.

What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts.

Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar

dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St.

One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid

objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple

inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the

base of JFK's neck at the same time.

Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact.

Duncan

Duncan, doesn't this picture of Kennedy from the side look like it's been photoshopped? It looks to me like someone blotted out the back of his neck, collar and jacket.

Kathy Collins

P.S. I just discovered that other members caught the black obscurity on the back of President Kennedy's neck. Sorry I repeated it. It's a long thread. But it proves how obvious this embellishment is.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Kathleen Collins

[Kathleen Collins]

Drago to Mack:

Right after you provide me with hard evidence that Oswald was firing,[/b]

Mr. Mack was not quite clever enough when he constructed his question on the false premise that "hard" evidence exists to establish that LHO fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

The burden is yours, sir. You are making the accusation, Mr. Mack. Where is your proof?

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." --Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, quoted by United Press International, November 5, 1969

There is no reliable eyewitness testimony placing LHO in the "assassin's nest" during the shooting.

There is no sustainable explanation for how LHO could have done the shooting, paused to admire his work (as eyewitnesses described a "figure" in the "assassin's window" doing after the final shots), wiped down and hidden his weapon beneath boxes, descended from the sixth to the second floor of the TSBD without being seen by individuals on the only available staircase during the time frame, and arrived in the lunchroom to enjoy a soft drink no later than 90 seconds after the shooting ceased.

CE 399 -- the so-called "magic" or "pristine" bullet -- may be ballistically linked to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased and owned by LHO. However, there is no sustainable evidence whatsoever to support the contentions that LHO ever transported that weapon to the TSBD, that the bullet now in evidence was the projectile found in Parkland Hospital, and that it struck either JFK or JBC.

No sustainable evidence whatsoever.

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) tests linking bullet fragments recovered from assassination victims to LHO's alleged ammunition have been fully discredited, have ZERO scientific reliability, and thus have no bearing on this case in terms of establishing LHO's guilt or innocence.

There is no sustainable forensic evidence to indicate that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63. Positive parrafin tests of his hands are just as likely to have resulted from his handling of printed materials during the performance of his TSBD job as from firing a pistol.

Parrafin tests of his cheeks -- where evidence of having fired a rifle would be expected to be noted -- were negative.

The presence of LHO's palm print on a portion of the rifle barrel that is not visible when the weapon is fully assembled is suspect. The print was not noted during initial intense examination by the FBI in the Bureau's state-of-the-art lab; rather, it was miraculously discovered after LHO was killed, and after a suspicious visit to the funeral home by government agents who may have applied the print post mortem.

LHO's post-assassination behavior hardly can be described as "flight." He went home, and in a relatively unhurried manner.

No one ever has suggested a plausible motive for LHO to kill JFK.

So, then ...

No means.

No motive.

No opportunity.

No physical evidence.

No photographic evidence.

No eyewitness evidence.

The only argument in support of LHO firing at JFK is an argument from false authority -- the state.

Charles Drago

Oswald's brother, Robert, has said on television that the reason Lee (Harvey) shot Kennedy was to make a name for himself, to go down in history as having shot a young president, the most prominent and celebrated man in the world.

Now, if this is true, why did Oswald tell the press he didn't shoot anyone and that he was a patsy? You would expeect him to be smiling and acting like a psychopath.

Kathy

[William Plumlee]

Drago to Mack:

Right after you provide me with hard evidence that Oswald was firing,[/b]

Mr. Mack was not quite clever enough when he constructed his question on the false premise that "hard" evidence exists to establish that LHO fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

The burden is yours, sir. You are making the accusation, Mr. Mack. Where is your proof?

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." --Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, quoted by United Press International, November 5, 1969

There is no reliable eyewitness testimony placing LHO in the "assassin's nest" during the shooting.

There is no sustainable explanation for how LHO could have done the shooting, paused to admire his work (as eyewitnesses described a "figure" in the "assassin's window" doing after the final shots), wiped down and hidden his weapon beneath boxes, descended from the sixth to the second floor of the TSBD without being seen by individuals on the only available staircase during the time frame, and arrived in the lunchroom to enjoy a soft drink no later than 90 seconds after the shooting ceased.

CE 399 -- the so-called "magic" or "pristine" bullet -- may be ballistically linked to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased and owned by LHO. However, there is no sustainable evidence whatsoever to support the contentions that LHO ever transported that weapon to the TSBD, that the bullet now in evidence was the projectile found in Parkland Hospital, and that it struck either JFK or JBC.

No sustainable evidence whatsoever.

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) tests linking bullet fragments recovered from assassination victims to LHO's alleged ammunition have been fully discredited, have ZERO scientific reliability, and thus have no bearing on this case in terms of establishing LHO's guilt or innocence.

There is no sustainable forensic evidence to indicate that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63. Positive parrafin tests of his hands are just as likely to have resulted from his handling of printed materials during the performance of his TSBD job as from firing a pistol.

Parrafin tests of his cheeks -- where evidence of having fired a rifle would be expected to be noted -- were negative.

The presence of LHO's palm print on a portion of the rifle barrel that is not visible when the weapon is fully assembled is suspect. The print was not noted during initial intense examination by the FBI in the Bureau's state-of-the-art lab; rather, it was miraculously discovered after LHO was killed, and after a suspicious visit to the funeral home by government agents who may have applied the print post mortem.

LHO's post-assassination behavior hardly can be described as "flight." He went home, and in a relatively unhurried manner.

No one ever has suggested a plausible motive for LHO to kill JFK.

So, then ...

No means.

No motive.

No opportunity.

No physical evidence.

No photographic evidence.

No eyewitness evidence.

The only argument in support of LHO firing at JFK is an argument from false authority -- the state.

Charles Drago

Oswald's brother, Robert, has said on television that the reason Lee (Harvey) shot Kennedy was to make a name for himself, to go down in history as having shot a young president, the most prominent and celebrated man in the world.

Now, if this is true, why did Oswald tell the press he didn't shoot anyone and that he was a patsy? You would expeect him to be smiling and acting like a psychopath.

Kathy

Kathy:

Keep in mind that Oswald was not on very good terms with his family. He was a "lost sheep" from their viewpoint. And too, to me it is obvious that Robert was "speculating" at the time he made that statement and after seeing the wealth of information the FBI shared to the family. Iit was no wonder they too thought Oswald did the deed. In their eyes Oswald was "strange" and did strange things which they could not explain. Remember too, it was a different time and place for America. The Cold War was raging and Communism was the real threat, AND, in those days, our government cou;ld do no wrong. It was a different time and place..., before Watergate, Nixon, Iran/Contra and the likes.

Edited February 24, 2008 by William Plumlee

[Dawn Meredith]

from Mr. Mack:

I'm not playing games, Charles, nor should you. Two major investigations concluded Oswald shot JFK. I am familiar with the evidence they used to reach that conclusion and so are you.

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can.

Gary

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

Gary Mack you have an account on this Forum, so you can post your own words! Those two investigations were shameless controlled shams. How can you call them major, except in the drumroll the very same forces behind the coverup and ultimately the killing ran for it to soothe the Public....and you seem to be playing to the same pipers. THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE OF OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN - LET ALONE LONER - ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE. Evidence aplenty on more than one gunman [neither Oswald]...wake up...who you trying to kid. Everything has been called into question by someone....but the consensus of responsible and knowledgable students of and researchers in the assassination know there were shots that killed and blew his head open from the front right. Someone shot from behind, as well. Other shots are possible. The accoustic evidence only adds to that, but is not

needed. The autopsy was fudged, the photos hidden and perhaps altered, the holes filled by wax in some a

ter the body was stolen - and it is now clear there were multiple holes showing likely frangable bullets from the front. Too many bullets and from too many directions to let 'on' about to the public. Your 'hard' evidence should real 'official' evidence and is about as 'hard' as the 'hard' evidence in RFK, MKL, 911, and other 'official' history fantasies.

So, you are going to let them get away with their trick - phoney patsy; planted evidence against the patsy; phony sham investigations; assassinations of important witnesses; intimidation of witnesses; cherrypicking of witnesses heard; documents needed not seen or turned over by FBI, CIA etc.; creation out of whole cloth of the magic bullet; proof of all kinds of dishonesty, shenanigans and pressure on the WC and again in HSCA [not to mention who was on and RAN / CONTROLLED them!!!].....shame on your statement implying they are worthy of anything but scorn. Yes, they advanced the case slightly [by accident, and against their very purpose]; their purpose was to put it/us to sleep. Only the private researchers who won't swallow the obvious BS and purposefull confusion & obfuscation that were the 'investigations' have really moved it along - yourself once being one....now seemingly renouncing your own work and all that others have done as well....minimizing it to insignificance under the gigantic shadow of the BIG LIE. Sickening. Democracy is bottom-up; Totalitarianism is top-down. Choose one. What are you fighting for - if anything?! Shocktroop for the WC?...that'll be top-down, and in the USA will be Corporate Fascism, well on it's way.....

There has never been a real investigation and the murder trail and Dallas investigation that should have happened was stopped - on purpose - so the controlled non-investigations could be done by the controlled political FBI, CIA, WC, HSCA et al.

Shame on those who buy the WC BS...or sell it at this well past sell-by date!

Excellent post Peter. Reminds me of that John Lennon song "How do you sleep at night?"

Dawn

[Bernice Moore]

from Mr. Mack:

I'm not playing games, Charles, nor should you. Two major investigations concluded Oswald shot JFK. I am familiar with the evidence they used to reach that conclusion and so are you.

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can.

Gary

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

Gary Mack you have an account on this Forum, so you can post your own words! Those two investigations were shameless controlled shams. How can you call them major, except in the drumroll the very same forces behind the coverup and ultimately the killing ran for it to soothe the Public....and you seem to be playing to the same pipers. THERE IS NO REAL EVIDENCE OF OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN - LET ALONE LONER - ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE OPPOSITE. Evidence aplenty on more than one gunman [neither Oswald]...wake up...who you trying to kid. Everything has been called into question by someone....but the consensus of responsible and knowledgable students of and researchers in the assassination know there were shots that killed and blew his head open from the front right. Someone shot from behind, as well. Other shots are possible. The accoustic evidence only adds to that, but is not

needed. The autopsy was fudged, the photos hidden and perhaps altered, the holes filled by wax in some a

ter the body was stolen - and it is now clear there were multiple holes showing likely frangable bullets from the front. Too many bullets and from too many directions to let 'on' about to the public. Your 'hard' evidence should real 'official' evidence and is about as 'hard' as the 'hard' evidence in RFK, MKL, 911, and other 'official' history fantasies.

So, you are going to let them get away with their trick - phoney patsy; planted evidence against the patsy; phony sham investigations; assassinations of important witnesses; intimidation of witnesses; cherrypicking of witnesses heard; documents needed not seen or turned over by FBI, CIA etc.; creation out of whole cloth of the magic bullet; proof of all kinds of dishonesty, shenanigans and pressure on the WC and again in HSCA [not to mention who was on and RAN / CONTROLLED them!!!].....shame on your statement implying they are worthy of anything but scorn. Yes, they advanced the case slightly [by accident, and against their very purpose]; their purpose was to put it/us to sleep. Only the private researchers who won't swallow the obvious BS and purposefull confusion & obfuscation that were the 'investigations' have really moved it along - yourself once being one....now seemingly renouncing your own work and all that others have done as well....minimizing it to insignificance under the gigantic shadow of the BIG LIE. Sickening. Democracy is bottom-up; Totalitarianism is top-down. Choose one. What are you fighting for - if anything?! Shocktroop for the WC?...that'll be top-down, and in the USA will be Corporate Fascism, well on it's way.....

There has never been a real investigation and the murder trail and Dallas investigation that should have happened was stopped - on purpose - so the controlled non-investigations could be done by the controlled political FBI, CIA, WC, HSCA et al.

Shame on those who buy the WC BS...or sell it at this well past sell-by date!

Peter:

Gary doesn't mind if there were, or from where other shots might have come from, as long as he has Lee in the "sniper's nest" .

Providing the Sixth Floor Museum with its reason for being and justification for his job..

B.........

[David G. Healy]

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions.

What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts.

Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar

dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St.

One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid

objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple

inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the

base of JFK's neck at the same time.

Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact.

Duncan

Duncan, doesn't this picture of Kennedy from the side look like it's been photoshopped? It looks to me like someone blotted out the back of his neck, collar and jacket.

Kathy Collins

P.S. I just discovered that other members caught the black obscurity on the back of President Kennedy's neck. Sorry I repeated it. It's a long thread. But it proves how obvious this embellishment is.

there is obviously a lot of jpeg artifacts in this image. The back of JFK collar appears to have *other* things going on than simple jpeg artifact.

Perhaps Bill Miller JFK researcher, can lay a few Photoshop excuses on us.... eh, Bill?

Edited February 25, 2008 by David G. Healy