Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Craig Lamson]

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains even AFTER the back shot. You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff. Its visable in EVERY image you have posted (and Duncans as well).

Edited February 19, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Stephen Roy]

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. He's been researching this for a long time; his organization is engaged in acquiring and preserving evidence in this case, and presenting it to the public; and his job allows him to focus fulltime attention to some of these matters. Let him state his opinions, and we are free to agree or disagree.

What he focused on, in the given quote, is what MOST mainstream media think about the assassination: the empirical evidence, if it is genuine, leads to Oswald. We can argue if it is genuine or not, or if others were involved, or if Oswald was a witting or unwitting part of this. This is the way the establishment media and intelligentsia see it, and this is the obstacle to overcome. Mack was acknowledging this, but he left the window open a crack.

This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly. It makes us all look paranoid. The energy should be better spent building our case and presenting it in the best possible way.

Sorry, Stephen.

"Opinion" in terms of how JFK was killed is of no import. The fact is that his death was the result of a criminal conspiracy.

There are no honest, informed, rational arguments for the LN position or for Oswald having fired at JFK.

"Our" case has been built, tested, and proven. Conspiracy is historical fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

I see no other explanations.

But hey, that's just me, man.

Sorry, Charles.

I just disagree with you on a couple of points. 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 respect that you feel that way - that's just me. You should respect those who don't.

I KNEW my comment would light a fire, but it needs to be said. Again and again. Respect others' opinions even if you don't understand them.

[Stephen Roy]

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.

I'm not sue I buy the bunching theory or not, but there IS room for different opinions, given various pictures that show it bunched in one place and not in another.

The point is that Mack believes what he believes, right or wrong.

[Cliff Varnell]

If you want to claim that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt with a fraction of an inch

of available slack can spontaneously jump 3 inches up a man's back on its own power

the burden of proof is on those who make such a claim.

After you, Duncan...

Of course it can, people move, materials move.

Shirts move on their own power?

Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan.

Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric.

I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim.

What you have illustrated is apparently the side of his shirt collar, but not the jacket position or

the shirt collar at the position of the wound.

The Betzner photo was taken behind JFK. At that moment his head was

turned to the right.

How on earth do you take a lateral photo of a guy when you're standing

directly behind him and a bit to the left and his head is turned to the right?

Duncan[/b]

Excellent! That is the Jefferies film frame I've been looking for!

Thank you, sincerely.

Compare the position of the jacket collar at the back of JFK's neck on Main St.

(the Jefferies film) with the position of the jacket on Elm St.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains even AFTER the back shot. You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff. Its visable in EVERY image you have posted (and Duncans as well).

Of course there is a bulge, Craig.

The hole in the shirt is 4" even below the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the collar.

The jacket bulged 1/8".

Here is a photo of JFK at Fort Worth that morning with very small

fraction-of-an-inch "bulges"...

This is the same thing we see in Betzner at Z186 -- visible shirt collar, fraction

of an inch "bulge."

Unless you want to claim that clothing "bulges" ONLY in increments of 2+" you're

going to have to acknowledge (at some point) that clothing normally moves in

fractions of an inch.

Besides, Craig, your own experience with jackets is that they move independently

of tucked in shirts.

Or did you have to tape the shirts down also when you taped the jackets down for

your photo shoots?

Of course you didn't tape the shirts down. The shirts don't move with the jackets,

do they, Craig?

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

I'm not sue I buy the bunching theory or not, but there IS room for different opinions, given various pictures that show it bunched in one place and not in another.

There is room for an "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and 2-3" of JFK's shirt and

2-3" of JFK's jacket occupied the same physical space at the same time?

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how the jacket collar could

readily drop to the exact same place as 4-6" of bunched up clothing fabric.

The claim is absurd.

[Bill Miller]

Though it has much good information, PICTURES OF THE PAIN is a blatant establishment limited hangout book

of the most obvious sort. Too bad Kathy can't see that. I have not read BROTHERS, but if the Sixth Floor

sells it...it is ESTABLISHMENT authorized.

Jack

Hopefully with age, which will come paranoia and senility ... then with any luck - Kathy will be able to see things as clear as what you do.

[Bill Miller]

I'm afraid that I need to disagree with all of you guys. What Gary is saying is actually true.

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

The key word in Gary's statement is " Virtually " and the " Virtually " is the stuff we are all chasing, weather we like the term or not. If Gary believed and was trying to promote that Oswald was the sole shooter, he and his relayers would be debunking Badgeman, Gordon Arnold etc...He doesn't...They don't..Put 2 and 2 together...Too much paranoia if you ask me.

Duncan

I must say that Duncan has pretty much hit the nail on the head through some sound reasoning, which usually isn't accepted when discussing Mack and the JFK assassination case. Not only is the word 'virtually' mentioned by Mack, but another important word was "hard" which was used as 'hard evidence'. (Someone left that out of their response when asking that Mack come and defend himself) Mack is right ... the hard evidence did point to Oswald being part of a conspiracy, which he believes that there was some level of conspiracy as told to us by the HSCA. Mack certainly believes that he and Jack's Badge Man's work is accurate. But let us not forget that just because it is true that things like a rifle said to have been ordered by Oswald is part of the 'hard evidence' ... it doesn't mean that Oswald used it on 11/22/63 and I'd be surprised if Mack would not agree with that statement.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff.

With your fine help I think we can open everyone's eyes, Craig.

You see, gentle readers and fellow researchers, Craig Lamson is a professional

Jacket Wrangler.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Craig Lamson was the finest Jacket Wrangler

in the biz.

When folks come into his place of business and want to be photographed at

their finest its Craig's job to make sure the suit jacket doesn't ride up at the

back of the guy's neck.

So what does Craig do?

Craig tapes the bottom of the jacket down so it doesn't ride up.

Does Craig also have to tape the shirt down?

Of course not. A shirt is tucked in. The wearer sits on the tail of the shirt. Shirts

and jackets do not move the same way, as Craig knows better than anyone.

Since JFK's jacket and shirt had to move 2-3" in near-tandem to satisfy

the Single Bullet Theory, Craig knows better than anyone that this never happens.

Don't you, Craig?

[Cliff Varnell]

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

Sure it is refutable. The COLLAR dropped, not the bulge in the jacket which remains even AFTER the back shot. You need to open your eyes and see the TRUTH Cliff. Its visable in EVERY image you have posted (and Duncans as well).

Ditto Craig..He needs new glasses

Duncan

Please present your proof that the "bulge" you see involves multiple inches

of fabric opposed to a fraction of an inch of fabric.

Is it too much to ask of you?

[Bill Miller]

Shirts move on their own power?

No, they move because of external or internal forces, simple physical facts

Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan.

They don't...as explained above

Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric.

Easy..It doesn't

I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim.

done

Duncan

I am not sure why the coat riding up or not is important when there is an autopsy photo showing the hole in the back. Can we all agree that the skin of the back doesn't ride up?

Bill Miller

Edited February 19, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

Shirts move on their own power?

No, they move because of external or internal forces, simple physical facts

Excellent. Now what "external or internal" force prevailed upon JFK in

the limo on Elm St. to cause 3 inches of his jacket to bunch up in tandem

with 3 inches of his tucked in custom made dress shirt?

You couldn't replicate this event if you reached over your shoulder and

tried to pull the fabric up!

Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan.

They don't...as explained above

Well, since shirts don't move on their own power and all JFK was doing

was sitting in a car on top of his shirt tail -- how did 2-3" of his shirt

make the journey up his back to align with the SBT trajectory?

Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric.

Easy..It doesn't

I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim.

done

Duncan

All you've done is agree with my central points.

I thank you.

[Cliff Varnell]

Shirts move on their own power?

No, they move because of external or internal forces, simple physical facts

Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan.

They don't...as explained above

Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric.

Easy..It doesn't

I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim.

done

Duncan

I am not sure why the coat riding up or not is important when there is an autopsy photo showing the hole in the back. Can we all agree that the skin of the back doesn't ride up?

Bill Miller

According to the HSCA the authenticity of that photo is in question.

There was a clear chain of possession for the clothing -- there is none for

the autopsy photos.

The Fox 5 photo shows a wound in a location where it is physically impossible

to align the holes in the clothes given the clear evidence in the motorcade

photos that the jacket dropped.

[Cliff Varnell]

Duncan,

Our disagreement aside, you are posting some awesome images here.

Thank you very much, sir.

[Bill Miller]

According to the HSCA the authenticity of that photo is in question.

There was a clear chain of possession for the clothing -- there is none for

the autopsy photos.

The Fox 5 photo shows a wound in a location where it is physically impossible

to align the holes in the clothes given the clear evidence in the motorcade

photos that the jacket dropped.

Cliff, isn't that autopsy photo what its all about? Let the photo be in question ... the Feds are stuck with it and the hole in JFK's back if being shot at a downward angle as Humes gave it to be shows that it couldn't have exited JFK's throat above the adams apple ... if I understand it right. So regardless of how the clothes laid on JFK as he was shot ... the hole in the back disputes the through and through neck shot IMO and thats why I ask why so much focus on the clothing.

[Cliff Varnell]

According to the HSCA the authenticity of that photo is in question.

There was a clear chain of possession for the clothing -- there is none for

the autopsy photos.

The Fox 5 photo shows a wound in a location where it is physically impossible

to align the holes in the clothes given the clear evidence in the motorcade

photos that the jacket dropped.

Cliff, isn't that autopsy photo what its all about? Let the photo be in question ... the Feds are stuck with it and the hole in JFK's back if being shot at a downward angle as Humes gave it to be shows that it couldn't have exited JFK's throat above the adams apple ... if I understand it right.

That's exactly the point -- do you understand it right? Do you?

Could you explain it to a child if you're not sure you understand it right?

There is a big rumpus over that issue.

There is no such controversy involving the clothing holes and the motorcade

photos.

The holes in the clothes are 2-3" below the SBT inshoot. The motorcade photos

redundantly show JFK's jacket dropping.

Open and shut case a child could grasp.

Oh Why -- oh Goddess in Heaven -- does everyone here insist on making

things complicated?