Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Anthony DeFiore]

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,

You appear to be young, so I'll take your tender years into account and gently admonish you.

We are at war, young man.

We are at war with the conspirators who killed John Kennedy. The conspiratorial truth of this matter is not in my vest pocket or in anyone else's.

It is truth.

When you avail yourself of the evidence of this case, you either conclude conspiracy or you are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

This isn't some post-modern exchange on the nature of knowledge and knowing.

JFK was hit by more than one guy. Period.

Play whodunit and howdunit games elsewhere.

This isn't about opinions. Your opinion on the shape of the earth is of no consequence.

This, again, is war.

Charles

And we shall fight the good fight until the end Charles! God Bless, Tony D.

[Jack White]

Charles is correct. TRUTH IS TRUTH. Some see it clearly. Some through a glass, darkly*.

Some not at all. Opinions that do not discern truth are useless. Opinion is not research.

Truth is not changed by those who study it or opine about it.

Jack

*courtesy St. Paul

[Myra Bronstein]

Charles is correct. TRUTH IS TRUTH. Some see it clearly. Some through a glass, darkly*.

Some not at all. Opinions that do not discern truth are useless. Opinion is not research.

Truth is not changed by those who study it or opine about it.

Jack

*courtesy St. Paul

Agreed.

An opinion is something like what food tastes good.

Research into President Kennedy's murder, by contrast, starkly reveals that the official stories (there are multiple official stories) are impossible. Therefore...

The part after "therefore" is what we're discussing here.

[Don Jeffries]

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis. Jack White could provide the details much better than I, but for those of you who were familiar with Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" (I was a subscriber from the first issue to the last), then you would be familiar with the kind of research Mack once did. I think Jack and Gary Shaw were the main ones responsible for editing TCI, but Mack wrote many articles and some of them were pretty "extreme" in nature. I recall in particular some stuff he wrote about the shooting of Reagan, which addressed the claim that some witnesses had seen a second shooter there besides Hinckley. I may be confusing Mack with Shaw on that one, but I'm pretty sure it was Mack.

As Charles reminds us so often, the evidence in this case is quite clear. Most of us realized that Oswald couldn't have done it within weeks (if not days) of first examining the "evidence" that the official case was built on. Cliff is right to focus on the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat; they are about as solid as evidence can get. When you combine that with Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, which locates the back wound in the exact same location, and Admiral Burkley's report that located it there as well, then no one without an agenda can seriously contest the fact that the back wound was far too low to exit from JFK's neck.

In response to hard evidence like bullet holes in clothing, backed by other independent sources like the autopsy face sheet and the president's personal physician's own identification, we are given the "bunching" theory. While perhaps not as ridiculous and impossible as the single-bullet theory, or the "jet effect" theory (which "explains" why JFK's head broke the laws of physics by going back towards the shooter), it is pretty lame.

The reality, Mr. Mack, is that had Oswald gone to trial, and had a competent defense attorney, any honest judge would have thrown out all the "evidence" against him. The chain-of-possession on the rifle, "magic bullet," and anything allegedly found in the limousine was hopelessly tainted and this would have been the first thing any real defense counsel pointed out to the court. In other words, none of the "hard evidence" that Mack refers to could have even been introduced into the record at trial. It would have been pretty hard to convict anyone, even a supposed commie in 1963 Dallas, without a weapon in the record.

Okay, Gary- please give us some specifics about this "hard evidence."

[Bill Miller]

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis.

Don, please be more specific. For instance, take something Mack has said that you are referring to (or several) and email him for the answers ... or a precise explanation - if you will. Then feel free to post them. My experience is that Mack's opinions are one thing - citing the official record is something else and the two get twisted around by others and before you know it - they become one in the same.

[Don Jeffries]

Bill,

I tried to ask Gary a simple question several times on the JFK Research Forum. It was simply this; given your previous writings, what evidence convinced you to change your mind so drastically and find validity in so much of the official story you used to believe was bogus? He never really answered, beyond saying that he had seen critics doing sloppy work and misrepresenting evidence. I pointed out, as I have many times, that the most irresponsible "conspiracy theorist" you can find doesn't hold a candle to the lies and distortions that fill up the official record.

To cite just a few specifics for you, Gary and I had an email exchange about the Babushka Lady a few years back. He was pushing some new ridiculous theory that she never even took a moving film of the assassination, but was in fact someone who took snapshots and was questioned by a representative of Kodak on the afternoon of the assassination. I won't belabor how absurd this theory is, but clearly Gary once accepted that a woman who was never identified by the authorities can be seen in other film footage taking a home movie of the assassination from close range. Whether or not this is Beverly Oliver, we know her as the Babushka Lady. Also, Gary is now pushing the impossible "bunched" theory to explain the holes in JFK's clothing. I don't think he can honestly say that he ever accepted such nonsense in the past.

If you haven't done so, try to locate some old issues of "The Continuing Inquiry." I know they're hard to find, but if you read some of Gary's writings there, you will understand what I'm saying.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I tried to ask Gary a simple question several times on the JFK Research Forum. It was simply this; given your previous writings, what evidence convinced you to change your mind so drastically and find validity in so much of the official story you used to believe was bogus? He never really answered, beyond saying that he had seen critics doing sloppy work and misrepresenting evidence. I pointed out, as I have many times, that the most irresponsible "conspiracy theorist" you can find doesn't hold a candle to the lies and distortions that fill up the official record.

To cite just a few specifics for you, Gary and I had an email exchange about the Babushka Lady a few years back. He was pushing some new ridiculous theory that she never even took a moving film of the assassination, but was in fact someone who took snapshots and was questioned by a representative of Kodak on the afternoon of the assassination. I won't belabor how absurd this theory is, but clearly Gary once accepted that a woman who was never identified by the authorities can be seen in other film footage taking a home movie of the assassination from close range. Whether or not this is Beverly Oliver, we know her as the Babushka Lady. Also, Gary is now pushing the impossible "bunched" theory to explain the holes in JFK's clothing. I don't think he can honestly say that he ever accepted such nonsense in the past.

If you haven't done so, try to locate some old issues of "The Continuing Inquiry." I know they're hard to find, but if you read some of Gary's writings there, you will understand what I'm saying.

Don, I agree with you that the Kodac woman is not the BL. But I don't think it is fair to ask Mack to defend old opinions that may have changed due to newer data he may have come across. I would like to see direct questions put to Gary and let him explain his ideas. But at the same time, I would find first if there is a way that Gary and you can discuss your questions that wouldn't be in conflict with his employment guidelines.

[Myra Bronstein]

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis. Jack White could provide the details much better than I, but for those of you who were familiar with Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" (I was a subscriber from the first issue to the last), then you would be familiar with the kind of research Mack once did. I think Jack and Gary Shaw were the main ones responsible for editing TCI, but Mack wrote many articles and some of them were pretty "extreme" in nature. I recall in particular some stuff he wrote about the shooting of Reagan, which addressed the claim that some witnesses had seen a second shooter there besides Hinckley. I may be confusing Mack with Shaw on that one, but I'm pretty sure it was Mack.

As Charles reminds us so often, the evidence in this case is quite clear. Most of us realized that Oswald couldn't have done it within weeks (if not days) of first examining the "evidence" that the official case was built on. Cliff is right to focus on the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat; they are about as solid as evidence can get. When you combine that with Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, which locates the back wound in the exact same location, and Admiral Burkley's report that located it there as well, then no one without an agenda can seriously contest the fact that the back wound was far too low to exit from JFK's neck.

In response to hard evidence like bullet holes in clothing, backed by other independent sources like the autopsy face sheet and the president's personal physician's own identification, we are given the "bunching" theory. While perhaps not as ridiculous and impossible as the single-bullet theory, or the "jet effect" theory (which "explains" why JFK's head broke the laws of physics by going back towards the shooter), it is pretty lame.

The reality, Mr. Mack, is that had Oswald gone to trial, and had a competent defense attorney, any honest judge would have thrown out all the "evidence" against him. The chain-of-possession on the rifle, "magic bullet," and anything allegedly found in the limousine was hopelessly tainted and this would have been the first thing any real defense counsel pointed out to the court. In other words, none of the "hard evidence" that Mack refers to could have even been introduced into the record at trial. It would have been pretty hard to convict anyone, even a supposed commie in 1963 Dallas, without a weapon in the record.

Okay, Gary- please give us some specifics about this "hard evidence."

Great post Don.

[Michael Hogan]

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis. Jack White could provide the details much better than I, but for those of you who were familiar with Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" (I was a subscriber from the first issue to the last), then you would be familiar with the kind of research Mack once did. I think Jack and Gary Shaw were the main ones responsible for editing TCI, but Mack wrote many articles and some of them were pretty "extreme" in nature. I recall in particular some stuff he wrote about the shooting of Reagan, which addressed the claim that some witnesses had seen a second shooter there besides Hinckley. I may be confusing Mack with Shaw on that one, but I'm pretty sure it was Mack.

As Charles reminds us so often, the evidence in this case is quite clear. Most of us realized that Oswald couldn't have done it within weeks (if not days) of first examining the "evidence" that the official case was built on. Cliff is right to focus on the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat; they are about as solid as evidence can get. When you combine that with Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, which locates the back wound in the exact same location, and Admiral Burkley's report that located it there as well, then no one without an agenda can seriously contest the fact that the back wound was far too low to exit from JFK's neck.

In response to hard evidence like bullet holes in clothing, backed by other independent sources like the autopsy face sheet and the president's personal physician's own identification, we are given the "bunching" theory. While perhaps not as ridiculous and impossible as the single-bullet theory, or the "jet effect" theory (which "explains" why JFK's head broke the laws of physics by going back towards the shooter), it is pretty lame.

The reality, Mr. Mack, is that had Oswald gone to trial, and had a competent defense attorney, any honest judge would have thrown out all the "evidence" against him. The chain-of-possession on the rifle, "magic bullet," and anything allegedly found in the limousine was hopelessly tainted and this would have been the first thing any real defense counsel pointed out to the court. In other words, none of the "hard evidence" that Mack refers to could have even been introduced into the record at trial. It would have been pretty hard to convict anyone, even a supposed commie in 1963 Dallas, without a weapon in the record.

Okay, Gary- please give us some specifics about this "hard evidence."

Great post Don.

In my opinion, Don has shown a propensity for well-reasoned, level-headed posts. I always enjoy reading what he has to say.

[Miles Scull]

In my opinion, Don has shown a propensity for well-reasoned, level-headed posts. I always enjoy reading what he has to say.

Second that opinion.

But I don't think it is fair to ask Mack to defend old opinions that may have changed due to newer data he may have come across. - MILLER

Oh, brother this takes the cake!

BM is infamous for rummaging through old forum archives in order to find contradictions between old & new member's posts.

So, now Mack is excused?

Or, is BM caught, again, awash in piffle?

[Jack White]

Stephen, Duncan, Bill and anyone else who is defending Gary Mack,

If you understood what Gary Mack used to believe, not so long ago, about the JFK assassination, you might also question his motives for spouting the nonsense he does now on a regular basis. Jack White could provide the details much better than I, but for those of you who were familiar with Penn Jones' "The Continuing Inquiry" (I was a subscriber from the first issue to the last), then you would be familiar with the kind of research Mack once did. I think Jack and Gary Shaw were the main ones responsible for editing TCI, but Mack wrote many articles and some of them were pretty "extreme" in nature. I recall in particular some stuff he wrote about the shooting of Reagan, which addressed the claim that some witnesses had seen a second shooter there besides Hinckley. I may be confusing Mack with Shaw on that one, but I'm pretty sure it was Mack.

As Charles reminds us so often, the evidence in this case is quite clear. Most of us realized that Oswald couldn't have done it within weeks (if not days) of first examining the "evidence" that the official case was built on. Cliff is right to focus on the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat; they are about as solid as evidence can get. When you combine that with Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, which locates the back wound in the exact same location, and Admiral Burkley's report that located it there as well, then no one without an agenda can seriously contest the fact that the back wound was far too low to exit from JFK's neck.

In response to hard evidence like bullet holes in clothing, backed by other independent sources like the autopsy face sheet and the president's personal physician's own identification, we are given the "bunching" theory. While perhaps not as ridiculous and impossible as the single-bullet theory, or the "jet effect" theory (which "explains" why JFK's head broke the laws of physics by going back towards the shooter), it is pretty lame.

The reality, Mr. Mack, is that had Oswald gone to trial, and had a competent defense attorney, any honest judge would have thrown out all the "evidence" against him. The chain-of-possession on the rifle, "magic bullet," and anything allegedly found in the limousine was hopelessly tainted and this would have been the first thing any real defense counsel pointed out to the court. In other words, none of the "hard evidence" that Mack refers to could have even been introduced into the record at trial. It would have been pretty hard to convict anyone, even a supposed commie in 1963 Dallas, without a weapon in the record.

Okay, Gary- please give us some specifics about this "hard evidence."

Don...you are close to correct.

At first, Penn did his newsletter alone, and had it typed up. Then Gary Shaw took

over for several years till he got too busy. And then I did it for three years. And finally,

in Penn's alzheimer years, his young new wife Elaine took over. BUT THE EDITOR WAS

ALWAYS PENN JONES.

When Shaw was putting it together, he wrote articles and asked me to write some

also. When Penn asked me to put it together, I wrote articles and asked Gary Mack

to contribute also. I guess you could say Penn was editor and Shaw and White

were "managing editors". Mack was never an editor, but made many very good

contributions, research and articles.

The Hinckley articles you refer to were a JOINT EFFORT by Mack and White. Mack is

no longer the researcher who wrote all those great TCI and Coverups! articles.

Different "person" altogether*.

Thanks for your kind words.

Jack

*see Control of Candy Jones

Edited February 20, 2008 by Jack White

[Cliff Varnell]

Here's a starter lesson 2 = 2 = 4 although i'm sure you and some of the other nutters on here would argue that

That is a good starter lesson!

Not too much of a leap, going forward, to the understanding that 3/4" does

not equal 3".

There's nothing complex about Gary Mack..He says it how it is.

Gary Mack claims that 3/4" of slack shirt fabric moves 2-3".

That's not how it is, Duncan.

Gary Mack claims that JFK's jacket was in the same position on Elm St.

as it was on Main St.

Is that what these terrific images of yours show, Duncan?

Main St.

Elm St.

Mack claims that the observable drop of JFK's jacket is a "theory."

No, that is not what it is...It is an irrefutable fact.

[Cliff Varnell]

Gary Mack claims that JFK's jacket was in the same position on Elm St.

as it was on Main St.

Is that what these terrific images of yours show, Duncan?

YES

Duncan

Interesting. How do you account for the shirt collar being visible

on Elm St. but not visible on Main St.?

And that big Main St. bulge is sticking out so much -- right? -- but in

Betzner (Z186) there is nothing but shadow in that area.

How do you account for the one half inch (1/2") of exposed shirt collar

catching sunshine while this purported multi-inch bunch of shirt/jacket

fabric lies in shadow?

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Interesting. How do you account for the shirt collar being visible

on Elm St. but not visible on Main St.?

Different moment in time. As I said before, things move, including jackets.

Then we are in agreement. Jackets move. In this case the jacket dropped.

Thank you, Duncan. Most reasonable.

Are you saying one of the photographs of a frame has been altered?

...Come again? Where did that come from?

Things move. Jackets move. That is my entire point. The jacket dropped.

I wrote:

And that big Main St. bulge is sticking out so much but in Betzner (Z186)

there is nothing but shadow in that area.

You answered:

Good..I'm glad you realise that the bulge is the significant factor.

I don't think you realize that there must be a bulge in the

jacket, for this simple fact: the hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the

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

The jacket had to have a bulge in it.

1/8" is 3 millimeters. We are clear on the fact that 3 millimeters

does not equal 3 inches?

The bulge is in more or less the same place on both Houston and Elm.

Which brings us right back to point #1: how is it -- then -- that the shirt collar

is totally occluded on Main St. and yet so highly visible on Elm St.?

Jackets move. The jacket dropped.

Me:

How could the one half inch (1/2") of shirt collar catch sunshine while this

purported multi-inch bunch of shirt/jacket fabric lies in shadow?

You:

The back of his head is causing the shadow

So what? The blue arrow points to 1/2" of exposed shirt collar.

The red arrow points to a 1/8" fabric bulge.

The burden of proof is on you and Gary Mack (et al) to establish that

the bulge involves 4-6" of shirt/jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the

base of JFK's neck.

This is a burden you won't begin to meet.

Edited February 20, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

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.

I do many different things Cliff, including using gaffer tape, clothes pins, binder clips and one time a bungee cord and a shot bag. Bulging jackets are very common, more so when the subject raises his arm or waves.

Does Craig also have to tape the shirt down?

Depends. Sometimes its a a tool such as a spring clamp and sometimes its just a good tug.

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.

Actually they do move and do so quite often. I don't know if the "wearer" is sitting on the tail or not. I've never put my head inside their pants to find out. Have you?

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?

No I don't know that Cliff, and neither do you. What I DO know is that the photography shows a bulge of 2-3 inches of fabric at the back of JFK before, and after the back shot, and that includes the last frames we see in the Towner film. Now since the jacket has this artifact in all the images, and since the holes in the shirt and jacket match for position, that leaves only one conclusion....that the shirt and the jacket must have moved together.