Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mack-Drago Exchanges


Charles Drago
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've started a new thread so as to simplfy, to the degree possible, the chances of following this odd correspondence.

My original post and Mack's first reactions will not be color-highlighted. I'll highlight Mr. Mack's latest comments in red, and my latest responses in green.

Charles,

Almost all of your comments are merely opinions and theories. I asked for the hard evidence that shows someone other than Oswald shot JFK. Please supply something, anything, if you can. And I've added some comments below.

Gary

QUOTE

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?

GM: I'm not trying to prove anything. History has concluded Oswald killed Kennedy and that many disagree with that finding.

"History," sir? Surely you are referring to the official, tainted, unsupported, thoroughly refuted contention of your parent state. In doing so, it is you, Mr. Mack, who is opining even as you reveal your dependence upon the false authority of the state.

"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

GM: Curry made several conflicting statements about that very issue over the years. His opinion was just that, an opinion, not evidence. He has also said they had no evidence of someone else.

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

GM: That's your characterization and is not evidence. There is also no evidence placing him anywhere else.

No, sir, I am not characterizing Howard Brennan's alleged eyewitness testimony as invalid. Impartial investigators have established this fact. And simply because LHO's whereabouts during the shooting cannot be established does not mean that he was, well, shooting. MY whereabouts during the assassination cannot be proven.

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.

GM: The shooting took as long as eight or nine seconds, which is plenty of time. Pausing is a vague term that could have meant only a few seconds. Who says the rifle must have had prints, since some old wood doesn't readily take prints; what's more, what evidence is there that he could not have wiped the rifle with his shirt while he walked? The SS film and simple re-creations show there was plenty of time to reach the lunchroom. The two women in the staircase were simply not there when Oswald was, for there's nothing in their story that gives a precise time line. And Oswald was entering the lunchroom when first seen, according to Baker's observation of seeing the back of his head as he walked away.

"Plenty of time" for what?

Given the 90-second time constraint, ANY pause proves fatal to the already moribund LHO-as-lone gunman myth.

NO shirt fibers were found on the rifle. No prints were on the metal areas (trigger, trigger guard, etc.).

"SS film and simple re-creations" show no such thing. None I have seen take into account ANY pause or the time it would have taken to place the rifle as it allegedly was found.

You are merely opining when you state with finality and authority that "the two women in the staircase were simply not there when Oswald was." Their testimonies strongly suggest that they were there. All you present is wishful thinking.

So too with your contention that "Oswald was entering the lunchroom when first seen." Baker does not opine on the entering or leaving issue, I believe, but only seeing LHO walking away. Again, nothing but wishful thinking on your part, Mr. Mack.

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.

GM: Again you have given an opinion, one that is merely a possibility, not evidence.

Chain of custody for CE399 is broken. Parkland personnel who discovered and temporarily had custody of a bullet were not able to identify CE399 as the missile they handled. There is ZERO sustainable evidence to suggest that CE399 hit JFK or JBC. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it.

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.

GM: Aha! We certainly agree, but that simply means the bullets may still be from Oswald's gun.

Or any other gun in the entire known universe that loads that type of ammunition.

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.

GM: But that's no hard evidence of another person firing. If his hands tested negative, that might be significant.

That his hands tested positive, given alternate possible innocent reasons, is insignificant.

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

GM: Not true; read Cunningham's testimony. Oswald's rifle did not deposit any nitrates on the cheeks of test firers.

I shall do so.

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.

GM: That fragment proves only that he handled the gun at some point in time. There's no evidence that the gun was not his.

I shall refute this claim of ownership in a separate post which will immediately follow.

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

GM: His landlady said otherwise in recorded interviews that day.

Did LHO's landlady comment on his movements from the TSBD to her rooming house?

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

GM: Or for most other wackos who suddenly decide to kill people. What was the motive for the shooting in Illinois the other day? For that matter, just because Oswald's motive isn't known is no reason to conclude he had no motive.

Or that he isn't from the Pleides.

So, then ...

No means.

GM: His gun was there and he was experienced with firing rifles.

See below for "his gun" refutation. There is no sustainable evidence to suggest that "his" gun was fired that day.

No motive.

GM: No known motive.

Right. No motive. Nothing to submit to a jury. Nothing.

No opportunity.

GM: He was present in the building with no alibi for the crucial time.

Who else was in the building with no alibi? There you go, opining again.

LHO did not have the opportunity to do the deed, observe its aftermath, hide the weapon, get downstairs in his invisibilty cloak, and appear in the lunchroom. None. Your opining notwithstand.

No physical evidence.

GM: His gun plus the nitrates together are quite powerful.

Nonsense. "His gun"??? See next post. There is no unambiguous, sustainable evidence to prove that LHO fired any weapon that day. How many TSBD employess might have registered similar nitrate levels on their hands?

No photographic evidence.

GM: No photos means only no photos, not innocence.

No eyewitness evidence.

GM: Brennan saw a guy that could have been Oswald. He certainly didn't describe someone radically different.

Brennan's value as an eyewitness has been demolished. You may have another opinion. The fact that Brennan was the darling of the WC is of no consequence whatsoever.

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

GM: So I repeat, what is the hard evidence of someone other than Oswald?

Well, JFK, JBC, and Jim Tague were shot by somebody. And there is NO SUSTAINABLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO did any shooting that day. There is strong circumstantial evidence that he could not have done the shooting from the sixth floor under any realistic circumstances.

So ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a discussion on LHO’s ownership of CE 139 – the alleged murder weapon – I refer you to And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica.

From Chapter One, pages six-seven:

Which Rifle Was Delivered, If any? And to Whom?

Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Office Box 2915 from October 9th, 1962 through May 14th, 1963. But according to the F.B.I., he did not authorize an A” Hidell” (or anyone else) to receive mail at that address, information transmitted to the Warren Commission in a Bureau report dated June 3rd, 1964. But the Warren Commission ignored this F.B.I. finding, opting for ignorance:

“It is not known whether the application … listed ‘A. Hidell’ as … entitled to receive mail … In accordance with postal regulations … [the records were] … thrown away after the box was closed on May 14th, 1963.”

Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of Dallas was the [Warren] Commission’s source for part of this misinformation.

“… when a package is received for a certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether that name … is listed on the application as a person entitled to receive mail … The person having access to the box then takes the notice to the window and is given the package. Ordinarily … identification is not required.”

Earlier, however, Inspector Holmes was quoted in the New York Times of November 30th, 1963, as stating that “no person other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail” as his post office box. We would assume that Holmes was speaking with some authority: that he knew the regulations and/or he had access to the Oswald post office box application. But Holmes was the Commission’s source for its statement that Federal regulations dictate the destruction of post-office box records. Checking those same regulations, we find Holmes to have been in error.

Holmes spoke with no authority either in the New York Times or in his testimony for the Warren Commission. Unless, of course, as of November 30th, 1963, Oswald’s postal records had not been destroyed, and Holmes had access to them, but by the time he was a Commission witness, those records no longer existed, having been “thrown away” in contravention of the existing Federal regulations.

As Sylvia Meagher commented, the Warren Commission seems to have made no move to establish whether any employee at the Dallas main post office remembered handling the Klein’s parcel; any employee at the main office remembered surrendering the Klein’s parcel to anyone presenting the post-office box notice; any record of the notice of the delivery of the parcel existed at the main post office. Especially since Postal Inspector Holmes was also wrong about the lack of difficulty with which Oswald would have taken delivery of the Klein’s package addressed to “A. Hidell.” The Warren Commission presented the testimony only of a post-office substation inspector, Holmes, rather than taking testimony from employees at Dallas’s main post office, where Oswald had his box, and where the Postal Manual might have been honored.

No proof that the Klein’s Carcano addressed to “A. Hidell” was delivered to Oswald was obtained from any postal employee at the main post office in Dallas. As Mark Lane commented, Federal regulations which are inexactly cited and which are never made a part of the Commission’s public record, either in its Report or in its twenty-six volumes of Hearings, tend to make us doubtful of the thoroughness of the Warren Commission. The Commission did not attempt to get evidence independent of its only witness in this area, Post Office Inspector Harry Holmes, who, it seems, was also an F.B.I. informant.

I additionally refer one and all to Chapters One through Five of my late friend and mentor's work for in-depth discussions related to the ownership and provenance of CE 139.

Oswald's rifle, Mr. Mack?

Not so bloody fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles,

Notice that Gary Mack is happy to rehash the "official" case until

the cows come home?

Notice that Gary Mack will not address the physical evidence (clothing

holes + motorcade photos.)

That should tell you something.

While you're down that rabbit hole with Mack, say hi to the Mad Hatter for

me and tell him I can't make tea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please be advised that I shall no longer carry on this exchange via private messages.

If Mr. Mack desires to address my points and elicit my responses, he can do so publicly or not at all.

Charles Drago

He lurks here quite regularily. Part of his job descrition perhaps? Posting however is not something he will do, perhaps his handlers have their rules :tomatoes .

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is simply no logic I can find why GM will not post on a Forum

My guess, given his position at the museum, is that he would not want to be drawn into stating on a public forum that he believes there was a conspiracy. After all, no one wants to work in a hostile work environment, or wind up not working that at all (for a lack of "objectivity"). To quote the immortal Joe South, "Before you accuse, criticize, and abuse, walk a mile in my shoes."

Some may think that Gary, if he believes there was a conspiracy, shouldn't be working at that museum. But things could be worse. Researchers should be glad that his influential position is not held by a lone nutter. All things considered, Gary could be the best man for that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 1999 or so, when Rich Dellarosa's JFK Research Forum was really hot, Gary Mack did post, more than just about anyone else. He practically lived on that forum, and he was already working for the Sixth Floor Museum. I don't see how his job can be the reason why he doesn't post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re LHO's ownership of the rifle, didn't his mother see the backyard photos the night of the assassination?

If LHO did not own the rifle then Marina was a rather large xxxx since she stated she witnessed him practicing with it in NO.

However, it has always bothered me that LHO denied ownership of the rifle. He was obviously an intelligent fellow. Why would he deny ownership of the rifle if he knew his ownership could easily be linked to him through the photos and through his wife's testimony? Had he been tried, even given the rules of husband-wife privilege I think she could have been required to testify re the rifle since it was not a communication from him to her. So why would he deny a fact easily proven? He must have known that his lie could be proven and his the fact of the lie could be used against him.

In other words, LGO's denial of rifle ownership does cast doubt in my mind whether he actually owned it. BUT if LHO did not own the rifle, Marina must have been part of the conspiracy against him and faked photos put in her possession before the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re LHO's ownership of the rifle, didn't his mother see the backyard photos the night of the assassination?

If LHO did not own the rifle then Marina was a rather large xxxx since she stated she witnessed him practicing with it in NO.

However, it has always bothered me that LHO denied ownership of the rifle. He was obviously an intelligent fellow. Why would he deny ownership of the rifle if he knew his ownership could easily be linked to him through the photos and through his wife's testimony? Had he been tried, even given the rules of husband-wife privilege I think she could have been required to testify re the rifle since it was not a communication from him to her. So why would he deny a fact easily proven? He must have known that his lie could be proven and his the fact of the lie could be used against him.

In other words, LGO's denial of rifle ownership does cast doubt in my mind whether he actually owned it. BUT if LHO did not own the rifle, Marina must have been part of the conspiracy against him and faked photos put in her possession before the assassination.

Re LHO's ownership of the rifle, didn't his mother see the backyard photos the night of the assassination?

Marina had physically observed LHO with A rifle.

Marina had taken photographs of LHO with A rifle.

Marina had physically observed A rifle in the apartment.

Marina physically showed A rifle to Jeanne DeMohrenschildt and the presence of that rifle was thereafter discussed with George DeMohrenschildt.

On 11/22/63 at the Paine home, Marina showed Marguerite Oswald one of the photographs which Marina claimed to have taken, of LHO holding A rifle.

On this photograph, LHO had written "To my daughter, June".

Marina Oswald testified that she observed LHO (in New Orleans) practicing in operation of the bolt of A rifle.

If LHO did not own the rifle then Marina was a rather large xxxx since she stated she witnessed him practicing with it in NO.

There is actually little to be left to doubt that LHO was in possession of A rifle, which Marina observed.

Here, is one of the potential problems with the rifle:

Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.

(which of course does not mean that the scope had not been removed by LHO for some reason)

Mrs. OSWALD. I hadn't paid any attention initially.

I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention.

I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, on October 26th, Saturday, was your husband with you all day?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. All day. Whenever he came, he never went anywhere else.

Mr. RANKIN. We had some information that a telescopic sight was fitted to a gun for your husband on that date, and that is why I am asking you if there was any time that he could have left to have that done.

Mrs. OSWALD. How is it about the telescope? He always had the telescope. Were there two?

Mr. RANKIN. We are trying to find out. Someone says that they mounted a sight.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is not the truth, if they say that. Simply people talking. Perhaps someone who looked like Lee.

Mr. RANKIN. Someone may be mistaken and thought that he had mounted a telescopic sight when he did it for someone else. And that is why we want to check with you.

When your husband went back to work on Monday, October 28th, did he drive with Wesley Frazier at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. It seems--it seems that he had overslept and that someone else had picked him up. But, no--no, I remember that he did not come to get him, but Lee met him near his house. Lee told me that. Or his sister. I don't remember. Lee told me about it. But I have forgotten.

Mr. RANKIN. But he did not go in by bus that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He said his sister drove him to the bus. I only know that this boy did not come to get him that day.

Mr. RANKIN. As far as you know, he may have gone all the way into Dallas in a car, or he may have gone in a bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps he hadn't told him to pick him up on that day. I don't know. I only know the fact that the boy did not pick him up on that day.

However, it has always bothered me that LHO denied ownership of the rifle. He was obviously an intelligent fellow. Why would he deny ownership of the rifle if he knew his ownership could easily be linked to him through the photos and through his wife's testimony? Had he been tried, even given the rules of husband-wife privilege I think she could have been required to testify re the rifle since it was not a communication from him to her. So why would he deny a fact easily proven? He must have known that his lie could be proven and his the fact of the lie could be used against him.

In other words, LGO's denial of rifle ownership does cast doubt in my mind whether he actually owned it. BUT if LHO did not own the rifle, Marina must have been part of the conspiracy against him and faked photos put in her possession before the assassination.

Now! For the never before discussed enjoyment of the reading public:

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit. 120 purports to be a telescope 15 power telescope.

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen such a telescope.

Mr. RANKIN. You never saw it as a part of your husband's things?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen this knife.

It is a new knife. And that telescope is also new.

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

Mr. RANKIN. We had some information that a telescopic sight was fitted to a gun for your husband on that date, and that is why I am asking you if there was any time that he could have left to have that done.

Mrs. OSWALD. How is it about the telescope? He always had the telescope. Were there two?

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

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...16/contents.htm

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit. 120 purports to be a telescope 15 power telescope.

Mrs. OSWALD. I have never seen such a telescope.

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

http://cgi.ebay.com/OLD-VINTAGE-WOLLENSAK-...1QQcmdZViewItem

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

Harley Nolden08-22-1999, 08:51 AM

Keith:

Taken from "The Complete Book of Sniping," by Peter R. Senich:

Telescopic sights having the tapered-post reticle were designated:

Telecope M82

Serial #XXXXX

Stock #84374

HJN

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

4V50 Gary08-22-1999, 12:55 PM

Harley,

The M82 is the Wollensak version of the Lyman made M81 (the military version of the Alaskan with a sliding lens shade). When Lyman couldn't keep up with demands, blueprints for the M81 were given to Wollensak which then took up production. The difference between the M81 and the M82 being in that the M81 had crosshairs and the M82 had the tapered post.

Gary

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

Keith Rogan08-22-1999, 05:08 PM

Now I'm really confused. The American Rifleman only discussed the Weaver version - if the M81 and M82 are Lyman and Wollensak....?

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

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=113

Marine snipers used 8X scopes mounted on prewar Ml9O3Al rifles. The scopes were no more, and no less, than the premium target scopes made by the John Unerti Optical Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. A total of 3,500 were ordered during the war that ended before all the scopes had been delivered.

Many other types of optical equipment were supplied by such firms as Wollensak of Rochester, N.Y., (M82 scopes, binoculars and spotting scopes), Argus of Ann Arbor, Mich., (spotting scopes) and the best-known such firm, Bausch & Lomb.

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

With that stated!

Wollensak made optical equipment of all kinds, which included camera lense's as well as true "Telscopes".

However, they also made rifle scopes/telescopes which ranged from the cheap "Boy Scout" model on up to some that were actually utilized on sniper equipment.

The "telescope" aka/Wollensak telescope was returned to the Paine's as being their property, and this just may have actually been a common telescope.

However, "Doubting Thomas" long ago determined that the WC could not be relied upon to tell us the truth, and in fact could be relied upon to attempt to hide and obscure the truth.

Thusly, "Doubting Thomas" would at least like to see the "Telescope" in order to eliminate the possibililty that there were two rifle scopes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

GM: Not true; read Cunningham's testimony. Oswald's rifle did not deposit any nitrates on the cheeks of test firers.

Gary, if you're lurking, you need to read Chapter 4c at patspeer.com. Memos found in the Weisberg Archives and a report obtained by myself from the U.S. Department of Commerce prove beyond any doubt that the FBI knew that firing a rifle such as Oswald's would inevitably leave gunshot residue (not necessarily nitrates) on the cheek. They knew this for more than month before Cunningham testified. They knew as well that Oswald's cheek cast had insufficient antimony to suggest he'd fired a rifle, and way too much barium on the back of his cheek cast. This latter result demonstrated that someone had contaminated the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...