Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.

[Jack White]

QUOTE:

Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes. Jack is usually right, but in this case he is wrong. A faked film is proof of fakery and of the existence of a

cover-up, where only a few sources--including the Secret Service and high government officials--could have had

the film recreated. Using witness testimony and validated medical evidence, for example, we can figure out what

parts of the film are accurate and which are not. We know that the timeline has been contracted. Greer brought

the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed and, during that interval, he was hit twice in the head. But it

was such a glaring indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out and the film fabricated.

If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value?

UNQUOTE...

Pat has made only a partial quote which MISREPRESENTS MY POSITION...causing Jim to say "I am wrong."

My position: The extant Z Film HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE TO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY! In fact, the extant

film has GREAT EVIDENTIARY VALUE in proving that the official story is fabricated!"

When quoting me, please quote me IN FULL!

Jack

[Jack White]

How could any of the motorcylces get ahead of the presidential limo to tell Chief Curry the President has been shot, in the few seconds that the shots were fired, and still be in the Z-film? Did the cops say they rode up ahead of the limo while IN Dealy Plaza or did they just state that they DID at some point on the way to the hospital?

John...Thanks for posting Altgens 7!!!!! I just this moment realized that it may provide further evidence of Z film

fabrication (and/or Altgens fabrication as well)

1. Altgens 7 shows the Curry LEAD CAR IN SUNLIGHT, well EAST of the triple underpass.

2. Altgens 7 shows the JFK limo well west on Elm, about to catch up with the lead car!

3. Now look at Zapruder. As Zapruder pans westward, the Curry car seems stationary in the underpass as if

waiting for the limo. The relative locations of the lead car and the limo seem to disagree when comparing

Altgens to Zapruder.

A study needs to be done to confirm my observation.

Since we know that officer Chaney rode forward and neither Zapruder nor Altgens 7 show this event, then

the photo evidence CONFLICTS with the witness evidence. With numerous credible witnesses reporting the

Chaney ride, the photos must be false!

Jack

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Jim, I withdraw my "defense" of Bill Kelley. While I had assumed by his support for Horne that he was all aboard the alteration express, some of the posts you cited suggest that perhaps he is not so sure.

Now for some simple questions...

You keep saying that some Hollywood film "experts" agree that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted out on the film. You present this as proof the film is a forgery.

Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes. Jack is usually right, but in this case he is wrong. A faked film is proof of fakery and of the existence of a

cover-up, where only a few sources--including the Secret Service and high government officials--could have had

the film recreated. Using witness testimony and validated medical evidence, for example, we can figure out what

parts of the film are accurate and which are not. We know that the timeline has been contracted. Greer brought

the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed and, during that interval, he was hit twice in the head. But it

was such a glaring indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out and the film fabricated.

If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value?

Yes. In particular, I noticed that, in frame 374, you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head and the

skull flap that interests you. The shape of the wound closely approximates David Mantik's definition of "Area P" of

the lateral-cranial X-ray, which he has defined using optical density studies, and, in a more general way, diagrams

from McClelland and Crenshaw--and, of course, reports of a blow-out at that location from more than 40 witnesses.

If you go to http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ and download Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", you will

appreciate what I am saying when you see for yourself that you can observe the blow-out to the back of his head.

If not, WHY not? Do you really expect us to believe:

1) that "they" created a fake film, and THEN decided to paint in the back of the head on the fake film?

No. Painting over the blow-out in black and painting in the "blob" and blood spray were essential to its alteration.

and

2) that arguing the Z-film is fake has a better chance of succeeding in discrediting the LN crowd than arguing that the single-bullet theory is a fraud, and using the evidence already accepted by the vast majority of the public--the Z-film--to do it?

Actually, yes--because we are such a visually-oriented society. The proof in this case is so simple that anyone can see

it and understand it, which I anticipate we will all have the opportunity to do when these experts reveal their findings.

Have you even studied the HSCA? Do you realize that: 1) their medical "experts" believed the single-bullet theory only possible if Kennedy was hit behind the sign in the Z-film; 2) their photo experts concluded he was hit almost a second before he was behind the sign in the Z-film, and 3) the trajectory expert hired to show Kennedy to have been leaning far enough forward before he was behind the sign was so brazenly dishonest he claimed the Z-film showed Kennedy to be leaning further forward before being hit in the back than in the frames just before the fatal impact at frame 313...a conclusion entirely out of sync with the Z-film?

They were pulling and stretching to try to make an impossible theory fit a lot of imperfectly falsified evidence, alas!

So...the Z-film debunks the single-bullet theory. And the LNs know it. Which is why program after program arguing against a conspiracy has relied on cartoons and "simulations" in order to misrepresent what is shown in the Z-film...

You mean, because of the back-and-to-the-left motion, which turns out to be an artifact--an unintended consequence

of how the film was faked (by merging two shots into one)? But it is therefore only an illusory "refutation" of the LNs.

So...should we really then push that the Z-film is a "forgery" and of "no value" when it single-handedly destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin conclusion?

If so, why?

Because we have to base our arguments on authentic evidence. But once the public sees how blatantly the film has

been faked, it is going to be no contest! These Hollywood guys have broken through the cover-up once and for all.

I swear sometimes it appears to me that you'd rather have 20 to 30% of the people believe the government killed Kennedy and pulled off this incredibly convoluted cover-up than have 70 to 80% of the people believe some unnamed group killed Kennedy and the government covered it up. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. I want 100% of the people to "get it" on the basis of genuine evidence, this time of fabrication!

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

Once the people understand the massiveness of the cover-up, it will not be difficult to explain the who and why of the

assassination. James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE (2007), has already done a magnificent job of that!

Thanks for your open-mindedness, Pat. I admire you for that. Your example will be an inspiration for others!

Despite Pat misquoting me, I think he is beginning to "get it", based on his questions.

We should not be determined to convince everyone of a "a conspiracy" REGARDLESS of

the evidence...but BECAUSE of the evidence. We are SEARCHING FOR TRUTH, not just

to prove a conspiracy. We must follow all evidence, regardless of where it leads us.

The preponderance of the evidence proves the film is faked, which in turn PROVES

CONSPIRACY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.

I agree with Jim...proving the Z film fake is EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO

UNDERSTAND than arcane written details which researchers love but the average person

ignores. This is easily done by explaining WHAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT of the film that

should be there. Just show the following redactions:

1. The wide limo turn onto Elm...which Zapruder said he filmed.

2. Connally's turn to his left...which he testified to over and over.

3. Jean and Mary on the grass...when they consistently said they were in the street.

4. The limo stop...which was reported by NUMEROUS witnesses.

5. The Chaney ride to the lead car...reported by 6 or 7 credible witnesses.

There are many other indications of fakery...but the above ones are GROSS, requiring

no special understanding nor expertise.

Jack

[Jack White]

Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

It isn't "the government," Pat, to whom the finger is pointed by alterationism, as you well know: The alterationists, this writer included, point the finger directly at an element of the Secret Service, the presidential bodyguard, as the primary instrument of the assassination. The distinction is of profound significance, as a moments reflection will disclose.

Establishing that a plot hatched within the intelligence establishment, of which the SS is a small, but crucial component, claimed Kennedy's life offers America the possibility of reform and renewal: a broad, vague assertion of conspiracy, by figures unknown, does not.

The crucial nexus is that between the CIA and the SS, for what is the plot, in the last analysis but a counterintelligence operation with a domestic target? It was, after all, James Jesus Angleton and his SIG unit who ran Oswald and dominated the plot. And, through a figure like Epstein, intervened so interesting within the literature of the case.

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Edited January 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Paul Rigby]

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just so no one misses this post from the "Why Tink and I love Jim and Jack" thread--check it out! It looks like "Game, set, match!"

Glad to oblige! It is important that the nonsense you and Jerry Logan are peddling be corrected "for the record", as you say. I've discussed this matter with Doug Horne in the meanwhile and therefore have great confidence in making the following important points, which I shall number:

(1) As Doug explains in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), pages 1218-1219 and 1353, the dupe negative that is being studied is a fifth generation product, as you and Jerry have emphasized; however,

(2) the same artifacts noted by the Hollywood research group on the fifth generation dupe negative are also present on the MPI color positive transparencies held by the Sixth Floor Museum;

(3) those were made in 1997 at the Archives when the LMH Company hired MPI to photograph each frame of the film so that the Zapruders could sell their video product, "Image of An Assassination";

(4) not even Tink & Jerry can successfully question the evidence of alteration present on the dupe negative, since the artifacts of alteration are also present on the MPI transparencies, which are a first generation product;

(5) it is ironic that these transparencies are the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity of the fifth generation dupe negative, because they are in the custody of the Museum that is Gary Mack's employer;

(6) if the Museum were to suddenly stop allowing people to see them, then it--and Curator Gary Mack--would become even more blatantly a part of the cover-up, so it will probably not restrict access;

(7) David Mantik requested to see them and did so on 20 November 2009 and verified that these transparencies show the same evidence that the dupe negative shows with even greater clarity;

(8) frames 456 and 466, which are only seen clearly when viewed on the HD or 6K scans, as explained on pages 1359-1360 of Doug's book, show a wound behind the right ear but no large frontal wound;

(9) it is the absence of the large frontal wound in these frames--along with Jackie's testimony, for example--that decisively proves that the large frontal wound seen in frames 314-337 is a fabrication;

(10) it follows that any film frame that shows a major blow-out in the right-front or right side of the skull is an altered frame, where frames 456 and 466 establish their fabrication; and,

(11) as I have previously observed, the blow-out to the back of the head is clearly visible in frame 374, which I include in my chapter, "Dealey Plaza Revisited", http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/.

There is an old saying in the law that an attorney should never ask a question to which he does not already know the answer. I would have though you would know better by now. In your zeal to attack me and Jack, however, you have gone several steps too far and invited your own refutation.

Professor,

Just to keep the record really clear. Here is my post that you declined earlier to deal with. Only this time every word that comes from Doug Horne's book, Volume IV, page 1362 is underlined!

Where can you see the best copies of the Zapruder frames?

I will let Fetzer fulminate and bloviate to his heart’s content. Meanwhile, I’d like to return to a discussion of evidence.

Doug Horne has told us that a group of Hollywood film restoration experts have obtained copies of the Zapruder film from NARA and have scanned individual frames at high resolution. According to Horne, this will permit them to look at the back of JFK’s head in the frames subsequent to Z 313 to determine if there has been any alteration of the frame. They will produce a report soon.

It seems to me important to ask whether these film restoration experts in Hollywood will be looking at the best copies available of Zapruder frames. Last August, David Mantik emailed Gary Mack at the Sixth Floor Museum and asked him if he knew the whereabouts of the large format 4 x 5 inch Ektachrome transparencies of the extant Zapruder film commissioned by MPI in 1997 for its video Image of an Assassination. Gary Mack replied by email that the Ektachrome transparencies were in the possession of the Sixth Floor Museum and were available for viewing if a request was made through proper channels on the museum’s website. This was very important news. Whereas the dupe 35 mm negative was a fifth generation copy, the Ektachrome transparencies were only one generation removed from the extant film, and presumably would show any anomalies, or apparent alterations, in much greater detail than even the 35 mm dupe negative made from the Forensic Copy. If the extant film under cold storage at NARA were ever declared unavailable for direct examination for any reason, then the Ektachrome transparencies at the Sixth Floor Museum could become the best tool for studying apparent alterations in the film. Not only would these images be four generations closer to the extant film than the dupe negative (and therefore theoretically depict details in better resolution), but they could serve as a “control” to prove whether or not the Hollywood team had digitally altered their scans of the Zapruder frames in any way.

Hence, the best copies to view to determine whether there has been any alteration of frames are the 4" by 5" Ektachrome transparencies in the custody of the 6th Floor Museum.

Josiah Thompson

Hence, it would appear that the best copies for determining alteration are at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. According to Horne, they are available for study. Would you care to hazard a guess, Professor, why Horne has not done the obvious thing... gone to Dallas to have a look at the best copies? Why this detour to Hollywood? It doesn't make much sense to me but maybe you can explain it.

Josiah Thompson

Good post, Bill. For some reason, Tink & Jerry seem to have overlooked that Jack had already corrected me last night, so I assume they know that I have already been set right. I regard the advice I have received from experts like Jack, David Mantik, David Healy, John Costella, David Lifton, Noel Twyman, and others unnamed as one of the great strengths of the research group that I organized back in late 1992, which of course included Bob Livingston, who was wonderful!

Now that they have gotten their jollies, when will this new brain trust acknowledge the massive evidence that proves the film is a fake? They know about Mary and Jean in the street, the blow-out to the right front in the film as opposed to the blow-out to the left-rear observed by witnesses and substantiated by the medical evidence, Officer Chaney motoring forward, and of course the new evidence from studying a 6k version of the forensic copy from the National Archives.

So when are Tink & Jerry going to concede that the observations of this copy by prominent members of the Hollywood film community, which verified that the massive blow-out to the back had been painted over in black and that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in--just as Roderick Ryan had point out to Noel Twyman over a decade ago--is the final nail in the coffin of the film's authenticity? Or will they dismiss this, too, on the basis of generations of nonsense? When?

The jig is up, guys. While Moorman-in-the-street may be difficult for some to follow, Chaney motoring forward is not; and while the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the film requires understanding the medical evidence, the observations by the Hollywood experts does not. Everyone can even confirm the deception for themselves by viewing the blow-out at the back of his head in frame 374! So when are these two going to stop playing games and finally come clean?

Jerry,

The Key Word here is "Forensic copy."

Forensic has two meanings.

One meaning is the term used to debate, like school forensic teams.

The other definition of forensic is the ability to use in a court of law.

Not everything can be introduced into court as evidence.

Since the autopsy was not a forensic autopsy - that is to produce evidence that can be introduced into a court of law, none of the autopsy material is valid.

The autopsy done on JFK was done to determine the cause of death - gunshot wound to the head, murder.

The autopsy that still must be performed is a proper forensic autopsy, that will produce evidence that can be used in a court of law, a grand jury and then trial of someone indicted for a crime related to the assassination.

A forensic photo or film - would be one that could be introduced into a court of law, if necessary, and this can still happen, especially in regards to the Zapruder film.

Joe Backes wants Justice for JFK, well that can only happen if the case goes to a grand jury and then a trial.

The Z-film could go to court if someone, as Gary Mack puts says, "Steals it" and uses it without the permssion of the copyright owner - the Sixth Floor, and they sue.

Maybe someone should, as in the film "National Treasure," try to steal it and provoke a court case that will resolve many issues, especially those regarding the provenance and chain of custody issues.

BK

Paul, I must disagree to a partial extent. It IS the government to this extent, because it involved AT HIGH LEVELS:

1. The Vice President of the US

2. The CIA

3. The FBI

4. The Secret Service

5. The Joint Chiefs of the Military...Army, Navy, Air Force

6. The Congress (Investigation coverups)

7. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

8. The Dallas Police

Now, does that include just about every branch of government, or not? To back up your contention that it

mainly was SS, you must prove that the others I list were NOT involved. The overwhelming evidence is

to the contrary. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, and the JCS seem more involved in the operation than the SS, except

on 11-22. The SS involvement on 11-22 was crucial, but seems more operational than conspiratorial.

Your support of Zfilm fakery is appreciated. However, read HORNE for the evidence of high level government

involvement.

Thanks.

Jack

Jack,

The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't!

Paul

[Pamela Brown]

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

[Pat Speer]

QUOTE:

Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value.

Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes. Jack is usually right, but in this case he is wrong. A faked film is proof of fakery and of the existence of a

cover-up, where only a few sources--including the Secret Service and high government officials--could have had

the film recreated. Using witness testimony and validated medical evidence, for example, we can figure out what

parts of the film are accurate and which are not. We know that the timeline has been contracted. Greer brought

the limo to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed and, during that interval, he was hit twice in the head. But it

was such a glaring indication of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out and the film fabricated.

If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value?

UNQUOTE...

Pat has made only a partial quote which MISREPRESENTS MY POSITION...causing Jim to say "I am wrong."

My position: The extant Z Film HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE TO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY! In fact, the extant

film has GREAT EVIDENTIARY VALUE in proving that the official story is fabricated!"

When quoting me, please quote me IN FULL!

Jack

You are correct, Jack, in that my words implied you felt the film was worthless, when your position, as I understand it, is that what's depicted in the film is worthless, as it is ALL a fabrication, and that its only value is that it provides an avenue through which researchers such as yourself can prove alteration.

Which brings me back to the key question...

If the Hollywood 8 come forth and claim in a report that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted in in certain frames, doesn't that suggest that the other frames in which nothing has been painted in are actual frames from the assassination, and are of some value?

Or do you really expect people to believe that the creators of the film screwed up and depicted a wound on the back of JFK's head, and then went back and painted it in on their FAKE film?

[Josiah Thompson]

Nice going by publishing the photo. Now Fetzer can try to explain how all this happened... how the limousine and the follow-up car come side-by-side at the underpass and Officer Chaney can be seen trailing by several hundred feet. Trailing by several hundred feet is exactly where all other films would place him.

Maybe Fetzer can explain all this to you without spewing all the quotations we are already familiar with.

Nice going.

Josiah Thompson

quote name='John Dugan' date='Jan 10 2010, 09:28 AM' post='178328']

How could any of the motorcylces get ahead of the presidential limo to tell Chief Curry the President has been shot, in the few seconds that the shots were fired, and still be in the Z-film? Did the cops say they rode up ahead of the limo while IN Dealy Plaza or did they just state that they DID at some point on the way to the hospital?

[David G. Healy]

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

At the very moment I was reading this post, aka Gary Mack was reading this thread. Why, ask your self why, he won't post here himself. His passing on [i don't buy others pulling - I believe it it is GM pushing (or a conspiracy to promote it en masse)] information here 'by other means' is very much akin to the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz...it is made to seem like it has some special imprimatur of authority - with smoke and mirrors [as with the Wizard]...from the lofty heights of the sixth floor mausoleum - where no one shot by Ruby two days later was situated, nor fired any shots. Can't people see how they are being manipulated in the exact same manner the our society has been since 12:30 in Dallas on 11/22/63!? The Sixth Floor museum has no authority; no corner on the facts - I'd make a strong argument to the contrapositive. This is PR and spin - voodoo Forum posting and I'm going to take a consensus if it shouldn't be stopped. If aka Mack wants his 'information' or opinions stated here, he himself should state them, or forever hold his peace here. IMO. He's not called the Pope of Dealey Plaza for nothing; and those of your genuflecting to him by posting his words [whatever the twisted logic or chain of evidence] - when he has the time and ability to read these threads and then post them himself are being used or using this Forum in a manner it was not meant to be used [or is that abused?].

Toto's coming to pull away the curtain any moment.....

reality: he can't and he won't post. It's to close to retirement and a pension and that = fear.... frankly he doesn't have to post. Just throw open the museum film/photo archives to researchers. If it won't violate the spirit of agreement the museum has with the Zapruder Family trust, what's the big deal?

[Pat Speer]

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper.

As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

[Jack White]

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper.

As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

Yes, but he has no problem expressing his opinions and making fun of me and my thoughts on the assassination in PMs

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean, Mack is a notorious obscructionist who has overplayed his hand. You are sincerely--and ably!--seeking the truth. You do not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mack, except by way of contrast, as I have done here! He has disgraced himself and The Sixth Floor Museum, which is widely regarded as a bastion of disinformation about the assassination of JFK, which it is! Jim

As the OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE SIXTH FLOOR, he has been instructed to not express opinions

lest his opinions be seen as "official".

Jack

Yes, but he has no problem expressing his opinions and making fun of me and my thoughts on the assassination in PMs

[Pamela Brown]

Pam,

Duncan asked permission from Gary to post this--Gary did not ask him to.

Many people post what others say. Can we look at content instead of folks involved?

Since this is an important subject, we need all of the information we can get.

Thanks, Duncan!!

Kathy

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point.

Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog.

I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo.

Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper.

As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

Well, then, maybe he needs to weigh his job against his need to defend himself, if that is the case, which I question. It may be another ruse to try to ingratiate himself with the CTs.

It seems to me the 6FM is pretty much NARA III, with all the dictating from the OC that that involves. They are not going to want Gary to post anything that has not already been approved, or given to him by them in the first place. So when he posts through others here, we are just getting the party line anyway.