Jump to content

Alterationists: Thoughts from Gary Mack.


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not going to stand behind someone's research until I study it and am convinced in my mind.

Purely out of curiosity, Kathy, where else one might be convinced but "in the mind"?

Down a "Lane," perhaps?

I have MIDP...

Speedy recovery. I've heard it can be most painful. Almost as agonizing, I fear, as reading about John McAdams:

Junkkarinen’s appeal to the Langleyians

John McAdams for Beginners

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

Inside the Target Car, Part Three

How Gary Mack became Dan Rather

By James DiEugenio

Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan's real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

McAdams first surfaced after Stone's film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: "McAdams is a spook isn't he ... I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the 'Net is pure disinformation ... The stuff McAdams puts on the 'Net is pure acid. He doesn't respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters." (ibid.)

At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw's own Who's Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: "I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias." (ibid)

Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash's resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez' nutty "jet effect" explanation of Kennedy's back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his "marching orders" from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

But these things must be done if we are to regain our full health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Jack,

I'm very familiar with the various statements and testimonies of Hargis - I'm unaware of him EVER saying anything about making any "U-turns".

The Weigman film shows (blurred) Hargis parking his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street. Other films and photos (Bell, , Darnell, Couch, Bond, Bothun, Atkins, etc.) show that he then ran over to the lightpost near the Newmans before running back to his cycle and continuing down Elm.

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Jack,

I'm very familiar with the various statements and testimonies of Hargis - I'm unaware of him EVER saying anything about making any "U-turns".

The Weigman film shows (blurred) Hargis parking his cycle near the south curb of Elm Street. Other films and photos (Bell, , Darnell, Couch, Bond, Bothun, Atkins, etc.) show that he then ran over to the lightpost near the Newmans before running back to his cycle and continuing down Elm.

Todd

I remember Mary Ferrell telling me that, and a few nights ago I read it in HORNE IV. I will

try to find the page. I believe it was Mary who used the word U-turn.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

No film footage Mr White but certainly still photography

Thanks. I am well aware of those still images and have had them for some 40 years or so.

I am referring to MOVIES.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just spent about 30 minutes leafing through HORNE IV looking for the

statement I remember about a motorcycle making a Uturn, but I cannot

find it, though I remember reading it. Therefore I am unable to confirm

what I said.

I did find a Hargis statement that "he stopped" when the limo stopped,

and "racked his bike" by the curb.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

"So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same."

Mary Ferrell said CIRCLING AROUND IN THE STREET".

I thought I remember in Horne IV...MADE A U-TURN.

Take your pick.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the testimony of one of the officers (Hargis, I think) said

that HE PULLED OUT OF THE PROCESSION IMMEDIATELY AND MADE A U-TURN ON

ELM STREET, AND PARKED HIS BIKE BY THE SOUTH CURB NEAR MOORMAN AND HILL,

THEN RAN ACROSS THE STREET TO THE KNOLL, CAME BACK AND MADE ANOTHER

U-TURN AND THEN REJOINED THE MOTORCADE.

My question for the obstructionists: Can you point me to any film which shows this?

Also, other witnesses said AN OFFICER RAN HIS MOTORCYCLE UP THE HILL AND

THREW HIS BIKE DOWN TO LOOK OVER THE FENCE.

Can anyone point me to any films which show this?

Jack

Oy Vey, Jack. Hargis and his bike are shown in the Bell film, here:

He pulled his bike to the side. Later in the film you can see Haygood's bike on the opposite side. The Couch film also shows Haygood's bike. He left it at the base of the hill. Are you now claiming the Couch film, shown on TV within hours of the assassination, is a fake? If so, is there any assassination film you know of that is, in your opinion, not a fake?

According to what I read (and was told by Mary Ferrell), he circled around in the street.

I do not believe what is shown in ANY DP FILM. They have all had things removed and/or added.

Jack

So which is it, Jack, a "U turn" or "circling around in the street? The two are not the same.

Anyway, the ONLY reference I'm aware of for either is for an officer "circling around in the street", and that comes from Jean Hill's book - but she's not talking about Hargis, she's talking about Martin (Hargis's partner and the cop she was cheating on her husband with , who she was there to see, and whom she gives a ficticious name in her book), but the films and photos show that Martin never did that either.

Films and photos show? You gotta be kidding!

Jack

So tell me Jack, do you think the Paschall, Bell and Daniel films are altered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Lamson:

You are theorizing and speculating about what the test films will show.

The time has come to examine the test films, and see what they show.

We then proceed from there.

There will be plenty of time to theorize ---e.g., that the test films are "worthless" (as you are now predicting)--AFTER they have been examined, and AFTER THEY SHOW (as I believe they may well show) that frames from the test films do NOT show full flush left (and certainly do not show "BEYOND full flush left").

But the test films must be examined.

That's the proper and logical way to proceed.

Should it turn out--for example--that the Zapruder camera was put at full zoom, and pointed at a well lit clock (as the second hand swept round and round, in order to determine the camera speed); and should it turn out that, even at FULL ZOOM (which is where Zapruder set the lens), the camera does not repeatedly produce frames that are FULL FLUSH LEFT (not to mention "BEYOND full flush left") then that would be very important indeed.

But again, its futile to speculate.

As I said: the issue of authenticity is critical, and the time has come to view the test films, not predict the outcome--and already be indulging in explanations as to why the test films are "worthless."

DSL

1/11/2010; 9 PM

Los Angeles, CA

I'm not "speculating' at all Lifton, I'm stating simple photographic fact. If the properties of the image circle of a lens eludes you, prehaps you need to bone up a bit before you comment. It's not my problem the "alterationists" don't have the first clue how this stuff works, that YOUR problem.

The test films were NOT shot on a full sun day, as the you tube videos show ( you do know how to read shadow properties..correct?)

If the clock footage was not shot at light level EQUAL to a full sun day, they too will be USELESS for comparison for your silly full flush left argument. Why? Because the lens will not be stopped down to the same extent as one filming on a FULL SUN day.

So whats the difference, in f-stops, between full sun and cloudy bright? Lets check.

Based on the standard sunny 16 rule, of 1 over the iso speed of the film at F16, gives us 1/25 at f16 for Zapruders camera. Since he was shooting at 1/40 of a second (roughly 1 stop difference from 1/250 that puts his lens at f11.

Now what are the settings for cloudy bright? Answer, Two stops LESS than a full sun exposure. The test footage from the plaza would have been taken in the F8 range, a considerable difference.

YOU want us to believe that there is any REAL value comparing images shot in the f16 range with those shot in the F8 range? And do you have the knowlege to even understand WHY?

Unless your inspection of the test films is grounded with a full understanding of the process involved in their creation, we can fully discount your opinions on the subject. And based on your anwers to date, you are lacking the even the basic knowlege needed.

Here's what an image circle looks like, just to jump start your much needed learning process.

This is the image circle projected by a Hasselblad 50mm lens mounted on a 4x5 Horseman view camera and recorded on Type 55 b/w Polaroid film. F stop is unknown. You can however clearly see that the image formed by the lens softens and darkens as it vignettes at the very edge of the image circle.

circle.jpg

Why don't you get back to us when you know the subject matter.

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...