Gary Mack's position about JFK is incoherent

[Dawn Meredith]

...

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from.

Think about it:

First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story.

...

first words out of you and it has to be Judyth Baker, your perpetual crusade. Methinks you donated to her cause when she fled to Europe. And for some reason didn't quite get what you wanted out of that donation, not enough bang for your buck there Glenn? Is that correct?

Jim Fetzer isn't the thread topic, Gary Mack is. And his very public position concerning the JFK's assassination on the streets of Dallas Texas.

However, I will admit, there are a more than a few lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome advocates on this board with strange obsessions, you're one, the obsession: JUDYTH!

Thank you David. Amazing how some just go off topic with their one note wonders. How you can go from email and Mack to Judyth is quite telling.

Dawn

[Glenn Viklund]

....If Gary wasn't working at the Sixth Floor, after all, who would take his place? Another long-time CT? Someone subscribing to your theories? Dream. If Gary wasn't there, it would be someone like McAdams.....

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from.

Think about it:

First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story. I'm sure we would be able to take part of how her story developed over the years, with all her books, all her interviews on Fetzer's net broadcasts; Cancun, LHO's leaf letter incident explained in her own words and in a completely new light. And, I'm sure, lot's more of so far completely unknowns that would no doubt stun the research community. Ms Baker could probably be convinced that six personal appearances from her is reasonable, every year.

Another little pavilion that explains the concept of "spiral nebulas" and how they work on windshields. All with specimens in secure glass boxes.

The next pavilion obviously should be dedicated to the limo stop; pictures of the limo at a complete halt where Greer and Kellerman are having a nice cup of coffee while the president is being assassinated. No doubt would "the umbrella man" be at center of this presentation.

Not to mention, say in scale H0, a fantastic model of Dealey Plaza where almost every rooftop, picket fence, drainage and underpass would be populated by snipers. Surely with names attached to each and every one of them.

But the real block buster would be the entirely new floor where every single dis-informant would would be exposed. This would most likely have to be an interim solution as the number is much too large to squeeze in on a single floor of the building.

Personally, I'm particularly interested in the new section where every faked film and photo from Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, will be displayed. Dozens of films and hundreds of photos will finally get their much longed for explanation.

On the entrance floor we would experience 3-D virtual bonfires where the WC report could be thrown.

The city of Dallas would at last get the museum the world has been waiting for.

LOL I like you, Glenn.

Thanks, Martin, it's mutual.

To David Healy and Dawn Meredith:

What else is new?

[Glenn Viklund]

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

[Greg Burnham]

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.

Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.

Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

[David Josephs]

It is surprising that after all this time there are still those who can ask straight faced:

"where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing?"

That after spending time on this forum assumably with eyes open and reading for comprehension...

that you can ask such uninformed questions.... like

"where are the bullets" and "who saw the assassins"

I've never minded LNers who come to the table with some knowledge of the situation and the ability to form a coherent sentence in support of the WCR...

But you are an embarassment to anyone who taken the time to read ANYTHING about the assassiantion.

Try something Glenn... show a picture of CE399 to a bunch of 15 year olds and then tell them what it was supposed to have done to two men and a number of bones...

then show them the CE next to it illustrating what happened when the test bullet went ONLY thru a wrist....

Ask them if the conclusion that CE399 did what the WCR says it did makes any sense...

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

As the line goes... Sir - "you are not going to learn what you DONT want to know"

and with questions like those that I find you repeating ad nauseum... it is way too obvious that there is absolutley NOTHING you want to know about this case

beyond what you THINK.

LNer research at its best...

Greg - very well put as usual. Instead of challenging the CT theories, be nice if a LNer would defend his version of the event by AUTHENTICATING the evidence used to convict...

DJ

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.

Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.

Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

Edited March 27, 2012 by David Josephs

[Pat Speer]

It is surprising that after all this time there are still those who can ask straight faced:

"where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing?"

That after spending time on this forum assumably with eyes open and reading for comprehension...

that you can ask such uninformed questions.... like

"where are the bullets" and "who saw the assassins"

I've never minded LNers who come to the table with some knowledge of the situation and the ability to form a coherent sentence in support of the WCR...

But you are an embarassment to anyone who taken the time to read ANYTHING about the assassiantion.

Try something Glenn... show a picture of CE399 to a bunch of 15 year olds and then tell them what it was supposed to have done to two men and a number of bones...

then show them the CE next to it illustrating what happened when the test bullet went ONLY thru a wrist....

Ask them if the conclusion that CE399 did what the WCR says it did makes any sense...

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

As the line goes... Sir - "you are not going to learn what you DONT want to know"

and with questions like those that I find you repeating ad nauseum... it is way too obvious that there is absolutley NOTHING you want to know about this case

beyond what you THINK.

LNer research at its best...

Greg - very well put as usual. Instead of challenging the CT theories, be nice if a LNer would defend his version of the event by AUTHENTICATING the evidence used to convict...

DJ

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.

Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.

Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

Sorry, David, but Glenn is 100% correct to question a scenario in which 8-10 shots were fired on the limousine. There's no eyewitness or earwitness testimony for such a thing, and the medical evidence fails to support it as well. It simply didn't happen that way.

Now, one might argue that a bunch of silenced shots rained in at the same time, so that no one noticed. But, then again, one might also argue an invisible man was riding on the back of the limo, firing at will with his invisible gun. And where does that get us?

[Glenn Viklund]

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.

Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.

Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

Well Greg,

It's nice to see you and a few other CTers come together this way. At least that gives you a short break from ripping each others hearts out, which is otherwise the main activity here on the EF. But when it comes to bully someone perceived as a "lone nut", then the bullying is united among some of you guys, indeed impressive. In the past couple of weeks I've been labeled "an idiot", "an asset..", "uneducated" and more. Wow, some of you people here on the EF really strikes me as intellectual heavy weights by way of argumentation.

But since you obviously know nothing about my "genuine interest" or "desire to be educated" about the JFK assassination, you should be a bit more careful with your conclusions. The other night I listened to you on Blackopsradio state that "I've learned more since the year 2000 about this case than I probably knew prior to that year..". Good for you. But you know, you're far from the only one getting educated.

Moreover, you will have to excuse me, but to question my sincerity about getting educated only to state that "I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case...", doesn't seem to mix all that well together. Especially when it comes to the basics of this case, where the shooting sequence and number of shots fired certainly ranks.

Of course, I have a very good idea about why "8-10 shots fired" is not discussed more here, as outlandish as it is. And I have an even better idea as to why mostly everything that the Warren Commission could have gotten correct, is off limits here. But I'll leave it at that.

Nevertheless, thanks for your input.

GV

Edited March 28, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

That isn't the point Pat. And i don' t understand how you missed it.

Glennie went from an attack on Gary Mack and the SIxth FLoor to an attack on Fetzer.

In other words, like a cardsharp, he switched the face card. He did this in order to take the onus off the official story and onto an extreme version of the fusillade. The implication being that there is nothing in between and the people who critique the WC are all irresponsible and as reality averse as Allen Dulles.

Hold on a second here.

I tried to exemplify how ridiculous it is to suggest that Gary Mack should display every "theory" between the earth and the moon in the Museum.

That's the reason, the rest is just your usual speculation about other's sinister motives, whenever what they say is not your cup of tea. Period.

"How could you miss that"?

But I have no hesitation in giving Gary Mack credit for being far more careful with the truth than most people here seems to acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever.

[Greg Burnham]

That isn't the point Pat. And i don' t understand how you missed it.

Glennie went from an attack on Gary Mack and the SIxth FLoor to an attack on Fetzer.

In other words, like a cardsharp, he switched the face card. He did this in order to take the onus off the official story and onto an extreme version of the fusillade. The implication being that there is nothing in between and the people who critique the WC are all irresponsible and as reality averse as Allen Dulles.

Hold on a second here.

I tried to exemplify how ridiculous it is to suggest that Gary Mack should display every "theory" between the earth and the moon in the Museum.

That's the reason, the rest is just your usual speculation about other's sinister motives, whenever what they say is not your cup of tea. Period.

"How could you miss that"?

But I have no hesitation in giving Gary Mack credit for being far more careful with the truth than most people here seems to acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever.

Hold on a second here, Glenn. Nobody has ever suggested that Mack "should display every theory between the earth and the moon" in the museum. You have built a straw man.

[Pat Speer]

That isn't the point Pat. And i don' t understand how you missed it.

Glennie went from an attack on Gary Mack and the SIxth FLoor to an attack on Fetzer.

In other words, like a cardsharp, he switched the face card. He did this in order to take the onus off the official story and onto an extreme version of the fusillade. The implication being that there is nothing in between and the people who critique the WC are all irresponsible and as reality averse as Allen Dulles.

This is what the MSM does. And you should not be condoning it.

As per the idea of using silenced weapons and comparing that with an invisible man on the back of the limo and firing an invisible gun, well that is completely irresponsible and smartass on your part. Something that say Alexander Cockburn or Chomsky would say.

The difference being that the CIA had silenced rifles back then. I mean when you have wizards like Werbell and Nonte working for you, the weaponry at your disposal is just about limitless. Carol Hewett explained this in her masterful article in Probe, which is one of the most frequently visited articles at CTKA. Evidently you have not read it.

http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-hewett.html

Your argument about this is about as informed as Larry Dunkel's. When I first proposed this with him back in the 90's, he said "Oh then you are saying a handgun was used," Uh Gary (Larry) no I am not. Ever heard of Mitch Werbell? I guess you have never heard of him or studied his work either.

Finally, the autopsy and ballistics evidence in this case is not reliable. Most serious observers think that something is wrong with the exhibits. You are in a minority as far as that goes. And second, the idea that all the projectiles are accounted for, and we know just what missed is simply fatuous. Clearly there was deep sixing going on. To use just one example: the Mauser shell the FBI found and then was buried.

No, Jim, you missed the point. The point is the number of projectiles and impacts, not whether any of them were silenced. I doubt anyone in the research community has done as much research on this topic as I. I read Hewitt's article six or seven years ago, and spent hundreds of hours researching this. As I discussed my contacts with Sturdivan on this topic during my appearance at the 2009 COPA Conference, with you in the audience, I'm surprised you didn't know this. In any event, I discuss what I found in chapter 20, and even show a CIA assassination rifle that may have been used in the shooting.

I mean, really, do YOU think 8 to 10 shots were fired? And, if so, WHY?

As far as "Glennie", perhaps you haven't been following his activities as long as I. I'm fairly certain he is not a LNer, but an agnostic. I find nothing "sneaky" about his behavior. He has an adverse relationship with Judy B and Jim F. While this thread started out as an attack on Mack, it was, more specifically, a Jim Fetzer attack on Mack, which makes a discussion of Fetzer's own theories fair game.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Mark Knight]

To be sure, there are a lot of theories out there that strain credulity. The first big one is the Warren Commission's report. From what I've been able to discover in the information I've found, the evidence in the WC's somewhat flawed and highly truncated investigation doesn't always point to the conclusions in their report. And several of the LN'ers, such as DVP, rely on "coulda-woulda-shoulda" rather than using actual evidence to bolster their points. The often ask that those of us who are still students of the assassination accept some things sans evidence because their conclusions are "logical." Of course, back before Galileo, it was "logical" to believe that the sun and the planets rotated around the earth, too.

However, while there were apparent discrepancies in various reports of when and how JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, I also have a hard time believing the theory of body snatching aboard AF1...which no one on board the plane witnessed, even though, to borrow a thought from Larry Hancock, "someone would have seen." Here again, we're expected to take "coulda-woulda-shoulda" as fact, rather than actual evidence that something DID happen, because the conclusions are, once again, "logical."

I believe that the original surveys of Dealy Plaza by Mr. Robert West and Company were accurate, based upon the evidence present at the time of the original surveys. I also believe that the Secret Service kept quiet about the FBI's, and subsequently the WC's, subterfuge to make the third shot at the Altgens location "disappear" primarily because it made the SS appear to have less time to respond to the shooting...and therefore made the SS's performance on November 22, 1963 appear to be more "johnny-on-the-spot" than it actually was. So I believe that the SS eventually acquiesced to the WC and the FBI, in order to salvage what little good they could from losing the man they were charged with protecting.

I also believe that Oswald's presence at the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD was never proven. For that, I trust the word of Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who stated [after Oswald was dead, of course] that police could never prove with all certainty that Oswald was at that window with the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in custody, at the moment that Kennedy was shot. So the Dallas police chief himself was convinced that there was some reasonable doubt that Oswald was the assassin. So if Curry had doubts, than as a reasonable person, I probably should have doubts that Oswald fired the fatal shots as well.

The constant bickering of CT'ers has become almost as discordant as the various Christian religious denominations bickering with one another. Perhaps someone could take the lead in an "ecumenical" movement, and at least try to get the CT'er community to at least agree on what they DO agree on...and THEN may the denominational differences be dealt with. So far, about the only thing the CT'er community agrees on is that on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was killed by gunfire in Dealy Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. On that, "even the demons [LN'ers] believe" [to draw from a similar religious context]. For most, be they LN'er or CT'er, the JFK assassination most certainly IS similar to a religion...with most LN'ers swearing a fundamentalist faith in the Warren Commission report, while most CT'ers deal with a faith in other sources, many of which cast doubt on the WC report.

And I'm inclined to believe that we'll never know the REAL truth until the Final Judgement Day...if it is even revealed then.

So just what should Gary Mack have in the Sixth Floor Museum? Well, I understand the museum has a lot of what they should have. I understand that he has recently received--or should have received--copies of the Robert West surveys, which were used as evidence in the various investigations. Should the Sixth Floor Museum be obligated to acknowledge every theory that's out there? Probably not. But in the interest of truth, the museum should at least acknowledge that there are other theories out there, with varying degrees of plausibility, which argue for and against the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. That may be as honest as they can get, without slanting toward or against any one particular theory.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Mark Knight

[Glenn Viklund]

Then Pat, if silenced rifles were used, and if one cannot trust the collection of projectiles, then how can anyone be so sure of how many shots were fired?

That is the point, and nothing you said or Glennie said contravenes it.

One thing we are supposed to do here is to take in all the evidence, all the variables and measure them. Which is what the WC did not do. But Glennie then says, well you guys are quarreling a lot.

No kidding. We are trying to reconcile the mess the WC made of this. Something you don't give a warm thimble of urine about Glennie.

And as far as praising what the WC got right, I mean the guy cannot be serious, really? But I think he is.

What the heck did they get right? What major conclusion of their's stands today?

That Oswald shot Tippit?

That Oswald killed Kennedy?

That Ruby got into the Dallas police jail unaided?

That Oswald had no connection to the FBI or CIA?

That the Secret Service deserved only a rap on the knuckles for their performance?

That Oswald went to Mexico City and did what they said he did?

THat there was nothing unusual about Oswald's CIA file?

That there was no evidence Oswald was at Banister's?

That the Single Bullet Theory occurred?

That that bullet went through JFK's neck without shattering the cervical vertebrae?

That in this case the entrance wound was larger than the exit wound?

THat CE 399 was found on JBC's stretcher?

That Oswald was on the Sixth FLoor at the time?

That Oswald did what no military marksman could do? Got off two of three direct hits at a moving target in six seconds?

Something that the greatest military sniper of the Vietnam War, Carlos Hathcock, said he could not do?

That this bullet then reversed trajectory out of Connally's leg and ended up on the corner of the stretcher after digging itself under the rubber mat?

Puleasae Pat. Give me a frigging break with this guy. Why doesn't he go over to McAdams' forum or Duncan's? Those are the people he admires and feels comfortable with, I mean with his soft spot for Allen Dulles and John McCloy and Ford and Hoover.

As for exhibiting all theories at the SIxth Floor Holocuast Museum, this is another trick by him. I said, why don't they show the magical qualities of all four bullets Oswald allegedly fired that summer and fall? Glennie won't touch that one.

As per all he has learned, can the guy be serious? He has no respect for any in depth research at all. He likes the WC too much. Gary Mack and the truth?

LOL

ROTF

This is the guy who said Jackie was in the line of fire from the picket fence. And put it on [b]TV KNOWING IT WAS FALSE!

Gary Mack has about as much addiction to the truth in this case as Jerry Ford did.

Glad your laughing, Jimbo. Because that makes two of us.

Now, if this is the way you're intending to "reconcile the mess the WC made...", then, Good Luck to you. You will need it.

Rambling rants like this one seems to be your trademark as soon as you find anyone disagreeing about anything with you. Another thing, dear Jimbo, the day will not arrive when I ask you what to think, write or conclude about the assassination. I could easily produce a list just like the one above, with all your ridiculous positions about the JFK-case. But I will not, as it adds zero and furthermore no one cares anyway.

But I will say this: If you got rid of some of that paranoia of yours, you could learn a thing or two from Gary Mack about how to deal with facts in this case. Mack's way of dealing with facts is far, far superior to yours - and Fetzer's, btw. Of course, you will never understand this - better to just ramble away. Ridicule others and question their right to even post in this forum. And yes, I am a member of both McAdams forum and Duncan's. Because I don't have my head up where the sun doesn't shine, and am in fact open to different views on this case. A commodity long, long gone in your case.

You just cannot accept that others have reached conclusions other than your own. If someone have, then they are 1) CIA 2) Disinfo 3) FBI 4)Some other dark force, or 5) plain stupid idiots.

There's no way anyone can reach conclusions other than yours just by pure and simple judgment about the facts in this case. No way, thoroughly and utterly impossible. Period.

The ironic thing is that you, in particular, are producing rants about the despicable "MSM", on almost a daily basis. And still, you don't seem to understand that the way you yourself behave in forums like this one (and the dozens of other places where you are a regular feature), is quite important to get your message through. Keep ranting and rambling, Jimbo! I'm sure you've found the optimal way to win of over others. No doubt about that. Brilliant, Jimbo. The Conspiracy Theories Marketeer Par Excellance!

Right, Jimbo?

[Glenn Viklund]

Glad your laughing, Jimbo. Because that makes two of us.

Now, if this is the way you're intending to "reconcile the mess the WC made...", then, Good Luck to you. You will need it.

Rambling rants like this one seems to be your trademark as soon as you find anyone disagreeing about anything with you. Another thing, dear Jimbo, the day will not arrive when I ask you what to think, write or conclude about the assassination. I could easily produce a list just like the one above, with all your ridiculous positions about the JFK-case. But I will not, as it adds zero and furthermore no one cares anyway.

1. Not a rant at all. I stated a series of questions about the WC, ones which they did not settle at all. Care to inform me how I am wrong in that list?

2. I also listed two facts: Gary Mack knowingly lied on his Inside the Target Car show. Second Carlos Hathcock, the greatest sniper of the Vietnam War, said he could not do what Oswald did, even though he tried more than once.

Those are both facts. If you wish to counter them, do so. But don't go WC on me and distort what I said.

Come on, Jimbo. Just who do you think your talking to here, a sophomore with nothing better to do? You haven't got the slightest bit of interest in discussing anything with me. All you have an interest in is to denigrate me and anything I say. I'¨m not about to get snared into your world of half-truths, accusations left and right of liars and corrupted agents or political rants about the right wing.

First you accuse me of all kinds of things as I questioned some of Fetzer's positions. Shortly thereafter you come up with a massive list of subjects that you "want to discuss"? Your interest is primarily to bully me out of here, that's the reason for stunts like this one. Sorry Jimbo, no deal. And of course it is a rant if I ever saw one. You know, you're quite transparent and easy to read.

But I will say this: If you got rid of some of that paranoia of yours, you could learn a thing or two from Gary Mack about how to deal with facts in this case. Mack's way of dealing with facts is far, far superior to yours - and Fetzer's, btw. Of course, you will never understand this - better to just ramble away. Ridicule others and question their right to even post in this forum. And yes, I am a member of both McAdams forum and Duncan's. Because I don't have my head up where the sun doesn't shine, and am in fact open to different views on this case. A commodity long, long gone in your case.

What paranoia? That Gary mack did a 180 degree flip after meeting Dave Perry? And Dave became his new guru on the case? That is true Glennie. And documented by people like Gus Russo. And Jim Marrs.

Have you ever met or read about one single agent or policeman in the US who's a decent, honest US citizen doing his job? Once?

I've read - and listened - to you quite extensively for many years. It rarely takes more than a few minutes to do either before you've declared an FBI- or CIA-agent, policeman or prosecutor - or all of them - a corrupt xxxx. Endlessly and without reasonable levels of proof. That's paranoia, Jimbo. Pure and simple.

Whenever you can't explain something this Rosetta stone of yours comes into play. In your world, they're all on the wrong side of this, each and every one of them, well except of course Jim Garrison, your hero. And of course, that's the end of discussion, nothing much left to find out, since "they're lying, obfuscating and creating falsehoods", case closed on issue after issue in your book, eh? Well not in mine, I don't buy into all these fantasies of yours.

In the IT world they use a good metaphor: "xxxx in, xxxx out". Iow, this approach of yours prevents you from finding out the facts.

I watched this discussion a few months ago with an ever increasing astonishment:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18454&st=0

It's got very little to do with the Kennedy assassination, but is still a perfect example of your approach. It's about the Lindbergh kidnapping case and I'm not going into it in detail here, but it's a good read that I can recommend any reader of this to have a look at. It's telling.

And it's telling first and foremost because Jimbo once again is doing what he always does; accuse the FBI, the police and the prosecutors, etc, of all kinds of illegalities - and bases his conclusions on this. But this time, more so than usually happens in the JFK case, Jimbo is getting keel hauled by someone who knows what he's talking about in the area of evidence.

Kevin Greenlee, a lawyer and a member of this forum, methodically and meticulously demolishes DiEugenios arguments. Does that help? Of course not, as Jimbo never knows when to quit or when to re-evaluate his positions.

I just proved Gary mack cannot be trusted. Want some more proof? Ask him why he removed Fritz from his reconstruction of Oswald's murder? Or why he changed the exit wound in JFK's head for Target Car. Or why he used the Clark Panel entrance wound without telling the public it had been altered from the WC Report.

You have proved nothing of the sort.

Those are all facts Glennie. If you can disprove them, please do so. If not, you just show how ignorant you are. If anyone has their head up Duncan's forum, yep, its you alright. And it shows every time you post here.

What else is is new, Jimbo? In your book it's not allowed to change position. Moreover, in your book the ultimate treason is committed by those who used to be CTers but are becoming LNs. To be clear: as far as I know, that's not what Gary Mack has done. Unless I've missed something he's still a conspiracy believer. Which by no means changes the fact that I trust his judgment over, for example, yours, every day of the week. 24/7, Jimbo.

People can change their mind because of a number of reasons. New facts, new evaluations, or the because they've concluded they've simply been wrong about something. To name a few. It's pathetic to watch this line of reasoning where it's dealt with as a crime, basically. In your particular case, however, it's worse. Again and again you have this faiblesse for resorting to the 'xxxx-explanation' whenever nothing else works. Often on very sketchy grounds and very definitely not based on solid research. And please Jimbo, quit those childish remarks about Duncan's forum. OK? You're just showing your complete ignorance to others who discuss this case, and I'm sure you can find better things to do.

You just cannot accept that others have reached conclusions other than your own. If someone have, then they are 1) CIA 2) Disinfo 3) FBI 4) Some other dark force, or 5) plain stupid idiots.

Please show me where I ever called DVP a CIA agent? Or Duncan? Or Gary Mack? I have yet to even say that about McAdams. I only say those things when I can either prove them or advance strong evidence of it.

Ah, you don't eh? Fine - start with proving that I'm "..an asset", which you have insinuated. I've been called both this and that by you. But you also use this method in a more disguised way, where it's insinuations or guilt by association. This is one of your standard features so it would not be surprising to find out that you're unaware of it, I guess. Only when you can prove them?? That's laughable, Jimbo.

There's no way anyone can reach conclusions other than yours just by pure and simple judgment about the facts in this case. No way, thoroughly and utterly impossible. Period.

Please show me how the SBT is possible. Please prove out the chain of posession of CE 399. Especially how Todd's initials are not on the bullet when Hoover said they were.

I mean do you even know what I am talking about with that? Because if you cannot prove those two things, its a conspiracy. Plain and simple. And Oswald did not shoot Kennedy. I await your proof of both.

Unlike you, I don't claim to have all the answers. And unlike you, I don't create answers where there are none. And yes, I've not ruled out the SBT - or Oswald. What others couldn't do, proves nothing in and of itself about what Oswald did or did not do that day.

The ironic thing is that you, in particular, are producing rants about the despicable "MSM", on almost a daily basis. And still, you don't seem to understand that the way you yourself behave in forums like this one (and the dozens of other places where you are a regular feature), is quite important to get your message through. Keep ranting and rambling, Jimbo! I'm sure you've found the optimal way to win over others. No doubt about that. Brilliant, Jimbo. The Conspiracy Theories Marketeer Par Excellance!

I just proved that was no rant. Those are questions the WC and you cannot answer. And two statements of fact which are true. Even though you hang out with Duncan and McAdams you cannot answer or disprove them.

What dozens of other places am I a regular at? Name one other forum I post at regularly.

You've been pretty much all over the place over the years, selling your version of this case. Frankly, Jimbo, I've quit reading your arguments nowadays because I believe I know most of your positions rather well. So if I'm wrong about what you actually do nowadays, I stand corrected.

As per your last one, you just gave the game away Glennie. With that conspiracy theories marketeer par excellence crack. See that is what someone like DVP would write. When he can't deal with facts, or Bugliosi being taken over the coals, he resorts to a cheap smear like that. I don't deal with conspiracy theories. I deal with facts and evidence. That is why everything I write is thoroughly documented. THat is why The Assasinations is a standard reference work for people like David Talbot and Lance DeHaven Smith.

And in case you don' t know it, the MLK case is now an adjudicated conspiracy. And if Pepper gets past this latest appeal process, and Sirhan gets a new trial, he will be a free man. All you have to do is read the AG's answer to his latest filing. Which you did not. So its people like you who are the the nuts. So much in denial you don't even know that there are actually THREE MAGIC BULLETS in the RFK case. I mean man if you are the latest in the line of Mike Williams etc, the other side should just throw in the towel. Because you lost.

In your world, of course I lost. And in your world, it's fine to ridicule me and others because of the positions we've taken about this. And that, Jimbo, is your loss, not ours. And just to be clear: you've got many points in this case where I do agree about your questions, but in my view they are obscured by some inexplicable dark clouds.

Right, Jimbo?

Wrongo Glennie.

[Glenn Viklund]

My, my.

I kind of knew we could now expect The Rant Par Excellance, as well.

Thanks Jim, you just proved my point why it's a complete waste of time for me to try to discuss the JFK case with you.

I am obsessed??? :rolleyes: This is coming from YOU?

Relax, Jimbo. You need a break from that dark world of yours - it's eating you up.

//GV

Edited March 30, 2012 by Glenn Viklund