Jump to content
The Education Forum

Rachel Maddow disses LHO

Recommended Posts

Guest Robert Morrow

Rachel Maddow hits the trifecta: 1) she pushes the Oswald lone nutter fantasy which is inexcusable 50 years post JFK assassination 2) Maddow once was laughing about/ridiculing the Clinton Chronicles for saying that Bill Clinton was into drug smuggling in the 1980's - which of course he was, but the Clinton Chronicles (produced by Republicans) couldn't tell you that Bushes/Oliver North/CIA were at the epicenter of it, too. So Maddow apparently has not figured out the US government has for literally been deeply involved in the heroin/cocaine trade for decades. 3) and Raddow Maddow did a piece on October Surprises and their effects in presidential elections and she intentionally omitted the one that really *did* have a huge impact: the treasonous 1980 Reagan campaign dealings with the Iranians to not release the American hostages until after the general election.

So Maddow pushes disinformation in 2 very critical areas of American history and politics: the JFK assassination and CIA/government participation in the drug trade. And commits a willful sin of omission by pretty much covering up the 1980 October Surprise dealings of the Reagan campaign (in a show devoted to "October Surprises" effect on elections).

In 2009 I interviewed Bobby Ray Inman, who lives down the street from me, and he told me that he had NO DOUBT in his mind that the Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranians. Those were Inman's exact words - "no doubt" they did it; except that Inman tried to blame it on William Casey and not George Herbert Walker Bush because he said Casey hated Bush.

Inman is too close to GHW Bush and I am not buying his exculpation of Bush.

As for Maddow - I put her in the willful ignorance category which is inexcusable in all these examples.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I continue to admire Gary Mack for the range and depth of knowledge he brings to this case. Again and again he has gone beyond any conceivable call of duty in sharing his expertise with researchers who need help sourcing information and or clarifying various archival matters.

Gary's refusal to align himself with any specific CT claim is pretty understandable. He does have to be careful given his position as Sixth Floor Museum curator. And one can only imagine how badly burned he felt by the Roscoe White fiasco back in the 90s. 'Won't get fooled again' is not in the last analysis a bad motto to bring to this infernal case.

It is important also to acknowledge that Gary continues to reaffirm--at least when pressed--his personal suspicion that there was more to this whole thing than Oswald.

But therein lies the problem. Gary takes Oswald's guilt as the sixth-floor shooter as 100% read. You would have to go back quite a few years to find any evidence that Gary has the least flicker of doubt that Oswald was at that window firing with that gun. Not so much as a hint that there might be anything problematical about any aspect of the official evidence or any element of the witness stories. Not so much as a gesture towards the possibility that any claim contained in the Warren Report's account of what happened in the TSBD in those minutes is even questionable. Instead we get one insufferably smug restatement after another of the irrational assumption that Oswald's guilt is 'History' backed by 'hard evidence'. When was the last time you saw Gary injecting the merest note of caution when devious black-and-white statements are made by LN advocacy fanatics like David von Pein or John McAdams? No wonder those goons think the world of him. He has become all but indistinguishable from them.

Gary, in short, has gone from a somewhat gullible CT researcher to a very gullible Oswald-did-it spokesman.

It's all very unfortunate.

Gary has emailed further:

Are you thinking I believed the Roscoe White story? If so, you are mistaken. I was the first, or one of the first, in the local research community to openly doubt it. While questioning the story I met Dave Perry and we thoroughly disproved it. The Roscoe White story is what made me question all sides of the issues and come to my own conclusions. It was the best decision I ever made!

Gary Mack

My thanks to Gary for the clarification.

However this doesn't begin to address the question I was raising. Gary speaks of questioning "all sides of the issues". What a laudable aim! But it seems these days all of Gary's critical faculties are reserved exclusively for CT-leaning claims. The Gary Mack who used to ask probing questions about the official story of what happened in the TSBD has all but disappeared from the scene. If anything, he seems awfully anxious to put Oswald in that window with that rifle at that time.

Let's take a specific example of this strange metamorphosis:

In 2000 Gary posted comments to the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup regarding Carolyn Arnold and her 1978 claim to Anthony Summers that she saw Oswald sitting in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination. Gary mentioned that he had personally spoken with the former Ms. Arnold twice. He then spelled out her story and its implications:

She saw Oswald in the lunchroom about 12:15-12:20, which was the approximate time the motorcade should have been in Dealey Plaza to reach it's destination on time. It turns out it was running about five minutes late, but the assassin(s) could not have known that. The gunman in the TSBD needed to be in that window no later than 12:15. If that was Oswald in the lunchroom at that time, Arnold's story virtually exonerates him. Unfortunately, there's no known way to confirm or deny her story.

Note that last sentence. It is the voice of sensible, critical caution. The correctness of Arnold's claim is not simply taken as read. Nor by the same token is her claim just ignored or waved away as non-credible.

Here's what I'd love to know. Has Gary Mack become aware since 2000 of new information that undermines the former Ms. Arnold's claim?

If so, what is that information and why have we not heard about it?

If not, does Gary still take Carolyn Arnold's claim as seriously as he did in 2000?

And if the answer to that last question is yes, how on earth can Gary not be haunted by doubt and embarrassment every time he talks blithely about all the 'hard evidence' putting Oswald in the Sniper's Nest firing at JFK? How can he not in good conscience make a point of mentioning in his numerous media appearances the fact that there remain good and credible grounds not just for suspecting that there may have been more to this whole thing than just Oswald but also for doubting that Oswald was even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I asked Gary more than once to explain exactly what it was that had turned him from a die hard believer in conspiracy to what appears for all intents and purposes to be a lone nutter. The only thing he ever referenced was all the "mistakes" that critics had made over the years. Even assuming that the critics have made as many mistakes as Gary believes, how does that change the sheer impossibility of the official story?

The bullet holes in JFK's clothing, along with the supporting evidence of Boswell's autopsy face sheet and Burkley's death certificate, are about as solid evidence as can be that the bullet that entered his back could not have exited his throat. EVERY piece of the evidence against Oswald is hopelessly flawed and, in an honest courtoorm, could not even be introducted into the record on chain-of-possession problems alone. But Gary never mentions any of this during his television appearances.

I believe Gary still clings to a belief in "Badge Man," which in my view is one of the least provable indicators of conspiracy. As far as I know, he accepts everything else about the official story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don: The first time I saw photos of the bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt (I think it was in Mark Lanes' RTJ) I knew the WR was garbage. I've never had reason to change that assessment.

Also, I remember when I heard about Oswald getting killed in the police station, while in custody. The others with me at the time exchanged looks and we instantly agreed, "somebody wanted to shut him up." I've never had reason to change that assessment either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with Gary or anyone else asking hard questions of CT-leaning witnesses such as Jean Hill. That's what researchers are supposed to be doing.

The problem, again, is Gary's complete lack of even-handedness in recent years.

Comparison with a researcher like Duke Lane is instructive in this regard.

While I haven't always agreed with Duke's conclusions, there is one thing upon which you can always rely with him: he will bring the selfsame principles of caution, scepticism and fact-checking to "conspiracy" claims as to "official story" claims.

The Duke Lane who asks inconvenient questions about James Worrell Jr. or Richard Randolph Carr is recognisably the same Duke Lane who will ask inconvenient questions about Jack Dougherty or the Tippit murder.

He's not a CT researcher. He's a researcher who happens to believe there was a conspiracy.

It's what Gary Mack calls questioning all sides of the issues and coming to one's own conclusions.

But I find it depressingly hard to recognise in the Gary Mack who has fallen hook, line and sinker for the story told in the Warren Report about events in the TSBD the Gary Mack who will happily talk with hard-boiled and often justified cynicism about untenable conspiracy claims.

So--to return to the litmus test example I mentioned in my previous post--the question still stands:

Does Gary still take Carolyn Arnold's claim about seeing Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as seriously as he did in 2000?

A simple yes or no would be great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama and Biden want to limit the amount of bullets that these kinds of rifles can hold to 10. I don't think they have proposed an outright ban of the weapon. Doesn't the Mannlicher Carcano hold less than 10 anyway?

Edited by Andric Perez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last sentence is really a good one.

I hope everyone realizes how awful the Huffpo has become. Because it is pretty bad.

I mean, Edward Epstein on the JFK case?

And all those silly human interest stories? Like the Kardashians etc.

No one had a better opportunity to really do something true and revolutionary and meaningful to change the media than she did.

And she failed utterly. I think she likes being on ABC This Week too much.

And the thing is she knows better. She is supposed to be a great fan of Bobby Kennedy.

THe so called liberal Netroots was coopted. And she led the way.

She does know better. I have contacted her several times via her facebook page. Bye Bye Rachel. I won't be watching you again. This is very hard to listen to. Media whore. That is why I so appreciate Russ Baker. And I defend him at every chance. He is so rare. Let's see Talbot, Morley and Baker. The rest are liars. I cannot bear to watch MSM. Makes me nuts.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check out Gary's own contribution this week to the Oswald/gun control discussion: http://www.wfaa.com/...-199595691.html

The segment is as disgracefully one-sided as the Maddow segment.

And yet again we see Gary happily participating in a discussion that is framed by the assumption that Oswald is the known assassin of JFK.

Now unless Gary has come across material grounds for revisiting his 2000 opinion of Carolyn Arnold's lunchroom claim, we know that he knows better.

So what's going on?

Why does Gary continue to mislead the general public by omitting again and again and again to mention that there are serious grounds for doubting that Oswald was on the sixth floor when the motorcade was passing?

It would be all very clear if Gary just stuck to the LN script the whole time.

But--to give him credit where it is due--he doesn't.

Gary does still raise doubts about the Lone Nut Theory.

But these days those doubts only ever relate to events other than those in the TSBD.

It seems the TSBD side of things is simply not up for discussion.

Look for instance at this video from a couple of years back:


Gary's 'honest broker' message to his audience is clear:

a ) "History has told us" that Oswald shot JFK;

b ) There are troubling anomalies--such as the 'SS agent' on the Grassy Knoll--but none of them relate to the Oswald-on-the-Sixth-Floor side of things.

Is Gary under very specific contract with the Sixth Floor Museum not to express any doubts about the official version of what happened in that building on 11/22/63?

Is that why he will rather snippily defend the indefensible when the footage of his buddy Dave Perry's laughable SN-to-lunchroom 'time trial' is exposed as phoney?

And is that also why he doesn't want to talk about Carolyn Arnold anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I employ a general rule of thumb when it comes to this odd behavior, by which I mean coming out as a CTer then "turning" to the WC lie. Very simple: Frauds to begin with.

The truth about the assassination is out there: FACTS. Evidence. Non refutable. It is not like religion where you can believe one thing then switch to another based on age, readings, peers, etc. Religion is based on beliefs that cannot be proven. The truth about the conspiracy was proven with the very first critics. Since then it has been greatly augmented. It is truly not open to honest debate. It is a fact.

So these "researchers"/ "writers" who suddenly turn away from the cold hard facts and spout the LN lie were never on the right side to begin with.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email from Gary:

Hmmmm, looks to me like I summarized the implications of Carolyn Arnold’s story quite accurately, especially the last part that reads, Unfortunately, there's no known way to confirm or deny her story.

Was her time estimate correct or not? If not, how far off was she? Did she change her story over time? There’s no way to know for sure, but without some sort of confirmation, Arnold’s story is just that – a story, not proof.

In fact, while I doubt it happened, Oswald might have learned of the progress of the motorcade, but there’s absolutely no evidence that he did or could have done so. KRLD radio stationed two reporters along the route, Wes Wise and, downtown at Main & Akard, Bob Huffaker; the station’s coverage and the reporters’ locations were heard live on KRLD.. Huffaker’s report includes the sounds of the crowd cheering and motorcycles passing by. One or more other radio stations also had live reports of the motorcade’s progress.

What is known without doubt is that the luncheon was scheduled to begin at 12 noon so the 2000+ attendees could arrive and have time to enjoy their lunch prior to Kennedy’s live broadcast address at 1pm. His 12:30 arrival time at the Trade Mart and complete schedule was highly publicized in advance; the details were mentioned in newspapers and on local TV and radio, especially with the Love Field arrival coverage.

Gary Mack


Thanks to Gary for confirming that his view of the Carolyn Arnold story has not changed since 2000.

I agree with him on several counts:

  • his observation that his 2000 summary of the implications of Carolyn Arnold's story was quite accurate
  • his explanation of the 12 noon start time for the Trade Mart luncheon
  • his doubt that Oswald learned of the progress of the motorcade live by radio.


So what's the problem?

In 2000, Gary's chain of logic was as follows:

1. The official story tells us that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter.

2. Carolyn Arnold's story, if true, would on its own virtually exonerate Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter.

3. The truth of Carolyn Arnold's story can be neither safely credited nor safely discounted.

4. Our inability safely to discount Carolyn Arnold's story means that we cannot safely say that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter.

5. Therefore the official story--that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter--is unsafe.

#1: fact

#5: follows logically from #4

In 2013, Gary's chain of logic based on the exact same data has mysteriously morphed into this:

1. History tells us that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter.

2. Carolyn Arnold's story, if true, would on its own virtually exonerate Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter.

3. The truth of Carolyn Arnold's story can be neither safely discounted nor safely credited.

4. Our inability safely to credit Carolyn Arnold's story means that we cannot safely say that Oswald was not the sixth-floor shooter.

5. Therefore History's verdict--that Oswald was the sixth-floor shooter--stands.

#1: opinion not fact.

#5: does not follow logically from #4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would we ever expect anything else concerning mainstream media? Would any of you honestly expect to have an intelligent analysis on television? If you allow that.....you will have allowed the opening of pandora's box of truth and that simply cannot happen for many reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Email from Gary Mack:

You made an inaccurate assumption when you wrote:

#1: opinion not fact.

#5: does not follow logically from #4.

Regardless of any personal opinion, the historical record is exceptionally clear that every major investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald shot President Kennedy. The record is just as clear that that finding has never been overturned. Sure, many folks disagree and that’s part of the record, too; nevertheless, conflicting theories and opinions have yet to alter the Oswald-did-it findings. So as one who works in the history profession, my observations were correct.

Now it’s reasonable to wonder if Oswald knew when Kennedy would be in Dealey Plaza. The record includes many observations that he read newspapers at the TSBD and he both watched TV with others and listened to the radio in his room at the Beckley rooming house. As one who is well informed about pre-assassination media coverage, it would have been odd if he did not know at least some of the schedule. For example, the Wednesday, 11/20 Dallas Morning News included a large section titled:

Timetable Announced for President's Visit


12:30 P.M. - Arrives at Trade Mart to address luncheon sponsored by the Dallas Citizen's Council, Dallas Assembly and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.

There were several mentions of the Fort Worth and Dallas schedules in both daily Dallas papers (and Fort Worth), which means Oswald had plenty of opportunity to know what was ahead. True, the morning of the assassination he asked an employee what the gathering crowd was waiting for and was told the president’s motorcade. Was he really clueless, or just trying to establish an alibi by feigning innocence? Still, at least so far, the historical record stands that Oswald killed JFK.

Gary Mack



1. It is quite illogical to translate "the historical record is exceptionally clear that every major investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald shot President Kennedy" into "History tells us that Oswald shot President Kennedy". That's not how history works. You didn't use to make such a basic error. You used to be quite clear on the crucial distinction in principle between 'official findings' and 'historical truth'.

2. It is not the job of "one who works in the history profession" to casually elide the distinction between 'official findings' and 'historical truth'. That would be the job of one who works in the official propaganda profession.

3. If you truly believed that 'official findings' did translate into 'historical truth', then you would make a point of mentioning in your every media appearance and your every talk at the Sixth Floor Museum that "History tells us that President Kennedy was shot as the result of a conspiracy". Why? Because the most recent major official investigation--the HSCA--concluded that there was a conspiracy.

4. I agree that Oswald, like everyone else, could have known the expected Trade Mart arrival time. But if we cannot safely discredit Carolyn Arnold's story, then we cannot safely put him on the sixth floor at a time when, as you correctly pointed out in 2000, an assassin would have needed to be there.

5. There is, as you say, no proof that Carolyn Arnold's story is correct. Fine: let's not call it historical. Let's be scrupulously agnostic. By the same token however there's no proof that Oswald shot JFK. Nor for that matter is there any proof that all the witness claims central to the case against Oswald as JFK's assassin are correct. Yet that doesn't stop you from routinely talking in public of Oswald's guilt as though only a wild conspiracy buff would seriously doubt it. If you are going to cite 'proof' as the gold standard of 'History-tells-us'-style claims, then you cannot do so with such blatant inconsistency.

6. In 2000 you took Arnold's claim very seriously indeed. Arnold's claim hasn't changed since 2000. Nor has its level of credibility. What has changed, Gary, is--if you'll pardon the bluntness--you. Why is this? Is there a clause in your contract that states that you are not allowed to express any doubts about what happened on 11/22/63 in the building that now houses the Sixth Floor Museum? Or is there some other explanation for this extraordinary change in your public attitude to the question of Oswald's guilt?

7. Out of interest, when was the last time you publicly expressed any doubt whatsoever about Oswald's guilt as the sixth-floor shooter? Is your current level of certainty on that score 100%?

Thank you,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Regardless of any personal opinion, the historical record is exceptionally clear that every major investigation - DPD, FBI, WC, HSCA - concluded Oswald shot President Kennedy. The record is just as clear that that finding has never been overturned" ... You mean the *governmental* record is exceptionally clear. The murderers of JFK were running the non-investigation into his death. Asking Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles to "investigate" the murder of JFK - which has the fingerprints of LBJ, CIA, military intelligence all over it, is like asking John Gotti to investigate a mob hit.

DPD Dallas Police Dept. - under control of LBJ and billionaire oil executives who LBJ fingered in the JFK assassination.

LBJ - a perp

FBI - Hoover probably a perp. Very close to LBJ and Texas oil perps.

Warren Commission - Appointed, controlled, manipulated by LBJ, Hoover, Allen Dulles - very possibly all 3 were perps in the JFK assassination.

HSCA - After Richard Sprague kicked off, sabotaged by CIA, covered up by Robert Blakey with his phony "mob did it all" fantasy. Didn't someone steal a video (from the possession of HSCA) of Oswald at the CIA's training camp for anti-Castro operatives at Lake Pontchartrain? Now who would do that? CIA!

Clark Panel - sham cover up panel appointed by the Attorney General for the perp.

Rockefeller Commission - David Belin executive director, same guy putting up phony baloney Magic Bullet hilarious thigh slapping disinfo "theory" for Warren Commission.

Basically the murderers were running the non-investigation into JFK's death.

I have always thought there was a lot of truth in this passage:

[From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. [Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites


HSCA - After Richard Tague kicked off, sabotaged by CIA, covered up by Robert Blakey with his phony "mob did it all" fantasy. Didn't someone steal a video (from the possession of HSCA) of Oswald at the CIA's training camp for anti-Castro operatives at Lake Pontchartrain? Now who would do that? CIA!



I think you meant to say Richard A. Sprague?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
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
  • Create New...