Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor Museum

[Pat Speer]

John, I have a different understanding of many of these events.

1. You say Ford had to alter the wounds to sell the SBT. The record shows that the Rydberg drawings moving the back wound to the back of the neck were admitted into evidence in March and that Ford never suggested changing the wording from back to neck until June, after Specter had submitted the SBT to the commissioners. As opposed to Specter, who saw the autopsy photo of the back wound in May and KNEW the wound was not on the neck, there is no evidence Ford saw the autopsy photos or knew that the wound was in a location other than depicted on the Rydberg drawings. As a result, there's reason to believe Ford's misrepresentation of the back wound was innocent.

2. Your contention that the "mafia did-it" theory is more comforting to Americans than the "CIA did-it" is off the mark, IMO. If the CIA did it, most Americans could comfort themselves with the notion that the killing was done by honorable men influenced by their higher selves, probably in the cause of anti-Communism. If the "mafia did-it" then Americans have to face the facts that men such as Hoover and LBJ would sell out Kennedy for a bunch of low-life scumbags, murderous thugs, many of whom were not even Americans. To the average American on the street this is just as unsettling, if not more, than having the superspook A-team killing a playboy more concerned with girls and football than the nuclear football. Perhaps you'd have to live here to understand. Most Americans accept that cops and spooks go too far on occasion. This is acceptable to most. But LBJ taking orders from Marcello, or Nixon taking orders from Lansky...these things just don't make sense. The President couldn't actually be CORRUPT, could he?

3. You say Billings was sent to infiltrate the Garrison investigation. My understanding is that Billings and the Luces were leaning toward the "Castro-did-it" theory and were excited by the possibility of somehow linking it all back to Castro. When Garrison pulled a 180 on them and concluded it was the anti-Castro Cubans and CIA pulling Oswald's strings, Billings (along with several others) jumped ship. If Billings was sent to "infiltrate" the investigation why would he have jumped ship so early in the investigation?

4. Your contention that Garrison's career was destroyed is also an over-statement, IMO. If memory serves he was re-elected DA after the Shaw trial and finished out his days as a judge. He even played Earl Warren in JFK.

5. Your reference to "Blakey and his masters" is a wee bit wild, IMO. What "masters?" Who was giving orders to Blakey? You mean Stokes? It seems obvious you mean the CIA, and yet in recent years Blakey, more than any other figure of his era, has re-ignited the controversy by publicly declaring the CIA misled him and the committee through their successful placement of Joanniddes. If Blakey had "masters" then, why would he turn on them now? Even stranger is the implication that these "masters" were pressuring Blakey to push a conspiracy. The HSCA, which began in 76, was committed to the lone-nut theory all the way till the end of 78. While it could very well be true that Blakey was searching for some physical evidence, such as the dictabelt evidence, to confirm what his investigation of Ruby led him to suspect, there can be no doubt that the bulk of bogus HSCA testimony--Baden, Canning, and Guinn--was designed to convince the public there was NO conspiracy. My take is that Blakey was under pressure to PROVE the lone-nut theory unless he could get solid PROOF otherwise. He, himself, then pressured Baden, Canning, and Guinn to testify in support of the LNT. When the dictabelt evidence turned up, however, he turned around and went back to them and asked them if they could find a way to testify there was a conspiracy. They told him where to go. Thus, the bizarre and inconsistent evidence as submitted to the HSCA.

6. You imply Blakey and the HSCA hid the fact that Ford was the one to change the description of the wounds. My understanding is that this wasn't discovered until Rankin's sons made his father's many personal papers, including early drafts of the Warren Report, available to the ARRB in the 90s. I think most Americans, after reading Ford's HSCA testimony, would be surprised at the nature of the questioning: they as much as accused Ford, who'd been President less than two years before, of being a snitch for the FBI. As a result, I find it highly unlikely Blakey did any favors for Ford. He might very well have hated his guts.

7. You refer to Gary Mack as a "disinformation agent" and imply he and Blakey are pushing the same story. While Gary has said he still stands by the dictabelt and badgeman, and suspects there was a conspiracy, I don't recall his insisting the CIA was not involved. If you have a quote from him in which he stresses that the CIA was not involved, I'd be curious to read it. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't remember his views on this issue one way or the other.

8. The wide variety of opinions and personal styles on this forum is no different than I encounter in everyday life. As a consequence I have no reason to believe anyone currently on this forum is a disinformation agent or is in anyway connected to any government agency.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Pat Speer

[John Simkin]

1. You say Ford had to alter the wounds to sell the SBT. The record shows that the Rydberg drawings moving the back wound to the back of the neck were admitted into evidence in March and that Ford never suggested changing the wording from back to neck until June, after Specter had submitted the SBT to the commissioners. As opposed to Specter, who saw the autopsy photo of the back wound in May and KNEW the wound was not on the neck, there is no evidence Ford saw the autopsy photos or knew that the wound was in a location other than depicted on the Rydberg drawings. As a result, there's reason to believe Ford's misrepresentation of the back wound was innocent.

You seem unaware of the documents released by the ARRB in 1997. For example, this is what Michael L. Kurtz has to say about The JFK Assassination Debates (2006):

Virtually every serious Kennedy assassination researcher believes that the Warren Commission's single bullet theory is essential to its conclusion that only one man fired shots at President Kennedy and Governor Connally. The awkwardness of the Mannlicher-Carcano's bolt action mechanism, which forced FBI experts to fire two shots in a minimum of 2.25 seconds, even without aiming, coupled with the average time of 18.3 film frames per second as measured on Abraham Zapruder's camera, constitute a timing constraint that compels the conclusion either that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet, or that two separate gunmen fired two separate shots at the two men. Although a handful of researchers contend that the first shot struck Kennedy at frame Z162 or Z189, thereby allowing sufficient time for Oswald to fire a separate shot with the Carcano and strike Connally at frame Z237, the vast majority of assassination scholars maintain one of two scenarios. First, both Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same bullet at frame Z223 or Z224, evidenced by the quick flip of the lapel on Connally's suit jacket as the bullet passed through his chest. Second, the first bullet struck Kennedy somewhere between frames Z210 and Z224, and the second bullet struck Connally between frames Z236 and Z238, evidenced by the visual signs on the film of Connally reacting to being struck.

The evidence clearly establishes, however, that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. The location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back has given rise to considerable controversy. Originally, the Warren Commission staff draft of the relevant section of the Warren Report stated that "a bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." The problem lay in the course of the bullet through Kennedy's body. If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back. Therefore, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford deliberately changed the draft to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Suppressed for more than three decades, Ford's deliberate distortion was released to the public only through the actions of the ARRB. When this alteration first surfaced in 1997, Ford explained that he made the change for the sake of "clarity." In reality, Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to ensure that the single bullet theory would remain inviolate. The actual evidence demonstrates the accuracy of the initial draft. Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and suit jacket, situated almost six inches below the top of the collar, place the wound squarely in the back. Because JFK sat upright at the time, and because photographs and films show that neither the shirt nor the suit jacket rode up over his collar, the location of the bullet holes in the garments prove that the shot struck him in the back. Kennedy's death certificate places the wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy photographs of the back place the wound in the back two to three inches below the base of the neck.

Also see the following:

William C. Sullivan, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI (1979)

Hoover was delighted when Gerald Ford was named to the Warren Commission. The director wrote in one of his internal memos that the bureau could expect Ford to "look after FBI interests," and he did, keeping us fully advised of what was going on behind closed doors. He was our man, our informant, on the Warren Commission.

Ford's relationship with Hoover went back to Ford's first congressional campaign in Michigan. Our agents out in the field kept a watchful eye on local congressional races and advised Hoover whether the winners were friends or enemies. Hoover had a complete file developed on each incoming congressman. He knew their family backgrounds, where they had gone to school, whether or not they played football, and any other tidbits he could weave into a subsequent conversation.

Gerald Ford was a friend of Hoover's, and he first proved it when he made a speech not long after he came to Congress recommending a pay raise for J. Edgar Hoover, the great director of the FBI. He proved it again when he tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a Hoover enemy.

Bobby Baker, Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator (1978)

Edward Bennett Williams said, "Bobby, you can never figure what a jury will do. It's a roll of the dice. Think about it. Bill Bittman's tough. Bobby Kennedy put him on the Jimmy Hoffa case because he's like a bulldog, and he put Hoffa in Jail. There's a lot of press hysteria connected with your case and the political implications are grave."

I thought about it while Williams silently drove the car and then said, "Ed, absolutely under no circumstances do you have authority to tell Bittman I'll plead guilty to one damn thing. If I do, the press will play it that I got my wrists slapped, that I copped out, that a fix was in. The assumption of total guilt will be with me the rest of my life."

"Well," he said, "it will be with you if a jury finds you guilty, too."

"Maybe they can kill me," I said, "but they can't eat me. I'll go to trial."

"I concur with your decision," Williams said. "I didn't want to influence you, because if something goes wrong then you're the guy who will have to pay the piper."

I knew that William O. Bittman was a tough nut. He had hard, cold eyes and by his own admission was humorless. A bulky former line-backer for Marquette University, lie wore his hair in a crewcut and reminded me of a man the nation Would later get to know - H. R. Halderman of the Nixon staff. I knew from his wiretapping, electronic buggings, and the pressure he'd applied to potential witnesses that Bittman would play hardball all the way (I learned that when the FBI bugged Fred Black's Sheraton-Carlton Suite for six months, one of the periodic visitors there was a congressman named Jerry Ford. He was friendly with Black, but I don't know what he used the suite for). Yet, I could not bear the thought of being labeled as a guy who'd stolen from his best friend. I wanted to get my relationship with Senator Kerr on the record and was willing to run risks in order to do that. Edward Bennett Williams had been preparing my case for almost two years; I had confidence in his ability to get my story across.

[Pat Speer]

The evidence clearly establishes, however, that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets. The location of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back has given rise to considerable controversy. Originally, the Warren Commission staff draft of the relevant section of the Warren Report stated that "a bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine." The problem lay in the course of the bullet through Kennedy's body. If a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building nearly sixty feet higher than the limousine entered the president's back, with the president sitting in an upright position, it could hardly have exited from his throat at a point just above the Adam's apple, then abruptly change course and drive downward into Governor Connally's back. Therefore, Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford deliberately changed the draft to read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." Suppressed for more than three decades, Ford's deliberate distortion was released to the public only through the actions of the ARRB. When this alteration first surfaced in 1997, Ford explained that he made the change for the sake of "clarity." In reality, Ford had elevated the location of the wound from its true location in the back to the neck to ensure that the single bullet theory would remain inviolate. The actual evidence demonstrates the accuracy of the initial draft. Bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and suit jacket, situated almost six inches below the top of the collar, place the wound squarely in the back. Because JFK sat upright at the time, and because photographs and films show that neither the shirt nor the suit jacket rode up over his collar, the location of the bullet holes in the garments prove that the shot struck him in the back. Kennedy's death certificate places the wound at the level of the third thoracic vertebra. Autopsy photographs of the back place the wound in the back two to three inches below the base of the neck.[/color]

Also see the following:

William C. Sullivan, The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover's FBI (1979)

Hoover was delighted when Gerald Ford was named to the Warren Commission. The director wrote in one of his internal memos that the bureau could expect Ford to "look after FBI interests," and he did, keeping us fully advised of what was going on behind closed doors. He was our man, our informant, on the Warren Commission.

Ford's relationship with Hoover went back to Ford's first congressional campaign in Michigan. Our agents out in the field kept a watchful eye on local congressional races and advised Hoover whether the winners were friends or enemies. Hoover had a complete file developed on each incoming congressman. He knew their family backgrounds, where they had gone to school, whether or not they played football, and any other tidbits he could weave into a subsequent conversation.

Gerald Ford was a friend of Hoover's, and he first proved it when he made a speech not long after he came to Congress recommending a pay raise for J. Edgar Hoover, the great director of the FBI. He proved it again when he tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, a Hoover enemy.

Bobby Baker, Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator (1978)

Edward Bennett Williams said, "Bobby, you can never figure what a jury will do. It's a roll of the dice. Think about it. Bill Bittman's tough. Bobby Kennedy put him on the Jimmy Hoffa case because he's like a bulldog, and he put Hoffa in Jail. There's a lot of press hysteria connected with your case and the political implications are grave."

I thought about it while Williams silently drove the car and then said, "Ed, absolutely under no circumstances do you have authority to tell Bittman I'll plead guilty to one damn thing. If I do, the press will play it that I got my wrists slapped, that I copped out, that a fix was in. The assumption of total guilt will be with me the rest of my life."

"Well," he said, "it will be with you if a jury finds you guilty, too."

"Maybe they can kill me," I said, "but they can't eat me. I'll go to trial."

"I concur with your decision," Williams said. "I didn't want to influence you, because if something goes wrong then you're the guy who will have to pay the piper."

I knew that William O. Bittman was a tough nut. He had hard, cold eyes and by his own admission was humorless. A bulky former line-backer for Marquette University, lie wore his hair in a crewcut and reminded me of a man the nation Would later get to know - H. R. Halderman of the Nixon staff. I knew from his wiretapping, electronic buggings, and the pressure he'd applied to potential witnesses that Bittman would play hardball all the way (I learned that when the FBI bugged Fred Black's Sheraton-Carlton Suite for six months, one of the periodic visitors there was a congressman named Jerry Ford. He was friendly with Black, but I don't know what he used the suite for). Yet, I could not bear the thought of being labeled as a guy who'd stolen from his best friend. I wanted to get my relationship with Senator Kerr on the record and was willing to run risks in order to do that. Edward Bennett Williams had been preparing my case for almost two years; I had confidence in his ability to get my story across.

The point I'm trying to make is that Ford didn't move anything. If Kurtz thinks he did he is mistaken. Specter had already had the Rydberg drawings created. Specter had already concluded that the bullet struck Kennedy then Connally. Ford was merely doing his job, as commissioner, and reviewing and rewriting the text of Specter's chapter. Based upon the drawings and the single-bullet theory, it would have been confusing to tell the public the wound was on the back. While Ford SHOULD have pushed Specter to figure out where the wound really was, it appears he simply trusted the Rydberg drawings, and changed the description to support the drawings and the theory. There is no evidence he'd looked at other evidence (such as the face sheet) and knew this to be wrong. Not so for Specter. He KNEW the Rydberg drawings were wrong, and said nothing.

[Michael Hogan]

"Well," he (Sibert) replied, "I had mentioned before about Ford moving that back wound up to the base of the neck, and when I went up for the deposition at the AARB, I took that article with me, and they said, 'We already have that,' and I said, 'At last I feel vindicated.' Here he's admitting that he moved that [wound]. That bullet was where everybody said it was. The Secret Service, the doctors. The clothing [holes] matched it and everything else, you know. Those are things you don't forget when you're an eye witness and you're two feet from it. You're not confused about where the location is."

Interview with James Sibert

In the Eye of History

by William Matson Law

In my opinion, to believe that Gerald Ford was merely doing his job and that his misrepresentation of the back wound was innocent is difficult to accept, particularly in light of the close relationship Ford had developed with Hoover's bureau.

Gerald McKnight does an excellent job of documenting this relationship in Breach of Trust; How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

Ford did a much better job of serving the FBI than he did the American public during his tenure on the Warren Commission.

[Pat Speer]

"Well," he (Sibert) replied, "I had mentioned before about Ford moving that back wound up to the base of the neck, and when I went up for the deposition at the AARB, I took that article with me, and they said, 'We already have that,' and I said, 'At last I feel vindicated.' Here he's admitting that he moved that [wound]. That bullet was where everybody said it was. The Secret Service, the doctors. The clothing [holes] matched it and everything else, you know. Those are things you don't forget when you're an eye witness and you're two feet from it. You're not confused about where the location is."

Interview with James Sibert

In the Eye of History

by William Matson Law

In my opinion, to believe that Gerald Ford was merely doing his job and that his misrepresentation of the back wound was innocent is difficult to accept, particularly in light of the close relationship Ford had developed with Hoover's bureau.

Gerald McKnight does an excellent job of documenting this relationship in Breach of Trust; How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

Ford did a much better job of serving the FBI than he did the American public during his tenure on the Warren Commission.

I don't dispute that Ford was a Hoover ally, and that he reported the Commission's activities to the FBI (Russell did as well). I merely dispute that Ford knew the back wound was on the back and not at the base of the neck, as depicted in the Rydberg drawings. I've looked and I've found nothing to indicate Ford knew any better. Specter, on the other hand, knew better. If anyone gets the chance to interview ole Arlen they need to ask him about this. They need to show him the back wound photo and ask him if the wound in the photo supports the single bullet theory, then show him the re-enactment photos and ask if a bullet entering the chalk mark from the sniper's nest would logically go on to hit Connally in the armpit, then watch him squirm. In short, while Ford MAY have been misrepresenting evidence to sell the SBT, Specter was undoubtedly doing this. One shouldn't focus on Ford without looking into Specter.

If anyone has any evidence indicating that Ford knew the wound was on the back, and that the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, please let me know.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Michael Hogan]

.......One shouldn't focus on Ford without looking into Specter.

Pat, of course you are right about Arlen Specter. I thought his duplicity was a given.

If anyone has any evidence indicating that Ford knew the wound was on the back, and that the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, please let me know.

I refer back to Sibert's quote. Did Ford not have access to that evidence that Sibert mentioned?

Do you think Hoover and DeLoach knew where the back wound was?

[Myra Bronstein]

I searched to see if there was discussion here about the book "Misplaced Loyalties: The Assassinations of Marilyn Monroe & the Kennedy Brothers" and/or the author Victor E. Justice. Published in 2005. I couldn't find any. And I don't know anything about the credibility of this author (using a pseudonym--could be here ). He does seem to be in the James Files Judith Baker camp. Anyway, there are some interesting excerpts from the intro on the web:

"While reading Misplaced Loyalties , bear in mind that covering up the murder of John F. Kennedy represents the most elaborate, expensive, ongoing misinformation/disinformation campaign of all time. Connecting the dots is difficult, because considerable resources have been invested to prevent the truth from coming out.

...

Just one example of the ongoing propaganda effort is the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Visitors are shocked when the keepers of the sniper's nest do not acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have fired a shot on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. This, even though the federal government has formally announced that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy."

http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/05-1804.html

There's another point of interest but it belongs in a different thread.

On edit: Other thread at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8416&st=15

Edited November 10, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Pat Speer]

.......One shouldn't focus on Ford without looking into Specter.

Pat, of course you are right about Arlen Specter. I thought his duplicity was a given.

If anyone has any evidence indicating that Ford knew the wound was on the back, and that the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, please let me know.

I refer back to Sibert's quote. Did Ford not have access to that evidence that Sibert mentioned?

Do you think Hoover and DeLoach knew where the back wound was?

This is a good point, Michael. Ford was given copies of the FBI reports indicating the wound was in the back. Did he study them? Or was he led to believe Humes' testimony and the Rydberg drawings "updated" this info? The strange circumstance is that none of the WC commissioners or counsel seemed to notice the discrepancy between the placement of the back wounds in the FBI reports and the Rydberg drawings. I agree that it's quite likely that they knew about the discrepancy, but chose to look away. Rankin, in fact, told the commissioners in closed session that he was looking for help from the doctors regarding the alignment of the wounds. But there's no evidence, unfortunately, that Rankin or the commissioners KNEW the wound was really on the back or that the doctors were deliberately misrepresenting the location of the wound.

[Terry Mauro]

"Well," he (Sibert) replied, "I had mentioned before about Ford moving that back wound up to the base of the neck, and when I went up for the deposition at the AARB, I took that article with me, and they said, 'We already have that,' and I said, 'At last I feel vindicated.' Here he's admitting that he moved that [wound]. That bullet was where everybody said it was. The Secret Service, the doctors. The clothing [holes] matched it and everything else, you know. Those are things you don't forget when you're an eye witness and you're two feet from it. You're not confused about where the location is."

Interview with James Sibert

In the Eye of History

by William Matson Law

In my opinion, to believe that Gerald Ford was merely doing his job and that his misrepresentation of the back wound was innocent is difficult to accept, particularly in light of the close relationship Ford had developed with Hoover's bureau.

Gerald McKnight does an excellent job of documenting this relationship in Breach of Trust; How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why.

Ford did a much better job of serving the FBI than he did the American public during his tenure on the Warren Commission.

I don't dispute that Ford was a Hoover ally, and that he reported the Commission's activities to the FBI (Russell did as well). I merely dispute that Ford knew the back wound was on the back and not at the base of the neck, as depicted in the Rydberg drawings. I've looked and I've found nothing to indicate Ford knew any better. Specter, on the other hand, knew better. If anyone gets the chance to interview ole Arlen they need to ask him about this. They need to show him the back wound photo and ask him if the wound in the photo supports the single bullet theory, then show him the re-enactment photos and ask if a bullet entering the chalk mark from the sniper's nest would logically go on to hit Connally in the armpit, then watch him squirm. In short, while Ford MAY have been misrepresenting evidence to sell the SBT, Specter was undoubtedly doing this. One shouldn't focus on Ford without looking into Specter.

If anyone has any evidence indicating that Ford knew the wound was on the back, and that the Rydberg drawings were incorrect, please let me know.

***************************************************************

"I merely dispute that Ford knew the back wound was on the back and not at the base of the neck, as depicted in the Rydberg drawings. I've looked and I've found nothing to indicate Ford knew any better. Specter, on the other hand, knew better."

By the Rydberg drawings, are you referring to those crudely drawn sketches that appeared in the New York Times newspaper in June 1964, when the WCR was released? If these are the same drawings I saw back then, it was these specific sketches that led me to believe we were being lied to. What caused me to get that impression was the way this entry wound was supposed to have exited Kennedy's throat just below the cricoid cartilage and just above the suprasternal notch. To the eyes of a 19 year old with half a semester of medical technology at the time, it seemed outrageous for this commission to expect people to believe that this bullet entered the body from a six story window on a downsloping trajectory, exit from the throat in the area I just mentioned, without leaving so much as a huge hole in its wake. And, think about it for a minute. Even if the bullet had entered this supposed spot higher up nearer the neck, it would've exited lower in the chest area, knicking the right side of the sternum before leaving a large hole upon exiting. But, the worst part was to suggest that it seemingly changed its path after going through JFK, proceed to hit Connally, presumably to exit his right armpit, and then continue down to hit him in his thigh. I mean, it wasn't like this was coming from a Barrett .50, and even if it was, it should've gone right on through to the floorboards instead taking all the twists and turns being attributed to it. Then, the reporter attempted to embellish the improbability of what actually happened by making reference to the "possible ricocheting of the projectile off one of JFK's ribs." Bullets don't ricochet off ribs, they shatter them!

My point is, if a nineteen year old could discern the implausibility of what this appointed commission was attempting to pass off as the "truth" regarding the murder of their president? Then, how could a mature, supposedly "learned" man such as Ford, have been so blind or so inept, as to not have caught what any college student studying Physics 101 so readily picked up on? After all, these sketches were being circulated in all the newspapers at the time, ad nauseum. He should have been able to see for himself how ridiculous the assumption was, that he'd just signed off on.

[Peter McGuire]

I searched to see if there was discussion here about the book "Misplaced Loyalties: The Assassinations of Marilyn Monroe & the Kennedy Brothers" and/or the author Victor E. Justice. Published in 2005. I couldn't find any. And I don't know anything about the credibility of this author (using a pseudonym--could be here ). He does seem to be in the James Files Judith Baker camp. Anyway, there are some interesting excerpts from the intro on the web:

"While reading Misplaced Loyalties , bear in mind that covering up the murder of John F. Kennedy represents the most elaborate, expensive, ongoing misinformation/disinformation campaign of all time. Connecting the dots is difficult, because considerable resources have been invested to prevent the truth from coming out.

...

[qoute]Just one example of the ongoing propaganda effort is the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Visitors are shocked when the keepers of the sniper's nest do not acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have fired a shot on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. This, even though the federal government has formally announced that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy."[/qoute]

http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/robots/05-1804.html

There's another point of interest but it belongs in a different thread.

On edit: Other thread at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8416&st=15

Great point, Myra:

Edited November 12, 2006 by Peter McGuire

[Tim Carroll]

Just one example of the ongoing propaganda effort is the Sixth Floor Museum in the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas. Visitors are shocked when the keepers of the sniper's nest do not acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald might have fired a shot on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza. This, even though the federal government has formally announced that JFK's death was the result of a conspiracy."

Despite the governmental findings of a conspiracy, the Sixth Floor Museum promotes books that are counter-historical. As in the following, one can see Pat Speer equates this judgment to the practicalities of commerce, neglecting the self-designation as a "museum."

There's what is called a proper fit--where the social context of the record matches the social views of the store owner, and the clientele of the store....

Granted, a fair rendition of the history may not fit well with the Dallas Citizens Council's desired self-image.

Because of the corporate nature of the museum, its high volume of traffic, and the mainstream views of many of its customers, it makes sense that the museum book store is selective about what it carries. To many of the customers in that store, each book carried there will be carrying an invisible seal of approval. The museum has the right to be selective how they use that seal.

The museum, being a non-profit entity, is prohibited from engaging in any activity which promotes a particular political perspective. A conservative perspective of the Kennedy assassination is the Lone Nut Theory, which also conveniently absolves the "City of Hate" from any responsibility for the "Wanted For Treason" flyers, General Walker's activities and the extreme right-wing politics of the City's leaders, such as H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Ted Dealey. That perspective is political. The landlord of the Museum is the County of Dallas. Is the Museum realistically independent of its sugar daddy landlord? The "seal of approval" implicitly applied to the books sold in the Museum's bookstore amounts to a predatory propagandizing of a general public largely unaware of the complexities of this matter.

And Tim, rather than have people crowding the sniper's nest, which would distract from the other exhibits [like the falsely labeled window], the museum opted to put a webcam in the window.

Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963. When I was in Cozumel recently, and saw the repair efforts following the three days Category 5 Hurricane Wilma hung over the island in October, the tree trimming and replacement was extensive. Yet we are to believe that this highly profitable non-profit Museum, which has enough money to loan to other city refurbishments, can't afford to apply the slightest landscaping effort to trimming a few particular trees as part of its stated goal of preserving the Plaza to reflect its 1963 condition.

We also know that the "sniper's window," which is a glass-enclosed exhibit unquivocally stating that it is the window through which Oswald shot, has at times been claimed to be genuine by Gary Mack and times he has admitted that he cannot be sure. Yet the presentation of the questionable evidence maintains its certainty.

Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."

So the Museum generates enough profits to provide loans to other resoration projects in the City, but just can't manage to "keep the foliage trimmed." Is that credible? No. And neither is Gary Mack credible as a curator. He carries the water for the Dallas Citizens Council, runs a non-museum as if it were a store-front, located on the top floors of the Dallas County Building, and dutifully represents the assassination according to the dictates of the the Boss Hogs of Dallas. If he suddenly grew a conscious, how long would he last with the political appointees who issue his paycheck?

Tim

[Myra Bronstein]

It seems that Gary Mack does not allow the Sixth Floor Museum to sell "conspiracy" books. Len Osanic has called for the museum to be boycotted. Do you agree?

The late Bill Hicks said that he was amazed when he visited the sixth floor museum. And awed by the painstaking reproduction of the snipers nest. And do you know how to tell it was painstakingly authentic, just like the day JFK was killed? Because Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't there.

Yessss. The Mockingbirds nest, aka the Sixth Floor Museum, serves as an anchor for party liners. It's a physical tangible brick and mortar structure in an infamous building and it serves as a powerful backdrop for the regularly scheduled PRopaganda fortifications like Hollands. Propaganda, repetition, brainwashing, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat...

What physical tangible backdrop do real historians like Peter Dale Scott and Larry Hancock have in the unlikely event that a mainstream media camera is pointed at them and they're allowed to discuss facts?

http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html

Just get a load of this huge steaming pile:

"More than 43 years after the Kennedy assassination, some folks still wonder whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone."

(Stated as a parenthetical fact.)

"But eye witnesses heard three shots."

(And many witnesses heard more than three shots.)

"If that were true, Holland said, "We would know that it was not an extraordinary act of marksmanship, assuring us that Oswald was the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza and put to rest any notion that he had to have help in order to pull off that feat of marksmanship."

(Reinforcement of Oswald as a/the gunman, ignoring the HSCA conclusion of conspiracy.)

"Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone when he shot the president from the schoolbook depository? More than 43 years after the assassination, conspiracy theorists still abound. Although all of the facts still point to Oswald, it still does not stop the speculation."

What a brazen xxxxin' lie.

Of course facts don't point anywhere near that poor patsy.

But that's the point of these regular LN theory eruptions, in addition to heaping more confusing material into the already muddy water. The latest "new book" just provides an excuse to again refresh the hypnotic suggestion: All facts point to Oswald.

The absurdity of the theory doesn't matter at all. It's just a contrived opportunity to repeat the lies to a new generation and reinforce the lies in older generations. And the mockingbird nest is one of their most valuable props.

[Don Jeffries]

Gary Mack has emailed me several times in the past, in response to various comments I'd made on another JFK forum. Since our last email exchange, he has apparently given up trying to assuage me with his sugar-coated endorsements of the official story. Imho, Gary's present view of this case is similar to Blakey's; while accepting all the totally impossible stuff (single bullet theory, wandering back wound, head snap not reacting in equal and opposite fashion, as dicated by the laws of physics, etc.), he still clings to the "Badgeman" identification and the acoustics evidence. Again, imho, I feel that these are two of the weaker arguments for conspiracy. Gary used to write lots of interesting articles for "The Continuing Inquiry," back in the late 70s-mid 80s, the feisty little newsletter produced by Penn Jones. He clearly knows that much of what he's saying is nonsense. He's well-versed in the evidence, and how he says some of the stuff he does now with a straight face is beyond me. I've asked him more than once to explain to me how his views on the JFK assassination had changed so dramatically since those days. He always dances around this issue (as does every other ex-conspiracy believer who has been mysteriously converted to lone nutism, like Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, and many more), and the only specific thing he ever cites is the Roscoe White story. While he claims to still be a CTer, everything he utters publicly (especially on television specials, where he has become a real fixture) supports the official fairy tale. I will say that he is always civil in his email exchanges, but I'd caution anyone to weigh and consider everything he says carefully.

[Antti Hynonen]

Don Jeffries Posted Today, 06:54 AM

Gary Mack has emailed me several times in the past, in response to various comments I'd made on another JFK forum. Since our last email exchange, he has apparently given up trying to assuage me with his sugar-coated endorsements of the official story. Imho, Gary's present view of this case is similar to Blakey's; while accepting all the totally impossible stuff (single bullet theory, wandering back wound, head snap not reacting in equal and opposite fashion, as dicated by the laws of physics, etc.), he still clings to the "Badgeman" identification and the acoustics evidence. Again, imho, I feel that these are two of the weaker arguments for conspiracy. Gary used to write lots of interesting articles for "The Continuing Inquiry," back in the late 70s-mid 80s, the feisty little newsletter produced by Penn Jones. He clearly knows that much of what he's saying is nonsense. He's well-versed in the evidence, and how he says some of the stuff he does now with a straight face is beyond me. I've asked him more than once to explain to me how his views on the JFK assassination had changed so dramatically since those days. He always dances around this issue (as does every other ex-conspiracy believer who has been mysteriously converted to lone nutism, like Todd Vaughn, Dave Reitzes, and many more), and the only specific thing he ever cites is the Roscoe White story. While he claims to still be a CTer, everything he utters publicly (especially on television specials, where he has become a real fixture) supports the official fairy tale. I will say that he is always civil in his email exchanges, but I'd caution anyone to weigh and consider everything he says carefully.

Hi,

I have had a somewhat similar experience. I used get those messages too, some of his messages were very informative, and definitely added value to the discussion (although he didn't post here himself), then again at times Mr. Mack's messages seemed to focus quite heavily on suggesting explanations towards the less sinister, and the LN direction. As I recall, in many instances, (in my opinion) making such conclusions wasn't the same as taking an objective stand.

He must have gotten his feelings hurt or something, he gave up on me a couple of years ago. Makes you wonder what's going on.

[Bill Miller]

Yes, the webcam. And what does it show? A Live Oak tree that has been allowed to overgrow and eliminate the possibility of anyone gaining an accurate view of the conditions in 1963. When I was in Cozumel recently, and saw the repair efforts following the three days Category 5 Hurricane Wilma hung over the island in October, the tree trimming and replacement was extensive. Yet we are to believe that this highly profitable non-profit Museum, which has enough money to loan to other city refurbishments, can't afford to apply the slightest landscaping effort to trimming a few particular trees as part of its stated goal of preserving the Plaza to reflect its 1963 condition.

We also know that the "sniper's window," which is a glass-enclosed exhibit unquivocally stating that it isthe window through which Oswald shot, has at times been claimed to be genuine by Gary Mack and times he has admitted that he cannot be sure. Yet the presentation of the questionable evidence maintains its certainty.

Gary Mack has said: "Even the city, which is responsible for upkeep of Dealey Plaza, rarely makes a move without checking with the Museum first. Yes, it is a shame that such an effort to keep the foliage trimmed needed to be initiated long ago. Obviously, no trimming is going to be done to replicate the lighting existent at the west end of the colonade back in '63. If it can be done safely, then it probably will be done. The restoration of the Plaza is a long-term project that is only partly funded."

So the Museum generates enough profits to provide loans to other resoration projects in the City, but just can't manage to "keep the foliage trimmed." Is that credible? No. And neither is Gary Mack credible as a curator. He carries the water for the Dallas Citizens Council, runs a non-museum as if it were a store-front, located on the top floors of the Dallas County Building, and dutifully represents the assassination according to the dictates of the the Boss Hogs of Dallas. If he suddenly grew a conscious, how long would he last with the political appointees who issue his paycheck?

Tim

Tim, have you ever wondered why it is that crime scenes are supposed to be well documented as they were found? It's because circumstances beyond control can cause them to change over time, thus a record of the original event is most always all we have to go on. Now what you have not said about the trees in the plaza is that they have been trimmed back several times in the past. The people who oversee their care have specialist come in and trim them as far back as possible without damaging the tree itself. Now let us say that they didn't go to a professional and just started trimming the trees back as far as maybe you'd like to see them done .... then the trees die and have to be removed. I would bet that you'd then be writing about the conspiracy to alter the look of the plaza so to prevent people like yourself from being able to replicate images for your personal study ... so you make it a no win situation for the Museum no matter how they approach preserving the plaza.

Bill