Robert Howard Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 (edited) NO MOTIVE was ever deduced, So why did you use the word "assassin"? Are you so conceited that you think you're worthy of being bumped off? LOL. Happy b-day. My-oh-My these Washington D.C. white collar Super Heroes! Hey John Simkin, this the guy you're monitoring? If so, this part of the forum's *new* free speech policy? Jack, I haven't had the pleasure of knowing you personally, but have a couple of thing's I would like to share. First, I am very glad you are here, alive and well. Second, I think anyone who has a basic knowledge of the debate between those who advocate acceptance of 'cherished myth's in American history' versus 'real history,' realize what is up and what is down. History operates in cycles, three of the most pivotal events in American history.... 1. The 'surprise attack' on Pearl Harbor. 2. The assassination of President Kennedy [and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy]. 3. The attack's of September 11, 2001. ....viewed in a linear cycle of analysis, reveal among other thing's, that there is a historical paper trial which, [albeit 30 years later]prove with regards to #1, that December 7, 1941 was anything but a 'surprise attack,' and that the 'court of inquiry, i.e. proceedings against Admiral Kimmel and General Short were, in retrospect a farce, a fact which would still perhaps, be unknown w/o the passage of FOIA. Additionally, a preponderance of historical fact viewed objectively, indicates that not only the assassination of JFK, but MLK and RFK as well, were exactly what many American's thought at the time conspiracies, which also has taken decades to establish. And that the truth about 9-11 will more than likely [unfortunately] take decade's to determine as well. With regards to topic #2, the overall assessment is made basing the circumstancial evidence + logic. A microcosm of this dynamic exists in the final resolution of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. When the assassination was resolved, the response of media was 'muted' to say the least. Contrary to the layperson's perception of 'media response,' there were no large headlines stating 'Assassination of MLK solved,' if one need's an explanation of why that is so, then I will not be able to elaborate, other than to say 'Fiat justitia ruat caelum.' In the final analysis, how societies are governed encompasses not only law and the consent of the governed, but also through the dynamics of consensus and the manufacturing of consent. As has been stated elsewhere, history will not absolve us of the responsibility to confront evil, nor to simply turn a blind eye to evil because a majority and/or the apparatus of government feels it is 'inappropriate' to do so. Edited July 15, 2006 by Robert Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Allen Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 What an absolute nightmare. So glad you survived or I would never have made your acquaintance - "cyber-net"ically speaking. You're a tough old bird... tougher than the slings and arrows of outrageous nonsense... that's for sure! Good job getting to the neighbor's house... and... keep on - "keeping on". Happy Birthday... and many, many more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) my "assassin" used an ice pick taken from my wife's knitting basket, used for punching holes in cloth…he took a pair of my shorts and my car keys, and escaped in my car… Jack, the manual though sickening was fascinating thank for the link. However several aspects of your attack don't fit the manual's M.O. From your own account your attacker arrived unarmed, naked and without means of escape. The manual stressed the need for planning, certainty of death and for the assassin to escape. If the assassin is to die with the subject, the act will be called "lost." If the assassin is to escape, the adjective will be "safe." It should be noted that no compromises should exist here. The assassin must not fall alive into enemy hands.[…] PLANNING When the decision to assassinate has been reached, the tactics of the operation must be planned, based upon an estimate of the situation similar to that used in military operations. The preliminary estimate will reveal gaps in information and possibly indicate a need for special equipment which must be procured or constructed. When all necessary data has been collected, an effective tactical plan can be prepared. […] TECHNIQUES The essential point of assassination is the death of the subject. A human being may be killed in many ways but sureness is often overlooked by those who may be emotionally unstrung by the seriousness of this act they intend to commit. The specific technique employed will depend upon a large number of variables, but should be constant in one point: Death must be absolutely certain. The attempt on Hitler's life failed because the conspiracy did not give this matter proper attention. Unless he got lucky he would had to have rummaged around a bit to find the ice pick, I don't think a knitting basket would be the 1st place an assassin would go looking for a weapon of opportunity the kitchen or garage (or basement or where ever you kept your tools) would have been far more likely locations. And if hadn't gotten your car keys he would have had to escape on foot naked or wearing nothing but your shorts which would have his capture by "the enemy" in this case the police rather high. If your attacker was an assassin he and/or his handlers violated all three principles. …which he abandoned, very coincidentally I am sure, at the back parking lot of the place of employment of Gary Mack...about a mile from my house.FROM ANOTHER POST Police found my abandoned car parked against the gate. Years ago you indicated that you though that this was an attempt to "set up" Gary Mack how exactly would that have worked? I assume your wife knew Garry at least would have been able tell police that he wasn't your attacker. Even if he had been successful and killed or gone unseen by your wife how would this have implicated Gary? According to Robert Perry your attacker demanded cash and your car keys and crashed into a retaining wall. [ http://home.earthlink.net/~joejd/jfk/zaphoax/rainsenless.htm ]. You don't happen to have any news clippings or police reports about the case that you could post? I am told that assassins often are naked to avoid blood on clothes and absence of clothing description Can Jack or anyone on this forum cite any other case of naked murderers? Barring of course indidents were the killer was crazy, a member of a tribal group, the (a) sexual partner of the victim or where the attack occurred at a nudist colony? Escaping naked would have made him very conspicuous; wearing your shorts would negate the advantage of the "absence of clothing description" and would have made it easier to ID the him. Since apparently no clothing or abandoned vehicles (cars, motorcycles, bikes etc) were found we must assume he walked to your house naked, this would have seriously compromise the "mission" because despite the early hour there was a good chance he would have been spotted by someone who would have call the cops or been able to identify him. This man had athletic build, crewcut hair, clean shaven, no alcohol, white guy (sort of military looking).FROM ANOTHER POST Leaving me for unconscious or dead, he started chasing my wife as she was trying to call 911 for help. Though near death, I managed to run next door for help. Jack it sounds to me like you think he was a pro military or CIA type. I imagine in this case he would have cut your phone line(s), used a gun and been successful. It seems hard to believe a athletic trained killer could have botched killing a 65 year-old man and his wife while they slept. The CIA manual indicated guns were problematic a) in places were they were difficult to obtain, illegal or their possession incriminating I don't think that would have been the case or used by someone with improper training. You, being so public all these years, were clearly onto something very big. Otherwise researchers do not die.My rule of thumb here is two- fold:( 1.) Onto something big and ( 2 )going public with it, leads to death, or in your case, a close brush with. Jack, were you working on anything especially important at the time? Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Dawn and that you wouldn't have been a target. Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former. Len Edited July 16, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former.Len There is no doubt in my mind that it wasn't a CIA plot, but implying that it was does make for a more interesting story. Besides, why would the CIA want Jack gone ... he has been their best asset at making CT's look incompetent! Bill Miller Edited July 16, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former.Len There is no doubt in my mind that it wasn't a CIA plot, but implying that it was does make for a more interesting story. Besides, why would the CIA want Jack gone ... he has been their best asset at making CT's look incompetent! Bill Miller Post of the Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former.Len There is no doubt in my mind that it wasn't a CIA plot, but implying that it was does make for a more interesting story. Besides, why would the CIA want Jack gone ... he has been their best asset at making CT's look incompetent! Bill Miller making CT's look incompetent is taking a toll [not to mention energy], thousands and TENS of thousands of posts, endless hours spent making animations, comparison photos, running all over the internet chasing that elusive CT, of course I'm pointing to efforts Lone Neuter's are spending on one Jack White! Then there's those alledged CTer's claiming other CTer's are making the conspiracy cause look incompetent -- Here's a news flash for them! A conspiracy, is a CONSPIRACY. In the final analysis, advances in the case will determine what side is correct... Quite frankly, WCR supporters strategy is: do nothing. I define that 'nothing' as filling up certain spots on the internet with nonesense, posting opinion and interpretation in direct support for the WCR, not a stich of new evidence and/or advancing their Lone Nutter/WCR cause. btw, why is the "no doubt" in your mind any different than Jack's photo determinations? Whose wrong in either interpretation? You, him, both of you? -- Implying and supporting JFK assassination related photo's were altered carries the same amount of weight as you're determination the CIA wasn't involved. Apples to Oranges! You'll never know if the CIA was involved, hence intangible -- the Dealey Plaza photographic record on the other hand, is tangible. Interesting stories abound concerning the CIA. Whether myth or lore is for others to determine, unless of course you have insider information...? Edited July 16, 2006 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 QUOTE(Bill Miller @ Jul 16 2006, 03:30 PM) * QUOTE Your attack was obviously very traumatic and despite our differences I'm glad you survived. I imagine it is more gratifying to think you had been targeted for assassination than that you nearly died because a nut job broke into your house but IMHO the latter is more likely than the former. Len There is no doubt in my mind that it wasn't a CIA plot, but implying that it was does make for a more interesting story. Besides, why would the CIA want Jack gone ... he has been their best asset at making CT's look incompetent! Bill Miller Post of the Day. **************************************************** "Post of the Day." Nope. Sorry sonny, more like THE CLYDE AWARD of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Nope. Sorry sonny, more like THE CLYDE AWARD of the day Terry, you really need to work on your comebacks. The one above is so oooollldddd. Do you have no other weapons in your arsenal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 (edited) Nope. Sorry sonny, more like THE CLYDE AWARD of the day Terry, you really need to work on your comebacks. The one above is so oooollldddd. Do you have no other weapons in your arsenal? ************************************************* "Terry, you really need to work on your comebacks. The one above is so oooollldddd. Do you have no other weapons in your arsenal?" But, of course I do, my child. Except in chronic cases of "hoof 'n' mouth" disease, of which you seem to be exhibiting of late. THE CLYDE AWARD seems to be the antidote for that malady. If, for serving no other purpose than that of reminding one of the graveness of their condition. Unfortunately, there are those of us who find your case of it to be one of extreme toxicity, as well as malodorous in content, having seemingly progressed to its terminal stages. Pity, for someone so young as yourself to have been so negatively afflicted. Edited July 16, 2006 by Terry Mauro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Nope. Sorry sonny, more like THE CLYDE AWARD of the day Terry, you really need to work on your comebacks. The one above is so oooollldddd. Do you have no other weapons in your arsenal? ************************************************* "Terry, you really need to work on your comebacks. The one above is so oooollldddd. Do you have no other weapons in your arsenal?" But, of course I do, my child. Except in chronic cases of "hoof 'n' mouth" disease, of which you seem to be exhibiting of late. THE CLYDE AWARD seems to be the antidote for that malady. If, for serving no other purpose than that of reminding one of the graveness of their condition. Unfortunately, there are those of us who find your case of it to be one of extreme toxicity, as well as malodorous in content, having seemingly progressed to its terminal stages. Pity, for someone so young as yourself to have been so negatively afflicted. P*R*E*T*E*N*T*I*O*U*S. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Slattery, Ever serve your country in the military? Just curious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Slattery,Ever serve your country in the military? Just curious... Never had the privilege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Brendan is quite clearly what we here would describe as an unspeakable little right wing xxxx... treat him accordingly please... with a due sense of pity and amusement. He is evidently (not even by American standards) very intelligent. A sort of stupid illiterate comedy demagogue - perhaps our American cousins would like to elect him President? He appears in fact somewhat over qualified for the role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Slattery, Ever serve your country in the military? Just curious... Never had the privilege. Another neo-con chickenhawk...Never had the guts to fight the battles you advocate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brendan Slattery Posted July 16, 2006 Share Posted July 16, 2006 Slattery, Ever serve your country in the military? Just curious... Never had the privilege. Another neo-con chickenhawk...Never had the guts to fight the battles you advocate? Another self-hating Western appeaser...Never had the guts to volunteer for "human shield" duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now