Jump to content
The Education Forum

CIA stooge Max Holland in town...


Recommended Posts

Max Holland was in Dallas Monday and got about 5 minutes of time on the news

promoting a dumb theory that the "first shot" was when JFK was directly underneath

the sniper nest, but struck the overhead traffic signal boom arm, and he proposed

removing the metal bar to have it analyzed. The video showed the present metal arm

from the sixth floor view. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting

theory".

They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.

The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the

corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.

The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the

corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.

Jack

But if they looked at Altgens 6 and put the bogus issue to rest then they couldn't use it as yet another tool to muddy the water with so many conflicting contrasting confounding theories and counter-theories that the general public recoils from the subject and concludes it's unsolvable.

That wouldn't suit their objective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6. The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.
But if they looked at Altgens 6 and put the bogus issue to rest then they couldn't use it as yet another tool to muddy the water with so many conflicting contrasting confounding theories and counter-theories that the general public recoils from the subject and concludes it's unsolvable. That wouldn't suit their objective.

Holland's theory is the same as Posner's, simply replacing the metal traffic arm for the Live Oak tree. But the way Gary Mack goes along with such nonsense whenever there's abit of air-time to be had leaves one to wonder if he isn't so crooked he has to screw his pants on one leg at a time.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

But the way Gary Mack goes along with such nonsense whenever there's abit of air-time to be had leaves one to wonder if he isn't so crooked he has to screw his pants on one leg at a time.

Tim

Oh, I stopped wondering that long ago...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Holland was in Dallas Monday and got about 5 minutes of time on the news

promoting a dumb theory that the "first shot" was when JFK was directly underneath

the sniper nest, but struck the overhead traffic signal boom arm, and he proposed

removing the metal bar to have it analyzed. The video showed the present metal arm

from the sixth floor view. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting

theory".

They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.

The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the

corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.

Jack

If a shot was fired when JFK was under the snipers nest, then it was a shot that no one heard. The first shot came between Z186 and Z202 according to the statements made by Betzner and Willis. As far as Mack's position ... the following is what I understand it to be as told to me by Gary .................

"Max isn't in town - he was interviewed by the Baltimore CBS affiliate. He's not promoting a new book, either - , though he's still writing one about the Warren Commission.

Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.

I do agree that an indentation MIGHT be visible on the mast IF it is the original mast."

Take a look at the news story that aired here last night: http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, it seems from Weisberg's analysis of Phil Willis that the first shot was around or before Z 190, as I recall reading.

So, this Holland theory is pretty off the mark.

Why does The Nation, a magazine usually critical of official government theories, let him write for them? It seems like the last

time they had a decent analysis in their pages was Fred J. Cook's attack on the Warren Report in the late 1960s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Holland was in Dallas Monday and got about 5 minutes of time on the news

promoting a dumb theory that the "first shot" was when JFK was directly underneath

the sniper nest, but struck the overhead traffic signal boom arm, and he proposed

removing the metal bar to have it analyzed. The video showed the present metal arm

from the sixth floor view. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting

theory".

They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.

The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the

corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.

Jack

If a shot was fired when JFK was under the snipers nest, then it was a shot that no one heard. The first shot came between Z186 and Z202 according to the statements made by Betzner and Willis. As far as Mack's position ... the following is what I understand it to be as told to me by Gary .................

"Max isn't in town - he was interviewed by the Baltimore CBS affiliate. He's not promoting a new book, either - , though he's still writing one about the Warren Commission.

Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.

I do agree that an indentation MIGHT be visible on the mast IF it is the original mast."

Take a look at the news story that aired here last night: http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html

The program made it appear that Tracy Rowlett, longtime local anchor was doing the program LOCALLY. I did not

hear a mention of Baltimore. If from Baltimore, why was such considered LOCAL news that merited several promos

during the day? I missed the first ten seconds or so of the segment, and may have missed a mention of Baltimore.

It was blown way out of proportion. It was all propaganda.

It was mentioned that Holland was working on a book.

I did not misrepresent Gary's opinion....which was basically NO COMMENT (interesting if true).

No attempt was made to show the readily available Altgens 1963 pole configuration, which obviously was

different.

A rifle bullet striking an aluminum pole would penetrate, not "might make a dent". Aluminum

is a soft metal.

The entire piece repeated several times that Oswald was firing from the sixth floor, and fired the

first shot as JFK was approaching, despite no evidence of such. Propaganda. Also, to fire in that

direction negates the entire "sniper nest" theory, since the gunman would have to face a different

direction.

Gary should not get his shorts all twisted up over such obvious propaganda. He should have at least

shown them the Altgens photo, and there would have been NO STORY.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack "A rifle bullet striking an aluminum pole would penetrate, not "might make a dent"."

(unless it is a glancing strike)

"to fire in that direction negates the entire "sniper nest" theory, since the gunman would have to face a different direction."

Yup, that's it.

Most amusing coincidence.

A look at a DalTex window in Altgens and an (incomplete) analysis of trajectory made me suggest this very thing last year.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&qpid=73667

John : "the yellow line here is the angle of the sun from this direction as it throws shadows on the building. The tip of the gun (likely silenced (firecracker not so loud bouncing between tsbd and daltex)) camouflaged with wrapping? Gun supported by bipod on sill. Distance gun protruding can be derived using location of tip shadow.Seems like a long barrel. The scope is illuminating left (his left) forehead area. (see film of rifle in corridor as the scope just lines up in one frame, very bright)

Southpaw shooter. Large caucasian man. Dark hair. Professional gear> professional shooter.

One shot deliberately planted in back. Then other shooters take over. As each shooter fires, leaves immediately. The last shot is when the first and second shooter is already leaving. What is escape route from DalTex? Was it ever searched for rifle?

Could the bullet have grazed the lamppost extension? Sound?

If the post is still there, is it the same as then?> ladder, look" "

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
Max Holland was in Dallas Monday and got about 5 minutes of time on the news

promoting a dumb theory that the "first shot" was when JFK was directly underneath

the sniper nest, but struck the overhead traffic signal boom arm, and he proposed

removing the metal bar to have it analyzed. The video showed the present metal arm

from the sixth floor view. Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting

theory".

They could have saved a lot of valuable air time by simply looking at Altgens 6.

The metal arm from which the signal is suspended from the pole on the

corner by the TSBD was not the same one which is there today.

Jack

If a shot was fired when JFK was under the snipers nest, then it was a shot that no one heard. The first shot came between Z186 and Z202 according to the statements made by Betzner and Willis. As far as Mack's position ... the following is what I understand it to be as told to me by Gary .................

"Max isn't in town - he was interviewed by the Baltimore CBS affiliate. He's not promoting a new book, either - , though he's still writing one about the Warren Commission.

Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.

I do agree that an indentation MIGHT be visible on the mast IF it is the original mast."

Take a look at the news story that aired here last night: http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_072000656.html

Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece. I declined that very opportunity tonight when he sent me pretty much the same pm he sent you.

And since I've bluntly told him in the past NOT to send me furtive messages I got even more blunt this time:

"After watching the video and reading the transcript at the link you provided, I think you have a valid question. And it's up to you to pose it to Jack; I'm not your mediator or your spokesperson.

Since you have an account on this forum you should stop hiding behind researchers to further your agenda by posting your messages for you. Just use your account to say whatever you want to say up front and let people debate or discuss theories with you directly. Ah, but that would take courage and accountability wouldn't it...?

Regardless, I don't welcome your private messages and email. Post it on a forum, target someone more gullible, or keep it to yourself."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory".
Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.
Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece.

Bill Miller serving as Gary Dunkle/Mack's mouthpiece are numerous and ongoing. I have had the experience of asking Gary, to his face and in the presence of my wife, about quotes attributed to him by Bill. He disavowed the wording, if not the substance, alluding to how Bill can get pretty carried away sometimes. Now, in this case, we have Dunkle calling Jack White a xxxx through a deniable third party. That is despicable.

If Jack's story is not true and Gary wanted to refute it without crossing his self-imposed line of posting on forums, he could provide the best evidence available to Bill Miller and then Bill could report the evidence on its own merits, without resorting to the "Gary said" bastion. I welcome clarifications, and Gary Mack is in a position to provide them at times, but if he is unwilling to do so without using buffers, then he should just let them go. Plenty of misrepresentations are made about Robert Groden, but you don't see him sending out a deniable mouthpiece to defend himself.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, it seems from Weisberg's analysis of Phil Willis that the first shot was around or before Z 190, as I recall reading.

So, this Holland theory is pretty off the mark.

Why does The Nation, a magazine usually critical of official government theories, let him write for them? It seems like the last

time they had a decent analysis in their pages was Fred J. Cook's attack on the Warren Report in the late 1960s.

I don't trust The Nation, I don't think they're a genuine progressive publication, and I've boycotted them for years for that reason.

I think they're a faux liberal "asset," like Noam Chomsky.

FWIW

Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, it seems from Weisberg's analysis of Phil Willis that the first shot was around or before Z 190, as I recall reading.

So, this Holland theory is pretty off the mark.

Why does The Nation, a magazine usually critical of official government theories, let him write for them? It seems like the last

time they had a decent analysis in their pages was Fred J. Cook's attack on the Warren Report in the late 1960s.

Full Nation Archive since Abolitionists (anti slavery) founded it on July 6, 1865.

http://www.thenation.com/archive/

The Nation (ISSN 0027-8378) is a weekly [1] U.S. periodical devoted to politics and culture, self-described as "the flagship of the left." [2] Founded on July 6, 1865 as an Abolitionist publication, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States. It is published by the Nation Company, L.P. at 33 Irving Place, New York City.

some articles from 'the Nation'

-The Nation uncovered evidence of "torture and massacres" during the occupation of Haiti. The article led to a Congressional investigation and the independence of Haiti. (Seligmann, Herbert J. "The Conquest of Haiti." The Nation. 10 July 1920.)

-The October 18, 1958, issue was dedicated entirely to Fred J. Cook's exposé of the FBI. (Cook, Fred J. "The FBI." The Nation. 18 October 1958. Pg. 222-280.)

-The June 24, 1961, issue was also dedicated to an article by Cook about the CIA. (Cook, Fred J. "The CIA." The Nation. 24 June 1961. Pg. 529-572.

-The Nation was the first US publication to report on what would later become the Bay of Pigs invasion. (Editors. "Are We Training Cuban Guerrillas?" The Nation. 19 November 1960. Pg. 378-379.)

-A special report by Jamie Lincoln Kitman in the March 20, 2000, issue reported on efforts by Standard Oil (now Exxon), GM and DuPont to cover up the dangers of lead additives (used for anti-knock purposes) in gas. (Lincoln Kitman, Jamie. "The Secret History of Lead." The Nation. 20 March 2000. Pg. 11-44.)

-A series of articles by Bill Mesler revealed that a projectile made of depleted uranium used in the first Iraq war was more radioactive, deadlier and affected more soldiers than the Pentagon admitted. (Mesler, Bill. "The Pentagon's Radioactive Bullet." The Nation. 21 October 1996. Pg. 11-14.; "Pentagon Poison: The Great Radioactive Ammo Cover-Up." The Nation. 26 May 1997. Pg. 17-22.; "The Gulf War's New Casualties." The Nation. 14 July 1997. Pg. 19-20.)

Some notable contributors:

Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gore Vidal, Hunter S. Thompson, Langston Hughes, Ralph Nader, James Baldwin, Clement Greenberg, Tom Hayden, Daniel Singer, I.F. Stone, Leon Trotsky, Franklin D. Roosevelt, James K. Galbraith, John Steinbeck, and Jean-Paul Sartre.

The Nations CIA connections are interesting in the light of its significant leftist roles on a number of occasions.

It reminds me of how the National Students Association was infiltrated and eventually destroyed by covert funding of its principals and then undoing its potential by exposing those links, thus disgracing the organisation and destabilising the Anti Vietnam War Movement.

I guess it's a matter of developing discernment and not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Fortunately for those who do seek to destroy the positive elements, this discernment is seldom sought and the herd mentality wins out.

Someone else decribed it as the purpose is 'allowing 95 % of the truth let slip by the 5 % of lies". Self education and cross referencing at least to some extent counteracts these distortive effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing blew up about MONTH ago. Holland wrote this stupid essay for the History News Network claiming the reason why the witnesses heard two shots clumped together at the end when the second shot was at 224 and the third shot was at 313 was because the first shot actually came more than 2 seconds before Zapruder even began filming Kennedy on Elm Street. Gary Mack and Dale Myers quickly whipped out letters debunking Holland's theory. Neither of them wanted any part of it--evidently they'd actually READ some of the eyewitness testimony and didn't want to be associated with Holland's ridiculous fantasy. (And a fantasy it is--I mean, come on, almost all the witnesses said Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and now Holland expects us to believe the first shot heard by these witnesses not only missed but was fired roughly 6 seconds before Kennedy was hit! Not.)

Anyhow, if this stupid idea is getting media coverage, just imagine how much press Bugliosi is gonna get. I'm getting sick already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, it seems from Weisberg's analysis of Phil Willis that the first shot was around or before Z 190, as I recall reading.

So, this Holland theory is pretty off the mark.

Why does The Nation, a magazine usually critical of official government theories, let him write for them? It seems like the last

time they had a decent analysis in their pages was Fred J. Cook's attack on the Warren Report in the late 1960s.

I don't trust The Nation, I don't think they're a genuine progressive publication, and I've boycotted them for years for that reason.

I think they're a faux liberal "asset," like Noam Chomsky.

FWIW

I know I am repeating myself here, but I entrirely agree about The Nation, and believe there is a clear historical precedent of CIA "left-gatekeeping" in the case of Encounter Magazine during the critically important years of 1950--55, in which the Military Industrial Complex was becoming entrenched.

The CIA realized that a publication that had credibility on the left was in many ways far more useful in defining the limits of acceptable political debate than was a magazine in the centre or right. If such a magazine, for example could get its readers to look down on the Bandung Conference, and Neutralism, then they could trumpet the fact that "EVEN PROFESSOR DOODLEBUG, KNOWN LEFTIST AND SUPPORTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH ETC, SAYS THAT NEUTRALISM IS BEYOND THE PALE, SO THEREFORE, ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN NEUTRALISM IS A SOVIET STOOGE"

Years from today, when historians look back at this era, I think they will wonder how such a magazine could continue to take the democratic party seriously, how they could continue to legitimate Hillary Rodham Bush as a "progressive", and how the magazine worked to divide the opposition or put it to sleep.

The book to read about Encounter Magazine is Francis Saunder's The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. It shows that the psuedo-left has been the most vital and creative source of CIA disinformation strategies.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Mack came on camera and said it was an "interesting theory".
Jack misrepresented my opinion of Max's theory. I do NOT believe it and have told him so in several private emails.
Gosh Bill, how sweet of you to serve as Mack's mouthpiece.

Bill Miller serving as Gary Dunkle/Mack's mouthpiece are numerous and ongoing. I have had the experience of asking Gary, to his face and in the presence of my wife, about quotes attributed to him by Bill. He disavowed the wording, if not the substance, alluding to how Bill can get pretty carried away sometimes. Now, in this case, we have Dunkle calling Jack White a xxxx through a deniable third party. That is despicable.

If Jack's story is not true and Gary wanted to refute it without crossing his self-imposed line of posting on forums, he could provide the best evidence available to Bill Miller and then Bill could report the evidence on its own merits, without resorting to the "Gary said" bastion. I welcome clarifications, and Gary Mack is in a position to provide them at times, but if he is unwilling to do so without using buffers, then he should just let them go. Plenty of misrepresentations are made about Robert Groden, but you don't see him sending out a deniable mouthpiece to defend himself.

Tim

"Gary Dunkle"? Does Mack have an alias Tim?

Link to post
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...