I wonder if DU's resident JFK conspiracy cranks will read this.
Probably not....

I am happy to say I have found them!

Clinched it for me. I knew Oswald did it. The museum recreated Oswald's "Sniper's Nest", and enclosed it in plexiglass. I stood right outside the plexiglass, at next the window looking out, and down along Elm Street, and said to myself, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot. There was no need for more than one gunman. Oswald did it."

How interesting... you are either oblivious or kidding...

First, were you to have visited the "museum", as I did, you would have been given an audio and headphones to poetry in your ears, "the story" while having a limited view of what you use as your assessed "easy shot".

And second, no one can get close enough to the view when standing near the plexiglass to say, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot". How absurd. One thing is correct about viewing the "sniper's nest"... it's as empty today as it was November 22, 1963.


Here's filmed evidence that happened right after the assassination. It's a compilation taken by CBS, NBC and standard 8 mm camera's show the reactions of the crowd after the assassination. EVERY SINGLE person who was close to the motorcade ran towards the grassy knoll. We see witnesses paying attention to the knoll, not the damned 6th floor museum. Filmed evidence even shows is where NBC films the fence atop in the grassy knoll. What the fuck did they do THAT for?

Now, before the usual lone gun conspiracy nuts come answering this post on your behalf...

Here's photographic evidence, movie and still photography...

Have a nice day!

... and still no response to the simple explanation. How predictable.

> > MicaelS: I stood right outside the plexiglass, at next the window looking out, and down along Elm Street, and said to myself, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot.

> And second, no one can get close enough to the view when standing near the plexiglass to say, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot". How absurd.

What an absurd thing to say. I'm going to predict that you won't even attempt to explain why you think the view from the two windows it so different:

1) You, as predicted (every time, lately) feel the need to act on behalf of other's posts.... possibly, because you don't get my attention to begin with...


2) You, as predicted, show pictures, designed in your head to support some kind of "picture" pseudo-evidence of where none exists. You can't even touch the evidence that way as to where shots came from, much less, how impossible they were to come from the window these two guys are at least 12 away from.

3) This funny and silly stuff you insist on presenting (always, on behalf of other's posts) are so unlike the evidence in the video "50 reasons" presentations.

Thanks for the abundant laughs. Keep em coming, cause I LOVE having posts like this KICKED!

Why waste all of those keystrokes if you aren't going to respond?

1) You, as predicted (every time, lately) feel the need to act on behalf of other's posts....

Uh, in addition to being irrelevant, that's inaccurate. Our last exchange, which I just brought to your attention for the second time, is a direct response to your OP of the silly Black Ops Radio videos. I posted a summary of the introduction and the first five episodes to give you an opportunity to point out what I was missing, but instead you went missing.

> .... possibly, because you don't get my attention to begin with..

Well, I have a theory about why you never seem to have a cogent response to what I post (yet frequently have lame excuses for why you don't), but that's all irrelevant. Since I've come to expect unresponsive responses from you, if anything at all, my primary objective in replying to you is to get the attention of anyone inclined to take you seriously.

> 2) You, as predicted, show pictures, designed in your head to support some kind of "picture" pseudo-evidence of where none exists.

LOL, the pictures I posted demonstrate how absurd your reply to MicaelS was, after saying his post was absurd.

> You can't even touch the evidence that way as to where shots came from, ...

The EVIDENCE of where the shots came from speaks for itself, which is the one and only reason conspiracists declare it fake:





The EVIDENCE says JFK was shot twice from behind, and the evidence says it was with Oswald's rifle from the TSBD 6th floor. After telling us to ignore the actual evidence, after 50 years conspiracists still don't have any evidence of a shot from somewhere else that can withstand scrutiny. But that's not a problem for conspiracy hucksters: Since they aren't really interested in getting at the truth, they just ignore the obvious problems with their evidence and their reasoning.

> ... much less, how impossible they were to come from the window these two guys are at least 12 away from.

Absurd bullshit double-down noted, which brings us to this:

> 3) This funny and silly stuff you insist on presenting (always, on behalf of other's posts) are so unlike the evidence in the video "50 reasons" presentations.

I already called your bluff on that and you folded. You couldn't give me any reason to watch those videos, and then when I watched the first five anyway and found not a shred of this imaginary evidence you're claiming, you decided it was a good time to ignore my posts. But I'll give you another chance: Point me to any one of those videos that contains some credible evidence of a conspiracy.

> Thanks for the abundant laughs. Keep em coming, cause I LOVE having posts like this KICKED!

No problem. Although we don't learn anything useful about 9/11 or the JFK assassination from your posts, I think we learn a lot about how some conspiracists think.

And, you do it so quickly.

Still insisting on answering "other's" posts, I see.

KICK!

"... that contains some credible evidence of a conspiracy."

I'll keep is simple this time since your attention span seems to be about two sentences.

KICK!

KICK!

and thanks for the kick!

As laughable as it is, your evasion is probably less laughable than any attempt to defend those bullshit videos.

Thanks.

You might think it could trigger watching the 50 reasons videos... if you actually gave this thought, and weren't distracted by all the bantering we do.

I don't care if I kick your thread... I am unabashed in my wishing more would watch and comment. More have and did.

These people are trying to leave.

Jesus H...

You'd think a crackerjack researcher like Robert Groden would know that, huh. I'd bet money that he does; he just doesn't want facts getting in the way of selling books.

I had to laugh at the part about the "smoke" on one of the videos that "the Warren Commission doesn't want you to see." Was the shooter using a blunderbuss? It reminded me of one of the funniest comments I read about Stone's JFK movie, so I had to go find it again:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm#smoke

until the mass exodus begins and Groden starts talking. It wore me out.

So, do you guys actually have any reputable researcher, cause I noticed you went to him again.

This is great...


I see you are still answering other's posts, does it take two of you to keep re-winding mcadams and footage after the shots of people running .... TO THEIR CARS???

... except the humorous comment. The story about what Stone had to do to film the scene (due to the fact that modern gunpowder only produces a small amount of gray smoke that dissipates in less than a second) doesn't come from McAdams. It comes from a witness to the filming, Gus Russo: http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100smoke.html

And, BTW, the hatred that conspiracists have for McAdams, Bugliosi, Posner and anyone else who calls bullshit on JFK conspiracists simply reinforces how little they care about getting at the truth. The one and only thing they seem to care about is how many people can be recruited into the cult. As one of their victims, your opinion about what constitutes a "reputable researcher" is pretty laughable. The guys you idolize can't even muster enough evidence to convince each other what happened, but so what, as long as it's not the "official story," huh.

And I'm sorry, but you failed to post enough ROFLs to make the convincing case that all those people are running toward an armed man who just murdered someone. What do you imagine they intended to do? Get the man to empty his weapon on them and then whoever was left would grab him? It's never ceases to amaze me what conspiracists can convince themselves of when they are trying to rationalize their inherently irrational beliefs.

Oh, yes... All the people who heard shots would naturally be trying to find their car at that moment!

Yes!

Yes!

Where is he? Why didn't they catch him? They're running up there within seconds of the gunshots, trying to catch the motherfucka that just shot their president, right? Why didn't they catch him?

Here's a thought: there was never anyone there to catch. That would fit the facts, woodunit?

That would only fit the "facts" living inside your mellon, BB.

Maybe he climbed aboard his rail car and pumped his little arms so fast he was around the bend before the first one of those second shooter stalkers managed to run up a little hill and get to the parking lot?



Sure, this is from 1995, but you can see how flat it is up there. Somebody running would have been seen or caught. Someone driving a car, again, would have been seen.

What gives, MMM? This is your little fantasy about a second shooter and how all those people are running up there to catch them one. Why didn't they catch him? Did LBJ and Hunt build him a rocket ship and he flew off to the moon before the second shooter hunters could get there? Wherdy go?

... but no one half way serious about learning what happened that day would give what you say a second thought...

It's that silly. You reflect your own fantasy world on to people who are seriously thinking about this, especially on the 50th anniversary.

Do you have any idea how many people plan to visit city of hate this fall? That many and more want to have an honest investigation and more.

I think I'm going to refer to your post as the rocket man post. You are hilarious to some and silly to me.

Since there's no possible way he could have escaped all those second shooter go-getters.

Cause you have lots of time for these things.... [url=http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php][img][/img][/url]

It's either has to be "this" or "that"... If it isn't a lone gunman, then it must be a second shooter's egress.

Has anyone here even read or listened to anything from Jim Garrison's work on to the present where evidence was the subject? Had you done so or listened to more recent authors, you'd be presented with evidence that's existed for years. There were a lot of questions to suggest who went where, if indeed there were shooters beyond the grassy knoll, fence and storm water sewer area. Much of what the Shaw trial explained about shooters and the House Select Committee on Assassination American REcords Review Board.

Instead of talking about what you MAY have read such as getting documents that were fundamental to tracking down all the evidence of the case, you and others take any and all efforts to discredit.

A whole lot of people did the same to discredit Jim Garrison him, kill off and scare off witnesses and infiltration and use of FBI and CIA, and other agencies to get into media and slant stories and discredit Garrison, his staff, witnesses to the assassination...

Feel free to distract. For all others, stop by and listen to another archived version of this evening's internet radio show - Black Op Radio, another reason to discredit all the disinformation you and others keep spinning.

Storm sewer? The reason we're even discussing the grassy knoll is that all those people heard the shot come from the grassy knoll, and up they run to catch them a second shooter, who has somehow vanished from the face of the earth. If the shot came from the storm sewer, why didn't they run to the storm sewer?

How do you guys do this? Argue out of both sides of your mouths all the time!

How?

There's no way a second shooter got away.

I don't see anything here that resembles a real question.

You never read anything, either. No shame about it... no idea... there is something significantly wrong with that.

blackopradio.com

One you don't have an answer for, or you would have answered by now.

And that's not just escape the premises - this fellow escaped any and all notice, even though he is presumed to have fired on the President from the front. He fires the kill shot (back and to the left), people go running where they heard the sound (premise granted for argument), and the dude has just utterly vanished.



Where did he go?

"... to Sylvia Odio's Dallas apartment in late September 1963." DiEugenio claims that the visit would have been at the time the Warren Commission believed Oswald was on a bus to Mexico City (which turns out to be inaccurate, since the visit could have happened on the evening before Oswald left). Apparently, in the pathological epistemology of JFK conspiracism, finding anything the Warren Commission might have gotten wrong is somehow supposed to prove that they lied their asses off to cover up a conspiracy, completely regardless of the evidence that lead to their conclusions.

Odio was involved with an anti-Castro group, whereas Oswald was involved with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, so such a meeting wouldn't make much sense (unless possibly Oswald was trying to infiltrate the group), but DiEugenio somehow "concludes" that someone was trying to set Oswald up. Or something. Somehow.

If it really was Oswald that visited Odio, that would imply... well, absolutely nothing, really -- spooky one-note sound track not withstanding.

It doesn't seem like you or anyone else actually wants to discuss these silly videos, MMM.

... which is based on ..."inaccurate, since the visit could have happened on the evening before Oswald left..." Then, when putting forth your theory to counter why someone couldn't possibly be setting up Oswald, you add another layer of your "theory" to cover any evidence that, "If it really was Oswald that visited Odio... it implies absolutely nothing..." WTF? Nice way to have a self-fulfilled prophecy, Billy.

This is why I no longer believe that you and some other ridiculous spinners on this forum don't read the material they cry about. Every stupid and silly remark shows over and over the spin, based on a few authors, so your talking points are not well referenced. They never are. You endeavor to wherever you can, to repeat (whether it's a video about other things you detest, or the JFK, which you REALLY detest), by reacting to "spooky one-note sound tracks" as you spin. .. It really takes away from any question being put forth.

When you decide to read (a skill requiring devotion to that attention span), you might invest in reading the second and third generation of researchers, who are well based - not only in reading interviews and the Warren Commission, but sworn testimony of the early investigative reporting and follow through, all well referenced. From THAT reading, you will note that Sylvia Odio was one of the BEST and most important witnesses...

She said that two Cubans came to her house in late September of 1963 with a Caucasian man they called Leon Oswald. In fact, today's evidence is pretty decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time. Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963. Nagell said that this Leon Oswald was meant as a Second Oswald and was working with the anti-Castro Cubans, he was not at all pro-Castro. Raymond Broshears, a friend of David Ferrie's also spoke about a Leon Oswald. He described him as resembling Oswald. Michael Kurtz interviewed rightwing witness in Baton Rouge who recalled meeting an Oswald who was introduced to them as Leon Oswald in July and August of 1963. This happened more than once, and on his last visit to the area, Leon Oswald was accompanied by two Latins. David F Lewis, who once worked for Banister, said that he was introduced to a man named Leon Oswald by Sergio Arcacha Smith's right hand man Carols Quiroga at Mancuso's REstaurant in late 1962.

DiEugenio says it's doubtful that this was the real Lee Harvey Oswald since he was still living in the Dall-Fort Worth area at the time. All of this testimony strongly suggests that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald.

Without having to go out and buy you the damned book, Billy, why don't you just READ about the significance of The Odio episode? The absolute best investigative reference into her significance, including what the Commission decided NOT to use can be found in DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" (I have 2nd edition, paper bound, so it won't break your bank), should you actually decide to read what you cry foul over.

Meanwhile, so nice of you to jump in and cover other's posts here. I'm afraid that's all I can offer the light weights here. For everything else, there's reading comprehension and not being a goof ball about this.

Hey, I'm sure glad you're stuck on these video's.... cause they'll be at least 50 of them leading up to the 50th anniversary of the worst conspiracy this country's faced. The sooner we realize this, the better. So glad you're part of it, even though your part is a petty annoyance without credible reading comprehension.

Have a nice day!

> "... that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald."

... which, even if true, proves absolutely nothing pertinent to the JFK assassination, regardless of what it "strongly suggests" to people who filter through the evidence with a confirmation bias that has become definitive of conspiracy crackpottery.

> "In fact, today's evidence is pretty decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time."

I'd be willing to bet that a quick check of any large city's phone directory would turn up "decisive evidence" of at least one Leon Oswald, if not more, and I'll take short odds on it. You in?

On the one hand, we're supposed to accept that "Sylvia (sic) Odio was one of the BEST and most important witnesses," but on the other hand, even though she says she's certain the man was Lee Harvey Oswald, we should accept that she was confused by someone who merely "resembled" Oswald with a similar name? If that was supposed to be the "set up" that DiEugenio imagines, what would happen if Silvia Odio had simply realized that Leon Oswald wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald? Did the plot to "set up" Oswald depend on her being confused by a similar name? And if that's what it depended on, then why not at least use the exact same name? Or, what if DiEugenio's unsubstantiated speculation (contradicting what "the BEST" witness says) is simply wrong and Odio is right that it was Lee Harvey Oswald -- what would that tell us about a conspiracy? As I said, nothing at all, and apparently you can't explain why it does. It could have been Lee Harvey Oswald or it could have been someone else, whether or not his real name was Leon, and either way DiEugenio's got nothing probative of a conspiracy to kill JFK. But he does have several books for sale, huh.

> "Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963."

Yup, a guy with brain damage from a plane crash and a history of psychiatric problems said a lot of things "confirming" things that had been publicly reported from Jim Garrison's investigation in '67-'68 (and not until then), including stuff that turned out to be bullshit. Unfortunately, absolutely nothing that he claimed could be proved, since the evidence he kept promising Garrison just never materialized. But that just doesn't matter to people who decide who is credible and who isn't based simply on what they claim.

> Without having to go out and buy you the damned book, Billy, why don't you just READ about the significance of The Odio episode? The absolute best investigative reference into her significance, including what the Commission decided NOT to use can be found in DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" (I have 2nd edition, paper bound, so it won't break your bank), should you actually decide to read what you cry foul over.

Can you or can you not express in your own words why anyone should take any of the videos seriously? Some researchers think it was the real Oswald who visited Odio while the supposed double went to Mexico City (or not), while DiEugenio believes it was the double who visited Odio to "set up" Oswald. Somehow. The only thing they seem to be able to agree on is that the WC wasn't just wrong; they were accessories to murder. But how unfortunate that JFK conspiracists can't muster enough evidence to even convince each other what happened. That would at least simplify the discussion.

You keep claiming there's something of value in these videos -- you just can't quite put your finger on what it is -- and now you imply that, well, even though the argument actually made by DiEugenio in the video doesn't make a lick of sense, all will be revealed if I read his book? Sorry, but on it's face, reading DiEugenio's book would appear to be as much of a waste of time as the video was, except possibly to someone who is interested in the psychology of conspiracism. But unlike DiEugenio, I don't have any problem distinguishing his unsubstantiated speculations from valid evidence-based reasoning, so I just can't see why a larger dose of it would make any difference. Especially without the spooky one-note sound track (which is actually my favorite part of the videos).

So I've watched the introduction and six episodes of this series and still have not come across this credible evidence you assured me I would find. Maybe I'll watch some more and maybe I won't -- doesn't seem to make much difference.

Sylvia Odio's father was a leader of JURE, a Cuban political front preferred by the State Department as a successor to Castro. JURE espoused a relatively moderate politics compared to more extreme right wing groups such as DRE - which was preferred and operationally supported by the CIA. A possible by-product of this September visit would have been the association of the President's future assassin with JURE.

The Warren Commission struggled with a timeline for Oswald in late September, as there are no clear records showing travel methods or even where he exactly was. Placing the Odio visit earlier conflicted with other information. The Warren Commission decided to sweep the Odio story under the rug because it directly conflicted with the travelling to Mexico City story, and because it also placed Oswald with confederates - which did not match the "lone nut" story. They settled on saying a man named William Seymour was "Leon Oswald", even though it was established that Seymour was in Florida at the time. They did not bother to explain why a man named "Leon Oswald" would show up at Odio's door, or why he would be described a few days later by one of his confederates as a Kennedy hater, an excellent shot, and of the opinion that JFK should be killed.

All of this information is presented in the video, and represents quite a bit more than the "nothing" you think it does.

Like what, please? You didn't even venture to tell us whether you think it was Oswald or someone else, much less what either tells us about the assassination.

You're claiming that the Warren Commission "decided to sweep the Odio story under the rug" even though Odio says it was Oswald talking about assassinating JFK? So, this was supposed to be a part of the Oswald frame-up but the Warren Commission didn't fall for it?

How much?
Remember, you have to show that "a lot of people got away" or I win.

....because the shot as the car was coming towards him was wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide open and the car was slowing down....why wait 'til it had made the turn and was accelarating away? To make the shot(s) more impressive? To give himself a more difficult challenge?

I also stood behind the fence on top of the grassy knoll.

There is no doubt where the kill shot came from imho.

Oswald (if he was even actively involved) was not the "lone assassin".

There is forensic evidence, there is eye witness evidence, there is audio evidence, and there sure is shit is video evidence to support what you said, too.

The only part of the conspiracy that needed to be a hoax was who got blamed. But instead of doing something safe and simple, they decided to put a second shooter behind the fence in crowded Dealey Plaza and then coerce literally hundreds of people to help them cover it up -- forever -- with a mountain of fake evidence and lies. Hard to believe they expected to get away with such a stupid plot.

So, you agree with James Fetzer that the Zapruder film is a fake, huh?

..tangentially involved with...

Not sure how you infer that I said/think the Zapruder film is fake...??

What was "smart" about such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax, requiring so much cooperation from so many people, so much faking of evidence and so much covering up of the "real" evidence? If you were going to plot to assassinate a President, wouldn't you try to come up with a simple plan with minimal risk of something going wrong and/or getting caught? Does putting a second shooter behind the picket fence in a crowded Dealey Plaza meet that requirement?

Of course, being that outrageously implausible doesn't mean it didn't happen -- maybe "they" really were that stupid -- but it does mean you need some danged convincing evidence. Where is it?

> Not sure how you infer that I said/think the Zapruder film is fake...??

Because the Zapruder film unambiguously shows that the fatal shot came from behind. If you think he was shot from somewhere else, then you must believe the film is fake. (But hey, according to Fetzer, EVERY movie and photo shot in Dealey Plaza that day was fake or altered. But he also thinks the moon landings were a hoax and no Boeings were flown into buildings on 9/11, so his mental health is questionable.)

This conversation is done.

... to examine the Zapruder film carefully, instead of letting conspiracy hucksters like Oliver Stone tell you what to see. Then, I'd suggest applying some simple physics to what you see. For some reason most conspiracists simply refuse to do that, but nonetheless, what the film actually shows is that JFK's head immediately snapped forward when it was hit.



Once you know that forward snap is there, by the way, it's easy to see it when watching the movie in real-time. Try it.

Now the simple physics: The bullet exerted force on the head only while it was passing through the head, which was obviously between the two frames shown above (312 and 313). By the conservation law, momentum was transferred to the head instantaneously as the bullet slowed down, and the result was that the head accelerated -- but only while that force was being applied. Once the bullet exited the skull, it's completely impossible for it to exert any other forces or impart any more momentum to the head.

Now putting the observation and the physics together: Frame 313 clearly shows the immediate result of that force -- a forward head snap of about 2.5 inches -- which unambiguously implies that the bullet came from behind. And unsurprisingly, that conclusion is perfectly consistent with the explosion of matter in the forward direction.

On the other hand, the infamous "back and to the left" motion doesn't begin until two frames later, so it cannot possibly have been caused by a bullet that's long-gone from the scene. Furthermore, that motion shows acceleration over several frames, which requires a sustained force over that time, which again cannot possibly have come from that bullet. Furthermore, such a hit would have created a massive exit wound on the left rear, which leads to one of the favorite games of conspiracists of inventing excuses for why there's no such evidence.

So the Zapruder film is consistent with all the other credible evidence that says the hit was from behind, and it's refuted by nothing but cartoon physics and hand-waving assertions that anything that supports the "official story" must be fake.

from Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination by Sherry P. Fiester:

"Contemporary forensic sciences have produced revelations in the emerging applications of new methods and new technologies employed in modern crime scene reconstruction and analysis.

Until recently I have chosen to keep many of the forensic aspects of the case at arms length. I agree with earlier statements to the effect that when experts disagree, we are disadvantaged in terms of lacking essential training and education to know whom to support. Some of it may ultimately rely upon intuition or instinct.

What I have recently come to consider is my own slow realization that many of the most current advancements in forensic research represent new facts which may seem counter-intuitive to those who have no training in the related fields of newly emerging technologies and disciplines. I see all of the various stages of our 50 year journey from Dallas to the present as necessary steps in the long slow story of our originally blind struggle to move from darkness to light. I bear no resentment or animosity towards those pioneers who simply did the best they could, based upon what was available at the time, to accurately assess and interpret “their” facts. No one can blame the researchers and critics of the past who genuinely sought to understand questions which truly could not, at the time, have been answered.

We’re a long way from there now, and we are still moving forward. Research developments in the mechanics of head wound ballistics, utilization of unbelievably high-speed photography, radial and concentric fracture sequencing studies of human skulls, symmetrical and asymmetrical beveling in relation to projectile directionality, related subjects of distinguishing back spatter from forward spatter and, perhaps most extraordinary of all, the news that current forensic research indicates the forward movement of President Kennedy’s head (at Z-frame 313) followed by violent rearward movement is consistent with a single gunshot to the head from the front. Studies conducted by Karger (2008), Radford (2009), and Coupland (2011) prove initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire.

I once tried, I mean, I really tried to discuss some of this with a particularly stubborn person whose opinions of his own outdated, misinformed opinions rendered his cup to be too full to accommodate any new anything. He had everything he needed and was content to sit back and bask in the secure warmth that his certainty afforded him.

I suspect that Progress is a train that does not wait for everybody, especially old fatheads, to climb on board before moving inexorably from the station."

As I said elsewhere, it appears Fiester has no explanation whatsoever for what the Zapruder film actually shows.

The idea was to escape, you know. That's what he was doing when he (and only he) shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater.

Whether the target was right in front of him, or accelerating away, he was still shooting from the same spot...the gunshot sound would have come from the same place....

The Tippit shooting is full of problems as well...as is the incredibly impressive response of the entire DPD to the Texas Theatre..

And there is the small little problem of Lee Harvey Oswald being at the Texas Theater. Wasn't he supposed to be at work? Hadn't he been at work?

Ha!
Not if the secret service was in on the plot to kill JFK!


Jeez, don't you know anything?

...not sure why that's difficult to understand?

...not sure why that's difficult to understand?

ETA: Wait, whoa. So he was being set up, he runs from the TSBD straight into ANOTHER setup that frames him for shooting Tippit? That is some serious bad luck right there. Or do you think he did shoot Tippit and then ran to the Texas Theater?

...but had plenty of reason to suspect he was being set up..

and the wheels on the bus go round and round.

What do you claim happened? Please spin me a version of the story in which an innocent Oswald suddenly realizes that he's been set up.

1. If true, where is that stated in the story found with the link?

2. How does that compare with Gary Mack's statement in the story:

3. Even if the statement in the OP were true, so what?

1. Read the article. It's there.

2. It compares very favorably. Mack believes Oswald was the only shooter. That doesn't mean he wasn't doing it at the behest of someone else, in Mack's view.

3. If someone like Mack, who helped start several strands of JFK CT, can reason himself out of these silly conspiracy theories, you can, too.

You can't because it is not stated. It is based upon your interpretation rather than actual words in which Mack purportedly "now believes Oswald was the only gunman that day."?


Your answer is one plausible answer. But it is a display of arrogance to believe that is the only interpretation, especially when Mack has had more than one theory. The fact that someone has come up with a theory that there was electronic cross-talk doesn't negate each and every theory that Mack has or has had.

Your unjustified comment towards me is another display of arrogance. There is no factual support for you or anyone else to claim to believe I support each and every one of Gary Mack's various theories, or any of them. The article in the Dallas Morning News can be interpreted in another way. Earlier, as can be seen from the actual words used in the story, "Mack wrote an article saying the assassination might have been recorded." Now, he is apparently open minded enough to consider the cross-talk theory and the fact that the blips that were identified on audio tape other than the original might not have been shots. He originally thought that the blips were recorded shots. Now, he's not so sure. But apparently you are.


Apparently, you are on a quest to prove how smart you are. Your posting of a non-story doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of what was said in the story and your quibbling over what the words mean in the story is like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Who cares?

You do? So what?

If you can answer the "So what?" question, maybe you can get someone else to care as well.

Both with the article and with what I wrote.

1. The assertion that Gary Mack thinks Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter that day is present in the article. It's not my problem that you can't find it. Try harder.

2. I did not claim you support each and every one of Gary Mack's various theories, or any of them. I am not a mind reader. You are speaking up in defense of conspiracy theories and lambasting me for speaking against them. I feel confident in asserting that you believe some conspiracy theories about the death of JFK, therefore. Am I correct in this assertion?

3. I don't care if you don't care.

what was said in one of multiple ways that it could be interpreted, and (c) you, in a confrontational way with a number of people, insist that others give up their right to think independently and agree wih you.

... whilst you and I might think of independent ways to examine an unsolved mystery and those who have researched it as we approach the 50th anniversary, there are those here like (you know em) who's primary goal is to insist we don't.

What does that tell you? yeh....

"I'll bet a lot of people got away..."

are willing to test their theories with facts and alternative points of view, and do not need to rely upon fallacies. They certainly don't need to throw out bait and then mock whoever responds with a point of view that different than their own.

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly seemed to have perfected the art of mocking others. Apparently they have some followers and wannabes.

the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly?

Spoken with yet one more haughty tone about how the rule-skating conspiracy theorist would NEVER bait or mock the person they're speaking about?

Yes, that it is.

I am as sorry as can be that you cannot or will not read the article to see that Gary Mack believes Lee Harvey Oswald is the only person who shot and the person who killed John F. Kennedy. It must be fun casting your little "innocent" insults at me while insisting the article does not say what it so plainly does say, which is something any impartial reader of this latest "discussion" can verify for themselves. I really don't understand how and why you insist on misrepresenting this article when the link is right there in the OP for people to check for themselves. But that's your gig, not mine.

How cute to imply anyone who thinks Oswald acted alone is a right winger.

... has also said that he knows there is more to the "6th Floor Museum" story (walk around with head phones, lather, rinse, repeat...), but he keeps those comments out of the mainstream.

In other words, Mack is a fucking sell-out. Nice....

"... so what?"

Well, I don't think the point is anything like "Gary Mack believes Oswald shot JFK so you should, too" (even though we are frequently regaled with sentiments like that from the other side of the fence). There is this bit of real insight:

Maybe it's a "so what" to you, but that story is something I can personally relate to. In the late '60s, I had read a couple of conspiracy theory books and like Mack, I was completely convinced that they were probably right.

Perhaps Mack's "epiphany" was also a big "so what" to you:



The thing that put me on the road to thinking otherwise about CTs was a comment by one skeptic (I don't remember his name) who noted that nothing the conspiracists claimed that appeared to be true was really conclusive of a conspiracy, and nothing that they claimed that would be conclusive of a conspiracy appeared to be true. When I decided to "step back" and re-examine those claims and include the counter-claims and criticisms offered by skeptics, the more I looked, the more that comment rang true.

Today, I don't claim to "know" the "truth" about the assassination, but after my own attempts to be as objective as possible, I am convinced that all the credible evidence says Oswald was the assassin and no credible evidence convincingly implicates anyone else. The difference between that and claiming to know the truth is that my conclusions are completely conditional: Even today I'm willing to consider and evaluate any new evidence (although I will admit to having shorter and shorter patience with being handed abject bullshit instead).

So here's "so what" about Mack's story for me: It's incredibly easy to get sucked in by one-sided, half-truth propaganda, which is precisely what conspiracy hucksters are selling, and once sold on a belief, that belief can become such a part of who we are that it can be very hard if not impossible to shake -- particularly after we've committed to publicly defending that belief. But I know from personal experience that it is possible, and all it takes is some of that open-mindedness that conspiracists claim to possess in such abundance.

And another "so what" for good measure: Whether or not you agree with Gary Mack's conclusions, don't shit on him and his story and then try to tell me how open-minded you are.

You say, "Whether or not you agree with Gary Mack's conclusions, don't shit on him and his story ..."

I, however, didn't "shit on him and his story".

I questioned the author of the OP and asked, why is the story in the Dallas Morning News imporant?

I did that by asking a question directed at the OP, at post # 51:

You are not entitled to your own facts.

... another poster who gets perturbed when I comment on her comments. If the comment doesn't apply to you, then good, and feel free to ignore it.

Funny how you ignored the rest of the post, but no, I did not change the subject of your "so what" question, which I quoted in its entirety and shared my opinion of why it matters. You are, of course, free to ignore that as well if you weren't really interested in an answer.

> I, however, didn't "shit on him and his story".

Rereading your posts, yes, I see that you explicitly denied that it was worth the effort:

> Your problem is that (a) you came up with a who-gives-a-shit story...

My apologies for misunderstanding what you were getting at.