(PART 965)


A live camera from the 6th floor museum "sniper's position". .... Egads, how creepy. .... OK, not creepy -- I'm thinkin' tacky.


I've never thought of the "Dealey Plaza EarthCam" as being either creepy or tacky. (But to each his own, I guess.)

I've always thought of it as more of an "Eye on History", as the 24/7 camera is able to take all of us instantly to the location where an important historic event took place. It's fascinating, IMO. Sometimes I'll go to the Dealey Cam website and just watch for a little while, and count the number of people who dodge traffic in order to stand in the middle of the street on Robert Groden's "X". (Now THAT is something that qualifies as "tacky", Glenn---that "X" in the middle of Elm Street. I think it's rather offensive. But, YMMV.)

Here's the view through the "Dealey Cam" on the 50th anniversary (Nov. 22, 2013).....

I'm fascinated by old (and new) pictures of Dealey Plaza....


OK, so they [bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] blew out the RIGHT side of his head (with no damage to the left side of his head), then somehow got into the DRIVER'S seat...

How'd they manage that?



The trajectory from Oswald's 6th-floor perch to the windshield of the car was just about perfect at the time of the head shot, as we can see in this SS re-enactment photo....

JFK's head was leaning forward and turned quite a bit to the left when Oswald's bullet struck high on the back of Kennedy's head. After the bullet entered his head, the explosive force of the blast blew out the right/top/frontal area of JFK's head (as is easily proven by looking at the Zapruder Film).

The two large bullet fragments then continued forward after exiting Kennedy's head. I.E., they were moving forward toward the front of the car and the windshield.

Everything seems perfectly consistent to me. There is nothing unbelievable about the above scenario at all.

(Also see CE875 for more Sniper's Nest views.)

In addition, Glenn, here's something else of importance that you might not have known....

JFK's head initially moved FORWARD, not backward, at the moment the bullet struck his head, as we can easily see here in this super-slo-mo clip....


View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and put a shooter in that photo.


Yeah. And?

What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed.


...you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo.


Huh? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments?


Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.


Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that?

And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313.


In agent Howlett's position, it's his LEFT hand approximating the position of the rifle. That would indicate that either the shooter was left-handed, and had most of his torso to the RIGHT of the position of the buttstock of the rifle...and LHO was a right-handed shooter, according to the evidence I've seen...OR the torso of a right-handed shooter would've been smashed through the wall...and the wall looks fairly intact to me.



How do you explain the fact that the HSCA was able to fire a rifle out that Sniper's Nest window several times in 1978 during the acoustics tests? Do you really think the person firing the rifle in '78 had to "smash through the wall" in order to get off his shots?

You can always say the HSCA's shooter was left-handed, of course. That seems to solve the problem for you. I have no idea whether the HSCA shooter was a lefty or not? Do you?

Below is another view of Agent Howlett in the Sniper's Nest. There's no problem for a right-handed shooter here.

CTers are merely creating problems for the sixth-floor assassin that don't exist and never did....


With a stack of books taller than the man sitting on the box by the window, a person would have little if any room.


So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave?

Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor.

And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest....

Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd.

Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.)

But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill).

The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case.

Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted ----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94]

But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives).

As I have said many times before....

With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable.

As Larry Sturdivan said so well....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005)

And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words....

"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007



True or False:

1. At least one witness stated the cartridge shells were lined up in a neat row.



But that witness is a proven liar:

Roger Craig's Mauser Lie


2. At least one photograph shows two fired and one un-fired cartridge.



What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. HERE is one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.

Also see:


3. The alleged murder weapon was corroded badly as of Saturday, 11-23-63.


I'm not sure if that is True or False.

Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend that this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all.

Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO).

I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.


Ever find it odd that, while the Carcano ejects empty cartridges to the right of the rifle, two empty cartridges should end up on the floor to the left of where the rifle would have been for the last two shots?


I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box.

You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see
in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510.

CE511 shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window.


You're right, I mixed up the windows.

He certainly does not have a lot of room in that corner, and the pipes do not help either.


That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room.

BTW / FWIW....

Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before.

A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it.

What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence....

Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....


I started looking at the pipes about 2005 [CLICK HERE] and covered it in a number of other threads till about 2010. Unfortunately the images aren't there but there are some interesting inputs from Tom, GPH, and others. I did have the pipes pretty much located from memory and it seemed to me that to get off three shots as suggested while the target was moving would have been a squeeze. I wouldn't say completely impossible but things would have to be just right. How often does that happen?


Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints at the Education Forum.

It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest". :)


I'm not saying NOBODY could have fired that rifle from that window at that angle from that spot.

I'm saying that a RIGHT-HANDED SHOOTER couldn't do it. From what I see, there is plenty of room for a left-handed shooter.


The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.)


If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall.

Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose.

The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341.

EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....


I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this discussion. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.

Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.


[This DVP post] Shows your inexperience with a rifle. The LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.

You just made my case for me, on two points:

(1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and

(2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.


The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible.

Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible.

And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed).

Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.)

What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.


The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.


But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.)

But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible?

Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.)

But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest.

I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963.

Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can.


If you move the shooter to the right, you change the point at which the rifle muzzle is aimed.

Unless you move the entire rifle.

The FBI determined the position of the rifle from reports of witnesses, the Z-film, the surveys of Robert West, and many other factors.

SO if the position of the rifle is wrong in the reenactments, then the data from the reenactments is wrong as well.

You can conclude that the data is accurate ONLY if you accept that the position of the rifle is correct. If the position of the rifle is incorrect, then the data from that is flawed.

You seem to want to have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein. That CANNOT be.



No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window.

And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies.

Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....


Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent's right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.


Oh, it's a cramped space for sure. I've never denied that. But a rifle WAS being fired from that very window on November 22. You know it, Ken (whether you'll admit it or not), I know it, and all reasonable people know it. So why pretend otherwise?

BTW, here's a high-quality picture which shows part of the Sniper's Nest with the shells still on the floor. So that pic was definitely taken on November 22 itself, not later on. And the Texas History site also says "November 22" for the date of that photo. And, yes, it is a tight squeeze for the gunman. We also know this from Luke Mooney's testimony. He said something about having to go in there sideways, I think. [See 3 H 284.]

But since there can be no REASONABLE doubt about a rifle definitely having been fired from this cramped space, CTers really have nowhere to go with their arguments about how it "can't be done". Those CTers are assuming exactitude regarding the precise position of every box and the exact posture and positioning of the sixth-floor sniper that simply cannot be ascertained.

And here's another view of the Sniper's Nest (CE512), which shows the shells on the floor (which means it's certainly NOT a "re-creation" photo; it was taken on 11/22). And notice how the stack of book cartons seems to END at the bottom of the photo.

Therefore, based on that photo in CE512, which was taken by the Dallas Police BEFORE ANYTHING WAS MOVED, I contend that Ken Drew is incorrect when he claims that the boxes were configured in such a manner that would have prohibited a shooter from sitting on the box near the corner (near where the pipes are located) and firing a gun out the window (even a righthander).

The boxes don't seem to be extending all the way into the area where the box was located that had Oswald's right palmprint on it (which was the box he probably sat on).



You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this, and how can you prove shots were not fired from the Dal-Tex Building?


Next question please. Because the one you just asked is too ridiculous to warrant any response.


Translation = We cannot prove shots were fired from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.


It's those tough questions you don't like, right DVP?


Based on the sum total of evidence that proves shots WERE fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th floor, the following inquiry asked earlier by Bob Prudhomme is not a reasonable question....

"You are continually stating that it is a provable fact that shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest on the 6th floor. How can you prove this?"

In fact, it's a downright laughable question.


As in you have to laugh because you can't answer it?

DVP, I'm sure that Bob doesn't expect you to have any proof that LHO fired a shot at JFK, as I certainly don't expect you to. When an event did not happen, it's a little tough to prove it did.


Yeah, Ken. You should be quite familiar with that line of thinking--being a JFK conspiracy buff and all.


I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any?


And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity.

No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob?

I know, I know. I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake....and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399....and the two front-seat bullet fragments are phony....and all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window were wrong (or liars)....and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest! I love it. Either that, or Norman's just a blatant liar, which is apparently what many CTers believe he was.)


Hi Dave,

I honestly don't know how you have the patience with some of these guys. Some recent CT posts on these pages [at The Education Forum] have serious evidence and logic problems.


You can say that again, Gary. It borders on the unbelievable (and the bizarre).


The Texas Portal pics ARE the original DPD negatives and pictures and they show the same things that appear in the early Tom Alyea/WFAA films. All other pictures were shot after 3:30 that afternoon - including those by Jack Beers - AFTER some boxes were moved.

The images showing a box on the window ledge show the scene AS FIRST FOUND. Many people have squatted at the SN window in the decades before the Museum had to close access to the area, but there was certainly room for a shooter. In fact, according to a home movie I filmed in 1988, I had to stand up a little for the early shot (Jack White and Robert Groden were there too, and it'd be great to include the film in a TV doc someday).

As a result, the Howlett/SS frame that folks are using shows a later shot because of the gun angle down the street and the lack of an elevation adjustment for it. The SS film, as you know, was made long before investigators had full knowledge of how the assassination happened, so Howlett's feet and shoulder positions cannot be used for accuracy conclusions AT THAT MOMENT.



Thanks for your input, Gary (as always).


Are you and Gary Mack in a legal arrangement where you are his 'official mouthpiece'? Is there a reason he can't say it for himself?


He did say it for himself. It's the stuff I posted right after the words


Is he paid to say the things he says to you but can't come on a public forum to say the same things?


Gary has been a member of this forum ["The Education Forum"] since
July 10, 2006. (Which, ironically enough, is almost--to the very day--when I first joined this forum. I lasted 4 days here in July 2006 before Mr. Simkin decided he had had enough of my silly LNer ravings and tossed me out the door.)


His unwillingness to say if for himself lowers the value of what he says.


I don't see why. His information is either useful and accurate and valuable or it isn't -- whether he says it to me via an e-mail or whether he posts it himself in a post at this forum. It's the same information either way. And I happen to think Gary is loaded with good and useful info about the JFK case. I doubt there's another person alive who has so much overall knowledge about this case. And I, for one, appreciate it when he takes the time to write to me by e-mail with all kinds of informative details.


Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?


That's not very nice, Ken. You're accusing me (by the implication in your question above) of deliberately misquoting someone (or misrepresenting myself by pretending to be Gary Mack). That's a despicable allegation, IMO.

FYI, I have never deliberately misquoted anyone. I am always very very careful when I quote another person. I never want anyone reading my posts to be confused as to who is saying what. And I don't appreciate the implied dishonesty you just accused me of. Because I would never even consider passing off my own thoughts as someone else's (or vice versa). And I really don't understand WHY you would think I would ever engage in such a silly tactic. Care to explain why you said what you just said, Ken?


There clearly was not room for the shots to be made from that window, regardless of what DVP/Mack says.


And you, Kenneth Drew, clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about.


I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote.



"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely by posting my own comments under Gary's name. There is no other possible interpretation of those words you wrote. I'd call that an "accusation".

But you don't even seem to remember (or comprehend) what you yourself wrote on this forum just a few minutes ago.


You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read.


I understood it perfectly. You were implying that Gary Mack might not have written any of the words I attributed to him. And, instead, you were implying that I myself wrote those words and tried to pass them off as Gary Mack's words. How else could anybody interpret this question you asked?...

"Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?"


I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself'.


You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. And you know it. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid.


If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him.


I don't control Gary Mack's actions. And I would never try to speak for Gary (even though that is exactly what you implied I might be doing in your earlier post). Gary can post in any fashion he sees fit. He chooses not to post on the forums. That's his choice. Sometimes I choose to post his e-mails here (when they relate to a particular topic or thread).

I, myself, would love it if Gary would start posting here (and at other JFK forums on the Internet). He has helped me out many times in the past via his evidence-packed e-mails that he has chosen to send me (and almost always unsolicited e-mails, I might add). He writes to me (and many other people too) when he feels the record needs to be set straight on a particular sub-topic of the JFK case.

Now, yes, I too would like it if he would post regularly (or even semi-regularly) on the forums. I'm sure we would be treated to even MORE useful information about so many JFK topics if he were to do that. But he has chosen not to post directly on the forums, and that's his decision.

But regardless of the manner or the frequency by which Gary's useful information gets passed along, I for one am grateful to Gary Mack for sharing it with me.


Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here?


Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the second question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one.

The answer to your first question above, however, is No. Gary has never once "asked" me to post something on the forums for him. I do that on my own, usually because the info Gary imparts needs to get "out there" to the masses in order to set the record straight concerning so many of the myths that are still being spread by conspiracy theorists.


I understood the reason for personal messenging [sic] on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted.


Gary never sends me his messages via the forum's Private Message service. He always uses e-mail. And many times I'll even show the precise date and time of the e-mails when I re-post his messages on the forums. I didn't format Gary's last message to me in that manner, but many times I have.


I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he?


Answered above.

I suppose I could put a disclaimer such as "Posted here by permission of Gary Mack" on each of Gary's messages I have posted. But I don't feel that's really necessary.


Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....


Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything.'

That's what Bug Man said. Wecht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he took off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one, DVP. It does not enhance your image.


Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY.

IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved.

But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder.


Are you still spinning in a circle, is your head pointed to the front or back? So there is no way that LHO could have made the shot, he had a rifle that could not have made the shot, he had a scope that could not have made the shot and he was in a spot where he could not have been and no one else (including top marksmen) has ever made this shot, but old Bug Man is sure LHO did it.

Let me know when you stop laughing and digging.


THINK for two seconds, Ken! THINK!

Vince wasn't saying Oswald was INCAPABLE of the shooting. (Obviously he's not saying any such stupid thing, because Vince says LHO did it. Duh.) He's saying that Oswald---THE PROVEN ASSASSIN (regardless of his deficiencies)---would not have been a real good choice for any type of "professional" CIA or Mob hit on the President.

Got it now? Or will you still pretend that you don't understand Bugliosi's obvious point?


DVP, what ever happened to the mini series about "Reclaiming History"? I can't seem to find the air dates for it.


It got watered down to a 90-minute feature film -- "Parkland". (Which you probably already knew.)

"Parkland" is a pretty good film, too. (But I would have loved the 10-hour mini-series better, of course.)

Also visit:

Note -- I don't really consider "Parkland" to be a "classic" movie, but since my movie website is called "Classic Movies", and I wanted to include "Parkland" on my movie site---well...what's a shill to do? :)


Yes, all I can find about "Parkland" indicates it was a real bomb.


Yeah, by box office standards, I guess it was a bomb. Sort of like the JFK book I helped Mel Ayton write ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"]. It's a very good book, but a complete bomb as far as sales go (just as I predicted). Sales could hardly be any worse, in fact.

But I'm proud of that book nonetheless, because in abbreviated form it lays out the actual facts of John F. Kennedy's murder, without all the conspiracy-flavored nonsense that permeates this case---with this current discussion being a prime example of the "nonsense". I mean, really, no shooter firing from the Sniper's Nest? Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real.

David Von Pein
June 28—July 1, 2015