Wacky at WechtFest -- Appalling Momenets 1

[John McAdams]

One of the speakers called Gary Mack (of the Sixth Floor Museum) a
"liar," and the audience applauded.

Not just scattered applause. It seemed like about half the audience.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Marcus Hanson]

That's very nasty.And impolite.

I disagreed with him on a point earlier this year-still do-but never for a
minute considered that he lied (he most certainly did not). I declare my
belief that Gary Mack is not only extremely knowledgeable, but also that
he is one of the "good guys". Yeah,I've read the criticism of him,but I
still believe that.

[Mike]

That should tell you something.

[John Fiorentino]

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:5jb969t4rpodnnkf9...@4ax.com...

I don't think that's so wacky.............

Gary is my favorite mustela!

John F.

[Glenn V.]

Well, that's hardly surprising. Some of the most vocal CT's never miss an
opportunity to bash an/or insult Gary Mack. It's obvious, in their world
he's committed the ultimate treason by "join the enemy". Which as far as I
know is not even correct. A shame.

I agree with Marcus, Gary's level of knowledge about this case is
outstanding.

[BT George]

I don't know that I trust Gary very much either, but I can think of
persons I suspect much more are shameless liers in the JFK arena. Many of
those applauding Mack's being so categorized, were doubtless also
applauding (in a positive way) some far more shameful liers who were
speaking at this event.

BT George

[Dave Reitzes]

Gary is a lightning rod because he occupies a professional position that
undoubtedly provokes a great deal of both envy and contempt, sometimes
quite possibly in tandem from the same people.

Despite being an enormously knowledgeable and influential researcher, Gary
is a target for people from both sides of the issue, because he's not
afraid to initiate and/or support research that challenges deeply held
convictions from both CTs and LNs. People, whether CT or LN or whatever,
are bound to complain when someone with his responsibility and visibility
says things they disagree with.

I've done my fair share of complaining. Make no mistake, Gary is entitled
to believe whatever he wants; but I wish he would at long last disavow two
brutally discredited theories for which he is in no small way responsible:
the acoustical theory and "Badge Man."

However he and I may disagree about some things, Gary strikes me as a
scholar of great dedication and integrity.

Dave

[Glenn V.]

Den tisdagen den 22:e oktober 2013 kl. 14:10:56 UTC+2 skrev Dave Reitzes:

>
>
>
> Gary is a lightning rod because he occupies a professional position that
>
> undoubtedly provokes a great deal of both envy and contempt, sometimes
>
> quite possibly in tandem from the same people.
>
>
>
> Despite being an enormously knowledgeable and influential researcher, Gary
>
> is a target for people from both sides of the issue, because he's not
>
> afraid to initiate and/or support research that challenges deeply held
>
> convictions from both CTs and LNs. People, whether CT or LN or whatever,
>
> are bound to complain when someone with his responsibility and visibility
>
> says things they disagree with.
>
>
>
> I've done my fair share of complaining. Make no mistake, Gary is entitled
>
> to believe whatever he wants; but I wish he would at long last disavow two
>
> brutally discredited theories for which he is in no small way responsible:
>
> the acoustical theory and "Badge Man."
>
>
>
> However he and I may disagree about some things, Gary strikes me as a
>
> scholar of great dedication and integrity.
>
>
>
> Dave

It's peculiar, isn't it; how these things sometimes are confused. There
are researchers that deserves respect, Based on knowledge, integrity and
behavior vs opponents among other things. As I see it there are certainly
rearchers in both camps that qualify.

In other areas of life most people have no problems in showing others
respect, despite not agreeing with them about every little issue. Related
to the JFK assassination however, it seems that respect, more than
anything is based on what conclusions researchers have made.

Narrow minded and short sighted, in my view.

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b0ddf354-0f56-436a...@googlegroups.com...

Yes, yes........a scholarly mustela!


John F.

[BT George]

I understand that as curator he has chosen to take a somewhat middle of
the road approch to things. However, it certainly results in his seeming
a bit wishy-washy which tends to diminish his credibility in my eyes and I
suspect many others.

Also, I found his statement about where Jackie was positioned at the
moment of the fatal head shot in the Discovery Channel,s JFK: Inside the
Target Car inexplicable. In the show he placed her head behind JFK with
her arm around him, but that was not her position at all. Later he then
builds on the error by saying in another scene, that had the bullet been
fired from the GK you would have had a dead Jackie.


He gave an explanation of this as just an oversight, but it is one that is
pretty INCREDIBLE for me to believe was made at all. If it was an
oversight, it was even more egregious because it was not caught until
after the show aired. Worse, it continues to propogate a myth for the
unenlightened, because the replays of the show do not include even an
editorial correction.

I know the Discovery Channel is ultimately responsible for not fact
checking and for not correcting the record at least on the re-runs.
However, it seems to me that Gary (and others) should have *insisted* that
they do so. Maybe he did and I don't know it, but it's hard to believe if
he pushed hard they would not respond.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/22/2013 8:10 AM, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:52:34 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:02:59 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>
>>> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>
>>> news:5jb969t4rpodnnkf9...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> One of the speakers called Gary Mack (of the Sixth Floor Museum) a
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> "liar," and the audience applauded.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Not just scattered applause. It seemed like about half the audience.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> .John
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> --------------
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I don't think that's so wacky.............
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Gary is my favorite mustela!
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know that I trust Gary very much either, but I can think of
>>
>> persons I suspect much more are shameless liers in the JFK arena. Many of
>>
>> those applauding Mack's being so categorized, were doubtless also
>>
>> applauding (in a positive way) some far more shameful liers who were
>>
>> speaking at this event.
>>
>>
>>
>> BT George
>
>
> Gary is a lightning rod because he occupies a professional position that
> undoubtedly provokes a great deal of both envy and contempt, sometimes
> quite possibly in tandem from the same people.
>

Envy? Are you serious? This sounds like an attempt by a schoolgirl to
explain why the other kids don't like her.
I think Gary Mack is the reason why the word duplicitous was invented.

> Despite being an enormously knowledgeable and influential researcher, Gary
> is a target for people from both sides of the issue, because he's not
> afraid to initiate and/or support research that challenges deeply held
> convictions from both CTs and LNs. People, whether CT or LN or whatever,
> are bound to complain when someone with his responsibility and visibility
> says things they disagree with.
>

And he's not afraid to lie.

[Dave Reitzes]

Come now, John, what would Mom Mom Eve and Pop Pop Adam say about you
badmouthing Cousin Gary that way?

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

I don't know anything about Gary's relationship with the Discovery Channel
or any of the specific producers behind the shows he's been on (or THEIR
relationship to the Discovery Channel), but I think you overestimate his
leverage.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

Gary admitted that error. I do not hold that against him.
There were other falsehoods in that special that I do hold against him.
Such as arbitrarily choosing his Badge Man position for the grassy knoll
shot. And the choice of rifle and ammo.

[Dave Reitzes]

There are CTs I admire for the work they've done, even if I think they're
as wrong as can be in their conclusions. I can hardly think of a better
example than David Lifton. I think his theories are completely irrational,
but I told him recently that I admire his diligence and dedication, and I
meant it. I also stated at the Simkin forum that I think many CTs could
learn an awful lot from the first six chapters of BEST EVIDENCE.

I also told Lifton that while I rarely buy conspiracy books anymore, I
will make a point to buy his new one whenever it finally arrives, because
I do want to know what he's come up with, whether I agree with any of it
or not.

Josiah "Tink" Thompson is someone a lot of LNs admire because of the
research he's done and the sober approach SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS takes,
even if much of his analysis has been superseded by more advanced studies.
In recent years he's also become a thorn in the side of alterationists
like Fetzer and the late Jack White. I find some of his current views a
little disheartening, particularly his portrayal of the assassination as
such a baffling mystery after all these years, but I consider his
viewpoint an important one.

I told him via a group email a while back that I looked forward to
learning more about where he is right now and why. After years of becoming
known primarily for what theories he's AGAINST (Z film alteration,
widespread alteration in the photographic evidence, a "switched" limousine
windshield, etc.), I said it was important for someone in his position to
let people know what positions he is FOR. He seemed to find that a
reasonable proposition, and assured me he was working on it.

There are some CTs I would be very pleased to welcome to the LN side,
because their dedication and intelligence would be a huge asset. Some
others I could take or leave. \:^)

Dave

[Glenn V.]

As always David, I could certainly not have said it any better myself.
And, the two you mention are among those I had in mind and I would
personally add Pat Speer to this category. The work he's done is also
impressive as is his way conducting himself and arguing his case.

Of course, one doesn't have to agree with their respective conclusions to
state the above.

On the other hand, unfortunately, people like Fetzer are an example of the
exact opposite; no matter what the conclusions may be, he deserves no
respect.

[BT George]

Dave,

As this is not the "Let's debate origins or religious beliefs forum." I
generally prefer to address such comments sparingly. However, apeaking as
a person of similar religious/Ontological convictions as John F, I would
say that IF (and it's a big "IF" as I have not arrived at such a
conclusion) "Cousin Gary" actually was a dishonest broker or hypocritical
opportunist, the more proper thing for a Christian to be concerned about
is what "Savior Jesus" might have to say about the subject.

One doesn't have to be much of a NT scholar to know that Jesus of
Nazereth---while preaching love even for one's enemies---was hardly known
to be shy or bashful when confronting the more blatant hypocritcal
opportunists of His day. Indeed, He addressed certain religious and
secular leaders in the MOST unflattering terms:

Calling the former (Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) - "Brood of Vipers,
"Hypocrites," "Blind Guides" (See Matt. 23 and elsewhere)

Calling the latter (King Herod) - "That Fox" (Luke 13:32)

Granted. From a Christian belief perspective we would hold that Jesus was
speaking with just a "SHADE" more authority here than any of us would have
in uttering the same things! However, it is NOT the strong certainty and
strident nature of John F.'s comments I am defending here. Rather I am
merely pointing out that in attempting to call a spade "a spade" one has
not necessarily done something wrong in terms of Christian beliefs.

Again. I wish to stress that it is an *ENTIRELY* different matter whether
such a conclusion about Gary Mack is warranted by the known facts. John F
seems to think so. I do not.

BT George

[pjsp...@aol.com]

If you like Thompson, Dave, well, there's reason to be happy. He's
completed his sequel to Six Seconds in Dallas, entitled Last Second in
Dallas. He showed it to a few people in Pittsburgh. It's gorgeous, with
lots of pictures and illustrations. You won't be happy with his
conclusions, of course, as the book outlines the double head shot theory
both he and Groden proposed at the conference.

The book will accomplish one thing, for certain. It will destroy the jet
effect theory, once and for all. This was something Thompson and I talked
about months ago. He surprised me, however, by showing up at the
conference with Luis Alvarez's notes on his melon tests. These notes lay
out, in meticulous detail, how Alvarez shot at coconuts, jugs of water,
water-filled balls, and a whole assortment of fruit, before finally
settling on melons...and that none of these other items blew back to the
shooter. Alvarez then hand-loaded the ammo, to increase velocity, and
tried smaller and smaller melons, before finally perfecting his trick, and
getting a melon to blow back to the shooter. Pretty sleazy, IMO.

[Anthony Marsh]

But typical of a WC defender.
It's called refining the data.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

[Josiah Thompson's new] book will accomplish one thing, for certain. It

will destroy the jet effect theory, once and for all.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How is it possible to "destroy" something that's been PROVEN ON FILM to be
true?

The jet effect theory is a FACT. That's not even debatable. It's been
proven--and on film/videotape.

Now, you can argue that what we see happening to JFK's head just after the
fatal shot in Dallas doesn't apply as "jet effect" (because his head is
not a melon), but the jet effect HAS been proven in various tests on film
by Alvarez, Lattimer, and even Penn & Teller.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html

And the jet effect was proven ON FILM by Dr. Lattimer using human skulls
too. I know that the CTers will argue that Lattimer's ladder tipped
forward and caused the skulls (ALL of them!) to jump backward toward the
shooter....but they are completely wrong, IMO. Those skulls start their
flight toward the shooter before the ladder moves at all.

CTers, of course, will look for any excuse to dismiss the obvious--and to
fight reality. (Why do so many conspiracy theorists engage in that
"Fighting Reality" hobby? I've often wondered. The SBT being another
perfect example of such CT behavior.)

In short, it has been proven beyond all doubt that certain objects WILL
move toward a gunman.

And are we REALLY supposed to believe that JFK's forward head movement
between Z312 and Z313 in the Zapruder Film is being caused by something
OTHER than the bullet which is hitting him in the head at that PRECISE
INSTANT IN TIME? Unbelievable!

Nobody else's head in that limousine is jerking forward the way John
Kennedy's head is doing at that exact moment at Z313. And if somebody says
that Jackie's and Nellie's and JBC's and Greer's and Kellerman's heads are
ALL being jerked abruptly forward at Z313, they are dead wrong. It's not
happening to those people. Only to JFK's head--and at the precise instant
a bullet is hitting him in the head. What a remarkable coincidence,
wouldn't you agree Pat?

A bullet is hitting President Kennedy's head at precisely Z313, but I'm
supposed to believe that something completely UNRELATED to that bullet is
causing Kennedy's head to jerk noticeably forward at that exact moment?

Come on, Pat. Do you *really* buy that?

[Dave Reitzes]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 8:54:56 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 10:09:33 PM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:38:15 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> > > Yes, yes........a scholarly mustela!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Come now, John, what would Mom Mom Eve and Pop Pop Adam say about you
>
> > badmouthing Cousin Gary that way?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> Dave,
>
>
>
> As this is not the "Let's debate origins or religious beliefs forum."

Alas, I've been told that I myself opened the doors to such subjects.

> I generally prefer to address such comments sparingly. However, apeaking as
>
> a person of similar religious/Ontological convictions as John F, I would
>
> say that IF (and it's a big "IF" as I have not arrived at such a
>
> conclusion) "Cousin Gary" actually was a dishonest broker or hypocritical
>
> opportunist, the more proper thing for a Christian to be concerned about
>
> is what "Savior Jesus" might have to say about the subject.

John F. has informed me that he does not believe in evolution, but he has
not specifically informed me of his religious affiliation, if any. I don't
want to make any assumptions.

> One doesn't have to be much of a NT scholar to know that Jesus of
>
> Nazereth---while preaching love even for one's enemies---was hardly known
>
> to be shy or bashful when confronting the more blatant hypocritcal
>
> opportunists of His day. Indeed, He addressed certain religious and
>
> secular leaders in the MOST unflattering terms:
>
>
>
> Calling the former (Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees) - "Brood of Vipers,
>
> "Hypocrites," "Blind Guides" (See Matt. 23 and elsewhere)
>
>
>
> Calling the latter (King Herod) - "That Fox" (Luke 13:32)

Being just nominally familiar with Christian source materials, my position
on what Yeshua of Nazareth really did or said is much like what some
people think about the assassination of John F. Kennedy: it is a riddle
wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. I do approve of some of the
statements attributed to him, though.

Based solely on my own moral compass, such as it is, I would encourage
others to challenge dishonesty and hypocrisy, but take heed of the warning
to "Judge not lest ye be judged."

"Thou hypocrite," one might say, if one were somewhat poetically inclined,
"first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see
clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Not everyone agrees with me, though:

http://www.cfirecm.com/QandA/Judge%20Not%20Lest%20Ye%20Be%20Judged.htm

> Granted. From a Christian belief perspective we would hold that Jesus was
>
> speaking with just a "SHADE" more authority here than any of us would have
>
> in uttering the same things! However, it is NOT the strong certainty and
>
> strident nature of John F.'s comments I am defending here. Rather I am
>
> merely pointing out that in attempting to call a spade "a spade" one has
>
> not necessarily done something wrong in terms of Christian beliefs.
>
>
> Again. I wish to stress that it is an *ENTIRELY* different matter whether
>
> such a conclusion about Gary Mack is warranted by the known facts. John F
>
> seems to think so. I do not.
>
>
>
> BT George

John F. is free to present any evidence he likes on any relevant subject.
That would be a welcome change.

Dave

[Dave Reitzes]

Fair enough. I think the jet effect was little more than a red herring, anyway.

This was something Thompson and I talked
>
> about months ago. He surprised me, however, by showing up at the
>
> conference with Luis Alvarez's notes on his melon tests. These notes lay
>
> out, in meticulous detail, how Alvarez shot at coconuts, jugs of water,
>
> water-filled balls, and a whole assortment of fruit, before finally
>
> settling on melons...and that none of these other items blew back to the
>
> shooter. Alvarez then hand-loaded the ammo, to increase velocity, and
>
> tried smaller and smaller melons, before finally perfecting his trick, and
>
> getting a melon to blow back to the shooter. Pretty sleazy, IMO.

Hmmmmmmm. Something tells me that subject is going to get some play at
this newsgroup.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2013 10:17 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> [Josiah Thompson's new] book will accomplish one thing, for certain. It
> will destroy the jet effect theory, once and for all.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> How is it possible to "destroy" something that's been PROVEN ON FILM to be
> true?
>
> The jet effect theory is a FACT. That's not even debatable. It's been
> proven--and on film/videotape.
>

Nonsense. And no at all WC defenders believe in it.

> Now, you can argue that what we see happening to JFK's head just after the
> fatal shot in Dallas doesn't apply as "jet effect" (because his head is
> not a melon), but the jet effect HAS been proven in various tests on film
> by Alvarez, Lattimer, and even Penn & Teller.....
>

All fake.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html
>
> And the jet effect was proven ON FILM by Dr. Lattimer using human skulls
> too. I know that the CTers will argue that Lattimer's ladder tipped
> forward and caused the skulls (ALL of them!) to jump backward toward the
> shooter....but they are completely wrong, IMO. Those skulls start their
> flight toward the shooter before the ladder moves at all.
>

And the ladder is thrust forward by the impact of the bullet and then
swings back like a pendulum. How does the wooden ladder have a "jet
effect"? Rotten wood?

> CTers, of course, will look for any excuse to dismiss the obvious--and to
> fight reality. (Why do so many conspiracy theorists engage in that
> "Fighting Reality" hobby? I've often wondered. The SBT being another
> perfect example of such CT behavior.)
>

And WC defenders always hide what really happened.

> In short, it has been proven beyond all doubt that certain objects WILL
> move toward a gunman.
>
> And are we REALLY supposed to believe that JFK's forward head movement
> between Z312 and Z313 in the Zapruder Film is being caused by something
> OTHER than the bullet which is hitting him in the head at that PRECISE
> INSTANT IN TIME? Unbelievable!
>
> Nobody else's head in that limousine is jerking forward the way John
> Kennedy's head is doing at that exact moment at Z313. And if somebody says

They all moved forward before the head shot.

> that Jackie's and Nellie's and JBC's and Greer's and Kellerman's heads are
> ALL being jerked abruptly forward at Z313, they are dead wrong. It's not
> happening to those people. Only to JFK's head--and at the precise instant
> a bullet is hitting him in the head. What a remarkable coincidence,
> wouldn't you agree Pat?
>

Nonsense. Ir is mainly the blur of frame 313.

[David Von Pein]

T. MARSH SAID:

They all moved forward before the head shot.

DVP SAYS:

Not the SNAP forward we see with Kennedy's head. That's obvious--except to
CTers who deny reality constantly.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 7:17:22 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
>
>
> [Josiah Thompson's new] book will accomplish one thing, for certain. It
>
> will destroy the jet effect theory, once and for all.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
>
> How is it possible to "destroy" something that's been PROVEN ON FILM to be
>
> true?
>
>
>
> The jet effect theory is a FACT. That's not even debatable. It's been
>
> proven--and on film/videotape.
>
>
>
> Now, you can argue that what we see happening to JFK's head just after the
>
> fatal shot in Dallas doesn't apply as "jet effect" (because his head is
>
> not a melon), but the jet effect HAS been proven in various tests on film
>
> by Alvarez, Lattimer, and even Penn & Teller.....
>
>
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html
>
>

They were all tricks, Dave, designed to deceive. None of them have
anything to do with how SKULLS react to bullets. And Alvarez, for one,
KNEW this. Tink's got his notes. They show how Alvarez shot numerous items
looking for one that might fly backwards, and then jimmied with the ammo
and the size of the melon to perfect his trick.

>
> And the jet effect was proven ON FILM by Dr. Lattimer using human skulls
>
> too. I know that the CTers will argue that Lattimer's ladder tipped
>
> forward and caused the skulls (ALL of them!) to jump backward toward the
>
> shooter....but they are completely wrong, IMO. Those skulls start their
>
> flight toward the shooter before the ladder moves at all.

Ludicrous. The forward momentum is undoubtedly transferred into the
ladder. The skull then recoils back from the ladder. What? You think the
skull pops back to the shooter, and the ladder just sits there for a
second, and THEN falls forward? How? Why? On what planet?

>
>
>
> CTers, of course, will look for any excuse to dismiss the obvious--and to
>
> fight reality. (Why do so many conspiracy theorists engage in that
>
> "Fighting Reality" hobby? I've often wondered. The SBT being another
>
> perfect example of such CT behavior.)

Many scientists, including Sturdivan in his HSCA testimony, have expressed
great skepticism about the jet effect. I got some tips from a mechanical
engineer, and passed them on to Tink. Tink then followed up and got
Alvarez's notes, which prove he cherry-picked his data to deceive.
KABOOM!

>
>
>
> In short, it has been proven beyond all doubt that certain objects WILL
>
> move toward a gunman.

Certain objects but not human skulls. Sherry Fiester, btw, tells me the
latest data shows that skulls will, upon being pierced by a bullet, expand
slightly backward. But that's not what we see in the Zapruder film. (She
thinks this explains the brief forward movement.)

>
>
>
> And are we REALLY supposed to believe that JFK's forward head movement
>
> between Z312 and Z313 in the Zapruder Film is being caused by something
>
> OTHER than the bullet which is hitting him in the head at that PRECISE
>
> INSTANT IN TIME? Unbelievable!

Hey, guess what? I agree with you on this one. The forward movement
between 312 and 313, which Tink now thinks is an optical illusion,
suggests to me that JFK was hit from behind...at the supposed exit. (If
you look at it with fresh eyes, you'll see that his head is knocked
downward by the impact.)

>
>
>
> Nobody else's head in that limousine is jerking forward the way John
>
> Kennedy's head is doing at that exact moment at Z313. And if somebody says
>
> that Jackie's and Nellie's and JBC's and Greer's and Kellerman's heads are
>
> ALL being jerked abruptly forward at Z313, they are dead wrong. It's not
>
> happening to those people. Only to JFK's head--and at the precise instant
>
> a bullet is hitting him in the head. What a remarkable coincidence,
>
> wouldn't you agree Pat?
>
>
>
> A bullet is hitting President Kennedy's head at precisely Z313, but I'm
>
> supposed to believe that something completely UNRELATED to that bullet is
>
> causing Kennedy's head to jerk noticeably forward at that exact moment?
>
>
>
> Come on, Pat. Do you *really* buy that?

No. I agree. JFK is hit from behind between 312 and 313.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

I agree. JFK is hit from behind between 312 and 313.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Pat.

I've always liked talking to Patrick J. Speer. We disagree on a lot of
stuff, but Pat is one of the most reasonable conspiracy believers in the
world (IMO).

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:4c1fc765-458c-4d13...@googlegroups.com...

BTW......Why don't YOU contact Blakey, or W&A or Barger, or some members
of the HSCA as I did recently trying to verify something for .John.

Or perhaps you can read my rebuttal to Spiegelman, et al as Published in
the Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 2 No. 1.

I've backed up just about everything I've posted with citations. Do I
sometimes just voice my opinion.............damn straight I do.

John F.

[Anthony Marsh]

Half of what you call a snap is blur in frame 313.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe because he doesn't point out your errors.

[Dave Reitzes]

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:46:50 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> BTW......Why don't YOU contact Blakey, or W&A or Barger, or some members
>
> of the HSCA as I did recently trying to verify something for .John.

If I have a pressing need to contact any of those people, I suppose I
will.

> Or perhaps you can read my rebuttal to Spiegelman, et al as Published in
>
> the Annals of Applied Statistics, Vol. 2 No. 1.

I would be very interested in reading that. Seriously, I would. Is there
an electronic copy you could forward to me?

I don't know how important the NAA aspect of the case is, but I'd
certainly like to keep up on it.

> I've backed up just about everything I've posted with citations. Do I
>
> sometimes just voice my opinion.............damn straight I do.
>
>
>
> John F.

It's a free country. But when I see you spouting so many personal attacks,
it tends to make me less eager to look into your research. Perhaps that's
my loss.

Dave

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:f6576776-3680-4354...@googlegroups.com...

What "personal attacks" are you referring to Dave?

Seriously..............my calling Gary Mack a "Mustela?" Is that really
offensive to you?

Well, that is my opinion of him......you can label that a personal attack
if you wish.

As for my research efforts, it's apparent you haven't read much on the N/G
except for what you label as "personal attacks."

And all of this coming with your seemingly new found level of activity
here on the N/G.

As to my rebuttal you should be able to download a pdf here:

Cornell University Library System http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4055

or at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/index.html

Otherwise you would need a subscription to the Annals of Applied
Statistics.

John F.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This statement regarding the possibility of a third bullet striking the
car is most curious.

"Unfortunate again is the fact there are no wounds in either victim to
which it could be attributed, nor any damage observed in the limousine, to
which it could be attributed."

Even if one is to believe Guinn's ridiculous and largely discredited
testimony re the magic bullet and wrist fragment, you can not take from
this that the identity of the bullet (or bullets) creating Kennedy's back
and throat wound has been established, nor can you presume to know, for a
fact, what bullet hit Connally's back or thigh, or even what bullet hit
the windshield frame and windshield.

[Anthony Marsh]

1. The SS lied sand said the dent of the chrome topping was there before
the shooting.
2. No one noticed that the back of the rearview mirror was smashed in.
3. The WC ignored or covered up reports of a hole in the floor.

[Dave Reitzes]

So this journal article you've been touting as an example of your
scholarship is actually a letter to the editor?

Lovely.

Dave

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:4c1fc765-458c-4d13...@googlegroups.com...

Why don't you try being a little more forthright. I've been on this N/G
for years.

I've posted info. about Mack.

I even tracked down Geoffrey Crawley's assistant in the UK and posted
that info. which Nigel Turner "forgot" to mention in the TMWKK.

Crawley destroyed "Badgeman."

I have personal e-mails from Mack, which I won't post.

Try asking Steve Barber what he thinks of Mack.

Try Google it works fine.

John F.

[John Fiorentino]

"pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:094cdfff-ef29-4ec1...@googlegroups.com...

You don't understand what is written and you don't understand forensics.

I think we've only agreed on one thing in all the years we've been here
and that was Baden's upside down presentation of F8.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the single bullet theory with
you. It's not a theory but a fact, as are the other pieces of forensic
evidence.

The issue is a third bullet STRIKE. There is no evidence of that, period.

John F.

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:f0221328-75c6-46d1...@googlegroups.com...

That shows what you know about peer-reviewed journals.

Letters to the Editor under go the same scrutiny as a research paper

And if you knew ANYTHING about what happened re: the Spiegelman paper
you'd understand why that was done.

You're getting very good at slinging mud. But frankly.............I don't
give a damn.

John F.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think your missed shot didn't strike anything? How do you explain
that? Did it just evaporate?

> John F.
>

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 7:10:56 AM UTC-5, Dave Reitzes wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:52:34 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:02:59 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > news:5jb969t4rpodnnkf9...@4ax.com...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > One of the speakers called Gary Mack (of the Sixth Floor Museum) a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > "liar," and the audience applauded.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Not just scattered applause. It seemed like about half the audience.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > .John
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > --------------
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I don't think that's so wacky.............
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Gary is my favorite mustela!
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't know that I trust Gary very much either, but I can think of
>
> >
>
> > persons I suspect much more are shameless liers in the JFK arena. Many of
>
> >
>
> > those applauding Mack's being so categorized, were doubtless also
>
> >
>
> > applauding (in a positive way) some far more shameful liers who were
>
> >
>
> > speaking at this event.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > BT George
>
>
>
>
>

> Gary is a lightning rod because he occupies a professional position that
>
> undoubtedly provokes a great deal of both envy and contempt, sometimes
>
> quite possibly in tandem from the same people.
>
>
>
> Despite being an enormously knowledgeable and influential researcher, Gary
>
> is a target for people from both sides of the issue, because he's not
>
> afraid to initiate and/or support research that challenges deeply held
>
> convictions from both CTs and LNs. People, whether CT or LN or whatever,
>
> are bound to complain when someone with his responsibility and visibility
>
> says things they disagree with.
>
>
>
> I've done my fair share of complaining. Make no mistake, Gary is entitled
>
> to believe whatever he wants; but I wish he would at long last disavow two
>
> brutally discredited theories for which he is in no small way responsible:
>
> the acoustical theory and "Badge Man."
>
>
>
> However he and I may disagree about some things, Gary strikes me as a
>
> scholar of great dedication and integrity.
>

With all due respect, Dave, it seems to me your position re GM may be just
a tad naive. GM does not now speak on his own; he speaks as the voice of
the 6FM. His positions will reflect that, as well as his posting through
others on different forums. Not the same as scholarship imo.

Pamela Brown
ss100x.com

[John Fiorentino]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:526c838c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Did your Mother drop you on your head?

John F.

[Mike]

Gary Mack has been absorbed by the Borg. He now speaks for the hive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

[Dave Reitzes]

On Sunday, October 27, 2013 4:42:46 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Gary is a lightning rod because he occupies a professional position that
>
> >
>
> > undoubtedly provokes a great deal of both envy and contempt, sometimes
>
> >
>
> > quite possibly in tandem from the same people.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Despite being an enormously knowledgeable and influential researcher, Gary
>
> >
>
> > is a target for people from both sides of the issue, because he's not
>
> >
>
> > afraid to initiate and/or support research that challenges deeply held
>
> >
>
> > convictions from both CTs and LNs. People, whether CT or LN or whatever,
>
> >
>
> > are bound to complain when someone with his responsibility and visibility
>
> >
>
> > says things they disagree with.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I've done my fair share of complaining. Make no mistake, Gary is entitled
>
> >
>
> > to believe whatever he wants; but I wish he would at long last disavow two
>
> >
>
> > brutally discredited theories for which he is in no small way responsible:
>
> >
>
> > the acoustical theory and "Badge Man."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > However he and I may disagree about some things, Gary strikes me as a
>
> >
>
> > scholar of great dedication and integrity.
>
> >
>
>
>
> With all due respect, Dave, it seems to me your position re GM may be just
>
> a tad naive. GM does not now speak on his own; he speaks as the voice of
>
> the 6FM. His positions will reflect that, as well as his posting through
>
> others on different forums. Not the same as scholarship imo.
>
>
>
> Pamela Brown
>
> ss100x.com

With respect to Gary's positions, check out the references to him in the
endnotes of Sabato's THE KENNEDY HALF-CENTURY; for example, pp. 477-79,
with Gary supporting at least one shot from the knoll, reaffirming his
support for Gordon Arnold's story, reiterating the importance of Officer
Joe Smith's knoll man with Secret Service ID, etc. Gary apparently
moderates his views when speaking on behalf of the museum, but on his own
time, he has his own positions.

That's a separate issue from scholarship, of course, and I don't think he
requires any defense from the likes of me in that area.

Dave

[Anthony Marsh]

So when you can't answer a simple question and defend your wacky theory
you bring out the personal insults? Because you can't stick to the
facts. You can't explain your missed shot. Yet you demand absolute proof
from the conspiracy believers for everything.

> John F.
>
>

[Dave Reitzes]

John sure can dish it out, though, can't he?

Dave

[John Fiorentino]

"Dave Reitzes" <drei...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:2cdabad3-04d5-4593...@googlegroups.com...

Mmm Mmm.................That Johnny is a bad boy!


John F.

[John Fiorentino]

FYI for Dave:

Normally, when a concerned scientist has issues with a published work, he
or she will submit a letter of protest, criticism, or alternate viewpoint
to the journal in which publication occurred. That letter will then be
evaluated by the journal editor, perhaps given to other technical staff
for opinions of appropriateness, and, if published, often answered or
rebutted in the same issue by an accompanying letter from the original
authors. The protest letter is usually constrained by the journal to be
succinct, focused, and deal with valid technical concerns, and such
published communications are considered to be on a reasonable scientific
footing. The original authors may or may not sway the interested reader
with their subsequent response.

===============================================
"Protest letter" is just another phrase for Rebuttal.

That is the protocol I followed. That is the way it is done.

John F.










"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:526bdbf7$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[john....@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 21, 2013 12:34:48 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> One of the speakers called Gary Mack (of the Sixth Floor Museum) a
>
> "liar," and the audience applauded.
>
>
>
> Not just scattered applause. It seemed like about half the audience.
>
>
>
> .John
>
> --------------
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

This conspiracy theory thing is getting dangerous. It's like a religion.