In article <K%zY8.116650$iX5.5488
...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>, "Gary says...
><dcwill...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:agtqmi02nt3@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <agnep7$fs...@shell.datasync.com>, Gary says...
>> >Donald,
>> >I've known Bob for years. He saw the rifle after the last shot.
>> >The telephoto lens camera around his neck had no film, that's why there
>> >was no photo. The printed version of the Dallas Morning News story
>> >included a close-up photo of Jackson in the motorcade on Main Street and
>> >the camera was around his neck then, too.
>> >By the time he grabbed his other camera, the one with the wide angle
>lens,
>> >the rifle had been pulled back in.
>> >Gary Mack
>> Gary, I'm afraid you have Jackson's Warren Commission testimony exactly
>> reversed. In fact, with your switcheroo, you actually wind up making an
>> excellent, if accidental case for the existence of a Bob Jackson photo of
>the
>> rifle in the window: "There was no photo," you say, because the
>"telephoto lens
>> camera around his neck had no film.... By the time he grabbed his other
>camera,
>> the one with the wide angle lens, the rifle had been pulled back in."
>Terrif!
>> But the "camera around his neck" DID have film:
>> Jackson: "I had thrown my film out to this reporter over the side of the
>car as
>> we rounded the corner & I still had the camera lying in my lap, & THE
>OTHER ONE
>> WAS AROUND MY NECK." (v2p164)
>> In other words, the empty, telephoto lens camera was lying in his lap; the
>> loaded, wide-angle-lens camera was around his neck. But his testimony
>here
>> actually goes even further. Here it is in full:
>> Ford: "At the time you heard the first shot, what was your position in
>the car?
>> Were you standing or sitting?"
>> Jackson: "I was sitting on the back of the seat, on the right-hand side
>of the
>> back seat, sitting up."
>> Ford: "Did you have your camera in your hand?"
>> Jackson: "Yes. I had one camera around my neck & the camera I had just
>> emptied, it was in my lap. I had thrown my film out...."
>> "Did you have your camera in your hand?" "Yes." Jackson, then, had a
>loaded
>> camera in his hand. He heard 3 shots, then saw a rifle "drawn fairly
>slowly
>> back into the building" (p159). He did not have to scramble around trying
>to
>> locate the camera with the film; all he had to do was aim & click. He had
>to
>> have gotten at least one shot of the slowly-drawn-back rifle. To rephrase
>your
>> sentence:
>> The wide angle lens camera around his neck had film, that's why there was
>a
>> photo. If there was a loaded camera around his neck--IN HIS HAND--there
>was at
>> least one photo.... Talk to Bob again.
>> dw
>There's no need, for my "switcheroo" has no bearing on what actually
>happened. Jackson had his telephoto lens camera around his neck within a
>few blocks of Dealey Plaza (the overhead view of him in Trask on page 437 is
>the same picture that ran in the recent Dallas Morning News story.) That
>was the camera that was out of film and Jackson had, indeed, unloaded it and
>included that roll and others in the package he tossed to Dallas Times
>Herald reporter Jim Featherston at Main & Houston in their pre-arranged
>plan. Jackson and the others in his car - as can be seen in the Robert
>Hughes film - were watching Featherston scramble after the dropped package.
>Seconds later, while the photographers were turned away from the TSBD, the
>first shot was fired.
>As Jackson testified, and told many times over the years, he saw the black
>guys in a window and a rifle in the window above them, then saw the rifle
>being withdrawn.
I isolate the following to show how LNers (as well as witnesses) change their
stories, the better apparently to protect the Warren Commission's sanitized
conclusions. Remember that "too late," just days ago, meant that the wide angle
lens camera was lying in Jackson's lap. Now, altho Jackson is seen to have
testified that he had the loaded camera IN HIS HAND, Gary has him somehow
grabbing for *another* camera, & it's "too late" again. Next, look for Gary &
John to explain away Jackson's lost statement from 11/22/63 (v19 p527).... I
think it is pretty safe to say that there is a connection between the
disappearance of said statement & Jackson's continued inability to explain why
he did not take at least one picture with the camera which was in his hand.
dw
**** >He grabbed for his telephoto lens camera, then realized it
>had no film. He then grabbed his wide angle lens camera, which was around
>his neck by the time he reached Dealey Plaza, but it was too late.
****
He could
>see nothing and concentrated, instead, on the commotion in and around the
>motorcade in front of him.
>For you or anyone to suggest that Jackson got a picture of the TSBD and has
>lied about doing so and kept the picture hidden is just ridiculous.
>Here's the background on the recent Dallas Morning News story, which was my
>suggestion. News reporter Michael Granberry and I collaborated for weeks,
>tracking down people at both newspapers and elsewhere who knew Jackson or
>Jack Beers. Several people in the local news media, including Jackson,
>recounted knowing at the time how distraught he was over missing out on
>getting a picture of the gun in the window. It still bothers Bob that he
>was too slow when it counted, but he made up for it - he feels, as explained
>in the story - by his classic picture of Ruby shooting Oswald.
>Gary Mack
