Tag: JFK ASSASSINATION

  • JFK: The Ruby Connection – Gary Mack’s Follies, Part One


    All you need to know about the value of the Discovery Channel program JFK: The Ruby Connection is this: Gary Mack is the main talking head, host, and interviewer. If one recalls last year’s Discovery debacle, Inside the Target Car, Mack used a series of tricks and omissions to achieve a preordained goal. As they say in the computer programming business it was garbage in, garbage out. In that show, Mack bamboozled the uninitiated in the audience by placing Jackie Kennedy in the wrong position in the limousine (even though Robert Groden told him about this error in advance); he put the exit wound in the wrong place on JFK’s head; and he used “replica” skulls that could not have been actual replicas.

    These “errors” were all done with apparent objectives in mind. The first was to make the audience believe that if an assassin fired from a certain position from the right front, he would have hit both President Kennedy and Jackie. The actual frames from the Zapruder film prove this is false, Jackie was out of the line of fire. And Gary Mack has watched that film dozens of times. Further, as I said, , Bob Groden alerted him about this on the set. But the truth didn’t seem to matter. Mack then placed the exit wound in President Kennedy’s skull in a different place than the autopsy report. This second “error” allowed Mack to draw a trajectory line back to the sixth floor. Something he could not have done with the exit location described in the autopsy report, which – on camera – Mack said he had read. Third, he also contracted out with an Australian defense company, to construct “replica” skulls which – as it turned out – were not replicas. As Milicent Cranor pointed out, Mack’s own experiment proved they were not. For the bullets fired through the ersatz “replica” skulls did not break apart. But the Warren Commission said that the bullet that killed Kennedy did. Afterwards, Gary Mack said he couldn’t figure out why they did not. That’s funny. Milicent and I sure could. As I noted, what this experiment actually proved is that: 1.) Either President Kennedy was not hit by Mannlicher Carcano bullets, or 2.) The “replica” skulls were replicas only in the mind of Gary Mack. That is they deliberately did not have anywhere near the density they needed to shatter a bullet. This was obvious in the section of the show where a hunting round was fired at the phony replicas. The ersatz skulls completely shattered like a special effect out of a slasher movie. Not in real life.

    I could go on and on about how bad this show was. But I refer you to our gallery of reviews, which deals with that now notorious program. Evidently, like John Lattimer, Gerald Posner, and Dan Rather before him, Gary Mack is being well paid for his sales services. Since it looks like he didn’t care about being exposed on each and every level and from multiple angles for Inside the Target Car. If you can believe it, he is at it again. This time, instead of the murder of President Kennedy, his subject is the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. The guy who Mack – in his new incarnation – now says shot Kennedy.

    At this point, it is important to remind the novice reader of an important fact about Gary Mack. Like Gus Russo and Dale Myers before him, Mack used to be a Warren Commission critic. That is, he used to think Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and the Warren Commission was full of bunk. Around the time of Oliver Stone’s JFK, Russo’s lifelong friend Dave Perry became his guru during Mack’s conversion period. And, according to Perry, he himself was instrumental in getting the reincarnated Gary Mack his present position as Curator of The Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. (After Perry’s confession about this emerged, Mack denied Perry’s self-admitted role in his job hunt. So they probably have their stories straightened out by now.)

    But the important point about Mack’s conversion is this: Like Russo and Myers, Mack knows what the holes in the official story are. He knows how the critics – with very little money or media exposure – have connected with the public on them. Now that he has flipped sides, he uses the finances of the MSM to mend those holes in the official story. But like Lattimer, Posner, and Rather before him – and as profusely demonstrated by Inside the Target Car – the holes are simply too large for any kind of simple stitching. So what Mack creates is a kind of diaphanous crazy quilt that falls apart at the slightest poke.

    I

    “What concerned Moroccan officials … was a letter they discovered on Davis … dealing with “Oswald” and the assassination.”

    —Henry Hurt, describing Ruby’s friend Thomas Davis

    One of the problems with this show is that its very title is deceptive. Because there is simply no exploration of who Jack Ruby was and what his connections to the John F. Kennedy case were or may have been. I say “may have been” because, as with Oswald, the Warren Commission’s exploration of Ruby’s actual background was, to be kind, cursory. To be unkind, today it looks humorous. For instance, the Commission famously wrote that Ruby had no significant link to organized crime. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 389) Yet the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) listed a series of phone calls made by Ruby in the month leading up to the murder of Kennedy. It clearly exposes that assertion as dubious. In fact, the House Select Committee specifically criticized both the Warren Commission and the FBI for “failing to analyze systematically … the data in those records. ” (Vol. V, p. 188) Ruby’s phone usage went up by a factor of 300% in November of 1963. (ibid p. 190) At this time, Ruby was in phone contact with the likes of Irwin Wiener, Barney Baker, Nofio Pecora, Lewis McWillie, and Dusty Miller, all of who had ties to organized crime. (ibid pgs. 193-195) And as Jim Marrs writes in Crossfire, “the record shows his involvement in a number of criminal activities including gambling, narcotics, prostitution, and gun running.” (Marrs, p. 389) But, as the quote above shows, these activities were not done only with the Mafia.

    Ruby’s gun running was at least partly done with former CIA agent Thomas Eli Davis. (Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt, pgs 401-405) And Davis’ connections reportedly went all the way up to the CIA assassin famously code named QJ/WIN. Davis had a slight resemblance to Oswald and he used the name Oswald at times in his work. (ibid, p. 402) In fact, Ruby was so close to Davis that, after he shot Oswald, Ruby actually volunteered Davis’ name to his attorneys. Incredibly, Ruby said that if he beat the Oswald rap he wanted to go back into the gun running business with Davis. (ibid) Both Davis and Ruby had been involved with another gun runner named Robert McKeown. (ibid) McKeown had run guns to Castro and during one of Ruby’s contacts with McKeown, Ruby offered him 25,000 dollars for a letter of introduction to the Cuban dictator. (Hurt p. 177) Where Ruby would get that kind of money and why he himself needed to contact Fidel so badly is something that we will mention later, but which Gary Mack never brings up in this show that supposedly tells the viewer about Ruby’s connections to the JFK case.

    Neither does Mack explain another interesting riddle. Less than three weeks after the assassination, Davis was attempting to sell guns in Morocco. He was arrested. While he was searched, the authorities found a strange handwritten letter on him referring to “Oswald” and the assassination. (ibid p. 403) In fact, there is evidence that on the day of Kennedy’s murder, Davis was in Algiers for gun-running activities, and was released with the help of QJ/WIN himself. (ibid p. 404) Geez, those are interesting Ruby connections to the JFK case: Castro, the Mafia, the CIA, and the usage of Oswald’s name. They aren’t on this program though.

    Ruby also lied about how many times he had been to Cuba. He said he had been there only once, in August of 1959. (ibid, p. 178) Yet there is evidence Ruby was there two times just in that same year. Again, it appears the Commission tried to cover up this fact about Ruby. How? By blending the two trips, which took place in August and September, into one. (Warren Report, p. 370, p. 802, WC Vol. XXII p. 859) Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel of the HSCA, once wrote that it was “…established beyond doubt that Ruby lied repeatedly and willfully to the FBI and the Warren Commission about the number of trips he made to Cuba and their duration … Their purpose, was to courier something, probably money, into or out of Cuba.” (Marrs, p. 394)

    The man who Ruby was closest to in Havana was the mob associated gambler, Lewis McWillie. Elaine Mynier, a girlfriend of McWillie, described the two men. She said McWillie was “…a big time gambler, who has always been in the big money and operated top gambling establishments in the United States and Cuba. He always had a torpedo (a bodyguard) living with him for protection.” She went on to say that Ruby was “a small time character who would do anything for McWillie … (Marrs, p. 393, italics added) The Commission had to have known that McWillie was a gambler and killer who Ruby idolized. (WC Vol. V, p. 201, Vol. XXIII, p. 166) While managing the Tropicana in Havana, McWillie became associated with some of the Mob’s top leaders like Santo Trafficante and Meyer Lansky, who were part owners. (FBI Memo of 3/26/64) It was Trafficante’s association with McWillie that has led some commentators to relate one of Ruby’s visits to McKeown as a favor for McWillie. In early 1959, McWillie’s boss Trafficante was arrested and jailed outside of Havana by Castro. Just a few days later, Ruby got in contact with McKeown. He told McKeown that he represented Las Vegas interests who were seeking the release of three prisoners in Cuba. Ruby told him that he would offer him five thousand dollars per prisoner for his help. McKeown said he wanted to see the money first. (Marrs, p. 396)

    McWillie was also a former employee of a main power inside the Delois Green gang – Benny Binion – who had moved to Las Vegas. Binion also worked at the Tropicana in Havana in 1959. (See CD 1193, WC Vol. XXIII p. 163) Binion probably knew Frank Sturgis since Sturgis was Castro’s supervisor of gambling concessions in 1959. Further, Ruby was reportedly involved in gun running with Miami arms dealer Eddie Browder. Browder was also involved with Sturgis. (Marrs, p. 392) Frank Sturgis, of course, was connected to the CIA, Castro, and the Mafia.

    There was also the testimony of Ruby employee Nancy Perrin Rich to attest to Ruby’s intelligence ties and his gun running activities. She testified that she had moved to Dallas in 1962 to reconcile with her husband Robert. Once they did so, two local detectives who knew Robert had helped her find a job. It was tending bar for Jack Ruby. But she said she didn’t like Ruby because of his overbearing manner and temper. So she quit.

    She said that later her husband Robert had met with a military officer about getting some anti-Castro Cubans out of Cuba and into Miami. This meeting in Dallas was presided over by a U.S. Army colonel. The colonel suggested a cash payment of ten grand. A few nights later, the Perrins met again with the colonel but this time there were a couple of Cubans in attendance. At this second meeting the assignment was more well-defined. They were not just going to get refugees out; they were also running guns into Cuba. When they heard this, the Perrins wanted more money. The implication made by the Cubans and colonel was that the money would be arriving soon via a bagman. Rich then told the Commission: “I had the shock of my life … A knock comes on the door and who walks in but my little friend Jack Ruby … and everybody looks like … here comes the savior.” The Commission did not mention any of Rich’s testimony in their report. Further, in 1966, Nancy Rich told Mark Lane that the Commission had eliminated the telling detail that, outside of the apartment house where the second meeting took place, was a cache of military armaments. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, pgs 287-297, Marrs, p. 397)

    In fact, this aspect of Ruby’s life – his relations to CIA-Mafia activities in Cuba – was obvious to even Commission staffers. Warren Commission attorneys Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin, who ran the Ruby investigation, wrote a memo to Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin in March of 1964. They wrote that, “The most promising links between Jack Ruby and the assassination of President Kennedy are established through underworld figures and anti-Castro Cubans and extreme right-wing Americans.” (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 948) Two months later, they wrote another memo: “We believe that a reasonable possibility exists that Ruby has maintained a close interest in Cuban affairs to the extent necessary to participate in gun sales and smuggling … Neither Oswald’s Cuban interests in Dallas nor Ruby’s Cuban activities have been adequately explored … We believe the possibility exists, based on evidence already available, that Ruby was involved in illegal dealings with Cuban elements who might have had contact with Oswald. The existence of such dealings can only be surmised since the present investigation has not focused on that area.” (WC Memorandum to J. Lee Rankin, 5/14/64) In other words, Griffin and Hubert were saying that the connection between the two men very likely existed in these Cuban matters. But since the FBI was not interested in it, they couldn’t really discover if it was there.

    Like Oswald, Jack Ruby was in the middle of the Cuban conflict as it extended into the United States. And he connected to each of the domestic power centers that interacted with that conflict. The program under review is silent about this.

    II

    “Starting with Sunday afternoon, you could no longer find a policeman in town who said he knew Ruby.”

    —Seth Kantor

    As most everyone knows today, but what this show does not reveal, is that Ruby was also an FBI informant. A fact that J. Edgar Hoover tried to get the Warren Commission to conceal. Which they willingly did for him. (Hurt, p. 177) As one FBI report, partly censored by the Warren Commission revealed, the FBI not only knew about Ruby’s ties to underworld gambling in Dallas and Fort Worth, but their informant said that for Ruby to carry them on as he did, he had to have police connections in both cities. (FBI report of 12/6/63) This informant, a man named William Abadie, had briefly worked for Ruby writing gambling “tickets” as well as serving as a “slot machine and jukebox mechanic.” He went on to say that he had observed policemen coming and going while acting as a bookie in Ruby’s establishment.

    Further in this regard, Jim Marrs writes that another source told the Bureau that when he attempted to set up a lottery game in Dallas in 1962, he “was told it would be necessary to obtain the approval of Jack Ruby, since any “fix” with local authorities had to come through Ruby.” (Marrs, p. 390) Another source echoed this accusation by saying that Ruby was a payoff man for the Dallas Police Department. (CD 4, p. 529) Ruby also allegedly could fix things with the county authorities (WC Vol. XXIII p. 372) This last revelation was from the wife of one James Breen. She said her husband “had made connection with large narcotics set up operating between Mexico, Texas, and the East … In some fashion James got the okay to operate through Jack Ruby of Dallas.” (ibid, p. 369) Reinforcing Ruby’s ties to the drug trade, a veteran of the Special Services Bureau (SSB) of the Dallas Police said that he regarded Ruby as a source of information in connection with his investigatory activities. In other words, Ruby was a police informant on the narcotics beat. (WC Vol. XIII p. 183) The vice-chief of the SSB unit considered himself fairly close to Ruby and allegedly visited his clubs frequently. (WC Vol. XXIII p. 78 and p. 207)

    As Sylvia Meagher pointed out in Accessories After the Fact, one indication of just how close to the police Ruby was is this: He had been arrested several times, yet each time he had gotten off easily. (p. 423) For instance, Ruby had been arrested twice for carrying a concealed weapon. In each case, no charges were filed and he was released the same day. (ibid, p. 422) So its no surprise that, when the police had Oswald incarcerated, Ruby would be roaming the corridors with a weapon in his pocket. Like his ties to mobsters, his vast police contacts were so commonly known that the Warren Commission had to disguise them. One way they did this was to write in the Warren Report that “the evidence indicates that Ruby was keenly interested in policemen and their work.” (WR p. 800) Phrased in that way, we are supposed to believe that Ruby was interested in joining the force.

    Another way that the Warren Commission tried to camouflage Ruby’s multi-tiered connections to the police was by minimizing the number of officers he knew. Quoting Police Chief Jesse Curry, the Commission states that Ruby knew approximately 25-50 of the 1,175 men in the DPD. (WR p. 224) Meagher found this so strained as to be risible. She wrote that of the 75 policemen present when Oswald was shot, Ruby knew at least forty of them. (Meagher, p. 423) She then adds that if this same ratio was consistent for the entire force, Ruby had to have known nearly 600 officers. Several witnesses back this up. Joseph Cavagnaro, manager of the Sheraton Dallas Hotel, told the FBI that Ruby “knew all the policemen in town” and was well-acquainted with a great number of them. (Lane, p. 232) A police lieutenant told the FBI that Ruby was well known among the members of the DPD. (ibid, p. 233) Musician Johnny Cola knew Ruby for years on a personal basis. He said that “Ruby at least had a speaking acquaintance with most of the policemen in the Dallas Police Department.” (ibid) Edward McBee, a Dallas bartender who also knew Ruby well, told the FBI that Ruby “knew many, and probably most, of the officers on the Dallas Police Department.” (ibid) William O’Donnell knew Ruby for 16 years and worked for him at the Carousel Club. He stated that “Ruby is on speaking terms with about 700 out of the 1200 men on the police force” and that he was “not at all surprised to learn of Ruby’s admittance to the basement.” (ibid)

    The Commission also covered up Ruby’s closeness with the police by saying that Ruby served them “free coffee and soft drinks” at his Carousel Club. He actually had his bartenders serve them free alcoholic beverages. O’Donnell said that when police officers dropped in at the Carousel, they were admitted without charge and given a free “round of drinks”. (ibid) A former police officer named Theodore Fleming said that many officers were on a first name basis with Ruby and that 90% of the time, Ruby served them free drinks. (ibid) Another police officer, Hugh Smith, said that, when he joined the force, Ruby’s place was recommended to him by another police officer. Smith then added that a great many officers frequented the club socially and that Ruby actually gave them bottles of liquor. He continued by saying that one officer actually used Ruby’s apartment on several occasions. (ibid p. 234) Smith’s statement about giving away bottles of liquor to the DPD was reinforced at the other end of the transaction. A former waitress at the Carousel, Janice Jones, described the same donation by Ruby. (ibid)

    But a stripper at the Carousel, Shari Angel, said the donations went even further. The officers “all got payola, to look over – a lot of stuff … You could see ’em right up to the office getting their little pay. Patrolmen didn’t usually do it. It was detectives, vice squad, and all that.” (Ian Griggs, No Case to Answer, p. 222) This clearly suggests graft for either narcotics or prostitution, or perhaps both. (And it is an idea we will return to when we discus the Rose Cheramie incident.)

    But it was not with just the DPD that Ruby was friendly. Ruby also knew lawyers in the district attorney’s office. On 11/21/63 he visited and chatted with Assistant DA Bill Alexander, Vincent Bugliosi’s trusted source. Ruby said that he and Alexander were “great friends”. (Lane, p. 261) They were such good friends that Alexander had a permanent pass to the Carousel. (Griggs, p. 222) Ester Ann Mash, a former employee who dated Ruby in early 1963, revealed that he took her to the homes of some famous citizens. At once such gathering, DA Henry Wade was in attendance. (Marrs, p. 390)

    The credibility and quantity of the above evidence is convincing. So much so that it sheds backward light on a curious statement that Nancy Perrin Rich made to Mark Lane. In referring to the famous incident of Ruby disguising himself as a reporter at the Dallas Police Station, she said that “Anyone that made that statement would be either a damn liar or a damn fool.” (Lane, p. 288) Why? Because there was no way Ruby could disguise himself at the station. For the simple reasons that 1.) There was not a cop in Dallas that did not know him, and 2.) Ruby almost lived at the place. (ibid)

    If Rich’s well-informed and fascinating deduction is correct, then Ruby may have disguised himself not to elude the DPD, but to protect his good friends. In other words, he was giving his good friends an out. You can’t get much closer than that. And therefore if Ruby was on a mission for his higher -ups on 11/24, he was the perfect man to choose since by hook or by crook, he could get into the police basement easily.

    III

    Let me dispose of this concept of the “temporarily deranged man.” This is a catchall term employed whenever the real motive of a crime can’t be nailed down.

    —Jim Garrison, describing Ruby’s shooting of Oswald

    Revising Garrison, the term can also be applied when the investigative body doesn’t want to nail a motive down. Or to put it more directly: when a cover-up is enacted afterwards. In this aspect, like nearly every other, JFK: The Ruby Connection sides with the Warren Commission. Recall what they said: “There is no evidence that Oswald and Ruby knew each other or had any relationship through a third party or parties.” (Quoted in Marrs, p. 403) So in addition to leaving out any connection by Ruby to the complex CIA-Mafia Cuban matrix, and his multitude of long-standing, and deep associations with the Dallas Police, JFK: The Ruby Connection clearly implies that there was no previous relationship between Ruby and Oswald.

    Before addressing this important point, let me add a caveat. It is an issue that can never be conclusively answered or spelled out. Simply because, as most serious students of this case understand, J. Edgar Hoover was not interested in investigating any conspiracy in the Kennedy case. But although the FBI and the Warren Commission did all they could to sidestep this point, many clues were left behind that clearly suggest the two knew each other. In fact, the HSCA revised the Commission verdict on this point: “The Committee’s investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be “loners” as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation.” (ibid) Since this show does not elucidate why that could be so, let us do that for them.

    Frances Irene Hise was a woman who was applying for a job as a waitress at the Carousel Club. She said that during the interview, she saw a man enter through the rear who Ruby greeted with, “Hi, Ozzie.” Ruby then directed this man to go to the back room. Ruby then finished talking to Hise. At that point, he turned and joined “Ozzie” in the back room. On another occasion, “Ozzie” came into the club and asked her if he could buy her a drink. After the assassination, Hise was sure that “Ozzie” was Oswald. (Probe Vol. 5 No. 1, p. 22)

    In early December of 1963 a man named Howard Peterson of Chicago told the FBI that he had a cousin who lived in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. She had written him and his wife a few days after Kennedy was killed. In her letter she had referred to the murder of Oswald by Ruby. And she added that she had seen Oswald in Ruby’s nightclub. (FBI Report of 12/9/63) Harvey L. Wade also saw Oswald at Ruby’s club. In the latter part of the second week of November he was in Dallas attending a convention of construction builders. While there, he visited Ruby’s Carousel Club. He recalled seeing Oswald at a table with two men. One of the men appeared to be quite dark, perhaps Mexican. Mr. Wade said a picture was flashed of the threesome. But Ruby then came over and yelled that the picture did not come out. Wade said the emcee was a man who did a “memory skit”. (FBI Report of 11/26/63)

    Wade’s quite detailed report jibes with what William D. Crowe told several people after the Kennedy assassination. Crowe’s stage name was Billy DeMar. He told a reporter for the Associated Press that he was sure Oswald had been in Ruby’s club. He went on to say that “I have a memory act in which I have 20 customers call out various objects in rapid order. Then I tell them at random what they called out. I am positive Oswald was one of the men that called out an object about nine days ago.” (AP report of 11/25) Mr. Crowe was visited by the FBI and they discouraged him from repeating his story. The Warren Commission tried to discredit him by writing that he was never really positive about his ID of Oswald. Yet Crowe told the same story to the Dallas Morning News a few days after he talked to the AP. (Marrs, p. 405)

    Then there is the matter of Oswald and Ruby’s automobile. Many people who have read John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee, or the long excerpts of it in Probe (see Vol. 4 No. 6, and Vol. 5 No. 1), realize that there is a controversy over whether or not Oswald could drive. Some people, like Ruth Paine, say he did not. Many more say he could. Two garage mechanics who worked on Ruby’s car say they saw Oswald drive Ruby’s auto. One was Robert Roy, who said Oswald did this more than once. (Probe, Vol. 5 No. 1 p. 22) The other mechanic was a man named William J. Chesher. The information about Chesher first came to the Dallas Police through an informant friend of the mechanic in December of 1963. (Police report of 12/9/63) Yet the DPD detectives did not actively follow this lead until April. Unfortunately, Chesher had died of a heart attack on March 31, 1964. (Police report of 4/3/64)

    Chuck Boyles ran a late night talk show on KLIF radio in Dallas. During the broadcast, he frequently talked about the Kennedy assassination. One evening an unidentified woman called in and said she knew of several phone calls between Ruby and Oswald. The woman said she knew about this since she worked as a phone operator in the WHitehall exchange area. Not only did she remember the calls, but she said the phone company had records of them. She said she remembered them because Ruby often used the “emergency breakthrough” technique. That is he would interrupt a busy signal to say the call was dire. The operator would then interrupt the call in session, and later make a note of it. The woman said that Ruby used this trick so frequently that she remembered his name and his numerous calls. (Armstrong, p. 768) This story gets partial corroboration through a man named Ray Acker. Acker was an Area Commercial Manager for Southwestern Bell. After the assassination, Acker took phone company records to the DPD.. He told the police they were proof of calls between Ruby and Oswald. Acker said that after he turned the records over he was told to go home and keep his mouth shut. (Garrison Memorandum of 9/16/67)

    On the evening of 11/21/63, when Lee Harvey Oswald was at the Paine household in Irving, a knock came at the door of an apartment in Oak Cliff. The apartment belonged to an SMU professor. His friend Helen McIntosh greeted the unknown young man. The young man asked for Jack Ruby. The professor told Helen to tell him that Ruby lived in the apartment next door. Which he did. The next day, when Oswald’s picture got on television, Helen said that this was the young man who knocked on the apartment door the night before. (Armstrong, p. 789) Obviously, it could not have been the real Oswald. But it could have been the man who resembled Oswald who Roger Craig saw get into a Nash Rambler in Dealey Plaza the next day. If this was so, then Ruby knew a ton more about the assassination than the Warren Commission ever let on.

    Finally, there is the unforgettable story told by Rose Cheramie. She was the drug addict who had worked for Ruby. She was picked up undergoing a drug withdrawal on November 20, 1963. State Trooper Frances Fruge was notified and drove her to Jackson State Hospital. Calmed by a sedative, she told Fruge that she had been abandoned by two men who were on their way to Dallas to kill President Kennedy. They were part of a southeastern drug and prostitution ring. Rose was their courier for a drug transaction, which was to be enacted in Galveston. Fruge dismissed this all as the ranting of a drug user. But after Kennedy was killed, he went to the hospital to question her and also turn her over to the authorities. He later learned that she had also predicted at the hospital that the assassination was going to happen. Rose also told two men at the hospital, Doctors Weiss and Owen, that Ruby was involved in the Kennedy plot. And she told both Weiss and Fruge that she had seen Oswald at Ruby’s club. When Fruge tried to pass Rose on to the DPD, they were not interested. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pgs. 225-228)

    All one needs to know about the latest Gary Mack fiasco is this: Almost none of the above is included in the hour. Nothing about the involvement of Ruby and Oswald in the Cuban conflict through the CIA and the Mafia; virtually none of the plentiful and multi-leveled connections of Ruby to the DPD; and none of the witnesses who indicate Oswald and Ruby knew each other.

    This, of course, is ridiculous. For if a program is trying to explore whether or not Ruby shot Oswald to conceal a plot to kill Kennedy, then it is fundamentally dishonest not to tell the viewer about the above. Because clearly those three areas of evidence would suggest the following:

    1. Ruby and Oswald shared connections to the CIA and the Mafia
    2. Ruby and Oswald knew each other through their experience in the Cuban crisis as extended into the USA
    3. Ruby used his police contacts to enter the basement of City Hall and kill Oswald.

    If this were all made clear to the viewer, one implication would be this. The CIA contacted one of the mobsters that they used in the plots to kill Castro: they needed some help again. From there the word was then sent down through intermediaries to Ruby. Ruby then used his extensive network of police contacts to silence Oswald before he could talk. All one needs to do to make this credible is recall the words of McWillie’s girlfriend Elaine Mynier. She said that Ruby would do anything for McWillie. McWillie knew Trafficante since he had worked for him in Cuba. McWillie was also in contact with Ruby the month before the Kennedy assassination. Finally, Trafficante was one of the two main Cosa Nostra chieftains the CIA used in their (unsuccessful) plots to kill Fidel Castro. This time, it looks like they pulled it off.

    But you would never know any of this from watching JFK: The Ruby Connection. Because according to Gary Mack, there really was no connection. None between Oswald and Ruby, none of note between the Dallas Police and Ruby, and none between the CIA, the Mafia, and Ruby.

    Yep, sure Gary. And George W. Bush was a good president. As in Inside the Target Car, Gary Mack is in his Wizard of Oz mode again – hard at work spinning black propaganda. And, as we shall see, it gets worse.

    Addendum: The reader can see that I used John Armstrong’s excellent Harvey and Lee as a major source for this essay. This book is now available through The Last Hurrah Bookshop.


    Go to Part Two

  • Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann, Legacy of Secrecy


    Ultimate Legacy: A Book Review by William Davy


    Legacy of Secrecy (Updated Edition)
    The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination
    By Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann
    Counterpoint. 922 pp. $24.95


    Attention JFK researchers: You can fold up the tents and go home. The case has been solved! Yep, Lamar Waldron (and presumably co-author Thom Hartmann) have closed the case for us. According to the revised edition of Legacy of Secrecy (the sequel to the equally absurd Ultimate Sacrifice), the grassy knoll shooter has been identified. And he is none other than (drum roll please) … Watergate burglar Bernard Barker. That’s right; one of Howard Hunt’s handpicked Cuban operatives was the perpetrator of the dirty deed. You see, he was hired by Mafia boss Santos Trafficante who was working with fellow Mobsters Roselli and Marcello, the Teamsters, Cubans, assorted racists and some rogue CIA officers who all coalesced to ,,, ah, forget it. I’m confused too.

    As we head into 2010, the “Mafia did it” theory grows exponentially in asininity. (In light of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, “extinct” would be the better word). Yet these forays into the bizarre ether of Waldron’s fantasies should now be familiar to readers of his logically challenged volumes. For those who aren’t already painfully aware of Ultimate Sacrifice‘s central thesis, it is thus: JFK and RFK had planned an invasion of Cuba led by Cuban exiles (which would also require a massive full-scale military invasion of the island) for December 1 of 1963 to coincide with an American planned and supported coup d’Ètat led by one of Fidel Castro’s closest associates. This bloody coup was to also include the assassination of Castro. Of course, these invasion plans were postponed by JFK’s death at the hands of the Mafia in Dallas on November 22nd.

    That these central premises fail to pass even the basic of smell tests is an understatement. Let’s review: The supposed Kennedy invasion plan would have required a military commitment (according to Joint Chiefs’ estimates) of roughly 100,000 troops – approximately our military footprint in Iraq today. Waldron would have us believe that the Kennedys withheld this critical bit of information from Secretary of Defense McNamara, Secretary of State Rusk, Vice President Johnson, the Joint Chiefs, NSC head McGeorge Bundy and a host of others for fear that it would “leak out.” Yet Waldron would have his credulity-strained audience also believe that bottom feeders like David Ferrie, Jack Ruby, the Mob and the most notorious blabbermouths of all, the anti-Castro Cubans, all had advance knowledge of the plan! The Mafia, apparently as confused as Waldron, decided to bump off JFK instead of waiting a couple of weeks for the coup plan to commence, which would have secured their former toehold on gambling and vice on the island. However, not even his brother’s assassination was going to stop RFK from proceeding with the deadly plan. Waldron claims further that the gung ho Bobby was prepared to reactivate the coup plan within weeks of his brother’s murder. That RFK was in no condition or position to do so is blatantly obvious to anyone who has read (and processed) David Talbot’s book Brothers. On top of all of this, Castro’s guy, Juan Almeida, who was to lead the treasonous coup against Fidel, is still a high ranking official in the Castro government today. (Of course, the actual reasons for the subsequent cover-up are rendered senseless by Waldron’s thesis).

    Ultimate Sacrifice, first published in 2005, took 904 pages to lay out its half-baked theory. In 2009 Waldron and Hartmann followed up their magnum opus with the sequel Legacy of Secrecy where their inane theorizing was applied to the MLK and RFK assassinations. And yes, the Mafia was responsible there too. You see, New Orleans Mob boss Marcello was a racist and wanted King bumped off because MLK supposedly declared war on the Mafia (I’m not making this up folks). A purported third volume will pin the assassination of Trotsky on the Mafia as well (just kidding). With Legacy weighing in at 922 pages, the combined goofiness reaches a whopping 1,826 pages, rivaling Vincent Bugliosi’s overblown mess, Reclaiming History.

    Now we have the obligatory “revised edition” of Legacy of Secrecy. Released in soft cover, the revision includes an addendum where Waldron lays out his shocking new Barker “revelation.” Of course, as in the earlier volumes, the nonsense is presented with a patina of scholarship – copious footnotes referencing newly released documents that supposedly support Waldron’s contentions. I say supposedly because in most cases they don’t. For instance, in Ultimate Sacrifice Waldron refers to a key document purportedly titled “Plan for a Coup in Cuba”. In fact the document is titled “State-Defense Contingency Plan for a Coup in Cuba” which takes on a totally different relevancy given its full title. Other documents apparently ignored by Waldron include a Defense Department document that refers to the invasion plan as a “sexy” contingency and not a concrete plan. Another document from the JMWAVE CIA station in Miami dated February 9th, 1964 claims the coup plot “may be nothing more than pure rumor or wishful thinking.”

    During his short tenure in office, Kennedy and his advisors crafted numerous contingency plans. SIOP-62, the plan to launch the entire American nuclear arsenal in one massive pre-emptive strike, was one such contingency. But by Waldron’s logic, JFK was on the threshold of initiating Armageddon. This trend continues in the revised Legacy of Secrecy. Waldron states that New Orleans private detective Guy Banister was originally considered as the CIA cutout for the CIA/Mafia Castro assassination plots (a role that ultimately did fall to former FBI man, Robert Maheu). This is supported by a footnote that references two CIA documents. So far, so good. Fortunately for the reader (and unfortunately for Waldron) both documents are available on-line at the Mary Ferrell website. Waldron could actually have been on to something here, but the documents he cites are too equivocal to make that leap. The closest they come is that Banister’s detective agency was being considered as a business cover (under Project QKENCHANT) and that he was subsequently not utilized. But as we’ve seen, this peculiar interpretation of the written record is standard operating procedure in Waldron’s oeuvre. Other questionable conclusions are Barker’s affiliation with David Ferrie due to their mutual pedophilia(!), and the aforementioned “Barker on the grassy knoll revelation.”

    Barker’s presence in Dealey Plaza adds to an already bloated cast of characters. Apparently in an effort to cover all of his bases, Waldron also has on hand in Dealey Plaza: Eladio del Valle, Herminio Diaz, Michel Victor Mertz, Charles Nicoletti, Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, and an unnamed Roselli assassin. Whew! Waldron’s grassy knoll has become more crowded than a Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

    Just as ludicrous is Waldron’s contention that two attempts on the President’s life occurred earlier in November in Chicago and Tampa (both Mob sponsored of course). While there is convincing evidence of a Chicago plot (presented decades ago by Edwin Black and not the one proposed by Waldron), the Trafficante backed Tampa plot has its problems as well. The St. Petersburg Times reported in its November 23rd, 2005 edition that a Florida Department of Law Enforcement special agent, Ken Sanz was working as a consultant on a book about Trafficante. Asked about the Tampa/Trafficante plot, Sanz replies, “In all the research I’ve done on the matter, I’ve never heard of such things. Never. And quite frankly, it’s fresh on my brain.” But straining the bounds of credibility even further, Waldron would have us believe that JFK and RFK were fully cognizant of the two attempts, yet proceeded with the fateful Dallas motorcade on November 22nd!

    Further, there is an almost pathological use of conditionals; may have, perhaps, could have, if, etc. Conversely, there is an overabundance of hackneyed declaratives where conditionals should have been used, as well as an over-reliance on unnamed sources. And yet this dogged pursuit and elucidation of the documentary record is supposed to be the sine qua non of these two books. (Along with the dubious information they gleaned from interviewing Cuban exile Harry Ruiz Williams).

    Unlike my previous, lengthier review of Bugliosi’s swollen tome which inspired me to invoke Shakespeare at its conclusion, I’ve purposely kept this review mercifully short as James DiEugenio has already done yeoman’s work in revealing the fallaciousness of Waldron and Hartmann’s two main volumes. Besides, it’s difficult to make much ado about nothing. (Oops, there I go again).

  • Edward M. Kennedy: A Multilayered Object-Lesson in Political Courage


    Here’s a remarkably indirect comment by Mike Barnicle on MSNBC’s Morning Joe: “He knew that he had a certain luxury that his three brothers didn’t have.”

    Translated, it means that Edward M. Kennedy, 77, the youngest of four Kennedy men for whom their father had the most ambitious and tragic hopes, did not die a violent death.

    The sentimental commentaries that consumed our media in the aftermath of his death—all richly deserved—did not do justice to the underlying realities of intrigue and risk in which Ted Kennedy proved himself a hero of his time, and ours. A “managed” and timorous media will see to it that certain taboos are observed.

    “There’s got to be more to it,” Ted Kennedy told Sander Vanocur of NBC News on the plane carrying Bobby Kennedy’s body to the East Coast for interment in June of 1968.

    Of course there was “more to it” in the slaying of the presidential candidate—although you wouldn’t know it if the mainstream media were your only source of information.

    Ted’s two older brothers had been victims of domestic political conspiracies of the most lethal sort: they were assassinated. Countless people were aware that an attempt on JFK’s life would be made. J. Edgar Hoover himself knew for months of plots to kill Kennedy—and did nothing. Bobby, who had said after Dallas that “I thought they’d get one of us, but Jack, after all he’d been through, never worried about it. I thought it would be me,” expressed his renewed sense of risk during the tumultuous 1968 campaign: “I can’t plan. Every day is like Russian roulette.”

    Americans who believe that Jack and Bobby were not victims of conspiracies are at best naïve or ignorant, at worst in full-blown denial. (“It can’t happen here.”) Study the evidence.

    The “heir apparent,” who had come to the Senate in a special election in 1962, was in private deeply suspicious of the forces behind the assassination of JFK, although in his new memoir True Compass, the late senator, it has been widely reported, writes that he has always accepted the lone-assassin findings of the Warren Commission.

    Re-elected seven times, he would play a constructive role in some 300 pieces of major legislation. He recognized—as did many of his mentors and colleagues—that he possessed legislative qualities that Jack had never displayed, and that Bobby as a senator from New York was too impatient—not to mention anguished and distracted—to cultivate.

    The Kennedyesque environment in which she found herself took an alcoholic toll on Ted’s wife Joan, and he too drank heavily—and womanized. In July of 1969 a party of Kennedy cronies and loyal female associates culminated—in circumstances that are unclear to this day—in the drowning death of Mary Jo Kopechne, who had worked tirelessly in Bobby’s 1968 campaign. Ted Kennedy, who had probably been drinking heavily, was pilloried for lying about what he had done—or had not done—to save the young woman, who was found in a car that he had allegedly been driving. He was pilloried for leaving the scene of the accident in the middle of the night and failing to contact authorities for nine hours. He was pilloried for special treatment in being charged with “leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury” and receiving a light sentence of incarceration, which was suspended. Soon thereafter, he addressed the nation in shame and regret. His political prospects had been dashed.

    But his detractors wanted several pounds of flesh. “Chappaquiddick” became a term of derision for legions of Kennedy-haters in the land. Refusing to resign, the villain of this sad story returned to the Senate in a neck brace. In 1972 he decided, for reasons of his own safety, not to run for president. The forces threatening him, he said, “are kind of self-evident.” (They included Kennedy-haters in the CIA.)

    Jack Kennedy had received some 400 death threats annually during his short-lived “thousand days.” Ted Kennedy in the late 1960s and through the 1970s received even more—the majority of them, no doubt, from extremists of the right including white supremacists, fundamentalists, Catholic—haters, liberal—haters, and the like. (Which political party might have fanned these fires?)

    The impetus for substantial health-care reform will take strength from EMK’s courage, his energy, his compassion. As an expression of his stature and legacy, we have the testimony of Boris Kast, a Jewish refusnik whose emigration with his family to the U.S. was negotiated by EMK in the 1970s. Said Kast in an NPR interview: “He’s one of those rare people whose major role in life is to help people.”

    A lion of the Senate indeed—and with his death the end of an epoch in which those responsible for the political murders of two of his brothers have never been brought to justice. The phrase national disgrace barely suffices.


    H.C. Nash, a native Virginian, lives in Williamsport, Pa. He is working on a book entitled Patsy of the Ages: Lee Harvey Oswald and His Nation 46 Years Later.

  • CBS’s Special Relationship with the JFK Assassination

    CBS’s Special Relationship with the JFK Assassination


    cbs

     

    The Columbia Broadcasting System has a special relationship with the Kennedy case. For countless Americans, the horror began with the network’s reports from Dallas, culminating with an announcement by the late Walter Cronkite that JFK had died “some thirty-eight minutes ago.”

    CBS has produced a number of specials on the assassination. In The Pigs Grunt, John Kelin describes the unusual circumstances surrounding the network’s four-part documentary in 1967.

    Jerry Policoff wrote the revealing article on CBS and other major media called JFK: How the Media Assassinated the Real Story.

    Finally, see Jim DiEugenio’s detailed exposé concerning the 1967 documentary, based on Roger Feinman’s slide presentation of documents uncovered by his 1975 lawsuit against CBS, at Consortium News.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part One: Or, How to Rig an Experiment


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    Whenever I hear of a new scientific approach to the John F. Kennedy case, my first reaction is to shudder and then run for cover. I don’t think it is hard to understand why I feel that way. Actually, it’s quite simple. Its because whenever someone says they are going to treat this case with scientific rigor, sooner or later, the rigor dissipates and the so-called natural laws of the universe somehow fail. So suddenly, as with President Kennedy’s violent rearward reaction, Newton’s laws of motion don’t apply anymore. Or as with the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory through Kennedy’s body, gun shot projectiles don’t move through soft tissue in straight lines anymore.

    Further, alleged “authorities” suddenly get thoroughly confused and confounded by the evidence. As Pat Speer has shown, Dr. Michael Baden didn’t even know how to orient one of the most important autopsy photos. NASA scientist Tom Canning moved Kennedy’s back wound up to make the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) work, and then shrunk Kennedy’s head to make the head wound trajectory work. Dr. Vincent Guinn “proved” the SBT theory with his Bullet Lead analysis—which we now know, through the work of Pat Grant and Rick Randich, is nothing but “junk science”. Its so junky that the FBI will not use it in court anymore.

    At other times, we even get the spectacle of people who should not be approaching the case at all acting as if they were qualified in a certain field of scientific endeavor. Vincent Bugliosi used a chiropractor whose office offered massage therapy—Chad Zimmerman—as an authority in radiology. Robert Blakey hired statistician Larry Sturdivan to show films of goats being shot to illustrate the so-called neuromuscular reaction. (And then they both failed to tell us that Kennedy’s reaction does not match what happens in the goat films.) Urologist John Lattimer was the first “independent” doctor admitted to the National Archives to report on the extant autopsy materials there. He somehow missed the fact that the president’s brain was missing. Lattimer then gave us the Great Thorburn Hoax, which was thoroughly exposed by Milicent Cranor. And, of course, who can forget Dale Myers’ computer 3D simulation, which turned the SBT from theory to “fact”. A “fact” that was ripped to smithereens by Milicent Cranor, David Mantik, and Pat Speer.

    The point of this partial list is simply to show that when the scientific method encounters the Kennedy case, it somehow loses all semblances to what most of us expect about that rubric. So for people like me who have become jaded by the above hijinks, I was not excited about another heralded and pretentiously headlined story. Especially after what ABC said in advance about the “indisputability” of the Myers debacle back in 2003.

    I

    The latest installment in this sorry pseudo-scientific lineage took place at the 45th anniversary of Kennedy’s murder. That is on November 16, 2008 on the Discovery Channel. The show was called JFK: Inside the Target Car. One of the problems I had with the show was that it had contracted out with Adelaide T & E Systems to do much of the technical work for the show. This is a large engineering company with strong ties to the Australian Defense industry. In fact, over half of Australian defense companies are located in the Australian city of Adelaide. The city relies on billions of dollars a year in contracts to make its economy hum. And hum it does. Both the population and economy has grown significantly since the nineties. Another interesting thing about the city of Adelaide is this: Rupert Murdoch’s giant media conglomerate News Corporation was founded in, and until 2004, was incorporated in that city. In fact, Murdoch still considers Adelaide the spiritual home of News Corp. Adelaide sounds roughly like the Australian equivalent of Langley, Virginia—with the Washington Post and all. As we shall see, there are dubious aspects of the show to support this interpretation. (This information was garnered from the Wikipedia entry on the city.)

    Further, The Discovery Channel, which hosted this special, is fast becoming the new CBS. If one recalls the work of people like Jerry Policoff, CBS was probably the most rabid defender of the Warren Commission from 1963-1967, and even beyond. In 1964, they put together a special almost immediately after the Warren Report was published. In other words, it was almost impossible for them to have read, digested, and analyzed the 26 volumes in time for the broadcast. But that didn’t bother them at all. They went ahead and coronated that disgraceful document. In 1967, they actually used Warren Commissioner John McCloy as a consultant to their multi part series—without informing the audience of that fact! Both these programs are embarrassing to look at today. But both Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather had their marching orders from above. And like good corporate foot soldiers, they did what they were told.

    Today, the cable version of CBS on the JFK case has become Discovery Channel. In 2003, they did a show called The JFK Conspiracy Myths. In this program, the producers used the same sharpshooter that Inside the Target Car used: Michael Yardley. The aim was to show that Lee Harvey Oswald could do what the Warren Commission said he did: That is fire three shots in six seconds getting at least two direct hits. Except for Yardley the time span was magically and conveniently expanded to almost eight seconds. Further, his rifle was hooked up to a laser switch which, of course, eliminates rifle recoil, making it easier to shoot and re-aim. As Pat Speer noted, Yardley was later honest about his ersatz experiment. He told a British journalist that he did not think Oswald could have pulled off the feat of marksmanship attributed to him. End of story.

    In 2004, the Discovery Channel was at it again. They ran a new program called JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. This one tried to prove that the Magic Bullet was not really magical. In other words, it could have traversed the storied path through two bodies, two dense bones, three body parts, and still drive itself into John Connally’s thigh. And then reverse trajectory and plunk out. As Pat Speer notes in his review, this show was riddled with so many factual errors that it looked like it was being made up willy-nilly. For instance, the entry point on the president’s back was wrongly situated. The narrator said that the Magic Bullet hit Kennedy in the neck. Which is a lie made up by Gerald Ford. We know today through autopsy photos that the bullet entered in Kennedy’s back. Further, when they fired this bullet from an elevated platform, it emerged from the simulated torso of JFK at his chest. Not his throat. Another problem was that their bullet failed to explode the simulated wrist of John Connally as the Warren Commission said it did. And then when they found this bullet after a search in the brush, it was clearly deformed. Not in nearly pristine condition as in the Warren Commission version. I could go on and on, but for those interested in all the details, read Speer’s article at his website.

    The third aspect of JFK: Inside the Target Car that gave me pause was the participation of the Sixth Floor Museum through the presence of curator Gary Mack. The Sixth Floor Museum, since its inception, has been dedicated to preserving the Warren Commission deception about Oswald. For instance, when I visited there in 1991, their version of the Zapruder film was cut off before frame 313, when Kennedy’s body rockets backward off the rear seat. When I saw that piece of censorship to the Z film, I was reminded of the old joke about the Lincoln assassination, “Well Mrs. Lincoln, outside of your husband’s murder, how did you like the play?” (I am told this has been changed since. I hope so.) Further, they sell all kinds of pro-Warren Commission volumes, like the works of Richard Trask; but few, if any, Warren Commission critiques. Not even the works of Sylvia Meagher, Philip Melanson, or Gaeton Fonzi. Gary Mack—who I will discuss at length in part three of this review—makes up all kinds of weak excuses for this biased expurgation. But I have the real reason from a source in Dallas who asked someone on the board of the museum about this issue. The member answered that this was simply a set policy. Unlike Mack’s pronouncements it has nothing to do with timeliness or updated versions etc. They just don’t want people who go there to be exposed at any length or depth to the critical community that does not buy the Krazy Kid Oswald stuff.

    So the combination of Discovery Channel, Adelaide T ∓ E, the Sixth Floor Museum, and the dissimulating Mack did not look promising to me. In fact it was downright unappetizing. I actually felt lucky when Milicent Cranor and David Mantik reviewed the show for our site. When it comes to the medical and ballistics evidence, it does not get much better than those two. While reading their thorough and precise critiques, I began to watch the show repeatedly at my leisure. I have now seen it three times. It is clear to me that the show had an agenda from the beginning. And just about everything they did hewed to that agenda, thereby creating the preordained end result. But unlike in the other two Discovery Channel misfires, the producers learned from their previous amateur errors. This time around they were slicker. They tried to keep the trickster’s hand ahead of the viewer’s—read “the mark’s”—eyes. But to anyone familiar with the evidence in the case, the show collapses fairly easily. And therefore is exposed as another jerry-built propaganda piece for the pitiful Warren Commission. And like any apologia for that sorry panel, its self-contained, inherent shame transfers onto its defenders.

    II

    When one stops and analyzes this show one understands what it actually does. And that is this: it conflates, condenses, oversimplifies and therefore falsifies three complex areas of study in the Kennedy case. These are 1.) The medical evidence 2.)The ballistics, and 3.) The condition of the limousine after Kennedy is transported to Parkland Hospital. When I say “areas of study” I mean just that. A beginning student of the Kennedy case could take over a year to study the medical evidence. And even then he would not have mastered it. And it would not be his fault. The problem is not one of retention or reasoning. The problem lies quite clearly in the twists and turns of the evidentiary record. I mean, Michael Baden is a forensic pathologist. As I said earlier, he could not orient the back of the skull photo, the only one with Kennedy’s scalp refracted. Baden also embellished exhibits when he got desperate to prove his particular version of the evidence. He had his artist alter photos and drawings to create fractures that are not on the x-rays, and raised edges around wounds not on the former. One can understand his dilemma: How many gunshot murder cases have two different autopsies? How many have two wounds which dramatically move their locations in less than five years? How many have x-rays which change fragment patterns and in which large fragments not observable during autopsy x-rays, miraculously materialize on those same x-rays a few years later? But yet, on these new and changed x-rays, the fragment trail does not match up with either the alleged entry wound or alleged exit wound? All of these bizarre inconsistencies are documented in the JFK medical evidence. We can measure this show’s honesty with what it does with these provable facts.

    The ballistics evidence in the JFK case is almost as puzzling. For instance the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) determined that the wound in the back of President Kennedy had an abrasion collar on the bottom. This usually indicates a shot with an upward trajectory. Yet how could this be if Oswald was firing from six stories above? Were there two assassins? Was the photo touched up? Or is the scientific deduction faulty? As I wrote in Part Four of my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History, the Warren Commission stated that the shot to Kennedy’s head came in low on the rear skull. But it exited above the right ear and forward of it on the right side. This created problems with both the horizontal and vertical trajectory of this bullet. For the angle from the so-called sniper’s nest of the Texas School Book Depository is right to left on the horizontal plane. So did the bullet alter direction inside the skull? And per the vertical, the bullet would seem to have exited too high for its entry point. Also, although the type of military jacketed bullets attributed to Oswald are tough to break apart, in this case, the bullet to the head did. For there were fragments found on the x-rays and in the automobile. The problem though is that the fragment evidence as attested to by the HSCA says that the middle of the bullet stayed on the outside of the skull, while the nose and the tail hurdled through the head and landed in the front seat. Yep, that is what they say. Somehow, the back of the bullet magically levitated at the precise nanosecond over the middle section and then scooted through the skull. As we shall see, this is a major problem for this show.

    Finally, of late, the condition of the president’s limousine has also become a controversial area of study in this case. Just what was the condition of the car when it arrived back in Washington DC? What happened to the car when it arrived at Parkland Hospital? Photos indicate that a Secret Service agent actually scrubbed down the inside of the car. But why would he do that? And what else did he do while he was inside the auto? When were photos taken of the inside of the car and were they in color or black and white? Was there a hole in the windshield indicating a shot from the front? And if there was, was that piece of evidence tampered with? Was the car then driven on a 500 mile mysterious, voyage westward after its stay in Washington? And if so, why was it driven and not flown?

    The above only scratch the surface of how difficult it is to fully comprehend any of the above complex areas of this case. So when writers like Vincent Bugliosi call the Kennedy case a simple one, I don’t know what they are referring to. And I never will. But my point in regards to this program is this: This special tries to conflate all three of these maddeningly complex areas of study into a sixty-minute program! That is the bottom line of this show. The reality is that you could spend one hour on just the condition of the limousine after the assassination until the point it was rebuilt. One hour would not do justice to the ballistics evidence in this case. As for the medical evidence: it’s safe to say that two hours would only give you an introduction to the material. Consequently, when you place them all together and rush through them in what amounts to—at best—speeded up motion, you have to leave out huge chunks of crucial information. And here’s a major problem with that: In the JFK case, a crucial aspect of the story is in how the details changed over time. In real life “simple” murder cases, this does not happen. And if it does, the court will entertain a motion to throw out the case on the basis of evidence tampering. This is one of the major aspects of the JFK case that the authors of this show do not reveal to the audience. Which is why its honesty should be questioned.

    Another serious problem is that of the Curtailed Alternatives. That is the experiment and the deductions are limited and controlled by the authors. This means that the variables seem arbitrarily chosen to produce a desired result. Cranor and Mantik have already shown this was so in the choice of firing points. But I should point out here, Gary Mack argued strongly for the so-called Badge Man location of the grassy knoll assassin for about twenty years. Yet that particular location was never even pointed out in this ersatz demonstration. Not even to critique it. Yet in his earlier incarnation as a fierce Warren Commission critic, Mack was at pains to show its validity for British documentary producer Nigel Turner. In fact, it was actually one of the highlights of the multi-part series The Men Who Killed Kennedy. (I will deal with the Mack metamorphosis in the third part of this essay.)

    This Curtailed Alternative method continued even after the show was (mercifully) over. Mack went online and answered some questions from viewers. His viewpoint on these answers was remarkably limited for someone who has been studying this case for over thirty years. I never considered Gary Mack a front rank, top of the line writer/researcher. But he was not a dumb or rigidly inflexible person. In fact, when he contributed to The Continuing Inquiry, he wrote a few good and valuable pieces. But today, he comes off about as mentally agile as, say, Robert Blakey. When someone asks him what happened to the bullets fired in the experiment, Mack admits they did not fragment like the ones attributed to Oswald did. Got that: Oswald’s did but Yardley’s did not. He then adds that he doesn’t know why that occurred and then drops the issue. But as Milicent Cranor points out, and I will discuss later, the matter should not be dropped at that point. Because this is where it gets really interesting. When someone later asks him if it was wise to use the alleged assassin’s rifle and ammo for a front shot, Mack’s reply is equally superficial. He says that if Oswald had been a “patsy” it seems likely “that another gunman would use the same ammunition. If a different weapon were used, investigators would find evidence and conclude there were two guns. A conspiracy to frame Oswald would want investigators to think there was only one gun.” Read that twice, and carefully: If the investigators found two guns, that would equal a conspiracy and the investigators would announce the frame up of Oswald.

    When I read that in my downloaded version of Mack’s online talk at the Discovery Channel web site I wrote in the margin, “Absolutely stupid.” Yet, I don’t think Gary Mack is stupid. But just to point out one problem with this response: It imposes on the reader the supposition that the investigators themselves were honest i.e. the only conspiracy that existed was the one that killed President Kennedy. The investigators actually tried to uncover the true circumstances of the assassination. Therefore if there was a conspiracy, they would have located it. Mack’s bottom line here is this: There was no cover up.

    Anyone who studies this case knows this view deserves the utmost scorn and derision. Here is how preposterous it is: even two members of the Warren Commission understood the fix was in early. They were Senator Richard Russell and Representative Hale Boggs. As author Dick Russell shows in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins, the senator so distrusted the investigators that he conducted his own investigation—at the time the Commission was ongoing! His private inquiry came to the conclusion that Oswald did not do it. (pgs. 126-127) Representative Boggs said that J. Edgar Hoover—chief investigator for the official inquiry—”lied his eyes out to the Commission—on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” (Texas Observer, 11/98) But more to Mack’s specific point about the two weapons: on November 23, 1963 Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman executed an affidavit. He swore that on the previous day he discovered on the sixth floor of the Depository a 7.65 Mauser equipped with a 4/18 scope, and a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. (The actual affidavit is in Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, p. 409) This is not what the Commission later said was Oswald’s rifle. They said it was a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano. But further, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was standing near Weitzman at the time of discovery. He said that Weitzman thought it was a Mauser at first. But then he looked at the rifle at close range and saw that it was stamped “7. 65 Mauser”. This is what confirmed the ID for the constable. (This testimony can be seen in the film Evidence of Revision on You Tube, Part IV.) So this directly contradicts Gary Mack’s assumption about the assassins using the same weapon and the investigators exposing that fact and therefore blowing up the conspiracy. The show’s main talking head is not telling the whole story. And the viewer should ask: Why not? I will get to the ‘why not” later and it goes to the very heart of the show’s credibility. (I should add here, Mack once published his own journal, which was called Cover Ups. But that’s all forgotten now. Today he says we can trust the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, and the Dallas Police. Yeah sure Gary.)

    III

    Very early, the show reveals an agenda. Gary Mack is hard at work to discredit the evidence of witnesses hearing shots from two directions. Sounding like Lawrence Schiller, he dredges up the old Dealey Plaza is an “echo chamber” argument. Therefore directionality was confused. But as Josiah Thompson has noted, if about the same amount say the shots originated from the Grassy Knoll as from the Texas School Book Depository, what does this argument really amount to? (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 25) He then says that some witnesses later altered their stories. Revealingly, he does not add that many witnesses were forced by the authorities to change their testimony to conform to the official line. Or actually had it changed without their knowledge. (This fits the show’s agenda: don’t reveal the cover up.)

    After this the show picks up one of its main threads: the condition of the car once it arrived at Parkland Hospital. The narrator intones that evidence that was wiped away there, plus some other evidentiary points, have given Warren Commission critics reason to doubt the official story and has therefore spawned a huge controversy. He is referring to the blood spatter pattern inside the car—and he greatly overstates the case. Very, very few people have had their curiosity piqued by this issue. And even less have used it to attack the Commission. But, again, it shows the program’s unwinding agenda.

    The producers next reveal the fact that a Secret Service agent actually wiped the interior of the car with what looks like a bucket and sponge. I say they have to because there are pictures that reveal this fact. Yet they ask few questions about this incredible incident. Making nothing of some obvious questions : Who told him to do this? Why? What else did he do besides wipe anything up? Was this a cover story to plant evidence? And how do they know it’s a Secret Service agent? If it was, did they try and track him down? They avoid almost all of this and then say they have two witnesses who saw the car before the bucket brigade arrived. Yet it is not revealed how they can be certain about this timing. And further, as limousine expert Pamela McElwain Brown has written, no one had a really good chance to look inside the limousine once it got to Parkland to make a measured assessment. Because the convertible top was raised quickly upon its arrival there. But the show considers this important, a keystone actually, so we will return to it later because the producers do the same. But I should note an apparent contradiction here: Mack had just been trying to discount direct testimony by eye and ear witnesses. He now reverses course on that issue.

    From here the show now goes to a second main thread: Searching Dealey Plaza for possible firing points to the front of the car. I thought this little walking tour quite interesting. The first point that Mack and Yardley visit is what they call the south Grassy Knoll, which would be in front of the car and to President Kennedy’s left. Yardley says it is a possible shot distance wise, but the angle would only give the assassin about three inches of Kennedy’s head to fire at. As Milicent Cranor has pointed out, Mack and Yardley never noticed that there is a rise about ten feet back which would probably eliminate that problem. Moving clockwise around Dealey Plaza, Yardley and Mack now go to what they call the south end of the triple underpass. They eliminate this firing point because Yardley says the shot would necessitate firing through the windshield of the car. The supposition here is that there was no hole in the windshield. Again, the producers are not telling the whole story here. Because this statement is questionable. There is evidence on both sides of this windshield bullet hole issue. Another authority on the limousine is Doug Weldon. Weldon wrote an interesting thirty page essay for the anthology Murder In Dealey Plaza (pgs 129-158) Weldon raises serious questions about what happened to the car afterwards. For instance, about that 500 mile trek to Dearborn, Michigan that James Rowley told the Warren commission happened on December 20, 1963. (See p. 133) But more to the point, Weldon produces six witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital. (ibid pgs. 139-140) He also produces evidence that the windshield was then switched to conceal this hole. (ibid pgs 136-138) But none of this is mentioned, and this firing point is quickly dismissed.

    We then move to what is called the north end of the triple underpass. What happened here was notable. This point intersects with what is the end of the famous stockade fence atop the Grassy Knoll. When I visited the area in 1991, I went to the end of the picket fence where it corners and then juts out. I thought this was the best firing point along the knoll area because the car was coming at you at a distance where you could track it for several seconds before squeezing off your shot. In fact, Yardley says words to that effect in this show. Then, he and Mack walk away from this point because there is shrubbery there today, and go a few steps downward on the slope. (Since they had Dealey Plaza cordoned off, why didn’t they pay a gardener sixty bucks to trim the shrubbery?) How good is this shot? When they showed it from the shooter’s angle, they moved Jackie Kennedy into the line of fire to try and discredit it. (I will return to this “mistake” later.) Mack finally dismisses this site because witnesses in the area could see the assassin. Yet one could say this about almost any firing point in the Plaza. Because as Mack intoned earlier, there were hundreds of witnesses in the area. What a precision hit team would be banking on is that they would be distracted by the president’s car and looking in that direction at the time of the fusillade.

    The reader should note at this point: The show has been all too eager to dismiss these three alternative sites. And further, Yardley has not taken one shot from any of them. This should be kept in mind as the show progresses forward.

    Yardley and Mack now move to a position further down and behind the stockade fence. This particular point brings you closer to the car, but you have much less time to track the target from this venue. This is why when I visited Dealey Plaza, I thought the previous point would be a better venue than this one. Yardley notes the tracking problem, but Mack decides on this point. We will see why later.

    The scene now shifts down under to Australia. The narration states that previously there had been no technology which could simulate a human head. But today “an exact replica of the human head” is possible. Further, there was only one place which could produce such an exact replica. That place is, of course, in Rupert Murdoch’s spiritual home of Adelaide. And the company is Adelaide T & E Systems. When I listened to this segment I began to smell some snake oil cooking. Why? Because I just don’t think its possible to produce an “exact replica” of a human head. I mean maybe you could create a reasonable facsimile. But not an exact replica. It’s just too complicated of a phenomenon: the muscles, tendons, nervous system, blood circulatory system, hair and scalp etc. So I thought this was overstated in the extreme. You know, Dale Myers and ABC country. And as we shall see, it was.

    What is even more interesting of course is that Adelaide T & E Systems also builds replicas of the human torso. So it would have been easy to attach the head to a torso which fit Kennedy’s dimensions. But they did not. The excuse was that it would have added another variable. This rationale was kind of smelly. The real reason I suspect this was not done is that in the Zapruder film, upon the bullet’s impact, Kennedy’s body rockets backward in the car and bounces off the back seat. Yet this is supposed to be a shot from behind. The producers probably suspected that when they simulated the shot from the Depository, Oswald’s alleged firing point, no such reaction would follow. And Gary Mack didn’t want to have to explain this. That would mean getting into the Luis Alvarez/Larry Sturdivan mumbojumbo about “jet effect” and “neuromuscular reaction”. He had enough problems already.

    IV

    He immediately went about fixing one of them. As everyone knows, one of the largest, most insurmountable problems in the Warren Commission is that all the evidence says that Lee Harvey Oswald was a poor marksman. Yet Michael Yardley is not. He has won many sharpshooting competitions. By all accounts, the shot Oswald supposedly took from the Texas School Book Depository which killed Kennedy was very difficult. Now Michael Yardley is the opposite. He is a contest winning sharpshooter. Further, the weapon Oswald allegedly used had a cheap scope which was not properly mounted. But Yardley placed a modern telescopic site on the rifle and then sited it in i.e. he took practice shots to make sure it was perfectly aligned. How does any of this duplicate what the Warren Commission said happened? But clearly, the producers were not going to risk proving the critics correct. Namely, they were not going to risk a miss by Yardley.

    Not only were they not going to risk a miss, they were going to ensure it not happening. Because when the show moves up to Sylmar, California where a shooting range simulating the dimensions of Dealey Plaza is put together, Yardley is not shooting at a moving target. The car is stationary. Mack remembered what happened when many others tried to duplicate Oswald’s alleged feat of marksmanship. They couldn’t do it. Realizing that would jeopardize the show, he was removing all those troublesome “variables”. The problem is if you remove too many variables, what conditions are you actually duplicating? Ones that weren’t there?

    Yardley then took his first shot from the spot he and Mack decided on from behind the stockade fence. . This was with a soft nosed hunting round, which is not the kind of ammunition Oswald was supposed to be firing. He hit the target, but something weird happened. The entire skull literally exploded to the point where nothing was left on the platform. When I saw this, my antennae went up. Outside of some cheap Hollywood horror movie, I had never seen or heard of such a thing happening. And I remembered how the show had said so fervently stated that these were exact replicas of the human skull. I don’t think so. As Milicent Cranor wrote, they appeared too frangible. Why?

    Yardley then fired again from that spot behind the fence. This time with the type of ammo Oswald was allegedly using. This time he hit the target with a more controlled damage pattern. Mack then went to the car and observed this closely. He then said something that was quite startling at the same time that it was revealing. He said that this shot would have also hit Jackie Kennedy. I then thought back to what had happened when the show had lined up the other shot, from the better position further down the fence: they had the models lined up wrong then also. At that time they were not in Sylmar, but were in Dealey Plaza. No one noticed this mistake and corrected it? Very hard to believe, because what Mack said is easily exposed as false. All you have to do is look at the Zapruder film, which Mack has done hundreds of times. Jackie Kennedy in Z frame 312—right before the fatal shot—is clearly ahead of her husband,. So a shot coming from a mostly side angle—as this one was—would not have hit her. And this point gets very interesting. Mainly because it is so hard to believe that no one caught it. Which is what Mack wants the pubic to believe.

    In fact in the aforementioned online discussion, Gary Mack admitted that he, and the show, were wrong about this. He then added this: “We didn’t catch it at the time.” But yet, according to Robert Groden, this is a lie. He was in Dealey Plaza at the time the show was filming the limousine simulations with models in it. He said that he pointed out to the show’s director and Gary Mack that the “positions and locations of both the actors portraying President and Jackie Kennedy were completely wrong.” Then Groden added something that is really important in understanding the program’s genesis and ultimate purpose. In that regard, it actually sounds like something J. Lee Rankin would write to his assistant counsel about the true position of the bullet that entered into Kennedy’s back. Groden posted that both Mack and the director replied that “the positions and locations were not important to the points they were trying to show.” But if this were so then why did Mack misrepresent that specific point to the public on the air! He actually said that the shot would have hit Jackie. I have an idea as to why. Because that was an easy visual way to discredit a shot from that angle. Almost like the show did focus groups, they understood this would easily register with the public. I know this because a colleague from work said this to me the day after the show aired. Knowing my interest in the JFK case, he came up to me at lunch and said, “Jim, the shot couldn’t have come from the front. It would have hit Jackie.” And we all know it did not. So the evidence Groden produces from behind the scenes, says that the producers knew they were wrong and went ahead anyway for propaganda purposes. And Mack then tried to conceal this when he said they didn’t catch it in time. Further, the quote by Groden that I am using was posted on February 5, 2009. Way after the show’s initial broadcast. He said he was reposting it at this time. Why? Because his initial post of the information had been removed!

    If I was Gary Mack in his present incarnation, when Mack said he didn’t catch the error in time, I would have posted something like this: “Gary, you’re a damned liar!” I will explain that quote in part three of this review.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part Three: How Gary Mack became Dan Rather


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car

    “I have become what I beheld and I am convinced I have done right.”
            —Eliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner, in The Untouchables


    When a debacle like this gets broadcast, something must be done besides just exposing it. As with Dale Myers, Gus Russo and the awful 2003 ABC special, it’s necessary to peer around the corner, to look under the bed in order find out how it got that way. (See our study of ABC in 2003.) Because clearly, after extended analysis, there can be no doubt that the Discovery Channel show was a set-up all the way. As in the worst tradition of broadcast journalism in the Kennedy assassination field, the producers decided where they wanted to go, and then—come hell or high water—they were going to get there. It didn’t mean a damn to them if the actors posing for President Kennedy and his wife were wrongly positioned. It meant nothing to them if they got their facts wrong on when the autopsists saw the x-rays and photos. They didn’t care if their bullet didn’t break apart in Kennedy’ skull, even though the 6.5mm fragment left behind was the Clark Panel’s major reason for elevating that head wound—which they are going with in their demonstration. To them, having an idiot hit team up on the knoll was fine—as long as they kept the audience in the dark about it. That, and nearly everything else, was cast aside in pursuit of their agenda. Which, of course, was to convict Oswald of firing from that window. And if that line won’t go back to that window using the pathologists’ autopsy report, well heck, we can make up a new exit so that the line does trace back to that window.

    So in its relentless pursuit of the Krazy Kid Oswald fable, this godawful program now joins the Hall of Broadcast Infamy. People who study this case know of what I speak since our web site makes a major focus of how studying the media on these cases tells you why most people do not trust the MSM anymore. It’s just that we knew that many years before things like the Florida election heist of 2000, and the phony excuses bandied about for the Iraq War. Both of which the MSM swallowed whole. That Hall of Infamy includes things like the 1967 CBS special on the Warren Report, the 1967 NBC special on Jim Garrison, the 1993 PBS Frontline special on Lee Harvey Oswald, and the 2003 ABC special on the JFK assassination. As I said, we have exposed almost all of these. (In addition to the ABC link posted above, see our NBC analysis and our CBS study.)

    What makes an examination of JFK:Inside the Target Car so fascinating and mandatory is that it has some of the same unique inside dynamics that the 1993 PBS fiasco and the 2003 ABC debacle have. That is: Someone who had previously been a so-called Warren Commission critic had now shifted sides. And in their new uniform they were now doing the same thing that they had deplored before. That is, they were extending and aiding the original Warren Commission cover up. In 1993 and 2003 of course, it was Gus Russo and his cohort in cover up Dale Myers. This time around, it was Gary Mack.

    Like Russo and Myers, Mack had been a Warren Commission critic for many years prior to his employment by the Sixth Floor Museum. Based in the Dallas Fort Worth area, he had been involved in providing the famous acoustical tape for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). In fact, that is where many people recall first hearing his name associated with this case. And historically speaking, when many books chronicle the history of the HSCA, they usually give Mack and Mary Ferrell credit for that particular piece of evidence. As I mentioned in Part One of my review, Mack also was a regular contributor to the journal The Continuing Inquiry, and for a brief time he had his own journal called Cover Ups. (According to two sources, it is wrong to state that he was the publisher of TCI as I did in Part One.) For instance, Mack first wrote about the famous cable from Hugh Aynesworth exposing his gutter journalistic ethics. Namely that he was a White House and FBI informant in his campaign to defame and derail Jim Garrison. But as the cowardly reporter requested, he wanted his covert role kept secret in all that. (See Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 183-184) Mack also assisted British documentary director Nigel Turner on his multi part special The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In fact, he was one of the two main talking heads on the show along with Robert Groden. This was originally broadcast in England and then later shown on American cable right about the time Oliver Stone’s film JFK was theatrically released. That documentary had some serious flaws in it, for example the goofy and gullible work done by Steve Rivele on the so-called Corsican Connection. But most of the things Mack contributed to the program were good and interesting e.g. his work on the so-called Badgeman photo. Which, by the way, Stone borrowed for his film.

    But then something happened to Gary Mack. Which, of course explains my use of the quote from The Untouchables to lead this article. But before I get to his particular chronicle, I want to outline it as part of a rather large and strange pattern that occurred at the time. I didn’t see it for what it was back then, and retroactively I should have. It’s something that no one else has described, at least to my knowledge. But belatedly, I think it merits a bit of attention. Because it may describe something important and relevant about today. Namely, the effort to undermine Stone may have started way before anyone else has written about.

    II

    “Yeah, so you know more than Dr. Alvarez, don’t you!”
            —Mark Zaid screaming at the ASK Conference in 1993

    I’ll never forget the above incident. Just like I will never forget Mark Zaid. First, consider who Zaid is appealing to as an authority. A man who sacrificed his considerable reputation in an unrelenting effort to muddy the waters in the JFK case. Alvarez is the guy who created things like the “jiggle effect”, the “jet effect”, and then used (abused?) his membership in the National Academy of Science to dispute the work of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) on the acoustics evidence. As fine a scientist as Alvarez was—like Dr. John Lattimer—he had an almost slavish agenda on the JFK case. So for Zaid to use him as a blind appeal to authority, that was quite revealing.

    I have written about the above bizarre conference on more than one occasion. (See, for example, my review of Ultimate Sacrifice.) Why? Because it finally flushed out two people who I believed to be quite circumspect by this time, namely Zaid and Gus Russo. I was warned at that conference by a complete stranger that Zaid and Russo were even more suspicious than I thought they were. This man, who I had never seen before, told me they were infiltrators. I discounted his warning at the time, but later on I came to the conclusion that he was right. I, and many others, had been naÔve. And not just about these two, but about others, e.g. Gordon Winslow. Considering the time period, and what was happening on the national scene, we all should have known better.

    It was a very high profile time for the JFK case. You had the Arts and Entertainment Channel broadcasting The Men Who Killed Kennedy in late 1991. And then you had the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK in December of 1991. There were dozens of books that came out at the time on the JFK case. And a number of them, like Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial, became best-sellers. There were also a number of documentaries on television about the case and many talk shows featured many writers and witnesses on the JFK case. In fact, entire programs were devoted to the subject. The resultant hubbub even spawned a second film on the subject named Ruby. Which was not nearly as good or powerful as Stone’s film. All of this furor greatly increased the size of the so-called critical community. It brought in many people who got really interested for the first time. It brought back many others who had been onto other things. It greatly expanded the circulation of existing journals like The Third Decade and it gave birth to new ones like Probe. Because of all this interest, many conferences and seminars were now set up, like the ASK Conference in Dallas, and others in Chicago and Washington. The Coalition on Political Assassinations was also formed.

    Clearly, all of this attracted the attention of the Dark Side. And with the 30th anniversary of JFK’s death upcoming, there were two overt ways that they decided to counteract it all. The first was when the notorious Robert Loomis met up with Gerald Posner. (The Assassinations, ed. by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 369) As I have discussed before, Loomis had been a mainstay at Random House for many years. His first wife, Gloria Loomis, had worked for CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton for a long time. Loomis had been associated with the likes of CIA friendly journalist Sy Hersh from almost the beginning of Hersh’s career. (ibid) Loomis had also worked with another spooky reporter, James Phelan, for decades. (ibid) Loomis had been instrumental in getting Bob Houghton’s apologia for the LAPD cover up of the Robert Kennedy assassination, Special Unit Senator published in 1970. He was then part of the effort to withdraw from the bookstands the excellent 1978 volume on the RFK case by Bill Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. (Turner and Christian, 2006 edition, p. xvi) In talking to Posner after a debate, Jim Marrs asked him how he came to write his book on the JFK case. Posner told him he had been approached by Loomis who promised him access to certain people like Yuri Nosenko—who, of course, almost no one had access to at the time. (DiEugenio and Pease, op. cit.) I once called Loomis’ New York office. He was not in. His secretary told me he was in Washington. She said he shuttled down there almost every other week. Clearly, Loomis and his Washington cronies were preparing to strike back at Stone’s film through their use of Posner. So Posner’s lousy book, which has since been reduced to rubble many times over, was given one of the great publicity tours ever. Including a front cover on US News and World Report. (August 30, 1993).

    I first heard of Posner in 1992. It was through Gus Russo. He told me about this Wall Street lawyer who was preparing this powerhouse book that was going to create a lot of problems for the critical community. Another person who alerted me to Posner’s book was Zaid. At the time, he had been meeting with people like Dick Russell and Jim Lesar about forming an organization to lobby Congress about the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board. I wrote a letter to those three outlining a strategy we should follow. I was stunned by what Zaid wrote back. First, he tried to say that there was not really enough evidence to call for a reopening of the case, and he pointed to Beverly Oliver as a witness to prove his point. I thought this was superfluous because I had never written about, talked to, or endorsed that woman. But secondly, he revealed in this letter that he had shown my original communication to his colleague Gerald Posner. Understandably, I felt betrayed. Though his book had yet to be published, I understood what Posner was up to.

    Right then and there, I should have understood who Russo and Zaid were. I also should have understood that there was a large and forceful movement afoot by the Dark Side, which felt that they had been ill-prepared for the hurricane effect created by Stone’s film. But I, and many others, were not quite aware of what was happening. But when PBS broadcast their 1993 Frontline special on Oswald, the truth about Russo began to dawn on us all. After all, Russo originated the show and was a chief correspondent. The program featured witnesses like Ed Butler, Priscilla Johnson, Ed Epstein, Robert Blakey, and Carlos Bringuier. As per the clincher with Zaid, at the 1993 Dallas ASK Conference mentioned above, Zaid went out of his way to do a very peculiar thing. The late Larry Harris had done a fine job in gathering many of the living eye witnesses who had been in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination. He actually put them in their original places to be photographed and interviewed by the attendees. Zaid walked down to the Plaza with a stack of literature in his hand. And he began to distribute flyers about those witnesses explaining why they could not be believed! (He later wrote a pamphlet on this very subject with fellow “critic” Dennis Ford.)

    Question: What kind of Kennedy researchers would pay money to fly to such a conference, stay in a hotel, and pay for meals, in order to argue that the critical community was all wrong? In effect, Zaid and Russo were doing their best to scuttle the efforts of a nascent movement. Because Cyril Wecht and myself spoke out against them at the 1993 ASK Conference, Zaid and Russo did not appear on the conference scene again. But that did not mean that Loomis and the Dark Side was done. Far from it. For in 1994, Russo had reportedly met with CIA officers Ted Shackley and Bill Colby. (See Probe Vol. 6 No. 2, and Who Is Gus Russo? for more details.) The word was that they were worried about what organizations like COPA were going to say about their so-called maligned colleague David Phillips. After all, there were many new documents being released about Phillips that were quite interesting. Russo later tried to say this meeting was a research foray for a book he was writing. But what would CIA propaganda writer Joe Goulden be doing there if that was really the sole aim of the meeting? Further, one of the attendees there admitted that COPA was discussed. And John Newman later called Colby who confirmed this was so and they were worried about further disclosures about Phillips. Russo was toast within the community. But a man named Paul Nolan was unknown.

    III

    I had my marching orders.
            —Matt Labash to Gary Aguilar

    Which brings us to the second overt way Loomis and the Dark Side struck back. See, Paul Nolan is an alias. More accurately, it is an undercover name. Paul Nolan’s real name is John McAdams. And to understand why Loomis and company would use him to go after COPA and defend David Phillips, you have to understand a bit about his background.

    McAdams first surfaced after Stone’s film was released. But he first reared his ugly visage not in public, but on the Internet. He began to frequent many of the JFK forums that sprang up around the time period of 1992-93. Except he outdid almost anyone in the number of posts he delivered. At times they were around fifty per day. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 3 p. 13) But as I wrote at the time, his personality was so repellent and his style so pugnacious that many new to the field saw through him quickly. One wrote in an e-mail: “McAdams is a spook isn’t he … I am concerned about McAdams and his ilk. The stuff he puts up on the ‘Net is pure disinformation … The stuff McAdams puts on the ‘Net is pure acid. He doesn’t respond to the facts, he just discredits witnesses and posters.” (ibid.)

    At the time, I noted that McAdams liked to forge false messages in order to insult people in the JFK field, like Jim Garrison, and to promote others, like Posner. He would jump around from forum to forum posting disinformation. Like for example that Clay Shaw was never really on the Board of Directors of Permindex. According to McAdams, that was a myth promoted by Oliver Stone. Well, finally someone actually scanned Shaw’s own Who’s Who entry in which he himself noted he was on the board of Permindex. This shut up McAdams on that forum. So what did McAdams do? He went to another forum and said the same thing about Shaw—knowing it had been proven false! Nothing tells us more about the man than that fact. And nothing tells us more about the people who choose to associate with McAdams in spite of that, e.g. Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein.

    But one good thing about McAdams at the time, at least for the Dark Side, was that his presence in the JFK case had been confined to the Internet. So very few people in the critical community had ever seen him. That facial anonymity, plus his willingness in using a false name made him useful in the attack against COPA. In 1995, McAdams/Nolan attended the COPA Conference in Washington. Unfortunately for him, there actually was another JFK researcher whose real name was Paul Nolan. When he found out about the McAdams deception, he posted a web message: “I was just doing some research over the net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently some asshole wants to use my name as an alias.” (ibid)

    Using this phony name, McAdams went to the above conference. He happened to meet a conservative reporter named Matt Labash there. Labash was on assignment for City Paper out of Washington D.C. Nolan/McAdams told Labash that he managed a computer store in Shorewood, Wisconsin—which he did not. In Labash’s resultant negative article on that conference, Nolan was the only participant quoted at length. And what was one of the things Labash quoted him on? Shades of Mark Zaid. It was Dr. Luis Alvarez’ nutty “jet effect” explanation of Kennedy’s back and to the left reaction in the Zapruder film. (ibid, p. 26)

    Coincidence? Hardly. Labash had worked for rightwing propaganda mills like American Spectator and the intelligence riddled Washington Times. At the time of his hit piece on COPA he was working at Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard. Further, Labash is believed to have done this kind of infiltration assignment before for the Washington Times. His target then was the Institute for Policy Studies. When Gary Aguilar called Labash, he admitted that he had his “marching orders” from on high for his COPA assignment (ibid). To most people, it would appear that Colby and Shackley had fulfilled their mission. Except it was not through Russo. It was through McAdams masquerading as Paul Nolan.

    Did Zaid and Russo get anything out of their efforts in this regard?

    At the time Zaid first appeared on the scene in the JFK case, he had just graduated from law school. In 1989, he had finished his undergraduate work at the University of Rochester. And in 1992 he had graduated from Albany Law School of Union University. I’m not a snob, and I know you can get a good education almost anywhere, but for my upcoming point let me say this: Those two colleges are not exactly like graduating from Princeton and Harvard Law School. Yet, within a little more than a year Zaid had secured employment with an international law firm in Washington D.C. He then quickly became a national security lawyer with a high profile in the media. Today he and a partner run their own law firm handling many, many CIA related cases. Does Albany Law School of Union University have a great placement program? Do many of their graduates advance to international law firms in Washington at warp speed? Or was the writing Zaid did in The Third Decade so impressive that prominent lawyers in Washington were impressed?

    After his meeting with Colby and Shackley, Russo also gained suitable employment. He first worked with Sy Hersh on his godawful book, The Dark Side of Camelot. Loomis’ client Hersh, then got Russo further employment on the equally bad ABC special made out of that book, Dangerous World. And from there, Peter Jennings hired Russo as the lead correspondent for his horrendous 2003 ABC special. Not bad for a guy who used to be a music teacher before Stone’s film.

    Like Russo, Gary Mack was once considered a member of the critical community. Like Russo, something obviously transformed him around the time of Stone’s film. Most informed people know those two facts. But what many informed people don’t know is this: It was a good friend of Gus Russo’s who helped lead Gary Mack over to the Dark Side and into the waiting hands of the Sixth Floor Museum. And this is where the story behind this Discovery Channel special gets really interesting.

    IV

    “You are a damned liar!”
            —Gary Mack to a couple of speakers at Jim Marrs’ JFK class

    Anyone who played a part in producing a show as completely and thoroughly deceptive as JFK: Inside the Target Car has no right in calling anyone a liar. Yet this is something Gary Mack did at Jim Marrs’ UT at Arlington JFK class. This was to Jim’s invited guests who were offering up their testimony for acceptance or rejection by his students. And he did it more than once. And he did it with Dave Perry at his side. According to some, with Perry alternately pulling and loosening his leash. It’s an interesting association, Dave Perry and Gary Mack. How did it come to be?

    As most people know, Mack was one of the two main talking heads on Nigel Turner’s mini-series documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. That series was originally shot in the 1980’s and reportedly broadcast in England in 1988. It was after this show’s original broadcast that Gary Mack’s life took a turn for the worse. And like a deux ex machina in some medieval play, Dave Perry was there to extend a helping hand.

    (Before I go any further with this part of the essay, I wish to explain something in advance. In what will follow I will use several anonymous sources. That is because some of the persons who I interviewed for this piece requested it. The reason I abided by their wishes is that the people behind The Sixth Floor Museum make up, as one source told me, the white power structure of Dallas. And, as we shall see in the case of Bob Groden, they play hardball. Secondly, the connections and character of Dave Perry are rather suspicious and sinister. I mean how many JFK researchers can claim FBI informant, and CIA applicant Hugh Aynesworth as their friend? Perry can. In light of the above, I think one can understand why much of the following will not be sourced.)

    As previously noted, Gary Mack had been a JFK researcher for a long time before he appeared on the Nigel Turner series. He had helped the House Select Committee secure and test the acoustical evidence, which they found compelling. He also had done much work on the “Badgeman” image. But according to one source, Gary Mack didn’t think he got enough credit for either of those two discoveries. (Which is probably why, even today, he still mildly pushes those two angles.) When Henry Hurt published his book Reasonable Doubt, he told Mack he was going to place the Badgeman image on the book’s cover. He did not. Then Mack got the talking head gig for the Turner series. But the notoriety Gary Mack got from this show did not help him. It actually seemed to hurt him. He lost his job as an announcer at Channel 5 in Fort Worth.

    But this was not the only misfortune that visited him at this time period. Prior to this, Gary Mack had been married and lived in a nice upper middle-class suburban development of Fort Worth named Wedgwood. At around the time period he lost his job, he also lost his wife and was forced to sell his home in a the subsequent divorce proceedings. According to two sources, Mack (whose real name is Larry Dunkel, “Gary Mack” is only a broadcast name) blamed some of his problems on his JFK work. And not just with Nigel Turner. When he worked with the NBC affiliated Channel 5, he had dug through their archives to find original footage of the shooting of Oswald. In fact, he had assembled nearly one straight hour of important footage: 30 minutes before and after the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby.

    But there is something I must note here about Mack/Dunkel’s split from Channel 5. He got a rather generous severance package. Usually three or four weeks pay is standard for workers, and recall Mack was not part of management. If a worker gets two or three months, you are doing well. Gary Mack’s severance package was for twice that. It was six months. Unusual as far as I know.

    This is where it gets even more unusual. Once Mack got his rather large severance package, he did very little in the way of looking for suitable employment. In fact, he did very little at all. But he did tell one source that he knew there was an opening coming up at the Sixth Floor Museum, and he thought he was a leading candidate for the position.

    Well the position of Director did come up. But Mack did not have the proper credentials in museum management. So Mack/Dunkel went back to college to attain the right background. This took awhile. So instead of waiting, when Gary Mack finished his studies, he assumed the position of curator, formerly held by Conover Hunt. Roughly speaking, this meant he would handle exhibits and collections and be their public spokesman.

    If the reader detects something odd here, something more than meets the eye, he should. Because contrary to what Gary Mack tries to convey, the Sixth Floor Museum is an all-out supporter of the Warren Commission mythology about that Krazy Kid Oswald. They once offered a prominent Dallas researcher a position at a six figure salary. But they made it clear to him that he would now have to exclusively support the Warren Commission in public. He turned down the deal on those ethical grounds. Apparently, the new Gary Mack did not have that dilemma.

    V

    Dave, are you with the CIA?
            —Question from a mutual acquaintance to Dave Perry

    All these events are swirling around the time that Oliver Stone had purchased the rights to Jim Garrison’s book On the Trail of the Assassins. That film was released in late 1991. But it had been in production for about a year and the script and research had consumed over another year. After Stone had purchased the rights to the Garrison book, he quickly decided to expand his lens on the subject. He did not just want to tell a New Orleans story. He wanted to go deeper into both Dallas and Washington. So he also purchased Jim Marrs’ book Crossfire and he brought on Vietnam authorities John Newman and Fletcher Prouty. But this was still not enough. He also decided to assemble a research team. One of the people who was considered for the position of chief researcher was Gus Russo. He did not get the job. Jane Rusconi did. Russo felt slighted by this and he always thought that Rusconi got the job because she was a woman. (He used to call her “the hippie chick”.) Russo stayed on as an informal adviser and Stone used him to compose the footnotes for the published script. So Russo was in on and onto the project almost from the beginning. We know this not just from the above, but also from Robert Sam Anson’s piece in Esquire, “The Shooting of JFK.” (November, 1991)

    Two things happened in Dallas while Stone was working on his film project. One was that Oliver Revell became the SAC of the Dallas FBI office. Revell had been in the Navy in 1963 and he became their liaison to the Warren Commission, handling things like Oswald’s strange career in the Marines. (Probe Vol. 3 No. 1) Revell’s number one man in monitoring the Dallas-Fort Worth area Kennedy research community was FBI agent Farris Rookstool.

    But before Revell came to town something else happened that was more under the radar. A guy named Dave Perry moved to Texas from the Washington/Baltimore area. He immediately tried to ingratiate himself with the JFK research community. One way he did that was to have a lifelong friend of his make calls for him in order to grease the skids. His lifelong friend was Gus Russo. Russo and Perry went all the way back to college together. And they stayed friends for all those years. In fact, Russo went as far as actually flying to Dallas from his home in Baltimore to introduce Perry to the critical community there. Perry tried to make friends with all the researchers in town. But there was something phony about him that put everyone off. Everyone except one person: Gary Mack.

    Mack, with Perry as his new cohort, now came out of the closet. He began to rage at some of the things he had previously believed in and some of the people he had previously been friendly with. One example being Jim Marrs. Marrs offered a course in the JFK case at UT Arlington. Perry and Mack signed up each semester. They never offered anything positive. Their main contribution was to make everyone else feel uncomfortable and to ridicule certain speakers Marrs had arranged to attend.

    Perry now became Mack’s guru on the JFK case. When he would talk to his former pals, he would sprinkle his conversation with prefaces like, “Dave says”, or “According to Dave”. He then would often berate them for certain areas of study they had developed. The only two things that Mack was now interested in from a conspiracy vantage point was 1.) The acoustics, and 2.) The Badgeman image. Those are two things he had been personally involved with, so he could not throw those out.

    Another reason people were suspicious of Perry was that he was always against everything they came up with. Yet he never developed anything on his own. And then he opened his house door for several weeks to Gerald Posner when he was writing Case Closed. This almost had to be at the request of Russo since Posner lived in his vicinity.

    Now, at this time frame of 1990-92, the leading journal in the JFK community was Jerry Rose’s The Third Decade. Neither Probe nor The Assassination Chronicles had surfaced yet. Perry became a frequent contributor to Rose’s publication. The first article he did was in the November 1991 issue exposing the Roscoe White debacle. This article was published right before the debut of Stone’s film, even though the press conference announcing the whole Roscoe White tale had happened on August 6, 1990. Perry’s article foreshadowed a new turn for Jerry Rose’s journal. From that issue on, it became a haven for writers like Jerry Organ, Dennis Ford, Mark Zaid, and Bob Artwohl. By 1993, it had become so studded with disinformation artists, it was almost useless. Which is one reason Probe was started. Perry wrote five articles I know of for that journal. None of them were based on any of the new documents published by the ARRB. Only one can be called even mildly anti-Warren Commission. That was in Volume 8 No. 5, where he ridiculed the work of Don Breo in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Besides this piece, I can find nothing else Perry ever wrote that furthered any lines of evidence in the new documents or was ever highly critical of the Commission. Nothing on Oswald, nothing on the Paines, nothing on the medical interviews by Jeremy Gunn, nothing on Mexico City, nothing on the various cover ups by the FBI or the CIA, nothing on how the Commission and FBI altered testimony or tried to intimidate witnesses, nothing on how the evidence list obtained by the Dallas Police was altered by the FBI, nothing on how Michael Baden altered evidence to raise the rear skull wound etc. etc. etc. I could go on endlessly simply because for a man who is interested in the JFK assassination, Perry has been seemingly oblivious to all this.

    Or has he?

    VI

    Go ahead and sue us.
            —The Sixth Floor to Robert Groden

    The power elite in Dallas never wanted to recognize the fact that Dealey Plaza was their top tourist attraction. To them it was a bad memory. They wanted it to go away. It was a black eye to an up and coming city that wanted to make its mark in America. For years and years the city tried to deny they saw all those people coming into town to visit the site where President Kennedy was killed. For a time they actually said the number one tourist attraction was the TV set for the series Dallas. Because that was the image the Dallas power elite wanted to project. Not that of a hate filled Wild West town whose police force allowed the murder of the president. And then allowed his alleged assassin to be killed literally in their arms live on TV.

    How much did Dallas want to forget what happened in Dealey Plaza? Well, at one time, they even floated the idea of razing the Texas School Book Depository. When that happened there was a public uproar against it. So Dallas County acquired the building in 1977 and located some offices there. From that time, a few powerful and private citizens set up a group to raise the money to lease and renovate the sixth floor. Some of the money was donated by local government and some from private corporations. Eventually, after over three million was raised, the museum opened in early 1989. And it was run by something called the Dallas County Historical Foundation. From the beginning they have tolerated virtually no differences with the Warren Commission. How could they, that could imply the local police were in on the cover up. When you put on their headphone talk inside, it is essentially the Krazy Kid Oswald story. On their web site, they even try and cover up for Life Magazine concealing the powerful evidence in the Zapruder film from the American public. This is what they say: when Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life, it was with the understanding they not exploit the graphic details of Kennedy’s death until emotions cooled down. Zapruder sold all rights to Life Magazine. Once they paid him, he had no power over what they did with the film. Executive C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce—the owner of the magazine—decided to conceal the film from the public since they knew it contradicted the official story. The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down. The truth is this: If it were up to Luce and Jackson, the public would have never seen the film. But that would indicate some kind of cover up. Which is something the Sixth Floor Museum will never admit.

    Not only is the Sixth Floor Museum in the bag for the Warren Commission, they are resolute in resisting any competition. Today, Bob Groden lives in Dallas because there is almost no competition there today for the Sixth Floor. So he offers the public an alternative view to the Krazy Kid Oswald fantasy they sell at their place. And they don’t like it. Groden has been charged once and ticketed 80 times for selling his books and DVD’s in the Plaza. The charges have been things like “vending without a permit”, “selling on public property”, “selling on private property” etc. The police have confiscated some of his things without ever returning them. Each charge has been thrown out. He has even been stopped at a red light and ticketed for illegal parking. You think it would have stopped after maybe 20 or 30 times. Groden firmly believes the Sixth Floor Museum has been behind this harassment. They don’t want anyone contradicting their cover story.

    But it even goes further than that. At one time, Groden and some partners discovered there was an opening at the Dal-Tex building coming up. They thought of leasing the space and opening up their own museum, which would have been right next door to the Sixth Floor. Well the Sixth Floor would have none of it. They swooped down and leased the space for themselves—without using it. Groden stayed out on the grass where he could be harassed.

    And far from just being a public spokesman, Groden has told me that Mack is actually involved in the setting of policy. Gary Mack is active and adamant about keeping serious Warren Commission critiques out of the bookstore. He once told someone that, “Those books are not accurate.” Sylvia Meagher and Philip Melanson are throwing up in their graves over that one. They are not accurate. But Gerald Ford and his raised “neck wound” are? The Sixth Floor went as far as to use some of Groden’s work without his permission. He complained about it. They said in effect, “Go ahead and sue us. We will tie you up in court for years.” They then agreed to make a trade with him. According to Groden, the stuff they gave him was not comparable to the things they took. And not only is the Sixth Floor anti-critical community, and pro-Commission, they are all too friendly with anyone else who supports that myth. When Robert Stone’s pitiful film Oswald’s Ghost came out, they helped screen it at the Texas Theater. This is the historical institute Gary Mack works for today. And this helps explain his active and boisterous participation in something as bad as JFK: Inside the Target Car.

    But let us return to the time when Gary Mack was in limbo. After he lost his job and was living off his rather generous severance package. As I wrote, he somehow knew in this bleak time period he would eventually secure a position with the Sixth Floor Museum. Which, of course, he did. How could he have been so certain?

    Because Dave Perry told him so—since it was he who helped get him the job. And I have that, through a mutual acquaintance, from Perry himself. Perry also admitted at the time that he was Mack’s handler. And that he is very close to the Dr. Doom of the JFK case, Hugh Aynesworth. Perry actually manages Aynesworth’s web site. And Perry has gotten Mack to sponsor talks by Aynseworth at the Sixth Floor. Like Gary Mack, Perry became a handler for certain witnesses, like Wesley Frazier—who needs to be handled by the Dark Side since he is a very suspicious character. In his post at the Sixth Floor, Gary Mack has clearly influenced witnesses like Gayle Nix and Billy Hargis. With Nix, he has managed to give her this bad impression that all researchers are only in it for the money. And he even instructed her to try and secure personal information about writers who try and interview her. With motorcycle patrolman Hargis, the Sixth Floor has clearly gotten him to believe that instead of being hit like a bullet from the debris out of Kennedy’s head, he actually just drove through it as it fell from the air. Which, of course, is what Perry’s buddy Posner wrote about in his book.

    Let me echo the sentiments of Jim Garrison in regards to the above: Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt. (Click here to see why.) And anyone who opens his door to Bob Loomis’ pal Gerald Posner is somewhere below that. But this is the path that Gary Mack, guided by Dave Perry, took to become the Discovery Channel’s Dan Rather.

    Dave escorted Gary down the Yellow Brick Road. Except the trip did not end with Mack meeting the Wizard of Oz. It ended with Gary Mack becoming the new Wizard of Oz. A job which he took to with relish.

    Shame on them both.

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part Two: Or, The Discovery Channel’s Idiot Conspirators


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    After his (planned?) false statement about Jackie Kennedy being in the line of fire, Gary Mack makes another observation. This one is more superficially credible—until one thinks about it. He observes that the bullet path from this particular position on the Grassy Knoll leaves an exit on the left side of Kennedy’s head. He then says that this was not evident at autopsy. He then uses this to discount a shot from that position. (He will later unwarrantedly aggrandize this into discrediting any shot from the right front at all!)

    He’s correct about the autopsy not showing this kind of exit. But he is wrong in the deductive logic of this eliminating any shot from that particular point. Let me explain in detail what I mean. Since the program’s Curtailed Alternative doctrine predictably ignores it.

    Clearly, something was happening behind the stockade fence. All you have to do is review the record. Let’s begin with the startling testimony of Lee Bowers, a worker in the rail yard adjacent to it and behind. From his vantage point in a 14-foot tower, he talked about the three cars he saw driving behind the fence about 25 minutes before the assassination. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 75) The first car looked like it was searching for a way out or checking the area. (ibid, p. 76) A second car came in about ten minutes later. The driver looked like he was speaking into a phone or a mike since he held something up to his mouth. This car probed a little deeper into the area than the first car. Then a third car came in: it was muddy up to the windows. It was occupied by what appeared to be a white male. This car spent a little more time in the area and then cruised back toward the Texas School Book Depository. At the time of the shooting Bowers saw two men standing between his vantage point and the mouth of the triple underpass. This would seem to approximate the spot, which I described in part one as being the best shooting venue. We all know what Bowers described next: “At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or … something I could not identify … some unusual occurrence—a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there.” (ibid p. 77)

    It is interesting—compelling actually—to couple this testimony with that of Sam Holland. In a 1966 interview that will live as long as people study this case, Josiah Thompson talked to Holland in Irving, Texas. He was reluctant to talk to Thompson. Why? Because as I mentioned in part one of this review—and what Gary Mack leaves out—many witnesses complained about what the FBI or Warren Commission did with their testimony. Holland is one of them. He told Thompson that the Commission “had not transcribed his testimony as he had given it.” (Thompson, p. 83) So now, three years later, he told Thompson his whole story. While standing in Dealey Plaza, he acted out what he did on 11/22/63. And those photos are memorialized in Six Seconds in Dallas. To anyone looking at them, they become almost seared into one’s sub-conscious. Holland told Thompson that he was originally standing on the overpass as he watched the motorcade come toward him. He then heard four shots, with the last two very close together. (ibid) Holland said the third shot sounded like it was from a different class of weapon than the others. Holland also said he saw a puff of smoke beneath some trees on the knoll area. (ibid, p. 121) Thompson then notes seven other witnesses who saw a puff of smoke in that area. (ibid) Three of these—Holland, James Simmons, and Richard Dodd—were so sure the shots came from over there that they ran off the overpass to an area behind the fence. When Holland got there, he could see scores of footprints in the soft ground behind a car. Looking at their pattern, it didn’t make sense to him. Why? Because they were all concentrated in a very narrow area, like a lion pacing in a cage. (ibid, p. 122) To cap this fascinating story, Thompson noted another witness named J. C. Price. Price saw someone running from this area with something in his hand, which he said could have been a headpiece. (ibid p. 123) This reminds us of the driver of the car Bowers saw, holding what he thought was a phone or a mike.

    Need more? A woman told Dallas Patrolman Joe Smith that the shots came from the bushes up on the knoll. Smith ran behind the fence and smelled gunpowder. While he was there he had his gun pulled. As he was replacing it a man in the area showed him Secret Service credentials. Yet, as Thompson notes, every Secret Service agent had gone to Parkland Hospital with the motorcade. (ibid, p. 125) So who was this guy?

    Finally, as more than one author has noted e.g. Richard Mahoney, John Davis, and Lamar Waldron, there exists an FBI report which states that two police officers saw some men standing behind the wooden fence on the knoll on November 20th. The men were engaged in what appeared to be mock target practice. They were aiming what looked like a rifle over the fence. When the patrolmen made their way up the knoll, the men disappeared in a nearby parked car. The policemen thought little of this episode until after the assassination. They then reported it to the FBI. The Bureau made a report on this that is dated November 26th. Yet this report was never made part of the official FBI record of the assassination. And it was not declassified until 1978. (For a depiction of the episode, see Ultimate Sacrifice, p. 704).

    Of course, this program notes the Warren Commission evidence for there being a sniper’s perch on the sixth floor of the Depository e. g. the boxes and shells near the window. And, at first, the show implies it was Oswald at this post. Then later—when all semblance of objectivity has disappeared—it calls the shot from this position “Oswald’s shot”. Yet, further indicating its agenda, when it comes to the stockade fence on top of the knoll, the program mentions none of the above. Not Bowers, not Holland, not Smith, not Price, not the policemen. Not one word about any of it.

    Because Gary Mack and the narrator are strangely mute about all the above, let us give voice to it. One obvious way to interpret it all is like this:

    1. Two days before the assassination, a hit team was testing out a firing point behind the fence.
    2. On the morning of the assassination, the team was transported behind the fence via a staggered three car caravan, leaving two men in place who were being communicated with by radio.
    3. This ended up being one of the firing points in Dealey Plaza as evidenced by gunshot sounds, a flash of light, and a puff of smoke.
    4. The hit team was furnished with fake official ID to protect themselves after the fact, because they knew their shot would attract witnesses to the area.

    I believe there is a good reason the show leaves all of this crucial information about planning in advance out. Because if they included it, the audience would realize how illogical—actually absurd—one of the show’s main underlying assumptions is. Namely that the conspirators would use the same weapon and ammo as the alleged assassin was supposed to. Because in light of all the above, if they did do that, they must have been mentally retarded. Why? Because a shot from that site with that weapon and ammunition would clearly prove there was a conspiracy and Oswald did not kill President Kennedy! For, from his vantage point, how could Oswald fire a shot that exited the left side of Kennedy’s head? He could not. So the autopsy would prove Oswald an innocent man. So, to a lesser extent, would the Zapruder film. Are we really to believe that Gary Mack 1.) Forgot about all of the evidence above, and 2.) Never once thought of this stupid paradox in the weeks, maybe months, he worked on this program? I don’t buy it. And if you do, I have a bridge in Arizona to sell you.

    As I have said, I personally do not believe a shot came from that particular site. If I had to bet on it, I would say it came from further down the fence toward the overpass. Yet a shot from that second point would not have produced the left side exit the producers clearly wanted. Which is probably one reason the producers did not fire from there. But, from a study of the Zapruder film, testimony like the above, and the medical evidence, I have for a long time believed that the shot from the front was a frangible bullet: one that exploded on contact with the skull. And before anybody says that the House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that this was not the case, I will reply that the HSCA was talking through its hat on this—as it did on many matters. I have communicated with CIA associated people on this issue. Believe me when I say the following: What these guys can put in rifles is literally beyond imagining. They can create very dense and heavy projectiles that, upon impact, all but disappear. Therefore, in any normal crime scene inquiry, you would overlook the traces. And this is obvious if you think about it. If you had an almost unlimited black budget to tinker with, and wizards of weaponry like George Nonte and Mitch Werbell were on your payroll, you should be able to come up with things that would be beyond the horizon. That is what you pay men like that for in the first place: To disguise a black operation. Not the Three Stooges stuff inherent in Gary Mack’s goofy fable which amounts to this: After previously scoping out a firing point, you then make sure you incriminate yourself. And in the process you exculpate the guy who is the designated patsy. Based on this, let us give the show a new title: Discovery Channel’s Idiot Conspirators.

    II

    Yardley: What are we basing this bullet hole on historically Gary?

    Mack: We’re basing it on something that the Warren Commission did not have in 1964; the actual autopsy photographs and x-rays … which were examined officially in the late 1970’s. We know that there is a bullet entry hole up in this area …

    The above statement is so studiously deceptive that it reminds me of a trick by Uri Geller. But it is imperative that Gary Mack makes it. If not, his “experiment” will have serious problems in this segment. Let me explain why in detail.

    This exchange took place before the simulation of a shot from the sixth floor of the Depository. As previously noted, the show now drops all pretenses of neutrality, and labels this as “Oswald’s shot”. Yardley asks Gary Mack about the precise placement of the rear skull shot into Kennedy. Mack replies with the above deceptive quote. He then points to the upper part of the modeled skull, a bit to the right of the midline.

    It is hard to believe that Mack does not understand how wrong he is here. Let us begin on the evening of November 22, 1963. That night at the autopsy in Bethesda, and contrary to what Mack says, the doctors looked at the x-rays! And at least two members of the Warren Commission had the photos: Arlen Specter and Earl Warren. (There is a strong hint that J. Lee Rankin saw a photo of the back wound, since he talks about it being clearly lower than the throat wound.) So for Mack to tell the public that the Commission did not have these exhibits is simply not accurate

    But it’s worse than that. In the time period of late 1966 and early 1967, there is evidence that the autopsy doctors were brought back in to look at the photos and x-rays. The 1966 visit was called a military review and the pretext was to sort out and classify these exhibits. In 1967, the visit was provoked by the strong reaction to the criticism of the Warren Report then peaking in the press. As former CBS employee Roger Feinman has reported, this visit was done with the help of John McCloy in order to help CBS defend the Commission. This controversy eventually resulted in former Warren Commission assistant counsel David Slawson writing a memorandum to Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Slawson requested that the Justice Department begin an official medical review to stave off the threat of a more wide-ranging and wholesale inquiry. The Slawson memo resulted in 1.) What appears to be the autopsy doctors looking at the exhibits again, and 2.) A new panel of forensic pathologists “officially examining” the photos and x-rays for a review of the medical evidence. This new panel, formed in 1968, was headed by pathologist Russell Fisher and is called the Clark Panel.

    Question: In light of the above two paragraphs, how can Mack misinform the public that these photos and x-rays were not officially reviewed until the late seventies? But an even better question is this: Why is he saying it when he knows better?

    Because the Discovery Channel wanted to go with the new and revised entry point in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. The one Gary Mack deceptively says “we know” about. The Warren Commission entry point, as confirmed by the original autopsy team, was at the bottom of the skull, at a point called the external occipital protuberance—the EOP. But this trajectory created problems with the Warren Commission exit point, which was on the right side of the head, above and to the right of the ear. As Josiah Thompson pointed out in his book Six Seconds in Dallas (p. 111), at Z frame 312, Kennedy’s head is not anteflexed enough to make this work. And the Warren Commission understood this because in the false drawings prepared for Arlen Specter, Kennedy’s head is anteflexed much too far—looking down into his lap—in order to cure this problem. (See ibid. At that page, you can see the dramatic comparison in forward lean for yourself.)

    Consequently, and contrary to what Mack says, Russell Fisher and the Clark Panel—working from the photos and x-rays—first revised this entry point upward by four inches in 1968. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), in 1978, then agreed with the Clark Panel revision. Unlike what Mack wants the public to believe, this official “review” did not happen 15 years later. Another key point Mack leaves out: The original autopsy doctors—James Humes, Thornton Boswell, and Pierre Finck—did not agree with this new and raised entry point.

    It is this disturbing landmark in the medical evidence that the program needs to tiptoe by. So it falsely states that 1.) The Commission never saw the photos and x-rays, and 2.) There was no official review of them until the late seventies. The clear and deceptive implication is that the autopsists missed the raised entry in the cowlick area because they did not have either the x-rays or photos. The supposition being that if they did, they also would have placed the entry wound up high. Again, this is inaccurate. Because when the pathologists saw these exhibits during the HSCA they mightily resisted the cowlick placement of the entry wound in the skull.

    The following was Discovery Channel’s problem. If the show admitted that the rear entry wound moved up in the space of about four years it would have trouble explaining how it happened. Because in real life this is almost unheard of. And further, contrary to what Mack’s certitude about an entry wound in the cowlick, the evidence strongly suggests that this later raised entry was manufactured after the fact. A point that the show also avoids by using this sleight of hand. (See Section Five of Part Four of my review of Reclaiming History for the troubling details.)

    But it’s even worse than that. As Gary Aguilar has pointed out, the Commission actually performed shooting experiments with Dr. A. Olivier on this specific issue. When firing at the EOP, the shot exited at the supraorbital process—the bony ridge above the eye. (WC Vol. 5 p. 89) The resulting damage was something resembling a blow-out wound to the right upper face. (See the skull photos and a discussion of this issue in Gary Aguilar’s essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 184) The problem with it was that 1.) This exit is not noted in the official autopsy report, and 2.) It is not evident in the photos. One has to wonder if all these evidentiary problems with the EOP entry caused Fisher to rework the original autopsy by raising this wound.

    Please note: all of this utterly fascinating material would have made a much more interesting, honest, and educational program than JFK: Inside the Target Car. Yet Gary Mack disposes of it all in the space of about two fraudulent sentences. He has to of course because he does not want Yardley firing at the Warren Commission’s EOP location. Because as noted by Aguilar, that could risk a shot exiting through Kennedy’s face. And that would create a real fracas for the official story wouldn’t it? Mack’s cheap trick with the medical evidence prevented it. Discovery Channel was determined from the outset to uphold the Commission—even if it meant revising the Commission’s own conclusions! Because remember, the Commission went with the lower EOP entry point.

    The above is a perfect illustration of what I said at the beginning of Part One about the risk in oversimplifying a complex and changing phenomenon: that one will end up inherently falsifying it. And this is what the show does in dealing with all the above in the space of about two sentences. All of this ducking and weaving in order to avoid fully informing the audience.

    III

    Bypassing all of the above, Yardley takes his “Oswald” shot at the revised and raised cowlick area. He hits it. But as I wrote in Part One, this creates still another problem for the show. As he wrote in his online discussion afterwards, Gary Mack says that the bullet did not fragment. He immediately tried to dispose of this problem. I understand why he wants to dispose of it ASAP. But it won’t go away. If his demonstration is to have scientific validity, this important point can’t be ignored. For in the second federally sanctioned JFK investigation, the one by the HSCA—the one the show is abiding by with the raised skull entry wound—the bullet did fragment. But it was a rather bizarre fragmentation. The head and tail of the bullet ended up in the front of the car. And the middle of the bullet somehow got stuck at the outer table of the skull high in the back of the head. This is probably one reason why Mack wants to dispose of this matter as quickly as possible. He doesn’t want to have to explain that rather weird phenomenon. Even though he (falsely) says the HSCA discovered the raised entry placement, he doesn’t want to explain the fragmentation that goes along with this raised entry. Why? Because it’s not explainable. In fact, experts have called it unbelievable.

    But that is not all. In the Clark Panel x-rays there is also a particle trail traveling horizontally across the top of the skull. This presumably represents the progress of this bullet across the top of Kennedy’s head. The problem is the trail does not match up with either the in shoot or out shoot point. Again, the show mentions none of this.

    Now, as Milicent Cranor has pointed out, it was not mandatory that the Discovery Channel experiment precisely duplicate this key issue about the bullet breaking apart in the middle. But it should have accomplished something that was at least similar. In other words, the bullet should have broken someplace. The fact that it did not break at all would suggest two logical deductions. Neither of which the show wishes to entertain.

    1. Either the projectiles striking Kennedy’s head were not Mannlicher Carcano bullets, or

    2. The snake oil cooking I described in part one was boiling over. That is, the Adelaide T ∓ E “exact replicas” of the human head were no such thing.

    Because the official autopsy in this case was so curtailed and incomplete—which is another area of the medical evidence this show does not want to get into—we cannot answer this question with real certainty. But I actually think number one could be true, and number two almost has to be true. Concerning the first, as I mentioned before, the shot from the front may well have been a frangible type of bullet that broke into bits upon impact, thereby leaving this weird particle trail in the skull.

    But there can be little doubt about number two. I recorded my surprised reaction in part one of this review about the skull breaking into smithereens when struck by a hunting bullet. Well, that was reinforced when this happened. Clearly, the manufactured skull did not create enough resistance to the bullet. And considering the background of Adelaide T ∓ E, the past history of Discovery Channel and their JFK specials, plus what the Sixth Floor represents, one has to wonder if it was by design. That is, they knew they could not duplicate what the HSCA said happened to this bullet. So they went ahead and created easily breakable skulls to give the viewer what they wanted to show: an unobstructed and visually discernible path through the top of the skull.

    And by doing this, they do not have to explain another mystery about this revised entry point. Which is this: both the Clark Panel and HSCA largely based this raised entry point on a circular 6.5 fragment at the back of the skull table. The dimensions, of course, exactly duplicate the shells allegedly used by Oswald (which no one in Dallas recalls selling to him). But further, no one at Bethesda saw this circular object on the x-rays the night of the autopsy! Yet how could they have missed it? In light of this fact, I understand why Mack does not want to talk about this issue. Not only does the non-fragmentation seriously impact the validity of his “exact replicas”, it also affects the credibility of his “knowing” there was a raised entry wound at the rear of the skull. Why? Because his “simulation” does not leave the 6.5 mm fragment—or anything approximating it—in the skull. Which, as previously stated, was one of the major reasons for raising the skull wound in the first place. But even though its not there, Mack raised the wound anyway.

    So much for Gary Mack’s oh-so-certain knowledge of this cowlick entry wound in the skull. It’s a “certainty” that his own experiment belies.

    I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. And I’m not trying. But I’m still not done.

    IV

    Let us now discuss Yardley’s so-called “Oswald shot”. Because something odd happened with it. When Yardley hit his shot, the whole right side of the “replica’s” head flew off. Including what appears to be the right front top of the forehead. Yet this is not the kind of impact that is shown on the Zapruder film, written about in the autopsy report, or shown in the autopsy photos. In those photos, the forehead is intact.

    And this directly relates to another important point. Toward the end of the show, Mack brings on two alleged experts in blood spatter analysis. For this segment, they pose what looks like a white plaster bust in Kennedy’s position in the car. They then place what looks like a target mark on it for the exit point. The mark was located in the upper forehead on the right side. My BS antennae sprung up about a foot in the air. Because if you read the autopsy report, this is not where the doctors located the exit wound. They located it on the right side of the head in the parietal area. Which is back from the forehead. (Most authors give the location as above and to the right of the ear on the right parietal.) Besides being utterly surprised and puzzled, I didn’t know how to explain it. Are we really to believe that Gary Mack, and the producers, and the director never read the autopsy report? As I said, this was very puzzling.

    A couple of minutes later I wasn’t puzzled anymore. At that point, I understood why they placed it wrong. And I should have known. Inevitably, in this age of computer graphics, the producers wanted to superimpose a line on the screen that traced back from a hole in the dashboard that the Yardley shot created, through this exit, and to the sixth floor window. And so with this Yardley exit, you can do that. But with the exit described by the autopsy doctors you cannot. So in addition to the dubious entrance wound, this show gives us an exit wound that does not correspond to the autopsy report. All in order to keep Oswald as the lone assassin.

    After this long and excruciating dog and pony show, the two witnesses are shown photos of the alleged “blood spatter pattern” in the car as adduced by this ersatz experiment. Now let me ask a logical question in light of the above: If the manufactured skulls were not close to being what real skulls are like, and if the entrance point on the skull was wrong, and if the exit point on the skull was wrong how could the end result be the same? But let me add one more point here. The stuff that is ejected from these skulls upon bullet impact seems about as exact a substitute for blood as the manufactured heads are for real skulls. The stuff looks like something out of a “B” horror movie, maybe The Green Slime. But let us discount the color, what bothers me is the texture. The texture may possibly approximate brain matter, but it does not appear to be close to blood. In any real experiment there should have been at least two things ejected from the skull, brain matter and blood. I didn’t see that here. Further, the actual photos taken of the car after it got to Washington only appear to show blood on the back seat. There was little if any of the spatter that was projected forward. So there was no control for this final part of the demonstration. With all these specious variables, with no control factor, and the proven untrustworthiness of the producers, the reliability of these witnesses who confirm the green slime at the end is worth very little.

    But that is not really the end. The end is afterwards with Gary Mack looking out the so-called sniper’s perch onto Dealey Plaza. Get it? That is where the shot that killed JFK came from. And with that posed and pre-planned shot, we understand what this program has been all about. From the selection of Adelaide T ∓ E, to all the cheating on the marksmanship, to the selection of that particular front shot, to the lie about Jackie Kennedy being in the line of fire, to the mentally impaired hit team which wanted to exculpate the patsy, to the oh-too-frangible skulls, to the wrong exits and entrances etc. etc. etc. all the way down the line. It was all done so the show could leave us with that final frame staring out the Sixth Floor window. Which is probably why The Sixth Floor Museum and Mack agreed to go along with the charade.

    But for one informed viewer, that shot did not suggest what the producers wanted—that is Oswald as the lone assassin. For me it was Discovery Channel, Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor as assassins of the truth.

    I will try and explain how it happened in Part Three.

  • JFK: Inside Inside the Target Car: My Experiences as Limo Researcher for the Show


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    The JFK Assassination Aftermath and TV Shows

    One would think that once the Warren Report (WR) hit the stands in 1964 the government would have said, “there you have it”, and moved on to something else. However, there were so many flaws within that it invited a fair amount of criticism. Although the critics were quickly pointed out to be un-American, they continued to grow in number and volume. Their voice threatened to drown out that of the Warren Commission. Something had to be done.

    Some on the Commission, like Allen Dulles, actually believed the American public would not bother to read the WR. Apparently, they believed that their appeal to authority, dictated by those supposedly the most revered in our government, would be sufficient. They thought that the American public was merely ‘sheeple’, and would do as they were told. They were wrong.

    In order to quickly cover their tracks, a special posse was formed behind the scenes devoted to stomping out the growing Critical Community (sometimes called Conspiracy Theorists, or CT’s). New books were quickly written to re-emphasize the ‘conclusions’ of the WR, while some new CT books were written in order to confuse the CT community. And someone in the posse (which we will refer to as the Ongoing Cover-up, or OC) had an ‘aha’ moment when it came to pushing the WR agendas on that new media called TV.

    So into the fray jumped the networks, anxious to please; most of them probably co-opted by the OC even prior to the JFK assassination. The sheeple believe our newscasters. So, of course, they would believe what these people had to say about the assassination. This spewing of TV jargon would be more persuasive to the sheeple than any doubts they might have had. Quickly, a TV show on the WR was developed. Others followed. The Jim Garrison investigation was decimated by the NBC White Paper propaganda show against him. The OC had hit the big-time, and television had become the new means of controlling the public.

    Which brings us to the present. Fairly recently, the Discovery Channel decided to fund shows on the JFK assassination. Their ultimate conclusion, after allegedly looking ‘objectively’ at all the facts, was—you guessed it—a recrowning of the Warren Commission. On the other hand, in 2004 the SPEED Channel did a one-hour documentary on the Presidential Limousine,. This was called Behind the Headlights: JFK Presidential Limousine (currently available on You Tube.) This program, for which I helped develop the script and was interviewed for, was conspiracy-based and contained new information about what happened to the limo after the assassination. It clearly demonstrated that the limo was the primary crime scene and that there had been a cover-up. How could this be allowed to stand? So somebody at Discovery Channel had a bright idea to do a program focusing on the limo as the crime scene. And that brings us to “JFK: Inside the Target Car”, and my participation in it.

    The Invitation

    A few years earlier, a production company called Creative Differences called me. A producer named Robert Erickson interviewed me by phone for possible involvement in a show they were doing for the Discovery Channel. It came to be called Beyond the Magic Bullet (BTMB). This was broadcast in 2004. The show ultimately progressed in a different direction, and I was not included. I had been involved with a few other TV programs around that time. Most notably the Fox News 2-hour JFK assassination special entitled Case Not Closed in 2003, and a pilot for the show Tech Effect which ended up being too expensive to complete. Interacting with the producers of those shows had left me calm and empowered. Interacting with Erickson left me vaguely uncomfortable.

    As a rule, I do not spend much time watching Warren Commission apologist shows. I did watch the single bullet test in BTMB, but was put off by the shows’ easily-apparent hypocrisy. They had not even bothered to specify which exact single bullet scenario they were attempting to follow. Another heads-up I should have taken more seriously.

    So when Robert Erickson e-mailed me last spring about the new show his company Creative Differences was doing on the limo for the DC, I did not exactly leap right into it. But I did decide to keep an open mind.

    Initially, I did not have any suspicions about the show being scripted to coincide with a Warren Commission apologist agenda–even though common sense told me that could probably be a factor. The script looked interesting. Though much of it was a rehash of my 2004 SPEED Channel documentary. Which was puzzling. Plus, it included an objective which has been one of my major priorities for over 10 years: to view the limo windshield held at the National Archives (NARA). I was to go to Washington DC with the producers and they would hire a glass forensic expert. The windshield would be examined and photographed in High Definition. How much more exciting could an investigation get?

    I enlisted the aid of Congressman Jim Ramsted, who wrote a dynamite letter endorsing the request to NARA to view the windshield. I thought: What could possibly go wrong? Little did I know.

    Erickson had spoken with Bob Casey, the curator for Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, where the rebuilt limo is on display. Casey mentioned that Lincoln Motors had begun etching numbers into the windshields of its cars during the sixties. Was it possible that the NARA windshield contained such a number? If so, it might be possible to track it down to determine if it was the one in the limo when it was delivered to the White House garage in June of 1961. More importantly, it might be possible to determine if it was the one in the car during the assassination.

    The DC letter and the Ramsted letter were sent to NARA at the end of April. We waited anxiously. In a few weeks, we heard back. Apparently, they had sent someone scurrying down to the windshield to check for a number etched on the edge, and when they didn’t find one, heaved a sigh of relief and refused our request. The door to viewing the windshield had been shut. However, a new one was about to open.

    Trip to Dearborn

    In June we continued with the next section of the program. Bob Casey and I were to be interviewed next to the rebuilt limousine at Henry Ford Museum. Robert Erickson was waiting for me at the Detroit airport. He was very pleasant, yet cool and somehow calculating. I began to have the sensation that perhaps I was being set up. We had dinner at a Chili’s and discussed the questions he would ask in the interview the next morning. Apparently, I was being relegated to fill-in material, as none of the questions were very interesting or exciting. I tried to figure out an angle where I could contribute something new to the show, but seemed to be blocked. What do you want me to say? I asked. I then added: “You’ve given all my best lines away.” It was a very frustrating evening. Here I was being told that I was needed because I was ‘the limo expert’, but I was obviously being sidelined for some unknown reason. Erickson also asked me about some of the more far-out theories connected to the limo and what I thought about them. He asked me about getting in touch with a few other fringe CT researchers. I gave him what information I had, and then had an insight: “He’s trolling for kooks,” I thought. Little did I know I was one of them.

    Erickson also talked about the previous program, Beyond the Magic Bullet. He said the feedback on the show had been pretty negative, and didn’t understand why. Without explaining that I had not watched the entire show, I talked to him about my idea of different SB scenarios. I referenced an article I had written on them, called “The Pretty Pig’s Saturday Night.” I told him, “By not specifying which scenario you were following, you were setting yourself up for trouble.” He didn’t seem to understand.

    The Henry Ford interviews were to be done before the doors opened, which meant that the set-up began at around 5:30 a.m. The Museum was dark and quiet—an extraordinary event in itself. There was a small group of girls who scarfed us up coffee and bottles of juice and water. A woman from the research staff was also present. The cameraman worked quickly and at 6:15 Erickson said, “Shall we get started”? I had been looking over my notes for valuable information to add to the bland questions, and quickly switched gears.

    The interview was boring and rote, and I was unable to contribute much more than the bare bones that had been previewed the night before. I got to sit at the rear of the limo; an hour later Bob Casey sat at the front. I had a chance afterward to walk around the Museum in the quiet, looking at the other presidential limousines, the autos, planes, trains and vacuum cleaners from years gone by. That in itself was a dream come true.

    The Museum opened, light streamed in the windows, and the Kennedy limousine was again the center of attention. The crowds were kept back as the ‘beauty shots’ of the limo were filmed; some from the camera mounted on a dolly, moving silently back and forth. It was a beautiful sight. Afterwards, a staffer did some measurements of the limo rear seat and we were allowed to take photos of her holding the measuring tape. We were not allowed inside the limo. A low blow.

    After the cameraman had packed up his gear, we all went to lunch and discussed plans for the rest of the day. We thought about going to the Gerald Ford Library, as there were some interesting documents there. Erickson also mentioned possibly seeing a replica limo that they planned to borrow for a day. Before I knew it, we were looking at the only other limo built from the Hess ∓ Eisenhardt blueprints (not available to the public) by Kevin MacDonald, a protege of Hess. The car had been built back in the 80’s, and used for the movie JFK, as well as for other movies and TV shows. The top was off, a bottle of water lay on a jump seat and a container of tennis balls had been tossed carelessly in the back seat. It was hardly stately, but my heart was in my throat. This was the car as it had looked on November 22, 1963.

    The car was in some ways exquisite, and in others grotesque. The jump seats were the wrong shape and covered in plastic rather than leather; the metal handholds were not correctly shaped. The tires were modern. The plexi-glass top sections were opaque and could only be used with the canvas cover. The rear seat was not built up; as of course, it did not contain the mechanisms to move it up and down as had the original. Otherwise, the car was a gem. We took measurements and photos of it, and reluctantly left. “I don’t know what to do,” said Erickson, “now that the NARA segment has been scrubbed.” “Go to the car, I said.”

    And so began the process that culminated in the replica limo being shipped to Dallas, and the possibility of having a true reenactment of the fatal shot of the assassination.

    In our last discussion later that day, Erickson and I went over all the limo photos and documents I had brought with me. We talked about the black ∓ white FBI photos, taken during the forensic exam early Saturday morning. We talked about the color SS photos, CE 352 and CE 353. Erickson kept insisting they had been taken during the FBI exam. No, I patiently explained, they were not taken until late Saturday afternoon. Which was well over 24 hours after the assassination. And after the Secret Service had scoured the car for hours, and later, the FBI had done the same thing, including removing the rear seat. I tried to explain: There was no way that these photos could resemble what the car had looked like at Parkland Hospital. However, it felt as though I were talking to a brick wall. Later I came to realize that the actual timing of the photos was irrelevant; the timing had to be juggled to give Erickson and Dealey Plaza consultant Gary Mack what they wanted.

    Replica Limo in Dallas and a Test

    About two weeks later the replica limo had arrived in Dallas, and was available for shooting for a week. Although I was on the outside from this point on, it was exciting to think that there would be a chance to do an accurate re-enactment of the fatal headshot (and disprove the Warren Commission in the process). Also, they would be able to copy the measurements of the rear section of the replica limo for their firing test simulator, which would just be a crude copy in plywood. E-mails went back and forth between Erickson and me. I suggested that they use Zapruder film frame 312 ( Z-312) head position as the focus point for their reenactment. I hoped that if they followed through on this, they would discover that both the Commission and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) positions were wrong. Obviously, I expected to hear some follow-up questions about it.

    Surely there would be some discussion as to the difference between the Warren Commission, HSCA and Z-312 angles for JFK’s head? Yet, this did not happen. They did have other experts on hand. What were they being told? Did they just choose a position that they felt their test would fare better with? If Abraham Zapruder could see the back of JFK’s head in Z-312, how could it be totally accessible from the sniper’s nest, which was many feet up the street? Wouldn’t Kennedy’s head have to be tilted on both a horizontal and vertical plane? And when one looks at other films, this appears to be the case.

    “Where would a shot from the grassy knoll have come from?” Erickson asked. Not being there, I could not be specific, so I suggested: “Use a representative spot.” At one point, Erickson seemed concerned that there was no clear shot with the correct trajectory from the grassy knoll unless someone was standing on something, such as a car. That was puzzling to me. But again, at a distance, there was nothing much to say. Of course, by this time, the Sixth Floor Museum’s Gary Mack was literally at the center of everything.

    Firing Tests in LA

    Next came the actual tests. The replica skulls were designed by the Australian company Adelaide T ∓ E and were expensive. They were supposed to react exactly as a human head would. Nobody bothered to mention to me that they were mounted on a rigid neck. While I had been asked for feedback, I tried to walk a tightrope between answering their questions and not doing their homework for them. In addition, I wanted to remain outside and objective and not unintentionally put anything into the mix that might invalidate the test. Such was my naivetÈ. Had I known they were going to use nothing like a real neck or torso, I would have asked them how they thought their test could even attempt to duplicate the fatal headshot? Because they would be unable to duplicate the ‘back-and-to-the-left’ head movement. No use. As it turned out, Gary Mack later in the show tries to sidestep the problem while trying to claim the test was still valid. I disagree. Apples and oranges. Then word came back that something extraordinary had happened with one of the grassy knoll tests. But what? Quickly, the show’s script was rewritten to focus on the tests. It was probably at about this time that the press release was solidified. But there is little doubt that the basics were in place before this show even went into production.

    I had been posting about the program on Spartacus Education Forum. One post in early September, initiated by another forum member, touched on the test. Within a few days, I received this email from Erickson:

    I’ve been alerted to some commentaries on the web about the program. I enjoyed your article about [ … ] and the State fair… But I would like to have you refrain from any further discussions about the program and its contents until its aired. Thanks.

    Gary Mack regularly lurks at the Education Forum, though he does not condescend to post. I had little doubt who ‘alerted’ Erickson. A gauntlet had been thrown; a line drawn in the sand. While nothing had been said about the fact that I was being monitored, nor had I signed any confidentiality statement, it became evident that the stakes for this show were pretty high. It was at about this point that it seemed everything began to solidify into the show that became JFK: Inside the Target Car. I finally got the picture. I was on the outside; Gary Mack was on the inside. I had little doubt that with the verbal chastising would also come the excising of snippets of my interview from the final show. I began to wonder what else would happen.

    The Grandiose Claims of the Discovery Channel Communications Press Release

    “JFK: INSIDE THE TARGET CAR is the latest example of using break-through technology to authenticate scientific theories,” said John Ford, president and general manager, Discovery Channel. “This special encompasses an intensive forensic investigation that proves the origin of the fatal bullet. It’s momentous for the network to help support the science behind this definitive evidence.”[…]

    The results of these precision ballistics tests provide some clear answers to the events that unfolded in Dealey Plaza. Comparing the splatter patterns from these test angles, with the historical evidence gleaned from eyewitness testimony and Secret Service reports, as well as an exact digitized overlay of the Zapruder film, the forensic team draws the definitive conclusion that the fatal shot could have only come from the sixth floor window of the Book Depository and not anywhere else, just as the Warren Commission determined in 1964.”

    Reading this press release provided one of the bigger gut-punches I had felt since reading the Warren Report for the first time. Suddenly, everything came into focus. The press release had probably been written even prior to the tests. It defined this show, along with the other Discovery Channel offerings, as yet another means to use the fallacy of appealing to authority in order to redo the Warren Report. I was outraged. Nothing that I had experienced during the development of the show had prepared me for a press release containing claims of this magnitude. For one thing, from all I had heard, they had done absolutely nothing worthy of saying they had done more than an ‘ad hoc’ test. By their own admission they had no idea where a shot from the grassy knoll would have originated, nor what kind of gun or ammo would have been used. It seemed they had failed to do their homework, and had not even jumped through the modest hoops that I had offered to them. What was going on? What had I gotten myself into? I was about to find out.

    First Airing of ITTC

    It was with a mixed sense of curiosity and foreboding that I sat down to watch the show. Much of the early part of the show was neatly packaged, but somewhat ho-hum; including the interview with Nellie Connally, much of which had already been shown on the networks.

    The scenes of the replica however, interspersed between shots of the actual limo, culminating in the re-enactment session in Dallas, were breathtaking. If nothing else had been accomplished, this remarkable car, its flaws not visible because they were in the interior, created for us a fresh sensation of being there with the Kennedys on that fatal ride.

    The development of the dummy heads at Adelaide T ∓ E was fascinating. It was discomfiting, however, that there were no features on the faces. That made it very difficult to verify the alignment of the head. Was that intentional? And, of course, the heads were built on rigid necks. While Gary Mack tried to explain away the significance of that fact, I was horrified. Without a moving neck there would be no way to verify the ‘back-and-to-the left’ movement of the Z313 fatal headshot. There was no way any test with a rigid neck would provide anything but suggestive conclusions. Hadn’t Discovery Channel realized that when they had made the high-falautin’ claims in their press release? I guess not. They were on a roll.

    Test One at the Grassy Knoll (GK)

    Test One of the grassy knoll shot blew the entire head off of the rigid neck. This was the test, I think, that created such excitement in the emails I had received from Erickson. It didn’t seem to bother them that the result was achieved with a rigid neck. Nor did it seem to bother them that the Winchester and ammo they were using might not have been that used on 11.22.63.

    However, at this point, they certainly could have regrouped and analyzed their results objectively. Had they stopped jumping up and down long enough to do so, it might have occurred to them to at least change the ammunition used in the second grassy knoll shot to a frangible bullet; something postulated by numerous researchers throughout the years–me included.

    Test Two at the GK

    This test, however, did provide interesting input. They could have retained the blood spatter and spray frames and later compared them with the shot from the sixth floor “sniper’s perch” to see if they could say anything exclusively about one spot or the other. They did not.

    They did achieve an analogous amount of damage to the head, though the shot had gone through to the left side of the head. No surprise, however, as the ammo was not a frangible bullet. Rather than addressing the limitations of their test, Gary Mack then backs away by saying that if the fatal shot had come from that position on the grassy knoll fence, Jackie would have been killed. This was an error by Mack which he had to retract in his later online discussion.

    So there were a number of missed opportunities in the grassy knoll tests of this show. They could have been upfront and acknowledged them, and at least qualified their claims about the results they thought they had achieved. But, oh no, they were too busy jumping in the streets! They had just destroyed the keystone of the conspiracy theorists, or so they thought. At long last, the precious Warren Report was being vindicated. Such joy, in my opinion, seems to have blinded their common sense.

    Test Three at the Sniper’s Nest (SN) of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)

    Same situation—rigid neck, no passengers in the car, head at an angle where they can see the white target on the right side—definitely not Z-312. They take the shot, then rejoice in a manner that has become predictable, at an outcome that should have caused them to run for cover. The shot blew off the top of the dummy head. Skull pieces went everywhere. Nobody tracked the huge pieces that went forward—only the one that went backward. Why? The shot from the SN of the TSBD did produce a lot of spray—but then, so did the others. Because they only chose to focus on the spray of that shot, there is no definition given as to how, if at all, it differed from that of the other test shots. Without passengers in the vehicle, to be later removed, there is no possibility that whatever debris that was in the plywood model bore any resemblance to what was actually in the limo when it arrived at Parkland Hospital. Nevertheless, they merrily moved forward per their script to later make such a declaration. And, of course, there was no ‘back-and-to-the-left’ motion; without which, of course, they had only an ad hoc test. Of course, they did not even attempt to do that, as they had remained in blissful ignorance that the WR fatal headshot scenario was quite different than what they attempted to do.

    So, what, if anything, did this test actually prove? It demonstrated that the Mannlicher Carcano ammo, from the cartridges conveniently found on the floor of the SN, probably did not cause the Z-313 head wound. The x-rays and photographs show a nearly-intact skull, not one with huge chunks of skull missing. Now, in typical Warren Report fashion, the show attempts to tie up all its loose ends with more fascinating and meaningless ‘tests’ and images, clumsily trying to dodge the fact that if they accomplished anything, it was to disprove the Commission, not to re-prove it. And of course, that was what I believed was the case almost right from the start. Fortunately, their hubris caused them to overlook all the clues they left in the show as to what everything really represents. But then, perhaps that is what happens when you try to get a mouthpiece for the Ongoing Cover-up to do the job of a limo researcher?

    The “Corrected” Show

    After numerous complaints to Discovery Channel, by me and many others, reporting the numerous inaccuracies of the show, in December another version was aired. It corrected the error that the color Secret Service photos were taken ‘the next day’ (as opposed to well over 24-hours after the assassination and after numerous exams) and did revise the reenactment footage to show what they believed a closer reenactment of Z-313.

    Warren Report Redux and the State of the Ongoing Cover-up

    So here we have yet another TV show using some of the same tactics the Commission did to try to claim they had ‘reproven’ the Warren Report. Although numerous flaws and loose ends were left visible, and the narrative of the show did not correspond with the so-called ‘evidence’ that they had found, not to mention the fact that they didn’t bother to follow up on information obtained in their early test in terms of revising the later ones, they are comfortable touting the claim that they have dropped a bomb on the critical community by ‘proving’ the fatal headshot could not have come from the grassy knoll. And, in a perfectly illogical turn, then claiming that it could ‘only’ have come from the “sniper’s nest”. And in true Warren Report apologist form, anyone who mounts a criticism to the glaring inadequacies of the show is ridiculed, and the articles are termed ‘ranting’. So too were the earliest dissenters from the Warren Commission attacked, even to the extent that they were labeled ‘Communists’ for refusing to follow the party line.

    So here we have another excellent example, unfortunately, of just how far the OC will go to attempt to push the myth of the Warren Report. As we head toward the next big anniversary of the assassination—the 50th—we can be sure that the players are in place and the agendas at work to attempt to continue to attack and ridicule the critical community and leave no ‘valid answers’ to the assassination except the Warren Report. Various Kennedy assassination online forums have already been infiltrated with false Conspiracy Theorists who will, one by one, as did Gary Mack in this show, ‘come to see the light’ of the ‘truth’ of the Warren Commission. The Commission advocates are already present in the forums as well, to bring ‘common sense’ into the convoluted circus that the research community has become.

    The OC has money and it has power. Even more so, it has persistence and tenacity. It will, I believe, continue until all the documents at the National Archives have been gutted and then released. Then they will be able to proclaim that there is ‘nothing more to learn’. There is also a highly restrictive process in place at the Archives, where you practically have to be vetted by the JFK Research staff in order to see certain groups of papers which are supposed to be ‘available’. And, of course, even a reasonable request to view the windshield and finally give it a proper forensic examination is subject to denial. The stakes are extremely high; for our individual freedoms were permanently compromised not only when JFK was killed but when Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered before our eyes after being denied legal representation and then denied a presumption of innocence after his death.

    If anything good can be accomplished by this show and its accompanying press release, let it be that it encourages us to engage once more in a battle to learn the whole truth of what happened, banding together and mentoring each other. Using an historical research process, weighing and evaluating information, rather than making appeals to authority by claiming ‘conclusively’, ‘exclusively’ or using any absolute conclusion. Nothing is absolute about the assassination except that President Kennedy, J. D. Tippit and Lee Oswald are dead, and Connally was injured. We know who killed Oswald. But we can and should move forward to a complete release of all of the remaining documents. We may then try to have the conclusions of the Commission declared null and void because they were based on denying a citizen the presumption of innocence. We have not been defeated in the past, and we do not need to be defeated in the future. Let the real research, differentiated from the type done for this program, continue.

    All Contents Copyright © In Broad Daylight Research July 2009

  • JFK: Inside the Target Car (Discovery Channel)


    See Additional Reviews of Inside the Target Car


    Subject: Another attempted reenactment of the JFK murder

    Protagonists: Gary Mack, Adelaide T & E Systems, two JFK witnesses, two forensic experts, and a marksman (Michael Yardley)

    Evidence analyzed: blood spatter patterns

    Intrinsic assumptions:

    1. a single shot hit JFK in the head
    2. this shot struck at Zapruder frame 313
    3. the limousine traveled at 7-8.5 mph at this instant
    4. this shot entered at the posterior head site selected by the HSCA (not the Warren Commission site)
    5. the Zapruder film has not been altered
    6. the only examined shooting sites were:
    7. a. the sixth floor window

      b. the grassy knoll

    Outside the domain of this experiment:

    1. a head shot from anywhere else
    2. any shots to JFK’s body or to John Connally
    3. any shots that missed
    4. a second head shot
    5. other evidence in the case

    Implicit and Explicit Conclusions (of the Discovery Channel):

    1. JFK was hit only once in the head (from the rear)
    2. this shot came from the sixth floor window
    3. Oswald fired this shot
    4. the Warren Commission got it right

    A Brief Summary of What They Did

    The narrator begins by implying that the program will prove that the Warren Commission (WC) was correct, i.e., that a lone gunman did it, with the clear insinuation that Oswald was the man. (Of course, that’s logically impossible: Oswald was not firing at the test site. No shooting at a range could ever determine who fired at JFK.)

    In my view, the most that this experiment can claim is a truly simple conclusion: the blood spatter pattern matched a posterior head shot. Also in my view, hardly any serious critic of the WC would disagree with this conclusion, especially not anyone who has examined JFK’s skull X-rays. (I have long agreed that no grassy knoll shot hit JFK.) Once this simple statement is accepted, the program can only follow a downhill trajectory, which it promptly proceeds to do.

    Mack and Michael Yardley, the designated marksman, first inspected three candidate sites in Dealey Plaza for frontal gunmen. The grassy knoll on the south side was ruled out because only two to three inches of JFK’s head were visible above the windshield. (They had positioned a similar vehicle with riders at the supposed kill site on Elm St.) The south side of the overpass was next eliminated because the shot would have pierced the windshield. (But no one mentioned the multiple eyewitnesses who reported that the windshield had been completely pierced or the Ford Motor Company employee who said he received the windshield at the Ford plant with just such a hole.)

    The north side of the overpass (the same side as the traditional grassy knoll) was greeted with genuine interest by the marksman: “Not a difficult shot. I would keep an open mind on this position.” Mack’s sole objection to this site was that eyewitnesses would have seen such a shooter. (See my comments below on that.) Not surprisingly, that is the last we hear of this site.

    With guidance from that man for all seasons (Gary Mack), Adelaide T ∓ E Systems constructed a JFK crash test dummy, including head and torso, with a connecting neck. By their report, this yielded an accurate anatomic replica of the biological tissues of the head.

    Under Mack’s guidance, a stationary limousine mock-up was positioned on a shooting range in Sylmar, California, to match the conditions of Elm St. Even a huge fan was employed to simulate a 25 mph breeze. This was intended to take into account a head wind of 15-20 mph, superimposed on a limousine speed of 7-8.5 mph. The dummy was inserted to mimic JFK’s position and orientation.

    For the traditional grassy knoll shot (while in Dealey Plaza), Yardley had noted that it was a possible shot, i.e., there was just enough time to track the limousine. At the Sylmar range, Yardley fired two shots, the first with a soft point round (a Winchester). This bullet exploded the entire skull. On the other hand, a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (full metal jacket) created a large exit hole on the left side of the skull, leaving the rest of the skull largely intact. The program notes that Jackie would have been struck by such a bullet. They conclude, therefore, that no grassy knoll shot was fired. (That it might merely have missed was not entertained at this point, though Mack finally mentions that option near the end of the program.)

    For the posterior head shot, Mack marked the target site on the skull. Oddly enough, despite all of the incessant homage paid to the WC throughout the show, Mack did not choose the WC site. Instead he chose the site selected by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which is much higher. This higher site was quite adamantly denounced by the pathologists. (Of course, no one on the program commented on either of these paradoxes.) The simulated posterior shot blows off the top right of the skull and widely scatters debris. Some even falls on the front of the windshield and a large chunk falls on the trunk. Simulated brain seems to scatter widely around the limousine interior, though I actually saw little on the inside of the right rear door or on the back of the right front seat—the two sites that the show emphasizes as prominent blood scatter sites in the real limousine. (Of course, no one notices that the head snap is absent at the shooting range—on what was supposedly the best model used to date.)

    Two JFK witnesses (who had observed the actual limousine) viewed this test evidence (in photographs) and agreed that the spatter pattern matched what they had seen on November 22, 1963. (It would have been truly admirable if they had first been shown a wrong blood spatter pattern, just to see how flexible they were. Curiously, the experiment shows debris going in nearly all directions; it is therefore not at all clear just how a wrong pattern would look.) Photos of the limousine in the garage in Washington, DC, just after midnight, are then shown. Blood stains are chiefly seen on the seat; the narrator admits that blood spatter evidence is hard to see in these images. (Of course, that means that the two eye witnesses now become the sine qua non in the key argument of the entire program. If their recollections are mistaken, the total show collapses.)

    Two forensic experts are then invited to view the simulated blood spatter evidence in the mock-up. During the time interval that they agree that the spatter pattern indicates a shot from the rear, the graphics extend a trajectory to an image of the sixth floor window—even though the experts say nothing about this. The experts then identify a hole in the dashboard, in front of the driver’s seat. (That bullet would have passed through the body of the driver, but no one comments on this. Likewise, no one asks about the appearance of the bullet after the shooting.) The forensic experts then suggest that the bullet’s path could, in principle, be traced backward in a straight line through this dashboard hole and the entry in JFK’s head. (I would note that the trajectory would have been different for the actual WC entry site, i.e., the one that Mack did not choose. Of course, that was all left unsaid.) And no one questions whether the bullet might have been diverted from a straight line by its impact with the skull. Mack then asks if they could reach this same conclusion without the hole in the dashboard. The experts merely reply that the forward scattering of debris is consistent with a shot from the rear. Neither of them ever mentions the sixth floor window, or Oswald for that matter, despite the overlying graphics.

    The narrator concludes that the WC was right all along—it was Oswald from the sixth floor window. In fact this implication recurs with clocklike regularity throughout the program—amazingly, even before the experiment is shown. Gary Mack’s final comment, though, was a surprising hedge: “äthe shot that killed President Kennedyädid come from behind and apparently [emphasis added] from the sixth floor window…” Mack also adds a totally gratuitous comment that does not follow from this specific experiment: “I haven’t seen anything that counters the official story—that Kennedy was shot from behind from above.”


    A Brief Summary of What They Did Not Do

    Their chief oversight was not to think. Such incompetence must be laid at the feet of the producer/director, Robert Erickson, and perhaps Gary Mack, since he appears to have served as expert consultant. After all, Mack seems to direct the project while on film and he feels free to offer unwarranted comments, which were not excised.

    Though the casual viewer might be tempted to think otherwise after viewing this program, none of these statements were proven in this program:

    1. A shot came from the sixth floor window.
    2. Oswald fired this shot.
    3. There was only one head shot.
    4. There was no shot from the grassy knoll (i.e., a missed shot).
    5. No other shots missed.
    6. The windshield remained intact (i.e., no piercing shot).
    7. The Zapruder film is reliable.
    8. The limousine did not halt at the fatal moment.
    9. A shot from the north overpass (the storm drain site) was excluded.
    10. Only one shot hit JFK in the body (below the head).

    As we have noted above, despite the apparent care to achieve an accurate simulation, the targeted site on the posterior head (chosen by Mack) was not the WC’s site. If the WC site is ignored, how then can anything be concluded about the WC? The narrators served their own purposes well to avoid that entire quagmire.

    The radical disagreement (between the WC and the HSCA) about the entry site of the posterior head shot—as well as the pathologists’ vehement disagreement with the HSCA (whose entry site Mack chose)—is totally ignored in the program. Furthermore, no one cites any of the numerous Parkland physicians who actually viewed JFK’s head; none of these specialists reported the entry site that Mack chose. (Their often-handwritten reports are still easily accessible in the Warren Report). In fact, and this is truly beyond belief, no one who saw JFK’s actual head (not merely photos of it) ever reported seeing the site that Mack chose. Even the pathologists agreed with that conclusion. Finally, there is Lattimer’s shooting experiment with an authentic human skull, which yielded quite a different result from this program—but he targeted the WC site (see Gary Aguilar’s discussion and figure in Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 185).

    The program cites Hargis, a motorcycle man, as struck by debris. What is not noted, however, is that he was struck so hard that he thought it was a bullet. Moreover, the follow-up car (the Secret Service car) also collected a great deal of debris; that is also ignored. Both of these facts are, of course, arguments for a second head shot—but from the front.

    The matter of the second head shot is really the chief issue in this entire discussion. That issue has been extensively discussed elsewhere (see my prior essays in Fetzer’s books) but, of course, was never addressed in this program. The reader should sift through the astonishing compendium of evidence that supports such a second shot, even including eyewitnesses, maps, tables, and documents in the WC itself. Newsweek (22 November 1993, pp. 74-75) even published a photograph of Dealey Plaza (from WC data) that showed quite a different site on Elm St for the fatal head shot. In my view, that location is likely where the second head shot hit JFK—much closer to the storm drain.

    The best location for the origin of this second head shot is the storm drain on the north side of the overpass. It was possible for a shooter to stand well inside this drain, even to park a vehicle over the drain, and for the gunman to fire between the slats in the wooden fence. Because of the way the fence was (and still is) angled at this point, it would have been difficult for anyone actually on the grassy knoll, or on the overpass, to see any activity in the storm drain, which is quite contrary to Mack’s statement. In fact, that was my biggest surprise when I first visited this site: I felt quite alone, totally invisible to persons on the knoll or on the overpass. It was even possible then to crawl for a long distance through the drain and emerge far away in a river bed. Quite extraordinarily, photographs taken immediately after the assassination show a large crowd at precisely this site, including Robert MacNeil. My own observations of the skull X-rays had suggested to me a shot from about this direction—and that was before I discovered this photograph with MacNeil.

    The final irony of this Discovery program is the reliance placed on eyewitnesses—there are just two, and it is, after all, 45 years later. Of course, the program had no choice: because the Secret Service bucket brigade had done its job so well at Parkland Hospital, the program could present no objective evidence of blood spatter from the actual crime scene. On the other hand, WC critics (even including some who are not conspiracy theorists) often rely on the statements of eyewitnesses made immediately after the event—especially when virtually all agree. The limousine stop at about frame 313 is the best example of this. However, lone gunman theorists repeatedly remind us that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted and that their comments should simply be ignored. Now that the shoe has shifted, will anyone notice?

  • The JFK 10-Point Program

    The JFK 10-Point Program


    This essay was inspired by a conversation with Robert Mezzone, who provided invaluable feedback in its construction.

    – J.E.G.

    During the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) conference in Dallas in 2007, an after-hours conversation concerning Lee Harvey Oswald became a heated discussion. I decided to play peacemaker. “Look,” I said, “At least there’s one thing we can all agree on. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t fire any of the shots at the President.”

    The fellow next to me pipes up, “Actually, I disagree with that, I think he was one of the shooters. Now, you see, this is what happened … “

    Of course. There’s always one.

    I had another conversation recently that led me to start thinking the following: What are the basic things that 99% of Kennedy researchers can agree upon? Suppose we, as Kennedy researchers, were going to present a 10-point program the way the Black Panthers did. What sort of things would be on that?

    This is not a trivial point. It goes toward our survival in the system. It behooves us to be more organized in our presentations to the public, and to learn to master the ability to deliver succinct points which are universally recognized to be true. We have to deal with the world as it is in terms of realpolitik, and that means being able to effectively communicate our principles to the outside world.

    The downside to not coming up with some sort of organizational structure is that opposing forces are strengthened and even galvanized. It is perhaps constructive to look at another debate to see the possible outcomes.

    Zetetics

    By way of demonstrating that virtually any position can draw followers, let’s for a moment take a look at the Flat-Earth Society. They claim to practice zetetics, which in normal terms simply means “looking at things in a different way.” The concept of the flat Earth is frequently invoked in discussions about ideological dementia, but it may serve us well to remember that there really is a Flat-Earth Society, that there are people who subscribe to its tenets, and that they generate long, complex chains of reasoning that purport to debunk the theory of a Round Earth. Indeed, Alfred Russell Wallace, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, seriously studied and promoted the idea of a flat Earth. And even to this day, you can find people who seriously put forth the idea that the Earth is a flat disc, unmoving, in the center of the universe, while the other objects in the sky revolve around it in an ether rather than the vacuum of space.

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

    Take a look at the forums, if you dare. There are some truly astonishing exchanges lurking there, as posters argue back and forth in continuous strings of escalating lunacy.

    Now superficially there are concepts in the JFK community that may look, from the outside, like this sort of craziness. For example, if one puts forth the theory that the President’s brain was substituted by conspirators, without going into the evidence, it probably sounds crazy to the average person. The difference between the ‘second brain’ thesis and the Flat Earth Society is that in the former example, researchers are driven toward the conclusion by the facts. Flat-Earthers, on the other hand, have to concoct elaborate theories because their fundamental premise is totally at odds with the known facts. No honest researcher into the JFK assassination begins from a standpoint of creating some bizarre theory; it isn’t the fault of researchers that so many facts turn out to have bizarre implications.

    The JFK Assassination

    Because any science allows for honest disagreement, dissension can be found in the ranks of the JFK community. And whereas Round-Earth scientists are in privileged position – they have the facts, the media, world opinion, and establishment behind them, we do not. We have the facts and arguably world opinion, but we are beset on all sides by a self-congratulating media and professional disinformationalists. And the establishment is most definitely not with us.

    There is thus a central paradox with respect to the JFK situation. The establishment thoroughly promotes the Flat-Earth idea and is forced to come up with elaborate theories (such as the Magic Bullet thesis) to overrule the known facts. Meanwhile, for those who have studied the matter, the conspiracy at the heart of the JFK assassination is as obvious and well-supported as the Round Earth.

    Bitter disagreements crop up. This was true almost from the very beginning, as John Kelin wonderfully documents in Praise from a Future Generation, which shows how the Garrison investigation drove a wedge between the earliest researchers that ended friendships and associations. From a scientific perspective, this comes as no surprise and is consistent with JFK research being a relatively “young” science. However, this chaotic state of affairs has some detrimental effects. From the standpoint of an outsider’s perspective, it can look as though nothing is agreed upon and that the JFK case is simply a haven for kooks hatching their private fantasies on one another.

    In other words, it’s a problem of public relations.

    So much valuable and astonishing research has been done, and it has been done by non-professionals as often as not over the years. What sometimes gets lost, I think, is the plot. You and I might disagree about the relative involvement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Kennedy assassination, or whether James Jesus Angleton was the prime mover or Lyndon Johnson, but in any such analysis there will be large areas of agreement between us. What I have tried to do is take those large areas of agreement and put them down as ten principles. These principles should underlie any discussion of the case. These represent areas of strength for the JFK community and should be promoted to the general public.

    I would suggest that it should be these elements which should be used in public pronouncements and to inform our organizational capacity. The “hard science” of the assassination can then be done within our own structures such as COPA or CTKA or the like. For the general public, however, these are easy-to-understand and simple areas in the investigation where the facts are overwhelmingly with us.

    So I present my 10-point program:

     

    1. It is both legitimate and important to question the government’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination.

    I think this is the most important statement in many ways. The media continually represents that our questions are at best unimportant and at worst ridiculous. As public citizens, we have the right to ask questions of our government and doing so makes us defenders of the Constitution, not “conspiracy buffs.” For the Posners and Bugliosis of the world who would say otherwise, we need only present the following statements for their perusal:

    “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” – Lyndon Johnson 1

    (Johnson also told Senator Richard Russell that he did not believe in the single-bullet theory either.)

    “It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.” – Richard Nixon, speaking of the Warren Commission 2

    “Hoover lied his eyes out to the [Warren] Commission – on Oswald, on Ruby, on their friends, the bullets, the gun, you name it.” – Congressman Hale Boggs, one of the seven Warren Commission members 3

    “If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our whole political system could be disrupted.” – J. Edgar Hoover, in response to the question “Do you think Oswald did it?” 4

    “Goddamn it, Georgi … doesn’t Premier Krushchev realize the President’s position? Every step he takes to meet Premier Krushchev halfway costs my brother a lot of effort … In a gust of blind hate, his enemies may go to any length, including killing him.” – Bobby Kennedy to Soviet envoy Georgi Bolshakov 5

    (Bobby later enlisted Walter Sheridan to conduct a private investigation into the assassination, and planned to reopen the case if elected President.)

    “[I] never believed that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy without at least some encouragement from others … I think someone else worked with him in the planning.” – Senator Richard Russell, one of the seven Warren Commission members 6

    “One of my greatest shames as a journalist is that I still don’t know who killed Jack Kennedy.” – Hunter S. Thompson 7

    “We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination.” – Dan Rather 8

    Now the point is not that all these people make it a fact that Kennedy was assassinated in a conspiracy. But how can it be impertinent to ask questions, if all these people – who presumably have far more access than we will ever have – don’t believe fundamental conclusions of the Warren Report? The matter is not settled, and we must keep asking.

     

    2. The medical and photographic record of the assassination does not support the government’s position.

    What is most readily understandable about the medical evidence is that eighteen witnesses at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, most of them doctors, all describe a blowout head wound at the back of the head. The autopsy photos entered into evidence do not show this wound.

    The medical evidence is the Pandora’s Box of conspiracy research, as Cyril Wecht, Gary Aguilar, and David Mantik, among others, have shown: The X-rays don’t match the eyewitness statements. The government somehow lost Kennedy’s brain. Dr. Humes testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he burned not just his autopsy notes, but the first draft of his autopsy report. In 1968, a medical panel appointed by Ramsey Clark noted a 6.5mm fragment at the upper part of the rear skull in the x-rays that no one saw the night of the autopsy. Even though x-rays were taken that night. However, regardless of what one thinks of the various theories that have come about to explain the problems proposed by the medical evidence, we can all agree on the testimony of the Parkland doctors and what the “official” autopsy photos show and their manifest disagreement.

     

    3. The Zapruder film fails to support the government’s designation of a lone shooter.

    A tremendous controversy rests at the heart of the analysis of the Zapruder film. On one side are those who believe that the Z-film is the final record of the assassination; while on the other, there are those who believe that it has been altered beyond recognition. We might characterize this as the Robert Groden school v. the Jim Fetzer (or Jack White) school on this issue.

    More important than this discrepancy, however, is that however one looks at the film, neither interpretation supports Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin.

    The Z-film, as everyone knows, shows the President moving violently backward upon the last shot striking his head. This movement supports the idea that the fatal headshot came from the front – specifically, the area around the grassy knoll. Now Groden himself has some amazing further revelations in his study of the Z-film, which he is going to publish soon, but I will say nothing of that here.

    Fetzer and Jack White believe they can prove that the film, rather than showing the actual assassination, has been altered into a kind of cartoon. I don’t wish to go into the reasons for that here, as they can do a much better job of explicating themselves than I can. However, if the Z-film has been altered, then obviously Oswald – at minimum – had at least one accomplice, presumably a capable film technician.

    Whether the Z-film has been altered or not, it contradicts the Warren Report‘s conclusions. (Like the other topics, there are further avenues; for example, Life Magazine published Z-film stills out of order in an apparent effort to fool the public, and the film itself was largely suppressed until Groden got his new rotoscoped version on Geraldo Rivera’s television program. However, the simple premise stands.)

     

    4. The initial tests performed by the Dallas Police and the FBI exculpate Lee Harvey Oswald.

    This one is also very simple. The FBI performed a nitrate test on Oswald to determine whether he fired a weapon. It was positive for his hands, and negative for his face, meaning that he had not fired a rifle that day but may have fired a pistol. However, since he worked with newsprint at his job, and nitrates can be contracted from newsprint, this is not definitive. In addition, no fingerprints were found on the alleged murder weapon, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The Dallas Police found a palm print on it after Oswald was already dead, and after one of the finest fingerprint analysts in America, the FBI’s Sebastian LaTona, dusted the entire rifle and found nothing of value.

     

    5. The ‘magic’ bullet is precisely that.

    399

    This is the bullet which must have created seven separate wounds in both Kennedy and John Connally in order for Arlen Specter’s ‘magic bullet’ theory to be correct. If this bullet did not create all those wounds, then there are more than three shots and more than one shooter.

    When this bullet was found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital, it had no blood on it. In fact, the bullet that struck Connally left some lead permanently in his wrist, while this bullet appears to be undamaged. Dr. Cyril Wecht, former President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and consultant to the House Select Committee on the Assassinations (HSCA), declared that this state of affairs is simply impossible, and he should know.

     

    6. The photograph of the man in Mexico whom the government says is Lee Harvey Oswald cannot possibly be Lee Harvey Oswald.

    oswald other
    Left: Lee Harvey Oswald.
    Right: The guy the Warren Commission claims is Oswald in Mexico City.

    Seriously.

     

    7. Lee Harvey Oswald was an FBI informant known to J. Edgar Hoover, and therefore cannot be declared to be an “unknown loser.”

    One of the anti-conspiracy advocates’ favorite tricks is to paint Oswald as a loser. The poor slob was just a lonely guy who wanted to be famous, and he could have been shooting at anyone. This was Norman Mailer’s premise in writing Oswald’s Tale. It underlies the idea that Oswald shot at General Edwin Walker, who was a right-winger.

    For a poor lonely slob, however, Oswald sure got around. He went to Russia claiming to be a defector, married the niece of a Russian Colonel, and then came back. Despite being a Marine and former radar operator who threatened to give away secrets to the Soviets, he was never charged with anything, and the CIA has always unconvincingly denied debriefing him upon his return. He was paid both by the Russians, the American military, and given money by the State Department. Then he was allowed to bring his Soviet wife Marina back to the U.S. with him. All this took place during the height of the Cold War. Unusual, to say the least.

    During the Warren Commission hearings, reports were discussed that Oswald was an agent of both the FBI and CIA. For instance, Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr and District Attorney Henry Wade told the Warren Commission that Oswald was an FBI informant, made $200 a month, and provided his informant number of 179. 9

    Dallas DA Wade told Carr that his source told him Oswald had a CIA employment number. In addition to that, a June 3, 1960 FBI memo features J. Edgar Hoover complaining that someone was using Oswald’s identity and he was requesting information on Oswald from the State Department to clarify the situation. Hoover began: “There is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate…” This is three years before the assassination. FBI employee William Walter later confirmed that, in 1963, he saw an informant file with Oswald’s name on it. Hoover would later point out to Lyndon Johnson that the person in Mexico City neither looked nor sounded liked Oswald. 10

     

    8. Gerald Ford has admitted to moving Kennedy’s back wound, an act that cannot be objectively reconciled with an attitude of pursuing the truth.

    On July 2, 1997, the Associated Press ran a story in which Gerald Ford admitted that he raised the back wound several inches in the Warren Commission to better convict Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. Ford stated that he was only attempting to be “more precise” and that his change had “nothing to do with conspiracy theories.” Ford thus admits to falsifying the Warren Report. 11

     

    9. Whatever Jim Garrison’s motivations or the eventual failure of his trial, he was right about Clay Shaw, who did turn out to be a contract agent of the CIA, and did correctly identify the link between Lee Harvey Oswald and Guy Banister.

    Whatever one thinks of Jim Garrison, and he remains a polarizing figure to this day, there are two things on which he was indisputably right:

    The first is that Clay Shaw was definitely a contract agent with the CIA. Richard Helms testified in court (very reluctantly) that Shaw had this “domestic” relationship with the agency, as Mark Lane documents in regard to the civil trial of E. Howard Hunt v. Liberty Lobby. 12

    The second is that he discovered that 531 Lafayette Street and 544 Camp Street led to the same building, which meant that the supposedly Marxist Oswald was sharing an office with rabid right-wing reactionary Guy Banister. Banister’s connections (to the Bay of Pigs invasion, among other things) blow up any notion that Oswald was either a leftist or a lone nut. 13

     

    10. The Mob didn’t do it. (At least, not by themselves.)

    “I don’t doubt their involvement, Bill, but at a lower level. Could the Mob change the parade route, Bill? Or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI, the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob get the Warren Commission appointed to cover it up? Could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep…This was a military-style ambush from start to finish … a coup d’Ètat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings …” 14

    – Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison in the film JFK

    Lamar Waldron’s fantasies aside, these questions remain just as good now as they were in 1991.

    The Mob-did-it theories have been such a fertile area for the government (cf. Robert Blakey for just one example) that I think that we, as researchers, have to put some limits on the idea. Anyone who proposes that the Mob did it on their own or that the Cuban invasion somehow backfired on JFK, barring some new and stunning evidence, is simply not one of us. The Mob position is too damaging and the evidence too scant.

    That may sound dogmatic, but let’s go back to my Flat-Earth example for a moment, with a little twist. As researchers, we’ve compiled a large assortment of facts. And when we look at the total facts involved, in order to say the Mob is the prime mover in the assassination, we are forced to ignore the larger context of the Cuban invasion, Operation Northwoods, the Vietnam War, the reduction of the oil depletion allowance, and the sheer vastness of the operation required to kill the President and cover up the piles of evidence contradicting the official story. In other words, we have to do a series of logical backflips in order to leap over all the contrary evidence, rather than accepting what is staring at us right in the face. Mob-did-it is, now and forever barring some astounding, paradigm-changing evidence, in the Flat-Earth category. Did the Mob have some level of involvement? Sure. Probably, even. Were they running the show? Absolutely not.

    The investigative process is a scientific one at its best, and that means weeding out the ideas that don’t work as well as promoting the ones that do. As Karl Popper noted, knowledge proceeds by falsification. By falsifying certain notions and promoting those where the evidence is irrefutable, we present a more unified front to the world and help to streamline and organize our public relations. It may not be to everyone’s taste, but it has to be done, if we are to ultimately win over the generations to come.


    End Notes

    1. This quote comes from the telephone recordings of the Johnson White House and was publicized in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004 by, of all people, Max Holland! http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200406/holland

    2. This quote comes from the Nixon tapes and was first reported by the BBC. John McAdams, who operates the “Kennedy Assassination Home Page,” disputes Nixon’s meaning in this comment. The interesting thing about his discussion of the context is that I believe the additional commentary further implicates Nixon rather than absolves him, but that is a discussion for another day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1848157.stm

    3. This quote can be found in many places, but one interesting discussion – because it occurs in a mainstream magazine – is from the November 1998 issue of Texas Monthly. http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1998-11-01/feature23

    4. Once again, this quote can be found many places, but one book that contains many such quotes is Larry Hancock’s Someone Would Have Talked (JFK Lancer Productions & Publications: 2006).

    5. David Talbot, Brothers (Free Press: New York 2007), 32.

    6. Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust (University Press of Kansas: 2005), 297.

    7. Maureen Farrell, “JFK, 9/11 and Conspiracy Theories,” http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/03/11/far03002.html

    8. David Talbot, “The Mother of All Coverups,” http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/15/warren/

    9. Jim Garrison discussed this information in an October 1967 interview with Playboy Magazine. It was ironically first reported in Gerald Ford’s book Portrait of the Assassin.

    10. For a great discussion of the “Mexico City stuff,” see John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (Sky Horse Publishing: New York 2008), 352-391.

    11. “Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized,” Associated Press, 2 July 1997.

    12. Mark Lane, Plausible Denial (Thunder’s Mouth Press: New York 1991), 218-225.

    13. For an excellent discussion of Garrison’s New Orleans discoveries, see James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed (Sheridan Square Press: New York 1992), 130-146.

    14. The screenplay for JFK was written by Zachary Sklar and Oliver Stone, based on the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire by Jim Marrs.