JFK RFK MLK Assasination Forum - Archive

kenmurray wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Bob wrote:As a few of you know, in his reply to me, Robert Groden seems to think there is a remarkable likeness to Phillips, especially the areas of the eyebrows and the nose comparing the two photos. Robert also said not to take anything at face value from Gary Mack. We will continue our effort to find a photo of John Rutledge however.If a photo of Rutledge can't be produced, I'm going to be even more suspicious that it is indeed Phillips at that press conference. So, where is the elusive photo of Rutledge? It's starting to sound like the whole picture of Oswald at the Soviet Embassy nonsense that CIA said they had proof of. Then, of course, when they're put to task, they produce a photo that is not Oswald at all. LOLThis issue would be a lot easier to deal with if we could just take Gary Mack "The Sack" at his word. Ummm...NOT!!!! Pasquale, Gary Mack is also known as quirt1 on the IMDb forum. There's a joke in there somewhere, I just know it! Wait! I've got it.Did you say that Mack the Sack is known as SQUIRT1 or quirt1. That little squirt! LOLHe sure is great joke material, isn't he? He sure SQUIRT one out with that Inside the Target Car nonsense, didn't he?

And if Mack is again to be the spokesman for the next discovery channel documentary called "Oswald and Ruby" he will SQUIRT one out with that too. We must remember as curator of that museum, Mack deals with facts and information.

kenmurray wrote:And if Mack is again to be the spokesman for the next discovery channel documentary called "Oswald and Ruby" he will SQUIRT one out with that too. We must remember as curator of that museum, Mack deals with facts and information. Sure he does...in between squirt sessions... We sure do digress around here...but it's too funny not to! LOL

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:kenmurray wrote:And if Mack is again to be the spokesman for the next discovery channel documentary called "Oswald and Ruby" he will SQUIRT one out with that too. We must remember as curator of that museum, Mack deals with facts and information. Sure he does...in between squirt sessions... We sure do digress around here...but it's too funny not to! LOLIs there any "hard evidence" that we do that?

Just an update...No photo yet of John Rutledge...the man Gary Mack claims is in the LHO press conference photo.Here is an update from other well known researchers...Wim doesn't believe it's Phillips (but I'll keep working on him ). Jack White says it looks a lot like Phillips, but he doesn't believe Phillips would put himself in that type of compromising position. Wayne Madsen thinks it is Phillips in the photo. Madsen was in Naval intelligence and also in the NSA. Robert Groden also thinks it could be Phillips, but he wouldn't say that for the record. Here is one of Groden's quotes..."There is a remarkable likeness especially the area of the eyebrows and the nose. It is very hard to tell for sure, but the possibility is certainly there." Russ Baker also sees a strong resemblance.In addition, Jim DiEugenio talked about this photo (thanks to a question by Ken) on Black Op Radio last Thursday. I sent the photo and some other information to Jim. I have not heard back as of yet. I'll keep everyone posted.

Bob wrote:Just an update...No photo yet of John Rutledge...the man Gary Mack claims is in the LHO press conference photo.Here is an update from other well known researchers...Wim doesn't believe it's Phillips (but I'll keep working on him ). Jack White says it looks a lot like Phillips, but he doesn't believe Phillips would put himself in that type of compromising position. Wayne Madsen thinks it is Phillips in the photo. Madsen was in Naval intelligence and also in the NSA. Robert Groden also thinks it could be Phillips, but he wouldn't say that for the record. Here is one of Groden's quotes..."There is a remarkable likeness especially the area of the eyebrows and the nose. It is very hard to tell for sure, but the possibility is certainly there." Russ Baker also sees a strong resemblance.In addition, Jim DiEugenio talked about this photo (thanks to a question by Ken) on Black Op Radio last Thursday. I sent the photo and some other information to Jim. I have not heard back as of yet. I'll keep everyone posted.Bob, you will hear from Jim soon. I'm going to e-mail him some more stuff as well.

resemblence yes,but I dont think he'd be stupid enough to put himself there.

Jsnow915 wrote:resemblence yes,but I dont think he'd be stupid enough to put himself there.Under normal circumstances, I would agree John. But this was anything but normal. The "patsy" was supposed to be killed, not taken into custody. The midnight press conference was something out of the Twilight Zone. Jack Ruby and James Hosty knew Oswald as well, and yet they were both still there. Plus, only the intelligence community knew LHO was an operative. Also, Ed Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination. That tells me that the conspirators were willing to go all out.

Jsnow915 wrote:resemblence yes,but I dont think he'd be stupid enough to put himself there.Logic is limited to our incomplete understanding of things.Or as a friend of mine often says in such circumstances, "Neverthelesss...."

[quote="Bob"][quote="Jsnow915"]resemblence yes,but I dont think he'd be stupid enough to put himself there.[/quote]Under normal circumstances, I would agree John. But this was anything but normal. The "patsy" was supposed to be killed, not taken into custody. The midnight press conference was something out of the Twilight Zone. Jack Ruby and James Hosty knew Oswald as well, and yet they were both still there. Plus, only the intelligence community knew LHO was an operative. Also, Ed Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza right after the assassination. That tells me that the conspirators were willing to go all out.[/quote]first Bob, Lee was not a patsy, there is No proof. supposed to be killed? nothing but pure speculation. Ruby knew Lee? nonsense. there is NO proof. also, no proof Landsdale was in Dealey. that tells me that you base your whole theory on nothing but speculation.