David Atlee Phillips at LHO's press conference?

[Bob]

Frenchy wrote:Chris im sorry I have been informed by Gary Mack, that the man you thought was Phillips is in fact, John Rutledge, a Dallas Morning News reporter who was well known in town for many years.So it is not Phillips.Before the comment by Mack, I was very certain (90%) that the Oswald press conference photo showed Phillips in it. Now AFTER the comment by Mack clarifying it, I'm now 100% certain. Let's see...who to believe??? People that are REAL JFK assassination experts and people that come from an intelligence background or Mr. Disinformation himself? Credibility is something that Mack abandoned a LONG time ago.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Bob wrote:Frenchy wrote:Chris im sorry I have been informed by Gary Mack, that the man you thought was Phillips is in fact, John Rutledge, a Dallas Morning News reporter who was well known in town for many years.So it is not Phillips.Before the comment by Mack, I was very certain (90%) that the Oswald press conference photo showed Phillips in it. Now AFTER the comment by Mack clarifying it, I'm now 100% certain. Let's see...who to believe??? People that are REAL JFK assassination experts and people that come from an intelligence background or Mr. Disinformation himself? Credibility is something that Mack abandoned a LONG time ago.You know, Bob, there is definitely something to what you just said. For Mack to even entertain the idea that Phillips was there would be contributing to a conspiracy theory. We also know that Robert Groden was offered the 6th Floor Museum curator job before Mack was given the job and that the salary offered to Groden was $180,000 per year and that the only catch was that he would not be allowed to publicly endorse any conspiracy theories regarding the JFK assassination. We also know that for some reason Mack is not only NOT endorsing any conspiracy theories about JFK but he has also actively engaged in putting out disinformation by participating in those bogus documentaries.Mack saying that it was NOT Phillips has the same effect on me as it had on you too, Bob. Let's try and find some other pictures of Rutledge and compare them.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Frenchy wrote:Chris im sorry I have been informed by Gary Mack, that the man you thought was Phillips is in fact, John Rutledge, a Dallas Morning News reporter who was well known in town for many years.So it is not Phillips.Here's Mack telling Wim about his position on the JFK assassination.http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htmHere's Robert Groden interviewed and talking about how he was offerred the curator job at the 6th Floor museaum before Mack was given the job and how he was offerred $180,000 salary for the position but that he was not allowed to endorse any idea of a conspiracy regarding JFK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=982MDLodzloFor the record, French, I didn't know about any of this prior to watching those bogus documentaries that have recently been on either Discovery Channel or History Channel. All I knew at that time was that Gary Mack was supporting lone-gunman ideas and actually participating in documentaries that were trying to put that idea out there. The bottom line is, do not trust Gary Mack's word regarding the JFK assassination. It's sad to say it, but it's true. It certainly appears that he SOLD-OUT for the money. The disinformation people get what they want (someone in Mack's position putting out disinformation about it), and Mack got what he wanted, $180,000 per year. Don't trust Mack.

[ChristophMessner]

Pasquale, it's all good and right and necessary what you are saying and I agree, but as long as we don't have the proof, that it isn't Rutledge on this photo, any anti-Mack-propaganda makes us only being thrown into the conspiracy-image-corner, whereas "officials" like G.M. are still believed more. How getting more photos of the real Mr. Rutledge? Chris

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ChristophMessner wrote:Pasquale, it's all good and right and necessary what you are saying and I agree, but as long as we don't have the proof, that it isn't Rutledge on this photo, any anti-Mack-propaganda makes us only being thrown into the conspiracy-image-corner, whereas "officials" like G.M. are still believed more. How getting more photos of the real Mr. Rutledge? ChrisWell, we're in the process of getting the truth. I suggested we compare more pictures of Ruteledge and see for ourselves. As for Mack, I was only showing Frenchy that Mack really cannot be trusted as Mack obviously has an agenda of his own. As long as Mack can continue to make himself look like he's in our corner, he is doing a disservice to us and to the public. No worries, Christoph.

[Bob]

I haven't found a photo yet, but here is an excerpt from a story in Time magazine about Jack Ruby. Guess who one of the prosecuting witnesses was???One of the first prosecution witnesses, Police Reporter John Rutledge of the Dallas Morning News, testified that Ruby was "a loudmouthed extravert" who loved to strut wherever there was big action. Rutledge said that he saw Ruby at police headquarters at least three times on the night of Nov. 22, after Oswald had been arrested. Ruby was familiar with the place; he always liked to hang around with cops. Wielding pad and pencil, he had slipped past a police guard among surging newsmen. "He was explaining to members of the press from out of state who everybody was," said Rutledge. "Somebody would come out and say something to the press and a newsman would say, 'Who's that? Sheriff Decker?' and Ruby would say, 'No, that's Captain Will Fritz.' He'd spell out the names. He was making all the identifications, shouting them out." Once, testified Rutledge, an officer spotted Ruby in the crowd at headquarters and said, "Hey, Jack, what are you doing here?" Ruby had replied: "I'm helping out these reporters here."Rutledge looks to me to be just another pawn in the game of disinformation. Yes, Ruby and the cops were close...but is was vice versa as well as cops were always hanging around his club. I'll keep looking for a photo, but based on the photo that Chris found of Rutledge, and based on the photo (Phillips near the CIA headquarters) that I showed just below the press conference photo, Phillips is still the guy in the photo. Also, just so we know who the source is here, Mack once told me that he could not see ANY evidence of Poppy Bu$h being connected to the conspiracy. Even if you believe that to be true, one would have to admit at least that Poppy's CIA ties and his acquiantences tie him directly to the assassination. But not if you are part of the disinformation machine...which Mack CLEARLY is part of.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Bob wrote:Rutledge looks to me to be just another pawn in the game of disinformation. Yes, Ruby and the cops were close...but is was vice versa as well as cops were always hanging around his club. I'll keep looking for a photo, but based on the photo that Chris found of Rutledge, and based on the photo (Phillips near the CIA headquarters) that I showed just below the press conference photo, Phillips is still the guy in the photo. Also, just so we know who the source is here, Mack once told me that he could not see ANY evidence of Poppy Bu$h being connected to the conspiracy. Even if you believe that to be true, one would have to admit at least that Poppy's CIA ties and his acquiantences tie him directly to the assassination. But not if you are part of the disinformation machine...which Mack CLEARLY is part of.Regarding Mack, he's also the same man who said that there is no "hard" evidence indicating a conspiracy and that it's a THEORY that the Warren Commission is wrong.I still would like him to explain what his definition of "hard" evidence is? Apparently, the following are NOT "hard" pieces of evidence to Mack:- the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's head- scores of witnesses either seeing the back of JFK's head blown out or witnesses seeing or hearing a shot from the knoll or simply hearing MORE shots than three shots- the acoustic evidence- the impossibility of the magic bullet theory and the fact that it has NEVER been duplicated AT ALLSo, if these are not hard facts, what is? The answer is that Mack and others like him have NO definition of "hard" evidence. It's just a smoke screen. Robert Groden was offerred the curator position at the 6th Floor Museum with a $180,000 salary and under the condition that he would not subscribe to or give support to ANY conspiracy theory regarding the JFK assassination. Groden didn't take the curator position. It's safe to assume that Mack was offerred the same and TOOK the offer.What Mack doesn't realize is that the same people who are using him right now will likely DISCARD him like dirty underwear when they're finished with him. That's what I think. He thinks he's smart. He only let them get closer to him, and when he's done serving their purpose, they'll throw him away like trash. That's usually the case with people like him. If he or others think I'm off the mark, just look at what they did to people who actually worked with them...like Roselli, Giancana, Nicoletti, etc. Anyway, back to Ruteledge, let's compare pictures of him to the press conference picture. I bet Ruteledge is NOT the guy in the picture.

[Bob]

When TMWKK first came out, Gary Mack was a different person. Mack had some spine then...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Yf_H5v47YBut as Pasquale has said, part of the conditions for accepting the $180,000 job as curator of the museum of the 6th floor of the TSBD, was to not put forward ANY conspiracy theories. Robert Groden was offered the same position and refused. Mack took the offer and we now see and hear a completely different person than the one that was on TV in 1988 when TMWKK came out. That is why when Mack says something now, I know it comes from the bias of the disinformation machine that he became part of and profits from. So when Mack says that the man in the photo at LHO's press conference was Rutledge and not Phillips, I take that with a grain of salt. Again, just look at the recent "work" of Mack on the Discovery channel regarding the JFK assassination. Those productions are just flat out embarrassments in terms of reality. But I'm sure it pays well. That's ALL that matters for people like Mack.

[ChristophMessner]

That's another photo of John Ruthledge, probably from the 40s: Source: http://www.knifeworld.com/knscyeto.htmlJohn's son Daniel also commented on amazon on a book about sheriff Decker: http://www.amazon.ca/Decker-Biography-S ... 6007Daniel said: "John ... was ..." so that means John has died meanwhile.Nevertheless it would be great to get the address of Daniel and ask him, whether he sees his father on the press conference photo.

[ChristophMessner]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:Well, we're in the process of getting the truth. I suggested we compare more pictures of Rutledge and see for ourselves. As for Mack, I was only showing Frenchy that Mack really cannot be trusted as Mack obviously has an agenda of his own. As long as Mack can continue to make himself look like he's in our corner, he is doing a disservice to us and to the public. No worries, Christoph. Of course, no worries, Pasquale. I had bad cough from a lot of pollen here in the air, maybe I was a bit too harsh, please excuse. Yes, I don't think, that Mr. Mack could be trusted and that he is doing a disservice to the US people, either. Maybe he thinks, he is doing a service, cause he regards that as kind of appeasement to the people, I don't know. It's sad, though, this low level of national trauma dealing. Chris