Glenn Nall Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Pat, Right. (I do hope this thread can sustain the dignity it deserves...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I think it was also because Gary was tired of all the silly nonsense stories and theories out there and sought (with Dave Perry) to eliminate them. Which, if you ask me, is a very worthwhile task. There are far too many silly, factually baseless theories out there that need to be discarded if this case is ever going to move forward. The trouble is, as I know from experience, certain types of conspiracy theorists refuse to give up on the garbage regardless of how thoroughly it's been debunked. All they do is tell you that whatever evidence you have produced undermining their beliefs is "fake" or "altered". And then they call you a "lone nutter" or a "shill" for disagreeing. I've been there many times and, I'm sure, will be many times more. Edited July 16, 2015 by Martin Hay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think it was also because Gary was tired of all the silly nonsense stories and theories out there and sought (with Dave Perry) to eliminate them. Which, if you ask me, is a very worthwhile task. There are far too many silly, factually baseless theories out there that need to be discarded if this case is ever going to move forward. The trouble is, as I know from experience, certain types of conspiracy theorists refuse to give up on the garbage regardless of how thoroughly it's been debunked. All they do is tell you that whatever evidence you have produced undermining their beliefs is "fake" or "altered". And then they call you a "lone nutter" or a "shill" for disagreeing. I've been there many times and, I'm sure, will be many times more. The Fox 5 autopsy photo is a poor fake. I went easy on Gary Mack in my last exchange with him. Fella's gotta make a living somehow, I guess, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Rheberg Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) I'm stunned and very sad to hear about this. Gary and I corresponded many, many times over the years. We shared information with each other and had a number of interesting discussions, some lively but always civil and respectful. His knowledge of all things JFK was extraordinary, and no one can really replace him. Ken Edited July 16, 2015 by Ken Rheberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Milch Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 If what my religious & school educators taught me about death is true ('all things are revealed'), then wherever Gary (Larry) is now he has answers to all the questions & didn't require purchasing a book, magazine, video or lecture ticket. In that respect, until we experience the same thing Gary did, he has an advantage on us all that are interested in the JFK case. If what I was taught turns out to be BS, I suspect Gary (Larry) still has the upper hand. Some people I know are convinced Gary (Larry) was part of the machine that brought down JFK. They're telling me it was more cost effective for an agency to finance a drone & that's why he's gone. I wouldn't know one way or the other. Like everyone else, I have a shelf life. In time, I'll get my answers. I'm patient. I've got no other choice. RIP Gary (Larry) & sincere condolences to the ones he left behind to carry on without him. BM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I think it was also because Gary was tired of all the silly nonsense stories and theories out there and sought (with Dave Perry) to eliminate them. Which, if you ask me, is a very worthwhile task. There are far too many silly, factually baseless theories out there that need to be discarded if this case is ever going to move forward. The trouble is, as I know from experience, certain types of conspiracy theorists refuse to give up on the garbage regardless of how thoroughly it's been debunked. All they do is tell you that whatever evidence you have produced undermining their beliefs is "fake" or "altered". And then they call you a "lone nutter" or a "shill" for disagreeing. I've been there many times and, I'm sure, will be many times more. of how thoroughly it's been debunked. I wonder when we're going to start seeing some of this "debunking". But please don't do any of it on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 To adapt an old joke, if there is indeed a Heaven, when Gary gets there I'm sure the first thing he will do is ask God, "Lord, who killed JFK?" And God will reply, "I've got a theory about that." I hope that Gary will hear the Lord out and not be too hard on Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 delightful joke. well done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 To adapt an old joke, if there is indeed a Heaven, when Gary gets there I'm sure the first thing he will do is ask God, "Lord, who killed JFK?" And God will reply, "I've got a theory about that." I hope that Gary will hear the Lord out and not be too hard on Him. Great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Kathy Beckett, I defer to your knowledge of Gary. I can't imagine, however, where the "evidence" led him. Even if by "evidence" one means provable facts (which is not the legal meaning of "evidence"), I'm not sure where one is led. The provable facts in the JFK case are amazingly thin. If one drills down into the details, it's not even clear when JFK died or what definition of death was being used in the Dallas emergency room. If by "evidence" one means alleged facts, then we've got a different ballgame. Some allege and argue Oswald went to Mexico City in late September 1963, for example. I don't know what Gary Mack thought about this allegation. If one says Gary followed the evidence as to Oswald's alleged Mexico City visit, I'd ask: What do you mean by evidence? If the answer was: these alleged facts..., I'd say we're dealing with a conclusion based on allegations. So, Kathy, is that what Gary did -- base conclusions on allegations? If not, in what ways were his conclusions based on provable facts? Or if you don't like "provable facts" as the definition of evidence, what is your definition? Words matter. Humes knew that. Specter knew that. Even Gerald Ford knew that. If those here cannot agree as to the meaning of certain key words, it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion here. I'll take any definition of "evidence" you provide. I'll ask only that your definition be used in discussions here. Edited July 16, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) Kathy Beckett, I defer to your knowledge of Gary. I can't imagine, however, where the "evidence" led him. You're addressing Kathy, but I would like to say where I think the evidence led him based on what he once told me. He said that he was not a "lone nutter" because of (among other things, I am sure) the gaping wound in the back of the head. The evidence for that wound is the documentation by the Parkland doctors who attended JFK, backed up by the HSCA statements of 26 witnesses at Bethesda (as well as the statement of SS agent Clint Hill). If that doesn't fit your definition of evidence, so be it. Edited July 16, 2015 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 (edited) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/gary-mack-1946-2015.html Edited July 16, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I have hidden one post in this thread. Whatever members views are regarding Gary Mack, he was one of the significant persons associated the JFK assassination research. He deserves our respect. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 thanks James - I'm assuming you hid what I just got in my email. I'm truly amazed at people sometimes. some people need to check their pathetic agenda at the door and allow this thread to maintain its respectful nod to Gary Mack - remember that this thread is forever and will be read by newcomers and veterans for years to come. or at least until the mystery is solved... here's to you, Gary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Ron Ecker @ post #45: Here's what I'm getting at, an example. In late 1963, Dr. A, who examined JFK's remains, stated in a public way that JFK's occiput had been blasted outward. Fact: Dr. A. made the statement in question. This fact could be admitted into evidence at a trial to prove, for example, that Dr. A spoke English, or that Dr. A was compos mentis on the day he made the statement, or that he was present at the place the statement was made, or that Dr. was alive on such a day. None of these matters depend on whether Dr. A spoke truthfully or accurately. Alleged fact: JFK had a blown-out occiput. As matters stand, this is a mere allegation, not evidence. A prosecutor such as Vince Bugliosi, for example, would keep this alleged fact from being admitted into evidence and furnished to the jury unless at trial he had the opportunity to examine or cross-examine Dr. A. under oath. Is the alleged fact of legitimate interest to JFK researchers and scholars? Of course. But because it's not evidence, someone could deride it; deride it, for example, as being a mere allegation, as being based on false memory or prejudice, or as being the remark of someone seeking public attention. Such derision can be effective in the court of public debate, and rightly so. Bottom line: the fact LHO was never tried for JFK's murder is the most important fact in the case. Bottom line: Gary Mack, whom I accept as a good guy, didn't follow evidence, because there isn't any. There are simply (provable) facts and alleged facts. If we don't maintain these distinctions, the discussion turns to mush. We wake up tomorrow, and it's Groundhog Day all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts