Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gary Mack has passed away


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

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.

r u serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I don't understand why you try to cast doubt on the gaping wound in the back of the head by pretending, or surmising or whatever you're doing, that only one doctor, Dr.A, described such a wound. The fact is (as I'm sure you know) that the wound was described by several doctors at Parkland and 26 witnesses at Bethesda. And though I'm not a lawyer, I find it hard to believe that Bugliosi or anyone else could keep such documentation from being admitted into evidence at a trial. To me it constitutes overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a gaping wound in the back of the head. You may not place much value on circumstantial evidence, but it has convicted many a person in criminal courts, the most notable recent case being the murder conviction of Aaron Hernandez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Mr. Tidd is NOT coming down on either side of the factuality of Dr, A's assertion.

He is simply pointing out that it is only a statement, which may be either true or false. A statement is not evidence.

A photo or an x-ray, with proper provenance, can be evidence. But the statement, in and of itself, is not evidence...no matter what the statement says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Mr. Tidd is NOT coming down on either side of the factuality of Dr, A's assertion.

He is simply pointing out that it is only a statement, which may be either true or false. A statement is not evidence.

But it is not a valid example of what we are talking about. Not one but a number of doctors and other medical personnel made the assertion. That's a little different from one doctor all by his lonesome making the assertion. If several doctors plus 26 other people make the same statement, it is still not "evidence"? How many people would it take to make it evidence? Here's an even better question. How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's change the statement in question, then.

Let's say that Dr. A said the throat wound was a small wound.

Dr. A's statement is STILL not evidence. Dr. A's statement is merely a statement.

A photo of the wound would potentially be evidence...with proper provenance.

Does that clarify the point any at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has passed away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's change the statement in question, then.

Let's say that Dr. A said the throat wound was a small wound.

Dr. A's statement is STILL not evidence. Dr. A's statement is merely a statement.

A photo of the wound would potentially be evidence...with proper provenance.

Does that clarify the point any at all?

Yes, I see the point. So how about a written statement instead of a photo, with proper provenance? There being in fact not one but several written statements, the proper provenance being the medical doctors who attended JFK at Parkland Hospital and documented what they saw? That's evidence, I don't care how you slice it.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has passed away

Yes, and we're talking about one of the things that Gary Mack told me convinced him there was a conspiracy. I am not off topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem I had with Gary was this:

Gary first was a researcher who was actually in TMWKK the first time around with Groden. Which was anti Warren Commission, pro conspiracy.

He then, around the time of the Roscoe White hoax, 30th anniversary, changed sides.

Now, many people, like Jesse Ventura, said Gary had private doubts about the official story.

But none of these showed up in any of the many documentaries he helped put on TV.

And when I say many, I mean MANY. After 1993, no one was involved with more WC stuff that got broadcast than Gary. No one,.

So here is what puzzles me: Why on one hand did he do one thing in public, yet in private tell several people he was not really sure about it?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack was helpful to me when I was seeking certain recordings [which I never was able to obtain] from 11/22/63. He could be a great asset to investigation, when he chose to be.

It is very true that Gary Mack could be helpful if he wanted to be. However, he could be very abusive if he disagreed with you. The problem people had with Gary was the change in his views after 1994 when Mack became an archivist and later curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

This might have been because of his research or maybe it had something to do with his job. I know he got very upset when I quoted him the words of the great investigative journalist, Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

http://spartacus-educational.com/Jupton.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmack.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary wasn't entirely secret about his not swallowing it all, hook, line, and sinker.

"The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," said museum curator Gary Mack, who admits he's "not satisfied with the official story." CNN.com, 11-18-13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary wasn't entirely secret about his not swallowing it all, hook, line, and sinker.

"The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," said museum curator Gary Mack, who admits he's "not satisfied with the official story." CNN.com, 11-18-13

Gary Mack told The Dallas Morning News a few years ago that he did not believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed John F. Kennedy: “I’m personally convinced there’s more than just Oswald involved, but I can’t prove it and neither can anyone else."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary wasn't entirely secret about his not swallowing it all, hook, line, and sinker.

"The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," said museum curator Gary Mack, who admits he's "not satisfied with the official story." CNN.com, 11-18-13

Gary Mack told The Dallas Morning News a few years ago that he did not believe Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed John F. Kennedy: “I’m personally convinced there’s more than just Oswald involved, but I can’t prove it and neither can anyone else."

I called him on this more than once.

He said that the physical evidence in the case had to be discounted because Bunch Theory.

When I pressed him for the proof JFK's clothing behaved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality he insisted he didn't need any.

"Bunch Theory. That's what they call it."

As if re-branding The Big Lie automatically granted it credibility!

Not a mutual admiration society, Mr. Mack and I.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Now, many people, like Jesse Ventura, said Gary had private doubts about the official story.

But none of these showed up in any of the many documentaries he helped put on TV."

Nonsense

Your snippet pales BIG time in comparison to the truckload of docus him promoting the LNer theory or 'disproving' multiple shooters.

Pure disinfo Duncan

Disino? Oh, that's right, I forgot people like you don't like it when undeniable facts are shoved straight in your face.

Living in your uneducated straight jacket world of myths and factoids isn't for me, hard evidence wins the day every time.

My posting of the Video snippet was to prove the point to Jim, and that Jim ( A knew B and B knew C, proves that C knew A ) DiEugenio was wrong with his quoted comment shown below.

"But none of these showed up in any of the many documentaries he helped put on TV."

The Video tells the truth, get over it!

From which documentary was the clip, Duncan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...