• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Guest Duncan MacRae

Gary Mack has passed away

100 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn Nall,

I'm inclined to answer that I now understand why physicians don't explain things to their patients (I crave explanation), but I seek to understand why you doubt I am serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has passed away

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.