Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Karl Kinaski]

...

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

I never doubted for a second.

His MO is so transparent.

He lurks in the shadows of forums for hours a day, targets individuals and pelts them with private propaganda, refusing to engage in straightforward discussion and open himself up to questions.

What is the Sixth Floor Museum if not a tangible symbol of an official cover-up?

It isn' t a museum at all---it is a ulcer.

[Pat Speer]

Myra,

FYI, Olbermann has made it known on his show that he accepts the lone assassin fairy tale. Imho, he is just another example of "fake opposition." He reminds me of the Saturday Night Live writers, or Michael Moore; their mantra is that the Democrats are the good guys and we only need to elect enough of them to solve our problems. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between our carbon-copy two mainstream parties.

Moore supported Ralph Nader in 2000, and felt his support for Nader only HELPED what he correctly perceives as the real enemy--the corporate puppet element of the Republican Party. He then swung the other way. To try to paint him as a DEM strategist and stooge is just nonsense. He would become a Republican in a heartbeat should they become pro-union, pro-choice, pro-environment, etc...

As far as Olbermann and Mack, I'd bet the barn they are what they say they are--independent-minded guys entitled to their own opinions. In Gary's case, he took a job at a museum dedicated to telling the "official" story of the assassination. As soon as he did that, his own private views went on hold. This is why he monitors this forum but does not officially participate. How many of us, if offered a prime job, would not make a similar deal--access to the prime evidence, the ability to present this evidence to the public, the ability to shade public statements to better reflect your interpretation of the evidence, in exchange for your ability to mouth off on the internet? I suspect that's a deal most here would make.

Like virtually EVERYONE interested in this case, Gary did some digging, and found a couple of things he felt had merit--badgeman, and the dictabelt evidence. He still stands by them, I believe. And like virtually EVERYONE with an interest in this case, he reached a point where the rest all became noise. He also became friends with cops and city leaders. You want to get an e-mail from Gary? Write something suggesting that any of the saintly people of Dallas did anything improper...and he'll send you an e-mail telling you you're wrong.

But that doesn't mean he's an apologist or a paid defender of the "establishment", etc. A few years back, after one of their programs, the Discovery Channel (or was it the History Channel?) had an open chat with Mack. At least half of the people writing in were Posnerites, telling Gary that "we're glad the Discovery Channel (or History Channel) is finally showing all those idiot conspiracy theorists that there's nothing to this nonsense that Oswald did anything but act alone and the Warren Commission was a cover-up." Time after time, Gary asserted that there is a lot of evidence that points in the other direction. Time after time, he reminded them of the dicta-belt evidence, and the fact that the HSCA found for a probable conspiracy. In short, he refused to be their cheerleader, and urged them to learn more about the case before acting like such know-it-alls.

That he even follows this forum, with all the paranoid blatherings about "disinformation agents," is to his credit, as sometimes something significant is brought forward.

[Pat Speer]

I'm afraid that I need to disagree with all of you guys. What Gary is saying is actually true.

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

The key word in Gary's statement is " Virtually " and the " Virtually " is the stuff we are all chasing, weather we like the term or not. If Gary believed and was trying to promote that Oswald was the sole shooter, he and his relayers would be debunking Badgeman, Gordon Arnold etc...He doesn't...They don't..Put 2 and 2 together...Too much paranoia if you ask me.

Duncan

Thank you, Duncan, I rolled through this thread looking for one reasonable response, and found one.

[Cliff Varnell]

I'm afraid that I need to disagree with all of you guys. What Gary is saying is actually true.

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

The key word in Gary's statement is " Virtually " and the " Virtually " is the stuff we are all chasing, weather we like the term or not. If Gary believed and was trying to promote that Oswald was the sole shooter, he and his relayers would be debunking Badgeman, Gordon Arnold etc...He doesn't...They don't..Put 2 and 2 together...Too much paranoia if you ask me.

Duncan

Thank you, Duncan, I rolled through this thread looking for one reasonable response, and found one.

And according to the Pat Speers and Gary Macks of the world, clothing cannot be

regarded as "hard evidence"?

We can wait forever for a "reasonable response" to the clothing evidence, but

non sequiturs are all we are ever going to get.

Right, Pat?

[Pat Speer]

Congratulations, Cliff, on successfully hijacking this thread. In chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer.com, as you know, I look into this, and show how the amount of bunching visible in the films is nowhere near as much as would be needed to support the single-bullet theory. Not even close.

Bill is also right in that even the HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound visible on the autopsy photos was too low to support the single-bullet theory, unless Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when struck. He never leans this far forward before he is hit.

So how did the HSCA pathology panel explain this, one might ask? They didn't. Blakey hired someone else to do the dirty work, to figure out how a bullet trajectory that only made sense should Kennedy be folded forwards made sense when Kennedy wasn't folded forwards. he hired Thomas Canning from NASA to figure out the trajectory.

Canning also failed. He knew it was impossible, and simply lifted the back wound an inch or so in his drawings to make things add up. This is demonstrated in chapter 11.

The SBT didn't work then and it doesn't work now. As you know, Cliff, Dr. Chad tried to prove the "bunching" theory in that despicable TV program, Beyond the Magic Bullet. It's amazing how, when we started to nail him on his "errors", he sorta disappeared. I suspect he saw it, and knew it--the holes on the clothing alone should make one reject the single-bullet theory.

[Charles Drago]

I'm afraid that I need to disagree with all of you guys. What Gary is saying is actually true.

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

The key word in Gary's statement is " Virtually " and the " Virtually " is the stuff we are all chasing, weather we like the term or not. If Gary believed and was trying to promote that Oswald was the sole shooter, he and his relayers would be debunking Badgeman, Gordon Arnold etc...He doesn't...They don't..Put 2 and 2 together...Too much paranoia if you ask me.

Duncan

Duncan,

I cannot divine your intellect and instincts from the few posts you've offered with which I'm familiar. So what follows is far more general than specific, if you take my meaning.

Don't f**k with semantics! This is too serious. This is life and death. Get serious or get lost.

The "key word in Gary's statement" is NOT "virtually." The statement in its ENTIRETY is key. What YOU are chasing, and what I and others have caught up to, captured, understood, and presented to the world, is not a "belief" but the REALITY of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

If "Gary Mack" -- and I now must enclose that pseudonym in quotes because I'm told on excellent authority that the given name of that poster is Larry Dunkel -- is about the business of "promot[ing] Oswald [as] the lone shooter," then "he and his players" would be EXPECTED to endorse a Badgeman or Gordon Arnold in order to ingratiate themselves to the truth tellers.

You need to go back to square one, Duncan, and think long and hard about the complexities and sophistication of the world on which you would comment.

"Hard" evidence?

Mack's "hard" evidence couldn't really be hard if it overdosed on Cialis.

"Virtually" my pocked olive derriere!

Charles

[Cliff Varnell]

Congratulations, Cliff, on successfully hijacking this thread.

I haven't hijacked the thread at all.

The claim that Mack makes is that the "hard evidence" indicates Oswald

acted alone.

I am demonstrating that the "hard evidence" proves beyond doubt that

at least two shooters fired. I correctly made reference to Mack's attempt

to finesse the issue by (his) claiming that the actual position of the jacket

is irrelevant to the actual position of the jacket.

Doesn't seem out of line to challenge him on such a point, does it?

In chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer.com, as you know, I look into this, and show

how the amount of bunching visible in the films is nowhere near as much as would

be needed to support the single-bullet theory. Not even close.

Perhaps you've done some new work. Your original version of "Coat Check"

was an impressive case against "bunch theory."

Then you re-wrote it into something very very weak.

And apparently all along you've maintained that the back wound was at

T1 -- not much difference between T1 and C7/T1, is there?

As long as you maintain a provable falsehood, you cannot help the case.

Bill is also right in that even the HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound

visible on the autopsy photos was too low to support the single-bullet theory, unless

Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when struck. He never leans this far forward

before he is hit.

Yes, but you've turned a prima facie case into one that requires all this

needless extra analysis.

It appears to me that people interested in this case have some strange

need to make it needlessly complicated.

So how did the HSCA pathology panel explain this, one might ask? They didn't. Blakey

hired someone else to do the dirty work, to figure out how a bullet trajectory that only

made sense should Kennedy be folded forwards made sense when Kennedy wasn't

folded forwards. he hired Thomas Canning from NASA to figure out the trajectory.

Aha! I can hire out a bright 5 year old from the school down the street

and demonstrate that 3 millimeters does not equal 3 inches.

And that's all the case for conspiracy boils down to.

Canning also failed. He knew it was impossible, and simply lifted the back wound an

inch or so in his drawings to make things add up. This is demonstrated in chapter 11.

The SBT didn't work then and it doesn't work now. As you know, Cliff, Dr. Chad tried

to prove the "bunching" theory in that despicable TV program, Beyond the Magic Bullet.

It's amazing how, when we started to nail him on his "errors", he sorta disappeared. I

suspect he saw it, and knew it--the holes on the clothing alone should make one reject

the single-bullet theory.

Chad Zimmedrman knew as soon as his first x-ray came back that

his "bunch" theory was shattered.

But he went on TV and came to a conclusion he knew to be wrong.

I swear, if intellectual dishonesty could be converted to megawatts this case

would light up the world.

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra,

FYI, Olbermann has made it known on his show that he accepts the lone assassin fairy tale. Imho, he is just another example of "fake opposition." He reminds me of the Saturday Night Live writers, or Michael Moore; their mantra is that the Democrats are the good guys and we only need to elect enough of them to solve our problems. I don't see a dime's worth of difference between our carbon-copy two mainstream parties.

Thanks for the perspective Don.

I see Noam Chomsky as "fake opposition" too.

Although that is being discussed at length in another thread.

[Charles Drago]

I think these attacks on Gary Mack (whom I don't know) are silly. Different people have different opinions about things, and Mack is entitled to his. He's been researching this for a long time; his organization is engaged in acquiring and preserving evidence in this case, and presenting it to the public; and his job allows him to focus fulltime attention to some of these matters. Let him state his opinions, and we are free to agree or disagree.

What he focused on, in the given quote, is what MOST mainstream media think about the assassination: the empirical evidence, if it is genuine, leads to Oswald. We can argue if it is genuine or not, or if others were involved, or if Oswald was a witting or unwitting part of this. This is the way the establishment media and intelligentsia see it, and this is the obstacle to overcome. Mack was acknowledging this, but he left the window open a crack.

This inclination to denounce this or that person as a tool of the coverup is irresponsible, anti-intellectual and silly. It makes us all look paranoid. The energy should be better spent building our case and presenting it in the best possible way.

Sorry, Stephen.

"Opinion" in terms of how JFK was killed is of no import. The fact is that his death was the result of a criminal conspiracy.

There are no honest, informed, rational arguments for the LN position or for Oswald having fired at JFK.

"Our" case has been built, tested, and proven. Conspiracy is historical fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

I see no other explanations.

But hey, that's just me, man.

Sorry, Charles.

I just disagree with you on a couple of points. Opinion IS of import, even on central matters. None of us holds the truth in his vest pocket, and to deny this is to hold one's self above others.

Your comment that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be either cognitively impaired or complicit is tantamount to calling them stupid or evil. There are NO other possibilities? Like somebody having a different opinion? That is a classic case of peremptorily defining the playing field so as to exclude. It is anti-intellectual and wrong.

I respect that you feel that way - that's just me. You should respect those who don't.

I KNEW my comment would light a fire, but it needs to be said. Again and again. Respect others' opinions even if you don't understand them.

Stephen,

You appear to be young, so I'll take your tender years into account and gently admonish you.

We are at war, young man.

We are at war with the conspirators who killed John Kennedy. The conspiratorial truth of this matter is not in my vest pocket or in anyone else's.

It is truth.

When you avail yourself of the evidence of this case, you either conclude conspiracy or you are cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

This isn't some post-modern exchange on the nature of knowledge and knowing.

JFK was hit by more than one guy. Period.

Play whodunit and howdunit games elsewhere.

This isn't about opinions. Your opinion on the shape of the earth is of no consequence.

This, again, is war.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

If "Gary Mack" -- and I now must enclose that pseudonym in quotes because I'm told on excellent authority that the given name of that poster is Larry Dunkel -

Charles,

The fact that Gary's real name is Larry Dunkel is not new.

IIRC, when he began working with a TOP 40 radio station (because the name Dunkel was not "memorable"), he chose the name Gary Mack.

When he went to television, and was hired as an announcer, people in his business knew him by Gary Mack, as well as the JFK research community. That's why he kept it.

Nothing secretive.

Dear Kathy,

... Oh, never mind.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald."

Thus Gary Mack gives away his game.

Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC.

Once more for emphasis:

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

Contrast this with the truth:

No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme.

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

Charles,

Olberman has an actual brain and a spine, I mean for someone on mainstream news.

Did he rebut Mack's Big Lie in any way?

Alas, Myra, Keith and Gary seemd joined at the hip.

Well then Olberman is a fraud.

One's view on the JFK assassination is the litmus test.

He flunked it.

[Charles Drago]

One's view on the JFK assassination is the litmus test.

[Olbermann] flunked it.

Indeed.

[Myra Bronstein]

[For the record: Some months ago I initiated a thread in which discussion of the appropriateness of sharing of private messages was encouraged. I took the position that, in the final analysis and absent any agreement to the contrary between correspondents, it is appropriate to make such exchanges public if a greater good is served by doing so.]

The following exchange of private messages took place this morning.

Mack to Drago:

Hey Charles,

Would you kindly supply me with the hard evidence that someone other than Oswald was firing? Evidence, Charles, not opinions. My comment referred to hard evidence, hence the qualifier virtually. Just something short and simple so I can relay it in an upcoming media interview.

Thanks,

Gary Mack

Drago to Mack:

Right after you provide me with hard evidence that Oswald was firing,

Mr. Mack was not quite clever enough when he constructed his question on the false premise that "hard" evidence exists to establish that LHO fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63.

The burden is yours, sir. You are making the accusation, Mr. Mack. Where is your proof?

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle. No one has been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." --Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, quoted by United Press International, November 5, 1969

There is no reliable eyewitness testimony placing LHO in the "assassin's nest" during the shooting.

There is no sustainable explanation for how LHO could have done the shooting, paused to admire his work (as eyewitnesses described a "figure" in the "assassin's window" doing after the final shots), wiped down and hidden his weapon beneath boxes, descended from the sixth to the second floor of the TSBD without being seen by individuals on the only available staircase during the time frame, and arrived in the lunchroom to enjoy a soft drink no later than 90 seconds after the shooting ceased.

CE 399 -- the so-called "magic" or "pristine" bullet -- may be ballistically linked to a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased and owned by LHO. However, there is no sustainable evidence whatsoever to support the contentions that LHO ever transported that weapon to the TSBD, that the bullet now in evidence was the projectile found in Parkland Hospital, and that it struck either JFK or JBC.

No sustainable evidence whatsoever.

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) tests linking bullet fragments recovered from assassination victims to LHO's alleged ammunition have been fully discredited, have ZERO scientific reliability, and thus have no bearing on this case in terms of establishing LHO's guilt or innocence.

There is no sustainable forensic evidence to indicate that LHO fired a rifle on 11/22/63. Positive parrafin tests of his hands are just as likely to have resulted from his handling of printed materials during the performance of his TSBD job as from firing a pistol.

Parrafin tests of his cheeks -- where evidence of having fired a rifle would be expected to be noted -- were negative.

The presence of LHO's palm print on a portion of the rifle barrel that is not visible when the weapon is fully assembled is suspect. The print was not noted during initial intense examination by the FBI in the Bureau's state-of-the-art lab; rather, it was miraculously discovered after LHO was killed, and after a suspicious visit to the funeral home by government agents who may have applied the print post mortem.

LHO's post-assassination behavior hardly can be described as "flight." He went home, and in a relatively unhurried manner.

No one ever has suggested a plausible motive for LHO to kill JFK.

So, then ...

No means.

No motive.

No opportunity.

No physical evidence.

No photographic evidence.

No eyewitness evidence.

The only argument in support of LHO firing at JFK is an argument from false authority -- the state.

Charles Drago

Excellent response Charles!

[Anthony DeFiore]

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald."

Thus Gary Mack gives away his game.

Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC.

Once more for emphasis:

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

Contrast this with the truth:

No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme.

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

Charles,

Olberman has an actual brain and a spine, I mean for someone on mainstream news.

Did he rebut Mack's Big Lie in any way?

At the last minute, Olberman stated, "And when safes like this are opened with new material, one can understand why conspiracy theories continue." Those are not his exact words, but he said it with a straight face and a knowing gesture to tell Mack that as the information continues to come forth that the JFK Assassination will not be all sewn up in a nice little "LHO" bow. Mack is truly pathetic and will not face the realities that LHO could not have been the only assassin and in reality he was not the assassin at all. I find it sad that a person needs to hold on to a lie in order to justify one's entire careeer and psuedo-professional existence. The truth shall one day set Mr. Mack free...too bad the CIA found it necessary to place that Biblical quote at its front doors at Langley. The ultimate hypocrisy.

[Anthony DeFiore]

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald."

Thus Gary Mack gives away his game.

Mr. Mack spoke those words, as I type this, some three minutes ago, at the end of the Monday, February 18 edition of "Countdown" on MSNBC.

Once more for emphasis:

"Virtually all the hard evidence leads to Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Gary Mack

Contrast this with the truth:

No hard evidence whatsoever leads to Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin -- lone or otherwise -- of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

I reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK case who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

To be fair to Olberman, he held out at the very end of his interview to tell Mack that as long as additional files and safes are open, then the assassination will never be solved as LHO Alone and it will continue to be a conspiracy driven study because information will continue to be forthcoming to afford us all the opportunity to get to the truth. Olberman was perplexed in my view as to why someone like Mack would contiue to disparage conspiracy study when new information like the Dallas DA safe is opened bringing to the fore new information. Olberman seemed to me to be someone in need of a few good books on our subject in order to shock him into disbelief.

Without any room for equvication, Mr. Mack's access to said evidence is reasonable in the extreme.

Let there be no doubt, from this day and time, about whose side Mr. Mack is on.

Charles,

Olberman has an actual brain and a spine, I mean for someone on mainstream news.

Did he rebut Mack's Big Lie in any way?

Alas, Myra, Keith and Gary seemd joined at the hip.

Well then Olberman is a fraud.

One's view on the JFK assassination is the litmus test.

He flunked it.