Gary Mack and Keith Olbermann

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Olberman fits the pattern all too neatly. Left of the Corporate defined spectrum on everything, thus giving him credibility among this small but influencial audience when he moves right on the big stuff, the stuff that really defines the paramaters of acceptable debate on the Corporate media and in our nations monastari... er... universities. > see Chomsky, Cockburn, IF Stone, Encounter Magazine.

This is the kind of pattern that makes me wonder just how committed certain World Federalists were in 1947!

[Jack White]

I don't understand how anyone can trust Gary Mack about anything related to the JFK assassination at this point. He clearly has an agenda, and it isn't an agenda for getting to the truth. He used to email me regularly, in response to various posts I made here or on other forums, but has stopped doing so. I think he understands that I see through his little charade. Mack has been a lone assassin propagandist since he started working for the Sixth Floor Museum. He still maintains that he accepts the acoustics evidence, and also the "Badge Man" figure he discovered with Jack White, but every thing he says on all those t.v. specials he appears on props up the official story.

Gary Mack was once a fine researcher, and he obviously knows more about the assassination than most of us. So there is absolutely no innocent explanation for his sudden affinity for all that shoddy work the Warren Commission did. He definitely knows better.

THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES offers many insights.

Jack

[William Kelly]

I don't understand how anyone can trust Gary Mack about anything related to the JFK assassination at this point. He clearly has an agenda, and it isn't an agenda for getting to the truth. He used to email me regularly, in response to various posts I made here or on other forums, but has stopped doing so. I think he understands that I see through his little charade. Mack has been a lone assassin propagandist since he started working for the Sixth Floor Museum. He still maintains that he accepts the acoustics evidence, and also the "Badge Man" figure he discovered with Jack White, but every thing he says on all those t.v. specials he appears on props up the official story.

Gary Mack was once a fine researcher, and he obviously knows more about the assassination than most of us. So there is absolutely no innocent explanation for his sudden affinity for all that shoddy work the Warren Commission did. He definitely knows better.

THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES offers many insights.

Jack

Jack,

THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES, by Donald Bain (Playboy Press), is about Jessica Wilcox, Miss Atlantic City 1941, who married model barron Harry Conover, and was recruited into the CIA as a courier and MKULTRA victim, programed into various states of mind ala Luis Angel Castilo, Siran Siran, et al.

How does that give insight into Gary Mack?

BK

[Charles Drago]

"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.

[Jack White]

I don't understand how anyone can trust Gary Mack about anything related to the JFK assassination at this point. He clearly has an agenda, and it isn't an agenda for getting to the truth. He used to email me regularly, in response to various posts I made here or on other forums, but has stopped doing so. I think he understands that I see through his little charade. Mack has been a lone assassin propagandist since he started working for the Sixth Floor Museum. He still maintains that he accepts the acoustics evidence, and also the "Badge Man" figure he discovered with Jack White, but every thing he says on all those t.v. specials he appears on props up the official story.

Gary Mack was once a fine researcher, and he obviously knows more about the assassination than most of us. So there is absolutely no innocent explanation for his sudden affinity for all that shoddy work the Warren Commission did. He definitely knows better.

THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES offers many insights.

Jack

Jack,

THE CONTROL OF CANDY JONES, by Donald Bain (Playboy Press), is about Jessica Wilcox, Miss Atlantic City 1941, who married model barron Harry Conover, and was recruited into the CIA as a courier and MKULTRA victim, programed into various states of mind ala Luis Angel Castilo, Siran Siran, et al.

How does that give insight into Gary Mack?

BK

Bill, thanks for answering your own question.

Jack

[Dawn Meredith]

"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 that is MOST disappointing about Keith. He can tell the truth about W on tv but lie about the assassination. Out of fairness however I am willing to bet that he is not permitted to go there. The media is totally controlled on this issue. Whatever personal beliefs a commentator may hold must remain private if he wants to continue on the air.

When Jesse Ventura had a program in 2003 he did a JFK 40th anniversary special that was in your face conspiracy. It was amazing tv. But he was gone immediately after that.

As for Gary Mack, he lurks here. He used to PM me all the time to "correct" me in my posts. But I would just publish his PM on the forum. I have a longstanding rule of thumb in this rersearch community: AP's first establish their bona fides to aquire some measure of respect in the community. In Gary's case his Badgeman work was groundbreaking at the time. But then he turned his back and sold out, which tells me he was a plant from the start. Just my opinion.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

[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

[Charles Drago]

Just received from Mr. Mack:

I'm not playing games, Charles, nor should you. Two major investigations concluded Oswald shot JFK. I am familiar with the evidence they used to reach that conclusion and so are you.

I want to know what the hard evidence is that someone else was firing. As one who is convinced the acoustics findings of two gunmen is correct, I would love to use it...but the acoustics has been called into question. So please answer my question if you can.

Gary

I responded by forwarding my post in full as it appears above, with a brief, on-sentence intro relating to Mr. Mack's opening sentence:

Neither am I, Mr. Mack.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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

Just as there are many here who have absolutely no factual concept as to how the assassination of JFK actually transpired, and of which many continue to chase mythological creatures and mythological "Giant" governmental conspiracies, many of these same persons apparantly can not even recognize that Mr. Mack, by all demonstrated actions, is on the side of "Facts & Truths".

Of course, that such facts and truths contradict and conflict with the frequently asinine beliefs of many here, not unlike myself and a few others, makes him a target for the continued rants and ravings of those who have done little or no research into the subject matter; cannot understand the research and works of others; have some personal ax to grind with someone; or are just plain old everyday stupid.

From what little I know of Gary Mack, he is on the side of FACT!

That is all that I need to know, and in that regards, not only do I applaud him, but stand beside him as well.

Gary:

Fortunately, history will ultimately determine the proper place for all who have delved into this subject matter, and not unlike Mr. Thompson, I am of the opinion that said history will place your attempt to resolve the issues up at the top.

Whereas, there will be the need for an extremely large "Dempsy Dumpster" for many.

Tom

[Stephen Roy]

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.

[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.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions.

What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts.

Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar

dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St.

One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid

objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple

inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the

base of JFK's neck at the same time.

Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Of course Gary Mack is entitled to his own opinions.

What Gary Mack is *not* entitled to is his own set of facts.

Mack has endorsed Gerald Posner's claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

in tandem 2" - 3" entirely above the SBT-required inshoot at the base of JFK's neck.

And yet the Nix film and other Dealey Plaza films/photos show JFK's jacket collar

dropping to a normal position at the base of JFK's neck on Houston St.

One of the first things we learn as very small children is that two disparate, solid

objects cannot occupy the same physical space at the same time.

And yet it appears to be Gary Mack's "opinion" that JFK's jacket collar and multiple

inches of "bunched" shirt and jacket fabric occupied the same physical space at the

base of JFK's neck at the same time.

Such an "opinion" is contrary to the nature of readily observed reality.

The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact.

Duncan

This photo was taken at Z186 within a split second of the shooting.

If you can't see JFK's shirt collar in this photo I suggest an eye exam.

Here another photo taken a few seconds earlier -- brutally obvious shirt collar, no?

If you want to claim that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt with a fraction of an inch

of available slack can spontaneously jump 3 inches up a man's back on its own power

the burden of proof is on you and all those who make such a claim.

After you, Duncan...

Edited February 19, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Miles Scull]

The truth of the matter is, that in order to prove the jacket position , we would require photographs of the Jacket at the exact time of the shot in question. We don't have this evidence, things move, including cloth materials, so everything you said is just guesswork..Now that's a fact.

Duncan

Duncan,

The bunching of the fabric means that the bullet needs to pierce an acutely raised (because of the wound locus) bell curve at the apex & then proceed without touching the sides of the curve.

Nonsense. Considering the trajectory origin.

Where have you been hiding?

Where's BM?

[Cliff Varnell]

If you want to claim that a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt with a fraction of an inch

of available slack can spontaneously jump 3 inches up a man's back on its own power

the burden of proof is on those who make such a claim.

After you, Duncan...

Of course it can, people move, materials move.

Shirts move on their own power?

Explain how a shirt moves on its own power, Duncan.

Demonstrate. Explain how a fraction of an inch of fabric equals 3 inches of fabric.

I await with great anticipation your demonstration of these things you claim.

What you have illustrated is apparently the side of his shirt collar, but not the jacket position or

the shirt collar at the position of the wound.

The Betzner photo was taken behind JFK. At that moment his head was

turned to the right.

How on earth do you take a lateral photo of a guy when you're standing

directly behind him and a bit to the left and his head is turned to the right?

Duncan[/b]

Excellent! That is the Jefferies film frame I've been looking for!

Thank you, sincerely.

Compare the position of the jacket collar at the back of JFK's neck on Main St.

(the Jefferies film) with the position of the jacket on Elm St.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

And that is the salient, irrefutable FACT.

Edited February 19, 2008 by Cliff Varnell