Gary Mack

[Duke Lane]

... By the way, if you like Dave's tales so much, please ask him to put this [reel] on his Chauncey Holt page. If he is the "objective researcher" he purports himself to be, he would do that, don't you think?

What he does is up to him; I have no influence there. You know how to reach him; ask him yourself.

Duke, I am still figuring out what your colors are. I think you're showing them more and more. But I do like your white smoking and bow tie. It gives you an aura of esteem and authority. Just like the moustache makes you more masculine. Are you also man enough to apologise for your false allegation about Richard Carr in the other thread?

I know what my "colors" are, and I'm as comfortable with them as I am with my masculinity. If you don't know about either, that's not my issue. I've made no false allegations anywhere; if you can prove that Carr saw the unseeable, then you're certainly welcome to disprove my analysis. So far, you've only "disproved" something I'd never said.

[Wim Dankbaar]

No name calling here, Kathy . Just an analogy to illustrate that someone that appears to be nice and friendly, can be less than nice and honest on issues beyond your vision. You may think of Gary Mack as a nice person, that's fine, but I don't buy that at all. I say he is one of the of the most prominently visible current cover-up artists, blocking the path to the truth. in the the realm of Gerald Posner, Dave Perry, and Dale Myers. He's just more friendly to the research community.

Why not answer the key question?

You started with "I don't have all the answers". Neither do I. But you do have an answer on whether the single bullet theory is possible, don't you? What does it mean if the single bullet theory is not true? Tell me what your answer is, and then tell me again whether Gary Mack is truthful.

Wim

PS: Please encourage your behind-the-scene emailers to state their opinions here.

Edited November 24, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Paul Baker]

Hi Paul,

Would you mind answering these two ‘hypothetical’ questions please?

Hello ... this is directed at me, right ... no other Pauls around?

1) If there was a fourth shot would you be prepared to consider there was indeed a conspiracy?

Yes of course. I'm not entrenched in my opinion, and would not be disappointed if a conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I really am as happy being right as I am wrong, as long as the truth is left at the end.

2) If there was a conspiracy, would you then (for the sake of argument) concede that possibly government entities (whether rogue or otherwise) were complicit in aiding its cover up?

Yes, I would. But I firmly believe at this moment in time that there was no consipiracy. This of course makes me an idiot on this forum, a "nutter" even!

Thanks - Steve

And thank you for being so civil

[Pamela Brown]

I don't mind engaging in sensible debate with those who can reciprocate. If the best you can do is respond with "grow up", as far as I'm concerned you're not a serious researcher, or even an intelligent one. The fact remains that the SBT is by far the best explanation which fits the physical evidence. No doubt the extra shooters were using bullets made of ice, which is why there is a distinct lack of ballistic evidence which points to any weapon being fired in Dealey Plaza other than LHO's rifle, which he took into work that morning in order to have a pop at the President. I'm not a "serious" researcher, so by all means tell me I'm wrong on this point, but please refrain from telling me to "grow up", it's not nice.

Which SB scenario are you finding believable?

[Stephen Roy]

I was talking about casting aspersions on other people in this field. But since you bring it up, should I disregard anything Specter says because he devised the SBT? No. He is entitled to that opinion, and there is a case to be made for it.

I say he is NOT entitled to that opinion and there is NO case to be made for it, except to an unwitting audience with little or no knowledge of the accompanying facts. Arlen Specter and Gary Mack do not fall in that category. They are very cognizant about the facts that refute the SBT. To maintain that the SBT is possible (or to state that it is "not impossible") is a willfull lie. Anyone that does that AND is as knowledgeable as Mack, is an accessory to the cover-up It is the same thing as making a case for the theory that the earth is flat. That requires an audience of toddlers too. It's an insult to any person with an IQ above XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Which is exactly the reason that they refuse to discuss it with people outside those categories.

I can accept trajectory and timing, but I'm leery of the deformation issue (lack of). Is he part of a conspiracy to cover up? What if he genuinely believes what he avocates?

You can safely assume he does not genuinely believe what he advocates. He knows full well it was a lie to deceive the american public and conceal the true causes of the murder of their chosen president. He also knows that no bullet traversed through JFK's body and that the backwound and throatwound could not be connected. The fact that this man is now a senator instead of an inmate, illustrates EXACTLY the problem.

Some opinions should not be tolerated. Likewise I would opt that Hitler was not entitled to his opinion that Jews are inferior people comparable to rats. Yet that opinion was tolerated and even cheered by many.

Wim

Post edited by moderator due to offensive vocabulary.

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Yes, I disagree with you. You are wrong. Period.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Duke,

I will apologize for teasing you with your picture. I should not have done that and I deleted it. You're right, that's not an issue. The rest of my posting stands.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Stephen,

In Europe it's the same.

Jim Marrs told me once: We defeated Germany, but not the Nazi's. They just moved to the USA.

Something to ponder.

Google for "Freedom to fascism"

I dare question anyone's factual knowledge, intellectual capacity, or sincerity, who says that Arlen Specter is entitled to his opinion about the SBT. Plus I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible. I have layed out my reasonings more than exhaustively. If you have an opinion, you should at least have the guts to defend it. Specter runs away. Ask Cyril Wecht! So far, Mack is hiding too.

You disagree, period? Then I disagree, period!

How would I feel if my opinion would not be tolerated? I would feel like Nelson Mandela felt for 25 years.

Wim

[Pamela Brown]

As we all realize by now (or should) there is no one SB scenario; each of them is different. The LNTs tend to try to glop them all in together and then claim <gasp> that they've proved "the SBT". That is completely illogical.

Specter knew that he was creating a myth when he came forward with the WC SB scenario -- it used incorrect limo measurements, for one; in addition, the reenactment was done using a completely different vehicle (which the WC falsely claimed they had compensated for).

It was a sham, right from the start.

[Paul Baker]

I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible.

Then you have about as much credibility as a researcher as Jean Hill had as a witness.

Which SB scenario are you finding believable?

Bullet passed through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest and wrist, and ended up in the latter's thigh. It caused every wound to Kennedy and Connally except the fatal wound to Kennedy's head.

It might be unlikely, it certainly isn't impossible (this makes me a xxxx, apparently!)

If it didn't happen, I'd like to know:

1. Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air? (There's a magic bullet)

2. How the bullet that entered Connally from behind steered its way around Kennedy first. (There's another magic bullet!)

Phew, all these magic bullets. A wizard was afoot in Dealey Plaza that day.

There is supporting evidence from credible eyewitnesses (unless you cherry-pick a fraction to support more than three shots fired, a shooter behind the picket fence, etc.) The Z-film also supports the single bullet theory. Connally and Kennedy appear to be reacting to their wounds simultaneously, but I suppose that is open to some interpretation due to the obstruction by the freeway sign.

I've also seen that diagram which shows Kennedy and Connally sitting at the same height, same distance from the inside of the car, and both straight shouldered and sitting forward at the time of the single shot that hit them both. Now there's a lie. I've also seen the picture of the 'pristine' bullet which shows it is not pristine (the one you never see in a CT book). Real liars are easier to find in the conspiracy world.

Sorry, getting off topic I suppose. I just don't like being labelled a xxxx by someone who is clearly blinkered, entrenched and ignorant.

Paul.

[Charles Drago]

Mr. Baker,

I invite you to visit the Deep Politics Forum

www.deeppoliticsforum.com

so that I may relieve you of the burdens of your misconceptions.

Charles Drago

[Dave Weaver]

Wim,

hi there.

When Peter R. DeVries (sp ?) did his documentary for dutch television,I think it was about James Files, was your role also that of an advisor in regard of Files,the assassination,witnesses,experts on the case ?

I did not see that documentary in full yet , but I remember seeing a short part of it in which Peter talks with Gary Mack inside the former TSBD.

Were you angry at Peter that he used an interview with Gary Mack in his documentary ,maybe even telling him to grow up or even to get dust under his heels as fast as possible and that you can not take serious anyone who spreads Macks words (selective or not) ?

Did the dutch audience learn about Macks real agenda in that documentary you were involved in ?

Remember,Files (according to him and you) shot and killed JFK,according to him brought down Allende,killed Ferrie (maybe I made that one up), was involved in the Marylin Monroe thing that ended her up dead,turned down a contract to kill Miss Baker (aka the good deed),plus harming and killing numerous others (according to him).

Mack on the other hand, is a real evildoer,right ? According to you.

Yet you call Files your friend and the other,Mack seems to be your foe.

How comes ?

[Paul Baker]

Mr. Baker,

I invite you to visit the Deep Politics Forum

www.deeppoliticsforum.com

so that I may relieve you of the burdens of your misconceptions.

Charles Drago

Thank you Charles, I'll certainly take a look. Please call me Paul, there's no reason for us to be formal here. I'm interested in the truth, as I hope you are. For me the truth can never be a burden.

Paul.

[Ron Ecker]

Bullet passed through Kennedy's neck

That's perhaps the biggest lie in the whole case. If you repeat lies, it makes you sound like a xxxx, even though it's only ignorance.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Wim,

hi there.

When Peter R. DeVries (sp ?) did his documentary for dutch television,I think it was about James Files, was your role also that of an advisor in regard of Files,the assassination,witnesses,experts on the case ?

I never thought much about my role, but I guess that seems a fair assessment.

I did not see that documentary in full yet , but I remember seeing a short part of it in which Peter talks with Gary Mack inside the former TSBD.

The fragments you speak of are here:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/vries.htm

Were you angry at Peter that he used an interview with Gary Mack in his documentary ,maybe even telling him to grow up or even to get dust under his heels as fast as possible and that you can not take serious anyone who spreads Macks words (selective or not) ?

I was not at all angry with Peter, why should I?

Did the dutch audience learn about Macks real agenda in that documentary you were involved in ?

What is Mack's real agenda? Uwe? The voice-over introduced Mack as a supporter of the Warren Report. You think that's a fair statement?

Remember, Files (according to him and you) shot and killed JFK,

Correct, although he was just one of the shooters.

according to him brought down Allende,

Incorrect. He was a spoke in the wheel of the CIA and David Phillips.

killed Ferrie (maybe I made that one up),

No, you recall correctly.

was involved in the Marylin Monroe thing that ended her up dead,

His involvement was limited to driving the hitteam to the airport.

turned down a contract to kill Miss Baker (aka the good deed),plus harming and killing numerous others (according to him).

I don't think anyone doubts that Files killed numerous others.

Mack on the other hand, is a real evildoer,right ? According to you.

He sure is ! According to me ! But then again, I believe Specter, LBJ, Bush, Phillips , Ochsner, etc were worse than Holt and Files. These puppetmasters will always find their puppets and keep themselves clean and off the hook. I say that Mack - although he's just a valet for the Kings - fits right in with them. What they have in common is that they are still respected, I say wrongly so!

Yet you call Files your friend and the other, Mack seems to be your foe.

Files was a killer for the mob and the CIA. I like him for telling the truth about JFK, or what I perceive to be the truth (right Kathy?) I don't believe I ever called him my friend, did I? Should I find Mack worse than Files? That's a good question, Uwe!

After all, Phillips reportedly said to Files: I can kill more people with my typewriter than you running around with a shotgun. Doesn't that sound like Phillips, Uwe? The propaganda expert? Mack could have been his pupil, were it not that I know Phillips died before Mack crossed over to the other side.

Wim

Edited November 24, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Paul,

Would you mind answering these two ‘hypothetical’ questions please?

Hello ... this is directed at me, right ... no other Pauls around?

1) If there was a fourth shot would you be prepared to consider there was indeed a conspiracy?

Yes of course. I'm not entrenched in my opinion, and would not be disappointed if a conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I really am as happy being right as I am wrong, as long as the truth is left at the end.

2) If there was a conspiracy, would you then (for the sake of argument) concede that possibly government entities (whether rogue or otherwise) were complicit in aiding its cover up?

Yes, I would. But I firmly believe at this moment in time that there was no consipiracy. This of course makes me an idiot on this forum, a "nutter" even!

Thanks - Steve

And thank you for being so civil

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your honest answers.

Civility costs none of us anything and your quite welcome.

I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible.

Then you have about as much credibility as a researcher as Jean Hill had as a witness.

Which SB scenario are you finding believable?

Bullet passed through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest and wrist, and ended up in the latter's thigh. It caused every wound to Kennedy and Connally except the fatal wound to Kennedy's head.

It might be unlikely, it certainly isn't impossible (this makes me a xxxx, apparently!)

If it didn't happen, I'd like to know:

1. Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air? (There's a magic bullet)

2. How the bullet that entered Connally from behind steered its way around Kennedy first. (There's another magic bullet!)

Phew, all these magic bullets. A wizard was afoot in Dealey Plaza that day.

There is supporting evidence from credible eyewitnesses (unless you cherry-pick a fraction to support more than three shots fired, a shooter behind the picket fence, etc.) The Z-film also supports the single bullet theory. Connally and Kennedy appear to be reacting to their wounds simultaneously, but I suppose that is open to some interpretation due to the obstruction by the freeway sign.

I've also seen that diagram which shows Kennedy and Connally sitting at the same height, same distance from the inside of the car, and both straight shouldered and sitting forward at the time of the single shot that hit them both. Now there's a lie. I've also seen the picture of the 'pristine' bullet which shows it is not pristine (the one you never see in a CT book). Real liars are easier to find in the conspiracy world.

Sorry, getting off topic I suppose. I just don't like being labelled a xxxx by someone who is clearly blinkered, entrenched and ignorant.

Paul.

I would like to highlight your question above Paul:

"Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air?"

I presume that if you were given a satisfactory answer or a plausible explanation to this question, that you would probably re-examine your current interpretation of the whole events? - Not just you may I add, I don't mean it to sound like I am singling you out.

Thanks - Steve