Wim Dankbaar Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 (edited) If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the propaganda minister for the cover-up of the JFK assassination! Now, don't delete this, moderators. I'm very serious and I can sustain the argument. Gary Mack is a grown man, peeks at this forum every day and can defend himself. He never does, and that has a reason. I predict he will avoid the debate because he knows he will lose. Right Gary? Wim Edited November 20, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the Goebbels of the JFK assassination! Wim I would ask the moderators to instruct Mr. Dankebaar to cease and desist from this revolting practice of launching ad hominem attacks against other researchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis Pointing Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Gary Mack is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory and exposes poor research and outright lies he has naturally made many enemies. Wim, dont kid yourself, if Gary ever went head to head with you he would pull your James Files nonsense to pieces. Just hope he never takes you up on your offer. P.S. Can you and Pam keep your mud slinging to yourselves, no one here is really interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Ray,A pm WAS sent. And I don't mind saying something public as well. I think that most of us know where to draw the line with respect to what we can say versus what we shouldn't. There are those who will, rules or no rules, choose to walk around any sort of etiquette designed for the common good. They believe they can do so by some sort of entitlement, because of a vision or special power they possess, that allows them to great insight, and gives them permission to display it. We are the ones who have to contend with it. And it has been my experience with these, that no amount of reason is enough--for you see, they are still right. And they must continue to inform others that they are. I can reprimand, and can also lock this thread,and even change the term used. But the "slam" is still there. I wish you folks who do this, could at least have some respect for this Forum, and please post with some sense of dignity. Yea, and I want to thank Gary Mack for always being so honest and forthright with me, quickly responding to my inquiries and accurately answering questions that few people could even know the answers to. To be able to recognize the signifiance of what happened at Dealey Plaza, to become a specialist in many areas and position himself as Archivist at the historic site took vision and determination. Now being a spokesman for history also requires a civic responsibility, not only to Dallas and Texas, but to the truth and its relevance. While dissapointed in his endorsement of and collaboration with the Discovery program, rather than promote nonsense, I would hope he would use his influence to affect the thinking of those with the money and resources to answer the most important unanswered questions about the assassination. When the next producer with money to burn approaches the Sixth Floor willing to answer the real questons about the assassination, don't create dummies with it. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 I know this is off the subject but is anyone having problems with the forum. I keep getting a error message and then I am off the forum and have to come back in to the forum again. SO I am on this and instead of doing a new thread I am just putting this on this one. Sorry about that. Also I wanted to edit another message and can't seem to find the edit button any more on this forum? so how do I do that As for Gary Mack he is a kind nice person and a man of great respect for others and I do value his feelings and thoughts and knowledge. SO why would he have to hide? Maybe why I did hide for so much. To not get involved with others webs of others problems and bringing the person down as so many seem to wish to do to make themselves right. Does that answer you Wim... hope so because it is the truth on something you asked about another nice person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Gary Mack has been very quick to offer assistance to me in my research, and for that I'm thankful. He's put me into contact with people who might have otherwise slammed the door [figuratively, if not literally] in my face. While I've sometimes mentioned-half in jest, half seriously--that Gary Mack's reluctance to post on the forums has turned Bill Miller into a Mack "sock puppet," on another level I can understand why he doesn't get personally involved. Gary and I may not see eye-to-eye on what all the evidence means, but that hasn't stopped him from offering me assistance when I was in dire need. Wim, on the other hand, hasn't offered me anything for free. [lol] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the Goebbels of the JFK assassination! (...) Wim Well roared, lion. Times the are A- changing. Lets call a spate a spate. Garry Goebbels. That sounds good. The question is: who is his Hitler? The 6th floor museum is no museum. It is an ulcer. And a punch in the face of common sense. KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 The best lies usually come in a package of friendliness and civility. I say the JFK assassination was an evil thing for freedom and democracy (and thus America). I say Gary Mack- especially as the knowledgeable researcher he is deemed by some - is intelligent enough to know full well that his propaganda for the idea that there was no shot from the grassy knoll , is a deliberate lie. By grooming and cultivating that lie through national media he is protecting evil. It makes him an ally of evil. He is the unofficial propaganda minister for the ongoing cover-up. If I cannot say that on a forum that is dedicated to finding out what happened on 11/22/1963, then I might as well surrender to evil right away. Besides, Gary knows my opinion, I have given it to him before. http://jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm Look at the first clip there. Proof that Gary Mack is very capable to use his brains. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Gary Mack is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory and exposes poor research and outright lies he has naturally made many enemies. Wim, dont kid yourself, if Gary ever went head to head with you he would pull your James Files nonsense to pieces. Just hope he never takes you up on your offer. (...) Maybe Dankbaar is wrong with Files. But Mack is wrong which each and everything. Macks Job is not to reconstruct history, his job is to create and design history according to his secret marching orders. Why do I know this: if an intelligent man- as Mack- is acting contrary to the common sense, there must be a kind of "higher duty" to do so. We are looking at a 45 year lasting battle between honest witnesses, researchers and historians (some of them paid with there lives) and the disgusting crowd of the "LHO- did- it- allone- story- tellers." (There last own- goal: "Inside the target car". Booooo!) Time to put them in the trash can. KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) And perhaps, if he did, it would be a little more tasteful than the latest Wim/Pam go 'round. Kathy, Sorry, my mistake, I should have looked first, instead of assuming there was no existing thread. As for the Wim/Pam go 'round, you may have noticed I was the one that was attacked. I simply took my right to defend myself against baseless accusations and slander. Gary Mack can do the same if he feels I am not telling the truth. Wim, on the other hand, hasn't offered me anything for free. Mark, maybe you didn't know I have a website? Here's an idea: I'll give the 6th floor museum the right to reproduce my DVD "The Grassy Knoll" to include as a gift for every single visitor that buys an admittance ticket. How's that for a gesture? Gary may even market it as an example of "conspiracy lunacy". Wim Edited November 20, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 Gary Mack is undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory and exposes poor research and outright lies he has naturally made many enemies. Wim, dont kid yourself, if Gary ever went head to head with you he would pull your James Files nonsense to pieces. Just hope he never takes you up on your offer. Don't worry, Denis, I think your hope is not idle. But ahh, if Gary Mack, arguably the most knowleadgeable researcher in the world (your words) has not pulled "my James Files nonsense" to pieces yet, how do you know it's nonsense? Or maybe I should say, which part is the nonsense? Where does the nonsense begin and end? Does it begin with being the protegé of Nicoletti? I would say that the James Files nonsense is a lot more corroborated by the facts and witness testimony as we know them, than Gary's recently re-inforced thesis that there was no shot from the knoll. Is that a fair statement? How is Gary's statement that the single bullet theory is possible, dealing with the facts? How is that dealing with facts instead of wild theories, if the facts show that no bullet pierced Kennedy's torso? How is that dealing with facts instead of wild theories, if the facts show that no matter how many tests were done, no one succeeded in having a bullet emerge undamaged like the magic bullet, not even with bullets peircing less tissue and bones than the magic bullet allegedly did? How is that dealing with facts if - to use a statement of Gary Mack himself - "no witness at any time has EVER described the assassination as having happened THAT way"? http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/discredit.mp4 P.S. Can you and Pam keep your mud slinging to yourselves, no one here is really interested. I agree totally! However, if I were to state on this forum that you're a child molestor, you would react, right? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) Let me drive the point home: Gary Mack will NOT say that the single bullet theory has been proven to be impossible, because he KNOWS that the single bullet theory is the SINE QUA NON for the lone assassin theory (= Lee Harvey Oswald). As my hero Cyril Wecht so rightfully says: "Without the single bullet theory, you cannot have a lone assassin!" Without a lone assassin, you have MORE assassins, THUS a conspiracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQLQEYWNOiE In a vain attempt to maintain credibility Gary will admit that the single bullet theory is "unlikely", but never "impossible". Why not? Because as soon as he admits that, he admits to a conspiracy, which for some hidden reason he cannot do. However, I dare to state that being the intelligent knowledgeable researcher that he is, he is very cognizant of all the availabe evidence that has proven the single bullet IMPOSSIBLE beyond any reasonable doubt. That permits the inescapable conclusion that Gary knows he is lying when he claims the single bullet theory is not impossible. And that is a XXX for an evil and undemocratic cause, namely keeping the truth muddied up and away from the American people. He keeps that XXX in tact by leaving out the details that prove his theories a XXX. Therefore it is no wonder that Gary Mack appears as the "star expert" in every major JFK TV or radio show to shove the 45 year XXX through the American people's throat again and again. Throughout history lies and evil have only prevailed because people condoned, ignored or approved them too long. Can't wait for Bob Harris do some analysis of the show that was on last Sunday Wim And by all means, if you can , don't hesitate to point out the fallacies in the above reasonings. Post edited by moderator due to violation of Forum rules. Edited November 21, 2008 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the propaganda minister for the cover-up of the JFK assassination! Now, don't delete this, moderators. I'm very serious and I can sustain the argument. Gary Mack is a grown man, peeks at this forum every day and can defend himself. He never does, and that has a reason. I predict he will avoid the debate because he knows he will lose. Right Gary? Wim Wim, I can only assume that your research cannot stand on its own in your view, so you opt to post such idiotic - reckless - uneducated - pieces of diatribe that I have seen you come up with to date. I have posted to this kind of foolishness before and I know you have read it, so what's up now ... you hoping for a new breed of mindless low-brows to listen to you? I will repeat this all to simple observation of how I see it ... Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy at some level. Gary feels the the acoustic evidence is good and that a shot came from the knoll. Gary Mack also believes that he and Jack's Badge Man study was good one and has yet to see any evidence that shows that it has been debunked. This is the Gary Mack 'personal view' side of things. Because Gary is a stickler for accuracy, I suspect that I will hear from him if I have misstated something, but I think I have stated it correctly from my own observations and inquiries. The Gary Mack from the Museum's standpoint is another person altogether for that Gary Mack (the curator) must remain neutral when representing the Museum. This means that he shouldn't be posting for one side or the other concerning the JFK assassination debate. Gary will however, answer questions pertaining to the evidence of the case for he is a historian of the event that happened in Dallas. Gary Mack sits on what I feel to be probably the wealthiest archival treasure pertaining to the JFK assassination in existence and in my view he would be insane to go outside of the Museum's policy and guidelines to risk losing not only his job, but also his ability to view and review the countless records, films, and photographs found at the Museum that you obviously haven't a clue as to their existence. So the bottom line is that if you are trying to create an illusion that because Mack will not respond on these forums because you are feared or felt to be some sort of a threat, then you are as delusional about that as you are about James Files in my opinion. I do not know any dedicated researcher of this case that would not want to trade places with Gary Mack ... including yourself. Shame on you for thinking that you'd could lower his standards by starting such a ridiculous thread as this and shame on you for thinking that reasonably intelligent people would not see through it. I have never minded your buying the Files story, but what you tried to do here is despicable in my opinion. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) If there's one person who deserves his own thread, it's Gary Mack. How should I start? Gary Mack is the propaganda minister for the cover-up of the JFK assassination! Now, don't delete this, moderators. I'm very serious and I can sustain the argument. Gary Mack is a grown man, peeks at this forum every day and can defend himself. He never does, and that has a reason. I predict he will avoid the debate because he knows he will lose. Right Gary? Wim Wim, I can only assume that your research cannot stand on its own in your view, so you opt to post such idiotic - reckless - uneducated - pieces of diatribe that I have seen you come up with to date. I have posted to this kind of foolishness before and I know you have read it, so what's up now ... you hoping for a new breed of mindless low-brows to listen to you? I will repeat this all to simple observation of how I see it ... Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy at some level. Gary feels the the acoustic evidence is good and that a shot came from the knoll. Gary Mack also believes that he and Jack's Badge Man study was good one and has yet to see any evidence that shows that it has been debunked. This is the Gary Mack 'personal view' side of things. Because Gary is a stickler for accuracy, I suspect that I will hear from him if I have misstated something, but I think I have stated it correctly from my own observations and inquiries. The Gary Mack from the Museum's standpoint is another person altogether for that Gary Mack (the curator) must remain neutral when representing the Museum. This means that he shouldn't be posting for one side or the other concerning the JFK assassination debate. Gary will however, answer questions pertaining to the evidence of the case for he is a historian of the event that happened in Dallas. Gary Mack sits on what I feel to be probably the wealthiest archival treasure pertaining to the JFK assassination in existence and in my view he would be insane to go outside of the Museum's policy and guidelines to risk losing not only his job, but also his ability to view and review the countless records, films, and photographs found at the Museum that you obviously haven't a clue as to their existence. So the bottom line is that if you are trying to create an illusion that because Mack will not respond on these forums because you are feared or felt to be some sort of a threat, then you are as delusional about that as you are about James Files in my opinion. I do not know any dedicated researcher of this case that would not want to trade places with Gary Mack ... including yourself. Shame on you for thinking that you'd could lower his standards by starting such a ridiculous thread as this and shame on you for thinking that reasonably intelligent people would not see through it. I have never minded your buying the Files story, but what you tried to do here is despicable in my opinion. Bill Miller who should we thank for writing the above response to WimD? You Miller, Gary Mack, Dave Perry, Kathy Beckett, Museum PR folks or heaven forbid, all? Many adjectives and simply no place to go,. Things must be slow this 2008 Dallas-JFK Conference cycle..... btw, reasonably, intelligent folk came to simple conclusion, long long ago, a conspiracy got JFK. Your whinning about Gary and his excuses for not posting, is simply, foolish, if he can appear on national and local broadcast and cablecast television, radio and local media events. he can respond here. Providing a third grade cover for him simply supports the notion, you're looking for a job (or already have one). Now THAT friends and neighbors, is delusional! Truly delusional. We've been onto your game for years. Since you got dumped from JFKResearch, in fact! Carry on troop! Edited November 20, 2008 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) Well Bill, I leave you to your own beliefs about Files, as well as Bigfoot. However, I do note that you never bring a shred of evidence to the table that proves the Files confession untrue. You keep hanging in vague dismissals based on the usual supsects disinfo. Does that hurt, Bill? Then prove me wrong. Hit me! Shifting to your diatribe and devil's praise, I see that you acknowlegde my basic point: That Gary and promoting false information because of the job he has. If you feel that "Gary Mack believes there was a conspiracy at some level", why does he never say that? Why is that judgement only reserved for some private circle that you apparently count yourself too? Why can he not say that on a national TV program? "Gary feels the the acoustic evidence is good and that a shot came from the knoll." Hahaha! That must have been the reason he was the star of last weekend's show! "Gary Mack also believes that he and Jack's Badge Man study was good one and has yet to see any evidence that shows that it has been debunked." Start here: http://jfkmurdersolved.com/badgeman.htm "This is the Gary Mack 'personal view' side of things. Because Gary is a stickler for accuracy" With such accuracy and friends, you don't need enemies to block you from ever seeing the light. My personal view is the same as my official view! Shame on who? Wim Edited November 24, 2008 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now