Bill Miller Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Sorry, but that is all rubbish. Bowers never said that the plaid coat man showed credentials (of whatever sort) to a police officer. You also mixed up the man he thought was still there, which was not the plaid coat man. Wim The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was. Wim, I am not sure that it is as cut and dry as that. The man in the RR yard with the gun ... according to Hoffman was in a dark coat ... white shirt and hat. That man was said to have gone west down the fence and tossed the rifle near the steam-pipe. I believe that S. Weitzman met a guy who claimed that following the shooting that he saw something thrown near the steam-pipe as he viewed the incident through the bushes. This certainly is not Files. Bowers says that the darker dressed man was too hard to see ... then says something about seeing the other guy. My question is ... Is a plaid jacket supposed to be harder to see than the darker dressed man and would not a plaid jacket wearer be able to also have on a white shirt on under his jacket? Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 (edited) when it comes to JFK assassination research, you're a joke Wild Bill -- but I do enjoy watching you dance. If you're the next generation..... LMFAO. Carry on! Yes, David ... guys who post real data are jokes and guys who have web pages created about their psychotic vulgar foul mouthed behavior are not jokes. Now speaking of jokes ... are you not going to request to examine the original Zapruder film? If not, then why not?? If you are, then what is taking so long??? This lack of action on your part is starting to look like a joke. Bill Miller Edited November 30, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Gary Mack knows enough to be dangerous. He knows what to hide and what to exploit. However, he seems to have too many agendas to be able to be consistent. ..................................... His assertions cannot be trusted if you are interested in knowing what really happened. In my view, until someone is able to distinguish the difference between a speculative opinion and history ... they will never know the truth. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Gary Mack knows enough to be dangerous. He knows what to hide and what to exploit. However, he seems to have too many agendas to be able to be consistent. ..................................... His assertions cannot be trusted if you are interested in knowing what really happened. In my view, until someone is able to distinguish the difference between a speculative opinion and history ... they will never know the truth. Bill Miller "speculative opinion" duh, ALL opinion even informed opinion is speculation; history? Whose history praytell, the victors or those wanting answers? They way I see it, you can't determine what to distinguish. Like most, when in doubt, fallback on the WCR, you're not unique. Quite common in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 1, 2008 Author Share Posted December 1, 2008 Now now boys. Lets keep things civil and get back on topic please.Where were we...oh yeah Gary Mack. I have had numerous "discussions" where he expressed his views and I stood my ground and was not persuaded by his arguments. He has a right to his opinions and I mine, Tippit being a major one. If your easily flummoxed by one person trying to steer you one way or the other then your skin is much too thin for the likes of The Mack. As for Denis saying he is "...undoubtedly the most knowledgeable researcher on this forum, arguable in the world. Because he only deals in facts and not wild theory..." I do not agree. Gary tried to convince me the Medium Grey jacket was Oswald' and he might have picked it up at a second hand store or garage sale, as it was getting cold and he may have needed a warm coat. Sounds not only like wild speculation but a non sequitur, he already had a warm jacket for winter. Maybe in the spring he would have bought a size small windbreaker with all that cash he was carrying ($184+) , and with that kind of dough he would be able to buy new retail! Gary would say he was to cheap or frugal to buy new clothes, so Gary why buy it at all if you already have a nice warm coat and are so tight with money you can't buy your kid shoes but your buying extra jackets. So yeah Gary does not always make a convincing argument. Our ideas on what a reporter would/should do have clashed too with regards to seeing a rifle pointing out of a window and not even snapping a photo or trying to get a scoop on a sniper shooting at a Presidential Motorcade, or perhaps pointing this out to a cop. If you know there is a shooter in a window of a building but did nothing personally or professionally about it I find that hard to believe. So your choice would be to not follow the cop running to the building or take even a single photo of the exterior? Gary say's yes a good reporter would not deviate and stick with your assignment, to which I say then why get out of the car and run around the knoll? Why not stay in the car which will take off and possibly leave you with nothing but pictures of people lying on the grass and miss going to the Trade-Mart for a (YAWN) speech. NO, a good reporter goes where the story takes him. The baloney about other reporters will be coming along soon enough doesn't cut it. Your there, the story is there, you jumped out of a car to chase that story but ignore the very thing that makes the story, the shooter, and the cop about to confront said shooter. Let the next reporter go to the Trade-Mart and get the reaction there, whats the difference. Difference is the next reporter wouldn't know what you know about the rifle/which window/sixth floor/ etc. and would be less effective at that scene. Whereas both you and the next reporter along would be equal when it comes to the Trade-Mart story. Get it. About the wallet, he made it seem the reporter could never make a mistake about its ownership. As if he was infallible. I had to point out all the news reports which, in the heat of the moment, were without substantiated facts reported and later found to be wrong. Seems Gary always wants his cake and to eat it too. People are wrong only when it is convenient for him, and not vice verse. The fact is he is very knowledgeable about all these things, yet has some strange quirk that doesn't let him believe his own eyes at times. Sorry Gary but I needed to come clean here in this confessional about what I perceive to be your underlying faults. I can't sit quietly and be jabbed with a SFM stick and not develop a strong opinion about such prodding. If he has some secret knowledge about this case and still speculates like a novice then I have to question why?? I do thank him for his help (be it asked for or not) and have, I hope, returned the favor when I can, seems the decent thing to do. I don't think too many of us here agree on all the minutia or even some of the larger aspects, but at least we can see that it only takes one fact to go from conspiracy theory to a conspiracy. You with us on that Gary? Gary Mack knows enough to be dangerous. He knows what to hide and what to exploit. However, he seems to have too many agendas to be able to be consistent. He has no qualms about misusing evidence to prove a false point, as in the case of the SS color limo photos, which he falsely claimed were taken at 1 a.m. 11.23.63 during the FBI forensic exam of the limo when he knows perfectly well they were not taken until late the following afternoon. His assertions cannot be trusted if you are interested in knowing what really happened. Ed and Pamela, Sensible contributions. Yes, Gary will be pleased that "his" thread is developing in a mudslinging contest between individuals. Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 They way I see it, you can't determine what to distinguish. Like most, when in doubt, fallback on the WCR, you're not unique. Quite common in fact. Is that what YOU did when you posted that you had seen no proof of Zapruder film altgeration??? Bill Miller http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=5959&st=0 Post #8 David Healy: Of course there's NO proof of film alteration, something I've stated for years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 (edited) Ed and Pamela, Sensible contributions. Yes, Gary will be pleased that "his" thread is developing in a mudslinging contest between individuals. Wim I thought it pretty much started out as 'mudslinging' ... is it only when the mud splatters back some folks way is when the thread feels like its gone south? The idea that someone would post that if another doesn't respond (knowing that person cannot get involved in these forum debates because of their employment requirements) that this somehow validates the accusations being leveled is self-serving to say the least. The thread was designed to mud-sling from the start. Bill Miller Edited December 1, 2008 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 When someone repeatedly acts as a sheep in wolves clothing it is helpful to define that, so that others don't have to make the same mistakes, re-invent the wheel, etc, if they choose. If they wish to be schmoozed and flattered and deluded, that is also their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 When someone repeatedly acts as a sheep in wolves clothing it is helpful to define that, so that others don't have to make the same mistakes, re-invent the wheel, etc, if they choose. If they wish to be schmoozed and flattered and deluded, that is also their choice. Let us also not forget the sheep who pretend to be wolves so to confuse the other sheep and lead them astray. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 (edited) I thought it pretty much started out as 'mudslinging' ... is it only when the mud splatters back some folks way is when the thread feels like its gone south?Bill Miller If I accuse Gary Mack of lying about one of the most crucial issues in the JFK assassination (the single bullet theory) and I can prove it, that is no mudslinging, nor is it slander. It's pointing out a fact. Maybe a fact that you don't like, but still a fact. If Gary Mack would sue me for libel, he would lose......... Also, I believe that everyone who would file a charge challenging the statement that the single bullet theory is possible, would win. The judge and jury would have to dismiss the Warren Commission's and FBI's OWN evidence in order to dismiss that charge. They would have to acknowedge that Sibert's and O'Neill's recorded obversations were wrong. Is it any wonder that Specter tried to say that they did not make any notes, nor a report? Wim Edited December 2, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 If I accuse Gary Mack of lying about one of the most crucial issues in the JFK assassination (the single bullet theory) and I can prove it, that is no mudslinging, nor is it slander. It's pointing out a fact. Maybe a fact that you don't like, but still a fact. If Gary Mack would sue me for libel, he would lose......... Wim You're trolling with smoke and mirrors, Wim .....and in my view it looks pretty ridiculous. I do not believe in the SBT, but I know that it relies on interpretation, thus its just an opinion based on such. Both sides of the coin can be made up of people who truly believe that their position is the correct one - only one can be correct - and in spite of that, it doesn't mean that anyone lied. And to think you were not looking for publicity. (sigh~) Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Smoke and mirrors and publicity is Mack's specialty, Bill. Now, let me know your opinion, so I know what to make of you: Is the single bullet theory possible? Yes or no? Wim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Smoke and mirrors and publicity is Mack's specialty, Bill. Now, let me know your opinion, so I know what to make of you: Is the single bullet theory possible? Yes or no? Wim I believe I have answered that question by stating my position on it. All things are possible regardless of how impossible. I however, do not believe that the SBT as described by the WC was possible. As far as telling you this so you can know what to make of me ... I could care less for it would still be an opinion based on one's beliefs, which wouldn't make them a xxxx. Bill Miller[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Bill, John Simkin is correct that many more people than the members read this forum. I receive the evidence every single day: Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:27 PM Subject: James Files Dear Wim Dankbaar, I am a sometime student of the JFK assassination and I follow the topics found on the various forums, such as Lancer and the Education Forum, without being a posting member of any. I have carefully examined your website on James Files. A striking brief in my view. Well done! I'm prompted to drop you a line just now because of what I've just seen on the Education Forum with regard to Gary Mack. I wonder if it has occurred to you that if Badgeman is eliminated as a possibility, and I share your opinion that he has been, then one must look about for another sniper if one agrees that shots originated from the grassy knoll. If one is prejudiced against Files, then abandoning Badgeman is a real effort because then Files gains in stature as a possibility. This line of reasoning eventually leads to the thought that if Files is accepted as the real sniper, then so called researchers are deprived of a livelihood. For example, if Gary Mack excepts that Files is the sniper, then the 6th Floor Museum becomes a circus sideshow, so to speak. This is to be avoided at all costs apparently! Well, I'm sure you looked at this in this way, so enough said. Finally, I'd like congratulate you on a tour de force website and also on your research which continues to move the JFK assassination question forward to new discoveries, such as the Death in Washington revelations which I noticed. I don't see Mack doing any research moving ahead; it's rather the opposite in his case, a retrogression. If you would care to post this email as from one of your supporters, please feel free. Best regards & good luck, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted December 2, 2008 Author Share Posted December 2, 2008 Gary, online again? No rebuttal still? Are your valets doing a good enough job? Wim 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