Jump to content

Gary Mack


Wim Dankbaar
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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! :lol:

"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 by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, .......... Now THAT friends and neighbors, is delusional! Truly delusional.

Thank you David! Nothing to add to that.

Bill, you're working yourself in a twist here. If Gary's personal view is that a shot came from the knoll (your words) , why does he always and consequently say on national media that all those witnesses were probably mistaken by the echoes of the "canyon" that Dealey Plaza represents? I guess the American Public needs Gary Mack to decide that witnesses were mistaken! They were mistaken about the puff of smoke and footprints behinde picket fence too!

You know why these 'great respected researchers" are never home when they are challenged to make their case in an uncontrolled environment? Because they are unarmed in a battle of wits and hate to see their lies exposed!

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/film/epstein.wav

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like we've been down this road before.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=138574

Again, I would call on John and/or those moderators in a position to do so, to put an end to the vitriolic personal abuse which is being thrown about on this forum. There is no place on a research forum for this stuff. I have said before, and I say again, Gary Mack has been extremely helpful to me (and, it seems, many others) over the years, and is inevitably my first 'port of call' whenever I have a query about photographs, acoustics, etc. Whether one agrees with him or not (and differences of opinion are surely the life-blood of research), he has earned a level of respect that some of his detractors will never earn in their lifetimes.

Chris Scally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

I don't buy it.

The JFK cover-up took on a life of its own decades ago, and all of us take our turns

obfuscating the evidence.

I find there are very few researchers who don't let their egos obfuscate the evidence;

I know I've been guilty of this as much as any, re-hashing Dealey Plaza minutia for

the sheer joy of rhetorical combat.

It's just that Gary Mack has a career that has involved making intellectually

dishonest statements about the evidence of conspiracy on national TV.

But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim.

Basically, I don't think "disinfo agents" exist.

I think it was observed long ago that the conspiracy research community would

dig so many rabbit holes on its own that "disinfo agents" weren't necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Scally,

Gary Mack's overall stance on the JFK assassination that he feeds to the public through mainstream media, is a little more important than your personal symphaty for him, especially if his position is one that carries a responsibility and especially if he applies that position to knowingly promote something else than the truth. That is what this whole case has always been is about. About people in responsible positions not telling the public the truth. Shutting down such a discussion would be shutting down a discussion about the heart of the matter.

I don't want to read in Ford's memoirs: "I've sat around the dinner table with Dad many times, and he'd be the first to tell you they couldn't rule out a conspiracy, but there was no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone."

He should have said that when it mattered! In public, not in private!

I'm sure that Ford was also liked by many.

That has nothing to do with vitriolic personal abuse.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim.

Regardless of the base for that statement, if you think that I am intellectually dishonest, you would not want me in the place of Gary Mack. My point is that in that position you would want an intellectually honest man, not a man that is contradicting himself or advocating theories that have been proven false or not in line with his personal beliefs. Not if it is about the murder of a democraticly elected President.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Scally,

Gary Mack's overall stance on the JFK assassination that he feeds to the public through mainstream media, is a little more important than your personal symphaty for him, especially if his position is one that carries a responsibility and especially if he applies that position to knowingly promote something else than the truth. That is what this whole case has always been is about. About people in responsible positions not telling the public the truth. Shutting down such a discussion would be shutting down a discussion about the heart of the matter.

I don't want to read in Ford's memoirs: "I've sat around the dinner table with Dad many times, and he'd be the first to tell you they couldn't rule out a conspiracy, but there was no evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone."

He should have said that when it mattered! In public, not in private!

I'm sure that Ford was also liked by many.

That has nothing to do with vitriolic personal abuse.

Wim

Mr. Dankbaar:

Gary Mack doesn't need my "personal sympathy" - but he is entitled to be treated with a level of respect due to any human being. As I also accord you such respect, I respectfully disagree with you about the "vitriolic personal abuse". That is my opinion, to which I am also entitled - or are you suggested that it is your way, or no way?

Chris Scally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Dankbaar:

Gary Mack doesn't need my "personal sympathy" - but he is entitled to be treated with a level of respect due to any human being. As I also accord you such respect, I respectfully disagree with you about the "vitriolic personal abuse". That is my opinion, to which I am also entitled - or are you suggested that it is your way, or no way?

Chris Scally.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. We both stated them now. And as you noted, we respectfully disagree.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with vitriolic personal abuse.

Wim

Just a few days ago, on a thread relating to the recent Discovery program, Mr. Dankbaar made the following observation, and from the conrtext it was obviously intended to refer to Gary Mack:

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was once a feared and respected man. Another day he was sentenced to death.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner was a top nazi condemned at Nurenburg. A few days later Wim Dankebaar starts a new thread comparing Gary to another nazi, Goebells. Wim Dankebaar is only interested in the "truth", not in vitriolic personal abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't think Gary is any more or less intellectually dishonest than you, Wim.

Regardless of the base for that statement, if you think that I am intellectually dishonest, you would not want me in the place of Gary Mack. My point is that in that position you would want an intellectually honest man, not a man that is contradicting himself or advocating theories that have been proven false or not in line with his personal beliefs. Not if it is about the murder of a democraticly elected President.

Wim

Big difference between being "intellectually dishonest," which is, after all, the

most human of faults and the most universal, and being some kind of minister

of propaganda for the cover-up.

I don't think anyone is trying to cover anything up -- it's just folks married

to their world view, death do they part.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Gary Mack has a public persona which can be very nice and helpful -- and, indeed, that is his job as curator of 6FM. But there is also the off-hours Gary who lurkes at the newsgroups such as this one and aaj and has other people post for him, as though that gives his posts more authority, and who misunderstands issues and evidence about the assassination and seems to have a bullying attitude, where he tries to pressure those who don't agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Gary Mack has a public persona which can be very nice and helpful

True

-- and, indeed, that is his job as curator of 6FM.

FALSE: There are many who can attest that the time and effort Gary takes to help other researchers is way above and beyond what museum curators typically do.

But there is also the off-hours Gary who lurkes at the newsgroups such as this

FALSE: Gary does not "lurk", although he could easily do so. He logs in, so that everyone can see he is reading the forum. He could just as easily read the forum without logging in, and no one know he was there. He could be a "lurker" but he has chosen not to be.

and has other people post for him, as though that gives his posts more authority,

Since I have posted on Gary's behalf, I will take that as a compliment.

who misunderstands issues and evidence about the assassination and seems to have a bullying attitude, where he tries to pressure those who don't agree with him.

Exactly who are you referring to? Name someone who has posted on Gary's behalf and who exhibits a bullying attitude (naming Bill Miller does not count).

bul⋅ly

1   /ˈbʊli/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bool-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation

noun, plural -lies, verb, -lied, -ly⋅ing, adjective, interjection

–noun

1. a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

2. Archaic. a man hired to do violence.

3. Obsolete. a pimp; procurer.

4. Obsolete. good friend; good fellow.

5. Obsolete. sweetheart; darling.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymond Carroll

FALSE: There are many who can attest that the time and effort Gary takes to help other researchers is way above and beyond what museum curators typically do.

Schmoozing with the CTs and making them feel special may well be part of his job description. They are the 'safe' CT's (the ones who don't make waves).

FALSE: Gary does not "lurk", although he could easily do so. He logs in, so that everyone can see he is reading the forum. He could just as easily read the forum without logging in, and no one know he was there. He could be a "lurker" but he has chosen not to be.

PMB: As long as he does not post on his own he is lurking.

RC: Since I have posted on Gary's behalf, I will take that as a compliment.

PMB: Why is it even acceptable to have one member (which you remind us that Gary is) posting for another member? Are some members better than others? That way they don't have to stoop down into the mud and get themselves dirty with honest debate?

PMB: who misunderstands issues and evidence about the assassination and seems to have a bullying attitude, where he tries to pressure those who don't agree with him.

RC: Exactly who are you referring to? Name someone who has posted on Gary's behalf and who exhibits a bullying attitude (naming Bill Miller does not count).

The reference is to Gary Mack. It comes from personal experience. He attempted to bully me regarding my position on a witness. I didn't appreciate it I'm entitled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

David ... your responses are invalid until you get that stamp on your hand that declares you sane.

http://rossleysignorance.wetpaint.com/page...ID+GORDON+HEALY

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...