Gary Mack

[Pamela Brown]

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.

Can you think of a better way to destroy the CT movement than to capture the confidence of a number of the more naive in it and then use that trust to fit an agenda? Whom do you think fed Discovery Communications the hype for Target Car? Can you perceive that this show was supposed to have been aimed at the heart of the CT community?

Have you read Hegel? If you want to put forth an agenda, you have to control not only the sheeple but the dissenters.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Cliff Varnell]

If Mack was telling provable lies...

"There is no hard evidence of conspiracy in the murder of JFK."

Gary Mack said something to that effect on Keith Olbermann's "Countdown"

earlier this year.

That claim is a provable mis-statement of fact.

...won't throw his job away so to satisfy some screwball.

There are two kinds of medical evidence in the case: that which was produced

according to proper military autopsy protocol, and that which was not produced

according to proper military autopsy protocol.

The 6FM-favored 3-shot scenario is based on evidence not produced according to

proper autopsy protocol.

Improperly produced medical evidence trumps properly produced medical

evidence?

Who's the screwball here, Bill?

Gary Mack has touted the Jeffries film, which shows JFK's jacket riding up

into his hair-line 90 seconds before the shooting, as an example of clothing

"bunch" as required by the SBT. When I pointed out to him that the Towner film,

taken on Elm St. seconds before the shooting, showed the jacket clearly riding

below the top of the shirt collar -- ergo the jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza -- Gary

dismissed me saying he had no time to waste on my "theories."

So photographic evidence taken 90 seconds before the shooting trumps photo

evidence taken a few seconds before the shooting?

So who's the screwball?

Edited November 21, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

I think that the distrust assassination researchers have for one another, even to the point of labeling each other as disinformation agents, has been counter productive, to say the least. That being said, Gary Mack has probably become the most visible assassination researcher of all, and as such is a public figure and fair game for our poisonous barbs, at least as far as they are related to this subject (don't support any attacks on his character).

Gary Mack was a prolific poster at the old JFK Research Forum, back in the late '90s. I don't believe he was in his present position at the Sixth Floor Museum then, but I know he was affiliated with it in some capacity, because other posters frequently referred to that and one of them, who'd worked with Gary some years before that at the Museum, had a real grudge against him and basically accused him of being some kind of disinformation agent. I asked Gary on several occasions to provide some rationale for his present views about the assassination, which were obviously far different than they'd been back in the 1980s, when I'd read a number of his articles in Penn Jones' The Continuing Inquiry. Gary never gave me a straight answer, and I still don't understand that. The only reason he ever provided was along the lines of "I found that the critics had made a lot of mistakes." Anyone with his knowledge of this case, who'd felt the way he once did, should be able to point to something a lot more substantial than that. Also, as I pointed out to him, the most irresponsible critic you can name never made the kinds of "mistakes" the Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas police did.

When I first discovered that forum a decade ago, I was thrilled to be able to communicate in some way with names I greatly respected, such as Jack White and Gary Mack. I don't believe I was the only one to be disillusioned to discover Mack defending the untenable official story so often. At this point, Gary has become an LNer in public, while maintaining a tepid belief in conspiracy in private. Our last email exchange centered around his participation in television shows, which are seen by millions of viewers unversed with the subject, and why he never once expressed any doubts about the lone assassin nonsense or brought up all the countless errors made by the government "investigators" (while gladly jumping on any perceived error made by private "conspiracy theorists").

I agree with those who say Gary is unfailingly polite and helpful. He is, indeed, from my limited experience. That being said, he is just about the only one of us who is ever given any kind of public forum, and thus has an obligation to tell the truth. That is inconsistent with being an accessory to the kind of distorted and dishonest fluff exemplified by the likes of "Inside The Target Car."

Edited November 21, 2008 by Don Jeffries

[Pat Speer]

I agree with both those defending Gary and criticizing him. He is a good guy, and generous with his knowledge and his time. He is also an Associate Producer on a series of programs clearly designed to deceive people into accepting the single-assassin theory. (Honestly presenting the evidence against conspiracy would be one thing, but these programs ARE blatantly deceptive). Now, if Gary was to denounce even SOME of the deceptions in these programs--such as Dale Myers' improper positioning of the jump seat in Beyond the Magic Bullet or the animation at the end of Inside the Target Car dishonestly depicting the large fragment exploding from Kennedy's head at 313 landing on the back of the car, his stock would rise a heck of a lot in my opinion.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Pat Speer

[Wim Dankbaar]

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.

Kaltenbrunner was a mass murderer. I did not say that about Gary Mack. It wasn't intended to refer to Mack. It was merely to illustrate that respect can be a function of time and circumstances because people are being duped. What people are often forgetting in their condemnation of evil is that they allowed that evil to rise to power. It shows that propaganda works!

As for Goebbels, You may have noticed that I changed it for something else. That's because I knew that it was going to meet with objections and people would find it "over the edge".

Gary Mack offers himself as a tool to national media to brainwash a people with propaganda about one of the greatest anti-democratic crimes perpetrated on that people. Knowingly! If you want me to apologize then show me where the big difference is, Raymond. Truth is not defined as the perception that a majority accepts as allright as a result of such propaganda. If that were the case, this planet is only a ball since 500 years.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

Raymond, since you can respond on behalf of Gary Mack, kindly ask him if he is aware of this document:

"Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile had entered at a downward position for 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit."

If so, why does Gary Mack not accept the observations in that document as factual?

I think every truthseeker is entitled to an answer from the man that tells America that the single bullet theory is not impossible.

Also, please ask him since when he changed his position on this:

I think every truthseeker is entitled to an answer from the man that co-creates TV shows which conclude that no shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

Wim

[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

Wim:

"We respectfully disagree". . . Thank you - the word "respectfully" wasn't that hard to use after all, was it? That was all that was ever needed. Whether you or I agree with everything or anything Gary Mack says is irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't agree with everything we say, either. My point was (and remains) that name-calling and attacks on his - or anyone else's - character are totally unnecessary, and do nothing to further the search for truth.

Respectfully,

Chris Scally

[Wim Dankbaar]

Chris,

Point taken.

Whether you or I agree with everything or anything Gary Mack says is irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't agree with everything we say, either.

I respectfully disagree again, for the following reason: Gary Mack has a job and a position that brings a responsibility. Namely telling the truth to the public. That's the difference between Gary Mack and you and me.

I believe you will agree that the Warren Commission also had that responsibility. If it can be proven (and I say it was already proven) that the Warren Commission perpetrated a hoax on the American public, deliberately, I say that's very significant.

Here's a definition of propaganda:

"To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil. They look on the propagandist as a person who is deliberately trying to hoodwink us, who uses half-truths, who lies, who suppresses, conceals, and distorts the facts. According to this idea of the word, the propagandist plays us for suckers."

I say that applies to the Warren Commission (by the way they were all nice, civil and honoroble men, at least in the eyes of the public)

If a President takes a nation to war based on a lie, it is NOT irrelevant whether we agree or agreed with him. I will give Vincent Bugliosi a hand on that.

That is why I also find it significant to determine whether Gary Mack fits the above definition.

Wim

[Wim Dankbaar]

Dear Annti,

In my view it doesn't make sense to moderate a post like this.

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.

Everyone can still deduct what the word XXX was, thus my statements do not lose any strength or seriousness. But the real issue is that I say that if Gary claims that the single bullet theory is possible, it is a XXX. If one can prove it a XXX, I don't see how that is violating forum rules. Why am I not allowed to prove something important like that? And why is Gary not capable to address my charge, while he is man enough to XXX to the American public on national TV?

Let Gary state himself why it is not a XXX! Let him explain why he's not buying the autopsy reports (made by FBI agents) that clearly state that no bullet traversed through Kennedy's body. Let him explain that it is possible that a bullet can emerge like CE399 after making 7 wounds, shattering ribs and wrists! Let him explain how one bullet doing all that damage, can emerge in the condition of CE399 and the other bullet from the same rifle explodes in 1000 pieces, hardly a trace to be found. Let him explain why we should still buy crap like that! Let him explain why he's still defending the essence of the Warren Report! Untill then, I refuse to be taken for a sucker by him, and so should the rest of his audience. I will speak!

These are all requirements for the single bullet theory to be possible, and that is what Gary says. And I say it is a willfull XXX!

Or let him do an exact re-enactment in his next propaganda piece, and show the bullets, if he dares! I bet he does not even dare to show the bullets fired at that dummy head.

Gee, when someone claims that Jews need to be extermined, I cannot say it's a XXX?

Slander is not slander when it is true!

Wim

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Kaltenbrunner was a mass murderer. I did not say that about Gary Mack…..

As for Goebbels, You may have noticed that I changed it for something else.

Is this a promise to act like a grown man, and not cry like a baby?

Gary Mack has a job and a position that brings a responsibility. Namely telling the truth to the public. That's the difference between Gary Mack and you and me.

Translation: Since Wim is now absolving himself of any duty to tell the truth to the public, we can expect to hear more about Files and Judith.

Here's a definition of propaganda:

"To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil…..

That is why I also find it significant to determine whether Gary Mack fits the above definition.

Wim

O.K. Wim, so Gary is not a Nazi war criminal, he is just an instrument of the devil. If we all agree on that, will that make you happy, or do you still have other names you want to call him?

[Bill Miller]

name='Wim Dankbaar' post='158587' date='Nov 21 2008, 11:06 AM']Kaltenbrunner was a mass murderer. I did not say that about Gary Mack…..

As for Goebbels, You may have noticed that I changed it for something else.

Is this a promise to act like a grown man, and not cry like a baby?

[ name=Wim Dankbaar' post='158591' date='Nov 21 2008, 01:40 PM]Gary Mack has a job and a position that brings a responsibility. Namely telling the truth to the public. That's the difference between Gary Mack and you and me.]

Translation: Since Wim is now absolving himself of any duty to tell the truth to the public, we can expect to hear more about Files and Judith.

[ name=Wim Dankbaar' post='158591' date='Nov 21 2008, 01:40 PM]Here's a definition of propaganda:

"To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil…..

That is why I also find it significant to determine whether Gary Mack fits the above definition.

Wim

O.K. Wim, so Gary is not a Nazi war criminal, he is just an instrument of the devil. If we all agree on that, will that make you happy, or do you still have other names you want to call him?

Wim has become a disgruntled delusional nut ... has he not gotten enough attention. If Mack is working hand in hand with the Devil, then intelligent people will see this to be the case. If Wim's behavior makes him appear to be working hand in hand with the Devil, then they can see that as well. To coin a Biblical phrase ... 'You shall know them by the fruit they bare'. Look at who has waged the propaganda war and then ask yourself who's fruit appears to be the sweetest.

Bill Miller

[Pamela Brown]

Kaltenbrunner was a mass murderer. I did not say that about Gary Mack…..

As for Goebbels, You may have noticed that I changed it for something else.

Is this a promise to act like a grown man, and not cry like a baby?

Gary Mack has a job and a position that brings a responsibility. Namely telling the truth to the public. That's the difference between Gary Mack and you and me.

Translation: Since Wim is now absolving himself of any duty to tell the truth to the public, we can expect to hear more about Files and Judith.

Here's a definition of propaganda:

"To some speakers and writers, propaganda is an instrument of the devil…..

That is why I also find it significant to determine whether Gary Mack fits the above definition.

Wim

O.K. Wim, so Gary is not a Nazi war criminal, he is just an instrument of the devil. If we all agree on that, will that make you happy, or do you still have other names you want to call him?

Gary is a mouthpiece. If we are interesting in defining the ongoing coverup we need to ask for whom.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Wim has become a disgruntled delusional nut ...

says the man who saw Bigfoot with his own eyes. Maybe Bill will cut to the chase and explain what is delusional about my observation that Gary Mack is XXing? Or maybe Bill can explain on behalf of Gary (since Gary won't do it himself) how the single bullet theory is possible?

Oh and Bill, if it's allowed by the forum rules to be called a delusional nut (without proof) but not a xxxx (with proof), then I prefer to be called a delusional nut (without proof).

Wim

Edited November 21, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Stephen Roy]

It is unfortunate that the belief or conviction of a conspiracy in this case occasionally leads some to suspect and denounce others who don't pass the litmus test.

It's understandable: If one is deeply committed to a particular conspiracy belief, and they feel that certain pieces of evidence are patently undeniable, it is easy to feel that someone who doesn't share that deep belief "must be either uninformed, cognitively challenged or deliberately lying." And if it is the latter, one may suspect that the other person may be part of some kind of coverup.

The problem is that there is hardly anything approaching full agreement among the research community on many aspects of this case. Different people have different opinions, but having different opinions does not make one part of a coverup. There is something insidious about research into this case that makes a few people go too far into suspicion of others' motives. And this hyper-suspiciousness is one of the things that prevents the mainstream media from taking us seriously.

Gary Mack is in a unique position. On the one hand, he has his responsibilities to his constituency, the Directors of the Sixth Floor Museum. On the other, he is one of us, who has his own opinions on various apsects of the case, and he is entitled to those opinions. Some of us agree, and some of us don't. Wearing his 6FM hat, Mack was approached with the opportunity to test SOME of the beliefs about the headshot, and he took that opportunity. IF the GL shot had proven possible, wouldn't he have acknowledged this in the program? If the TSBD shot had not significantly resembled the other evidence in this case, wouldn't he have acknowledged that, too? Lighten up on Mack: I would have described the results of the Discovery Channel tests in a more categorical manner, but I respect that he assisted in the test on our behalf. Debate the tests, not Mack's motives.

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that so-and-so is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

[Pat Speer]

While I can understand why anyone interested in the case--single-assassin theorist or conspiracy theorist--would want to be involved in testing the various head shot trajectories, the program Inside the Target Car, much like the previous Beyond the Magic Bullet, was agenda-driven, and spun the results of its tests to fit a pre-ordained agenda.

Mack was the press secretary selling us the WMDs in the TSBD, so to speak. Now he can be like Scott McClellan, and admit he was wrong, or he can be like Colin Powell, and fade away, or he can be like Dick Cheney, and remain unrepentant for the misinformation he's helped propagate.

In Inside the Target Car, Mack was inserted to cut off Nellie Connally's description of the shots, and to tell the viewers that people didn't really know what the first shot was. This was an obvious ploy to HIDE from those uninformed that Nellie felt 100% sure that the first shot hit the President. Now, why would they do this? Well, it should be obvious. This was the same production team that propped up the single-bullet theory in a previous program, and persisted in the complete fantasy that the first shot missed. They are apparently so agenda-driven that they can't even allow Nellie Connally to contradict them on their program, for fear it might cause someone to--GULP--doubt the scenario they are so desperate to sell.

A few minutes later, in order to help sell that the tests performed in the program were necessary, Mack appears again to tell everyone that the Dealey Plaza earwitnesses were unreliable, as tests performed in 1978 showed that sounds echoed all over the place. This is a misrepresentation of the evidence, apparently a deliberate misrepresentation of the evidence. The tests, in fact, showed that it was quite easy to tell shots from the knoll from shots from the sixth floor sniper's nest when standing in front of the building. More than half those standing in front of the building on 11-22-63, nevertheless, thought the shots came from west of the building. Mack does not mention this. It seems likely from this that, even though citing reasons to suspect shots were fired from the knoll would make the program's subsequent tests of shots fired from that location more dramatic, it had been decided that NO compelling reasons to believe shots came from the knoll would be discussed in the program. The program was out to sell a certain scenario, not honestly discuss reasons to doubt that scenario.

But those situations pale in comparison to what happens a bit later. When deciding to shoot at the "cowlick" entrance on the skull, as opposed to the EOP entrance, Mack claims that this entrance is based on the autopsy photos and x-rays, something the Warren Commission did not have. The program leaves unsaid that this entrance was not observed by anyone who actually saw the body. Mack and the program also leave unsaid that people who DID see the body, most notably, the autopsy doctors, radiologist, and photographer, ALL uniformly claimed the entrance wound was four inches lower on the skull than the location used in the program, AFTER reviewing the autopsy photos and x-rays. He also misled his viewers by saying the Warren Commission did not have the autopsy materials. Both Arlen Specter and Earl Warren would later admit to looking at one or more of the photos, and to deciding not to share the content of what they saw. Even worse, Warren strictly forbade the autopsy doctors from reviewing the photos before their testimony.

That Mack chose to misrepresent the problems with the medical evidence, rather than admit the head wound location is in dispute, suggests that he has either drank the Kool-Aid himself or is in the business of selling Kool-Aid. Presumably, the program's creators needed him to explain why they were testing the cowlick entrance and he quickly came up with something. That such misrepresentations make it on the air, and that Mack never admits they were mistakes, however, is distressing.

Which is more disloyal? Admitting that a program in which you functioned as an associate producer was deceptive? Or routinely appearing on deliberately deceptive television programs with clear-cut agendas designed to make those who support you look foolish?

If Mack remains a CT, he's the Joe Lieberman of CTs.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Pat Speer