Gary Mack

[Wim Dankbaar]

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.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

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

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

Edited November 21, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Pamela Brown]

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.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

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

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

How can anyone with any understanding of Specter's actions in regard to the WCR not see him as one of those involved in the ongoing coverup? His development of "the SBT" (of course, there is no such thing as one SB scenario) alone should raise enough red flags to make even the most blind sheeple yell "Whoa, Nellie."

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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

Pamela, Much as it troubles me to argue with such a lovely lady, I must tell you that life would be so much easier if Gary was simply a mouthpiece for some satanic force. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than that.

Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you.

[David G. Healy]

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

Pamela, Much as it troubles me to argue with such a lovely lady, I must tell you that life would be so much easier if Gary was simply a mouthpiece for some satanic force. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than that.

Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you.

you're right about them-thar Texans, look what's happening to the "Shrub" (Prez. Bush)

[Karl Kinaski]

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

Pamela, Much as it troubles me to argue with such a lovely lady, I must tell you that life would be so much easier if Gary was simply a mouthpiece for some satanic force. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than that.

Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you.

you're right about them-thar Texans, look what's happening to the "Shrub" (Prez. Bush)

GM is "The Wrong Man" in the wrong place. (Just like his compatriot in the Withe House, that guy, whose name I cant remember, but I know he sounds like a computer with a broken wire)

The city fathers of Dallas should fire Mack. "His removal should be a prime and urgent objection."

(Lets make Dealys grandson his successor...remember: We need a president who can ride a horse....hahaha)...or was it: shoe a horse...?

KK

Edited November 22, 2008 by Karl Kinaski

[J. Raymond Carroll]

The city fathers of Dallas should fire Mack.

KK

And replace him with Karl Kinaski, who will "prove" that Oswald escaped in a rambler station wagon, and the case will be solved.

QED.

[Jack White]

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

Pamela, Much as it troubles me to argue with such a lovely lady, I must tell you that life would be so much easier if Gary was simply a mouthpiece for some satanic force. Unfortunately, the situation is much worse than that.

Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you.

Gary is not a native Texan. He is from Arizona, as I recall. But then the Shrub is from Massachusetts,

and he claims to be a cowboy, so I guess anyone can claim Texian citizenship.

Jack

[Bill Miller]

Gary is a stubborn Texan, which means he is worse than a woman when he gets an idea into his head. It drives people mad, what can I tell you.

In the case with many who post on this forum ... that drive is a short one. {smile~)

Bill Miller

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

In my opinion Gary Mack is deserving of criticism.

On the one hand he goes on programs that are completely one sided with only token representation from the pro-conspiracy side that end playing a lifeless straw dog role. These programs end up casting psychological doubts about the other side of the story that are very similar to how dissidents were treated in the Soviet Union. True, there is no Siberia but something much more effective: humid platitudes about the nature of AmericaAndConspiracy with the requisite weird Carpathian violin notes while the voiceover calmly qualifies all.

The major difference between this "free speech' and that found here is the latter can be seen by millions on network TV and sometimes hundreds of thousands on special programs catered especially for the Nation-Gitlin crowd. Psychological effect :our people dont read that stuff.

Mack is always on the networks on shows with no opposition. THIS EXCLUSIVENESS is the main ingredient of "conspiracy theory", as it is this exclusiveness that prevents a mediated debate so that the public can hear 'both sides of the story"

It is the imbalace in the mediation of the debate that is the true source of unreason.

I have no problem with him looking at this forum, but for him not to participate and take questions given his royal treatment by the corporate media, ... well this is a decision of his that only adds to the overall imbalance.

It would be like giving Bob Gibson a ten foot pitching mound and then lowering it every time the other team's hurler came out. Free speech can exist only on a level and democratic playing field, and Gary Mack displays a curious kind of disinterest towards that sort of communication.

I invite Gary Mack to help end Conspiracy Theory and espouse freely in an open debate.

Edited November 22, 2008 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Wim Dankbaar]

In invite Gary Mack to help end Conspiracy Theory ™ and espouse freely in an open debate.

The fact that he doesn't take that invitation, yet lends himself for national propaganda, should tell you enough.

He's no better than Arlen Specter, another coward that doesn't dare to debate the veracity of his fairy tales.

Disgruntled Wim

[Pamela Brown]

In my opinion Gary Mack is deserving of criticism.

On the one hand he goes on programs that are completely one sided with only token representation from the pro-conspiracy side that end playing a lifeless straw dog role. These programs end up casting psychological doubts about the other side of the story that are very similar to how dissidents were treated in the Soviet Union. True, there is no Siberia but something much more effective: humid platitudes about the nature of AmericaAndConspiracy with the requisite weird Carpathian violin notes while the voiceover calmly qualifies all.

The major difference between this "free speech' and that found here is the latter can be seen by millions on network TV and sometimes hundreds of thousands on special programs catered especially for the Nation-Gitlin crowd. Psychological effect :our people dont read that stuff.

Mack is always on the networks on shows with no opposition. THIS EXCLUSIVENESS is the main ingredient of "conspiracy theory", as it is this exclusiveness that prevents a mediated debate so that the public can hear 'both sides of the story"

It is the imbalace in the mediation of the debate that is the true source of unreason.

I have no problem with him looking at this forum, but for him not to participate and take questions given his royal treatment by the corporate media, ... well this is a decision of his that only adds to the overall imbalance.

It would be like giving Bob Gibson a ten foot pitching mound and then lowering it every time the other team's hurler came out. Free speech can exist only on a level and democratic playing field, and Gary Mack displays a curious kind of disinterest towards that sort of communication.

In invite Gary Mack to help end Conspiracy Theory and espouse freely in an open debate.

I agree that it is hard to escape what seems to be intentional misrepresentation of positions by Gary Mack, leading to naive and well-intentioned CTs being pulled in by his friendliness and helpfulness, not realizing that behind their backs he is working to destroy the CT community. He will draw us in with somewhat inclusive statements such as "if there were a shooter from the GK they had to have missed" and then slam us with WCR-hype statements like "there is no hard evidence of a conspiracy".

What many of his statements seem to have in common is that they are those of an elitist who believes he has the right to tell others what to think about the assassination. His statements are also elitist in that they deny the rights that should have been available to Lee Oswald and demonize him as the lone assassin when LHO was not allowed to live to stand trial and therefore is until this day, by the laws of this country, still presumed innocent. Gary Mack will have us forget that, even though he sits in his high tower in the same building where Lee Oswald worked until his arrest and murder.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Pamela, I would like to reproduce your nail on the head hitting statement above for my website. May I?

Wim

Edited November 22, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Stephen Roy]

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.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

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

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

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 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?

I use my real name here due to forum rules. I still use blackburst in the newsgroups, as it's my email address.

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela, I would like to reproduce your nail on the head hitting statement above for my website. May I?

Wim

Yes, you may. That cartoon is great. Thanks.

[Pamela Brown]

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.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

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

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

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 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?

I use my real name here due to forum rules. I still use blackburst in the newsgroups, as it's my email address.

When someone has gone so far out into the twilight zone as Specter has on "the SBT" how can anyone not treat whatever else he might have to say with skepticism?