Jump to content

Gary Mack


Wim Dankbaar
 Share

Recommended Posts

ist2_1751460_wolf_in_sheep_s_clothing.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 say he is NOT entitled to that opinion and there is NO case to be made for it, except to an unwitting audience with little or no knowledge of the accompanying facts. Arlen Specter and Gary Mack do not fall in that category. They are very cognizant about the facts that refute the SBT. To maintain that the SBT is possible (or to state that it is "not impossible") is a willfull lie. Anyone that does that AND is as knowledgeable as Mack, is an accessory to the cover-up It is the same thing as making a case for the theory that the earth is flat. That requires an audience of toddlers too. It's an insult to any person with an IQ above XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Which is exactly the reason that they refuse to discuss it with people outside those categories.

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?

You can safely assume he does not genuinely believe what he advocates. He knows full well it was a lie to deceive the american public and conceal the true causes of the murder of their chosen president. He also knows that no bullet traversed through JFK's body and that the backwound and throatwound could not be connected. The fact that this man is now a senator instead of an inmate, illustrates EXACTLY the problem.

Some opinions should not be tolerated. Likewise I would opt that Hitler was not entitled to his opinion that Jews are inferior people comparable to rats. Yet that opinion was tolerated and even cheered by many.

Wim

Post edited by moderator due to offensive vocabulary.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim,

You ask for someone to tell the truth. I have to ask, whose truth? We, as CTs, cannot agree on alot between ourselves. Who has the mandate on who has the truth?

And Pam, I would put the brunt of your latest posts under a thread entitled "Sour Grapes". You seem to be angry with someone because you were turned in for the breaking of a confidentiality agreement. I know what it feels like to be ratted out for something, don't get me wrong, but it seems like you not are taking responsibility for actually doing it. And as much as you bring up logic, and use it frequently, I must say I was amazed that one who thinks so sensibly would post a post on this Forum, as widely read as it is, on something they weren't supposed to talk about, and yet seem surprised when they get busted. That logic escapes me.

I appreciate Gary's input, and weigh what he says, as well as others here. And I make up my own mind.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim,

You ask for someone to tell the truth. I have to ask, whose truth? We, as CTs, cannot agree on alot between ourselves. Who has the mandate on who has the truth?

I appreciate Gary's input, and weigh what he says, as well as others here. And I make up my own mind.

Kathy, the truth is not something that is moldable or variable. Interpretations and opinions are. Misinterpretations of the truth can have negative consequences. Say for example you are next to truck on your bike at a crossroads, and you are assuming that the truck driver has seen you and wants to go straight ahead as you do. What can happen if both of your assumptions are wrong? In that case the driver has not seen you and wants to turn right.

I am saying this: The larger the audience that someone has, the greater the responsibility to not tell lies. Gary Mack violates that rule by telling us that the single bullet theory is not impossible (to give just one example). The significance of this cannot be overstated. The more so because he is aware of the evidence that disprove that statement. It would be different if he genuinly believes it himself. But even then, an erroneous assumption, as illustrated in the example above, can have devastating results.

You say you appreciate Gary's input and weighs what he says, and then make up your own mind. First of all, that assumes that every member of his audience is as intelligent and knowledgeable as you, secondly that means you forgive him for being untruthful about the most significant issue that defines whether the JFK killing was a conspiracy or the act of a lone deranged nut. I don't.

I wonder how many members of this forum dare to say that the single bullet theory is possible.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many members of this forum dare to say that the single bullet theory is possible.

Wim

I not only believe it's possible, I believe it happened. No-one has yet come up with a plausible alternative theory.

There are moments in life that leave one speechless. This is one of them.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many members of this forum dare to say that the single bullet theory is possible.

Wim

I not only believe it's possible, I believe it happened. No-one has yet come up with a plausible alternative theory.

Paul, maybe you're just the living proof for my point?

"I'm not a serious researcher, more an observer, but will always interject with a sensible argument if I have one."

Please, by all means, proceed with a sensible argument .........

"The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds."

John F. Kennedy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

Let's not not jump the gun on Paul. Let's take into account that he may not know the things that Gary Mack does, but didn't tell him.

Things like this:

The report of FBI Agents Sibert and O'neal reads in part:

"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."

Hoover explains to his friend and neighbour Lyndon Johnson, ON TAPE, that both Kennedy and Connally were wounded by a total of three bullets that all hit their target. This is right after the assassination. However, after more than 6 months the Warren Commission can no longer ignore the testimony of James Tague and is forced to put him on the stand.

James Tague was standing under the triple underpass and was slightly injured on the cheek by a flying piece of concrete from a bullet that missed and hit a sidewalk curb.

The trajectory for such a shot through the presidential limousine, lines up better for a shot from a low floor in the Daltex building, than a high floor in the book depository, but this is ignored by the warren Commision.

Now the Commission is faced with the dilemma to explain all the wounds of the two men with only two bullets. It is only then that the infamous single bullet theory is born, with Mr. Arlen Specter giving birth to it. The far more logical route in any proper investigation would have been to account for more bullets, and thus more gunmen, and thus a conspiracy. But since the predetermined conclusion of the Commission was to convict Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin, the Commission desperately clings to Specter's single bullet theory. This THEORY asserts that one bullet emerged in almost undamaged condition, traversing through Kennedy's neck, without hitting any bone, then piercing Connally's torso, then shattering his wristbone and ending up in his thigh, thus causing a total of SEVEN wounds.

I think that Paul will agree that Hoover's first scenario (3 hits) was more plausibe than the scenario Specter was forced to create 6 months later (2 hits, 1 miss). If that is the case, he will now see that a more plausible alternative for the SBT came up before the world had even heard of the SBT. That alternative was still a lie, but at least a more plausible lie. :rolleyes:

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Hoover's first lie held so long that postcards were made of it:

postcard.jpg

postcard1.JPG

We may safely assume that Mr. Mack knows about this more plausible lie, as these cards hang in his museum.

Yet he defends the even less plausible lie till this day. :rolleyes:

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternative theory follows - conspiracy: LHO only patsy; multiple shooters and they aren't even the planners - only the mechanics - others did and still do the cover-up. Grow-up.

There is no alternative theory of the SBT (or SBF, as I prefer to call it) I can see here, let alone a plausible one. And thanks for the advice on growing up, I hope you don't mind if I choose to ignore it. It's a shame that sense seems to go out of the window so quickly around here. Multiple shooters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no alternative theory of the SBT (or SBF, as I prefer to call it) I can see here, let alone a plausible one. And thanks for the advice on growing up, I hope you don't mind if I choose to ignore it. It's a shame that sense seems to go out of the window so quickly around here. Multiple shooters!

Thanks for the clarification. That at least permits me to say that the statement that deserves to be ignored here, is the quote above. By prefering to call the SBT SBF (I take it you mean Single Bullet Fact) you do not only admit ignorance (or need to grow up) but even disagreement with Gary Mack, who says: Is it likely? No

Your SBF defies the laws of science, mathematics, chemistry and physics.

I repectfully suggest you make some changes in your bio information in order to reflect your nature a bit more accurately:

I hail from a scientific background - mathematics, chemistry and physics - so approach problems rationally. I'm not a serious researcher, more an observer, but will always interject with a sensible argument if I have one.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

... 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.

Exactly the point of a recent article y'all might enjoy. In it, the operative assumption is that the James Files story is correct and accurate. Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, that assumes that every member of his audience is as intelligent and knowledgeable as you, secondly that means you forgive him for being untruthful about the most significant issue that defines whether the JFK killing was a conspiracy or the act of a lone deranged nut. I don't
.

Wim,

Most of the people here are intelligent and knowledgeable.

I don't claim to have all of the answers, not at all. I have to read voraciously just to keep up with most folks here, and I have a long way to go.This Forum is a great learning tool, and I proud to be a member here.

When there is an historical question, or when someone needs a photo identified, or when an event occurred, Gary helps them. He is a fantastic resource. I think having him here is a blessing. I find him a very good and kind, helpful man. I can't think of anyone better to be the Museum curator. As for his beliefs, he goes where the evidence leads him.

And once again, I do not believe that he has backed down from his belief in Badge Man, or the acoustic evidence. I also think that if the kill shot came from the TSBD, or all hits came from there, that does not negate conspiracy.

You talk of truth, and say it is unmovable, but your truth is that Files did it, and mine is that he did not. That's the whole problem, isn't it? Some of us are emotively attached to a theory, and sometimes we cannot or will not budge because of this.

That is when we need input from as many sources as possible, in order to make real, rational decisions. Gary supplies historical data, and whether you agree is up to you. That does NOT make him untruthful.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the point of a recent article y'all might enjoy. In it, the operative assumption is that the James Files story is correct and accurate. Enjoy!

Well, Duke, that shines on you ! :rolleyes:

Promoting Gary Mack's pal Dave Perry's propaganda:

In the 1996 MPI video Confession of an Assassin Files’ indicates he was sent to Dallas with fellow mobsters John Roselli and John Nicoletti by the Chicago mob. Files was there for the purpose of killing Kennedy.

Who is John Nicoletti? A brother of Charles? Was Files sent to Dallas with Roselli? Gee, I didn't know that! :ice

Files was sent to Dallas for the purpose of killing Kennedy? Has Dave actually seen the Files confession? I'm beginning to wonder now.

By the way, if you like Dave's tales so much, please ask him to put this

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=8250980122157253214

on his Chauncey Holt page. If he is the "objective researcher" he purports himself to be, he would do that, don't you think?

If you can present the story of the man himself, why discredit the people that believe his story to be credible? Maybe he could also explain why those five star raters are bigger suckers than him?

Duke, I am still figuring out what your colors are. I think you're showing them more and more.

Are you also man enough to apologise for your false allegation about Richard Carr in the other thread?

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
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...