Jump to content

Gary Mack


Wim Dankbaar
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

You guys crack me up.

I don't mind engaging in sensible debate with those who can reciprocate. If the best you can do is respond with "grow up", as far as I'm concerned you're not a serious researcher, or even an intelligent one. The fact remains that the SBT is by far the best explanation which fits the physical evidence. No doubt the extra shooters were using bullets made of ice, which is why there is a distinct lack of ballistic evidence which points to any weapon being fired in Dealey Plaza other than LHO's rifle, which he took into work that morning in order to have a pop at the President. I'm not a "serious" researcher, so by all means tell me I'm wrong on this point, but please refrain from telling me to "grow up", it's not nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't mind engaging in sensible debate with those who can reciprocate. If the best you can do is respond with "grow up", as far as I'm concerned you're not a serious researcher, or even an intelligent one. The fact remains that the SBT is by far the best explanation which fits the physical evidence. No doubt the extra shooters were using bullets made of ice, which is why there is a distinct lack of ballistic evidence which points to any weapon being fired in Dealey Plaza other than LHO's rifle, which he took into work that morning in order to have a pop at the President. I'm not a "serious" researcher, so by all means tell me I'm wrong on this point, but please refrain from telling me to "grow up", it's not nice.

Look, another INSIDE THE TARGET CAR VICTIM...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Kathy, I did not say you cannot be proud to be a member of this forum. Heck, I would not even post here, if I subscribe to that. I was not talking about most of the members of this forum, I was talking about the average american out there. Gary Mack couldn't care less about the members of this forum, that's not his target audience. You would be amazed with the compliment emails I receive behind the scenes from credible researchers, including members of this forum. I wish they would say it 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.

I'm sure that Hitler's dog loved his boss too. As for Gary Mack going where the evidence leads him, I respectfully disagree.

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.

If I were Gary Mack, I would not back down from Badgeman either, for he knows it's a red herring. A myth, that has been proven to be just that. But if he has not backed down from the acoustic evidence, why does he lend himself for TV shows that conclude there was no shot from the grassy knoll? Did the acoustic evidence not indicate a four shots, one from the knoll? You can't have it both ways, Kathy, yet you're giving it to him.

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.

The truth is indeed unmovable, and you're mistaken in saying that I say the truth is that Files did it. Yes, I believe his story thusfar, because I have thoroughly researched it and tried to punch holes in it, and found no evidence that it cannot be true. On the contrary, I found only supporting evidence. I also use my common sense and analysis of the way he tells his story: Can you invent a detailed story like that, repeat it and keep it consistent over the years? The fact that Gary Mack and his pals try to ignore and discredit it, is only more evidence to me that Files may be telling the truth.

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.

You started with "I don't have all the answers". Neither do I. But you do have an answer on whether the single bullet theory is possible, don't you? What does it mean if the single bullet theory is not true? Tell me what your answer is, and then tell me again whether Gary Mack is truthful.

You don't have to believe anything I say, to admit that Gary Mack is not truthful. Separate issues.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

Would you mind answering these two ‘hypothetical’ questions please?

1) If there was a fourth shot would you be prepared to consider there was indeed a conspiracy?

2) If there was a conspiracy, would you then (for the sake of argument) concede that possibly government entities (whether rogue or otherwise) were complicit in aiding its cover up?

Thanks - Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... By the way, if you like Dave's tales so much, please ask him to put this [reel] on his Chauncey Holt page. If he is the "objective researcher" he purports himself to be, he would do that, don't you think?
What he does is up to him; I have no influence there. You know how to reach him; ask him yourself.
Duke, I am still figuring out what your colors are. I think you're showing them more and more. But I do like your white smoking and bow tie. It gives you an aura of esteem and authority. Just like the moustache makes you more masculine. Are you also man enough to apologise for your false allegation about Richard Carr in the other thread?
I know what my "colors" are, and I'm as comfortable with them as I am with my masculinity. If you don't know about either, that's not my issue. I've made no false allegations anywhere; if you can prove that Carr saw the unseeable, then you're certainly welcome to disprove my analysis. So far, you've only "disproved" something I'd never said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitler's dog, huh? :rolleyes: Because my beliefs are contrary to yours?

As for Badge Man being a myth, I've yet to be convinced of that. It was never thought that he got off the kill shot because of his position--that does not mean he was not there. To tell you the truth, I couldn't put a shooter far enough down the fence to get the angularity I believe was necessary to put that shot where it was.

I say , again, that even if all of the shots came from the TSBD, that does not negate a conspiracy. so if you are asking me if Mack was untruthful in saying he has never found other evidence that the shots came anywhere other than from behind, from above, I will say NO. That is what he has found.

And as for emails you receive that are complimentary, I would like you to know that we have received several reports concerning your conduct on this very thread. You would do well to argue points instead of name calling, making references to Duke's moustache, and his particular mode of dress, and any other put downs you have come up with to "get" those who disagree with you. You'd be alot more credible.

Kathy (arf,arf)

l

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No name calling here, Kathy . Just an analogy to illustrate that someone that appears to be nice and friendly, can be less than nice and honest on issues beyond your vision. You may think of Gary Mack as a nice person, that's fine, but I don't buy that at all. I say he is one of the of the most prominently visible current cover-up artists, blocking the path to the truth. in the the realm of Gerald Posner, Dave Perry, and Dale Myers. He's just more friendly to the research community.

Why not answer the key question?

You started with "I don't have all the answers". Neither do I. But you do have an answer on whether the single bullet theory is possible, don't you? What does it mean if the single bullet theory is not true? Tell me what your answer is, and then tell me again whether Gary Mack is truthful.

Wim

PS: Please encourage your behind-the-scene emailers to state their opinions here.

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

Would you mind answering these two ‘hypothetical’ questions please?

Hello ... this is directed at me, right ... no other Pauls around?

1) If there was a fourth shot would you be prepared to consider there was indeed a conspiracy?

Yes of course. I'm not entrenched in my opinion, and would not be disappointed if a conspiracy was proved beyond reasonable doubt. I really am as happy being right as I am wrong, as long as the truth is left at the end.

2) If there was a conspiracy, would you then (for the sake of argument) concede that possibly government entities (whether rogue or otherwise) were complicit in aiding its cover up?

Yes, I would. But I firmly believe at this moment in time that there was no consipiracy. This of course makes me an idiot on this forum, a "nutter" even!

Thanks - Steve

And thank you for being so civil :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind engaging in sensible debate with those who can reciprocate. If the best you can do is respond with "grow up", as far as I'm concerned you're not a serious researcher, or even an intelligent one. The fact remains that the SBT is by far the best explanation which fits the physical evidence. No doubt the extra shooters were using bullets made of ice, which is why there is a distinct lack of ballistic evidence which points to any weapon being fired in Dealey Plaza other than LHO's rifle, which he took into work that morning in order to have a pop at the President. I'm not a "serious" researcher, so by all means tell me I'm wrong on this point, but please refrain from telling me to "grow up", it's not nice.

Which SB scenario are you finding believable?

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.

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Yes, I disagree with you. You are wrong. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Stephen,

In Europe it's the same.

Jim Marrs told me once: We defeated Germany, but not the Nazi's. They just moved to the USA.

Something to ponder.

Google for "Freedom to fascism"

I dare question anyone's factual knowledge, intellectual capacity, or sincerity, who says that Arlen Specter is entitled to his opinion about the SBT. Plus I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible. I have layed out my reasonings more than exhaustively. If you have an opinion, you should at least have the guts to defend it. Specter runs away. Ask Cyril Wecht! So far, Mack is hiding too.

You disagree, period? Then I disagree, period!

How would I feel if my opinion would not be tolerated? I would feel like Nelson Mandela felt for 25 years.

Wim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we all realize by now (or should) there is no one SB scenario; each of them is different. The LNTs tend to try to glop them all in together and then claim <gasp> that they've proved "the SBT". That is completely illogical.

Specter knew that he was creating a myth when he came forward with the WC SB scenario -- it used incorrect limo measurements, for one; in addition, the reenactment was done using a completely different vehicle (which the WC falsely claimed they had compensated for).

It was a sham, right from the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible.

Then you have about as much credibility as a researcher as Jean Hill had as a witness.

Which SB scenario are you finding believable?

Bullet passed through Kennedy's neck, through Connally's chest and wrist, and ended up in the latter's thigh. It caused every wound to Kennedy and Connally except the fatal wound to Kennedy's head.

It might be unlikely, it certainly isn't impossible (this makes me a xxxx, apparently!)

If it didn't happen, I'd like to know:

1. Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air? (There's a magic bullet)

2. How the bullet that entered Connally from behind steered its way around Kennedy first. (There's another magic bullet!)

Phew, all these magic bullets. A wizard was afoot in Dealey Plaza that day.

There is supporting evidence from credible eyewitnesses (unless you cherry-pick a fraction to support more than three shots fired, a shooter behind the picket fence, etc.) The Z-film also supports the single bullet theory. Connally and Kennedy appear to be reacting to their wounds simultaneously, but I suppose that is open to some interpretation due to the obstruction by the freeway sign.

I've also seen that diagram which shows Kennedy and Connally sitting at the same height, same distance from the inside of the car, and both straight shouldered and sitting forward at the time of the single shot that hit them both. Now there's a lie. I've also seen the picture of the 'pristine' bullet which shows it is not pristine (the one you never see in a CT book). Real liars are easier to find in the conspiracy world.

Sorry, getting off topic I suppose. I just don't like being labelled a xxxx by someone who is clearly blinkered, entrenched and ignorant.

Paul.

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...