Gary Mack

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Wim,

Firstly as you know, I believe you to be very knowledgeable about the JFK assassination and (as per the interview you gave to the student on your website) you have a really easy way of explaining your thoughts that in my opinion help the reader to follow and understand your point of view very nicely.

You also have, as I have already said, similar character traits as myself. You shoot from the hip, no BS and are obviously very passionate about what you believe. None of these are faults by the way, in fact on the contrary, I wish more people would say what they really believe and stop beating around the bush.

However, on one of your points here, I sincerely feel you are using a word that is far too strong in this instance.

Now before you go and start ruffling my feathers (which would not please my wife as this apparently; is her job) I categorically do not believe a single bullet inflicted all the wounds (apart from the fatal head shot) to both JFK and Gov. Connolly – it just goes against all my reasonable senses and this is without taking into consideration that the bullet seems to be in such wonderful condition.

To be honest, it is somewhat insulting, but having said that; is it ‘possible’?

Well if we consider that Time Travel is theoretically possible then we have to concede that no matter how extreme and unlikely the circumstances of the SBT, it has to be considered possible. In fact, to my understanding, many things are actually more possible than I would care to believe, but they are and I accept this.

I am not asking you to change your belief and I would never dream of diminishing your passion and enthusiasm and indeed I have no right to. But I do feel that saying anyone who accepts the SBT to be just ‘possible’ is a ‘xxxx’ is a bit too strong and gives others a brush to broadly paint your comment in pictures that may later undermine the excellent research you are undertaking.

This would be most unfair to you and readers who follow what you write.

Of course you can quite rightly tell me to mind my own business and I will not be offended even if offence becomes your intention, on the other hand you could slightly change your definition of a ‘xxxx’ in respect of this thread?

To be perfectly honest, I do not know Gary Mack so I have no intention of commenting on him apart from saying that I did see his comments in the TMWKK and his opinion seemed to be quite clear in respect of his beliefs (at least his beliefs at that time). Therefore I can fully understand why people are upset that he now seemingly uses his current (somewhat) stronger position to beat down the ideas and theories that he once believed in.

It is possible however, that he is using his current position to exploit information that may otherwise be inaccessible to him. If this was the case it would certainly be the smart thing to do if one believed they had within their grasp a key that may unlock the case, despite the fact it would annoy many people – the end justifies the means.

But I have no way of knowing any of this and am (again) blindly speculating – has anyone ever written a book about the JFK assassination (formally) titled ‘Blind Speculation’? or 'Time Traveller Debunks Single Bullet Theory'?

Thanks - Steve

[Wim Dankbaar]

Steve,

I take your thorough analysis as a compliment. Very well put. Don't worry about your wife. I won't steal her job.

Now, to the core of your point:

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

It depends on the definition of the word lie. Some definitions assume that every false or untrue statement is a lie, whether the author of the statement believes it or not. With that definition my statement stands. IF someone in the middle ages would have said: The earth is flat! he probably believed his statement to be true. But it would still be false and with this definition it would be a lie.

However, most definitions of the word require the author to know that his statement is false:

lie

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

ly·ing

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

With this definition, I would have to tone down my statement. Not everyone who says that the SBT is possible, would be a xxxx. After all, it is possible that the author does not have enough information to know that the statement is false. He is then excused by lack of knowledge, just like our medieval friend.

I trust you would agree that Gary Mack does not fall in that category. Maybe I could force myself to be less harsh (or clear, however you want to put it) if the possibility of the SBT would not be such a crucial issue. The lone assassin theory rests on the SBT. Without the SBT the lone assassin falls apart. Without the SBT, you have more gunmen and thus a conspiracy. The initial fabricators and supporters of the SBT knew this very well. That is why they fabricated the lie. If the SBT is a lie, the lone assassin is a lie. Therefore, it is not only important to identify the lie itself (in this case the SBT) but also the authors and supporters of the lie. A lie has a motive.

If Gary Mack would have to say that the SBT is a lie, then he would not even be able to make programs promoting the likelyhood of Oswald being the lone assassin, no additional shots bla bla bla ....

I just find it odd that so many here have no problem to embrace the statement that the SBT is not possible, but cannot approve the statement that Gary Mack issues a lie about it. I say: Tell it like it is. I guess Al Gore would call it an inconvenient truth.

Wim

Edited November 25, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Paul Baker]

I would like to highlight your question above Paul:

"Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air?"

I presume that if you were given a satisfactory answer or a plausible explanation to this question, that you would probably re-examine your current interpretation of the whole events? - Not just you may I add, I don't mean it to sound like I am singling you out.

Thanks - Steve

Hi Steve,

I think there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered to support the assertion that a single bullet did not cause all that damage to Kennedy and Connally. As it stands, and however unlikely it may be, the SBT is the simplest explanation of the facts, which is what makes it appealing (certainly to me ). I don't see an answer that is quite so - for want of a better word - elegant. If you start with the premise that the SBT is false, there is a lot more explaining to do, and shaky assumptions to be made, in my opinion.

But in answer to your question, yes. I just can't imagine any alternative explanation being as convincing as the SBT. But that might be because I don't know enough about this.

Paul.

[Pat Speer]

Paul, in chapters 10 through 12c at patspeer.com, I examine the single-bullet theory in detail, and demonstrate as well as anyone I think that the theory is extremely problematic, and that TV shows making it seem nice and logical are deliberately deceptive. If you're short on time you may wish to just look at the slides, as they pretty much tell the story.

I trust you'll find it interesting.

Pat

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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

Hi Paul, just for clarification, it is your belife that.

1, Oswald shot Kennedy, to the exclusion of all others.

2, Oswald shot Tippit, to the exclusion of all others.

3, Ruby shot Oswald, Ditto above.

Thanks, Steve.

[Pamela Brown]

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

Hi Paul,

Thank you for your honest answers.

Civility costs none of us anything and your quite welcome.

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.

I would like to highlight your question above Paul:

"Where the bullet that passed through Kennedy's neck finished up? Did it exit his throat and evaporate in mid-air?"

I presume that if you were given a satisfactory answer or a plausible explanation to this question, that you would probably re-examine your current interpretation of the whole events? - Not just you may I add, I don't mean it to sound like I am singling you out.

Thanks - Steve

You seem to be assuming the bullet came from the rear.

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Pat,

Do you have the link please, I would like to look through it before I go to bed.

Thanks - Steve

Paul, in chapters 10 through 12c at patspeer.com, I examine the single-bullet theory in detail, and demonstrate as well as anyone I think that the theory is extremely problematic, and that TV shows making it seem nice and logical are deliberately deceptive. If you're short on time you may wish to just look at the slides, as they pretty much tell the story.

I trust you'll find it interesting.

Pat

[Steve Mcdonagh]

Hi Paul,

Thank you very much for clarifying your position, I appreciate your honesty and respect your opinion.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I think there are a lot of questions that would need to be answered to support the assertion that a single bullet did not cause all that damage to Kennedy and Connally. As it stands, and however unlikely it may be, the SBT is the simplest explanation of the facts, which is what makes it appealing (certainly to me blink.gif). I don't see an answer that is quite so - for want of a better word - elegant. If you start with the premise that the SBT is false, there is a lot more explaining to do, and shaky assumptions to be made, in my opinion.

But in answer to your question, yes. I just can't imagine any alternative explanation being as convincing as the SBT. But that might be because I don't know enough about this.

Paul.

Edited November 25, 2008 by Steve Mcdonagh

[Wim Dankbaar]

Paul, in chapters 10 through 12c at patspeer.com, I examine the single-bullet theory in detail, and demonstrate as well as anyone I think that the theory is extremely problematic, and that TV shows making it seem nice and logical are deliberately deceptive. If you're short on time you may wish to just look at the slides, as they pretty much tell the story.

I trust you'll find it interesting.

Pat

Pat,

"Extremely problematic" is still a euphemism, saying it nicer than it is. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE! The SBT requires the bullet to have traveled THROUGH Kennedy. In every autopsy involving gunshot wounds it is a mandatory requirement to probe the wounds in order to determine bullet trajectories. Thus there are two possibilities for the SBT to hold water.

1) They did not probe the wounds (which would be extremely neglectful if not ridiculous)

2) They did probe the wounds and found that the bullet path went through Kennedy's torso.

So the unwitting observer might ask: Which of the two was it?

Answer: None of the two! For the correct answer we need to add a third option:

3) They did probe the wounds and found that the bullet path did NOT go through Kennedy's torso.

Hence, they knew right away that the SBT was not possible. Still they went ahead having Specter fabricate it.

After all, the preconceived conclusion had already been written:

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. ...We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

Does that sound like somebody's jobdescription at the sixth floor?

Conclusion: The SBT is a LIE, proven with documentary ironclad evidence from the WC's own archives. The kind of hard evidence that conspiracy believers can only dream of. Namely a report made by FBI agents, SPECIFICLY assigned to monitor the autopsy and make a report of it. Paul Baker may not know this report by Sibert and O'Neill, but Gary Mack does!

Wim

Edited November 25, 2008 by Wim Dankbaar

[Antti Hynonen]

Steve,

The link to Pat Speer's fine web-site is at the bottom of each one of Pat's posts.

http://www.patspeer.com/

Scroll down that page and you will find links to the chapters.

Antti

[Stephen Roy]

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

Good. We disagree, and it is clear where each of us stands. You think it's OK to denounce disagreement as lies, I don't.

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It's paradoxical: You seem to admire much about America, sullied only by that imagined Nazi presence.

[John Simkin]

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

[Stephen Roy]

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and apologize.

But haven't you and I gone at it a bit about this very question in the past?

I'm basing it, to some extent, on my friend Lucie, a Brit transplanted to the US, and a member of the media both there and here. She has told me that it is a truism, that SOME Europeans have a stereotyped view of the US. Perhaps she is wrong, or seeing it only through her prejudice. I hope it isn't true, and I'd invite Europeans to come here and see for themselves. It's a big nation, and there are a few wackos here and there, but by and large it is just honest and sincere people who see things from both the responsible left and responsible right.

You can understand why I am perplexed when I read things from Europeans that suggest that America is some seething den of neanderthals, when my observations on the scene just don't support that.

Perhaps I do have a mirrored prejudice, based on what I think I (sometimes) see. I hope not. I have a huge respect fr Europeans. I think much of what I admire in Americans comes from European tradition, and I find European culture fascinating. All I look for is reciprocity. Perhaps I'm visiting the sins of a few on the many. I'm glad someone agrees that Wim can take it too far sometimes.

[John Simkin]

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and apologize.

But haven't you and I gone at it a bit about this very question in the past?

I'm basing it, to some extent, on my friend Lucie, a Brit transplanted to the US, and a member of the media both there and here. She has told me that it is a truism, that SOME Europeans have a stereotyped view of the US. Perhaps she is wrong, or seeing it only through her prejudice. I hope it isn't true, and I'd invite Europeans to come here and see for themselves. It's a big nation, and there are a few wackos here and there, but by and large it is just honest and sincere people who see things from both the responsible left and responsible right.

You can understand why I am perplexed when I read things from Europeans that suggest that America is some seething den of neanderthals, when my observations on the scene just don't support that.

Perhaps I do have a mirrored prejudice, based on what I think I (sometimes) see. I hope not. I have a huge respect fr Europeans. I think much of what I admire in Americans comes from European tradition, and I find European culture fascinating. All I look for is reciprocity. Perhaps I'm visiting the sins of a few on the many. I'm glad someone agrees that Wim can take it too far sometimes.

I have been to the United States several times. I agree entirely that the country is full of honest and sincere people. I have travelled all over the world and would argue that people in the US are probably the most friendly I have encountered. Nor have I ever seen an act of violence in the US (something that American films and TV shows suggest are common events).

At the sametime I have never met anyone in Europe who is anti-American. Just because we are critical of certain aspects of US foreign policy, does not mean we are anti-American. In fact, nothing will give me more pleasure than if Barack Obama turns out to be a wise president. He has already done a great deal to change the image that Europeans have of America.

[Stephen Roy]

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and apologize.

But haven't you and I gone at it a bit about this very question in the past?

I'm basing it, to some extent, on my friend Lucie, a Brit transplanted to the US, and a member of the media both there and here. She has told me that it is a truism, that SOME Europeans have a stereotyped view of the US. Perhaps she is wrong, or seeing it only through her prejudice. I hope it isn't true, and I'd invite Europeans to come here and see for themselves. It's a big nation, and there are a few wackos here and there, but by and large it is just honest and sincere people who see things from both the responsible left and responsible right.

You can understand why I am perplexed when I read things from Europeans that suggest that America is some seething den of neanderthals, when my observations on the scene just don't support that.

Perhaps I do have a mirrored prejudice, based on what I think I (sometimes) see. I hope not. I have a huge respect fr Europeans. I think much of what I admire in Americans comes from European tradition, and I find European culture fascinating. All I look for is reciprocity. Perhaps I'm visiting the sins of a few on the many. I'm glad someone agrees that Wim can take it too far sometimes.

I have been to the United States several times. I agree entirely that the country is full of honest and sincere people. I have travelled all over the world and would argue that people in the US are probably the most friendly I have encountered. Nor have I ever seen an act of violence in the US (something that American films and TV shows suggest are common events).

At the sametime I have never met anyone in Europe who is anti-American. Just because we are critical of certain aspects of US foreign policy, does not mean we are anti-American. In fact, nothing will give me more pleasure than if Barack Obama turns out to be a wise president. He has already done a great deal to change the image that Europeans have of America.

I realize this is off-topic, so I'll end it here.

As for violence, alas, I live in an older, medium-sized eastern city which has developed a serious gang violence problem. It has happened near my home, I have personally seen a few instances of it, and it has profoundly affected people I know. Most officials are at a loss to know how to deal with it without diminishing liberty. This only seems to be a problem in cities. Firearms are an issue; I'd like to see less of them, but I seem to be in a minority on that.

I supported Sen. Obama, and I'm glad that he may be improving the image Bush screwed up. He's an unknown quantity, and we're all hoping for the best. Kinda Kennedy-like, in a way!

Thanks for the exchange. Now back to Gary Mack. I still say, get off his case.