Questioning the veracity of fellow members

[Guest Duncan MacRae]

I have had a poll removed where I inadvertently questioned the veracity of a fellow member of this forum.

I did not know that William Reymond was a member here.

Jack White was the member who submitted the protest.

I would also request that the thread titled "The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question" be removed, as Gary mack is a also member here, and his veracity is being questioned almost on a daily basis.

The same rules and protection should apply to all members, including Gary Mack.

Duncan MacRae

[Denis Pointing]

Should do Duncan...bet they dont!

[William Kelly]

Should do Duncan...bet they dont!

Hey, I didn't enter into that debate until Duke called me on the carpet, and was wrong, as I correspond frequently with Gary Mack and think that its great that he's there and answers quesitons.

My point is that he seems to only correct Conspiracy Theorists who post wrong information, while letting the Lone Nutters slide.

I don't like the idea of eleminating any posts.

Gary has the option of defending himself or posting himself if he wants to.

Just because Duke, who implies he is paid to defend Gary Mack, is doing such a bad job of it, doesn't mean that the posts should be removed.

And I question whether the forum rule about questioning the motivations of posters is a legitimate.

Yea, let's get to the bottom of the story, but no eleminate posts because someone is offended.

BK

Edited October 12, 2010 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

I would also request that the thread titled "The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question" be removed, as Gary mack is a also member here, and his veracity is being questioned almost on a daily basis.

The same rules and protection should apply to all members, including Gary Mack.

There is a world of difference between the thread on Gary Mack that Otto Cornejo started and the short video clip that Duncan posted asking

whether or not Reymond was lying - something impossible to prove one way or another.

Otto's questions were entirely legitimate; Duncan's was not.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16495&view=findpost&p=204198

In my opinion, one member in particular may have crossed the line in his denouncements of Mack. It is up to the moderators to act

if they feel Mack's rights as a Forum member were violated. That is the system that is in place here, like it or not.

And although Jim DiEugenio's criticisms of Mack were extremely harsh, those criticisms were based on Mack's work and actions as it

pertains to his history as a researcher, his role in several documentaries, and Mack's current position with The Sixth Floor Museum.

These topics are fair game for discussion.

Duncan's contention that Mack's veracity was being questioned on an almost daily basis is hyperbole. There were actually more

supporters of Mack than detractors; at least it seemed that way to me.

Duncan's attempt to draw a parallel between the misguided way he started his thread and the thread started by Otto doesn't work.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Otto B Cornejo]

I can't speak to how the moderators of this forum arbitrate disputes regarding it's rule about questioning the veracity of someones belief, it is not for me to decide. If, in their wisdom, they think that my thread is egregious in any way, let them do as they please. But I will make these points in defense of my initial inquiry:

- Gary Mack is a member of this forum because he filled out the necessary form and it was accepted by the moderators. He hasn't participated in any conversations that I know of. It strains credulity, in my opinion, to make the assumption that he is a participating member here.

- Gary Mack is a public figure in the history of the JFK assassination. His full-time job is to represent everything that happened that day (if you believe what the Sixth Floor Museum touts). He has participated in numerous media events as a paid consultant for his opinons about this case. In my mind he is a historical figure in the history of this case, and thus open to debate regarding his opinons. In fact, one could argue, since he has been granted such a public forum as TV to espouse what he believes, it is almost mandatory for those who believe otherwise to speak up.

- Having said that, my initial question was simply to find out where Gary stood at this point in time. I was confused. I did know that asking my question in a public forum might spark some heated replies, but I felt that I might be able to sift through personal opinons and get some facts from people who were not the man himself.

- and on that score, Gary did send me a personal message answering the question himself. We exchanged a few messages and that was that. He was cordial in his tone and I have nothing bad to say about what he wrote. It was never my intention to vilify or demonize him personally.

- so I think that my initial question was harmless and made no attempt to question his veracity. If SUBSEQUENT POSTS defy the rules of this forum, perhaps they should be evaluated individually - dont you think?

Otto

Edited October 13, 2010 by Otto B Cornejo

[Duke Lane]

... Just because Duke, who implies he is paid to defend Gary Mack, is doing such a bad job of it, doesn't mean that the posts should be removed. ...

Aww, Bill, you do me an injustice!

Don't you know that some people will take it as absolute gospel truth that I'm being paid to defend Gary simply because I said it? Hell, when Jack White said I was CIA because I moved to Virginia for a while, and Lisa Pease repeated it as far and wide and publicly as she could (much to my embarrassment on a particular evening in DC), it was gospel truth.

Now, you're not letting me have my own 15 minutes of infamy? The pain is just about killing me!

Please! Remove your post! Don't let people think people think you've been fooled by my cover, and that you think I might not be in the Sixth Floor's diabolical employ!

Heck, come to think of it, I recall that Jack said it was me who brought Perry to Texas and got Gary his job before I "went back to Langley."

Gimme a little credit, willya?

[Dean Hagerman]

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

[Craig Lamson]

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

[Jack White]

... Just because Duke, who implies he is paid to defend Gary Mack, is doing such a bad job of it, doesn't mean that the posts should be removed. ...

Aww, Bill, you do me an injustice!

Don't you know that some people will take it as absolute gospel truth that I'm being paid to defend Gary simply because I said it? Hell, when Jack White said I was CIA because I moved to Virginia for a while, and Lisa Pease repeated it as far and wide and publicly as she could (much to my embarrassment on a particular evening in DC), it was gospel truth.

Now, you're not letting me have my own 15 minutes of infamy? The pain is just about killing me!

Please! Remove your post! Don't let people think people think you've been fooled by my cover, and that you think I might not be in the Sixth Floor's diabolical employ!

Heck, come to think of it, I recall that Jack said it was me who brought Perry to Texas and got Gary his job before I "went back to Langley."

Gimme a little credit, willya?

With Duke making up such fantasies, his credibility is taking a hit. The "quotes" he attributes to me are untrue.

As I recall, on the DellaRosa forum, I at one time sarcastically said (because of some of his postings) that "it looks

like Duke is being transferred back to Langley.) It was a joke! I never said he brought Dave Perry to Texas; I said

it appeared that Duke was Perry's "protege". I never mentioned Duke in relation to Mack; I said that Perry seemed

to be "in charge of Mack".

Jack

[John Dolva]

see what I mean?

[David G. Healy]

see what I mean?

see what you mean? Might be nice if you learned to use the "quote" function... you assume most know who you're responding to, they don't!

[John Dolva]

sorry. check the timestamp. I was responding to myself. It seemed reasonable at the time

[David G. Healy]

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

[Craig Lamson]

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

[David G. Healy]

Gary Mack may be signed up on this forum but he is not a member because he has never made a post

Its like getting married and not consummating it

He is to scared to post and have to defend himself in a public forum

When was the last time Reymond made a post...or even visited?

oh geez, you whining again? Simply put, Zapruder film authenticity has been challenged. Prove the alleged in-camera original Zapruder currently stored at NARA is what you profess--the original 8mm in-camera film shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63! No opinion laddie, PROVE it!

Just curious...exactly what will satisfy you as "proof"?

change the subject, eh?

A collection of professional, credentialed (film-image) composing experts (industry verified) versed in and/or experienced in 1964 optical film printing equipment and image composing TECHNIQUES whom collectively shall put the alleged, currently housed, NARA, in-camera original Zapruder film through forensic testing... Roland Zavada-KODAK would surely have a seat at the table.

Anything short of that reflects simple opinion, both yours, mine and Zavada's when it comes to image composing)... Frankly, I can handle a determination by such a group that the Z-film was found to be *an in-camera original*. Ya see, even that determination does not change what has been determined through an already government investigation of the assassination: conspiracy. And that makes for a long day, years in-fact defending the WCR, doesn't it?

Edited October 14, 2010 by David G. Healy