Jump to content
The Education Forum

the GARY MACK dilemna


David Josephs
 Share

Recommended Posts

The Sixth Floor Museum has taken up the position of being a 'living' WC. Gary Mack is its representative. He opens doors to those whom he considers 'safe' in terms of being involved in most of the TV programs that are developed. He emails people to tell them what to do and not do, what to post and not post. He is a behind-the-scenes manipulator of the Ongoing Coverup. He likes to buddy up to naive researchers of both sides. He likes to play both sides, but when it comes down to it, his answer will always end up being that 'he finds no hard evidence of conspiracy'. The WC members may be long gone, but Gary Mack speaks for them all every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

The Sixth Floor Museum has taken up the position of being a 'living' WC. Gary Mack is its representative. He opens doors to those whom he considers 'safe' in terms of being involved in most of the TV programs that are developed. He emails people to tell them what to do and not do, what to post and not post. He is a behind-the-scenes manipulator of the Ongoing Coverup. He likes to buddy up to naive researchers of both sides. He likes to play both sides, but when it comes down to it, his answer will always end up being that 'he finds no hard evidence of conspiracy'. The WC members may be long gone, but Gary Mack speaks for them all every day.

I agree with all of the above. The Sixth Floor Museum is a disinformation outlet for the LBJ/CIA murderers of John Kennedy and Gary Mack runs the Sixth Floor "Museum." ... "museum" for 1960's disinfo, lies, cover up of the JFK assassination, it does perfectly present that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with all of the above. The Sixth Floor Museum is a disinformation outlet for the LBJ/CIA murderers of John Kennedy and Gary Mack runs the Sixth Floor "Museum." ... "museum" for 1960's disinfo, lies, cover up of the JFK assassination, it does perfectly present that view.

And then there are those who cannot seem to distinguish the difference between a Historian and a Theorist.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I agree with all of the above. The Sixth Floor Museum is a disinformation outlet for the LBJ/CIA murderers of John Kennedy and Gary Mack runs the Sixth Floor "Museum." ... "museum" for 1960's disinfo, lies, cover up of the JFK assassination, it does perfectly present that view.

And then there are those who cannot seem to distinguish the difference between a Historian and a Theorist.

Bill

And there are those who cannot distinguish between a Museum Curator and a Propagandist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

He and the owners of the museum are also part of "We the People", just as the KKK, Nazi party, the president's cabinet and ACLU are.... each entitled to their opinions and freedom of expression within the law.

It was a theory that IRAQ/Saddam was behind 9/11. At one point over 75% polled believed it thanks to what we now know was a directed advertising campaign specific to that purpose.... they lied their asses off... and to the UN and world to boot. Was history corrected when it was found to be false? Kind of....

While a theory and not as believed as in the past... the SBT is still the historical explanation of what occured for those injuries...

what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation.

The Museum of Natural History does not pay homage to the theologies challenging its conclusions regarding creation and evolution.

Should it? If the answer if "no" then we need a museum of our own.

With 85% of the world believing in a conspiracy... how hard would that be?

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation."

The HSCA concluded that there was 1 shot from the front, not "frontal shots". Why would you claim otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

He and the owners of the museum are also part of "We the People", just as the KKK, Nazi party, the president's cabinet and ACLU are.... each entitled to their opinions and freedom of expression within the law.

It was a theory that IRAQ/Saddam was behind 9/11. At one point over 75% polled believed it thanks to what we now know was a directed advertising campaign specific to that purpose.... they lied their asses off... and to the UN and world to boot. Was history corrected when it was found to be false? Kind of....

While a theory and not as believed as in the past... the SBT is still the historical explanation of what occured for those injuries...

what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation.

The Museum of Natural History does not pay homage to the theologies challenging its conclusions regarding creation and evolution.

Should it? If the answer if "no" then we need a museum of our own.

With 85% of the world believing in a conspiracy... how hard would that be?

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation."

The HSCA concluded that there was 1 shot from the front, not "frontal shots". Why would you claim otherwise?

Todd,

He didn't make that claim. Read it again:

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation"

In what part of that passage does he say that the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head?

Martin,

Read what I wrote again.

I never said that he said “the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head".

Todd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there are those who cannot seem to distinguish the difference between a Historian and a Theorist.

Bill

And there are those who cannot distinguish between a Museum Curator and a Propagandist.

Propaganda:

1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

2. the deliberate spreading of such information, rumors, etc

If a description such as 'rumor' applies to the JFK case, then it came by way of the official investigations into the matter .... Gary Mack then cites the history of those official investigations which is what he is supposed to do even if his personal feelings and opinions vary from them.

One who cites the history of something whether it involved a propaganda war in itself, does not make the historian of that event a propagandist in the real world in my view ... however in the rabid mindset of the more bias individuals ... they must blame someone I supposed. God help the individual who ever becomes a Curator of a Vietnam War Museum and has to provide the public with its history!

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

He and the owners of the museum are also part of "We the People", just as the KKK, Nazi party, the president's cabinet and ACLU are.... each entitled to their opinions and freedom of expression within the law.

It was a theory that IRAQ/Saddam was behind 9/11. At one point over 75% polled believed it thanks to what we now know was a directed advertising campaign specific to that purpose.... they lied their asses off... and to the UN and world to boot. Was history corrected when it was found to be false? Kind of....

While a theory and not as believed as in the past... the SBT is still the historical explanation of what occured for those injuries...

what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation.

The Museum of Natural History does not pay homage to the theologies challenging its conclusions regarding creation and evolution.

Should it? If the answer if "no" then we need a museum of our own.

With 85% of the world believing in a conspiracy... how hard would that be?

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation."

The HSCA concluded that there was 1 shot from the front, not "frontal shots". Why would you claim otherwise?

Todd,

He didn't make that claim. Read it again:

"what matters more is the head shot... and the historical reality that frontal shots and a likely conpsiracy was the result of the HSCA investigation"

In what part of that passage does he say that the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head?

Martin,

Read what I wrote again.

I never said that he said “the HSCA itself concluded that a frontal shot struck the head".

Todd

Ooops. My bad. Apologies all round.

...and I never meant to imply that the HSCA said anything more than there was a 95+% chance of certainty that a shot was fired from this acoustically represented area (which just happened to be in front of the muddy bumbers on the south face of the picket fence... the "hat man" seen in Moorman by the tree)

the sentence I wrote should have been frontal shot, not shots since I use "and"....

If GM is indeed the mouthpiece of the government's position... then shouldn't THIS be the loudest shout?

http://www.jfklancer.com/HSCA.html

The Findings:

The committee found that, to be precise and loyal to the facts it established, it was compelled to find that President Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy. The committee's finding that President Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy was premised on four factors:

1) Since the Warren Commission's and FBI's investigation into the possibility of a conspiracy was seriously flawed, their failure to develop evidence of a conspiracy could not be given independent weight.

2) The Warren Commission was, in fact, incorrect in concluding that Oswald and Ruby had no significant associations, and therefore its finding of no conspiracy was not reliable.

3) While it cannot be inferred from the significant associations of Oswald and Ruby that any of the major groups examined by the committee were involved in the assassination, a more limited conspiracy could not be ruled out.

4) There was a high probability that a second gunman, in fact, fired at the President. At the same time, the committee candidly stated, in expressing its finding of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, that it was "unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

Wouldn't this, by itself, have made a great book cover for "JFK and the Unspeakable" B)

Guess I'll need to research a bit more about how DVP, GMack, McAdams, Myers & Posner deals with this...

What can they say ?? one government commission was right the other wrong??

Awaiting my GMack email.... :hotorwot

and the point remains...

what does the defense of the SBT have to do with the HSCA conclusions or the reality of the headshot?

and finally... I see no one has produced a name of a LNer who can even carry on a civil, intelligent conversation about the possibility of conspiracy and the evidence that supports it... let alone one who recognizes some of the government's evidence problems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll need to research a bit more about how DVP, GMack, McAdams, Myers & Posner deals with this...

What can they say ?? one government commission was right the other wrong??

I have heard Mack say that there were two Governmental findings and describe them in detail, which again is what someone who cites the history of the official investigations does. This isn't a pick and choose option for Gary while in the role of a curator at the Museum.

Bill

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...