Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gary Mack


Guest Duncan MacRae
 Share

Recommended Posts

Duncan thats the same thing

When Gary and I were on good terms and I was getting Emails from him all the time he said to me in some of the Emails "You can post this on the forum if you want to"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The other thread addresses an alleged dilemma concerning Gary Mack's opinion of the assassination and the events surrounding the assassination.

This thread addresses the fact that there is no dilemma concerning Gary Mack's opinion of the assassination and the events surrounding the assassination.

No frickin bones are required to be thrown, Lee. I'm not her to argue, just to make a point which does not require me to defend it, nor which am I obliged to defend, but to state the simple fact that Gary's opinion is known by those with the ability to look read and listen to what the man has to say.

Duncan, these select few cannot differentiate the Gary Mack who has researched the JFK assassination and has his own personal opinions on what happen Vs. the Gary Mack who's job is to be the curator of a historical museum. The curator doesn't have the luxury to agree with the official versions (WC and HSCA) for instance, but instead is hired to offer the public insight on the assassinations history. It's the history of the assassination that these guys do not like, much as you and I probably don't like some of it either, but until there is hard evidence brought forward to change history ... there is nothing Mack or anyone in his position could do differently. We understand this dilemma - others do not and because they do not, they must find blame somewhere else besides with themselves.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJ: First off I cannot agree that the acceptance and even reality of the SBT removes a shooter from the grassy knoll blowing JFK's head off.... these two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive by any means.. and if you continue on from that sentence with Gary's POV... he gives strong credibility to the acoustics that place such a shot there... and in Badgeman who also would have shot JFK in the head from there if he actually exists... while at the same time carefully accepting and supporting the conclusions that keep him employed.

This point has already been made but let me reiterate: Gary spent one of the most deceitful hours in broadcast history since Dan Rather trying to show that no shot hit Kennedy from the front.

I don't know how else you can interpret this except that the WC was right. Which we know is wrong.

Jim,

I find nothing wrong with an American citizen saying and trying to prove whatever they want to.... especially in the position he occupies.... Does he know it's wrong? Did Sec'y Powell know it was wrong lying to the UN? Damn right he did, but he did it anyway as he was ORDERED to by his president. Some people resign when it gets to that point... some simply lie and smile and deal with their demons.

This thread started with Duncan showing us that GMack has real concerns over the evidence and the government's case... the "bits and pieces", "more to it than Oswald"... "BUT I CAN'T PROVE IT"

He simply does not acknowledge the proofs or the evidence he's been presented...

It is just too bad that he doesn't afford the independent research the same latitude the government's evidence and conclusions reveal.

Sadly, the conclusion for the uninformed, after watching that TV show, would be that no shot hit JFK from the front? or "that's the biggest pile of BS I've ever seen"?... seems the more the WC defender tries, the more ridiculous they look...

Would we like GM to quote the exec session that deals with the pesky frontal shot? of course

and yes, I too believe it to be deceitful to leave out that portion of the factual record... the government's position as it was actually recorded instead of finally presented.

Is there anyone else in the WC defender community that even considers the reality of a conspiracy, who, if finally converted or finds that piece of evidence to convince them, would benefit the cause of righting History in this case?

If not, it seems we'd be better served as a community to work with this man who at least leaves the door cracked... than to talk about petty posting or unfriendly PMs.

-------------

Again, well put Bill... the dilemna is real... and Duncan, the other thread's dilemna does not concern GM's opinion but the responsibility he and the Museum have to "update history" as more and more information becomes available regardless of his opinion, which as you showed here is much more open to the possibilities.

Enough with this dead horse then.... There is simply no other non-CTer who openly admits to the problems in the government's case as Gary does, and imo, no other government story supporter who desires to find that "smokin' gun" that makes all the difference as much as he does. the fact that we've found many of them and they remain unaccepted perpetuates the dilemna...

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a pile of tripe.

Gary is as free as any other man to get another job is he not? He doesn't have to push the government story because he doesn't have to work at the sixth floor museum. But he chooses to do so.

Any more apologies and excuses to offer, Bill?

Yes, I would like to apologize to the other supporters of there being a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy for our cause being infiltrated by narrow minded individuals who think that someone should give up their job so to please them.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you name just one of the "sock puppets" who has posted on behalf of, and at the request of Gary Mack?

Ray Carroll is another.

I have on occasion posted Gary's emails to me. The best example is this thread on detective Paul Bentley:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13175

As anyone with 1/2 a brain can see, I was not posting Gary's emails because I agreed with him. I was posting them because I DISAGREED. In the foggy mind of Jim Di Eugenio, this makes me Gary's 'sock puppet."

Gary and I disagree on the credibility of detective Bentley's sixth Floor oral History, and on the question of Lee Oswald's NON - involvement in the assassination, but we don't disagree on everything. Gary is not quite the government propagandist that some people think, as I have already pointed out on the other thread.

Please see this exchange from David Von Pein's website, where Gary accuses the Dallas police department of complicity in the murder of Lee Oswald:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13175

And PS to the foggy-minded Mr. Di Eugenio, Gary has NEVER asked me to post his emails to me. I did that ENTIRELY on my own initiative, because I believe in open discussion and dissemination of information.

I know that Gary has a family to support as I do -- AND GOOD JOBS ARE NOT THAT EASY TO FIND -- so I can understand that Gary does not want to put his job in jeopardy by posting on internet forums.

Those who criticize Gary on that account are very SMALL-MINDED people, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a pile of tripe.

Gary is as free as any other man to get another job is he not? He doesn't have to push the government story because he doesn't have to work at the sixth floor museum. But he chooses to do so.

Any more apologies and excuses to offer, Bill?

Yes, I would like to apologize to the other supporters of there being a conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy for our cause being infiltrated by narrow minded individuals who think that someone should give up their job so to please them.

Bill Miller

LOL

Yeah that's what it is; I want Gary Mack to give up his job to please me. How insightful you are, Bill Miller. :rolleyes:

Of course you knew what I actually meant and you knew I was right but you couldn't counter it with anything of substance so you decided to take a swipe at me instead. Kudos, Bill. You are a credit to supporters of conspiracy.

Go away,

Martin Hay

You have nothing

Useful to say.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, you are being less than candid by trying to insinuate that you only relayed Gary's message once.

Less than candid is a euphemism for xxxx. Two can play the game of xxxx. I never suggested or implied that I posted Gary's emails only once. On the Bentley thread alone I posted several of Gary's emails. Who do you think you are trying to fool, Mr. Foggy-brain?

And the first time, if I recall correctly, it was at his request.

Gary has never asked me to post on his behalf, so either your memory is failing or you just made that up.

ANd BTW, Martin has a lot more to say than you do, that is for sure.

Quantity is no guarantee of quality. Judging by this thread, Martin Hay posts juvenile rubbish.

and you are a poetaster, not a poet.

I am a true poet

But some foggy-minded people

Just don't know it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one will ever know if he did or did not.

I recommend that you study the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, America's greatest philosopher. According to Peirce, whoever says "no one will ever know" only seeks to BLOCK THE WAY OF INQUIRY.

And since you communicate with him so often, it probably did not even had to be mentioned.

Apart from lousy syntax, Jim specializes in MAKING ASSUMPTIONS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Gary Mack makes a good living in his position. He has no obligation to devote his life to exposing a conspiracy, just like the Parkland doctors did not set aside their medical professions to expose that JFK had an exit wound at the back of his skull.

We really do not need to argue about Gary Mack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Gary Mack makes a good living in his position.

I hope he does. In the opinion of many researchers, Gary goes above and beyond his job description as museum curator in helping JFK researchers.

He has no obligation to devote his life to exposing a conspiracy,

True, yet he accuses the DPD of complicity in Lee Oswald's murder.

just like the Parkland doctors did not set aside their medical professions to expose that JFK had an exit wound at the back of his skull.

Interesting analogy. I have no doubt that JFK was shot in the throat and the right front of his head, and I defer to expert witness Craig Roberts

when he opines that the fatal head shot was a mercury-filled bullet designed to explode on impact and not exit.

THERE IS NO EXIT WOUND VISIBLE IN THE Z-FILM IN THE FRAMES AFTER 313, THEREFORE THE DALLAS DOCTORS IMAGINED IT.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Zone-Sniper-Looks-Dealey/dp/0963906208

We really do not need to argue about Gary Mack.

What's to argue about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you are saying Jim... and thanks for the history...

one simple question then.... name any other supporter of the Gov't position who has a better relationship with those on this forum. Who has ever shown an inkling of doubt and the possibility of a change in their position that would have any impact on the LN community - make 'em sit up and think... if that's at all possible.

maybe he's just playing with us... but the bit about the paper bag from Montgomery could have taken a while to track down and he just emailed me the critical passage which placed even more doubt on the contents of that bag and the statements/attitudes of the DPD at the time. and that's just one incident... so many on this forum have received info from him along with the rebuttals.

The company line was established when the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy and a very strong chance of a second shooter.... and since THAT is the official history, THAT is what Gary and the Museum need to present... otherwise they should just call it the 6th Floor Warren Commission Report Support Museum... the earth is no longer flat, the sun never revolved around the earth... and the WCR conclusions are outdated, unsupported and essentially fictitious. Ignoring the need to stay current speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray ... some folks cannot see the forest for the trees. There are lots of images at the Museum that Mack hasn't even had time to study. For these guys to act like he should throw away a once in a lifetime opportunity to see all this stuff so he can confirm to their good-ol'-boy mentality is ludicrous in my view. Maybe they should ask Mack if one day after leaving the Museum if he would want to write a book? Who knows ... maybe he has already started one.

I often wonder if these individuals have considered who would replace Mack at the Museum and how would that benefit researchers everywhere, if at all. Mack has sat and spoken one on one with many of the witnesses and at times with their families. Gary not only knows what was said in the record, but he also has had the opportunity to get bits of information, if available, that we just wouldn't find in the official story. So who could replace him as curator and be able to offer us the references to source materials that we continually seek from him? I have had countless conversations with Gary on source materials and evidence that I am certain that I could not have gotten from someone of lesser experience. Of course once this happenes, then the same people can say how the Museum pressured Gary Mack out of his job so he could no longer assist CTs ... it will never end with these people.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who could replace him as curator and be able to offer us the references to source materials that we continually seek from him? I have had countless conversations with Gary on source materials and evidence that I am certain that I could not have gotten from someone of lesser experience.

I recommend

On Jim's SO SAY

To replace GM

Martin Hay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The company line was established when the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy and a very strong chance of a second shooter.... and since THAT is the official history, THAT is what Gary and the Museum need to present

I think that IS Gary's (& the museum's) "line".

Gary also believes that someone in the Dallas police department conspired with Ruby, as the HSCA also concluded. So Gary is a solid HSCA citizen in good standing.

But not with me [or The Duke of Lane].

THe HSCA went wrong when they ASSUMED WITHOUT PROOF that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, it seems that character is more important than information. Anyone who makes room for Gary Mack runs the risk of being under his control, looking for his approval. Is it really worth it to run the rish of later feeling like a fool?

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...