Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gary Mack's position about JFK is incoherent


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, you're a legend in your own mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

There is absolutely NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

However, Education Forum can make up its own rules of engagement.

On a side note, I really encourage every JFK researcher to take a tour of the Sixth Floor Museum just to see what a joke the place is and the hilarious ways they push the untenable "lone nutter" agenda. My favorite is they have a teeny tiny section on a wall dedicated to conspiracies in the JFK assassination and one of the key *theories* discussed is - get this - space aliens in the JFK assassination. Ha ha ha

Seriously, that is worth the $13.50 price of admission into the Sixth Floor Museum. It also takes about "investigative agencies" being involved in the JFK assassination. The two theories it ignores and seriously downplays are Lyndon Johnson and the CIA as perps in JFK's death. "CIA" are 3 letters not allowed to be mentioned in the Sixth Floor Museum.

Now that is the guts of the JFK assassination. Not surprisingly, the names of Dallas, TX oilmen H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. don't come up either. Those are the oil executives who probably tasked out the JFK assassination to CIA/elements of military.

The Sixth Floor Museum being located in Dallas, TX, is like have a "Holocaust Denial" museum located right next to Auschwitz with David Duke the curator instead of Gary Mack and Nicola Langford the executive director.

And, yes, you can use that line and not have to pay me royalties.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

However, Education Forum can make up its own rules of engagement.

On a side note, I really encourage every JFK researcher to take a tour of the Sixth Floor Museum just to see what a joke the place is and the hilarious ways they push the untenable "lone nutter" agenda. My favorite is they have a teeny tiny section on a wall dedicated to conspiracies in the JFK assassination and one of the key *theories* discussed is - get this - space aliens in the JFK assassination. Ha ha ha

Seriously, that is worth the $13.50 price of admission into the Sixth Floor Museum. It also takes about "investigative agencies" being involved in the JFK assassination. The two theories it ignores and seriously downplays are Lyndon Johnson and the CIA as perps in JFK's death. "CIA" are 3 letters not allowed to be mentioned in the Sixth Floor Museum.

Now that is the guts of the JFK assassination. Not surprisingly, the names of Dallas, TX oilmen H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison, Sr. don't come up either. Those are the oil executives who probably tasked out the JFK assassination to CIA/elements of military.

The Sixth Floor Museum being located in Dallas, TX, is like have a "Holocaust Denial" museum located right next to Auschwitz with David Duke the curator instead of Gary Mack and Nicola Langford the executive director.

And, yes, you can use that line and not have to pay me royalties.

Why give them a dime? I have never gone to that 6th floor of lies and never will. Nothing up there is worth any price, you're giving your money to the wrong side. Give it to COPA instead.

I agree that Jim has put GM in an indefensible position of his own making. He deserves to be exposed, but private emails also need to be respected. Not sure when EF established this rule as my privacy with an email was violated here a few years back and I complained about that HERE. The "response "I got was to see a moderator then re-post that stuff on a different thread. (And it has since been reposted elsewhere, right after after I complained again so I am particularily sensitive to the issue of having an expectation of privacy with email. )

Mack? That puts it all in a different ballgame, as he will not post on forums, and he deserves to be outed. Especially what he and other forces are planning for 11/22/13: silencing us.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

If you have never been to the Sixth Floor Museum, you are missing out. It is important to understand the "politically correct" propaganda that is being disseminated there, then you will be better equiped to counter it.

When I first went up to the so-called "sniper's nest" area, it struck me why would a "lone nut" shoot JFK on Houston street as it turns left onto Elm? It is a no-brainer shot and someone could make the hit with a handgun, perhaps 35 yards away.

You won't be able to find nuggets like that unless you "take the tour" of the Sixth Floor Museum. There is no need to list all the laughable things I found presented in the exhibits - but, again, when you do you can point it to people and humiliate and embarrass the Sixth Floor Museum.

I encourage folks to take the tour with the intent of dissecting the propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I understand your point, Jim. I have posted emails on this forum in the past, including ones from Gary... without obtaining permission.

I also recall an instance where John Simkin posted an email from Dale Myers, and Myers went ballistic because he hadn't asked permission to do so... where I was somewhat sympathetic to Myers.

The question is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone sends you an unsolicited email telling you your comments are wrong or your research sucks, you are almost certainly within your rights to publish this material.

If, however, you are a member of an e-mail research group, in which a few researchers gather to engage in a presumably civil discussion of a topic, the other members of this group may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, that is, an expectation that other members of the group will not publish their comments in any way, including posting their comments online.

My understanding is that, in this instance, Gary specified at the bottom of his emails that they were not for publication.

If so, and the emails you published were indeed obtained via your membership in a private email research group, you have, in effect, agreed to keep a confidence, then violated that agreement.

Now, whether or not this will stand up in court is not really the point.

The point is that many members of this forum have at one time or another been in private email research groups, and have respected the privacy of the other members of these groups.

And no one, of whom I'm aware, wants to have two sets of rules on this: one for Jim Fetzer, where he gets to use these emails to trash people who dare to disagree with him, and one for everybody else.

Nothing, in the emails you have published, is news. Everyone following this forum has to know by now that Gary is a long-time CT, with great misgivings about most conspiracy theories, and a job where he mostly defends the "official" story. Oh well. Live with it. Complain like hell when he lends his credibility to crappy TV programs. But live with it. If Gary wasn't working at the Sixth Floor, after all, who would take his place? Another long-time CT? Someone subscribing to your theories? Dream. If Gary wasn't there, it would be someone like McAdams. The City of Dallas has no intention of letting one of their top tourist attractions become a "conspiracy" museum.

It's really not that hard to understand. I urge you to try.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn!! Jabber,jabber, jabber. Yawn!!

JT

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

This is a complex question. IMO if someone sends a unsolicited and/or abusive e-mail the recipient should be able to make its contents public. In other cases if one or more of the parties requests or promises confidentiality this should be respected. Other cases are a grey area, I normally ask permission before quoting others.

However the notion that Duff is some sort of expert on the issue is risible despite his self appointed august title he is basically little more that the coordinator of a consortium of bloggers.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say this if two researchers are exchanging emails on JFK or what ever if neither one says this is private only between us two i see no reason to post the email.

If i share info on JFK my email with another researcher they are more than free to share that info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have never been to the Sixth Floor Museum, you are missing out. It is important to understand the "politically correct" propaganda that is being disseminated there, then you will be better equiped to counter it.

When I first went up to the so-called "sniper's nest" area, it struck me why would a "lone nut" shoot JFK on Houston street as it turns left onto Elm? It is a no-brainer shot and someone could make the hit with a handgun, perhaps 35 yards away.

You won't be able to find nuggets like that unless you "take the tour" of the Sixth Floor Museum. There is no need to list all the laughable things I found presented in the exhibits - but, again, when you do you can point it to people and humiliate and embarrass the Sixth Floor Museum.

I encourage folks to take the tour with the intent of dissecting the propaganda.

Robert, I said on another thread that maybe the driver deliberately made the turn slow so someone could shoot President Kennedy right there. I believe the films not showing the turn were altered. Why? Because the powers that be are hiding something. I believe Kennedy was shot at during that turn.

Are emails safe? Supposedly, there is a building in England where they monitor the Internet. Every time someone uses the word "assassination" it's another "hit." -- just an example.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....If Gary wasn't working at the Sixth Floor, after all, who would take his place? Another long-time CT? Someone subscribing to your theories? Dream. If Gary wasn't there, it would be someone like McAdams.....

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from.

Think about it:

First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story. I'm sure we would be able to take part of how her story developed over the years, with all her books, all her interviews on Fetzer's net broadcasts; Cancun, LHO's leaf letter incident explained in her own words and in a completely new light. And, I'm sure, lot's more of so far completely unknowns that would no doubt stun the research community. Ms Baker could probably be convinced that six personal appearances from her is reasonable, every year.

Another little pavilion that explains the concept of "spiral nebulas" and how they work on windshields. All with specimens in secure glass boxes.

The next pavilion obviously should be dedicated to the limo stop; pictures of the limo at a complete halt where Greer and Kellerman are having a nice cup of coffee while the president is being assassinated. No doubt would "the umbrella man" be at center of this presentation.

Not to mention, say in scale H0, a fantastic model of Dealey Plaza where almost every rooftop, picket fence, drainage and underpass would be populated by snipers. Surely with names attached to each and every one of them.

But the real block buster would be the entirely new floor where every single dis-informant would would be exposed. This would most likely have to be an interim solution as the number is much too large to squeeze in on a single floor of the building.

Personally, I'm particularly interested in the new section where every faked film and photo from Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, will be displayed. Dozens of films and hundreds of photos will finally get their much longed for explanation.

On the entrance floor we would experience 3-D virtual bonfires where the WC report could be thrown.

The city of Dallas would at last get the museum the world has been waiting for.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, I thought I'd take a look at what you posted on Veterans Today. I put up the address,

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/. Guess what happened?

It came back indicating there was no such page. I take it this means that either I clumsily put in the

wrong address or that your posting has been taken down by Veterans Today. If it really is the latter, this

means that Veterans Today has decided to agree with this Forum and disagree with you. Which is it?

JT

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from.

Think about it:

First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story.

...

first words out of you and it has to be Judyth Baker, your perpetual crusade. Methinks you donated to her cause when she fled to Europe. And for some reason didn't quite get what you wanted out of that donation, not enough bang for your buck there Glenn? Is that correct?

Jim Fetzer isn't the thread topic, Gary Mack is. And his very public position concerning the JFK's assassination on the streets of Dallas Texas.

However, I will admit, there are a more than a few lone nut, LHO did it all by his lonesome advocates on this board with strange obsessions, you're one, the obsession: JUDYTH!

Edited by David G. Healy
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...