Gary Mack-isms

[John Beckham]

i can see your point, but, this should be an open, non-pre-judgemental subject (although, i have become passionate myself) the crux should be evidence, not stories...

[John Beckham]

how many times have you heard about JFK's assaination videos beinng altered. including Nix saying so. that's a no win. somewhere out there is the "hard evidence". DOCUMENT IT WELL BEFORE YOU TELL!!!!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:i can see your point, but, this should be an open, non-pre-judgemental subject (although, i have become passionate myself) the crux should be evidence, not stories...No worries. Don't let it get the better of you (although I'm guilty of it myself too). Letting it get you too angry or passionate only clouds judgement. Now if only I could follow my own advice all the time I wouldn't feel the need to slap my neighbor (who looks like Joe the Plumber's twin...seriously) for letting his THREE LARGE DOGS get out of his yard everytime I turn around!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:how many times have you heard about JFK's assaination videos beinng altered. including Nix saying so. that's a no win. somewhere out there is the "hard evidence". DOCUMENT IT WELL BEFORE YOU TELL!!!!Exactly! So, for example, I showed where I got Gary Mack's comments from. I read the discussion and told readers where to read it. I absolutely agree. When I tell about information I tell readers where they can find it for themselves if I don't post a link for them to see for themselves. It's important to not just take someone's word for it. I've been researching this stuff for almost 20 years. It's been a hobby of mine. I've read the information for myself, and it's much better to show someone where the information came from.This is precisely why I'm astonished at how Gary Mack can make comments like that about there not being any "hard evidence" indicating other shooters. It makes no sense, and I'm not being mean by saying that. I'm just saying that it makes no sense to me, and I'm a professional investigator. I'm a private investigator...on salary with a nation-wide investigation firm and everything. Seriously...and his comments about "hard evidence" just seem odd. If he thinks that "hard evidence" doesn't include the Zapruder film and audio and witness statements, what IS "hard evidence" then?You know, when Time Magazine (it might have been Life Magazine) published frames of the Zapruder Film (before the American public saw the film in it entirety), the two frames showing the head-snap were REVERSED, making it look like the head went forward. When that magazine was put to task for this, they said it was a "printing error" or something like that. Even before the public saw the film, Dan Rather was one of the first reporters to view the film and he went on national television and told the American public that JFK's head was thrown violently FORWARD. That's a fact. Look it up! These two pieces of evidence might not be "hard evidence" to Gary Mack, but it is a CLEAR indication that those elements of the mainstream media were trying very hard to conceal the fact that JFK was shot from the front too. That should be VERY obvious. Gary Mack's justification to Wim for the acoustic evidence not being "hard evidence" is that it's "in dispute." So, according to Gary Mack, all somebody has to do is "dispute" hard evidence to make its value less than "hard." It doesn't make sense. If you just LISTEN to the recording, you can hear WAY more than three shots. Taken in context with the mountain of evidence in the JFK assassination, it's almost criminal behavior on the part of those elements of the media to "slip up" like that. I mean, between Dan Rather and Time (or Life) Magazine, how many times can they "slip up" or say "woops" before we realize what they're doing is lying. Therefore, taken in context with this deceptive behavior by certain elements of the media, Gary Mack's comments to Wim are VERY suspicious, don't you think?

[dankbaar]

conspiracybuff wrote:Pasquale, email him yourself. he was quite frank that he DID believe in the HSCA accoustical evidence. DO NOT BE FOOLED!Exactly. DO NOT BE FOOLED!http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... c=13706Wim

[dankbaar]

Conspiracybuff,If Gary Mack lends so much credence to the HSCA acoustics evidence, why was he the star of a recent show that concluded there was no shot from the knoll? Answer me that and then tell me again: Don't be fooled! Wim

[John Beckham]

i did not watch the show. but, i will ask about it.

[Jsnow915]

I just watched TMWKK and Gary Mack was backing the acoustic evidence and the badgeman theory...I know from what I saw on a recent History channel show,that he was for the 6th floor window shot and went thru an experiment where the shots could be made...I'm not sure if he beleived the magic bullet theory...but anyone beleiving that I hold no faith in their research....does anyone know for a fact,that Gary Mack has thrown out his badgeman theory?

[Bob]

Again, I would just say this...show me ONE clip from ANY of the recent specials on the Discovery channel concerning the JFK assassination where Gary says anything about a conspiracy. He has obviously moved away from the Badgeman theory John, at least PUBLICALLY. He intimates that Oswald is indeed the lone gunmen on every program I have seen him on as of late. That make sense, look at his job. He is curator of the TSBD museum that STILL depicts Oswald as the lone assassin. Again, Gary may have intimated to you that his has different feelings concerning this subject, but that is clearly different from the words he conveys to millions of TV viewers.

[Jsnow915]

I've never spoken to Gary...but I get annoyed when Oswald is still portraid as the lone nut gunman...evidence or not,the man NEVER had his day in court.