Gary Mack-isms

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Bob wrote: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.Exactly...and his exposure to millions of people who are not knowledgeable about the subject matter makes his comments more dangerous. We don't see Gary Mack on THIS forum or others saying those things because, in my opinion, we're not his target audience. He wouldn't get away with it for a minute without people like us writing back to him. On TV he is not only in a controlled environment (not in an open discussion) but he is also generally addressing an audience that is not as well-read on the subject matter and who, therefore, will buy his "hard evidence." That really makes me angry...the deception.

[saracarter766]

i think gary mack is on the jfk lancer board i go on there but i don't post much i like this board much bettter where i can freely speak my opinions.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

saracarter766 wrote:i think gary mack is on the jfk lancer board i go on there but i don't post much i like this board much bettter where i can freely speak my opinions. This is the only forum I'm on. What happens on the JFK Lancer board? What's your experience been?

[John Beckham]

dankbaar wrote: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! WimGary said that the show concluded the shot from the knoll missed. and, if it would have hit, it would have left a hole in the left side of his head and most likely hit Jackie. so, it doesn't dispell a knoll shooter, Badge Man (which he still believes, as do i) or the HSCA accoustics! and the show did not dispell a conspiracy! it is a possibility that Lee did fire. i'm not saying he did, but it is a possibility. so, people saying he said there was no shot from the knoll? i don't get it? why would you say that?DON'T BE FOOLED!

[saracarter766]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:saracarter766 wrote:i think gary mack is on the jfk lancer board i go on there but i don't post much i like this board much bettter where i can freely speak my opinions. This is the only forum I'm on. What happens on the JFK Lancer board? What's your experience been?there nice people and all but i just don't feel comfortable on that forum and apparently i struck a nerve with gary mack he must have seen my opinion when i said that doc was nothing but a pack of lies and how one minute he's talking about a all fired friggin conspiracy and the next he tells a completely different story on the recent doc JFK inside the target car. and i stand and stick to my opinion.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

saracarter766 wrote:Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:saracarter766 wrote:i think gary mack is on the jfk lancer board i go on there but i don't post much i like this board much bettter where i can freely speak my opinions. This is the only forum I'm on. What happens on the JFK Lancer board? What's your experience been?there nice people and all but i just don't feel comfortable on that forum and apparently i struck a nerve with gary mack he must have seen my opinion when i said that doc was nothing but a pack of lies and how one minute he's talking about a all fired friggin conspiracy and the next he tells a completely different story on the recent doc JFK inside the target car. and i stand and stick to my opinion. Good for you!!! I would have done the same as you. It's true about him saying one thing and then another. We're certainly not the only ones who think so, including Wim and scores of others. We can't ALL be wrong. It's just the law of averages. What's the chance that we could be wrong. Awe, poor Gary. Did you strike a nerve with him? I only recently realized, within the last year, that he was doing this on those so-called "documentaries." I couldn't believe it myself.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:dankbaar wrote: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! WimGary said that the show concluded the shot from the knoll missed. and, if it would have hit, it would have left a hole in the left side of his head and most likely hit Jackie. so, it doesn't dispell a knoll shooter, Badge Man (which he still believes, as do i) or the HSCA accoustics! and the show did not dispell a conspiracy! it is a possibility that Lee did fire. i'm not saying he did, but it is a possibility. so, people saying he said there was no shot from the knoll? i don't get it? why would you say that?DON'T BE FOOLED!Exactly, Conspiracybuff! DON'T BE FOOLED! I'm going to be as nice to Gary Mack as I can here. I'll give him this, assuming that Files is right about Nicoletti hitting JFK in the head from the rear at almost the same time, then Mack may be on the right track with trying to say that JFK was hit in the head from the rear, but he's IGNORING JFK's head getting thrown back and to the left and all those witnesses in Dealy Plaza who said that a shot came from the front. In my opinion, he is trying to put forward the Oswald-did-it-alone theory, or at the very least the lone shooter-from-the-rear idea. He's ignoring the movement of JFK's head and witnesses and the acoustics evidence. How much evidence does he need? Honestly. How much evidence does Gary Mack need? Acoustic tests! Zapruder Film! Witnesses! All the doctors indicating a fist-sized hole in the BACK of JFK's head! Is he nuts? I don't think so. He's a mouthpiece. Either that or he's loosing it. Besides that, with the flip-flopping that Gary Mack has done on the matter, I would be skeptical of anything he says anyway. You should be careful about what he says to you. I understand that he's a very nice man who is very helpful to people. It's his ACTIONS that count more. He can say what he likes to you, and then say something different on those documentaries. He was, as Wim said, the STAR of that recent documentary putting forward the Oswald-did-it-alone idea. If a shot from the knoll missed, why did JFK's head get thrown back? It's pure physics. It's transfer of momentum. He chooses to ignore it. Regarding Badgeman, have you seen the link on Badgeman from this website with the measurements and all? I have yet to see Mack or whoever actually put a grown man in the badgeman position and take a picture to see if it looks anything like it. I'm talking about the measurements and all. Also, the picture that Badgeman appears in was taken within about one sixth of a second of the head shot. Badgeman is in the WRONG PLACE to have made the head shot even if he exists at all. He's to the SIDE of JFK, even if he did exist. JFK's head was NOT thrown to the side. It was thrown diagonally...back and to the left. It's simple physics. All you have to do is follow the line that JFK's head went and trace it back in a straight line the OTHER way. THAT's where the headshot came from. It's right there in front of you. It's not magic, and it's not theory. It's HARD evidence that the media tried to conceal. Remember that when Dan Rather went on television years before the public saw the Zapruder film, he said that the president's head was thrown violently FORWARD. No matter where you think the shots came from, nobody other than him has viewed the film and said that JFK's head was thrown violently forward. It's thrown to the REAR, indicating an impact coming from the front. Then, when Time Magazine (I believe it was Time), published frames from the Zapruder film, they REVERSED the two frames they published showing the head snap...therefore making it look like JFK's head went forward. TIME later said something like it was a "printing error." What it really means to me and lots of other researchers is that those elements of the media were trying to CONCEAL the fact that JFK's head was thrown to the rear. Without film of the assassination, particularly the Zapruder film, there would have been NO proof of this outside of witness statements, and we know what Gary Mack thinks of witness statements. The Zapruder film also established a TIMELINE between the first and last shots, and the Warren Commission must have known it because that's why they HAD to make the single-bullet theory work. If the TIMELINE from the first shot to the last shot was longer (like if there was no Zapruder film establishing the timeline), the Warren Commission could have claimed that Oswald fired four or even FIVE shots, and the single-bullet theory wouldn't have been necessary to account for all the wounds. Gary Mack might be a JFK researcher, or supposed JFK researcher, but he's not a professional investigator by any means based on what he's saying now. Just looking at the information without even digging a little, just scratching the surface, especially with the Zapruder film, indicates a shot that HIT JFK from the front. This is not even considering the Files confession. These are CLEAR conclusions that can be made from well before Files' story. Anyone who says otherwise is making false conclusions and ignoring physics. Then again, the single-bullet theory has never been proven, and Gary Mack said that it was. Nobody, repeat NOBODY, has EVER produced a bullet that did anything like the magic bullet supposedly did so the magic bullet theory has not been proven at all, and yet Mack said that it WAS tested and proven. It has not been proven at all. It is a THEORY that they put forward as fact. Discounting witness statements, like Gary Mack appears to do, and making statements such as there are no "HARD FACTS" and that it's a THEORY that the Warren Commission was wrong is a bunch of bull, and everybody knows it.Okay, I'm off my soap box for now. LOL This isn't an attack on you, Conspiracybuff. It's an attack on Mack's theories and statements.

[John Beckham]

i am my own person, and have not come to any conclusion except not to believe everything people say and look for myself. news press, don't get me started! lol! fishy things did happen, but, i just want to try to look at this with facts, not arguments with other researchers.Im sick and tired of hearing thingsFrom uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocriticsAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truthIve had enough of reading thingsBy neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politiciansAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truthNo short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dickyIs gonna mother hubbard soft soap meWith just a pocketful of hopeMoney for dopeMoney for ropeIm sick to death of seeing thingsFrom tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinistsAll I want is the truthJust gimme some truth nowIve had enough of watching scenesOf schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnasAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truthah, Im sick and tired of hearing thingsFrom uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritesAll I want is the truth nowJust gimme some truth now

[saracarter766]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:conspiracybuff wrote:dankbaar wrote: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! WimGary said that the show concluded the shot from the knoll missed. and, if it would have hit, it would have left a hole in the left side of his head and most likely hit Jackie. so, it doesn't dispell a knoll shooter, Badge Man (which he still believes, as do i) or the HSCA accoustics! and the show did not dispell a conspiracy! it is a possibility that Lee did fire. i'm not saying he did, but it is a possibility. so, people saying he said there was no shot from the knoll? i don't get it? why would you say that?DON'T BE FOOLED!Exactly, Conspiracybuff! DON'T BE FOOLED! I'm going to be as nice to Gary Mack as I can here. I'll give him this, assuming that Files is right about Nicoletti hitting JFK in the head from the rear at almost the same time, then Mack may be on the right track with trying to say that JFK was hit in the head from the rear, but he's IGNORING JFK's head getting thrown back and to the left and all those witnesses in Dealy Plaza who said that a shot came from the front. In my opinion, he is trying to put forward the Oswald-did-it-alone theory, or at the very least the lone shooter-from-the-rear idea. He's ignoring the movement of JFK's head and witnesses and the acoustics evidence. How much evidence does he need? Honestly. How much evidence does Gary Mack need? Acoustic tests! Zapruder Film! Witnesses! All the doctors indicating a fist-sized hole in the BACK of JFK's head! Is he nuts? I don't think so. He's a mouthpiece. Either that or he's loosing it. Besides that, with the flip-flopping that Gary Mack has done on the matter, I would be skeptical of anything he says anyway. You should be careful about what he says to you. I understand that he's a very nice man who is very helpful to people. It's his ACTIONS that count more. He can say what he likes to you, and then say something different on those documentaries. He was, as Wim said, the STAR of that recent documentary putting forward the Oswald-did-it-alone idea. If a shot from the knoll missed, why did JFK's head get thrown back? It's pure physics. It's transfer of momentum. He chooses to ignore it. Regarding Badgeman, have you seen the link on Badgeman from this website with the measurements and all? I have yet to see Mack or whoever actually put a grown man in the badgeman position and take a picture to see if it looks anything like it. I'm talking about the measurements and all. Also, the picture that Badgeman appears in was taken within about one sixth of a second of the head shot. Badgeman is in the WRONG PLACE to have made the head shot even if he exists at all. He's to the SIDE of JFK, even if he did exist. JFK's head was NOT thrown to the side. It was thrown diagonally...back and to the left. It's simple physics. All you have to do is follow the line that JFK's head went and trace it back in a straight line the OTHER way. THAT's where the headshot came from. It's right there in front of you. It's not magic, and it's not theory. It's HARD evidence that the media tried to conceal. Remember that when Dan Rather went on television years before the public saw the Zapruder film, he said that the president's head was thrown violently FORWARD. No matter where you think the shots came from, nobody other than him has viewed the film and said that JFK's head was thrown violently forward. It's thrown to the REAR, indicating an impact coming from the front. Then, when Time Magazine (I believe it was Time), published frames from the Zapruder film, they REVERSED the two frames they published showing the head snap...therefore making it look like JFK's head went forward. TIME later said something like it was a "printing error." What it really means to me and lots of other researchers is that those elements of the media were trying to CONCEAL the fact that JFK's head was thrown to the rear. Without film of the assassination, particularly the Zapruder film, there would have been NO proof of this outside of witness statements, and we know what Gary Mack thinks of witness statements. The Zapruder film also established a TIMELINE between the first and last shots, and the Warren Commission must have known it because that's why they HAD to make the single-bullet theory work. If the TIMELINE from the first shot to the last shot was longer (like if there was no Zapruder film establishing the timeline), the Warren Commission could have claimed that Oswald fired four or even FIVE shots, and the single-bullet theory wouldn't have been necessary to account for all the wounds. Gary Mack might be a JFK researcher, or supposed JFK researcher, but he's not a professional investigator by any means based on what he's saying now. Just looking at the information without even digging a little, just scratching the surface, especially with the Zapruder film, indicates a shot that HIT JFK from the front. This is not even considering the Files confession. These are CLEAR conclusions that can be made from well before Files' story. Anyone who says otherwise is making false conclusions and ignoring physics. Then again, the single-bullet theory has never been proven, and Gary Mack said that it was. Nobody, repeat NOBODY, has EVER produced a bullet that did anything like the magic bullet supposedly did so the magic bullet theory has not been proven at all, and yet Mack said that it WAS tested and proven. It has not been proven at all. It is a THEORY that they put forward as fact. Discounting witness statements, like Gary Mack appears to do, and making statements such as there are no "HARD FACTS" and that it's a THEORY that the Warren Commission was wrong is a bunch of bull, and everybody knows it.Okay, I'm off my soap box for now. LOL This isn't an attack on you, Conspiracybuff. It's an attack on Mack's theories and statements. right on pasquale.

[ChristophMessner]

Pasquale, your try to sort out "hard evidence" and real hard evidence in your first post is very honorable and I agree with your statement, that Gary Mack is a deliberate lier, because he knows that there is hard evidence for a shot from the front. conspiracybuff, it is also honorable that you deign to discuss with newcomers even after having gone through all these things many times and I believe you are right in your pronounciation "No hard evidence!", that unfortunately after all the statements of witnesses, alteration of authentic films, disclosure and destruction of files and confessions of Files the grassy-knoll-shot-believers still cannot sell it to the majority of the society as hard evidence, because the system and the CIA-poisoned mainstream media will always find too many weak and distortable points in all the "proofs" of the Files-believers. But my opinion is, conspiracybuff, that you rather should not pronounce "Lee still COULD have shot" while there is so strong indication that he did not, and rather should go and help Pasquale to dig out real hard evidence in all the diclosed files, that finally proves beyond doubt even to the majority of the society, that professional mob-killers shot, CIA supervised the cover-up and delivered enough patsies on demand and that somebody gave the orders to all that who was NOT Lee Harvey Oswald! Who is a fool? Who is not a fool? Is the one who is always swimming with the stream, who is functioning in the running system without resistance, who is even lying and killing on demand to please the next higher position in hierarchy, a fool? I would say Gary Mack and Dave Perry and the friend of David Phillips are fools, if they avoid to discuss publicly with Wim Dankbaar. Chris