Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

kenmurray wrote:Someone should put a sign at the entrance of sixth floor museum that reads from a quote from Dante Alighieri: "All hope abandon, ye who enter here"! Maybe they should pass out free raincoats or plastic covers like they have at those Gallagher concerts to shield museum visitors from the spray of bulls#&t !!!Or maybe a sign that says, "No hard evidence." LOL

[saracarter766]

thank you pasquale.

[Bob]

Notice how much Mack's perceptions have changed in this video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qumMXZA3Fs

[saracarter766]

Pasquale DiFabrizio wrote:kenmurray wrote:Someone should put a sign at the entrance of sixth floor museum that reads from a quote from Dante Alighieri: "All hope abandon, ye who enter here"! Maybe they should pass out free raincoats or plastic covers like they have at those Gallagher concerts to shield museum visitors from the spray of bulls#&t !!!Or maybe a sign that says, "No hard evidence." LOL bahahaha pasquale now that would be a very stinky situation haha.

[kenmurray]

Duh, it just hit me that Len Osanic is the host of Black Op Radio that I have been listening to recently

[Bob]

kenmurray wrote:Duh, it just hit me that Len Osanic is the host of Black Op Radio that I have been listening to recently I have never met Len, but I have communicated with him, and he seems like a very nice and knowledgable fellow. I don't think Gary Mack will be on his show any time soon. Mack would actually have to debate with facts and NOT fiction.

[kenmurray]

Bob, you got that right! Black Op Radio is a good forum with some good guests and Len seems to be a great host.

[kenmurray]

Mack "the sack" won't debate any of today's researchers today like Wim, Groden, Marrs, or Rossely. He would get embarassed and taken to the cleaners

[saracarter766]

have you read that debate between wim and gary hack? it's on wims site i was laughing my butt off at gary hack wim epically and totally pwn'ed gary big time.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Hey everybody,First off, I noticed that this thread or topic has been viewed well over 500 times, and I started this topic on June 13. Compare it to other topics started at that time, and you'll see that a LOT of people (probably other people not from here) are looking at it. Maybe Mack the Sack is? I checked out one of the authors that Kathy Becket mentioned, David Wrone. Here's an interesting article where Wrone seems to critique David Lifton's work. LOL Interesting that it's used by McAdams, isn't it? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wrone.htmThen Kathy Becket innocently asks why there is all the anger about Gary Mack. Is she kidding? No offense, but did she bother to read what Mack said about there being no hard evidence about a conspiracy? Then Kathy Becket says that Gary Mack is not a LN as a lot of us seem to believe. Um..hey, Kathy, we don't actually believe that he's a lone-nut theorist. That's a straw man argument. We think he's a sell-out! Big difference. A sell-out is someone who sells out to the other side, betraying their own pricinpals and their collegues. So, why DID he participate in that sham of a documentary on Discovery Channel? Why doesn't he have books like Rush To Judgment by Mark Lane. It was one of, if not THE first critique of the Warren Commission. I believe Mark Lane wrote it as an article first. Then Kathy Becket says that we might be giving too much credit to Marrs and Groden regarding who is a fraud and who isn't? This is ANOTHER straw man argument. Here's a newsflash for Kathy Becket. We here at this forum are not doubting Mack just because Marrs and Groden said so. If she bothered to look, Wim has posted an argument he had with Mack which pretty much says it all. Then Mack appeared in that bogus documentary. We all knew this. The fact that Groden and Marrs may have criticisms of Mack for the same reason did not shape our opinion of Mack. It only supports our opinions of him.Kathy, take a look at this link. It's Mack and Wim arguing. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htmThen, regarding Files, Kathy Becket said "belief is not proof." This is yet another straw man argument. Most of us here don't just believe Files because he said so, and I've made this argument before at other forums. It's interesting, Kathy, how your argument about "belief is not proof" seems to mirror arguments made by certain others at that other forum I've debated on.Th straw man argument lies in the fact that Kathy Becket misrepresents why we believe Files, then makes here statement that belief is not proof. Files' story is corroborated by at least two other witnesses that I can think of (Holt and Plumlee) as well as by Judyth Baker, not to mention acoustic evidence (placing a shot in the exact location where he was), the Nix film showing movement at the fence in that location too, etc. So, Kathy, it's not just belief. We're not that naive here, and for you to say that belief is not proof MISREPRESENTS the Files information, wouldn't you say?So, what we have is Kathy Becket, a member of the Lancer forum, coming and giving how many straw man arguments and then misrepresenting the Files and and Gary Mack-the-Sack information.Kathy, are you being misled, like over at the Lancer forum? How long have you been a member there? What do THEY think of the James Files information. I almost want to say don't answer that.