Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

I thought this issue of what Gary Mack (and others like him) says is or isn't "hard evidence" needed its own thread here.So, what DOES Mack consider to be "hard evidence?" What is NOT "hard evidence?"I've seen this topic debated on other forums, and the lone-nut theorists seem to use one definition of it to suit themselves then disregard it when it doesn't suit their purposes.For example, are witness statements hard evidence? If you take the witness statements (including FBI agents at the Bethesda autopsy) about the back of JFK's head being blasted out, lone-nutters will say that those witnesses are wrong. If you look at the original autopsy notes regarding JFK's back wound, then look at the FBI report regarding the back wound, and then compare them to the pictures of JFK's jacket and shirt (which show the back wound in the SAME place), the REASONABLE conclusion is that the bullet wound was well into JFK's back and not close to his neck or in his neck. It's a THEORY that his jacket and shirt bunched up, etc. It's also a THEORY that the bullet wound was in the back of his neck.If you look at the Zapruder film with the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's head at the headshot and compare that evidence to witness statements about a shooter from the knoll, the REASONABLE conclusion is that JFK was also shot from the front. It's a THEORY and speculation that those witnesses were wrong or that his head went back because of "jet effect" or a neuromuscular reaction. If you shoot a person or a crash-test dummy in the head, the head will travel in the direction that the bullet is going. It's high-school physics. If you consider the reasonable conclusion regarding JFK's back wound being well into his back, the single bullet theory has a problem holding water because that bullet would have had to travel UPWARDS in JFK's body to exit his throat. A bullet coming DOWNWARD from six floors up and on a right-to-left trajectory would not be able to hit a man in the back and then exit his throat and then defy the right-to-left trajectory by entering the RIGHT side of the back of the man sitting in front of him.The Zapruder film also clearly shows Conally being struck by the bullet that hit him in the back AFTER JFK is already reacting to his wounds. You can see it plain as day. It looks like Conally was punched in the back and his right shoulder even gets punched forward. A REASONABLE person would conclude that they were struck by different bullets because bullets don't hang in mid air to strike someone else a second later. THIS is hard evidence.So, what the f!#k is Gary Mack talking about? The answer is simple. The term "hard evidence" is a vague enough term to suit the purposes of a disinformation person like Mack. It sounds official, but it's not because he can't define it. I'd love for him to explain it to us and not explain it by proxy like through people speaking FOR him.

[kenmurray]

Yes Pasquale, certain people do speak for him for sure.

[ThomZajac]

All I can do is agree with you Pasquale. Gary Mack KNOWS there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but he has sold out for a better life (integrity non withstanding). 'Hard evidence' is simply the best vehicle he can pilot to drive away from reality.It's like Richard Nixon's "National security!" defense. When people are knowingly lying to such a high degree they need to have some form of refuge.If I were a rich man who was not afraid of death, I'd buy the Dal Tex building and open a real JFK assassination museum.Anyone want to fund me? (I'll worry about my lifespan some other time).

[saracarter766]

pasquale i enjoyed reading that great job dude.

[kenmurray]

Here what some people say about Gary ''the lone censor" Mack: http://www.prouty.org/boycott.html

[saracarter766]

kenmurray thanks for posting that. woo doggie looks like mr mack has pissed off some people now has'nt he lol?and god bless marina oswald and lee oswalds daughters as well.

[kenmurray]

Sara, what a joke that building has become since Mack became curator. I wouldn't waste my time going through it. I would prefer running into Robert Groden in Dealey Plaza.

[saracarter766]

i totally agree i definately would love to meet robert groden.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

Thanks guys!So, basically Mr. Mack and his proxy spokemen can use the phrase "hard evidence" to mean anything they want. That really makes me grind my teeth. He's become kind of like an accessory after the fact. I'm being totally serious. Murder doesn't have a statute of limitations on it. Then again, Mack isn't really being legally held to any real standards here, so he couldn't be convicted of being an accessory after the fact.Come to think of it, the Warren Commission was not a court of law either, so, they weren't held to the same standards as a court of law either, which means they could ignore evidence and twist facts and there wasn't a defense attorney there to yell "OBJECTION!" because it wasn't a court of law.It was a joke.

[saracarter766]

right on the money pasquale.