Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"
Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:32 pm
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.