Gary Mack-isms

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

I just read the correspondence between Wim and Gary Mack. You can click on the following link here or on the left side of this site where it says "Gary Mack." It's right under "Jack Ruby."Here's the link to the page:http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htmAll I can say is WOW! It seems that Gary Mack is using the term "hard evidence" in a vague way. He's certainly not using the term "hard evidence" to mean evidence that is required in court. In the e-mail exchange he even refers to certain witness statements as "stories." I'll give you an example. In the link, you can see that Gary Mack wrote to Wim in an e-mail the following. "There is no hard evidence of shots from the front." Yes there is! Scores of witnesses who said they heard shots from the knoll, the Zapruder film showing the transfer of momentum and the timeline from first to last shot, the audio recording, etc. No evidence? That's not true. It seems here that he is using the term "hard evidence" to mean something other than what is required in court. In my line of work, hard evidence includes things like audio recordings, video, pictures, witness statements that are taken under oath. What he means by hard evidence is beyond me. For example, in Gary Mack's world, if one of my neighbors strangles one of my other neighbors to death and witnesses see that neighbor leaving the dead neighbor's house with a noose in his hand in the middle of the night, and those witnesses tell the police, that's not "hard evidence." Well, try telling the cops that one! LOL I'm sorry, to Mr. Mack, but what he means by "hard evidence" is NOT the same as the type of "hard evidence" that is required in a court of law. Here's another one."History shows that there is no hard evidence overturning the WC (Warren Commission) conclusion that Oswald did it alone."Here he goes again! What "history" is he referring to? There's plenty of "hard evidence." Witness statements, audio recordings, video, are all evidence. What does he mean by hard evidence? Then there's this gem!"It is a theory that the WR (Warren Report) is wrong. There is no hard evidence of anyone other than Oswald firing at JFK."It is a THEORY? Really? Well, the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that there was a shooter from the front based on the acoustic evidence. I believe they worded it something like "probable conspiracy" because they took the position that there was someone else shooting from the front but it doesn't mean that he was working WITH Oswald. So, there are TWO official government positions on the JFK assassination. There's the "hard evidence" or proof of the Warren Report being wrong. What is he talking about? The Warren Commission couldn't even produce ONE bullet that does what they claim the magic bullet did. Not ONE bullet that they fired even looked remotely like the "magic bullet." ...and, of course, I couldn't leave this one out!"The single bullet theory was tested and found to be possible. In the absence of any other hard evidence, therefore, it must have happened." This "theory" WAS tested, and it was NOT found to be possible. So, the THEORY was tested and not the bullets, right? None of the bullets the Warren Commission tested looked anything like the Magic Bullet, so...so far it hasn't been proven at all. They just theorized that it was possible. That's like theorizing that I might be able to do 100 pushups in a row right this minute! Possible, yes. Probable, no, especially because I just put out a cigarette! All of the bullets that were test fired looked NOTHING like that single bullet...Warren Commission Exhibit 399. More bullet fragments were removed from Governor Conally's wrist than are missing from the bullet. Also, other bullets that the Warren Commission test fired (like into cotton wadding and through the wrist of a human cadaver) show considerable deformation (especially the one fired through the wrist of the human cadaver). The one they fired through the wrist of human cadaver alone showed mushrooming and peeling back of the nose. Commission Exhibit 399 has TWO nicknames. One of them is the "Pristine Bullet" because it created all of those wounds (especially through the wrist of a Governer Conally and breaking through one of his ribs as well) and came out looking pristine. The other name is the "Magic Bullet" because of all the zig-zagging around it does.What are your thoughts on these Gary Mack-isms? Based on his e-mail discussion with Wim (click on the link), do you think he's for real?

[John Beckham]

ok, the guy has an opinion, so what? so do you and i.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:ok, the guy has an opinion, so what? so do you and i.There's no doubt that he has an opinion. LOL The "so what" comes in because his opinion seems to be off-base. It appears that he is ignoring certain "hard evidence" like the House Select Committee On Assassinations and their conclusion that there WAS a second shooter based on the acoustics evidence. To say that there is no hard evidence to indicate that anyone other than Oswald fired at JFK is a FALSE statement, unless he thinks that the HSCA is just a bunch of BS. Were they not as important as the Warren Commission? There's too much evidence in support of other shooters even if you DO think that Oswald was one of them. I'm not even including the James Files information. Do you have an opinion on his use of the term "hard evidence?" It appears, if you look at the discussion he had with Wim, his standards regarding "hard evidence" are much higher than would be required in court. What do you think?

[John Beckham]

Pasquale, email him yourself. he was quite frank that he DID believe in the HSCA accoustical evidence. DO NOT BE FOOLED!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:Pasquale, email him yourself. he was quite frank that he DID believe in the HSCA accoustical evidence. DO NOT BE FOOLED!Wait. Is Gary Mack saying to you that the e-mail discussion he had with Wim and posted here on the site is not true and not what he wrote?

[John Beckham]

ask him yourself!

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:ask him yourself!I could, but I'm only asking you about your comment about not beeing fooled. What does that mean?

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:Pasquale, email him yourself. he was quite frank that he DID believe in the HSCA accoustical evidence. DO NOT BE FOOLED!I totally realize that he believes the HSCA accoustical evidence is correct. The discussion also shows that Gary Mack wrote the following: The acoustics evidence is in dispute, which is why it is not hard evidence. As a matter of fact, Don Thomas and I are exploring ways to expand on his recent paper and Washington presentation. We both believe the HSCA acoustics evidence of two shooters is essentially correct. Now, what about his other comments about "hard evidence?" I'm only asking for people's thoughts on it. He's free to post a reply here in public.

[John Beckham]

do some research Pasquel, everybody. "hard evidence?" shit, it's what we need! i can see his point, i can see Wim's. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE. show it without taking someone's word is all.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

conspiracybuff wrote:do some research Pasquel, everybody. "hard evidence?" shit, it's what we need! i can see his point, i can see Wim's. THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE. show it without taking someone's word is all.That's the problem. It seems that any evidence short of a video showing someone else shooting isn't "hard evidence" according to the definition of "hard evidence" that you're using here. It doesn't make sense to me. The WC "convicted" Oswald based on evidence that certainly wasn't hard at all. See my point? Witness statements are admissible in court, for example. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court.