Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today.

Moderators: kenmurray, dankbaar, Bob, Dealey Joe

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Kathy Becket » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:12 pm

Pasquale,

I have been a member here since 2006. I got a computer that year, and signed up for all of the JFK Forums. i have only posted here a few times, when someone had expressed an interest "Harvey and Lee", a book I got and really like. i joined Lancer in 2006, and the Education Forum in 2007, and have been a member of Duncan's forum for about 1 1/2 months , or close to that. I wanted to read everything I could.

Going back to my post and the computer glitche, I had posted then Bob had posted, and then I responded, and the 3 posts disappeared. We didn't know what happened, so i used the back arrow, and found them, and put them on notepad to repost here.

I'll start with Wrone. Although he may have an article that McAdams liked, he also, evidently had an article that Fetzer liked, for the link is on Assassination Science: (see links listed)

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critic ... nebio.html

I'm sure that there is alot of disagreement between CTs.

.

I have Inside the Target Car DVR'd, and wrote in my post that Gary puts a person at the fence, in the same place you put Files. He just doesn't believe it is Files. What i wanted you folks to note is that he places a person there. And the acoustical evidence does as well. He believes in the acoustical evidence. What i was trying to do was show some common ground.


I never said that you all were giving Marrs and Groden too much credit regarding who is a fraud and who isn't. I was replying to Bob, whose post I had to put in quotes to differentiate it from mine when I reposted. Bob said this:

There is nobody I respect more than Jim Marrs and Robert Groden about the JFK assassination and the research they have done, and they have BOTH called out Mack as a fraud.

I told him that I respected them both too, but i don't give them carte blanche permission to tell me who is a fraud, and who isn't. They are both great, and I see Robert every year on the knoll, but I have to be able to make up my own mind. I don't want someone else to do it for me. i would think one would greatly insult oneself, if one did not look and see for themselves.

And yes i have seen the WimvMack several times.

I said you believe Files. That is true, but I also said belief is not proof, and I do not know how that is a strawman .You are free to believe Files, but i am also free not to.

My purpose in posting is that there are other people, both CTs and LN, who would disagree with you, and all I see over here now is folks making up cutesy names and laughing about this. i don't understand the purpose.

I can only tell you of my experience, and that is true for us all. i did buy those books at the Museum Bookstore (as well as Pictures of the Pain, a great book and heavily referenced by researchers ), and I wanted you folks to know that they are conspiracy books. I am not familiar with all the materials that they carry.


i can also tell you that I highly respect Gary Mack, know many people that do as well from both camps, and thought it was time to hear from someone who felt differently than the general posting consensus I was reading.

If that makes me a disinformation agent, so be it.
Kathy Becket
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:35 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Pasquale DiFabrizio » Mon Jun 22, 2009 2:27 am

Kathy Becket wrote:Pasquale,

I have been a member here since 2006. I got a computer that year, and signed up for all of the JFK Forums. i have only posted here a few times, when someone had expressed an interest "Harvey and Lee", a book I got and really like. i joined Lancer in 2006, and the Education Forum in 2007, and have been a member of Duncan's forum for about 1 1/2 months , or close to that. I wanted to read everything I could.

Going back to my post and the computer glitche, I had posted then Bob had posted, and then I responded, and the 3 posts disappeared. We didn't know what happened, so i used the back arrow, and found them, and put them on notepad to repost here.

I'll start with Wrone. Although he may have an article that McAdams liked, he also, evidently had an article that Fetzer liked, for the link is on Assassination Science: (see links listed)

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critic ... nebio.html

I'm sure that there is alot of disagreement between CTs.

.

I have Inside the Target Car DVR'd, and wrote in my post that Gary puts a person at the fence, in the same place you put Files. He just doesn't believe it is Files. What i wanted you folks to note is that he places a person there. And the acoustical evidence does as well. He believes in the acoustical evidence. What i was trying to do was show some common ground.


I never said that you all were giving Marrs and Groden too much credit regarding who is a fraud and who isn't. I was replying to Bob, whose post I had to put in quotes to differentiate it from mine when I reposted. Bob said this:

There is nobody I respect more than Jim Marrs and Robert Groden about the JFK assassination and the research they have done, and they have BOTH called out Mack as a fraud.

I told him that I respected them both too, but i don't give them carte blanche permission to tell me who is a fraud, and who isn't. They are both great, and I see Robert every year on the knoll, but I have to be able to make up my own mind. I don't want someone else to do it for me. i would think one would greatly insult oneself, if one did not look and see for themselves.

And yes i have seen the WimvMack several times.

I said you believe Files. That is true, but I also said belief is not proof, and I do not know how that is a strawman .You are free to believe Files, but i am also free not to.

My purpose in posting is that there are other people, both CTs and LN, who would disagree with you, and all I see over here now is folks making up cutesy names and laughing about this. i don't understand the purpose.

I can only tell you of my experience, and that is true for us all. i did buy those books at the Museum Bookstore (as well as Pictures of the Pain, a great book and heavily referenced by researchers ), and I wanted you folks to know that they are conspiracy books. I am not familiar with all the materials that they carry.


i can also tell you that I highly respect Gary Mack, know many people that do as well from both camps, and thought it was time to hear from someone who felt differently than the general posting consensus I was reading.

If that makes me a disinformation agent, so be it.


Before I begin, for the rest of you, this topic has now been viewed roughly 100 more times since I posted a few hours ago, roughly 620 times. Hot topic, eh? LOL I wonder who is watching. Maybe you are, Gary? LOL Did I offend someone's "intellect?" If Mack wants to defend his position and tell us that he believes in a conspiracy, let him do it. I don't think he can because he might lose that job of his, right?

Kathy,

For the record, you made many straw-man arguments in your last post. I've seen that kind of arguing before.

If you honestly can not see why we would have the opinion of Gary Mack, then you need to look closer. This isn't a joke, and it's not a game. For someone like Gary Mack to claim that there is no hard evidence of a conspiracy is a lie, and he knows it. Therefore, your surprise at why we make up joke names for him surprises me.

I don't care how nice Gary Mack is. His actions are what matters, and to help perpetuate lies (like the magic bullet theory actually holding water...like he did on that stupid documentary) is shameful. He's participating in the cover up. I don't care what evidence he helped bring to the table way back when. He didn't have that curator job way back when, and he wasn't appearing on documentaries like the recent one on Discovery Channel.

Again, you keep coming back to those TWO books. Have you even looked at any other books? I'm not picking. I'm asking.

Why doesn't Gary Mack have any of Groden's or Marrs' books at that museum. Why isn't Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement there? Rush To Judgement is basically a defense of Oswald. It's one of the first critiques of the Warren Commission. It shows how Oswald would most definitely have beaten a murder trial against him if he lived. To think that not even that book is sold there should tell you something.

You also repeated your notion of "belief is not proof." That again is misrepresenting the Files information. I suspect that you are not well-read on the Files information, or you would not have that opinion. Again, we are not so naive here just to take someone's word on it, but it sounds like you're just taking someone's word on it over at Lancer or wherever you're getting your disinfo from.

As for Bob or whoever saying that Marrs and Groden mirror our opinions of Mack, they were only mentioned in that capacity to support the opinions of him that we already have.

Furthermore, if you actually think that Inside the Target Car was a legit documentary, you're fooling yourself.

Regarding Gary Mack, Robert Groden said himself that he was offered $180,000 for the curator position. (That radio interview was posted here on this forum.) Groden also said that the catch to having that position was that he was no longer allowed to endorse any conspiracy theories regarding JFK. Do you think Groden was lying about that? If Mack was offered less for the same job, oh well. I know plenty of people who are payed much less for the same position simply because they are not of the same caliber. Groden is of a much higher caliber than Mack, so it makes sense that they might offer Mack less for the same job. I'm not joking.

Do you think that Groden was lying about being offered the job? Do you think that Inside the Target Car (or whatever that piece of garbage was called) was a legit documentary and not a disinformation piece? Do you think that Mack and Wim's debate is a joke? Do you think that making the comment that there is no "hard evidence" of a conspiracy is a fair statement on the part of Gary Mack, or is it a lie?

Here's another question for you. What do you think of Gerald Posner's book Case Closed?
Pasquale DiFabrizio
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!!!"
User avatar
Pasquale DiFabrizio
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:48 am
Location: United States

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby saracarter766 » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:24 am

cough gary idot hack is a fraud cough.



and i don't mean to be crude here but gary hack can kiss my ass. :lol:



gary hacks brain is the size of a peanut hahaha. :lol:
saracarter766
 

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Pasquale DiFabrizio » Mon Jun 22, 2009 4:59 am

saracarter766 wrote:cough gary idot hack is a fraud cough.



and i don't mean to be crude here but gary hack can kiss my ass. :lol:



gary hacks brain is the size of a peanut hahaha. :lol:


And now he's unofficial known as Mack the Sack too!!! LOL :lol:
Pasquale DiFabrizio
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!!!"
User avatar
Pasquale DiFabrizio
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:48 am
Location: United States

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Kathy Becket » Mon Jun 22, 2009 5:37 am

I fail to see any strawman arguments here.

And I brought up what books I bought because someone said the Museum does not carry conspiracy books, and i was informing them that it did. Now I am being asked what other books they carry--I don't know. Those were the two I had picked out to purchase. First i was just going to buy the Wrone book and I saw "Brothers", so I picked it up. Like I said in my last post, I do not know what else they carry!! I did not peruse the place.First someone says, why doesn't the bookstore sell conspiracy books, and i told them it did. Now i must give an inventory account? I bring up those 2 because i personally bought them and can attest to it.
Groden sells his work at the site of the grassy knoll all the time,so there would be no need to carry them at the bookstore, I would think.

As for what I believe and Lancer, I fail to see a connection. Lancer is a research forum, and anyone can join. Alot of people post with alot of differing opinions.And I don't by any means limit myself there. My home turf is the Ed Forum.

There are tons of materials available on Files. See, the funny thing is, if I don't believe it, I am spreading disinfo, according to you, because you believe it. I don't call you a disinfo agent for your beliefs. There are alot of folks who don't put credence in his story. Are they all disinfo agents? No.
There are too many things Files says that I don't believe.

I don't have the Posner book, so I cannot tell you what i think of it. It doesn't look like something that i wish to own--there are an infinite amount of JFK books that I would love to have, but my budget is finite.

And as to me being surprised at the tenor of the postings here, with the little jabs and such,well, perhaps, that is Lancer's fault. I think they may hold to a higher standard (sorry, that is the way the Administrator is), and posts such as the two posts above this one would not be tolerated. My bad for even saying anything about them in the first place. You know, like they say, when in Rome...

.
Kathy Becket
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:35 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby ThomZajac » Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:37 am

Kathy,
I am curious as to what you think happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Having read your recent posts I have some idea, but I don't like to make assumptions. I have no intention of attempting to change your mind in the event we see things much differently, but I am interested in better understanding why some thoughtful people have reached certain conclusions.

Sincerely,
Thom
ThomZajac
 
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 3:13 pm
Location: Bonny Doon, CA

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Pasquale DiFabrizio » Mon Jun 22, 2009 8:50 am

Kathy Becket wrote:I fail to see any strawman arguments here.

And I brought up what books I bought because someone said the Museum does not carry conspiracy books, and i was informing them that it did. Now I am being asked what other books they carry--I don't know. Those were the two I had picked out to purchase. First i was just going to buy the Wrone book and I saw "Brothers", so I picked it up. Like I said in my last post, I do not know what else they carry!! I did not peruse the place.First someone says, why doesn't the bookstore sell conspiracy books, and i told them it did. Now i must give an inventory account? I bring up those 2 because i personally bought them and can attest to it.
Groden sells his work at the site of the grassy knoll all the time,so there would be no need to carry them at the bookstore, I would think.

As for what I believe and Lancer, I fail to see a connection. Lancer is a research forum, and anyone can join. Alot of people post with alot of differing opinions.And I don't by any means limit myself there. My home turf is the Ed Forum.

There are tons of materials available on Files. See, the funny thing is, if I don't believe it, I am spreading disinfo, according to you, because you believe it. I don't call you a disinfo agent for your beliefs. There are alot of folks who don't put credence in his story. Are they all disinfo agents? No.
There are too many things Files says that I don't believe.

I don't have the Posner book, so I cannot tell you what i think of it. It doesn't look like something that i wish to own--there are an infinite amount of JFK books that I would love to have, but my budget is finite.

And as to me being surprised at the tenor of the postings here, with the little jabs and such,well, perhaps, that is Lancer's fault. I think they may hold to a higher standard (sorry, that is the way the Administrator is), and posts such as the two posts above this one would not be tolerated. My bad for even saying anything about them in the first place. You know, like they say, when in Rome...

.

You admit that you don't know what the slection is at that museum book store, so how can you make a decision whether it is biased or not? You can't because you haven't even investigated it.

As for there being no need to carry Groden's or Marrs' books at the book store because they are sold on the street at the grassy knoll, you're saying that you know the museum doesn't carry them, right? For the museum not to carry them just because Groden might be selling material on the street is absurd, and you know it.

Disagreeing with the Files story doesn't make you a disinformation person. Misrepresenting the Files information DOES.

As I asked you before, have you even heard of the book Rush to Judgment? I believe it was THE first or one of the first cricisims of the Warren Commission. It started as an article written by Mark Lane then he wrote a book. Have you read it?

As I asked you before, what do you think of Gary Mack saying that there is no "hard evidence" of a conspiracy to murder JFK? You seem not to have an answer for it.

As for other forums having a higher standard, what are you talking about? A higher standard regarding what, being nice? We're all very nice over here, and the administrators do a great job of stopping personal attacks. The only people we have a problem with is guys like Gary Mack who is definitely working for the WRONG side with his nonsense. For you to defend him is beyond me.

I don't think the Lancer forum has a higher standard at all...not if you're talking about intellect and sharing ideas. I think this forum is great and the forum members are great too.

It might ruffle YOUR feathers that we call Mack names, sorry, but it's not going to change what he is and what tune he's singing now.
Last edited by Pasquale DiFabrizio on Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Pasquale DiFabrizio
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!!!"
User avatar
Pasquale DiFabrizio
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:48 am
Location: United States

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Pasquale DiFabrizio » Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:19 am

Kathy Becket wrote:I do not understand all of this anger you seem to possess against Gary. He is most certainly not a LN, as alot of you seem to believe.

With respect to the acoustical evidence (which Mack was instrumental in bringing to the attention of the HSCA, btw) I remember asking Wim where Files was supposed to be located, and he told me that Files was in the same location as Thompson's Hat Man. The acoustical evidence points to a shot at that location, and if you watched "Inside the Target Car", you would have noticed that Mack said there was a person there. If he believes that Oswald was the shooter, that, in itself, does not negate conspiracy, does it? No. So I don't understand what the problem is. He does not believe that the person in that position fired the kill shot. But he believes there was a person there, the same as you folks do. He just doesn't believe it is Files.


You see, all this above is your straw man argument supposedly about why we're wrong about having negative feelings toward Mack. He holds the opinion that there is no "hard evidence" of a conspiracy and that it's a theory that the Warren Commission is wrong.

Kathy Becket wrote: I also see alot of you saying Oswald was innocent. Now wait a minute. IIRC, Files hung around with Oswald for a week:

"At this point, Files had not been considered as a shooter in the coming assassination. He was assigned only as an aide to Mr. Nicoletti in weapon arrangements and to survey the location. A week before the assassination, Files drove into Dallas and stayed at the Lamplighter Motel in Mesquite, Dallas, where he called Mr. Nicoletti as well as David Atlee Phillips (who he claims was his “controller”). He claims that the next morning Lee Harvey Oswald (who shared the same “controller”) showed up at the hotel. Over the next five days, Files and Oswald spent the days together (a picture, which Files says was taken by Oswald, can be found here). Files claims that he and Oswald went to an empty field to test fire the weapons and calibrate the scopes that were to be used on President Kennedy, and that Oswald was picking up the shells as Files fired them. He also claims that he and Oswald never spoke of the assassination the entire time. Quoted from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Files

If Oswald assisted in any way, he is a co-conspirator, and just as guilty.


Files said, according to the same article, that Oswald never took a shot at Kennedy. You folks believe what Files said. Belief is not proof.

I think the whole problem here rests on that.


You see, this is more straw man junk. If you look at the mountain of evidence, outside of the James Files information, you would know that no witness placed Oswald in the window and that gun powder tests came up negative. He couldn't have made it to the second floor lunch room in time. The rifle was defective as well. So for you to say that we believe that Oswald didn't fire a shot because FILES said so is a false statement and a straw man argument. :D You're making things up.

Then you said below regarding Gary Mack,

Kathy Becket wrote: Why not just consider him a great resource? If you have a question he will do his best to answer it for you. You can't ask for better than that. As Mark Knight once said about Gary, on another forum,"He is doing everything he can to keep this case alive."

Isn't that what everyone wants--truly?


Okay, you're kidding right? We're talking about the same man who said that there is no hard evidence regarding a conspiracy? The same guy who participated in that bogus documentary? The same man who other well known and well respected researchers also have their doubts about? Why not just consider him a great resource?

Then you wrote this straw man argument below.


Kathy Becket wrote:Although I respect Robert Groden and Jim Marrs too, I do not give them carte blanche permission to make up my mind for me on who is a fraud, and who is not.

You see, you're saying here that you don't give them "carte blanche permission" to make up your mind on who is a fraud. That is a straw man argument because it makes it seem that Bob or whoever don't like Gary Mack because Marrs and Groden said so. We already had that opinion of Mack. I made up my mind about Mack BEFORE I knew that Groden made statements that mirrored what I thought. Bob is in the same boat. Maybe you just make up your mind about certain theories and people based on what others tell you, but we here generally don't.

Kathy Becket wrote:And I have to disagree with you about the museum not carrying conspiracy books. I have purchased both David Talbot's "Brothers" as well as Wrone's "The Zapruder Film"--both which are considered conspiracy books, at the Museum Bookstore. I must ask you--have you ever been there?

Okay, I have been to that museum personally. In fact, I even met Groden at the knoll too about four years ago. I also posted a link to the museum's on-line book store, and we all here had a laugh at the LACK of books there that challenged the Warren Commission theory. Like I said before, look at the mountain of books there that are sold that support the Warren Commission theory, and all you can find is TWO books that support a conspiracy? That seems a little biased.

Kathy Becket wrote:Whether I change your mind about Gary or not is not why I posted. I see a whole lot of people over here cutting on someone who they think is a horrible traitor and turncoat, and I believe that they are being misled. I want you to know that there are of of people out here who are CTs, as well as LNs who have a great deal of respect for him.


Okay, so, you're saying here that there are a lot of people here cutting on Mack and that you believe that we are being misled? How are we being misled? After all I have just said about him, how are we being misled?

Then to somehow prove to us, you say that there are a lot of people out there who are CTers and LNers who have a great deal of respect for him? That basically contradicts what you said about letting people like Marrs and Groden decide for you who to trust, etc. I could care less who thinks Gary Mack is a great guy. I and others here, including Groden and Marrs, have specific reasons why we have negative feelings toward Mack. They are specific, and you were told why. So, you are free to think he's a great guy because others think so, but you are truly naive if you trust him.

Again, your comment about us being "misled" seems remarkably familiar to another posting made by someone else who is also a Mack apologist. Are you familiar with that person? :D This same person also made a very similar sounding straw man argument about us believing Files just because he said so, which, of course, is a misrepresentation of the Files information.

I believe that you are the one who is being seriously misled.

To question whether Oswald actually took a shot, despite the mountain of evidence that he wasn't even in the window at the time, surprises me.
Pasquale DiFabrizio
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!!!"
User avatar
Pasquale DiFabrizio
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:48 am
Location: United States

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Pasquale DiFabrizio » Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:38 am

Kathy Becket wrote:I fail to see any strawman arguments here.

And I brought up what books I bought because someone said the Museum does not carry conspiracy books, and i was informing them that it did. Now I am being asked what other books they carry--I don't know. Those were the two I had picked out to purchase. First i was just going to buy the Wrone book and I saw "Brothers", so I picked it up. Like I said in my last post, I do not know what else they carry!! I did not peruse the place.First someone says, why doesn't the bookstore sell conspiracy books, and i told them it did. Now i must give an inventory account? I bring up those 2 because i personally bought them and can attest to it.
Groden sells his work at the site of the grassy knoll all the time,so there would be no need to carry them at the bookstore, I would think.

As for what I believe and Lancer, I fail to see a connection. Lancer is a research forum, and anyone can join. Alot of people post with alot of differing opinions.And I don't by any means limit myself there. My home turf is the Ed Forum.

There are tons of materials available on Files. See, the funny thing is, if I don't believe it, I am spreading disinfo, according to you, because you believe it. I don't call you a disinfo agent for your beliefs. There are alot of folks who don't put credence in his story. Are they all disinfo agents? No.
There are too many things Files says that I don't believe.

I don't have the Posner book, so I cannot tell you what i think of it. It doesn't look like something that i wish to own--there are an infinite amount of JFK books that I would love to have, but my budget is finite.

And as to me being surprised at the tenor of the postings here, with the little jabs and such,well, perhaps, that is Lancer's fault. I think they may hold to a higher standard (sorry, that is the way the Administrator is), and posts such as the two posts above this one would not be tolerated. My bad for even saying anything about them in the first place. You know, like they say, when in Rome...

.


Kathy,
I don't know about your background or how much you know about the JFK assassination, but I can assure you that there are discussion forums that are moderated by disinformation agents. Either they are knowingly disinforming or just being told what to do by others. I'll give you an example. The Mythbusters forum, when last I checked, actually bans all discussion about 9/11. Why is that? Are they affraid that information might be shared? That forum is related to the Discovery Channel, isn't it? Doesn't Mythbusters appear on Discovery Channel? Isn't the Discovery Channel the same that aired that bogus documentary (or at least the documentary that we here believe is bogus)?

All I'm trying to say is that there are discussion forums and networks that actively seek to disinform people who are not so well read on the subject. Don't be misled by them.

If you have doubts about James Files, so be it. You can even tell us what your doubts are, and either we'll clarify the information for you or we won't. It's as simple as that, but to say that Files' story is only as good as his word is not true. His story is corroborated by a lot more evidence than just his word.
Pasquale DiFabrizio
"Think with your dipstick, Jimmy!!!"
User avatar
Pasquale DiFabrizio
 
Posts: 1861
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:48 am
Location: United States

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby saracarter766 » Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:17 am

WTF such posts would'nt be tolerated you say kathy?



and pardon my french but at least we who have more sense and intelligence don't go about kissing gary macks ass like you do.and the snotty comment about lancer holding to a higher standard you can take you higher standards and shove them where the friggin don't shine hun.and lancer is as boring as horse hockey and thank god i do not go on there anymore you pretty much lost all my respect mrs kathy becket with that higher standard comment. :evil:


sorry about that peeps but her comments make me so mad. :evil:


and i'd rather be on this forum then lancer it's more fun the people here are awesome and at least the peeps here don't have their nose so far up their keister like you do kathy beckett it's a real yawnfest at lancer and that's all i'm saying. :evil:
saracarter766
 

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby katisha » Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:11 am

ThomZajac wrote:Kathy,
I am curious as to what you think happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Having read your recent posts I have some idea, but I don't like to make assumptions. I have no intention of attempting to change your mind in the event we see things much differently, but I am interested in better understanding why some thoughtful people have reached certain conclusions.

Sincerely,
Thom


A fine post, Thom. I too would like to hear what Kathy thinks. Not that I'll necessarily agree with her (and I know she, like many of the people here, knows much more about it all than I do), but it's a pleasure to see intelligent debate and passionate, yet civilized, argument about something we all care deeply about.

Please keep it up, Kathy, Bob, Pasquale et al. I look forward to reading more from all of you.
There are no heroes in this piece, only men who collaborated actively or passively - willfully or self-deludedly - in dirty work that does violence to the elementary concept of justice and affronts normal intelligence.

Sylvia Meagher, 1967, on the WC
katisha
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 7:18 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby kenmurray » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:18 pm

I would like to know Kathy since you said you bought that "inside the target" dvd, What is your opinion of it? Do you think it was an accurate display it shown with their expert rifeman with an aligned scope that he had pretending to be Oswald and shooting at a STATIONARY target? Did that occur on Nov 22, 1963? Hell no it didn't! By most accounts that cheap Carcano that Oswald allegedly used, the scope was MIISALIGNED and JFK''s limo was NOT stationary. Plus I didn't see no tree in sight of their rifleman named Yardley! Gary Mack was involved in this absurd piece of garbage! Yeah, sure Mack wants to keep this case alive, by burying the truth and promote the SBT now! Just watch a part of this documentary and see why we get pissed at Mack "the sack": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULJ1KvmqbF0
Last edited by kenmurray on Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kenmurray
 
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 8:55 pm

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby saracarter766 » Mon Jun 22, 2009 1:27 pm

oswald would have to drink 40 maybe 50 red bull energy drinks to run up to the sixth floor and then after that get 3 shots off and go back down to the 2 floor and remain calm.



lol my fellow JFK buffs just being a smartass there haha. :lol: :mrgreen:
saracarter766
 

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Kathy Becket » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:12 pm

Thom and Katisha,

Thank you so much for your comments.

A forum is, or should be, a vehicle for the free exchange of ideas. Since I put my Gary Mack opinion here, I have been told that my opinions are strawmen, and that I am more or less, a victim of Lancer disinformation, that I am spreading it , and told to cram things "where the sun don't shine". Seriously, how is this conducive to any research?

For these reasons, I am not real excited about further posting any views I have because, I assume, the same will continue.



Would YOU continue? I don't think I want to.



Kathy
Kathy Becket
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 4:35 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Gary Mack and his "hard evidence"

Postby Bob » Mon Jun 22, 2009 3:45 pm

Kathy, things can get volatile and emotional on ALL forums. I have dropped in on a few other JFK forums just to peruse and I would rate this forum as being the most friendly. Gary Mack is a sore subject around here, but let's just put that aside for now. I would be interested as Thom says, to get your opinion about how the assassination happened. Who were the assassins or the assassin? Who were the conspirators...if any?
User avatar
Bob
 
Posts: 5766
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:39 pm
Location: Florida/Wisconsin

PreviousNext

Return to Who shot JFK, and why?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests