As most of you may know, Gary Mack is the curator of the sixth floor museum, housed in the Texas Schoolbook Depository in Dallas. He is also considered a top expert on the JFK assassination, and as such often asked to participate in JFK documentaries, TV or radio programs.
Gary is also friends with Dave Perry, who has very specific opinions about witnesses and JFK researchers, like myself for example.
That's not what I said. I said, and have said several times, that there isn't any HARD evidence, except for the acoustics.
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.
There are plenty of theories about the assassination from qualified and unqualified people, but theories aren't evidence and they never have been.
----- Original Message -----
From: Wim Dankbaar
Sent: Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:33 PM
Hard evidence or conclusive evidence is the same.
GM: No, they are not.
I say they are. What , according to you is the difference?
You never say in public "except for the acoustics", but even if you would say it, it would not be the truth and you know it.
GM: That is YOUR theory.
No, not a theory, you wish it were. There is an overwhelming amount of HARD evidence for shots from the front. The sad thing is you know that, thus you are willfully denying it. You know what my theory is? That you are protecting the conspiracy willfully and knowingly. That you are an accessory after the fact. That you don't mind treason in exchange for a mighty buck. That is my theory, because I cannot prove it beyond any doubt.
The biggest THEORY of them all, the one that you say that history is "pretty clear" on, is that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. A theory is a thesis that has not been proven or lacks evidence. This is especially the case for the thesis of the Warren Report. Why do you never mention that?
GM: History shows that there is no hard evidence overturning the WC conclusion that Oswald acted alone.
Gary, can we take this debate public? So I can show others how full of crap that statement is?
GM: It is a theory that the WR is wrong. There is no hard evidence of anyone other than Oswald firing at JFK.
It is not a theory nor a possibility that the WR is wrong, it is a proven fact that it is wrong. Again, you know this. Hence, stating otherwise is a willful lie.
You know, you do it pretty sneaky. You always leave the impression that that is still the most plausible theory, and all the others lack hard evidence.
GM: When someone produces hard evidence, then history will have been changed. No one has yet done that.
There IS hard evidence to prove the Warren Report a bunch of treacherous lies, a fraud designed to deceive the American public. Again, you know this very very well.
You know better than any of us that the "Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone theory" is the one theory that lacks hard evidence most of all. In fact the so called evidence can be proven nonsense in any court of law.
GM: Again, that is your theory.
Again, not a theory, you wish it were.
In order to leave your impression standing you HAVE TO suggest that the witnesses are wrong, as well as the evidence for frontal shots.
GM: Not all witnesses were wrong. But witness opinions are nothing more than that....and they are not hard evidence.
Oh really? Then why are witnesses used by prosecutors to put murderers behind bars? Are you re-inventing law?
For example on the Houston radio program on 11/22/2005 , you suggested that all the witnesses running to the knoll in pursuit of one or more assassins were just confused by the echoes of Dealey Plaza.
GM: They were confused, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were all correct or all incorrect. I have spoken to enough eyewitnesses and read enough testimony to know that most witnesses heard three shots, not four, and they disagreed about where they came from. That's why witness recollectins are not hard evidence.
Ofcourse some of them were confused. With shots coming from multiple directions, front and back, it was not easy for some witnesses to determine where they came from. However you will have to ignore the concensus of the witnesses to make your mud stick on the wall. That concensus is this one:
You even want to suggest that the double bang, heard by virtually all of the witnesses, the two almost simultaneous shots, which could not have been fired from the same bolt action rifle, was nothing more than an echo of one shot.
GM: That's not true,
Oh, that is interesting! So it is not true that you want to suggest that? The alternative is to accept that the double bang was two separate shots, exactly as witness Lee Bowers said. Hence not from the same rifle, hence more than one gunman, hence conspiracy, hence Warren Report blown to pieces. Now be specific Gary, what is it that you DO SAY about the double bang?
GM: and you cannot pick and choose which ones may or may not have been right so only a recording of the assassination can prove the spacing between the shots. That will be an interesting development, for according to the acoustics evidence, the first two shots were fired 1.6 seconds apart - probably too fast for Oswald's rifle. For that reason, I have urged for 20+ years that the acoustics evidence of the TSBD shots be examined in the same minute detail as was the knoll shot. Are you aware that has never been done?
Who cares? That is concentrating on nitpicking that will not uncover anything new. It is diverting attention from the important stuff that needs to be re-examined and focused on. This nitpicking on unimportant details is exactly what I would want you to do if I would want the truth kept covered-up. And it happens to be exactly what YOU are doing. 1.6 seconds is not probably too fast for Oswald's rifle, it is CERTAINLY too fast. But that is exacly your modus operandi. To reduce certainties to probabilities, possibilities and "maybe's".
Additionally in order to leave your impressions standing, you HAVE to discredit the testimonies of Chauncey Holt, Tosh Plumlee, Judyth Baker and James Files. In fact, you rather ignore them when you are asked to vent your opinions on TV and radio programs, for which you are frequently asked.
GM: Four people with nothing but stories - that is not hard evidence.
That is a blatant lie. They can all backup their stories, they can all prove who they say they are, and for most of them there is documentary and even PHYSICAL evidence to backup their stories. Take the dented shell casing found in Dealey Plaza for example.
Let me ask you point blank: Is it your statement that the single bullet theory is possible?
GM: Of course it is possible. Is it likely? No, but there's no hard evidence that it is impossible.
There you go again. Of course it is IMPOSSIBLE, and again, you know this. Therefore you are a mouthpiece for the people that do not want the truth known to the public.
After all, that is the THEORY that the lone assassin viewpoint rests on. Without a single bullet theory there is no lone assassin.
GM: The single bullet theory was tested and found to be possible. In the absence of any other hard evidence, therefore, it must have happened.
Again, you know full well what a load of crap this statement is. Other than its impossible trajectory there are numurous other proven reasons that the single bullet theory is impossible. You focus on the trajectory in hope that the other reasons go unnoticed. But you ARE cognizant of them, and you DO know that they exist. Here are just a few, not for you, but for those who may get to read this exchange:
Hoover explains to his friend and neighbour Lyndon Johnson, ON TAPE, that both Kennedy and Connally were wounded by a total of three bullets that all hit their target. This is right after the assassination. However, after more than 6 months the Warren Commission can no longer ignore the testimony of James Tague and is forced to put him on the stand.
The trajectory for such a shot through the presidential limousine, lines up better for a shot from a low floor in the Daltex building, than a high floor in the book depository, but this is ignored by the warren Commision.
Now the Commission is faced with the dilemma to explain all the wounds of the two men with only two bullets. It is only then that the infamous single bullet theory is born, with Mr. Arlen Specter giving birth to it.
The far more logical route in any proper investigation would have been to account for more bullets, and thus more gunmen, and thus a conspiracy. But since the predetermined conclusion of the Commission was to convict Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin, the Commission desperately clings to Specter's single bullet theory. This THEORY asserts that one bullet emerged in almost undamaged condition, traversing through Kennedy's neck, without hitting any bone, then piercing Connally's torso, then shattering his wristbone and ending up in his thigh, thus causing a total of SEVEN wounds.
but there are far better reasons to dismiss it to Wonderland. First the bullet fragments removed from Connally's wrist weighed more than the weight missing from the magic bullet. Secondly, wen we use the Commission's own locations for Kennedy's back and neckwound, the trajectory of the bullet shows that it would have hit the bone of the vertebrae.
Thirdly, the autopsy doctors in Bethesda probed the backwound and determined that it the trajectory was at a 45 degrees downward angle and that it was a SHALLOW wound that did not go anywhere. Hence the bullet DID NOT traverse through Kennedy. There WAS NO exit wound, the back wound and the throatwound were NOT connected. These are more irrefutable reasons that the magic bullet did NOT exit at Kennedy's throat. They would be accepted as proof in any court of law. A Jury or Judge would quickly rule that the single bullet theory, on which the Warren Commission's conclusion rests, is nonsense.
The report of FBI Agents Sibert and O'neal reads in part:
"Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile had entered at a downward position for 45 to 60 degrees.
Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit." (Thus it is no surprise that Specter lied to the Commission that agent Sibert had not made a report, and that neither of these two federal officers were called to testify.)
Fourthly, we are asked to believe that the bullet inflicting all this damage, causing seven wounds, comes out in a near pristine condition, while the other bullet from Oswald's antique rifle explodes in Kennedy' s head in dustlike fragments. In addtion, the original FBI report dated november 23 , 1963, shows that one live round and only two, NOT three spent cartridges were found in the sniper's nest of the Schoolbook depository. Thus Oswald, if he fired any shots at all, could not have fired more than two shots. Only one of these reasons is sufficient to reject the single bullet theory. I have named four and there are still more.
As an ardent researcher of the JFK assassination and as the curator of the sixth floor museum, you, Gary Mack, are aware of all of the above reasons that prove the single bullet theory impossible and a willful lie.
Here's another question, just to get some clarity from you: Do you support the thesis that the photographed three tramps in Dealey Plaza were Gedney, Doyle and Abrams?
GM: There's no hard evidence they were anyone else.
First this is a lie. There is much harder evidence that they were Chauncey Holt, Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers. Not only Holt's confession but also photographical analysis by facial experts who are highly respected in other criminal investigations. Secondly, there is no hard evidence that they were Gedney , Doyle and Abrams, other than 3 so-called arrest records without mugshots and fingerprints. Imagine: these are alledgedly arrests in connection with the death of a President, and there are no mugshots and no fingerprints? These records are suddenly "found" 30 years later, coincidently just at the time that Chauncey Holt went public with his revelations.
Thrid question: Do you maintain that there is no hard evidence form a shot from the grassy knoll?
GM: The hard evidence of a shot from the knoll is the acoustics evidence, in my personal opinion. The Badge Man photo is interesting, but not clear enough to be hard evidence.
Another lie to the stack. There is a ton of hard evidence for a shot from the front, starting with the Zapruder film, from which a child can see that the headshot came from the right front, which is why it was kept away from the public until it had to be shown on TV in 1975. I will not list all the remaining evidence here, for you know the rest, but the puff of smoke seen by witnesses, the smell of gunpowder smelled by witnesses, the medical evidence, the massive exit hole in Kennedy's back of the head, the witness accounts of the doctors and those present at the autopsy, the trajectory of the bloodspray, the Harper fragment, the account of the embalmer Thom Evans Robinson, Malcolm Kilduff, JFK's Press Secretary, are just a few examples.
And do you maintain that that the throat wound could have been caused by an exiting bullet fired from behind?
GM: There's no hard evidence it could not have been. Here's an example. The simple explanation, which I have talked about publicly several times, is that the trajectory through JFK is upward. That cannot happen with a bullet moving downward. The explanation, of course, is that JFK was leaning forward. But it appears that he didn't lean forward until after being hit. Therefore, the upward trajectory suggests the SBT is wrong. But a suggestion is not hard evidence. Understand?
No and yes. No, I do not understand it is a suggestion, I understand it is another piece of proof that the SBT is not possible. Yes, I do understand your modus operandi. You reduce the hard irrefutable evidence to incredible suggestions. That is your mission, one which you perform reasonably well under the difficult circumstances you have to work with. That is the only credit I give you.
Gary Mack in the 1988 documentary "The men who killed Kennedy" :
We are not a free country anymore. Because the people that are smart enough and powerful enough to take out a President like that, and get away with it for 25 years, are probably involved in other areas of the Government. In other words, the country is being run by people we did not vote for.
Email received 28 june 2007:
I also happen to believe that Gary Mack is an apologist for the Lone Gunman Theory/Warren Commission Report. Here is the latest example I've discovered. Madeleine Duncan Brown has appeared in several interviews describing a party which occurred the night before the JFK assassination at which several powerful people were in attendance. The list includes LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, and many of Johnson's rich, Texas oil buddies.
Gary Mack is on record for doing his utmost to pick her story apart. For example, he claims that Hoover never had a black chauffeur - thereby proving that Brown's testimony was wrong. In fact, what Brown said was - and anybody can view it on Youtube in the latest "Men Who Killed Kennedy (The Guilty Men, segment 3) - was that "a" black chauffeur was present. Well, the above-mentioned TV show interviews one May Newman who corroborates that it was in fact oil tycoon Clint Murchison who had the black chauffeur and that it was he, the black chauffeur, who drove Hoover around that evening. Mack could have learned this in a second had he simply watched the program and not been drawn to distraction by picking at straws.
Here's what I think about Gary Mack. I remember him being featured extensively in the original Men Who Killed Kennedy back in 1988, and he appeared to be a JFK researcher who seemed to be sincerely interested in uncovering the obvious conspiracy of JFK's murder. Since then, however, he has done a complete about-face, and become a shill for the Warren Commission Report and all of its proponents. I wonder if his position as Curator of the 6th Floor Museum has only served to corrupt his honesty and objectivity. After all, he does spend most of his days rubbing shoulders with the very same power base which was responsible for JFK's death in the first place. He wouldn't want to lose that cushy, well-paying job by rocking the boat, now would he?
Compare the two clips:
1988: Gary Mack comments on the single bullet theory:
Gary Mack comments on Oswald as the lone assassin:
Analyzing the magic bullet theory:
Gary Mack comments on the single bullet theory:
COPYRIGHT 2003 jfkmurdersolved.com All Rights Reserved