Dallas Morning News: Gary Mack and the evolution of a JFK conspiracy theorist
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/jfk50/explore/20130302-gary-mack-and-the-evolution-of-a-jfk-conspiracy-theorist.eceGary Mack was once a conspiracy advocate for the JFK assassination. He started the questions about "Badge Man" and also contributed to the Dictabelt "fourth shot" controversy. He now believes Oswald was the only gunman that day.
He's also the curator for the Sixth Floor Museum here in Dallas.
And he remembers Mack in his younger days.
“He started out as a pretty vicious conspiracy theorist when he was with Channel 5,” said Aynesworth, who never bought into the conspiracy idea. “Gary made some pretty ridiculous claims.”
But over the years, Aynesworth said, he’s seen “a tremendous moderation” in Mack’s thinking — the theorist has grown into an authority.
“I have to tell you, I think he’s done a fabulous job there at the Sixth Floor,” he said. “The things he didn’t know and wasn’t involved with, he’s studied and learned. I’m impressed. If you ask him something about this deal, he knows the answer.”
Further in the article, he says he's "personally convinced there’s more than just Oswald involved," which he believes is connected to Oswald's time in Russia. However, the sole shooter that day was Oswald and the proof to anyone backing him in the act may never be found.
It's a good read.
= new reply since forum marked as read
... and still no response to the simple explanation. How predictable.
> > MicaelS: I stood right outside the plexiglass, at next the window looking out, and down along Elm Street, and said to myself, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot.
> And second, no one can get close enough to the view when standing near the plexiglass to say, "Shit, this would have been an easy shot". How absurd.
What an absurd thing to say. I'm going to predict that you won't even attempt to explain why you think the view from the two windows it so different:
Why waste all of those keystrokes if you aren't going to respond?
1) You, as predicted (every time, lately) feel the need to act on behalf of other's posts....
Uh, in addition to being irrelevant, that's inaccurate. Our last exchange, which I just brought to your attention for the second time, is a direct response to your OP of the silly Black Ops Radio videos. I posted a summary of the introduction and the first five episodes to give you an opportunity to point out what I was missing, but instead you went missing.
> .... possibly, because you don't get my attention to begin with..
Well, I have a theory about why you never seem to have a cogent response to what I post (yet frequently have lame excuses for why you don't), but that's all irrelevant. Since I've come to expect unresponsive responses from you, if anything at all, my primary objective in replying to you is to get the attention of anyone inclined to take you seriously.
> 2) You, as predicted, show pictures, designed in your head to support some kind of "picture" pseudo-evidence of where none exists.
LOL, the pictures I posted demonstrate how absurd your reply to MicaelS was, after saying his post was absurd.
> You can't even touch the evidence that way as to where shots came from, ...
The EVIDENCE of where the shots came from speaks for itself, which is the one and only reason conspiracists declare it fake:
The EVIDENCE says JFK was shot twice from behind, and the evidence says it was with Oswald's rifle from the TSBD 6th floor. After telling us to ignore the actual evidence, after 50 years conspiracists still don't have any evidence of a shot from somewhere else that can withstand scrutiny. But that's not a problem for conspiracy hucksters: Since they aren't really interested in getting at the truth, they just ignore the obvious problems with their evidence and their reasoning.
> ... much less, how impossible they were to come from the window these two guys are at least 12 away from.
Absurd bullshit double-down noted, which brings us to this:
> 3) This funny and silly stuff you insist on presenting (always, on behalf of other's posts) are so unlike the evidence in the video "50 reasons" presentations.
I already called your bluff on that and you folded. You couldn't give me any reason to watch those videos, and then when I watched the first five anyway and found not a shred of this imaginary evidence you're claiming, you decided it was a good time to ignore my posts. But I'll give you another chance: Point me to any one of those videos that contains some credible evidence of a conspiracy.
> Thanks for the abundant laughs. Keep em coming, cause I LOVE having posts like this KICKED!
No problem. Although we don't learn anything useful about 9/11 or the JFK assassination from your posts, I think we learn a lot about how some conspiracists think.
Thanks.
So, do you guys actually have any reputable researcher, cause I noticed you went to him again.
This is great...
I see you are still answering other's posts, does it take two of you to keep re-winding mcadams and footage after the shots of people running .... TO THEIR CARS???
Oh, yes... All the people who heard shots would naturally be trying to find their car at that moment!
Yes! 
Yes! 
Maybe he climbed aboard his rail car and pumped his little arms so fast he was around the bend before the first one of those second shooter stalkers managed to run up a little hill and get to the parking lot?
Sure, this is from 1995, but you can see how flat it is up there. Somebody running would have been seen or caught. Someone driving a car, again, would have been seen.
What gives, MMM? This is your little fantasy about a second shooter and how all those people are running up there to catch them one. Why didn't they catch him? Did LBJ and Hunt build him a rocket ship and he flew off to the moon before the second shooter hunters could get there? Wherdy go?
Cause you have lots of time for these things.... [url=http://www.cosgan.de/smilie.php][img]
[/img][/url]
One you don't have an answer for, or you would have answered by now.
And that's not just escape the premises - this fellow escaped any and all notice, even though he is presumed to have fired on the President from the front. He fires the kill shot (back and to the left), people go running where they heard the sound (premise granted for argument), and the dude has just utterly vanished.
Where did he go?
... which is based on ..."inaccurate, since the visit could have happened on the evening before Oswald left..." Then, when putting forth your theory to counter why someone couldn't possibly be setting up Oswald, you add another layer of your "theory" to cover any evidence that, "If it really was Oswald that visited Odio... it implies absolutely nothing..." WTF? Nice way to have a self-fulfilled prophecy, Billy.
This is why I no longer believe that you and some other ridiculous spinners on this forum don't read the material they cry about. Every stupid and silly remark shows over and over the spin, based on a few authors, so your talking points are not well referenced. They never are. You endeavor to wherever you can, to repeat (whether it's a video about other things you detest, or the JFK, which you REALLY detest), by reacting to "spooky one-note sound tracks" as you spin. .. It really takes away from any question being put forth.
When you decide to read (a skill requiring devotion to that attention span), you might invest in reading the second and third generation of researchers, who are well based - not only in reading interviews and the Warren Commission, but sworn testimony of the early investigative reporting and follow through, all well referenced. From THAT reading, you will note that Sylvia Odio was one of the BEST and most important witnesses...
She said that two Cubans came to her house in late September of 1963 with a Caucasian man they called Leon Oswald. In fact, today's evidence is pretty decisive that there was a Leon Oswald in New Orleans around this time. Richard Case Nagell also said he knew a Leon Oswald in that summer of 1963. Nagell said that this Leon Oswald was meant as a Second Oswald and was working with the anti-Castro Cubans, he was not at all pro-Castro. Raymond Broshears, a friend of David Ferrie's also spoke about a Leon Oswald. He described him as resembling Oswald. Michael Kurtz interviewed rightwing witness in Baton Rouge who recalled meeting an Oswald who was introduced to them as Leon Oswald in July and August of 1963. This happened more than once, and on his last visit to the area, Leon Oswald was accompanied by two Latins. David F Lewis, who once worked for Banister, said that he was introduced to a man named Leon Oswald by Sergio Arcacha Smith's right hand man Carols Quiroga at Mancuso's REstaurant in late 1962.
DiEugenio says it's doubtful that this was the real Lee Harvey Oswald since he was still living in the Dall-Fort Worth area at the time. All of this testimony strongly suggests that there actually was a Leon Oswald who resembled Oswald.
Without having to go out and buy you the damned book, Billy, why don't you just READ about the significance of The Odio episode? The absolute best investigative reference into her significance, including what the Commission decided NOT to use can be found in DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" (I have 2nd edition, paper bound, so it won't break your bank), should you actually decide to read what you cry foul over.
Meanwhile, so nice of you to jump in and cover other's posts here. I'm afraid that's all I can offer the light weights here. For everything else, there's reading comprehension and not being a goof ball about this.
Hey, I'm sure glad you're stuck on these video's.... cause they'll be at least 50 of them leading up to the 50th anniversary of the worst conspiracy this country's faced. The sooner we realize this, the better. So glad you're part of it, even though your part is a petty annoyance without credible reading comprehension.
Have a nice day!
The only part of the conspiracy that needed to be a hoax was who got blamed. But instead of doing something safe and simple, they decided to put a second shooter behind the fence in crowded Dealey Plaza and then coerce literally hundreds of people to help them cover it up -- forever -- with a mountain of fake evidence and lies. Hard to believe they expected to get away with such a stupid plot. 
So, you agree with James Fetzer that the Zapruder film is a fake, huh?
... to examine the Zapruder film carefully, instead of letting conspiracy hucksters like Oliver Stone tell you what to see. Then, I'd suggest applying some simple physics to what you see. For some reason most conspiracists simply refuse to do that, but nonetheless, what the film actually shows is that JFK's head immediately snapped forward when it was hit.
Once you know that forward snap is there, by the way, it's easy to see it when watching the movie in real-time. Try it.
Now the simple physics: The bullet exerted force on the head only while it was passing through the head, which was obviously between the two frames shown above (312 and 313). By the conservation law, momentum was transferred to the head instantaneously as the bullet slowed down, and the result was that the head accelerated -- but only while that force was being applied. Once the bullet exited the skull, it's completely impossible for it to exert any other forces or impart any more momentum to the head.
Now putting the observation and the physics together: Frame 313 clearly shows the immediate result of that force -- a forward head snap of about 2.5 inches -- which unambiguously implies that the bullet came from behind. And unsurprisingly, that conclusion is perfectly consistent with the explosion of matter in the forward direction.
On the other hand, the infamous "back and to the left" motion doesn't begin until two frames later, so it cannot possibly have been caused by a bullet that's long-gone from the scene. Furthermore, that motion shows acceleration over several frames, which requires a sustained force over that time, which again cannot possibly have come from that bullet. Furthermore, such a hit would have created a massive exit wound on the left rear, which leads to one of the favorite games of conspiracists of inventing excuses for why there's no such evidence.
So the Zapruder film is consistent with all the other credible evidence that says the hit was from behind, and it's refuted by nothing but cartoon physics and hand-waving assertions that anything that supports the "official story" must be fake.
Ha!
Not if the secret service was in on the plot to kill JFK!
Jeez, don't you know anything?
> I, however, didn't "shit on him and his story".
Rereading your posts, yes, I see that you explicitly denied that it was worth the effort:
> Your problem is that (a) you came up with a who-gives-a-shit story...
My apologies for misunderstanding what you were getting at.