+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack (/thread-9031.html)
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Bernice Moore - 16-03-2012
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Bernice Moore Wrote:Greg Dawn; i agree, if what i take such as being personal information within an email, but what if it relates to research and is re the assassinations...?? just a thought...take care b..
Mine only related to the argument my friend and I had, nothing about research, the argument had to do with the other friend, the one who ultimately posted it. We are still good friends too, but I was upset that a private email turned up on a public forum.
Dawn
thanks dawn..b
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Bernice Moore - 16-03-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:Bernice Moore Wrote:thanks Greg..i had a specific happening in mind, and anything personal as far as i knew was deleted and or xd out, and only the research material pertaining to a specific area was allowed to be posted, but there were still complaints, i think until whomever complains, is put into the same position, they will perhaps overlook the value of the research that is to be passed along.just some thoughts..stay well. best beans:popcorn:
I have publicly posted a whole lot of information that I received from Fletcher Prouty over the years. However, it was always with his express permission, indeed his encouragement, that I do so.
I have posted a ton of information that I obtained through hours of recorded conversations with my late compadre Gerry Hemming, with his blessing...sometimes anonymously sometime attributed.
I also posted a lot of information that I received from J Harrison over the years. It was always with his blessing--and--it was always posted without naming him as the source at his request. In
fact, much of the information that I used in my article: "The Amazing Web of Abraham Zapruder" -- which has received a ton of traction was confirmed by J, anonymously, at his request.
Anyway, Beans--good to see you here again, my friend. Take care, best...
[edit] Just for clarification, J told me that he only required anonymity on the de Mohrenschildt info while he was still alive else I would not have mentioned him here.
thank you kind sir..b
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - James H. Fetzer - 18-03-2012
What we don't learn about one another through exchanges on these forums! Those who put propriety ahead of truth thereby allow persons like Gary Mack to virtually preclude any demonstration that they are not speaking the truth because you are not permitted to quote them. It is very like keeping the Zapruder film under their tight control via phony copyright privileges.
When the issue arose, I consulted with Gordon Duff, the senior editor at Veterans Today, to determine whether I was violating any privilege related to this discussion thread. What you have here is the rest of the story, which I added after one of the members of the thread observed that I had omitted some of my strongest points by concluding where I had. So here's the rest.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3749[/ATTACH]
The hole in the windshield (1), the man in the doorway (2), the Dal-Tex shooter's location (3), and the early response by LBJ's security detail, while JFK's is still scratching their heads
I REITERATE MY CHALLENGE AND HE REITERATES HIS REFUSAL TO DEBATE:
James Fetzer
10:26 PM (12 hours ago)to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
All,
I have now reiterated my challenge to Gary Mack on the EF and the DPF under the title, "The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack". Unless he's a "no show"!
Jim
Gary Mack
10:51 AM (11 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
I already gave you my answer…..did you miss it?
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
11:14 PM (11 hours ago)to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,
Exactly what I would expect from a phony and a fraud. If what you have claimed about yourself the possession of superior knowledge were true, even remotely, you would be EAGER to demonstrate your superior knowledge. You are NOT, for the obvious reason that, as usual, you are faking it. Isn't your background in marketing and advertising? I taught courses in logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years. Why are you such a phony? I would wipe the floor with you and you know it.
You seem to believe you can promote the most ridiculous rubbish that Oswald's weapon could have fired the shots that killed JFK, when they were supposed to be high-velocity and his weapon was not; that he was on the 6th floor, when witnesses have placed him in the 2nd floor lunch room just before and immediately after; that he was guilty, when he was obviously framed (as the backyard photographs prove); that the film is not a fabrication (as dozens of proofs have established) and lie with impunity!
Your attack on Madeleine Duncan Brown typifies the sleaze that exudes from your every pore. You are promoting THE BIG LIE to the American peopleand doing it with a straight face! You are betraying the nation by promoting a false history of one of our most crucial events, when you have to know better. I cannot abide phonies and frauds, especially those who commit intellectual treason against the USA. I am hardly surprised that you would duck and run for cover. You are an embarrassment and a disgrace.
Jim
Gary Mack
11:38 AM (11 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Building up your ego by putting others down with your childish accusations again, eh Jim? Do you feel better now? Good.
Please tell me which conspiracy theory is the correct one, for I certainly wouldn't want to waste any time on the others. Thanks.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
11:51 PM (10 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Come on, Gary. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would not duck and run from a public debate. You have declared that you have "superior knowledge" of the JFK assassination. I have challenged you to prove it. A man of integrity would stand by his beliefsunless, of course, they were merely states as a subterfuge. Now that I have challenged you to a debate to settle the proposition, you evade it. What other inference should be drawn than that you are not going to debate because you know that you would lose? You made the assertion, Gary. Let's go mano-a-mano and settle this publicly.
Gary Mack
12:06 (M (10 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
There is nothing to "settle," Jim. I get to choose where and how I present the results of my research. That's not up to you, it's up to me. You can whine, hold your breath and stamp your feet all day but it won't change anything.
But I do appreciate learning how you and Ralph go about formulating your Lovelady/Oswald theory. I see you now have him standing back in the doorway shadows, right? Which side? The left or right (as one looks at the doorway from the street)?
Gary Mack
ATTENTION TURNS TO BADGE MAN AND THE ACOUSTIC EVIDENCE:
James Fetzer
11:51 PM (10 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Come on, Gary. The doorway man question has been settled, you just don't understand it yet. More interesting are your views on the "correct theory" of the assassination of JFK. Before you went over to the dark side, you did some good work with Jack White, including the identification of "Badgeman" in the Moorman photograph. So is Badgeman part of the "correct theory" of the assassination? You have also expressed support for the dictabelt evidence. Does the police dictabelt support the "correct theory"? Was Oswald the lone assassin or not? Give us your take on the "correct theory" about JFK.
Gary Mack
12:40 PM (9 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
I understand doorway man perfectly. And the theory has fatal flaws everywhere I look….and I told you and Ralph what I think and why. Take it or leave it.
If you will consult my 1982 newsletter, you'll find the name is Badge Man, please try to spell it correctly. The Badge Man and acouistics theories were mine and I still think they are correct. They are MY theories, and so far history says they are not convincing. I disagree. So until they are resolved, they remain just theories. Just like Doorman is a theory and my experience tells me the theory is wrong.
So what's the problem?
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
1:13 PM (9 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
So there was at least a second shooter on the grassy knoll, who took at least one more shot, which means that Lee was NOT "the lone assassin". And since the dictabelt seems to record at least six or seven shots, probably more, there have to have been even more shooters at various locations. Is that your position? Because if it is, then The 6th Floor Museum has been doing a piss-poor job of explaining what happened to JFK on 22 November 1963. Or is this just you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
Gary Mack
1:41 PM (8 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Please remove the private emails of mine that you posted on the Ed Forum without permission. My correspondence includes a Confidentiality notice at the bottom. Thank you.
Gary Mack
James Fetzer
2:32 PM (8 hours ago)
to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
What's the matter, Gary? Are you afraid the public is going to catch on to your deceptive role in relation to concealing the truth about the assassination of JFK? In the public interest, I have now published "The Great JFK Non-Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/03/06/the-great-jfk-non-debate-jim-fetzer-vs-gary-mack/which I believe places the issues under discussion here in the proper context.
James Fetzer
2:39 PM (8 hours ago)to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Gary,You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word, "theory", no doubt because it is ambiguous and it serves your purpose to treat all theories as though they were mere rumors or speculations. But what Ralph and I and KD have done is to take the issue of Doorway Man out of the category of rumor and speculation and turn it into an empirically testable, explanatory hypothesis, like the theories of evolution and of general relativity. I recommend you read my "Thinking about Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which is accessible on-line. Jim
Gary Mack
2:38 PM (8 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
You do not have permission to publish my private emails. Remove them immediately and confirm that you have done so. Thank you.Gary Mack
James Fetzer
2:50 PM (7 hours ago)to Gary, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Well, I have just checked with Gordon Duff, the senior editor of Veterans Today, who has informed me
gordon duff 2:46 PM
anything on the internet is in public domainno expectation of privacyonce written, it is published for resuse
James H. Fetzer 2:46 PM
Great! I appreciate that. Excellent. Thanks.
gordon duff 2:46 PM
and criticism.
Consider this a free tutorial on internet privacy and the lack of a right to privacy, compliments of Gordon.
Gary Mack
2:29 PM (7 hours ago)to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, RalphSince you have ignored the
Confidentiality Notice, which covers Museum property, there will be no further correspondence between you and me on ANY matter.Gary Mack
James Fetzer
4:00 PM (6 hours ago)
to me, David, dlifton, jerry, bmoore1242, john.costella, jwjfk, dmantik, Ralph
Well, the "Confidentiality Notice" has no standing. It's another form of fakery, which we now know is your very "bread and butter". As others have written to me, the spelling of "Badge Man" as "Badgeman" are both commonplace. So are you now also supposed to be an expert in English? What rule are you citing? Why are you so self-righteous?
http://badgeman.com/
http://www.jfkresearch.com/morningstar/morningstar5.htm
You also appear to be extremely reluctant to connect Badge Man or the dictabelt to the existence of a conspiracy. If those are your two greatest contributions to research on the death of JFK, then why are you not promoting conspiracy? Do you believe you can consistently maintain the lone assassin theory + Badge Man + the acoustic evidence?
This is one more reason I would wipe the floor with you in a public debate. Running and hiding are obviously your best tactics, under the circumstances, although I believe this thread has already exposed you as a charlatan and a fraud. And you are welcome to use any of my posts here in any context you like. Just publish them in their entirety.
SITUATION SUMMARY:
[video]http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY5dNpTYWT8[/video]
YouTube - Veterans Today -
As it happened, I was having a serendipitous conversation with Connie Kritzberg, who was a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald and interviewed Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, Malcolm Perry, M.D., and Kemp Clark, M.D., the afternoon of the assassination. She and I were discussing her friend, Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom she co-authored a book on the assassination, DALLAS DID IT!, and the social event at the home of Clint Murchison, Sr., at the very time Gary Mack was attacking Madeleine's credibility. Our hour-long conversation will be broadcast on "The Real Deal", revereradio.net, this Friday from 5-7 PM/CT, the second hour.
Gary Mack has asserted several times now that he possesses knowledge that is superior to mine about the JFK assassination. I have therefore challenged him to a two-hour, public debate, divided into 15 minute segments. I will take the first, he the second, and so forth, where if either of us is unable to fill up our allotted time, it shifts to the other debater as bonus. We could do it at COPA or at Lancer. I will bring my laptop and he can bring whatever he likes. I will present my case and he can attempt to rebut it, where I have the first and he the last word. All we need is a screen and an LCD projector. If an audience shows up, so much the better.
As I have made very clear during the course of this exchange, I regard Gary Mack as an apologist for the "official account" of the assassination. He is a very "big cheese" as the curator for The 6th Floor Museum, but I view him as a phony and a fraud who spends his time bamboozling the public about the who, the how, and the why of the death of our 35th president. He claims to possess superior knowledge. Let him therefore demonstrate it. Why should he duck and run from a public debate, especially on the occasion of the 50th observance of the death of JFK? Let's duke it out and see which of us is right. It's time for him to put up or shut up!
James H. Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth and a columnist for Veterans Today, where his most recent studies of the assassination of JFK can be found.
Greg Burnham Wrote:I find the entire idea of sharing private emails (especially on a Public Forum) despicable. That one is so desperate to prove their point that they would contrive a false justification for an otherwise unethical, if not immoral act, is
at best, evidence of a cerebral hiccup or worse.
There is NEVER a justification for disclosing presumedly confidential private conversations without first gaining the
express permission to do so from the participants in the exchange.
The argument that "Such disclosure isn't illegal" -- even if true -- does not satisfy the requirements of gentlemanly
behavior. Nor does it satisfy moral or ethical obligations. Launching an ad hominem assault is not illegal either,
yet it is ill-advised just the same.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Albert Doyle - 18-03-2012
I'd like to lodge a protest against the use of private e-mails and the exposure of e-mail addresses in public. There's a taboo against that that preserves privacy and confidentiality. To break it in order to give self-created credibility to a debunked theory is scurrilous at best and should be shunned. Bashing Gary Mack will not breathe any life into false doorway theories. To force public posting claims against the obvious is to force dishonorable methods for dishonorable purposes. The prevailing rule is obviously that private e-mails are private exactly because the posters didn't want to post them in public. To break this wilfully is to violate accepted codes of gentlemanly conduct.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Greg Burnham - 18-03-2012
I have chosen to publicly forgive James' his incredible breach of etiquette on the EF where he insulted me and my wife and essentially called into question my integrity--an offense I do NOT allow. However, I highly object to the posting of private emails on a public forum. This is in violation of the most basic rules of engagement and should not even need to be mentioned to a grown man. If he truly fails to see the problem with this type of behavior it is mind boggling.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Keith Millea - 18-03-2012
Quote:While I hate to suggest Greg has his head where the Sun does not shine . . .
Oh God,here we go again.......:noblesteed:
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Dawn Meredith - 18-03-2012
I agree. One can make a point without without muddying it up with private emails.
Thank you,
Dawn
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Dawn Meredith - 18-03-2012
P.S Jim It is entirely pointless to argue with "Gary Mack". And as you know he only lurks at forums, does not post.
Everyone here knows who and what he is, no reason to belabor that point by posting emails.
I hope you understand.
Dawn
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Russ LaChapelle - 18-03-2012
Keith Millea Wrote:Quote:While I hate to suggest Greg has his head where the Sun does not shine . . .
Oh God,here we go again.......:noblesteed:
Gentleman... we have been sheep dipped... its part of the plan for after the assassination occurred. LN, CT, openminded, closeminded, open to looking some places and not others... it is all the same.
Debate of the small stuff and fighting back and forth only fortifies and gives strength to the original plan THEY tested, secured and implemented.... just as it was designed to do, before they made JFK go away, forever.
Hoodwinked... These guys were good, really good but they oh so very bad.
The Great JFK Debate: Jim Fetzer vs. Gary Mack - Jan Klimkowski - 18-03-2012
Russ LaChapelle Wrote:Gentleman... we have been sheep dipped... its part of the plan for after the assassination occurred.
Wrong again, LaChapelle.
"We", as a research community, haven't been sheep dipped.
However, there are various entities and mockingbirds who attempt to infiltrate the research community who have been sheep dipped.
How about you, Russ?
Something you want to tell us?
Are you of the species Mimus polyglottos?