Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gary Mack has passed away


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

Gary Mack was helpful to me when I was seeking certain recordings [which I never was able to obtain] from 11/22/63. He could be a great asset to investigation, when he chose to be.

It is very true that Gary Mack could be helpful if he wanted to be. However, he could be very abusive if he disagreed with you. The problem people had with Gary was the change in his views after 1994 when Mack became an archivist and later curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

This might have been because of his research or maybe it had something to do with his job. I know he got very upset when I quoted him the words of the great investigative journalist, Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

http://spartacus-educational.com/Jupton.htm

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmack.htm

John, you completed my edited thoughts of Gary Mack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gary wasn't entirely secret about his not swallowing it all, hook, line, and sinker.

"The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," said museum curator Gary Mack, who admits he's "not satisfied with the official story." CNN.com, 11-18-13

Just to modify that statement to say what he really meant: "The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," But they do know that they don't believe; the Warren Commission Report.... That should fix it.

Edited by Kenneth Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The encomiums here re Gary Mack suggest to me those who believe JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy feel lonely and want to associate with someone who is safe to praise. Someone the "official story" people approve.

The encomiums here re Gary Mack seem to me to be the kind of thing that people generally say or write when someone dies. It's like my mama always told me, "If you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything."

CTs are used to psychoanalysis, though. I wish I had a dime for every time I've read that we believe in a conspiracy because we can't accept that one lone nut like Oswald could change the world. Or we're wackos who are basically mentally ill.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

I see commenters here this way, for example.

DVP: Adheres to authority. Is comfortable with authority.

DJ: Knows no authority.

Mark Knight: Likes laws.

Interesting approach. I would add this one:

RE: Follows the evidence even though JT says there isn't any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The encomiums here re Gary Mack suggest to me those who believe JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy feel lonely and want to associate with someone who is safe to praise. Someone the "official story" people approve.

It's called common decency, Jon.

And for all their faults and foibles with respect to the JFK case, the vast majority of conspiracy theorists (thankfully) still possess common decency, as we can see in this thread. And that's nice to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I will always disagree with Gary on is when he told me absolutely that there was no live TV coverage of the Dallas casket's arrival in front of Bethesda, where the hearse sat for several minutes. I remember watching it. As curator at the museum he was certainly in a position to know if there is any extant footage, and there obviously isn't. But that doesn't mean it wasn't televised. I know of only one other person on Earth who says he remembers seeing the TV coverage of the Bethesda arrival. (But he remembers it was not the hearse that left Andrews. Is that why there is no extant footage?) It's hard to believe that we are two such unique people, but "I know what I saw when I saw it."

Ron, your experience is similar to mine. I was old enough (23) when it happened that I remember seeing quite a bit on tv over that weekend. some I have seen again from various archives and forum sites, but other film I have never seen again. The one I am confronted on most is seeing a person with a rifle recovered (they said) from the TSBD building and shown and identified as a Mauser at the time. I've never seen that in any film since that weekend. Many say it never happened. The very first discrepancy that I recall in the whole chain of events is when the type of rifle changed from a Mauser to a Manlicher-Carcano. I wondered how a rifle that was clearly identified by several persons could change brand names after it got to police headquarters. Since that time, many other things have 'changed' miraculously' to either conceal actual evidence or to modify it to fit the "story".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I will always disagree with Gary on is when he told me absolutely that there was no live TV coverage of the Dallas casket's arrival in front of Bethesda, where the hearse sat for several minutes. I remember watching it. As curator at the museum he was certainly in a position to know if there is any extant footage, and there obviously isn't. But that doesn't mean it wasn't televised. I know of only one other person on Earth who says he remembers seeing the TV coverage of the Bethesda arrival. (But he remembers it was not the hearse that left Andrews. Is that why there is no extant footage?) It's hard to believe that we are two such unique people, but "I know what I saw when I saw it."

Ron, your experience is similar to mine. I was old enough (23) when it happened that I remember seeing quite a bit on tv over that weekend. some I have seen again from various archives and forum sites, but other film I have never seen again. The one I am confronted on most is seeing a person with a rifle recovered (they said) from the TSBD building and shown and identified as a Mauser at the time. I've never seen that in any film since that weekend. Many say it never happened. The very first discrepancy that I recall in the whole chain of events is when the type of rifle changed from a Mauser to a Manlicher-Carcano. I wondered how a rifle that was clearly identified by several persons could change brand names after it got to police headquarters. Since that time, many other things have 'changed' miraculously' to either conceal actual evidence or to modify it to fit the "story".

seems to me there was a local (Dallas) news cameraman on the 6th floor soon after the shooting. From what I recall, he shot quite a bit of 16mm film while the TSBD search was underway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DM: The Video tells the truth, get over it!

​Martin already blew this up, but really Duncan, do I now have to list all the incredibly one sided, pro WC shows Gary served on as either main talking head,or chief consultant?

In respecting the recently passed I did not want to do it. But keep on pushing me and I will.

Gary went through a significant mid life crisis. How else does one explain him serving as one of two talking heads on TMWKK and then doing something like Inside the Target Car?

Look Jim, the crux of the matter is that Gary never said to anyone, verbatim, that he was a lone nut.

On the other hand, and as illustrated succinctly in the posted Video clip, he did declare verbatim

" I have some bits and pieces that to me say there's gotta be more to it than Oswald, but I can't prove it"

There's nothing more to say, the recorded facts as usual speak for themselves, ie,. He was open minded to the idea of a conspiracy....end of!

" I have some bits and pieces that to me say there's gotta be more to it than Oswald, but I can't prove it" That just about says it for everyone, doesn't it.? Every CTer can make that statement. If anyone had 'proof' it would cease to being a 'theory" On the other hand, I suspect very few LN's cannot truthfully say that there are some 'bit and pieces' that they can't explain if it really was a LN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

Would like to remind you that we are all human, and we grieve when someone we cared about is lost. Hold on to that thought for a minute. It would seem to me that folk could have at least waited to air any problems they had with someone so recently deceased. Now grant you, probably a lot of people who you folk admire, I can't stand. but I know what grief feels like (we all do) and would offer condolences and at least wait until a bit of time passed before I said anything. and I'd watch the way I said it. But that is just me.

We've all read about the 5 stages of grief and each of us has probably experienced them. Those are going to come out, in one form or another. It is part of being human.

C'mon people, there is room all over this forum for later Gary questionings. Can you just allow a place where folk can put a few "Sorrys", or "I should haves" or something else w/o telling us what a bad guy he was in your opinion? I'm sure the reading audience already knows from former postings how you feel about Gary. The folks who are jumping on him, or getting ready to are no surprise to me, anyway, as I'm sure others aren't surprised, either.

Bit of room to breathe, please.

It is just a request.

Thanks, Kathy. I lost a very good friend of almost 40 years on Wednesday, and your much appreciated words of human kindness shine like a beacon of light emerging from the darkness of untimely (and often highly offensive) criticism of Gary that we have seen this week.

Edited by Chris Scally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hope he had Jesus Christ as LORD in his heart. ,gaal

I have him on a seven year old grilled cheese sandwich. Does that count?

I hope Gary's family is doing well and getting through it - with or without "The Lord" in their hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've waited to post here because I want to be sincere and respectful. I had written early on, but not posted, : 'May he rest in peace. My condolences to family and friends.' and it seemed so trite. I can see why now. I realise I was shocked. Gary seemed like a constant. I can now see that he had friends among people I deeply respect.
To have someone who I'm personally ambivalent about (I don't know Gary, I got the usual emails and such) be spoken of so kindly by people I know better makes my initial thoughts ok. May he Rest in Peace and may his Family and Friends find Peace and Comfort in their times of Sorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've waited to post here because I want to be sincere and respectful. I had written early on, but not posted, : 'May he rest in peace. My condolences to family and friends.' and it seemed so trite. I can see why now. I realise I was shocked. Gary seemed like a constant. I can now see that he had friends among people I deeply respect.

To have someone who I'm personally ambivalent about (I don't know Gary, I got the usual emails and such) be spoken of so kindly by people I know better makes my initial thoughts ok. May he Rest in Peace and may his Family and Friends find Peace and Comfort in their times of Sorrow.

I knew- via snailmail only- the old Gary and got his periodical back in the 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not my job to pass judgment on Gary Mack. However, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that he was the stalwart of moral and ethical fortitude that some here are suggesting.

If we assume that Gary was sincere when he privately claimed to believe the official version was wrong and that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy (no matter the details), then several pertinent questions are raised automatically. He apparently believed that the truth had yet to be told since he did not believe the official story.

1) Why did Gary believe that the truth had yet to be discovered and revealed?

2) Did he believe that those who have dedicated a great deal of their lives to researching the evidence and have arrived at various conclusions, some erroneous, are mostly responsible for the suppression of the truth?

3) Did he believe that the reason that the truth is yet to be known is due to erroneous beliefs held by some conspiracy theorists?

4) Did he believe that by eradicating these erroneous theories the resources of the federal government would again be spent on reopening the investigation and getting to the bottom of it?

5) Did he really believe that erroneous "conspiracy theories" were the reason the truth was not known for over 50 years and that it was his responsibility to rid the research community of these false conclusions?

6) Did he really believe that if he was successful in this (self-appointed?) mission to cleanse the research palate, that truth and justice for JFK would prevail?

7) If so: How?

So while I cannot pass judgment on Gary Mack, I'm sure that if there is a God and if Gary did have a soul, the answers to those questions might prove to be less than amusing when addressed from a position not shielded from the hot seat.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...