Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
James DiEugenio

Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the City of Dallas

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

The more I look back at that fiftieth anniversary, the more I see it as perhaps one of the most serious deprivations of the first amendment along with some of the purest broadcast propaganda in recent history.

As the article notes it began with an email from the late Gary Mack to city hall.  And if you can believe it, that email was almost two years in advance of the anniversary.

When it first came to light, i  took it seriously.  But others did not.  In retrospect that was a mistake.  Because I do not think that what they did could have stood up to a court challenge.  In my opinion it was clearly a violation of freedom of assembly, speech and the right to petition.  And it was all done in violation of the concept of prior restraint.  That is, the people who's rights were being violated did not even get the opportunity to speak in the first place.  Which is what the Pentagon Papers case was all about.  You cannot do that stuff.

Looking back, we should have started a drive back then and got it on the web and started collecting funds and choosing a legal team.  I really do think we would have won.  I mean we already had some lawyers on our side like Lesar, Alcorn and Wecht.  (Wecht has a law degree from University of Maryland.)  And if we could have raised the case profile I think we could have gotten some big name lawyer pro bono.

I will never forget that day as long as I live.  After watching about twenty or thirty cops at one intersection, backed up by a cop on horseback, screaming back and forth with Alex Jones on his bullhorn, I decided, along with many others, to retreat to a coffee shop that was probably about four block from Dealey Plaza.  There must have been literally dozens of people there, too many for the inside so they scattered outside.  And we watched those completely uninspiring, soporific speeches by Pizza Hut guy Rawlings and MSM historian McCullough.  

It was a naked assault on both democracy and the first amendment. And it was an adulteration of the memory of JFK.  It was, without qualification, a disgrace.  But that is how much the Power Elite fears this issue.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

What a fascinating JFK curriculum vitae that Bob Groden has:

  • In 1973, Groden showed the Zapruder film to a symposium of assassination researchers at Georgetown
  • In February, 1975, Groden and Stephen Jaffee, an investigator for Garrison, testified before the Rockefeller Commission
  • On March 6, 1975, he and Dick Gregory appeared on Good Night America and showed Groden's copy of the Zapruder film (prompting the HSCA)
  • In 1975, Groden co-authored JFK: The Case for Conspiracy
  • In the 1980s, Groden was a consultant for Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK  appearing in cameo roles as a Parkland doctor and the courtroom projectionist at the Shaw trial
  • In 1989 Groden co-authored High Treason
  • During the OJ Simpson trial, Groden appeared as an expert witness and testified that a 1993 photograph of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes at an NFL game was a forgery

I'm not home now and can't look in the books.  But I think you missed one.  He stole prints from Life of original copies of the Z film if I remember correctly.  For this alone he is a National Hero In My Humble Opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The more I look back at that fiftieth anniversary, the more I see it as perhaps one of the most serious deprivations of the first amendment along with some of the purest broadcast propaganda in recent history.

As the article notes it began with an email from the late Gary Mack to city hall.  And if you can believe it, that email was almost two years in advance of the anniversary.

When it first came to light, i  took it seriously.  But others did not.  In retrospect that was a mistake.  Because I do not think that what they did could have stood up to a court challenge.  In my opinion it was clearly a violation of freedom of assembly, speech and the right to petition.  And it was all done in violation of the concept of prior restraint.  That is, the people who's rights were being violated did not even get the opportunity to speak in the first place.  Which is what the Pentagon Papers case was all about.  You cannot do that stuff.

Looking back, we should have started a drive back then and got it on the web and started collecting funds and choosing a legal team.  I really do think we would have won.  I mean we already had some lawyers on our side like Lesar, Alcorn and Wecht.  (Wecht has a law degree from University of Maryland.)  And if we could have raised the case profile I think we could have gotten some big name lawyer pro bono.

I will never forget that day as long as I live.  After watching about twenty or thirty cops at one intersection, backed up by a cop on horseback, screaming back and forth with Alex Jones on his bullhorn, I decided, along with many others, to retreat to a coffee shop that was probably about four block from Dealey Plaza.  There must have been literally dozens of people there, too many for the inside so they scattered outside.  And we watched those completely uninspiring, soporific speeches by Pizza Hut guy Rawlings and MSM historian McCullough.  

It was a naked assault on both democracy and the first amendment. And it was an adulteration of the memory of JFK.  It was, without qualification, a disgrace.  But that is how much the Power Elite fears this issue.

I watched it on line.  Pretty sickening.  A dreary day requiring a ticket to get into Dealy Plaza.  They had the grassy knoll blocked out literally and didn't acknowledge it in any respect.

This is the video I linked on JFK Facts on 11/22/13.  Maybe it will help garner attention to the bigger picture. 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=have+you+ever+seen+dallas+from+a+dc9+at+night&view=detail&mid=B353DC4B74B0E7301A83B353DC4B74B0E7301A83&FORM=VIRE

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

the U.S. government and their private mouthpieces such as DVP.

It's easy to make such an accusation. Now let's see you prove it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

In addition to those Gene, Groden gave a private screening of the Z film to congressman Tom Downing  in 1976.

This was done at the request of Downing's son.  The other person in the room was Andy Purdy, who was a friend of the son and who knew Groden.  At that time, Purdy worked with Mark Lane's Citizen Commission of Inquiry.

Downing was so upset by the film, that he decided to sponsor a bill to reopen the investigation into the JFK case.  He then gave a series of really good speeches on the floor of the House to push it through.  He was the first chair of the HSCA.

But we know what happened after.  Downing decided to resign from congress.  And then Gonzalez, the new chair, and Sprague got into that feud.  First Gonzalez resigned and then Sprague resigned.  And we ended up with Stokes and Blakey.  People like Purdy and Baden saw the handwriting on the wall and they now switched their positions.

Groden stuck it out as a consultant from beginning to end. And while he was there, he gave one of the photographic presentations to the committee and its staff.  That was one of the highlights to Sprague's short lived reign. Sprague arranged for three presentations of the photographic evidence--all in one day.  All thirteen lawyers were there, with about 40 staffers.  The three presentations were by Cutler, Groden and the other Dick Sprague.  It took all day.  According to attorney Al Lewis, when it was  over, of the 13 lawyers, only one still backed the Warren Report. It was the beginning of the end of the Krazy Kid Oswald mythology.

And that is a hint of what the HSCA could have been.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Our writer, Frank Cassano, found it online and asked if I ever saw it.  I said no, why don't you review it?

This "review" is actually a hit piece on Gary Mack. Far from being "the sixth floor's official hit man" who used "psychological warfare" Gary was an outstanding person and an expert on the case who was always available to help researchers of any persuasion. Of course, he was originally a conspiracy researcher and after accepting the position at TSFM he understandably put that on a back burner. And I think a lifetime of studying the evidence turned some of his views around. But, to my knowledge, he always leaned toward conspiracy-even at the end of his life. So, I find this "review" with its over the top rhetoric as very unfortunate and inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oh please Tracy.  Give us a break will you?

https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-inside-the-target-car-part-one

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one

Those two above programs said that 1.)  Ruby killed Oswald with no help, by himself and they did not know each other and 2.) No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest.  The HSCA disagreed with both.

How about this one?

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gary-mack-strikes-again

Gary somehow "misremembered" and told the public Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination.

And here is Gary  Mack, Parnell's "outstanding person", who is right in the middle of that whole disgraceful movement to deprive people of their first amendment rights and also practice prior restraint by not letting them even say something in the first place.  And then arranging with City Hall that Homeland Security cleared event.

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-power-elite-in-dallas-takes-charge

That whole Duncan McRae meme, that Gary was really open minded on the case, is completely demolished by his being, not just the host of those 2 programs, but a producer on them.  And then participating in that whole deception in ITTC: about a shot from the knoll would have hit Jackie Kennedy. What a pile of baloney. And he tried to arrange the actors in the car to make it look like that, but thankfully Groden was there so he could not get away with that one. But prior to that,  he deliberately eliminated the most logical place for a sniper from the front: where the picket fence juts out toward the street and has a storm drain right underneath.  Do you condone these tactics in a documentary?  After all the end justifies the means right?

Mack was clever at keeping up the whole story about "oh, if we had a couple of drinks I might consider otherwise" concept, while he then participated in these horrendous programs with Robert Erickson which were pure propaganda pieces all the way.  When I heard he and Erickson were doing the Ruby show I wrote Erickson a letter asking to meet with him to discuss the subject. I lived a half hour from his office. Gave him my phone, email, address. Like  a Gus Russo production, I got nothing back.

As per his honest advice to visitors?  How about telling Steven King that the key to the assassination was to follow the rifle.  Yeah Gary.  The WC's wrong rifle that Oswald did not order.

If you portray the facts accurately, that is not a hit piece sir.  As Harry Truman said about the Republicans in 1948, "I'm going to tell the truth, and they'll think its Hades."

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to Jim DiEugenio for making this information available.

It’s interesting that Robert Groden moved to Dallas in 1995.  That’s the year his photographically-rich book “The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald” was copyrighted.  His chapter “Too Many Oswalds” begins on page 240 of that book.

Mr. Groden was enormously helpful in aiding the research of my friend John Armstrong.  In November 1994, John learned that Mr. Groden was about to be interviewed by Kevin McCarthy on KLIF radio in Dallas.  John had noticed that Robert Oswald had said, on numerous occasions over a period of years, that his brother had attended Stripling School, a fact essentially denied by the Warren Commission.

John asked Mr. Groden to broadcast a simple question: Did any of the radio station’s listeners attend Stripling School along with Oswald.  Two people responded by calling the station and saying they attended Stripling with Oswald.  One was a fellow named Don who left no phone number.  The other was Fran (Schubert) Tubbs, who John contacted and eventually interviewed.  That interview can be seen here:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please Tracy.  Give us a break will you?

https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-inside-the-target-car-part-one

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one

Those two above programs said that 1.)  Ruby killed Oswald with no help, by himself and they did not know each other and 2.) No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest.  The HSCA disagreed with both.

How about this one?

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gary-mack-strikes-again

Gary somehow "misremembered" and told the public Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination.

And here is Gary  Mack, Parnell's "outstanding person", who is right in the middle of that whole disgraceful movement to deprive people of their first amendment rights and also practice prior restraint by not letting them even say something in the first place.  And then arranging with City Hall that Homeland Security cleared event.

https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-power-elite-in-dallas-takes-charge

That whole Duncan McRae meme, that Gary was really open minded on the case, is completely demolished by his being, not just the host of those 2 programs, but a producer on them.  And then participating in that whole deception in ITTC: about a shot from the knoll would have hit Jackie Kennedy. What a pile of baloney. And he tried to arrange the actors in the car to make it look like that, but thankfully Groden was there so he could not get away with that one. But prior to that,  he deliberately eliminated the most logical place for a sniper from the front: where the picket fence juts out toward the street and has a storm drain right underneath.  Do you condone these tactics in a documentary?  After all the end justifies the means right?

Mack was clever at keeping up the whole story about "oh, if we had a couple of drinks I might consider otherwise" concept, while he then participated in these horrendous programs with Robert Erickson which were pure propaganda pieces all the way.  When I heard he and Erickson were doing the Ruby show I wrote Erickson a letter asking to meet with him to discuss the subject. I lived a half hour from his office. Gave him my phone, email, address. Like  a Gus Russo production, I got nothing back.

As per his honest advice to visitors?  How about telling Steven King that the key to the assassination was to follow the rifle.  Yeah Gary.  The WC's wrong rifle that Oswald did not order.

If you portray the facts accurately, that is not a hit piece sir.  As Harry Truman said about the Republicans in 1948, "I'm going to tell the truth, and they'll think its Hades."

 

Jim, you are free to disagree with Gary and his beliefs. What I take exception with is the silly, hyperbolic and over the top rhetoric in the "review" posted on your site. But I shouldn't be that surprised when, in one of the above linked articles,  you refer to Gary as "Mack/Dunkel" because he changed his name. What does that have to do with anything? It all looks like an attack on an individual who can no longer defend himself. And I don't really see how that helps your cause. But, it's a free country and you can do as you wish. As far as mistakes Gary may have made, he was not perfect. But regarding any programs he participated in, he was normally a consultant and did not control the program and may not have agreed with everything. And I believe he answered critics on many of these issues. If he were here, he could provide specifics I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Groden was enormously helpful in aiding the research of my friend John Armstrong.

The fact that he helped Mr. Armstrong promote his nonsensical theories which are not believed by the majority of researchers even at the EF, may say more about him than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1.) Tracy, those articles were written while he was alive!  Gary had ample opportunity to reply to them point by point.

     To my knowledge, he never did. He only replied to ingenue types in an online Q and A.

2.) Why does one need a stage name when one is not on stage anymore?

3.) Disagree with his beliefs?

ITTC's spurious point about Jackie being in the line of fire is even worse than I wrote above.

How could fit be worse you may ask?

As stated, Groden pointed out the falsity of the arrangement of the actors in the car during production.  In other words before the thing was edited and broadcast.

Yet, when it was broadcast, Mack still said Jackie would have been in the line of fire.

He was then confronted with this false statement online.  He now admitted it was wrong.

Two comments.  He was alerted to this during the production by Groden.  Second,  the audience in  those online forums was much smaller than those who watched the film.

Because of this, I did not give him the benefit of the doubt when he "erred" and said Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination. 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One last point vs Parnell.

The idea that Gary Mack was only a "consultant" on those two Discovery Channel programs really defies all logic.

Gary was not just the main talking head on both of them, he was really the controlling talking head,  the dominant talking head.  To the point that he was really more like the host.

Secondly, not only was he given a producer creditor on ITTC, but if you look at the IMDB cast and crew roster, there is no writer listed for either show.

I leave everyone to draw their own conclusions about that.  Especially since it was Gary who did the  online Q and A after.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Secondly, not only was he given a producer creditor on IITC, but if you look at the IMDB cast and crew roster, there is no writer listed for either show.

OK, fair point at least on that production I see he was an associate producer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To return on point and the topic of the thread (not John Armstrong, and not Gary Mack), Robert Groden was courageous and a pioneer in exposing/exploring the Zapruder film and influencing subsequent reinvestigations.   I note with interest that he settled in and hailed from Boothwyn PA, not far from where I live and work.  Given the subject matter and powerful opposition to the simple/historical Oswald story (absurd on its face), it took courage to do what he did for so long.   Not many folks have that persistence and strength of character.     

For the record, I do not find John Armstrong's premise as "nonsensical" nor was he the first to suggest such.  I also disagree that his work is not believed by the majority of JFK researchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×