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

Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the City of Dallas

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

Gary Mack was a traitor.  He gave up searching for the Truth for lying, prestige and money.  Robert Groden has persevered through personal sacrifice. 

Share this post


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

I also disagree that his work is not believed by the majority of JFK researchers.

My statement was based on an informal poll we did here at EF a few years back-admittedly not anything scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ron:

To be fair to the late Gary Mack.

In my article, which is Part 3 of my review of the show ITTC, I try and explain what I think happened to Gary.

IMO, it was a confluence of events that caused him to go over to the Sixth Floor.  He first marriage broke up, and he was forced to sell his nice home in a divorce sale, he lost his job, and he now became friendly with Dave Perry who was introduced to him by Gus Russo.  So, although I do not condone what he did, I think those conditions at least put it in some perspective.

We should also recall this: in the original series The Men Who Killed Kennedy,  Gary was one of the two main talking heads, along with Groden.  And I have to say, I thought Gary was pretty effective in that role, probably due to his prior radio experience.

This is what I think gives Plaza Man  its depth, contrast and also its sense of pathos and isolation. Groden refused the offer and he stayed true to that pledge he made at Arlington over Kennedy's grave. And we see the price he paid for that.  Since the whole Power Structure of Dallas is arrayed against him.  Again, as Frank Cassano wrote, quoting Garrison, "What happens to the individual who dissents?"  Well, this film shows what happens.  You get thrown in jail, you get ticketed 82 times, and on the anniversary, you get sidelined and marginalized by 200 cops as part of a Potemkin Village display.

As I said, there is a longer version of the film that may come out later.  I hope it shows more of that utterly sickening power play at the Fiftieth.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comment by Garrison is right on.  I'd submit that  - to this day - it is not popular to ascribe to any theories that deviate from the Warren Commission's official account, as revised by the HSCA. Those - like the talented researchers on this Forum, who dig deeper and aren't satisfied with the historic account - are not universally well received.   My own personal experience (and I'm not an author or serious researcher) has been that - when folks find out that I'm "into" the JFK thing, they are simply not that interested. I might get a few minutes of discussion, and some mild fascination, but most don't have the patience or interest to hear it out or take the story on.  I cant put my finger on it, but it may have something to do with not wanting to doubt one's government, or simply a disinterest in JFK as a leader and president.  Or that its something that can't be known, so why endlessly speculate. Plus, such events become old news pretty quickly (much less 50 years later) and put into the rear view mirror. 

My professional experience with whistleblowers has been that - while sometimes right and typically courageous - few end up happy or satisfied.  They are shunned by their peers, avoided by the management structure, and marginalized by the government authorities who they think will make them whole (which they will not).   Some receive generous settlements, but end up losing their jobs and families.  Standing up for what one ideally believes is unjust or wrong can be a very painful and unsuccessful experience. 

 

Share this post


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

  Standing up for what one ideally believes is unjust or wrong can be a very painful and unsuccessful experience.

 

"E pur si muove."

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Toward the end of Frank's review, he brings up a point that may be overlooked.

In referring to Garrison's Playboy interview,  he quotes him as saying he feared that America was becoming kind of a proto fascist state.  Different in both cause and impact from the German and Italian models.  And Frank brings in that fine comparison of Bertram Gross' book Friendly Fascism.

Garrison continued that, with him, the real test of a democratic society was: What happens to the person who dissents?  As did the DA, as did Oliver Stone, as does Groden.

Unlike in Germany and Italy, they don't just liquidate you.  At least most of the time.  Instead they do something more insidious and more effective.  They marginalize you, they ridicule you, they smear you, they harass you, they intimidate you.  Until your name becomes synonymous with things like alien abductions. 

This is more effective for a simple reason: it sets you up as an example to others.  See what we did to Oliver Stone, don't even think of going there.

It works.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David McCullough, who gave the keynote speech at the sham fiftieth anniversary

ceremony in Dealey Plaza, is a Bonesman like Poppy and W.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Success in revealing the truth cannot be judged by the responses of anyone else.  It has its own reward that cannot be taken away and that is why people tell the truth.  People who are whistleblowers understand that, and take solace in knowing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is pretty much accurate Steven.

But it does tells us something about the society we live in, and more pointedly, the MSM that controls it.

I mean if Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are still shoveling crap for the Power Elite in 2017, that says a lot does it not? And this is the allegedly liberal MSNBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the reason whistle blowing on high levels isn't common is because most who could do this retreat from actually doing so, deciding the sacrifice isn't worth it.

As is mentioned here, very few major power effecting whistle blowers come out of this experience without retribution damage to them and/or their families versus improved positive gains.

Too often the exposed culprits of whistle blown crimes come out better off than the whistle blowers!

Just one example is the Iran-Contra affair and Oliver North.

He committed crimes, even admitting guilt, yet was instantly treated as a hero with great nationwide financial help and gain.

Eventually he is even gifted with a million dollar contract to host a nationally televised TV show. His reputation and standing completely resurrected by the powers to be to honored celebrity status.

Same thing with G. Gordon Libby after his Watergate crimes were exposed and he served a prison sentence stint. Eventually also gifted with a high salaried radio talk show host position. Again, resurrected to honored citizen and celebrity status.

I myself have caved in regards knowing of unethical and perhaps OSHA violating actions by my employers once or twice and not reporting this to higher authorities.

I made so little money, was living pay check to paycheck and feared losing what little income ability I had on these jobs which was all I had at the time to house and feed my two young children.

Mine was a typical situation I am sure. 

In regards to reporting or whistle blowing important inside knowledge regarding JFK's, RFK's and MLK's murders, one seriously had to consider being killed for such sharing.

Now THAT would have been a tough sacrifice decision to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe:

That was the point that Frank was trying to make at the end.

See, the whole Power Elite arrangement today does not necessitate that kind of extreme measure.

As its evolved, especially after the film JFK, the pattern is to simply marginalize any dissident voices.  And once you have them off in the corner, then you caricature them and ridicule them and that has the impact of discouraging anyone from going there.

We got a good example of this in 2013 during Cyril Wecht's 50th anniversary conference in Pittsburgh.  Time Magazine sent a reporter there to cover it.  Who did he focus his article on? John McAdams.

There were some very good presentations there but this guy just happens to hook up with McAdams, and focuses his article on his feud with Lisa Pease.

I simply do not buy that this was an accident.  

And Alec Baldwin confirmed this at the Houston mock trial dinner.  He said that at the fiftieth he had proposed to NBC a documentary special on the JFK case.  They said words to the effect that they had more or less reconciled themselves to the official story.  And this is a big TV/ film star!  I mean that is how compromised the Power Elite is on this case.   Now if you link Baldwin's rejected proposal with what was happening in Dallas at the time through Mayor Mike Rawlings,  you understand how and why that anniversary turned out to be a disgraceful spectacle.

Gary Mack sent the email to City Hall a bit less than two years in advance, and the rest of the Power Elite fell into place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2018 at 7:31 AM, 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.

 

 

Gary Mack is on record saying he believed, based on the acoustics evidence, that there were two shooters, one of whom was behind the picket fence.  How can that be glossed over?  Furthermore, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car - Part Four" Gary said, "If anything, we found that, if there was a shot from the grassy knoll, that shooter missed."  Did James DiEugenio miss this important conclusion?

Putting it all together, Gary believed that the second shooter behind the picket fence missed.  Simple as that.  Gary's belief was not based on "hard evidence" -- evidence that can't be disproved.  Has there ever been such evidence?  Of course there has been and still is.  But no one in the so-called "research community" will go there.  That's one of the great mysteries in all of this.

Ken

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ken Rheberg said:

 

Gary Mack is on record saying he believed, based on the acoustics evidence, that there were two shooters, one of whom was behind the picket fence.  How can that be glossed over?  Furthermore, in "JFK: Inside the Target Car - Part Four" Gary said, "If anything, we found that, if there was a shot from the grassy knoll, that shooter missed."  Did James DiEugenio miss this important conclusion?

Putting it all together, Gary believed that the second shooter behind the picket fence missed.  Simple as that.  Gary's belief was not based on "hard evidence" -- evidence that can't be disproved.  Has there ever been such evidence?  Of course there has been and still is.  But no one in the so-called "research community" will go there.  That's one of the great mysteries in all of this.

Ken

 

 

If he believed in a second shooter that missed, that's a conspiracy.  How did it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken:

Did you read the articles I posted carefully?

I don't think you did.

In the documentary ITTC, does Gary mention the acoustics?  If so, I must have missed it.

Now, he lined up his GK shot from a point behind the fence  that is almost perpendicular to the car.  The reason he did this is so he could say that "No.  Could not come from there since it would have hit Jackie."  Groden pointed out to him that this was wrong since he had falsely arranged the actors.  But anyone can see in the Z film that this is wrong anyway.  But Gary kept it in the show.  That is not journalism, it is propaganda.

Secondly, when you watch the program you will see that Gary bypasses the spot where most commentators think the actual assassin did fire from.  This is further down the fence, where it juts out toward the street and you would be standing over a storm drain.

I defy anyone to stand in that spot with a scoped rifle and say a professional assassin would miss.  And that is the reason Gary passed it up.

If you want to continue to defend Gary, and take cheap shots at me, go ahead.  But I know both the programs pretty well.

What's next Ken?  Gary is right and Ruby had no help getting into the police station? 

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  

×