John Simkin Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Gary Mack helped you? Gary Mack sent me a hysterical e-mail at home with "That bridge was damned crowded and the Secret Service let it happen" as the SUBJECT line.....and he claimed everybody on the bridge was railroad workers and the 1963 secret service couldn't do anything about it... I don't appreciate that....I deleted it as Spam. If Gary Mack wants to talk to me do it over the Forum, not on my private email... Gary Mack is one of the most valuable information resources around. You may not agree with something he says, but I can't imagine not wanting to hear from him. Send it to me, Gary! Shanet: How about posting it? Gary seems to feel that it would be inappropriate for him to post to a forum, and I believe that is understandable given his position at the museum. He's a nice, helpful guy. Give him a call at the museum sometime on his dime (1-800) and you'll see. People have become frustrated with him over the years. He was an early and eager proponent of the Badgeman photogrammerty, and now he sometimes comes off like a Lone Nutter. Again, I attribute that to his position, which I believe requires the goodwill of the Dallas civic leaders. I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread on Gary Mack. I have had a lot of emails from Gray Mack. I have never found them useful. They all follow a particular style: (i) they are always impolite and very angry; (ii) they always criticise any suggestion that the American intelligence services are in any way responsible for the assassination; (iii) the evidence quoted is usually from discredited sources and often appear to have been taken from John McAdams website. For example, he recently criticised a posting I made about Dorothy Kilgallen. He argued that Mark Lane had already explained what happened to Kilgallen notes on the article she was writing on the JFK assassination. They were not stolen but were destroyed by her husband Richard Kollmar. This is of course a misreading of pages 426/427 of Lee Israel’s book, Kilgallen. What Kollmar actually told Lane was that he was thinking of destroying these notes. As Israel points out, there is no evidence that carried out such a threat. However, as Israel points out: “Richard’s post mortems were so riddled with lies, it is impossible to know whether he ever really possessed the material or what he decided to do with it.” As with all the other emails he has sent me, I always tell Gary to post his views on the forum and we can debate these issues. This he always refuses to do (even though he is a member). His friends tell me that the reason for this is that he is not allowed to express opinions on public forums that might be disliked by his employers. It would therefore seem that he is not an independent researcher and that the motivation behind his emails have to be questioned. Tim suggests that Shanet should publish Gary’s emails on the forum. In future I will do that, but I suspect that means that I will not receive anymore emails from Gary. My own view is that Gary Mack is in the tradition of Jack Anderson, Richard Billings and G. Robert Blakey. This is the fall back position developed in the late 1960s when it became clear that it was no longer possible to maintain the view that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. The view being pushed by the CIA was that the whole thing was a Mafia operation. In doing so, they hoped to move the focus away from the real people behind the assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Eldreth Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I won't name any names here but I did get an email once that stated me once "I can't post that up on the forum." and then gave me a better answer in private than what was up on the forum by even himself. NOW that was a real kick in the pants for me why in the world can't a person answer the darn questions on the forum that would make far more sense. YEAH. Something has been going on Lancer that is wrong for sometime. I find a lot of things strange over there. Can't get answers get put down if you attempt to say them. Yet, everyone thinks it is an OK forum. It isn't just Gary Mack. He has sent somethings to me so I know where you are coming from. I thought it too that he was a bit rude but not bad. He is mild compared to some of it on the blunt forum. God help you if you know something and they don't approve of it is what it comes down too. You believe in pay offs to keep the truth from coming out? Well, maybe. I have heard from two separate souces something to this effect. Also, found out that the souces don't relate to each other. Yes, there is something very wrong. Just hope to gear it around and corner it is all that anyone can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 Gary Mack helped you? Gary Mack sent me a hysterical e-mail at home with "That bridge was damned crowded and the Secret Service let it happen" as the SUBJECT line.....and he claimed everybody on the bridge was railroad workers and the 1963 secret service couldn't do anything about it... I don't appreciate that....I deleted it as Spam. If Gary Mack wants to talk to me do it over the Forum, not on my private email... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gary Mack is one of the most valuable information resources around. You may not agree with something he says, but I can't imagine not wanting to hear from him. Send it to me, Gary! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet: How about posting it? Gary seems to feel that it would be inappropriate for him to post to a forum, and I believe that is understandable given his position at the museum. He's a nice, helpful guy. Give him a call at the museum sometime on his dime (1-800) and you'll see. People have become frustrated with him over the years. He was an early and eager proponent of the Badgeman photogrammerty, and now he sometimes comes off like a Lone Nutter. Again, I attribute that to his position, which I believe requires the goodwill of the Dallas civic leaders. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread on Gary Mack. I have had a lot of emails from Gray Mack. I have never found them useful. They all follow a particular style: (i) they are always impolite and very angry; (ii) they always criticise any suggestion that the American intelligence services are in any way responsible for the assassination; (iii) the evidence quoted is usually from discredited sources and often appear to have been taken from John McAdams website. For example, he recently criticised a posting I made about Dorothy Kilgallen. He argued that Mark Lane had already explained what happened to Kilgallen notes on the article she was writing on the JFK assassination. They were not stolen but were destroyed by her husband Richard Kollmar. This is of course a misreading of pages 426/427 of Lee Israel’s book, Kilgallen. What Kollmar actually told Lane was that he was thinking of destroying these notes. As Israel points out, there is no evidence that carried out such a threat. However, as Israel points out: “Richard’s post mortems were so riddled with lies, it is impossible to know whether he ever really possessed the material or what he decided to do with it.” As with all the other emails he has sent me, I always tell Gary to post his views on the forum and we can debate these issues. This he always refuses to do (even though he is a member). His friends tell me that the reason for this is that he is not allowed to express opinions on public forums that might be disliked by his employers. It would therefore seem that he is not an independent researcher and that the motivation behind his emails have to be questioned. Tim suggests that Shanet should publish Gary’s emails on the forum. In future I will do that, but I suspect that means that I will not receive anymore emails from Gary. My own view is that Gary Mack is in the tradition of Jack Anderson, Richard Billings and G. Robert Blakey. This is the fall back position developed in the late 1960s when it became clear that it was no longer possible to maintain the view that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. The view being pushed by the CIA was that the whole thing was a Mafia operation. In doing so, they hoped to move the focus away from the real people behind the assassination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gary Mack and I have emailed each other on many occasions, and I hope to get to Dallas someday to meet him in person. He has been most helpful to me, and IMO is is the only person who is aware of and stands by the absolute facts in the JFK case. He doesn't guess, he doesn't suppose, and he rarely voices his own opinion. If you are wrong about the established facts, he will tell you so. I know for a fact that Gary believes in a conspiracy, and thinks the key evidence is the DPD dictabelt recording and the acoustic tests. It is very unfair to lump him in with the likes of Blakey and Anderson. Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 (edited) Gary Mack and I have emailed each other on many occasions, and I hope to get to Dallas someday to meet him in person. He has been most helpful to me, and IMO is is the only person who is aware of and stands by the absolute facts in the JFK case. He doesn't guess, he doesn't suppose, and he rarely voices his own opinion. If you are wrong about the established facts, he will tell you so. I know for a fact that Gary believes in a conspiracy, and thinks the key evidence is the DPD dictabelt recording and the acoustic tests. It is very unfair to lump him in with the likes of Blakey and Anderson.Richard I agree with Richard. It's utter nonsense to be critical of Gary Mack for the reasons I have read in this thread. Who says someone cannot be a member here and not post? The Sixth Floor Museum does not want it's people to be out expressing their personal opinions concerning JFK's assassination. I know of one man who was released from giving tours for the Museum for doing this. Mack is a valuable resource for the history of the case and the Plaza in general. He offers information for the researcher to use and being critical of him for not going beyond that is ridiculous IMO. Edited October 24, 2004 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I know for a fact that Gary believes in a conspiracy, and thinks the key evidence is the DPD dictabelt recording and the acoustic tests. He has also cited the large wound in the back of JFK's head. I believe it was also Gary who discovered Badgeman in the Moorman photo. As far as I know he has not repudiated his discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 24, 2004 Share Posted October 24, 2004 I'm committed to working calmly on substantive issues and downplaying personalities and potential disinformation. The problem is the FACTS are all in contention, and to say someone only follows facts, means, to me, that their going to give you a lame government-fed line. Shanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Gary Mack and I have emailed each other on many occasions, and I hope to get to Dallas someday to meet him in person. He has been most helpful to me, and IMO is is the only person who is aware of and stands by the absolute facts in the JFK case. He doesn't guess, he doesn't suppose, and he rarely voices his own opinion. If you are wrong about the established facts, he will tell you so. I know for a fact that Gary believes in a conspiracy, and thinks the key evidence is the DPD dictabelt recording and the acoustic tests. It is very unfair to lump him in with the likes of Blakey and Anderson. In their book, The Plot to Kill the President: Organized Crime Assassinated JFK, Blakey and Billings also use the DPD dictabelt recording to argue that there was more than one gunman involved in the killing of JFK. They then go on to argue that Oswald was one of the gunman and that the assassination was organized by the Mafia? This is also the view of Jack Anderson and other media assets. Is this the view of Gary Mack? I agree with Richard. It's utter nonsense to be critical of Gary Mack for the reasons I have read in this thread. Who says someone cannot be a member here and not post? The Sixth Floor Museum does not want it's people to be out expressing their personal opinions concerning JFK's assassination. No one has said “someone cannot be a member here and not post?”. Reread the postings again. What I have said is that when someone posts on the forum you can then engage with them in a dialogue. From emails I know what Gary does not believe (the CIA were not involved in the assassination of JFK). It is not clear to me what he does believe. Maybe you could ask him and you could post what he thinks. Maybe you do that already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixie Dea Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Hi all.... I was once on a forum with Gary Mack. That was before he received his current position at the 6th Floor Museum. For reasons already stated, he might join a forum as he has done here, but he no longer posts. As far as I know, he does continue to send out personal e-mails to some posters in all forums, also as stated. I haven't recieved one from him in a long time, but those I did some time ago, were always polite. Yet I have heard others say they received some not so polite ones from him, just as Shanet and John mentions. There is some controversy in regard to Gary and you will hear two extreme sides. It mostly seems to depend on who you talk to. I am unable to say anything bad, since he hasn't ever said or done anything bad toward me. I do know that when he was on the forum I spoke of above, he w=s regarded as a real nitpicker or also a real Contrarian. If we said pink he insisted it was blue. I thought perhaps he was playing the devils advocate a lot of times, although I don't know if that was intensions or not. I also know that if you do have a question for Gary, he will do his best to answer it. He has so much information and facts that he will usually share. On the other hand as has been mentioned, his info is not always believed and some have indicated it is slanted in favor of the WC findings. To the best of my recollection, I seem to recall that Gary was asked if he belived there was a Conspiracy and he said that he did believe there was, although he has not found much proof that there was. In my own opinion, I feel that Gary possibly believes there was a conspiracy, irregardless of his position at the museum, to be neutral. Plus, I am also thinking that he sees too much conspiracy talk about things that are not actually a conspiracy. Although, others claim he is only leading us away from conspiracy. He is a controversial person that's for sure! You just have to draw your own conclusions about him, based on your own dealings with him. Dixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 There are several examples of Gary openly publishing information on the JFK assassination. Here for example is part of a posting on Madeleine Brown (14th May, 1997). Madeleine has claimed over the years that she attended a party at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination and LBJ, Hoover and Nixon were there. The party story, without LBJ, first came from Penn Jones in Forgive My Grief. In that version, the un-credited source was a black chauffeur whom Jones didn’t identify, and the explanation Jones gave was that it was the last chance to decide whether or not to kill JFK. Of course, Hoover used only top FBI agents for transportation and in the FBI of 1963, none were black. Actually, there is no confirmation for a party at Murchison’s. I asked Peter O’Donnell because Madeleine claimed he was there, too. Peter said there was no party. Madeleine even said there was a story about it in the Dallas Times Herald some months later (which makes no sense), but she had not been able to find it. Val Imm (Society Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) told Bob Porter (of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza staff) recently she had no memory of such an event and even looked through her notes - in vain. Could LBJ have been at a Murchison party? No. LBJ was seen and photographed in the Houston Coliseum with JFK at a dinner and speech. They flew out around 10pm and arrived at Carswell (Air Force Base in northwest Fort Worth) at 11:07 Thursday night. Their motorcade to the Hotel Texas arrived about 11:50 and LBJ was again photographed. He stayed in the Will Rogers suite on the 13th floor and Manchester (William Manchester - author of The Death of a President) says he was up late. Could Nixon have been at Murchison’s party? No. Tony Zoppi (Entertainment Editor of The Dallas Morning News) and Don Safran (Entertainment Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) saw Nixon at the Empire Room at the Statler-Hilton. He walked in with Joan Crawford (Movie actress). Robert Clary (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) stopped his show to point them out, saying “. . . either you like him or you don’t.” Zoppi thought that was in poor taste, but Safran said Nixon laughed. Zoppi’s deadline was 11pm, so he stayed until 10:30 or 10:45 and Nixon was still there. I thought this a good posting and convinced me that Brown was not telling the truth. As Don Jeffries psted on JFK Lancer on 11th September, 2002. Gary Mack is a friendly and very helpful guy, but keep in mind his primary role these days is with the Sixth Floor Museum, which promotes the lone-assassin nonsense. Gary still says he believes in conspiracy, but defends virtually every ridiculous aspect of the official story. Interesting accounts of Gary's views can be found on John McAdams' site: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index66.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Gary Mack is a friendly and very helpful guy, but keep in mind his primary role these days is with the Sixth Floor Museum, which promotes the lone-assassin nonsense. Gary still says he believes in conspiracy, but defends virtually every ridiculous aspect of the official story. John try to remember that the 6th floor is a "historical" Museum. Their job is to keep the history straight. When that history is ever changed - they will share that information accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 [John try to remember that the 6th floor is a "historical" Museum. Their job is to keep the history straight. When that history is ever changed - they will share that information accordingly. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That says it all Bill When history changes, wait for the Dallas authorities and the rude wingnuts who jabber about the Warren Commission to keep you informed! History is a dynamic, fluid and unmanageable body of opinion, also known as public memory, and it stems from the public mind-- change the public's perception and "History" changes... The Warren Commission is grotesque propaganda and its proponents heavy handed people willing to fight common sense and the evidence all day long for the "authorities" Gary Mack and his defenders here are all non-critical, naive or worse. shanet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 (edited) BM penned [...] John try to remember that the 6th floor is a "historical" Museum. Their job is to keep the history straight. When that history is ever changed - they will share that information accordingly. dgh01: please -- roflmfao ! ! ! Maybe they could start by donating a few frames of the Z-film optical print [that lives at ther 6th floor museum] for forensic testing [...] Edited October 26, 2004 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Root Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Gary Mack has returned every e-mail I have sent him (something I don't believe I have been able to accomplish myself in my own public life). He has not seemed interested in entering into a dialog.....I chalk this up to his schedule and the number of e-mails, apperances etc. a busy person in his position would have that constrains his time. E-mails not worded in a way that allows for a direct answer are not treated as "nice" as simple questions about facts. In my case he was not interested in engaging in a discussion about particular aspects of a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard J. Smith Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I'm committed to working calmly on substantive issues and downplaying personalities and potential disinformation. The problem is the FACTS are all in contention, and to say someone only follows facts, means, to me, that their going to give you a lame government-fed line.Shanet <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet, I beg to differ, but ALL the facts are not in contention, and Gary Mack does not give anyone a lame government fed line. There are absolute, undeniable facts in this case that even CT's and LN's agree on. How many times have people posted on this or any other JFK forum, and have twisted the "facts" to create their own scenario of conspiracy? Happens all the time. Gary Mack has taken many of these "facts" and untwisted them. For doing so, he is called everything from a disinfo specialist to a CIA plant. I'll give you just a few examples of "facts" people still state, yet are proven to be otherwise: - Lee Oswald had a driver's license - TWO 2 spent 6.5 mm casings were found in the "sniper's nest" - Spent automatic pistol casings were found at the Tippit shooting scene - Lee Oswald couldn't have walked from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor breakroom in 90 seconds(this refers to timing only) When someone disputes these twisted facts, they are labeled as supporting government fed disinformation. It is utter nonsense. Isn't it time the absolute facts become undisputed, and time we move on? RJS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 I'll give you just a few examples of "facts" people still state, yet are proven to be otherwise:- Lee Oswald had a driver's license - TWO 2 spent 6.5 mm casings were found in the "sniper's nest" - Spent automatic pistol casings were found at the Tippit shooting scene - Lee Oswald couldn't have walked from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor breakroom in 90 seconds(this refers to timing only) When someone disputes these twisted facts, they are labeled as supporting government fed disinformation. It is utter nonsense. Isn't it time the absolute facts become undisputed, and time we move on? RJS This would make a good new thread. The Myths of the Assassination of JFK. Maybe you could get a list from Gary Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now