Dallas Morning News on Bugliosi

[Ron Ecker]

Gary Mack sent me the following link to an article in today's Dallas Morning News on Bugliosi's book. The article includes comments by Gary on the book and on conspiracy.

link

[Michael Hogan]

Gary Mack sent me the following link to an article in today's Dallas Morning News on Bugliosi's book. The article includes comments by Gary on the book and on conspiracy.

link

Vince Bugliosi

: "[My book] settles all questions about the assassination once and for all."

Dale Myers

: "My honest-to-God fear is that this has already gone down in history as either a mystery or a conspiracy, and the sad truth is, it's neither. And the evidence proves it overwhelmingly."

Gary Mack

: "What this book and others like it will do is provide a resource to discover answers. I often suggest to people that part of finding out what happened to President Kennedy is learning what did not happen. My responsibility is to know all sides of these issues."

Their intellectual arrogance leaves me at a loss for words.

[William Kelly]

Gary Mack sent me the following link to an article in today's Dallas Morning News on Bugliosi's book. The article includes comments by Gary on the book and on conspiracy.

link

On Thursday Vincent Bugliosi will be at Belo Mansion 2101 Ross Ave. for luncheon ($13) with Dallas lawyers. Open to the public.

Later on Thursday VB will be at 6th Floor free.

People should go to these talks and ask him at the appropriate time what he thinks about the sealed files and the CIA's refusal to release the Joannides/JMWAVE despite the Congress ordering them to do so.

Does he support the movement to open all the JFK assassination records?

And get his response in the next day's news.

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Gary Mack[/b]: "What this book and others like it will do is provide a resource to discover answers.

Mr. Mack says many of the skeptical find it puzzling that what doctors saw in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital has never meshed with the autopsy of the president conducted later that night in Washington, D.C.

He's puzzled most of all by Oswald's motive – or lack thereof.

[Miles Scull]

This casts a whole new light on that quote, doesn't it?

Kathy Beckett

Just so, Kathy! Agreed.

You often hear stock market pundits referring to wise, eldritch trend predictors as the "Elves" of Wall Street, no?

Well, well, glad to hear the Elf of Elm Street so wise & so temperate too.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I have never read any of Gary Mack's work, or seen him speak. So the following is not a comment about his views. Rather, it is a general comment about

the quotes of his that I have read, and, generally, how he comes accross in the press.

Kathy seems to imply that Gary Mack believes that there was a conspiracy.

Also I have seen Gary in an old video with Mr. White, doing some photo analysis of badgeman, so this--by itself-- would lead one to think the Gary Mack is not a follower of LoneNutism.

On the other hand, it seems like a clear majority of references to Gary that I have seen--either direct quotes, or comments about his position on one aspect or another of the assassination-- place him in the LoneNut choir.

If he really believes that there was a conspiracy, why does he SEEM to come accross so often as Nuter?

This might seem just a subjective thing, dealing solely with my impressions of Mr. Mack. But for the director of such an important venu of assassination discourse as The Sixth Floor Museum, these media impressions might play a more significant role than Mr. Mack's personal beliefs about the assassination.

(sorry for typing the word "discourse" as if I were trying to get a job in a university in 1988. In this context, I think it is warrented, since what I am trying to say relates to how the conversation between LNers and CTers is-- or is not-- mediated)

Edited May 24, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Guest Mark Valenti]

I'd have to give Gary Mack the benefit of the doubt. I haven't had personal squabbles with him, as some apparently have, so my perspective is from the fringes. But I too have doubts about many theories in the absence of jury-proof evidence. I see his position as being "it couldn't have been one guy -- but please give me hard evidence that it wasn't."

[Michael Hogan]

I do not find Mack arrogant here at all.

Now, I don't mind one person having a problem with another's beliefs. However, I have EXTREME problems with someone trying to sell someone else short.

Gary Mack's quote (above) is taken out of context.

He says much more than this, for you people who did not click on the link.

I suppose different people have different ideas about what constitutes intellectual arrogance. Mack claimed he had "a responsibility to know all sides of these issues." I maintain that no one, not even Mr. Mack, has such complete knowledge. In my opinion there are researchers, some of whom have participated in this Forum, that have knowledge that Gary Mack lacks when it comes to the murder of President Kennedy and the ensuing coverup.

Is Mack's responsibility any greater than other researchers and authors that have spent considerable time and effort researching this case in an effort to determine truths?

I expected any Forum member that had an interest in Bugliosi's book and Gary Mack's comments would click on the link provided by Ron Ecker and reproduced in my post, and read the article in full.

Regardless of how you choose to perceive my comment, I was not attempting to sell Mack short. But I do have a tendency to think that people (including Bugliosi and Myers) that believe they know it all (Mack's words concerning his responsibilities) about such an incredibly complex subject are guilty of intellectual arrogance. If that gives you an EXTREME problem, it's yours in caps......not mine.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Michael Hogan