Gary Mack believes in a second shooter in Dealey Plaza

[Ron Ecker]

Gary has always been very helpful to me. I agree with the view that he is constrained by his job in what he can say publicly. Given those constraints, I believe that with his wealth of knowledge and his willingness to help one and all, he is the best possible person for that job.

To repeat what I have said in another thread, I know first-hand that Gary believes the large wound in the back of JFK's head is significant evidence of a second shooter. But don't expect him to say that on national TV in one of those 30-second slots he is given whenever JFK comes up. Most viewers would have no idea what he was talking about ("What large wound in the back of the head? Dale Myers or the Warren Report don't show any large wound in the back of the head"), and he would not have the airtime to explain. So I can understand, given his position, why he doesn't invite such grief. Maybe someday he will have a better opportunity timewise to bring up that evidence, as it would certainly help the cause.

This is all my take on the matter. I don't presume to speak for Gary.

[Ron Ecker]

Peter,

I fully understand your position. But obviously Gary didn't take the job on the Sixth Floor to use it as a pulpit. If he did, he would have done so by now, and of course he wouldn't have lasted long there. He can help serve the truth there in other ways, though the perception may be he does not.

Certainly it would be fun to see him go out "in a blaze of glory," as you say, by telling it like it is, but how much would that really help? I would bet money that if he did that, not only would he be canned, but the controlled media would immediately assassinate his character, pointing out how back in the day (e.g. the Continuing Inquiry) he was a "wacko conspiracy theorist," finding what he calls a policeman shooting a rifle on the grassy knoll, and now he's showing his true colors again, babbling about an imaginary hole in the back of JFK's head. And all the media would have a good laugh, then bury the story.

You don't think that would happen? Over 44 years, they've gotten pretty damn good at that sort of thing, and I don't think we can beat 'em. If we could, we've already got more than enough material to do it with. Sorry to be a pessimist, but IMO we can't do it. I hope I am wrong, but from whence cometh our help?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Peter,

I fully understand your position. But obviously Gary didn't take the job on the Sixth Floor to use it as a pulpit. If he did, he would have done so by now, and of course he wouldn't have lasted long there. He can help serve the truth there in other ways, though the perception may be he does not.

Certainly it would be fun to see him go out "in a blaze of glory," as you say, by telling it like it is, but how much would that really help? I would bet money that if he did that, not only would he be canned, but the controlled media would immediately assassinate his character, pointing out how back in the day (e.g. the Continuing Inquiry) he was a "wacko conspiracy theorist," finding what he calls a policeman shooting a rifle on the grassy knoll, and now he's showing his true colors again, babbling about an imaginary hole in the back of JFK's head. And all the media would have a good laugh, then bury the story.

You don't think that would happen? Over 44 years, they've gotten pretty damn good at that sort of thing, and I don't think we can beat 'em. If we could, we've already got more than enough material to do it with. Sorry to be a pessimist, but IMO we can't do it. I hope I am wrong, but from whence cometh our help?

"Any damn fool can die for his country, but that is not what wins wars.

It's staying alive and making the other damn fool die for his country that ultimately wins the war"

(words to that effect)

General George Patton

[Bill Miller]

Mr. Mack you can redeem yourself only if you speak truth to power without reservation, in my book. Until then you are as complicit as those who pulled off the assassination and still hold our Nation hostage to the Big Lie and now dying democracy and freedoms. If the job constrains, get another or live as I did for many years homeless - but don't hide the truth or mislead the People. Better yet, go out [of the job] in a blaze of glory - telling the truth that would shock the Public - so what if it gets you fired. Where is morlity in this. The Nation is dying and has been since 11/22/63. Anyone who has studied this matter and can't see that is flawed, fataly and part of the problem - not part of the solution. IMO

How is Mack quitting his job going to bring resolution to the JFK assassination??? I think if Gary Mack even contemplated such a ridiculous suggestion as you proposed, then he also would sound like a nut. There are two Mack's IMO - the Gary that has his own private opinions about the assassination and the Gary who is a historian. I don't see how some people not seeing the difference is Mack's fault.

Bill Miller

Edited February 25, 2008 by Bill Miller

[Cliff Varnell]

There are two Mack's IMO - the Gary that has his own private opinions about the assassination and the Gary who is a historian. I don't see how some people not seeing the difference is Mack's fault.

Gary Mack's arbitrary dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence"

of more than one shooter is an abrogation of his responsibility as a historian.

Among the American people, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a historical fact.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[David G. Healy]

There are two Mack's IMO - the Gary that has his own private opinions about the assassination and the Gary who is a historian. I don't see how some people not seeing the difference is Mack's fault.

Gary Mack's arbitrary dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence"

of more than one shooter is an abrogation of his responsibility as a historian.

Among the American people, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is a historical fact.

Gary is no historian for Gawd sakes -- he's a promoter and a self proclaimed JFK assassination photo-film evidence exert. One whose carved out a good job for himself, and I might add, he serves the City of Dallas well. I very much doubt he's in the position to voice anything contrary other than the public Dallas pap that exists concerning the JFK assassination.

Gary knows my beef with him (brought to light by David Lifton). Contrary to common belief, it has nothing to do with minion Bill Miller so-called JFK researcher. More to do with how Gary produces/conducts off-camera television interviews/questioning. Most un-professional!

[Cliff Varnell]

a self proclaimed JFK assassination photo-film evidence expert.

That's interesting. In my e-mail conversation with him a year ago he

seemed patently disinterested in what the photo-film evidence showed

in regards to the movement of JFK's clothing.

I found this odd since a stray remark of his upon release of the Jefferies

film sparked world-wide headlines about "new evidence," that being the

position of JFK's jacket in Jefferies, 90 seconds before the shooting.

I quite reasonably asserted that surely photo-films taken within 10

seconds of the shooting trumped Jefferies, but he wasn't interested

in discussing it much.

Curious attitude, I found.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

Whenever Gary used to email me, it would always be to contradict some statement I'd made on a forum. Every time, his position was the official one.

I was just thinking about one of the debates we used to have with Gary when he posted regularly on the JFK Research Forum. Many of us used to wonder why the Sixth Floor Museum couldn't put a simple "alleged" in front of Oswald's name. That's hardly an extreme position, and it certainly would seem reasonable and legally correct to at least acknowledge that he never had the opportunity to go to trial, so thus was not convicted of the crime. Gary danced and dodged, but we couldn't even get him to broach the subject.

[Cliff Varnell]

Hi, all:

I can no longer contain my anger and disappointment at the constant stream of vitriolic abuse that is directed at Gary Mack (and others, like Josiah Thompson, to a lesser extent) on this Forum.

I am proud to say that I've known and corresponded with Gary Mack for over 20 years, and I have never found him to be anything other that helpful, courteous, and generous. To read the abuse that is being hurled at him on a daily basis is nothing short of sickening, particularly when he cannot publicly respond for work reasons.

No two human beings agree on everything, all the time. If we did, this would be a very boring world. However, to indulge in the sort of personal abuse that has become the norm on this Forum will resolve no differences.

To John and the Moderators - can you do nothing to put a stop to this?

To Gary, and all the others who have given so much to research - my sincere thanks.

And, to those who are engaged in this abuse - GIVE IT UP....!

Chris Scally.

I'm not abusing anybody. I'm taking Gary Mack to task for his cavalier

dismissal of the clothing evidence as "hard evidence" of 2+ shooters.

I have not found Gary Mack to be all that helpful in our two private

e-mail exchanges on this matter.

He dismissed me the first time -- "Theorist"

And he referred to my "theory" in my second exchange.

I present no theory.

I present the following:

FACT: The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 2-3" below the

SBT wound location.

FACT: A tucked in custom made dress shirt only has a fraction of an inch

of slack, a fact pressed by most forcefully by Vincent Salandria and

Gaeton Fonzi 40+ years ago.

FACT: The motorcade photos show JFK's jacket dropping.

FACT: The location of the holes in the clothes match the T3 wound descriptions

in Burkley's death certificate (marked "verified"); in the autopsy face sheet

diagram (marked "verified"); the FBI autopsy report; the wound diagrams

and sworn statements of 6 federal agents; the statements of more than a

half-dozen medical witnesses.

To dismiss this profoundly redundant body of evidence as "virtually no hard evidence"

was irresponsible, to put it mildly.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Cliff Varnell