Jump to content
The Education Forum

Posted at request of Jim DiEugenio...ATTN. MS. BECKETT

Jack White

Recommended Posts

Dear Ms. Becket:

I wanted to correct the record in regard to your accusations about my essay, "How Gary Mack became Dan Rather".

I fail to see how a footnoted essay can be called "gossipy". And in the parts of the essay that are not footnoted, its clearly denoted where the information came from. For instance, in the last section, section VI, the main source is Bob Groden who I interviewed. My experience with Mark Zaid was firsthand. Further, much of the material is easily verifiable for those who care to do so. For instance, you can find out what Zaid does today by just Googling his name.

In sections IV and V, there are parts where interview subjects requested anonymity. And I clearly explained that in Section IV, paragraph 3--I don't know how you missed that paragraph. Or if you didn't, why you would fail to note it to the reader. I also explained why I granted their requests. But I did keep, and do have, my interview notes for each and every person I talked to.

Gary Mack denied that Dave Perry helped him get a job at the SIxth Floor. Mr. Carroll relayed that denial. The problem is that Perry volunteered this himself way before the advent of the CTKA critiques of "Inside the Target Car". Therefore way before Mack became such a highly contested figure. And became even more contested with his equally horrid JFK: The Ruby Connection.

John Simkin has invited me to join Spartacus. I do not for two reasons. Number one, I am trying to start a new venture on my own which I feel is important. Secondly, if I did that I feel I would not have the time to do the difficult work I do at CTKA. Which includes critical essays like the ones about DIscovery Channel's debacles and Mr. Macks' participation in them. Excuse me if I think that is a more difficult, more important, and valuable endeavor.

Finally, let me add that I did not ask Peter Lemkin to repost my article. And I do not approve of the use to which he puts it here. It was not meant to lay suspicion on those who do not believe in Zapruder film alteration. If that were the case, then it could be used against the author since I am an agnostic on that point. As is an exceptional writer like Gary Aguilar who is also beyond suspicion.

Since I was trained as an historian, I meant to outline an historical phenomenon, or marker. No one had done that before and I think it was important to do so. I was trying to parallel the fact that at certain times of pressure, visibility, and high conflict in the JFK case, the other side uses this tactic to obstruct any progress. One clear parallel would be the ringers sent in to obstruct and confuse Jim Garrison. Another would be the even earlier use of Edward Epstein and Priscilla Johnson. But that kind of thing can only be clearly revealed in retrospect with solid evidence. Which is what I provided with the likes of Perry and Russo. It cannot be provided now with this current conflict, since for one reason, the Z film as is already proves conspiracy. So you don' t have to be spooky to disagree or be an agnostic. Which is why I don't approve of using it in this way.

Perhaps in the future, when I get done with my Bugliosi series, I can actually join the forum. But don't hold it against me if I don't right now. I actually think what I do has some value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Create New...