The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question

[Bernice Moore]

b

[Otto B Cornejo]

The Museum Of Ancient History is open!

Edited September 4, 2010 by Otto B Cornejo

[Bernice Moore]

just that it's a good photo...

[Martin Hinrichs]

Thank you, Martin. I'm glad you have Sylvia Meagher's book. It's wonderful. She was a marvelous person and friend, someone of absolute intergrity. I often wish she were around to deal with some of the nonsense that qualifies as research these days. She would have eaten a lot of this silliness for breakfast.

You deserve as good an asnwer as I can give to your many questions. I think the best way to handles things is to interlineate my answers with the questions in your post. My answers are in boldface.

quote name='Martin Hinrichs' date='03 September 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1283546494' post='204603']

Some years ago, Gary and I put together a deal for getting "Six Seconds" reissued... it had been out of print for thirty years.

Tink,

Do you still have plans to publish an updated version of Six Seconds? I think it would be great to have an edition using actual Zapruder stills as well as seeing how newer evidence has affected your analysis and opinions.

Martin

Martin,

Thanks for your interest. No there are no plans to reprint Six Seconds with an update section. That, in itself, would take a lot of work. If I'm going to do a book on this case it will be something new, something I'm playing with in the back of my mind, but also something that hasn't become quite clear yet. Thanks again.

JT

First of all sorry Otto for getting off topic. I hope you don't mind.

To stay on Topic for a moment, i think you've asked reasonable questions and they were well deserved.

Your attitude is excellent. Congrats.

Dear Josiah,

thank you for this insight about your thoughts to update Six Seconds.

To be honest, in my journey the last 2 years on the JFK assassination research i've read a lot

of books and neglected until the last 2 months almost every book of the first generation researchers.

I thought that they were simply outdated but i was wrong.

John Kelin's "Praise from a Future Generation" had changed my view and has drawn my attention

to the work of Silvia Meagher, Vince Salandria, Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten and you.

So i've bought the books "Oswald: The Truth", "Accessories After the Fact" and "Rush to Judgement".

I was surprised how many new happenings i've discovered and how well and precise the research of this

first generation researchers was even at that time. Sure, some aspects are simply outdated but we have to consider

how little time after the assassination has passed by when these books were published.

I have great respect what these persons worked out under pressure. And i believe it was not just time pressure.

I was always suspicous about your Six Seconds in Dallas cause you've mentioned on the forum a couple of times

that there were here and there mistakes in the book. Don't get me wrong, i admire your forward step and see it as a strenght

and not as a weakness. It's more than reasonable to get the facts not always correct in 1967.

I think the biggest mistake I made was measuring what appeared to be the forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and z313. It was pretty dumb of me not to recognize that the smearing in z313 could account for most or all of the apparent movement. The result of that mistake was that it opened the door for all sorts of mistaken speculations as to how a shot from the rear could cause the obvious left-backward movement of JFK's head and body. Obviously, JFK was hit in the back of the head but not then.

It was a coincidence that a good friend has send me your book as a gift a few weeks ago.

I've started a few days ago and just half way down (i'am currently at the stretcher chapter in Parkland)

and your work captivating me. It's extremely interesting cause it covered my point of interest.

The killing zone "Dealey Plaza" among the photographic evidence, you're take care of important witness reports, the ballistic

evidence and trajectories. Many pictures, many diagrams and well researched it provided excellent footnotes to crosscheck

where it all come from.

If i would write a book, the design would be similar. (It's the reviewed version from 1976).

You raised for the first time doubts in my mind that the current thinking of the shooting sequence of 8.3 seconds is

accurate. You've provided relevant witness reports (and not less) to support your theory, that the first show occured not at

around Z#160 but much more later- at Z#210-224. The current thinking that the first shot occured at around Z#160 is just supported

by the fast head turns of Connally and Kennedy at this time. And of course Rosemary Willis interview in 1978 (your book was written ealier and you was not aware of it) which was at the Willis home where she said she stopped running after hearing the first sound.

I was, to be frank, not aware of all the other witness reports supporting a later first shot happening.

The number of this witnesses in your book trumps the Rosemary Willis report and the head turns of JFK and JBC.

Is this part of your book still your current thinking or has it been updated?

If not, if would have change the title from Six Seconds to Eight seconds in an updated version.

Yeah, others have suggested that change in title to me. It seems clear now that shots were fired priot to Z210.

You have put also eyewitness S.M Holland on a high level credible podest. I think the same.

You have met him. You have known him.

I found til today no mistake or flaw in his words. Everything fits the photographic evidence.

An argument that a puff of smoke is not visible in the photos is obsolete. No camera at that time would be able to

capture it.

My question is: How much of your book would you update right now?

30, 50 or even 80 percent? Or propably just 15?

Sorry, I never estimated what percentage of pages in the book would have to be changed. The basic idea was to put asterisks and a number in when I found something that was no longer true and these would key to an update chapter. But how much of the book would have to be changed? I really don't know.

I'am asking just for a rough estimate.

I have no evil intention. I will only know how you see it currently.

Thanks a lot forward

Martin

Thank you Josiah.

[David Von Pein]

I think the biggest mistake I made was measuring what appeared to be the forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and z313. It was pretty dumb of me not to recognize that the smearing in z313 could account for most or all of the apparent movement. The result of that mistake was that it opened the door for all sorts of mistaken speculations as to how a shot from the rear could cause the obvious left-backward movement of JFK's head and body. Obviously, JFK was hit in the back of the head but not then.

In the mid-1970s, Itek Corp. measured the forward movement of JFK's head. There is no question his head moves forward with great speed between Z312 and Z313, which is the exact MOMENT OF IMPACT of a bullet hitting the head.

And it's also important to note that since the bullet that struck JFK's head at Z313 is long gone and out of the head by Z314 (when the "back and to the left" movement begins), this means that the backward movement of Kennedy's head cannot possibly be caused by THE BULLET that hit him. Therefore, some OTHER explanation must account for the rear head movement. Unless you want to postulate TWO head shots--which the evidence (photos/X-rays/Autopsy Report) does not support at all, and never did.

Edited September 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I think the biggest mistake I made was measuring what appeared to be the forward movement of JFK's head between Z312 and z313. It was pretty dumb of me not to recognize that the smearing in z313 could account for most or all of the apparent movement. The result of that mistake was that it opened the door for all sorts of mistaken speculations as to how a shot from the rear could cause the obvious left-backward movement of JFK's head and body. Obviously, JFK was hit in the back of the head but not then.

In the mid-1970s, Itek Corp. measured the forward movement of JFK's head. There is no question his head moves forward with great speed between Z312 and Z313, which is the exact MOMENT OF IMPACT of a bullet hitting the head.

And it's also important to note that since the bullet that struck JFK's head at Z313 is long gone and out of the head by Z314 (when the "back and to the left" movement begins), this means that the backward movement of Kennedy's head cannot possibly be caused by THE BULLET that hit him. Therefore, some OTHER explanation must account for the rear head movement. Unless you want to postulate TWO head shots--which the evidence (photos/X-rays/Autopsy Report) does not support at all, and never did.

By this time, Kennedy has already been hit first in the throat from the front, then a few seconds later he is being hit in the back. In fact it is POSSIBLE, that John Kennedy is just being hit in the upper BACK at Z 312 (causing a slight forward movement of the body), just before the sniper from the Grassy Knoll, much closer about 33 yards away, shoots Kennedy in the front right temple.

Do you see any blood, brain material splatter across the back of the shiny limo? One thing is for sure, I see a large flap of Kennedy's head drop down off the right side of his head. I interpret this to be a bullet from the front that is hitting JFK at an angle, slicing through bone almost in a way one would unlock a Zip-lock plastic bag. I definitely see a large flap hanging out on JFK's right side.

Edited September 4, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[David Von Pein]

By this time, Kennedy has already been hit first in the throat from the front, then a few seconds later he is being hit in the back. In fact it is POSSIBLE, that John Kennedy is just being hit in the upper BACK at Z 312 (causing a slight forward movement of the body), just before the sniper from the Grassy Knoll, much closer about 33 yards away, shoots Kennedy in the front right temple.

Oh, come on, Robert. You think the very fast snap forward of JFK's HEAD is caused by him being hit in the UPPER BACK? And his HEAD just happens to explode at that EXACT moment too--even though it's really an UPPER-BACK bullet that's causing the forward head movement?

That's certainly a new theory I had never heard before.

But, then too, conspiracists will go to any lengths to avoid the obvious (and the evidence). And Robert Morrow just proved it.

Edited September 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

You look about 17 years old in that picture.

That was my first thought as well, I have never seen an old picture of Tink

Good stuff Bernice

[Dean Hagerman]

By this time, Kennedy has already been hit first in the throat from the front, then a few seconds later he is being hit in the back. In fact it is POSSIBLE, that John Kennedy is just being hit in the upper BACK at Z 312 (causing a slight forward movement of the body), just before the sniper from the Grassy Knoll, much closer about 33 yards away, shoots Kennedy in the front right temple.

Oh, come on, Robert. You think the very fast snap forward of JFK's HEAD is caused by him being hit in the UPPER BACK? And his HEAD just happens to explode at that EXACT moment too--even though it's really an UPPER-BACK bullet that's causing the forward head movement?

That's certainly a new theory I had never heard before.

But, then too, conspiracists will go to any lengths to avoid the obvious (and the evidence). And Robert Morrow just proved it.

I hate to side with David, but come on Robert, that theory is just lame

[David Andrews]

The downward thrust of the head at 313 seems to coincide with the wounding at the temple and then to proceed through the frontspray...proceeding so much through it in duration, that it looks as if the film were altered to make the head seem like it was first pushed in the direction of the exploding material (forward).

Are we really looking at ballistics, or at editing? If editing, is it intended to make the head seem to travel forward at first when the film is viewed as a series of stills, thus leading the eventual critics to believe that the front wounding and the flinging back are effects of a rear shot?

In other words - to me it's still a shot from the front, but edited so that viewing the frame stills sequence will make it look like the shot came from the rear. They couldn't excise the backward headsnap, so they confused its origin. Cleaning up the evulsed right rear head, and the backspray over the trunk, accompanied this editing. The technicians may have hoped the forward jerk of the limo would explain away the the backward head and body snap. Credo.

Form follows function, said the intellectuals. The technicians have always stopped at, "You gotta work with what you got."

Edited September 5, 2010 by David Andrews

[Michael Hogan]

Q & A with The Sixth Floor Museum Curator Gary Mack: http://www.dallasartnews.com/2010/10/qa-with-the-sixth-floor-museum-curator-gary-mack/

Bring your questions -- and theories: http://www.jfk.org/index.cfm?objectid=0F7B2D92-C29F-E539-E05D035C3E5EE947

[Duke Lane]

... Gary Mack is a guy who pushes what he probably does not believe. He used to believe in a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, probably still does, yet as an employee of the Sixth Floor Museum uses that platform to CONSTANTLY push the Lee Harvey Oswald "lone nut" theory. If you go into the 6th Floor Museum, you can't even buy a conspiracy book; books like JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass are BANNED there. But you can buy "lone nut" lies books. When you take the tour of the 6th floor musuem, the Big Lie of the TWO "lone nut" assassins is a theme that is constantly pushed on the guest. So Gary Mack has no principles.

Gary Mack is ALSO the guy who calls the Dallas police in attempts to have American patriot and truth teller Robert Groden arrested on the Grassy Knoll as he sells his JFK DVDS and booklets there. Robert Groden is the man most responsible for you evening seeing the Zapruder Film, as he put it on national TV in 1975. And Gary Mack and the leadership of the Sixth Floor Museum are trying to run him off the Grassy Knoll so they can have a monopoly on the propaganda and keep pushing the Big Lie, which he probably does not believe in.

Additionally, Jim Marrs used to teach a class, open to the public, on the JFK assassination at a local Texas college. Dave Perry and Gary Mack used to attend that thing, and they were so disruptive and so rude, that Jim Marrs was forced to CANCEL that class. Just ask Jim Marrs about that sad experience. Perry and Mack were there to disrupt and destroy learning and the search for the truth, exactly what Gary Mack does in his current position.

My descriptions of Gary Mack are accurate, to the point and I stick by them. And they are held my many if not most in the JFK research community.

"Gary Mack is ALSO the guy who calls the Dallas police in attempts to have American patriot and truth teller Robert Groden arrested on the Grassy Knoll?" What is your proof of this outside of suspicion? You have heard taped calls, perhaps, or read a signed complaint? Maybe been there when he made the calls?

"Dave Perry and Gary Mack used to attend that thing, and they were so disruptive and so rude, that Jim Marrs was forced to CANCEL that class. Just ask Jim Marrs about that sad experience. Perry and Mack were there to disrupt and destroy learning and the search for the truth." Again, proofs? I used to attend those non-credit classes and was there when both Mack and Perry were there, as was Jack White. While I will certainly acknowledge that they - and others - did not always agree with what Marrs proposed (or taught, if you prefer the term, or professed as fact) and did not hesitate to raise questions or point out errors, I would hardly consider their participation "disruptive" and "rude," and do not for a second believe that Marrs was "forced" to cancel the class by anything other than lack of attendance.

The "search for truth" is not in any way advanced by promoting conspiratorial - or non-conspiratorial - perspectives to a class of youngsters who accept the teacher's outline as authority. I wonder if Gerald Posner were to teach a class supporting the LHO-as-lone-nut scenario, would you find it as disturbing that Jim DiEugenio (for example) was there to heckle him as you appear to be that anyone would call someone who thinks that "any conspiracy theory will do" onto the carpet from time to time, or didn't endorse his every word?

We also make fools of ourselves by uncritically accepting whatever the "gurus" of assassination mythology have to say, be it one "side" or the other. If anyone believes that Jim Marrs only promotes "the truth," they haven't seen him at a UFO conference.

[William Kelly]

... Gary Mack is a guy who pushes what he probably does not believe. He used to believe in a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy, probably still does, yet as an employee of the Sixth Floor Museum uses that platform to CONSTANTLY push the Lee Harvey Oswald "lone nut" theory. If you go into the 6th Floor Museum, you can't even buy a conspiracy book; books like JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass are BANNED there. But you can buy "lone nut" lies books. When you take the tour of the 6th floor musuem, the Big Lie of the TWO "lone nut" assassins is a theme that is constantly pushed on the guest. So Gary Mack has no principles.

Gary Mack is ALSO the guy who calls the Dallas police in attempts to have American patriot and truth teller Robert Groden arrested on the Grassy Knoll as he sells his JFK DVDS and booklets there. Robert Groden is the man most responsible for you evening seeing the Zapruder Film, as he put it on national TV in 1975. And Gary Mack and the leadership of the Sixth Floor Museum are trying to run him off the Grassy Knoll so they can have a monopoly on the propaganda and keep pushing the Big Lie, which he probably does not believe in.

Additionally, Jim Marrs used to teach a class, open to the public, on the JFK assassination at a local Texas college. Dave Perry and Gary Mack used to attend that thing, and they were so disruptive and so rude, that Jim Marrs was forced to CANCEL that class. Just ask Jim Marrs about that sad experience. Perry and Mack were there to disrupt and destroy learning and the search for the truth, exactly what Gary Mack does in his current position.

My descriptions of Gary Mack are accurate, to the point and I stick by them. And they are held my many if not most in the JFK research community.

"Gary Mack is ALSO the guy who calls the Dallas police in attempts to have American patriot and truth teller Robert Groden arrested on the Grassy Knoll?" What is your proof of this outside of suspicion? You have heard taped calls, perhaps, or read a signed complaint? Maybe been there when he made the calls?

"Dave Perry and Gary Mack used to attend that thing, and they were so disruptive and so rude, that Jim Marrs was forced to CANCEL that class. Just ask Jim Marrs about that sad experience. Perry and Mack were there to disrupt and destroy learning and the search for the truth." Again, proofs? I used to attend those non-credit classes and was there when both Mack and Perry were there, as was Jack White. While I will certainly acknowledge that they - and others - did not always agree with what Marrs proposed (or taught, if you prefer the term, or professed as fact) and did not hesitate to raise questions or point out errors, I would hardly consider their participation "disruptive" and "rude," and do not for a second believe that Marrs was "forced" to cancel the class by anything other than lack of attendance.

The "search for truth" is not in any way advanced by promoting conspiratorial - or non-conspiratorial - perspectives to a class of youngsters who accept the teacher's outline as authority. I wonder if Gerald Posner were to teach a class supporting the LHO-as-lone-nut scenario, would you find it as disturbing that Jim DiEugenio (for example) was there to heckle him as you appear to be that anyone would call someone who thinks that "any conspiracy theory will do" onto the carpet from time to time, or didn't endorse his every word?

We also make fools of ourselves by uncritically accepting whatever the "gurus" of assassination mythology have to say, be it one "side" or the other. If anyone believes that Jim Marrs only promotes "the truth," they haven't seen him at a UFO conference.

But they don't bother to monitor the classes taught by John McAdams or Ken Rahn and point out all the discrepencies in their work.

Why is it they only go after "Conspiarcy Theorists"?

Why not use the same logic, reason, passion and search for the truth to correct those who profess the theories that wrongly support the official version of events, that have been proven to be wrong?

BK

[Duke Lane]

... But they don't bother to monitor the classes taught by John McAdams or Ken Rahn and point out all the discrepencies in their work. Why is it they only go after "Conspiarcy Theorists"?

Why not use the same logic, reason, passion and search for the truth to correct those who profess the theories that wrongly support the official version of events, that have been proven to be wrong?

Valid questions, though you forgot to add "gas money." A valid response might be one of these two:

1) Why don't McAdams and Rahn teach classes closer to Mack and Perry so it would be equally convenient to "monitor" them as Arlington is/was?

2) Why don't

other

CTers "monitor" McAdams and Rahn's classes?

I clearly don't know why someone who lives in Wisconsin or Rhode Island (or anywhere in New England, for that matter: it's a pretty small place) doesn't do that. Maybe nobody there believes there was a conspiracy? I don't think that's the case at all. Maybe none of them are very knowledgeable, or at least not enough that they feel they can argue against the two of them? I can't imagine that to be true either.

So why bemoan this terrible lack of vigilance when it comes to LNer teachings? Are you suggesting paying plane fare so they can carry their supposed "Truth Crusade" to all corners of the earth? I don't get it otherwise.

Of course, there's another possibility: McAdams and Rahn have campus security remove hecklers from their classrooms if they are "disruptive" and "rude." Umm, you're not suggesting that the University of Texas at Arlington doesn't have a similar policy, or won't back up their faculty in such cases? Maybe it checks out its instructors' politics before making such committments? Or simply doesn't like respected local journalists? Maybe there's not the great respect we've all been led to believe, and he's secretly detested by the mainstream intelligensia (masquerading as UT administrators)?

- - - -

But none of that was my point.

My point was that Morrow has no knowledge of any of what he charged.

Even assuming that UTA doesn't have a policy to remove or allow removal of disruptive students (or "students") from a classroom, even a non-credit course - a suggestion I consider extremely ludicrous - the general fact remains that when things get controversial, more - not less - people tend to be attracted to them, just like they are to a fight in the school yard. A "popular" class is not likely to be "forced" to be discontinued, and I'm certain that nobody is charging that the "disruption" and "rudeness" got so out of hand that fights spilled into the UTA hallways, thus forcing UTA to take action. What happens within the classroom - that remains civilized, anyway - is most likely to stay within the classroom.

My bet - I have no direct knowledge at this point - is that Marrs decided to cancel the course on his own, for his own reasons (maybe conflicts with UFO conferences?), and if UTA initiated it, it was due to lack of enrollment. I'm also willing to bet - again without direct knowledge - that it wasn't cancelled because of Marrs' complaints about Perry and Mack, or UTA's ambivalence or antipathy toward his complaints. If Jim wants to make such allegations publicly and in writing, I'd be happy to check it out (but am not about to bother otherwise).

- - - -

Finally, why would they need to "go after" LNers? Are you suggesting that none of us are doing an effective job? Or that nobody needs to be - or even should be - watching the watchers?

Edited October 8, 2010 by Duke Lane

[Guest Robert Morrow]

... But they don't bother to monitor the classes taught by John McAdams or Ken Rahn and point out all the discrepencies in their work. Why is it they only go after "Conspiarcy Theorists"?

Why not use the same logic, reason, passion and search for the truth to correct those who profess the theories that wrongly support the official version of events, that have been proven to be wrong?

Valid questions, though you forgot to add "gas money." A valid response might be one of these two:

1) Why don't McAdams and Rahn teach classes closer to Mack and Perry so it would be equally convenient to "monitor" them as Arlington is/was?

2) Why don't

other

CTers "monitor" McAdams and Rahn's classes?

I clearly don't know why someone who lives in Wisconsin or Rhode Island (or anywhere in New England, for that matter: it's a pretty small place) doesn't do that. Maybe nobody there believes there was a conspiracy? I don't think that's the case at all. Maybe none of them are very knowledgeable, or at least not enough that they feel they can argue against the two of them? I can't imagine that to be true either.

So why bemoan this terrible lack of vigilance when it comes to LNer teachings? Are you suggesting paying plane fare so they can carry their supposed "Truth Crusade" to all corners of the earth? I don't get it otherwise.

Of course, there's another possibility: McAdams and Rahn have campus security remove hecklers from their classrooms if they are "disruptive" and "rude." Umm, you're not suggesting that the University of Texas at Arlington doesn't have a similar policy, or won't back up their faculty in such cases? Maybe it checks out its instructors' politics before making such committments? Or simply doesn't like respected local journalists? Maybe there's not the great respect we've all been led to believe, and he's secretly detested by the mainstream intelligensia (masquerading as UT administrators)?

- - - -

But none of that was my point.

My point was that Morrow has no knowledge of any of what he charged.

Even assuming that UTA doesn't have a policy to remove or allow removal of disruptive students (or "students") from a classroom, even a non-credit course - a suggestion I consider extremely ludicrous - the general fact remains that when things get controversial, more - not less - people tend to be attracted to them, just like they are to a fight in the school yard. A "popular" class is not likely to be "forced" to be discontinued, and I'm certain that nobody is charging that the "disruption" and "rudeness" got so out of hand that fights spilled into the UTA hallways, thus forcing UTA to take action. What happens within the classroom - that remains civilized, anyway - is most likely to stay within the classroom.

My bet - I have no direct knowledge at this point - is that Marrs decided to cancel the course on his own, for his own reasons (maybe conflicts with UFO conferences?), and if UTA initiated it, it was due to lack of enrollment. I'm also willing to bet - again without direct knowledge - that it wasn't cancelled because of Marrs' complaints about Perry and Mack, or UTA's ambivalence or antipathy toward his complaints. If Jim wants to make such allegations publicly and in writing, I'd be happy to check it out (but am not about to bother otherwise).

- - - -

Finally, why would they need to "go after" LNers? Are you suggesting that none of us are doing an effective job? Or that nobody needs to be - or even should be - watching the watchers?

Jim Marrs told me he had to cancel his class on the JFK assassination because Dave Perry and Gary Mack were being disruptive and especially hostile to speakers he would bring in to address the class. I have heard the same from other JFK assassination researchers.

Why else would Jim Marrs feel compelled to cancel the class. Dave Perry and Gary Mack were pissing on the proceedings.

I want to emphasize how little/no respect I have for that con artist Gary Mack who runs the Lone Nutter propaganda at the Sixth Floor Museum. What a disgrace to the truth that guy is. Classic case of selling one's soul for a little money and power and NO RESPECT from the JFK assassination research community.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Robert Morrow