The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question

[Duke Lane]

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.

You're clearly right: there couldn't possibly be any other reason on Earth. "Why else," indeed.

Jim - or anybody else you respect - would never say anything that wasn't completely true or self-serving. His was the most popular course on campus, standing room only for well over a dozen attendees, a loss of untold magnitude.

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.

You're clearly right again: none of those professions of respect that you've read here could possibly be true, or not misguided.

I see no reason to explore the facts beyond your myopia, and see no sense in trying to make sense of something you wouldn't understand or accept.

You may now thump your chest and declare yourself a true and undeterred winner, champion of everyone's thoughts.

[William Kelly]

... 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?

Why do they have to live in Wisconsin or Rhode Island to correct the mistakes of other academics?

That doesn't keep Mack and Perry and DVP and their posse from sending PM and emails and correcting CTs of their mistakes while McAdams and Rhan go uncorrected.

And Gary calls me a hipocrite?

99% of the CTs are wrong, but at least one of the CTs must be right because the official story is definately wrong.

BK

[Jack White]

... 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.

You are correct. Jim cancelled the JFK classes because of the disrespect shown to several important guest speakers

who were heckled by the two disrupters. Jim was tired of persuading important witnesses like Jean Hill, Ricky White,

Dr. Charles Crenshaw and others to come and share experiences only to have them treated rudely. Since these

were night school extension classes not for credit, they were not governed by the University but by the teacher.

Jack

[Duke Lane]

Why do they have to live in Wisconsin or Rhode Island to correct the mistakes of other academics?

That doesn't keep Mack and Perry and DVP and their posse from sending PM and emails and correcting CTs of their mistakes while McAdams and Rhan go uncorrected.

And Gary calls me a hipocrite?

99% of the CTs are wrong, but at least one of the CTs must be right because the official story is definately wrong.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Do you, who advocates the convening of a grand jury of some sort to pursue the real perps of the the Kennedy killing, consider this all some sort of game where "referees" zing the "losers" via PM and email (which you seem to suggest you're inordinately privy to, knowing who doesn't get them as well as who does) but leave those they "side with" unscathed, and thus the determination of who is "right" and who is "wrong" is made?

Consider that LNers are the "default winners" already because their version is the officially-endorsed if not most widely accepted version. It is an extremely simple - and simplistic - viewpoint that is easy to understand, involves only one misguided person, requires no motive(s), and both defies and requires no explanation beyond the ipso facto? LNers don't have to "sell" their version to the government, the courts, the public at-large, or the media (who do a pretty effective job of "selling" it for the LNers, even without Gary's help).

(You'd probably be twice as pissed off if you found that, instead, he was correcting McAdams and Rahn and company, and that they had better arguments because of it. You'd bitch that he was "helping" them and "not" the CTers. But all that really matters is that you can be pissed off, isn't it?)

As with any product, it doesn't matter how good it is, whether it's better or worse than another: it simply "sells" better because it's better "advertised." dBase was a piece of junk by most later standards, yet it was the best-selling database management system of its time, a de facto standard, one which nobody had to apologize for using it, or explain (or debate) why they bought it. It really didn't matter if something else could do the job better, faster and easier: if it wasn't dBase, it wasn't a "real" database.

CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised.

But lo, we find the "better products" fighting amongst themselves, pointing fingers where possible, calling each other names when not, and touting their versions of history as being the "definitively best" challenger to the standard to the exclusion of all others, even though it be woefully incomplete, incomprehensible, inadequate and inane.

So those who've developed the "new best product" are asked to prove that it works, and those who demand proof before "buying" it are called "disruptive." When they point out a "bug" in the "software," rather than the promoter fixing it (or - whoa! - admitting it's a bug and doesn't work!), they vilify anyone who doesn't agree that they've got the "best product" out there. When someone points out an error in their "code," rather than fix it or admit it doesn't work, again we get the hue and the cry.

So "dBase" - the lone gunman theory (for that's all it is: a theory) - sits atop its hill and watches the attacking armies (for there is not just one, there are many) first fight it out amongst themselves before they ever stand a chance of gaining the hill and competing with the "king" one-on-one.

Anyone who makes a suggestion on how to improve one "army's" argument is a jerk. Someone who points out that the bowmen have no arrows is an a-whole. Anyone who thinks to tell them that the objective is behind them - that they're looking in the wrong direction - is a "subversive." For someone who offers "training" to the knights errant, points out where they're wrong or where they can do better, there are no polite words to describe them since they, after all, haven't defeated the king either.

Clearly, if you're not "for" at least one of the alternative theories, you "must" be "against" them all and be "for" the official one. Some consider it best to be "for" not one, but all of them, as if the more things you believe, no matter how disparate, the greater the likelihood that you're "right." It makes you "one of us" as long as you don't challenge any of "our" ideas and accept everything "we" say at face value as God's Truth (or at least most of it).

All theories are acceptable, probable, and endorsed, as long as they differ from the official theory; one is as true as the next, and immune from attack, and woe unto any who try to attack any of them. It's perfectly okay to look out over all 360 degrees to find the first, second or even tenth shot, and perfectly acceptable - even expected - that we should go on wild goose chases to track down imaginary people and events told by liars, because somewhere out there lies the truth. The more spaghetti we throw against the wall, the more likely at least one strand is going to stick. Meanwhile, let's not worry about finding sticky spaghetti, or eliminating spaghetti that won't.

Just don't anybody be the one who tells me that my spaghetti's slimy, or try to show me how to cook better pasta, or point out that I didn't use boiling water when I made it. If you do, you are a jerk and obviously quite wrong because y'know what?

There are people out there eating it raw and not complaining.

Who the hell is anyone else to tell them that there's a better way?

Or that there's something wrong with the way they're doing things?

Sure: believe Ricky White that his dad did it. And Jimmy Files that he did it. And Crenshaw that LBJ clearly had a hand in it. And Hoffman that a guy in a suit did it. And anyone who dares to challenge any of their stories is clearly "against us" because they're certainly not "with us" if they don't believe everything we say. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

As one who is "collecting theories" to throw at a grand jury to sort out - the more the merrier ... and probably because we can't sort them out among ourselves - it's not surprising that you don't like someone who either detracts from or tries to correct something that might have a modicum of validity to it, or that, with modification, might even be viable (but not in its present form). Or who points out why a particular theory just plain old won't work, gosh darn it.

It amazes me in part that nobody seems to consider what the Sixth Floor Museum might be like if it weren't for its curator, or whether materials that it has would remain buried and inaccessible, even unacknowledged, if there wasn't some "balance" in its perspective. Instead, people would like to think that, as resident assassination expert, Gary Mack is and should be running the place and telling the people who fund it - and find the funding for it (oh, and pay his salary, the ultimate sin: shouldn't he be working for free like the rest of us? - where to put their silly ideas about what Dallas County would like to see.

Don't they know it would be more profitable if they had 99 versions of the assassination they could hawk instead of just one?

It's this sort of stupidity that keeps the "CT armies" from ever conquering the "LN hill." Until that changes, nothing else ever will.

[Peter McGuire]

"CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised."

You talk too much "Duke" and I am not really sure what side you are on.

How in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright.

What is clear and not open to debate is what the United States Secret Service did and did not do on November 22, 1963.

One's position on this matter will show their true colors, for if anyone denies that the Secret Service was comprimised , they are against us not for us.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Otto B Cornejo]

Duke said: CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised.

Peter responded You talk too much "Duke" and I am not really sure what side you are on.

How in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright.

But what is clear and not open to debate is what the United States Secret Service did and did not do on November 22, 1963.

This will show anyone’s true colors, for if anyone denies that, they are against us not for us.

I agree with both points being made by Duke and Peter in the above quote. I don't think the CT community will ever pose a serious threat to the established account of what happened until they can collectively agree on what happened (aside from the fact that they don't believe the Warren Commission) and move forward. When I started investigating the JFK assassination I was firmly in the CT camp. But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance. Don't get me wrong, I still believe there was a conspiracy. But I don't think that there single coherent group of people and events that can be proved guilty. Not with the evidence available.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Otto B Cornejo

[Peter McGuire]

But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance.

That is a cop out , and you are against us.

The only reason there is confusion regarding the evidence is because the Fox is guarding the Hen House.

Let the American people and the world investigate this murder and there will be a different conclusion.

And heads will roll.

Including George Herbert Walker Bush who is up to his ass in this.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Duke Lane]

You talk too much "Duke" and I am not really sure what side you are on.

I prefer to think of it as "prolific," and if you read any of my other 1000-plus posts here, you'd know the answer to what "side" I'm on.

I just don't nod and acquiesce to everything I hear, and pick it all apart equally. I subscribe to the wheat and discard the chaff. Pretty simple stuff.

Pity there's so much chaff.

How in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright.

"Most" is simply not true, and if it is, it is, at best, difficult to prove and, at worst, impossible.

You simply work with what you've got, of which there is quite enough.

But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance.

That is a cop out , and you are against us.

Oh, and you think that "how in the hell can we agree in a situation where most of the evidence has been tampered with or lost outright" isn't?

Why bother arguing if nobody will ever figure it out?!? Just to see who writes their name in the snow the best?

QED.

[Otto B Cornejo]

But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance.

That is a cop out , and you are against us.

Peter, what a strange accusation. It eschews logic so succinctly, I hardly know where to begin. But I'l try;

- I said that I still believe in conspiracy. And since I am still researching from a CT point of view and trying to find a conclusion, that makes me a conspiracy theorist by definition..

- so who are the US you are talking about? CT's don't agree on everything, except that they don't believe in the WC version of what happened. I don't believe the WC version, so who am I against.

- What's wrong with skepticism? Doesn't it help refine our perception by reexamining the evidence, and thereby, hopefully, assuring we have solid evidence to hang our opinion on? Am I supposed to swallow everything hook, line and sinker? Do you? If I do believe that the CIA was involved, but don't believe that the Zapruder film was altered, does that kick me out of HALF the club, or a 1/3. Or do I have to believe in everything in order to be NOT against US?

- But perhaps it was my comment about the CT community not having a chance that offended you. Thats what I believe when I observe the present state of things regarding how likely it is that the WC will be overturned anytime soon. Is that what I want? No. Does that stop me from siding with conspiracy? No. I hardly think making this observation pits me against the CT community. Is there a rule among the CT community that one cannot speak such things without having their membership revoked?

I admire your CT patriotism, but find it rather narrow minded.

Otto.

[Peter McGuire]

Both of you are "confusers."

[William Kelly]

Why do they have to live in Wisconsin or Rhode Island to correct the mistakes of other academics?

That doesn't keep Mack and Perry and DVP and their posse from sending PM and emails and correcting CTs of their mistakes while McAdams and Rhan go uncorrected.

And Gary calls me a hipocrite?

99% of the CTs are wrong, but at least one of the CTs must be right because the official story is definately wrong.

BK: Thank you Peter for answering first, so I know that I'm not alone in thinking those same thoughts. But I think he's directing this verbage at me, without even mentioning my name, so I better respond to him in kind.

Hmmm. Let's see.

Do you, who advocates the convening of a grand jury of some sort to pursue the real perps of the the Kennedy killing, consider this all some sort of game where "referees" zing the "losers" via PM and email (which you seem to suggest you're inordinately privy to, knowing who doesn't get them as well as who does) but leave those they "side with" unscathed, and thus the determination of who is "right" and who is "wrong" is made?

BK: It's not for me to judge Duke, Gary is the one who called me a hipocrite. I just questioned why he only corrects CTs and not the LNs who make similar mistakes, and you are the one who went off the wall by suggesting that he would have to travel to Wisconsin or RI to correct McAdams and Rhan. That's you making the extansional absurdy, not me. And I didn't make up the rules of the game - of chess, go, local laws, the Constitution or grand jury procedures.

Consider that LNers are the "default winners" already because their version is the officially-endorsed if not most widely accepted version.

BK: I've already noted that regardless of what the polls say and what public opinion is, they - the Lone Nutters win if they can get thorugh the next few years without new witness tesimony, new court case, proper oversight of JFK Act in Congress and grand jury review of the evidence as the law provides.

It is an extremely simple - and simplistic - viewpoint that is easy to understand, involves only one misguided person, requires no motive(s), and both defies and requires no explanation beyond the ipso facto? LNers don't have to "sell" their version to the government, the courts, the public at-large, or the media (who do a pretty effective job of "selling" it for the LNers, even without Gary's help).

(You'd probably be twice as pissed off if you found that, instead, he was correcting McAdams and Rahn and company, and that they had better arguments because of it. You'd bitch that he was "helping" them and "not" the CTers. But all that really matters is that you can be pissed off, isn't it?)

BK: Why do you have to keep making up these absurd possiblities and wonder what it would take to piss me off?

As with any product, it doesn't matter how good it is, whether it's better or worse than another: it simply "sells" better because it's better "advertised." dBase was a piece of junk by most later standards, yet it was the best-selling database management system of its time, a de facto standard, one which nobody had to apologize for using it, or explain (or debate) why they bought it. It really didn't matter if something else could do the job better, faster and easier: if it wasn't dBase, it wasn't a "real" database.

CTers' problem is that they don't offer a single, cohesive, intelligible (not to say "intelligent") and comprehensive solution, but rather a disorganized olio of theories that, for good or ill, if any of them are actually going to compete with the "industry standard," then it's going to have to prove itself, stand up and show what it can do, and work exactly as or better than advertised.

BK: As Peter quite rightly noted, the industry standard is the one that has failed to prove itself, and it is not the CT's job or role to find any comprehensive solution, but its the job of the law enforcement, courts, journalsits and historians, which they've thus far failed to do.

But lo, we find the "better products" fighting amongst themselves, pointing fingers where possible, calling each other names when not, and touting their versions of history as being the "definitively best" challenger to the standard to the exclusion of all others, even though it be woefully incomplete, incomprehensible, inadequate and inane.

BK: And since I'm neither a LN, who believes Oswald did it because he was a deranged loser, nor a CT with a solution, but rather approach the crime from the perspective of a crime scene investigator (CSI), looking for evidence and witnesses to follow and seeking living suspets to question, I don't have to worry about those things that worry you and seem to piss you off. And as Peter said, you are full of verbage that I just don't get, and your mind seems to be confused so I won't bother to try to understand what you are trying to say here:

So those who've developed the "new best product" are asked to prove that it works, and those who demand proof before "buying" it are called "disruptive." When they point out a "bug" in the "software," rather than the promoter fixing it (or - whoa! - admitting it's a bug and doesn't work!), they vilify anyone who doesn't agree that they've got the "best product" out there. When someone points out an error in their "code," rather than fix it or admit it doesn't work, again we get the hue and the cry.

So "dBase" - the lone gunman theory (for that's all it is: a theory) - sits atop its hill and watches the attacking armies (for there is not just one, there are many) first fight it out amongst themselves before they ever stand a chance of gaining the hill and competing with the "king" one-on-one.

Anyone who makes a suggestion on how to improve one "army's" argument is a jerk. Someone who points out that the bowmen have no arrows is an a-whole. Anyone who thinks to tell them that the objective is behind them - that they're looking in the wrong direction - is a "subversive." For someone who offers "training" to the knights errant, points out where they're wrong or where they can do better, there are no polite words to describe them since they, after all, haven't defeated the king either.

Clearly, if you're not "for" at least one of the alternative theories, you "must" be "against" them all and be "for" the official one. Some consider it best to be "for" not one, but all of them, as if the more things you believe, no matter how disparate, the greater the likelihood that you're "right." It makes you "one of us" as long as you don't challenge any of "our" ideas and accept everything "we" say at face value as God's Truth (or at least most of it).

All theories are acceptable, probable, and endorsed, as long as they differ from the official theory; one is as true as the next, and immune from attack, and woe unto any who try to attack any of them. It's perfectly okay to look out over all 360 degrees to find the first, second or even tenth shot, and perfectly acceptable - even expected - that we should go on wild goose chases to track down imaginary people and events told by liars, because somewhere out there lies the truth. The more spaghetti we throw against the wall, the more likely at least one strand is going to stick. Meanwhile, let's not worry about finding sticky spaghetti, or eliminating spaghetti that won't.

Just don't anybody be the one who tells me that my spaghetti's slimy, or try to show me how to cook better pasta, or point out that I didn't use boiling water when I made it. If you do, you are a jerk and obviously quite wrong because y'know what?

There are people out there eating it raw and not complaining.

Who the hell is anyone else to tell them that there's a better way?

Or that there's something wrong with the way they're doing things?

BK: I try not to judge people, but I'll read their books and listen to their theories, and I'm really trying to understand your confusion, but I can't. So I can't straighten you out, other than to say that my way is certainly a better way of approaching any murder, rather than the LN way, the CT way or your way, except I'm not trying to convince anyone to follow me, though I apprecaite those who do. I think keeping an open mind, not making rash judgements, determining the evidence and following it to whereever it goes is the proper way.

Sure: believe Ricky White that his dad did it.

BK: I don't believe Ricky White's dad did it. I believe that his dad was in the USMC with Oswald, that they were shipmates to Japan together, that Roscoe worked for ONI and was a Dallas policeman, and his wife (Ricky's mom) worked for and was an acquaintance of Jack Ruby, since there's photos of them together. That's enough for me to sit up and pay attention no matter what you and the debunkers say about them.

And Jimmy Files that he did it.

BK: I don't know that Jimmy Files did anything wrong, though he is in jail for something, isn't he?

And Crenshaw that LBJ clearly had a hand in it.

BK: Crenshaw was there, and so was LBJ, and since LBJ is the Que Bono benefactor, and inherited the Crown, he certainly had a hand in something.

And Hoffman that a guy in a suit did it.

BK: Do the guys in the suits work for the assassins or do the assassins work for the guys in the suits?

And anyone who dares to challenge any of their stories is clearly "against us" because they're certainly not "with us" if they don't believe everything we say. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

BK: Apparently it isn't that clear who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. As Peter said, it is your sympathies that are questionable, and where you stand that isn't clear. I know where I stand and who stands with me.

As one who is "collecting theories" to throw at a grand jury to sort out -

BK: As one who is NOT "collecting theories" to throw at a grand jury to sort out - I know by these stupid statements that you don't know what you are talking about. I discard wrong theories, I don't collect them. And I'm not going to throw anything at a grand jury, that's the prosecutor's job, and he's paid to do it by the citizens of the USA, whether the job is done or not.

the more the merrier ... and probably because we can't sort them out among ourselves -

BK: I sort them out among myself thank you. It's you who seem confused.

it's not surprising that you don't like someone who either detracts from or tries to correct something that might have a modicum of validity to it, or that, with modification, might even be viable (but not in its present form). Or who points out why a particular theory just plain old won't work, gosh darn it.

BK: There you go again, deciding what I like and don't like, what pisses me off and what works and doesn't work. You're the one whose confused and making stupid judgements, not me.

It amazes me in part that nobody seems to consider what the Sixth Floor Museum might be like if it weren't for its curator, or whether materials that it has would remain buried and inaccessible, even unacknowledged, if there wasn't some "balance" in its perspective. Instead, people would like to think that, as resident assassination expert, Gary Mack is and should be running the place and telling the people who fund it - and find the funding for it (oh, and pay his salary, the ultimate sin: shouldn't he be working for free like the rest of us? - where to put their silly ideas about what Dallas County would like to see.

BK: I don't have a problem with Gary, other than it seems to me that he only goes out of his way to correct CTs and not LNs who sometimes make even more blatant mistakes. In fact, we correspond quite frequently and he always answers my questions quickly and factually. I think he has a great job, and I'm glad he does what he does and helps me when he can.

Don't they know it would be more profitable if they had 99 versions of the assassination they could hawk instead of just one?

BK: Gary says that all the time. Well, once it is determined which Conspiracy Theory is correct, and they add it to their program, then they should make more money, but I thought they were a non-profit org and making money wasn't their goal?

It's this sort of stupidity that keeps the "CT armies" from ever conquering the "LN hill." Until that changes, nothing else ever will.

BK: I didn't know it was a battle between CTs and LNs? I thought it was a battle against those who killed JFK by those who want to determine the truth and get some sembalance of justice. The LNs and CTs are just a sideshow in my book.

Edited October 12, 2010 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

Well put, imo, Otto.

While there are many who feel a need to be in a team and go with whatever that particular team professes, imo, the independent researcher, which I think is coming more from a new crop that is not afraid to question the gospel according to whoever, that looks for a synthesis will be a decisive force. Also, imo, this loose grouping seems to me to be more able to be self critical as well which I think is important.

Dukes harsh but very insightful post is, imo, something well worth a careful read.

[Peter McGuire]

Duke has been exposed.

Great work on Oswald's whereabouts though.

[Otto B Cornejo]

John and Jim, thanks for your comments. Jim, I will keep your post in mind as I continue my reading. I have the Douglass book and will get to it soon. I am very encouraged by what others (whom I respect) have had to say about it. Even among CTrs who don't agree on certain points, agree that the Douglass book is very good.

Otto

[Duke Lane]

Bill,

BK: Thank you Peter for answering first, so I know that I'm not alone in thinking those same thoughts. But I think he's directing this verbage at me, without even mentioning my name, so I better respond to him in kind.

I replied to you (or your message), didn't I? Henceforth, so there's no confusion, I'll put "Bill," at the top so you'll know I'm writing to you and not about you. It's pretty simple.

BK: It's not for me to judge Duke, Gary is the one who called me a hipocrite. I just questioned why he only corrects CTs and not the LNs who make similar mistakes, and you are the one who went off the wall by suggesting that he would have to travel to Wisconsin or RI to correct McAdams and Rhan. That's you making the extansional absurdy, not me. And I didn't make up the rules of the game - of chess, go, local laws, the Constitution or grand jury procedures.

OK, so maybe it wasn't you who'd suggested "monitoring" McAdams' and Rahm's classes, which led to the geography thing. I'm still uncertain how you know what Gary - or anybody - doesn't do in the emails that he doesn't send (at least according to your theory).

I can't find either "extansional" or "absurdy" in the dictionary. Please explain.

BK: I've already noted that regardless of what the polls say and what public opinion is, they - the Lone Nutters win if they can get thorugh the next few years without new witness tesimony, new court case, proper oversight of JFK Act in Congress and grand jury review of the evidence as the law provides.

... And, of course, they do lack motivation on that.

BK: As Peter quite rightly noted, the industry standard is the one that has failed to prove itself, and it is not the CT's job or role to find any comprehensive solution, but its the job of the law enforcement, courts, journalsits and historians, which they've thus far failed to do.

I beg to differ.

If those entities aren't doing it, it is their detractors' right and responsibility to bring the things that might well get them to act to the fore.

It is also their right and responsibility to ensure that what they do bring to the fore is comprehensible and comprehensive enough to sink their teeth into and move forward with.

BK: And since I'm neither a LN, who believes Oswald did it because he was a deranged loser, nor a CT with a solution, but rather approach the crime from the perspective of a crime scene investigator (CSI), looking for evidence and witnesses to follow and seeking living suspets to question, I don't have to worry about those things that worry you and seem to piss you off. And as Peter said, you are full of verbage that I just don't get, and your mind seems to be confused ... I try not to judge people, but I'll read their books and listen to their theories, and I'm really trying to understand your confusion, but I can't. So I can't straighten you out, other than to say that my way is certainly a better way of approaching any murder, rather than the LN way, the CT way or your way, except I'm not trying to convince anyone to follow me, though I apprecaite those who do. I think keeping an open mind, not making rash judgements, determining the evidence and following it to whereever it goes is the proper way.

Mea culpa. I was, in fact, confused about why you had such a problem with my elimination of Richard Randolph Carr, among others, as anyone with something worthwhile and viable to add to the "CSI evidence" that you so value.

(continued)