The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question

[Duke Lane]

(continued from above)

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.

More women than just Geneva White whose husbands - or future husbands - were cops worked for Jack Ruby. More people from the Dallas area were possibly shipside at the same time. The debunkers have never denied their being on the same ship, tho' it may not be all that significant; they've only debunked Ricky's story.

That you are derisive toward those who debunk anything (as if the whole story must remain intact) is where I get the idea of where you get pissed off at them.

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

Yes, but nothing to do with JFK. That he's in jail for something by no means suggests he's in jail for his supposed role in the assassination, or lends any credence whatsoever to that claim. CSI, remember?

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.

Perchance. Just that he didn't do what Crenshaw claimed, it seems, and Crenshaw's concoction has no bearing whatsoever upon LBJ's complicity. So why is it a big deal when someone derides Crenshaw's account?

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.

I think it's very plainly clear. Like "CSI evidence," I'm not "sympathetic" toward anyone or anything except facts. Some people, in my opinion, do a better job of synthesis with them than others, and to that extent perhaps I do sympathize.

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.

Again, mea culpa. This observation is only based upon things you've said in the past to me and about my opinions about people whose stories don't stand up against facts and other observations: you've said that they should be considered by a GJ, and that nobody should distill out the obviously wrong.

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.

Full circle: he provides more help - corrections and criticisms included - to CTers than to LNers, ergo his sympathy "must" lie with LNers. He helps CTers make more correct or cohesive arguments, thus pushing the LNer agenda.

Presuming that you're correct that he doesn't email/PM LNers even when they're blatantly wrong, doesn't it seem like he's letting them make mistakes without correcting them? How does that make him supporting the LN agenda? I just don't follow the logic.

Ah, well: I haven't gotten a check from Gary or Perry in quite a while for defending them (what's up with that, guys?!?), so I'll quit now and maybe be back on payday.

(Oops: now I'm exposed! Everyone will know what I am!)

[Greg Parker]

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 guess in your Dukely way, you're asking how anyone can tell how often Gary emails LNs and what type of email he sends?

If so, my reply would be that we can only go by the evidence provided. When a CT posts about an email from Mack, it is inevitably a "correction" on some fact or other. From my own experience, Gary's "corrections" always go to the LN side and, are only sometimes valid. I do not believe he deliberately misinforms; but by the same token, he does not acknowledge mistakes when shown to be made.

When a LN posts re contact from Mack, it is ineveitably to provide fodder for a debate the poster might be currently involved in. The tipoff to Carlier about the shell pack which he claimed was found among Oswald's possessions is an (albeit extreme) example of his rush to assist LNs without due care for the accuracy of the information.

If you see it (or Gary) differently, so be it. But that is the state of the evidence I have access to.

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

"Extensional absurdity", Duke. And it pains me to say he is right. It is something you at times employ in your replies.

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)

[John Dolva]

I think some are taking Dukes essential message far too personally. He has a style of expressing concepts, see beyond that and I think one might find that many of his comments are very apt and, imo, potentially unifying and not devisive as some seem to be reading them.

edit typos

Edited October 12, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

I'm referring to his controversial post that started this intense discussion. Are you, in your question/s referring to this also?

edit add ok, what do you do with somethng that has been broken?

edit add : a follow up question, if that is so, or rather: a request for a rephrasing of the question/s bearing in mind my comments with qualifiers, in context of those comments. You are asking me specifics on particular issues that may be seen differently in context and therefore may be redundant.

Edited October 12, 2010 by John Dolva

[Don Jeffries]

Duke continues his curious campaign to reign in every allegedly misguided CTer. Like an increasing number of researchers, Duke seems to have an amazing amount of tolerance for LNers- he chastised me about being too harsh on Arlen Specter in a previous thread- yet has adopted a far more rigid stance against those who doubt the official story. Something tells me that, if one of us delved into Gary Mack's background with the same exacting fervor Duke did with Richard Randolph Carr, that he'd be the first one to criticize such tactics.

Bill Kelly is exactly right to point out that Gary Mack only concentrates on what he deems to be "mistakes" or "errors" made by believers in conspiracy. Evidently, the LNers don't make such mistakes. Evidently, they don't need correction from the likes of Gary Mack (or Duke Lane, for that matter). Otto is exactly right to note that Gary Mack is a public figure, perhaps the foremost "celebrity," at this point, in the critical community. As such, he is certainly fair game for criticism, in my view. And Jim D. is exactly right to take Gary to task for his prominent role in the awful Discovery Channel specials.

[Duke Lane]

I think some are taking Dukes essential message far too personally. He has a style of expressing concepts, see beyond that and I think one might find that many of his comments are very apt and, imo, potentially unifying and not devisive as some seem to be reading them.

Do you mind explaining how?

I mean, for instance, who on this site backs the ideas of Files or RIcky White?

OTOH, how many people defend the work of Gary Mack (inseparable from his alter ego Dave Perry)?

The damage that those two have done through their utterly shameful psych warfare for DIscovery Channel is simply deplorable and despicable.

No one can ignore that fact. Gary Mack is making a good living by covering up the true circumstances of President Kennedy's death, and consequently of what happened to America as a result.

How is making excuses for that "unifying" to the critical community?

Jim DiEugenio:

It's fairly clear that many people support only the things they choose to believe, expect everyone to agree, and label those that don't as "plants" who are "against us" (whoever "us" is). To them, whatever contributions people might make are weighed more on who they are as opposed to what the facts are, as if facts very based on personality. Jim DiEugenio, whose articles I happen to read and agree with, only gives valid opinions and professes proven facts; someone else, who I think is a complete jerk and (therefore?) seldom agree with, wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face.

For starters, consider this opinion:

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.

That Roscoe White was ONI is not an independently verified fact, it is part and parcel of Ricky's story, an acknowledged lie. Were it not for Geneva's photo with Jack Ruby, the Dallas Marine-turned-Dallas cop would be no more "of interest" than any of the other Texans or New Orleanians who might have been on board the same big-ass ship at the same time, whom we don't know or seem to care who they might be or even if there were any.

We find the same thing when it comes to people who claim to have witnessed something that seems conspiratorial: those who debunk their stories - especially the longer-standing of them - are derided and their "loyalties" questioned. The stories perpetrated by Ed Hoffman and Richard Randolph Carr are cases in point, and for different reasons they'll be perpetuated because people - including people posting to this thread - choose to believe they're true despite all evidence to the contrary.

Let's step away from Files, White and Crenshaw for the time being, shall we, into another "recipe?"

Indeed, despite photographic evidence that Carr couldn't see a Rambler on North Houston Street beside the TSBD, some people persist in the view that the FBI "altered" his original statement to them that he couldn't see that area, and that despite the fact that, under oath, he lied about his military record (he was not where he claimed to be, and in fact was court martialed for an extended AWOL at the end of WWII, and imprisoned for three years before being allowed to return to civilian life, facts that he conveniently left out of his testimony), his later story should be believed because, y'know, it was under oath.

Oh, and because there was a Rambler on Elm Street, just like Roger Craig said (and which was photographed there), then that "proves" that Carr's lie was "right" after all, and he is thereby exonerated and still "of interest" ... and doubly so because the person who exposed it is a complete jerk, some people don't agree with him, and he wouldn't know a fact if it slapped him in the face.

Jimmy Files may not have much currency here, but don't think that Ed Hoffman doesn't. People choose to believe what they will, regardless of the evidence.

Now, change channels to the Gary Mack Show, which "is simply deplorable and despicable" because some people choose to believe something other than what Mack and Perry proved to be contrary to the "conventional wisdom," e.g., that it's "impossible" for Oswald to have been able to run to from the sixth to the second floor in time to meet Baker & Truly, and that he also "didn't have time" to get from 1026 North Beckley to 10th & Patton in something like twelve minutes.

I too am at odds with the use of a personal fitness trainer (and a world-class marksman) as a stand-in for Lee Oswald, whose physical conditioning - or at least, who stamina - we have no real idea about. You can also gripe about whether the stairwells were of the same exact characteristics of that at the TSBD, but the fact remains that nobody (so far) has found some place that is exactly the same as the TSBD, attempted to make the trip in the requisite time, and found it impossible to do.

(Ditto the walk/run/job/fly to 10th & Patton, something that Jack White and I were going to try at one point, with me - after quadruple bypass surgery - as Oswald, but didn't come to pass. Google Maps, at least, suggests that it's possible.)

Now, it's a fair question whether, if it had been found to have been impossible, THC or anyone else would have aired it or walked away as if the experiment had never taken place, but the fact remains that it is at least as theoretically possible that someone could have done it, as it is theoretically possible that Oswald "couldn't" do it. Actually, the first is a fact, the second is merely an unproven hypothesis, but let's cling to our beliefs where we can by denouncing the messenger(s) rather than the facts.

Ultimately, neither of those particular issues makes one iota of difference simply Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor at 12:30, and so the amount of time it took him to get from wherever he was to the lunch room is utterly meaningless. And the preponderance of evidence - established fact - is that Tippit was dead eight minutes before Oswald maybe could've gotten to 10th & Patton. Those facts set any consideration about either of those timings aside as useless speculation that has no bearing on either murder. So what difference does it make whether or not THC "proved" Oswald could've done either or not?

(Don't you think it's ridiculous that people will argue that Oswald "couldn't have" gotten to 10th & Patton by 1:16, and then continue their argument about the events after the shooting as if he left there after not being able to get there? It's amazing how many people can't or won't grasp the contradiction.)

It's "utterly shameful psych warfare ... [that] is simply deplorable and despicable ... utterly atrocious" because you choose to think it's important, and that the continued belief in the "impossibility" of those actions is somehow central to the proof that someone other than Oswald did the shooting, when in fact it's neither: it's nothing.

But please: use like facts against those you seek to undermine. Any shortcomings in the tests done by/for THC do not prove the "impossibility" of anything. We only think it's impossible, and only because we've been told it's impossible, but not because a one of us have tried it and can prove it's impossible. And it doesn't matter one way or the other anyway.

It's time to stop riding that horse, and set ideology aside.

As to:

The damage that [Mack & Perry] have done through their utterly shameful psych warfare for DIscovery Channel is simply deplorable and despicable. No one can ignore that fact.

Please do try to stop confusing your opinion with "fact." You may be good at what you do, but you're not that good ... which is a fact, even if I'm a a complete jerk who wouldn't know one if it slapped me in the face.

(PS - Gary, did you get my voucher? John McAdams tells me it's payable from Dave's "company" slush fund.)

[Duke Lane]

Duke continues his curious campaign to reign in every allegedly misguided CTer. Like an increasing number of researchers, Duke seems to have an amazing amount of tolerance for LNers- he chastised me about being too harsh on Arlen Specter in a previous thread- yet has adopted a far more rigid stance against those who doubt the official story. ...

Bill Kelly is exactly right to point out that Gary Mack only concentrates on what he deems to be "mistakes" or "errors" made by believers in conspiracy. Evidently, the LNers don't make such mistakes. Evidently, they don't need correction from the likes of Gary Mack (or Duke Lane, for that matter). ....

There is a saying that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." The "extraordinary claim" is that the official story is wrong, and to prove it so requires a certain amount of exactitude. I get beat up when I'm wrong, too, and to back up my bullspit when people doubt it. I do; I have no problem asking others to do the same.

LNers not only don't make mistakes, they can't. After all, they're just re-telling what's already been told. Nothing ground-breaking or earth-shattering in that, is there?

But hey, y'know, they're just people. I don't despise them because their opinions on this topic are different than mine. I guess I'm just more tolerant than other folks. My bad, eh?

[William Kelly]

I think some are taking Dukes essential message far too personally. He has a style of expressing concepts, see beyond that and I think one might find that many of his comments are very apt and, imo, potentially unifying and not devisive as some seem to be reading them.

edit typos

I don't think so. Duke attacked me personally and the things I am trying to do by misrepresenting the evidence I use and throwing spagetti all over the place.

The bottom line is he doesn't know what he's talking about and he can't put what he doesn't know down in a brief, logical fashion so people know what he's talking about.

But he can spell okay.

And if Gary Mack is paying him he's wasting his money.

BK

[John Dolva]

I don't know if it is deliberate or not. I try not to 'read' too much into personal stuff. I found the comments a useful analysis, albeit harshly put. I expected members to see beyond that and use it as a contribution to stop the infighting. Naiive of me.

I still think that if we can find common ground and restrain personal reactions we can indeeed face and fight the real enemy. While you seem to have little time for my contributions, I have for you and applaud the efforts you make. The same goes for just about every member, including Duke. Perhaps it's an expression of the Aussie tendency to defend the underdog and choose to be the target instead.

Ok, imo, there is much too much focus on the easy stuff and an almost universal tendency to regurgitate the same old same old, endlessly playing into the hands of the conspirators and those who have reaped the fruits of the conspiracy. We need to look out (and in at ourselves) but this seems to be a pointless admonission. I took Dukes post in this light and in expressing so, in obviously a cryptic way, become a target.

We will all one day no longer be here. We are supposed to have a measure of wisdom. If this is how things turn out again and again what will earnest newcomers think? Join and participate? It's like a bloody loony bin in here often. So, who will join, who will not join, who will join and fade away, who will join and stay? I dunno. I suspect persons who can fit comfortably with things as they are. Duke smashed a few walls. The response is to stand around and argue about it. I'd say : fix it. Don't take things so personally, don't seek acceptance. Accept yourself. Isn't that enough? (I could go on but afa this discussion goes, I've had my say and however people want to read it, fine, I don't give a s..t . , I'm not going to be a bouncing board for divisive comments whatever my personal opinions are, except to say this, those who can't see the wheat for the chaff: it's their problem to own. There are enough people here who rise above it and are almost ubiversally helpful. If everyone tried it the disruptive forces would and do (when it happens on occasions) stand out and there is no need to point them out, they do a good job of that themselves. bla bla bla ! )

[Duke Lane]

If anyone can make any sense of what Duke is trying to say in the above, please clue me in. It sounds again like one of his endless apologies for Perry and Mack. Which is getting quite tiresome.

I'm sorry you're having trouble keeping up. What is it you don't understand? Your characterizations are off-base, tho' your one-dimensional reaction is quite expected.

What I said was that whatever you think the Discovery Channel episodes proved or disproved is unimportant, irrelevent, and meaningless. It's as much a straw man as the original, and as hobbling to "conspiracy theory" as pulling one leg off a centipede.

If Oswald didn't shoot JFK and wasn't even on the sixth floor at 12:30 - for which there is NO direct evidence - then it doesn't matter if he maybe could have covered the distance from where he wasn't to where he was in any amount of time. Proving that it's not impossible is a far cry from proving that it happened, which is what the WCR tries to argue.

Ditto the Oak Cliff segment: what difference does it make if Oswald could have gotten to 10th & Patton by 1:16 if by that time Tippit had already been dead eight minutes, which is what the preponderance of evidence shows to be the case, no less than four separate and independent data. It's a lead-pipe cinch that nobody (other than a few elite athletes, not including the Discovery Channel fitness guru) can cover 9/10 of a mile in four minutes, so so what if anyone can do it in 12? It's a non-sequitur.

None of this changes the fact that the WC and its stand-ins couldn't or in any case either didn't do it or barely did it, but neverthess averred that Oswald "must have." All it proves is that it's not as "impossible" as our age-old mantra intones; none of it proves that it did happen. The exact same things are true of the firing sequence with a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Are we really to beleive that Perry published and maintained that scurrilous indictment on his web site for months, thereby impugning Wecht's character with all those phony charges--like cadaver sales--yet he never followed the long trial and DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE RESULT!!! If that is the case, I told Len that Perry is either a spook, crazy, or a damn xxxx.

One gathers from this that, whenever something you've said, written or posted is shown not to be entirely accurate - such as that it's "impossible" for Oswald to have covered the distances between the various points A and B - you quickly amend them and admit your quite obvious error? I daresay that not "everyone" followed the Wecht debacle as closely as you and others you know - and a lot of people simply didn't care since it was only a sideshow to the topic at hand - which only means that in your zeal to paint with a broad brush, you omitted or ignored the possibility that it was mere ignorance.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with the question of "who killed JFK?" and the republishing of the prosecution's indictment is no more or less "scurrilious" than the essay you cite other than by the measure that you disagree with one and endorse the other. Opinion is not fact, and nearly all of us have erroneous ones, you included.

It seems as if "all things JFK" (or "all things conspiratorial") are important to you, you follow them, and report (in a completely unbiased manner) on them, and expect everyone to have the same understanding, perception, outlook and opinion of them as you do. After all, you write some pretty convincing prose, and surely it convinces everyone but the most imbecilic and/or undiscerning among us, so how could they not? What is "tiresome" to you must be tiresome to all, and only the most obtuse among us would think any differently. What you say is true, and those you disagree with have, at best, only poorly formed opinions.

People aren't interested in objective facts, but only in those that reinforce what they believe, or as John Barlow put it, "you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know." This, my friend, is exactly what we accuse the WC of, yet we find ourselves doing almost exactly the same: listening and lending credence only to the things we want to hear and trying to discredit the rest (and always succeeding in our own minds).

You might consider this apologia, but that's merely your opinion. If it's wrong, I'm sure one of us is quite certain it would be the first time.

[Jack White]

If anyone can make any sense of what Duke is trying to say in the above, please clue me in.

It sounds again like one of his endless apologies for Perry and Mack. Which is getting quite tiresome.

Sean Murphy exposed the whole phony 6th-second floor traversal a long time ago. And Murphy's mini-essay was used in Bob Fox's wonderful essay exposing Dave Perry at ctka.net, "Deeper into Dave Perry." http://www.ctka.net/2010/perry.html

To actually trust these two jokers with making the 9/10 mile walk from the rooming house to Tenth and Patton in the required time for LHO to be there with Oswald's landlady seeing him at about 1:04 waiting on the wrong corner, Helen Markham in the right position, and Tippit to be coming up the street at a slow crawl in the distance is so ludicrous on its face I can't believe he means it.

No one of any objectivity can trust the Mack--Perry disinformation machine for DIscovery Channel. It is clear by now that they are bought and sold hit men who are hired to perform the same thing that Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite did for CBS in the sixties. The chain of command is Discovery Channel, to the production company (Robert Erickson of Creative Differences) to Mack and Perry. If Mack and Perry did not deliver the WC cover up goods, they would not be on the shows. They do deliver the disinformation, this is why they are on and this is why they get paid.

Now, everyone knows that Mack knows better. All you have to do is read his work prior to his mid-life crisis and conversion by Perry. So what he does is really inexplicable and inexcusable.

Perry is a different kettle of fish in my view. A deeper and darker one.

To give you one example: After Bob Fox was on BOR talking about the above article, Perry shot an e mail to Len Osanic protesting some of the things he said. Len asked him a few questions in reply. One of them was this: Why did you print the entire phony indictment of Cyril Wecht on your web site and maintain it there even after the case was exposed as political and then dropped?

Perry replied with something like: Why do you characterize the entire indictment as "phony"?

Len shot him the local newspaper headlines showing that the prosecutor could not get the jury to legally endorse even one of the forty charges.

Perry replied that when Wecht's son objected to the indictment being maintained on his site, he did not mention this!!!!

When Len showed me this, I just shook my head in disbelief. Are we really to beleive that Perry published and maintained that scurrilous indictment on his web site for months, thereby impugning Wecht's character with all those phony charges--like cadaver sales--yet he never followed the long trial and DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE RESULT!!!

If that is the case, I told Len that Perry is either a spook, crazy, or a damn xxxx.

But this is the kind of thing Lane tries to defend, while distracting us with stuff like FIles and RIcky White.

I consider the Bob Fox story on the various Bledsoe aspects both accurate and very important, as well as his analysis of Dave Perry.

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I am in complete agreement with the Dukester that there is not a shred of CREDIBLE evidence that Lee Oswald ever fired a shot at another human being in his entire life. I think a number of serious researchers have independently reached the same conclusion.

I also believe that Oz had no involvement whatsoever in the conspiracy to murder JFK, but I gather that many researchers feel otherwise. They think Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination at some level. Since I first became involved in assassination research in the eighties, my impression has been that most researchers are in that category, and so from where I sit Gary Mack's views are among the majority, though he may differ with many on the details.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as long as they are civil, and I have always found Gary to be extremely courteous as well as very helpful & informative. I doubt if there is a museum curator in the world who goes so far above and beyond his job description to help researchers, and so I hope that Gary DOES NOT RETIRE soon, because we will all miss him when he is gone. Besides, Gary & I are both Grandfathers, and us Grandads have to stick together.

Gary's problem, IMO, is that he believes that Oz shot JFK, but he cannot think of any motive that Oz might have had. EVERY CRIME HAS A MOTIVE, and there is a clear consensus among those who knew him that Oz admired JFK and what he tried to accomplish.

I have posted a recent exchange I had with Gary on the John Abt thread, and tonight I sent this email to Gary which zones in on Gary's view of Oz. In a telephone conversation Gary told me he believes that Oz was "a nut":

Gary:

Thank you for taking the trouble to dig up your notes on Nichols's TV appearance. you must be more organized than I am (or most people) to be able to find them. I have posted your notes on the Ed. Forum in the thread dealing with John Abt.

When you and I spoke some time ago, you indicated your belief that Oz was a "nut,"

and of course we disagree about that. While I have a very low opinion of Nichols as a lawyer and even as a human being, his statement that Oz appeared "perfectly rational" is corroborated by everyone else who spoke to Oz that weekend, and by my own observations of Oz as he appeared in his short and sweet TV appearances.

Do you have any evidence that Oz was a nut?

As with our previous email conversations, I am posting this on the ED. Forum, in a new thread [edit: I had forgotten about this thread].

Best Wishes to you and family.

Ray.

[Duke Lane]

Two quick rejoinder points (you like to go longer, like someone is paying you by the word.)

Coming from one as typically verbose as I am, I'll take that as a compliment. You're hardly the master of the concise discourse; don't fool yourself.

1. I and others who are in the know understand the timing problems with 10th and Patton and the 6th-second floor traversal. Now, how big is that universe? Maybe 200 people? Maybe three hundred? A bit more?

Mack and Perry do not make their phony specials for me and others. They make them IN SPITE OF ME and others. This is why when I wrote a letter to Erickson requesting a meeting with him about his Ruby special, he never replied. In fact, they are made to circumvent the work of me and others. THat is why they are framed and presented in the way they are e.g. with an expert shot like Yardley instead of a mediocre, or worse, shot like Oswald. This is why the "replica" heads in ITTC are not replicas. This is why Gary Mack lies about the exit and entrances on the skull. This is why Gary Mack also lies about the shot hitting Jackie. This is why he chooses the wrong sniper station in the first place. Etc Etc. All of which you are strangely silent about.

His propaganda pieces are not for me or people like me. They, like Rather's horrendous work in the sixties for CBS, are made to confuse and blind the public. To make the issue out to be inpenetrable muck that no one will ever straighten out. When in fact, the opposite is the case.

I found long ago that reading people's minds causes me headaches, so I stopped. It also gives other people headaches, so maybe you should too. (A little less "me" and a little more "us" would also go a long way in your diatribes, too, even if you don't really mean it. It's not about you and your work.)

You think I'm "strangely silent" about people's motivations and their effects, and I think they're merely a distraction. Worrying or being concerned about or distraught over them does nothing toward solving the puzzle of a murder, especially since we know that nobody we know did the actual shooting and they're not trying to hide anything. What the typically uninformed general public thinks has no more effect on the solution to the case than whether they think global warming is fact or fantasy.

If you think that "propaganda pieces" that "confuse and blind the public" have had an effect on whether people think there was a conspiracy in the murder or not, they've been woefully inadequate: at least according to the polls, most people believe there was one, although I don't think very many people have an informed view of what it might have been. Hell, I don't even think that people who are "informed" know or agree on what it was!

I don't know or care what Gary or Dave's - or McAdams or von Pein's or anyone else's - beliefs or politics or agendas are, but only if their data's any good. I'll form my own opinions about the data, just as you apparently have about Mack and Perry and even me, whether they're correct or not. You clearly think that what you believe is correct, and that's all that matters to you, and you can neither conceive or believe that you might be drastically wrong, either about the data or the people. I'm apparently at least a bit more tolerant about others expressing their beliefs that don't agree with mine than you are. I can also argue with people without resorting to calling them names or questioning their motives, even when I know that they're completely and utterly wrong (which most of them are).

Truth be told, if you had the same access to mass media as Gary does, wouldn't you be telling your version of the truth - and it is only a "version" after all! - just as loudly as he's (according to you) proclaiming his? C'mon, tell me a lie and say you wouldn't.

Otherwise, quit whining and just solve the freakin' case, because, y'know, until somebody does - conclusively - then it is just "[an] inpenetrable muck that no one will ever straighten out." And it's not just the likes of Mack & Perry (so you say) that are keeping it that way: many venerable "critics" are just as "guilty."

2. Your second point about Perry and the Wecht indictment is off the wall. I take it to mean that you are saying that when one posts a clearly politically motivated and clearly scurillious indictment, one meant to smear a man's good name, then that person has no responsibility to follow up and see if the indictment had any real merit it to it at all? Hit and run is Ok with you.

What would it have taken Perry to check in on this occasionally? A Google search every two weeks, lasting maybe four minutes or so? When one weighs that against the gleeful opportunity to muck up a prominent critic's reputation, a preoccupation of Perry's, it was a no brainer for the former insurance adjustor.

And you have no problem with that.

Take it any way you'd like. You really are hooked on "the motivation thing," including in the above not only Perry's, but the DA who sought - and got - the indictment as well, at (we should note) considerable risk to his own reputation.

Presumably because you agree with and perhaps personally like Cyril, you consider the indictment as being "meant to smear a man's good name," but you don't or can't or won't see that the kind of things you're saying and endorsing about Gary Mack and Dave Perry are likewise "smearing a man's good name," presumably because you don't agree with or like them and don't apparently think they could possibly have "good names!"

Don't you think there are some folks out there who consider your exchange here nothing less than a "gleeful opportunity to muck up a prominent critic's reputation, a preoccupation" of yours? Or is that okay if you don't consider the mucker-upper (or -ee) to be a "critic?"

You have an impossibly small looking glass, Alice.

But there I go reading minds again, trying to discern your motivations and acting as if I'm right about them when I could very well be wrong. It would be interesting to see if I'm right thinking that you cannot bring yourself to say the same thing about yourself. You can cut and paste my words if it'll make it any easier....

Carnac out. (What's the word-count?)

Edited October 15, 2010 by Duke Lane

[Glenn Viklund]

I don't know or care what Gary or Dave's - or McAdams or von Pein's or anyone else's - beliefs or politics or agendas are, but only if their data's any good. I'll form my own opinions about the data, just as you apparently have about Mack and Perry and even me, whether they're correct or not. You clearly think that what you believe is correct, and that's all that matters to you, and you can neither conceive or believe that you might be drastically wrong, either about the data or the people. I'm apparently at least a bit more tolerant about others expressing their beliefs that don't agree with mine than you are. I can also argue with people without resorting to calling them names or questioning their motives, even when I know that they're completely and utterly wrong (which most of them are).

Duke,

You get a standing ovation for this - very, very well put. Without pointing any fingers in this particular discussion, vs yourself or Jim DiEugenio, if this approach was to become more generally embraced on both sides of the isle, I have no doubt things would, at some point, move forward.

[Evan Burton]

CAN I PLEASE REMIND EVERYONE THAT GARY MACK IS A MEMBER OF THIS FORUM IN GOOD STANDING, AND CALLING HIM A xxxx IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE ABIDE BY ALL FORUM RULES WHEN DISCUSSING GARY.

THANK YOU.