The Curious Case Of Gary Mack: A Question

Pat Speer · September 2, 2010

As a museum, the 6th Floor Museum does not exist in a vacuum. It is a city institution and has to live in the opinion atmosphere of that city.

IMO, the above statement made by Josiah Thompson is a very odd one. (And an inaccurate one, too.)

Why in the world would a public museum necessarily be obliged to "live in the opinion atmosphere" of the city on which soil it rests? That makes no sense to me at all.

For one thing, a large number of visitors to Gary Mack's Sixth Floor Museum come from outside the city of Dallas each year. I'm not sure of what the percentages are, but I would imagine that well over 60% of the visitors to the Museum each year are from outside of Dallas . And probably more. It only stands to reason that most of the Museum's visitors are likely tourists from out of town.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain that Gary Mack must be doing a lot of things right at the Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza, and that's because the conspiracists seem to hate his guts (and his Museum) with a passion. Therefore, Gary's GOT to be doing something right.

I agree with Josiah in that--let's get real people--the powers that be in Dallas would sooner burn the Sixth Floor Museum to the ground than let it become a museum where hardened CTs would feel welcome. This is a back-assward city in a back-assward state where restaurants proudly display signs saying "Hippies must use the side door" and similarly stupid stuff. It is the state that propelled one of the most dangerously stupid men in history towards the presidency, and nearly destroyed this country. It is a state where the current governor plays to the crowd that Texas has a special relationship with the U.S., whereby it can leave at any moment, knowing full well that the state of Texas has soaked up more Federal funds per capita than any other state in the union and, in all probability, would have to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars to the Federal Government should it ever try to leave.

I live in Simi Valley, CA, site of the Ronald Reagan Library and gravesite. The local pols here worship at the feet of Ronald Reagan. If say, after Nancy Reagan dies, the Library reverts to the control of the National Archives, and some ambitious curator decides to do an exhibit outlining Reagan's clear and deliberate lies to the public regarding Iran-Contra, the local pols would have a fit. They'd start a letter-writing campaign to get the curator fired. If that failed, they'd try to shut it down.

So I'm totally sympathetic to the plight of Gary and the Sixth Floor Museum. The Museum's not so bad, considering...

As stated earlier, my problem with Gary comes from his TV appearances and role as a gatekeeper. He started looking into the case in the mid-70's, saw a few things he thought were suspicious, and has, apparently, never noticed anything suspicious in the intervening 30 years that he thought worthy of public attention. While he claims to be a CT, I've never heard of him sending an email to an LN, telling him he'd overlooked something that was highly suspicious. Instead, his email allowance is, from all appearances, used up on CTs, telling them most everything has an innocent explanation.

I've received a number of emails from him over the years, some helpful, some not. I've been hard on him at times, and have defended him at times, to the point where some have called me a Gary Mack apologist. But I've never received an email from him where he offered any evidence suggesting a conspiracy. At one point, we had a discussion regarding the backyard photos, and I got him to acknowledge that members of the DPD have long held that they made copies of the photos for themselves from prints found among Oswald's possessions, but that the HSCA photography panel claimed these "copies" were in fact first generation prints, and that the DPD had thereby "lost" not one but two of the three negatives to these photos. I then asked him who he believed. If he said he believed the HSCA then it would mean he didn't believe these DPD officers, whose stories were featured in a book heavily pushed at the Sixth Floor Book Store, First Day Evidence. If he said he believed the DPD officers, on the other hand, it would mean he didn't trust the competence of the HSCA photography panel, who'd confirmed the photos as genuine.

He never responded. I took from this that he would never, under any circumstances, share any information which could be used to cast doubt on the honesty and integrity of the DPD and/or the competence of the government's experts. I hope to be proved wrong. But I'm not holding my breath...

Edited September 2, 2010 by Pat Speer

Jack White · September 2, 2010

Regardless of what I conclude regarding Gary's stance it will not be personal with me, as it is for some. I have not invested my time and passion in a manner that makes these things take on a very serious tone. Maybe it should and maybe it will for me one day. But I will say this, after reading Dr. Thompson's comments above

Josiah said: The war against Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum is just silly.

On one hand it does seem silly to get upset and angry to a degree that we lash out and those we don't agree with. But on the other hand we are dealing with an event that changed the course of history and affected lives around the globe, for the worse. And the facts of this event, the truth, as some believe, have been covered up, by people who are still in power. In that light it seems we can never be passionate enough in our search for the truth.

Otto.

The war against the 6th Floor Museum is silly. The Museum is a Dallas institution and as such is run by a board of Dallas citizens. As a museum, it sees its task as making available to visitors to the Museum a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts surrounding the assassination while placing the event in mid-20th Century history. As far as I know, it tries to stay away from taking a position with respect to any of the many controversies and opinions that swirl around the event. You can declare war on the Museum but your declaration has no impact. That's why it's silly. As a Dallas civic museum it will continue to do what it's doing independently of what you say about it. To expect a city museum to take controversial stands with respect to an event that happened in the city is illogical. It is what it is and Gary Mack is not responsible for that fact.

Once again, I fail to see why some need to vent their spleen at Gary Mack. He has helped innumerable people with their research independent of what tribe they come from. That's his job and he does it really well.

JT

Tink says: making available to visitors to the Museum a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts surrounding the assassination

...so I take it that he now believes that the official WC story is "a good factual presentation of the confirmed facts"?

Jack

Dean Hagerman · September 2, 2010

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

The Berkley Medallion paperback edition of SSID from 1976 replaces the Zapruder frame sketches with real Zapruder stills

I own both the hardcover and paperback, that way I never touch my hardcover edition and if I need to look up something I used the paperback

In fact I do the same thing with many of the books I own on the assassination as I am a book collector

Otto B Cornejo · September 2, 2010

When I started this thread I thought the name, "The Curious Case..." was a little flashy or dramatic. After reading the PM's from Gary Mack and reviewing all the posts and links here I have to say I think the title fits perfectly. His change from hard core CTer to whatever you might categorize him now is rather startling. Reading his PM's he sounds confident in what he believes, which seems to be a mix of things. And yet one can't help thinking there are conflicts deep inside (or maybe not so deep), something of a war between what he believes privately and what he espouses publicly. Like Pat I have some sympathy for his position as curator of The Sixth Floor Museum, and what he is compelled to represent. It's either that or he is out on the grass, as Jim said. I know many of you think my sympathy is wasted. More than a few of you feel that his position is duplicitous. If most of what has been written here is true, I can see why you feel that way.

A curious case indeed.

Ultimately it is a matter of what "story" about the assassination gets the most exposure. Because I am a CTer I believe that every effort must be made to combat the Lone Nut/Warren Commission conclusions. So, contrary to what Dr Thompson feels about the silly war over The Sixth Floor Museum (this is not the same as personal attacks on individuals, which I don't condone) I think it's important to voice ones opinion and perhaps make change in places where change is needed.

Thanks again to everyone who has responded in this thread, it has been an enlightening, if somewhat dizzying journey.

Otto.

Dean Hagerman · September 2, 2010

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

The Berkley Medallion paperback edition of SSID from 1976 replaces the Zapruder frame sketches with real Zapruder stills

I own both the hardcover and paperback, that way I never touch my hardcover edition and if I need to look up something I used the paperback

In fact I do the same thing with many of the books I own on the assassination as I am a book collector

Cheers, Dean,

I never knew that! I might see if I can get a used copy at reasonable price...

Good luck Martin, even used paperback copies of SSID in bad shape sell for alot on Amazon and Ebay

Michael Hogan · September 2, 2010

Good luck Martin, even used paperback copies of SSID in bad shape sell for alot on Amazon and Ebay

For used books it's hard to beat ABE Books. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=josiah+thompson&sts=t&tn=six+seconds+in+dallas&x=85&y=17

You can use advanced search, type JFK assassination in keywords and rank from high price to low or vice versa if you're

looking for bargains. http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?bi=0&bsi=90&bx=off&ds=30&kn=JFK+assassination&recentlyadded=all&sortby=1&x=90&y=16&prevpage=1

Obviously, some sellers are asking ridiculous prices but you can search by price range and sometimes come across bargains.

I once got a hardcover first edition of Accessories After the Fact for ten dollars!

Dean Hagerman · September 2, 2010

I once got a hardcover first edition of Accessories After the Fact for ten dollars!

Wow!

AATF hardcover 1st Edition for $10.00 is the steal of the decade!

Great find Michael

Josiah Thompson · September 3, 2010

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

Martin Hinrichs · September 3, 2010

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.

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.

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?

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

Otto B Cornejo · September 3, 2010

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.

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.

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?

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

Martin, thank you for your concern regarding staying on topic and your kind words. Threads tend to take on a life of their own sometimes, which can be interesting. So no worries. Thanks again.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Otto B Cornejo

Pat Speer · September 3, 2010

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.

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.

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?

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

Martin, if you're really interested in the eyewitness statements, you may wish to check out chapters 5-9 at patspeer.com, in which I've built upon, expanded and updated Thompson's inventory of the statements. As you've noted, from reading these statements it's clear that the first shot did not miss, and was fired after after Z-160. It's also quite clear that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Enjoy.

Martin Hinrichs · September 3, 2010

Martin, thank you for your concern regarding staying on topic and your kind words. Threads tend to take on a life of their own sometimes, which can be interesting. So no worries. Thanks again.

Thanks Otto.

Do post more times. It increases the level of the forum.

Martin

Martin Hinrichs · September 3, 2010

Martin, if you're really interested in the eyewitness statements, you may wish to check out chapters 5-9 at patspeer.com, in which I've built upon, expanded and updated Thompson's inventory of the statements. As you've noted, from reading these statements it's clear that the first shot did not miss, and was fired after after Z-160. It's also quite clear that the last two shots were closer together than the first two. Enjoy.

Thats really interesting Pat. You also believe the first shot was fired after Z#160.

That the last two were bunched together is supportet by so many witnesses.

The LN'er say we are wrong but Lee Bowers and Robert McNeil sharing one thing:

They were both behind close glasses. Lee Bowers behind his Tower glasses and McNeil inside the press bus

couldn't hear echoes.

Thats a fact.

Thanks for your hint. I'am going to read your chapters. Most of them i've done.

best

Martin

Edited September 3, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs

Josiah Thompson · September 4, 2010

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']