Question for Gary Mack (or anyone)

[Vince Palamara]

Gary came out in the pages of the Third Decade journal and lambasted Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed", saying "he has given history a sham of a book" (I believe it was the November 1993 issue or thereabouts). Does he still feel this way?

[David G. Healy]

Gary came out in the pages of the Third Decade journal and lambasted Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed", saying "he has given history a sham of a book" (I believe it was the November 1993 issue or thereabouts). Does he still feel this way?

more likely a politically IN-correct question....

[John Crites]

He also once said to the effect in the Men Who Killed Kennedy that there "never was a witness who testified to the assassination the exact way the warren report described it" . I asked him via email recently if he still feels that way and the crickets are still chirping.

If there is ever going to be a;

"Men Who Are Still Killing Kennedy", I feel Gary will appear in that doc for sure

[Vince Palamara]

Gary DOES still throw the community a bone from time to time, as with his joint appearance with Blaine, Hill, and Hill's new main squeeze, Lisa McCubbin, wherein Mack talks about the "agent" on the grassy knoll.

[Pamela Brown]

With all due respect, Vince, it has become pretty obvious that once GM was hired by the 6FM he became a voice for the WC defenders, so we can't expect him to say anything that conflicts with the LHO acted alone theory. He does drop little tidbits from time-to-time, but then ends up claiming he has seen 'no hard evidence for conspiracy.' This is just same-old. It's easier to simply accept where he is at now than to try to make sense of what might have seemed serious attempts at honesty in the past, imo. Besides, any CT who has *seen the light* becomes a prized possession of the WC defenders. I would love to be mistaken, but it seems to me GM is very comfortable in that role.

[Ray Mitcham]

If you have well paid job, sometimes you have to bite your tongue and go along with the requirements.

My dad always said never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes,

(because by then, when you've made your judgment, you will be a mile away and you'll have his shoes.)

[Vince Palamara]

hahahahaha )

[Chris Newton]

Gary has told me via email, in the recent past, that he'd welcome hard evidence that Oswald didn't do it because the publicity would make his museum more popular than ever.

My personal opinion is that the Museum was seen by some, the CIA in particular, as an opportunity to try to cement their version of events in stone (and glass). This would explain their assignment of their former Assistant Director to help "design" exhibits.

I would like to believe that the staff was unwitting of this benevolent assistance but comparing it with the history of the CIA's non-cooperation with govt. investigative bodies makes it hard to fathom.

[David G. Healy]

Gary has told me via email, in the recent past, that he'd welcome hard evidence that Oswald didn't do it because the publicity would make his museum more popular than ever.

My personal opinion is that the Museum was seen by some, the CIA in particular, as an opportunity to try to cement their version of events in stone (and glass). This would explain their assignment of their former Assistant Director to help "design" exhibits.

I would like to believe that the staff was unwitting of this benevolent assistance but comparing it with the history of the CIA's non-cooperation with govt. investigative bodies makes it hard to fathom.

from the Warren Commission down to the 6th Floor Mausoleum, they're everywhere... kinda makes you wonder the motive for their help and service...

[Pamela Brown]

Gary has told me via email, in the recent past, that he'd welcome hard evidence that Oswald didn't do it because the publicity would make his museum more popular than ever.

My personal opinion is that the Museum was seen by some, the CIA in particular, as an opportunity to try to cement their version of events in stone (and glass). This would explain their assignment of their former Assistant Director to help "design" exhibits.

I would like to believe that the staff was unwitting of this benevolent assistance but comparing it with the history of the CIA's non-cooperation with govt. investigative bodies makes it hard to fathom.

After all the antics of the press and the brouhaha at DP for the 50th, it seems one question we need definition to is 'just what is so terrible about this event that even fifty years later we are not supposed to reason things through on our own, but are instead supposed to *believe* what *credible* people tell us?"