Nigel Turner's The Guilty Men

[Pat Speer]

As the person responsible for the ACOUSTICS ANALYSIS and BADGEMAN, Gary must

continue to maintain his early posture as pro-conspiracy, else he discredits his own

discoveries completely, leaving him totally in line with Posner. Having been rewarded

for his turnaround with a nice job at the Sixth Floor, he cannot afford to support other

sides of the story. This allows him to maintain a "neutral" position...a pinch of conspiracy

in a bowl full of WCcrap. They have $16,000,000 at stake.

Jack

PS...If there are other things besides the Acoustics and Badgeman Gary disagrees

with Posner on, perhaps he will tell us. I think he also supports the Gordon Arnold

story. What else?

Who put the money up for the museum? Does anyone know? Since well over half the people attending the museum suspect conspiracy, I don't understand why the museum takes the viewpoint that Oswald did it by himself, and that there are other, mostly discredited scenarios as well. I mean, you wouldn't expect the holocaust museum to spend any time presenting the viewpoint that the U.S. government did all it could to prevent the holocaust, would you? Then why must the Sixth Floor Museum sell the position that all was probably on the up-and-up? In my presentation, it is demonstrated, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the HSCA trajectory analysis which "proved" the bullets came from the sniper's nest, was totally incorrect, and quite possibly a deliberate lie. Why wouldn't a museum devoted to the assassination be interested in this evidence? Isn't this the kind of exhibit a museum devoted to the assassination, and specifically the role of the TSBD in the assassination, should be interested in?

Several prominent dinosaur-themed roadside attractions have recently been purchased by creationist groups, and re-worked so that the children playing on the dinosaurs will be led to believe these dinosaurs were quite possibly around only a few thousand years ago, after the fall of Adam and Eve. Perhaps the Sixth Floor Museum serves the same purpose for some group with an agenda. Who is the money behind it?

Edited March 31, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

The museum is a self-supporting tourist attraction.

The "$16,000,000" was a reference to the Zapruder Film, now owned

by the Sixth Floor. That sum was given to the Zapruder family by

Congress to buy silence. The family then donated the copyright to

the museum, though the original filmstrip is still in Washington.

Jack

Edited March 31, 2006 by Jack White

[Pat Speer]

The museum is a self-supporting tourist attraction.

The "$16,000,000" was a reference to the Zapruder Film, now owned

by the Sixth Floor. That sum was given to the Zapruder family by

Congress to buy silence. The family then donated the copyright to

the museum, though the original filmstrip is still in Washington.

Jack

Well. someone put up the money to restore the building, etc. I fail to believe Gary could change the tone of the museum to pro-conspiracy, even if he wanted to. Some group was behind the development of this tourist attraction and the structure of its content. Like the Discovery Channel program, the end came first. In other words, there was a decision to make the museum a surface-only-let's-respect-the-government type of place long before the money was committed. Probably before Gary was even involved. My question is: who made this decision? The Dallas City Council?

While I've defended the museum many times by stating that it's not nearly as bad as it you might expect, I'm kind of stuck on the idea at the moment that it's also not nearly as good as it oughta be. Why? Who is it who's determined that this institution should stay clear of controversial issues? Who is it who's decided that this institution's book store should only carry Oswald-did-it kind of books? Why is that better for business than carrying a wide array of information that may appeal to those who attend the museum?

Edited March 31, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

The museum is a self-supporting tourist attraction.

The "$16,000,000" was a reference to the Zapruder Film, now owned

by the Sixth Floor. That sum was given to the Zapruder family by

Congress to buy silence. The family then donated the copyright to

the museum, though the original filmstrip is still in Washington.

Jack

Well. someone put up the money to restore the building, etc. I fail to believe Gary could change the tone of the museum to pro-conspiracy, even if he wanted to. Some group was behind the development of this tourist attraction and the structure of its content. Like the Discovery Channel program, the end came first. In other words, there was a decision to make the museum a surface-only-let's-respect-the-government type of place long before the money was committed. Probably before Gary was even involved. My question is: who made this decision? The Dallas City Council?

While I've defended the museum many times by stating that it's not nearly as bad as it you might expect, I'm knid of stuck on the idea at the moment that it's also not nearly as good as it oughta be. Why? Who is it who's determined that this institution should stay clear of controversial issues? Who is it who's decided that this institution's book store should only carry Oswald-did-it kind of books? Why is that better for business than carrying a wide array of information that may appeal to those who attend the museum?

I believe THE DALLAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION owns, runs and controls the policies

of the Museum. Composed of mostly philanthropists (read money) whose aim is to protect

"the image of Dallas" while promoting Dallas history of all sorts. It behooves them to

promote the LONE NUT THEORY and not rock the boat...especially if it involves prominent

Texans or Dallasites. WC safe, conspiracies not. It is a private group, not a government

group...though the building also houses COUNTY OFFICES on lower floors, which are unrelated.

I seem to recall that it has become the number one tourist attraction in Dallas...and they

don't want to rock that boat either. Controversy might cause loss of some right wing

backers.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

I believe THE DALLAS HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION owns, runs and controls the policies

of the Museum. Composed of mostly philanthropists (read money) whose aim is to protect

"the image of Dallas" while promoting Dallas history of all sorts. It behooves them to

promote the LONE NUT THEORY and not rock the boat...especially if it involves prominent

Texans or Dallasites. WC safe, conspiracies not. It is a private group, not a government

group...though the building also houses COUNTY OFFICES on lower floors, which are unrelated.

I seem to recall that it has become the number one tourist attraction in Dallas...and they

don't want to rock that boat either. Controversy might cause loss of some right wing

backers.

Jack

Thanks, Jack, That explains a lot.

[John Simkin]

How much did it cost to "turn" Gary Mack? The same question could be asked of Gus Russo.

[Jack White]

How much did it cost to "turn" Gary Mack? The same question could be asked of Gus Russo.

Gary and Gus have a common "best friend"...Dave Perry.

Coincidentally, when Perry moved to Texas from Maryland,

he bought a house next to Buell Wesley Frazier. Another

coincidence. MKULTRA?

Jack

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Gary and Gus have a common "best friend"...Dave Perry.

Coincidentally, when Perry moved to Texas from Maryland,

he bought a house next to Buell Wesley Frazier. Another

coincidence. MKULTRA?

Jack

The guy who sold the house to Dave Perry has to be the key man in this transparently sinister transaction. You should check HIM out, Jack. He could be the key to this whole case.