Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor Museum

[Peter McGuire]

Post moved from http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8401&st=15 to keep threads on topic:

===================================================================

Just to tell you my own personal experience with Mack, as soon as I started posting on three forums he pelted me with email "correcting" my posts. I saw Wim's thread on Mack at his site so I was on guard. I asked Mack for evidence of his first allegation to me, was informed that I'd have to travel to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas to see it, and that was all I needed to know. I've since received a few emails from him "correcting" my posts but I ignore them. He clearly patrols multiple forums for newbies that might be guillible.

Since you've referenced this situation, I for one would be very interested to know exactly what your posts detailed which prompted Gary Mack to respond to you. Do you mind sharing what your post stated, how he corrected you, and then what his subsequent allegations were?

I realize this could all have happened long ago and it's understandable if you no longer have the info. Likewise if you'd rather not share the substance of the encounter.

I'll supply that info Mark. Normally I wouldn't post a private email without permission, but in this case it's someone I mistrust repeatedly sending me unsolicited and unwanted email. I assume he does this with many people so it might as well be out in the open. This is gonna be a long thread though.

================================

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's post 1 he emailed me about, from jfklancer:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Myra Bronstein Thu Oct-26-06 06:08 PM

Member since Oct 20th 2006

95 posts Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list

#52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

In response to In response to 3

>...

>Another lapse was that DPD Homicide Captain Fritz testified

>to the WC that someone told him outside his office in the

>hallway that Oswald had a room in Oak Cliff and gave him the

>address. This was while Oswald had just been taken to Fritz's

>office. It was later learned that this address information did

>not come from Oswald or the arresting officers. There was no

>effort to learn how the source knew where Oswald had a room.

>...

>

>Regards, Charles

Captain Fritz was a wee bit of a xxxx.

"In his 1975 book Forgive My Grief Vol. III, author Penn Jones wrote, "Roger Craig was a great American."

When Jones wrote those words, Craig, a former Deputy in the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, had recently died by his own hand. It was Jones' contention that "...the treatment Craig received after John F. Kennedy was assassinated...caused his death."

Roger Dean Craig was an important witness to the JFK assassination, and his testimony is highly indicative of conspiracy. By now his story has been told many times by many different writers. But it appears there are those still attempting to smear Roger Craig's name and discount what he reported seeing on November 22, 1963.

...

Craig heard an arrest had been made in connection with the shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit. As he told the Warren Commission, "I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect. And--uh--they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz's office." Craig took one look at the Tippit shooting suspect and said it was the same man he had seen flee the TSBD.

That suspect, of course, was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. Craig. Captain Fritz then asked him about the--uh--he said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"--I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."<5>

...

Unfortunately for Roger Craig, Captain Fritz said the incident in his office never happened.

Mr. Ball. Did ever come into your office and talk to you in the presence of Oswald?

Mr. Fritz. In the presence of Oswald?

Mr. Ball. Yes.

Mr. Fritz. No, sir; I am sure he did not."

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_i...sue/rcraig.html

A photograph turned up later showing Craig in Fritz's office when Oswald was there, proving that Fritz had lied. I think the photo is shown in "On the Trail of the Assassins," by Jim Garrison.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's the thread with his first email to me and my replies:

-----------------------------------------------------------

#52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

gmack@jfk.org

to me

More options Oct 26

Myra,

The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that picture.

Gary Mack

Reply Forward Invite gmack@jfk.org to Gmail

myra bronstein

to gmack

More options Oct 26

Thanks Gary.

Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the

Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas?

Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered

President Kennedy, and had no accomplices?

I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer

forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me?

Myra

- Show quoted text -

On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote:

>

> Myra,

>

> The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

>

> So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by that picture.

>

> Gary Mack

>

Reply Forward

Gary Mack

to me

More options Oct 26

-----Original Message-----

From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###]

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM

To: Gary Mack

Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

Thanks Gary.

Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the Sixth

Floor Museum in Dallas?

GM: Yes.

Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered

President Kennedy, and had no accomplices?

GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA acoustics

evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald pulled the

trigger.

I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer

forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me?

GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to

handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some

information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do

with it what you want.

Gary Mack

- Show quoted text -

Myra

On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote:

>

> Myra,

>

> The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer

Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still

survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

>

> So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by

that picture.

>

> Gary Mack

>

Reply Forward Invite Gary to Gmail

myra bronstein

to Gary

More options Oct 26

Case Closed then.

You can spare me the disinformation in the future.

I'll let you get back to your jobs.

Myra

- Show quoted text -

On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote:

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###]

> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM

> To: Gary Mack

> Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

>

> Thanks Gary.

>

> Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the Sixth

> Floor Museum in Dallas?

>

> GM: Yes.

>

>

> Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered

> President Kennedy, and had no accomplices?

>

> GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA acoustics

> evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald pulled the

> trigger.

>

>

> I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer

> forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me?

>

> GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to

> handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some

> information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do

> with it what you want.

>

> Gary Mack

>

>

> Myra

>

>

> On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote:

> >

> > Myra,

> >

> > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer

> Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still

> survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

> >

> > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed by

> that picture.

> >

> > Gary Mack

> >

>

>

Reply Forward

Gary Mack

to me

More options Oct 26

Which disinformation would that be?

-----Original Message-----

From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###]

- Show quoted text -

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:51 PM

To: Gary Mack

Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

Case Closed then.

You can spare me the disinformation in the future.

I'll let you get back to your jobs.

Myra

On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote:

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: myra bronstein [mailto:myra.bronstein@###]

> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM

> To: Gary Mack

> Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

>

> Thanks Gary.

>

> Just to be sure I know who I'm talking to, are you curator of the

> Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas?

>

> GM: Yes.

>

>

> Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered

> President Kennedy, and had no accomplices?

>

> GM: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA

> acoustics evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald

> pulled the trigger.

>

>

> I'm curious, how come you didn't post your opinion in the JFK Lancer

> forum where the discussion is taking place in addition to emailing me?

>

> GM: I don't post on newsgroups for there isn't enough spare time to

> handle the inquiries and nut cases that result. I gave you some

> information that you otherwise would have had no way of knowing. Do

> with it what you want.

>

> Gary Mack

>

>

> Myra

>

>

> On 10/26/06, gmack@jfk.org <gmack@jfk.org> wrote:

> >

> > Myra,

> >

> > The photo in question was shot by Dallas Morning News photographer

> Jack Beers and it was taken on Saturday. The negative strip still

> survives, I have seen it, and it is unquestionably a Saturday picture.

> >

> > So Fritz wasn't lying after all. Craig's story cannot be confirmed

> > by

> that picture.

> >

> > Gary Mack

> >

>

>

Reply Forward Invite Gary to Gmail

myra bronstein

to Gary

More options Oct 26

On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote:

> Which disinformation would that be?

"The photo in question was shot...on Saturday.

...

The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is

unquestionably a Saturday picture."

I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on

Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)?

Reply Forward

Gary Mack

to me, Gary

More options Oct 26

Of course I have evidence - that's why I wrote what I did.

As you may already know, all Friday pictures of Oswald show him wearing the dark shirt he was arrested in; after the midnight press conference, cops took the shirt, so later Saturday pictures show him wearing only a t-shirt.

The strip shows Oswald in one or two frames wearing just the t-shirt. One of the other frames shows Marina arriving at Fritz' office, and she didn't go there until Saturday afternoon around 1.

The Craig photo is also on that same strip and, while he was inside the Homicide and Robbery Bureau office, the picture cannot be used to place him IN Fritz' office. Fritz' small room was one of several inside that office. The office can be seen behind Craig - it's the room with the Venetian blinds rolled down.

How do I know all this? The photographer's widow loaned some contact sheets to The Sixth Floor Museum for reference and that's what I studied. No researchers have ever seen that material, so that's why I took the time to let you know about it.

Gary Mack

----- Original Message -----

From: myra bronstein

To: Gary Mack

Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:38 PM

Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

- Show quoted text -

On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote:

> Which disinformation would that be?

"The photo in question was shot...on Saturday.

...

The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is

unquestionably a Saturday picture."

I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on

Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)?

Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Gary to Gmail

myra bronstein

to Gary

More options Oct 26

Well that's helpful Gary. Thank you.

I should have been more precise though.

Do you have evidence that you can share so that I can see it with my

own eyes and draw my own conclusions? That would be extremely

helpful. If it's a demonstrable fact that the picture was taken on

Saturday then I was unknowingly spreading disinformation, which I

don't want to do.

Myra

- Show quoted text -

On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <gmackjfk@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>

> Of course I have evidence - that's why I wrote what I did.

>

> As you may already know, all Friday pictures of Oswald show him wearing the

> dark shirt he was arrested in; after the midnight press conference, cops

> took the shirt, so later Saturday pictures show him wearing only a t-shirt.

>

> The strip shows Oswald in one or two frames wearing just the t-shirt. One

> of the other frames shows Marina arriving at Fritz' office, and she didn't

> go there until Saturday afternoon around 1.

>

> The Craig photo is also on that same strip and, while he was inside the

> Homicide and Robbery Bureau office, the picture cannot be used to place him

> IN Fritz' office. Fritz' small room was one of several inside that office.

> The office can be seen behind Craig - it's the room with the Venetian blinds

> rolled down.

>

> How do I know all this? The photographer's widow loaned some contact sheets

> to The Sixth Floor Museum for reference and that's what I studied. No

> researchers have ever seen that material, so that's why I took the time to

> let you know about it.

>

> Gary Mack

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: myra bronstein

> To: Gary Mack

> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:38 PM

> Subject: Re: #52042, "RE: Dallas PD - In on a Conspiracy?"

>

>

> On 10/26/06, Gary Mack <GMack@jfk.org> wrote:

> > Which disinformation would that be?

>

> "The photo in question was shot...on Saturday.

> ...

> The negative strip still survives, I have seen it, and it is

> unquestionably a Saturday picture."

>

> I don't suppose you have evidence that the picture was taken on

> Saturday (presumably Nov 23, 1963)?

>

>

Reply Forward

Gary Mack

to me

More options Oct 27

Sorry, that material was returned long ago. I may have a photo copy of the sheets, but since the Museum doesn't own the images, I can't make copies for others. But I can certainly show them to anyone who stops by.

It's interesting to me that the photo has been used since at least 1976 as "proof" that Craig was in Fritz' office. And yet either the proponents of the claim either didn't bother to learn WHEN the picture was taken or purposely misrepresented it's actual date.

Things like that are what made me realize that I needed to check out everything, and to look at all sides of the various issues.

Here's an example. Many books talk about the scope of Oswald's rifle being mounted to the side and couldn't be aligned accurately. But the same books usually don't mention that, at those distances, the scope isn't necessary and would, in fact, slow down the shooter.

So what kind of people/books misrepresent such things? The only answer I can figure out is they are either dishonest or ignorant about the details.

Gary Mack

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here's his email to me which I ignored:

-----------------------------------------------------------

#52160, "RE: FBI Security in Dealey Plaza"

gmack@jfk.org

to me

More options Oct 29

Myra, where do you get such bad information?

[qoute]Rybka wasn't assigned to red (ride)in the SS car, he was supposed to have stayed at Love Field, and he did.

If you'll look at a clear version of the video, not that awful kinescope from YouTube, you'll see that he was smiling. His gesture was one of humor because he was left behind....as planned.

Gary Mack

[/qoute]

"The Smiling Secret Service Agent" , yea right. The guy shrugged his shoulders three times because everything was alright? They had more important things to do at Love Field? ( like wait for the dead President's clothes?) That "smile" by the way, looks bogus and does not match Rybka's appearance in the film. It is an absolute insult to expect us to believe this nonsensical explanation.

It is was it appears to be. The Stand Down of protection of the President of the United States, minutes before his death. It is not a theory, it is historical fact; captured on film.

It can not be explained away.

Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka, shrugging his shoulders after being called off his normal duties jogging beside, and riding behind the President.

[Myra Bronstein]

"The Smiling Secret Service Agent" , yea right. The guy shrugged his shoulders three times because everything was alright? They had more important things to do at Love Field? ( like wait for the dead President's clothes?) That "smile" by the way, looks bogus and does not match Rybka's appearance in the film. It is an absolute insult to expect us to believe this nonsensical explanation.

It is was it appears to be. The Stand Down of protection of the President of the United States, minutes before his death. It is not a theory, it is historical fact; captured on film.

It can not be explained away.

Secret Service Agent Henry Rybka, shrugging his shoulders after being called off his normal duties jogging beside, and riding behind the President.

I thought it was a real howler Peter.

Where did that "photo" come from?

[John Simkin]

Myra Bronstein: Are you personally of the opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy, and had no accomplices?

Gary Mack: Everyone who knows me knows I personally believe the HSCA acoustics evidence of two gunmen. All known hard evidence says Oswald pulled the trigger.

This has been the official CIA view since the 1970s. Based on the documentation provided by the CIA the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to a similar conclusion. This was reflected in the book, The Plot to Kill the President (1981). Written by G. Robert Blakey, the HSCA’s chief counsel and Richard Billings, the book argued that because of the acoustic evidence, they believed that Oswald had a fellow conspirator in the assassination of JFK.

Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows:

(1) Oswald alone did shoot and kill JFK, as the Warren Commission deduced.

(2) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

(3) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

(4) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by JFK's anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias, and Teamster racketeer James Hoffa. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK.

This has remained the strategy of those involved in CIA disinformation. However, the release of classified documents as a result of the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) has exposed the way the CIA deceived the HSCA. This is what G. Robert Blakey had to say about his original report and book on the case: "I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee.... I was not told of George Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE. That the Agency would put a 'material witness' in as a 'filter' between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm

As we learnt recently, the CIA will still not release documents about Joannides relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjeffersonmorley.htm

It would be interesting to know if Blakey was ever told about Billings CIA background. For example, the role he played in the anti-Castro Cuban activities in 1963 and the smearing of Jim Garrison in 1967.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbillings.htm

I would like to ask Gary Mack some questions:

(1) Does he agree with G. Robert Blakey that the CIA is not to be believed as a result of the George Joannides deception?

(2) What does he make of the Gaeton Fonzi account of the HSCA investigation (The Last Investigation)? Unlike the book by Blakey, he exposes the way the CIA prevented a full investigation of the assassination.

(3) Is he concerned by the failure of the CIA to release so many documents related to the JFK assassination.

(4) Why is he so reluctant to stock any book at his museum that puts forward a view that is different from its own?

[John Simkin]

Gary Mack has sent me a reply via email:

GM: Here are my PERSONAL opinions:

(1) Does he agree with G. Robert Blakey that the CIA is not to be believed as a result of the George Joannides deception?

GM: Absolutely!

(2) What does he make of the Gaeton Fonzi account of the HSCA investigation (The Last Investigation)? Unlike the book by Blakey, he exposes the way the CIA prevented a full investigation of the assassination.

GM: It's an interesting read, as are the accounts of HSCA staffers and others who played a part in its efforts.

(3) Is he concerned by the failure of the CIA to release so many documents related to the JFK assassination.

GM: Certainly.

(4) Why is he so reluctant to stock any book at his museum that puts forward a view that is different from its own?

GM: I work for a history museum, not a theory museum. That's why JFK forums are so helpful to me, for they expose the absurd theories and keep me from being misled by the many charlatans out there.

Here are some extra questions:

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

[Michael Hogan]

Here are some extra questions (for Gary Mack):

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

There's a vast difference between this forum and others on the Web. Sometimes people post on both sites and it's fascinating to see how the discourse quickly deteriorates there. Sometimes it dips a bit here too (same people) but this site is light years beyond.

[Myra Bronstein]

Here are some extra questions (for Gary Mack):

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

The Education Forum is indeed fortunate to have a moderator of the calibre of John Simkin. Due in large part to John's efforts, this part of the Forum has attracted many intelligent individuals - researchers, authors and truth-seekers. John has an encyclopedic knowledge of an incredibly wide variety of subjects. In addition, he demonstrates an enquiring and open mind, as evidenced in virtually all of his posts.

Is John always right? Probably not. Is he ever mistaken? I suppose the answer is yes. But he remains one of the most intelligent and informed and level-headed individuals I have ever encountered anywhere. I tip my hat to John for his involvement and his efforts.

John Simkin does not need my flattery or praise. His work speaks for itself. However, as I have in the past, I just want to thank John for the way he conducts himself here. I want to thank him for all the information he shares, and for all I have learned from him.

To me, John fits the description of an Educator. But more importantly, he fits the description of a man that would make a trusted friend and an invaluable ally.

Not to be a ditto head...much, but Michael said it perfectly so... ditto.

[Bill Miller]

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

The above question shoud be addressed for as most anyone should know by now, Gary believes there WAS a conspiracy in the murder of America's 35th President, thus the Musuem DOES NOT carry books that they only agree with. If this were the case, then that would mean that only books claiming a conspiracy in JFK's asassination would be sold there and this simply is not the case.

Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

Gary Mack has sent me a reply via email:

GM: Here are my PERSONAL opinions:

(1) Does he agree with G. Robert Blakey that the CIA is not to be believed as a result of the George Joannides deception?

GM: Absolutely!

(2) What does he make of the Gaeton Fonzi account of the HSCA investigation (The Last Investigation)? Unlike the book by Blakey, he exposes the way the CIA prevented a full investigation of the assassination.

GM: It's an interesting read, as are the accounts of HSCA staffers and others who played a part in its efforts.

(3) Is he concerned by the failure of the CIA to release so many documents related to the JFK assassination.

GM: Certainly.

(4) Why is he so reluctant to stock any book at his museum that puts forward a view that is different from its own?

GM: I work for a history museum, not a theory museum. That's why JFK forums are so helpful to me, for they expose the absurd theories and keep me from being misled by the many charlatans out there.

Here are some extra questions:

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

John, why do you think the CIA "pushed" the HSCA's "mafia probably did it" conclusion on Blakey? Because Billings agreed? Do you have any evidence that Billings was, in fact, doing the CIA's bidding? There is no evidence that the CIA had any influence over the expert testimony of the acoustic experts. Similarly, there is no evidence that the CIA pushed Blakey to point his finger at the mob, as all accounts--including Fonzi's--insist that it was Blakey himself who did the bulk of the pointing.

I think it is a mistake to think Billings had undue influence over Blakey. Billings while at Life was one among many who threw themselves into the anti-Castro cause. He later convinced Life to help FUND Garison's investigation. When Garrison began wavering between bad guys..one day it was the Cubans, one day it was LBJ, the next it was a homosexual thrill-kill cult, and then the next it was the CIA and/or military industrial complex, while largely ignoring the elephant in the room, the New Orleans underworld, Billings and Life jumped ship. While I am sympathetic to Garrison, I think it is important to also understand Billings' viewpoint. If he'd stood by Garrison, his own credibility as well as Life Magazine's would have suffered. Keep in mind that it was Life that had helped awaken the sleeping beast of who-did-it in the first place, through its landmark article A Matter of Reasonable Doubt.

It's also a great mistake to assume that anyone who's ever done business with an agency automatically becomes their loyal servant. Americans aren't wired that way. In short, I see no reason to believe the CIA pushed the dictabelt evidence or the "mafia did it" angle on the HSCA. If anything, they would have pushed for a single-assassin, lone-nut, conclusion. Such a conclusion would have helped them avoid the question of just exactly who Oswald was working for, and if Trafficante, with whom the CIA had admittedly collaborated on murder attempts, was involved. I believe, therefore, that the HSCA "experts" mistakenly and dishonestly testifying for a single assassin, in particular Baden, Guinn, and Canning, are much more suspect than Billings and Blakey, and that even they were probably just fudging their facts to reach what they interpreted to be the "correct" conclusion--that that Oswald wacko did the shooting. Keep in mind that Blakey himself, in order to make the shots match the dictabelt evidence, test fired the rifle and came to the absolutely idiotic conlcusion that Oswald hit Kennedy and Connally while point-aiming, that is, without even looking at the sites. Similarly, this pressure to come to the "correct" conclusion and make the photographic evidence match the dictabelt evidence led to the misrepresentation of the Hughes film, which shows McClain to be in the wrong position to record the shots as proposed.

[David G. Healy]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

The above question shoud be addressed for as most anyone should know by now,

dgh: why Thank You for telling me what I "know" and think, quite generous, bit presumptive, but generous none-the-less

Gary believes there WAS a conspiracy in the murder of America's 35th President, thus the Musuem DOES NOT carry books that they only agree with. If this were the case, then that would mean that only books claiming a conspiracy in JFK's asassination would be sold there and this simply is not the case.

dgh: english please....

Bill Miller

Edited November 7, 2006 by David G. Healy

[William O'Neil]

a simple traced outline on the window established from the right photos, that could be viewed through a few lensed tubes with crosshairs perhaps?. It might cause a rise in number of people questioning of some of the findings.

Meanwhile back at the window...Iv'e read several times that the last owner of the TSBD took the original window frame with him before he sold the building, not sure what year.

[John Simkin]

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

GM: Not at all. There are many interesting theory books and more than a few that have serious, fatal historical problems. Figuring out which is which is one of my responsibilities.

(2) If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

GM: The CIA pushed a story to Blakey and the HSCA? That’s a theory, not a fact. For your information, Blakey has publicly and privately supported the HSCA conclusion of two shooters since 1979 when science proved to him that two gunmen were firing that day. Whether the acoustics ultimately stands or falls is an entirely separate matter. It is difficult for me to comprehend how his supporting a conspiracy finding plays into the CIA’s hands, as your theory posits.

I will deal with the points made by Pat Speer and Gary Mack later today.

[Bill Miller]

'Bill Miller' wrote:

(1) Does this mean that books by people who agree with you are historians but those who disagree with you are charlatans?

The above question shoud be addressed for as most anyone should know by now,

dgh: why Thank You for telling me what I "know" and think, quite generous, bit presumptive, but generous none-the-less

Gary believes there WAS a conspiracy in the murder of America's 35th President, thus the Musuem DOES NOT carry books that they only agree with. If this were the case, then that would mean that only books claiming a conspiracy in JFK's asassination would be sold there and this simply is not the case.

dgh: english please....

Bill Miller

The words I had written above WERE in English, however, one must have at least an average understanding of the English language to even begin to know what I meant.

Bill Miller

Edited November 8, 2006 by Bill Miller

[William Kelly]

a simple traced outline on the window established from the right photos, that could be viewed through a few lensed tubes with crosshairs perhaps?. It might cause a rise in number of people questioning of some of the findings.

Meanwhile back at the window...Iv'e read several times that the last owner of the TSBD took the original window frame with him before he sold the building, not sure what year.

Yes, Good question Bill, and one that Gary Mack should be able to answer.

Is it true that the original 6th floor "snipers" window was removed as a personal artifact souvineer by D.H. Byrd, the former owner of the TSBD?

I'd also like to know if David H. Byrd, president of Diebold Election Machine Co. of Dallas is related to D.H. Dry Hole Byrd of CAP/TSBD fame?

BK

[John Simkin]

John, why do you think the CIA "pushed" the HSCA's "mafia probably did it" conclusion on Blakey?

If you believe the CIA were involved in a disinformation campaign, why do you still believe the story they pushed to Blakey and the HSCA?

Gary Mack: “The CIA pushed a story to Blakey and the HSCA? That’s a theory, not a fact. For your information, Blakey has publicly and privately supported the HSCA conclusion of two shooters since 1979 when science proved to him that two gunmen were firing that day. Whether the acoustics ultimately stands or falls is an entirely separate matter. It is difficult for me to comprehend how his supporting a conspiracy finding plays into the CIA’s hands, as your theory posits.”

The Warren Commission attempted to convince the world that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald. All the available evidence suggested this was impossible. Therefore Arlen Spector and Gerald Ford had to come up with the single-bullet theory. As revealed by the ARRB in 1997, Ford had to alter details of JFK’s wounds in the WC report in order to fool the public.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfordG.htm

Despite the propaganda campaign of the American media, the world did not believe this story. The WC had a credibility problem. This became a serious matter when Jim Garrison began his investigation into Oswald’s activities in New Orleans. This is of course what John Whitten wanted to do in his initial CIA investigation. That is the reason Richard Helms took him off the case and handed it over to the trusted James Jesus Angleton.

It was therefore decided to change the story. Oswald did have fellow conspirators. Oswald was not the only gunman. The assassination of JFK was now to be blamed on the Mafia. This is a story that the American public would want to believe. This would enable them to have faith in the American political system.

Richard Billings, who worked for Henry Luce, had played an active role in the CIA’s Operation Tilt, an attempt to get JFK removed from office in 1962, was sent to infiltrate Garrison’s investigation (as was Bernardo De Torres and Gerry Hemming).

In January 1967, Billings arranged a meeting with Garrison. Billings told Garrison that the top management at Life Magazine had concluded that Kennedy's assassination had been a conspiracy and that "his investigation was moving in the right direction". Billings suggested that he worked closely with Garrison. According to Garrison "The magazine would be able to provide me with technical assistance, and we could develop a mutual exchange of information".

Garrison agreed to this deal and Billings was introduced to staff member, Tom Bethal. In his diary Bethal reported: "In general, I feel that Billings and I share a similar position about the Warren Report. He does not believe that there was a conspiracy on the part of the government, the Warren Commission or the FBI to conceal the truth, but that a probability exists that they simply did not uncover the whole truth." Billings managed to persuade Bethal that Clay Shaw was innocent. Later it was revealed by W. Penn Jones that "Bethal made the entire trial plan, a complete list of State's witnesses and their expected testimony and other materials available to the Shaw defense team."

Billings attempted to persuade Garrison that Carlos Marcello and the Mafia were behind the assassination of JFK. Garrison did not believe the story. His investigation suggested that it was the CIA who had been responsible.

In September, 1967, Billings told Jim Garrison that Life Magazine was no longer willing to work with him in the investigation. Billings claimed that this was because he had come to the conclusion that he had links to organized crime. Soon afterwards, Life began a smear campaign against Garrison. It was reported that Garrison had been given money by an unnamed "New Orleans mobster".

This smear campaign helped to destroy Garrison’s credibility (in the long term it destroyed his career).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbillings.htm

Despite the destruction of Garrison, the American people refused to believe the lone-gunman theory. The problem became worse in 1975 when Frank Church became the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. This committee investigated alleged abuses of power by the CIA and the FBI. His report revealed that the intelligence agencies had been involved in assassination attempts of radicals such as members of the Black Panthers. It also revealed for the first time, details of Operation Mockingbird. The CIA not only had a history of carrying out assassinations, they also had an operation that enabled them to cover-up these activities.

The result of this information being made public some politicians began calling for a fresh investigation into the assassination of JFK. In 1976, a Detroit News poll indicated that 87% of the American population did not believe that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy.

In 1976 Thomas N. Downing began campaigning for a new investigation into the assassination of JFK. Downing said he was certain that JFK had been killed as a result of a conspiracy. He also believed that the CIA and the FBI had withheld important information from the Warren Commission.

Coretta Scott King was also calling for her husband's murder to be looked at by a Senate Committee. It was suggested that there was more chance of success if these two investigations could be combined. Henry Gonzalez and Walter E. Fauntroy joined Downing in his campaign and in 1976 Congress voted to create a 12-member committee to investigate the deaths of Kennedy and King.

Thomas N. Downing named Richard Sprague as chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Gaeton Fonzi was to later say: "Sprague was known as tough, tenacious and independent. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind when I heard of Sprague's appointment that the Kennedy assassination would finally get what it needed: a no-holds-barred, honest investigation. Which just goes to show how ignorant of the ways of Washington both Sprague and I were".

Sprague quickly assembled a staff of 170 lawyers, investigators and researchers. On 8th December, 1976, Sprague submitted a 1977 budget of $6.5 million. Frank Thompson, Chairman of the House Administration Committee made it clear he opposed the idea of so much money being spent on the investigation.

Smear stories against Sprague began appearing in the press. David B. Burnham of The New York Times reported that Sprague had mishandled a homicide case involving the son of a friend. Members of Congress joined in the attacks and Robert E. Bauman of Maryland claimed that Sprague had a "checkered career" and was not to be trusted. Richard Kelly of Florida called the House Select Committee on Assassinations a "multimillion-dollar fishing expedition for the benefit of a bunch of publicity seekers."

It was clear that Sprague was going to be someone who would be difficult to control. He was therefore removed and replaced by G. Robert Blakey. This was a wise choice as he had already developed a career out of investigating the Mafia. It would not be too difficult to persuade him that it was Carlos Marcello who was behind the assassination. However, just to make sure, Richard Billings was appointed to help Blakey carry out his investigation.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKassassinationsC.htm

As Gaeton Fonzi (staff investigator) and Gary Cornwell (deputy chief counsel) have pointed out in their books on the HSCA investigation (The Last Investigation and Real Answers), Blakey was determined to blame the Mafia for the assassination and was very unwilling to explore the possibility of CIA involvement.

Blakey (and his masters) had a problem. How could he blame the Mafia for the assassination without revealing the LBJ/CIA/FBI cover-up? This is why the HSCA report did not include information on how Ford changed details of JFK’s wounds in the original report. This vital information was not disclosed until 1997 by the ARRB. Yet Blakey was aware of it during his investigation. The only way that Blakey could cover for LBJ/CIA/FBI was to claim that new evidence had emerged to show there was a conspiracy: the acoustic evidence. This enables Blakey to peddle the Mafia did it theory without any involvement of the intelligence agencies in the assassination or the cover-up.

It is therefore no surprise that this is the theory supported by Gary Mack and other disinformation agents. But it is not true. In reality, JFK was assassinated by a group of men made up of anti-Castro Cubans and CIA agents.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKblakey.htm