Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor Museum

[Jack White]

I will attempt to get Jim to recount the story told to the

class by the woman. It was very curious.

As I recall, she was a child of about 10, and her father

was in the Army somewhere in Texas. That November

morning, he loaded her into the family car and they rushed

at top speed from his station base to Dealey Plaza that

morning. While she waited he rushed into the TSBD.

Later he returned, shaken, and they left. She always

felt her father had learned some foreknowledge of the

assassination, and was attempting to prevent it.

I may have some of the details wrong; it was so long

ago. As Jim said above, he tried to verify her story, but

was unable.

Jack

[Ron Ecker]

Jack,

I have always assumed that the class that Jim Marrs taught was for students enrolled at the college where the class was being held, presumably an elective class for appropriate credits.

From this story of heckling by Mack and Perry, it sounds like this was not a class of college students at all but a class for anyone who wanted to attend, with the college simply providing a classroom. If it was a regular college class, what were Mack and Perry doing there and why would they be allowed to disrupt the class with heckling?

Can you explain exactly what kind of class this was? Thanks,

Ron

[Jack White]

Jack,

I have always assumed that the class that Jim Marrs taught was for students enrolled at the college where the class was being held, presumably an elective class for appropriate credits.

From this story of heckling by Mack and Perry, it sounds like this was not a class of college students at all but a class for anyone who wanted to attend, with the college simply providing a classroom. If it was a regular college class, what were Mack and Perry doing there and why would they be allowed to disrupt the class with heckling?

Can you explain exactly what kind of class this was? Thanks,

Ron

A very good question, Ron!

For many years, in the UTA Continuing Education Department (Night School)

Jim taught a "tuition-paid-but not for credit" JFK course. I sometimes assisted him.

Usually, many of the for-pay students asked for a follow-up course that was

more advanced. But the CEDept declined to have a second course, BUT as

an alternative, provided a free empty classroom ONCE A MONTH where Jim

instituted what he called THE JFK ADVANCED STUDY GROUP...made up mostly

of former students of the regular course plus area researchers. This was

entirely voluntary and Jim received no pay for the second course.

Jim's regular course averaged about 15 or 20 students each semester.

The Advanced group averaged about twice as many, once a month year round.

The format of the Advanced group was...Jim would present latest JFK news,

members would make presentations, and there was always a special WITNESS

guest, Jean Hill for example. It was at these meetings that Ed Hoffman was

discovered when his niece told us about his story. Joe West made a presentation

shortly before his death. Early in his research, John Armstrong made a presentation

on his two Oswald research.

Toward the end, the antics of Gary and Perry were so disruptive that Jim shut

down the Advanced group...since it was open to the public and was getting

out of hand to control.

So there were really TWO classes. One sponsored by the university which

charged tuition, one "allowed for free" by the university. Hope this answers

your question.

Jack

Edited July 25, 2006 by Jack White

[Bill Miller]

The event described was the third or fourth time Jean told her

story to one of Jim's classes...and her LAST after the "xxxx"

outburst...which was one of the reasons Jim discontinued

the classes. You can read of this in John Armstrong's H&L

on page 3*...guess who the two loud and obnoxious men were

John refers to. Gary may HAVE a recording of A Jean Hill

performance...but not the one where he called her a xxxx...

twice! My story is true. Why would I make up such a

detailed and false account? I plan to contact Jim Marrs

and get his remembrance of this incident. I don't like being

called a xxxx.

Jack, Is this the same alleged event that Gary Mack said in a response to you, "I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory." If this is the case, then maybe you should take Gary up on his offer because has been shown over and over again that your memory is not all that accurate most of the time. As far as why you'd make up such a thing ... maybe it is not from your intentionally making something up, but rather due to you not bothering to get your facts straight before posting about it.

Bill Miller

PS: I knew Jean Hill and I can't recall if it is in her book without checking it out, but she had told me that she was interviewed off the record before being filmed about her "dog in the midle of the seat" remark. Jean said that she had been asked what her first impression was as to what she saw. After Jean told the interviewer that she wasn't sure what it was she had seen, he still wanted her to retell the story for the camera and to give her first impression of what she had witnessed ... that's how the 'dog in the seat' remark ended up in her interview. Jean was made to regret ever complying to the interviewer's request.

Edited July 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[William Kelly]

P.S. I was down there a month or so ago, I saw a large and complicated flow chart in the gift shop. It showed who knew who and who was connected to what, and so on. I couldn't buy it, and only had a few minutes to look at it. Has anyone seen this chart? If so, just how accurate is it?

I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS "FLOW CHART" MYSELF.

HAS ANYONE SEEN THIS CHART?

WHAT IS IT?

BK

[Jack White]

The event described was the third or fourth time Jean told her

story to one of Jim's classes...and her LAST after the "xxxx"

outburst...which was one of the reasons Jim discontinued

the classes. You can read of this in John Armstrong's H&L

on page 3*...guess who the two loud and obnoxious men were

John refers to. Gary may HAVE a recording of A Jean Hill

performance...but not the one where he called her a xxxx...

twice! My story is true. Why would I make up such a

detailed and false account? I plan to contact Jim Marrs

and get his remembrance of this incident. I don't like being

called a xxxx.

Jack, Is this the same alleged event that Gary Mack said in a response to you, "I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory." If this is the case, then maybe you should take Gary up on his offer because has been shown over and over again that your memory is not all that accurate most of the time. As far as why you'd make up such a thing ... maybe it is not from your intentionally making something up, but rather due to you not bothering to get your facts straight before posting about it.

Bill Miller

PS: I knew Jean Hill and I can't recall if it is in her book without checking it out, but she had told me that she was interviewed off the record before being filmed about her "dog in the midle of the seat" remark. Jean said that she had been asked what her first impression was as to what she saw. After Jean told the interviewer that she wasn't sure what it was she had seen, he still wanted her to retell the story for the camera and to give her first impression of what she had witnessed ... that's how the 'dog in the seat' remark ended up in her interview. Jean was made to regret ever complying to the interviewer's request.

I talked to Jean many times, talking about being in the street, the white dog, etc.

She never once said that someone coached her to insert the dog into the TV interview.

By the time of her WC testimony, the white dog had become "some roses"...now that

is more likely "coaching". Jackie's roses were RED, which could hardly be mistaken

for a little white dog. (her testimony says something like..."They were looking at

something between them I have been told were roses.")

I don't care what kind of tape Gary has. Jean told her story many times at many

venues. He may have one without his xxxx outburst...or DAMNED xxxx, as Jim Marrs

remembers it. A tape of one of her many speeches would not have Gary's comments.

Jack

(The one point I think Jean is mistaken about...She said she IMMEDIATELY

crossed Elm to chase a gunman; photos show her lingering several minutes

on the south infield before joining the crowd running up the knoll. She is

easy to spot because of her red raincoat.)

[Bill Miller]

I talked to Jean many times, talking about being in the street,

Right, and you still screwed it up. Jean, in her own words, stated on Black Op radio that she was back out of the street before the first shot was ever fired. You, on the other hand, have implied many times that Jean had said she was in the street during the shooting. As usual, you were wrong and it is proveable through Jean's own words.

She never once said that someone coached her to insert the dog into the TV interview.

That is certainly not what I said, nor what Jean said. The interviewer asked her before the interview was filmed if she would give her impression as to what she thought it was that was in the front seat. Jean suggested that it may be a little dog. The interviewer then told her that is what he wanted her to say when they filmed her statement. This event is documented in Jean's own book "The Last Dissenting Witness".

I don't care what kind of tape Gary has ...........

Jack

I am sure that you don't care ... not anymore than you cared to tell people that Jean said she had stepped out of the street before the shooting started or anymore than she said in her book that she regretted complying to the interviewer having her give her first impression as to what she could have seen in the limo as it passed by her. Mack has offered a tape of the event you spoke about, so if you have a tape showing that Mack is in error, then feel free to cite from it.

Bill Miller

Edited July 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[John Simkin]

I have started a new thread on Jean Hill. This will be linked to my page on Jean. The way she was treated by Gary Mack and the supporters of the Warren Commission is truly shameful. However, it makes a good case-study of how the organizations who took part in the cover-up attempted to discredit witnesses.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7516

[John Simkin]

It's at moments like this that Gary wishes he could post. He sent me this a few seconds ago in response to Jack's post about Jean Hill. He says he never heckled her, but admits he did heckle Charles Crenshaw.

From Gary Mack:

"FALSE! Your memory is worthless, Jack. The event you "remember" had nothing to do with Jean Hill.

The guest was Charles Crenshaw and he was lying about getting a phone call from LBJ.

There was a phone call from Washington, but it wasn't from LBJ.

I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory.

Gary Mack

As a man who works as Gary Mack’s messenger boy, could you explain why his employees allow you to post his words but do not allow him to post himself? What is the difference? We are allowed to read what he has to say on these matters via your postings. Maybe it is because if he is caught out lying, as he has been over the Jean Hill issue, he can claim that he never really said it.

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Jul 25 2006, 11:27 AM' post='70220']

It's at moments like this that Gary wishes he could post. He sent me this a few seconds ago in response to Jack's post about Jean Hill. He says he never heckled her, but admits he did heckle Charles Crenshaw.

From Gary Mack:

"FALSE! Your memory is worthless, Jack. The event you "remember" had nothing to do with Jean Hill.

The guest was Charles Crenshaw and he was lying about getting a phone call from LBJ.

There was a phone call from Washington, but it wasn't from LBJ.

I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory.

Gary Mack

As a man who works as Gary Mack’s messenger boy, could you explain why his employees allow you to post his words but do not allow him to post himself? What is the difference? We are allowed to read what he has to say on these matters via your postings. Maybe it is because if he is caught out lying, as he has been over the Jean Hill issue, he can claim that he never really said it.

So Gary: It was ok to heckle Dr Crehshaw ???? How the hell do YOU KNOW LBJ never called Dr. Crenshaw? Were you THERE??? I found the late Dr. Crenshaw to have been an extremely credible witness both in his book-JFK -Conspiracy of Silence )- and in TMWKK- (or whatever video he was on, possibly the one just devoted to Dallas doctors that aired a few years ago).

(I have them all on video, so can check when I have time.)

Dawn

Edited July 25, 2006 by Dawn Meredith

[Bill Miller]

I have started a new thread on Jean Hill. This will be linked to my page on Jean. The way she was treated by Gary Mack and the supporters of the Warren Commission is truly shameful. However, it makes a good case-study of how the organizations who took part in the cover-up attempted to discredit witnesses.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7516

With all due respect, I'd like to know "EXACTLY" what was supposed to have been said and "HOW" it was said in reference to Jean being a xxxx? So far I have only heard Jack tell of this event (starting at post 102) and as I have seen far too many times in the past ... Jack's perception of anyone not agreeing with things he has said are "ATTACKING" him. Did the same thing seem to have occurred in this incident??? Jim Marrs appears to recall Jean being heckled and if Jean was actually being heckled by Gary Mack, then it would have been wrong for Gary to do so. Gary says he had recorded that event and before anyone has bothered to listen to the tape - they are drawing conclusions without caring to hear the evidence. Some may wonder why this is important ... it is important depending on what Jean meant by the things she had said. For instance, the following statement by Jean can be true and false depending on how it was taken by the listener. The following is taken from one of Jack's post ...........

" .... Jean continued...saying that eager to get a good

photo of the president, SHE AND MARY STEPPED OFF THE CURB

AND INTO THE STREET. She said she was almost close enough

to reach out and touch the side of the limo.

Immediately, Gary shouted loudly..."YOU ARE A xxxx, JEAN!""

Jean made it clear to me and also in her book that what she was trying to say was that she had entered the street AND REMAINED THERE, then she could have almost reached out and touched the President's limo. Her description was merely a reference as to "HOW FAR" she had entered the street and that was all. I remember this discussion very well because I was puzzled as to how this could be true because Jean was not within reaching distance of the limo as the President passed her location along Elm Street. It may have been that kind of confusion as to why in Jean's book that she made it very clear as to when this event occurred and she was very precise in saying to her readers that just as fast as she went into the street ... Jean quickly realized that it might be a bad idea because the Secret Service wouldn't like her being so close to the car as the President passed by her. So while if it is true that she was heckled and that would have been wrong to do ... without Jean making this matter clear enough, I can see why someone would believe this recollection to be false. The same sort of thing happened with 'the dog in the seat' incident, but once it was made clear as to how that statement came to be - it made sense to me and I saw it as no harm done IMO.

I liked Jean - I admired Jean - and I respected Jean. Did Jean say some things later on in her life that may have been unsupportd by the evidence - it certainly seems to have occurred. Why did she do it - I don't know? I certainly believe that too much of nothing had been made over some of the things Jean had said. I am reminded of Holland saying how the shot that hit Connally about drove the governor down into the floor board of the car, which didn't happen, but it was just a figure of speech to represent Holland's perception of the event. Mary Moorman has said things that doesn't support aspects of Jean's story - is Mary a xxxx? I was going to gently bring this up over dinner one night with Jean during one of my visits to Dallas, but something happened that I had to cancel. Before the opportunity ever came up again ... Jean was not well and unfortuneately passed on.

The point of mentioning some of these things is to attempt to make it clear that many times there is more to a story than what is being told. Jim Marrs has said that he interviewed Mrs. Edna Hartman - Mrs. Hartman said this never happened. What seems to have occurred was that Jim spoke to Edna over the phone whereas he looked at it as being an interview and Edna looked at it as just a phone call, thus no one has lied, but it could seem that way if one didn't hear all the facts before drawing a conclusion. I would be interested in hearing the audio of the alleged heckling event so I could make up my own mind. Just as this forum should have taught us when someone claims to have been attacked when others don't see it that way ... it all depends on how someone perceives what they have heard Vs. what the other person meant by what they had said.

Bill Miller

Edited July 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

It's at moments like this that Gary wishes he could post. He sent me this a few seconds ago in response to Jack's post about Jean Hill. He says he never heckled her, but admits he did heckle Charles Crenshaw.

From Gary Mack:

"FALSE! Your memory is worthless, Jack. The event you "remember" had nothing to do with Jean Hill.

The guest was Charles Crenshaw and he was lying about getting a phone call from LBJ.

There was a phone call from Washington, but it wasn't from LBJ.

I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory.

Gary Mack

As a man who works as Gary Mack’s messenger boy, could you explain why his employees allow you to post his words but do not allow him to post himself? What is the difference? We are allowed to read what he has to say on these matters via your postings. Maybe it is because if he is caught out lying, as he has been over the Jean Hill issue, he can claim that he never really said it.

John, your characterization of me as a "messenger boy" is uncalled for and not supported by the evidence. Although I have occasionally mentioned email exchanges with Gary, I believe this is the first time I've ever posted a message from him. I did so because he sent me some sort of group email a short time after Jack made his post. He didn't even ask me to post it for him. I just thought people might want to know that he disputed Jack's recollection.

Because I occasionally defend Gary Mack some may wish to conclude I am his "supporter." This is not true. I am merely trying to be fair. I frequently defend Jack White, Douglas Caddy, and Alfred Baldwin as well, not because I agree with everything they say, but because I believe they are sincere people trying to present the truth as they see it. In the past I have defended people as diverse as Tim Gratz and Judyth Baker. If one were to look at the monstrous "Photo Alteration in the Media" thread, one would see that I am currently annoyed with Mr. Mack and his refusal to acknowledge that the most frequently published version of the Miller photo features a drawn-in foot. If I am anyone's "supporter," I am a supporter of John Simkin's, Larry Hancock's. and the Education Forum as a whole.

If I were in the crowd and someone attacked Jean as Gary is reputed to have done, I would have asked him to shut up and told him he could speak after she talked. Having spent the last few months re-reading all the eyewitness testimony, and having studied human cognition and memory, I am well aware that people get things wrong, particularly as they retell a story over and over. It is an established fact among those that study such things that people who retell a story shade the facts to make the story better and truer to their emotional perception of the incident, and that with time the "story" grows further and further from the actual event. One can see this in Bill Newman's statements as well. Even John Connally's statements show evidence of this shading... It is immature and unfair to call someone telling what they believe to be a truth a "xxxx." Even after seeing the autopsy photos numerous times, Dr. Boswell talked about the back wound as a neck wound, only to reverse himself when shown the autopsy photos again. Why? Was he lying when he described the wound as on the neck? Quite possibly no. Memory research has shown that when people are asked to imagine an event that this imaginary event (the bullet's passing through Kennedy's neck on a downward trajectory) colors their actual memories.

Based upon what Jack has said, and what Jim Marrs has confirmed, it sounds like Gary Mack and Dave Perry formed a mutual appreciation society and took it upon themselves to protect the credibility of the research community and the City of Dallas, from those who would distort the facts. I know they are not fans of Beverly Oliver's. I believe they also helped debunk the Ricky and Geneva White stories. Which, apparently, deserved to be debunked. If one looks closer, however, one should ask why they didn't demand from the City of Dallas an explanation as to how Geneva White came upon the third backyard photo. The HSCA has a footnote explaining that Studebaker made copies and gave them to Stovall and White....but, as far as anyone seems to know, the DPD has never publicly aired its dirty laundry. WHO stole the negatives to the backyard photos? WHY wasn't the third photo turned over to the Warren Commission? WAS anyone fired over the theft of evidence? To my way of thinking, these are the kinds of questions that the Sixth Floor Museum is in a unique position to help clear up...

Edited July 25, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Jack White]

Pat, you seem to be lacking in facts.

Gary and Perry are not interested in protecting the image of Dallas.

Gary is from Arizona and Perry, I believe, from Maryland. Gary

only moved to Dallas to become curator of the Sixth Floor. Perry

moved to Grapevine TX in time to attend the ROSCOE WHITE

NEWS CONFERENCE and become its chief skeptic. Despite his

skepticism, he posed as a researcher and became a volunteer

at the JFK ASSASSINATION INFORMATION CENTER. While at

the center, he allegedly obtained secret proprietary information and

passed it on to critics of the Oliver Stone movie which was then in the

works. Gary Shaw and the late Larry Howard told me MANY

things about Perry which I cannot repeat. And Gary Shaw is

"retired" from JFK research is not likely to say.

Gary and Perry are NOT interested in protecting the "research

community", or they would not attack it unrelentingly.

In my opinion, Perry was assigned to move to Texas to deflate

the Roscoe White story. I base this on things told me by Howard.

I know all the details of the Roscoe story, and believe that

significant parts of it are true, and some parts untrue. There

was much research done by the AIC which confirmed many

parts of it. Unfortunately, Ricky was young and naive, and

made some undesirable connections along the way which

helped sink the story. But Roscoe did have SOME SORT OF

INVOLVEMENT with the plot. I think there is no doubt of his

photo expertise and his involvement in fabricating the backyard

photos. I am less sure about his being a gunman. And there

is NO DOUBT that Geneva faked the second diary.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Jack, for that background. As you know, I had an unusual run-in with Perry. I stated on Lancer a few years back that I thought there was more to the Geneva White story than meets the eye...I mean, she DID have a photo of Oswald that was not released to the Warren Commission. A few months later, however, I discovered an online article created by Perry about how dumb the research community is...that cited my simple post as the perfect example. He dissected each word of my post in an effort to show how stupid we all are. Well, this pissed me off, as you can probably imagine and quite possibly recall. If he wanted to say I was wrong, he should have just posted as much on Lancer. Ultimately, this led me to look into the issue of the backyard photos even more, which led to my conclusion that things are even stickier than I first thought. Whether or not the photos were faked, it is a historical fact that two of the three negatives of the backyard photos disappeared while in the custody of the DPD, and that little is known as to who is responsible.

I suppose it was this incident that led me to assume that Mack and Perry were close to the DPD.

[Jack White]

Is there a thread on Roscoe White?

Jack