Museum curator seeks to solve JFK mystery

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 11/21/2002 | MIKE COCHRAN

[mlo]

	Posted on Thu, Nov. 21, 2002
	Museum curator seeks to solve JFK mystery BY MIKE COCHRAN Knight Ridder Newspapers DALLAS - (KRT) - It was 39 years ago today, a Friday, in fact, that President John F. Kennedy was slain on the streets of Dallas. For researchers such as Gary Mack, the echoes of gunfire in Dealey Plaza remain as haunting as ever. Maybe more so. "There's crazy stuff going on," Mack says. "It's so screwy, now, that there are people out there who are actually confessing to having a role in the crime. "There are people who claim they were on the grassy knoll firing away." It's little wonder then, Mack says, that polls conducted by Gallup and Zogby International over the years show that a vast majority of Americans believe Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Mack, 56, is curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, located in the old Texas School Book Depository overlooking Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was fatally shot on Nov. 22, 1963. For 27 years, Mack - with relentless curiosity, an academic's eye and an investigator's skepticism - has sought answers to the JFK mystery. He joined the Sixth Floor Museum as an archivist in 1994. Founded by the Dallas County Historical Foundation and funded by visitor fees, the nonprofit museum is one of the most popular historic sites in North Texas with 450,000 visitors a year. "My role as curator is to be able to put this story in context and to present it objectively and accurately," Mack says. "Whatever history records is what the museum exhibits eventually will include. "The museum's role is to educate and inform its visitors in a way that does not push any one point of view or any particular theory." But one widely known conspiracy theorist sings Mack's praises. "Gary is an excellent researcher," says Jim Marrs, whose book "Crossfire" was the basis in part for Oliver Stone's controversial movie, "JFK." Today, Marrs teaches a class on the assassination at UT-Arlington. Says Mack, with a humorless laugh, "The important thing is President Kennedy's life and legacy ... but Oliver Stone's movie is what most people think of first." It was in 1975 in Wichita, Kan., where he worked at a radio station, that Mack first saw Abraham Zapruder's film of the assassination. "It changed my life," he says. He's been hooked ever since. "I don't know that (Lee Harvey) Oswald did anything that day, but I know the Warren Commission decided he killed President Kennedy," he says. "I know that the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late seventies also said he killed President Kennedy, but that he had a second shooter working with him. "So there are two official versions of history, and I don't know which one's right." He's hardly alone. Almost four decades later, after numerous books, movies, TV documentaries, independent investigative efforts, scattered "confessions" and two formal governmental investigations, including the Warren Commission in the 1960s, millions of Americans still ask: "Who killed JFK?" Mack believes that new information on the assassination still could surface. "There were people in Dealey Plaza with cameras whose pictures have never been seen. Maybe one of those pictures will turn up and you can see the face of a guy who can answer some of the questions raised through the years," he says. But, he adds, "I'm not even sure if the truth came out today that people would believe it." Conflicting medical evidence, the location of the fatal head wound and the so-called "single-bullet theory"_ the Warren Commission's proposal that the same bullet killed Kennedy and struck Texas Gov. John Connally - are among the most familiar areas of dispute. But Mack says acoustical evidence - sound recordings from that day in Dealey Plaza - gathered in the late 1970s by the House Assassinations Committee offers the greatest potential of resolving the conspiracy puzzle. In November 1994, when testifying before the Assassination Records Review Board, Mack stressed that the acoustics issue, "despite its difficulties," was far from dead. He praised review board members for their efforts in obtaining the release of secret, JFK-related information and documents, then told them: "I don't think (the information and documents) is going to tell us whether there was or was not a conspiracy to kill the president," he testified, "but the acoustics evidence can certainly do that." Nothing has happened to change his mind, Mack says. "Based on everything I know about this subject," he says, acoustics could provide a breakthrough. "Unless there's something totally new out there that no one knows about, the acoustics evidence is the only hard evidence that has the potential to answer "the" question: "How many shots were fired that day and where did they come from?" The acoustics came from a motorcycle officer's radio microphone, which clicked on a few minutes before the assassination and may have inadvertently allowed the sound of the shots to be recorded by police dispatchers. "Along with the motorcycle noise, you can hear some pops and clicks that may or may not be shots," Mack says. "The House Assassinations Committee found some acoustics experts to analyze the recordings ... and they concluded there were four shots. They could tell from the data that the third of the four came from the grassy knoll and the other three came from the window of the Texas School Book Depository. "Because that information was so convincing, and the people who did the work were so well-respected in their fields, the committee concluded there was a conspiracy because there were two shooters." Three years later, after a follow-up study, another group of scientists decided there were no shots on that recording. Thus, Mack says, the potential key to a great puzzle remains in limbo because of the conflicting interpretations. Marrs describes the dispute over the acoustics as part of the "continuing pattern of cover-up by obfuscation" of the assassination. But Mack acknowledges that the intricacies of the acoustics evidence are difficult for the public to grasp and that the Assassination Committee's findings are not definitive and remain in dispute. Of course, conspiracy theorists have said the same thing for years about the Warren Report, which concluded that Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy. " ... It seems to me, as one who's studied this long before the Sixth Floor Museum was ever dreamed of, that if there's some solid evidence out there, then reasonable efforts ought to be made to find the answer," Mack says. The annual JFK "November in Dallas" research conference, which is open to the public, begins Friday at the Dallas Radisson and includes a keynote address by Texas researcher Don Thomas, who has conducted his own detailed study of "echo correlation" in Dealey Plaza. Thomas' findings would tend to support Mack, who says: "I personally believe the original acoustics study was correct, that there are shots on there and the original scientists came to the right conclusion. "But I can't prove it either way." Marrs, meanwhile, has labeled the assassination "one of the world's greatest murder mysteries" and argues that there were two conspiracies. "One was the conspiracy to kill the president," he said during an appearance before the same Assassinations Records and Review Board that heard Mack in 1994. "Who did it, who committed it, how many gunmen, from which trajectory, how many shots, we don't know," he said. "But the second conspiracy was the conspiracy to cover up the first conspiracy, and this one was not quite so successful." Marrs insists that "officials high within the U.S. government committed acts designed not to find truthful answers but rather to hide the truth from the American public." Mack is less cynical, and is concerned that many Americans formed their concept of the assassination from Stone's "JFK." "What it's come down to now is, the Oliver Stone film has made it very easy for people to think they, too, can solve the crime of the century," he said. History, he says, will probably record that the movie was one of the best and one of the worst things to happen to the Kennedy assassination story. "The best thing about it is it made the subject legitimate again," he said. "Stone gave people a reason to reconsider." On the other hand, Mack says, Stone based his story on a flawed theory. "To read the Oliver Stone version of history, you get ... the opinion that nothing was investigated. Or what was investigated was not investigated properly. That's not true. They dug up a mountain of information, some of which is relevant." Recalling that government investigators have collected millions of pages of assassination-related documents over the years, Mack poses this question: "If there's just one guy, how come there's so many pages?" ---

---

[tpaine]

Ha.. -- You can only hope that will satisfy the 'correct' crowd.

I would suggest a more bended knee, whilest grabbing your forelock.

[Leatherneck_MT]

" One in particular, Howard Brennon, saw a man fire the fatal shot. His description of the killer was the one that went out on the police radio just 15 minutes after the killing."

The person who described seeing the shooter could not identify Oswald later on as the man he saw in the window(If memory serves me right).

"That description led to his arrest in the movie theatre after he killed Kennedy and then gunned down Officer Tippit."

Doesn't it bother anyone that the police would descend on a Theater that someone has snuck into while the entire city is trying to find the alleged assassin of the President?

Yes, the Mannlicher Carcano was his rifle. Nobody here has disputed that as far as I can see. The dispute comes as to his skill with A rifle. Any rifle, pick one. The man couldn't DO the shooting. He did not have the SKILL.

At 100 yards an M14 can (In the hands of a good marksman) give you a 2 to 3 inch group. At the same distance a Mannlicher Carcano would be hard pressed to give you a 6 inch group. This loose grouping increases over time. Coupled with the fact that you are shooting at a moving target that is moving away from you AND at a lower elevation. If you are familiar with marksmanship, you will understand that shooting from a higher level to a lower level elevation (Or vice versa) increases the challenges of making the "1st shot". In this case the 3rd shot is the best one!! If the President had been sitting in a stationary position, at Oswald's level, at the distance he was at. I would give you that he could have hit the president at least once in 3 shots. That shot would have been the 1st one tho, not the 3rd. Especially not considering that you have 6.7 seconds to perform this feat of outstanding marskmanship.

Again. LHO didn't HAVE the skill to make the shots that killed the president.

[Shooter 2.5]

BS.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Oswald's rifle was checked out by the FBI and the NRA and they shot it. Every bolt action can be expected to shoot a 3-4 inch group. Gary James tested a Carcano in 7.35 and it shot a 3 5/8ths groups. Just because you don't know how to shoot don't belittle the people who do.

Oswald didn't shoot very well. All he had to do was hit a 15 inch by 9 inch target at 88 or less yards and he even missed one out of three. With a four power scope, it's like shooting from 22 yards away. The 18 year old girl I overheard at Dealy Plaza was correct when she said she could make those shots.

Entrance hole = small hole, exit hole = large hole. Take another look at the impact frame from Zapruder on post 65 and try to tell me the mess in the front of Kennedy's head is a entrance hole.

[tpaine]

Well, there you have it. 'Proof' positive from one who must be seen as correct.
-- Insults, then generalisations on what 'every' one knows, appeals to authority [?], then more insults, followed by more generalizations.

Don't press it. Zealots aren't worth it.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Please, can you elaborate on what you see as the reasons for the botched 'report'? -- You said:

"The Warren Commission did not "cover up" for "the KGB," or for any other communist institution."

Who did they 'cover up' for, in your opinion?

Well, I have to admit that I have read a few books on the assasination, but none on the investigation. So I don't have much of an opinion on the investigation, other than that I generally agree with its conclusions. Senator Specter is too moderate for my taste, but I judge him a decent man.

The important thing about the assasination, as far as I am concerned, is who did it and, above all, what was the motive.

If you want to read an honest sceptics' view of the assasination, check out the book written by Bonar Menninger with Howard Donahue, "Mortal Error." They give the name of the fellow they think fired the fatal shot (not Oswald) and a motive (human error). This theory a person can agree or disagree with. (I disagree.) However, attacking the investigators without sticking your neck out to say precisely who the real killer(s) were is, to me, rubbish. You can poke holes in any theory if you don't have a responsibility to prove there is a more likely alternative. This is what defense attorneys do all the time, and sometimes it works because in something so complex as this, all the pieces will not fit perfectly together for ANY theory.

Spector fingered Oswald simply because he thought the evidence was strongest against Oswald and rather weak against all others. So do I. Rush to judgement? Maybe in 1963. But now all the facts are in after many exhaustive investigations, governmental and private. Argue the facts concerning who did it and why, not the government investigation.

As for there being a coup, Kennedy and Johnson had such similar, strongly anti-communist, policies that this is ridiculous. The liberals who doubt Kennedy would have defended South Vietnam do not know much about Jack Kennedy.

[tpaine]

Thanks. -- I read most of "Mortal Error", and dismissed it as total fiction. -- I read all of the Preliminary Report back in '64, when it came out, and like most at that time, had immediate serious doubts about the ~whole~ of the magic bullet 'scenario' not just the bullet itself. - Over the years I've now read most of the longer Report on that part of the issue which if anything, proves even more damning to that bit of 'magic'.

You say:
"Argue the facts concerning who did it and why, not the government investigation."
The facts are exactly what we argue about here, - in particular those 'facts' put foward by the investigation. - Flawed facts.

[SoCal Pubbie]

You, sir, are just plain wrong. The fact that Oswald scored in the expert category in the Marines is really beside the point. My point was that Oswald's history as a shooter is not "proof" that he could not have made the shots on November 22 of 1963. Eyewitness testimony that he was in Washington D.C that day or a video tape of his appearance on local TV in Portland would be. The fact is that, no, he was in the School Book depository that day. Even if he was drunk and half blind it is still POSSIBLE for him to make the shots. You cannot say that your opinion that he was not up to the task is "proof" of anything.

As for the eyewitness testimony, are you aware that the vast majority of the eyewitnesses, at the time, stated that the shots came form the direction of the Texas Scholl Book Depository? Just who are these people who "say shots coming from the grassy knoll"? Can you name them. Can you name one? "Dozens were run out of the parking lot area behind the fence by people identifying themselves as Secret Service Agents." Dozens? Again, can you name these "dozens" who saw "people" identifying themselves as Secret Service? And you say 225 people out of 245 were dead in three years? Aren't you padding the infamous Assassination Death List just a tad? Finally, the "stretcher bullet" was not in " absolute perfect condition", and you should know that, so you are either a liar or quite ignorant.

Again, Oswald scored in the mid range, achieving an "expert" rating. If this is barely qualifying then you should take it up the Corps you claim to love, since their training is so poor. Again, even if as you say it would have been extremely difficult it would not have been impossible so we cannot use that as 'evidence" of conspiracy.

" He said he was buying a coke. But was he waiting for a phone call? Could be.. Could be he was also buying a coke like he said." Oswald always drank Dr Pepper. As a DP fanatic myself, I can assure you he would never have been there for a Coke!

"Prior to 11/22/1963 Oswald had been seen several times in the company of Jack Ruby." Dates and places, please? "This is right in the heart of the United States Governments Intelligence community in 1962. Kind of an odd place for a Pro Communist sympathizer to be operating don't you think?" Not really, for a rabid communist lake Oswald who dreamed of showing the Soviets what a good and aggressive Comrade he was.

You misrepresent the medical evidence and testimony. ALL the doctors who actually worked on Kennedy later viewed the autopsy photos and x-rays and pronounced that compatible with what they saw in Dallas.

I don't have the time right now because it is getting late but again the facts of Oswald's prints on the rifle have been distorted in your post. Maybe tomorrow I'll look them up.

I'm afraid you don't understand my view on the matter at all. I ONCE BELIEVED IN THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? MY CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS HOWEVER WERE NOT BEEN TOTALLY ABANDONED AND I GREW TO SEE IT WAS ALL BS!!!!! Look, believe what you want but there is really nothing there. Nobody popped up from under the manhole cover, no one sprayed poison from the umbrella, there was no one on the overpass, no "triangulation of fire". Just Oswald, on the sixth floor, with the rifle.

[Shooter 2.5]

I found something else. Fibres from the type of shirt Oswald wore that day were found caught on the butt plate. Although the investigators admitted that someone with an identical shirt could have put them there, Paul M. Stombaugh, the investigator who testifified stated that the freshness of the fibres led them to conclude it was from Oswald's shirt.

The investigators then had to find anyone who saw him wearing the shirt. Marina said she thought he wore it that day and a former landlady saw him on a bus wearing the shirt after the assassination. He still had the bus transfer in the shirt pocket.

[Shooter 2.5]

Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters US. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot" and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." When asked to explain the different scores achieved by Oswald on the two occasions when he fired for record, Major Anderson said:

...when he fired that [212] he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the riflewindy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because [he] may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage.

Major Anderson concluded:

I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:

Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.

After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded:

I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.





My evaluation is when Oswald was motivated, he was a fairly good shot. He was good enough to shoot 88 yards or less at a 15 inch by 9 inch target with a rifle.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Thank you for the backup on Oswald's marksmanship scores. I guess I'm going to have to go back to the library and check out Case Closed for reference during these online debates. At my fingertips I have Conspiracy of One but it did not offer much detail on the subject. Not that it matters, because the doubters will just say that the good general and the sergeant are part of the cabal.

[Shooter 2.5]

I was trying to find the rifle Oawald qualified with and I found the text where the FBI and the NRA checked out the Carcano. Look where they said it was a few inches high and a little to the right. That explains the hit one inch to Kennedy's spine and the hit on the right side of his head:

Frazier later fired four groups of three shots at a distance of 100 yards in 5.9, 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds. Each series of three shots landed within areas ranging in diameter from 3 to 5 inches. Although all of the shots were a few inches high and to the right of the target., this was because of a defect in the scope which was recognized by the FBI agents and which they could have compensated for if they were aiming to hit a bull's-eye. They were instead firing to determine how rapidly the weapon could be fired and the area within which three shots could be placed. Frazier testified that while he could not tell when the defect occurred, but that a person familiar with the weapon could compensate for it. Moreover, the defect was one which would have assisted the assassin aiming at a target which was moving away. Frazier said, "The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would not be necessary to take any lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you." Frazier added that the scope would cause a slight miss to the right. It should be noted, however, that the President's car was curving slightly to the right when the third shot was fired. Based on these tests the experts agreed that the assassination rifle was an accurate weapon. Simmons described it as "quite accurate," in fact, as accurate as current. military rifles. Frazier testified that the rifle was accurate, that it had less recoil than the average military rifle and that one would not have to be an expert marksman to have accomplished the assassination with the weapon which was used.


The only part I would say they're wrong is that since the rifle was being shot at Dealy Plaza at shorter ranges the rifle would have shot lower. [At ranges shorter than 100 yards, the scope is angled downward to intersect the line of the muzzle] When you add the fact he was shooting downward, the aim point would be back shooting high again although the factor would be less than an inch. This still would explain why he almost missed with the head shot.
I was also under the impression they changed the scope somehow and apparently they didn't.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but 212 is not a "Good" shot. Having trained Marines in Rifle Marksmanship as a Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI). This indicates an average to below average marksman. As I said in an earlier post. This shot would not have been difficult for an Expert Rifleman. For Oswald it would have been extremely difficult.

[Leatherneck_MT]

No sir YOU are the one that is wrong. Oswald did NOT score in the Expert Category and frankly you have no earthly idea what you are talking about. His history as a shooter is the ONLY thing we have to go on as to how accurate he was with a Rifle. There is NO WAY that he could have made those shots with the kind of precision that WAS made. My professional opinion stands. How many Marines have you trained to shoot SIR? I have trained hundreds. How many hours have you spent sitting behind a Marine on a firing line? I have spent hundreds. OSWALD COULD NOT MAKE THE SHOT!

It is plain from your tone on this response that you do not have a clue what you are saying. Evidence of this is your decision to begin name calling. The facts of the case are there and you sir are too blind to see it. Carry on with your fantasy. Maybe Cinderella will show up and give you a BJ before the nights over. I won't respond any longer to any of your drivel. Too bad, because I thought we were going to have a gentlemandly debate. But I see that people here as just as prone to flame one another as those on DU.

Have a nice day.

[Shooter 2.5]

Your selective reasoning forgot that he qualified as a Sharpshooter when he was motivated. That would qualify him to be a "good" shot when he wanted to.
You also didn't read where the officer didn't know the reason he only qualified as a Marksman the last time he qualified. So tell me, do you know if his rifle wasn't sighted in or the weather was raining or windy?

I think what you're trying to tell me is the Marine Corps doesn't know anything about marksmanship.

[Lando Lincoln]

I agree completely. I suppose it can be said that it is not what I know. But it certainly is what I believe - Oswald acted alone.

I have been a shooter and hunter my entire life. I have been to the plaza and the 6th floor. That series of shots was quite pedestrian - despite people saying otherwise. Maybe on another day, Oswald might have missed. On this one, he didn't.

As for the head moving backwards.....Shoot a plastic gallon of water with a similar caliber say a 7.62x39. More often than not, the exploding jug will fall towards the shooter. This doesn't even consider the physiological effect.

P.S. I think Elvis is dead, too! (not intended as sarcastic!) ;)

[Shooter 2.5]

I think a lot of junk yard shooters have been able to do exactly what you're writing about.

Before my computer crashed a couple of weeks ago, I had a video of a shooter firing at a real human skull filled with gelatin. The skull bounced forward.

I always go to Dealy Plaza when I go downtown to the West End. It's always a lot of fun to hear the reactions of people when they learn where the "Grassy Knoll" is. Before I actually went there, I always thought it was set back hundreds of yards.

[Flashlight]

...More often than not, the exploding jug will fall towards the shooter...

Simple request. Find somewhere to view the Zapruder film. Find one of the enhanced-type versions where they zoom in on the head area, and you can view it at normal speed and at slower speeds. Hopfully, you can find the clearest copy available. Some copies are second- or more generation.

*Then*, ask yourself, where did the last shot come from, and does it look to you that his head is thrown back due to "muscle tightening".

[Lando Lincoln]

I certainly will - and I'll do so with an open mind.

However, please do likewise. My point about the gallon of water is that the physics of a high speed projectile rupturing a liquid filled vessel is very complex - certainly beyond my meager ability to explain. My own observation in watching a shooter (usually my boys) blast such a container is that shock waves actually propel the vessel towards the shooter. Thanks for your suggestion....I will follow-up.

[Flashlight]

...[I said:] There may not be ballistic evidence, but there *is* plenty of "medical evidence" that raises, at least, tons of suspicion....

[you replied:] Not really. Feel free to cite it if you think so...

David Lifton interviewed tons of people involved with the autopsy. He recorded the interviews and fully documents everything. His book "Best Evidence" goes into all the details. Here's an example (from his testimony to Cnogress):

Turning now to the report of the two agents who attended the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis O'Neill. I interviewed Sibert in early November 1966 questioning him about the statement in his FBI report in which he quotes the head pathologist at Bethesda autopsy, Commander Humes, is saying it was "apparent" that when the President's body had been put on the table there had been "surgery of the head area namely in the top of the skull." Sibert said the statement was true.

- - end of excerpt.

Even if there's some perfectly normal explanation for "surgery at the top of the skull" before the autopsy, Lifton's book is filled with details of the weirdness, suspicious activities, conflicting statements, and so on concerning the autopsy and the events before and after.

( http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index38.htm is a link to his Congressional testimony concerning Assassination records.

[Flashlight]

...However, please do likewise...

I certainly will, also. I'm going to my local video store to see if they've got a copy of the Zapruder film on DVD or video that I can rent. (Though, I have no idea if they'll have an "enhanced" or "zoomed-in" copy or not.)

I'll look at it again with an open mind.

I have seen films of pumpkins or something getting shot and "falling backward." But the head movement on the Zapruder film just doesn't look the same to me. (Especially when you consider the shot from the back that pushed the head forward for only one frame.)