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?" ---

---

[wingnuts'nbolts]

You my friend are not the first to come to that conclusion.

[Tall_Texan]

I've read and watched many things about the assassination, both pro-conspiracy (Crossfire, Conspiracy, many others) and anti-conspiracy (Case Closed, Conspiracy of One, etc.). I've walked all over Dealey Plaza and taken photos from certain vantage points. I have my own opinions but no hard conclusions as to who was involved or why other than the principle facts that aren't in question.

What usually happens when anti-conspiracy folks take any evidence presented them that supports a conspiracy, they will tell you that the source is a publicity-seeker, a known liar, mentally unstable, etc whose evidence has been altered, faked or manufactured.

What usually happens when pro-conspiracy folks take any evidence presented them that refutes a conspiracy, they will tell you that the source is a government dupe, uniformed or part of the conspiracy whose evidence has been altered, faked or manufactured.

So neither side has a great deal of credibility with me and I've seen several "facts", even in the first 30 posts, that are demonstrably false. I'm prepared to accept nearly any conclusion proffered so far but I need to be proven it is true.

I am convinced that Oswald was not innocent. Whether he was the actual gunmen or not or whether there were shooters at the Knoll or elsewhere remain open to various theories but Oswald's actions on the day prior to and the day of the assassination force me to conclude he was involved.

I'm afraid there has been so much misrepresentation and distortion on both sides that we'll unlikely find a conclusion that will be satisfactory.

[Flashlight]

Unfortunately, my local video store no longer has the Zapruder film DVD available. (Maybe I was thinking of a "Kennedy Assassination" DVD). This may be harder than I thought to check out what I want to see.

I'm half-thinking of trying the movie "JFK", but I have no idea if they use the real Zapruder film in it, or some re-creation.

[Shooter 2.5]

The Zapruder film is all over the internet. It's better to get it in a computer program so you can view it hundreds of times. I must have seen it more than two hundred, myself. I have it on my computer in the original, frame by frame and a short version that only shows the head shot. The head shot version is on a short clip where I can stop it and use my cursor to run it back and forth.

I also went to the gunrange and duplicated some of it. That's why I know about the small hole was the entrance and the large hole was the exit. I also found out about the cratering of the bone. I found that out by observing particle board.

If you get the Zapruder film, look at the the destruction of Kennedy's head and you'll notice nothing is apparent to the rear of his right ear. All of the wound is forward of the head as show in post 65.

[general_re]

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.

Fortunately for all of us, it's not beyond the ability of everyone to explain. Probably the most well-known attempt to explain the motion of targets like that was Luis Alvarez's paper on the so-called "jet effect" - I don't have it handy, but it should be readily available if you do a Google search. In a nutshell, it turns out that a small, high-velocity projectile like a bullet doesn't actually impart that much of its force to a target like a head - it sort of slides in, passes through the (mostly water) brain, and slides back out. And as it's passing through the brain, it "pulls" brain matter along with it, drawing it out behind it, which creates a "jet effect" - the brain matter flowing out of the exit wound acts like a little jet, and causes force to be applied in the direction of the bullet.

It's totally counterintuitive to what you might guess would happen, especially if you didn't have a lot of experience shooting things like that. But it's a nice theory, because it's easily testable by anyone with access to a reasonably powerful rifle and a range. Next time you go shooting, stop by the supermarket and pick yourself up a nice, head-sized melon like a canteloupe, and some ordinary plastic packing tape. Wrap the tape around the melon in a good, skull-like thickness, put it on platform such that it will easily fall in any direction, and fire away. It'll fall towards the shooter every single time.

And if you really want to recreate the assassination, just put a second melon, wearing a pink pillbox hat, next to the first one ;)

[Lando Lincoln]

And if you really want to recreate the assassination, just put a second melon, wearing a pink pillbox hat, next to the first one ;)

Ouch....LOL....

Thanks for the post.

[Lando Lincoln]

My video rental place does not have it either. "JFK" has an authentic Zapruder film as I recall. Check out post #125.

[general_re]

I think it was Penn and Teller who suggested the hat thing when they recreated Alvarez's experiments. I seem to recall that they did allow that it might be in bad taste, though ;)

More seriously, between the jet effect and the reflex action that you get from any sudden, serious brain injury, the movement of the body in the Zapruder film is easily understandable without resorting to theories about multiple shooters.

[Flashlight]

Based solely on the later invalidated acoustics evidence...

I've heard that the accoustics evidence was challenged and not accepted by some, but was it actually invalidated? If so, what was the reason?

[SoCal Pubbie]

I'm afraid you are right, Oswald did not reach the expert category. I was relying on a quick internet search. On the other hand, you are also wrong, as I stated. (I did not call you any names). He did reach the mid level, or sharpshooter rating. This is more than just "barely passing". Perhaps this will satisfy you, as these are not my words:

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in The .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksmansharp-shooterexpert. In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.

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 tobetter 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.