PDA

View Full Version : How Gary Mack became Dan Rather ( Jim Di Eugenio)



Dawn Meredith
06-25-2009, 09:34 PM
http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

Paul Rigby
06-25-2009, 10:18 PM
Fascinating piece, with much to admire. But two objections, one small, one enormous:


"Let me echo the sentiments of Jim Garrison in regards to the above: Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt."

Didn't Aynesworth give Mark Lane a bundle of goodies in Jan (?) 1964?


"On their web site, they even try and cover up for Life Magazine concealing the powerful evidence in the Zapruder film from the American public. This is what they say: when Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life, it was with the understanding they not exploit the graphic details of Kennedy's death until emotions cooled down. Zapruder sold all rights to Life Magazine. Once they paid him, he had no power over what they did with the film. Executive C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce—the owner of the magazine—decided to conceal the film from the public since they knew it contradicted the official story. The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down."

Here's where Di Eugenio loses me entirely - the film is a blatant fake, and Groden has been central to this fake's dissemination.

C'mon, Jim, get those critical faculties into gear on the subject of the Z fake. It's long past time.

Dawn Meredith
06-27-2009, 01:09 PM
Jim's response:
" The issue of Z film alteration does not figure in any way, shape or form into this essay or the section of it you allude to. My point, which I thought was obvious, was that the Sixth Floor was covering up for the real motivations of Henry Luce and C. D. Jackson. Which I think I proved. And which figures into the main theme of the essay i.e. that Gary Mack has now joined into something he once vociferously opposed. Which is why I used the opening quote I did. And he has now become a central part of the cover up. Along with other people who used to be "critics" like Gus Russo and Dale Myers. The question the essay poses and argues for is that this may have been a part of a grand plan which no one saw at the time, including me. To my knowledge this is the first sustained inquiry into that topic. And it took two months of interviews to assemble it. That was the main theme--period. And that is big and important enough. It should not be criticized for something extraneous to it.


I leave the issue of Z film alteration to those who wish to argue about it rather inelegantly but zealously. I have never taken part in that debate. I have done my best on other matters like Jim Garrison, JFK and Vietnam, the media, Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and exposing things like Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann's ludicrous books and this Discovery Channel fiasco. I leave the Z film debate to others who are more qualified and interested in it. I have other fish to fry. I think I do a good job cooking them. And I don't think I should be taken to task for choosing to fight those battles and not this one."


Thanks again.


JIM D".

Paul Rigby
06-27-2009, 10:47 PM
Jim's response:
" The issue of Z film alteration does not figure in any way, shape or form into this essay or the section of it you allude to. My point, which I thought was obvious, was that the Sixth Floor was covering up for the real motivations of Henry Luce and C. D. Jackson. Which I think I proved. And which figures into the main theme of the essay i.e. that Gary Mack has now joined into something he once vociferously opposed. Which is why I used the opening quote I did. And he has now become a central part of the cover up. Along with other people who used to be "critics" like Gus Russo and Dale Myers. The question the essay poses and argues for is that this may have been a part of a grand plan which no one saw at the time, including me. To my knowledge this is the first sustained inquiry into that topic. And it took two months of interviews to assemble it. That was the main theme--period. And that is big and important enough. It should not be criticized for something extraneous to it.


I leave the issue of Z film alteration to those who wish to argue about it rather inelegantly but zealously. I have never taken part in that debate. I have done my best on other matters like Jim Garrison, JFK and Vietnam, the media, Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and exposing things like Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann's ludicrous books and this Discovery Channel fiasco. I leave the Z film debate to others who are more qualified and interested in it. I have other fish to fry. I think I do a good job cooking them. And I don't think I should be taken to task for choosing to fight those battles and not this one."


Thanks again.


JIM D".

Jim,

Thanks for the reply. I must say, however, that I remainly deeply puzzled and not a little troubled by your essay, specifically, section VI.


The Sixth Form Museum is now the official HQ of the Department of Zapruderland Security, the custodian of the alleged camera-original. Incredibly, you entirely ignore this, the most salient fact of the Museum’s current incarnation, in the section of your essay at issue: Why?

To put it another way, if Mack is indeed the CIA-handled disinformationist you describe – and I disagree with you here only about the timing – what does this tell us about the film? Why would the best, truly authentic film record of the assassination require guarding by a figure like Mack, not to mention the network of anti-alterationist glove-puppets he animates?

Even more curiously, you embrace and reproduce the same basic history of the film, its provenance and acquisition, that is peddled by, guess who, Gary Mack and the Sixth Form Museum. Indeed, the latter’s website is more accurate: It at least nods in the direction of the oft-ignored fact that the version of the Z-fake with which, courtesy of Garrison’s subpoena, we are today familiar first debuted on a Los Angeles channel in February 1969. Oddly, it did so without recrimination from Time-Life, into whose iron Lucean-Jacksonian grip you would have us believe it originally and uncomplicatedly fell in November 1963 until March 1975.

Are you quite sure it did?

Paul

Dawn Meredith
06-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Reply from Jim:

"No comment since 1.) I do not know what you are talking about or 2.)where that quote you use originated from or 3.) Where the "facts" in it originated, and 4.) You ignored my point.


So goodbye."


JIM D

Paul Rigby
06-30-2009, 09:46 PM
Reply from Jim:

"No comment since 1.) I do not know what you are talking about or 2.)where that quote you use originated from or 3.) Where the "facts" in it originated, and 4.) You ignored my point.


So goodbye."


JIM D

My instinctive reaction to section VI stands: "Otherwise fine researcher, for reasons unclear to me, seeks to redeem fake film (more accurately, Z versions 1 & 2), and its equally bogus "legend," from clutches of discredited guardian (Mack) via classic false opposition (Groden v. Mack)." Now that's what I call interesting.