A Split Personality
One very interesting character in JFK assassination research has been the now late curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, Gary Mack.
Originally a Conspiracy Theorist interested in photographic analysis (along with Jack White, he came up with the “Badge Man” theory of the Mary Moorman photo), he was also the first to theorize that the sound of assassination gunfire was recorded onto the dictabelt. Like me, he believed that something was edited out of the dictabelt recording (a theory he came up with first).
And then he changed. He became a spokesperson for the official story. Some researchers called him a “disinformation specialist”—a moniker he was aware of and mentions in his HSCA testimony. He refused to present conspiracy theories, or even allow conspiracy theorist books to be sold, in the Museum.
What happened?
The catalyst for the change seemed to be the Ricky White/Roscoe White affair. Ricky White was a young man who claimed that his father Roscoe was the “Grassy Knoll Shooter.” Mack researched the claim and decided it was untrue. Yet, when Mack tried to present the refuting evidence to Ricky White, he was rebuffed. Apparently, Mr. Mack decided that young Mr. White was more interested in notoriety than in the truth, and this created an about-face in Mack’s perceptions of conspiracy theorists.
It may have been more than just an about-face. I can understand the desire to discredit false claims—getting at the truth is what JFK assassination research is all about, after all. However, Mack’s role in the lawsuit of Hickey vs. St. Martin’s Press over the publication of Mortal Error is interesting, to say the least.
The lawsuit document describes a version of events involving Gary Mack, Howard Donahue (the “mortal error” theorist), Bonar Menninger (Donahue’s writer), and Thomas McCormack (a representative of St. Martin’s Press, the publisher of Mortal Error). Mack had apparently invited the three others to Dallas to view the Charles Bronson film of the assassination, purporting to show “Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination”—and therefore, "Hickey could not have fired the fatal shot." (In point of fact, I think the fatal shot was the first shot, not the explosive head shot, and any assassination film showing both the limousine and the follow-up car throughout the turn onto Elm Street would have shown “Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination”—at least before alterations were made to the films).
While viewing the Bronson film at a TV station, Menninger and Donahue (who passed away in 1999) noticed a “black stick” both before and after a damaged frame (damaged and/or missing frames being a common theme of the assassination films), which they thought could have been the AR-15 rifle, and believed that the person “seated at the moment of the assassination” (i.e., explosive head shot) was actually SSA Glenn Bennett, who was seated beside Hickey in the back of the follow-up car. In any case, the film images were blurry and inconclusive, at best. At some point after viewing the film, St. Martin’s Press representative Tom McCormack became verbally angry. The lawsuit document claims that the anger was directed at Donahue and Menninger, because the Bronson film “proved” that Donahue’s theory of the accidental shot was wrong. However, Menninger and McCormack both told me that McCormack was angry at Gary Mack, and not at Donahue or Menninger, because McCormack had wasted time and money to travel to Dallas “for so worthless a piece of evidence.”
Which is interesting, to say the least.
Admittedly, I did not contact Mr. Mack before he passed away, to get his version of events, although presumably the lawsuit document gives that. However, I did try to contact the Sixth Floor Museum for a number of other matters—such as how to obtain images from the Bronson and Tina Towner films—and all of my e-mails went unanswered. But it is obvious that Mack had to have told somebody involved in the lawsuit (either Hickey or his attorney) about the visit to Dallas by Donahue, Menninger, and McCormack, and the subsequent altercation. Could Mack’s words or memory of the event have gotten twisted around? Maybe Mack’s memory innocently and mistakenly transferred the recipient of McCormack’s anger from himself towards Donahue and Menninger--but I think that is unlikely. Or maybe Hickey’s attorney misunderstood Mack’s account--which I'm not buying, either. Or maybe the account was deliberately twisted for the purposes of the lawsuit, which is what I think happened.
But the thing is, how did Hickey or his attorney even know about the altercation? To my knowledge, nothing had yet been published about the Bronson film “disproving” Donahue’s theory, and Hickey certainly wasn’t there when the altercation took place. The whole thing smacks of a set-up and makes me wonder how Mack got his job as curator of the Museum in the first place, and whether Mack had strong government connections rather than functioning as an unbiased truth-seeker.
On the other hand, at least one researcher has speculated that Mack, whose real name was Larry Dunkel before he changed it, was a sort of “Scarlet Pimpernel” who publicly espoused the government version of events while secretly helping researchers, especially in the guise of a “Gerda Dunckel” (different spelling of the last name), who has posted a number of film and photographic images and commentary studied by conspiracy theorists. Other researchers assure us that Dunkel (Mack) and Dunckel (Gerda) are two completely different people. One thing is certain—Ms. Dunckel’s collection of films and images is extensive and seems to be of pretty high quality. Whether there is more than just a similar name connection between Mr. Dunkel and Ms. Dunckel, I can’t say, but Ms. Dunckel’s collection of images is certainly remarkable.
Could Mack have invited Donahue, Menninger, and McCormack to Dallas to view the Bronson film precisely because of the “black stick” that he knew they would see? Who knows? Maybe he was a “Scarlet Pimpernel.” But researchers, authors, and theorists who have visited the Sixth Floor Museum frequently complain about the one-sided version (i.e., the “official” version) of events presented at the museum in its displays and in its bookstore.
The schizophrenic dual personality that Mack has presented makes it difficult to pin him down as either a “truth-seeker” or “disinformation asset.” On the one hand, I believe Menninger’s and McCormack’s version of events over the lawsuit’s version (presumably Mack’s). On the other hand, I agree with Mack that “something was edited out” of the police recordings (although Mack had no theory as to what was edited out, while I do). On the first hand, Mack’s aggravation with false claims and conclusions that don’t follow evidence (e.g., The Ricky White/Roscoe White claim, which Mack testified to the HSCA is completely unfounded) is understandable. On the other hand, Mack seems to have been unwilling to listen to, or to present in the Museum displays, any of the evidence that the government’s story is false.
As for myself, I sent the Sixth Floor Museum a hard-copy of my book, with pages marked where I quote Mack, or mention him, or quote from interviews that were conducted at the Museum. Just as with the e-mails I sent requesting information on obtaining access to films when I was still researching the validity of Donahue’s theory of the explosive head shot or my own theory of early head shot cover-up, I have heard nothing back.
One very interesting character in JFK assassination research has been the now late curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, Gary Mack.
Originally a Conspiracy Theorist interested in photographic analysis (along with Jack White, he came up with the “Badge Man” theory of the Mary Moorman photo), he was also the first to theorize that the sound of assassination gunfire was recorded onto the dictabelt. Like me, he believed that something was edited out of the dictabelt recording (a theory he came up with first).
And then he changed. He became a spokesperson for the official story. Some researchers called him a “disinformation specialist”—a moniker he was aware of and mentions in his HSCA testimony. He refused to present conspiracy theories, or even allow conspiracy theorist books to be sold, in the Museum.
What happened?
The catalyst for the change seemed to be the Ricky White/Roscoe White affair. Ricky White was a young man who claimed that his father Roscoe was the “Grassy Knoll Shooter.” Mack researched the claim and decided it was untrue. Yet, when Mack tried to present the refuting evidence to Ricky White, he was rebuffed. Apparently, Mr. Mack decided that young Mr. White was more interested in notoriety than in the truth, and this created an about-face in Mack’s perceptions of conspiracy theorists.
It may have been more than just an about-face. I can understand the desire to discredit false claims—getting at the truth is what JFK assassination research is all about, after all. However, Mack’s role in the lawsuit of Hickey vs. St. Martin’s Press over the publication of Mortal Error is interesting, to say the least.
The lawsuit document describes a version of events involving Gary Mack, Howard Donahue (the “mortal error” theorist), Bonar Menninger (Donahue’s writer), and Thomas McCormack (a representative of St. Martin’s Press, the publisher of Mortal Error). Mack had apparently invited the three others to Dallas to view the Charles Bronson film of the assassination, purporting to show “Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination”—and therefore, "Hickey could not have fired the fatal shot." (In point of fact, I think the fatal shot was the first shot, not the explosive head shot, and any assassination film showing both the limousine and the follow-up car throughout the turn onto Elm Street would have shown “Hickey seated at the moment of the assassination”—at least before alterations were made to the films).
While viewing the Bronson film at a TV station, Menninger and Donahue (who passed away in 1999) noticed a “black stick” both before and after a damaged frame (damaged and/or missing frames being a common theme of the assassination films), which they thought could have been the AR-15 rifle, and believed that the person “seated at the moment of the assassination” (i.e., explosive head shot) was actually SSA Glenn Bennett, who was seated beside Hickey in the back of the follow-up car. In any case, the film images were blurry and inconclusive, at best. At some point after viewing the film, St. Martin’s Press representative Tom McCormack became verbally angry. The lawsuit document claims that the anger was directed at Donahue and Menninger, because the Bronson film “proved” that Donahue’s theory of the accidental shot was wrong. However, Menninger and McCormack both told me that McCormack was angry at Gary Mack, and not at Donahue or Menninger, because McCormack had wasted time and money to travel to Dallas “for so worthless a piece of evidence.”
Which is interesting, to say the least.
Admittedly, I did not contact Mr. Mack before he passed away, to get his version of events, although presumably the lawsuit document gives that. However, I did try to contact the Sixth Floor Museum for a number of other matters—such as how to obtain images from the Bronson and Tina Towner films—and all of my e-mails went unanswered. But it is obvious that Mack had to have told somebody involved in the lawsuit (either Hickey or his attorney) about the visit to Dallas by Donahue, Menninger, and McCormack, and the subsequent altercation. Could Mack’s words or memory of the event have gotten twisted around? Maybe Mack’s memory innocently and mistakenly transferred the recipient of McCormack’s anger from himself towards Donahue and Menninger--but I think that is unlikely. Or maybe Hickey’s attorney misunderstood Mack’s account--which I'm not buying, either. Or maybe the account was deliberately twisted for the purposes of the lawsuit, which is what I think happened.
But the thing is, how did Hickey or his attorney even know about the altercation? To my knowledge, nothing had yet been published about the Bronson film “disproving” Donahue’s theory, and Hickey certainly wasn’t there when the altercation took place. The whole thing smacks of a set-up and makes me wonder how Mack got his job as curator of the Museum in the first place, and whether Mack had strong government connections rather than functioning as an unbiased truth-seeker.
On the other hand, at least one researcher has speculated that Mack, whose real name was Larry Dunkel before he changed it, was a sort of “Scarlet Pimpernel” who publicly espoused the government version of events while secretly helping researchers, especially in the guise of a “Gerda Dunckel” (different spelling of the last name), who has posted a number of film and photographic images and commentary studied by conspiracy theorists. Other researchers assure us that Dunkel (Mack) and Dunckel (Gerda) are two completely different people. One thing is certain—Ms. Dunckel’s collection of films and images is extensive and seems to be of pretty high quality. Whether there is more than just a similar name connection between Mr. Dunkel and Ms. Dunckel, I can’t say, but Ms. Dunckel’s collection of images is certainly remarkable.
Could Mack have invited Donahue, Menninger, and McCormack to Dallas to view the Bronson film precisely because of the “black stick” that he knew they would see? Who knows? Maybe he was a “Scarlet Pimpernel.” But researchers, authors, and theorists who have visited the Sixth Floor Museum frequently complain about the one-sided version (i.e., the “official” version) of events presented at the museum in its displays and in its bookstore.
The schizophrenic dual personality that Mack has presented makes it difficult to pin him down as either a “truth-seeker” or “disinformation asset.” On the one hand, I believe Menninger’s and McCormack’s version of events over the lawsuit’s version (presumably Mack’s). On the other hand, I agree with Mack that “something was edited out” of the police recordings (although Mack had no theory as to what was edited out, while I do). On the first hand, Mack’s aggravation with false claims and conclusions that don’t follow evidence (e.g., The Ricky White/Roscoe White claim, which Mack testified to the HSCA is completely unfounded) is understandable. On the other hand, Mack seems to have been unwilling to listen to, or to present in the Museum displays, any of the evidence that the government’s story is false.
As for myself, I sent the Sixth Floor Museum a hard-copy of my book, with pages marked where I quote Mack, or mention him, or quote from interviews that were conducted at the Museum. Just as with the e-mails I sent requesting information on obtaining access to films when I was still researching the validity of Donahue’s theory of the explosive head shot or my own theory of early head shot cover-up, I have heard nothing back.