Jack Dougherty - who knows more about him?

[ChristophMessner]

Jack Dougherty - the most probable shooter or shooter-observer or shooter-helper! You can read his suspicious testimony and we discussed a little on the other thread about Mr. Truly. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cons ... d3a8fbeBut how come there is no photo, no curriculum vitae, no further research on him? Who has any?

[ChristophMessner]

On jfkassassinationforum I recently titled a thread: "Gary Mack, find that photo of Jack Dougherty" and in the first post I wrote: "Gary, do something for your money!" Then there was an e-mail exchange between us: [quote author=Christoph Messner link=action=profile;u=96 date=1249849162][quote author=Gary Mack link=action=profile;u=129 date=1249831681][quote author=Christoph Messner link=action=profile;u=96 date=1249815768]Thread title: "Gary Mack, find that photo of Jack Dougherty!"Christoph Messner posts: "Gary, do something for your money!"[quote author=Gary Mack link=action=profile;u=129 date=1249578810][quote author=Christoph Messner link=action=profile;u=96 date=1249567862][quote author=Gary Mack link=action=profile;u=129 date=1249489463][quote author=Christoph Messner link=action=profile;u=96 date=1249486465][quote author=Gary Mack link=action=profile;u=129 date=1249481669]Christoph,What? Is that an order? I don't take orders. If you are asking, then I can tell you that I don't know of any Jack Dougherty pictures. He died 15 years ago and I don't know of any contact information for family or friends. As for an exhumation of Kennedy's body, I don't know how such matters are handled where you live in Germany, but in this country, there are strong laws and procedures governing such actions. Years ago, my friend, Dave Perry, explained the legal difficulties facing anyone who wants to disinter the President. He wrote a summary to rebut the absurd claims of James Files' promoter, Bob Vernon: http://davesjfk.com/veterans.html ALL of those conditions will have to be met before any actions are taken at Arlington National Cemetery.Gary Mack[/quote]Dear Mr. Mack, confessed I was a little rude, please excuse. But to a certain extent I stand behind of that order tone of mine inasfar as it should be a signal to you, I sent intentionally. In my opinion it is just inadequate for your position to leave it with: "It's difficult, can't you see?" Or course it is difficult, but Jack Dougherty is a prime suspect and the exhumation is most important for the jfk murder solving process. So Jack Dougherty had parents, one dad and one mum, they never made any photo? Where did they live? Just do some research. Is that only impolite to say so? Hey I'm sure you would find that photo if I would give you 50 grands for it. And the exhumation: where there is a will, there is a way. Is there a will to solve the jfk case at all with you? Hey if you would publicly demand the exhumation in all the media, cause Zapruder shows a shot from the front and James Files said it was with mercury, it would cost you your job, but it would give you all honor by the people. And God will send you into heaven afterwards ... Best wishes, Chris [/quote]Chris,You were quite rude, and I don't have endless free time to pursue everyone's curiosity. I study the assassination to assist the Museum and it's programs, exhibits and publications. Jack Dougherty may be of great interest to you, but he isn't of great interest to me. As an employee of the TSBD, he might have an informative story to tell IF he is still alive, so for that reason it would be nice to have his oral history. In fact, I now have conflicting information that the Dougherty who died in 1994 was a different person.As for an exhumation, the burden is on those who want to have it done. Based on what I know about the assassination, I see no need to exhume the President. If you disagree, fine, you now know what you have to do to accomplish your goal.Gary Mack[/quote]Dear Mr. Mack, thank you for your prompt reply! I do understand that you are very busy with the museum, programs, exhibits and publications. But I don't understand why the search of a photo of a prime suspect like Jack Dougherty is not of great interest for you and how you can regard the jfk-case as solved enough to demand any exhumation. It looks for me like you rather want to keep your job and the jfk-case unsolved, so that you will have life-long possiblity to work and earn in the unsolved-business. Is that really satisfying you? Christoph Messner [/quote]Chris,You have a very strange understanding of the Kennedy assassination subject. By definition, real museums (and The Sixth Floor Museum, unlike most, is fully accredited) are neutral. They don't take positions or advocate any particular ideology. History museums only present history, not theory.Museums present the most accurate, objective information available. My personal opinions are not part of any Museum project or publication. Part of my job includes thorough knowledge of the subject and those who study it, and my understanding is that all conspiracy theories are either unproven or have been fairly debunked. As soon as any of those theories are proven and history changes as a result, the Museum will benefit dramatically, for the public will want to know the information and how to make sense of it. In short, the Museum can only benefit from a conspiracy finding, but all the theories argue against each other and there is no consensus on which ones, if any, are true.As for Dougherty, I already told you that, as far as I know, there are no films or photographs of him. None of the 35,000+ items in the Museum's collection show him, but since I don't know what he looks like, he may appear in something. If he's still alive, I'd like to meet him and encourage the man to do an oral history with the Museum and to donate any assassination-related papers he may have.As for an exhumation, from what I know of the subject, there is no need at this time to even think about a possible disinterment. Why? There is no strong reason to do it and because the conspiracy buffs won't believe the results if the evidence doesn't match what they expect. Furthermore, you've hopefully read the legal restrictions on an exhumation. My opinion means nothing when the legal requirement is that the Kennedys must approve or an appropriate court must make a ruling. That means those who want him exhumed have to prove it should be done and that takes you right back to which theory is true and which ones are not.Gary Mack[/quote]Hi Gary, it's nice of you that you answer at all. What is strange to you is not necessarily strange on the whole. Of course public museums have to strive for objectivity and I don't assume that you wouldn't think about objectivity deeply and try your best in that field. But you know that your museum is not just any museum and that your whole "enlightening business" if I may call it like that is based on a murder. So it is a politicum and that this murder is some decades ago does not mean that it would be less a politicum now. And therefore you have to ask yourself inasfar putting this into a museum is serving the politicum justly and appropriately at all. Maybe you have forgotten it during all your museum business, but from the point of political philosophy, the assassination of president should not be made a museum event at all, but a constant debate in all political education and processes. But perhaps that is what you think you do with that museum and your extra work beyond it. Most probably you are right, that the museum would benefit from an official find-out that it was a conspiracy, but it's my opinion, that those find-outs do not mainly have to serve the museum, but have to serve the political consciousness of the whole people. You see, I look at this museum as a fig leaf excuse for giant omissions and crimes of the government and secret services up to today, but you may look at it as an intermediate enlightenment function for the time span, in which the American political consciousness develops from a fake democracy in the 60s over to a plutocracy behind the scenes nowadays towards a real democracy where the people guard the guardians in the longer future. Maybe you think it's not good to give the people too large slices of truth to swallow, it has to be done step by step. But I think you are doing the American public no service, if you keep the JFK murder in a lucrative unsolvedness. That's pretty opportunistic. Maybe you call it reasonable pragmatism or life experience. Ok, I'm 41 now, you have more life experience, I'm sure that if we would meet personally you would be able to convince me that I have had some prejudices. But you also should remain aware, that while it looks like all is running well with the museum, it might be as well, that it isn't so and that it is not decisive whether you have 35000 items there, but whether you have the decisive items there and even better, elsewhere, too. Once the people start to demand the exhumation and the digging for the Dougharty photo and else you might look like oldfashioned trash for the history books one time, if you continue opportunism only right now.Take care, Chris [/quote]Chris,Your comments tell me, again, that you do not understand the role of museums in society and what they do at historic sites.The Museum and I are well aware that many people are not satisfied with the conclusions of either the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It is not the Museum's responsibility to investigate and solve the Kennedy assassination. It is our responsibility to educate our visitors about the history of the event and to preserve assassination-related items in our collection so scholars and researchers can have access to them for their own studies.As for our objectivity, perhaps this question will help you understand: Which, if any, of the three "confessions by Carlos Marcello, E. Howard Hunt and James Files is true? As you must know, all three argue against each other, so either two or all three of the confessions must be false. So far, history says none of them are proven true.Gary Mack[/quote]Gary, I think you overrate the importance of the museum and you underrate the importance of the political necessity to do something for regaining the trust between the people and the people's representatives. This your duty as a citizen, who has the intelligence and the knowledge of what's going on in the media age, should not be hidden behind the ever smiling mask of a "neutral" history museum. I don't know the confession of Carlos Marcello so far, I'm not the expert to interpret the many allusions of Howard Hunt accurately, but I translated the 2003-interview of James Files into German and I know enough for being able to say, that in all those confessions there is more than just correct or false. And that's why it is understandable, but not good, that you bring only the "politically correct" things in your museum. Dunkel means dark in German, by the way. Christoph Messner [/quote]So what does that tell you?

[ChristophMessner]

I just checked the online JFK City Archive of Dallas http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us for "Jack Dougherty" http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/image_index1.pdf (at page 50) and you find something about him at: 01 06 008 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0130-001.gif, http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0130-002.gif)(Can anyone tell me, whether this is his adress on his affidavit: W/M 40, 1827 So. Marsalis wh 6-7170? and: how do we find photos and realtives of him? )(Obviously there is something wrong with his time 12:45 going back to work, cause he heard the shots from the fifth floor at 12:30)02 02 026 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0508-001.gif) (the same content as 01 06 008)02 02 027 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0509-001.gif) (the same content as 02 02 026 and 15 01 021)05 02 019 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1282-001.gif) (the same content as 02 02 026+027)05 02 034 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1304-001.gif) (affidavit of Lovelady naming Dougherty, also in 15 01 036) 05 02 056 (http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/13/1339-001.gif) (affidavit of William Shelley naming himself and then Dougherty keeping an eye on the elevator at first floor so that "nobody would leave the elevator")

[Bob]

Thanks for posting this Chris!Look at this statement from Gary Mack..."You have a very strange understanding of the Kennedy assassination subject. By definition, real museums (and The Sixth Floor Museum, unlike most, is fully accredited) are neutral. They don't take positions or advocate any particular ideology. History museums only present history, not theory."A bigger crock of shit I have NEVER heard.

[ChristophMessner]

Yes, well, Bob, any history is remembered through the glasses of certain theories, isn't it? Ok, museums should strive for objectivity and balancedness, inasfar I can accept Gary Mack's statement, but the "funny" thing is, in his case "his" museum does not strive for objectivity, but follows only one theory and that is the "official" one, doesn' it? Do you know more about Carlos Marcello's confession and does it really contadict Howard Hunt's and James Files' confessions that much like Gary Mack said: Quote Gary Mack (Larry Dunkel?): "As for our objectivity, perhaps this question will help you understand: Which, if any, of the three "confessions by Carlos Marcello, E. Howard Hunt and James Files is true? As you must know, all three argue against each other, so either two or all three of the confessions must be false."

[kenmurray]

Bob wrote:Thanks for posting this Chris!Look at this statement from Gary Mack..."You have a very strange understanding of the Kennedy assassination subject. By definition, real museums (and The Sixth Floor Museum, unlike most, is fully accredited) are neutral. They don't take positions or advocate any particular ideology. History museums only present history, not theory."A bigger crock of shit I have NEVER heard.Neutral, my ass.

[Bob]

ChristophMessner wrote:Yes, well, Bob, any history is remembered through the glasses of certain theories, isn't it? Ok, museums should strive for objectivity and balancedness, inasfar I can accept Gary Mack's statement, but the "funny" thing is, in his case "his" museum does not strive for objectivity, but follows only one theory and that is the "official" one, doesn' it? Do you know more about Carlos Marcello's confession and does it really contadict Howard Hunt's and James Files' confessions that much like Gary Mack said: Quote Gary Mack (Larry Dunkel?): "As for our objectivity, perhaps this question will help you understand: Which, if any, of the three "confessions by Carlos Marcello, E. Howard Hunt and James Files is true? As you must know, all three argue against each other, so either two or all three of the confessions must be false."Marcello, Hunt and Files were ALL connected to the CIA, with Marcello and Files having mob connections as well. One of the biggest attributes of being in both the CIA and mob was the ability to lie and tell disinformation. File's confession has been checked out and I think is true for the most part, although he is still protecting some people. The same goes with the Hunt deathbed confession. Hunt told some facts, but was still very vague about other folks. I think Marcello was in the same boat as Giancana and Trafficante in terms of being mob bosses, and they all had obvious reasons for wanting JFK dead. Here is more on Marcello...http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JF ... .htmBottom line, Mack should talk about telling lies...as he tells subscribes to some real whoppers on the Discovery channel JFK assassination specials for instance. Plus...and it's a big plus...Mack does not allow conspiracy theory books or videos in his "neutral" library.

[kenmurray]

How funny was it that the FBI said that Marcello earned his living as a "tomato salesman" and a "real estate investor" and nothing more. And of course the WC bought that as well.

[Bob]

Also, thanks to questions from our friend Ken last night on Black Op radio, Jim DiEugenio talked about the Jack Dougherty situation and also the infamous Lee Harvey Oswald press conference photo that has David Atlee Phillips in it, at least in my opinion. Jim requested that he wanted to see the photo to make his own determination on whether Phillips was indeed in the photo. I sent him the photo, along with some other information. Here are the archived shows from Black Op radio, including last night's show...http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.html

[kenmurray]

Bob wrote:Also, thanks to questions from our friend Ken last night on Black Op radio, Jim DiEugenio talked about the Jack Dougherty situation and also the infamous Lee Harvey Oswald press conference photo that has David Atlee Phillips in it, at least in my opinion. Jim requested that he wanted to see the photo to make his own determination on whether Phillips was indeed in the photo. I sent him the photo, along with some other information. Here are the archived shows from Black Op radio, including last night's show...http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2009.htmlThanks, Bob. As I figured Von Pein if that's his real name, is not too happy about Jim bashing his hero Vinny's book. Ah, too bad lol.