Mark Knight

OK...let's stop right now and get the terms correct. First, since there was no MAC-10 or similar pistol involved [the MAC-10 was invented in 1964, so it couldn't have been used to kill Tippit], there was NO "automatic" pistol involved. What Mr. Von Pein described is correctly referred to as a SEMIAUTOMATIC, as one has to pull the trigger for each shot. A semiautomatic does automatically eject spent rounds and load fresh rounds into the chamber from a removable magazine. The Smith & Wesson revolver that was entered into evidence is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolver, meaning that one does not need to manually cock the hammer in order to fire any rounds from the pistol, and the bullets are individually loaded into a revolving cylinder. It would be GREAT if EVERYONE would use the correct terminology, as it might reduce misunderstandings in the discussions. [And I really HATE to hear a semiautomatic referred to as an "automatic," because that's a tactic anti-gunners use to falsely equate the two.]

Good stuff, Mr. Burnham. Thanks for sharing it.

Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination, except as today's politics has been shaped by the history since. The politics of '63 have MUCH to do with the assassination, I believe.

OK...I'm gonna comment ONCE on the TEA Party...and then I'm going to expect the conversation to likely move on. Originally, the TEA Party WAS a grass-roots organization. Folks who believed they were paying too much of their income in taxes. THEN a large number of OTHER folks, with OTHER agendas and VERY deep pockets, hijacked the original TEA Party name, and used it to espouse other non-tax-related causes. The TEA Party of today bears little resemblance to the TEA Part of 5-8 years ago.

Thank you, Mr. Gaal. I wasn't trying to imply that I disagreed with the material you quoted. I simply wondered where it came from, and wanted to give you a chance to give credit where credit is due.

"...Clay Shaw, a prominent civic leader in New Orleans and known CIA asset to whom we will soon be introduced, sat on its board...." So I would assume that Mr. Gaal is copying this from some other source. Would you care to share your source with us, Mr. Gaal? I'm not comfortable with unreferenced sources.

Whether you believe the bullets were planted or not--and I don't believe they were planted--this shows a gross mishandling of either (a) evidence or ( personal property, depending upon which class you assign to the bullets. Mr. Burnham is correct on the proper way to deal with both personal property AND evidence collected from the person of a suspect. I tend to think that finding the bullets later is simply evidence of sloppy police work AND poor procedure in handling evidence or personal property. If cops missed FIVE BULLETS in Oswald's pocket, what else might they have missed? A handcuff key, for example, might have turned the tables on an officer at some point.

So we're seeing a bit of sleight-of-hand with the math, as it regards the 10-inch vertical distance vs. the horizontal distance. As a good friend used to say: "Don't surprise me none...."

About that cosmoline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline Here's the important part, the part that applies to the paper bag: "Cosmoline that is fairly fresh, or that has been hermetically sealed in a plastic bag or shrink wrap, remains a grease-like viscous fluid, and mostly wipes off with a rag, leaving only a thin film behind. Cosmoline that is older and has had air exposure usually solidifies after a few years, as the volatile hydrocarbon fraction evaporates and leaves behind only the waxy hydrocarbon fraction. The solid wax does not readily wipe off. It can be scraped off, although the scraping is laborious and leaves crumbs to be swept or vacuumed away. A useful method of cleaning a tool of crusted cosmoline is to allow a penetrating oil (such as CRC 5-56, CLP, or equivalent) to soak into it for several minutes or hours, which typically restores it to a viscous-fluid state, allowing it to be wiped off. An additional method of cosmoline removal on new parts is to use a closed-cabinet parts washer that utilizes the power wash process. Removal of cosmoline with an aqueous parts washer requires high heat, the proper aqueous detergent, and the correct hydraulic impact pressure.[1] All cleaning methods create waste that must be disposed of in the proper manner. Aqueous washing or solvent cleaning both have accepted methods to dispose of the "sludge" created. Cosmoline is mostly waxes and hydrocarbons and creates a regulated waste that is not difficult to dispose of properly. It has been reported that talcum powder can be used as an absorbent of Cosmoline by packing the powder around the item to be cleaned and applying sufficient heat to melt the solid film allowing the compound to be wicked from the coated surface into the talcum, which can be scraped off more easily.[2]' Having spent several years in the auto parts business, I'm familiar with parts being coated with cosmoline. The fresher the cosmoline, the stickier and oilier it is. The longer the surface has been coated with cosmoline, the more solid it becomes. BUT, in my personal experience, no matter how old the coating of cosmoline, the sticky quality never goes away. Now...make of that what you will regarding the Carcano and the bag.

Mrs. Sanders sure included a LOT of hearsay in her statement to the FBI, it seems to me.... Funny how she spoke in 3rd person, too. [For those who didn't catch it...that second line is intended to be sarcasm.]

"...and finally there is a shipment from Canada of 1300 rifles which includes mention of "2766". Thess same inventory sheets for the 1300 rifles does not show a single prefix for a single rifle's serial #.... Hmmmm....reminds me again of that email I received from Gerry Hemming in which he "implied very strongly" that the so-called "Oswald rifle" was actually sourced thru Montreal, rather than Chicago... Hemming being Hemming, I still don't know what to make of that information.

That's not what Dr. Pierre Finck told the HSCA: Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death. Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe? Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful. Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track? Dr. FINCK. I don't know. Mr. PURDY. What was your confusion that you had said -- I am not sure that you used the word "confusion." I think you used a word to describe the state of mind when you could not find the track and you could not find an exit wound and you could not find evidence of a bullet. How did you resolve that confusion that night during the autopsy? Dr. FINCK. By asking for the X ray films. While Finck's answers weren't very enlightening, he indicates that, to a minor extent, a metal probe WAS used. AND x-rays were referred to. What was NOT done was that the wound was not dissected to determine for certain the track of the bullet. Yeah, Finck's testimony is very evasive...but he reveals a couple of things. Here's the link I used: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Jon, I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G., ...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.... So did Charles Givens. James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty?

Mr. Von Pein, basing generalities about ALL CTer's based upon a statement by ONE CTer is a flawed concept. CTers are not of homogenous thought...on nearly anything. I would've thought that, as many appearances as you make on this forum, you might have picked up on that concept. Color me wrong. Apparently I overestimated your powers of observation. For that, I apologize.

Thanks for the update.

So...from z161 to z166, the vertical drop should be 3.54 inches, since the horizontal distance is 5.4 feet... ...and NOT 10 inches... ...if I'm following along correctly.

The SS-100X limo was NOT "confiscated." At Parkland, it was parked away from the gathering crowds, and the bubble top was removed from the trunk and installed. The seats WERE washed, but it was MUCH later that the seat covers were removed by the folks who did a full refurbishing of the limo. Now, if things were done as the modern CSI shows do it today, the seats would NOT have been washed. The SS would have had a forensic photographer taking photos of the entire limo, and noting anything that might seem out of the ordinary. BUT the SS had NO forensic photographers, and sending for one from the DPD, the local FBI office, or even the Dallas County Sheriff's office simply didn't occur to anyone. The folks to do this would've likely been detectives, anyway; forensic photography wasn't a separate investigative area then, as the CSI shows make it out to be today. The idea that the limo was actually a part of the crime scene simply wasn't a priority at the time. When the limo left Parkland, it went back to Love field, and was loaded back aboard the C-130 that brought it to Dallas, for its flight back to DC. The SS being the SS, they sequestered the limo in the White House Garage that night. But since the SS was the "rightful" custodians of the limo--remember the license plate, SS-100X? That SS stands for...well...you know--the limo was NEVER "confiscated." After midnight, the FBI inspected the limo in the White House garage. So it WAS available for investigation. As I understand it, cops--including the FBI--weren't as photo-happy as we are today. So there were NO "twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs, with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, explainin' what each one was, to be used as evidence against..."...LHO. But the limo wasn't "confiscated" from the SS, not until after the weekend...if I understand the history correctly.

I have seen windshields that were penetrated by a BB. The nearly-perfectly-round BB leaves a nearly-perfectly-round hole on the side of the windshield it strikes, and a bevelled crater on the opposite side of the windshield. Bullets moving at higher velocities might make a different mark on the inside, but still, any spider-webbing would be concentrated near the hole. As in 3-4 inches in diameter, maybe 6 inches with a large caliber. But I don't recall ever seeing a bullet-pierced windshield spider-webbing across the entire windshield. And there certainly would be some spraying of glass from the impact that causes the hole...because that glass doesn't simply vaporize.

Glenn, you are never going to get Nostra-Trejo-Damn-Us to let go of the idea that he already knows what the documents to be released in 2017 are going to say. I'd bet some good money--or at least a chicken dinner at DVP's KFC--that he's wrong. And if that's the case, I'm betting he'll say the documents that would surely prove him correct have been destroyed.

And the height of the windowsill above the floor on the southeast window of the 6th floor od the TSBD was.....

Actually, Mr. Gaal's post #2191 is the most coherent thing I've seen from him in quite some time.

I'm pretty sure the 52.78 inches refers to a spot on the head of the JFK stand-in riding in the Queen Mary during one of the reenactments of the assassination. The 10 inches represents the difference in the distance from the pavement to the same point on the head of JFK as he rode in SS-100X. Not sure I remember the other numbers in the equation. As I've gotten older, my recall has slowed.

Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right? Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally). And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did). 52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists. I'm wondering as well...if they're dealing with cadavers, could they not access one with an intact wrist? I'm fairly sure those are available, for scientific purposes. Then take the two bodies, line them up in such a way as to simulate the path of the bullet as told by the SBT--back to front of the neck of the first cadaver, then 5th rib to wrist to thigh of the 2nd cadaver. With computer-enhanced 3D modeling and x-rays of the cadavers, surely there is someone on the face of the Earth capable of lining up such a shot. Then use a 6.5mm Carcano from 90 or so yards and duplicate the shot. For the experiment here, one would not even need to have the target moving...as the point is to duplicate the wounds and to duplicate CE 399. BUT the bullet MUST create ALL the wounds that the SBT says it did, and create approximately the same damage to rib, wrist, and thigh ascribed by the SBT to JFK and JBC. THEN let's see that bullet. Also, let's see the size of the fragments left in the JBC stand-in's thigh and wrist and compare them to the fragments removed by the surgery team at Parkland. Unless or until you can do that, you're comparing apples to kumquats...and always will be.

Ok, then. We are where I intended to be with that post. I thought that once you read my words without seeking any hidden agenda, we might find one piece of common ground. Not everything in life HAS to be confrontational. I am merely a seeker of truth.

Does that mean you'll reread post #12 with an open mind?