Mark Knight

"...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?

No, I'm afraid you don't. It's not the exclusive domain of one person. I've seen the same tactics used by people on all sides of the JFK assassination debate. It's simply that one person comes to mind much more quickly than the others because the full spectrum of logical fallacies is employed. Others, on both sides of the debate, seem to specialize in one or two or three of them.

And what makes you think I've done anything of the kind? Do you think I woke up one morning and out of a clear blue sky said to myself -- Even though I haven't studied one bit of evidence in the JFK case, I think I'll start up a bunch of Internet blogs saying that Oswald was guilty. ?? Is that how you think I arrived at my opinion about LHO's guilt, Mr. Knight? I have not offered an opinion on that particular subject. Once more, you are assuming to have read my mind. In fact, an unbiased observer might conclude, and correctly so, that I was merely posting in the abstract. But if you think the shoe fits....well, that's between you and your conscience. I was simply stating a few facts; it was you who decided to to suggest that there was something personal in my post. Go back and reread my post, #12, and try NOT to personalize it. Then show me the flaw in my reasoning [if there is one] based strictly upon the words I posted, and not upon something you decided to take personally. It's not always about you. I have more thoughts that are NOT about you, concerning the JFK assassination, far more that you realize. I don't obsess about you. YOU might, but I have no reason to. As I said, it's not always about you.

Actually, it's "absurd" only if you are seeking the truth, to start with your conclusion and then discard any evidence that doesn't point to your conclusion. When seeking the truth, one must examine the evidence. Since none of us is perfectly objective, no matter how hard we try to be, we have a tendency to apply weight to the evidence, and to some more than others. But when seeking the truth, one certainly does NOT begin with a conclusion and then attempt to work backwards. If you think you already know the answer before you start, you're not going to have much objectivity. A lack of objectivity on the part of a jury can cause a mistrial, and if a lack of partiality is evident in a certain geographic region, at the very least a change of venue can be granted in an attempt to find a more impartial jury. If you're just seeking a conviction, you might start with a conclusion and work backwards. But if you're seeking the truth, you try to start with an open mind and see where the evidence leads.

I recognize all of these as having been used by one LNer in particular. Circular cause and consequence is quite common in this person's arguments.

What Mr. Von Pein is missing-willfully, I'm sure--is that he's twisting what has been said. Nobody is saying the evidence does not exist. What has been stated over and over ad finitum is that the provenance of much, if not most, of the evidence does not meet the most rudimentary standards required to be accepted in a court of law. The three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? While they were from a 6.5mm Carcano, it cannot be established that they were fired ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. THAT is the quality of much of the evidence being used to "convict" Oswald. It's not that CTers need to "prove" the shells were planted; it's that the prosecutors needed to prove that those shells were fired ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. As of August 1, 2015, no tests were run that would determine that those shells were fired on the day of the assassination. Had they been tested and had it been concluded that the shells had been fired on the day of the assassination, the provenance of that particular piece of evidence [the shells] might be valuable to the prosecution in a court of law. It's NOT up to CT'ers to "prove" who, when, where or why else those shells may have been fired. It's up to the police and the prosecution to prove those exact shells were the ones used on the date and time of the assassination. "Anyone can see..." is not provenance for the evidence. And THAT is the problem with the evidence. It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States. But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case. In the paragraphs above I have pointed out the distinction between the CTer position, as I understand it, and Mr. Von Pein's interpretation of the CTers' position on the evidence. I don't believe I'm "talking over his head" here; I think Mr. Von Pein is likely a reasonably intelligent person. I just think he chooses to ignore the same nuances that cops and attorneys must consider daily when presenting a case in a court of law.

OK. Here's the skinny [and it's obviously not Occhus Campbell]. I truly believe that your Truly#1 truly isn't Roy Truly. I truly believe it's more likely that your Truly #2 may truly be Roy Truly. I hope you truly understand that my point was to attempt to inject a moment of humor into a very serious subject. And apparently I failed.

"I feel very confident - handkerchief or no handkerchief in Truly#1's breast pocket - that Truly#1 on the left, is not Truly because his face and cheeks are very chubby and it looks like he has sort of a pug nose." So then...I suppose you're saying that apparently Truly #1 truly isn't Truly. OK...back to seriousness, folks.

You DO realize that the DPD captain was John Will Fritz...right? Since I do a lot of genealogy research, I went to www.findagrave.com. John Will Fritz's listing there [burial in Restland Memorial Park in Dallas] mentions nothing about survivors. But his wife's listing--Alma Faye Turner Fritz--is linked, and in her obituary it only mentions a daughter, Billye Hamilton, as a surviving child. So I'm curious as to how this Will J. Fritz Jr. connects. I'm not finding a connection. Unless you have actually FOUND a connection, then you must only be ASSUMING a connection to a story you ASSUME that Captain John Will Fritz wrote and passed on to...someone. Am I right so far? By the way...I checked out the father of Captain John Will Fritz, a Blake Fritz [1873-1924]...the only child listed is John Will Fritz. The only other link I can find on Captain John Will Fritz referring to any family says: "He lived alone for much of his life, though he was married to a woman named Faye and had a daughter." [ https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ffr24 ] Shades of Lee Harvey Oswald! "He lived alone for much of his life, though he was married.... Bottom line: Captain Fritz was John Will Fritz, not Will J. Fritz. Unless you can make a connection here to the people you "assume" to be related to John Will Fritz, you're going quite a distance out on the limb of assumption.

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Now, I haven't read ALL the available information about November 22, 1963. BUT... Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland? Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1? I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, obviously the casket would have been weighted in some way to simulate a body there. If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?] I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that.