Mark Knight

5'9"....160....hmmmmm...where have I heard this description before?.....maybe on a police radio transcript from November 22, 1963?....maybe in Officer Baker's first report?....Hmmmmmmm....

I think Pat may be on the right track. I'm not convinced that "all" of the evidence is faked; rather, I'm fairly well convinced that the conclusions don't reflect what IS in the evidence. So why CAN'T we let Pat explore this area?

I have SOME experience with firearms as a hunter over the past 40+ years...but not so much that I would consider myself an "expert." It's just that, looking at the sling on the M-C in custody, I wonder why the pad--such as it is--isn't either [a] adjustable in its position, or set so that the rifle would be carried with the muzzle up, as SOP for most hunters. [Never been in the military, so I have no idea how they carry a rifle on a sling. I would assume it would be muzzle up as well, to prevent mud, snow, sand, etc. from plugging the barrel...but assumptions can be dangerous.]

I have a muzzleloading rifle for deer hunting. My rifle has a sling on it, and I NEVER use the sling for any purpose other than for carrying the rifle on my shoulder. But from looking at the location of the pad on the sling--and the fact that it appears to be riveted, and is therefore not adjustable--it would appear that this sling was made for the purpose of carrying this rifle in a muzzle-down position ONLY. Or am I seeing things incorrectly?

One of the facts that I would hope that you get to is whether the TSBD rifle is a "short barrel," or a SHORTENED barrel. That would have a LOT of influence on whether the rifle was even capable of accuracy out to 100 yards.

Have you considered that the scope may have been set for a right-handed shooter who was left-eye dominant? I've heard this argument raised, but never heard it adequately addressed. [i'm not sure such a person exists...but they may.]

Expect a PM from him...because he won't publicly speak out unless it's on camera, it seems.

I'm saying that, if Altgens was correct, and a shot hit JFK in the head just as JFK reached Altgens' position, JFK had already been hit at Z312. At that point, JFK's body was falling far forward and to the left...Jackie was on the trunk...and Clint Hill was trying to get on the trunk. A shot that hit JFK at this point, from the southEAST window of the TSBD, would have been impossible to make without hitting Jackie or Hill...but if the shot came from the southWEST window, it would possibly have occurred as Altgens said. [i tend to believe that Altgens was telling the truth.] Now...suppose that this bullet entered under the skin at the hairline, just above the collar...and destroyed occipital bone and parietal bone as it passed through the skull, which had already been weakened by the shot at Z312. This would explain the damage descriptions made by the personnel at Parkland, but would ALSO make the description of the folks who saw the side of the head above and behind the ear blown away at Z312 correct as well. Especially if there was a flap of skin that would cover the Z312 damage in the Parkland ER. And it would make John and Nellie Connally's statements about being splattered by blood and brain matter from the LAST shot make more sense, because that didn't occur from what we see at Z312. You see, I tend to believe that the eyewitnesses weren't lying on November 22. And I believe that Jackie wasn't lying about trying to hold the top of his head together, either. I just believe that no one realized the full extent of the damage to JFK's skull early on. And by the time the autopsy occurred, since the original autopsy notes were burned, we'll never know the full truth of what occurred at the autopsy. If JFK actually WAS hit with a 3rd shot in a manner similar to what I've proposed, then Gerald Ford could say there was a rear neck wound and still sleep at night; it's just that the neck wound that actually occurred was NOT the neck wound he put into the WC report. As far as the autopsy photos go...I fully believe that they were made as they were in order to deceive anyone who came across them. I think it was more of a matter of obfuscation than alteration. BUT...if what I propose is true...then the November 22 witnesses were all telling the truth, as they knew it. And no matter whether you believe in a Grassy Knoll gunman or not, it would prove that, even if ALL the shots originated from the 6th floor of the TSBD--and I'm NOT saying they did, because I don't know that for sure--the last shot HAD to have come from the southWEST window, NOT the southEAST window. Now...does this make a little more sense?

You are confusing their CONCLUSIONS with their EVIDENCE. Just because they CONCLUDE that there was an entrance at the cowlick doesn't mean that the EVIDENCE supports an entrance wound at the cowlick. We all need to pay more attention to what is SEEN in the existing evidence, and not in the "translations" or CONCLUSIONS that accompany that evidence. Apparently you've been too busy shouting down Pat Speer to actually pay attention to what he's been saying. MY opinion is...based upon what I know about the case...that, even if JFK was hit by three bullets from behind...the third bullet would have hit him right alongside James Altgens...and if it was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, it's more likely to have been fired from the southWEST window. A shot from the southEAST window at that point would likely not have missed Jackie. BUT a shot fired at that point--AFTER the shot at Z312--would be likely to have entered at JFK's hairline, and have caused BOTH the damage witnesses at Parkland described AND have made Jackie's statement about trying to hold the top of JFK's head on ring true. THAT is what the existing evidence is showing ME. I also think some of the autopsy photographs were made as they were NOT to clear things up, but to further hide the truth. I don't think they were faked; I think they were merely "manipulated" to support conclusions that may not have been the truth. I also believe that Chris Davidson is on the right track about how the survey data was altered and misrepresented in order to support fallacious conclusions...but that's a different thread.

I find it interesting that those who are attacking Pat Speer's conclusions are overlooking this point. Pat makes a great point that, even as the Warren Commission concluded that there was but one assassin, the evidence they have in their report fails to support that conclusion. Again...as Pat has asked...why would the government fake evidence that, upon examination, doesn't support the conclusions they want to support? I've come to believe that the evidence, as flawed as you may believe it is, STILL supports the conclusion that more than one shooter may have been involved. So if the government [or whomever you blame] wants you to believe the lone-gunman theory, why does their evidence--if it's faked--show something different?

I don't think it takes too much "reading between the lines" to see that in Washington, they EXPECTED the assassination to occur. So did he let the Katz out of the bag?...

According to Wikipedia, the Secret Service has two jobs: (1) "Financial crimes," which includes prevention and investigation of counterfeiting... and (2) protection of the President. I'm willing to concede that there were no major incidents of counterfeiting reported in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. So the Secret Service didn't TOTALLY fail in their mission that day.

Most of the names you mentioned left BEFORE the 50th.

I think Pat makes a LOT of sense. The more I study the evidence...and the conclusions of the Warren Omission report...the more I'm convinced that the conclusions are NOT supported by the Omission's own evidence. And that is FAR from DVP's position. The more I study the evidence...the more I'm convinced that the truth is found hidden in the available evidence...and that the truth is at odds with the conclusions of the Omission.

In the '60's, there was no social stigma tied to smoking, as there is today.

Cliff, to a large degree I tend to agree with where this leads. I think that most researchers may have been misled by Oswald's service as a Marine. They keep looking to ONI for any intelligence connection...when it's possible that Oswald MIGHT have been connected to ARMY intel. Which would mean that most FOIA requests are barking up the wrong tree. I once suggested such an idea to Hemming, and he seemed to indicate that he thought I was on the right track. [Of course, that assumes that Hemming a) actually knew, or wasn't talking crap...for which he was well-known.] Crossing branches of service, after all, isn't unknown in the world of intel...or so I've been told. ONI is obvious, based upon Oswald's service; Army intel isn't obvious...and isn't the concept of undercover work based upon the idea of not making it obvious WHO you're working for? Seems Army intel sure had a lot of info on Oswald available almost instantly on November 22, 1963...

I'm here to LEARN, not to preach, teach, or to push an agenda. I'm here to weigh the evidence and examine the theories of others. I'm not so egotistical that I think I know it all...or even MOST of the facts of the case. I know what sounds logical to ME, but I believe that's something better kept to myself. I come here to ASK questions; I'll continue to leave it to the experts to ANSWER questions and make "big contributions" and "breakthroughs." From YOU, I've learned NOTHING about the JFK assassination...but quite a bit about an abrasive personality. Good day, Mr. Dobson; I'm quite done with you and the tripe you post.

Synopsis: you are contributing nothing to discussion, and much to diversion. You have answered my questions completely.

It's MY understanding--correct or not--that Prayer Man is BEHIND Lovelady, and hidden from view due to the angle of the Altgens photo. Prayer Man is shown to be in the "absolute" corner of the step area, which is not visible in the Altgens photos.

Mr. Dobson, I get it that you're cynical towards 99-44/100ths of the posts here. But do you actually have anything constructive or informative to add to a serious discussion of the JFK assassination? Or are you just trying to be the comic relief? I'm really trying to understand the significance of your posts...but for the most part, they sound to me like the rantings and ramblings of an angry, bored old man...taking up a large amount of our hosts' internet bandwidth without revealing much on the topic the rest of us are [allegedly] here to discuss. Now, I can get as silly and absurd as anyone on the planet; but out of respect for the hosts of this site, I try my best not to do so here, on "someone else's dime," so-to-speak. I don't consider myself above anyone on this forum; please don't interpret my post as such. I'm just trying to understand what useful information you may be trying to impart...and I'm mostly coming up empty. So please help me understand where I went wrong.

Sounds like the modus operandi of a certain "LBJ-did-it" guy...whose main story is that while LBJ was a stone-cold killer, JFK was a drug addled pervert...implying that the nation is better off that the assassination occurred. And then for good measure, this guy makes sure to throw in references as to how much of a pervert RFK was, too...as if that makes it all OK.

Via Google Translate: "Orlando Garcia returned to Cuba and participated in the first attempt to assault the presidential palace led by Authentic Organization (O / A) , which was going to shoot a mortar. She named him captain Costa Rica.Figueres Presidential Guard . In 1957 arrested Herminio Díaz , Jesús González Letters and a pilot nicknamed the French , on charges of entering the country to kill Trujillo 's orders Figueres . Ruben Diaz , Herminio younger brother and founding member of the UIR who was in exile in Miami , flew to San Jose and after a heated argument with Garcia secured the release of the group. In the first week of January 1959, Orlando reached by Sánchez Arango Cuba aboard a yacht with arms from Costa Rica and Venezuela , to fight Batista. A storm prevented its timely arrival . In the early 60's was to Venezuela . During his two terms as president Carlos Andres Perez remained in front of the headquarters of the DISIP operations ( Police Intelligence Services ) and his bodyguard. He died in Miami in 2003."

I'm pretty much with Ron on this. To OUR generation, it WAS "personal." To those who come after us...not so important. I think the word "conspiracy" is used a lot more than it should be, but I also have some reasonable doubts that Oswald pulled the trigger. My son, who's 33, has next to ZERO interest in the case. One time I asked him why it seemed so insignificant in his life, and he explained. "For you guys [our generation], it was news. For us [his generation], it's history...and there's enough going on in today's world, that I don't have a lot of time or interest in studying history since I graduated [from high school]." So who's to blame for their lack of interest? Maybe no one. Maybe everyone. In THEIR world, they're used to going to Google and finding easy answers. For the most part, they don't want to "play detective," because it would require a larger investment of time and resources than they're willing to give.

The reason the FBI could find no print (even though Lt. Day told the FBI they probably could still find one on the barrel) is simply because Carl Day of the DPD had already lifted the print off of the underside of the Carcano barrel. And Day talks all about this in his WC testimony: LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm I'll also add this: Anyone who thinks that J.C. Day was a xxxx regarding the palmprint matter needs to read "Reclaiming History", starting on Page 799. A key excerpt: "Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler told the HSCA that in "late August or September" of 1964, he suggested questioning [DPD Lieutenant J.C.] Day further in an attempt to resolve the multitude of questions that remained surrounding the discovery of the palm print. It had occurred to Liebeler and a few other assistant counsels, as it would later to Mark Lane, that perhaps the palm print didn't come from the rifle at all. The Commission, at that time, only had Day's word for it. It wanted something stronger. But when Liebeler approached Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin about it, he objected. "Mr. Rankin was not terribly enthusiastic about having a couple of Commission lawyers go down to Dallas and start questioning the Dallas Police Department," Liebeler told the HSCA in 1978. "Quite frankly . . . it would have raised all kinds of questions at that time as to what in the hell was going on, what are we doing going down and taking depositions from the Dallas Police Department two months after the report was supposed to be out?" But Liebeler said they realized the problem could be resolved "in another way." Several Commission assistant counsels subsequently met with FBI inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liaison with the Commission, and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona. Liebeler asked Latona whether there was a way to prove that the lift came from the rifle. Latona reexamined the lift submitted by Lieutenant Day and noticed pits, marks, and rust spots on it that corresponded to identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel--the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted. J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. Liebeler was satisfied. Now, there was no doubt whatsoever--the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 803 of "Reclaiming History" [Also See: 11 HSCA 254-255.] Geez, Dave. You repeat Bugliosi like it's gospel. Let me tell you what he leaves out. 1. When the rifle was inspected by the FBI, Latona found NO trace of a print where Day said a print had been readily evident. 2. The FBI's report on the rifle was sent to Dallas on 11-24. There was no mention of the palm print in this report. And yet the DPD said nothing about this omission. In fact, it was not until 11-26, AFTER the rifle had been returned to the DPD, that the DPD suddenly decided to send the lift in to Washington. 3. Day claimed that he'd failed to study the lift in detail on the 22nd, and never did so before sending the lift on to Washington on the 26th. Bullpucky. The DPD and FBI were DESPERATE to tie Oswald to the murder weapon in the days after the shooting. And yet Day claimed he just never got around to studying the print? No one with a brain should believe this. 4. Although there are records in the DPD's files indicating they'd retrieved a Dr. Pepper bottle from the sixth floor, and wanted it checked for fingerprints, there is NO internal DPD record of Day's lift prior to his sending it in to Washington. 5. Although the DPD provided the WC with their standard protocols regarding their crime lab, and these indicated that men like Day were supposed to create daily and weekly reports on their activities, and the tests that they had performed, NO reports on the activities of Day exist prior to the summary report of his activities on 1-28-64...more than 2 MONTHS after the shooting! 6. When Liebeler asked the FBI to clear up his questions regarding the palm print, the FBI approached Day and asked him to sign an affidavit affirming his claim he lifted the print on 11-22-63. He refused to do so, and instead offered them a copy of his 1-28-64 report. 7. As acknowledged by Bugliosi, the WC accepted a letter from Hoover in which he claimed the FBI had tested the lift, and found that it came from the rifle. There are a number of problems with this. 1. Hoover's letter was not a sworn statement, and no sworn testimony was taken on this evidence. 2. No FBI report exists in which the tests allegedly performed by Latona are described. 3. The exhibit purportedly demonstrating that the lift came from the rifle is a big smudge, and demonstrates absolutely nothing. And 4. Even if the lift came from the rifle, this says nothing about the timing of this lift. The rifle, we should recall, was returned to Dallas on the 24th, while the DPD failed to mention the existence of the lift prior to the 26th. It follows, then, that the questions regarding this lift have never been resolved. Pat...I'm sure that Dave will argue that the FBI was unable to find evidence of a print in the area Day claims to have found one is that...wait for it...Day "LIFTED" the print from the rifle; therefore it was "no longer there" to show any evidence that it HAD been there. See? Simple logic. Once you "lift" a book off the table, the book is no longer on the table...and unless the book and the tabletop had both drawn dust, there is no evidence that the book was EVER on the table. Have I got your response about right, Dave?

Apparently the book is still available at Amazon.com... http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Fish-Courthouse-Gary-Wean/dp/0962419419 ...but it's a bit pricey for my budget. And apparently the JFK assassination "blockbuster" is merely a sidebar to the rest of the story.