Mark Knight

I'm not disputing that there was a sound like a shot from the Grassy Knoll. I'm not disputing that witnesses said they say smoke from the Grassy Knoll. I'm just disputing that the photos that are reputed to show smoke are actually showing smoke from the firing of a modern firearm.

In the same quantity indicated by the Dealy Plaza photos? What i've seen that is alleged to be smoke in Dealy Plaza looks more like the firing of a black powder rifle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egFKWJ5IC1I STOP at the :17-:18 mark; THIS is what the alleged "smoke" from Dealy Plaza seems to look like. It does NOT look like the "momentary" puff of smoke shown in your most recent video...the Dealy Plaza "cloud" is thicker and heavier than the "wisp" that the 7.62 in YOUR video creates on a single shot.

Is that smoke from the gunshot, or it that dust from the tower?

Mike...have you ever fired a modern firearm? Modern firearms use "smokeless" powder...that is, the amount of smoke released upon the firing of a modern firearm is VERY small. Now, a "black powder" firearm--considered an antique by about 1910--would, indeed, create the amount of smoke you see "generated" in your photos. So, answer one question for me: Did ANY witness--even just ONE witness--insist that they say ANYONE with an antique firearm in their possession in the vicinity of the so-called "Grassy Knoll" around 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963? If so, please name that witness, and direct me to their testimony. Otherwise, your "theory" goes up in smoke, too...because modern cartridge-type firearms use "smokeless" powder, and do NOT create such smoke clouds as you are insisting occurred on the "Grassy Knoll." Does NO ONE investigating the JFK assassination have any firearms experience anymore? edit: Now, I'm NOT disputing a shot from the "Grassy Knoll," as I don't have the expertise to contest the audio evidence. But as a lifelong hunter, who uses BOTH modern firearms and black powder rifles, I have a few years of experience in THAT area.

Paul, I'm kinda/sorta with you on Option 1...except...I'm not sure that Oswald's TRUE allegiance really flip-flopped from left to right and back and forth as much as we're "expected" to believe it did. I prefer to think of Oswald as a political chameleon, not so much to camouflage his true leanings as much as to actually make him "stand out" among those around him. When he met Bringuier, for example, he played the anti-Castro role; next day, he was passing out pro-Castro leaflets. DID HIS BELIEFS CHANGE OVERNIGHT? I think not. Instead, I think Oswald was simply following orders from SOMEONE...no matter how silly or stupid he personally thought those orders were. Once we figure out who that SOMEONE was, we can start unraveling the ball of twine that is this fellow Oswald, and how he TRULY fits into the puzzle that is the JFK assassination. Your mileage may vary; carry on.

Mr. Rago...I think you might possibly be taken more seriously if your research was more accurate. The man's name was James JESUS Angleton...not James JESSE Angleton. With whom are you confusing Angleton...DPD Chief JESSE Curry? MY advice is to show us you can be trusted to get the SMALL details [like names] right, before asking us to trust you with the bigger stuff.

Tell me more about this "radio on his right shoulder"...AFTER you research what radios and "walkie-talkies" looked like in 1963.

From WIKIPEDIA: " Founding Fathers These people came together in 1956 to create the "Boys Clubs of America":[4] Herbert Hoover, 31st President of the United States William E. Hall, U.S. Medal of Honor Albert L. Cole, G.M. Reader's Digest James A. Farley, United States Postmaster General Albert C. Wedemeyer U.S. Army Chief of Plans & Operations Matthew Woll, V.P. of AFL-CIO Jeremiah Milbank Jr., 2 time Republican Party Finance Committee Chairman Stanley Resor, Secretary of the Army James B. Carey, President of AFL-CIO J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Robert E. Wood, quartermaster general of the army, V.P. of Sears Fred C. Church Jr., Insurance Businessman. H. Bruce Palmer, President of the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company Edgar A. Guest, TV and Radio host Nicholas H. Noyes Indianapolis, Indiana George A. Scott, President, Walker-Scott Company E. E. Fogelson, Army Colonel & Cattle-Oil Baron Ernest Ingold, San Francisco, California Jesse Draper, Atlanta, Georgia Julius Epstein, Chicago, Illinois. Michael Jordan, Brooklyn, NY Their successors in the Boys & Girls Clubs of America: Gerald W. Blakeley, Jr., Boston, Massachusetts Roscoe Brown, Bronx, New York Cees Bruynes, Stamford, Connecticut Honorable Arnold I. Burns, New York, New York John L. Burns, Greenwich, Connecticut Hays Clark, Hobe Sound, Florida Mrs. Albert L. Cole, Hobe Sound, Florida Mike Curb, Burbank, California Robert W. Fowler, Atlantic Beach, Florida Thomas G. Garth, New York, New York Moore Gates, Jr., Princeton, New Jersey Ronald J. Gidwitz, Chicago, Illinois John S. Griswold, Greenwich, Connecticut Claude H. Grizzard, Atlanta, Georgia George V. Grune, Pleasantville, New York Peter L. Haynes, New York, New York James S. Kemper, Northbrook, Illinois Plato Malozemoff, New York, New York Edmund O. Martin, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Donald E. McNicol, New York, New York Carolyn P. Millbank, Greenwich, Connecticut Jeremiah Milbank, New York, New York C. W. Murchison III, Dallas, Texas W. Clement Stone, Lake Forest, Illinois." I also found a reference, in a December 1, 1969 speech then-President Richard Nixon made to the Board of Directors of the Boys' Clubs of America, in which he described J. Edgar Hoover as " a man who has received the highest award of the Boys' Clubs of America"...but there is NO reference as to WHEN Hoover received the award: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2348

Tom, I think you may be onto something here. I wish I could add something of substance, but I cant; so I hope you'll accept my encouragement to keep pursuing this avenue of research. Looking forward to more on the topic.

...karma...

Interesting stuff, Paul. I look forward to hearing more, although I have nothing new or additional to offer myself.

Here's MY question to YOU, Mike: What EVIDENCE do you have--NOT speculation, NOT "coulda-woulda-shoulda-might've", but EVIDENCE--that ANYTHING of a sinister nature was going on in the pergola? PLEASE go into as minute a level of detail as you can; I'm listening.

Methinks you're looking for Biggs Air Force Base, which later became Biggs Army Airfield when the AFB was closed in 1966. http://en.wikipedia....s_Army_Airfield If you can find a list of the units serving at Biggs AFB, you might find General Staten. edit: Just discovered that the 95th Bombardment Wing, Heavy was the primary unit stationed at Biggs from 08 November 1952 until the unit was discontinued and inactivated on 25 June 1966...according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/95th_Bombardment_Wing So, odds are your General Thomas V. Staten was connected with the 95th. Hope this is helpful.

Tommy, are you familiar with CE 1061? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce1061.jpg

Pat, I only take exception with your characterization of hunting ammunition. I have hunted for years, and there are two purposes to hunting, as done by myself and millions of others. the first is to kill the target animal [obviously], the second is to maximize the amount of usable meat from the target animal. EXPLODING AMMUNITION doesn't preserve usable meat; it destroys it. EXPANDING ammunition [lead slugs, jacketed hollow-point bullets] tend to maximize the wound channel and bring a swift death to the target animal, while providing the opportunity to salvage the maximum usable meat from the carcass. If hunting ammunition were indeed meant to explode, deer hunters would use grenades or dynamite instead of firearms, as those would often be more efficient [at simply killing, anyway] than attempting to find a way to launch a well-placed shot to ensure maximum usable meat.

Read this, and then get back to us: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18927&pid=258095&st=0entry258095

In other words, you have faith in your theory...but not enough faith to try to replicate it. I think that's all you need to say.

"JFK assassination researcher Tom Purvis has tested the effects of a 6.5mm bullet going through a 1 inch live oak tree branch and he reports a much reduced velocity with minimum damage to the bullet." Mike, I have no reason to try to disprove your theory; I would think the onus would be on you to PROVE your theory. That's generally how it's done in the scientific community: once you have a theory, then it's up to YOU to prove it's possible. You can THINK it happened, BELIEVE it happened, and WISH it happened until the cows come home...but until you can PROVE that's what happened, your theory is just as silly as everyone else's theory. I don't NEED to prove what DIDN'T happen; you might as well ask me to prove Martians DIDN'T shoot JFK, because I don't believe THAT, either. If you're going to stand by a theory, you should be ready to prove it. If you can't--or won't prove it, why should your theory be believed? Hell, even the WC went through the motions of attempting to prove the SBT. So put up or shut up. If you're so convinced CE399 was created the way you think it was, prove that it's even possible. just BELIEVING it's possible doesn't make it so. Purvis, in the example above, went out and purchased a Mannlicher-Carcano in 6.5mm and fired it through a 1" live oak branch, just to prove that his theory was possible. WORDS aren't going to change minds, Mike; that's what EVIDENCE is for. So go create the EVIDENCE that PROVES your theory--or have someone else do it; I really don't care WHO does it--or back off and admit that you have NO proof, other than your "faith" and "belief" that it happened that way. Then take "faith" and "belief" before a judge and jury and see how far that gets you.

Test it out; go out and buy a rump roast, or some other thick slab of meat [or use several, if that's what it takes to replicate what you think happened], and fire a bullet into it...then get back to me on what you find. That takes "theoretical" into the real world. Of course, for the test to be accurate, you'll have to use copper-jacketed rounds from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, from a distance of under 100 yards. I'll wait...because I don't think, even with the rifle and the ammunition specified, you can replicate CE399 in that manner. Let me know how that comes out...because UNTIL and UNLESS you can prove it's possible, then it's just another "wild" theory floating around.

Mike, I'm pretty sure that soft tissue and muscle alone would not--and COULD not--account for that kind of deformation of the bullet. Apparently you think it could.

After watching the Hughes film that Robin posted, I'm curious who that was wearing the white Stetson, seen from 1:04 to 1:11, walking against the crowd, moving AWAY from Dealy Plaza after the shooting. His walk seems purposeful, but not hurried. [if this has been addressed elsewhere, please direct me there; I'm not intending to hijack this thread.]

Mike, the Tom Purvis theory MIGHT fit the scenario as you see it. If I understand Mr. Purvis correctly, his theory is that the first shot went through a limb on the live elm tree in front of the TSBD...explaining the "squeezing" of CE399. This also scrubbed velocity and trajectory off the bullet, which Purvis believes tumbled end-over-end before striking Kennedy's jacket in a base-first position. This is how Purvis explains the type of wound that is seen in the back, as well as the type of damage to the clothing, as if a "wadcutter" bullet was used [Google it if you don't understand the concept of the wadcutter round]. According to Purvis, this would explain why the bullet only penetrated the body a short distance. His explanation for the throat wound is that a fragment of the lead from the center of the bullet was extruded, and it broke free from the rest of the bullet while in JFK's body, and made a smaller exit hole through the neck. Purvis' theory then calls the Z313 hit the second shot, and says it was also fired from above and behind. Purvis believes, as I understand it, that the second shot is NOT responsible for ALL the damage to JFK's skull...because he believes the third shot, also from above and behind, occurs just as AP photographer calls it, directly in front of him at approximately Z-345. Purvis believes that Connally wasn't seriously hit until this third shot; that Connally was attempting to "hit the deck" in the only manner he could, in his wife Nellie's lap [after being unable to get the door open to exit the limo at around Z240]. As I understand Purvis' "3 shots, 3 hits" scenario, JFK was slumped far forward when he was struck by the 3rd bullet. The bullet entered the body at the hairline, tunneled under the skin a short distance,went through the already-weakened skull and exited near the top of the skull....and THEN went on to do most of the damage to Connally. THIS, according to Purvis, was the TRUE "single-bullet," and Connally's wrist injury was most likely caused by the fragment exiting JFK's throat, from the FIRST shot. At least that's how I understand Purvis' theory. [Your understanding may be different.] And I may have a few details of his theory incorrect; I apologize to Mr. Purvis if I have misrepresented anything, because it certainly wasn't intentional. Now, Mike, this may not be the theory you are wanting to see/hear...but it doesn't require any "magic" bullets, as the WC's SBT does. Do I believe Purvis' theory? I'm still not sure. BUT it makes more sense to me than the WC's "magic bullet" and "the shot that missed" scenario. [Don't ask me if I believe Oswald was firing the rifle from the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD; I have reasons to believe that, based on trajectories, at least one shot may have been fired from the southWEST window of the TSBD, rather than from the alleged "sniper's nest." But that's another topic, for another time.]

Mr. Scully...I believe that this thread is beginning to bear some fruit. IF, as it appears, the TJM is seen on the ground prior to the shooting, then that would virtually ELIMINATE him as the man in the brown jacket that Baker encountered on an upper floor of the TSBD...and therefore ELIMINATE him as a suspected shooter in the 6th floor window. Now, I'm not sure WHY you are taking this thread so personally...comsidering how long the Fetzer/Cinque sideshow was allowed to go on, this thread is merely a shadow of that one. And I consider any information about folks actually ON SITE in Dallas on 11/22/63--especially ones that may eliminate a person from being a suspected shooter--would actually have some bearing on the JFK assination. When it's all said and done, this thread may NOT tell us who the shooter was; but it may tell us who the shooter WASN'T, and that in itself has some value...IMHO. Maybe even more than whose grandfather was friends with whose best man at whose cousin's uncle's daughter's wedding 30 years prior to the assassination.

Forum policies prevent the posting of email exchanges. Therefore, to remain in compliance, Mr. Josephs cannot post the emails from Mr. Mack. Mr. Mack IS a member of the forum. If he wishes to comment publicly, all he has to do is post in the manner that everyone else does. But I commend Mr. Josephs for complying with Forum rules, and NOT becoming a Gary Mack "sock puppet." If Mr. Mack has information he wishes to share with the Forum, he has every right to post as a regular member. HOWEVER...once Mr. Mack posts as a "common" forum member, the Pope of Elm and Houston yields his cloak of infallibility...so I can understand why he would be reluctant to do so.

Film alteration takes us to a slippery slope. If you believe SOME of the films are altered, it calls others into question. If ALL the film evidence has been altered, then NONE of it is trustworthy, and we may as well just consider any thought that comes into our minds concerning the JFK assassination as plausible...because we know that eyewitness testimony isn't always 100% accurate, either. Now, if "missing frames" in the Z-film [and other films] constitutes alteration...then I would have to say that I come down on the side of film alteration. Otherwise, I'm simply NOT enough of an expert on the subject to state conclusively that any alteration actually occurred. MY question is...on the versions of the Z-film available on the internet, when the limo gets in front of Zapruder, it seems that all the foreground--the street, and all of the car except the tops of the doors, etc.--disappears...as if Zappy suddenly zoomed in. DOES THE ORIGINAL DO THIS? Who has seen the original, and is therefore qualified to answer this question [besides maybe Tink Thompson]?