Mark Knight

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]?

LN'ers are allowed to deal in "I would think," "might," and "perhaps." The rest are held to a higher standard of proof.

I don't believe the information from Dale Carnegie's "How To Win Friends And Influence People" has borne much fruit for you, Andy. Best way to not get upset with his forum might be to not visit it, I would suggest. Life has enough dramatic moments; pity that so many people feel the need to manufacture even more.

Scully, I don't get you at all. Graves admittedly DID bump this topic several times...MONTHS AGO. Then he comes back and bumps it again ONE TIME, almost EIGHT MONTHS LATER, and you threaten to lock the topic. Is a bump every 8 months simply too soon for your taste? The time to have protested the earlier bumps, I would think, would have been EIGHT MONTHS AGO, back when they were occurring. Then again, that's why I'm not a moderator; I don't understand how Scully's threat makes a bit of sense, at this late date.

Now, if I'm going to come up with a small "fleet" of cars to move a number of people relatively unnoticed around downtown Dallas before and after the assassination [assuming a conspiracy was involved], what would be more universal than a Rambler station wagon in 1963? For 1960 and 1961, Rambler was third in American car sales, behind Chevrolet and Ford. Other than changes in grilles and tail lights, visually the 1958-61 Ramblers had more in common than they had differences. And in 1963, a 5-year-old Rambler could be purchased for well under $1000. Plus, Ramblers were known for their fuel economy. Given all this, a Rambler station wagon--or a small fleet of them--would make excellent vehicles for access to, and escape from, Dealy Plaza without arousing a lot of suspicion. BUT as Duke has so ably pointed out, not ALL the Rambler sightings in Dallas on November 22, 1963 were sinister in nature...nor were all the REPORTED sightings even possible. Carr's testimony at various times was inconsistent. Sometimes it was inconsistent with his previous and his later statements, and sometimes it was inconsistent with what he could possibly have seen at the time and place he claimed to see it. Duke is NOT a lone nutter. But Duke prefers to deal in things than can be supported by facts, and not all of Carr's statements fall into that category.

If you ask, "Cui bono?", or, "Who benefits?" from the JFK assassination...it depends on your horizon. LBJ, in the short horizon...or Nixon on the longer view, as far as political benificiaries. Don Reynolds had all but eliminated LBJ's horizon on November 22, 1963...until JFK died. And Nixon was politically washed up when Pat Brown handed him his...errrr...hat, in 1962. While I think that both Nixon and LBJ got their political lives resuscitated on November 22, 1963, I don't believe that either was the mastermind. If the Military-Industrial Complex had gotten their way, Oswald would've been directly linked to Cuba and the MIC would've gone from Cold War to hot just 90 miles offshore...IF the war would've stayed there. Instead, LBJ made a song-and-dance man out of Earl Warren, and Warren and Company got the MIC to shuffle off to Cam Ranh Bay...9,000 miles offshore, with little threat of nuclear retaliation. LBJ took care of his benefactors, but in the end the American people turned on him. The Mafia wasn't generally oriented towards snipers; "up-close-and-personal" was more their style [Ruby killing Oswald fits this pattern]. So I doubt the Mafia had a role in the assassination, until it was time to take Oswald out of the picture. Interesting that Marcello's man David Ferrie said that, after the assassination he and his pals came to Texas and went skating...and in another thread just today, I read that one of Jack Ruby's favorite sports was....skating. I think it's possible that Ferrie took Marcello's skate key and tightened the screws on Ruby. But prior to the assassination, I don't see a lot of evidence of Mafia involvement. J. Edna Hoover may or may not have had foreknowledge. But after the assassination, he certainly made the evidence fit the story. Hoover was facing mandatory in 1965 at age 70, and considering how he and the Kennedys got along, they weren't very likely to recommend the rules be waived so Hoover could stay. Hoover and LBJ were blackmailers of the same order, and LBJ knew that as long as he let Hoover stay on, Hoover would share information with him under-the-table. Just before Hoover testifir=ed before the Warren Commission, LBJ appointed Hoover FBI Director for life. And Nixon was just as sleazy as LBJ and Hoover, so Hoover held his job until he died in 1972. I believe that LBJ and Nixon were merely tools of those who actually held the reins of power...whomever they may be. In fact, I believe that Nixon may have committed political suicide by bringing up "the Bay of Pigs thing," thinking that HE held all the aces; after that, his presidency was left dangling in in the wind, and team player Gerald Ford--the ONLY President never to have been elected to either the presidency or vice-presidency, as well as the FBI snitch on the Warren Commission--did what he was told and got to grab the brass ring for awhile. There were a couple of lame "assassination attempts" against Ford, but I would argue that they were ALLOWED to happen in order to ensure that Ford never questioned his orders. So who had the greatest motive to kill Kennedy? LBJ had his own political career as a motive. Nixon had revenge against the man who left him a politically broken man as a motive. BUT motive doesn't always equal murder. It also takes means...and in this case, I would suggest that it took financial means as well as physical means to commit the crime. Financial means could be found in the right-wing extremists. Financial means [and motive] could be found in the Mafia. Financial means might well have also come from the CIA budget, either directly or indirectly. Since I don't see evidence of direct Mafia involvement in the JFK shooting, and the Mafia isn't known for hiring outside contractors for a hit, I really believe that it was more or less coincidental that the Mafia's desire for revenge against Kennedy was fulfilled by a non-Mafia shooter. As far as an assassination weapon, I find it unusual that a THINKING plotter would've used a rifle in an obscure caliber like 6.5mm. This killing occurred in Texas, and Texans have a reputation as hunters. A 6.5mm is NOT a common hunting caliber, and it wasn't a common caliber in 1963, either. It would have made more sense, had the sniper had a getaway plan, to have used a common hunting rifle in a caliber such as 30.06 [pronounced "thirty OUGHT six," not "thirty ODD six"; the 30.06 was introduces as a military standard in 1906--"nineteen ought six"-- hence the name] or a .30-30 [.30 caliber, which also originally used a 30 grain smokeless powder charg in its early days]. The use of a .30-06 or a .30-30 would have identified hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of rifles all across Texas as possible murder weapons. Since the murder weapon was identified as a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano, even if the rifle hadn't been discovered in the TSBD, the ballistics would've pointed to a very narrow range of suspects. And perhaps that was the point of the 6.5mm Carcano...if the rifle itself hadn't been found, ballistics would've linked back to a smaller pool of suspect rifles to begin with. That might've been the ultimate way to link Oswald to the crime, even if he never fired a shot. Just some ideas to think on...

My dad worked as a clerk for the local post office, and I can confirm one of the comments made by DVP's "source." The time of the postmark does NOT indicate what time the letter arrived at the postal facility; it simply signifies that it was at least 10:30 am when the envelope went through the cancelling machine. The envelope may have been deposited in a drop box, possibly the day or evening before. So there was no requirement to believe that Oswald went to the counter at the post office, handed the envelope to the clerk, and the clerk cancelled the envelope at the moment he/she received it.

I'm not going to quickly dismiss Bill Kelly's thought here. I was only a 9-year-old kid when the assassination went down, but the entire weekend of the assassination the news media went to great pains to tell us over and over, how the line of presidential succession, after Johnson, would flow to Speaker of the House John McCormack. In retrospect, I'm beginning to wonder if this wasn't information that LBJ and his crew requested the media to repeat, so that the entire American public--right down to 9-year-old kids--would know something was up if the SecDef or the Pentagon attempted to take control of the government. In fact, behind the Speaker of the House--who was described in news reports of the day as "elderly"--came Senate president pro tempore Carl Hayden, and then the Secretary of State Dean Rusk. So the press was, for all intents and purposes, drilling it into the minds of the American people exactly what the line of presidential succession was--and what it wasn't. Now, at the time I didn't give it a moment's thought; a lot of what went out over the airwaves that weekend was monotonously repetitious, and this information fit the pattern. BUT...IF LBJ had seriously considered that a military coup was possible, being the shrewd politician that he was, it would be perfectly in character for Johnson to do his damnedest to be there "firstest with the mostest," and to make sure that the public understood that anything other that a proper line of succession would indicate that there was something amiss at the highest levels. Call it a pre-emptive strike, if you will; first, with the swearing-in aboard AF1, then making sure his friends in the press impressed upon America what the proper order of presidential succession was. In light of Johnson's personality, and the way he played the press, it's difficult to dismiss Bill's theory out-of-hand. For those who believe that LBJ wanted that presidency at all costs, is it that difficult to envision Johnson thinking--if not saying aloud-- This is my chance, finally...and I'll be DAMNED if I'll let McNamara or anyone else steal that from me!" So is Bill Kelly's theory really THAT far-fetched? I would think not.

I merely pointed out that a firecracker, since it uses gunpowder, would emit a sulfurous odor similar to "gunsmoke"...and that, in a crowded street, firing any sort of pistol, even if it fired blanks, would be suicidal if the SS was on their game. I said nothing to endorse KK's theory. In fact, the timing involved in the fuse of a firecracker is SO inexact that I agree that it would be ludicrous to have dropped one from the sixth floor, via a pipe of other method, because of the possibility it may explode in midair and NOT create the effect it might had the sound waves from the firecracker's explosion reverberated between the building and the cars in the motorcade. "Many witnesses said that the first shot sounded like a "firecracker" or a "backfire" in the street. Notice how this is worded. IN THE STREET. Not "in the air," but "in the street." So if the sound was "in the street," firing a blank from the sixth floor would NOT create a sound that seemed to have been "in the street." So your proposal that the same sound could have been effected by a blank fired from the sixth floor is quite ludicrous as well. I believe that, if there was a 4th "shot" heard by DP witnesses, it might well have been from a firecracker exploding in the street. Yes, IN THE STREET. I defended the idea of a firecracker IN THE STREET. Nowhere did I defend any theory about any "firecracker delivery system" from the sixth floor; that occurred in your own mind. And by the way...a failure to criticize does NOT constitute a defense....at least nowhere except within your mind. [if you fail to criticize Rush Limbaugh--Or Barack Obama--am I to assume that you agree with him? NO, that would be absurd...to anyone with a logical mind.]

The first "logical deduction" is that, since it takes 1.2 seconds [at best, as I recall] to cycle the bolt on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and reacquire the target...if those two shots were closer together than 1.2 seconds, then it eliminates the possibility that both were fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. If the shots were separated by 1.2 seconds or more, then the M-C is still possibly part of the equation. So perhaps we need to better define "nearly simultaneous," if that's even possible.

Len, you're making assumptions again. Show me where I agreed with the premise of a firecracker being expelled from a pipe on the sixth floor of the TSBD. You can't do it, because I didn't post it...because I don't believe that happened. I never mentioned a blank being fired from the sixth floor, either. In fact, in this thread, I never [previous to this post] mentioned the sixth floor at all. In the crowd below, from the sidewalk, it's logical that someone might have tossed a firecracker. Makes much more sense than a starter's pistol with blanks...which most likely would have gotten someone killed, when/if the SS had reacted to that. So you're constructing straw men here, Len. Don't put words on my mouth, or in my posts, that didn't come from me. Just because you ASSUMED I was talking about something occurring on/from the sixth floor doesn't mean that's what I was saying or thinking. I simply posted what I posted. What you read INTO it is YOUR problem. You're so quick to argue that, in cases such as this, you're arguing against a statement I didn't make. Why did I expect better from you? Silly me.

Firecrackers make more sense than you think, Mr. Colby. Firecrackers can be tossed by an adult, but the natural inclination is to blame it on a kid. And honestly, Len...in the South in the '60's, it was a lot easier to buy firecrackers without arousing suspicion than it was to purchase a starter's pistol [unless you were recognized as a coach of some sport] or some other device to fire blanks. And contrary to what you may have seen in cheap western movies, when a blank is fired, a wadding is expelled...an item that, when fired at close range, could injure innocent bystanders. AND...if the SS was doing its job...the person firing a blank would likely be shot and killed because of the similarity in appearance between a starter's pistol and an actual revolver. So if you want the noise...and the sulfurous smell...of gunpowder, but enjoy living, using a firecracker makes a lot more sense than a blank fired from a pistol, starter's or otherwise.

Obviously, a postal inspector didn't need a key to access a PO box. So I, too, am curious about what Holmes was up to when he checked that key out.

Apparently it's official...here's the link to Jack's obituary in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=jack-d-white&pid=158121627&fhid=4250 Jack D. White, 85, passed away Monday, June 18, 2012. Funeral: 3:30 p.m. Thursday in Mount Olivet Chapel. Interment: Mount Olivet Cemetery. Visitation: 2:30 p.m. Thursday at Mount Olivet Funeral Home. Memorials: Those desiring to honor Jack's memory may contribute to a TCU Journalism Department scholarship fund or a charity of choice . Jack was born Jan. 17, 1927, in San Angelo, moving to Fort Worth with his parents, John Nathan White and Billie Lorena Dumas White, shortly after his birth. Graduating from Carter-Riverside High School in 1944, he worked briefly for the Fort Worth Press covering high school sports under the legendary sports editor H.H. "Pop" Boone. He enlisted in the U.S. Navy during World War II and while serving attended Stanford University in the ROTC program. Discharged in 1946, Jack entered Texas Christian University, graduating in 1949 with a B.A. in journalism and began an advertising career as copywriter and art director at Yates Advertising Agency. In 1954, he joined Witherspoon and Ridings Public Relations Agency, which later became Witherspoon and Associates, as the firm's first art director. During his 27 years with the agency he rose to vice president, executive art director, personnel manager and part owner. He specialized in design and photography. Although he had photographed the city since the 1950s, he began collecting Fort Worth photographs seriously in 1972 when Witherspoon was planning the 100th anniversary for one of its clients and he was in charge of acquiring copies of historical prints of Fort Worth. After the event he took care to preserve all the exhibit materials and during the next 20 years he reproduced other client's historical photographs and took hundreds of pictures to add to the collection. Jack retired from Witherspoon in 1981 and formed his own company, Jack White Enterprises, specializing in free-lance art and photography. In 1984, taking two partners, the firm's name changed to VJS Companies. In 1991, he again became a sole proprietor. Because of his interest in Fort Worth history, he spearheaded a group of local historians and launched an internet website, which he named "The Way We Were," to display and research old photos of the city. Another of Jack's interest has been the study of the John F. Kennedy assassination, serving as a photographic consultant to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Assassinations during its hearings, as well a consultant on the JFK film. He produced two videotapes on his photographic studies of the assassination and developed a slide lecture, while contributing his research to books and professional journals. Jack's collection of JFK assassination books and materials and his old Fort Worth photographs have been donated to UTA Library's Special Collections where they are accessible to those interested. Jack married the former Sue Benningfield in 1969 and in 1977 they were instrumental in reactivating their neighborhood home owners association. He served as president for several years. He painted many works of art which hang in private collections and adorn the walls of his modern home, as well as a large painting of the Fort Worth skyline on display at the Fort Worth Public Library. He was an avid TCU alumnus and until last year had not missed a home football or basketball game since 1946. He enjoyed yard work and raising tomatoes, which he happily supplied his friends. Survivors: Wife, Sue; cousins, Pat O'Neal of Fort Worth, Laura O'Neal Tauzel of Arlington, Larry O'Neal of Fort Worth, Nancy Robbins of Denton and Shirley Hurley of Haltom City; and a host of wonderful friends. Read more here: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=jack-d-white&pid=158121627&fhid=4250#storylink=cpy

Did I say anything that wasn't true?

Greg, I beleive that Mr. Von Pein is taking a modified Gregory House position. On the TV program "House, M.D.", it was the belief of Dr, Gregory House that "Everyone lies." Von Pein's position apparently is, "Everyone lies...especially CT'ers...but NO ONE lied to the Warren Commission [unless their testimony might cast doubt on Oswald's guilt...then every word they said was a lie]." But did you REALLY expect any other response from Von Pein? Be honest now...

I believe that Mr. Gordon has proven Mr. Von Pein to be a bit uninformed on the subject of anatomy and physiology...and is using the autopsy photographs to prove his point. It's starting to be funny watching Mr. Von Pein try to escape the fact that he's been "gunned down," if you will, by the very evidence he attempts to use to bolster his own position. Since he cannot refute the work of Mr. Gordon, he tries to escape by either setting up straw men, or by ignoring Mr. Gordon's work entirely. He's apparently more of a weasel that I ever imagined. But he has yet to prove, demonstrate, or illustrate where and why ANY of Mr. Gordon's work is incorrect, wrong, or misleading. It's certainly fun to watch him squirm. I would LIKE to see Mr. Von Pein use the medical evidence, in the fashion that Mr. Gordon has, in an attempt to prove Mr. Gordon wrong...but I simply don't believe it can be done. It's as if Mr. Von Pein is falling back on his own version of the old Chico Marx question: Who you gonna believe, me [and, by extension, the Warren Commission] or your own eyes? I think this time, it's Mr. Von Pein who is swimming in the Duck Soup.

Interesting that so many threads on the JFK Assassination forum are turning to Colby threads...is there ANYONE that Mr. Colby DOES get along with? Why can't Mr. Colby use PM's to question those things which are NOT related to the JFK assassination, rather than taking up valuable forum bandwidth? Moderators, is there a problem with "suggesting" very strongly that Mr. Colby refrain from displaying his "personal problems" with others on these threads, and thereby leave the threads to the subjects to which they were originally intended? Or is that entirely too much to ask?

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon. So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

I think Jim DiEugenio was misconstruing something I said earlier. I didn't say that the Warren Commission didn't HAVE access to the autopsy materials; I stated that they refused to LOOK at the materials when they had them. And the Warren Commission I'm referring to were the men whose signatures went on the report...not the investigators who were hired by the commission. The men who actually wrote the report simply found the conclusions they were told to find. I'm not saying they covered up a conspiracy; I'm saying that if the evidence pointed toward conspiracy, they simply didn't want to hear of it. And that goes for the investigators as well as the actual Warren Commission.

Any "investigative body" that refuses to view the autopsy materials of the murder they are investigating would certainly give the appearance that they were not concerned with discovering the truth. It would then beg the question, "WHY were they not concerned with discovering the truth?" [Of course, why they would refer to a cardboard "representation" of a survey of Dealy Plaza, when they had the ACTUAL SURVEY in their possession, is also a mystery.] And one possible answer is that they were knowingly covering up something. Whether that was or was not a conspiracy is where the debate begins.

Colby, I'm curious: -why must you sidetrack these discussions in order to question the credentials of the other posters? -why can you not simply allow the arguments to stand or fall on their own, rather than worrying about how many professions the other posters have had, and when they started/ended those occupations? I stopped being a welder, except on a hobby basis, when the plant at which I was employed closed in 2005. [by providing you that information now, you shouldn't need to interrupt any of MY discussions to ask that question about MY employment/profession.] NOW... why not let it rest, and let the thread return to the discussion topic? Speaking for myself, I don't care about Michael's profession...OR yours.

I suggest another poll: "Does anyone other than Colby really care about the results of THIS poll?"