Mark Knight

Mr. George, you have ably summed up the American political system. I was once young and idealistic. I actually believed what my high school government textbook taught about how government works. The only thing I discovered was, it's a lie. "We the people" only have rights until the people in power say we don't. We have a President in office who campaigned against the rights abuses of the previous administration; but once in office, his administration has gone to court quite often to keep the previous administration's policies in force. Yes, we know that politicians lie; as TV character Dr. Gregory House said it best, "Everybody lies." But there is no true opposition party anymore, because of the money involved...both in the cost of getting elected, and in the cost of buying a politician. Sadly, the people as a whole apparently cannot even find, much less buy, a politician who'll do the right thing. And the younger generation, for the most part, has an attitude of "MAN, I don't care!" when it comes to discussing the JFK assassination. If we can't jail those responsible, they reason, what's the point? It won't bring JFK back to life, and it won't turn back the clock. Simply knowing the truth means very little to the "MAN, I don't care!" generation.

[deleted by author due to repetition of previously posted information.]

When Dr. Fetzer started referring to anyone who raised questions about his points as a "disinformation agent" or worse, he lost most of his credibility with me. Most who would educate would WELCOME questions, in order to better explain their points. Fetzer, on the other hand, apparently sees any and all questions as attacks. So in that respect, I'm done with Dr. Fetzer....and for the record, I'm simply a student of the JFK assassination, and not a "disinformation agent."

I've been following this thread without comment for some time. But I think it's time to address some of Mr. Varnell's criticisms of the work of both Mr. Gordon and Pat Speer. Cliff, are you not familiar with the phrase, "hoisted by [or "on"] one's own petard? For this is what, IMHO, James Gordon is attempting to do to both the autopsy doctors and the Warren Commission themselves. If he can prove, using their own testimony and drawings, that the SBT upon which the WC Report hangs is an impossibility--and he's done a quite good job so far, IMHO--then the LNers will have little to hang their hats upon, as the house of cards that is the WC Report comes tumbling down. And the part I'm enjoying most is...Mr. Gordon is doing this in a way such that, if he can prove the physical impossibility of the SBT using 3D modeling of the human body, his explanation should be totally irrefutable. So I suggest you stand back and let him work. Never mind, for the moment, that JFK's jacket and shirt can't have bunched as the WC apologists try to say it did; if [or when] Mr. Gordon's work demonstrates the impossibility of the SBT, then your arguments about the shirt will have been vindicated as well...as the entire implausible scenario put forth in the WC Report will have been thrown out on its [figurative] ear. At least that's how I see it.

Please understand...I posted this NOT to praise Caesar....er, Katzenbach....but to simply note that he has died. Lest anyone get the wrong idea about my post.

Former LBJ Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, who was Assistant Attorney General under RFK during the JFK administration, has died. He was 90. http://news.yahoo.com/nicholas-katzenbach-aide-kennedy-johnson-dead-90-010900900.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CUSLKtPa0EA4ALQtDMD

If the bullet at Z-313 had passed though soft tissue and not struck bone, one could expect the body to simply go limp as the muscles relaxed. If the vehicle had stopped at that moment, it is just as likely that JFK would've fallen forward as backward. Knowing that the vehicle was moving forward at that moment, then it would not be unusual that the body would've tended to move slightly rearward...no matter which direction the bullet had come from. Or if the vehicle had slowed radically, or even stopped at the time of the shot, inertia would've carried the limp body forward. But the skull is bone...and some of the energy of the bullet is transferred to the bone. Then the question becomes, how much of the energy of the bullet is transferred to the bone. Those who contend there was definitely a shot from the front suggest that sufficient energy was transferred to the skull as to drive the entire body backward [yes, and to the left]. Those who contend the only shot [or shots] came from the rear seem to be saying that while the energy transferred to the skull WAS sufficient to fracture and shatter the skull, it was NOT sufficient to drive the skull forward a significant amount...and that the "back and to the left" is merely the effect of a forward-moving car on a suddenly-limp body. Now...is that a good summary of the different positions? Or am I missing something here?

To be sure, there are a lot of theories out there that strain credulity. The first big one is the Warren Commission's report. From what I've been able to discover in the information I've found, the evidence in the WC's somewhat flawed and highly truncated investigation doesn't always point to the conclusions in their report. And several of the LN'ers, such as DVP, rely on "coulda-woulda-shoulda" rather than using actual evidence to bolster their points. The often ask that those of us who are still students of the assassination accept some things sans evidence because their conclusions are "logical." Of course, back before Galileo, it was "logical" to believe that the sun and the planets rotated around the earth, too. However, while there were apparent discrepancies in various reports of when and how JFK's body arrived at Bethesda, I also have a hard time believing the theory of body snatching aboard AF1...which no one on board the plane witnessed, even though, to borrow a thought from Larry Hancock, "someone would have seen." Here again, we're expected to take "coulda-woulda-shoulda" as fact, rather than actual evidence that something DID happen, because the conclusions are, once again, "logical." I believe that the original surveys of Dealy Plaza by Mr. Robert West and Company were accurate, based upon the evidence present at the time of the original surveys. I also believe that the Secret Service kept quiet about the FBI's, and subsequently the WC's, subterfuge to make the third shot at the Altgens location "disappear" primarily because it made the SS appear to have less time to respond to the shooting...and therefore made the SS's performance on November 22, 1963 appear to be more "johnny-on-the-spot" than it actually was. So I believe that the SS eventually acquiesced to the WC and the FBI, in order to salvage what little good they could from losing the man they were charged with protecting. I also believe that Oswald's presence at the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD was never proven. For that, I trust the word of Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who stated [after Oswald was dead, of course] that police could never prove with all certainty that Oswald was at that window with the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in custody, at the moment that Kennedy was shot. So the Dallas police chief himself was convinced that there was some reasonable doubt that Oswald was the assassin. So if Curry had doubts, than as a reasonable person, I probably should have doubts that Oswald fired the fatal shots as well. The constant bickering of CT'ers has become almost as discordant as the various Christian religious denominations bickering with one another. Perhaps someone could take the lead in an "ecumenical" movement, and at least try to get the CT'er community to at least agree on what they DO agree on...and THEN may the denominational differences be dealt with. So far, about the only thing the CT'er community agrees on is that on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was killed by gunfire in Dealy Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. On that, "even the demons [LN'ers] believe" [to draw from a similar religious context]. For most, be they LN'er or CT'er, the JFK assassination most certainly IS similar to a religion...with most LN'ers swearing a fundamentalist faith in the Warren Commission report, while most CT'ers deal with a faith in other sources, many of which cast doubt on the WC report. And I'm inclined to believe that we'll never know the REAL truth until the Final Judgement Day...if it is even revealed then. So just what should Gary Mack have in the Sixth Floor Museum? Well, I understand the museum has a lot of what they should have. I understand that he has recently received--or should have received--copies of the Robert West surveys, which were used as evidence in the various investigations. Should the Sixth Floor Museum be obligated to acknowledge every theory that's out there? Probably not. But in the interest of truth, the museum should at least acknowledge that there are other theories out there, with varying degrees of plausibility, which argue for and against the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. That may be as honest as they can get, without slanting toward or against any one particular theory.

For those who may have tuned out Tom Purvis...this is one point that Purvis has been trying to make. The rifle on the tripod, as shown in the photo, is NOT in the position the rifle would've been in had the alleged assassin been using the boxes as a rifle rest. This is one of the reasons that Purvis believes that the WC report is based upon sleight-of-hand by FBI Agent Shaneyfelt, et al... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18358

I suggest that this forum should ban ALL "sock-puppet" postings of emails and PM's, whether from Gary Mack or from any other member. If thepersons involved are members of this forum, they should be capable of making ALL their own posts. As I have said many times in the past, I appreciate all the help that Gary Mack has provided me in my search for the evidence related to the JFK assassination; so this proposal is not aimed solely at Gary Mack. I simply think that persons who wish to post here, even those in positions of responsibility such as Mr. Mack, should speak for themselves, and not attempt to speak through someone else. Such a policy would maintain the integrity of the forum. In that way, no one would be violating any policy by posting emails or PM's from anyone else, and it would render moot any "he said/she said" controversies about whether or not someone had permission to post emails and PM's from anyone else who is a member. Call it the "John Alden" rule, if you choose. And as a seeker of truth, I must admit that my understanding of the facts of the case leads me to side with Mr. Von Pein on the issue of whether the certificate of good character was required on mail-order purchases made outside of Texas. Prior to the gun control acts passed AFTER the JFK assassination, there were NO uniform federal standards enforced on mail-order gun purchases, and businesses in non-contiguous states often were ignorant [sometimes willfully so] of laws in other states. So a California business might remain [willfully] ignorant of Texas state law, and since there was no interstate enforcement of Texas law, the California business would continue to adhere to California standards, in the absence of an overriding [and enforced] federal law. I'm not especially thrilled at being on the same side as Mr. Von Pein on ANY issue, but for once I believe he has this one right.

I figure if LBJ's sex life is on-topic, than this probably is too.

Surprised you're interested in this thread, Mr. Morrow, since it doesn't have anything to do with extramarital sex. I'm still trying to figure out Gary Mack. He's a member of the forum, but won't post anything publicly. When I was seeking information about Dallas police radio transmission tapes--from which the transcriptions come, made by the FBI from the original Dictabelt recordings--he was very quick to help send me in what seemed to be the right direction. [Never did locate them, or copies of them.] But don't EVER question his use of "sock puppets" to post FOR him on the forum threads, I've learned. He is indeed the "Mack-daddy" of the indignant private message if you should ever question why "the Great and Powerful Oz" stays behind the curtain. Kinda like the folks who won't send a letter-to-the-editor in our weekly county newspaper, but who will call the "Live Wire" phone number and anonymously rant about something, as I see it. This way, I guess he can say whatever he wishes to whomever he wishes, but he's not accountable because he never "publicly" said it "on the record." In government, I think they call that "plausible deniability." So that's the way I see Mr. Gary Mack. I don't dislike him because I don't know him. I appreciate the times he's tried to help me. But I suppose I'll never understand his use of "sock-puppet" diplomacy...for lack of a better term.

I’m aware of that, but I’m not sure federal authorities have to invoke a crime to take precedence over state/local authorities. In any case I doubt there would have been a restriction on witnesses leaving the state. In light of the difficulty that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison had in compelling out-of-state witnesses to come to Louisiana to testify, I beg to differ, Mr. Colby. Or do you believe that Texas law is stronger than Louisiana law in this area? The assassination of JFK was a state crime, not a federal crime. In fact, NO federal laws were broken when JFK was assassinated. It occurred on a Texas city street, not on a federal facility in Texas. SO...knowing this...other that the simple acquiescence of the Dallas police...upon what authority did the FBI take over the investigation of the assassination? I would suggest that the Dallas police asked for--and possibly expected--the assistance and cooperation of the FBI...but they didn't anticipate that the entire investigation would be taken away from them, as there was no legal authority for the FBI to do so, since NO federal statutes had been broken.

Good luck, Duncan! Hope you have a speedy recovery.

Among the other items that went to Washington (some of them in violation of existing law at that time): The body of the murdered President The Limousine he was killed in that was part of the crime scene The Rifle that was the suspected murder weapon A boat load of first-hand witnesses to the assassination (Jackie, SS Agents, LBJ, and some other members of the motorcade...) but not the number one living witness who may have extremely valuable information, and who is in fear of his life in Dallas. I’m not so sure about that Federal authority trumps state authority and I’m pretty sure there was no legal restriction on witnesses leaving the state. PS In my previous post I said 5 men left the room it seem the correct number was 4, so 8 remained, Ruby, his lawyer, the SS agent and 5 men from the WC and staff. In 1963 it was not a federal crime in killing President Kennedy. It was only a state crime. BINGO!!! There was NO legal federal authority in this case, other than what the Dallas authorities allowed the Feds to have..or what authority the Feds seized in the wake of the assassination.

Found the following photo for sale on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-Press-Photo-Col-James-K-Chenault-captured-by-Terrorists-/230752736872?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35b9ef5668#ht_3210wt_1185 Caption on the photo confirms that the kidnapping was November 27, 1963.

I think I like where you're headed with this, Chris...As I've heard said before, with the CORRECT survey information, the truth really IS in the Warren Commission report; it's just missing from their conclusions.

Got a PM from the forum's "serial lurker." I can understand why the other employees, such as Jarman and Arce and the others on the floor-laying crew weren't laid off. Obviously, there was plywood to be laid on the floors. BUT since this wasn't the "busy season," I still don't see why Ozzie was hired...considering that, should an order need pulled, the floor-laying crew could obviously spare a hand or two if need be, since their primary jobs prior to the laying of the plywood had to do with filling orders. IOW, when your "regular" employees are put on a "make-work" task [yeah, it may have been necessary to prevent oil from seeping into cartons, but the problem hadn't previously been considered critical to the business], it simply doesn't make sense to me to be hiring yet another employee to do what the folks on the "make-work" task HAD been doing. I've been a mid-level manager in business, and I know that if I had hired extra help to take up the slack while my main employees were doing a "make-work" task, I'd have been looking for a new job myself.

I'm still having some trouble with the entire story of the TSBD and the hiring of Oswald. Maybe it's different in Texas, but here in Indiana, the school year starts in August...although it was closer to the day after Labor Day when school opening was "official" and students began to be penalized for late enrollment. Here in Indiana, in the early 1960's, the school corporations RENTED the books to students, and books were used 4-6 years before they were replaced. So that meant that schools had supplies of books on hand BEFORE the start of the school year in September. The only books being shipped in to schools in MY area in October thru December would've been "sample" texts for school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers to review in consideration of replacing existing texts...OR...emergency supplies meant to replace texts that students had lost or damaged. SO...based upon MY knowledge of the world of schools and textbooks in the early 1960's...it would've been suspicious in MY view for the TSBD to have been hiring, instead of laying off, workers in October of 1963. The article on Wikipedia mentions Oswald being hired to help handle an expected "holiday rush"...one that I simply don't see occurring in school textbooks. Who do YOU know that goes out buying school textbooks for Christmas gifts? Just doesn't make sense. Seems more logical to me that the business of the TSBD, as a warehouse, would've been a bit more seasonal...with their "busy season" occuring in July and August, or possibly even as early as April and May if school boards approved textbooks for the coming year in that early a window. In fact, then, it makes PERFECT sense to put REGULAR employees to work laying plywood on the warehouse floor, rather than laying them off just prior to Thanksgiving and Christmas, which would've come across as Scrooge-like in the early 1960's. Still, it makes the hiring of Oswald look questionable, based upon the timing of his hiring. But I'm pretty sure, based upon what I've read in the past, that there were NO "tempts," "temps," or "temporary workers" hired simply to lay plywood over the existing floors.

Just a thought...Perhaps Oswald never told Marina that, after the Walker shooting, he buried the rifle in the ground. Perhaps what he actually said was that the rifle "went underground," or something of that nature. Maybe the phrase and concept of "going underground" doesn't translate well to Russian, if you're trying to translate it literally rather than idiomatically. As I said...just a thought. Now...back to Oswald and the Walker shooting, without the distraction I just brought up.

It's true that the provenance of CE399 is questionable. Even as the rifling marks match the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, there is no UNQUESTIONABLE link to the bodies of EITHER JFK or Connally. Had the bullet been removed by medical personnel, there would be NO questions. Since it wasn't, the ONLY thing that can be done is to speculate, based upon the evidence. Tom Purvis, in years past, produced photographs of a bullet that he fired into a live oak branch...a bullet that was flattened similarly to CE399...and it was fired from a similar Mannlicher Carcano 6.5mm model 91/38, using Winchester Western ammunition from a similar batch. Now, does this PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is EXACTLY what happened to CE399? Hardly. But it does indicate that Purvis' theory makes a hell of a lot more sense than the WC's SBT fantasy. Still, there are gaps in the chain of evidence linking CE399 to JFK, as well as apparent gaps in the chain of custody.

I would simply remind Mr. Morrow that, initially, there was no evidence for MANY of the theories we now consider plausible...until someone searched it out and discovered that it existed. Perhaps this direction simply hasn't been investigated thoroughly enough yet.

Barry, your last question is the answer. The truth, or at least the portion we've been allowed to see, IS in the Warren Comission Report; problem is, that same truth is NOT reflected in their conclusions. Remember, it was the CONCLUSIONS that were for consumption by the American public; the EVIDENCE was "supposed to be" hidden from the public for 75 years.

Tom, I think you just may be onto something. People can be "programmed," persuaded, or even coerced into doing things they normally wouldn't, if they think they'll become a hero in the end. I think that was the motive in play with Oswald's fake defection and repatriation, and I think it also fits regarding his actions leading up to November 22nd. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Robert, I can't speak for the others here...but I truly appreciate your efforts and your research. You have helped shed light on MANY areas that many have been overlooked. And unlike some here who have been sold on their own brilliance, I know I can count on your research as being guided by a search for truth, as opposed to being a defense of dogma.