Mark Knight

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.

Tom, in the theory above, the first TWO shots would have been fired from the alleges "sniper's lair" in the southEAST corner of the TSBD...and the THIRD shot would have been from the southWEST corner of the TSBD. So there would NOT have been two snipers firing from the same window...they would've been merely firing from opposite corners of the same floor of the same building, with the same make and caliber rifle. And without CORRECTLY tracing the paths of the bullets, since all 3 shots had come from the rear [a concept that many researchers are reluctant to consider], lazy investigators would them attempt to show that all of the shots from the rear came from the same location. It's just that a bullet from the Dal-Tex Building, like one from the alleged "sniper's lair," would have been entering the limo on a left-to-right trajectory inside the limo, after the limo was on the straight section of Elm following the turn from Houston...whereas a sniper in the southWEST window of the TSBD could effectively pull off the right-to-left trajectory in the limo...which would make the LIFE, SS, and FBI surveys all correct about the location of the third shot, and Tom Purvis' theory about the wounds caused by the third shot would also be correct. And the FBI would also be correct in claiming that all of the bullets could be matched to the same batch of ammo, in the same caliber. Remember, Tom...the biggest lies in the WC Report were not so much in the EVIDENCE, but were in the CONCLUSIONS that were drawn FROM the evidence. The theory I put forward would be more in line with the evidence that the WC had before it than their own. And it wouldn't preclude the use of other shooters; it would just mean that other shooters may have missed, or in the case of a Dal-Tex shooter, may have accounted for the injury to Teague. The theory I have offered doesn't answer ALL the questions; in some respects, it raises a few more than it answers. BUT it better conforms to the WC's actual evidence than their own theory did.

Here's a far-out theory to think about. Suspend your disbelief for just a moment, and see what this makes you think. Let's just suppose that Tom Purvis is right, and there were three shots fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and all three shot hit JFK. Let's just suppose that the third shot was NOT a "snap-shot" fired from the southEAST window, but was fired by a SECOND assassin from the southWEST corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Let's suppose this third shot did what Purvis claims it did, and entered JFK's downturned head near the collar, exited his head near the rear top center, and then proceeded to cause Connally's wounds as Purvis suggests the bullet did. This would eliminate the need for a bullet from the southEAST corner of the TSBD to have made a left turn upon entering JFK's body, as it would have already been traveling in a right-to-left direction within the space of the limo...something impossible to accomplish from the southEAST corner window, until the limo started into the right-hand turn to enter the triple overpass. Now, provided you've suspended your disbelief this far and are still following me...suppose this second assassin was using a SECOND 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with ammunition from the same WCC batch as the assassin in the southEAST window. Spectrographic analysis would show the bullets to be virtually identical, since the rifles were, for the sake of this scenario, the same make and caliber. And since none of the folks who claimed to see an assassin on the 6th floor ever claimed to see TWO assassins, police were naturally only looking for ONE rifle...which they claim they found. How did the assassins get the second rifle out of the TSBD? does it matter? After all, once the cops found ONE rifle, they STOPPED LOOKING for another. [The second Carcano might have been "hidden" along with Oswald's jacket and clipboard, which only turned up WEEKS after the initial investigation, for all I know.] BUT...look at the mess this scenario would've made for the Warren Commission! Since they had to fit the assassination explanation to the lone-nut script they were given, the HAD to make the third shot go away...even though the SS, LIFE Magazine, and even the FBI had it surveyed into their original plats. The third shot HAD to "disappear," because the angle of entry into JFK and then into Connally would've OBVIOUSLY had to have come from the southWEST window, which would have PROVEN there was a second assassin. The WC also, having made the ACTUAL third shot by the second assassin go away, then had to construct a "shot-that-missed" scenario AND the asinine "single-bullet theory" to "explain" the wounds in JFK and Connally. Of course, as Jim DiEugenio and others have pointed out, the Post Office and the FBI could NOT produce evidence that Oswald was the man who picked up the Carcano shipped from Klein's. Add to that the fact that A. Hidell ordered the 36" rifle, but a 40" rifle was recovered from the TSBD...perhaps a 40" rifle was ordered AFTER April '63, when the Klein's ads changed. Perhaps THAT'S where the 40" rifle came from, a later SECOND order from Klein's...and perhaps the earlier Hidell order was actually shipped with the 36" rifle that was actually ordered. Now, I'm not sure what it would mean where YOU come from, but two rifles and two assassins spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y where I come from...and that's something that the WC wanted to avoid dealing with at ALL costs. So instead, they came up with a fake scenario, avoided investigating certain areas, and mad what few facts they actually had twist and bend to ALMOST fit the lone-nut story they were told to peddle...and then initially locked away the evidence for 75 years, lest anyone discover what they were actually up to. NOW...what evidence do I have to back up this far-out theory? Not much, beyond the information already contained in the WC report and in the TRUE surveys completed by Robert West [not the cardboard copy of a tracing the WC used]. The missing evidence is in the unasked questions, the uninvestigated leads, and the way the questions WERE asked of witnesses to lead them AROUND the truth, without actually TELLING the truth. How did any second assassin get out of the TSBD? I don't know. How did they get a second Carcano out of the TSBD? I don't know; we're still debating how they got the FIRST Carcano INTO the TSBD. Perhaps the second assassin was an employee of the TSBD, and worked with the first assassin...whom I'm inclined to believe was NOT Oswald, either, based upon the lunchroom evidence. I think Givens, Dougherty, and others who were allegedly on the 5th floor knew the truth, but didn't tell it...either due guilt, complicity, or due to coercion/blackmail. OK. My longshot theory would explain the actions of the WC perfectly, and would fall in line with what was shown on Mr. West's surveys as well. It would NOT answer all the questions it raises. It would not answer WHO the two assassins were. It would not answer the WHY of the assassination. But it would cover the mechanics of most of the mysteries that the WC Report raised, and it would eliminate any need for body snatching, wound alteration, and bullets making strange turns in midair. It would explain why the USPO and the FBI could [nearly] track ONE rifle...but might also explain why the rifle in custody wasn't the 36" rifle that A. Hidell ordered, and that Klein's SHOULD have shipped. It wouldn't explain whether the Carcano recovered was or was not the rifle that Oswald owned. It would leave a lot of the unanswered questions unanswered. BUT...it would answer a LOT of questions, and would provide an explanation a lot more in line with what witnesses in Dealy Plaza claimed to have seen and heard than the WC report did. Not saying it DID happen that way; but an objective look would show that this scenario makes more sense than the WC fairy tale.

After reading the evidence that Jim Root and Robert Howard have accumulated, I also am inclined to conclude that the purpose Raleigh call was not so much for Oswald to speak to Mr. Hurt, but to send a signal. Unfortunately for Oswald, it appears to have sent the WRONG signal, and may have effectively signed his own death warrant.

The Big Mac was introduced in Pennsylvania in 1967 [Ruth Payne connection? I dunno....], and nationwide in 1968. McDonalds timeline

IMHO, I think that pictures like that one are somewhat less shocking than the JFK "death stare" photo from the autopsy table. Some TV crime shows have as much blood...and we won't even go into the content of movies or the video games that some of these kids play. So I'm gonna weigh in with John Kelly on this one; better that the photos are seen, than to be locked away as the WC did with much of the evidence. As I said, just my opinion.

Doesn't really matter...with the same rifle from the same position, the view would've been almost identical...just a "pumpkin on a post" in the field of view instead of crosshairs. Nothing else changes.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either. Exactly where do these "non-shooters" keep popping up from???? The scope crosshairs may have beeen "mis-aligned" for you, me, Frazier, and multiple others. However, not unlike the adjustable rear sight on the M1-Garand; the M14; and the M16, the adjustment of the crosshairs may have been exactly right/correct for whoever the shooter was. In fact, if one will check the M1-Garand adjustments of LHO during his rangefire qualifications, they just may find a similarity between the rear sight adjustment utilized during his USMC rifle marksmanship qualificatios and the purportedly "high and to the right" of the Carcano scope crosshairs. Tom P.S. Since there was not sufficient elapsed time for target acquisition utilizing the scope between shot#2 and shot#3. one can bet their sweet bippy that the third shot was a "snap shot" in which only the fixed sights of the Carcano were utilized. And somewhere in the dim, dark and dank recesses of my memory, I believe that someone at one time or another may have raised the point that the possibility exists that LHO may have been LEFT-eye dominant...meaning that the "high and to the right" orientation of the scope may not have applied to a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye. Notice just HOW FAR to the left the scope on the Carcano is mounted...for a shooter with a dominant RIGHT eye, it would be almost IMPOSSIBLE to shoot with any degree of accuracy. But a shooter with a dominant LEFT eye suddenly makes the scope orientation make MUCH more sense. Too late now to confirm whether LHO had a dominant left eye, of course...but that WOULD answer a lot of questions about the scope.

The scope had an offset mount which did NOT preclude the use of the iron sights on the rifle. As the TSBD proved, one doesn't have to refrain from using the stairs just because the building has elevators. And so it is with the scope and the iron sights. Since none of us were there to witness who it was that pulled the trigger, I guess we'll never know if the scope or the iron sights were used, either.

IMHO, Bush wasn't driving the wheel...but I wouldn't be surprised to discover proof that he was one of the spokes [as well as one of the "spooks"].

...anyone...?????

Chris, this simply confirms my perception...that for a bullet fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD to have traveled from right to left in the limo [as viewed from the window towards the rear of the limo], the bullet would have HAD to have come from the vicinity of the southWEST window, and NOT the southEAST window. So how do the photos help, in ANY way, to justify the argument that the assassin was firing from the southEAST window? I simply can't make it work, even with the WC's own photos. Thanks, Chris...that's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. I'm just a seeker of truth, and I have no axes to grind with anyone. But BEFORE any case can be made for body snatching, corpse alteration, or anything else....FIRST the shot trajectories have to line up. And from the southEAST window of the 6th floor, they simply don't. [unless, as Tom Purvis states, the first shot ONLY hit JFK...then, the southeast window IS the most likely place fo the first shot to have originated.] Now...can anyone pencil in the lines, from the southeast window, to make the WC theory work?

Try though I may, I'm having trouble lining things up in the matter of bullet trajectory and the JFK assassination. In the presidential limousine, the jump seat upon which Connally sat [i believe I spelled his name correctly--this is, of course, for Mr. Phelps, for whom accuracy of detai apparently doesn't matter] is positioned slightly inboard from the position of JFK in the corner of the back seat. So I address this question to folks such as Mr. Von Pein, who conclude that the Warren Commission essentially got it right: Since the curvature on Elm Street is right-to-left, until the point where Elm then turns left-to right to enter the teiple overpass, how could a bullet that was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD--presumably at a slight left-to-right angle--have suddenly made a left turn, and have ended up going slightly right-to-left to wound Connaly? I might find it more believable if the shot had been made from the southWEST corner of the TSBD...but I just dont see it happening from the southEAST window, unless the limo made a sudden lurch toward the RIGHT curb--which the z-film does NOT indicate--and thereby put Connally in line with JFK from the southeast window. It may be argued that the limo approached the right curb DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF the TSBD, in its turn from Houston onto Elm...but this is, relatively speaking, several LONG seconds before someone in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD would've been able to fire at JFK's back. Now, addressing Tom Purvis' explanation of the 3rd shot--which I believe offers a more plausible explanation of Connally's wounds--I find I also have the same probelm with Tom's proposed trajectory from the southeast window. Even if Greer steered the limo slightly right as he turned to ook into the back seat as the 3rd shot was fired, I find the angle of trajectory, left-to-right, easier to believe if the sniper was shooting from the southWEST window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. In fact, the ONLY time the proposed left-to right trajectory lines up inside the limo is as the limo turns right to go under the triple overpass...long after what EVERYONE agrees was the point of the last shot. So can someone expain to me exactly how this works, and how you can get a bullet to make a left turn after it's fired? Might come in handy in my deer hunting to know how to do that [just joking on that last part]. And to Mr.Von Pein: Please confine your answer to any FACTS you can find, and leave the ridicule out. Unlike you, I came into the JFK assassination discussion with an open mind. I'm swayed by facts and evidence, not coulda-woulda-must've stuff. I believe that JFK was shot by an assassin on Elm Street in front of the TSBD. I believe that LHO may have had opportunity to pull the trigger. BUT I'm not yet convinced that LHO was the ONLY prson who had opportunity to fire from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and after seeing all the evidence I have seen on bullet trajectories [suggested and otherwise], I'm not so sure that the southeast window "sniper's nest" wasn't set up as a ruse, when the actual shots more likely might've been fired from the southWEST window. So pull out your FACTS and convince me...anyone who has 'em. Show me how, when the line of sight from the supposed "sniper's nest" to the target is slightly left-to-right, the bullet traveled right-to-left once they arrived at the limo. I just can't see the logic in that...somehow.

Steve and Jim, I want to bring this issue back to the table. Now that the Congress is conducting oversight hearings, if we get an oversight hearing on the JFK Act, we will want them to focus on 1) the records destroyed, 2) the records still withheld, 3) the records missing that are refered to in other records but have never been located. Will you guys help out on the referencing to the US Army / military records? As John Newman has said, the files are triplicated and in many physically separate places so they couldn't have destroyed them all. I belive they do exist, and can be located. Also see: Jones test. as to location of military records. BK Bill, I have long believed that Oswald was run by Army intelligence. After all, running LHO under ONI would have been too transparent...USMC to Department of the Navy to ONI...too easy to connect the dots. When it comes to intel, it seems to me that a lot of servicemen were run by a branch other than the one under which they initially [or officially] served. BUT...such information wasn't exactly common knowledge in 1963. Therefore, you could stall any inquiries if USMC officials, and then Navy officials, could [semi] honestly deny that Oswald had any intelligence connections through THEIR channels. HOWEVER...since Oswald was never "officially" Army, it would make the most sense that his cover was least likely to be blown if he was run by ARMY intel. So the best place for Ozzie Rabbit's activities to have been controlled, and kept under wraps, would've been through Army intel. IF--and it's a gargantuan IF--someone managed to keep a copy of LHO's Army file, I think it would blow the lid off Dallas, and answer all the questions we've wondered about for nearly 50 years. Since the AF1 tapes held by Clifton are recently surfacing...perhaps someday the Oswald Army file will, too. Just hope that it happens in our lifetime.

I'm pretty sure I understand Tom's explanation, but I think he should be the one to post it here. TIP: if you wanna see a real SBT, don't focur on the first OR the second shot...if I recall correctly.

What I have read is that Philip Graham was a manic-depressive. (Now who do I know who's like that?) He was in a mental hospital and they let him go home for the weekend. Supposedly, only Katherine Graham was in the house when he shot himself with a rifle in a downstairs bathroom. Earlier, when he was invited to the Kennedy's Oval Office, he walked in, picked up the "red" phone and yelled, "Scramble the planes." Suspicion surrounds his death. His father-in-law gave the business over to Philip, when rightfully it should have gone to Katherine Graham. Male chauvinism. Did Philip really kill himself? Would someone with foreknowledge of Kennedy's Assassination confide in Philip, who was a "mental case"? Who knows what he knew? Kathy C This man had a link to a rather famous Kennedy Assassination figure........his obituary appeared in the Dallas Morning News on October 31, 1963.... I can't help but think that face reminds me of someone..... If this isn't a conversation piece, I guess I don't understand the meaning of the phrase.... Dead at age 51...[hmmm...in 1963, LBJ would've been 55]...and the resemblance, at least in the newspaper photo, IS uncanny.

Robert, I follow your posts. I read the information with an open mind AND with great interest. But I ONLY post when I have something to add. In the case of multiple Ramblers, I really have nothing factual to add. But the fact that I have nothing to add does NOT indicate an indifference, or a lack of interest, on my part. It simply means that I can neither add to, or argue with, the content of your posts. At this point, I would encourage you to continue your research wherever it leads. SOME of us have no set agenda, or [as in my own case] have set aside pre-conceived notions about the assassination in order to be receptive to the TRUTH, if and/or when it ever emerges.

In today's post-Miranda world [Miranda warning came about in 1966], it was NOT legal to confiscate ALL of Oswald's belongings. Had Oswald gone to trial, even in 1963 I'm sure that a competent defense attorney could've gotten anything removed as evidence which was not within the specified scope of the search warrant. BUT...prior to any trial...I understand that a lot of police departments would sieze everything, and then gradually return items that were deemed by prosecutors as 'not pertinent" to the case against the defendant. While this is a de facto violation of the Fourth Amendment, the sad truth is, it WAS a common practice in 1963, as I understand it.

You're absolutely right, Len. The timeline doesn't fit the known--and UNDISPUTED--facts about where Oswald was in 1962. Had the murder occurred in 1963, the story might've been plausible. But for '62, as Johnny Cochran might've said, "the glove doesn't fit."

Tom, on the 20 items in your first post, I'm pretty well with you. But I believe you and I differ on whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger. IF Oswald was a patsy, as he claimed, he was an excellent choice for a patsy, as he was perfectly capable of making 3 shots from less than 100 yards/300 feet on a slow-moving target. I simply believe what Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said, when he claimed that no one can put Oswald in THAT window, with THAT rifle, at the EXACT MOMENT the shots were fired. Without that evidence--and apparently Curry had little faith in Howard Brennan, who did, then didn't, then did identify Oswald as being the man in southeast 6th floor window of the TSBD--we are back to guesswork, based upon the preponderance of the evidence. And I tend to find Bill Kelly's analysis of Oswald's movement and position in the 2nd floor lunchroom as being quite convincing...that, based upon what Officer Marion Baker saw, Oswald MUST have entered the lunchroom from the front of the building, and not from the stairwell in the rear. Other than that, I think you're pretty well in line with where the evidence I've seen takes me.

In your "research" for this post...where did you find verification that JFK was actually at Columbia University at ANY time during the month of November, 1963? And what is your source for the quote? I'd like to find the entire speech so that I might view it in context. I realize that MANY cite this alleged quote from JFK, but to date I cannot find the speech from which it is allegedly excerpted. The JFK Library's online resources do NOT mention such a speech as having occurred...and I can find no confirmation that JFK ever set foot at Columbia University in November, 1963.