Mark Knight

According to the DVP scenario, the SBT and the first bullet accounts for Connally's wounds. So I have a question for DVP...IF you and the WC are correct [HUGE "if", there]...how or why was there copper residue [as in, possibly from a copper-jacketed bullet??] found by Heiberger in his spectrographic analysis on the defect in the COLLAR of JFK's coat? Explain away, Davey...like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

Mark I tend to agree with you that in Zapruder we see what must be an abrupt deceleration of the limo, causing the occupants to lurch forward. Why jackie is not affected to the same extent as the other occupants is not clear. ? In the NIX GIF below do we see the limo decelerate, as jackies white glove is seen moving up and then down. It appears to me that the follow up car , and two or three of the four motorcycles appear to come to a abrupt stop just as the Limo takes off. Stabilized Muchmore GIF showing the head shot. Click on the image to view full size: Thank you, Robin. While I'm not a "researcher" with "credentials" such as Fetzer or Lifton, some things need to be pointed out, even if they're only noticed by folks like me with "average" powers of observation. In Nix, the confirmation that the limo at least slowed dramatically is the rate at which the motorcycle escorts advance on the limo, prior to coming to a complete stop themselves...apparently to keep from passing the rear of the limo. And apparently, this is the point at which the limo then begins its rapid acceleration. In Zapruder, there is no indication, based upon the passing background, to determine that ANY slowing of the limo occurred. In fact, from what I've seen in the Z-film, I don't see the motorcycles coming alongside the trunk of the limo as I do in Nix. Is this a result of the angle at which Zapruder was shooting the film, compared to Nix's angle...or is this perhaps [and I ONLY say "perhaps," since I don't know the answer for certain] a result of "editing" of the Z-film in an attempt to "eliminate" the slowing/near-stop/stop of the limo? I don't know the answer. The forward movement of the limo occupants, IN UNISON, indicates rapid deceleartion which is not discernable otherwise in Zapruder, IMHO. Whether that's evidence of a coverup, or simply a product of Zappy's POV of the assassination,I'm not prepared to speculate at this point. But I do believe that, if Greer was ducking, so was everyone else. And if JFK's forward movement is ONLY a product of taking a bullet from behind, what bullet simultaneously hit Nellie Connally, Greer, and Kellerman? Limo deceleration is the only LOGICAL explanation for this forward motion, IN UNISON...IMHO. As I say, I don't have the credentials of a Lifton or a Fetzer. But by examining Nix and Zapruder together, that's the only logical conclusion at which I can arrive, based upon my limited education and lack of credentials. Thanks again, Robin. You have shown me something that I hadn't seen prior to this week.

Perhaps I'm seeing it differently...but in the clip Robin shows of frames Z321-Z324, it appears that ALL of the occupants of the presidential limo, except perhaps Jackie, are moving FORWARD...IN UNISON...as if the car was DECELERATING RAPIDLY. Rapid deceleration would explain witness accounts of the limo braking or stopping...and if it was only going 11-12 MPH to begin with, braking would be the ONLY logical explanation for rapid deceleration, as the weight of the vehicle would impart a certain inertia that could only be resisted to the degree shown in the Z-film by the driver applying the brakes. Now, IMHO, THAT'S what I'm seeing, as opposed to any conscious "ducking". Because if Greer is ducking, then everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking...in unison. Due to individuals having varying reaction times, I just don't see it as a spontaneous reaction by an entire group.

Mark The orientation can be seen in this image i posted originally in this thread. It shows the crack is on the INSIDE OF THE WINDSCREEN This image more correctly align's with Altgens 7 NOT altgens 6 NARA image flipped and placed over the top of the whitehouse garage image so as to approximate the Altgens 6 orientation NARA color image resized only ( no rotation ) Small GIF ( 3-frames ) Thanks, Robin...clarifies things quite well.

I find it distasteful to be on the side of Mr. Lamson because of his tendancy to ridicule those who disagree with him...much as I find it distasteful to find myself on the same side as a few others who post here and use the same technique to "argue" their points. But I generally support what I understand the truth to be, no matter WHO states it. So let's let this be the last on who I support, or why I support any person's arguments, and let's get back to discussing the subject at hand...which originally was the Z-film, and branched into the hole/absence of hole/spiral nebulae/absence of such in the windshield of SS100.

As distasteful as it is for me to support Craig Lamson, we cannot honestly compare the images in post 507 without knowing the exact orientation of the windshield in the second image. In the second image, there's simply no reference to what's top or bottom of the windshield, and as to whether the image is taken from what was the inside or the outside of the windshield. The second image in post 499 would seem to IMPLY that the second image in post 506 may have been taken from what would've been the INSIDE of the car. So until/unless we can document the orientation of the second image in post 507, it's hard to say whether it's a match or not. AND without tilting the image [and inducing the corresponding distortion] to correspond with the INSTALLED angle of the windshield, even a "near" match may appear to look completely differently...i.e., some of the cracks in the windshield may not be visible in the Parkland [?] photo because of the angle of the sun in relation to the edge of the crack, for example. But Lamson's correct...until we take perspective into consideration, ANY comparison is moot.

I'd be curious to see Gary Mack's answer as well...and not some sort of communication through a third party "sock puppet."

Even Jesse Curry, DPD Chief, said that they could never beyond a reasonable doubt place LHO in "that window" with "that rifle" at the moments the shots were fired. So apparently Curry himself had no faith in Brennan's ID of Oswald as the gunman. Now, before you go off shouting at me over what I do or don't believe--and get it wrong--I'll spell it out for you. I believe that Oswald MIGHT have been the gunman on the 6th floor. BUT I also believe he might NOT have been. I believe the evidence is inconclusive. A competent defense attorney would have torn the prosecution's case to shreds...had their been a trial. Doesn't mean Ozzie was innocent; just means that there is no conclusive evidence that he did the deed, to the exclusion of all other people on the face of the earth...as you seem to believe. And I believe that YOUR arguments are based on backwards logic; i.e., you believe Oswald to be guilty, so he MUST HAVE done this or he MUST HAVE done that, or he COULD HAVE done this or he COULD HAVE done that...and then your "must haves" and "could haves" somehow become transformed into "he DID it, because we KNOW he's guilty...so that could only mean that he's guilty because he did it." And that circular reasoning gets old after the first couple of thousand times of reading it.

Tom, the information about Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods coincides with information that the late Gerry Hemming emailed to me a few years back. Hemming told me that, to discover where Oswald's pistol and rifle actually came from, I needed to forget about Klein's and Seaport Traders, and instead concentrate on a single source in Montreal. Since Hemming could be a bit of a BS'er--not unlike Mr.Von Pein--I nevr knew whether he was giving me good information or sending me out on a false trail. BUT if Hemming was correct--as opposed to the "could have" and "might have" and "must have" speculation of Larry Dunkel--it would certainly explain why certain documents sought by Jim DiEugenio and Gil Jesus haven't surfaced: it would be because they never existed to begin with. Of course, if Oswald DID obtain both firearms from Empire, it wouldn't necessarily rule him out as being the assassin of the two people he's accused of killing. It would only confirm that the Warren Commission and the FBI were liars...something the majority of Americans already suspect.

Basic math is ONE thing. SPECULATING on what the evidence means is NOT what I do...unlike yourself, Mr. Von Pein. The police report on the Walker shooting states that the bullet recovered was a STEEL jacketed round. The 6.5MM rounds fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano [not specifically "Carcano" bullets, as the bullets were NOT specific to a certain make of rifle, but to a certain caliber] were COPPER jacketed rounds. The bullet alleged to be from the Walker shooting as displayed in the WC exhibits in most certainly NOT a steel jacketed bullet. So I can either conclude that the Dallas police were incompetent, and couldn't tell steel from copper...or I can question the obviously flawed Warren Commission reports and the methods used to arrive at their conclusions. I DO NOT believe that Oswald is completely innocent in the JFK assassination...as you seem to assume I believe. I merely believe that the investigation was flawed, and that there are unanswered questions that the WC tried to sweep under the rug. I further believe that JFK was, indeed, struck by three bullets fired from above and behind...if that's any consolation to you, Dave. But don't ASSUME that I'm a conspiracy theorist, just because I don't follow you like a lap dog.

You have CE 1 which may or may not relate to this incident [the ONLY reason anyone THINKS it relates is because Marina--who has LIED before--says it relates]. You have Marina--who has LIED before--who says "Lee told me he did it." You have photos of Walker's back yard, which may or may not mean anything. And you have a "Carcano-like" bullet...which may have actually been a different caliber fired from a different weapon...in Walker's house. In other words, 50% of your "evidence" is based upon the word of a proven xxxx. So to me, you still don't have a rifle [or handgun, or shotgun, or a bazooka, for that matter] in Oswald's hands at the moment the shot was fired at Walker's house. To claim that he did the deed is, therefore, SPECULATION...the same thing that gets the CT'ers drawn into traps. The "experts" claim Oswald rode the bus on his trip to Walker's home. So where are the witnesses who saw him on the bus with his rifle? Name ONE--just ONE--witness who was actually ON that bus ride, and the story becomes slightly more believable. Without a witness, it's merely [all together now, class] SPECULATION. And SPECULATION puts you in the same class with the CT'ers you so despise, Dave.

Dave, you're doing it again...SPECULATING. Oswald having photos of Walker's back yard PROVE nothing...other than the fact that Oswald had photos of Walker's back yard. Like the CT'ers and the Neely Street backyard photos, you can SPECULATE to your heart's content...but that is not EVIDENCE that Oswald pulled the trigger at Walker's home. I have photos of a friend's car, taken at his home. The car was later stolen. DOES THIS MEAN I STOLE HIS CAR? What other reason would I have for photographing his car, than to subsequently steal it, if the car WAS subsequently stolen? [i assure you, I have NEVER stolen a car.] Oh, wait...because LHO is the allged assassin of JFK and Tippit, then he certainly MUST have taken the potshot at Walker, right? And since we now believe Oswald took the potshot at Walker, then he certainly was capable of shooting JFK and Tippit, right? CIRCULAR REASONING there, Dave. NOT EVIDENCE. As I say, I believe Ozzie MIGHT HAVE taken the shot at Walker. But I also believe he MIGHT NOT HAVE. The evidence, so far, is inconclusive. Give me something that puts the rifle--hell, ANY rifle--in LHO's hands at the moment the shot was fired at the Walker residence. Again, what part of CE 1 puts a rifle in LHO's hands at the Walker house? I see nothing that does. Once again, SPECULATION on what CE 1 means. SPECULATION is not the same as EVIDENCE. Got any real EVIDENCE?

Dave, I'm terribly sorry...but had Marina been required to testify in a court of law, any defense attorney with a dime-store law degree would have left her credibility in shreds. She says one thing, than changes her statement...yet that's NOT convincing evidence that she has a propensity to LIE? Yet based upon her statements--the credibility of which is suspect, considering her PROPENISTY TO LIE, which has already been PROVEN beyond the shadow of a doubt--you consider that CONCRETE EVIDENCE that LHO was the man who pulled the trigger at Walker's house? I believe that proves YOU to be more gullible than most CT'ers. And the bullet MIGHT'VE come from a 6.5MM Carcano. Or it might NOT have. So in your mind, that proves CONCLUSIVELY that it did? Witnesses NEAR the Walker shooting--that's right, Dave, there were NO witnesses to the actual shooting--say that two cars left the scene immediately afterwards at a high rate of speed. Yet the accounts of Oswald's alleged "involvement" say that he took a bus to and from the shooting. So are the witnesses lying? Or is the account of Oswald taking the bus mistaken? If the witnesses ARE correct...and we know that Oswald had NO car, and NO driver's license--and, according, to Mrs. Payne, Oswald had never learned to drive a car--then perhaps Oswald had a CO-CONSPIRATOR in the Walker shooting, or at least an accessory after the fact. But if Oswald left the scene of the Walker shooting in a car which he didn't own--whether he drove it or someone else drove--it can be then argued that there WAS someone who existed who was, at worst, a co-conspirator, and at best an accessory after the fact...WHICH TOTALLY SINKS the idea that Oswald was a "LONE NUT" in the Walker shooting...and, in MY mind, cast doubts on the ENTIRE "Lone-Nut" scenario. So you believe the testimony of Marina, a proven xxxx...but discount the testimony of those who were near the scene of the Walker shooting? I'm not convinced that Oswald DID the Walker shooting...and I'm not convinced that he DIDN'T do it. To me, the evidence is inconclusive. Give me something that would've CONVICTED Oswald of the Walker shooting, had the matter gone to court...in other words, PROVE he did it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, Dave. I challenge you to do so because I don't think you can do it. I don't want speculation, I don't want "coulda-woulda-shoulda" BS; give me some HARD EVIDENCE. Marina has been proven to be a xxxx, so don't build a case based upon her testimony. I don't think you can do it.

Dave, I have but one question regarding your comments: if we throw out Marina's testimony, what actual hard EVIDENCE do we have that ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the Walker shooting? I suggest that we have NONE...zero, zip, nada. So if you base Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination on a propensity to kill that's built on the Walker shooting, it seems to me you're attempting to build a concrete-and-steel skyscraper on a foundation of balsa wood. Oh, wait...there's also DeMohrenschildt's testimony, although DeM witnessed nothing to do with the Walker shooting itself. EVIDENCE, man...give me EVIDENCE that LHO took a shot at Walker. But don't build on Marina's testimony; Marina had a difficult time keeping her stories straight on stuff we actually HAVE other evidence to corroborate. Give me firm evidence to link the bullet recovered from Walker's home and Oswald's rifle...not "coulda been" fired from it, but an ironclad "IT WAS, WITH NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY," fired from Oswald's rifle. Give me firm evidence that, if it was Oswald's rifle that took that shot at Walker, that Oswald was the man who pulled the trigger...not "could have" or "must have" pulled the trigger, but "DID, WITH 100% CERTAINTY," pull the trigger on the shot fired at Walker. Once you can provide that EVIDENCE...NOT conjecture, NOT speculation, not "must have done it," but EVIDENCE...THEN you just might have a concrete foundation upon which to build your case. Until then, all you've got is the balsa wood of the VERY self-contradictory Marina Oswald. I don't care much for conspiracy theories built on coulda-woulda-mighta-shoulda, and I detest LN cases built on the same flimsy foundation. EVIDENCE, Dave. HARD EVIDENCE. Either bring it, or back off.

After reading Revill's testimony and mention of Gannaway and the Special Services Bureau, I would think that the "games management officers" [as opposed to "game officers"] might be part of the squad investigating gambling...possibly being pressed into duty supplementing the OTHER detectives in the DPD. I still think that may be a direction worth pursuing...and that the Fish and Game area might be a [pardon the pun] red herring.

Seems to me that "US Alcohol Tax Unit" officers would be ATF agents, under the Department of the Treasury. So how did the ATF agents get dispatchd to the TSBD, and why haven't we seen any reports from any of them? Seems rather curious to me. Maybe someone needs to do a search of Treasury/ATF files as well? I mean, the government has managed to hide a lot of pertinent information is less likely places.

Bill, the Fairlane was a smaller car in that era. This car is obviously the full-size model [which eventually evolved into the Crown Vic police cruisers we all know from the past 30-odd years], a Ford Galaxie...or it may have been the stripped full-size model, the Custom 500. The concave grille tells me this was a 1963 model. 63 Ford Galaxie 4-door

Robert, thanks for all the information you are discovering and sharing. Since I consider myself a student of the Kennedy Assassination--rather than an "expert" with books to sell and theories to defend--I find your information [and the information shared by Jim Root] to be quite educational, as far as the circumstances around the assassination that many folks have not the curiosity to explore. Thanks for your work, and let it be known that your efforts do not go unappreciated.

Bump for Duke once more...

In my OPINION--and that's all it is--I think that, to Oswald, Ruby simply looked like a lot of other cops with their suits and hats. And the idea of seeing a cop in a suit wearing a hat, even with a gun drawn, in a police station might not have alarmed him. And I think that's what allowed Ruby to pull off the shooting of Oswald: because even the other cops didn't realize what was going down until it happened. Did Oswald recognize Ruby" Perhaps no more than he recognized any of the other cops or reporters who were in the police station.

Actually no other sandbox exists but there's certainly no reason why you should care Mark. I agree. If EF Admins and Mods tell me to stop posting on this subject I'll stop. Until then I'll respond to questions from anyone and to allegations from DPF staff. ONE sandbox is www.deppoliticsforum.com ...the other sandbox is www.deeppoliticsforum.net . So there ARE indeed TWO sandboxes now.

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me. Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back. Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it. Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Look, I'm not involved here...but since the DPF'ers are filling up the EF with their complaints against one another, it has become a matter that has an effect on me. Looks to me like the kids in the sandbox couldn't get along, so Myra took her bucket and shovel and left. Then Myra came back and took the sandbox. After which the other kids started up another sandbox. The kids in the other sandbox can't stop flinging sand at Myra, and Myra can't stop flinging sand back. Who's right? Who's wrong? Why should I care...other than, by flinging sand at one another, the entire sandbox crew is beginning to get sand in MY eyes. I suggest that, since you each have your own sandbox now, you trash each other THERE and leave the EF out of it. Just my opinion...your mileage may vary, objects in mirror may be closer than they appear, void where prohibited, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Can you name just one of the "sock puppets" who has posted on behalf of, and at the request of Gary Mack? Bill Miller is one.

The truth on Gary Mack is, no matter what he believes, he posts on this forum through surrogates ["sock puppets"], which is in violation of the rules of the forum as I understand them. He claims that his position at th museum requires him to remain "above the fray," while the truth is his back-channel communications are virtually non-stop. He monitors all at this forum, and on occasion dispatches others to say what his "position" apparently denies him the privilege of saying. My complaint with Gary is, at what point does his Howard Hughes act become a Clifford Irving farce? And how do we know when it does...if it hasn't already? In a nutshell, why isn't Gary Mack required to speak for Gary Mack?