Mark Knight

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?

Tom, I think that you've expressed the situation well. Gary Mack can be a very good person for helping a researcher find some of the more obscure material, if it remains out in the public domain to be found. While it irks me no end that Gary prefers to "hide" behind his "sock puppets" when he has something to post on these forums, that's a problem strictly between Gary and me. I don't believe that Gary Mack is dangerous to the truth, as the rabid McAdams followers [and their leader] apparently are. Gary Mack has a sometimes difficult job--I know that, were I in Gary Mack's shoes, I'd find his level of restraint difficult to maintain--and while I don't always agree with his judgement calls on when to speak and when to remain silent, I do hold a measure of respect for Gary Mack for being consistent in his reactions to the sometimes wild claims posted in forums such as this. I agree, Gary Mack isn't the most important problem the JFK research community faces. And focusing on Gary Mack draws attention away from the ones who would intentionally [and maliciously] lead researchers astray.

If the government constructed insurmountable barriers to access data declared secret, then they could not turn around and institute draconian measures to further restrict access. If they leave the door slightly ajar, then they have grounds to enact the strictest measures when their alleged secrecy is violated. Maybe that's not setting fire to the Reichstag, figuratively speaking, but it does amount to providing the matches and the gasoline.

And yet you continue to come to the Education Forum.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101201/od_nm/us_coffin_auction Apparently the coffin Lee Harvey Oswald was originally buried in, prior to his 1981 exhumation, will be going on the auction block.

Here's the direct link to the Don Adams website: Don Adams website Curiously, when I clicked on Mr. Caddy's link to the Rockwell website, my "parental controls" [forgot to turn 'em off] tried to stop access...reason? "Hate"...

I'm still trying to figure out which "giant Navy base" at Nag's Head, NC that Jim is talking about. I can't find a base AT Nags Head...there's the Naval base at Stumpy Point, NC [which, oddly enough, has no name listed on Google Maps]...and across East Lake I find Naval Air Station Chambers, listed on Google Maps as Norfolk, VA...but at Nags Head, I find nothing related to a naval base. So which base is Jim talking about? Does this base have a name, as most do?

I think Martha touched on something important, but nearly overlooked. On the ads from Kleins, when one specified a "Dept." on the order form, it not only showed Klein's what magazine/month the ad [which allowed them to gauge the effectiveness of their ads, as it relates to which magazines in which months' issues generated their orders], but it also allowed them to know which models of which rifles to ship...as the ads varied from month to month, magazine to magazine. AND...if Klein's was, as Gerry Hemming once hinted to me, CIA-connected, then the proper "Dept." number MIGHT have alerted them to ship certain rifle(s)..such as a Carcano "short rifle," with its accurate rifling in the barrel, vs. a Carcano "shortened" rifle, on which the most critical [progressive twist] rifling was cut off in the process of shortening the rifle.

The gun shown in the "second firearm rotated" image appears to me to possibly be a Browning Auto 5 shotgun: Belgium Browning Auto 5 Shotgun

While I believe this to be an interesting article--and I searched out the Cleveland Plain Dealer article rather than relying on anyone's blog post--I question the relevance to the JFK assassination. BUT I certainly do NOT question the need for further investigation into this matter.

I have read Fetzer's books, and I own a couple of them. That said, when I raised a question to him awhile back on this forum, his first response--rather than to answer my question--was to label me as a disinformation agent. At that point, Dr. Fetzer's credibility fell a great deal with me. The truth is, I believe there is a lot of disinformation out there, but I try my damndest to NOT be a part of that. I'm just seeking information and asking questions. I'm not trying to sell any particular viewpoint. So for Dr. Fetzer to label me a disinformation agent seems, IMHO, a giant leap, based upon information not in evidence here or anywhere. I haven't published anything on the JFK assassination because I really don't believe I've found the answers to all the questions I've asked...so I suppose that not only makes me a disinformation agent, but a lesser entity in the universe than the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.

Now, let me get this straight. DVP says that LHO's alleged propensity to kill is demonstrated by his attempt on the life of General Walker. Except, until Marina incriminates him, there is NO evidence that LHO had anything to do with the Walker shooting. Am I correct so far? THEN the evidence of LHO's guilt in the Walker assassination becomes NOT the evidence, but Marina's claim...well, hers, AND Walker's. So with no physical evidence tying LHO to the Walker shooting, Walker is able to connect-the-dots to LHO...HOW? Because he believes Marina's claim, which BTW hadn't been publicized until AFTER Walker spoke with the German newspaper abd blamed Oswald? Curious logic. So how did Walker come to the conclusion that LHO was the nutcase who shot at him? The police didn't even have him as a suspect, but somehow Walker, who allegedly knew nothing of LHO until the news of the JFK assassination spread, is now convinced that LHO is the guy who took a potshot at him? Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt. And DeMohrenschildt's story about LHO shooting at Walker? It couldn't have influenced Walker at that early point, because DeMohrenschildt was [allegedly] walking across another continent at the time, and supposedly incommunicado. Therefore, at the point where Walker fingered LHO for the attempt on HIS life, there was ZERO evidence connecting Oswald. So just what information DID allow Walker to reach his conclusion? OR...if the information linking LHO to the Walker shooting is false...then aren't DVP's arguments then based upon a false premise? Because even today, all we've got are Marina's statement and DeMohrenschildt's testimony [along with Walker's own assertion] that connect LHO to the Walker shooting...and I'm not sure I'd trust either Marina or the Baron to tell the truth.

Mr. Josephs, it's apparent you haven't been following Mr. Purvis' logic about how CE399 came to be. As I understand Mr. Purvis' position, CE399 did not EVER enter the body of John B. Connally, and is therefore NOT the "magic" bullet of the SBT. As I understand Mr. Purvis' position, CE399 was the first shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD; passed through a limb of a live oak tree, slightly flattening the projectile into a more oval shape than its original round shape; then tumbled until it entered JFK's back in a base-first position, acting much as a "wad-cutter" bullet would act; and a fragment from the lead center at the base was squeezed out, and traveled onward after the main part of the bullet had stopped, and damaged a bone in the neck prior to exiting the body at the anterior neck. At least that is my understanding. Mr. Purvis can elaborate and clarify if he so chooses, as I don't even pretend to speak for Mr. Purvis; I'm merely relaying my impressions of Mr. Purvis' position re: CE399, based upon some of his previous posts. So therefore many of Mr. Josephs' assumptions about what Mr. Purvis believes about CE399 are most likely incorrect, if my understanding of Mr.Purvis' position on CE399 are basically correct.

For John Dolva: In the 1930's the Kennedys were considered the nuveau riche in the eyes of the old money of Boston and the surrounding areas. They were the upstarts, if you will. Rumors abounded that Joe Kennedy made the bulk of his money by profits from bootleg alcohol distribution during Prohibition, although few would charge that to his face. So when JFK was elected president, he was not yet considered to be from old money...although the Kennedys may be seen as old money these days, some 50 years later.

Oh Brother ... is this garbage still going on! Angles have never been a strong point for you, Jack. Go to the Plaza and take a photo from the Willis location and see if you can see the south dog leg ... you can't! You misread the image and attempt to pass off your error as alteration. Simply go take a sharp photo from where Willis stood and the answer will be undeniable ... at least until you think to say that someone altered your photo. (sigh) Bill MIller Mr. Miller, what is "still" going on? Jack's post that you qouted was made FIVE DAYS BEFORE your last previous post on this topic. The only "still going on" stuff that I can see is YOU resurrecting this thread after 6 months of dormancy. Seems like it is YOU, Bill Miller, who can't let sleeping threads lie...because certainly even YOU can see that YOUR posts on this thread ALL came AFTER the Jack White post you cited here! And I cite the datestamps on the posts in this thread as evidence of such. Or is there evidence of alteration of the datestamps on the posts, Mr. Miller? [And it's OK with me if you clear your answer with Gary Mack before you post a reply.]

There have been stories that LHO was connected to Senator Thomas Dodd's committee investigations regarding mail order firearms...but I dont' think anything conclusive has been established from the evidence so far. And Tom...you're absolutely right that Oswald may have actually been holding a Model 38 instead of a Model 91/38 in the backyard photos. Of course, if LHO had a Model 38 in 7.5 mm, there's no paper trail linking that gun to him. Likewise, there's no evidence that Oswald bought, stole, was given, or otherwise obtained any ammunition for a 7.35 mm rifle...same as there is no evidence that he obtained any 6.5mm ammo. But obviously, SOMEBODY obtained some 6.5mm ammo, and at least one stripper clip. Again, Tom, you've got me thinking...and that could be dangerous.

Now, I don't consider myself a "heavyweight" researcher like Jim D. and DVP consider themselves. I just know the facts that I've read. And DPD chief Jesse Curry, the man whose job it was to uncover the evidence that would prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, said, even a few years after the assassination, that no one could place Lee Harvey Oswald in the southeast window of the sixth floor of the TSBD with the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano in his hands at the time the bullets were fired. I'm not a lawyer, but the standard for conviction in America is NOT what a preponderance of evidence points to; the standard for conviction in American jurisprudence is that the prosecutor convince 12 jurors that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And as Chief Curry states the case, there IS reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald fired "that rifle" from "that window" at that time. So long as that reasonable doubt exists, Oswald's guilt will always be a matter for debate. As for CE399, I'm inclined to believe Tom Purvis' theory. If there was no bullet impact in the limb of the oak tree in front of the TSBD, there would be no reason for those investigating the murder to saw them off the tree...as removal of the limbs for any other purpose alters the crime scene and actually hampers the investigation. As I said, I'm no heavyweight researcher. I just know these few facts.

Of course, I also believe that, with the large government purchase order for the 6.5mm ammunition, perhaps Tom Purvis is right...that the "discovery" of the M-C rifle would have someone in high places shouting "INCOMING!!!" and battening a few previously-open hatches somewhere. Ozzie--or whomever--had to have purchased, stolen, or otherwise received some ammuntion for the rifle, and since, in their intricate detailing of Oswald's finances, the WC could never figure out where Oswald purchased any ammunition...perhaps the truth is, he DIDN'T purchase it. Perhaps it was PROVIDED to him. But then we're back at "conspiracy." Bernice, thanks for posting that ad. That proves that, had Ozzie wanted to order a sporterized Enfield, it would have been only about $7 more than the Carcano...or the "US Military" rifle in .30-06, a highly prized hunting round, just a few dollars more. Had he been talking to folks in and around Dallas about a good hunting rifle--not mentioning what he was "hunting," of course--I'm pretty sure that 9 out of 10 recommendations would've been for the .30-06 of US manufacture, or the .303 Enfield as not only being multi-purpose and accurate, but having ammunition almost universally available...whereas most folks would have had little or no knowledge of the Carcano, and the oddball [in the US, for sporting purposes] 6.5mm ammunition.

In all my reading and researching related to the JFK assassination, perhaps the most persistent question in the back of my mind is, "Why a Mannlicher-Carcano?" But them I have to consider the mindset of the American people. A "true" Texas assassin would've used a Winchester, while a "true" hunter would've used a Remington, Savage, or another American-made rifle. But then the public backlash factor would've kicked in--as it did against the city of Dallas--and the manufacturer of the rifle might have been bankrupted, due to the stigma of their weapon being the gun that killed JFK. So the next logical move--if this was a part of the strategy--would be to put the stigma on a foreign-made rifle...but which one? The Mauser and the British Enfield were very popular guns to "sporterize" as hunting rifles, and to allow that stigma to settle on such populat rifles would invariably cause the market value to plummet drastically. But by choosing the lowly Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle, all the "popular" brands are saved the shame of being the assassination weapon, and values continue to appreciate, and no US rifle manufacturer goes bankrupt. THINK ABOUT IT. In this light, the Mannlicher-Carcano is about the ONLY rifle that fits ALL the requirements: not of US manufacture, not a popular hunting rifle--not even a popular sporting caliber--yet in the right hands, accurate enough to make the shots at under 100 yards that are ascribed to it on that day. [Not going into the time frame for the shots, or the shooting abilities of the alleged assassin; just stating that the RIFLE was capable of making the shots at that range...especially if the shooter was left-eye dominant.] So if there's EVER been a well-thought-out part of the JFK assassination, the plan to use [or to plant,if that's your position] the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm rifle was it. And I seriously doubt that Oswald would have considered those factors himself, if he actually was the assassin. SO...if this aspect was that well-planned, and if Oswald didn't take the factors above into account, who did? Other conspirators [or sponsors], perhaps? I just can't believe that the Mannlicher-Carcano being pegged as the murder weapon was a coincidence, nor do I believe that the purchase of a Mannlicher-Carcano by Oswald, rather than a more popular rifle, was simply a coincidence that occurred when he saw a cheap rifle advertised in a magazine. [i mean, LHO could well have bought a used, well-worn American-made rifle from a co-worker and not raised any eyebrows, nor left a paper trail, nor have paid a LOT more than he did--including shipping/handling--for the Mannlicher-Carcano in 1963.] There are simply too many other "coincidences" in the official story to think that this is simply one more, IMHO. Anyone else follow my line of reasoning here?

Bill, To put a more direct answer to your wuestion, I went to http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm and put in that $183.87 that Oswald left, 1963 as the beginning year, and 2010 as the end year. The answer I got was that $183.87 in 1963 has the buying power of $1,306.14 in 2010. For a blue-collar guy like LHO, who was making next to nothing, that's a lot of money to be carrying...especially if Friday, November 22, 1963 was a scheduled payday. Anyone know what their pay cycle was at the TSBD? Did Ozzie miss out on a paycheck by leaving early that Friday?

When I was seeking information on the DPD radio tapes that the FBI made--whole tapes, not transcripts, from the entire day of 11/22/63 [including the period when the DPD was seeking Buell Wesley Frazier], Gary Mack was quite helpful. But over time I became quite exasperated that he spoke to folks on these forums through his "sock puppets" such as Bill Miller, rather than posting his own words with his own hands. Something about that just rubbed me the wrong way, and it still does today.

After the thread lay dormant for 9 days, you just had to mount up that ol' dead horse and try to make him race one more time, eh Len? Maybe you should switch hands with the riding crop; I hear sometimes it helps.

Why do you think LBJ was behind the Kennedy assassination? For the life of me I don't understand this thinking. LBJ made his announcement on national television- March 31, 1968 - that he would not "accept" his party's nomination,nor would he "seek" another term as President. So if his motive was to acquire Kennedy's position as President he sure didnt keep it very long. Johnson describes that event that made him President as something that "fell upon me". Some say that his motive in the conspiracy to kill JFK was so he could get into a position to start a war in Vietnam, something JFK refused to do. But if you listen to his conversation with McGeorge Bundy in May 1964 it suggests that LBJ had no interest in expanding the war in Vietnam. In fact his arguments against an expanded war in Asia seems to be the same as his former boss John F. Kennedy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQdn8Fbs-E&feature=related If you read Donald Gibson's book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover up" you learn that the creation of the Warren Commission was not LBJ's idea, but instead it was created by wealthy members of the eastern establishment. John F. Kennedy's real enemies. Gibson also focuses on the international aspect of the Kennedy murder conspiracy with a focus on certain British interests. Lastly it was Lyndon Johnson who made the ominous and cryptic remark to Walter Cronkite while discussing the JFK assassination "we were running a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean". Just exactly who and what is this Murder Inc.? Permindex? INTERTEL? I believe LBJ suffered a fatal heart attack right after this interview. The source of power and wealth for the Kennedy political dynasty resides with some of the nastiest British oligarchical families, like the Cecil's. Joe Kennedy was such a rabid anglophile that he married his daughter off to William John Robert Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington. QUOTE: Referring to Kathleen Kennedy's marriage to Lord Harrington. If Lord Hartington succeeds to the title, becomes the 11th Duke of Devon shire, his Duchess will find herself the Mistress of the Royal Robes, first lady In waiting to the Queen. The Queen may well be Princess Elizabeth. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493-2,00.html#ixzz0uziRwnAw It is this kind of power that can successfully assassinate a US President (See Lincoln, Garfield, McKinnley)and cover it up. Terry, here is the reason Lyndon Johnson resigned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gallup_Poll-Approval_Rating-Lyndon_B_Johnson.png #1 His approval rating had dropped under 40%, which for an incumbent politician means you are going down the tube. Johnson's pride could not take it and he would not even have won the Democratic primary against Robert Kennedy, his hated enemy. After Johnson murdered JFK, Johnson had high approval ratings due to the "rally around the leader" effect. After 3 years of the Vietnam War, and inflation kicking up, LBJ's approval rating sunk like a rock in water. #2 Lyndon Johnson wanted to create a Texas Court of Inquiry so he could easily control the cover up. Instead he was forced to create a Warren Commission, which really should be called the Allen Dulles CIA commission because Dulles, McCoy, and Gerald Ford, the FBI's man, really ran and controlled that thing NOT Earl Warren or the others. Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles of CIA fame were the 3 key players who maniputated the Warren Commission cover up. After that the controlled MSM (no alternative media then) and Operation Mockingbird took over. #3 Excellent point about the Eastern Establishment who hated John Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson was in an ALLIANCE with the CIA Eastern Establishment Republicans like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller and George Herbert Walker Bush, all of whom despised John Kennedy for many reasons ranging from foreign policy to Kennedy's threat to the oil industry's favored tax status. Remember, those Rockefellers made a LOT of money off oil and they were foreign policy hawks, too, Nelson Rockefeller telling JFK to use tactical nukes in Vietnam (!). Speaking of the hated Eastern Establishment, as well as deep CIA, who do you think Lyndon Johnson wanted to be PRESIDENT after he stepped down? NELSON ROCKEFELLER!!!, the pinnacle player of the Eastern Establishment. After LBJ told the nation he was not running, he had Rocky and his wife to the White House and URGED Rockefeller to run and promised he would never campaign against the Republican. Little known fact: Lyndon Johnson was IN BED with the "Eastern Establishment" and he was a tool of the Rockefellers... and LBJ was especially in bed with CIA Republicans. In my opinion, it is NOT a question of whether the "Eastern Establishment" using Ed Lansdale and Operation 40 assassins killed Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson killed Kennedy. The answer is they were in ALLIANCE and the BOTH murdered John Kennedy (and covered it up together, too.) Rob, LBJ never resigned; he simply announced that he would not run for, nor accept, his party's nomination for the presidency. NIXON is the ONLY president who has ever resigned, to date. On March 31, 1968, the world was not exactly as you have described it. Bobby Kennedy had only announced his presidential campaign 15 days before. It was antiwar candidate Eugene McCarthy, NOT Bobby Kennedy, who was pummelling LBJ's stand-in candidates in the early Democratic primaries. And besides the war in Viet Nam turning badly as a result of North Viet Nam's Tet offensive [we wrote "Viet Nam" as two words back then], just six weeks prior, the USS Pueblo, and American spy vessel, was captured by North Korea. Although Defense Department spokesmen claimed the Pueblo wasn't a spy ship, photos provided by North Korea proved the story was a lie. So on March 31, 1968, American prestige was in tatters. At home, there had been several "long hot summers" of racial unrest/riots from New Jersey to California, all under LBJ's watch. For LBJ to announce his decision to not seek a new term was unexpected, but it was probably inevitable. It wasn't a resignation from office, but a sign of his resignation to the fact that he was powerless to control events domestically OR abroad. I'm old...I was there in '68, and I still have my "Kennedy for President" button with Bobby's picture from that campaign. Bobby Kennedy's nomination was anything but a certainty up to his assassination; but he was closing in on "Clean Gene," and if there had been a battle of multiple ballots to determine the Democratic nomination, Bobby had an outside chance of prevailing. But it was ONLY an outside chance, even after the California primary. Not trying to start anything; just trying to keep this thread factually correct.