Mark Knight

I hope you weren't being sarcastic or facetious, Peter. If the aim is to "rehabilitate" the image of Nixon, the first step is to kill JFK. The political resurrection of the Dick Nixon that "you won't have...to kick around anymore" began with the JFK hit. MLK was uniting the black voters, and he was steering them more toward the Democrat party. With MLK out of the way, there was no longer one primary black leader. And with RFK out of picture, Nixon could--and did--handily breeze into the White House. [Of course, it didn't hurt Nixon's presidential bid that Humphrey looked as commandingly presidential as the Pillsbury Doughboy.] Absent any of those three political assassinations of the '60's, a Nixon presidency would have been not only unthinkable, but laughable. Combined, they made it inevitable, IMHO. Cui bono, indeed.

Actually, DR. Jim...I've been on this board for well over 5 years. I spend more time reading and sifting through the various facts AND OPINIONS than I do commenting, because I wish to learn...and because I've nothing to teach here. I've read your books, and I agree with many of your conclusions. I also disagree with a few, but I try very hard to keep an open mind about conclusions [vs. facts, which tend to be quite stubborn]. I've seen quite a few threads here deteriorate over the years to little more than urination contests, with their namecalling and shameless casting of aspersions upon the character of others. That's the major reason I tend to avoid threads with posts by Colby, Lamson, Bill Miller, and Healy. I'd much rather learn of facts than of who thinks whom possesses no skills in whatever category is the attack de jour. And lately, your posts are tending to slide more to personalities than facts, Dr. Jim. I don't actually CARE who is or isn't an absolute sleazeball as a person, as long as they can keep me informed with FACTS. And in my own case, while over the holidays I've had considerable time to peruse these boards, there are times when I may find myself absent from here for as much as a week or two at a time. Does that mean, then, that I, too, am "hiding" from anyone? Or might the time demands of the REAL world--as opposed to the cyberworld--be a higher priority at certain times? Naaaawwwwwww, that's too far-fetched to even consider. Obviously, those times when I'm not here, I'm hiding.

Might it possibly be that Mr. Thompson actually has a LIFE outside the realm of internet discussion boards? Naaaawwwww, that's just another one of those fantasy theories of mine. NOTHING can be more important than internet discussion boards. Right, Dr, Jim?

Hmmmmm...."...the end of 2013..." Interesting that this coincides with the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Coincidence? Probably not.

As I understand what Tom Purvis writes, the TIME/LIFE survey came on 11/26/63; the Secret Service survey on 12/5/63; the "survey" of positons provided by the FBI on 2/7/64...and in the WCR, the cardboard "representation" of the survey was introduced as evidence, but the actual survey was not unsealed, IIRC, so the WC never got to see it...they only got to hear what FBI agent Shaneyfelt TOLD them was in the survey. And the data block in the WC Report does NOT have the same figures as the one on the original SS survey of 12/5/63...although it putports to be a "copy" of the actual survey. Hopefully, Tom will post and correct whatever misinterpretations I have made of his work.

I have ALWAYS had a gut feeling that the two Kennedy assassinations and the killing of Martin Luther King Jr. were connected. When I was young, I believed that the common thread was Richard Nixon and his political ambitions; as I've grown older, I realize that Nixon, too, was only a puppet, a marionette whose strings were cut when he was no longer useful to the puppetmasters.

Mr. Bevilaqua: Interesting your mention of the Red Cross in the JFK assassination conspiracy tapestry. Seems that a few months back, Mr. William Kelley and I, while trying to discover the identity of the Dr. George Bakeman who was on the Seibert and O'Neill "census" of observers at the JFK autopsy, found that Dr. Bakeman was intertwined with the Red Cross beginning with the days of the Russian Revolution, and continuing through the post-WWII years. Also interesting that Dr. Bakeman just "happened" to be vacationing across Europe about the time of the little dust-up in Hungary in '56 as well. I know Dr. Bakeman was a dean at the Medical College of Virginia, which was a long stone's throw from Bethesda Naval Hospital in '63...but I still haven't connected the dots enough to understand how he was able to gain clearance to observe the JFK autopsy. Since you believe that there's a Red Cross connection, and since we know that Dr. Bakeman was deeply involved with the Red Cross, would you be able to help us bridge that gap in our collective knowledge? You seem to have all of it figured out, according to what you post here. Perhaps you could enlighten the unwashed, un-Harvard degreed heathen among us, myself included. [i say that in a feeble attempt at humor, and not in any way am I meaning to demean your education or degrees.] I get the feeling that you and Tom Purvis are singing out of the same Mississippi Soveregnity Commission songbook, but from entirely different pages...or am I just not sharp enough to catch on yet? And some of us, myself included, need to get better at walking [or walking and chewing gum simultaneously] before we attempt to run. Thanks for any enlightenment you can offer. And so as to not further disrupt this thread, perhaps you can start a new thread and begin us anew on the path to enlightenment.

Vince Palamara's latest "conversion" only proves that Mr. Palamara is convertible. Wonder if he also has a bubble top to leave behind?

Why not? PATRIOT Act I and II did, so why wouldn't this be used as another "opportunity" by the fascists/neocons?

I believe the premise of your "if: then" statement is faulty. Just because the DPD took extreme measures to make sure the witnesses identified Oswald in the lineups, it does NOT necessarily mean that Oswald was innocent. It simply means that they wanted a certain result, and pulled out all the stops to get it. It does NOT determine whether Oswald was guilty or innocent. NOW...let me say that I believe Oswald's statement to the press, when he said the equivalent of, "No sir; I didn't kill anybody." I'm not faulting your conclusion; I'm merely pointing out that your "if: then" statement is a terriffic leap not supported by evidence in your argument.

Since the primary purpose of deer hunting is to save as much of the meat as possible, one generally does NOT hunt deer with shot...not birdshot, not buckshot. You want a quick, clean kill as well, so you want something that will have some impact when it hits. When hunting deer with a shotgun, one generally uses a shell that contains a single lead slug. Traditional 12-gauge deer slugs, at least in JFK's era [prior to the days of saboted slugs] weigh 1 ounce; 16-gauge slugs weighed 4/5 oz. Not sure about 20-gauge slugs, because I never owned a 20-gauge for deer hunting. From Wikipedia: Birdshot Birdshot sizes are numbered similar to the shotgun gauges; the smaller the number, the larger the shot. Generally birdshot is just called "shot", such as "number 9 shot" or "BB shot". A useful method for remembering the diameter of numbered birdshot is simply to subtract the shot size from 17. The resulting answer is the diameter of the shot in hundredths of an inch. For example, number 2 shot gives 17-2 = 15, meaning that the diameter of number 2 shot is 15/100 or 0.15". B shot is .170 inches, and sizes go up in .01 increments for BB and BBB. Size Nominal diameter FF .23" F .22" TT .21" T .20" BBB .190" BB .180" B .170" 1 .160" 2 .150" 3 .140" 4 .130" 5 .120" 6 .110" 7½ .095" 8 .090" 8½ .085" 9 .080"

Thanks so much Ray. I'm not skilled in this area, which is why I would never make the claims you have made. However you must have some seroius training in this regard. I look forward to hearing all about it. Gee, Craig...I thought you were only interested in the photographic evidence, and not the other stuff. So apparently you ARE interested in the physics involved, and the neuromuscular reactions after all? [Otherwise, why question J. Ray's qualifications in that area, if you really don't care?] I thought you were all about analyzing the photographs, from the standpoint of the photographic principles behind them...and that all this other stuff didn't matter to you. Did you have a change of heart, or is it that you really didn't mean it when you posted it over on the other thread?

Good work Tom! -Bill What a "coinkydink"...Ozzie Rabbit apparently was ALSO a collector of stamps! Stamp Collection Taken From Oswald's Residence

I found it interesting that the collection of "evidence" includes, on the 12th page, several photos of "unidentified" fingerprints on CURTAIN RODS. Shame we don't know the history behind THESE. Perhaps someone with better computer skills than mine can enlarge these photos, and then compare them with LHO's fingerprints [also part of this collection]...?? Also interesting [to ME, anyway]: there on Page 15, are photos of ONE rifle WITH a strap, and ONE rifle WITHOUT a strap.

Lamson won't take your challenge. He'd rather engage in asking "Do you still beat your wife?" questions, to which the only correct answer is whatever Lamson says it is. In Lamson's eyes, if you ever made ONE mistake in your life, then EVERYTHING you've ever done is suspect, because you used the same mind and skills and experience to make the wrong decision that you use to make all the other decisions...or at least that's how I read his line of logic. Lamson would rather be "right" in an argument than actually discover the truth, IMHO...and "discussing" anything with Lamson ultimately ends up being a collossal waste of time. There are countless topics on the Education Forum that have disintegrated into "discussions" with Lamson that end up going nowhere, generating considerable heat on the topic but little to no light. Proceed to engage Lamson at your own risk...but "I told you so"...

I bet he wished he'd never bothered taking his rifle into work that day. The perpetrators were certainly smart people. They even had the power to alter the weather at the last moment to ensure that the bubble top on the presidential limousine was removed. Take a look at the evidence Peter. It all points to a rather obvious conclusion. Some might even say it's a no-brainer. Two HUGE facts to remember: NO witness can say with 100% certainty that Oswald carried THAT rifle into the TSBD on Friday, November 22, 1963, or on any other day. NO witness can place Oswald in ANY 6th floor window with ANY rifle at the time the fatal shots were fired. These two facts create reasonable doubt that Oswald is the murderer. And at a trial, it wouldn't have taken a Clarence Darrow to have gotten Oswald acquitted by a REASONABLE jury...not that a REASONABLE jury could've been found in Texas in 1964 [when the trial would've been held, had there been one]. And since shooting the President wasn't a federal crime in 1963, the FBI's [mis]handling of the evidence, even by 1963 standards, would've played into a defense attorney's hands. NOW...addressing the original question: As a deer hunter, I have shot at deer moving towards me, and I have shot at deer moving away from me. And I've killed several deer over the past 30 years. IMHO, the ideal shot is one in which the deer is neither coming towards me NOR going away from me, but one in which the distance between the shooter and the target remains relatively constant. In terms of a 6th floor shooter, that would approximate the first shot to JFK's back. Not saying that's why the alleged 6th floor assassin picked the shot he allegedly did; just saying that's how I'd have done it, had I been the one shooting. And since deer don't shoot back, I can't base this theory on experience; but IMHO, if the shooter has chosen to make his shot while the limo was on Houston Street, odds were that the SS, looking up, would've more easlly spotted the shooter and returned fire. As I said, JMHO,your mileage may vary, and alcohol may intensify any side effects.

Well, Mark, you agree with Posner, my favorite government apologist, who is quoted at the conclusion of the current Times story: “Most conspiracy theorists don’t understand this... But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist.” I'm not sure how Posner actually knows this, but he certainly sounds authoritative, doesn't he? I didn't say what I said in order to agree with Posner; I said it because I believe it. Like the [phony] Oswald 201 file, nothing of interest there...while the actual 201 file disappeared long ago. Certainly you don't think the Agency didnt shred any incriminating information long ago...or at least 6 years ago, when this legal case began? I think you give the Agency too much credit for integrity, which frankly isn't in evidence up to this point. The CIA has little credibility, and I firmlybelieve their lack of integrity extends to their files. If the info WAS there prior to the lawsuit, it damn sure won't be there afterwards.

As Ollie North demonstrated when Iran-Contra hit the fan, often just the suggestion of public scrutiny sends the government paper-shredders into overdrive. Nothing incriminating will be exposed if and/or when any CIA documents become available...because, if there ever was a smoking gun in the CIA files, it was disposed of long ago. I'm convinced that the CIA stonewalling is simply a teaser, something akin to the magician's assistant who draws your eyes from what's really important to keep your focus away from the realities behind the illusion. But I still support Jeff Morley because there MIGHT actually be a clue in those files.

Chris, I was referring to the vertical black line in the frame you posted. Were you referring to the wider horizontal line blocking the view of Jackie's left hand? If so, I believe that's JBC's shoulder, as at that point he is already turning his upper torso toward the right door.

Chris, there was/is a framework separating the front seat from the rest of the passenger compartment in SS-100-X...similar to what is called a "targa band" on some more modern cars. The band appears to have a glass component to it, allowing the band to obstruct the view of the driver and other vehicle occupants as little as possible. Try this image for a better view: Photo of SS-100-X I think this will answer your question.

That's all very black and white Mark, you seem to have overlooked those of us on the forum who reside more in the 'grey' area so to speak. We certainly believe in a conspiracy but we also believe there's more than enough evidence to place Oswald withing that conspiracy, not just as a 'patsy' but as a very willing and capable participant, perhaps even the actual shooter. As for John Wilson's comment "Why on earth do they even bother? Most Americans (and world populus?), according to endless polls, do not believe the fantastic Warren Report?" Well John, frankly I have never been over impressed by what the majority believes. I think those "Most Americans (and world populus?)" which you mention also probably believe the moon landing was a hoax, the Loch Ness monster is real and that Earth is being constantly visited by little green men etc etc. All of which may of course indeed be true but strong evidence/proof is required, not just the belief systems of the world populous. And like it or not we Ct's have to accept that, as yet, there just isn't enough evidence to prove the Warren report to be the white wash it undoubtedly was. Incidentally John, welcome to the forum. Denis Denis, it appears you have misinterpreted what I wrote. At no point am I arguing that Oswald was not in some way involved in the assassination of JFK. Rather, I merely pointed out that no one can place that man in that--or any other--window with that rifle at the moment the shots were fired. In and of itself, that constitutes reasonable doubt. I believe that Oswald was connected with the ordering of A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; just not that it is the same rifle that was recovered from the TSBD. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Maybe, as has been suggested on another thread about Ozzie and the Intourist vouchers, LHO had some "inside information"...in this case, information on what "department code" to use on his order to get one of the "good" Carcanos while everyone else who didn't have the proper code got the junk rifles. But there simply isn't enough PROOF to place Oswald with his finger on the trigger in Dealy Plaza at 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963. There are plausible THEORIES, but not overwhelming [or as commonly referred to these days, "smoking-gun"] PROOF that Oswald shot anybody. So while I believe that Oswald MAY be the guilty party, I'm not convinced that he was the ONLY guilty party...or that he was guilty at all. So I really haven't formed a set-in-stone opinion as to whether a conspiracy existed. If one did, the odds are that Oswald was either involved, or at least had some idea of who was involved. Too many of his actions, both prior to and subsequent to the assassination, reek of dime-story spy novel skullduggery, whether it was directed, or whether it was concocted within his own mind...IMHO.

The full truth of what occurred on November 22, 1963 in Dealy Plaza may never be known. The facts are that JFK was shot and died from his wounds, and John Connally was injured by gunfire while riding in the same car. Of those facts we are certain. But no one can with 100% certainty place Lee Harvey Oswald in the southwest [or any other] window of the TSBD at 12:30 pm on the date in question...nor can anyone with 100% certainty place any rifle in Oswald's hands at the time and place of the shooting. Yet there are those on this forum and elsewhere who will argue to the death that Oswald was certainly the assassin, to the exclusion of every other human being in the Dealy Plaza vicinity on that date at the time the fatal shots were fired. I find that a curious position.

From the rules of behaviour for the forum: "(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. [Emphasis mine throughout.] And Mr. Colby asks: "So my question to you is you really so careless that you posted the quote without reading the preceding sentences in the paragraph OR were you trying to “pull a fast one”?" Does Mr Colby not question BOTH the abilities AND the motives of the researcher with his question ? The first part of Mr. Colby's question appears to question the abilities of the researcher, while the second appears to question the motives of the researcher, IMHO. If so, is that NOT a violation of the above-quoted rule of behaviour? Or do these rules not apply to Mr. Colby?

John, one of the points that Tom Purvis has been trying to make is that there IS a difference in the accuracy of different Mannlicher-Carcano rifles...even the ones sold by Klein's Sporting Goods. The ones referred to as a model 91/24--such as the one ordered in the name of A. Hidell--was a rifle that originally left the factory with "progressive-gain twist" rifling...that is, the rifling grooves in the barrel did NOT have a constant rate of twist. The rate of twist to the rifling increased closer to the muzzle end of the barrel. And by cutting off some barrel length to become the rifle advertised by Klein's, much of the accuracy was lost, as the bullet had less spin imparted on it by the rifling in the barrel. On the other hand, the rifle recovered in the TSBD was NOT a shortened rifle, but instead was a rifle that came from the manufacturer with the same length barrel as it had when recovered. Therefore, THAT rifle would have had a high degree of accuracy, similar to that cited by the person who posted the Youtube video. So some Carcanos were accurate, and some weren't. A. Hidell ordered the inaccurate model...and yet the accurate model was recovered from the TSBD.

I believe that frames may have been excised from the original Z-film to produce the version we all know; but I don't think the contents of what we currently have are otherwise altered...unless all the other known films [movies and still photographs] have also been altered. And while not 100% impossible, it's highly unlikely. [DISCLAIMER: I'm not a photo expert...this is just my opinion.] The reason I believe that the current version of the Z-film may have frames missing is the night-and-day difference in the witnesses' stories about the presidential limo slowing/stopping, vs. the current version of the Z-film's depiction of Greer apparently having the "pedal to the metal", "putting the hammer down," "running WFO," or however you choose to say it. If Greer kept a constant--or constantly increasing--rate of speed, as it appears in the current version of the Z-film, there would be no reason for ANY of the witnesses to have the perception that the limo slowed or stopped...even if Greer did momentarily light the brake lights. As far as the original premise of this topic, from the various photos from various perspectives in Dealey Plaza, as I understand things, the only way an assassin could possibly have hit Jackie and JFK simultaneously around the time of the Z313 headshot would be if the assassin was located somewhere south of the Elm Street "extension," to the west of the TSBD...yet still behind the limo. IOW, right behind the Newmans [hope I remembered the correct name], and NORTH of the location of Badgeman.