Mark Knight

Tom: I realize you've spent a great deal of time and effort in this thread to answer the questions of many others, and that's appreciated. But my initial emailed questions are something you've just in the last few posts touched upon: the SS re-enactment films, and the signage along Elm Street in DP. There are, IMHO, obvious differences in the signage between the Z-film and the SS re-enactment film...differences which change the field of view around the area of the first shot. It's obvious to me, that by the various different paths taken in the SS film, that they were trying to closely duplicate the path of the limo in the Z-film...and the "markers" on the curb were instrumental in determining why attempt 1 was different from attempt 2, and so on. But it's not really clear to me as to whether, at the time of the filmed re-enactment, they were attempting to find the truth, or whether the SS films were part of the attempt to hide the truth. Any comments/opinions on that aspect?

In the late '60's/early '70's, I had a friend who espoused a theory that, as he expressed it then, "The United States owns Russia." Or, expressed in more detail, the USSR/Big Red Bogeyman owed its very existence to certain elements of the US government...and that elements of the US government actively supported the continued existence of the "Iron Curtain." His theory was that, in order for the defense industries to operate at anything approaching full employment, the US had to have a constant military threat...even if it was only a paper tiger [or, more appropriately, a paper bear]. His theory went on [and on], to the conclusion that, if the USSR ever failed--and the way they practiced communism, that was extremely likely--the US would have to manufacture another equally terrifying nemesis...for example, radical Islamists. From the direction this thread is going, I'm starting to believe that, rather than being the crackpot we thought he was, my friend may have actually been a genius...especially for figuring this stuff out in the 1960's time frame he did.

Content deleted by author for the sake of discretion.

Tom,I'm trying to play devil's advocate here and enhance my understanding of the facts. Now, based upon the medical evidence you've shown as to how the 3rd shot traveled in the President's head, I'm having difficulty reconciling that with the not-so-clear still from the Z-film--Z-349--to determine that what Altgens says happened, occurred the way your interpretation of the medical evidence states that it happened. IOW, was JFK's body/head in the proper position for a 3rd shot at approximately Z-349--with the limo at the Altgens position--for the bullet to have gone where the evidence suggests it did? Or if not here, then when? Not criticising, as much as I'm just trying to get a better understanding.

It's extremely difficult to come up with the most logical, plausible theory when we're still trying to determine just what the facts of the case are. And until we know the facts, everything we propose is simply an unsubstantiated hypothesis. We can't even agree on how many shots there were, from where, with what weapon(s). About the only facts not in dispute are that JFK was shot, and it occurred at the Elm Street portion of Dealy Plaza, after passing the TSBD but prior to the triple underpass.

Are you following this thread? Streaks in Nix Film IMHO, this effect is only possible from a shot originating behind the limo. Now....what about those SS re-creation films, Tom ?

"So Good-bye, Yellow Brick Road, Where the dogs of society howl...." Can we get this train of thought back on track ? Or has it run out of steam already? Or by posting here am I simply hijacking a previously redirected thread?

Bill: Was that from you, or from Gary Mack? I couldn't see the strings move from here, so I couldn't tell.

It seems that Wim has accomplished his aim here...which, apparently, is to get researchers away from discussing the JFK assassination and instead turn their attention towards one of the people who keep the case alive. But then, I guess Wim already knows it all; nobody else says, by the name of their website, that they have the JFK assassination "solved." So therefore, anyone who doesn't agree with Wim is pushing some other agenda. This thread, which begins by questioning Gary Mack's motives, by definition goes against the principles allegedly espoused by this forum. Why the moderators have let this go on to this point, I can only guess. As far as the understanding of the JFK assassination goes, this thread is worthless. But as far as understanding Wim Dankbaar goes, it's priceless.

Don, apparently you haven't been able to follow Tom's posts, either. If I might add my understanding of what Tom has posted, Tom shows that the SS and the FBI both allowed for three shots that hit JFK, based upon the survey work of a Mr. West, who surveyed points in Dealy Plaza for both the SS and for the FBI. The surveys show what the WC refers to as the first and the third shots, but what were on the survey as shots 1 and 2. Shot 3 was further down Elm. Tom's 3-shot scenario--all at under 100 yards, and within 8 or more seconds and not the 6 seconds the WC tried to sell. As for the rifle...LHO ordered, and Klein's apparently shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano 6.5 mm rifle. The 91/24 had left the factory with a progressive-gain twist rifled barrel, but as sold by Klein's, the barrel had been shortened and its accuracy was a joke. Yet the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38 Carcano 6.5mm rifle. This rifle was produced without the progressive-gain twist rifling, and was a fairly accurate firearm. Tom also has shown evidence that, while Oswald might not have been the best rifleman ever turned out by the USMC, he was certainly capable of making 3 accurate shots at under 100 yards in an 8-second timeframe. What Tom HASN'T insisted is that Oswald is unequivocably the triggerman; he was merely CAPABLE of making the shots, and he worked in the TSBD. Tom also disputes the SBT as hawked by Spector and Company, as Tom's position is that Conally's wounds were caused by his being struck by two separate bullets/fragments. [Have I about covered it in a nutshell, Tom?] Now, Don...since that differs consderably from what the WC was peddling, how do you conclude that "[Tom] supports the official version of the shooting" ?? I'm not Einstein, but even I was able to detect those differences between Tom Purvis' tale and the one told by the WC...and Tom's has a lot more ring of truth to it than the Commission's. While Tom and I don't see eye-to-eye on every point, I find him more convincing, based upon the evidence, that any scenario of body-snatching and wound alteration [except for the examination/sectioning of a second, intact brain] I've yet heard.

What I'm wondering is...if Rowe was undercover...why was he listed as a patrolman on the roster? I'm aware of the common stereotype of detectives working undercover, but not so much of patrolmen working undercover. But I'm not a cop, so I really don't know how that works. Just seems bogus to me, as my perception of "patrolman" is that these are generally uniformed cops who patrol, whether on foot or in a car...hence the name "patrolman."

Gary Mack has been very quick to offer assistance to me in my research, and for that I'm thankful. He's put me into contact with people who might have otherwise slammed the door [figuratively, if not literally] in my face. While I've sometimes mentioned-half in jest, half seriously--that Gary Mack's reluctance to post on the forums has turned Bill Miller into a Mack "sock puppet," on another level I can understand why he doesn't get personally involved. Gary and I may not see eye-to-eye on what all the evidence means, but that hasn't stopped him from offering me assistance when I was in dire need. Wim, on the other hand, hasn't offered me anything for free. [lol]

Remember, Tom Purvis has pointed this out to us many times before: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm Which is 31 feet farther down Elm than the 313 head shot. Perhaps the couple is reacting to this shot along with Mrs. Franzen. Would appear to coincide with the documentation. chris It does appear to give Purvis' interpretation of events a bit of circumstantial verification. Unless you're absolutely certain about all the shots and when they occurred, maybe it's time to consider that a third shot did occur closer to the Altgens position than Z-313...after all, the FBI and the Secret Service did manage to have it included in their survey work in DP.

Duke, you've touched upon some of the points I've attempted to make over the past several months. From the available evidence, LHO ordered from Klein's and received the model 91/24...which is pretty much incapable of sufficient accuracy to have shot JFK from the TSBD. The Carcano recovered from the TSBD is a model 91/38, which IS perfectly capable of the JFK shooting. But there's simply no evidence--at least publicly available--that Oswald ever had a 91/38 in his possession. So if we allow that, according to the record, the 91/38 was found in the TSBD [Mauser claims notwithstanding], it had to get there somehow. And it obviously was NOT Oswald's 91/24, so the entire idea of Ozzie bringing it with him on the morning of the 22nd is a pretty hard sell...particularly since we cannot put a 91/38 into Oswald's possession anytine prior to November 22nd. So how did the 91/38 get inside the TSBD? Truth is, we'll probably never know. Maybe Oswald's assignment that day was to bring in a previously-acquired barrel for a 91/38, and nothing more. That would make him a part of a conspiracy, but not necessarily the triggerman. It would make sense out of the FBI lab's claim of finding Oswald's print on the underside of the barrel of the 91/38, while still allowing Oswald to be telling the truth when he said, "I didn't shoot anybody." It would also make his moves after leaving the TSBD more logical...knowing he might be implicated in the conspiracy, he heads home and picks up his revolver, for example, because he realizes that his life is now in danger...if not from police, then from fellow conspirators who think he may talk. And Oswald doesn't realize HOW screwed he is until he's in police custody and they inform him on Saturday that the serial number on the alleged presidential murder weapon matches a rifle that can be traced to him. Sure, that's conjecture. But it makes a lot more sense than trying to pass off a 91/38 as the 91/24 that Oswald bought, which the WC tries to do. And if Ozzie's only task is to bring in the rifle barrel, that would leave someone else to deal with the assembly of the rifle, as well as the actual shooting. And if the rifle's action isn't disassembled beyond the removal of the barrel, it's a relatively simple matter to install the barrel and the action into the stock, and no intricate assembly is required. So Ozzie can be on the second floor drinking a Coke and eating lunch, and still have left his print on the underside of the rifle barrel. And someone else is the shooter. As Tom Purvis has pointed out many times, even in his three shots/three hits/eight second scenario, anyone with average hunting/shooting ability could've made those three under-100-yard shots. It didn't take someone with specialized sniper skills; just an average shooter would do for the task at hand. [Maybe even someone with white powder/dust in his hair...???] Having Oswald assigned the task of simply bringing in the rifle barrel is a better fit for the facts we know than the idea of him bringing in a complete rifle, one which there's no evidence he ever owned. It explains how he could get to the second floor when Officer Baker bursts in, as he was never on the 6th floor. And it explains the palmprint on the underside of the barrel...as well as giving Oswald a different motive for arming himself after the shooting. Problem is, there's no evidence beyond the palmprint that Oswald handled the barrel on the 91/38. But if we assume that the palmprint wasn't planted, that it actually was there just as the FBI claims, having Ozzie bring in ONLY the barrel--and not a complete rifle--suddenly makes a lot of the other pieces fit the puzzle.

A definite thought ... but aren't curtain rods straight? Did the gun barrel separate from the firing mechanism? How would a "curtain rod" with a trigger sticking out the side and an offset onto which the stock attached not raise an eyebrow? Yes, Duke, the barrel does separate from the firing mechanism. http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem.asp...erModel=1240z38 Reference #14 in the diagram. So the barrel wouldn't have any of the receiver or "action" attached, if it were disassembled...and could conceivably have been carried in separately from the rest of the rifle. The barrel shown here is 20.9" long; now, I'm 6'1" tall, a bit taller than LHO, but I wouldn't have any problem carrying a 21" rifle barrel tucked under my armpit in my cupped hand.

A definite thought ... but aren't curtain rods straight? Did the gun barrel separate from the firing mechanism? How would a "curtain rod" with a trigger sticking out the side and an offset onto which the stock attached not raise an eyebrow? Yes, Duke, the barrel does separate from the firing mechanism. http://www.e-gunparts.com/productschem.asp...erModel=1240z38 Reference #14 in the diagram. So the barrel wouldn't have any of the receiver or "action" attached, if it were disassembled...and could conceivably have been carried in separately from the rest of the rifle. The barrel shown here is 20.9" long; now, I'm 6'1" tall, a bit taller than LHO, but I wouldn't have any problem carrying a 21" rifle barrel tucked under my armpit in my cupped hand. I've moved this discussion to a separate Carcano thread, so as not to detract from this thread on Oswald's departure from the TSBD: Carcano thread

I'm starting a separate thread, so as not to hijack Duke's discussion of Oswald's movements after leaving the TSBD. Now, here you may actually be onto something. For years, the argument has always been whether or not Oswld carried the rifle into the TSBD on November 22; I don't know if I've ever heard a theory that Oswald might have smuggled part of the rifle into the TSBD at an earlier date, and then just brought the barrel in on the 22nd. But a rifle barrel might well be passed off as "curtain rods" without raising an eyebrow. Perhaps this might even open up a discussion that Oswald might have obtained the 91/38 in pieces, rather than as a complete rifle [as the 91/24 from Klein's was when shipped to him]. Only problem is, Ozzie presumably would've had to bring the rifle stock and receiver, either to his apartment or to the TSBD, from the Payne residence in Irving at some time as well...and there's just no evidence or testimony on record of which I'm aware that would cover that possibility. Not to say he couldn't or didn't do it some other time; just that there's nothing in the record to indicate that he did. Or perhaps the 91/38 never was in Irving [we only "know" that the 91/24 from Klein's was allegedly stored there], meaning that he could've brought the 91/38 into the TSBD pretty much anytime. We can establish from the evidence that Oswald ordered, and was sent from Klein's, the 91/24. We can pretty much establish that the 91/38 was found in the TSBD. But either police recovered--and suppressed-- the 91/24, or it was never recovered [and might still exist somewhere]. Or maybe LHO actually did "bury" the 91/24 after the Walker shooting, and the rifle he brought home later was the 91/38...and nobody was the wiser except LHO. Using the inaccurate 91/24 might explain the miss in the Walker shooting, while using the accurate 91/38 would certainly explain the hits in the JFK shooting. Or maybe the switcheroo was done in N'awlins.

Now, here you may actually be onto something. For years, the argument has always been whether or not Oswld carried the rifle into the TSBD on November 22; I don't know if I've ever heard a theory that Oswald might have smuggled part of the rifle into the TSBD at an earlier date, and then just brought the barrel in on the 22nd. But a rifle barrel might well be passed off as "curtain rods" without raising an eyebrow. Perhaps this might even open up a discussion that Oswald might have obtained the 91/38 in pieces, rather than as a complete rifle [as the 91/24 from Klein'swas when shipped to him]. Sorry to hijack the thread...maybe we can open a new one to discuss this possibility.

Categories. 1,Best conspiracy poster. either pro or con...I suppose Gary Mack would be the pro, and James Files would be the con. 2,Best new member...maybe someone who's not yet posted, but decided to read the archives to get up-to-speed. 3,Most annoying Member...Tom Purvis, and anyone else who feels the need to quote their last 52 posts in every subsequent post. Special recognition to Bill Miller for not EVER walking away from a confrontation and letting someone else have the last word on one of "his" topics, and pre-moderation Tim Gratz. 4,Funniest thread...LaRouche-inspired stuff about the Brits finally getting their revenge for 1776-1783 whipping they took in "the Colonies." 5,The Oscar Wilde award for wit...court jester Ron Ecker. 6,Best thread in any category...not sure, still reading. 7,Award for stamina...anyone who reads Tom Purvis' threads on corporate interminglings in New Orleans, understands it all without making a wall chart, and stays to see how it all turns out. 8,Best argument between two or more Members...Bill Miller and darn near everyone 9,Most likely to be a CIA, Mossad, MI6 plant...Colby 10,Most far fetched theory...Agent Greer in the front seat with the shellfish toxin weapon. 11,Most paranoid member...why do you want to know? 12,Best photographic evidence...hands down, James Richards. 13,Most informative Member...since John Simkin is one of the houseparents here, I'd have to pick Duke Lane. 14,Most helpful Moderator...not sure,as I've never asked a moderator for help. 15,Forum Sage...John Simkin [next year I hope there's a category for parsley, rosemary, and thyme.] 16,Most missed ex member...not sure about the "ex-" designation, but Shanet Clark appears to be MIA lately. 17,Most welcome return...John Dolva

To begin any serious study of the JFK assassination, one must first understand the event as it played out before us. My personal library is a good example of where a beginner might embark on his journey. Four Days In November, edited by Robert B. Semple Jr. would be a good place to start. This book chronicles the story as published in the New York Times. If we first understand how the story unfolded in the press, we can better understand why and how Americans--and the world--formed the opinions they did as to what occurred, and as to what the "facts" were. Next would be a to find a copy of the summary report of the Warren Commission; I found a hardcover edition of the summary, as published by the Associated Press, at a thrift store and snatched it up. After all, one cannot debate the conclusions of the Warren Commission without understanding exactly what those conclusions were. To understand some of the independent research that went on almost immediately after the assassination, I recommend The Assassination Chronicles, the trilogy of Edward Jay Epstein combined into a single volume. To get a feel for the Zapruder film and the power Life magazine had on subsequent investigations, try the November 25, 1966 issue of Life, the one with the headline, A Matter of Reasonable Doubt. This will get you started. Along with the recommendations of the previous posts, I would also suggest using the History Matters website for access to Warren Commission exhibits and testimony.

All this Bo Gritz stuff aside, what we know is still puzzling. We have JFK hit by 3 shots, apparently from the building where Oswald worked, but by a rifle that cannot be traced to Oswald. And while Oswald was capable of making 3 shots/3 hits at under 100 yards in around 8 seconds, there's no evidence that Oswald was firing that rifle. So if someone else provided the rifle--a model 91/38, similar to Oswald's 91/24 but a LOT more accurate--and if someone else pulled the trigger--still a possibility, as Oswald wasn't the only person with the ability to shoot a rifle in the TSBD that day--then it is possible--and, I submit, probable--that President Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy...and it's likely that Oswald was a part of the conspiracy, even if the 91/38 wasn't his and even if he didn't pull the trigger. For someone to know that Oswald's 91/24 was inaccurate, and to provide a 91/38 stamped with the same serial number as Oswald's 91/24, would indicate conspiracy. And for Oswald to behave as he did after the shooting--particularly his not leaving town--coupled with his use of the term "patsy" when he referred to his own role that day, leads me to suspect that Oswald was the rabbit, the one the "hounds" were supposed to chase while the actual murderer(s) got away.

No. Len, my typo was simply a typo. I meant no disrespect to Duke, and I have since edited my post to correct my mistake. Something about hasty replies necessitated by an on-again, off-again wireless connection allows those sort of things to occur...well, that, plus the fact that I'm not a very proficient typist/keyboardist to begin with. Mea culpa.

Duke, Back in 2006 I exchanged some emails with Chris Scally regarding tapes of DPD radio transmissions. For some source, I had read that the FBI came in, gathered up all the DPD Dictabelts of that weekend, and made standard magnetic audiotapes of them. This was, according to my source, to preserve the contents of the actual Dictabelts, because it was assumed that in the course of the investigation the tapes would be listened to over and over...and partly because the DPD had a history of recording over used Dictabelts. My interest was to determine when Wesley Frazier's Enfield rifle became a matter of interest in the investigation, because the DPD already had the Carcano 91/38 in custody long before Frazier's rifle was confiscated. Gary Mack emailed me, and put me in touch with Chris Scally...and here's the final email in our exchange, which I believe will clarify some things about DPD tapes and transcripts: Hi, Mark: OK, here's what I've got, but I'm afraid it isn't any good for your purposes. (1) Although they existed in bygone days (eg. March 1964), there are NO actual recordings now in the public domain for any time after 2:06 pm on November 22. The ones in the Archives end ten minutes later, I believe - at 2:16 pm. (2) The best/most complete transcript for the time from 2:00 pm onwards is the one done by the Dallas Police in March 1964, which runs straight through to 6 pm on November 24. The transcript was Warren Commission Exhibit 705, and is published in the Commission's Volume 17, pages 390-455. You'll find this among the Commissions Exhibits on Mary Ferrell's website (http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page) or on the History Matters site ( http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/contents.htm) I've had a look through the transcript myself, but haven't seen ANY reference to Frazier's rifle - it is, of course, possible that the officer(s) who went to get the rifle were told to do so directly by someone in their office, rather than being told over the radio - in which case, there wouldn't be anything on a recording or transcript. I'm really sory I cannot be of any further assistance on this, but if there is anything further I can do, please let me know. Sincerely, Chris Scally. Hope this information is helpful in your research.

No sir, I'm here to tell you that you were born a mere eight years before sex was practiced in America! If you wish to be famous, please find a different way to do so, okay? False claims such as this have a way of interfering with some of the classes I teach, and I want you to know that I don't appreciate it! Yours (Roy "Back to Basics") Truly Duke, did you notice that the person espousing the theory that the JFK assassination unleashed sex, drugs, and rock and roll on America...has, as a signature line, a line from Tom Petty...one of those rock and rollers who came after the JFK assassination? So I guess we can in one breath claim that rock and roll is a part of what's wrong with America--and, by extension, the world--and still cling to rock and roll lyrics as a sign of our "salvation" from this evil? I believe I detect some hypocrisy here... ...but what I don't believe is that sex, drugs, and rock and roll (1) were only unleashed on America after the JFK assassination; (2) are the only reason we're in a state of decline; (3) were employed as a tactic by a single cohesive force of evil; or (4) are any more to blame than alcohol, divorce, country music cheatin' songs, and obesity for the sad state of America and its citizens. Just my opinions...NOT cribbed from Limbaugh OR LaRouche, or any other demagogue with a last name beginning with "L".

Kathy, that was answered in the quote box in post # 31.