Mark Knight

I don't know what this "panning uphill/downhill" stuff may or may not say about Z-film alteration. BUT...could it possibly just be the result of Abe Zapruder being lousy at panning with his camera? Try this while sitting in front of your computer...tilt your head slightly to the left, and then simulate panning a camera from left to right. With your head tilted to the left, isn't the natural tendancy, when attempting to pan horizontally, to actually move"uphill"? So maybe old Abe, who claimed to be unsteady, unconsciously had his head tilted slightly to the left as he was panning...thus the "uphill"motion. And since there's no clear motion picture of the position of Zapruder's head, then NO, I can't prove that's what happened. But I can't prove it didn't, either. Lots of still photographers manage to cut off subjects' heads and feet in their work; it's not too big a stretch to wonder if Abe wasn't just a bit of klutz with a movie camera, is it?

To get this thread back on topic, and away from the personal attacks...I address this query to Tom Purvis. Tom, I can pretty well follow your logic about the three shots. What I'm having trouble grasping is exactly where--in relation to Z-film frame numbers, since that is the "accepted" yardstick of reference--the third shot struck JFK. What Z-film frame corresponds to this bullet strike, and how do the positions of Jackie, Clint Hill, et al, relate to this strike. In other words, does Hill's position at the time of the alleged third bullet strike advance or conflict with the theory? What about Jackie's position? As far as JBC's position, it is apparently substantially unchanged from Z313 through the end of the Z-film, as best I can determine. What about the other assassination films? Is the moment of the third bullet strike shown? Is there any evidence from the other films that might bolster your point about the third bullet strike? I think I know what the survey plat shows; I'm just having trouble making that plat correspond with the more familiar Z-film evidence. This is not to be construed as criticism so much as a search for some clarity. Help me out, Tom.

Moved to my laptop, and with the LCD display the image is clearer. That DEFINITELY is a "Custom," which makes it one of 38,761 produced. And from Tosh's pic of the interior, I can also state without fear of contradiction that the car is equipped with the push-button automatic transmission...since there is no column shifter of any kind. [The push buttons were located in the lower left corner of the dash area.] VIN numbers, as we know them today, didn't exist in that era. But the serial number of that car, if it's still there, will be on a stamped plate spot-welded to the top of the right-hand spring tower, and is only visible with the hood raised. If Texas DMV records are available--and from '63, the odds are that they were never put onto any computer database, and are still on paper somewhere [but they also may have been microfilmed, if they were saved at all]--it should be easy to determine whether this was Mrs. Paine's Rambler station wagon. Big IF. BUT...if Mrs. Paine's Rambler station wagon had an automatic transmission, you may be on the right track. Likewise, if Mrs. Payne's Rambler had a "three on the tree," you might be following a dead end here. So does anyone know for sure the serial # of the Payne Rambler, or even whether it was a stick or an automatic? I don't believe I've ever heard the answers to these two questions.

For those wondering just how unique this '59 Rambler Cross-Country 6-cylinder station wagon is, I suppose it depends upon whether it's in Super, DeLuxe, or Custom trim. It may be one of over 66,000...or one of 38,000...or one of much fewer, depending upon the trim level. [i just can't read the trim designation, which is on the rear door, inside the "spear" trim.] My dad and grand-dad sold Hudsons, and then Ramblers, thru 1959...so this model is sort of familiar to me. For more info on the 1959 Ramblers, including production numbers, see this link: http://www.amcyclopedia.org/node/58

By the way ... no time to go to your local library to look for the article I take it. Funny you should mention it...but I wasn't the one who claimed it exists. That distinction would go to one Gary Mack, in Paul Rigby's post. So I have no reason to try to support a claim that I didn't make. Here's Paul Rigby's post: Bill Miller on behalf of Gary Mack, JFK Lancer, 15 January 2006: The Shifting TV debut day of Muchmore: QUOTE “Update information from Gary Mack: ‘The New York newspaper account of the Muchmore film appeared in an afternoon edition of November 26, 1963. It referred to the film being shown on WNEW-TV earlier that day. In 1963 the afternoon New York papers were the Post, the World-Telegram and the Journal-American. I’ll let you know when I locate the information.’” Oh, NOW I get it. Since it was in a Miller "sock-puppet" quote of Gary Mack, then Mack never really said it, and Mack therefore has no responsibility to support "his" statement. And since Miller was only [allegedly] quoting Mack, he bears no responsibility to support this "heresay" either. Must be a wonderful world you live in, Miller...where you and Gary Mack can make any claims you want, without either of you having the responsibility to back any of it up. So when do those same rules start applying to the rest of humanity?

So by using Miller as his mouthpiece, Mack can "remain neutral" while still having his say? Bill, Gary Mack has in the past tried to use me to put forth his messages, as he is using you. But since Mack made the claim that he'd seen something in a newspaper, it should be incumbent upon MACK to either produce the information--or a link thereto--or retract his [heretofore] unproven [unprovable?] assertion. That's the way the world works, Miller: if you make a claim, it's up to you to either back it up or back off. You don't seem to have a problem with this approach when dealing with Healy and others on the film alteration topic; so why are the rules different where Mack is involved? As far as proving a negative goes, let me give you a little story which involved Mr. Gary Mack. Some time back, I saw information from a source I cannnot recall today, which stated that the FBI made an audio tape of the Dictabelts, etc., of the Dallas Police radio traffic of November 22, 1963. I asked whether anyone had located a source where one could find such a tape today. Gary Mack was very helpful in referring me to possible sources, but in the end we concluded that, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, the tape no longer exists. That doesn't mean that the tape ABSOLUTELY no longer exists; it just means that we were unable to find it through the sources we used. But we failed to prove a negative, namely that the tape absolutely no longer exists anywhere on the face of the earth. We merely proved that we failed to find it. While I'll always be thankful for his suggestions, I still think that Gary Mack needs to decide whether he's "above" these discussions or not. If he is, then he needs to abstain from using the ventriloquism act to circumvent his position. If he's not, then he needs to speak for himself. For Mack to continue to employ "sock puppets" is ridiculous.

Paul, could you please tell us what you have done to find the article or to prove that it doesn't exist. And exactly what technique does one use to prove a negative? Gary Mack claims it does exist...so Mack should be the one to substantiate his claim. Of course, I'd also suggest he stop using you for a "sock puppet" and make his own posts, but apparently the two of you enjoy that relationship too much to end it. Mack speaks, and Miller's lips move... C'mon, Gary...enough with the ventriloquism act. It's getting old.

The question comes to my mind...IF the survey was primarily the result of the evidence from the Zapruder film...AND the "experts" agree that, according to the Z-film, JFK was hit by the first shot BEFORE he emerged from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign... ...from THAT evidence, how was ANYONE able to establish a first-shot point of impact as precise as street elevation 423.07? From the evidence at hand--the Z-film--that level of accuracy would've been impossible, IMHO. Or am I missing something here?

I would be interested in the opinions of the attorneys on the forum in respect to any possible violation of Fourth Amendment protections for American citizens on American soil regarding the searches of electronic devices, and the apparent interpretation by government officials that travel itself constitutes "probable cause." Comments?

Did Jimmy Files confess to THAT one as well?

I exchanged several informative emails with Gerry Hemming, and these led me to believe he knew a LOT more than he was telling on the Forum here. The last one re: the JFK assassination he specifically began with "DO NOT POST", and throughout his lifetime I have honored that request. If it's true that Gerry has indeed died, I send condolences out to his friends and family. But here is an excerpt--heavily edited--from that last email, regarding my suspicions that LHO's firearms wers sourced from somewhere other than Klein's and Seaport Traders: "To cut this short, I will simply state that:... ...(2) "Empire" and other weapons importers were originally set up by the Brits, and this: because the law in Canada permitted the importation of weapons without serial numbers stamped on the frame of the firearms. The U.S. State Department's "Office of Munitions Control" prohibited any importing of guns with numbers not on the frame, i.e., the barrel or stock. [see the then extant regulations published in the C.F.R. -- "Code of Federal Regulations"); (3) The alleged "LHO" Mannlicher-Carcano (and many others) came directly from Montreal, as did the "snub-nose" .38 cal. revolver;..." I received my final email from Gerry on December 16th, 2007. "Semper fi," Gerry...

The oft-maligned Tom Purvis has suggested that the scope, as mounted on C2766, would appear to have been in pretty fair [but not perfect] alignment for a right-handed shooter who was left-eye dominant. Whether that would describe LHO or not might never be determined at this late date.

Thanks, Jack. The second photo illustrates the point I was trying to make, that nobody was "standing" in that window if all passerbys could see was a head-and-shoulders view; the person in the window would've had to be crouching or kneeling, as you were. And for an assassin to have been only a face and a rifle, to witnesses below...I suggest the shooter would've more likely been firing from a "prone" position, perhaps raised up on his elbows, perhaps partially supported by boxes of books...but not necessarily in the configuration in which the boxes were photographed for "public consumption." And those pipes would've made for a great deal of difficulty positioning oneself in the easternmost corner of the window, IMHO.

Having been introduced to Epstein's work in the '60's, I think he was on the right track in the beginning. But I believe he was "turned" somewhere in the pursuit of truth and justice, and became one of the very people he began his crusade against. Whether he was actually convinced he was initially on the wrong track, or whether he was coerced into that position, only he knows. But from where he started, Epstein did a rather abrupt about-face. So I don't believe he was a "plant" from the beginning. I rather believe that someone [person OR organization] changed his mind FOR him. JMHO.

What everyone seems to be missing is the true dimesnsions of the window to the floor...that is, for a person in the window to have been visible only from the shoulders up, that person would have to be either kneeling or crouching, rather than standing erect. And kneeling, IMHO, would still expose the person in the window from approximately the WAIST up, and not just from the shoulders up. Can someone post the picture of the INSIDE of the 6th floor SE corner window, from which we can gain some perspective? I believe that might just alter your opinions, if they are fact-based.

Bump. I think this may be important enough NOT to let it get lost in the back pages.

Peter...in all fairness to Tom Purvis...you apparently haven't been paying attention to his "seminars" that actually DISprove the Specter Magic Bullet theory. While I don't think Purvis has proven that LHO was the gunman simply because he "coulda" "did da deed," I think Purvis' explanation of three shots IS sufficient to explain why "Ol' Doc Specter's Magical Bullet Elixir" shouldn't be taken internally. I just don't think Tom proves the case that LHO is the ONLY suspect as the triggerman, or that one or more of the shots couldn't have been fired from the southWEST corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD. But Purvis CERTAINLY doesn't believe in the Specter-imagined Magic Bullet...and you'd know that, if you had actually READ Purvis' posts and considered any of the facts he presents. But I do believe that it all ties in to the events of today, with November 22, 1963 being the beginning of the end for freedom in America. Oh, yeah, Peter...George Wallace was shot in 1972, not '68...but I think that was done to bring the "lessons" of '68 back into focus for those who might challenge those who [are] were truly in control.

Robin, while your GIF does seem to explain why witnesses said that the limo came to a stop...maybe I'm being dense here...but why can't we detect this during a "normal-speed" viewing of the Z-film? It would seem that you have finally got the Z-film and the eyewitnesses to agree...and I suppose those of us who seek the truth should thank you. So thank you, Robin...good work!

Considering the way the "investigators" in the JFK case hid potential evidence behind [intentional?] misspellings of names, could "Hosey" have possibly been a Jose' instead? Unless we know for sure, I don't think I'd rule it out. Remember the Randles/Randalls? That wasn't even the most blatant case.

Amazing how quiet the forums become when they are Gratz-free. Why, I'd venture to say you could even hear a SBT drop.

I also believe the fourth conclusion may be the closest to the truth...that someone shot AT Walker, LHO may have lied about any involvement on his part, and Marina was simply telling the truth, as she knew it. As a hunter and sportsman, it's inconceivable to me that the same shooter who missed so badly a stationary target like Walker, then scored three for three hits [or two for three, if you believe in the shot that missed] on a moving target at longer range. Of course, even Jesse Curry said they could not place LHO in THAT window, with THAT rifle, at THAT moment in time...and it appears LHO's only accusers in the Walker shooting, at the time, were Walker himself, and Marina. IF he were a bona fide suspect, isn't it conceivable that the DPD would've brought him in for questioning? Since the Walker shooting was only a crime in the State of Texas, and not a federal matter, the FBI would've had no reason to get involved, Walker's national notoriety notwithstanding, unless the DPD solicited their assistance. I think the Walker shooting should be looked upon as what's becoming increasingly clear to me: a staged incident, meant to put some distance between Walker and LHO should the need arise. For that to be the case, one would have to consider--and accept--the premise that LHO and Walker were working for the same people...people ON THE RIGHT. The same people who needed the Paris summit to collapse apparently also wanted JFK out of the way. And these same people wanted groups like the FPCC to collapse...which it did, after JFK's assassination, when word got out that LHO was a member. LHO's left-wing "credentials" in this scenario then would be an acting job by LHO, in order to infiltrate the FPCC and bring about its collapse from within...which is pretty much the way things played out after LHO's arrest. The ONLY flaw to this scenario si that Walker flubbed up and played the "Oswald-shot-at-me-too" card WAY too early in the game. The way I see it, that card was ONLY to be played in the event that the leftist facade that Oswald built began to unravel...THEN it could be justified, the Walker shooting cementing Oswald's crumbling leftist legend back into place. Walker apparently panicked and played his trump card early, when he might just as well have sloughed off and no one would've been the wiser. In this scenario, Jim Root's hypothesis that Walker was on that flight with Oswald and gave him the info he needed to gain instant access to the USSR makes complete sense. Oswald was always taking his orders from the same team as Walker was...and LHO's "patsy" comment came when he realized that, no matter how well he'd done his job, he was the odd man out, and his life was expendable...all for the "greater good," you understand.

Another position to consider is that the story about Klein's Sporting Goods being the source of the rifle might have been a total fabrication. Considering the fact that the rifle in custody was not--or was, depending on which version of the story you choose to believe--the model being offered by Kleins' at the time Oswald allegedly ordered it, and considering the fact that the serial number on the money order Oswald allegedly used to purchase the rifle was more in line with a sequence from November 1963 than if it was one from the preceding March...it's not a considerable leap to conclude that the evidence linking the rifle to LHO via Klein's just MIGHT have been manufactured on November 22-23, 1963. And what of the Japanese riflescope? Investigators concluded that only ONE company imported that particular scope, and that importer only had TWO customers for that riflescope...Klein's, and surprisingly enough, Dave's House of Guns, which was located--of all places on Earth--in Dallas, Texas. So the possibility exists that LHO might have purchased the MC--IF he purchased it--somewhere other than Klein's; and that he might have purchased it sans scope, and had one installed by Dave' House of Guns, the ONLY OTHER PLACE IN THE COUNTRY besides Klein's that sold that particular riflescope. Given LHO's alleged poverty, it's not totally inconceivable that he just might have purchased the rifle first, minus the scope, and then purchased the scope and installed it--or had it installed--later. The Klein's money order serial number being BADLY out of sequence suggests to me that the Klein's scenario, put forth as fact by the WC, was a frame. And the missing PO box documentation contributes to my thinking along those lines. SO...if the details of the alleged transaction with Klein's are questionable, the ONLY alternative scenario is one including Dave's House of Guns in Dallas, the ONLY OTHER possible source of the riflescope in the entire USA. And the WC "conveniently" neglected to pursue that line of questioning with David Goldstein, the owner of the gun shop in Dallas.

The evidence that Oswald participated in the Walker shooting incident is tenuous at best. We have Marina's statement, we have Walker's statement, and we have Ruth Payne essentially corroborating Marina's statement. I'm just not convinced that LHO pulled the trigger anywhere near Walker's residence. I must say that Jim Root makes a VERY convincing case as to WHY Oswald might have done it; but I have my doubts about the chances of success of a prosecutor going forward with the prosecution of LHO in the Walker shooting based ONLY upon the KNOWN evidence in the case. It wouldn't take a Perry Mason to introduce enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck thru the holes in the prosecution's case. I'd suggest it would even be within the abilities of Mr. Gratz, if he were still practicing law.

I agree with Ron....since this is the JFK ASSASSINATION Debate forum....where is the relevance to the JFK ASSASSINATION ??

A history of Acme Brick: http://www.brick.com/company/history.htm Was LHO ever on Acme Brick's payroll?