Mark Knight

Maybe it's just a reflection of my background, but reading Mr. Gratz's descriptions of the proper way to formulate a legal argument brings to mind the Saturday Night Live skits with Dan Akroyd and Bill Murray as characters who leap through the door flashing their now-empty badge wallets and shouting, "FREEZE! Ex-POLICE!" Or maybe MY logic is faulty...maybe it's more akin to taking training for a Boy Scout lifesaving merit badge from Dr. Jack Kevorkian. {Not that Dr. Kevorkian wouldn't know how to SAVE a life, but it's not what he's known for.}

Here's a clue, Tim...You might check for your OWN spelling errors/typos on posts critical of someone else's spelling errors/typos, lest one come off as a pompous hypocrite. Is that enough of a clue? (Pssssst....."continually" is spelled with only TWO "L's", and "protocol" has NO "A's" in it.)

Actually, there ARE some good videos out there...such as the Pat Speer videos on the gunshot wounds, for example. I'm just afraid that, if we began combining the best evidence into one large video...we might have something approaching--if not surpassing--the length of the ROOTS miniseries, which would make the information just too much for the masses to even attempt to see and digest. TMWKK was an earlier attempt at this very thing...and after all those hours of programming, it STILL only touches the tip of the iceberg as far as the information concerning the JFK assassination is concerned.

At what point does "negotiation" become "blackmail" ?? Ever hear of John Peter Zenger, Mr. Gratz? I believe his was referred to as a "landmark case." Truth SHOULD be what we're all about here...and if you have any skeletons in YOUR closet you'd rather not have exposed, the best defense, IMHO, is to not raise "personal values" questions about your adversaries, lest YOUR "secrets" become public. Y'know, the ol' Golden Rule sort of thing...treat others as you'd expect to be treated. Or maybe the "people who live in glass houses" adage is a bit more applicable in this case.

Peter, as I understand the story, Wim no longer has a valid ID on the forums of his own...so Mark is allowing himself to be Wim's "sock puppet," and Wim is posting under Mark's ID. Do I have the story correct to this point, Wim?

I got the message "bandwidth exceeded" and thought for a moment that Sgt. Pepper and the boys had overindulged on the turkey and dressing.

Tim, some of us were reading this stuff at the time it was on the newsstands. My dad, who NEVER bought weekly news magazines, purchased the "A Matter Of Reasonable Doubt" November '66 issue of LIFE Magazine; my grandfather, who seldom bought magazines of ANY kind that didn't deal with either gardening or hunting and fishing, bought that particular issue of Esquire. So I had the good fortune of reading them--and other similar articles--when they were fresh. And in early '67, when the Garrison probe began to make headlines, I wasn't surprised. [i have since purchased the aforementioned [i][/i]LIFE issue on eBay, for my own personal JFK library. Others may have a more extensive library than mine, but I can assure you I've read everything in my collection at least twice...many when they were first issued in the '60's.] So while this Esquire article might may be quite the "buried treasure" to you, some of us were aware of it back when it was fresh. On the heels of the LIFE article, it helped kindle my interest in researching the JFK assassination...an interest nothing has quenched in the past 41 years.

Tim, some of us were reading this stuff at the time it was on the newsstands. My dad, who NEVER bought weekly news magazines, purchased the "A Matter Of Reasonable Doubt" November '66 issue of LIFE Magazine; my grandfather, who seldom bought magazines of ANY kind that didn't deal with either gardening or hunting and fishing, bought that particular issue of Esquire. So I had the good fortune of reading them--and other similar articles--when they were fresh. And in early '67, when the Garrison probe began to make headlines, I wasn't surprised. [i have since purchased the aforementioned [i][/i]LIFE issue on eBay, for my own personal JFK library. Others may have a more extensive library than mine, but I can assure you I've read everything in my collection at least twice...many when they were first issued in the '60's.] So while this Esquire article might may be quite the "buried treasure" to you, some of us were aware of it back when it was fresh. On the heels of the LIFE article, it helped kindle my interest in researching the JFK assassination...an interest nothing has quenched in the past 41 years.

Thanks, Mark, Will the administration please give Wim Dank a new password so he can post again? Thanks, BK Aw, c'mon, Bill...I enjoy seeing Mark act as Wim's "sock puppet." Besides, it gives Wim a level of deniability that he'll lose if he begins posting under his own name again. And it won't be nearly as entertaining as Gary Mack's "non-posting" PM's. If I was in Wim's shoes, I'm not sure whether I'd want to trade in his "cloak of invisibility" or not. As I said, a similar tack works for Gary Mack, and HIS messages get to the board at will.

Got a PM from Gary Mack that it WAS radio station WWL in New Orleans, at 870 kHz on the AM dial. Just wanting to keep the record here correct, Gary, in case someone wants to research further.

And after his broadcasting experience, one might think that Gary Mack, above most other people, would know that WLW was a station in Cincinnati, OH[a "clear-channel" station at 700 on the AM dial]...and it was WWL [my memory fails me here...were they at 770 or 780 on the AM dial?] in New Orleans. In fact, by the 1970's WWL was know--at night--as one of the major stations listened to by long-distance truckers in the eastern US, because of their wide coverage area [not sure if they were designated a "clear channel" station or not...seems they were, but I can't swear to it]. Anyone who ever listened to Cincinnati Reds baseball broadcasts with Al Michaels [and later with Marty Brennaman] and the recently-deceased Joe Nuxhall on WLW, or anyone who listened to the all-night "Charlie Douglas Road Gang" on WWL--as I did, in both cases--would know the difference. Not trying to go off on a tangent here; just trying to set the record straight, that WLW was/is NOT in New Orleans, but WWL was [is?].

To the rabid right wing, the assassination of JFK must have been a glorious moment. Here was a president who, in their collective opinion, was a collossal failure. He singlehandedly screwed up the Bay of Pigs, to hear them tell it. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, he gave away the store instead of sending in the B52's with the nukes, as any good, red-blooded [true American] right-winger would've done. His foreign policy was a series of missteps and stumbles, and at home he let the n*ggers think they were somebody! Instead of locking up that "black agitator" Martin Luther King, he let him hold a rally at the Lincoln Memorial!!! In short, JFK was, to the right wingers, the most UN-American leader ever...on a level with Benedict Arnold, to some. So what happened to him should've come as no surprise...the only surprise being it didn't happen sooner. These are things I've heard said in recent years about JFK. [Now, if JFK had singlehandedly caused the collapse of Communism--as some still credit one successor with doing--maybe the right might've cozied up to him a bit more.] And despite all the cry from the right about a left-wing US media bias, today in America the right wing owns the media. So expect that whenever anything is aired about JFK, it will be ONLY something negative. But JFK called this nation to become more than what we were in 1960...to join together in working to achieve our potential. There were new challenges on the horizon and New Frontiers; there was the Peace Corps...the war in Vietnam was essentially "theirs to win or lose" in 1963. "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Liberal stuff there, indeed. After November 22, 1963, the world was still the same...but the joy and positive anticipation with which we'd previously faced the challenges of the day were gone. Instead of the vibrant Jack Kennedy, we were led by the dour LBJ...followed by the brooding Nixon. And we are still being led by their political heirs, folks whose vision of America more closely follows Adolph Hitler's vision of Germany than Jack Kennedy's vision of America. Government OF the people, but certainly not FOR or BY the people.

And the relevance to the JFK assassination is...?

According to the Wiki folks, the estimates for world population [July '07] were at 6,602,224,175. The population of China was estimated at 1,321,851,888 at that time, while the population of Cuba was estimated at 11,394,043. DESPITE my alleged lack of "readin' ", it seems that 20% of the world's population--THAT'S ONE IN FIVE, TIM--are living in either China [COMMUNIST] or Cuba [COMMUNIST]. For a system whose "collapse" Reagan "caused," there sure are a lot of folks living under it. Maybe Tim can also show us how George W. Bush has "caused" the "collapse" of the Muslim religion since 2001, too.

I simply pointed out that, in view of the VAST number of people living under Communism today, Communism has HARDLY collapsed. Your other assumptions about what I have or haven't read notwithstanding, I stand by the STATEMENT OF FACT that Communism is still standing. For Communism to survive, it must rule with an iron fist [think Tienemen (sp) Square]. BUT IT SURVIVES. That is ino an assumption, nor is it an inference; IT IS A FACT. Just because this FACT is inconvenient in your quest for the sainthood of Ronald Reagan does NOT make it any less a fact. Nor does it infer that I have--or haven't--read ANY particular books by any particular authors. It is simply a FACT, and one that conflicts with your assertion that Reagan singlehandedly caused the collapse of Communism. How that gives you license to question my reading material, I don't understand. Just because the FACTS are in conflict with YOUR assertion, that shouldn't necessarily bring MY education, family tree, personality, or number of freckles into question...because NONE of that changes the FACTS. Communism is still with us, like it or not. Reagan did NOT oversee--or cause--its collapse. [As far as "winning the Cold War" goes...NEVER FORGET that in the US Civil War, it took Vicksburg and Gettysburg and Atlanta in order to get to Appomattox Court House. And the Civil War wasn't "won" at Appomattox...although, by YOUR definition, perhaps it was.]

And your conclusion would be seriously flawed. Because I choose to not engage in a childish "Mine's bigger than yours!" argument about whose background or whose research--or whose personal library is bigger/better/more complete/more accurate, you are drawing conclusions that you cannot prove. Such tactics may have worked in the courtroom, but they don't work here. You asserted that Reagan brought down Communism. I showed beyond a doubt that Communism is not only still alive, but is practiced by the MOST POPULOUS NATION on the face of the Earth. Is the above paragraph NOT TRUE, Mr, Gratz? A yes-or-no answer will suffice. I DON'T dispute that Ronald Reagan was--nominally--the POTUS when the Soviet Union collapsed, nor do I argue that his administration's policies had nothing to do with said collapse. So PLEASE don't continue trying to credit me with statements to the contrary, Mr. Gratz. I merely proved your statement about the "collapse of Communism" wrong; most of the rest you have "inferred" or "implied" with absolutely NO basis in fact. And I've enjoyed Mr. Beschloss' works immensely...a difficult feat for someone "who can reach his conclusions without reading a single book," won't you agree? Again, Mr. Gratz, let's stick to the facts...about which, in the case of my voracious reading habits, you simply have no [correct] idea.

Tim, your arrogance nearly outweighs your illiteracy...or at least your lack of comprehension of the written word. It was YOU who said that Reagan ended Communism. I pointed out that Communism is alive and well, in the most populous nation on Earth, as well as in Cuba. So your assertion was faulty, and I called you on it. As far as ending the Cold war....I never took up that argument, so your challenge to me about that is bogus on its face. And your assumptions about what I think should or should not be done with Castro's Cuba...laughable. You have no fact-based idea what I think about that subject, because I haven't told you. And since NOW you're changing the subject from 'the fall of Communism" to "the end of the Cold War," do NOT assume that my thoughts on ONE subject are the sum total of my thoughts on BOTH subjects. Your arrogance here apparently knows no bounds...nor, apparently, does your desire to put in my mouth words that I have not spoken. And I make no claims to my political literacy...but I know that the MOST POPULOUS NATION ON EARTH is a COMMUNIST nation, so your pronouncement of the DEATH of communism--at the hands of Ronald Reagan , or even Ronald McDonald--is demagoguery at best, a bold-faced LIE at worst. [but since you brought it up...I think the BEST way to spell the end of communism in Cuba is to end the US trade embargo...and when the people realize that it's the system itself, and NOT the "malevolent hand of Uncle Sam" holding them down--as Fidel has preached for almost 50 years--the Cuban people will stage a NEW revolution and overthrow the Communist bondage they have been under for far too long. And NOW you know what I think...that it's far better to let communist regimes collapse from within--as they invariably do--than to take them out militarily, in the manner in which most of them were imposed upon their citizens.] My views may not be politically literate, either...but they DO have a firm foundation in a study of history. As I would suppose do those of Mr. Simkin.

John, traditionally nobody wants to pick a fight with the biggest man in the room, or the one carrying the biggest gun. So there's a deterrent factor in being well-armed, as a nation. But the truth is, the Western World has the nukes, but not the stomach to use them...they have lost "the pride in [of] their power," to use a Biblical term. OTOH, the Muslim nations in the Mideast have no apparent revulsion at the idea of wholesale carnage at the hands of THEIR nuclear weapons...which, IMHO, makes a nuclear-armed Iran a more formidable world power than a similarly-armed US or UK.

Ex-counsellor, let me ask you a few questions. Is China, the most populous nation on the face of the Earth, still Communist? Is Cuba, a mere 90-some miles from your doimcile, not also still a Communist nation? Then, OTHER than the former USSR and its Eastern European satellites, exactly WHERE did Communism "collapse"? Or would it be more accurate to say that SOVIET-style Communism may have collapsed, but that the most populous nation on the face of the earth is STILL a Communist nation...and that the CLOSEST non-contiguous neighbor to the US also REMAINS a Communist nation? So, OTHER than the former USSR and their Eastern European satellites, isn't Communism ALIVE AND WELL, and in little danger of the COLLAPSE, in the MOST POPULOUS NATION on the face of the EARTH? And yet you claim that "..the collapse of Communism was primarily the result of RR..." Therefore, I believe the claim that you are "politically illiterate" is based upon sound evidence, Tim...evidence that YOU so willingly provide.

If you watch the 321-324 frames, you can tell, by the movement of the Connallys and the now-lifeless form of JFK that the limo is beginning an almost violent acceleration...way too late, of course, but it seems all too apparent that Greer is already on the gas in this sequence. So if there's ANY evidence of a stop or near-stop of the limo, it certainly isn't in this sequence.

And yet again, Tim makes Ashton's point...that this forum constantly degenerates to discussions a world away from its avowed topic, the assassination of JFK and the truth thereof. While I take exception to much of what Gratz alleges, I SHOULD refrain from becoming a more involved party to this than I already am. But this is more and more like a train wreck...it's hard to NOT watch it happen. Having flesh of my flesh--my only son--currently serving in Iraq, I believe I might be a bit more qualified to comment on the situation there than Mr. Gratz, who has nothing of a personal nature--such as the life of a loved one--on the line there. As with the old joke about the chicken and the pig and their respective contributions to breakfast...the chicken may be INVOLVED, but the pig is COMMITTED. And so it it with the ADVOCATES of the Iraq war [chickens] vs. the families of those who actually have to FIGHT [pigs]...some have more on the line than others. Soviet communism collapsed under the weight of its own excesses--military spending, vs. its lack of corresponding economic productivity. That didn't begin on Reagan's watch; it only concluded then. Just because I'm standing near a train when it derails, it does NOT necessarily mean that I CAUSED the derailment, any more than Reagan CAUSED the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US economy, on the other hand, is in the beginning stages of its collapse, again caused primarily by its own excesses, and combining the ever-weakening dollar combined with the increasing price of oil [fueled primarily by increasing Chinese demand, and affected very little by US conservation efforts]...compounded by the fact that the lending/investing community is still trying to conceal the depth and breadth of the collapse of the subprime mortgage-backed securities market [and its effects on the health of the entire banking industry]. And as someone much wiser than I said, slightly over 2,000 years ago: when this "house built upon the sand" collapses, the devastation will be great, indeed.

Might this be the Harper Fragment in flight?

Bill, the "Greer-Shoots-JFK" scenario has been discussed to death on the forum. Usually, as you well know, it's blamed on viewing a substandard copy of the Z-film. While I don't advocate shooting the newbies, I do advocate having them read through as much of the archives here as possible...especially on a subject that has generated as much discussion as this one. Failing that, our job probably should be to advise the newbies not to follow Alice and the Mad Hatter down the proverbial rabbit holes. And YOU, of ALL people, BIll, should know something about discussing what someone allegedly sees or doesn't see in images from poor copies of the Z-film. Not trying to give you grief here, just expressing my surprise. Had Greer ACTUALLY "off'ed" the boss, with as many years as the Z-film has been available, someone would've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt by now. Instead, it has been thoroughly debunked, only to be resurrected every so often by a newbie who hasn't done their proverbial homework. [i've previously been the rookie who hadn't done the homework, so I know whereof I speak.] And LOTS of LIVE EYEWITNESSES were ridiculed for what they believed they saw...many still being ridiculed to this very day. It just goes with the territory, on this highly emotional topic. Not intending to come off as unsympathetic to newbies, either...just trying to give them the same "read the archives" advice that I was given when I first came aboard.

Tim, I simply posted the AP news item because, hidden amongst the flotsam and jetsam regarding UFO's, there was also a request that, presumably, the Clinton Library should release "all files on the Kennedy assassination." I'm rather curious what files the Clinton Library might have on that topic, and why they might have them. Your link to the Colby sniping match was of no interest to me, but I suppose I should thank you for bringing it to my attention anyway. So thanks, Tim...I guess.

The first function of government is Control of the Populace. Says YOU. You have it backwards, Tom. In a free society, the first function of the populace is control of the government! As Jefferson wrote, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the...governed..." In our form of government, the citizen holds ALL rights not specifically ceded to the government. Maybe you don't realize it, but when power flows FROM the government TO the citizens, governments have an inherent right to withdraw what are essentially PRIVELEGES...and de facto "constitutional rights" cease to exist. Perhaps THAT is the world YOU prefer to live in, Tom...but I prefer what our Founding Fathers envisioned, NOT what petty tyrants, for centuries, have envisioned.