Mark Knight

I just watched the Zapruder Film and for the first time saw what looked like the driver turning around and shooting Kennedy! "And if you go chasing rabbits.....Tell 'em a hooka-smoking caterpillar has given you the call..."--Jefferson Airplane, White Rabbit. And down the rabbit hole we go once again...

Clinton Library Offers Peek at UFO Files November 13, 2007 8:36 PM EST LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - In a move sure to provide fodder for conspiracy theorists, the Clinton Library withheld e-mails with subject lines like "X-Files" and "Area 51" from a batch of documents recently released at a UFO buff's request. National Archives officials made several files - ranging from a White House staffer's obsession with the TV show "The X-Files" to President Clinton's push to hook up the Sci-Fi Channel at Camp David - available for viewing starting last Thursday in response to Freedom of Information requests. Several pages, however, were withheld because they would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," according to National Archives documents. Among the released pages, 27 come from the files of former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, a fan of "The X-Files," a show about FBI agents investigating extraterrestrials and other supernatural events. The files include articles forwarded to Podesta about the canceled Fox show. Peter Baker, a Washington Post reporter, relied on Podesta's interest in the show to persuade him to help on a book about the White House. "Why am I skeptical that this book constitutes an opportunity for us?" Podesta wrote in a March 24, 1999, e-mail to Baker, who eventually wrote a book about the former president's impeachment and trial. "Because any good X-Files fan is skeptical by nature and understandably so," Baker replied the next day. In 1995, a group called the "Project Starlight Coalition" sent President Clinton a letter asking him to declassify any documents about extraterrestrials or UFOs. Two months later, an aide replied that he had forwarded the request for a meeting to White House staff. "The President appreciates your interest and long-standing involvement in this issue," James A. Dorskind, a special assistant to the president, wrote to members of the coalition. The files also include an e-mail between White House spokeswomen Patricia F. Lewis and Mary Ellen Glynn over a Hollywood Reporter question about Clinton's insistence on installing the Sci-Fi channel at the presidential retreat. "I know we're not going to talk about it, but it's one of the better questions I've heard in a while and I wanted to share," Lewis wrote. The records are being released in response to a slew of requests from UFO enthusiast Grant Cameron, who operates a Web site on presidential history with extraterrestrials. Cameron has several other requests pending, including one for "all files on the Kennedy assassination." He did not immediately respond to an e-mail message seeking comment Tuesday. --- On the Net: Clinton Library: http://www.clintonlibrary.gov Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Tom wrote: "...it will be my hope that the US Government, if it errs, will always do so on the side of our freedom." Tom, it is MY fervent hope that the US may SOON RETURN to erring on the side of ensuring the freedoms of the individual. For just over 6 years, the exact OPPOSITE has been the actual position of the government. And a government with an obvious fear of a free citizenry is one that cannot long endure, if history is our guide. I'm not sure that the "bell" that tolls for the loss of individual freedom in America can be "un-rung." To some, apparently there IS such a thing as "too much freedom," as they fight their cause daily in the Congress and the courts of this land to take the constitutional freedoms from the hands of the law-abiding citizens and crumple them in the hands of the power-hungry government, as if they were only so many meaningless words written on worthless paper. The "guarantees" of the Fourth Amendment have become conditional, in the hands of the current administration...and if you think THAT'S OK...imagine how much MORE diminished they will become in the hands of a President Hillary, should God turn his back on us and allow that to occur.

Well said, Mike. Over the past few years, I've learned a great deal here about the assassination...and about various persons' ability [or lack thereof] to handle questions and/or criticism. Some think that if you're not 100% with them, you're 100% against them...I call them the "Group W's," after both President George W. Bush, and the Arlo Guthrie masterpiece, Alice's Restaurant. Others are more accepting of a more nuanced understanding of the assassination. And early in my days here, I was often drawn into the black hole, sinking to the level of the insult-swappers. But I've come to realize that some here simply wish to derail any serious discussion of the assassination that doesn't square with their beliefs...dogma vs. a rational discussion of the facts, if you will. These days I tend to avoid the posts of these people, but I'm still human and occasionally slip. For the most part, folks like Pat Speer have tended to ADD to the collective knowledge accumulated on the forum, by looking at the old evidence thruough new eyes. And many will disagree with me, but I think Tom Purvis' use of the surveyor's data is another example of that technique. Folks, 99% of the evidence that will ever exist in the JFK assassination has already seen the light of day, IMHO. It's up to folkis like us to open our minds to new and different interpretations of that evidence, and to decide for ourselves what makes sense and what makes no sense. So this forum, IMHO, is still of value. Ashton Gray has contributed to the understanding of the facts of the assassination, and I would think he should get over his snit-fit and realize that a certain percentage of the folks get it, a certain percentage will never get it, and most here are simply seeking the truth. And the truth-seekers [usually] don't deserve to be served up a hearty helping of insults and condescention with their "minimum daily requirement" of facts.

Pat, I think your research here--and the work of those who came before you--is giving some "legs" to the suspicions of many of us. I noticed years ago that little was said about Oswald's paraffin tests, particularly the one(s) from the cheek(s). So at this point, based upon the evidence, I believe that Oswald did NOT fire any rounds from ANY rifle on November 22, 1963. So that leaves us looking for another shooter on the sixth floor, one who must have exhibited left eye dominance based upon the way the scope was mounted...but one capable of the same shots that Oswald was accused of making. So...of the folks KNOWN to be in the TSBD, and not accounted for on another floor or outside...who was CAPABLE of shooting the President? Perhaps Mr. Frazier, who claimed to be in the basement...???

Good info, Greg. I'm still wondering about Randle/Randall, but it just fits into a long line of unasked and unanswered questions...such as, why wasn't Goldsmith, of Dave's House of Guns, questioned about the scope--and by extension, the Mannlicher--since he was one of only TWO purchasers of those scopes named by the SOLE importer of that scope; and why weren't the proper questions asked of Bill Randle/Willie Randall; and why did Willie Randall's name come up at all, when investigators were discussing the riflescope ? It just seems like a lot of unasked questions, and a lot of opportunity for "reasonable doubt" to creep into the case against Oswald, IMHO.

All well and good, folks...but unless you can tie this into the JFK assassination, on more than a guilt-by-association level, this seems to be an irrelevant thread.

Well said, BK. The eulogy reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ [among others], that those who are blessed with abundance and opportunity have an obligation to share with those less fortunate. Of course, since the right likes to claim Jesus Christ as their own, aren't these values more right-wing than left-wing values??? [Except when espoused by those on the left...then they're "communist values," I suppose...] You're absolutely right, Bill...I fail to see exclusively left-wing OR exclusively right-wing values here, or any statements against conservatism.

Yes, Tim. Living as close as you do to Fidel, I would think you'd have a bit more familiarity with Spanish than that. Surely you've encountered an immigrant or dos from Fidel's "island paradise" in your neck of the woods...perhaps in the housekeeping part of the hotel industry, or perhaps as business owners themselves? I live way out here in the midwest US, and I'm not so insulated from immigrants that I don't know a few operative terms in Spanish. [A good phrase to know in a pinch is, "Donde esta el bano?", with the "~" over the "n" in the last word.]

James, Thanks for the info on Goldstein's demise. I think I might have discovered that before somewhere, but it's good to be reminded. I wasn't really worried about why this wasn't followed up POST-WC; I'm just curious why this didn't set off any alarms PRIOR to the WC Report being issued. Perhaps Goldstein MIGHT have had some records on either Oswald or Willie Randall/Randle...??? The fact remains...investigators discovered that there were TWO primary customers of the importer of the Japanese riflescope...one was Klein's, and the other was a gun shop IN DALLAS. Yet apparently nobody followed up on that information...and when they DID interview the proprietor of Dave's House of Guns, the question of the MC and/or the scope apparently never came up. I guess the Klein's evidence was a "slam dunk"...so no further questions were necessary?

Did anyone else ever notice that the SOLE U.S. importer of the riflescope founf on the MC rifle mentioned only ONE other customer for them, besides Klein's Sporting goods? That one customer: Dave's House of Guns, in Dallas, TX! Yet here's the affidavit of David Goldstein, owner of Dave's House of Guns: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/goldst_d.htm Funny that Dave WASN'T ASKED about the MC or any Jap riflescope at all...but was ONLY questioned about Oswald's handgun. That might just indicate that the FBI really didn't WANT Dave Goldstein's answers about the MC or the riflescope on the record. Maybe Dave Goldstein had a record of transactions with Willie Randall/Randle, too...?

In light of ONLY the JFK assassination, the LBJ scenario makes sense. But in the context of history, 1945 to present, I think the "unseen hand(s)" scenario makes MORE sense. If you believe that the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, as well as the attempted assassination of George Wallace, were unrelated incidents, then the LBJ-as-the-villain in the JFK assassination scenario makes perfect sense. But [as the folks at the Hoover company are loathe to admit] nature abhors a vacuum, and these events certainly didn't occur in one. LBJ was a tool for the "unseen hand(s)," as were Nixon and Ford (Jerry proving quite pliable for them for a number of years, both before and during his presidency). In more recent years, both Clinton and the Bush family have been tools as well. Political party, a huge consideration for LBJ, matters little to the "unseen hand(s)." Republicans and Democrats are just convenient labels to the folks who actually hold the power...the power that was taken from the people at 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963. I have concluded that the "why" of the JFK assassination isn't as simple as Vietnam, or the Federal Reserve, as many folks think...but those, I believe, were contributing factors. Ditto for civil rights, and for the test ban treaty. All contributed to the reason, but none of these alone caused the trigger to be pulled, IMHO. Castro couldn't have orchestrated the coverup, either. But all these bits and pieces have caused people to chase ghosts and pursue second/grassy knoll shooters and bogeymen that, honestly, never did exist. And the result is, 40 years later, the "unseen hand(s)" is(are) no closer to being brought to justice than they were 44 years ago. And the key is what it's always been: follow the money.

Brief, but succinct: http://www.answers.com/topic/john-connally Connally wasn't a national player UNTIL he dropped Lyndon's "team" and signed on with Nixon...the same guy who was being "kicked around" a year before the assassination,yet mysteriously became President 5 years later. And THEN only after the assassination of an idealogical [MLK] AND a political [RFK] opponent left Nixon, for all intents and purposes, unopposed. Now, if you were trying to tell me that the folks who put NIXON into power were behind Connally, politically...now THAT story you could sell me on. But it was only when JBC UNhitched his wagon from Lyndon's "star" that his political future took off. So unless the same "unseen hand" was[were] guiding the careers of both Nixon AND Connally...then your scenario's gonna be a tough sell, Tom.

I'll conced that JBC was Lyndon's boy, through and through. BFD. He was an EX-Secretary of the Navy [prior to Fred "General Dynamics" Korth]. He was Texas governor. In the other 49 states, that meant exactly doodly squat. If JBC was being "groomed" to play on the national stage, his handlers--whoever they were--did a p*ss-poor job of it. JBC may have been Lyndon's lackey all right, but he was a "not-ready-for prime-time" player on the national stage...as history has proved. I think this is where your theory falls flat on its face, Tom. Now prove me wrong...if you can.

"Our Boy" who most certainly had a designated political career, certainly needed his image protected as well! (So, with that, I would suppose that one could state that the "Riddler" has struck again!) One could, and this one will. So you're saying the SS went along with Spector and Co.'s Big Lie as a CYA move. OK, Tom...but if the conclusion was the same, that One Lone Nut did the whack job on the Prez from the 6th floor...I still don't see the need for The Big Lie when just a taste of the Truth would've carried the same conclusion forward. So what if a few SS hands would've gotten slapped? I don't see the outcome as having been greatly different than what actually occurred...Clint Hill and Rufus Youngblood hailed as heroes, the rest of the SS tsk-tsk'ed into shame, but no careers materially altered. So AGAIN I ask...if the net conclusion was the same, why choose The Big Lie over the Truth? You haven't made your case for that one yet, Tom. Riddle me this, Tom...riddle me this.

Tom, I'm trying to be unbiased here, and I've put away my presuppositions and assumptions for the most part. I can believe that the first shot was deflected by the live oak tree, and entered JFK's back base-first. I can believe that the second shot occurred at Z312/Z313, ad was a head shot...and that the third shot was also a head shot, at the Altgens position. I can buy that Connally's big hit came from the third shot. I can buy that all of the shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and that they were likely from the Mannlicher-Carcano...and that Oswald was capable of making those shots. BUT...in light of all this...WHY would the SBT even be necessary at all? Your theory explains all 3 shots, it explains JBC's wounds and JFK's wounds...so WHY was the farcical SBT, or the "disappearance" of the 3rd shot at the Altgens position, be necessary? Your theory wraps up LHO in a MUCH neater package than the WC did, and it makes me question WHY, knowing the facts, the WC chose to lie. THAT's the only place, IMHO, your theory falls apart: if your theory is true--and the evidence, as you lay it out, makes it appear to be the absolute truth--why did the WC lie, when the apparent truth is that Oswald really WAS guilty?If you can convict a man [figuratively speaking, since LHO was dead] with the truth, why was the "Big Lie" even necessary? Specter and Company had the means, and the opportunity...but what was their motive to stray from the truth, when the bottom-line is the same, that Ozzie Rabbit is guilty as sin?

I think Tom's got it mostly right...BUT: 1. While JFK was hit by three bullets, it seems a Warrenesque leap to conclude that ONLY three shots were fired. 2. While the Mannlicher Carcano was certainly capable of the task, there is no evidence that it was the ONLY weapon fired from the TSBD on 22 November 1963. 3. While LHO was certainly capable of the marksmanship necessary to fell JFK, even Jesse Curry stated that he could not, with 100% certainty, place LHO in THAT window with THAT rifle at THAT time frame. 4. I agree that three shots struck JFK. 5. Z313 was NOT the final shot, according to witnesses. Numbers 6 thru 10 I concur with, but not necessarily with all of Tom's conclusions regarding them. And number 15...was that the bullet that left behind a lot of fragments in JBC's body, but considerably more than CE399 was missing? Or was that the one that hit JBC a bit AFTER JFK was first hit, but before Z313? I tend to think that ONE of those bullets was possibly fired from the southWEST window of the 6th floor of the TSBD...meaning that there was a second shooter, and therefore a conspiracy...and I think it was possibly the [first] bullet that hit JBC, as he was trying to get the limo door to open.

I believe that three bullets struck JFK. I believe that LHO was capable of hitting JFK with three rounds from most any capable rifle at the range specified. I believe that JBC was NOT hit by the first bullet that struck JFK. I believe that JBC WAS hit before the [second] bullet struck JFK in Z313. I believe that CE399 did not hit JBC. I believe that LHO, while capable as a marksman, may not have fired a rifle at all on 22 November 1963. I believe that "Rube" was called upon to "take care of a problem" that had arisen...but that "Rube" may have had some inkling of the potential for a "problem" to arise before 12:30 pm on 22 November 1963. I believe that three shots may well have been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD that day...though not necessarily from the window indicated, or in the time frame determined, by the Warren Commission. I believe that LHO was likely connected with the CIA, ONI, FBI, or some combination thereof...whether tenuously or substantially, we'll probably never know. This, I believe.

An extra shell CASING does NOT prove that there was an extra BULLET. Notice how a bolt-action rifle works: after you chamber a round and fire, you are NOT required to eject that round at the location where it was fired. Same thing applies to a lever action rifle, as I recently re-discovered while squirrel hunting. If you don't eject the empty casing after firing, it remains in the chamber of the rifle until you DO eject it, presumably to chamber another round. The ONLY rifle that automatically ejects a spent shell casing when it is fired is either a semiautomatic, or a full automatic. So the discovery of a spent shell CASING in Dealy Plaza only proves that one was LEFT there...NOT that it was FIRED there.

While I have no idea whether there actually exists such a "book of secrets," I'd be willing to wager that: (1) LBJ knew who killed JFK; (2) Nixon knew who killed JFK; and (3) Gerald Ford knew who killed JFK. And while I don't think Carter, Reagan, or Clinton had a clue, a certain George H. W Bush, formerly of the CIA, [and mentioned in FBI memos of that fatal weekend] probably knows who killed JFK as well.

My reply here is handcuffed by my meager ability to express my thoughts, but I wish to go on record here and now echoing the sentiments of those who have much more eloquently expressed their thoughts in the posts above. I came here seeking truth, and I have managed to find an abundant supply here...as well as a range of opinions as varied as the colors of the rainbow. While "facts is facts," it is the mix of opinions based upon those facts that add flavor to the verbal soup here. And John Simkin has performed well in stirring the soup, and keeping the mixture from scorching or burning over the flames that are the emotions of the folks who post here. To imagine this forum without John Simkin...well, it's simply unthinkable [and particularly so for one with as feeble a mind as mine]. While conceding that no human being is perfect, I must opine to the world that John Simkin has done an excellent job in his role as administrator of this forum, and I sincerely wish that he will continue in that role for a long time to come... ...unless we discover the undisputable truth about November 22, 1963, beyond any reasonable [or unreasonable] doubt; at which point this forum will have served its function, and its reason to exist will have ceased.

Tom, I must be a bit more dense than usual today...that "shot" wasn't even "on the paper" with me. IOW, not sure if it was a reference to the effects of the scope being mounted as it was, or what other element you may have had in mind. It was a long day at work today, and my thinking apparatus is operating at a low level of efficiency. "High and to the Right" is the general impact location for shots fired from the Carcano when the weapon was first tested by the FBI after having been received from DPD. With the manner in which the scope was mounted, generally for all shots fired, the shot grouping was some 4 to six inches "high", and generally slightly "right" of the actual aiming point on center of target. Many have immediately "jumped" onto this information with no knowledge and have thereafter attempted to utililze it to buttress their asinine claims that the rifle (Carcano) found on the sixth floor could not have even been utilized by anyone during the shooting, as no one could have hit anything with it due to the failure of the sighting mechanicism (scope) to be able to align with and hit the target. Even many of the supposedly "shooters" have never taken the time to explain a few of the items necessary for accurate shooting, which would have also shed some light onto this subject. It would appear to the unobservant, then, that if the MC in police custody actually was the weapon of choice of the assassin...UNLESS the assassin was left-eye dominant, [or knew how to compensate for the sight], the only "logical" conclusion would be that he actually intended to shoot JACKIE in the derrierre, and "accidentally" hit JFK in the head. [High and to the right...correct?] Am I close?

I read Dawn's post as a comment on your statement that "of course such sarcasm would be below me." In other words, I took it to mean that Dawn thought that "such sarcasm" was NOT beneath you...without comment on the information found on the link. And if I took Dawn's comments as they were meant, I tend to agree with her...based upon your posts of the past several years. But enough about you [and me]...let's keep the discussion on course.

Tom, I must be a bit more dense than usual today...that "shot" wasn't even "on the paper" with me. IOW, not sure if it was a reference to the effects of the scope being mounted as it was, or what other element you may have had in mind. It was a long day at work today, and my thinking apparatus is operating at a low level of efficiency.

This forum has served as a marketplace of ideas and information regarding the JFK assassination, one without peer on the entire internet. Occasionally, an impassioned poster crosses the line between discussion and argument [argument being the more vulgar and less civilized of the two]. Upon occasion, I've found Andy's comments to be more akin to adding gasoline to the fires, but that IS simply my perception, and I also recognize that Andy has a right, as owner of the house, to both set AND to violate the house rules at will. That's one of the perks of ownership, and I accept it because it simply goes with the territory. Having said that, I've witnessed some of the situation with Jack White, and I'm saddened by what has transpired. While Jack has contributed to the collective knowledge about the JFK assassination, of late Jack's on-site behavior has prompted me to feel sympathy for Jack...NOT because his posts are being moderated, but because he feels persecuted by the whole ordeal. AS for Jack's tormentors, one must also remember that, when driving, the driver who precipitates the accident often escapes unscathed, to cause someone else to crash and burn another day. And the insurance companies reward the unscathed driver, oblivious to the carnage their favored drivers have caused. I sense a parallel in the forum here. But it's not MY house. It's John's and Andy's world here, and I'm just walkin' through it. I believe I have finally reached the point where most often I choose to withdraw upon occasion, rather than to respond when baited and risk expulsion from the forum. It's a shame that someone of Jack White's stature in the assassination community hasn't apparently seen the value in walking away from a fight, and returning to make his point on another day.