Mark Knight

Actually, I'm mostly inclined to agree with Tom Purvis...except for the whereabouts of Oswald at 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963. Did I not somewhere see evidence that Billy Lovelady claimed he was wearing a striped shirt that day?...and yet the man on the steps of the TSBD in the Altgens pic is wearing, essentially, what Oswald wore to work that day...yet the "experts" claim that it's Lovelady on the steps, without a doubt. For this detail to work, Lovelady and Oswald must've swapped clothes prior to the photo...and apparently swapped back by the time Baker encountered Oswald before/during/after [depending on whose account it is] Oswald's purchase of a Coke less than a minute later. Somehow, I just can't get my mind around that one. Either Lovelady is lying about what he wore to work that day...for no apparent reason...or...there's an element of deception in the photographic evidence. I tend NOT to believe in wholesale photo alteration.

In the USPO days, the job of postmaster was one ultimately decided by political patronage. In the region around Louisville, KY, the main arbiter of postal patronage jobs was Bremer Ehrler, postmaster of the main Louisville post office and thereby also head of regional mail service that emanated from Louisville into nearby southern Indiana. After the changeover to the USPS, Ehrler resigned his postal position and became a power broker for the Democratic Party in Louisville and Jefferson County, KY. Ehrler never held a major political office, although he ran for several over the years. Dad always said than one who worked in the post office always knew what was going on in his local community...whose mail was being sent to an address different from his/her spouse, who came back from a Vegas vacation and subsequently purchased a large money order destined for some casino, and how that person's ransomed jewelry would return from that casino via registered mail in a few days...but the details weren't revealed outside the confines of the particular post office. If there was an investigation by the Postal Inspectors taking place, some of that information might be sought by the inspectors. So I would suppose that, had Oswald's transactions through the mail raised the suspicions of any postal clerk, the Postal Inspection Service would have been notified, and someone like Harry would have known nearly as much about Oswald at 12:29 pm on November 22, 1963 as Oswald himself.

Folks, I think you're overlooking something important that Tom Purvis has pointed out. This level of planning required to pull off what appears to have been done from the TSBD was FAR over and above the level of training that Oswald could have acquired in the Marines...under ordinary circumstances. This, then, begs the question...were the circumstances of Oswald's training over and above those a normal Marine might have received? Also, Tom points out that the SW window of the sixth floor would have provided an alternative line of fire, had the SE window line of fire been blocked by SS agents on the bumper of the car, or whatever else. But it would've been impossible, IMHO, for a shooter in a prone or kneeling position in the SE window, to have moved to the SW window quickly enough for the SW window to have been effective, had the need to use it have arisen. Assuming this, then, would imply that there would HAD to have been TWO shooters on the sixth floor of the TSBD...which makes the case for conspiracy. Thoughts?

John, in 1968, while it was still the USPO, my dad took the Civil Service Test and was hired by the USPO to work in the small office in our hometown. The postmaster was a political appointee, and most of the employees at the time were Democrats. There were one or two Republicans, but they apparently were hired on the basis of merit rather than test scores + political affiliation. [One of the letter carriers was an ex-Marine, who got into the Post Office based primarily on a 15-point "preference" for disabled veterans...despite the fact that his was a MENTAL disability]. So Dad saw the changeover from the USPO to the USPS. In 1972, as a 18-year-old, I won a contract to lease a parcel-post vehicle to the local post office. The post office would use the station wagon to deliver parcels in town, and to drop off "relays" of sorted mail to "relay boxes" around town. The relay boxes were shaped like a traditional mail dropbox, but were painted an olive-drab green instead of the blue of a traditional mail dropbox, and had no letter slot. When my contract vehicle suffered some vandalism on the Post Office lot, the Postal Inspection Service was called in. Dad told me that his understanding was that the Postal Inspectors had all the power and authority of an FBI or ATF agent, but weren't necessarily constrained by the same rules of evidence and procedure that conventional cops had to deal with...unofficially, of course. They were the "Dirty Harry" version of the Feds, as I was led to understand it...pun intended. Elloitt Ness couldn't have been any more "untouchable" than these guys. And Harry Holmes seems to fit this sort of profile exactly.

Tom, I've been following your various posts on this topic for quite some time...and from what I know of the FACTS, I've been inclined to believe that there is a basis for what you've been hinting at for quite some time. But it was not until post #63 on this thread that I've ever read where you came right out and said what you've only suggested or hinted at previously. As an observer, I believe this is what has your critics so frustrated with you...for, after a couple of years, you finally came out and said what you've only suggested and hinted at before. I was also surprised that I agreed with Mr. Healy's post. But all the bickering between Healy, Lamson, Miller et al re: alteration of the Z-film has actually steered me away from that discussion ["argument" might be a better term, although the mental picture of monkeys throwing fecal matter at one another seems a better description]. What their bickering has obscured is the obvious: perhaps the focus on alteration of the Z-film SHOULD be on frames being removed--both to eliminate/obscure the alleged "stop" of the motorcade, and the actual third shot--and not so much on altering the contents of any particular frame of the film. For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film. And for the shots to have been fired from the southeast window of the sixth floor of the TSBD, the shooter had to be firing from a kneeling/crouching/nearly prone position, due to the LACK of distance from the window sill to the floor...based upon the testimony of those who claim to have seen a shooter in the window. SO...am I beginning to understand, Tom?

According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, whether or not the Geneva Convention applies depends upon whether these folks are considered "lawful" or "unlawful enemy combatants. But sounds like what the Prez is proposing would've been right up Mr. Hemming's alley "back in the day." As Gerry might say, Chairs

More good stuff, Professor P!

Good, stuff, Professor Tom!

Tom, Sorry for my tardiness...but I no longer "come out to play" here on a daily basis. [When I did, strange things kept happening to my computer...probably just a coincidence.] Evidently I missed the photos you had originally posted with your most recent series of posts. So I obviously missed the point(s) your photos were supposed to make. And while you have my last name confused, probably with Gerald McKnight, I won't complain about being remembered with such company...although Mr. McKnight may not feel the same way about the situation.

I think the Gerald Ford Center for the Study of Assassinations should be located adjacent to the Richard M. Nixon Center for the Encouragement of Governmental Ethics and the William J. Clinton Center for the Promotion of Marital Fidelity.

Bill, I have no intention of getting into an argument with you about this. I'm just trying to understand what I'm seeing by relating it to how MY body moves when occupying a sitting position. I won't attempt to insult you, and I trust you'll return the favor. And the fact is, I just can't duplicate with MY body, what I'm [apparently] seeing in your interpretation of the Z-film...but then, I'm older than JFK was then, and my parts don't quite move like a 46 year-old's anymore. So that might explain a lot of the problem I have in understanding all this. But I suppose my point in all this is...if JFK is apparently turning toward Jackie, as he appears to be doing prior to this backward shoulder movement, what sort of VIOLENT force would cause this degree of movement of the right shoulder in a single frame--0.0546 seconds, by my calculations--but still allow the head to continue to move FORWARD and DOWNWARD? I just can't get my mind around the dynamics of what appears to be happening. I agree, for the most part, about what you say we're seeing...I just can't for the life of me figure it out...it's as if something is already driving his right shoulder backwards, as in the back-and-left movement, but it's apparently NOT any kind of impact to the head, since the head is continuing forward and downward. And it's apparently NOT a result of the limo accelerating, since all of JFK would be rocked back in the seat...and if the limo was decelerating, the shoulder woulr move forward, not backward. THAT's the part I'm having trouble with. So I'm not arguing with you so much as I'm just seeking some sort of clarification, as to WHY I should be seeing what I'm apparently seeing.

There is no need for the waist to pivot at all. Someone can nudge your shoulder without you turning your waist. I have demonstrated this movement many times on others, so I would have to be there with you to see why you are not accomplishing it on your own. The movement is so natural that as I said, Al Carrier (trained in CSI) was able to give a good explanation for it as told to him by some of the experts he knew. If it didn't happen the way I have said, then you too, need to explain the absense of the rotation that should have occurred with JFK and Jackie between Z312 and Z313. Bill Miller OK, Mr. Miller...I should've been more specific. What I was attempting to say was that one cannot move the head forward and downward [and to the right] while simultaneously moving the right shoulder backwards--while keeping the left shoulder relatively motionless--without pivoting the spine to the right at or near the waist. And the fact that JFK, just prior, is in the process of pivoting to the LEFT...??? To do this without dropping the left shoulder takes a large amount of rearward motion at the right elbow, for which I just don't see the evidence in the Z-film. Try it yourself while sitting at your computer--WITHOUT someone exerting outside force on your body...hands raised towards the neck...then suddenly induce the rearward motion to your shoulder while suddenly and violently moving your head downward and to the right...WITHOUT generating a corresponding significant drop of the LEFT shoulder OR major rearward movement of the right elbow...this is practically impossible. Yet the film doesn't appear to show such a drop of the left shoulder, OR a corresponding radical rearward movement of the right elbow...which leads me to conclude that what you're seeing is probably an anomaly from your "image stabilization" process, and not an actual rearward movement of the right shoulder. BUT...as I said before...I could be wrong.

Here's a very unscientific experiment to determine if what Bill Miller is saying actually occurs. Right now, you're more than likely sitting in a chair in front of your terminal...imagine yourself to be JFK in the limo, prior to Z313. Now...place your hands near your throat...that's good...now jerk your head downward and forward while simultaneously moving your right shoulder backward. What did you observe? In multiple attempts, I only managed to pivot at the waist TO THE RIGHT--away from Jackie's position--when moving my shoulder rearward. The ONLY way I've found to move the shoulder rearward without having some pivot action toward the right is by RAISING the head, NOT by moving it forward and down. The only problem I have with that is...in the Z-film, I don't see where JFK turns away from Jackie; in fact, it appears to me that, until the head shot, he's attempting to turn TOWARD Jackie. Maybe my perceptions are wrong...but attempting to make my body move the way Bill Miller insists that JFK's does is to imply that there was a sudden reversal in direction of his torso, and quite opposite of the apparent movement of his head. Did I miss something? Or am I essentially in agreement with Bill Miller, and simply don't realize it?

Oh, I get it...this post of yours was just what we called a "teaser" when I was in radio...as in, you don't actually plan to expound on your evidence; you just want to draw some attention to your forthcoming book. OK...I just thought you might discuss your information here on a discussion forum. It's your book, so it's your call.

Mr. Varnell, I don't know what the TV stations showed where you lived on November 22, 1963...but where I lived, the local NBC affiliate aired Huntley and Brinkley, and the FILM showing Jackie in the blood- and brain-spattered dress over and over and over...just because they didn't have videotape, doesn't mean they didn't have the capacity to show FILM over and over and over...which is exactly what they DID. And the network coverage WAS nearly a 24-hour news cycle...for that entire weekend, from Friday thru Monday, regular programming was suspended. And since not everything going on WAS news, the network showed several of the film clips repeatedly. No, it wasn't as frequently as CNN's headline news on the half-hour; but it WAS enough to sear the image of the widow in the blood-soaked, brain-spattered dress into the collective consciousness of America. Or at least the consciousness of those of us who WATCHED it on TV...which I believe you admitted you DIDN'T. So...if you didn't see the coverage as it happened, have you watched the kinescopes? Or are you simply drawing your conclusions from what you "think" went on the air in 1963? I actually SAW the coverage in 1963, and SAW the repeated showings of Jackie in the blood-soaked and brain-spattered dress; therefore, my defense of Terry's recollections are based upon my own recollections, which apparently were similar. You, sir--unless you've since watched the kinescopes of the coverage--are merely basing your position on what you've either read or have been told. While I don't doubt the quality of your research, I think in this particular case you're making assumptions which haven't any basis in fact. But Merry Christmas to you anyway.

Obviously Mr. Varnell lived in a VERY different world than I did in 1963. I was a 9 year old kid, a Cub Scout, and I was proud of America and its president and what the nation stood for. One of the first things we did in Mrs. Broglin's 3rd grade class the year before was to learn the names of all the members of President Kennedy's cabinet. On November 22, 1963, my 4th grade class was enjoying a post-lunch recess when a friend who'd just emerged from a trip to the restroom inside the building came running up, breathless, shouting that President Kennedy had been shot. We all called him a xxxx, but he insisted that when he passed the principal's office, he'd seen Mr. Crowley standing in front of the black-and-white TV there with tears coming down his face. We returned to class after recess, and a short time later the intercom in the classroom crackled to life. "May I have your attention, please? The President is dead...I repeat, the President is dead..," Mr Crowley announced, his voice trailing off. We were dismissed early from classes, just as soon as they could round up the school bus drivers. As our bus drove through town, I saw more Civil Defense vehicles on streetcorners than I'd ever seen in my life. The thought that the country might be under nuclear attack was an overriding concern. I spent that evening and the next 3 days glued to the television, a witness to the history that was being made. The casket being unloaded at Andrews, and LBJ's brief speech there...the crowds filing into the Capitol Rotunda as the President's body lay in state...powerful images, all. Three days after the President of the United States was gunned down on an American street, watching DeGaulle and Adenauer and the other foreign heads of state walking in the funeral procession, relatively unprotected...that was a strong image...John-John's salute...the lighting of the flame... Maybe all of this escaped Mr. Varnell's notice. But where I live, the nation spent an entire weekend in shock and sorrow, and the MAXIMUM VISUAL EFFECT was Jackie still wearing that dress, stained with her husband's blood and brains, when she got off the plane at Andrews AFB. Sorry you missed that detail, Mr. Varnell. Not trying to jump into Terry's fight; I just wanted to demonstrate, Mr. Varnell, that there were some of us nearly the same age as you whose whole world was jarred by the events of November 22, 1963,to an extent much greater than simply pouting after discovering that Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear and Fred Flintstone wouldn't be on TV that afternoon or evening.

OK, I acknowledge your claim. Do you have any evidence to back it up...documents, sources...anything?

Oh, yeah...like the 10 pages of John Lennon related documents from his FBI file, held on "national security" grounds, that merely had information that was altready common knowledge? IOW, don't get your hopes too high. Here's the story from the Associated Press: FBI Releases Final John Lennon Files From Associated Press December 20, 2006 10:20 PM EST LOS ANGELES - The FBI has released its final surveillance documents on John Lennon to a university historian who has waged a 25-year legal battle to obtain the secret files. The 10 pages contain new details about Lennon's ties to leftist and anti-war groups in London in the early 1970s, but nothing indicating government officials considered the former Beatle a serious threat, historian Jon Wiener told the Los Angeles Times in Wednesday's editions. The FBI had unsuccessfully argued that an unnamed foreign government secretly provided the information, and that releasing the documents could lead to diplomatic, political or economic retaliation against the United States. The newly released documents include a surveillance report stating that two prominent British leftists had courted Lennon in hopes that he would finance "a left-wing bookshop and reading room in London" but that Lennon gave them no money. Another page states that there was "no certain proof" that Lennon had provided money "for subversive purposes." "I doubt that Tony Blair's government will launch a military strike on the U.S. in retaliation for the release of these documents," Wiener told the newspaper. "Today, we can see that the national security claims that the FBI has been making for 25 years were absurd from the beginning." Wiener first requested the documents in 1981, several months after he decided to write a book about Lennon following the singer's murder. He initially obtained some documents, but the FBI withheld numerous files, saying they contained national security information and were exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Wiener sued the government and received a number of files in 1997 as part of a settlement with the FBI. Justice Department lawyers continued to withhold the final 10 pages until a federal judge in 2004 ordered their release. The previously released files showed that the FBI closely monitored Lennon from 1971 to 1972. A one-paragraph document in the newly released files said: "Since 1972, Lennon has continued from time to time to lend his support to various extremist causes, but does not appear to owe allegiance to any one faction." The documents mention an interview Lennon gave in 1971 to the London underground newspaper Red Mole in which he "emphasized his proletarian background and his sympathy with the oppressed and underprivileged." Lennon "implied that he was sympathetic" to a Trotskyist communist group, the document said. The documents reveal "government paranoia at a pathological level," said a statement by Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which helped represent Wiener in the case. Said Tariq Ali, a British leftist named in the Lennon file, in an e-mail: "What is amusing is the pathetic character of the information. Of course the surveillance carried out by Western democracies is as disturbing now as it was then." Representatives of the FBI in Washington, D.C., had no comment on the release of the material. A call to the Justice Department was not returned. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Mark, This sounds too much like an Ian Fleming 007 Goldfinger job, or more like the short story of Fleming's Octopussy, when secret service investigator James Bond visits a retired officer living on the North Shore Jamaica beach, and presents evidence of his obtaining Nazi gold during military ops in WWII. Or is this the same plot as Kelly's Heros? BK Bill, I just figured that three-quarters of a BILLION dollars missing from the basement of the WTC might be slightly more significant than a few MILLION made on the NYSE from 9/11. I stand corrected. Obviously, I shouldn't have bothered to stay awake in all those basic math classes...a few million being more significant than nearly a billion and all. Yeah, that's it...three quarters of a billion is chump change compared to the few MILLION they made on Wall Street. I know it sounds like something from a movie plot. But the fact remains that the gold is missing...gold that was there the day before. Was it insured? I dunno...but if it was, perhaps that's why so little was said about it in the press. I don't see conspiracies everywhere, but I think a little "follow the money" here might yield some clues about what really happened at the WTC that day.

Bill, et al: RE: the WTC and 9/11, right after the incident I seemed to recall reading, years before, about gold bullion being stored in the basement of the WTC for some sort of trading purposes. Some Google research afterwards came up with a bit of research similar to this one: WTC Gold...not all recovered If 9/11 was a setup, it looks like it might have been a cover for a major gold heist...something like $1 billion there on 9/10, but only $230 million recovered. And some of the recovered gold was found already loaded on trucks?? Sounds like the heist was underway some time before the planes hit, in my opinion...otherwise, why wasn't the full $1 billion found? Somewthing to ponder, anyway...[i'd love to hear what someone like Hemming might have to say about this...talk about your ultimate cover for a bigtime robbery!] I think we may have discussed this before on the forum, but the search engine doesn't like my four-letter words [such as "gold"], so I can't find when that discussion might have been.

I doubt that Hemming is gonna post here anymore; at least that was the gist of a email he sent me several months back, in reply to a question or two I had regarding Montreal. If Gerry Hemming does comment here, I'll be very surprised.

Tom, the one thing you keep waving in the face of these doubters [and I'm one of the doubters that it was Oswald doing the shooting, although I will admit he was capable of the task at hand] that they're apparently failing to grasp is the phrase "SITTING POSITION." Go back and look at the photos from the INSIDE of the 6th floor window...look at the height of the sill from the floor. NO WAY was anyone shooting from a standing position! Ditto for a prone position. So that ONLY leaves...what, class? [All together now..."A SITTING POSITION!!!"] And Ozzie was best from WHAT firing position? Looking at the outside of the building, we naturally ASSUME that a standing position is possible; but as seen from the inside, ONLY a sitting/kneeling position would allow shooting from the southeasternmost window of the sixth floor of the TSBD. Too often, we let our eyes--and images like the outside of the TSBD--misinterpret what our brains are actually telling us. While I can't find enough evidence to indicate that it absolutely, positively was LHO in that window, I don't think LHO's shooting scores rule him out, either...given Tom's timeline on the shots.

Mark; Not unlike the sling/holster strap & holster, somewhere I have information relative to the ONLY location in Dallas which was dealing in the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo. .....Lastly, since LHO/the shooter fired from what was virtually a "bench rest" position (book cartons & window sill), there was little usage for a sling in providing stability for a shooting platform. Therefore, the sling provided another function, and for those familiar, it should be relatively obvious. MARK, WHY DO YOU SAY YOU'RE BETTING ON MONTREAL AS THE SOURCE? AND THP, WHAT IS THE OBVIOUS UTILITY OF THE SLING, IF NOT FOR HOLDING OR STABILITY? I THINK THE SLING, THE HOLSTER, THE SCOPE, THE CLIP, THE BULLETS AND THE SHELLS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE, THE ORIGINS OF WHICH CAN AND SHOULD BE DETERMINED WITH CERTAINTY. BK Bill, I tend to believe that the Klein's Sporting Goods evidence was manufactured...and according to CE2562, I also found it curious that there was so much mention made of Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods in Montreal and their handling of "parts" Carcanos, but no serial number records could be found...and the company which was in business in 1963 was out of business in early '64 and no records could be obtained from what was a going concern just a few short months earlier...and then follow the dots regarding Oswald's purchase of the pistol, through Seaport Traders...back to Empire Wholesale Sporting goods in Montreal! Interesting coincidence...especially in light of the thread here in which folks are trying to determine whether Oswald himself was in Montreal in 1963. [i'm guessing if he was, he picked the guns up there himself...cheaper that way, doncha know...] I'm just going with the odds that (1) the pistol originated in Montreal; and (2) perhaps the WC is wrong about C2766, and the MC also originated in Montreal; and (3) Ozzie himself may have been in Montreal...so the odds are suddenly better that perhaps the holster and strap were picked up on the same "shopping trip."

Just wanted to point out that, in the WC's examination of Oswald's finances, they didn't allow for him spending any money on the holster, the strap, ammunition for either the pistol or the MC, or the clip for the MC...so evidently, the holster and strap--as well as the other items--turned out to be a freebie, if you can believe the WC. Still makes you wonder where they came from. [i'm still betting on Montreal...]