Mark Knight

OK...so my initial use of the term "stripper clip" was actually correct, because that's essentially what this is.

Ever hear of "How To Win Friends And Influence People, " by Dale Carnegie? While I admire your loyalty to Marina, I think it comes at the cost of your objectivity...might be wrong, but that's how it appears to me. I don't doubt that Marina's a lovely person who was placed in a difficult situation 42 years ago, and I believe that some of her questioners/"interrogators" were probably not as kind--or as intelligent, apparently--as they might have been. I believe that Marina was victimized by the system. But apparent inconsistencies in her testimony cannot be overlooked simply because she's a lovely person. And THAT is where your pit-bull persona comes to the forefront, Mr. Carroll. It's NOT harassment to seek answers to LEGITIMATE questions about inconsistencies. And it is at that point that it becomes apparent to me that you have surrendered any objectivity you may have once had concerning Marina.

Well, Mr. Slattery finally reveals WHY he's here...to save the lost, I suppose he'd call it. Still curious who his client(s) is(are) that directed him to work his public-relations magic here. And I still recommend those Dale Carnegie books. Interesting to find someone working in public relations who has trouble having good "relations" with the "public." Promoting hostility in a witness may elicit the testimony you want, but promoting hostility in a jury is hardly an effective way to obtain a verdict in your favor. The Rybka incident is NOT the "Rosetta Stone" of the assassination; but neither is the WC Report...although it might contain bits and pieces of information, separate from the conclusions, that may eventually lead to the truth. [My guess is that the truth leads thru Montreal; just the mention of Montreal, Robert Emmett Johnson, and Mannlicher-Carcano in the same sentence apparently has silenced Hemming...he won't even tell me that I'm full of xxxx on the subject, in his inimitable yet endearing way.] The Rybka absence from the motorcade after Love Field was NOT an insurmountable obstacle; Roberts simply assigns another agent to take Rybka's place while the motorcade is proceeding, and that's that. "Hey, you...you move up to the right front." The primary SS job is the protection of the President, right? So you don't just leave him unprotected, simply because ONE of your agents got left behind; instead, you adjust. And I think Roberts was intelligent enough to figure this out BEFORE the motorcade arrived in Dealy Plaza.

American cars built after 1940 didn't have running boards. In fact, it was a common gag in comedies in the 1940's for police and others to attempt to climb onto the now-nonexistent running boards in order to engage in a pursuit, shouting, "FOLLOW THAT CAR!!!" as they fell to the ground. Exceptions are purpose-built cars, such as the "Queen Mary," which had running boards ADDED for use by Secret Service agents. And pickup trucks continued to have running boards until the late 1950's, with stepside pickups still retaining a step that resembled a running board long after that point. But a 1956 Pontiac with running boards would've stood out like a psychedelic paint job in 1963.

For the sake of accuracy, this "Nash Rambler" thing is bugging me. As of May 1, 1954, Nash-Kelvinator Corp. and the Hudson Motor Car Co. merged and became American Motors Corp.[AMC]. For the 1955 and 1956 model years, Ramblers were sold with both Hudson and Nash insignias, but after the 1956 models, there were NO "Nash Ramblers," as Rambler was marketed by AMC as a separate brand. After the 1957 model year, BOTH the Hudson and Nash names were retired by AMC, and the products were strictly "Rambler". So any identification of a post-1956 Rambler as a "Nash Rambler" is in error. Folks persisted in referring to "Nash Ramblers," but after 1956, there simply was no such car produced. And, FWIW, the Rambler name that Nash revived in 1950 was retired by AMC after the 1969 model year.

Personally, I find nothing sinister in Rybka's actions that day. Neither do I propose that, had Rybka been with his SS compadres in Dealy Plaza that day, he might have "saved the day." I doubt that anyone could have prevented what happened there, from ANY position within the motorcade. As Mr. Turner pointed out, "some things just happened...", without any conspiratorial connotations. My comments have more to do with Mr. Slattery's tendancy to drive brads with a sledgehammer when constructing his arguments...which in turn leads me to question his motivations. As I previously suggested, simple persuasive arguments would be a bit less of a turn-off...and I still recommend the Carnegie books to Mr. Slattery. I choose to refrain from responding in kind to Mr. Slattery's personal attacks. But don't flatter yourself with the "personal stalker" thoughts, Mr. Slattery...you're not THAT important in this life, and I shan't miss you when you and the other disciples of Posner finally go.

I was researching this last night...still can't find where the reference linking the Hidell alias and deMohrenschildt's daughter came from, but I'll continue to pursue it...I know I saw it somewhere. But you're right...her name was/is Alexandra, [and her father referred to her as Alex in his WC interview] and she was about 18-19 years of age when the assassination occurred.

Still wondering who the client is whose interests Mr. Slattery is representing on the forum here. Mr. Slattery seems to have an agenda, one particularly skewed toward stifling discussion, IMHO...choosing to assault the reader with a verbal broadaxe rather than attempting to persuade the reader. If he was sincere in his beliefs, I would tend to think that persuasion would be his tactic; instead, he apparently prefers the "hachet-man" approach. I meant it when I recommended on another thread that Mr. Slattery read the works of Dale Carnegie...providing he could put the lessons into practice, and providing the facts are on his side, his posts might actually sway some participants to his point of view.

Maybe this is one of those deals where the answer actually IS: "Well, I could tell you; but then I'd have to kill you." [...only HALF joking...]

I suspect Mr. Johansson will reply as soon as Wim gets back to him...and not a moment sooner.

Not sure where I say it, but I believe the female Hidell reference was to an "Alice" Hidell, rather than Anna...IIRC, the post I saw speculated whether "Alice" Hidell might have been something misheard [Alec/Alex/Alice], or whether it was an attempt to tie in DeMorenschildt's daughter, Alice to further muddy the waters. [i don't even recall whether the claim that DeMohrenschildt had a daughter named Alice was accurate or not].

Pat, I WAS one of those Perot voters. With GHW Bush, it wasn't "just" the "vision thing;" it was the fact that he came across as out-of-touch with common Americans. He couldn't tell reporters what a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk sold for! Of course, his servants and housekeepers probably had done all his shopping for years prior to his election, but the PERCEPTION was that he'd "become" out-of-touch with the things that concerned "average" Americans. Perot made more sense, at least on the subject of the economy, than did EITHER of the major-party candidates. His prediction of a "large sucking sound" as jobs left America due to NAFTA [actually, nowadays due to ALL the free-trade agreements] was correct. And he was pushing to reform Social Security long before Dubya came along. Clinton came off as a snake-oil salesman to me...and that judgement proved pretty well correct as well. In my previous post, I was anticipating the arguments from certain pro-Bush parties that Perot "robbed" Bush I of his divine-right second term.

And this advances the discussion of the JFK assassination in exactly WHAT way? That YOU have managed to silence someone else [albeit by his own choice]? My point, in case you missed it, Mr. Slattery, is that I believe the purpose of your presence here is to STIFLE, rather than ENCOURAGE, discussion. Some of us are less easily intimidated...I'm not going anywhere.

Aside from what's been posted here on the forum, I've emailed Gerry hemming several times regarding the connection, if any, between Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, Robert Emmett Johnson, and Montreal. Hemming has referred to having a great deal of knowledge on these subjects. To date, Hemming has not replied to any of my queries this direction. Oddly enough, he still forwards me emails that he finds interesting from other sources on unrelated topics...so I take that to mean that, while he's still active on his computer, he chooses not to respond to the subject regarding Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, Robert Emmett Johnson, and Montreal. Whether this means that he knows nothing of a connection; or that he knows of a connection but cannot--or will not--reveal what he knows; or that perhaps he thinks I might have uncovered something, and refuses to confirm...I don't know what's going on between his ears. But I would've thought that if he was convinced I was way off base, he would've told me that. Not sure how to translate his total silence on the matter...because, to anyone familiar with Hemming's posts here on the forum, silence ain't his style, especially if he believes you're way off track. So I'm left to wonder just what this lack of response actually means.

Mr. Slattery wrote: That's not totally untrue. Of course, it compares to Republican claims that ROSS PEROT, and NOT Bill Clinton, actually defeated George H. W. Bush in 1992. Now, before Mr. Slattery roars back claiming that I must be a Clinton supporter--which, by the way I'm not--had the voters actually been LISTENING to what the candidates said in 1992, Mr. Perot would've occupied the White House, and NOT Mr. Clinton. Despite the success of Operation Desert Storm, Mr. Bush had a serious credibility problem, beginning with "Read my lips--NO NEW TAXES." In other words, Ross Perot did to Mr. Bush in 1992 what Nixon feared that George Wallace would do to him in 1972...which, of course, explains the shooting of Wallace. I just don't understand how the Republicans let that happen, and THEN decided in 1996 that Perot was a 'fruitcake,' four years after the damage had been done. Of course, in light of what happened to Wallace, I'm surprised Perot remained healthy until the 1992 election. But the fact that he did, and the resulting defeat of Bush in 1992, only serve to further convince me that the Wallace shooting was a bit CREEP-y.

I'd like to once again point out that Mr. Slattery's all-too-brief biography on this forum states that he works in "public relations." Makes me wonder who is the client whose interest Mr. Slattery is representing on this forum. Folks, I'd tend to believe that someone on this forum must have uncovered an "inconvenient" truth or so, for a PR man to have been assigned to the forum. Now, if we could just figure out whose research it was, and what the "inconvenient" truth was, we might suddenly find ourselves closer to solving the ultimate mystery of MY lifetime. And any comparisons between Mr. Slattery and Mr. Gratz are totally unfair...to Mr. Gratz. While Mr. Gratz and I have political views nearly 180 degrees apart, at least Mr. Gratz could put forth an argument light on the venom and heavy on the research. Mr. Slattery has, to this point, shown no inclination to do likewise.

On another thread, James Richards wrote: Hmmmmm...and Mr. Slattery claims to be in the public relations business as well. Can't say as I'm pleased to make your acquaintance, Mr. Slattery. Pretty slim bio on this site, as well...evidently you never existed before you went into the PR business, if your bio is any indication. The only reason I researched Mr. Slattery was due to the comments of another poster on this forum who had evidently encountered Mr. Slattery himself on another unrelated forum. Rather than relying on heresay, I thought it best to see the evidence for myself. If that makes me paranoid, then the definition of paranoia has changed a great deal since I last checked. I checked your McAdams link...and it's essentially a regurgitation of the WC Report's visit to their version of Fantasy Island. Got any others...sources who have NO connection to EITHER side of the LN/CT debate? THOSE are the sources that I'd consider impartial; others have an axe to grind one direction or the other, and are therefore of limited value. Mr Carroll wrote: Mr. Carroll, I'm not qualified to determine just how informed or uninformed Mr. Slattery is; but I believe he thinks he's saving the world on this forum...and I believe he's wrong as well.

For some decent photos of Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, I found an auction site that has a great number and excellent detail: Auction Pics and for a variety of Carcanos, try the same seller's website: Carcano Variety Pack These photos are more clear than most I've seen on the internet, and just might help folks understand some of the differences in the rifles. AND...in the first link...pay attention to photo #13 and the detail of the sling swivel.

Now, if we can keep Wim speaking through Mr. Johanssen, and Gary Mack speaking through Bill Miller, perhaps the Smithsonian might allow us to borrow Charlie McCarthy so that we might seek out another Edgar Bergen and form a trio of ventriloquists.

Mr. Slattery, I've done my homework, and I've seen your posts on other forums. [Thanks, Google.] I had therefore assumed that, as long as I steered clear of mentioning the Bush family, you might keep me out of your sights; I was mistaken. I believe there were more than ample grounds to bring Oswald in for questioning. I believe that there was sufficient grounds to charge him with the Tippit shooting, although I'd have left it up to a jury as to whether to convict. But in the case of the shooting of the President, what evidence IS irrefutable is not enough to convict. I consider the "evidence" linking Oswald to a particular rifle purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods to be what it appears, a possible fabrication...based upon the grossly out-of sequence money order produced by postal inspector Harry Hines, along with other questionable material Hines provided regarding the Dallas post office box ["we no longer have the record...but the FBI says other information that might tend to exhonerate Oswald differs from what's on the record...which we no longer have."] The test for nitrates cannot prove a positive, but police departments in 1963 used it to DISPROVE a NEGATIVE. If traces of nitrates DON'T show up on Oswald's cheek, then he didn't fire a rifle. The test was negative for nitrates on Osawld's cheek. The test on his hands, however, was positive; therefore, it's entirely likely--especially in light of the fact that he was carring a pistol when apprehended--that Oswald fired that pistol that day. The test will NOT prove with certainty that Oswald DID fire a pistol, as other sources can also result in a positive test for nitrates. But the ABSENCE of nitrates on Oswald's cheek almost certainly indicate that he didn't fire a rifle that day. If not Oswald, then WHO might have fired that rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD? We may never know, because nobody was asking that question in 1963. In fact, the Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT tested to see if there was any fouling in the barrel, which would indicate that it had been fired since its last cleaning. Obviously, nobody had time to clean the rifle AFTER the assassination; yet the gun was never tested to see whether it had been fired since its last cleaning. Had the rifle been tested, and had it been determined that it had NOT been fired since its last cleaning, that would indicate that the rifle was a "plant." The only bullet involved in the assassination that was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano is CE399; and the chain of evidence supporting that bullet as evidence is weak. Other bullet fragments recovered were called "similar" in composition, but they could not POSITIVELY be identified as having come from CE 139, to the exclusion of ALL other rifles. So, based upon the EVIDENCE--which is the standard used to convict--there is more chance that Oswald shot Tippit [at least once, with a nonjacketed lead bullet] than there is that he fired three times at the President. The preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald probably DID shoot Tippit, but it's simply not clear beyond a reasonable doubt, BASED STRICTLY UPON THE EVIDENCE, that Oswald fired even ONE shot at the President. The WC used a lot of "coulda-woulda-shoulda" to explain how Oswald COULD HAVE run down the stairs and have been standing in front of the vending machine when Officer Baker encountered him there, but they didn't establish that it actually DID happen that way. On the other hand, the HSCA has established that there COULDA been a 4th shot, based upon Dictabelt recordings from DPD Channel 1; but if there actually WAS a 4th shot within the specified time frame, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for all 4 to have come from the TSBD and the M-C rifle...which then would prove a second shooter, and a possible conspiracy...but that would eliminate the "Oswald-as-a-lone-nut" scenario, which then calls Oswald's participation itself back into question. Funny how the WC itself used a LOT of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" to make THEIR case, but any conflicting scenario that employs the same techinques is written off by WC defenders as "wild speculation." Double standards simply are what they are.

Now, let me see if I'm following the program here... According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did; the second shot coincided with Z-frames 312/313; and there was a third shot AFTER that. OK, perhaps I can buy that...and perhaps all 3 shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and all 3 shots were fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano. Where the LN/LHO story falls apart is the negative result in the test for nitrates on Oswald's cheek, IMHO. So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day. Has that about covered it?

Hey, Duke: If you'd have checked the links in my post above, you'd have known about BWF and Parkland/NOT Parkland. Read The Document, Duke Hope this helps clear THAT matter up. Y'know, I posted those links so you folks could read the documents; it wasn't an attempt merely to show that I could cut and paste links. Sorry you didn't see it as having anything valuable to offer to the discussion. I'll refrain hereafter from such misguided attempts at clarifying things, as apparently such efforts are a waste of time.

DPD and Frazier Frazier's Statement, p.1 Frazier's statement, p.2 Frazier's Statement, p.3 Frazier's Statement, p.4 Lovelady's Statement...no mention of Frazier DPD Property Clerk's Receipt for Frazier's rifle

Now, let me see if I've got the timeline here correct: 1. The interview allegedly took place in 1992; 2. Holt allegedly died in 1997; 3. Holt mentions IN THIS INTERVIEW that "...Tony Po, Poshepny, he died in 2003." So Holt knew about Poshepny's death 11 years BEFORE it occurred, even though it was 6 years AFTER Holt's own death... It's a damn shame nobody thought to ask him about this coming Saturday night's winning lottery numbers as well. THAT'S what jumped out at ME. Tell Wim to try it again, Mr. Johansson, 'cause "THIS dog won't hunt," as they say. Because if the timeline is correct, either: 1. Holt was alive AFTER 2003 to have made that statement; 2. Holt was prophesying about future events, which were to occur after his 1997 death; or 3. The alleged Holt interview is a fabrication by someone not sharp enough to cover his own tracks. I vote for option 3.

As an observer, it appears to me that Mr. Carroll may have become so close to Marina Oswald Porter as to have sacrificed any objectivity. This is not to condemn either Marina or Mr. Carroll; it just happens sometimes, as with journalists, cops, and even Mr. Gratz and the Republican Party. I've read nothing in Mr. Parsons' posts that sound derogatory toward Marina, in my mind. In any investigation, an objective investigator must constantly entertain the possibility that ANY of the principals and/or witnesses may have misspoken, exaggerated, or even outright lied. If one takes every piece of testimony at face value, EVERY convicted murderer who didn't plead guilty must be innocent. And that's just as absurd as assuming that every witness against said murderers didn't ever misspeak, exaggerate, assume, or imply things that might not be 100% true. In a recent local murder case, in which several witnesses saw one man gun down another at a McDonald's restaurant, the accused's sister--who WASN'T there when the crime occurred--claims he couldn't possibly have done the deed, because "he's just not that kind of a guy." See any parallels with Marina's story? [i'm not convinced that LHO pulled the trigger; but Marina's story that the Lee she knew could never have done the deed strikes me as a parallel, since in both cases there are witnesses who say otherwise.] So Mr. Carroll, I think you should lighten up on Mr. Parsons. It's obvious to me that he's not out to crucify Marina; rather, he's pointing out obvious discrepancies. And if you could step back and reclaim some objectivity for a moment, I think you'd agree with me.