Mark Knight

But not on the night of November 22, Tim. And IIRC, was not the Secret Service under a department OTHER THAN the Treasury Department prior to sometime in 1963? But it continues to intrigue me why Mr. Gratz continues to complain about investigating Mr. Dillon's background, if he is so sure that Dillon will be exonerated. If you truly believe Dillon to be innocent, step aside and let the investigation prove you correct, Tim. Or are you NOT so sure you're correct? [We ALL know you're "right," whether or not you're correct, Tim.]

Without a formal declaration of war by the Congress, or a declaration of martial law by the President, the powers of both the Congress and the President are limited, as specified in the Constitution; THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTE, as Mr. Purvis implies in his post. While some may argue that the President has the power to do as he pleases, one must also understand that the Founding Fathers of the United States, still smarting from being under the thumb of King George, wanted anything BUT an imperial presidency. THAT is why the Constitution was written as it was, with checks and balances on authority. The president does not have the power to make law; that power is reserved to the Congress. If the president wants a particular law passed, he mus first find a member of congress to introduce it as a bill before Congress. And while the president has the right to veto a law passed by Congress, the Congress, as the representatives of the people [in theory, anyway; lobbyists notwithstanding] have the right to override a presidential veto. And the judiciary has the authority to declare a law passed by the Congress to be contrary to the Consititution, or unconstitutional. But the President cannot declare a law unconstitutional, nor can he MAKE the laws; the concept of separation of powers was devised to insure that. Under Nixon, and now under GWB, the president tries to overstep his constitutionally-determined boundaries. It is the duty of the Congress, and the judiciary, to reign in such an assault on the Constitution; for an assault on the Constitution is an assault on the citizenry, as much so as any armed attack on our home soil would be. So Mr. Purvis' definition of preserving freedom is to take it away from the citizens? Perhaps he believes that freedom can be "preserved" in a jar, or on a shelf, like jams and jellies and corn and beans. If that is his stand, then he has no idea what freedom is. You can no more preserve freedom by putting it away in the pantry than you can preserve the a butterfly or a flower by pressing it into a book. Oh, you may well preserve the IMAGE of the flower or the butterfly, but you have lost its ESSENCE. Once you have lost the ESSENCE of freedom, it is as worthless as the pressed rose or the monarch butterfly under glass; pretty to look at, but devoid of its very substance. And life no longer comes forth from any of them.

John G., I have a question: What part of the US Constitution guarantees ANY rights to NON-US citizens? To the best of MY knowledge, the freedoms expressed by the US Constitution are guaranteed to US citizens, but not to citizens of any other nation...because the US has no authority over the citizens of any other nation. Thus, the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to freely assemble don't apply to persons who remain in Germany, England, Australia, or elsewhere, as they are subject to the laws of their own land of domicile. Or do I misunderstand the law? Electronic communications constitute a world that didn't exist in 1789; I understand that. However, [as I understand the law] as a resident of England, John Simkin would have no standing to sue the US government for the violation of his freedom of speech, based upon intercepted communications that originated in England; but if said intercepted communications were directed to a citizen of the US, that US citizen would have grounds upon which to base a constitutional challenge, should he/she so choose. In other words, I don't know of the existence of ANY international law guaranteeing freedom of speech...and, in an international transaction, the laws of one country don't always apply to residents of the other. [Example: international phone calls to the former Soviet Union in the 1960's were undoubtedly monitored by the Soviets; yet the fact that one party to the call may have been an American did not necessarily mean that American privacy rights applied.] Therefore, unless John becomes an American citizen, or is based on American soil, US constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech do not necessarily apply...as US law has no jurisdiction over British citizens on British soil. Laws governing international communications, to the best of my knowledge, would only apply to terms of treaties and memoranda of understanding between and among consenting individual nations; as far as I know, there is no universal, international guarantee of freedom of speech. If I am wrong, someone please correct me.

While Mr. Purvis has a right to his opinions of "the price of freedom," I tend to believe in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution as allowing me the right to be secure in my conversations, as an extension of being secure in my property, from unreasonable [i.e., warrantless] search and seizure, the right to refuse self-incrimination, and thereby an extension of my right of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. I should, under the US Consititution, have the right ot express my opinions to whomever I choose without feat of the conversation being intercepted by the US government or its agencies, unless I am expressing said opinions to those whose mail/communications are legally subject to interception and/or censorship, such as inmates in a detention facility. And I should also have a right to expect freedom from reprisals by the government as a result of said expressions of opinion...UNLESS there is a threat to kill the President, or advocacy of any other position which shall be considered a violation of existing law. In other words...unless the governmental agency has PROBABLE CAUSE to suspect that I intend to overthrow the government, or to kill the President, AND unless they use this information to obtain a COURT ORDER, my Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in my person and papers should extend to electronic communications as well. Otherwise, the US Constitution is meaningless, if it allows its GUARANTEES to be suspended at the will or whim of one or more government officials...and we are no longer a nation of laws, but of men...some more "equal" than others. God forbid that we should come to that!

The difference is, Gratz and I eventually move on; you guys never do. And NO, no one is holding a rifle to my head; that's why I've given up on making any sense of the Z-film threads, as they ALWAYS deteriorate into a grotesque David/Craig/Len menage-a-trois, with actual information and discussion being the final casualty. How THAT furthers any investigation is beyond human comprehension...but for those who LIKE soap operas, I suppose it MAY be entertaining. I'm nearly to the point of placing the three of you on "ingore" status, as so many of us did with Ms. Foster...and for most of the same reasons. My reluctance to do so is because I think you're all three fairly intelligent, and could offer something of value to the discussions here...if you should choose to do so. For the sake of the discussion, for the sake of helping inform those who are uninformed and who want to learn, I sincerely hope you choose to set aside the bickering and and personal attacks and get back to discussing and clarifying your points about the evidence. If that ticks you off, so be it. With your background, I think you folks could make some positive contributions, if only by agreeing to disagree and moving on.

Mark, I think this actually may be the answer: give these two a thread where they can "duke it out," as it were, and maybe add their other buddy to the mix...and let the rest of us actually discuss the Kennedy assassination, instead of their grade school playground fight over credentials/lack of same, namecalling, et cetera, ad infinitum. It's way PAST the stage where it got old. Now it's becoming tedious to wade through.

Thank you, Jack, for what I will credit as an expert opinion. Just sorry I had to wade through all the unproductive CRAP to find it.

Gratz: Lincoln's assassin, Mr. J.W. Booth, was seen by a theater full of people immediately after pulling the trigger, and as he leaped from the presidential box onto the stage below, smoking gun in hand. There is no smoking gun in Oswald's hand. While Booth's motives may be still debated 140+ years after the act, there is NO debate on who pulled the trigger. In the JFK assassination, there is no such consensus on who fired the shots. So, in that respect, you're comparing apples and kumquats. I think part of the problem in investigating the JFK assassination is that some researchers want to nail down the motive before nailing down who actually killed him. I believe that it's more important to figure out who did it first; then the reasons will either become apparent, or as with Lincoln, they will continue to be debated for another 100 years. So my position is that, as long as the actual assassin(s) can be identified, it really doesn't matter whether the reasons are being debated 100 years from now...as I have no plans to be there.

My question to Mr. Gratz is: Tim, do you have anything OF SUBSTANCE to either add to or to debunk the speculation that Mr. Heidenheimer has put forth on this thread? [it's a RHETORICAL question, Tim, and doesn't require a reply.] Typographical errors occur, even in newspapers that have editors. So let's agree to discuss the substance of the post, shall we? I believe that what Nathaniel proposes is plausible...but there are Forum members more knowledgeable tham I on these individuals, so I welcome their comments.

OK...now that the sniping has resumed, which detracts from any SERIOUS discussion of film images...I'd like to comment on the UNSPOKEN, UNWRITTEN implications of the photos that began this thread. Is it possible...repeat, POSSIBLE...that perhaps the photo on the right was produced from the image on the left...and that, just PERHAPS, the original image MIGHT have been an examination of ANOTHER rifle...possibly even the Enfield owned by Buell Wesley Frazier(?)...and the Mannlicher-Carcano was substituted into the photo for the purposes of keeping the MC rifle in the public's mind, rather than some other weapon? This is no big "conspiracy" thing I'm proposing...I'm merely suggesting that the "wrong" rifle might have been "accidentally" photographed by the press, and that some editor may have realized that it WASN'T the alleged assassin's rifle...meaning that this "wrong" rifle had no news value...and, rather than scrap the dramatic photograph, an image of the MC was "substituted" for this "wrong" rifle... Is this a possibility...I'm not suggesting any sinister implications, I'm only raising the possibility that the photo may have been altered for ostensibly innocent reasons, i.e., to save some photog's and/or editor's butt, rather than as a part of some grand conspiracy. Since we know that Frazier's Enfield was taken to DPD, could this have happened? WOULD this have been possible? Would it have been LIKELY to have happened, under ANY circumstances? Anyone with press experience want to comment?

Ron, I think this thread is beginning to run from the supine to the ridiculous.

Tim, those who murder for a cause, for an idea, usually don't deny involvement; rather, they revel in the fact that it was "me" who committed this act for the "greater good." Witness Hamas in Israel; witness Al Quaeda all over the world. This is not a new development; even John Wilkes Booth allegedly uttered "Sic semper tyrannus!!" after leaping to the stage upon mortally wounding Lincoln. Or were you unaware of these developments? If so, try a Google search for "zealots"...should prove to be enlightening.

Jack, you make a compelling point about the [alleged] moon landing. Since July 20, 1969 was nearly six years AFTER JFK's assassination[11/22/1963], while one might claim that JFK was the FATHER of the moon mission, I hardly believe that even his most ardent supporters can claim it as one of his "accomplishments"...since it wasn't [allegedly] accomplished until after his death...unless JFK "accomplished" this FROM THE GRAVE. Please, let's keep this discussion OUT of the paranormal realm for the time being, Mr. Gratz. I mean, since LBJ gets credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even though it was based on a Kennedy-administration initiative, let's let the credit [blame?] for the moon landing fall where it belongs. For example, you credit Reagan for the "fall of Communism" and not Joe McCarthy, don't you? Let's see some consistency, Mr. Gratz! EDIT for clarification: I use the bracketed terms [alleged], [allegedly], [blame] to acknowledge Jack White's viewpoints on the Apollo moon landings, while I don't necessarily agree with said points of view..

So who is this "David" you refer to, and what does he have to do with Davidson?

Mr. Gratz has previously asked just what constitutional rights that GWB has permanently taken away. I contend that any constitutional rights that are denied, and the denial of them has no specific expiration, are de facto permanent...until such time as either an expiration of the denial is determined, or the rights themselves are restored to the citizens. The 1995 attack on the Murraugh Federal Building in Oklahoma City is an example that illustrates how the "war on terror" has no specific beginning, and how it will have no end. The Oklahoma City bombing was claimed to have been masterminded by an American citizen, so the internal threat is no less deadly--except perhaps in numbers--to the external threat. [i say "no less deadly" because I don't believe, for the purposes of this forum, that a victim of the Oklahoma City bombing is any LESS dead than a victim of the WTC.] And was the Olympic bombing in Atlanta any less a terrorist attack, although agreeably much more limited in scope? So if the Bush administration is "only" suspending our constitutional rights until the threat of terrorism is gone, then one CAN correctly argue that these rights have been taken away permanently. And since Bush has declared this is a GLOBAL war on terrorism, as long as Hamas bombs Israeli buses, the global war on terror hasn't been won...as long as there is unrest in any corner of the world, Bush has his declared grounds to deny freedom. And as an avowed conservative, you must of course realize government's reticence to relinquish ANY power it gains...you DO, don't you, Mr. Gratz? So if the terrorists actually hate Americans for their freedom, as Mr. Bush insisits, does it not follow that, whenever Bush encroaches on that freedom, THE TERRORISTS WIN? The terrorsist don't WANY Americans to be free...so to defeat the terrorists, we have to SURRENDER OUR FREEDOM ??? By giving the govenrment the power to take AWAY our freedoms, Mr. Gratz, I fail to see how that buttresses your argument, on another thread, that you are AGAINST "Big Government." Can you expain the apparent discrepancy? Or is it that "big government" is bad, but "BIG BROTHER Government" is good in your eyes? Mr. Gratz, if you honestly fail to see the inconsistency in your position, I suggest an eye examination by a competent professional...because in the words of the late Flip Wilson, "Ray Charles could see THAT!" And so should you.

As with the previous Z-film thread, this one has also yielded any semblance of informational value to the "network battle of the superstar egos." Mr. Colby, by attempting to debunk something you haven't read, you have revealed a bias, and not fact. I have read Fetzer's books, and while I don't have the expertise to challenge the work myself, I consider myself open-minded enough to entertain opinions that conflict with Fetzer's conclusions, if offered by individuals presenting facts. While I believe that Fetzer has a high probability of being correct in most aspects, I think that--based upon the work of Pat Speer and John Dolva--there may be other, MORE correct interpretations of the facts than Fetzers. But had I not read Fetzer's books, I would have no standing from which to arrive at such a conclusion. That would be akin to criticizing the Warren Commission report without having read it...and some folks DO come from that position. I don't know Mr. Healy, and I don't know Jack White, and I don't know Dr. Fetzer...so I cannot defend their personal character. BUT NEITHER CAN I ATTACK SAME, and have any credibility. So, you boys resume your ego-fest...and let the rest of us go about discussing and examining evidence. Let us know who wins...no, on second thought, DON'T.

Currently there is no rebellion or civil insurrection that is facing the president. The US is not under attack. And there has been NO formal declaration of war. Therefore, the administration's claim of wartime powers has the same validity as if it had been claimed during the "war on drugs"...virtually nil. While I fully understand the distinction between the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence, to claim that what was intended under one was not intended under the other is ridiculous. While not ALL of the same men hammered out both documents, it WAS done by men of the same mindset. All powers granted to the government under the constitution are derived from the "consent of the governed," as it was described in the Declaration. And those powers NOT spelled out in the constitution as having been granted to the federal government were specifically reserved either for the PEOPLE or the STATES. While Mr. Gratz CLAIMS to be a conservative, he truly wants to imply UNLIMITED power to the federal government, and only LIMITED freedoms to the individual. I believe with all my heart and soul that Mr. Gratz has this concept COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. I cannot fathom how he can talk of being a conservative, and espouse conservative values such as having faith in the individual, and yet also believe that individual freedom is something granted by government. The government, as spelled out in the US constitution, is NOT in the business of granting freedom to the individual; it is the individual that grants power to the government, according to all that our forefathers wrote. And when the government abuses its power, it is the DUTY of the PEOPLE to ABOLISH that sort of government, according to Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. Remember, from your history books, that King George (the one in England, and not the current White House occupant) also claimed that what he was doing to the colonies was in THEIR best interests...just as GWB is claiming to Americans today. If Hitler had told the German people that what he was doing was going to take away their rights, do you think they would have supported him? Instead, he told them that it was for their own protection. Compare what Hitler did for "the security of the Fatherland" to the erosion [LOSS] of freedoms occuring in the US under "Homeland Security." If the parallels don't send a chill through you, then I doubt the sincerity of your commitment to the rights of the individual and your faith in freedom. If history teaches us anything, it is that freedoms taken abruptly from the people that promote the biggest outcry; but it is the freedoms that are taken away gradually that we SHOULD be most concerned about. THAT is a more insidious, a more odious menace to free men than any other. If you attempt to place a frog into a pan of boiling water, his reaction is immediate. Yet if you place a frog into a pan of cold water, and them gradually increase the temperature...by the time the frog sees the need to escape, it is too late. I'd like to think Americans are somewhat smarter than the frog in the above example...but I have my doubts, based upon Mr. Gratz's statements, assuming that Mr. Gratz believes that his thoughts represent the thoughts of the majority of Americans. And if such IS the case, I will proudly be in the minority, secure that my ideas reflect the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers of America.

Mr. Gratz, I take my hat off to you on this matter. Anything that makes accessing government information easier is a public service...no matter WHAT the current administration may say on the matter.

I simply cannot believe that Mr. Gratz can call the outright THEFT of freedom by ANY political administration to be merely the "relaxation" of consitutional rights. Or perhaps ideas of this nature--that the constitution contains NO rights that cannot be "relaxed" at the whim of any presidential administration--helped lead to the "relaxation" of his right to practice law... Would the "relaxation" of Mr. Gratz's personal religious freedom be any LESS correct, if it could be justified under "war on terror" guidelines? NO, IT WOULD NOT...as ALL provisions of the US constitution should have equal standing!!! Yet Mr. Gratz would argue that some constitutional rights are apparently "more equal" than others. How genuinely Orwellian of him!!! Mr. Gratz, the chasm between us is that my thoughts are less Orwellian and more Franklinian, that those who would sacrifice freedom for security TRULY deserve neither. [Perhaps that's why I could never bring myself to become a Republican...I'm not materialistic enough to believe that property should be valued above freedoms.] GENUINE patriots have fought, bled, and DIED to give us these freedoms that Mr. Gratz would so quickly throw away in the name of "security." I cannot, in the depths of my heart, understand how one can so callously GIVE away these hard-won freedoms, and thus cheapen the sacrifices of those who fought so valiantly for them, merely on the basis of a political party saying "Trust us--it's for your own good." Maybe "...when they pry [them] from my cold, dead fingers," but NOT before!!! In THAT light, Mr. Gratz, if that is how little you value the US constitution and the freedoms it grants to citizens, then I am ASHAMED to call you an American.

John, can you help us spell out connections between GHWB, Nugan Hand Bank, Zapata Oil, Castle Bank and Trust Ltd., and Paul Helliwell ? I think the connections, then, between Shackley, Nugan Hand, BOP, and GHWB and how they connect [either tangentially or otherwise] to the JFK assassination might become a bit more clear.

While doing a websearch on Paul Helliwell, I ran across the following link that appears to dovetail with this thread: The Controllers While it may seem a bit "far-out" on a surface level, it DOES have the potential to make some sense of T. Casey Brennan's otherwise-nonsensical allegations. And it IS at least based in fact...thereby providing a possible bridge between Brennan and the reality that the rest of us allegedly see. Of course, if this is then connected to the NSA/covert spying stuff in recent headlines, then it becomes even MORE scary...but since I'm neither an engineer nor an architect, I'll leave the bridge building to others.

The manual cited by John is, to my way of thinking, merely common sense. I mean, I'm not a trained specailist in killing, but all of the information I read there is, more or less, stuff that I already know. While some may think this material is some great revelation, to me it appears to be a form of restating the obvious...and of little actual value to anyone actually being trained in assassination. Now, for someone who has never owned or operated any sort of firearm before, or who has no concept of the physics of explosions or the physiology of the human body and what might be required to actually kill someone, this material might be of value. But to anyone who has been a hunter, or who has butchered an animal for food purposes--OR WHO HAS A MILITARY OR POLICE BACKGROUND AND SHOULD KNOW HOW TO INFLICT MORTAL INJURIES IF ONE'S LIFE DEPENDS ON IT--this stuff is merely a compilation of quite obvious information, and in no way reveals any deep, dark secrets...UNLESS YOU HAVE NEVER IN YOUR LIFE GIVEN THIS SORT OF THING THE FIRST SERIOUS THOUGHT. And if you are a serious researcher of the JFK assassination, and have never given any of these precepts a thought, perhaps you should take up a less mentally taxing pursuit. [Not aiming this at anyone in particular...but if you're actually trying to figure out the who-what-when-where-why-how of the JFK assassination and have never considered any of these concepts, you are obviously NOT giving the matter enough thought, or you're not availing yourself of the research material commonly available and applying common sense.] I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you MUST spell all this information out to a potential assassin because he couldn't figure it out on his own, then it should be obvious that this particular individual is probably not intelligent enough to pull off a successful assassination. This stuff all seems quite obvious to ME, and I'm not sure I'M intelligent enough to pull off a successful assassination.

I find it awfully "convenient" [in the SNL "Church Lady" context of the word] that the CIA had multiple Bill Buckleys AND multiple George Bushs on the payroll at the same time...

Len, you must be getting old; you're beginning to repeat yourself, all within the same post. My belief is that the revelation, and Bush's "outrage," are simply a trial baloon to see what the American public will tolerate in the name of the "war on terror." If the public doesn't rise up and demand accountability from the president, that will be seen as the "green light" to proceed even further with the erosion of the freedoms of the average citizen. Dubya is becoming a Mussolini type of leader; as the rights of the Italians under Mussolini were eroding, the popular saying was "at least he got the trains to run on time." In Bush's case, the response to the rollback of freedom is, "at least there hasn't been another attack on American soil." What these people don't understand is that, to Bush and his cronies, the enemy IS the American people. As long as the American people have a free press, as long as the American people have the right to freely associate, to freely travel, to freely speak and think, the Bush administration sees a threat. But when we finally reach the place where citizens have to pass through checkpoints before they can travel from one state to another, when they have to have their ID papers "in order" to be allowed to travel, when their phone calls are monitored [and YES, WE ARE ALREADY THERE]...these were all hallmarks of the communist system that America fought so vehemently in the 1950's and 1960's. And while SOLIDARITY, the shipyard union in Gdansk, was hailed as being the sort of institution that brought down the Communist "boogeyman" in Poland, in America the right-wing government is busy showing us how BAD the unions are for America!!! In just over 60 years, the Uniteds States of America is becoming the very sort of nations that the USA fought wars AGAINST. The principles of freedom that inspired generations of Americans are being taken away, more swiftly since 2001 than at any time in history. And those who conspire to TAKE AWAY our freedoms are being called "PATRIOTS," while those who would preserve them are called "TRAITORS." Can a more Orwellian vision of America be imagined? I would sincerely hope not.

John, I was a kid in the 1960's, and in the American media the undercover spy image was everywhere. Besides the popular James Bond movies, there was TV...The Man From UNCLE, I Spy, The Saint, Secret Agent, Mission: Impossible, and a host of other programs left their imprint on impressionable young minds. One of the constants was the "standard" places for a "spy" to meet his/her "contact"...usually a secluded place, and often in a library or a theater. So guess which two places police were sent to apprehend Oswald? Yep, first to a library ["wrong guy"], and then to a theater. While a bit cliche'd nowadays, it still fit with what kids all across America were seeing on the tube later in the '60's. And yet the "official' explanation on LHO was that he wasn't connected to any conspiracy, or any government operation. And broccoli isn't connected to farming, either. Riiiiiiight.