Mark Knight

Al, thanks for the compliment. My brain hasn't quite turned to mush just yet, and I appreciate your expansion on my words. Since I'm hoping soon to embark on a new career in teaching, it's nice to hear that my explanation was both correct and expressed in layman's terms. And Pat, I have personally witnessed some feats with a shotgun firing deerslugs that, had I not seen them myself, I would've said they were impossible, both in range and accuracy. But my Dad got to know his 16-gauge Browning semiautomatic [pre-"Sweet Sixteen" vintage] pretty well over 40 years. And I'm sure that military-trained snipers and sharpshooters could do even better. With firearms, familiarity breeds...accuracy.

Tim, I think the point you're deliberately leading us away from is the fact that the information Wilson came back with, after his trip, was that there wasn't credible evidence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. THAT was the basis of Wilson's article. Does it really matter whether it was his wife, the AAA, the AARP, or the NAACP who arranged his trip, so long as his information was reliable? And it appears that, through his State Department career, Wilson had the connections to make the necessary inquiries to ascertain the information requested. Just because Plame was a CIA operative, that doesn't make Wilson any LESS qualified to make his inquiries. It appears to me that, since the administration couldn't disprove what Wilson said, they decided to effectively end his wife's career as a covert operative. THAT smacks of vindictiveness...if you can't refute the message, attack the messenger...or his family. And to reveal the identity of a covert operative IS a smear tactic against Wilson, as it deprives him of any future income from his wife's employment as a covert operative...although the term "smear" is less accurate than the term "payback" for telliing the truth.

While I'm no expert on ballistics, I do some hunting, and I learned a little science on my way through school. The simple explanation in order to answer your question is to go back to basic high school physics class. My last day there was over 33 years ago, so I might be a little rusty on this. After a bullet leaves the muzzle of a firearm, the downward acceleration of gravity begins acting upon the bullet, at a rate of 32 feet per second, per second. To compensate for the effect of gravity, the barrel of a firearm is angled slightly upward, when the firearm is held at or near a position with the sights perpendicular to the horizon. A gun sight, whether an iron sight or a telescopic sight ("scope"), is sighted in for accuracy at a particular distance. The trajectory of the bullet will thus rise, in relation to the point of aim, and then fall. The goal is to coincide the point of aim and the point of impact. Unless a particular bullet exhibits an unusually flat trajectory (relatively flat, as a truly flat trajectory is a physical impossibility in weapons as we know them), decreasing the distance between the gun and the target--without a corresponding change in the sights--will result in a shot hitting "high," and increasing the distance will result in a shot hitting low. Tilting the gun to the right changes where the gun will shoot in relation to the target. The "rise" in trajectory will now be to the right, but the effect of gravity will remain downward...the net result being that the "rise" in trajectory, which is now angled to the right, no longer uses gravity as a correction factor...and in theory, at least, the shot will skew to the right considerably more than anticipated by the shooter. So I suppose that fact alone supports the idea of an "accidental" hit on Connally. But as a hunter, I must say that there is a great deal of difficulty involved in firing a gun in the manner suggested...in my experience, the alignment of the human body makes this feat a lot harder than it looks, to "rotate" the gun more than just a few degrees to the right or left, especially while standing upright. But it's still within the realm of the possible.

John, I recall an anecdote about a substitute teacher in a class of first grade students. The teacher asked the students to identify a particular color of a crayon. Most said "brown," and a few answered "tan." But the most memorable response was from the student who said "whole-wheat toast." As the response from this child was based upon a somewhat different frame of reference than the other children, so too are your queries and responses in regards to the JFK assassination. While your different approach may be unsettling to some, I find it to be of great interest in the quest for the truth. So keep the "whole-wheat toast" coming.

While Agee's revelations may have been the inspiration for the law in question, that doesn't prevent obfuscators from bringing up the argument of "comparative guilt", as I previously mentioned. In other words, the argument is made that what the current administration did is much less wrong than what Agee did [although, at the time, there was no law prohibiting Agee's revelations]. I just find it informative that persons who call themselves "conservatives," who live for "the rule of law," would resort to defending the current administration by arguing "comparative guilt," as they do and have done. To an intellectually honest person, the degree of guilt is NOT the salient argument; both are equally guilty. The difference is of how many COUNTS each are guilty. Of course, since the law was passed in response to Agee's actions, he is only MORALLY guilty, and not LEGALLY so...whereas someone in the current administration IS legally guilty. As an ex-attorney, I would have thought that Mr. Gratz would have understood that one does not prove innocence by arguing on the basis of "comparative guilt." But perhaps it is I who didn't make a forceful enough argument when Agee's name was brought into the discussion, and therefore the fault is mine. But I also believe that Mr. Simkin is mistaken in the belief that this issue constitutes a constitutional crisis on the level of Watergate. The primary difference is, in 1973-74, the American people had enough faith in their government to NOT believe that "everyone does it." Today, that faith is lacking, and the American people--those who haven't succumbed to terminal apathy-- DO believe that "everyone does it," including born-again compassionate conservatives, and that to argue for the upholding of a higher standard is ultimately an exercise in futility. Or, to Gable-ize the response: "Frankly, John, America no longer gives a damn."

While I believe the Wilson/Plame issue is a significant one, the fact is, it just isn't getting the play in the press that it deserves. It is OBVIOUS that the intent of revealing Valerie Plame's name in the press was to make her further use as a spy impossible. To say that this act was not done in retaliation for her husband's article exposing one of the many lies the Bush administration used to sell the war in Iraq to the American people would be yet another comparable lie. But I don't see this as a case that will bring down the Bush administration, as Watergate did Nixon's. Further, I doubt that Karl Rove will EVER face charges, in spite of any guilt on his part. Right now, the lynchpin is Libby...if Libby got his information from Cheaney--and it's already been established that libby did NOT get his information from reporters, as he maintains--then Cheaney might be the weak link in the palace--er, White House--armour. It'll never happen. Watergate has almost completely ensured that, short of murder in the public view with a smoking gun in hand, NEVER will another American presidency be allowed to be dismantled based upon criminal charges. IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN, independent of any issues of guilt or innocence. And WHY won't it ever happen? Because there is no integrity in American government, and the people not only know that, they acknowledge it daily. As long as it can reasonably be claimed that a prior administration did something as bad, or something worse, the only guilt issues that will EVER be discussed in American society will be those concerning COMPARATIVE guilt. Nixon raised the "comparative guilt" issue during Watergate when the subject of illegal wiretaps was mentioned, but at least his pleas about his predecessors were ignored...probably because, at one point in his second term, ALL his predecessors were DEAD. [in my lifetime, Nixon holds the distinction of being the ONLY President to serve who had NO living ex-presidents from which to draw advice and counsel during a period of his administration...trivial fact of the week.] The conservatives, those who complain that America is on the road to ruin because there are only shades of gray and no absolutes of right and wrong in American society today, are among the FIRST to bring up the subject of "comparative guilt" whenever the President is concerned. To these folks, whether he's right or whether he's wrong, he's still the President, and one doesn't speak ill or disrespectfully of the President, unless he's a Democrat liberal. Or at least that's how their arguments come across to me. The issue being raised was the law against revealing the identity of a covert agent. Yet conservatives on this very forum won't address THAT question without bringing up the name of Phillip Agee. While Agee was indeed guilty under this statute, the argument of "comparative guilt" is once again raised along with Agee's name. The issue of guilt regarding the members of the current administration is swept aside, if only to argue that they were "less guilty" than Agee. The truth is, someone in the current administration is EQUALLY as guilty as Agee, but on fewer COUNTS of violating the law. The argument of "comparative guilt" is used to varnish over that fact, to attempt to try the current administration against the Agee case rather than against THE LAW...the law which is otherwise "holy' to the conservative, UNLESS its violation negatively impacts the current administration. But as long as conservative news reporters and commentators can keep the focus on "comparative guilt," the fact that SOMEONE IS GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE LAW in THIS ADMINISTRATION will be obscured by somkescreens such as this, and the American public will be hoodwinked into believing that, when all is said and done, NOTHING HAPPENED...and THAT is yet ANOTHER lie.

Hmmm...maybe as I kid I missed the irony of it all...Quakers, who are known for being a peace-loving group, and the cereal bearing their name being "shot from guns"... At my age, perhaps I oughta sign off with "Rice Krispies," since these days my joints seem to "snap, crackle and pop" a lot more than they should...

So I suppose that you're saying about Rove--similarly to what you said about Segretti--that you'd rather think he was "free-lancing" in the Wilson/Plame incident, rather than taking orders from above? [Remember, Tim...you were wrong about who was behind Segretti, too.] THINK, Tim....remember the phrase "plausible denial?" Rove can CLAIM he was free-lancing, in order to "insulate" the President...but that doesn't necessarily make his claim TRUE. And perhaps you think Libby didn't get any instructions from Cheaney? That it would be out of character for the man who tells members of Congress to "go f*#k yourself," to try to "f*#k with" the man who revealed one of the many lies behind why we went to war in Iraq? Ah, if I could only muster once again the childlike faith in politicians that Tim seems to have. Unfortunately, too many "reality checks" have altered my own views, while it's apparent that Tim's views are not similarly altered by the same facts.

Initially, when the news of Garrison's investigation hit the media, I was intrigued. When Ferrie's name came out, I thought Garrison might be onto something. When I heard rumors that Garrison was getting stonewalled and having problems with the federal government in continuing his investigation, I was pretty damn sure he was onto something. But by the time he brought Clay Shaw to trial, the show didn't match the hype. The evidence didn't lead where Garrison had initially implied that it would. Bottom line was, Garrison hadn't made the case that he'd sold the American people. For those of us who had, thru the media, bought our tickets, we thought we were due a refund. I don't mean to imply that there was no value whatsoever to the Garrison investigation. But for him to go to trial with what appeared to be such a flimsy case, after the way Garrison had hyped it in the media, it was an immense letdown for those of us who'd had faith that, just maybe, the JFK assassination case would be broken wide open and the guilty brought to justice. For those of you with business experience who are familiar with the customer satisfaction motto of "under-promise and over-deliver," Garrison did the exact opposite. And that is what was [is] so disappointing about the Garrison investigation. Or, in "redneck" terminology, "he let his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass."

Chuck, I agree with your predictions about the USA and the upcoming depression. It's not exactly as if we can't see it coming, although the majority are in denial. But the signs are there. Perhaps it's a bit of wishful thinking, that someone will jerk the steering wheel of this careening vehicle at just the right moment to avert the oncoming crash, that has these folks in denial. But, barring a radical change in course, the economic wreckage WILL occur. But the prospering of the rich in that climate will be short-lived, as I see it...whether by internal [revolt] or external [invasion] means, the rich will find themselves under attack by some organization, and if the case is external attack, the now-alienated working class will refuse to raise a hand to stop the rape of those who raped them. I forsee the US as an enslaved nation before this scenario plays out, and I forsee the Euro--or some European currency--as becoming the standard of much of the world, as the US dollar has been the benchmark against which all others has been measured in recent years, and as the pound sterling was the prior benchmark. While I hope this doesn't come to pass, without a change of course I see no other possible outcome. And I apologize if this comes across as a hijacking of the thread; I was, after all, merely replying to Chuck's comments, wheich were in turn a reply to Mr. Hemming's direct question to Forum members.

And if TIMOTHY GRATZ investigated the SBT and discovered that the bullet exiting JFK's throat would have had to change directions to cause Connally's wounds, he might have discovered an MT [empty] THROAT ZIG.

John, the news of the death of Rosa Parks this week brings home once again just how divisive the issue of civil rights was in the US. To blacks, to those who sympathized with the cause of civil rights, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man was in many ways just as important as Brown vs, Board of Education. Rosa Parks' actions led to a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus lines by blacks...and since the bus-riding population of Montgomery was estimated at 75% black, according to an estimate in one news article I read, the economic impact on the transit system was fairly severe. But on the other side of the coin, for those of the conservative persuasion, Rosa Parks' action wasn't portrayed in terms of standing up for a higher cause. In the eyes of the right wingers, it was simple asnd straightforward: there was a law requiring blacks to surrender their seats to whites when asked [or told] to do so, and ROSA PARKS WAS A LAWBREAKER. The US was [is] a nation based upon the rule of law, and for justice to prevail, in the eyes of the right-wingers, the guilty must pay for their crimes. So Rosa Parks went to jail, and was fined $10. The credo of the right-winger is, if the law is wrong, you don't BREAK the law, you go through the appropriate channels and CHANGE the law. But in 1955, most blacks were denied the right to vote in the South. Their ability to change laws that discriminated against them hinged entirely upon the benevolence of the white majority. And, as the governors of Alabama and Georgia and Mississippi and other segregationist strongholds demonstrated, the fountains of human kindness simply didn't flow that far. So the right-wing Americans outside the South saw the struggle as one not so much of segregation vs. integration, but of enforcing the law vs. breaking the law, and while they might have mouthed the words that they were against the idea of segregation, they were for law-and-order, and thus supported the means by which segregation was enforced. If I understand him correctly this is the background from which Mr. Gratz comes.

John, the news of the death of Rosa Parks this week brings home once again just how divisive the issue of civil rights was in the US. To blacks, to those who sympathized with the cause of civil rights, Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man was in many ways just as important as Brown vs, Board of Education. Rosa Parks' actions led to a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus lines by blacks...and since the bus-riding population of Montgomery was estimated at 75% black, according to an estimate in one news article I read, the economic impact on the transit system was fairly severe. But on the other side of the coin, for those of the conservative persuasion, Rosa Parks' action wasn't portrayed in terms of standing up for a higher cause. In the eyes of the right wingers, it was simple asnd straightforward: there was a law requiring blacks to surrender their seats to whites when asked [or told] to do so, and ROSA PARKS WAS A LAWBREAKER. The US was [is] a nation based upon the rule of law, and for justice to prevail, in the eyes of the right-wingers, the guilty must pay for their crimes. So Rosa Parks went to jail, and was fined $10. The credo of the right-winger is, if the law is wrong, you don't BREAK the law, you go through the appropriate channels and CHANGE the law. But in 1955, most blacks were denied the right to vote in the South. Their ability to change laws that discriminated against them hinged entirely upon the benevolence of the white majority. And, as the governors of Alabama and Georgia and Mississippi and other segregationist strongholds demonstrated, the fountains of human kindness simply didn't flow that far. So the right-wing Americans outside the South saw the struggle as one not so much of segregation vs. integration, but of enforcing the law vs. breaking the law, and while they might have mouthed the words that they were against the idea of segregation, they were for law-and-order, and thus supported the means by which segregation was enforced. If I understand him correctly this is the background from which Mr. Gratz comes. So the issue of civil rights in the 1960's wasn't quite as clear-cut as it seems looking back. The segregationists had 300 years of history, as well as the law, on their side. To the folks who participated in nonviolent protests, who marched, who refused to give up their seats on the busses, it was a matter of refusing to accept status as second-class citizens in an allegedly classless society, one whose founders had declared nearly two hundred years before that "all men are created equal." It was quite a gaping chasm is US society, one that nearly led to another civil war in 1962. Its importance in the history leading up to the events of November 22, 1963 should not be diminished.

In my opinion, I think all the denunciation of Mr. Hemming is much ado about little. If his revelations, now or in the future, have any value, that fact will become self-evident. And if his postings are just more bovine excrement, that too will become self-evident. So I believe the best option is to encourage him to continue postings, to be either convicted or exonerated by his own words. And if he has become an irritation to some, such as Mr. Carrier...it just shows that he's discovered your Achilles heel, the point at which you will spew venom rather than information...and that he enjoys having that measure of control over you. Hemming calls the tune, and Al dances in the manner Hemmings wants. While Mr. Hemming may still be entertained by pulling Al's chain, I must say that I'm beginning to get bored with it. While I don't know that Mr. Hemming can reveal any smoking guns to us--or would, if he could--I don't for a moment doubt that he might be able to flesh out some details and fill in a few blanks that might be helpful.

Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"?? 60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined. Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Tim, I believe you are missing my point yet again. I don't label anyone a hypocrite simply because they hold a different political belief than I; but when their political beliefs and their personal beliefs are diametrically opposed, by definition hypocrisy has occurred. For example, if you personally oppose abortion as a practice that conflicts with your religious beliefs, yet you campaign for--or contribute money or raise funds for--a party that favors government funding and nearly-unlimited funding of abortion, that activity qualifies as hypocrisy. Another example: I personally oppose abortion on demand, yet the SCOTUS has ruled that there exists a right to abortion. While the court ruling is opposite my personal belief, I also believe that mankind was placed on the Earth to operate as free moral agents, to choose between right and wrong. Therefore, is it moral for me to campaign against someone else's right to be wrong? Or should I refrain from judging them, adhering to the "judge not" admonition of the Bible, and allow the Supreme Judge to perform that function? I may counsel folks not to perform abortions, I may counsel folks not to have an abortion, but the bottom line is we are all free moral agents, and have been dating back to the case of Adam, Eve, Serpent et al in the Garden of Eden judicial circuit. Since the law does not FORCE anyone to have an abortion against their will, the law then makes this a matter of personal choice. As with casino gambling, which my home state has made legal in certain venues...I can also choose not to participate, and can counsel others to do likewise, but the ultimate choice is up to the individual and their own conscience. So neither do I judge you, or anyone else, a hypocrite. One's own words, actions, and beliefs make that call. A man of conscience will work this out for himself. And you haven't answered my question: At what point does a conflict between one's purported beliefs and one's political actions equal hypocrisy? If actions = works, and beliefs = faith, how much of a conflict does there need to be to become a hypocrite? And I really don't think it matters whether one is a liberal or a conservative, as the definition of hypocrisy has no political exceptions, to my knowledge.

Question for Tim Gratz: If one professes to be a Christian, but his politics reflect a different direction, at what specific point does one's politics [works," in the Christain vernacular] betray his faith, and show him to be a hypocrite? At what point do one's works, failing to back up one's proclaimed faith, become a beam in one's eye? Or are James' words concerning faith without works--and by extension, works which are in conflict with one's faith--no longer valid in this day and age? Because of questions such as these, I no longer claim affiliation with ANY political party; blind allegiance to party, if it conflicts with one's core beliefs, should be severed. Someone wiser than myself said that no man can serve two masters [in opposition to one another]. Once you realize this, if you have a conscience, Tim, you'll be forced to choose which master to serve.

John, I'm beginning to believe that the key to understanding a lot of the mystery is to try to gain an understanding of General Walker. As Jim Root has pointed out, he connects to Max Taylor...and as you and others have pointed out, he also connects to the ANTI-civil rights community. If the evidence ever emerges DIRECTLY connecting Walker with Oswald, outside the April '63 potshot, then I believe you'll have your connection to the actual conspiracy. In my freshman year of college, when I thought I might want to study engineering, I had a chemistry class under a professor who was so highly intelligent it was almost scary. It seems that this man had been one of the folks who had been involved in the Manhattan Project during WWII...and the operation had been SO compartmentalized, he had no idea what his work had been a part of until AFTER Hiroshima. Sometime afterwards, his guilt over the colossal destruction wrought by the weapons he'd helped to create caused him to go "over the edge." As I heard later, while his recovery was fairly successful, no references to nuclear weapons, mushroom clouds, or Hiroshima or Nagasaki were allowed near his classroom. It is this sort of compartmentalization that I believe that Mr. Hemming and others have referenced in their comments. For any operation of such a magnitude to occur, certain segments of the operation only need to know what their OWN contribution is to be, and don't have access to the "big picture." This is why I think the "someone would have talked" theory has a flaw; MOST of those involved in the Manhattan Project had no earthly idea where their contributions would culminate, and if they had known, they likely may have balked at participating. I believe the same level of compartmentalization most likely was used in the JFK assassination...which is why the story of the Murchison party on the night of November 21 doesn't ring true to me.

In my opinion, the morality of taxation, at whatever percentage of income, is dependent upon the morality of the government's expenses. Is a tax rate of 40%, used to burn women and children with napalm, more moral than a tax rate of 60% used to provide better sanitation, security, healthcare, roads, communications, and educational opportunities? Here in America, my income is somewhat below the median. While I might not have all that I wish, I believe that, by and large, I have what I need. Whether it is noble or whether it is robbery to require the rich to part with a higher percentage of their excess than I, I fear I'm not qualified to judge. My incentive to work hard in my young adult years had much to do with acquisition. As a single man, I desired a nice automobile. In my early married years, it was the desire to provide for my family at such a level that my children no longer qualified for subsidized school lunches and textbooks. Now that my children are grown and on their own, my incentive is to be able to help my children acquire the same things that I acquired, but at an earlier age [i bought my first house at age 40], and to secure a retirement that will ensure I have a sound roof over my head, suitable but not ostentatious clothing, and that I not be relegated to "dumpster-diving" in order to meet my nutritional needs. If at all possible, I would desire to leave behind, upon my passing, enough of an estate for my survivors that they should not be in a state of need, but not so large that they lose sight of the value of determination and an honest day's work. What, then, IS a moral tax rate? Depends upon what one decides is a moral government spending rate. If the government is spending at a much greater rate than it is taxing, is it moral to saddle our children, and our childern's children, with the debts of our excesses? Is it moral to cut tax rates and let our children inherit a nation in physical ruin, with crumbling roads and bridges and water and sewer systems and other decaying infrastructure? Is it moral to raise tax rates to justify uncontrolled governmental spending? WHO is moral enough among us to determine the point of perfect balance? The answer is: not I.

Tim, since I have no firsthand information upon which to base my speculation on this matter, this is all from my impressions. I believe that Ruby is genuinely shocked by the assassination. However, since I have no earthly idea of Ruby having any foreknowledge of the assassination whatsoever, I would suggest that the "fireworks" comment would be a reference to the likelihood of the Kennedy visit possibly precipitating another incident similar to the Adelai Stevenson attack of some weeks prior. There just isn't sufficient evidence to read anything more into Ruby's "fireworks" comment. And it's my belief that, initially at least, Ruby's shock at learning of the assassination was like the shock felt by most Americans that day...and just as genuine. But, absent further evidence, this is just my own speculation...drawn from the evidence, but unproven.

Tim wrote: Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads. Or might I suggest the "Pure Speculation" thread. [Now that I've gotten your blood pressure up, Tim, I might remind you that I also believe there might be some credence to this theory...unfortunately, I've also found no proof, which by your own definition makes this "pure speculation."] The theory concerning a hijacked fake assassination attempt is appealing on a lot of different levels, but I don't think the evidence is out there to sell it...although, in some ways, I truly wish it was.

Tim wrote: David: You just posted on an internet site which is designated (by Mr. Simkin) as: "JFK Assassination Debate" You're correct, Tim...some folks cast out de bait, and the rest of us get to see who--or what--gets reeled in.

Tim, journalists rely on tips on a daily basis...they don't simply write about events they have witnessed. So if they get a factual tip, and report on it, they are merely doing what journalists do. But Operation Mockingbird wasn't formed to merely provide news tips to reporters. Its reason to exist was to plant stories in the press that tended to provide a particular slant--or, in current terminology, "spin"--to the news being reported. In my days as a broadcaster at one small station, I was the PSA [public-service announcement] director. All the proposed public service announcements were routed across my desk [OK, for the sake of accuracy, substitute the word "cubbyhole" for "desk"] prior to being aired. This was in the early 80's, and there was a lot of agency copy routed my way that was strictly propaganda for various foreign governments...such as the Soviet Union, other Eastern Bloc countries, and various dictatorial regimes around the world. Since there was no www.snopes.com website to access at the time, I had to do my best to research the factuality of the claims made. If there was any doubt as to the veracity of the message, the PSA was killed before it was ever aired. In the case of Op Mockingbird, for example, sometimes stories about coups d'etat were in print 24 hours before they occurred, as per one of John Simkin's oft-cited examples. The "journalists" who put such stories in print obviously did no fact-checking, or else they would've known that the information was false at the time it was given to them. But under Op Mockingbird, facts weren't checked and yet stories ran, a practice that reputable editors simply wouldn't abide. This then implies that editors' objections were overruled, and reporters alone simply cannot do that; the orders would have had to originated somewhere higher up the "food chain." So that in and of itself adds some flesh to John's claims about Op Mockingbird. So to suggest that Op Mockingbird may have only planted news tips that were true shows what I percieve to be a lack of understanding of true journalism. True information doesn't need someone high on the organizational chart to make sure it gets published; that level of control is only needed for unverifiable information or outright deception.

Tom, you and I became acquainted some time back on the Yahoo "Conspiracy Theories 101" group...I am known there as Buzzman72. While I believe that a lot of the lies we've been told reveal themselves in the 26 volumes of the WCR, I also look upon this investigation as one in which the use of scientific method is a necessity. As technology advances, the work that John Dolva and others here have done with the photographic evidence convinces me that speculation may reveal some heretofore unknown truths. And Thomas Purvis' investigation of the ORIGINAL survey work done in Dealy Plaza reveals the falsification of data points in the WC reenactments conducted in the plaza; unfortunately, your list of 12 sources of "official reports" would eliminate the source of the survey data, namely the person who conducted the original survey. So, upon occasion, there exist sources of ORIGINAL evidence that are NOT part of the "official" reports, and one must NOT overlook them either. Folks like the aforementioned John Dolva and Tom Purvis, as well as Bernice, Jim Root, Pat Speer, and a number of others whose names will soon become familiar to you, may challenge you and your assertions. Don't look upon these challenges as negativism; instead, look upon them as an opportunity to better develop your explanations, so that you may be able to counter the arguments that might conceivably be raised against them. I consider nearly all of the folks here to be sincere in their desire to arrive at the truth; there are only a few whom I believe have an agenda outside the discovery of the truth. So, welcome, Tom; and I hope to read lots more from you in the coming weeks.

Truth is, it's a rare day when Mr. Gratz and I agree...but it certainly does occur, as I mentioned on another thread shortly ago. When it does occur, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the end of the world as we know it; it merely means that we have reached a similar conclusion, often by traveling a different route to that destination. Occasionally, Mr. Dolva and I have a difference of opinion, and probably with similar frequency to my agreements with Mr. Gratz. Again, nothing earth-shaking...just a sign that our processing of the facts as we perceive them has led us to divergent conclusions. Disagreements between and among reasonable persons doesn't necessarily mean that someone has mental problems, as some imply--or deny implying. If someone disagrees with my conclusion, it merely means that I haven't proven my point well enough. Another person's individual knowledge of firearms or ballistics may be superior to my own [true in most cases], for example...while my knowledge of certain processes may be superior to that other person's knowledge. In neither case does it imply that one person is smarter or more clever than the other; it may simply be a case of one person's experiences being more suited to raising the questions he/she raises, either form a wealth of knowledge or from a lack of knowledge. As someone notes in their signature on this forum, sometimes the most enlightening discoveries aren't the ones where one says "Eureka!", but they are the ones in which one says "Hmmm...that's funny..." [i believe it's an Einstein quote]. Often it's the unconventional idea, the untried approach, that bears fruit, both in scientific inquiry and in mysteries of a factual nature. As with the C. Douglas Dillon discussion of awhile back, while we can assume that there's nothing suspicious in a person's background, assumptions aren't always factual. It never hurts to take another look at the evidence. While I personally don't see Mr. Buckley as being involved, I don't see any harm in researching him.