Mark Knight

I believe that Mr. Gratz misunderstands my point...yet again. I also believe that Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom, rather than being either on the sixth floor OR on the front steps of the TSBD. My argument was to make the point that, unless Oswald WAS in the proximity of the lower floors, he'd have no idea just who was standing on the front steps. While en route to the lunchroom, he may have walked out to the front steps momentarily and noticed who was there...or he may have witnessed Shelley and others walking in that general direction, and made the assumption as to their ultimate destination, as he was making his way to the lunchroom. But Oswald would have had NO way of knowing who was on the front steps while he was allegedly on the sixth floor. It's those damn trees again...

Just a thought... ...if Oswald was firing a rifle from the 6th floor , how did he know that Bill Shelley was standing in front of the building? He obviously couldn't see him from the 6th floor...so if Oswald couldn't see him, how did he know Shelley was there, to claim to have been standing with him? And it's not as if Oswald got to look at any of the photographic evidence before he was questioned by Fritz. So how did he know who to claim he was standing with, and where...if he was the 6th-floor shooter? Sometimes it's those damn trees that hide the forest, isn't it?

McAdams may lurk here, but [like Gary Mack] he never posts here. McAdams evidently prefers to let his "apostles" post his thoughts, if history is any indicator.

In my opinion, the Tom DeLay "scandal" will have no more overall significance that Newt Gingrich's troubles a few years back, or Trent Lott's problems more recently. While the Democrats are jumping up and down with bulging eyeballs shouting "SCANDAL!!" at the top of their collective lungs, the actual truth is that the American people simply don't give a damn. The incident only confirms their worst, most cynical fears about government, that "everybody does it," and the public becomes numbed to it all. And the perpetrators fade from public consciousness, only to be replaced by more of the same...it seems there's no attrition in the fight against corruption, as whenever one corrupt figure falls, there's always another there to take his "rightful" place. "...And the beat goes on, yeah the beat goes on..."

Another article that claims that Rusk was going to be out after the '64 election if JFK won: JFK's Vietnam Strategy

Tom, I was aware of the points you mention. but when you get into such terminology as "headspacing" and the like, my understanding becomes a bit cloudy. Having fired deerslugs through my dad's old Browing 16-gauge semiauto, I'm aware of the heat generated upon ignition, and the amount transferred through the barrel itself, by squeezing off a full 5-round magazine as quickly as one can keep the target acquired (probably 2 to 2-1/2 seconds total elapsed time). And I can guesstimate the effect of larger magazines and large-caliber, higher-velocity ammunition (I've heard of 'water-cooled 50 calibers' somewhere down the line, possibly in a WWII context). But you provide a great note of clarification for those who might not have had the opportunity to witness what I have seen, or who may have witnessed something similar without giving it much thought. Thanks for the added info.

While conducting a Google search on "Dean Rusk" + "1963", I found the following memorandum addressed to Maxwell Taylor, dated just over two weeks prior to the JFK assassination, which confirms that, under certain circumstances, a pre-emptive nuclear strike was still a consideration: Memo to Maxwell Taylor While I realize that a pre-emptive nuclear strike was NOT the primary topic of the memo, the fact that it is even mentioned is enough that we should realize that the pre-emptive nuclear strike was still on the table, despite all of JFK's initiatives toward peace. So LBJ's real or imagined spectre of nuclear war, which he raised when arm-twisting men to serve on the Warren Commission, wasn't quite so far-fetched as many modern naysayers contend. Two weeks before the assassination, it was under discussion, at least by Taylor and the JCS; why on earth would a presidential assassination suddenly remove that option from the table?

Isn't it quite a coincidence that there are so many coincidences in the JFK case? To McAdams and Posner, it IS only a coincidence. To the rest of us, I'm not so sure.

An article in this morning's Louisville, KY Courier-Journal sports section quotes from an interview The Denver Post's Anthony Cotton had with boxing promoter Bob Arum: "The day [President] Kennedy was shot, my immediate boss was in Washington. He was going to become attorney general, and Bobby [Kennedy] was going to become secretary of state, and I was going to go to Washington to become the head of the tax division for the country. If that had happened...if, if, if, I wouldn't be here now, I'd be in tax court making people pay up." While Arum's statement is just an aside in his career, it implies that Dean Rusk was out, had there been a second Kennedy administration. Since most of the principals are now dead, I doubt that anyone can--or will--dispute Arum's assertion. But it makes me wonder just what OTHER changes--besides the vice presidency--would a second Kennedy administration have wrought? And, if a cabinet secretary was caught unaware, how much of a surprise would it have been? Would it have been enough to have brought about coalescence, if not outright participation, in a pre-existing murder plot? Is anyone else on the Forum aware of any other planned cabinet changes?

I believe that the bore in a rifle barrel is concentric with the barrel. I'm not sure, but I believe that this is so that there are no "hot spots"where the metal is thinner and more prone to damage or fatigue after firing multiple rounds. I have seen barrels that taper from the breech to the muzzle, but they usually exhibit a uniform thickness at a particular circumference...exceptions being for mounting lugs and such. To further clarify, compensation for the upward part of the trajectory is accomplished by raising the rear sight, or the rear portion of the scope, slightly. [Most modern scopes have adjustments for windage and elevation on the scopes themselves, but that's a separate issue.] But the barrel itself is mounted "straight", and it's the sight that is adjusted to compensate. Beyond this point, you're pushing the limits of my firearms knowledge.

The bore of the barrel SHOULD be a straight line; the upward angle of trajectory is created by the positioning of the barrel itself. To introduce curvature into the bore of the barrel would impart a frictional element that would tend to destabilize a bullet in flight...and it's my understanding that the rifling in a barrel, which imparts spin to the bullet to improve stability, would instead magnify the problems that a curved bore would impart to bullet accuracy and stability. So the barrel and its bore must be straight. The problem I have with the idea of a left-handed shooter is in the design of the MC rifle. A left-handed shooter would hold the rifle against his left shoulder, the left hand on the trigger and the right hand on the forearm portion of the rifle stock. If the gun exhibited any discernable recoil, there's a great likelihood that the bolt of the rifle would contact the shooter in the face, potentially causing injury. And if it's difficult for a right-handed shooter to get off three rounds in the allotted time with the MC, imagine the impossiblilty of a LEFT-handed shooter operating a RIGHT-handed bolt action. Now, if you introduce a left-handed rifle into the equation--or even a semiautomatic rather than a bolt action rifle, the question of a left-handed shooter then looks a bit different.

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.