Mark Knight

Dawn wrote: I am not a Lifton loyalist...but I think his theory advanced the case. While I don't necessarily agree with Lifton's conclusions, I agree with Dawn's assertion that his theory DID advance the case. Folks who weren't primarily oriented toward examining the medical evidence began to do so...some attempting to prove Lifton right, and others trying to make his claims sound ridiculous. In that respect, Lifton provided a valuable service: he caused people to think about areas they possibly hadn't considered before. If not for folks like Lifton, I doubt that anyone would've taken Mantik seriously. [iIRC, it was Mantik who espoused the theory that the problems with the examination of the head wounds wasn't the evidence being examined, but it was the orientation of that evidence that called some of the conclusions of the WC and others into question]. So, while Lifton's theories of body snatchers and wound alteration may not have stood the test of time in the eyes of many researchers, they did cause many folks to take a second look at an area they may not have been so inclined to do so...and so Lifton's work has proved to be valuable.

Gary Mack wrote: Mark, You sure did miss my point, so let me explain it a different way. $170 was all the money Oswald had in the world. There were no known bank accounts or money stashes anywhere. He had no assets, no car, no valuable jewelry - nothing of value of any kind. He also had two young girls and a wife whom he beat regularly and who wanted nothing to do with him. His minimum wage job was about to end within the next few weeks and his past work experience was not enough to land a decent job. So he gave virtually all of it to Marina along with his wedding ring. I don't know of any clearer way to say, "This marriage is over." If you really think his finances don't add up, then do the resarch. Read "Oswald's Finances" in chapter six of the Warren Report. It's crucial background information researchers need to know to figure out what did and did not happen. Here's the link: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0176b.htm Then look at the actual numbers in Appendix XIV of the Report, which includes documented and predicted expenses based on the Oswalds' known lifestyle and activities : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0383a.htm If you still think they don't make sense, then it shouldn't be too hard to find the holes in the official story of Oswald's money trail, right? Just ignore what folks like Mary Ferrell, David Lifton, Mary La Fontaine, Marina Oswald and others have already found and do your own study. Let me know what you find. Gary Mack Gary, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Obviously, Oswald didn't smoke, dring, drive a car, or engage in any hobbies more expensive than reading books, probably those borrowed from the nearby library. So while it's possible--and entirely likely--that he actually did save nearly a month's pay after less than two months on the job...the fact that he had nearly a month's pay doesn't make him destitute. Putting myself in his shoes...if I had $3000 [approximately a month's pay, before taxes] in my pocket, and had someone else supporting my family, and had only the expense of my own meals and a cheap sleeping room to pay for, I'm pretty sure that I'd feel as though I was on top of the world! As far as the state of Oswald's marriage, I think the fact that he'd already contacted the Soviet embassy about getting Marina a visa back to Russia might suggest that he was looking for a way to send her back. As far as June and Rachel were concerned, he'd never been much of a father to them--possibly due to the lack of a suitable role model in his own life--and I doubt that, had the marriage broken up and Marina taken the girls to the USSR, Oswald would've lost much sleep over it. It wasn't as if Oswald was heartbroken, or as if he was fighting to preserve his marriage. It seems that it was more of a case that he was resigned to the outcome, and he was emotionally fairly detached from any consequences. And as far as his employment prospects, even the WC report talks of Oswald's high opinion of his own intelligence...implicitly making the case that, rather than being despondent, Oswald had every reason--in his own mind--to think that he'd easily land another job, and that once Marina and the girls were headed back to Russia, life for him would be looking up. After all, hadn't he just proven that he could live on half his salary...meaning, of course, that within the next few weeks, if he could continue to do so, he could then weather a month or more of being unemployed without having to depend upon any unemployment compensation, while he sought another job that a bright young fellow like him should be able to land? So I believe that you and I see the same evidence, but we come to exactly opposite conclusions about Oswald's outlook on life as of the morning of November 22, 1963. You see him as destitute and desperate, while I see him as having a bundle of cash, and having a new future ahead of him...at least until fate intervened at 12:30 pm.

Carrie, I don't doubt for a moment that Oswald had a wallet(1) on him at the time of his arrest. But the WC, and others, reported that he left his wallet(2) containing $170 on the dresser at the Paine house as well. And there are reports of a wallet(3) being found, containing Oswald ID--and thereby tying him to the Tippitt killing--at the 10th and Patton murder scene. Seems like a lot of wallets for one man to carry...and a lot of cash for a $1.25-an-hour working stiff to be packing as well. In Gary's case, I don't understand the logic of his argument...first he tells me that the $170 is the equivalent of $1038 in today's money, and then he tells me that it's an indication that Oswald was nearly broke. Now, maybe in GARY'S world, having a grand in your pocket is "almost out of money," but that's not the case in MY neighborhood. Or let's frame it another way...the total [$184] that Oswald had access to on November 22, 1963 was nearly a month's pay. A month's pay is not usually considered just "walkin'-around money," whether you're a lawyer or a welder or a checkout clerk; it's usually considered a healthy chunk o' change. And having a whole month's pay in your hands at once usually doesn't constitute "almost out of money." So I guess I must've missed Gary's point completely.

Gary Mack wrote me again: Mark, Sorry, the typo was mine. I was referring to Oswald's 1962 tax return, filed in 1963, which Marina has and which she has shared with other researchers. My point is simply that there is no evidence or indication of any significant unknown income for Oswald. The 1962 return matches all his sources and his known income and expenses for 1963 are in line with the amount of cash he had on hand the morning of 11-22-63, which was $184. Without any contrary evidence, it would appear that Oswald was almost out of money, had only a temporary job, and faced the prospect of providing for a family of four. What he did as a result of that realization is a matter of some controversy, isn't it? Gary Mack Now, wait a minute, Gary... "...almost out of money..."??? With nearly [/b]an entire month's pay in his pockets? I would think that, if I were carrying nearly a month's pay in my pockets, in cash, that I was a wealthy man, indeed! In 1963, $10,000 would buy an adequate home in may communities...$20,000 an average 2- or 3-bedroom ranch style, and $30,000 a "dream home." House payments in the $50-$100 range weren't uncommon. For a "working stiff" to be carrying around the equivalent of $1,000 in today's dollars is simply fantastic [as in, 'the stuff of fantasies]. With that kind of cash on hand, the average "working stiff" in 1963 would have thought himself to be unbelievably wealthy, not in dire straits at all! For example, in 1963, my dad had a salary of $65 a week, and there were 5 of us in that household. We weren't vacationing in Acupulco, but we had food. clothing, and a roof over our heads. Believe me, if Dad ever carried $184, it was after he'd sold something [he was in the auto/farm equipment business]. Usually, if he had a spare $10, we'd go out to eat or maybe visit the local drive-in movie [in 1963, we could do both on $10!]. Having $184 in cash, after living expenses...well, it just seldom happened. And I think that's true for Oswald as well.

David G. Healy wrote: Mark, Be prepared , thoughts, original ideas or assumptions not in agreement with Gary -or- the lacking WCR, will earn you the occasional note of correction, corrections that adhere to the party line, of course... David David, I thought it odd that someone of Gary Mack's stature in the community of JFK assassination-related research would be a member of this forum, but have zero posts to his credit here. So when I received his first message this morning, I made a point to post the message in its entireity; therefore, no one could accurately accuse me of taking any of Gary's statements out of context and twisting them. I will be sure to post any further messages from Gary, as I certainly don't want to deprive the forum of any comments made by any researchers as important as Gary Mack. Nor do I want there to be any impression that I am doing anything differently in private than what I am publicly posting on the forum. Now, let's get back to discussing the contents of the two undisputed Oswald walltes...the one left at the Paine house, and the one he was carrying when he was arrested. There was $170 in one, and $13 and change in the other...or, $183 total after his Coca-Cola, his bus ride, and his taxi trip. Thats still a lot of money for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying.

Gary Mack sent me yet another message: Mark, $170 is $1038 in today's money, so it was not just spare change. Oswald did receive unemployment comepensation from Louisiana following his job loss in New Orleans. As I said, it's obvious from the known documentation that he had no other income, at least, not of any significant amount. Researcher Mary Ferrell studied his 1962 return and found it matched within a dollar or less. She also had, as do others, access to his 1963 return and it accurately reflected his known income. If you'd like to speculate that he had other income sources, fine, but guesswork isn't going to get anywhere. Gary Mack Obviously, Gary has missed my point. I was trying to make the same point that Gary did in his message, that in 1963, for a person making $1.25 an hour, $170 was a considerably large mound of cash to be carrying on one's person. Gary, I apologize for the lack of clarity of my original statement. But let's be honest here. In 1963, a 6-ounce Coca-cola was 10 cents, having not long before gone up from 5 cents. A plate lunch in a restaurant was around 80 cents to $1.25, depending on geographic region. And $170 was a suspiciously large amount of cash for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying at one time. Just as $727 would be a huge wad of cash for today's minimum-wage worker to be carrying [bTW, Gary, thanks for demonstrating how the US minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation since 1963...despite what Limbaugh and others may claim]. I'm just trying to understand what Gary's point is. First he states that in 1963 dollars, $170 is a huge amount of money for a minimum wage worker to have [which echoes my point]. Then he implies that there's nothing unusual about Oswald ahving that amount of money on him. So which is it, Gary....is it unusual for a minimum-wage worker to be carrying nearly an entire month's wages on him, after working on his latest job less than two months? Or is it a normal, everyday occurrence which should raise no eyebrows, because apparently everybody does it? Gary, you seem to want to have it both ways. Either it's an unusually large amount of cash for someone in Oswald's financial circumstances to be carrying at one time...or it isn't. I contend that it's aberrant behavior, even for Oswald, to be carrying a month's pay. And Chris, I'm not speculating on other income sources...I'm just stating the facts as I know them, and trying to put them into context of the time period as I knew it. And as far as Oswald's 1963 tax return...it wasn't due to be filed until April 15, 1964...so I'd say the figures there weren't posted by Oswald...and since Marina had little command of English at that time, I'd suggest that someone else filled in the blanks. Whether the information was accurate or not is a wide-open field, since Marina admitted that Lee handled all the money, and Lee was no longer among the living [and therefore not liable for perjury charges if the information on the form was false]. So the 1963 Oswald tax form could state whatever those who handled it wanted it to state. Dead men don't go to jail for tax evasion. But this tax form discussion takes us away from explaining why Oswald would be carrying nearly a month's pay, and yet his family was living in poverty. Obviously, he wasn't saving that money for his retirement.

I received the following message: Hi Mark, You've made an erroneous assumption that ALL of Oswald's money came from his TSBD employment. In fact, he had saved money from earlier jobs and unemployment compensation. All his tax returns were released except for 1962. Marina has a copy and researchers have examined it and found nothing suspicious or anything that was not already known. Gary Mack Thanks for the info, Gary...but I never was quite satisfied with the WC explanation for Oswald's cash-on-hand. I mean, here's a guy who's been out of work for quite some time, and then, AFTER traveling to Mexico AND getting a new place to live in a rooming house, is able to save MOST of what he made on the job? I realize he wasn't like folks today, with car payments and hobbies that take cash away...but evidently he didn't eat for days at a time, and his clothes just never wore out or got torn or damaged while working in a warehouse... I still find all this just highly incredible. After losing a job in Texas, he moves to New Orleans and starts a new job. THAT should be enough to STOP the flow of Texas unemployment compensation funds. But his employment at the coffee company doesn't last long, and there's no record of him taking another job in New Orleans. Yet he can travel to speak at a college, he can travel to Mexico and back...and still have money left over from his unemployment compensation? Give me a break...I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night. While Oswald's in jail in Dallas, he tells Marina to buy June some shoes...as if, up to this point, he didn't have money available to buy shoes for June. Yet he's packing around almost 4 weeks' pay...which means that he must have had money for shoes for June prior to this, UNLESS the $170 came from some sort of windfall. And his visit to Irving on the 21st wasn't the first since he started working at the TSBD...nor was it the first visit in four weeks, which might've explained why he'd still be holding nearly 4 weeks' pay rather than buying shoes for his daughter. The WC explanation was fishy, and it doesn't take an icthyologist to figure that out.

On one level, it appears that the military advisors are discussing the war of attrition that a conventional war would turn into, and the fact that the Chinese would win that by the sheer force of numbers...and that the only viable option for enforcement of a defense pact with India would be the nuclear option...this being said, ostensible to deter JFK from agreeing to such a pact, which he apparently favored. On another level, this might be construed as evidence that someone in the military hierarchy had an itchy trigger finger for that nuke button. Hard to tell, just seeing the words without also seeing facial expressions and body language.

JFK Tape Recording Declassified August 24, 2005 11:41 PM EDT BOSTON - Top advisers to President John F. Kennedy warned him in 1963 that if he pledged to defend India against any attack by China, the United States would likely have to use nuclear weapons to enforce the commitment, according to a newly declassified tape recording. George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Democratic administration, also warned in what today would be considered insensitive language that a nuclear response could subject the United States to charges of racism following the two atomic bombings of Japan that ended World War II. "If there is a general appearance of a shift in strategy to the dependence on a nuclear defense against the Chinese in the Far East, we are going to inject into this whole world opinion the old bugaboo of being willing to use nuclear weapons against Asians when we are talking about a different kind of strategy in Europe," Ball told the president during a May 9, 1963, national security meeting in the White House. "This is going to create great problems with the Japanese - with all the yellow people." A six-page summary of the top secret meeting was released in 1996, but a tape of the conversation was made available only after it was subjected to a national security review based on updated federal guidelines. The recording is the latest to be released by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, the official repository for Kennedy administration documents. At the time of the 1963 tape, India was a fledgling democracy emerging from British colonial rule. China, bordering in part on northern India, was a firmly entrenched Communist country under the rule of Mao Zedong. In one exchange on the tape, Army Gen. Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is heard telling Kennedy: "Mr. President, I had hoped before we get too deeply in the India question, we take a broader look at where we are coming, the attitude we're going to maintain versus Red China... This is just one spectacular aspect of the overall problem of how to cope with Red China politically and militarily in the next decade... I would hate to think that we would fight this on the ground in a non-nuclear way." Later, when Kennedy begins discussing the idea of guaranteeing India's security, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara steers the conversation back to China. "Mr. President," McNamara is heard saying, "I think General Taylor is implying that before any substantial commitment to defend India against China is given, we should recognize that in order to carry out that commitment against any substantial Chinese attack, we would have to use nuclear weapons... Any large Chinese Communist attack on any part of that area would require the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S., and this is to be preferred over the introduction of large numbers of U.S. soldiers." The British government, then headed by Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, was reluctant to offer a similar security guarantee for India, which it granted independence in 1947. That vexed Kennedy, according to the tape, who asked Secretary of State Dean Rusk why it was important that the United States seek validation from its ally. Rusk said: "I think we would be hard pressed to tell our own people why we are doing this with India when even the British won't do it or the Australians won't do it and the Canadians won't do it. We need to have those other flags flying on these joint enterprises." Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, before he could issue such a guarantee. --- On the Net: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum: http://www.jfklibrary.org Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Now, I've been thinking about something related to Oswald's wallet...the one left behind at the Paine house...the one that allegedly contained $170. As I understand it, Oswald made $1.25 an hour. For him to be carrying $170, that amounts to the pay for 136--yes, one hundred thirty-six--hours' work, at straight time [haven't seen any evidence that he worked any overtime at TSBD]. Based upon a 40-hour workweek, that equals the pay for 3 weeks and 2 days [3.4 weeks @ 40 hours/week]. Now, let's put that in the perspective of today's dollars...at minimum wage of $5.35 an hour, the average McDonald's counterjockey would be carrying $727 and some change at the corresponding rate. Just doesn't compute. Goes against human nature. So Oswald's got a wife and two children, one an infant, and he's been walking around with over three weeks' pay in his wallet while the family has to depend on the kindness of strangers for food, shelter, and clothing. And then when he's arrested--with another wallet on his person, by the way--he's got what appears to be the remnants of $15 in his pockets [$13.85, after bus/cab fare and the Coke in the lunchroom at the TSBD]. For a man making minimum wage, he's rollin' in dough, comparatively speaking. So that means that, sometime within the 24-hour span of November 21/22, Oswald has had the equivalent of almost four weeks' pay [3.7, to be exact] in his hands...and that's apparently after paying rent on his room! [While tax withholding is common in the US today, in 1963 it wasn't as commonly done. I haven't investigated whether the TSBD withheld taxes from paychecks; if so, then Oswald might have been carrying the after-tax proceeds of nearly ALL his TSBD paychecks...] While it's probably an understatement to characterize Oswald's behaviour as "eccentric," this amount of money being carried, relative to his weekly income of around $50, begins to border on bizarre. Anybody have further insight on this aspect?

I believe a letter to Humes would end up in the...ahem..."dead letter office."

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death August 22, 2005 10:06 PM EDT VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States. Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism." Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous. "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop." Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening. Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports. Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez. Robertson accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said. "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. And this is a minister--allegedly one who preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ--advocating murder. So...when did they become the "Ten Suggestions"?? I must've missed that.

Castro....bombing plot...NYC..... Where's the beef? [Apologies to the late Clara Peller.]

I don't think that Jarman did it and I am concerned about muddying his name. But he was not a friend of JFK and he was in the TSBD. Fidel wasn't a friend of JFK either, and he wasn't in the TSBD...just thought I'd point that out as well. [This is an attempt at humor; please regard it as such, no matter how lame you find it to be.]

Tim, I'm just pointing out how transparent you can be. Since you knew Dillon was a Republican, you lept to his defense with the speed of a gazelle and the ferocity of a lion. Since Jarman's political party isn't so easily determined, your response is a bit more cautious...as I predicted it would be. I don't know that the Jarman scenario is or isn't likely. He was at the scene, and he had opportunity...but establishing motive is the sticking point. With Dillon, as the head of the Treasury Department, he had opportunity to interfere with the Secret Service protection, whether he was personally at the scene of the crime or not. Likewise, proving motive is the sticky point. I will point out that you and I agree that Dillon's involvement is HIGHLY unlikely, but we disagree on the reason. You contend it was friendship, while I contend that, as head of the Treasury Department, little mundane details like day-to-day presidential protection were delegated to others and were therefore beneath someone of Dillon's stature. But we DO agree that there's probably less than a 1% chance of Dillon's direct involvement.

I agree that there are a lot of folks on the forum who have a less-than-glowing opinion of Bush. But as Americans--to paraphrase Rumsfeld--we go toward the future with the president we have, not necessarily with the president we wish we had. As in the past, though, no president is immune from criticism--nor should they be. I know there were "Kennedy bashers" in his day as well, even as is evidenced by the "Welcome" ad in the Dallas newspaper of 11/22/1963. And these were right-wingers. So, despite your comments implying such, "right" and "correct" are not ALWAYS synonymous.

Just a reminder that we're still waiting on the information about the Castro plot to bomb NYC. Lest you forget...

Interesting theory...let's see if Mr. Gratz works up as much righteous indignation about Jarman as he did for Dillon.

Tim, you're turning this thread into another Castro thread...but then you already knew that. As far as your "poll" results determining what someone believes... If the poll shows the membership is overwhelmingly leftist oriented, I want you to join the "Fidel Did It" Club. ...I don't believe it's that easy for a person of integrity to change his beliefs, based upon something so trivial as a poll. And what of me? I voted for Bush in 2000, and I voted against him [NOT for Kerry, by the way] in 2004. So does that make me a leftist? Or am I a disaffected conservative? Or am I a moderate? Or can you even tell? I believe Nixon was a crook, but I believe the same of Bill Clinton, whom many on the left revere. So where does that place me? As a pragmatist, rather than as a shill for either American political party? I've been a card-carrying member of the UAW, but I voted against Clinton [bOTH times], Gore, and Bush. Does the term "INDEPENDENT" cross your mind? Probably not, if you're still seeing things as red and blue states, and leftists and rightists. And what of forum members from England, Australia, France, Sweeden...none of whom had a choice whether to vote for Bush or not? Because they couldn't vote FOR Bush, does that make them ANTI-Bush, and therefore leftists? You know better, Tim, and yet that's what you imply: Frankly, it would surprise me if more than two other posters voted for George Bush in the last election. I don't have a hard time believing that Communists may have been behind the JFK assassination. I believe that the left can be equally evil as the right...as evil knows no party. It's not all about red and blue states, or left and right. As far as I can see, it seems that if someone doesn't believe what you do--or stand even further to the right--they're automatically a "leftist," or "on the left." I believe you're overlooking a lot of moderates, people who are standing somewhere in the middle looking for the facts. This isn't a matter of "divide and conquer"; it's a matter of presenting facts, and letting the readers decide...just as you would have had to do with a jury. So...about those facts...can I presume the NYC bombing info will be forthcoming soon?

John, I would suggest that the "X" in the street is a location derived from something like the WC's erroneous data, as explained by Tom Purvis' catch of the discrepancies between the WC's survey data and the actual survey done. Remember what Tom said about the Z-208/Z-210 descrepancy in the WC Report? If that discrepancy is extrapolated forward, it might explain the incorrect positioning of the "X" in the street. Or it might not...but that may be a plausible explanation.

I'll stop pointing out the "coincidences" when they stop occurring, Tim. Whenever I mention Rove, my computer becomes subject to attacks that my ISP's firewalls can't seem to stop, and the Microsoft can't identify their source ("we've never seen this before" is the usual response). And the week you were gone, the forum ran just fine; almost immediately upon your return, the forum came under attack. Maybe they are just coincidences...but to me it looks like a pattern of cause-and-effect. And, based upon your performance in producing the evidence you said you had back in April regarding the Cubans' bombing plans in NYC, I stand by my statement that I have my doubts that you'd actually take any real action in getting a real investigation started. I was hoping you'd do something to prove me wrong, rather than just whine about insults. By the way...are they actually insults if they're true? I challenge you, the mighty legal mind, to prove you're more cheese than whine and DO SOMETHING...beyond the usual diversion of employers' resources for personal amusement.

Link to newspaper obituary

Followed the link...the article was published on the 18th, but it states that he died on "Saturday"...presumably August 13th. Anyone have confirmation?

Dawn wrote: Hey Tim, here's your opportunity to show us you are sincere. As a W supporter and someone who says he wants this case solved why don't you write to your president and some of the people around him, say your old pal Rove and 1. Remind him (Rove) of your long time loyalty and 2. Suggest such an order. After all, it's manyof your posts here calling for such an investigation. Instead of just posting such, write some letters, then post them and any responses you get. Dawn, I would conclude from what I've seen on this forum that while Mr. Gratz might read some research materials on his own time, I don't think he'd expend any personal effort toward getting an investigation started--other than lip service--if it required him to take any actions while he's not at work. Y'know, kinda like laying down his life for George W, Bush--he's all for it in theory, but he'd draw the line at taking any real action. And I'd be careful of invoking Rove's name around here....strange things begin to happen to the forum when one does so. Of course, it's all just a coincidence.

John, I see great value in the work you've done. And I believe that the Harry Holmes info is on the right track as well...I believe that ol' Harry is trying to paint a certain picture, while omitting certain facts and dates in order to make the picture fit the frame [double meaning intended]. And I agree that the economics of the LN vs. conspiracy debate is a big factor in allowing it to go on for the past forty-some years...for if the truth is told in indisputable terms, the works of an entire industry will, as you pointed out, begin gathering dust. I say, let the dust-gathering begin! Whether it's the left, the right, or the center involved in the assassination, history deserves the truth to be revealed...let the chips fall where they may. Your work with the existing photographic evidence has been quite enlightening. IMHO, it tends to suppost the idea that JFK and Connally were struck by separate bullets, and it adds credence to the argument that the headshot seen in Z-313 came from the left front...both of which would be strong evidence of conspiracy. Keep up the good work, John...I believe you're on the right track.