Mark Stevens

The tests were definitely used in Texas at that time. Even the best GSR tests have their shortcomings and test accuracy can be impacted by a variety of factors. Two factors which are relevant considering Oswald is the passage of time between the alleged firing of shots and the time the test was taken, additionally it's more likely whatever traces were found on Oswald were a result of cross-contamination than was from him firing a gun. From the FBI's Forensic Science Communications Summary of the FBI LAbrotaory's Gunshot Residue Symposium May 31 - June 3, 2005 https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2006/research/2006_07_research01.htm

I have an article with someone knowledgeable of Marina, I believe it is an author and I want to say McMillan (I can't see her saying this though) in which the person is asked something regarding "the one thing Marina wishes people knew" or something along those lines. The comment attributed to Marina is "when the police came the afternoon JFK was shot Lee's rifle was in the garage." I cannot find the reference at the moment but I will continue to look. Is anyone familiar with this statement from Marina?

You seem to have understood enough to make an asinine comment...so...there's that... Your assumptions aside, I'm not assuming anything. I'm making factual statements based on what I know to be true. I'm not saying because these people live in Texas and support Trump they must be racist. I'm saying since X amount of them have used the word nig*** they are racists. I'm saying due to the words I have heard come from their mouths regarding black people, and a host of other peoples, they are racist. There have been some Trump supporters I've never heard make racist statements. I wouldn't know whether or not they were racist and I'm not talking about them. There are other Trump supporters I know for a fact are not racist in much the same way I know others are, from personal observation and experience. I've met plenty of Trump supporters who weren't racist. What I haven't met is a racist who wasn't a Trump supporter. I and many others believe a large portion (possibly 90%+) of Trump supporters are racists. While some of this belief might be made through "assumption," much of it is through personal observation of how many racists are in fact Trump supporters. I don't know what this might say about America, I know what it says about Trump though.

I don't know you, nor have I really followed much of anything you've said except a few posts on this thread so I'm not really addressing you as much as making general observations. I will say though that the actual saddest form of a racist, race baiter or anything is the one who denies his words, meaning, and intent and instead hides behind the guise of the oppressed and pretends it is truly he who is being marginalized and mistreated. Additionally, I know literally hundreds of Trump supporters. All of them are not racist by any means, but 95% of them are. I'm using 95% generously because I know for a fact that some of them aren't, the number in all liklihood is closer to 99% are racist.

I'm not familiar with where the number came from or what methodology was used. Based on overall military statistics it would appear as though it isn't.

2018 Military Demographics

I have a variety of odd stories I rarely get to introduce, I figured this thread was good for this one though. Anyone familiar with this? I believe the range is the one being discussed, I've never heard anything about this supposed location though. I believe if this was actually linked to Oswald in some manner we would have heard more about it. If the casings were Carcano ammunition for example...

Henry Ford was given the Grand Cross in 1938 for his "service to the reich." They were giving him an award but he hadn't really done anything in service for the reich, other than write and support a great amount of antisemitism, hire the leader of the German American Bund to work at Ford and otherwise inspire Hitler enough to mention him in Mein Kampf and hang a portrait of him above his desk. Considering the fact that Hitler wasn't into automobile manufacturing, the only real other thing they had in common was their antisemitism. I believe at this point in time enough documentation exists showing how fond of Ford Hitler was. While Ford was clearly antisemitic, he never outright supported Nazi Germany, to the best of my knowledge. What little he did was related to Fritz Kuhn. With this all in mind there isn't really any other reason to give Ford the Grand Cross other than the overall respect and admiration they had for his "work," which wasn't Model T's and assembly lines. It was spewing enough antisemitic hatred to have his newspaper shut down.

Best enlarging I could do.

I'm not a hunter, although almost everyone I know is. I am though familiar with firearms. Most hunters do not aim for the head simply due to the small size and difficulty making the shot. I don't believe there is a simple answer to your question though. While not pretending to give a ballistics course, the force of impact depends on a variety of factors and even the same 9mm weapon might give different results when fired with ammunition of different weight, diameter, shape, etc. A bullet could tear a head open with one round and with the same type of round with a lower grain count might simply enter the head and not even exit. In the first instance leaving a gory scene, in the second leaving a wound similar to RFK's. This bullet type (.22) is often considered great for a head shot because it has the velocity to enter the brain and maybe even bounce around, but rarely the remaining velocity to exit. What is more consistent is the behavior of specific ammunition types. Meaning if a person is shot by 2 hollow point rounds both of those wounds are going to be quite similar as will the wounds of a person shot with 2 full metal jacketed rounds. If a person is shot with 2 different types of ammunition, their wounds will likely be quite different.

Great reply Mark, some interesting points to mull over. Thanks.

Uhmm...OK dude.... If you make claims, it is your "job" to support them. If that includes "educating" someone, then well that's what it is. If you aren't able to support a claim, you probably shouldn't make it. That aside, I'm lost as to how you got under the impression you did. Maybe you expected half the forum to jump on and support your opinion and maybe it is you with a bruised ego. What would mine be bruised for? You haven't made any factual claims regarding this speech, or negated anything I've said. You've barely even engaged in conversation. Nothing you've done would be enough to bruise a peach, much less an ego. I mean seriously, what has taken place in this thread that would leave me with a bruised ego? I have a weird ax to grind because I don't think LBJ did it? That's weird.... Juvenile mindset because I explained JFK's meaning behind his speech? I asked an honest question because I genuinely don't see what you see and I'm confused and curious as to what you see. I didn't even speak in an adversarial manner or belittle your points. I just explained what his words meant, and this is what you took from it all? Wow....

Regarding a shot after the head shot, what would you believe the implications of this to be? I've never personally believed or considered a shot after the head shot simply due to the "logistics" of it all. For instance in all possible shooting locations I've considered, each had a great view of the target and could clearly see the result of the head shot. There would be no need to fire another round considering what I view to be the severity of that wound. The only way I feel a shot could have happened after the head shot was if Kennedy was not the target or was not the only target. Even though he had what appeared to be a fatal wound, if he was not the only target or even the target then other shots would be necessary. Another way I could consider is if the shooter had a poor line of sight to the target and could not see the result of the head shot. This seems doubtful to me because if this shooter couldn't see the target well enough to see the head shot, this shooter likely would not even have a shot to begin with and would not be firing at all. The last option is some form of return fire, but from and to leave me with no real options. I believe based on what I currently know that reports of shots after the head shot are mistaken and are either echoes or other sounds or the witness recollection of the timing is off.

I guess I still don't follow, or at the least I don't see what you see in that paragraph. Can you tell me what parts of the speech you feel is a dressing down of government/military? If it's anything in this paragraph: What JFK is saying here is that his words can be misinterpreted by people who want to restrict the flow of information and he won't allow that to happen. He then basically directly addresses those groups and tell them his words do not mean to restrict free speech or the flow of information. This relates to his overall speech asking the press to be more responsible and to not share information they don't have to. In his opinion, these words could very well be taken by those in military/government positions to mean it's OK for them to restrict and suppress speech/information which it does not, and he will not allow. He does address those groups, I just don't see anything that I can relate to as a dressing down. He may very well have an ax to grind, but it could be with the press. I'm not personally familiar with the reporting before/post BoP but maybe information was printed that in some way could have compromised the event or person's involved, or that was true in his opinion. It is a Press Association speech, it is members of the press present and the overall topic is laid out right at the beginning: He clearly has a fairly singular point. We need information, but we need security. Information which maintains our integrity and ability to govern is of inherent importance and should never be compromised. Information which maintains our security and protects "our way of life" might not necessarily be articles in Popular Mechanics, or local news stories of "behind the scenes of the inner workings of an aircraft carrier."

I'm not sure what you mean, and if you mean to imply by that statement that he wasn't speaking about the need to keep some secrets. I do though believe this portion relates to actions being exaggerated and taken out of context. For instance him asking newspapers to not print certain information would be called censorship, etc. He won't allow that to happen. Basically, if the public needs or should know government business they will, but this business might not include the flight ceiling of the newest aircraft, or dive depths of new submarines... It should and will though include government mistakes, corruption, and other information deemed in the good of the public. He does open his monologue with this: He does in the very next paragraph (from your quoted snippet) state: That would appear to "ask" for some secrecy and it continues with statements such as: I believe it's clear he is asking news organizations to practice some "responsibility" and while we are not technically at war, to treat situations like we are and to not print information which might help our enemies. I've pretty much only heard (from others) that this speech was directed towards organizations like Freemasonry, I've never heard that he was speaking about the Soviet Union. What point do you believe JFK is trying to make with his speech, which he himself titled "The President and the Press?"

Really curious as to what you "can't agree with." Is it that people's reality is shaped by their perception, or that Connally and the SS had no foreknowledge? Is it that even well trained people cower in fear, or otherwise act in contrary to their training? As far as competent marksman go, I just last week read about a very competent marksman who shot his daughter in the head, on stage, in front of around 200 people because he wasn't so competent that time. I don't care how competent a person is, only those with a true death wish or balls of steel would put themselves in the line of fire. Based on Connally's future statements, I doubt he had any foreknowledge, and if he did who did it come from? As far as LBJ, no I do not accept that. I do not believe LBJ had any foreknowledge of or participation in the assassination. I'm also curious to "what you have seen." Is this pertaining to Zapruder and Connally's reactions in the car, or something else outside of that which gives you the belief that he had foreknowledge? If it's his reaction in the car, from what I see he is hit and doesn't even immediately get down. He heard shots and looked around vs. ducking. None of that meshes with foreknowledge, unless he was hoping to die as well in the crossfire.

I don't believe training is the real indicator. Many people have training and still freeze, cower, or otherwise act contrary to how they were trained. I do agree that the people in the limo have different reactions. I guess the question is...so what? What does their differing actions mean, or prove? For me, it just proves what we all know about human nature and it proves my favorite theorem, Plato's Allegory of The Cave. I believe a great deal of life experience can be explained by the allegory. In this instance, each person in the car had a different perspective, different perception, and therefore a different reality to which they were reacting. For the Connally's it was gunfire and shots in their direction, for Jackie it was being covered in her husbands blood and brains. Her reality was far different than Nellie's and I would expect her reaction to be equally different. To further my point about training, is the Secret Service driver trained to slow down and even possibly brake in the situation Greer was in? Or is he trained to evade and escape? It would appear as though he acted contrary to his training. To further my point about reactions, just look at any video of disasters. Whether caused by man or natural. Bombings are a great (poor choice of words) choice to look at. In these videos there are various reactions. Shock, crying, anger...any number of emotions and reactions are on display. Everyone reacts differently based on not only their perspective and their individual reality, but factors that make up their overall emotional and mental state as well. I believe assigning any type of rationale to how the people in the car reacted is worthless and will not lead anyone to anything fruitful with possible exception given to the SS men and Connally himself. If any of these people had foreknowledge, their reactions would surely be telling. I can't see Connally knowing anything though with him being in the same car, much less directly in front of JFK. He had tremendous confidence in the shooters if this is true. I'd say the same is likely true for the SS men, I seriously doubt they had any legitimate foreknowledge and anything they did was genuine reaction.

Been some time since I reviewed this, but in my opinion it is actually speaking of the need for secrecy and especially for newspapers to not print a "state secret" such as military capability. Basically says some secrets are necessary but transparency is equally necessary. I don't believe it refers to any type of secret society, be that Freemasonry or government agencies.

I think this idea is pretty absurd and I'd have to ask outside of television, what experience do you have with shootings of any kind as well as with people who have been involved in shootings, even as witnesses? There is no one thing that is going to happen, and while a person's past experiences and training will directly impact their fight or flight response and what form that response takes, to posit that anyone other than former military would freeze is just flat out wrong. Doctors at Parkland exclaimed the same thing. "They've shot the President."

So is it your position then that since he had left for the service he wasn't in a position to know or comment on the family activities?

I have a similar experience in life and I believe a great deal of it all depends on environment and upbringing. I have a complicated political ideology, but I tend to as a blanket statement say that I am a Communist. (Considering where I live and work, I often have interesting conversations.) I came to all this though at a young age, and by the time I was 15 was more of a Communist than a Capitalist. While I'm more "learned" now, much of my knowledge at that time, and even through the years of Oswald's short life was more superficial than true understanding. I still to this day lean the way I lean and many of my beliefs derive directly from experiences from those times. My "interest" was sparked by my experiences and as a result of a being a product of the various "systems" I was a product of. Interesting enough, many of my early year experiences mimic Oswald's early years. I only mention all of this to say for many people, their political interest and leanings begin developing at a young age and I believe Oswald was one of these people.

I'm familiar with this. For me it further solidifies at least one of the points I make regarding the "Harvey & Lee" theory: other people they came into contact with would have likely been aware of the name, familial, and physical similarities between the two boys and at some point someone would have mentioned to the other the fact that there was another boy with an almost identical name, similar appearance, and who had family members with the exact same names. That fact is what alerted Bobby Shafran to his brothers, as soon as people saw him they remarked on everything I mentioned above and he found it odd enough to look into. I believe the same would have happened with Oswald. At some point some one of the many contacts they shared would mention the similarities to one of the supposed boys and the entire situation would have exploded.

What am I arguing against? I asked a question... What's basically incorrect then? ETA: Also, this is taken directly from the "Harvey & Lee" website: This seems to be basically the exact thing I said. If I'm wrong, you really should update your website. If I'm wrong, can you please clarify for me what I'm wrong about, and how what I said differs from what you write on your website?

I gotta say, I'm completely lost and confused. As I understand the "Harvey & Lee" theory, the entire project was created because "they" needed a native speaker of Russia to be infiltrated into the country for spying missions. It was necessary to have a native speaker versus someone American who learned Russian due to accents, etc... which would raise suspicion of the spy and his mission. A native speaker might seem more inconspicuous and not arouse suspicion. Is this basically correct?

I believe this would be the lamb chop doll she had. I'm not near my files but the pictures and information is easy to find.