Terry Martin

Ed, Are you implying premeditation in Dawn's response? It sounds like another wacky conspiracy theory to me. Perhaps we should all sue each other for distracting the research community? It couldn't be more of a waste of time than this particular post or some of those humorous ones by Mr. Graves.

Apology accepted. And congratulations on 20+ years. And you're right about us not getting anywhere. Your insinuation in statements like "if you want to carry on believing the 5 items I presented favor a hoax, as opposed to the incident's reality" shows that you have a closed mind to the subject. It's like flinging down the "denier" tag or the "buff" label, appears to show equanimity but belies condescension. IMO you could be more honest in your debate style; thinking that your opinions are the only viable ones seem inclined to elevate your prognostications alone as "truth". When you presented your case before, I was interested to see how you would mathematically prove the second floor incident. All I saw was the same, tired, WC inspired rhetoric I have seen from Von Pein in the past. Then, when you were called out on taking liberties with some of the evidence, you got belligerent. Of course the entire presentation did not get off to the best possible start when you said you were planting your sword in the sand and going to prove all the others at the forum were imbeciles. I have always thought the community could agree to disagree on aspects of the case because until they are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, all we really offer are opinions. Pompous grand prix claim their own opinions trump those of others because... well, everyone else is obviously an imbecile. IMO all aspects of the case as presented by the WC should be avoided. Like the Gospels, it is self-contradictory and baseless for founding any argument on. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks usually are defense mechanisms for those who cannot support their claims. This isn't to say that all such attacks are based in the same mechanism but it generally holds to be so. And I am sorry you were offended about my comment about your understanding of physics. As you have degrees and inventions and such, I am sure you are quite proficient at the subject within its usual applications. Its use as applied to this case, and its promised dazzlement, failed to satisfy either its marketing or its intended purpose. I disagree with your arguments but I am certain you will continue all the same. But please don't imply that all who cannot agree with your stand are stupid or ignorant. History has a long string of scientists who were badly misled, leading others astray as well. So do many other fields. Any theory set forth here may find similar ridicule in the future. Until then, all theories, including yours are free for you to maintain. Allow others the same courtesy.

Perhaps John Barleycorn is your problem as you seem to mention it repeatedly. I don't drink so you will have to come up with some better personal attack than that, Richard. "Because it sure looks to me that you are under the influence when you both read & reply to these posts. Doing so is a profound waste of your time and my time." Right back at you, big guy. Under no influences and time is what you make of it. It's only wasted if you do not use it constructively. As for the thread at the old ROKC forum, I believe it was archived due to the degree of mudslinging that ensued. A follow up to that thread is still available at http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t838-an-alternative-lunchroom-encounter-scenario which might answer some of your questions about alternatives and variations on the theme. I do not need to detail counter-arguments to your 5 items. If you had read the response properly, I was addressing your claim that 5 items was of some substantial importance, which they are not as noted by Bugliosi's 50. If you are going to debate, Richard, please try to read what you are debating before you post. Otherwise you waste everyone's time.

I'd have to agree with you. I'm from Texas and hated LBJ. After Bobby was killed, I supported Nixon but was disappointed he took so long to get us out of Nam. Most of my friends were for McGovern and quit talking to me because of the election. Go figure. Watergate was his downfall and I thought it was a bit of a setup, and he a bit of a patsy, when it went down. Sticking us with our first un-elected President, Ford, was a travesty. He of the "the WC is a Gibraltar that will stand for ages" BS.

Richard, methinks you protesteth too much. I had serious doubts about the second floor encounter long before I even heard of Greg Parker or Sean Murphy. It stank to high heaven along with almost everything in the WC volumes; the story was a late-comer to the party as was most of the "findings" of the commission. You state with some degree of certainty that there are 5 whopping pieces of theory that "sink the hoax". Bugliosi had 50+ pieces of evidence that supposedly sank any possibility of Oswald's innocence. Those 50+ points he listed are all lies and very easily proven to be unfounded. Why the hell should a measly 5 pieces of malarkey (or "mullarkey") matter against examination of the testimonies? The collective dementia, as far as I see it, are the people who cannot let go of the garbage fostered by the Warren Commission and start to look at the case logically. Your presentation was full of holes two years ago and the flaws have not been plugged yet. But, carry on, please. Show me something other than blind acceptance of Baker's later testimony, ignorance of physics, and "collective dementia" that deems sophistry superior to logic. Bring something new to the table.

Personally, I think (another opinion, of course) that had the CIA and Dulles been involved in the assassination, the cover story would have been in place already, We would not have seen the stumbling and bumbling by the DPD and FBI racing around like head with their chickens chopped off. The complete story was not in place for several months. Dulles and company would not have been so sloppy IMO. But maybe others who place so much faith in the CIA's abilities could explain the clusterf**k that was Dallas.

I don't know what the break-in was about. Some say it was about hookers, which I guess is as good a reason as any. But it was sabotaged in order to bring down Nixon. It's possible that the only real reason for the break-in was to have something to sabotage and get Nixon. (Has anyone else thought of that, or can I take credit for it?) I believe Ashton already mentioned that on another thread. But I could be wrong. Maybe you do get the credit.

I had also heard that Dulles was friends with JFK before he was still a Senator. And IIRC when the BOP blew up, Dulles offered to resign but Kennedy refused to accept the resignation. Several months later, he was allowed to leave after an awards ceremony. I never thought he was behind the assassination but I would bet the farm he was behind the cover-up. (Yes, I keep the two conspiracies separated.)

Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't part of the cover up but, as most researchers tend to include the same group in both phases of the case, it is the more unique stance to propose they were others who allowed natural reactions to cover up the case. Anyone in the intelligence community who knew Oswald was working for the FBI or CIA need only implicate him in the killing and allow the two agencies to muddy the waters for everyone. We saw the same thing happen in the Lincoln assassination, I believe. To distance themselves from the set up patsy, Hoover had to either create false trails or simply take those fed to him. IMO, the latter ruled the day. Anything but let the trail lead back to the Bureau.

I am making an assumption that the cards have a letter on one side and a number on the reverse. This may not be true as it is not stipulated in the original premise. Going on that assumption, you would have to turn over all cards except the K. The E to prove there is an even number on the reverse, the 4 to prove there is a vowel on the reverse, and the 7 to prove there is a consonant on the reverse. Of course, my original assumption may be in error.

Yes, not unless it was a "sippy cup" but I would believe that would be at home in Irving with Baby June. To my eye it appears his right hand is a shade higher than his left, as though the left hand was holding up the camera and his right hand was pushing a button on top. I wish we had a better scan to look at. It would certainly clear up a lot of questions.

Good question, Greg. Let's see what we can come up with in the next day or so. And did Oswald / Prayer Man leave the camera at work, or take it home with him, or what? Did he remove the film from the camera while still at work? Did he hide it in the second floor lunch room? --Tommy Good question, Tommy! I do not recall any camera mentioned floating loose around the TSBD in any DPD report. But it did take them a couple of weeks to locate Oswald's clipboard, so maybe it was spotted later? Maybe it was stuffed down between a couple of boxes of books... or perhaps carried out of the building in a brown home-made paper bag? Was it abandoned in the cab, perhaps? It would be interesting to do a little research for any cameras that did not turn up in the Paine's garage.

Mark, I don't know about any attacks on you at another forum. I do like the way you attempted to point out to Carmine a while back about what evidence really is. As much as I agreed with your definitions, I feared it was a losing proposition, falling on deaf ears... and it was. Kudos for the attempt, however. I would have mentioned it at the time of its occurence but circumstances intervened. (forgive me for going off topic!)

Cliff, I believe your responses have proven my point. I do not have any problem with you arguing that the operations were compartmentalized. You have stated your premise several times already and your tautology does not make the premise any stronger nor does your adherence to the idea require others to include the concept in what they theorize.

Robert, I see the same thing, regrettably, but it seems to be the way people are. They each have their pet theories and push them whatever forum they're on. Many cannot seem to try and understand any part of the assassination without weaving it around their own special subject. Even subjects I thought had been laid to rest decades ago (DoorMan, the SBT, the Second Floor Encounter, and so on) are still being debated alongside the question about how many shots were fired or which agency was most involved in the cover-up or what influence the Mafia had leveraged. As someone else has pointed out, most of the discussion seems to center on the cover-up(s) rather than the assassination. Some want to build the conspiracy so large it includes RFJ, MLK, Lincoln and the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Trying to separate out the assassination from the cover-up is extremely difficult, it seems, and so the pet theories - or "fill" as you called it - flood the forums. Unfortunately, I doubt if it can be stopped as it is the theorizing that seems to be the really interesting part of this community. Rather than worry about the direction others are taking, I concentrate on the threads that are meaningful to me. Yes, I'm just like everything else. I just ignore the fillers. There is an assassination I would like to see solved.