Tim Gratz

Dr. Costella:

I do not agree with you on the film alteration, but I must give you great credit for your hard work in organizing the summary of the witness' statements.

Very well done! A sentiment shared by all researchers, I am sure.

John, can you explain what you mean when you say the suicide of Dr David Kelly was so badly done. I assume you mean it was apparent it was not a suicide but rather a homicide.

But since few claim that JFK committed suicide in Dealey Plaza, I am not sure of the nexus to the JFK case. Or to the CIA. Are you claiming the CIA murdered people and claimed it was suicide? If so, what evidence do you have? (I fully understand I annoy people when I ask for evidence of claims that seem outrageous or outlandish.)

Perhaps your claims against the CIA are made to enforce your cover as an agent? If so, it is well done! (But you ought not to have admitted it on Stephen's thread, that was truly a violation of tradecraft.)

Sherman Billingsley was Rorke's father-in-law.

http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0064.html

A few years ago Mark Howell and I had the great privilege of lunching with Sheree Sullivan, the daughter of Rorke's pilot, as well as Christie Cox and her sister and Janet Weininger.

P.S. Bill, I thought you knew never to trust the FBI! Next time you are relying on FBI documents, let us know!

Bill wrote:

Rorke's Beachcraft airplane was impounded by the Coast Guard at Meridian, Connecticut, and he contacted Sen. Dodd about getting it released. Rorke's father had been a prosecurtor of radicals and communists in New York City in the 20s (and maybe 30s); his uncle owned the Stork Club - and was an early OSS-CIA guy Sherman Billingsly.

Bill, you have the relationship between Rorke and Billingsley wrong. Unfortunately, research mistakes like that cause me to question some of your other assertions.

One can very easily find the actual relationship between Rorke and Billingsley, and why Billingsley offered a large reward for information about what happened to Rorke.

Bk scores a funny!! I assume it was intentional.

Let us reason this out.

If Oswald did shoot at Wallker, I believe it does indeed increase the possibility that he shot JFK.

But what if he did not?

That then means, does it not--tell me if I am wrong--at least the following two points:

1. That Marina lied.

2. That the note is a fraud and that Ruth Paine is participating in the frame of Oswald.

Let us reason this out.

If Oswald did shoot at Wallker, I believe it does indeed increase the possibility that he shot JFK.

But what if he did not?

That then means, does it not--tell me if I am wrong--at least the following two points:

1. That Marina lied.

2. That the note is a fraud and that Ruth Paine is participating in the frame of Oswald.

Which.

Who is on first.

There is of course an easy way to check this, is there not? I refer to the Social Secuirity Death Register--I think that is the name of it.

Another topic having absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch to do with the Kennedy case, except that Sorenson likes Obama,

Apparently I do not understand enough about DNA science to comprehend why there would be a nexus between Robert Oswald's DNA and that of Oswald's daughters.

As I understand it, the DNA of brothers match only if they are identical twins. Am I wrong?

To Raymond:

Had there been a trial, I am confident that Oswald's attempt to kill Walker (I am assuming for purposes here that the prosecution would have been able to prove he did without the testimony of his wife) could have been admitted, at the discretion of the judge:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

The "fact" shown by the photographs of Walkers house, of his plan, as well as a plan to shoot using a scoped rifle, and his "motive" (killing political representatives of the system he claimed to hate) could very well be evidence of motive.

And there is nothing IMO illogical about that conclusion. If in fact Oswald tried to kill Walker, I think that makes it more of a possibilty that he shot at JFK. I think you understand that character evidence is generally not allowed not because it is irrelevant but because of a concern that its relevance is outweighed by its prejudicial nature.

Bill wrote:

It has also been established that the military in DC knew that Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting within a few weeks of the event.

Bill, I would be interested in support for the above.

Bill wrote:

As you may know, Bill, the simulated assassination theory that I endorse is very similar to the one suggested by Walt Brown in "Treachery in Dallas."

I believe I first read about it in "Libre" and then encountered it again in "The Fish in the Courthouse" story.

And yes it is possible that the Walker incident was Act I of that black op. I submit the reaon it did not accomplish what its authors wanted was because it was never their intent to injure JFK and when he was killed, everything changed.

When this was discussed at one point in the past, someone suggested that the whole idea was that LHO was to shoot at JFK and miss but he was such a bad shot he hit him by mistake. Kind of akin to the theory in "Mortal Error" but suggested only in jest.

Now it is possible the organizers always intended to kill JFK but never told LHo to trick him into cooperating. Or, that dark elements (one can posit a number of possible affiliations) discovered the scheme and co-opted it. You can imagine the public uproar that would have ensued had it been discovered that Dallas was an Operations Northwoods type operation that went terribly astray. Clearly, heads would have rolled.

An excellent organizational method, BK!

According to the good professor, the most damning evidence is the note he allegedly wrote to Marina before the Walker shooting.

I guess the most damning in a larger sense would be if he indeed attempted a political murder. The note woule be the strongest evidence that he was going to try to shoot Walker--because it at least apparently came from Oswald's own hand.

Now McKnight discusses the problems with the note, e.g. how it was discovered and the fact that it had neither Lee's nor Marina's fingerprints on it. But handwriting experts concluded it was his writing.

If someone was indeed framing him for the attempted murder of Walker it required of course not only the forged note but persuading marina to lie about it.

If Oswald did indeed try to murder Walker, it shows he was willing to commit a political murder.

Stephen, apparently no one takes your threat of bodily harm seriously. No one has added to your poll since you first issued your threat.

Time to make it real. I suggest you start the locusts with the moderators who have so far failed to respond. Of the moderators, only Kathy has responded to date I believe.

What if they give up and post after the third plague is visited upon them? Well you then show mercy?

I wonder if one could legally change one's name to "None of the Above" and then run for elected office?

Greg's post is interesting. Presumably it is an easy matter for the authorities to determine who has not voted and to send them a fine. But that has never happened to Greg.

I must however disagree with Greg re eliminating compulsory voting. I say if you are going to make voting a legal requirement, put some teeth into the law. Make failure to vote a capital offense! And then to really get people concerned, ala Operations Northwoods the government could manufacture and plant false stories about a few people actually executed for failing to vote.

Which brings us full circle: what punishment does Stephen intend to inflict on members who fail to participatie his Forum Awards Poll?

In his excellent book "Breach of Promise" Prof McKnight identifies one exhibit to the WC as the most damning evidence against Oswald as Kennedy's assassin. I can see why he says that.

For people who have not read the book, what do you think would be the most damning evidence against Oswald? It's not the backyard photos. Merely because Oswald had his photo taken holding the M-C (assuming arguendo the photos are legitimate) does not mean he used it to shoot at anyone.

Fred Thompson served as Republican staff counsel for the Watergate Committee.

In February of 1974 members of the WC interviewed Johnny Rosselli. I have not yet been able to determine if Fred and Hilary were present for the interview, but as counsel they may very well have been.

So it is possible if not probable that both Hilary Clinton and Fred Thompson met Rosselli in Feb of 1974.

It must be somewhat chilling to meet someone who is subsequently murdered.

I like the system where a voter is allowed to express a protest by voting for "None of the above."

John, can you detail what you mean? Are there indeed penalties for failure to vote?

Is that a THREAT???

Maybe the US can use that technique to increase participation in elections.

Steve, that is very interesting information. He is claiming fainting spells from a car accident that occured several years earlier? That seems a tad suspicious to me, certainly worthy of more investigation at the time.

Has anyone tried to locate him recently?

IMO the issue of Secret Service agents switching their allegiance to LBJ is one of the more blatantly ridiculous statements I have seen.

Unlike cats, presidents have only one life to give. It is the charge of the Secret Service to protect the President, not the body of the slain president. Had there been a plot to decimate the entire US government, the more protection LBJ had the better.

The Secret Service was not involved in the plot but one can certainly make an argument that some agents were negligent. But one cannot indict any Secrety Service agents for deciding that guarding the life of a man already dead made no sense.