Mark Knight

As far as the differences in LHO's supposed answers during his interrogation sessions, do we know with absolute certainty what LHO said? That is a big NO. N-O, NO. There were no tape recordings made, or at least discovered at this point. [There were consumer-quality reel-to-reel tape recorders available as early as 1957, and by 1963 they could commonly be found in any city the size of Dallas.] There was no stenographer present during LHO's questioning. Yet secretaries who could take shorthand notes were commonplace by 1963. And what we have are CONFLICTING notes of different police officials/postal inspector from different interrogations. DPD Chief Jessee Curry admitted his notes were written AFTER OSWALD WAS DEAD. Yet we're to believe the notes and recollections are absolute gospel...while at the same time dismissing the testimony of half or more witnesses to the shooting simply because they may have been mistaken. Sounds like selective evidence-gathering to me. [Which, BTW, is exactly what the Warren Omission did.] Now, Vince Bugliosi was a pretty good prosecutor. As a prosecutor, you hammer on the evidence you think makes the defendant look guilty, and you either disparage or outright dismiss any exculpatory evidence. While that's a great way to run a prosecution, it's a lousy way to run a fact-finding mission. Starting with a conclusion of guilt and then ignoring exculpatory evidence is prosecutorial logic. It's NOT how you search for truth. The prosecution and the defense are out to WIN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASE. Sometimes the truth becomes a casualty on BOTH sides of the courtroom. And what keeps this forum going is a quest for the TRUTH.

"I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand." -- Jesse Curry REASONABLE DOUBT. So Curry didn't believe Howard Brennan. REASONABLE DOUBT. Do I have a conspiracy theory? NO. Do I think Oswald may have been INVOLVED? I find it plausible. But I also find it plausible that he WASN'T involved. And I can't bring myself to believe the SBT, upon which the WC hangs its hat. I have the same doubts as Benjamin Cole. I would go so far as to say that, IF JBC was shot from the TSBD, it's MUCH more likely to have been from the southWEST window than the southEAST window of whatever floor it came from. REASONABLE DOUBT.

I believe you're exactly correct. The difference in perspective, lighting, and photo quality account for the differences in what we see between the NARA and the NIST images.

The forward end of the scope in Denis' photo is a constant diameter to the end, like an el-cheapo 4-power .22 rifle scope. The scope in your photo has a bell-shaped forward end, like a more expensive and better-made scope. That difference jumped out at me.

Here's a thought...whether you subscribe to the Harvey & Lee theory or not. What if Oswald's imperfect Russian speaking ability was to conceal a much higher level of UNDERSTANDING Russian? In Minsk, would it be likely that the Russians might feel freer to discuss certain topics within earshot of Oswald if they thought he understood much less Russian than he actually did? Wouldn't that be an advantage for a false defector who knew he'd be returning to the USA? Just a thought.

Actually, Ron...the handgun was a Smith & Wesson [S&W] Victory series, shipped to England for WWII service. There it was "proofed." It was chambered in .38 S&W from the factory. Factory .38 S&W specifications: Bullet diameter .361 in (9.2 mm) Neck diameter .3855 in (9.79 mm) Base diameter .3865 in (9.82 mm) Rim diameter .440 in (11.2 mm) Rim thickness .055 in (1.4 mm) Case length .775 in (19.7 mm) Overall length 1.240 in (31.5 mm) Primer type Small pistol Maximum pressure 14,500 psi (100 MPa) On the other hand, factory .38 Special specifications: Parent case.38 Long Colt Case type Rimmed, straight Bullet diameter .357 in (9.1 mm) Neck diameter .379 in (9.6 mm) Base diameter .379 in (9.6 mm) Rim diameter .44 in (11 mm) Rim thickness .058 in (1.5 mm) Case length 1.155 in (29.3 mm) Overall length 1.550 in (39.4 mm) Case capacity 23.4 gr H2O (1.52 cm3) Primer type Small pistol Maximum pressure 17,500 psi (121 MPa) So what do these specs mean? Well, the .38 Special ammunition will fit in the .38 S&W cylinder, but .38 S&W ammunition won't fit in a revolver chambered for .38 Special. The case of the .38 Special is .38" longer than the .38 S&W, which means that when a .38 Special round is fired in a revolver chambered for .38 S&W, the longer case will "balloon" somewhat at the open end where the bullet was, making it difficult to remove the bullet casings from the revolver. FBI expert Cortland Cunningham mentioned that in his WC testimony. Cunningham stated that, while it's not uncommon for the ends of these casings to split when fired in the .38 S&W gun, none of the casings he tested split. Notice also that the bullet diameter for the .38 S&W is .361", while the .38 Special is .357. The result of firing a .38 Special bullet in a barrel chambered for .38 S&W is that the bullet doesn't expand as much and engage the rifling in the barrel. Cunningham said that, from the bullets that came from Tippit's body, one was too mangled to tell; the other three had different enough barrel marks on them due to the diameter discrepancy that he could not say with absolute certainty that the Tippit bullets were fired from the Oswald revolver, to the exclusion of all other weapons. But Cunningham said that the markings on the bullets had enough similarity that he also could not say with absolute certainty that they were NOT fired from the Oswald revolver. And that's called "reasonable doubt."

My purpose was to try to lower the level of "snark." And Mr. Clark did include a request for evidence in his most recent post. I'm not the sole, or even the primary, moderator on the forum. But when I receive a request to review a post, as I did in this case, I attempt to respond to the request. If the post in question has been hidden, one of the other moderators may have done that. I did not.

Mr. Niederhut, ridicule is a poor rebuttal. I suggest you use factual statements of evidence, if you have them. Not that I agree or disagree with Mr. Clark, but I really believe we can elevate the level of civility on this forum.

In the "old West," bullets were propelled by "black powder," the same stuff used in the old muzzle-loading rifles of the musket days. According to Wikipedia, "smokeless powder" was invented in 1884. Modern ammunition uses smokeless powder as a propellant. From what I can determine, smokeless powder started coming into widespread usage beginning in 1893. Fireworks generally use an agent not far removed from black powder. As for the "firecracker" sound, a .22 caliber rimfire cartridge emits a sound similar to a firecracker. The 6.5 mm Carcano, due to its much larger propellant charge, has a sound closer to a larger caliber rifle than does a .22 rimfire.

The Oswald letter to the Russian embassy is a big clue. Oswald had to know that any correspondence sent to the Soviet embassy would have been subject to interception by US authorities; it was the height of the Cold War, for goodness' sake! So the information in the letter to the Soviet embassy was as much for US authorities' eyes as it was for occupants of the embassy. Oswald knew that just as well as he knew that any letters he sent to the US while he was in the USSR were subject to the eyes of Soviet authorities. My theory has it that Oswald was attempting to infiltrate both pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups and to report on what he could uncover regarding unlawful activities on either side. I think Oswald's cover was blown and he was set up as the designated patsy. But I also believe Oswald didn't realize his cover was blown until JFK was shot, at which time he knew he'd be singled out as the most likely suspect. IF, as others have suggested, the TSBD was a front company that was actually [occasionally] shipping illicit arms in book boxes, that operation was simultaneously blown out of the water because of all the police attention turned upon the TSBD. Just more to think on.

If the tapes/transcript of the Paine interview shows any sign of exculpatory evidence about Oswald, I would fully expect the 6th Floor Museum to bury it/them.

Individual income tax records are protected from disclosure under Title 26, USC. Any unauthorized disclosure of Title 26 data by anyone [government employee, ex-government employee, hackers, etc.] subject the person disclosing the information to HEFTY fines, possible imprisonment, or both. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213

Misheard song lyrics...I'm guilty. In the days of static-filled AM radio, I really thought that in ANNIE'S SONG, John Denver was saying: "Let me drown in your bathtub, let me die in your arms..." I couldn't understand how there was anything romantic about drowning in anyone's bathtub.

Mr. Caddy, Thank you for this revealing expose` of Liddy. This was the kind of information I alluded to in the GASLIT thread on this forum. I read Liddy's book, WILL, and I thought it made him sound like a pompous. self-serving ass. Your recollections have confirmed my conclusions. Again, thank you for your contributions to this forum.

Greg, I had a brother-in-law whose older brother was recruited into the CIA in the 1950s [according to my brother-in-law]. My brother-in-law, who grew up a farm boy before moving to a manufacturing job in a city, told me that his entire family [parents, brothers and sisters] was trained in certain survival and escape/evasion tactics in case his brother's cover was ever blown and they were ever threatened. Since this is second-hand information, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. My brother-in-law only told me this after his older brother had died of natural causes. But part of the training he mentioned was being taught to swim underwater for longer-than-average distances [my b-i-l never could swim on top of the water as most people do]. He was merely explaining to some of us on the family how he learned to swim as he did. And I had not cause to doubt him, as he was generally honest with me. IF the scenario he described was typical of the CIA methods in the 1950s, I sometimes wonder if Ruth Paine is simply concealing what she might have been trained in. I trust his word at least as much as you trust Ruth Paine's word. As a now-retired US government employee, on the day I was hired I took a lifetime oath to never reveal certain data I dealt with on my job. Perhaps, if Ruth Paine was trained similarly to my brother-in-law, she might be under such a lifetime secrecy oath. If so, to violate such an oath would also be a violation of her religious principles. So I can only say that, based upon my own experiences, Ruth Paine might know more than she is ALLOWED to say. Or she actually may not know more than she has revealed. And we may never know which is 100% true.

Thanks, Dan. The address circled on the RIGHT is the location of the OLD Walter Reed Army Hospital. The address circled on the top left is the OLD Bethesda Naval hospital. It's made more confusing because the OLD Bethesda is NOW called Walter Reed.

I just went to Google Maps, after finding the location of the old Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Curiously, what once was the Bethesda Naval Hospital is now called the Walter Reed Military Medical Center. The OLD Walter reed was located at 6900 Georgia Avenue in DC, which is adjacent to 16th Street NW. And Jones Bridge [two words] Road connects between 16th Street NW and Rockville Pike. The old Bethesda/now Walter Reed is located at 8901 Rockville Pike. The distance is listed as 5.6 miles. Neither Google Maps nor Bing Maps will allow me to copy and paste the image of that route.

I count FIVE CONCURRENT THREADS, all begun by Greg Doudna, addressing the innocence of Ruth Paine in her treatment of Lee Oswald and her associations relating to the JFK assassination. If I was to believe every word uttered in defense of Ruth Paine, it would make Mother Teresa seem like a gutter slut in comparison. I don't personally know Ruth Paine. I have no reason to believe she's guilty as sin of every accusation ever leveled against her. But I also have no reason to believe that she has become the most perfect human who has ever walked the Earth, either. Perhaps we need to start a sub-forum on Ruth Paine...?...

THIS ^^^^^ is the valid counterpoint to the first post. OK, maybe it's impossible, in theory, for a Quaker to actually "hate." Or maybe it isn't. But it's quite obvious, in Ruth Paine's own words, to see that Ruth Payne had the strongest possible dislike for Lee Oswald.

Pat Speer understands how the system works here. The moderators do NOT read every post; we simply can't, and still have a normal life. We try to use our best judgement, based upon the reports we receive, as well as our own reading of the posts we do see. I can't speak for ALL the others, but occasionally we remove some content if we judge it to be offensive. Not always are the removals complete posts; sometimes they are just comments we find unnecessarily provocative, or which contain unwarranted personal attacks. Sometimes we move certain threads to other areas of the forum, such as the pro/anti Trump posts that get moved from the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum. So it's quite possible your post wasn't deleted, but rather moved to a more appropriate area of the Education Forum. A bit of SELF-moderation would, of course, would keep this as a DISCUSSION forum, and not a snake pit of argument and ad hominem attacks, as other forums seem to be. "Check yourself, before you wreck yourself" is a phrase my niece uses a lot. But that's a philosophy we all should apply to our posts here. I've made posts in the past 17 years that I now regret, and I know I'm not the only one. My advice is, if you disagree with something in someone else's post(s), do your best to disagree without being disagreeable. Cite your reasons for disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. If you say something like "Only an idiot would believe that!," you're attacking the intelligence of the other poster, and not their argument itself. [I cite that because it seems to have been a common style of argument used by David Von Pein, who has been banned from the forum for such tactics.] And YES, the Invision software used on this forum is sometimes subject to glitches. I'm not an IT guy, so there are occurrences that occasionally leave me baffles as much as anyone. The moderators try very hard to NOT censor the exchange of ideas, including ideas we may not necessarily agree with. It is the free exchange of ideas that helps us arrive at truth. And certainly, TRUTH must be the goal in our discussion of the JFK assassination.

Unlike some on this forum, I'm not willing to confer sainthood on either Ruth or Michael Paine. But I'm also not ready to issue them horns and pitchforks and pointy tails, either. George Bouhe was collecting information on certain people. Perhaps others in the White Russian community were in on the information gathering. DeMohrenschildt has CIA written all over him, and while he was in Dallas he was part of this group. Ruth Paine was connected in some way to this group as well, with her desire to learn Russian from a native. I think Ruth Paine was USED by the group, perhaps as a way to keep an eye on Marina because, if they knew Marina's background/recent ancestry, red flags would have popped up everywhere for Bouhe and the others. Whether Ruth Paine was used WITTINGLY or UNWITTINGLY seems to be the question we're debating here. And right now, trying to be as objective as I possibly can be, I don't think we can determine whether Ruth Paine was being played, or whether she was in on the game. The data we have available is too contradictory.

Exactly.

I have not seen GASLIT, but I did read G. Gordon Liddy's book, WILL. After reading the book, I do believe he was crazy, as in, capable of committing horrendous acts if he thought that they would further a cause he supported. I'd like to hear Douglas Caddy's take on Liddy.

Amen. It's possible to disagree without resorting to ridicule. I would suggest that ALL members of this forum not only remember this, but practice it.

This thread opens up a lot of interesting areas to discuss regarding both Lee and Marina Oswald, as well as the Paines. If Lee was some sort of intelligence operative, owning a car would mean that he could be tracked via the license plate. Traveling via bus would allow him to be "lost in the crowd," as nobody on a bus remembers EVERYONE else who rode that bus. [Even the supposed witnesses to Lee's alleged bus ride to Mexico don't tell the same story.] Let's entertain one more idea here. Instead of Michael and Ruth Paine being CIA operatives WITH operative knowledge of the assassination plot [as some have suggested], what if they were, indeed very low-level CIA operatives with only "need-to-know" information about the assassination...to the point that they may have been used, but totally in the dark that the assassination was to be the result of the operation they were a part of? Think "compartmentalization." THEN the "We both know who is responsible" comment would indicate that while they weren't privy to the plot, after the fact they could put 2 and 2 together. I believe, based upon circumstantial evidence, that George Bouhe, George deMohrenschildt, and several in the White Russian community were involved in different levels of spying for the US government. And they created the connection between the Oswalds and the Paines. And am I the only one who thinks that George and Jeanne deMohrenschildt playing the "get TF out of Dodge" card IMMEDIATELY prior to the assassination WASN'T merely coincidental? I think that Ruth Paine may have been reporting back to someone on what Marina was saying to her, and to what Lee was doing, those times when she knew where he was. But I don't think the Paines knew the big picture; otherwise, they probably would've refused their roles in keeping tabs on the Oswalds. [And I do believe that Marina, with her relative in Russian intelligence, was Ruth's assignment. By having Marina move in with her, Ruth could keep tabs on who Marina communicated with, particularly who she sent letters to, because I'm convinced that US intelligence wasn't unaware of who Marina's relatives were. They had to be sure that Marina wasn't Russian spy. Ruth was, essentially, her "babysitter."]