Mark Knight

Apparently the FBI was pushing the "commie" angle quite hard in the MLKjr case.

I find it quite telling that those who call the testimony taken by the January 6th Committee "lies" aren't as willing to testify under oath about what they claim the "lies" are. They go to Twitter and other social media, but don't volunteer to swear an oath that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

And THIS is what prevented a constitutional crisis that was planned to subvert our democracy. The killing of Pelosi and Pence were, in constitutional terms, of small concern. The insurrection planners would have allowed those murders to pass as "collateral damage" had the state-certified Electoral College votes been captured. The murders weren't their priority; usurping our democracy was the priority. And I'm shocked at how few people realize that. Or care.

Tom Purvis and I pursued this, but we could find no evidence that Oswald was left-eye dominant.

Cory, without asking Ruth Paine or Marina, no one else can possibly answer your question without reverting to speculation. I can look at this from several sides. After a kid goes to the dentist, they can be very cranky. So taking the kids downtown for a parade might not be something Ruth wanted to do. As far as Marina and the baby, my experience dealing with very small children was that we always had a "diaper bag" packed and ready to go at a moment's notice, except for fresh formula for the baby. So if Marina was doing the "suburban mom" thing, the bag would have been set to add a bottle for the baby and go. There are several plausible scenarios on both sides of why Ruth and Marina might have chosen to go, or might have chosen not to go. UNTIL one or both get asked, the answer is "blowin' in the wind."

What is escaping MOST of those who are following the January 6th hearings is a little-noticed detail. The MOST RANSACKED office in the Capitol was the Senate parliamentarian's office. WHY? Because that's where the insurrectionists supposed they would find the box containing the state-certified Electoral College vote tallies. While the attack itself derailed and delayed the Congressional certification of the state-certified electoral vote totals, had the box been found and absconded with, the Congressional certification of electoral votes could NOT have continued. THAT would have created a constitutional crisis. There is no provision in the constitution for dealing with missing state-certified electoral votes. NONE. So that would leave TWO possible routes to determine the winner of the Presidential election. ONE would be a ruling by the Trump-heavy Supreme Court. The other would have been to use the constitution's mechanism for deciding an election that's too close to call. By a vote of the then-Republican-majority House of Representatives. THAT is how close America came to having our democracy stolen from us. It all came down to the security of that box of state-certified Electoral College vote tallies. Had the insurrectionists captured and absconded with that, it would have been "game over" for our democracy. THAT is why Trump failed to call off the insurrectionists until it was certain that the box with the state-certified Electoral College vote tallies was out of the insurrectionists' reach. THEN Trump acted. And most people MISSED THAT POINT. The MOST IMPORTANT POINT about the insurrection. Had Trump really believed that Antifa was behind the insurrection, he would have acted with VIGOR, not RIGOR. Capitol insurrection: Jonathan Karl reveals Senate Parliamentarian office was ransacked the most during riots - EconoTimes

Not necessarily. That particular sight mount offset the scope to the left of the barrel/action, leaving the iron sights unimpaired. The particular mount would have been GREAT for a shooter who was left-eye dominant...and not so good for anyone else.

"That arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him [Oswald] of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense." -- D. Johnston; WC Testimony So Oswald was remanded to the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff...yet he never was in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff, was he? A mere 36 hours later, Oswald was dead, having NEVER been in the custody of the Dallas County Sheriff. I still don't understand why Oswald wasn't transferred in the early morning hours, with no public notice, and surrounded by enough officers to form an impenetrable wall of bodies, shortly after this order was issued. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20, but had the custody of Oswald been handed off to Decker early Saturday morning, odds are we'd never have known who Jack Ruby was.

I believe the rules against ad hominem attacks cover that. However, I also noticed that no particular member was called out on that one. The fact that Kathy has had to come in and break up this schoolyard scuffle shows that EF rules have been violated. I would caution that personal attacks of ANY kind are prohibited here, and that ALL members should take note when an administrator has to step in on a thread, and see that as an "opportunity" to examine their own behavior here. We like to promote discussion here. But by that, we mean the discussion of ideas and evidence. I would hope no one here would tell another member to "go to Hell," but if one does that, at least try to be Churchillian and "do it in such a way that they will be looking forward to the trip." Obviously, several have missed that mark on this thread.

Can you show me where OSWALD HIMSELF is saying that he refused a lawyer? If not, this bit about refusing a lawyer is hearsay. I know you don't believe Chief Curry when he said in 1969 that he could never place Oswald in the SE window of the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand...yet you believe Curry when he says Oswald refused a lawyer. Show me ONE scene on film where OSWALD was speaking and he refused a lawyer. Just ONE. There is plenty of film with Oswald asking for a lawyer to come forward and represent him. Of course, I suppose in your mind, Chief Curry is 100% honest in 1963-'64, but 100% lying in 1969. What reason would Curry have to lie in 1969? It's not as if Oswald was going to come back and gun him down if he stuck to his story from '63-'64. It's not as if Curry was going to get rich by changing his story, either. And he already had his "15 minutes of fame" [and then some] in '63-'64. So why would Curry have a reason to lie in 1969? What possible gain was in it for him?

As one of the moderators here, I'm going to speak for myself only. The other mods may agree, or they may disagree. My personal opinion is that the JFK assassination, the MLKjr assassination, the RFK assassination, the George Wallace shooting, and Watergate are all related. We have a separate board here for Watergate. I do read every post from Douglas Caddy that I can, because he was an attorney involved in the case. But I often move his posts about Watergate to that specific forum because...that's what that forum is about. I don't particularly want a significant Watergate-related post to get "lost" here on the JFK forum. As far as the "deep state" posts, I generally leave those alone. I have opinions that might make me biased in my judgements, so I defer to other mods on that topic. [I think MANY of us may agree on a "deep state," but we likely disagree on which political side they represent. For all I know, they may not represent ANY particular political side, but may instead simply be two sides fighting over the steering wheel while the car is speeding ahead.] As moderators, we try not to restrict free speech. But we do expect a level of decorum. Often that level of decorum is violated. Honestly, there are several threads here that I purposely avoid because they deteriorate to two or three members repeating the same things over and over, interspersed with snark and the frequent ad hominem. While our official policy is to not allow ad hominem attacks, it's often difficult to determine who's responsible, or "who fired the first shot," and who then responded in kind. Some of the other mods may not tell you this, but the fact remains that we do attempt to be fair and even-handed. Limiting the length of posts will invariably simply cause some to make their statement in multiple consecutive posts. And limiting the number of daily posts is generally only done as a disciplinary move, if it seems a certain member is "flooding" the forum. I'm sure the other mods will see this thread, and if one or another decides we need to discuss a policy change, we will discuss it.

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.