Mark Knight

Before we jump too heavily on the Teamsters/no driver's license issue, I want to point out that locally, the Teamsters Union represents the workers at the area Kroger grocery warehouse. Not only the truck drivers, but the laborers on the warehouse floor as well. So it's not unreasonable to be a member of the Teamsters Union and not have a driver's license. You don't need a driver's license to operate a forklift.

Mr. Hagger, I would hope that, when you came here, you realized that a JFK assassination discussion forum's primary purpose is to discuss the assassination of JFK. If that bores you, then I would ask why you came here in the first place. I mean, one does not go to the Republican National Convention to discuss landscaping, even if the periphery of the convention site is nicely landscaped. In this forum I will concede that General Edwin Anderson Walker has probably not been researchers deeply as you have already done. But since the forum IS about the JFK assassination, I would say you have no reason to scoff at the 600+ pages of posts here as worthless. If you feel you should leave, I would not encourage you to stay, nor would I encourage you to hasten your departure. But I would liken your experience here to making a trip to a seafood restaurant and expecting them to be experts on steak rather than sea bass.

Qui habeus corpus? Who has the body? Where is the box? We know that comedian Vaughn Meador's career ended on November 22, 1963. So did the career of the false Oswald? So he was never seen again...

So where is Lee today? Simple question. And where had he been since 1963?

I guess I'm agnostic on the Harvey and Lee topic. While I don't doubt there was at least one imposter sighted during 1963, I have trouble with the idea of a CIA project that predates the CIA. So I suppose the question that should be answered is: If it was Harvey who was gunned down by Ruby... ...where is Lee in the past 55 years?

Karl, I think your interpretation makes a lot of sense. Even if it was a Freudian slip on their part. The entire BOP operation was meant, IMHO, to draw the US military into a war over Cuba. In that respect, it WAS a calculated PLOT to force Kennedy into a war he didn't want. [Had Nixon won the election, it was a war he encouraged.] NOT allowing the military to attack Cuba in defense of the planned-to-fail BOP raid was, in the minds of the pro-war factions, a BLOT on JFK's record just weeks into the new administration. So in some ways, "plot" is much more accurate than "blot." So the transcript may be incorrect, as you pointed out.

Sandy, this shows us that the CIA was involved with setting up the Oswald "legend" prior to, and definitely after, the assassination. The 201 file shows that Oswald was in some way connected to the CIA. But as far as CIA fingerprints on the assassination itself...it's as if the murder weapon was "wiped clean" of those prints. Guilt-by-association isn't exactly enough to convict, IMHO.

Understanding the amount of control the CIA did or did not exert over the groups affiliated with them would go a long way towards determining the truth. Releasing the related documents might provide insight and clarity. Do I think the CIA was involved in the assassination? I would say today that we still lack the evidence to say that. Do I think that persons or groups connected to the CIA may have been involved in the assassination? I would say that the odds are good that this is true. Do I expect that there is a "smoking gun" hidden in the CIA files? I would say there is a better than 95% chance there is NOT. But do I think that the CIA knows the truth about the assassination ? Yes.

So Oswald allegedly left his jacket at the TSBD (to be found weeks later)... ...went back to his rooming house and allegedly changed clothes... ...allegedly dropped another jacket behind the Texaco station... ...and, after allegedly changing clothes at the rooming house, is arrested wearing the same shirt he allegedly wore on the bus and in the taxi, BEFORE he allegedly changed clothes. Is there anything wrong about this narrative?

I believe I'm done with this thread.

Perhaps the house on Harlandale was simply a "station" on the Cuban version of the Underground Railroad....

Once more, since you apparently missed my point.

I believe I'm done with this thread. No new information is being brought to light. We can speculate until Doomsday, and that won't make any of it the truth.

I believe the Darnell film shows a person commonly referred to as"Prayer Man" in what I will dub the "Amen Corner." I believe that person is not visible in Altgens or Zapruder. I believe I will refrain from speculation about what happened immediately before or immediately after what is recorded on film. I believe I will refrain from speculating on what was said by those photographed immediately prior to, during, or after their capture on film.

Larry, I bought SWHT in 2010, and found it fascinating. The information you uncovered in your research changed a lot of my previous opinions and conclusions. I continue to find your comments enlightening, and hope that you continue to contribute here for years to come.

Absent a record... ...we're left with... SPECULATION. S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. Now. Take those letters, in that order, and write the word "FACT." In case you didn't notice, it's an impossible task. And yet...you persist.

So we SEE THEM carrying on this conversation? We KNOW verbatim what was said? Gee, Mr. Graves; it seems you've been holding out on us.

To elaborate... David Von Pein and I aren't that far apart, when it comes to the evidence. Where we differ is to the weight given to certain evidence, and to our conclusions about what the evidence tells us. Damn the speculation. Give me evidence, and let me decide whether I believe it to be important or unimportant.

I'm pretty sure The Education Forum was never structured as a democracy, where membership is concerned. So don't look for that to start today. Or tomorrow. Or next week. And Mr. Graves, I congratulate you on your Trejo-esque move to turn this into yet another thread on Prayer Man/Woman. Your "speculate for me so I can tell you how stupid your speculation is, compared to my own speculation" form of questioning other members is so condescending that I'm beginning to wonder if you and Mr. Trejo are in cahoots.

YOU are the one inventing these scenarios, not I. YOU are the one claiming to know things NOT IN EVIDENCE. I'm fairly certain that I haven't mentioned exactly what my position is on Prayer Man. If you want to "solve" the assassination based upon speculation, have at it. Then you and Mr. Trejo can start your own fact-free Miseducation Forum, and run it any way you choose. As for me, I'll stick with the evidence we can see.

A witness. A tape recording. Any sort of PROOF above mere speculation. Speculation is NOT PROOF. Again, anyone with access to a dictionary can discover that "speculation" is not the same as "proof." It's really not a leap of faith. If you don't understand the difference, you can use the dictionary to discover the difference. If you DO understand the difference, but refuse to accept it as such... ...that's on you. And I called the use of that type of questions as evidence of being obtuse. Perhaps I should have said that I recognize you to be much more intelligent than to continue the line of questioning you have pursued, which makes me believe your questions are simply for the purpose of lengthening this thread, and that increasing the level of knowledge about the JFK assassination is the furthest thing from the true point of this thread.

See? There IS an upside to their verbal lovefest.

Hard to pin down with the available evidence. 1. Maybe he had no role. 2. Maybe he brought the rifle to work, and someone else does the deed: A) with no foreknowledge, Oswald is a patsy, but unwittingly complicit. with foreknowledge, Oswald is a willing co-conspirator. 3. Maybe he never brought the rifle to work 4. Maybe he never owned the rifle, and the so-called evidence of him ordering the rifle is a part of his patsification (if that's even a word).

Damn, Mr. Graves. Did you not read the part I quoted? "Facts not in evidence" refers to your ASSUMPTION that Frazier and Prayer person turned and faced one another to speak to each other. You know...THE PART OF YOUR PREVIOUS POST I QUOTED. The part RELEVANT to my comments that followed. The part NOT SHOWN IN ANY FILM AVAILABLE TO DATE. THOSE "facts not in evidence." Cheez... just when I thought you couldn't get any more obtuse. This ain't rocket surgery. There's no need to go all "prehistoric" on me, when I quoted your comment to highlight SPECIFICALLY what my comments were referencing. It shouldn't be THAT difficult to understand. Unless you CHOOSE to make it difficult to understand.

Once again you are ASSUMING facts not in evidence. You are constantly begging for speculation on this thread. How about sticking to the FACTS and leaving the speculation-is-now-accepted-as-fact posts to Mr Trejo. Or how about refraining from asking for speculation from other members, simply because you believe you can out-speculate everyone else? I'm through responding to the inane line of questioning you continue to put forth in this post. If you seek facts, ask for facts. If you want clairvoyance, I suggest you contact a medium and see what his/her crystal ball reveals. I don't know a polite way to tell you that if you have nothing to add, it would behoove you to stop adding that nothing on top of your existing level of nothing.