Mark Knight

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.

"...isn't it equally possible...that they told him...to be in the 2nd floor lunch room...so Baker and Truly could encounter him there around 12:33?" Yes. And it's possible he was told nothing of the sort. It's also possible that the point of this thread is, it has no point, other than putting your name at the top of the thread list with each bump, and with each query that begins to border on redundancy. And it's likewise possible that I'm getting tired of playing this silly game which uncovers NO usable information...but keeps Thomas Graves at the top of the thread list. Many things are POSSIBLE. Discerning which are PROBABLE is the task of greatest difficulty, in many cases. But not ALL cases.

Thomas Purvis passed away a few years back.

Calls for speculation. Does it really matter?

Charges can be upgraded or downgraded at almost any time. Sometimes it occurs DURING a trial, if someone decides to take a plea bargain. You already know that. The point is, no matter WHAT charge was filed against Oswald, since the President was involved, it's more than a 99% certainty that bond would be set so high, if a bond was set, to prevent Oswald from getting out of jail prior to a trial. So whether Oswald was seen in ONE or A THOUSAND photos, as long as the rifle tied him to the murder, where he was when the shots were fired is of minute importance. As I said, this isn't rocket surgery. Once Ozzie was in police custody, as long as they had the rifle he's not going anywhere. You're now trying to separate the gnat feces from the Pepper here. It's not productive, and does nothing to unravel what happened on November 22, 1963.... ...y'know...the reason most of us are here.

You overlook one important detail: even charging LHO as an accessory to murder-- a murder which was only a STATE crime, not a FEDERAL offense in 1963-- Ozzie might have also faced a FEDERAL charge of TREASON. Being charged as an accessory, of course, would have required that some confederates of Oswald also be charged. Assuming there was a case for conspiracy, there were people in high places, in my opinion, who simply didn't want to "go there." So if "lone nut" couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was a reluctance to charge any co-conspirators, there was one option left: In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "Earl had to die." [Earl in this case being Ozzie.]

Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting are immaterial. If they tie him to the rifle, he's an accessory to murder, and a "Commie plot" is "revealed" because of his connections to FPCC and his defection-but-not-really-a-defection. It ain't rocket surgery or brain science to figure THAT out. If Brennan's ID sticks, Ozzie fries for murder. If it doesn't (and didn't), either he's at least an accessory, or he's marked to die before any trial is convened. And we all know which one played out. Not only do dead men tell no tales but they apparently also don't get legal representation that can cross-examine the witnesses against them.

To address your question... If Oswald was part of the plot-- knowingly or unknowingly-- I'm of the opinion that Oswald was not a man who was easy to micromanage. In my opinion, his movements had to seem as though they were of his own volition...at least in his own mind, In my opinion, he would only follow directions if he was in 100% in agreement with the plot. If he wasn't part of the plot, his movements were not controlled by anyone (but himself). Seems like a simple concept to me.

1. 1. There's the thread for the Mitrokhin discussion. 2. I'm surprised you asked about moving the off-topic discussion to a thread where it would be on-topic. To my way of thinking, that's a no- brainer. 3. I made no reference to your question in the title of the thread. And 4. You've certainly proved my point about your posts being about you remaining the center of attention, rather than seriously discussing the JFK assassination. (In case you forgot, that's why most of the rest of us are here...the discussion of the JFK assassination [so you don't have to ask what the forum is about]).

I suggest you NOT hijack this thread, even if you started the thread, and instead take it to the thread that pertains to the topic. I should be surprised you asked, but I'm not. As long as you remain center stage, you apparently don't care about the actual discussion around you.

In the vein of an April Fools' joke, this thread fits. But ONLY in that vein.

Honestly, Mr. Graves, I don't think anyone on the forum short of Mr. Trejo could twist this into a thread meant to irritate more directly than you have done. Honestly, this would be a matter to export to a H&L thread, rather than hijacking the Cunningham Exhibit 1 thread for those purposes.

Mr.Graves, I realize this is April Fools' Day. But I also realize that your posts above poking at the H&L theory does not contribute to the discussion of Cunningham Exhibit 1 one iota. I don't even buy the H&L theory myself, and I found it irritating. If you want to argue about the H&L theory, I strongly suggest you do so on a thread dedicated to the H&L theory. Not every thread here is created for the express purpose of you figuratively poking someone else with a sharp stick. I think you owe Steve Thomas an apology for doing this on his thread.

Do we know what brand and model Darnell's camera was? That'd seem to be the best starting point for answering your question.

The police uniform shirt hanging in the back of Tippit's squad car is likely a clue.

In the 1966 LIFE Magazine article, Nellie Connally said that neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission expressed any interest in John Connally's clothing...until AFTER she attempted to clean it. I'm guessing that if something was being hidden, it wasn't the Connallys hiding it.

Just a point: Holmes was a POSTAL INSPECTOR, not a POSTMASTER. A POSTMASTER is CEO of a single post office; the Postal Inspection Service are the post office "cops," or the investigative branch. I'm only after accuracy; we are, after all, the EDUCATION Forum.

James Gordon did an investigation into Connally's wounds awhile back, and did further research on the "tangential" bullet strike to the rib. It was very informative, and better explained the information the doctors tried to convey post-op.

John Simkin is still a member of the EF. Perhaps you might attempt to contact him directly.