Mark Knight

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.

The dish on Mike Rago: Forum rules require a photo for your avatar. Because Mr. Rago refused to provide a photo, his membership went into a "limbo" status until such time as he provided a photo and agreed to abide by forum rules. Mr. Rago recently agreed to do so, and his membership was reinstated. Then he removed his photo, violating forum rules. SO...rather that drop the hammer on his membership, Mr. Rago was placed on a posting limitation. Once he abides by forum rules for a week or longer, rather than mere days, his status may change. [I say "may" because I'm not the one who made the call...but I agree with it, in this instance.] There;'s your transparency.

Mr. Varnell, for what it's worth, I am in agreement with you about the location of the back wound. That said, the topic of this thread is NOT the location of the back wound. If you wish to re-debate the issue with others, it would be prudent and respectful to do so on a thread dedicated to that topic.

I am a believer in members funding the forum. If you think it's worth saving, put your money where your keyboard is. I also realize some folks may not have the means to do so, and I don't want them to seem like or feel like second-class members. Nor do I want the members who do contribute to act as if they have purchased the right to be rude and crude. James Gordon has done a great thing by keeping the entire Education Forum afloat. It's not only the JFK assassination discussion forum, but it includes many various educational topics. The site was founded, first and foremost, as an EDUCATIONAL resource. If we will try to looks it through that lens, perhaps the rudeness and lack of respect will diminish accordingly. Pat Speer has his own site, and he understands, I believe, the educational angle. That's simply one example. But I think if we can steer our comments and questions toward an educational perspective, a lot of animosity will disappear. This does NOT exclude anyone from the responsibility to posting factual information, nor from the responsibility of labelling opinion and theory as opinion and theory. If you post something that someone else points out and proves as false, that does not relieve you of the responsibility of acknowledging proven facts. That is simply common courtesy. It does not demean anyone to say "I stand corrected," or "I was unclear," or even, "The facts you cited may be disputed." It's all about respecting one another, and respecting that others may have a theory or opinion that differs from your own based upon the same facts. Respect one another, tell the truth (a HUGE sore spot for me personally), and remember the original EDUCATIONAL mission of The Education Forum.

He was not denied entry. He entered via Helsinki a few weeks before. He was never "denied entry"; he was denied citizenship. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Be honest for once, Mr. Trejo. I am not stating anything that is untrue. If you disagree, prove it.