Mark Knight

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.

Mr. Trejo, I'M going to call out a BLATANT falsehood in your post above. Oswald's suicide attempt occurred AFTER he entered the USSR...not BEFORE. It had NOTHING to do with getting him INTO the USSR, and everything to do with REMAINING there once he got in. You have a habit of playing fast and loose with the truth. I WILL NOT LET THAT PASS. And I quoted your entire post so you cannot HONESTLY accuse me of twisting your words. Mr. Trejo, Oswald's was NOT "on the border" when he attempted suicide. He was in MOSCOW, and had been there for WEEKS. It occurred AFTER his fake renunciation of his US citizenship at the Moscow embassy, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If you DON'T know that, you need to do more research. If you DO know that, but insist on posting something you KNOW to be untrue... well, you know what that would make you. And it's the opposite of a truth-teller.

Mr Graves, As I understand it, the purpose of this forum is to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (If I'm wrong about this, maybe you can allow me to hang onto my illusion/self-delusion a bit longer.) If my understanding is correct, then it is not about you or about me. It is not about making derisive and demeaning comments about other forum members, nor is it about bumping your posts merely to repeat the aforementioned comments. As I have mentioned at another time in the forum, if someone uses the button on each thread to go to the first unread post, they will see your post upon their return to that thread...no post bumping necessary. I'm not advocating making this forum a humorless place. But demeaning other members or calling them something other than their name is disrespectful, not humorous. Dale Carnegie knew the importance of referring to someone by name. If you haven't read any of his books, I highly recommend them. We can certainly demonstrate respect towards other members even if we find a theory of theirs to be total rubbish. But a critique without the "Jane, you ignorant slut!!" tone, pointing out errors in fact or logic, is a strong argument. An argument with an "anyone with half a brain can see" position comes across as not only weak but condescending. Surely we can discuss and debate the assassination descending into that snakepit. If we can't, maybe continuing this forum IS the wrong course of action.

Mr. Josephs, I thank you for your contributions to the forum. I don't get involved in the H&L discussions simply because I don't have time to get up to speed on the subject. But I appreciate your work on other areas of the JFK assassination. As a moderator, I would simply advise you, as I would any other member, to not respond in kind to provocative posts. IOW, "don't feed the T-R-O-L-L-S." Now...as my generation used to say: Keep on truckin'.

Mr. Trejo, I'M going to call out a BLATANT falsehood in your post above. Oswald's suicide attempt occurred AFTER he entered the USSR...not BEFORE. It had NOTHING to do with getting him INTO the USSR, and everything to do with REMAINING there once he got in. You have a habit of playing fast and loose with the truth. I WILL NOT LET THAT PASS. And I quoted your entire post so you cannot HONESTLY accuse me of twisting your words.

In an attempt to bring this full circle, and back on topic... We all have demands on our time outside this forum. I see no need to "bump" a post addressed to another forum member; if they use the "go to first unread post on this thread" shortcut, they WILL see your post. Then again, I see no need for moderators to have to police the forum 24/7. I have a family member who is suffering from dementia, and my wife and I are full-time caregivers. Plus, I have a 40-hour-a-week job. As moderators, we try to do the best we can with the time we have. We try to be fair. I know that, before I place anyone on moderation, I try to contact them and communicate why I see an issue with a post. That part should NOT have to be public. Same thing with the other moderators; if we feel there may be an issue we need to discuss, we should be able to do so privately. In case you weren't aware, we have the ENTIRE Education Forum, and not ONLY the JFK discussion forum here. There are MANY subforums here. Personally, I keep my bookmark on the JFK forum because that's my primary interest. But there are parts of the Ed Forum dedicated to other historical matters, including the RFK assassination. I encourage you to check them out. This forum isn't about me. Not is it about Mr. Josephs, Mr. Graves, Mr. Trejo, or any one person not named John Fitzgerald Kennedy or the persons possibly involved in his murder and the investigation thereof. We all need to keep this in mind. If you criticize a particular theory, it might be wise to criticize the particular part of the evidence being presented with which you have a problem, rather than the person making the argument for their theory. And if you don't understand a particular theory, it's more productive to either question the parts you don't understand or to refrain from commenting until you can research the matter more fully on your own. This is an example of my advice, and not the setting of forum rules. Many of you have no idea how close we came to having this forum closed much more recently than you might imagine. If you value this forum as a resource, I would suggest that members show that through the tone and demeanor of their posts. If we all do that, there would be little reason for moderation. Keep your PMs open so that mods can communicate about any problems they may have with a particular post or series of posts. And if you think a certain theory is a complete load of crap, the best approach is to cite the evidence or conclusion that is the source of your disagreement, and make your case. Don't expect immediate abandonment of the theory by the proponents; that rarely happens. Make your point, make a rebuttal or two, and then move on; to continue what turns into a feud is counterproductive, and borders on T-R-O-L-L-I-N-G. If the tone of your post begins with, "Jane, you ignorant slut...", it's time to walk away. Thanks for hearing me out.

I have tried to PM Mr. Jeffries, but he is apparently not accepting PM's. Then he wonders why he never gets a response. 2 + 2 = 4. It really is that simple.

I tried to PM you days ago, Don, but apparently you aren't taking any messages.

The current owners of the site and the moderators as well are people who have lives outside the forum. Sometimes they don't see certain posts until they are brought to a moderator's attention. Sometimes the moderators disagree on taking certain actions. There are sometimes "back-channel" emails exchanged among the owners and moderators discussing courses of action that are taken [or are not taken]. But it's not as if some grand cabal is behind removing or suspending certain forum members. And we are human. Sometimes someone irritates a certain owner or moderator to the point that action is taken that may be hasty or overreactive. It happens. I happen to think that the majority of David Josephs' recent posts have been quite informative. But there have been a few which some mods may believe have crossed a line. The truth is, I'm not driving this bus. Then again, I'm also not the person who is making the major financial commitment to keep the forum available. Therefore, any comments I have are merely advisory, and may or may not carry any weight at any given point in time. But I sincerely hope that Paul Brancato reconsiders and stays.

The diorama was NOT used to make the survey. An actual surveyor in Dealy Plaza performed the survey. HONEST. And the surveyor DID NOT build the diorama. Are you still with me? The truth is, the shot at Z313 has always been at the spot where Z313 is now said to have occurred. What you're missing is that according to the testimony of AP photographer James Altgens, there was a shot at the spot surveyed as 4.96, right next to his position, which some equate to Z328. That would be the second head shot that some witnesses claim to occur...which was not far from the knoll steps you mentioned. So...how does THIS cause the data for Z161 to change? Truth is, it doesn't...if you're being honest. It's not as if the Z-film was locked away from Time-Life Inc., the Secret Service, or the FBI when the surveys for each of them was done by Mr. West's company. In fact, they had the ONLY copies. And they were used to plot the survey positions for each of the points in the data blocks...EXCEPT for the altered data block entered into evidence by the WC. Mr. West had said that his firm had nothing to do with the altered data.

Mr. Walton, if there is nothing unusual going on in regards to the Z-film, why did the original survey data get altered? A few years back Mr. Tom Purvis got copies of the original survey work from Robert West, the surveyor. If nothing strange is going on, why did data for frame 161 get changed to frame 166? Mr. West the surveyor didn't change it...but when it was entered into the record for the WC report, it was altered. This would suggest that the data which was to coincide with the original film was changed to match the film we now have. Is there any other LOGICAL reason for a NON-surveyor to change the surveyor's data? If so, I'm open to your evidence.

The case is made of brass, not butter. It would take a harder impact than simply being dropped on the floor to deform the case that much. The empty case weight so little, and basic physics tells us that force equals mass times velocity. So unless the case was moving faster than mach 0.5 (pulling a number out of thin air), hitting a wooden floor didn't do that damage.

Glad to see you posting again, Robert. Looking forward to more good info from you.

Ruth Pain had a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. Not a RAMBLER.

Ok, Mr. Trejo. So Guy Bannister sent Oswald to Mexico City...according to YOU. When Oswald's alleged "mission" in MC failed, why didn't he REPORT BACK to Bannister? Where is the record of a meeting...or a phone call...or a letter...or a smoke signal? Perhaps because he didn't "work" for Bannister, even only in his own mind. No, THAT can't be it...because it would poke a hole in your theory. (Remember, it IS simply a THEORY. Sometimes it seems that you forget that part.) Not even a "What do I do next?" call. If YOU had been in Oswald's shoes, wouldn't YOU have wanted to talk with your boss...especially if you had FAILED your (supposed) mission? There is no evidence Oswald ever contacted anyone in or from New Orleans again. So do you think he just said, "Oh well..."? That conclusion appears to be in direct conflict with Oswald's temperament. Or did he contact Bannister only to be told, "Don't call us; we'll call you."?? Even that makes more sense than declaring Wes Frazier a homosexual.

That is the most twisted interpretation of simple language I have ever seen. Wes Frazier was telling them that some men had a habit of going to the rest room after quitting time, and that if Oswald needed a ride to Irving, he should tell Frazier in advance so Frazier doesn't leave without Oswald. No more. No less. To read homosexual attraction into that, one would need to have a very twisted and depraved mind.

Trejo's posts above show to what lengths he'll speculate. There is no evidence that Wes Frazier was "attracted" to the sullen and withdrawn Oswald. Implying that there was something untoward in Frazier's behaviour for hauling his sometimes-neighbor to and from work is despicable, even for Trejo. The truth is, Frazier owned a .303 Enfield rifle himself, IIRC. Since the reports were that JFK was shot with a .30-caliber rifle, when Frazier was questioned by the DPD he was a legitimate suspect...even with the Carcano already in custody (and/or a Mauser, depending on whether you believe the multiple reports of one being found). If Wes Frazier was trying to save his own a** from the electric chair, why was he doing his best to DEFEND Oswald? Because he was afraid of being charged as an accessory to murder? Frazier was no more an accessory for taking Oswald to work than a certain cab driver and bus driver we're accessories in Oswald's alleged escape. Trejo knows that. IMHO, Trejo owes Wes Frazier an apology, unless of until he can prove his speculation is true.

A very interesting study.

The missing clip. The MC rifle didn't use a traditional box magazine, which is commonly but incorrectly called a clip. Instead the MC used what is often referred to as a "stripper clip." When the last round is fired from a stripper clip, it falls out of the rifle. Odd that the clip wasn't found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Even more odd is the notion that the alleged assassin would recover the clip but not the spent rounds. Odd that no clip has been found in Oswald's possessions, on his person, on a bus, in a taxi, or anywhere else Oswald was alleged to have been on November 22, 1963. Odd that no 6.5 mm rounds were found in Oswald's possessions. Odd that no .38 rounds were found anywhere except on Oswald's person. A lot of "odd" going on, IMHO.

The WC claimed that Oswald's pistol came from Seaport Traders in California.

Hmmmmm... Gerry Patric Hemming told me in an email that Montreal was the REAL "key" to the JFK assassination. Hemming was a bit cryptic, and he could be a bullshitter at times. But he refused to be more specific, telling me to do my own damn research, or words to that effect. He told me that Montreal, and NOT Klein's Sporting Goods, was the source of the Mannlicher-Carcano. Then told me to figure it out for myself.