Mark Knight

That's usually what happens.

I believe the parallel is uncanny...and unnerving. Technically, McCarthy didn't drop out; he simply gave up campaigning. But it was the party "regulars" who gave the nomination to Humphrey, much as it was the "superdelegates" (party "regulars") who gave Clinton the nomination.

Since this is the JFK assassination forum, I'm not going to sidetrack myself with Watergate itself. The common denominator in all this is Nixon. Nixon didn't pull any triggers himself. We all can agree to that. But I think that the key to it all is Nixon. The hush money conversations about Watergate shows a Mafia-style knowledge on Nixon's part. Bags of untraceable cash? Yeah, we can do that. So who (plural) was bankrolling all this? To what end? Johnson gave the MICC Vietnam. We weren't getting out very quickly on LBJ's watch. But Johnson was savvy enough to know that when he lost Cronkite's support, he'd lost America's support as well and a second term simply wasn't in the cards. What I don't understand--and I lived through that era-- is what happened to Gene McCarthy after RFK's assassination. Humphrey, initially a stand-in for LBJ, never had the nomination sewed up. McCarthy was "persuaded" to step aside...somehow. Money? Threats? Blackmail? Not sure, but I'd wager that Nixon's backers found a way to "convince" McCarthy to drop out. I don't think anyone on the Democrat side of the ledger was was behind it. McCarthy seemed to fold his cards after RFK's death, and he only offered a token challenge to Humphrey. Once Humphrey was the nominee, Nixon's election was assured. Until someone decided they weren't getting their money's worth from Nixon, and Watergate came about. The cabal giveth the White House, and the cabal taketh away. Not convinced the warhawks were the only kingmakers of the Nixon presidency.

"... JFK+RFK+MLK+Geo Wallage+Watergate ..." OK...so what do these names have in common? Richard Nixon. JFK? Won the '60 election. Nixon's loss to JFK led to his '62 California gubernatorial loss, and his "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" speech. JFK had to pay. Mission accomplished. RFK? Would have beaten Nixon in '68 election, if he could get past Gene McCarthy at the convention. RFK had to be neutralized. Mission accomplished. MLK? '68 was the first presidential election after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. MANY formerly disenfranchised black voters would be voting for the first time. MLK was a leader in the black community with national prominence, and he was leading the black voters AWAY from the Republican Party. MLK had to be neutralized. Mission accomplished. George Wallace? Stealing Nixon's "law-and-order" thunder. Opened up the potential for a 3-way '72 election to be decided in the House of Representatives if there was no clear Electoral College winner. Nixon had few friends in the House in '71-'72. Wallace had to be neutralized. Mission accomplished. Watergate? It was an attempted black-bag job at the DNC headquarters, to either steal information prior to the '72 election or to plant suspicious material which could then be "discovered", which would discredit the Democratic Party. However, McGovern was so inept as a candidate, the failure of the mission at the Watergate was of little consequence in the election. Now, Dick Nixon certainly benefitted from each, with the exception of Watergate. Cui bono, indeed?

The key is the COLOR of the BACKGROUND of the card. The ORANGE background, according to my research, was SPECIFICALLY FOR DEPENDENTS of military or ex-military personnel. If Oswald got a hardship discharge from the military ostensibly to deal with the health of his mother, it would be conceivable that he convinced someone that his mother had no one else to care for her. That would make the case that, in the eyes of the military (at least those just above Oswald) that Marguerite was Lee's "dependent," in this context. So that would imply that the card with Lee's name, photo and signature was a forgery. If Lee produced the forgery, it was likely during his employment at Jagger-Chiles-Stovall. But if the card was NOT a forgery, then Lee Oswald likely had an undercover relationship with some organization (CIA, MI, etc) that provided him with the bogus credential. So which scenario is most likely? We may never know the definitive answer. I would think that, while Oswald was in the Soviet Union, having this card in his possession there after allegedly renouncing his US citizenship would have seemed quite suspect. That's why I believe this card never made the trip to the USSR with Oswald. But back in the civilians world, the card likely wouldn't be questioned, and the way the front of the card reads, he would've had PX privileges at military bases, among other benefits. And in the uncomputerized 1960's, this card would likely have gotten Oswald on any US military base just about anywhere in the world...for whatever purposes.

CLEARLY, LHO wasn't his own "dependent." And the 1959 issue date on the reverse tells us that it wasn't issued for Marina. Therefore, in 1959, the ONLY "dependent" LHO had, in the eyes of the military in 1959, was Marguerite Oswald. So this card HAD to have begun its life as MARGUERITE OSWALD's card.

Just a thought: Was Marguerite Oswald considered a DEPENDENT of LHO, for military purposes related to his accelerated discharge? Could this have begun as Marguerite's DD1173...and have been altered by LHO during his employment at JCS? IMHO, this would be the ONLY way the LHO would have obtained a "dependent"/orange DD1173 with his own name/photo/signature on it. Unless he actually WAS connected to some intelligence operation.

A very brief internet search tends to show that the ORANGE card was for DEPENDENTS.... But if it was MARINA'S card, it would naturally have HER name and photo. What was LHO's "service number"? Because the bottom line has number "1653230" as the service number of the SPONSOR of the person named on the card. If we can figure out whose number the "1653230" was, we might get somewhere.

Of course, the letter/draft/copy didn't surface until after Lee Oswald was DEAD. Dead men refute no "evidence."

Problem is... Walker was an EX-GENERAL from the date of his resignation forward. Like being the EX-president of General Motors, you don't blame GM for what he did after he left that office. And the US citizens have ALWAYS been intelligent enough to understand the difference. America in 1963 was NEVER as stupid as your theory tries to paint them.

But you asked why they didn't PROSECUTE. I answered your question as it was asked. Unlike you, I don't read minds. I read words.

The Warren Commission was an INVESTIGATIVE BODY, not a prosecutor. The US Attorney General was NOT on the Warren Commission. NO PROSECUTORS were on the Warren Commission. Earl Warren was Chief Justice, which is a JUDGE, and NOT a prosecutor. The Warren Commission prosecuted NO ONE...because that WAS NOT THEIR MISSION. I believe that's the MOST insane question I've EVER seen asked on these forums...and by someone who SHOULD know how absurd that question is. And that "thrown out of court" comment was almost humorous, if this wasn't such a serious subject to begin with.

A big part of the problem with Trejo's incessant proselytizing is that anyone who disagrees with him is either a LNer or a "CIA-did-it" theorist. In his mind there is NO OTHER POSITION one may take. And that's why I have so much problem with his zealotry.

Who is this JIM Simkin of which you speak? Of course, we SHOULD be used to your persistent lack of accuracy in nearly everything you post.

According to the dictionary, an AGENT is a person who acts on behalf of another person or group. That would make Frank Fiorini/Sturgis an AGENT of the CIA.

Cell phone? In 1963? Noooooo!

One more thing that EVERYONE is missing. Oswald had no need to take any letter to a postal drop box. The same mailman that delivers the mail also picks up outgoing mail from homes like Ruth Paine's. Just thought I'd point that out. So if the letter was left in Ruth's mailbox as outgoing mail, it would be logical that the mailman would have picked it up at Ruth's house, and the letter wouldn't have been postmarked anywhere BUT Irving, Texas...after the mailman completed his route.

Paul, Your statement isn't completely true. My dad worked for both the US Post Office and the USPS. NOT ALL BOXES WERE "RUN" LATE IN THE EVENING. Some were picked up earlier in the day. You think the clerks in the back of the post offices worked ONLY in the early morning and late evenings? There was mail to run through the cancelling machine throughout the day, at various times. But unless you know what box the letter was deposited in, and what time of the day the local PO ran the box, it's simply speculation. You cannot say when the mail was picked up from the box without knowing the box it was deposited in. Of course, I'm used to you passing off your speculation as fact. And while I'm used to it, I'm still not impressed by it.

How was this letter going to make the FBI "drool"?? And of course, you didn't answer the biggest question raised by this letter: Oswald WAS taken off the FBI's watch list, on October 8, 1963. How did Oswald KNOW this? Because that's EXACTLY what the letter is telling the Soviet embassy...that Oswald was taken off the FBI's watch list [WHICH HE WAS], and that OSWALD KNEW IT. I ask AGAIN... Assuming Oswald wrote the letter, HOW did he come to know he was taken off the FBI's watch list? Hosty's NOT going to tell him...so WHO DID? I again raise the question...if a mole had access to the FBI watch list, they could confirm that the information in Oswald's letter to the Soviet embassy was TRUE. So how did Oswald KNOW this? That may be the answer that solves the assassination.

Not a solid link to any of these guys.

We know now that Oswald was taken off the FBI watch list just prior to the assassination; but how did OSWALD know it, so that he included it in. His letter to the Soviet embassy? Assuming that Oswald wrote the letter, of course. The FBI doesn't exactly send you a notice when you're removed from their watch list. So either Oswald was connected in some way to the FBI, or he had an informant in the FBI who told him. Or he didn't write the letter, but someone with that knowledge wrote the letter. I won't point the finger at the Paynes here...because...how would THEY have known? THIS should be the answer to seek. Answer this question, and you may have the JFK assassination mystery solved.

From the text of the letter, it's as if Oswald (assuming he actually wrote the letter) KNEW that he had just been removed from the FBI "watch list." If Oswald knew this...HOW did he know this? Unless Oswald was privy to FBI communications or strategies, I suggest very strongly that there is NO OTHER WAY he could have known this. IF there was a mole hunt, looking for a Soviet spy who had access to FBI files, then Oswald notifying the Soviet embassy of news their spy could easily verify would be an easily-set trap. But it also makes curious person wonder that, if LHO wasn't working for the FBI in some capacity, how would he even know he was no longer on the watch list? That's not the kind of thing the FBI would tell you. So what else COULD Oswald's knowledge of this have meant?

Mr. Von Pein and I are not exactly great friends. I appreciate all the information he has made available on the Internet, but we still come to different conclusions on what the evidence means. It appears to me that Mr. Von Pein is a master at starting with a conclusion and then finding evidence to fit...rather than taking the evidence and following wherever. A difference of philosophy, I suppose. But I didn't come to this forum to bash Mr. Von Pein; I came here to be shown evidence, and then to reach my own conclusions from the evidence. And at this point, the evidence I've seen negates the SBT, and using the angles, strongly imply that Connally was hit by a bullet from the southwest window of the 6th floor of the TSBD. No matter what you think of Oswald's guilt or innocence, IF you agree that shots came from the southeast window of the TSBD, then that alone shouts CONSPIRACY. It soes NOT tell us who the shooters may have been, so it leaves that question wide open.

Look at the title of this thread. Then look at the last 3 pages of posts. Seems we've drifter far afield. Not that I'm surprised. But if you want to debate the autopsy and the head wounds, could you do it on a thread about the autopsy and the head wounds? Because I see very little here about Ruth Payne and her typewriter after the first page.

If you were 20 years old on November 22, 1963 you would be 73-74 years old today. If you were 25 then, you'd be 78-79 years old today. So who still needs to be protected? It's not as if they're still active in the spy game today.