Mark Knight

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.

Exactly my point.

Specifically, who had the authority to order a wiretap, beyond the FBI, in 1963? The information ended up in the hands of the FBI, but did they issue the order? Why did the Paynes not object, once they learned of the wiretap? Most people would protest loud and long. The Paynes did not, best I can determine. Did they know about the tap, and only afterwards feign ignorance? Were the Paynes actually FBI informants, and willing participants in the wiretapping scheme? Did the FBI possibly hope to gather incriminating information, possibly spoken in Russian, in calls that the Oswalds participated in? Too many unanswered questions there. Too many UNASKED questions, at least ON THE RECORD, by the WC regarding the wiretap information.

I think Plumlee, like the late Gerry Patrick Hemming, may know more than he can reveal and continue living. Might be as much information is what he refrains from saying as in the stuff he says.

Tosh Plumlee Transcript

Mr. Herrera, In case you were not aware, a few years back Mr. Simkin and Andy Walker decided to discontinue their ownership/sponsorship of The Education Forum. If no new owners had stepped up, the information on the forum might have been lost. A group of people then stepped up to preserve the forum, and the fiscal and financial responsibility for keeping the EF operating. We are NOT some huge corporation with deep pockets. We are simply trying to preserve a valuable resource. As such, we cannot, and WILL NOT, allow you or any other member to expose us to litigation based upon copyright violation. How any copyrighted information from GREY'S ANATOMY, a work of fiction, has a bearing on solving or clearing up ANY aspect of the JFK assassination, I cannot seem to fathom. Therefore, we refuse to allow your post on Education Forum to expose us to litigation in this fashion. If this was YOUR site, and you were the owner legally responsible for the content, you could post whatever the hell you wanted and deal with the consequences accordingly. I don't want to be held legally responsible for the content of YOUR posting of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. It's actually a simple legal concept. If you can get permission from the copyright holder to post the material in question, I'm sure that neither I nor the other current owners of The Education Forum would have a problem with your post. Absent that permission, the owners of the forum prefers not to expose ourselves to legal action that might result in personal bankruptcy as well as the shutting down of the EF. We believe that the EF is a valuable resource, and that risking the future of the forum on the thin sliver of HOPE that we would not be sued is a risk we are not comfortable taking at this time.

Exactly.

Bishop...Knight...and Ozzie was just a Pawn. Check.

Chris, when you get through with all the computations, I think it would be wise to start a chronology of the Z-film, noting WHERE in the film the frames were deleted and how many at each deletion, as well as you can possibly ascertain. Then tie these frame deletions to the corresponding flim-flammery of the data blocks as surveyed vs. data blocks as entered in the WC report. I think a well-written version of what you believed happened, and where/when/why, would make a good narrative to explain how Spector & Co. got from 3 shots/3 hits to the magic bullet/SBT, and would explain why the problems exist in, for example, explaining Clint Hill's superhuman speed if the motorcade didn't slow to nearly a stop. You have outlined things well. Perhaps My Josephs might collaborate with you and write the narrative, because your work seems to come off at this point as staccato bursts, rather than as a flowing tale of deceit that this truly is. IMHO, the information you have uncovered here neither convicts nor exonerates LHO... but it certainly convicts Shaneyfelt and Spector of evidence tampering, IMHO.

In virtually ANY court, a lawyer will advise his/her client to answer ONLY the questions asked, and not to volunteer any information.

...it's all relative...

Two things: First, check my name. It is not now, nor ever has been, McKnight. Second, Mr. Walton assumes I disagree with Chris Davidson. I DO NOT. I consider Mr. Davidson's work to be the logical extension of Tom Purvis' research. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled program, already in progress.

The original survey work done by Robert West and company at the behest of the Secret Service was based upon the Z-film in their possession. The positions surveyed were specified by the Secret Service. THEN the FBI got involved, and they wanted DIFFERENT points surveyed...in which the Z-313 shot was moved to an earlier point, but the SS specified 3rd shot further down Elm was retained. THEN the obfuscation by the Warren Commission began, and ONLY THEN did the 3rd shot, the one BEYOND Z-313, simply vanished. Here are my comments from another thread referring to the late Tom Purvis' work in dealing with the West surveys and the WC alteration of the data: "... you have to understand that Tom didn't "invent" his theory of three shots, three hits. The Secret Service started with that [concept], and had the points where the bullets hit the President mapped out on a survey of Dealy Plaza. Tom merely exposed the information that the SS already had, and then went about showing how the medical evidence supports the SS three-shot, three-hit scenario. Tom has also pointed out how the FBI began altering the survey data to support first their own implausible theory, and then finally the pure cock-and-bull of the WC's SBT. In both the SS survey and the "altered" FBI survey, the point of the third shot/third hit didn't go away...UNTIL the WC "made" it disappear under the sleight-of-hand of having the original survey sealed, attesting that a "tracing" of the survey was good enough for their purposes, and then using a "cardboard representation" of the "tracing" of the "sealed survey" as evidence...as opposed to UNsealing the survey and using the actual evidence they had in hand! IMHO, Arlen Spector should've been hung for treason, rather than elected to the U. S. Senate!"

Mr. Von Pein, if you and I NEVER agree on anything else, at least we agree on this point. Ruby shot Oswald. Ruby admitted shooting Oswald. Millions of witnesses on TV saw Ruby shoot Oswald. THERE'S your "Case closed."

Mr. Walton, what is YOUR explanation for the alteration of the surveyor's data block to the numbers seen in CE884? What reason would anyone have to change survey data without first consulting with the surveyor? I believe that Mr. Davidson and Mr. Josephs are onto something. Film alteration? Only if excising frames constitutes "alteration." It's not as off the wall as the frame alteration theories that are out there. It's not as off the wall as the lifelong Harvey-and-Lee "parallel lives" theory. So why does it upset you so much? Do you have an "innocent" theory for the data changes seen in CE884? If so, I'm sure everyone would love to read it.