Mark Knight

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.

Hmmmmmmm..... Sounds QUITE familiar.

Sorry to hear. She was quite helpful to many here.

Same person.

Bill Kelly was still with us at last report. He's on Facebook: Bill Kelly's Facebook page

I raised the issue of the bus ticket because Mr. Josephs had raised the issue of the bus ticket. He quoted Marina's testimony, in which she was of the opinion that, IF her husband had purchased a bus ticket, it would've been a round-trip ticket because it was cheaper that way. I was simply pointing out that, Marina's conjecture notwithstanding, had Oswald TRULY been trying to get to Cuba, he would have had NO NEED for a round-trip bus ticket, since he'd be going to CUBA and NOT back to Texas. I had NO IDEA that this concept was so extremely difficult for you to understand. Not all of my replies are directed at you; pay attention to the rest of the conversations in the thread. You might understand better what's being said.

I have never, ever claimed there was a bus ticket, because I have never, ever claimed that Oswald was in Mexico City. The evidence that the real Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City is not conclusive. Notice I used the term "alleged" when referring to the bus trip. Do you have a problem comprehending what you read?

Mr. Trejo likes to play Mr. Von Pein's game. "[Name of individual] MUST have done it; if they didn't who did?" Then suddenly, "MUST have done it" becomes "did it," not because supporting evidence has been found, but because they can no longer imagine an alternative scenario. And thus, in their minds, they have "solved" that aspect of the case. This "investigative" technique overlooks "innocent until proven guilty," and instead turns to "guilty until proven innocent." Thus, Trejo arrives at the "Morales absolutely, positively without a doubt impersonated Oswald in MC" position. Now...regarding the alleged Mexico City bus trip... If Oswald was CONVINCED he could use his scrapbook as a resume to enter Cuba...WHY ON EARTH would he have purchased a ROUND-TRIP TICKET? The round-trip ticket theory fails the logic test.

Exactly. Another opinion stated as fact.

MY problem is that, while in THIS instance you clearly labeled these as your OPINIONS...in most instances on this particular discussion board you present your OPINIONS as FACTS. YOUR opinions are no more valid than MY opinions, or anyone else's opinions. Absent the supporting FACTS, they are ONLY opinions. So if you would kindly stop asserting your opinions as if they were facts, I think everyone else would seem less hostile towards you and your OPINIONS. Just MY opinion, mind you...

From my research, I agree. A "person of interest" does NOT have a 201 file opened by a government agency. http://www.touchstoneresearchgroup.com/catalog/government-201-file-ompf-p-33.html http://payrollhero.ph/product/201-file So...if the CIA has a 201 file on you...and they testify that you never were an employee...somebody's not being completely truthful.

What, exactly, is this "Brown Amendment" of which you write? Are you referring to the decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education? That was a Supreme Court decision, not a constitutional amendment. The Constitution has specific rules for amending it. Supreme Court decisions are NOT called AMENDMENTS...NOR ARE THEY CONSIDERED AMENDMENTS. So I ask again...what, exactly, is this "Brown Amendment" of which you write?