Mark Knight

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?

My guess is that he has no answer...but he has his theory, and in his mind ANYONE who disagrees is either a LN'er or a CIA-did-it theorist. In his mind, there is apparently NO other position.

I've been around guns all my life. My grandfather, my father and I were all hunters. So "thirty-aught-six" is a term I've been familiar with for around 55 years.

It was referred to as a " thirty-AUGHT-six," as 100 years ago people referred to the year as "AUGHT six," rather than "OH six," as we currently do. There was no "ODD" involved in the common name for the .30-06 rifle or cartridge.

Mr. Trejo's theory is simple, really. George DeM saw it, but he didn't see it, he only heard Jeanne say there was a rifle. But he saw it, even though he only HEARD her say it was there. Why is this so difficult to understand? He HEARD Jeanne SAY there was a rifle, so he witnessed the rifle, which means he saw it, even if he didn't actually see it. There's no way to paint a clearer picture. Mr. Trejo has made it crystal clear.

Evangelist Trejo preaches that we MUST have faith, as he does, or we're going to perdition. Because his "house" is BUILT on faith, on things not seen but believed nonetheless. I prefer my "house" to be built on the rock of EVIDENCE. And if we don't accept his version of "the truth," than we believe the "evil" CIA-did-it heresy...in his eyes. There can be no other explanations for "non-believers," in his world.

Ok, Paul. PROVE that Mrs. Voshinin notified the FBI. Find a report. I'll wait. Just because she told Dick Russell she made a report, that's not PROOF she made a report. "...what reason in the world would a wealthy woman like Natalie Voshinin have for lying to Dick Russell? " Come on, Paul. That is NOT "proof." People lie for MANY reasons, Some lie for NO reason. AM I SAYING SHE LIED? Not exactly; I'm saying that I've found no EVIDENCE--remember EVIDENCE?--that she was telling the truth. Show me some EVIDENCE. NOT "he said/she said." Find a report that the FBI filed on the call. Hell, just find a call log that shows the FBI even received a call from her. EVIDENCE, Paul. You make your case with EVIDENCE.

Actually, had you taken the time to READ Mr. Lazar's post, you will find QUOTES FROM HARRY DEAN, as well as the source for each quote. If that constitutes "rants," then your definition is quite different from Webster's.

Once again, you miss my point by a mile. Dick Russell repeated WHAT HE WAS TOLD. Dick Russell has produced NO MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI WAS ACTUALLY NOTIFIED than you have. Dick Russell said he was TOLD they were notified. Dick Russell told the truth, that this is what he was TOLD. BUT if there is no evidence that such a report was ACTUALLY made, then what Russell was told is HEARSAY. What part of that do you NOT understand? Seems to be fairly simple to me. If we can't PROVE that Oswald was reported to the FBI as Russell was told, HOW DO WE KNOW IT REALLY HAPPENED? Russell simply reported that he was TOLD this...NOT that it actually occurred and he had PROOF of such.

So where, pray tell, is the FBI report that can verify this? Looking for PROOF, not "he said/she said." I'm not doubting Dick Russell. Mrs. Voshinin likely DID tell him that. But where's the proof that she did as she said she did? I'm not saying she lied; I'm saying that, unless you can produce an FBI report of this contact, there is NO VERIFICATION. If we can't verify it, then it's hearsay.

<...crickets...>

One avenue that I think MIGHT bear looking into...if you CAN find anything....is whether Oswald was actually working for ARMY Intel rather than ONI, as his USMC background would suggest. After his discharge from the Marine Corps, it's QUITE possible that Oswald was "recruited" into one of these Army intel units. The scant paper trail of these units in general make me wonder. Had a friend who was drafted into the Army in 1972. After his Army hitch, he was recruited into the Navy...so it's NOT like this sort of recruiting never occurred. With Oswald's ability to speak and understand Russian, he might have been attractive to Army intel despite his false defection. Just an angle to consider.

Might he not have been speaking of a "bird" as in the term "full-bird colonel"?? THAT'S not an uncommon usage, at least here within 40 miles of Fort Knox.

You DO realize that the Fritz-Oswald exchange is NOT an actual dialogue that occurred, but only Bugliosi's version of how it MIGHT HAVE occurred...right? I grew up just outside of Louisville, Kentucky. "Coke" was BOTH a generic and a brand-specific term. Conversations such as this were common: "Would you grab me a coke when you go to the store?" "Yeah. What kind do you want?" "Dr Pepper, I guess..."

I have a lot of respect for Jeff Morley.

Mr. Trejo, You once again mischaracterize my position when you attempt to prop up your own. Please show me where I have EVER blamed the CIA for the JFK assassination. You can't because I haven't. But that's your fall-back position. If someone doesn't believe that your theory has legs, then you accuse them of promoting the "failed" CIA-did-it theory. You might want to take a breath and consider that those are not the ONLY two options. If they were, this case would have been put to bed long ago, and this board would have no reason to exist. Now... without placing YOUR conclusions in MY mind, once again explain how fiction becomes fact. Have you been training certain politicians on how "alternative facts" work, perchance?

So you want to have it both ways. It's fiction, but it's TRUE fiction, in your world. That's the ONLY explanation that makes sense. You acknowledge that it's fiction, but you believe it. That is the definition of "cognitive dissonance."

Marguerite Oswald was Lee Harvey Oswald's mother. Margaret Keating Oswald was Robert E. Lee Oswald's first wife, whom he divorced in 1933. So of COURSE there were "two" Marguerite Oswalds. One simply spelled her first name differently. I'm pretty sure that solves the mystery.

Phillips' unpublished manuscript is proof of NOTHING. NOTHING is verified, it never was published and it remains to be seen if ANY of it is true. Yet you seem to take it as the Voice from Heaven, revealing all. How do you KNOW that it's absolutely true? Or is that just a leap of faith on your part? This is The Education Forum. Educate us as to how you have PROVED Phillips' unpublished manuscript to be true. You say it's fiction, then in the next breath, you claim it's all true. Are you sure you know WHAT you believe?

Relevance?