Mark Knight

As an administrator, I decided to let this thread continue because it seems we all needed a place to vent about current politics, and it CAN be tied, with varying degrees of success, to the JFK assassination. STILL, I think it would be better suited for the Controversial Issues discussion board...BUT...I'm not going to change course now. I'm NOT out to censor discussion; I merely ask, "Relevance?" MAYBE there is some.Or, if you're a LN, such as Mr. Von Pein, you see no connection to the Lone Nut who killed JFK, but you still wish to make the folks on this board your whipping boys for another round. Whatever works for you.

I understand the analogy, Cliff. But I'm not sure whether discussing this will further out understanding of the JFK assassination, other than proving the continuity of the next generation, if you will, of the assassination mindset.

Place your cursor to the left of the title of the thread you wish to view. In Chrome, there is a dot or button there. In IE, the button is invisible...BUT it still works.

As an administrator, I'm trying hard to justify allowing this thread to stand. I understand the emotions being expressed, and believe me, this election's results are a shock. But I struggle to tie this topic to the discussion of the assassination of JFK....which is, after all the purpose of this particular discussion board.

This should be a sufficient rebuttal, I would think, to anyone who believes that JFK's intention was to INCREASE the US military presence in Viet Nam [two words back then]. It probably WON'T be, but it SHOULD be.

From what I can see, it looks great.

Mr. Trejo: So you now know for a FACT that General Walker had plans for Oswald? Or is this simply part of your THEORY? Simply stating something is fact does NOT make it become fact. Unless you have PROOF, then let's back up on the claim that it's a FACT. At this point, you have a THEORY. Unless you're holding back some "smoking-gun" info that would MAKE that statement a fact.

Thank you, Paul, for finally admitting the truth about agent Oswald. It's been a long time coming. Jim, You're quite mistaken that LHO was a CIA agent. Just because the teenage LHO was on an assignment from the ONI inside the USSR, this hardly qualifies LHO as a CIA agent. LHO was still a high-school dropout. LHO still didn't know how to drive a car. LHO still could hardly spell. LHO was also a hothead, arrogant teenager -- independent and willful. Not a team player. LHO proved that by leaving his ONI mission early -- by marrying Marina and letting her push him into coming to the wealthy USA. That's not the mark of a CIA agent. That's the mark of a CIA wannabe. Regards, --Paul Trejo Lee Harvey Oswald was born on October 18, 1939. He arrived in Moscow on October 16, 1959. So he was a teenager for all of TWO DAYS while in the USSR. Just the facts, sir.

So...was Oswald, the so-called Marxist, a member of the union? If so, where's his membership card? If not...why would a man who allegedly thought of himself as a downtrodden worker, NOT join the union? Where's the evidence, either way?

Were the Jaggers-Chiles Stovall workers represented by Dallas Typographical Union Local 173? If so, did the union go on strike in October 1962?

I would certainly hope not. Is this the Anne Lorene Goodpasture born in 1918 (who would've been age 45 in 1963) who died in Oklahoma City in 2011? Findagrave.com has no information on a final resting place for her.

I'm no "expert witness," but the HIDELL part of the signatures look enough alike to have been done by the same hand...IMHO.

Should we hold our collective breath?

And wasn't the Secret Service UNDER SUBPOENA from the AARB when they destroyed JFK-related records? What makes you think the FBI, CIA, ONI, or any other agency hasn't "purged" any records that might suggest ANY smoking gun but Oswald's?

Mr. Trejo contends that his theory will be "proven" on October 26, 2017...so we only have to wait a year and 13 days (and counting) for him to be proven a genius.

I think you're right that, if the report means what it says--it's not a signed deposition, but a secondhand account of an interview--then Oswald was the subject of discussions BEFORE KLEINLERER EVER MET HIM. That would be QUITE odd, IMHO. It would make me wonder WHY such discussions took place.

Mr. Roy and I didn't always see eye-to-eye, but I respected his research. Sorry to hear this news.

I had a friend who served in a construction battalion during WWII in the Pacific. He told me that one day he was welding on the blade of a bulldozer, and because of the noise of the engine-driven welder, he couldn't hear much else. But he thought that he was working near a nest of bees...until one of his buddies had him get behind the dozer blade because those weren't bees, those were bullets from a sniper. [The sniper was eliminated and my friend wasn't wounded.] So the sound of a high-speed bullet at close range, when you can't hear the muzzle blast, apparently is much like the sound of a high-speed bee or wasp at close range.

I'm with James on this.While requiring registration will not PREVENT another hacking, it would serve as a bit of a deterrent. So for that reason I'm in favor of requiring registration.

You are correct, sir. A deposit ticket ONLY proves that someone wrote a deposit ticket...same as the fact that an entry in a check register only shows that someone wrote in a check register [often mistakenly assumed by the uninformed as "proof" that a payment was made].

Would someone care to refresh my memory on why a SEPTEMBER 23 affidavit would be considered evidence? That would have been 10 months AFTER the assassination...certainly not a FRESH recollection, by ANY stretch of the definition. And September 23 would have been ONE DAY before the WCR was given to the President, and FOUR days before the release of the report to the public. [i'm assuming September 23, 1964 because September 23, 1963 would have been two months PRIOR TO the assassination.]

Mr. Nall, I think that's a valid point. Many of the political positions of the right in 1963 are considered to be on the left in 2015. So I agree that we should do our best to view the events of 1963 which are political in the frame that was prevalent in '63.

If I recall correctly, wasn't Purvis an LN? That would necessarily limit from the get-go what he could theorize about the back wound. A tree branch would certainly be convenient, but I think you've shown that with a tumbling bullet he was going out on a limb. Mr. Ecker, Tom Purvis was indeed a LNer. But I was able to finally get him to concede that there is nothing proving that Oswald fired any shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Still, he claimed it was a 3-shot, 3-hit scenario...and contrary to what the WC claimed, there was no "shot that missed" in Mr. Purvis' scenario.

The late Tom Purvis offered the theory that the bullet passed through a branch of the live oak tree outside the TSBD, which flattened it somewhat, slowed it down, caused some of the lead core to extrude from the base, and sent the bullet on a tumbling track. He believed that the reason the bullet wound in JFK's back was the shape it was [not round] was because the bullet was still tumbling...and that the tearing of the cloth of the jacket and the shirt in the fashion it did was due to the bullet striking the jacket base first, and acting more like a "wadcutter" bullet than the round-nosed projectile that started its flight. Purvis then claimed that this bullet was CE399, which did NOT strike Connally. Many have disagreed with Purvis' theory, but Purvis also noted that at the time of the WC re-enactments in Dealy plaza, some branches from that live oak tree were trimmed...begging the question, for what purpose? Mr. Purvis is no longer around to answer any questions about this, but there are several of us here to whom he sent copies of his work on the topic. Perhaps one of the other recipients of the Purvis materials could explain this in greater detail.

Whenever I heard of Bobby Kennedy asking LBJ to place Dulles on the Warren Commission, it was in reference to LBJ's own words...and not Bobby Kennedy's words.