Mark Knight

Mr. Tidd, I think the term "buried in the ground" comes from Marina [or her translator]. I also think it's a result of a language barrier. I believe that, IF Lee Oswald was involved in the Walker shooting, he may have told her that his rifle "had to go underground," or some similar term. And if the idiom "underground" in this context doesn't translate well to Russian, she might have interpreted that to mean "buried," even if her husband meant something completely different. Just a theory of mine...

If the CIA is willing to "release" this information today...that generally means that you can only trust a portion if it.

Mr. Varnell, I think you've created [or contributed to] a very hostile atmosphere on the topic.Since it is VERY CLEAR that JFK suffered at least one head wound, it can't be dismissed entirely. In all honesty, the throat wound and the back wound were not, in and of themselves, sufficient to cause Kennedy's death...IMHO. So why is it that you believe the head wound(s) is(are) a distraction from the study of the case of the killing of JFK? Don't get me wrong. I believe that a thorough discussion of the true nature, and positions, of the throat wound and the back wound is not only warranted, but essential to understanding the JFK assassination. I just don't believe that using them as a way to shut down a thread on discussion of the head wound(s) is going to get us any closer to the truth about the throat and back wounds. And I post this not as an administrator, but as a regular forum member who has questions about your purposes. How is shutting down a discussion of the head wound(s) bringing us any closer to knowing the true nature of the wound(s) that actually killed JFK? And, if it's NOT your intention to shut down a discussion of the head wound(s), why do you believe that the throat and back wounds are important to a discussion of the head wound(s)...rather than something to be discussed on their own thread?

While I don't like Nixon. I don't consider him a plotter or a planner. I think he was simply the chosen "vehicle," and when he was no longer of use, he was also hung out to dry in his own way. Mr. Jeffries, I think it's clear that the majority of Americans no longer believe the official story, at least concerning JFK. Where the problem lies is that, 50+ years later, we still don't have the complete truth available to us in one place.

Let's examine the RFK assassination. We'll work chronologically backwards. Cui bono? Who benefits? BY that November, Richard Nixon. Now look at the MLK assassination through a similar lens. Politically, King was steering black voters towards the Democrats. With King out of the way, there was a leadership void in the black community, from a national standpoint. Who benefits from that? Same answer. If we accept these two points, next let's look forward to 1972. George Wallace emerges as a somewhat viable third-party candidate for the Presidency. "Viable" in the sense that, if his early poll numbers play out, there's a possibility that no candidate would garner enough electoral votes to become president. In that case, the House of Representatives, with a 255-180 ratio of Democrats to Republicans, would decide...and that would stack the deck in favor of the Democrats. From this perspective, who benefits from the Wallace shooting? Same answer. NOW...do I have actual evidence tying these events together? Absolutely not. In such a scenario, how would it tie Nixon into the JFK assassination? For Nixon to become President, he would have to get past a possible 2nd JFK term...and then a possible RFK term or two. That would back up a first-term Nixon presidency to '72 or even '76. Nixon was 55 in 1968 and had been away from the reins of power for 8 years already. At 12 years, Nixon's connections are a bit rusty; if he has to wait until '76, that makes him 63 years old and 16 years removed from the world of power that he knew in 1960. So the timetable to rehabilitate the Dick Nixon that "you won't have...to kick around anymore" would have to be moved up. Without the killing of JFK, MLK, and RFK, the Nixon election in '68 simply wouldn't have happened...IMHO. Working backward from that...WHO wanted Nixon in power that badly...and WHY? Not sure I can answer those two questions. But if anyone can, we might be closer to the answers we all seek here. Just one possible angle.

The need for donations still exists. I urge you to please consider making whatever donation your personal financial means allow you to make.

I read the book...it was fairly good escapist literature. Like Mr. DiEugenio, I wasn't fond of his "Ozzie-did-it-alone" certainty, because I still don't believe that was ever proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you can suspend disbelief enough to believe in time travel, then I suppose any scenario becomes possible. Let us never forget: the novel is FICTION.

The only thing I'm suggesting here is that next to nothing is known about Campbell. His work in 1941 is for an agency about which a records search turns up ONLY referenced to Chicago. And his [second] wife's family is, oddly enough, from the Chicago region. I'm not bold enough to speculate my way to ANY conclusions based upon that sketchy information. And anyone else who does would be going out on a very precarious limb.

Chicago? Hmmmm... The mother of O.V. Campbell's wife, Mary Beth [nee Kupstis] was from Des Plaines, a Chicago suburb near O'Hare Airport. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-08-22/news/0008220105_1_love-and-care-father-tom-memorial-services

With all due respect...this sounds like something found next to the checkout at a supermarket somewhere...with "reliable," but not necessary provable, sources.

A search on Mary Kupstis Campbell apparently turned up her mother's obit--although just a partial, it seems--from the Chicago Tribune: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-08-22/news/0008220105_1_love-and-care-father-tom-memorial-services In case the link doesn't work, here's the text: "August 22 2000 June M. Kupstis, nee Helfritch, age 88, passed away August 10, formerly of Des Plaines, devoted wife of Stephen; loving mother of Paul, the late Bruce, Wayne and Mary Beth Campbell, nee Kupstis; devoted grandmother of 11; great-grandmother of 18. A life of sacrifice, love and care given to family, foster children, friends, neighbors and countless others. Memorial services were held August 17 at Holy Cross Catholic Church by Father Tom in The Colony, Texas." So apparently O.V. Campbell's wife was known as MARY BETH, perhaps the E was for Elizabeth, and oddly enough, her parents apparently lived in a suburb of Chicago....coincidentally [or not], Jack Ruby's old hometown region ["da region," as my friend from Gary, IN called it].

So how does this discussion of Bush and Kerry have ANY bearing on the JFK assassination? Relevance?

IF the first X is supposed to indicate where the first shot hit JFK, then I suppose one would need to go back to one of the original surveys done by Robert West and look at the points indicated by the survey...and THEN try to determine EXACTLY where JFK was initially hit from some source OTHER than the Z-film, since JFK was first hit before he emerged from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Not an easy task to pinpoint the location. Especially since the data in the blocks on the survey in the WC report is different from the data that West and company wrote in those blocks.

I'm not disagreeing that the journalists DID refer to the limo itself [incorrectly] as "the bubbletop." I'm merely commenting that it's a bit disconcerting, considering how inaccurate the description was when the actual bubbletop was removed. They should've known better...but they used the term [inaccurately] anyway. If you're looking for an argument about their actual usage of the term, you won't get one from me. They did it. So you'll have to seek an argument elsewhere.

I simply find the reference to the entire car as "the bubbletop" to be somewhat distracting, as well as HIGHLY inaccurate. And from a journalist whose primary concern should have been accuracy, as well.

Until/unless we get a clearer copy/scan/whatever, it isn't "proven" whether Prayer Man is a man or a woman. Until such time, we're sounding like a drunken Harry Caray in the broadcast booth: "It might be...it could be...IT IS!" I'll reserve judgement until such a time as there is a clearer image. In the interim, I'll state that I believe that there is a better-than-even chance that the person in question is male, again using clues such as those pointed out by Mr. Davidson and by Mr. Varnell.

Also quite interesting that Smith keeps referring to the "bubbletop," which wasn't installed on the car for the motorcade.

What I believe this "exercise" demonstrates is that some people aren't particularly accurate at estimating how much time has passed from a particular moment. So if Carolyn Arnold said she left for lunch at 12:15, watched the motorcade, and then left for the day at 12:25, perhaps what she's saying is that, IN HER MIND, only 10 minutes or so had elapsed. And maybe the only significance of her stating "12:25" is that she estimated how much time had passed...whether she was right or wrong...and that perhaps it wasn't an attempt to lie to, fool, trick, or bamboozle anyone.

I would tend to agree, Mr. Parker... but it would be wonderful it there would emerge a clear photo or scan removing all doubt. Until/unless that occurs, there will always be detractors and doubting Thomases who respond with varying degrees of civility.

So...in regards to Prayer Man... ...In Duncan MacRae's view..... "...Dude looks like a lady..." Am I correct so far?

Perhaps in SS Agent Clint Hill's attempt to "cover" JFK and Jackie in the rear seat of the limo, some spectator may have opined that Hill "might have" been wounded...and that unsubstantiated spectator report might have gotten blown out of proportion. The source of the report hasn't ever surfaced, to my knowledge, but it's my "theory" that some spectator, possibly one beyond the triple overpass, may have started that rumor based upon the jumble of bodies in the rear of the limo as it passed him or her. GREAT topic, Mr. Von Pein.

Linda, Let Dustin know that the EF actually IS accepting new members.There is a procedure he must follow, and some requirements [photo avatar, for one] which must be met. The information is in an announcement near the top of the page. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showannouncement=2&f=126

Greg, I welcome your new look at LHO. New evidence, or a new view of old evidence? Others can debate that to the death. I prefer to see it as a new set of eyes, or a new point of view, in case the material you are providing has, indeed been presented before. If the new information, or the new revelations of what may be old information, causes us to see the other evidence--new OR old-- in a new way, it just MIGHT bring us closer to solving the riddles that surround the JFK assassination. I'm not quite to the Kindle stage yet; I'm not quite a Luddite, but I don't exactly jump at the latest technology, either. But I welcome your series--do I remember you saying it would be a trilogy?--Mr. Parker, and I believe you might just be on the right track here. One of the biggest problems of the JFK assassination is understanding LHO and his motivations...whether he pulled the trigger, whether he was an uninvolved patsy, or whether he was somewhere in between. The H&L story isn't something I find convincing, and right now the tidbits you've shared seem to be important to deciphering that Oswald wasn't the cipher that the Warren Omission claimed him to be. I still believe that LHO was ONE person, and as the old TV show, "The X-Files," used as a tag line, "The truth IS out there." We simply must discover what the truth is. And I welcome Mr. Parker's revelations...whether they're new, old, or overlooked. Not EVERYONE on The Education Forum wants to spend the remainder of their life arguing old arguments about topics that have been argued to death. [in all honestly, I gave up on the H&L thread awhile back, because I saw nothing new emerging there. I look at Mr, Parker's books as something different than that.]

Seems misleading to me as well. Good luck getting anyone to correct the impression they were attempting to create.

Silence was the stern reply. That's okay. I get it. Everyone just wants to churn over the same old stuff. Cool. I can accommodate. I clicked on the link yesterday and it wouldn't come up for me. It just came up today, so I'm in the process of reading it. Just read that section... It certainly puts Oswald's CAP membership in a different light, and it just might answer some questions about his knowledge of the Russian language and more.