Mark Knight

I recognize all of these as having been used by one LNer in particular. Circular cause and consequence is quite common in this person's arguments.

What Mr. Von Pein is missing-willfully, I'm sure--is that he's twisting what has been said. Nobody is saying the evidence does not exist. What has been stated over and over ad finitum is that the provenance of much, if not most, of the evidence does not meet the most rudimentary standards required to be accepted in a court of law. The three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? While they were from a 6.5mm Carcano, it cannot be established that they were fired ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. THAT is the quality of much of the evidence being used to "convict" Oswald. It's not that CTers need to "prove" the shells were planted; it's that the prosecutors needed to prove that those shells were fired ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. As of August 1, 2015, no tests were run that would determine that those shells were fired on the day of the assassination. Had they been tested and had it been concluded that the shells had been fired on the day of the assassination, the provenance of that particular piece of evidence [the shells] might be valuable to the prosecution in a court of law. It's NOT up to CT'ers to "prove" who, when, where or why else those shells may have been fired. It's up to the police and the prosecution to prove those exact shells were the ones used on the date and time of the assassination. "Anyone can see..." is not provenance for the evidence. And THAT is the problem with the evidence. It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States. But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case. In the paragraphs above I have pointed out the distinction between the CTer position, as I understand it, and Mr. Von Pein's interpretation of the CTers' position on the evidence. I don't believe I'm "talking over his head" here; I think Mr. Von Pein is likely a reasonably intelligent person. I just think he chooses to ignore the same nuances that cops and attorneys must consider daily when presenting a case in a court of law.

OK. Here's the skinny [and it's obviously not Occhus Campbell]. I truly believe that your Truly#1 truly isn't Roy Truly. I truly believe it's more likely that your Truly #2 may truly be Roy Truly. I hope you truly understand that my point was to attempt to inject a moment of humor into a very serious subject. And apparently I failed.

"I feel very confident - handkerchief or no handkerchief in Truly#1's breast pocket - that Truly#1 on the left, is not Truly because his face and cheeks are very chubby and it looks like he has sort of a pug nose." So then...I suppose you're saying that apparently Truly #1 truly isn't Truly. OK...back to seriousness, folks.

You DO realize that the DPD captain was John Will Fritz...right? Since I do a lot of genealogy research, I went to www.findagrave.com. John Will Fritz's listing there [burial in Restland Memorial Park in Dallas] mentions nothing about survivors. But his wife's listing--Alma Faye Turner Fritz--is linked, and in her obituary it only mentions a daughter, Billye Hamilton, as a surviving child. So I'm curious as to how this Will J. Fritz Jr. connects. I'm not finding a connection. Unless you have actually FOUND a connection, then you must only be ASSUMING a connection to a story you ASSUME that Captain John Will Fritz wrote and passed on to...someone. Am I right so far? By the way...I checked out the father of Captain John Will Fritz, a Blake Fritz [1873-1924]...the only child listed is John Will Fritz. The only other link I can find on Captain John Will Fritz referring to any family says: "He lived alone for much of his life, though he was married to a woman named Faye and had a daughter." [ https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ffr24 ] Shades of Lee Harvey Oswald! "He lived alone for much of his life, though he was married.... Bottom line: Captain Fritz was John Will Fritz, not Will J. Fritz. Unless you can make a connection here to the people you "assume" to be related to John Will Fritz, you're going quite a distance out on the limb of assumption.

I suppose if you can't refute the argument, you attack the opponent. Great debating skills there.

Now, I haven't read ALL the available information about November 22, 1963. BUT... Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland? Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1? I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, obviously the casket would have been weighted in some way to simulate a body there. If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?] I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that.

Notice that Baker doesn't answer the question of whether Oswald was "in the same costume" as when he first encountered whoever he actually encountered. So Oswald's claim that he went to the rooming house to change his shirt [or pants, or whatever...since Fritz took no contemporaneous notes] may be true, it may be false, or it may have been made up by his questioners, for whatever reason. Baker MIGHT have answered the question but didn't. That seemed to leap out at me from the excerpt quoted above.

"Standard" is one of a multiple of possibilities that there is little agreement on. IF the CT crowd could settle on one conclusion--or even three or 5 different ones--we might actually move closer to solving the case for conspiracy.

DVP rattles cages because he will never, ever deviate from the WC conclusions...contrary evidence notwithstanding. Greg Parker rattles cages because he challenges the "standard" CT conclusions. Jim D. seems to mostly rattle DVP's cage. Those are my own conclusions; your mileage may vary.

Pat, if you will review Holmes' testimony, you'll find he stated that Oswald said he was on the FIRST floor when he encountered the officer. "Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about."' The phrase, "just before I got to the front door" would seem to imply the encounter happened on the first floor. So if this is, indeed, what Holmes was saying...he was actually shooting the second-floor lunchroom encounter down in flames. IF this is an accurate representation of what Oswald actually said.

IF I understand correctly....Captain Will Fritz took NO notes DURING the questioning of Oswald Instead, Fritz "reconstructed" some notes a few days later. Holmes also took NO notes During the questioning of Oswald. Holmes claims that Oswald said he met the officer at or near the front door. Fritz says Oswald said the encounter was at or in the second-floor lunchroom Baker says it was the third or 4th floor, near the steps. Truly says it was at or in the second-floor lunchroom. DVP claims nobody was lying. [Apparently only Jim DiEugenio and I use that term. How odd.] So why so many different stories? If 1) the story told by i) Fritz, OR ii) Holmes, OR iii) Baker is the truth, then 2) at least two of the stories are not true. And what do we call someone who testifies to something that is not true? [A sworn affidavit is a legal document, as we know.] And it's not as if the details weren't important. Until Ruby shot Oswald, Oswald's life hung in the balance, depending upon which story was true. If Holmes was telling the truth, then that means someone else was not. So the details WERE and ARE important. DVP's standard "what does it matter?" response is invalid in this matter. Greg, good "catch" of the Holmes statement.

I'm pretty sure many folks have taken the research of others. Some have built on them. Some have given the works of others credit where due; many have not. Unfortunately, that HAS become the nature of JFK assassination research. Some folks expect to make money from what the publish; others simply seek the truth. And we all already know what I just posted. In truth, most of us have no idea who FIRST put forth any of the revelations that have come out since November 22, 1963. I know that I'm not "Google" enough to know who was first with every discovery. MOST of us aren't. I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims because I simply don't have the information to do so. Neither do 99.9% of the people who visit this site. Then again, I have no grounds [ulterior or otherwise] to dispute his claims, either.

I'm not going to weigh in on whether Greg Parker's claims about being the first are correct or not...simply because I don't know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is correct OR incorrect. I will say that there has been considerable discussion about the [alleged] 2nd floor lunchroom encounter, and Bill Kelly's JFK Countercoup blog gives Greg Parker much credit for "the lunchroom encounter that never was." Kelly then goes on with the argument that, even if the lunchroom encounter DID occur, it didn't happen per the WC script. http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-doors-of-perception-why-oswald-is.html Kelly's argument is that, even if such a 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter DID occur, Oswald had to have entered the lunchroom from the opposite direction as Baker. I think that Kelly's argument is sound and that even if a 2nd-floor encounter did occur, it was because Oswald had been on the FIRST floor as he claimed, and not the 6th...which does NOT preclude Oswald being "Prayer Man." As to who gets the credit? I haven't read every article and paragraph out there, so I'm in no position to definitively answer the "Who's on first?" question.

No officer "lied", Mark. (Oh, sorry, I mean "Knight". No first names, remember.) Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording. Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars? That's crazy talk. Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING." You can't have it both ways. It simply cannot be that the police officers "misremembered," or were "mistaken"...while everyone else was engaged in perverse periods of prevarication. But it certainly seems to be that way in your world. And then you have the audacity to tell anyone who comes to a different conclusion than you that they "must" think that everyone else lied. You apparently think it's all right for you to believe that the witnessed who don't support your conclusion lied, but it's not all right for anyone who arrives at a different conclusion to hold a similar opinion about people being less than truthful. Nice double standard.

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question. Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

Hemming hinted to me in emails that there were so many folks who wanted JFK dead, that it's entirely likely that would-be assassins who never fired a shot were paid for "doin' the deed." And that the multitude of interconnections between Cubans, Mafia, CIA, and FBI was the primary driver of the coverup, and the reason it never completely unraveled to the point of revealing who actually killed Kennedy. This is one time where I don't believe that Hemming was pulling my chain.

Great discovery!

" “Richard Nixon is a no good, lying bastard. He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time, and if he ever caught himself telling the truth, he'd lie just to keep his hand in. ”-- Harry S Truman

Robert, please explain? am i having some math issues? 6.5mm = .268" & 6.65mm (bigger) = .2618" (smaller) ? The bullet diameter is .268" The rifle barrel bore diameter is 6.5mm, which is .2559". Now, Robert...show us again how the rifling in the barrel affects the ability to shoot a .268" bullet through a .256" bore.

I believe the entire Alba situation was used to suggest the sling was made for Oswald as opposed to provided and atached to the rifle by whoever it was that left it on the 6th floor. I'd suggest that either no sling was sent and this other thing was used - some say it looks like a rope, I think it may be the cloth standard sling that Klein's says they send with rifles tha do not request a specific sling.... Point remain.. The BYPs are composites... the black clothing seen in the image was never found in Oswald's possessions... I've seen the original, as have a few people who do the looking. While Roscoe White may have helped create the final product, I do not think it is he in the photo... there are other names to consider - but since the sources are unconfirmed I'll just leave it at that. THAT rifle - I do believe I am in the process of proving via this essay I'm trying to finish - was never at Klein's along with the other 100 rifles in that shipment. In fact, there is not one shred of evidence which support that Klein's ever shipped or had in inventory these rilfes... only that 10 of 520 packing slips - one of which with C2766 listed - were used to create the evidence that Klein's rec'd that shipment. I will prove otherwise. It's called "closed loop evidence" . As long as the evidence corroborates itself it can be believed. If it does not corroborate with any other process or order of shipment received (or that info is never offered to corroborate) we have a tautological presentation of evidence... Slip #3620 with carton #3376 = Feb shipment = VC document = Blank Order = Hidell = Oswald Except the only shipment related by the man who originally offered the slips is to June 1962 not Feb 1963. And as much as DVP and other LNers cannot fathom it, each and every item in Evidence IS the conspiracy, NOT the investigation of the event... except for JFK's shirt and JAcket - there is no way to spin that to incriminate Oswald. In a private email, Gerry Hemming--the man who once listed Klein's Sporting Goods as a former employer on one job application--told me to look towards Montreal as the source for C2766. But, Hemming being a notorious BSer, I never knew whether to take Hemming seriously on this point. Even the late Tom Purvis believed that C2766 was meant to signal folks in high places to "circle the wagons" as if it was an "incoming" round...and Purvis believed it was the murder weapon. Just thought I'd toss those two "nuggets" out there for the people who may not have been exposed to those theories before. Whether they're nuggets of gold or meadow muffins, I can't say with any authority.

The "trousers" thing isn't really very important at all. I just don't think Oswald took the time to change his pants (or shirt) when he went to his roominghouse on Nov. 22. Therefore, it's my opinion that Oswald lied about his pants. It's possible that he changed his pants, but I'm doubting it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he would have done that. Interesting that Oswald LIED, but Officer Baker "misremembered." In case you missed it, Oswald had just as much going on on November 22, 1963, as Officer Baker did...and possibly more, if you believe everything you read. But in DVP's world, only folks who are on the side of Oswald's guilt are allowed to "misremember;" DVP believes everyone else "lied."

As I understand the story, Hemming's rifle that was hocked was a Johnson .30-06 breakdown sniper rifle....according to several sources. http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html

Nailed it.

Great discovery, Jim! It would be wonderful to have if only to see what questions were asked [and what questions remained unasked] and what the actual replies to those questions were.