Mark Knight

"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.

Chris, I think I understand the DETAILS of what you're saying. I'm just having trouble grasping the significance of it today. Could you "dumb it down" just a little for me? Because I think it's important; I just don't know where to place it in this giant jigsaw puzzle. Thanks.

Pat, your low-on-the-head wound seems to be pretty close to what the late Tom Purvis had theorized. Purvis called this one the third shot, the one located past Z313...closer to about Z345. And right about where the original West survey for the SS said it happened. Now, I corresponded for several years with Tom Purvis, and while he was firm in his belief of "3 shots/3 hits," I did eventually get him to admit that he couldn't place Oswald in the window with the rifle at the time the shots were fired. When I have more time, I plan to study your Chapter 13 in detail. I have great respect for your research, and for your integrity. You're not beyond admitting you were wrong when you find an error, and that goes a long way with folks like me who are simply seeking the truth.

It is very true that Gary Mack could be helpful if he wanted to be. However, he could be very abusive if he disagreed with you. The problem people had with Gary was the change in his views after 1994 when Mack became an archivist and later curator of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. This might have been because of his research or maybe it had something to do with his job. I know he got very upset when I quoted him the words of the great investigative journalist, Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” http://spartacus-educational.com/Jupton.htm http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmack.htm John, you completed my edited thoughts of Gary Mack.

I would not be surprised if the altered version of my quote is already posted on your website...the out-of-context, partial quote. Or posted on another discussion board...perhaps to demonstrate to the unsuspecting how you "converted" a "nonbeliever." The more I deal with you, the less faith I have in your integrity, Mr. Von Pein.

Let's change the statement in question, then. Let's say that Dr. A said the throat wound was a small wound. Dr. A's statement is STILL not evidence. Dr. A's statement is merely a statement. A photo of the wound would potentially be evidence...with proper provenance. Does that clarify the point any at all?

I notice that Mr. Von Pein did not challenge my assertion that his twisting of my words was meant to alter the meaning, and deceive anyone who might in the future want to refer to those words. When Mr. Von Pein finds a modus operandi that fits his purposes, he is loath to change it. So deceit is your currency, it seems, Mr. Von Pein.

It seems to me that Mr. Tidd is NOT coming down on either side of the factuality of Dr, A's assertion. He is simply pointing out that it is only a statement, which may be either true or false. A statement is not evidence. A photo or an x-ray, with proper provenance, can be evidence. But the statement, in and of itself, is not evidence...no matter what the statement says.

Thank you. You just demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how you take information out of context and twist the meaning into something the original poster never intended. And you just reinforced the low opinion I already had for your skills of argument and debate. Anyone with half a brain can see how deceitful such an act is...so I stand by my original assessment of your and your INTENTIONALLY DECEITFUL actions. And PLEASE...I prefer NOT to be on a first-name basis you. In fact, I INSIST on it, Mr. Von Pein.