Mark Knight

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will. I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO previous recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same purpose I intended in the DMN post). Resent all you want. I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all. You're the one who has built these expectations of your style of debate...based entirely, of course, on your style of debate. And I still believe that, had Tommy and I not called you on this, that's exactly where you would have left things.

Captain Fritz testified to the Warren Commission that he took NO contemporaneous notes. He further testified that the "notes" he had were written "several days" afterward. Good thing for DVP's side that he didn't "misremember" a single thing, the way Baker "misremembered" the encounter on either the second, third, or fourth floor....

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I though my eyes had failed me. While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase, "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent. And while I know that you probably won't take any advice from me, I'll offer one tidbit anyway: Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Mr. Von Pein, if you would, kindly quote the part in that newspaper story where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor...because I apparently missed that part. And yes, I enlarged the newspaper to try to find it. Maybe your eyes are better than mine; please draw an arrow to the part of THIS newspaper where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor. Because I'm not seeing a "second-floor encounter," to use your words, mentioned at all. If it's NOT in the news story shown that the encounter was on the second floor....then you cannot use this newspaper story to prove a "second-floor encounter." Which means you're being deceitful IF you're trying to tell us it mentions a "second-floor encounter" when it actually does not. So please have the courtesy to point out where in the story it says that there was a "second-floor encounter," or please have the courtesy to admit that the story makes no mention of a "second floor encounter" and you were engaging in something less than honesty. Unless you mean that the DMN actually WAS lying, when they FAILED to mention an encounter on the second floor. If that's what you meant, please clarify your statement. And please answer this post BEFORE editing the aforementioned "second floor encounter" language out of your post # 138 above. Thanks.

...and THAT, my friends, is my biggest complaint with DVP.

I just find it oddly disconcerting that folks like DVP find folks who are in positions of authority whose stories don't fit the official version simply "misremember," but other people "lie" when their stories don't fit the official narrative. Funny how that works...Officer Baker "misremembered," but Roger Craig "lied"....hmmmmmmmmm.

Gary Mack was helpful to me when I was seeking certain recordings [which I never was able to obtain] from 11/22/63. He could be a great asset to investigation, when he chose to be.

Mr. Von Pein: On Baker's FIRST-DAY affidavit, he does NOT identify the "heavy" man he saw on the third or fourth floor as having been Oswald. YOU say it was Oswald...but Baker's first-day affidavit does NOT say that it was Oswald. [That ID came later]. So what about first-day evidence: does it, or does it not carry any weight? I suppose if you cherry-pick, Truly's statement does, but Baker's doesn't. Even though Baker's the cop and Truly's the civilian. If I was a prosecutor, I'd sure not want the job of trying to convict Oswald based on Baker's 11/22 statement. Do I think Baker lied? Depends on which statement you go by. Either he lied about the third or 4th floor, or he lied about the 2nd floor lunchroom...as BOTH encounters are not reported in the same version of his story. So one is true, and the other is false. Let's pose a hypothetical here: Are people more likely to lie, or to embellish a story, the FIRST time they tell it, or on subsequent retellings? Before you answer, think hard about some of the CT-cited testimony that you disbelieve. Based upon human nature, which do you think is more likely...embellishing the story on the first telling, or on subsequent tellings of the story? And please try to confine your answer to the question. If I doubt Baker's subsequent stories, that doesn't mean I don't believe JFK was shot at all [i've seen some of the logic-less leaps you make about people who question you, as you leap to absurd lengths to demean those who ask legitimate questions.]

I've been reading the testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck over the past couple of days. Speaking before the HSCA, with questions coming from other doctors, he briefly mentions the lung area damage...but doesn't give any real details, and changes directions on a dime when the topic is mentioned. The main thing I got out of his HSCA testimony was that the autopsy doctors were ORDERED not to dissect the wounds in the torso. Quite odd for an autopsy, in my opinion... While the cause of death was most obviously the head wound, one would think that it would be prudent to dissect any other wounds that might have helped determine whether the "theory," that there was only a single shooter firing from above and behind, could be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Robert, I think your theory has "legs"...but beyond that, my knowledge is quite limited. I haven't seen any xrays of JFK's chest, so I can't speak of that which I haven't seen.

I deleted the other thread on the back wound, as requested by the member who started that thread. So any discussion can now be directed here.

I'm no "trained observer" like a police officer--hell, I'm not even a "trained suspicioner" like Harry Holmes. But I'd call Oswald's size on 11/22/63 to be "around 5'8" - 5'9" tall" [because I'm 6'1", I know he's several [more than two] inches shorter than me. And I'd peg his weight, based upon that build, at about 'a buck and a quarter' [125 lbs.] because I was once down to 175 pounds, and I looked a LOT heavier than Oswald does in the photos. [My current weight is not pertinent to the discussion.] So Tommy...those are my answers to your question.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. Since DVP commonly uses the "anyone with common sense" argument, surely if he has any himself he will recognize that Humes was wrong, and Finck was correct...and the mastoid process IS a movable point, in relation to the thorax. These two photographs prove it BEYOND A DOUBT. But apparently if it's not found in the works of the Warren Commission or Vince Bugliosi, it cannot possibly be true, in DVP's world. And if you believe that, Mr. Von Pein, you've been "had." IF YOU DOUBT THE RESULTS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS ABOVE, find a volunteer and CONDUCT YOUR OWN EXPERIMENT to prove it wrong. {i know there's less than zero chance he will perform such a test...because if the photos above are proven to be true, then Humes' credibility goes "poof". He won't risk that. He'll simply say that since we're not measuring JFK's body, the results won't be the same.Or some other similar lame excuse NOT to check for himself.]

YOUR words, not mine. But if the shoe fits, lace that puppy up.

We need to finally tell DVP that the WC's "original recipe" leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Reheated it's not any better than it was when it was fresh. No need for him to keep repeating it like Chicken Little. Enjoying watching Jim D show how DVP's mind is extra crispy, and how Jim's making coleslaw out of DVP's arguments. Pointing out how VB decided to double down is just delicious. Stick a spork in him...he's done. He just doesn't know it...kinda like a chicken with his head cut off.

Here's a link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5973

NOW ya went an' done it...ya questioned the motives of one of DVP's heroes. You realize that's right next to blasphemy to him...right?

William Robert "Tosh" Plumlee has claimed that he was part of an "abort" team, who knew about an impending assassination attempt, and was sent to Dallas to thwart it. [Obviously, they were unsuccessful.] My point is...there seems to have been considerable foreknowledge about an assassination attempt in Dallas...fake or not...if you believe several of the stories that have been floated out there for years. Separating wheat from chaff, without preconceptions, is quite difficult.

Gotcha...

Edited the title, to better reflect what you meant.

The documents are documents. Not sure what you're trying to say. Mary Ferrell herself is dead. Rex Bradford, who oversees the site, has an impeccable reputation. Now...about one more thing: Do you go to your car dealer and ask them to recommend a "better" dealership? Do you go to your physician and ask him/her to recommend a "better" doctor? Just wondering...

MFF access: http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Main_Page.html

Apparently, this was the Rambler...as far as I can determine. Are you familiar with who William Robert "Tosh" Plumlee is?

Here's a link to make some of this less a case of reinventing the wheel: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12358

Chris, Can you give me a citation for the 3.27 foot measurement above street level? I'm sure someone will be asking where that number came from before long.

So then...are you saying that JFK's back wound was 13.2 inches below the top of his head? That's what I come up with. I just held a yardstick horizontally with the top of my head and had my wife hold another vertically and mark a spot 13 inches down from there, on my back. Going by those measurements, JFK's back wound was lower that the WC's "pointer" scenario shows... ...and the SBT is impossible. That's what I came up with. JFK is listed as being 6 feet, 0 inches tall. I'm 6 feet, 1 inch tall. So the comparison would be valid.