Mark Knight

As I recall, the two newspapers Oswald was holding in the backyard photos were US published communist newspapers--I think one was The Worker, and the other was The Militant--but as I recall, they were from factions whose views of communism actually opposed one another. EDIT: The Daily Worker was a newspaper published by Communist Party USA, and The Militant is a newspaper published by the Socialist Workers Party...a Trotskyist group, as I understand it. CPUSA was more Stalinist-oriented.

Sleight-of-hand on the measurements...yet again.

In relation to the back, the mastoid process is a moveable point...depending on how the neck is, or is not, bent. Lean the head to the left, and the right mastoid process is further from a selected point on the right half of the back. Lean the head to the right, and the right mastoid process is closer to a selected point on the right half of the back. Same with leaning the head backwards or forwards...the relationship between the right mastoid process and the back wound changes with movement of the head. This, in turn, calls the entire measuring process into question. Why was the back wound location not measured from a FIXED point, in relation to the back itself? Relating the back wound to the position of the right mastoid process--ironically, the very place RFK was shot--seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the actual position of the wound. It is a somewhat ambiguous reference. Now, if we were referencing a particular HEAD wound, the right mastoid process might be a perfect reference. On a BACK wound, it would be much more logical to reference the wound location to a particular vertebra, and the distance [in this case, to the right] from that point.

If you move the shooter to the right, you change the point at which the rifle muzzle is aimed. Unless you move the entire rifle. The FBI determined the position of the rifle from reports of witnesses, the Z-film, the surveys of Robert West, and many other factors. SO if the position of the rifle is wrong in the reenactments, then the data from the reenactments is wrong as well. You can conclude that the data is accurate ONLY if you accept that the position of the rifle is correct. If the position of the rifle is incorrect, then the data from that is flawed. You seem to want to have it both ways, Mr. Von Pein. That CANNOT be. By the way...what measurement did YOU come up with, regarding the position of your right shoulder?

In other words....you have no inclination to prove that my claim is impossible. You'd simply rather argue the words. All talk. OK, so I'll do your homework for you. My wife is of a slight build, possibly even less so than Oswald. With her arms extended as I indicated, I measured the distance as per my challenge to you. The measurement I obtained was 15 inches. Show me 15 inches of space between the buttstock of the rifle, as it was in the position shown in the Shaneyfelt photo, and the wall and the pipes there. AT THE BUTTSTOCK OF THE RIFLE...not a foot behind it, where Shaneyfelt was standing. Show me 15 inches between the midpoint of Howlett's left shoulder and that wall, with Howlett's left arm in the position the rifle was in. Because I simply don't see 15 inches there. And, since he was an ex-Marine, I'd be willing to bet that Oswald's shoulders were even wider than my wife's.

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it. The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible. Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible. And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed). Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.) What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. So your best argument ...is...name-calling? Here's a challenge to you, Mr. Von Pein: Find a rifle, or a rifle-like object. Assume a right-handed shooter's position with said object...butt-stock on the right shoulder, left hand on the fore stock/forearm of the rifle-like object. Face your assumed target, as if you were going to kill it. Now, have a friend [going out on a limb here and assuming you have friend who would do this] and have said friend measure the distance from your left shoulder, at the buttstock of the rifle-like object, to the outer edge of your right shoulder. [HINT: shooters generally FACE their target when shooting; they generally do NOT turn the torso 90 degrees to the target when shooting. Try it; turning 90 degrees to your target is uncomfortable, and makes for inaccurate shooting. You'd think a man who would set up a sniper's nest would set it up so the shooting position wouldn't compromise either comfort or accuracy, with uncomfortable shooting positions leading to inaccurate shooting.] Now. tell is what that measurement is. Until or unless you can do THAT, you are merely GUESSING at the number of inches required for a right-handed person to fire a rifle from the position used in the Shaneyfelt photo...which is alleged to be almost EXACTLY the position the rifle was fired from that day. The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the amount of space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion.

So...nobody has a challenge for Williams' testimony? Nobody can come to a conclusion about what he says?

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes. You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it.

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.) Also: If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall. Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose. The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341. EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is.... Looks pretty open, without that wall of book boxes around the sniper's nest. Put the book boxes back, and look again.

You misunderstand my position, Mr. Von Pein. I'm not saying NOBODY could have fired that rifle from that window at that angle from that spot. I'm saying that a RIGHT-HANDED SHOOTER couldn't do it. From what I see, there is plenty of room for a left-handed shooter. Mr. Von Pein...have you ever fired a rifle or a shotgun? If you have, your responses puzzle me...unless you're a left-handed shooter as well. If you have not...then your responses make a tiny bit more sense.

I'm not trying to prove that a right-handed shooter CAN fire from that position. Do you have any photos of the HSCA firing the rifle from EXACTLY the same position that was alleged to duplicate the conditions of the sniper's nest...as the Shaneyfelt and Howlett photos are alleged to do? Do such photos exist? I'm not saying that a rifle can't be fired from that window at all...as you seem to interpret [or distort] my criticisms. Obviously, a rifle CAN be fired from that window. BUT can it be done by a right-handed shooter with the rifle in the exact position indicated in the Shaneyfelt photo? Can it be done by a right-handed shooter--as Oswald was--with the rifle in the position indicated by Howlett's left hand? The place where Shaneyfelt is STANDING is further back from the pipes than a person actually firing the rifle with the buttstock against his right shouder would need to stand to fire the rifle in the position the rifle is held by the tripod. So where Shaneyfelt is STANDING in the photo doesn't come into play when determining whether there is enough room for a right-handed shooter to fire the weapon with the rifle in the position indicated. The position indicated by Howlett would allow enough room for a LEFT-handed shooter to fire the rifle in that position. I just don't see enough room for a right-handed shooter to do the deed, between the buttstock of the rifle in the indicated position and the pipes at the wall. I think the sleight-of-hand indicated by the Howlett photo indicates there might be a "sleight" problem with a right-handed shooter. If it was NOT a problem, why was Howlett NOT using his RIGHT hand to indicate the position of the rifle, and to better approximate the position of a right-handed shooter [which Oswald was, by all accounts I've seen]? That, then, would be reasonable doubt.

Yeah. And? What's so impossible about it? Oswald just angled the rifle as much as he needed to, over the top of the boxes, in order to get the job done. Big deal. Easy as pie. You're manufacturing a shooting problem for Oswald that never existed. Huh? Where did you arrive at that conclusion? Just how was I proved "totally wrong" about those limo fragments? Below is a picture of Secret Service agent John Howlett sitting in the Sniper's Nest during the SS re-enactment. What is so hard about envisioning the sniper leaning forward a bit more and pointing his rifle downward toward the street over the top of the boxes? You think such a maneuver is totally impossible? Why would you think that? And given the posture being exhibited by Howlett here, I'm not even sure that a sniper would need to lean forward any further in order to angle a rifle down at the street. Perhaps he would need to lean forward a bit more for the FIRST shot (which I think occurred about Z160). But for the second and third shots, when JFK was further down the road, it's quite possible that Oswald might have been in just this posture when he fired those last two shots at the President. It looks to me as if a rifle could be "angled" over the top of the boxes in order to achieve the proper angle for the shots at Z224 and Z313. In agent Howlett's position it's his LEFT hand approximating the position of the rifle. That would indicate that either the shooter was left-handed, and had most of his torso to the RIGHT of the position of the buttstock of the rifle...and LHO was a right-handed shooter, according to the evidence I've seen...OR the torso of a right-handed shooter would've been smashed through the wall...and the wall looks fairly intact to me.

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures.... Look closely at Shaneyfelt's position in CE 887. He is some distance BEHIND the rifle. Now, anyone who has ever fires a rifle knows that you do NOT fire one with the buttstock of the rifle centered on your chest. The buttstock has to be against the shoulder of the shooter. Oswald was a right-handed shooter. So the buttstock of the rifle would have been against his right shoulder if he was firing that weapon in that position. That would mean that ALL of Oswald's torso would have been between the buttstock and the wall where the pipes are. Oswald may have been slim, but I must conclude that the possibility of the shooting occuring exactly that way is even more slim...nearly to the point of impossibility. [Maybe that's slim enough to be the "sliver" of evidence that DVP has been yammering about.]

Absolutely the best comment on this topic I've ever read.

Ok...so ASSUMING Oswald knows the parade route...and ASSUMING he's already planned to shoot from the southeast corner window of the 6th floor of the TSBD... ...the invitations for the luncheon at the Trade Mart said it would begin at 12 noon. The DPD was expecting JFK to arrive by 12:15. But something happened on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams testified that he ate his lunch in front of the windows on the 6th floor. Bonnie Ray Williams testified that no one else was on the 6th floor of the TSBD while he ate his lunch there. Bonnie Ray Williams testified that he may have been there as late as 12:15 pm. Now, I'm not usually any more prone to speculate than any other man. BUT if Oswald's plan was to set up a sniper's nest in the window, and if he had to assemble the broken-down rifle before he could kill anyone...wouldn't he be rather antsy about Williams' presence on the 6th floor, during the exact time period JFK was SCHEDULED to pass by the TSBD? Mr. BALL. What time do you usually quit for lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. We always quit about 5 minutes before time. During the rush season we quit about 5 minutes before time and washup. Mr. BALL. Wash your hands and face before you eat lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right. Mr. BALL. You say quit 5 minutes before time. What is the time? Mr. WILLIAMS. Five before 12. Mr. BALL. Did you quit earlier this day? Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe this day we quit about maybe 5 or 10 minutes, because all of us were so anxious to see the President--we quit a little ahead of time, so that we could wash up and we wanted to be sure we would not miss anything. *** Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe. Mr. BALL. Facing on what street? Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street. Mr. McCLOY. What floor? Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor. Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler. Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then. *** Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day? Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not. Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes. Mr. BALL. Finish your lunch? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. No longer than it took me to finish the chicken sandwich. Mr. BALL. Did you eat the chicken? Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did. *** Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was. Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it? Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe. Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes. Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there? Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes. Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.? Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes. ***** So Williams said that when he left the 6th floor, it was around 12:20 pm. So Ozzie Boy had to be working feverishly to set up the sniper's nest AND assemble the rifle in the next 10 minutes. IF you believe he did what he's accused of doing. Seems odd to me that the men on the 5th floor could hear shell casings hitting the floor, but couldn't hear cartons of books being moved around at a hectic pace to set up the sniper's nest.

I second the motion.

Mr. Von Pein, THIS is what I'm talking about: Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; Commission No. 889 represented by frame 166 is the adjusted position to account for the fact that the Presidential stand-in on May 24 was actually 10 inches higher in the air above the street than the President would have been in the Presidential limousine. Mr. DULLES - Would you explain to us simply how you made those adjustments? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. DULLES - I mean how did you get him down 10 inches as a practical matter. Mr. FRAZIER - They had marked on the back of the President's coat the location of the wound, according to the distance from the top of his head down to the hole in his back as shown in the autopsy figures. They then held a ruler, a tape measure up against that, both the back of the Presidential stand-in- and the back of the Governor's stand-in, and looking through the scope you could estimate the 10-inch distance down on the automobile. You could not actually see it on the President's back. But could locate that 10-inch distance as a point which we marked with tape on the automobile itself, both for the Presidential and the Governor's stand-in. SO...at this point, was the mark on the coat there to mark the spot where the BACK wound occurred...or was it to compensate for the 10" difference, and to mark the spot for the HEAD wound? Seems like Mr. Frazier wanted to have it both ways... but that simply can't be...can it?

WHOA. Houston, we have a problem. I believe I recall WC testimony indicating that the chalk mark on the jacket represents something OTHER than the back wound. Correct me if I'm wrong...but I recall reading that the reenactment was done in the QM, rather than SS100X. According to the testimony, it was determined that the agent in the JFK position of the QM was sitting about 10 inches higher than JFK's position in SS100X...and that the chalk mark on the jacket was to mark the location of JFK's HEAD wound, relative to the alleged sniper's view from the 6th floor of the TSBD...and was NOT placed there to represent the back wound. In fact, I believe the testimony was that the back wound was represented by a mark on the TRUNK of the QM. SO using the chalk mark on the jacket to plot trajectories of the BACK wound is....well, let's just say it's disingenuous. Because the back wound, being lower than the head wound, would require different angles, as it relates to the 6th floor of the TSBD. And if the angles are all wrong...then someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes. SO am I wrong about the testimony regarding what the chalk mark on the jacket represented?

Are you serious, Ray? (Or did you type before you were fully awake this morning?) I most certainly do not "have to believe" that Buell Frazier perfectly nailed the size of Oswald's paper bag. In fact, that's crazy. Frazier saw a bag, yes. He was simply wrong when he was later asked to try and nail down the precise length of that bag. Now, why can't those two things go together, Ray? Of course they can go together. You just don't WANT them to co-exist, so you just made up a brand-new rule that is quite laughable indeed: "If you believe Frazier was right about the bag then you have to believe he was right about the size." Hilarious. While you are correct, David, in saying that one need not accept all of someone's testimony to accept part of his testimony, you are greatly simplifying the situation re Frazier and the bag by saying it was the "precise" length that was the problem. 1) Frazier saw the bag two times--in the back of the car--and in Oswald's arms. At neither time did this bag, to Frazier's recollection both on the day of the assassination, and afterward, even remotely resemble the bag eventually placed into evidence. He said it was the wrong kind of paper, and he described it as both shorter and thinner than the bag in the archives, to such an extent even that the bag he recalled was barely HALF as large as the bag in the archives. (Archives bag is 38 by 8 1/2 = 323 sq inches, while Frazier's recollection was of a bag 27 x 6 = 162 sq inches.) Frazier confirmed this approximation, moreover, after close examination of a mock-up of the bag in the back seat of his car. The archives bag took up almost the whole back seat while it was his strong recollection the bag took up nowhere near that much space. 2) I had the pleasure of meeting Frazier last year and explaining the whole situation to him. Apparently, it had never been explained to him that the paper bag in the archives matched the paper in the school book depository, and that this led the WC and subsequent researchers to conclude Oswald brought the bag to Irving the day before the shooting. When I told Frazier this, and asked if he was familiar with the properties of the paper used in the depository, and whether it was possible for Oswald to have smuggled a large paper bag in his clothing on the way home from Irving on the day before the shooting without his realizing it, his eyes got sad, and then angry. And he blurted "That didn't happen!" So, there you go. Frazier is not merely a "that doesn't match my precise recollection" witness, he is a "that did not happen, no how, no way" witness. To make an analogy, he is not merely someone who says "The bank robber looked about 5 feet tall to me" when the suspect is 5 feet six inches, he is someone who says the bank robber was about 5 feet tall, and white, when the suspect was 7 feet tall and black. 3) When you add Frazier's recollections of the bag's physical appearance, including its size, and his recollection of Oswald's behavior on the trip home from Irving--all of which indicate the bag in the archives is not the bag he saw in Oswald's possession--to the mysterious chain of evidence regarding the bag--e.g. none of those "discovering" the sniper's nest recalled seeing the bag in the sniper's nest, and Lt. Day's lying about signing the bag when discovered in the building--it becomes clear that the bag is extremely problematic for the Oswald did-it conclusion. 4) The problems with the bag are only amplified, moreover, when one studies the reports of the Dallas Police. Montgomery and Johnson claimed they took the bag from the building around 2:30 when the photos of them leaving the building prove it was 3:00. Similarly, Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik claimed they only found out about the bag after going to the Paine's door around 3:30, when the reports of their fellow detectives and deputies, not to mention the statements of Marina and Ruth Paine, prove this was a lie, and that they actually went to the door around 2:30. Pretty darned convenient, IMO. We have two separate statements from Dallas detectives, which, when combined, suggest they'd found the bag in the building before they'd been told (by Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle) that Oswald had been carrying a bag. When the reverse was true. They were told Oswald had been carrying a bag, and then PRESTO! CHANGE-O! They found a bag in the building! Flat on the floor by the sniper's nest! In a location examined by numerous detectives and deputies before them. None of whom recalled seeing the bag. Amazing. Truly amazing. Mr. Von Pein is not going to address Pat Speer's points here because that would require him to not only read what Speer wrote, but he would have to consider what Speer is saying. And if it's not written in either the Warren Commission Report of Bugliosi's book or drawn into a LN cartoon, then actually considering it is apparently beneath his station in life. Mr. Von Pein draws a LOT of conclusions that aren't supported by facts. He thinks, for example, that I'm a CTer. The truth is, I'm a seeker of truth, and I find a lot of problems with both the "official" story AND most conspiracy theories. I believe that, for us to establish Oswald as the man with a gun in his hand at 12:30 pm in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD, we have to have reliable evidence. If DPD Chief Jesse Curry says he can't place Oswald there with a gun in his hands when the shots were fired, then Howard Brennan's off-again, on-again ID of Oswald is something less than a "given" in the case. And as for Oswald being set up by Gerry Hemming via a telephone call FROM Hemming TO Oswald on Thursday, November 21, we must establish that Oswald actually took an incoming call on Thursday, November 21st. There is no supportive testimony from anyone that Oswald either took a call before he left his rooming house on the 21st, that he was summoned to the telephone at the TSBD on the 21st, that Frazier stopped at a pay phone while Oswald waited on a phone call on the 21st, that Oswald took a call at Ruth Payne's home on the 21st, or that Oswald left the Payne home and walked to a pay phone on the 21st. If the ONLY two witnesses who claim they saw Oswald with a bag on the morning of the 22nd BOTH say the bag is shorter than the length required to carry the rifle...and Frazier's frames of reference are [a] the length of the package on the back seat of his car, and the fact that he is POSITIVE that Oswald was able to carry the bag tucked between his armpit and his cupped hand... then the evidence does not support the official story. The bag found [or not found, depending on whom you choose to believe] in the alleged sniper's nest then becomes a questionable piece of evidence...just like Howard Brennan's inability, and then ability, to identify Oswald. Had the case against Oswald gone to court--and I don't mean some kangaroo court, made-for-TV movie version of a court--much of the alleged evidence would have been ruled either inadmissible or, at the very least, highly questionable. The chief problem with conspiracy theories is...there is no universal agreement as to who conspired with whom. Most CT'ers can't even agree whether Oswald was, wittingly or not, part of a conspiracy. Many who lean toward conspiracy argue among themselves whether Oswald was designated as a [or the lone] patsy before or after the assassination. For years, I was a CT'er. But today, I'm looking at the case anew, with no preconceived ideas. If you cannot place Oswald with a rifle in his hands in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time the shots were fired--and DPD Chief Jesse Curry said that you can't, beyond a reasonable doubt--then, whether Oswald is completely innocent or not, you would HAVE to find him "not guilty" of the JFK assassination. Legally, there IS a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." That's a distinction that apparently eludes Mr. Von Pein. Do I claim Oswald is completely innocent? No, I can't claim that. Whether that's due to his "patsyfication," or whether that's due to Oswald being truly innocent, I can't yet say. I'm still re-reading and weighing the evidence. Some of the evidence, such as FBI man Frazier's, has to be re-examined in light of recent revelations about the misdeeds and/or mistaken conclusions regarding the FBI labs dating back to 1963 and before. It seems that we can take NOTHING at face value from these folks. Then there's the work of the late Tom Purvis, regarding the Robert West surveys of Dealy Plaza for both the SS and the FBI. Purvis uncovered a lot of misrepresentation of the surveys on the part of the Warren Commission, even to the point of falsification of the information in the data blocks on the surveys as entered into evidence in the WC files. I cannot give the WC a free pass for alteration here...and if they would alter that basic information, what other evidence might they also have altered? [Purvis was a LNer; he believed that Oswald shot JFK with "that rifle" from "that window." But he believed that the WC engaged in a lot of lying and obfuscation, and that the shooting did NOT go down as their narrative concludes.] I will admit that I likely will not uncover the whole truth of the JFK assassination until "all is revealed" in the next life. But the willingness of the WC to alter data leads me to believe that the truth is not likely to be found in their report, except for bits and pieces of it. The trouble with DVP is, either you're a LNer like him, or you're a CTer. It's all black-or-white. And I tend not to fit in well with either "convinced" group, because I'm not convinced I know the entire truth...or even enough truth to draw a supportable conclusion. The ONLY conclusion I draw is that JFK was killed, and Connally was wounded, on November 22, 1963 at 12:30 pm.

I'm just wondering who Colin Crowe is, and when he commented on this thread. I never saw his avatar or his bio, and yet there seem to be a number of comments made by him...or at least attributed to him. Oh, wait...I guessed I missed the thread title being changed to "Von Pein's Greatest Hits." But that WOULD seem to promote the original thread title.

Oswald not bringing a lunch to work does not help prove he killed JFK. In fact, it helps prove nothing. Whether Oswald did or did not shoot Tippit does not prove or disprove whether Oswald killed JFK. MUCH of Mr. Von Pein's 10 "points" have absolutely no bearing on whether Oswald is guilty of shooting JFK. But in his mind, apparently, if we accept that Oswald shot Tippit, we MUST accept that Oswald killed JFK. Still don't know how determining whether Oswald brought a lunch or not helps "prove" Oswald shot JFK. Dave, I simply can't make that leap. Maybe you can, but I can't.

As I have said before, folks such as Mr. Von Pein will turn down the use of modern technology to examine the evidence of theJFK assassination, as if a magnifying glass is superior to an electron microscope--as long as the Warren Commission used a magnifying glass, that's all the accuracy we will ever need. And this is why he will dismiss medical evidence such as Robert Prudhomme is providing.

Paul Trejo has claimed that Hemming reported [to AJ Weberman] that the reason Oswald brought the rifle to the TSBD on November 22nd is because Hemming called Oswald on the telephone on the 21st and offered Oswald twice what he paid for the rifle, if he'd bring it to work with him the next day. There is no testimony in the WC archives that says that Oswald received such a call on the 21st from Hemming or anyone else. In fact, there is no testimony on record that Oswald was called to the phone at the TSBD at all. So...for Mr. Trejo to convince us that Hemming called Oswald, first we have to establish that Oswald could have taken such a call. There is no evidence on record that Oswald received such a call...other than Weberman's report that Hemming told him that the call occurred. And since the late Mr. Hemming had a reputation as a teller of untruths, it's difficult to take Weberman's account at face value without some sort of corroborating evidence. And to this point, I've found no corroborating evidence that such a call ever occurred. I exchanged many emails with Mr' Hemming before his death, and even within them I find no corroboration for the claimed call to Oswald. So I'm asking Mr. Trejo to give us "something to hang our hat on" regarding Weberman's claim. I've not even gotten into the discussion of whether or not Oswald had the rifle in his possession on November 21st, 1963. If Mr. Trejo can give us evidence that Oswald received ANY phone call on November 21, 1963, then he might have a place upon which to build his story.

Mr. Von Pein, My biggest complaint with your arguments regards the ones that begin with "Anyone could see...." Back in the 15th century, "anyone could see" that the world was flat, too. So how's that "flat-earth" thing workin' out for ya?

I have the KLIF radio recording from that day, but it's been quite some time since I listened to it [i start getting tired after the 5th hour....].