Mark Knight

Interesting...I hadn't seen this before.

Mr. Jeffries, I was not an administrator or moderator when Fetzer, Lemkin, DiEugenio, and Scully were banned. I am now. In case you were not aware, the ownership of the forum has changed since then, and we are less concerned with past personal problems than we are with what is occurring here these days. As I have stated previously, what occurs on Mr. Parker's forum is not particularly germane to what goes on at this forum. Nor is any problem that occurs on the Deep Politics Forum... unless those discussions shed some light on the JFK assassination. I strongly suggest that ALL leave their baggage at the door when you enter here...and concentrate on the evidence and arguing the interpretation of such, rather than the personalities of the people with whom you verbally joust. Whether someone is civil towards you elsewhere is not our concern HERE. Our concern at THIS forum is that people behave in a civil fashion on THIS forum. Again, just my take. Sorry to hijack the topic, but I believe that the moderators and administrators here have been called out, Mr. Jeffries. The current administrators were not part of what you allege occurred here prior to about one year ago, so I believe you have called us out unjustly. Surely you can't think I'm on Mr. Parker's "side" in any of this; I'm sure he is convinced of exactly the opposite. And the truth of the matter is, I'm simply trying to be as impartial as possible, without staying on this forum 24/7 to deal with petty personality dust-ups. [There's something out there called "life," and I have one.]

You're avoiding answering the question. You say that Hemming claims HE called OSWALD...and NOT the other way around. If it was a case of OSWALD calling HEMMING, the random pay phone scenario might be possible. But the story is that HEMMING placed the call TO OSWALD. I'm pretty sure Hemming didn't simply call random pay phones around Dallas on the evening of November 21, 1963 and hope that Oswald answered. So where did Hemming call Oswald on the evening of November 21, 1963...to be sure that he actually reached Oswald? I'm pretty sure Frazier never mentioned stopping on the way home for Oswald to make or take a call...and in Marina's and Ruth Paine's testimonies, I don't recall either of them saying that Oswald left for any length of time that evening, in case he was going out to take a call at a pay phone. Yes, there were likely hundreds of pay phones in the Dallas metropolitan area. But can we place Oswald at even ONE of them on the evening of November 21, 1963? If we cannot, then the possibility that a pay phone was used for Oswald to receive a call from Hemming on November 21, 1963 is reduced to almost zero. And if we cannot make the phone call a possibility, then it also reduces the possibility of Oswald taking the rifle to work on the 22nd at the request of Hemming near zero as well...no matter how much BOTH of us might wish it to be true. And may I remind you...the question is whether or not Hemming called Oswald, as Hemming allegedly claimed, on November 21, 1963...and NO OTHER DAY.

Mr. Jeffries, If you have a problem with the moderators and/or the administrators of this forum, you should address your complaints to US, and NOT to Mr. Parker. Personally, I don't care what Mr. Parker calls any other forum. Doing so is not a reflection on THIS forum; it is merely an expression of Mr. Parker's opinion...with which I neither agree nor disagree. In one sense it's little different from the various terms used to refer to the Warren Omission...er, COMMISSION, report. If you have an axe to grind with Mr. Parker about something that occurs on another forum, perhaps it should be addressed on that forum. Dragging the personal insults from there to here does nothing to further anyone's education about the JFK assassination. And that's MY opinion. Other moderators and administrators may or may not share that opinion.

My point--in case you missed it, Mr. Trejo--is that, unless we know WHERE Hemming called Oswald, we can't investigate whether the call ever took place. Does anyone at the TSBD say that Oswald took any calls at work? I can pretty much rule out Hemming calling Oswald at his rooming house the evening of the 21st...since Oswald went to the Payne home. If the call was made to the Payne residence, I find it strange that neither Marina nor Ruth Payne ever mentioned it in her testimony. And Buell Wesley Frazier never mentioned stopping at some pay telephone on the way home for Oswald to wait for a call he was "expecting." The point I'm making is...if we believe that Hemming made such a call and discussed Oswald bringing his rifle to work on Friday, we must also believe that Oswald received that call. From the evidence we have to this point, we cannot establish that Oswald ever received such a call. If we cannot show that Oswald ever received such a call the likelihood that he did is GREATLY diminished. If we cannot establish that Oswald ever received such a call, we must then question whether Hemming's claim to making such a call will stand up to scrutiny. My take, at this point, is that Hemming's claim does not stand. I would LOVE to believe that Hemming made that call, and that Oswald talked with him. This would tend to strengthen the idea that Oswald never fired any rifle shots that day, but he merely stashed the rifle in the TSBD. [i'm on board with the concept that Oswald never fired the rifle that day, BTW.] But the evidence just isn't there to support Hemming's claim...no matter HOW much we WISH it was true.

Well, Mark, we're in luck, because A.J. Weberman -- the very person to whom Gerry Patrick Hemming made his confession about phoning Oswald on 11/21/1963 to offer him double the price of his Carnano rifle for bringing it to the TSBD building the next morning -- is a member of this very Forum. It would be great if someone would tempt the great gentleman to respond to this important question, which I regard as one of the central clues to finally solving the JFK murder after a half-century. Regards, --Paul Trejo In other words...you have no idea where he allegedly called Oswald...is that correct? Therefore, you don't REALLY know that part of the evidence...but it's another big part of your theory nonetheless.

Mr. Trejo, when Gerry Hemming called Oswald on 11/21/1963, where did he call: the TSBD, Oswald's boarding house, or Ruth Paine's house? And how do we confirm this?

DVP as a Gary Mack sock puppet. I'm not surprised.

In my opinion, Lone Nutters are the people who, when presented an electron microscope to examine the evidence, decline...because if the 1964-era magnifying glass was good enough for the Warren Commission, it should be good enough for everyone in 2015. And that also goes for the modern research that points out the flaws in the FBI's neutron activation analysis of bullet fragments in 1964. ["In short, neutron activation analysis cannot be used to determine the origin of bullet fragments. The technique is no longer used by the FBI for this purpose.]

Interesting, too, that no obituary for Harry Livingstone has surfaced to this point.

It's hard to "prove" a conspiracy when the facts of what actually occurred during the assassination are in question. WHAT WE KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY: 1. JFK was shot while riding in the right rear seat of the presidential limousine at approximately 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963. 2. Kennedy had wounds to the throat, the back, and the head. 3. Oswald worked in the building directly behind the section of Elm Street where the shooting occurred. WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW FOR AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY: 1. If Oswald was the man in the southeast window of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. There is no agreement from CTers on how many gunmen there were, where the shots came from, what weapons were used. I was a fan of JFK as a 9-year-old 4th grader. I read the newspaper every day, and tried to keep up with where he traveled and what was going on in his administration. I kept a scrapbook of editorial cartoons by Louisville Courier-Journal artist Hugh Haynie on nearly every drawing he made concerning JFK. [Over the ensuing years, that scrapbook has come up missing...likely through my own actions or inactions over the years.] Originally, I began thinking there must have been a conspiracy the moment I saw Oswald "silenced" on live TV. But now, after reading nearly every available book on the subject that I could get my hands on, I cannot say with any conviction that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. BUT I CANNOT SAY WITH ANY CERTAINTY THAT HE WAS NOT KILLED AS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. When the only facts that everyone can agree upon are the ones I listed above, anyone who says that they have THE answer is likely fooling himself/herself.

"David is like a fundamental churchgoer. He believes in the good book (in his case the WC report) and no matter what anybody proves, it's wrong because it isn't in the Book Hallelujah!." You have summed the man up quite well.

Dave's not going to do that. If it's not in the WC report--and his hand isn't--then he has no interest in it.

In 1992, H. Ross Perot was initially discounted by pundits, much as Sanders has been. By June, Perot was leading in opinion polls. In late July, Perot announced he was withdrawing from the campaign. He revealed later that he was threatened that Republican operatives were threatening to release digitally altered, compromising photographs of Perot's daughter just prior to her wedding. In October, Perot rejoined the race and ended up with 19% of the popular vote. If Sanders' campaign continues to gain momentum, an attempt to assassinate the campaign, if not the candidate, would not surprise me. Considering how close the Bush/Gore race was in 2000, the political establishment would not allow an "interloper" like Sanders to accumulate that large a percentage of the vote. In the recent Kentucky governor's race in the Republican primary, one candidate had abuse allegations raised against him, and a second candidate tagged the third candidate's campaign with responsibility for releasing the allegations...and with asking the second candidate to participate. The second candidate distanced himself from the release of the allegations, and went on to win the primary by the slimmest of margins. So if the governorship of one state would bring about attempts at character assassination, you can imagine the character assassination that might be directed at a camapign for the Presidency of all 50 states.

Ron, have him go to this link and FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS THERE: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=65300ab07fd0874e17e0912c8ffdfa63&showannouncement=2&f=126

Glenn, Larry Hancock is the author of the book, Someone Would Have Talked...referred to in shorthand as SWHT. I have the 2010 edition.

I don't know that anyone called Waldman a xxxx; those are YOUR words, not mine. I 'm pretty sure you won't find anything in my post #134 above saying the paper trail is falsified. I haven't made that accusation. I just asked about where that microfilm is today. Because if the microfilm cannot be produced today, then it cannot be examined. And if it cannot be examined, we can no longer determine whether or not any evidence allegedly taken from the microfilm is what it is represented to be. SHOULD a grand jury ever be convened to examine the evidence--which has NEVER been done in this case, and which folks like Bill Kelly are trying to bring about--the admissibility of the Waldman evidence might be challenged successfully.

"The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records." So where are those microfilm records TODAY? Can you produce them? Can you tell us where in the National Archives they might be found? Because if that microfilm CANNOT be found today...then its evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

Recall also that Nixon was all about the "Vietnamization" of Vietnam. Except Kennedy beat him to the concept by many years. My theory is that, once Kennedy had been reelected--providing no Dallas, of course--he might have taken a similar course as Nixon eventually did, only 10 years earlier. After being elected to a second term, he wasn't going to have to face the voters again, remember. I called this a theory, because we have no way of knowing for a certainty.

In JFK's interview on 2 September 1963 with Walter Cronkite, he said: "I don't think that, unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT IS THEIR WAR. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO WIN IT OR LOSE IT. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisors, but they have to win it, the people of Viet Nam, against the Communists." [Emphasis mine.] I think this still echoes what JFK said 9 years before. I don't believe there was a huge shift in his thinking in the interim. I fail to see where this foreshadows a huge military buildup of American troops in JFK's future...had he lived.

I'm still having trouble reconciling the Z-film with what the witnesses said...the ones who mentioned a wound above and BEHIND JFK's ear, on the head. The Z-film seems to show a flap of skin, skill, etc., that was above and IN FRONT OF the ear. Until we reconcile that, none of the other pieces of the puzzle will fit, either.

A rheostat is a variable resistor. In automotive applications, a rheostat controls how bright or dim your dash lights are. A thermostat controls temperature. A hemostat can be used to control the rate of bleeding. Greg, I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation; in fact, I'm pretty much in agreement that it's about "control." I was simply trying to turn a bogus word--"heostat"--into a legitimate word that simply may have been misheard or mis-transcribed.

I still contend that the word "heostat" is a mishearing of the word "hemostat"...a clamp used to control bleeding. I can find NO such word as "heostat." [Having grown up in the 1960's I know perfectly well what hemostats are...see "roachclip"...]

I tend to believe as you do...to a degree. Jon, I think that the question might have been posed to LBJ as, "If you were president, what would you do differently than Kennedy?" No mention of a murder would need to have been made. THEN, after the assassination, a simple phone call to LBJ, reminding him of what he said, and telling him of Don Reynolds' congressional testimony that very day...once they had him by his cajones, his heart and mind DID follow...and Don Reynolds was swept under the rug.

Yeah...because no one else was fooled by the acoustic qualities of Dealy Plaza, why should Connally be any different?