Mark Knight

You STILL haven't checked out Walthers' WC testimony...have you? And yet...it's the REST of us who are "lazy researchers"....

And what forensic psychologist credentials do you have, Mr. Trejo? What qualifies you to tell us how Hoover's mind worked on that afternoon? Or is this simply another wild guess on your part, with no basis other than "because I said so"??

Walthers' Warren Commission testimony states that the metal "file cabinets" are the type we might today call a "file box," and he described them as being large enough to hold "8 by 10 folder," and they each had a handle on top. I've never seen a Rolodex constructed in that manner. I'd wager you haven't either.

Mr. Trejo: You "think"....but you truly don't have a clue. You just ASSUME that Buddy Walthers can't tell a file cabinet from a Rolodex [which is a trademarked name, by the way]. From the Spartacus site: "Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." " Here's the link: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalthersB.htm So you're saying that "six or seven metal filing cabinets" MIGHT have only been a Rolodex? I believe you're in denial, Mr Trejo. The file cabinets were described as METAL...NOT 'bankers boxes," and certainly NOT a Rolodex. And I say that you're in denial because it's US who are the "lazy researchers," in your eyes. "Six or seven metal filing cabinets" vs. a Rolodex [here's a clue: have you ever seen a metal Rolodex?]. You have a right to make up your own mind; you do NOT have a right to make up your own FACTS out of thin air.

Who killed JFK? Someone with a gun. Yeah, I can do "nonspecific," too.

Now, if Oswald left New Orleans via bus....and Ruth Payne had a station wagon full of Oswald's possessions when she took Marina back to Dallas... HOW in BLUE BLAZES did GUY BANISTER'S files, including the filing cabinets, get into Mrs. Payne's garage?

Mr. Trejo, YOU are the one who stated that your "answer" was in one of Professor Wrone's FBI documents. WE are not. So the burden of proof falls upon YOUR shoulders. And NO, I most certainy DO NOT have those documents in my "files." In fact, had Larry Hancock NOT so graciously posted the links he did, I had no idea where to go to find them. [A GOOGLE search using the document numbers was a total failure.] So here's a suggestion: YOU go to the link, YOU read the documents cited, and YOU post the one you believe supports your assertions. Because I can't seem to find one that says anything even REMOTELY close to what you contend is in the documents. ...and you call US "lazy researchers"....sheesh....

Greg, To be fair to some of the folks who have posted on this topic, the "why" of the assassination, and the "what it means" part, are sometimes twisted around our interpretations of the details. Our minds are all but numbed by 50+ years of dealing with the details, as if we can arrive at the "why" and "what it means" by figuring out who did what and how they did it. Unfortunately, I'm going out on a limb here and saying that the human mind works in such a way that we think we need to understand the details before we can fully appreciate the "why" and the "what it means" part. Most of us are simply responding to the way that our schools taught us to think. Remember math class? Getting the right answer wasn't sufficient; we had to show that we understood the details that led to the answer. That's MY theory as to why we are still bogged down by the details, and can't see the big picture clearly.

So the 1:43 memo isn't it. How about it, Mr. Trejo? Since the document underpins your entire theory, can you produce a copy of "the" one that states that Hoover has gone into "lone assassin" mode? After all, the burden of proof SHOULD be on the person making the claim.

You misunderstand MY position, Greg. I was simply attempting to provide some background on the Social Security thing. I'm not buying the Harvey and Lee angle, because I haven't seen anything that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not attempting to support a theory I haven't bought myself. Which is why I followed with the links...to explain the "anecdote." Which is more than the H&L folks have done

Here's your freakin' citations. Sorry that PERSONAL EXPERIENCE with Social Security counts for so little with you. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/onyourown5.html http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/survivors/ifyou.html#sb=4 Since you seem to doubt my ability to tell the truth, try this out as well: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Knight&GSfn=Brenda&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=17&GScnty=813&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=113674665&df=all&

Pat, DVP's not going to read your work. Not unless you change your name to McAdams or Bugliosi.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10914

Mr. Lifton, I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald. Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.

Greg, I know that you may not have much information available regarding US Social Security and survivors' benefits. Most of it has little bearing on the JFK assassination case...EXCEPT that both of Oswald's daughters were eligible to receive survivors' benefits until at least age 18 [there are special rules for benefits to be paid after age 18], and those benefits were payable to Marina as the trustee for the children. Marina herself could NOT receive survivors benefits until she reached retirement age--at least age 62. But the survivors' benefits would have been based upon Oswald's LIFETIME earnings, at least those earnings that were subject to Social Security withholding. So all of Oswald's earnings, INCLUDING earnings prior to his marriage, would be a part of the basis for determining the survivors' benefits. I learned a bit about that when my first wife passed away at age 36 leaving me with two minor children. The benefits the children drew were based on ALL my wife's lifelong earnings, and not merely what was earned after marriage, or after the birth of each child. The same rules would have applied to Oswald's children.

X2.

Mr. Trejo...without that FBI memo, you're building a rather grand mansion on a foundation of speculation. "IF" isn't fact; you really need to latch onto that concept. IF the FBI memo that Wrone is to produce actually says what he claims it does, THEN you have a foundation upon which to build. If it does NOT, then your entire foundation crumbles. Than's NOT prejudice; it's called "skepticism."

I don't think DVP understands the technology involved in the examination James is making. Therefore, he must ridicule it. Sometimes what we THINK we see isn't what is actually recorded. It is the ability of the mind to "fill in the blanks" without other evidence that allows the mind to "see" motion when a series of images is played in a certain sequence. So let's work with what actually IS in the images of the frames that make up the Z-film, and then move forward from there. I'm looking forward to discovering what James finds. The difference is, if James finds evidence that supports DVP's claims, I know that he will acknowledge that DVP was correct. I don't believe that DVP would do the same if he was examining the film and found evidence that James was right. Oh, who am I kidding? DVP won't examine the film in the same degree of detail. It simply won't happen. He'll stick with someone else's GIF even if there is proof that the frames have been corrupted.

Ron, it's a distraction. Magicians use similar distractions to make you believe they can do wonders. They change the direction of your attention, so you won't see what they're actually doing.

Mr. Trejo, there's no need to talk down to me about the Cold War. I was born in 1954, and my school days were spent hearing about the "Red Menace" and "better dead than red." Every kid in my rtown knew where the designated "fallout shelters" were. I missed out on the era of Joe McCarthy hearings ever so slightly. So PLEASE don't try to "educate" me about that era. When the JFK assassination happened, we were sent home early from school. In our small town, I recall seeing a couple of Civil Defense trucks parked on street corners, JUST IN CASE the assassination was the beginning of WWIII. THAT'S how real the Cold War was in rural America...expecting any provocation to being WWIII, but praying it didn't come to that. By the time Nixon went to China in 1972, tensions had eased quite a bit since 1963. HAD THEY NOT, Nixon's trip would have been ill-advised, to say the very least. But then, maybe you're just going by what you've READ, and perhaps it's YOU who has some faulty recall of the era. I remember it QUITE well.

I find it hard to believe that, at this late date, Mr. Trejo didn't understand that Bundy was in the White House Situation Room, and was not in Dallas. That's quite an important detail to miss.

If DVP was not insulting, rude, and condescending, he couldn't communicate at all...if his posts here are any indication. Actually examining the evidence isn't DVP's strong suit. Arguing it is. And of course using modern technology to examine the evidence is vastly inferior to using the naked eye....riiiiiiiiiiiiight, David. We understand. That's why Howard Brennan's statement is more important that a test for nitrates/GSR on Oswald's cheek, too.

I'm not a Nixon worshipper...not by a long shot. Do I think he was behind JFK's murder? Again, not by a long shot. Was Nixon BACKED by people behind JFK's murder? Possibly. And the fact that he and his minions prolonged the war is NOT mitigated by the fact that his administration eventually negotiated the plan to extricate America from the war...not to me, and certainly not to the men who died BECAUSE the war was prolonged. But these were merely human lives snuffed out because the war was prolonged...so they're not important, right? At least he got us "in" with China.

"Tin Soldiers and Nixon coming...." How's THAT for putting us back on track? And I won't even go into a long post about how Mr. Trejo seems to worship "Tricky Dick." I'll simply mention that it was glaringly obvious.

Robert, that "address" seems to be a file on the C-drive of your own computer...which the rest of us have no way to access.