Mark Knight

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.

Nixon's "Vietnamization" was fairly inept, as I see it. Over 5-1/2 years of his presidency, he had trouble building an army of Vietnamese soldiers that were competent and capable. Funny how the US can do that in 12-13 weeks of basic and AIT. And until 1972, most of these American kids were draftees, not volunteers. In fact, in my local community, some 17-19 year olds who got into trouble with the law were "sentenced" to enlist in one or another branch of the military. [That may or may not have been the case elsewhere in America]. So even with the draftees and the "non-voluntary" enlistees, we could turn these young boys into soldiers in 13 weeks. Thirteen weeks...vs. 5-1/2 years. And yet Nixon was still "buying time."

Methinks someone is confusing Nixon with JFK. JFK to Walter Cronkite, 2 Sep 1963: "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."

Around 10 years ago, I was of the same mindset as Mr. Schmidt. I thought it was odd that, from all the political assassinations in the US in the '63-'68 period, the person to benefit most was Richard Nixon. JFK, MLK, RFK...they all led to the Nixon presidency. But then Watergate was different. Someone left Nixon to twist slowly, slowly in the wind after the "second-rate burglary." If you can imagine a "shadow government" of powerful people and forces whose power overrules party lines and other political boundaries, it's easy to see the Nixon ascent to the presidency, and his fall from grace, were orchestrated from somewhere other than the Nixon White House. After Watergate, you can almost see that Nixon pissed off his sponsors, and they started, slowly at first, then more rapidly, removing his "cloak of invisibility" that he apparently assumed would exist through 8 years in the White House. Was it MI? Was It CIA? Was it the Bilderbergs? Who the hell knows? Whoever it was, their tracks were well covered, their fingerprints wiped clean, no discernable DNA left behind. Now, I have a hard time believing in a vast conspiracy operating the government, but mostly because it's difficult to keep replacing spokes in the wheel as they age and die without some part of the wheel becoming "squeaky." Perhaps it was Nixon's mention of "the Bay of Pigs thing" that made him squeak...and which caused those in power to grease the skids under Nixon, rather than greasing his palm. For me, the door is open to some sort of conspiracy...but not necessarily linked to the Illuminati, or some other such group that sounds like something from a Lyndon LaRouche campaign broadcast. The fact that the trail has been covered so well for 50+ years tells me that it's not one person, or even one generation, that's invoved.

From what I've been reading on this thread, it seems that the primary "evidence" Mr. Von Pein is using to "prove" his case is Bugliosi's book...which is NOT primary evidence, but merely a retelling of what Bugliosi interprets as to the actions and words of the persons involved. In other words...in a court of law...this sort of testimony would be dismissed as heresay.

Here's my take on the topic: Everyone, from Paul Trejo to David Von Pein to Paul Brancato to Larry Hancock to Bill Kelly to Robert Prudhomme, has the right to post on the subject of the JFK assassination. That's because this is a JFK assassination discussion forum. All of the above SHOULD be obvious. If your "pet" thread is getting bumped off the front page, someone needs to do some more research and add more information to the thread to keep it on Page One. And if no one else is doing this...well...why are you complaining about it, rather than doing something about it? While the primary theme of this forum is that the Warren Commission report is a crock, that's not the ONLY point of view out there. And what kind of forum would this be if we did NOT discuss ALL theories and examine all the positions people hold regarding the JFK assassination? It's NOT the place of the moderators or administrators to delete the threads that you don't agree with. So you want to do something about those threads? Do your homework, refute the logic, find the facts to make your case stronger than the other side. So if someone else won't do what you want done...which is to boost a particular thread back to Page One...what's keeping YOU from doing it?

Snowden...'nuff said.

The last line is absolutely accurate, and it sums up why we're still debating this 51+ years later. "...they have what ever value to one that one ascribes to them." And yet, that's the point that Mr. Von Pein apparently missed [or chose to ignore].

Robert, that might be because he'd rather sell you his forthcoming book than reveal what's in it, in any sort of detail.

I'm going to keep an open mind on the subject. I read an account several years ago written by someone [i don't remember who] that said the film he saw was prior to the 1975 showing of the extant Z-film. He claimed that it was in a military setting, something to do with training. I consider the story to be plausible. However, until/unless the "other" film surfaces publicly, it has the same effect as being nonexistent. There's nothing to measure, nothing to study, and therefore nothing to debate. And what those who claim to have viewed the "other" film say they saw is just as unprovable today, at this very hour, as Trejo's claim that the John Birch Society and/or Edwin Walker killed JFK.

I'm seeing some "circular reasoning" in play here. We know the note is authentic because Oswald shot at Walker. We know that Oswald shot at Walker because the note is authentic. Hmmmmmm.......just hmmmmmmmm......

The problem I have with Mr. Von Pein's arguments is that his fall-back response is "because nothing else makes sense." Unfortunately, when you start with the conclusion, and then work backwards, it's easy to make the case. But that also goes for the case of Oswald's innocence as well. Humans are flawed; we have biases. Some are biased towards authority; some are biased against authority. But what if we started with a blank sheet of paper and looked at the JFK assassination. Would any of us reach the same conclusions we have today? Many folks have made their "decision" about what they without the benefit of many of the technological advances that are available today. I'm referring to things such as James Gordon's anatomical models of what would or would not have occurred if bullets had taken the assumed paths through the body. And the Prayer Man situation is another bit of information the original investigations either didn't have, or didn't notice [and yes, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't attempt to hide it, they just failed to see it]. The significance of the Prayer Man detail is that it might exonerate Lee Oswald. Or it might not. Without better analysis, we can't say for sure. In America, under our system of jurisprudence, a man is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a shame that some folks can't grasp the concept. DPD chief Jesse Curry said that, based upon the information available, police simply could not place Oswald in the southeast window on the south side of the 6th floor of the TSBD with a rifle in his hand at the time the shots that killed Kennedy and wounded Connally were fired. From where I stand, that constitutes "reasonable doubt" that Oswald did what he is accused [and convicted, in Mr. Von Pein's mind] of doing.

It is only the testimony of George DeMohrenschild and Marina Oswald that implicates LHO in the Walker shooting. NONE of the actual on-site witnesses after the fact ID's Oswald as one of the men seen leaving. NONE of them. ZERO. ZIPPO. ZILCH. But Marina, who WASN'T there, says Lee did it. And DeMohrenschildt, who WASN'T there, also says Lee did it. Case closed...he's guilty. [sARCASM WARNING]

I would say that, since it wasn't adopted until 1967, the 25th Amendment didn't come into play, in a literal sense. BUT since the text of the section of the 25th Amendment quoted above was based upon a recommendation of the American Bar Association in 1960, the topic WAS in play between '60 and '65. It just wasn't being considered as part of a 25th Amendment that didn't yet exist.

I agree. Paul's absence on this thread is quite conspicuous.

Link doesn't work for me either. I have a Photobucket account, but if I sign in, it takes me to MY page....not YOURS.

Jon, It seems that Paul Trejo's "Ozzie dun it" theory started with Trejo's belief in what Harry Dean said about his connections with the John Birch Society [JBS] and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee [FPCC]. If Trejo's two books are being repudiated by Harry Dean, then this raises red flags about the foundation of Trejo's entire theory and the Walker-JBS-Gabaldon-Banister connection. THAT's why "WOW."

WOW... Just WOW.

I'm pretty sure I heard the word "patsy" in some old gangster-type movies of the Edward G. Robinson-style...and those were made long before 1963.

The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie. To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy. Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED?

The problem with the book upon which the miniseries will be based is that, in the end, the JFK assassination is peripheral to the story being told.

I like that thought, Ron.

So...has anyone who is taking issue with Greg Parker's book actually READ the book? I can't attack his work--or praise it--because I have yet to read it.