Mark Knight

Darren, I didn't intend to make it sound negative that you shared Gary Mack's comments. The truth is, he's a full-fledged member here and capable of posting his thoughts himself...if he would do so. Instead, he chooses to remain "the man behind the curtain," a la "the Great and Powerful Oz." But thank you for sharing his words with us.

I'm not doubting the information Gary Mack has sent [via yet another messenger]. So I suppose the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken. Gary Mack's compensation, whatever it is, isn't my business, so it's not my concern. I won't take him to task for something that I have no way of knowing. IMHO, it's not an issue. As long as Gary Mack continues to have an open mind about the search for truth, I have very few problems with him. If and/or when he decides there's nothing more we can learn, that's when I have a major problem with him. For now, I hold out hope that copyright issues with the 16mm Darnell can be resolved before we're all dead.

He knew enough about the cover-up plot to declare himself a patsy. And that's the thing -- Oswald is a study of the cover-up. And given the amount of work put into sheep-dipping Oswald as a Red Agent I'd have to say it's a study of the losers. The Yalies who put out the Oswald as Lone Nut frame were the winners. "Oswald is a study of the cover-up." I find that a most intriguing way to present the case. If he was, as many suspect, entirely innocent of killing Kennedy then his presence in the affair can only be as part of the cover-up. Most posit that the intelligence handlers used him to be the fall guy... but what if, they were caught off-guard by the assassination and once Oswald had been fingered by the locals, the intelligence community quickly washed their hands of him as quickly as possible to distance themselves from the undercover operation he had been involved in. That way, they lost an operative, but were able to maintain the secrecy over the operation. Had Oswald talked, they may have lost so very much more. But this does not mean they had to have been involved in the assassination. Many researchers talk about the compartmentalizing of intelligence operations. Perhaps it would be best if we began looking at the case in the same light: as individual segments not necessarily linked together beforehand. Just a thot. I think it's a pretty good thought.

OK...so if the Sixth Floor Museum controls the original of the films in question...and forum member Gary Mack is still in a position of authority at the Museum... ...then maybe it's time to petition Mr. Mack to allow a qualified team of professionals--and I'm NOT one--to examine the originals, under highly controlled conditions, and do as Lee Farley has suggested to see if we can positively identify the Prayer Man figure and put the question to rest, if that's possible. I know Gary Mack reads the threads here. I'm appealing to Mr. Mack to help in the search for truth. If Prayer man can be positively be identified as someone other than Oswald--to a reasonabe certainty--then of course no harm will come th the Sixth Floor Museum's position. And if Prayer Man can be positively identified as Oswald, the Sixth Floor Museum grabs the glory as having brought the truth to light. That's a win/win position, Mr. Mack. I appeal to your sense of decency to not stand in the way of the search for truth. The truth sets us all free...whether Prayer Man is Oswald or not.

I agree with the logic of your argument here, Lee. Lately I've felt like a "kindergarten cop," until life circumstances outside the EF have required my attention to be turned in other directions for significant periods of time. I have no idea what problems have "transferred" to EF from some other forum...and for my dime's worth, whatever has or hasn't happened on some other forum doesn't matter here. I have a suspicion that one participant in this thread--maybe more, but obviously one--is carrying a grudge here from elsewhere. That's BS, and for my dime, I don't want to see that here. If a member here doesn't want to interfere with a discussion here, it's simple: STOP POSTING ON THAT THREAD. It ain't brain surgery, it ain't rocket science, and it ain't rocket surgery. IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. Lee, I'm all for keeping the Oswald Leaving TSBD thread on the front page...and short of pinning it, I think the members here are doing a spledid job of doing just that. I have a few thoughts on that myself, but I'll post them on that thread, in the interest of doing my own part to keep that thread at or near the top of the page. Let's all do our part to see the search for truth continue.

Jon, I think that perhaps Oswald wasn't being "directed"...but that he was hearing "suggestions," and acting on them. Maybe he wasn't taking orders, but was getting generalized "suggestions," and fleshing out the details himself. I don't beieve he was actually an "agent" taking orders. I believe maybe he WANTED to be an agent. I also think that there's value to Terry's suggestion that perhaps Oswald was sent to the TSBD to observe...to be a "rat." And because of his personality, he wasn't as secretive perhaps as an informant should've been. Now, once a "rat" is uncovered, the standard is to find a way to throw them "under the bus," and neutralize the "rat." If the "rat" is busy defending himself for a capital crime, it's pretty hard for him to be effective in spilling the beans on lesser offenses. I'm starting to believe more and more that Oswald was Hosty's informant, and when the assassination went down, he was neutralized...in a BIG way. And I don't think it mattered whether he was a commie or a lone nut, his life was essentially over when he was taken out of the Texas Theater.

I still contend that anyone who is opposed to any attempt to solve this Prayer Man question by using modern technology and the ORIGINAL images has an agenda of some sort, and doesn't want the truth to be known...if, indeed, we can come to a conclusion using modern technology. The truth is, there's a chance that even the best of modern technology might not provide an answer that is beyond question. But to oppose even trying...that's simply a case of willful ignorance. And to me, willful ignorance indicates an agenda of some sort.

Thanks for that post, John. I was unaware that Hal Hendrix had died.

Interesting how those "three" copies originally printed at Jameson became the basis for an elaborate shell game. After Friday afternoon, it's hard to tell who has which copy, or how many there really were.

The link don't work cuz the vandals took the handle... I hope that's something worth Dylan with....

Try post #7 on THIS thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9512

Sorry, Cliff. Didn't want to mis-characterize the theory. I just remember that you're one of its most vocal proponents. And I have no problem with the way you cite the available facts. Now, let's return this thread to the topic.

Funny you should say that. That's exactly what the situation is. I have never said or implied otherwise. I have never, ever publicly or privately threatened to delete any of your posts, or to mete out any "discipline" your way, have I? A simple YES or NO answer will be sufficient. Mr. Trejo, you have constructed within your own mind a bogeyman, and you believe that, because I question your lack of facts, I'm "out to get you." The truth is, if you were as adamant about gathering facts as you are about deciding you're being "persecuted" because you don't have them, you'd have either already found the facts or discovered that they are nonexistent. If you're merely "intimidated" because you think I'm some big, bad axe-swinging "executioner" of innocent posts, then you have absolutely NO IDEA who I really am or how I operate.

Paul, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the Administrator thing; that's YOU who keeps throwing that out. And I don't understand why you think I'm "bullying" you. I haven't put your posts on moderation. I haven't suspended any posting privileges for you. I haven't asked you to do anything except show some facts...which you seem reluctant to do. In fact, you have challenged me to disprove your unproven assertions. Not sure if you understand how this life works, but if YOU can't prove something happened, it's NOT up to me to "disprove" what is already unproven. Substance, man. That's what Sean Murphy gave us on the Prayer man thread. That's what Bill Kelly gives us on EVERY thread. Cliff Varnell pushes his theory about the possible use of an "ice weapon"...but at least he has proof that there was one being developed in 1963. I'm not "bullying" you, and I'm not holding you to a different standard than I hold anyone else. And Lord knows I haven't threatened to use my "administrator" or "moderator" mystical, magical "powers" on you for any reasons. It sounds to me as if you have some sort of persecution complex, although I'm not a professional qualified to make a legal diagnosis. Just bring us the facts; that's all I'm asking. If there are no facts, then don't crowd your factless theory onto every cotton-pickin' thread on the forum. Outsiders are already ridiculing the EF as the "Edwin Walker Forum," and doing so with great derision, because the Walker-did-it theory you've injected as "psuedo-fact" on a multitude of threads. I'm just challenging you to meet conventional standards of proof. You claim Walker was at the top of some pyramid over Guy Banister, but you can't even prove that they were connected, except in a "six degrees" manner. This forum deserves better than that.

Paul, you forget one thing:I was around in 1963. I know what husbands and wives did in 1963, because I grew up in a 2-parent home. My dad worked and handled the money, and my mom stayed at home and raised the kids. The husband was the boss of his own home. How DARE you talk to me as if I had no idea of the very life I lived! Now...do you know the Russian word for "buried"? Do you know the Russian word for "underground"? Are the two terms interchangeable in Russian as they are in English [except in an idomatic sense]? Unless you can answer those questions, you're doing what we called "talking through your hat" back in 1963.

I think the Prayer Man thread mentioned in this thread should be pursued as far as possible, in hopes that a definitive YES or NO answer can be arrived at, if it is possible. Anyone who wants to stop debate, discussion, and further inquiry on the topic either 1)has something to hide, 2)has a vested interest in NOT finding out the truth, or 3) a combination of 1 and 2...IMHO. Otherwise, why would anyone at all have a problem with the pursuit of TRUTH?

Fort Hood is located near Kileen, Texas...pronounced similar to "clean", by Texans. Which would make the CLEAN linen service truck an obvious way for MI to both show AND hide their presence there in Dealy Plaza.

I think he used both. And I think she understood quite a bit of English, though perhaps her grasp of idioms may have been slightly lacking. I believe that the tale that Oswald spoke ONLY Russian to Marina was simply a story, meant to make this small man seem to be an ogre to most Americans. Of course, I think Oswald may have feigned ignorance of Russian while in the USSR...and that Marina may have feigned ignorance of English here in the US. And I think both did this so they could gather information while seeming to be clueless.

Mr. Trejo, I'm going to side with you on this one thing. I think that, IF Lee Oswald told Marina that the rifle "had to go underground," then Marina, as an ESL speaker, made the connection in her mind perhaps that "underground" = "buried." It IS logical. I can't say for sure that those were the words said, or if that's essentially the gist of what happened. But it is at least PLAUSIBLE.

Good point, Chris.

Thanks for spinning this off into its own thread.

Thanks for that, Bill. Glad to see you back posting here!

It would be wonderful if Gary Mack would allow someone qualified to have access to some of these films and images to use modern enhancement techniques in an attempt to prove or disprove the "Prayer Man" story. [NO, Mr. Mack...I'm NOT that person.] After all...aren't we all merely seeking the TRUTH? Or do some have other agendas? [Yes, I can answer my own question.] In the past, Gary Mack has been helpful to me, directing me to important information I was otherwise unable to find. I'm not a fan of the "back-channel communications" he uses, but then I suppose that's simply him exercising his own freedom [or lack thereof]. But based upon my most recent exchanges with Mr. Mack a few years back, I doubt he'd let me within 1000 feet of the Sixth Floor Museum...so it might be wise to send someone else to seek permission to access the films and images that make up the Prayer Man story.

Tommy, Hey...I coulda been a contender...... [That was our "lame humor break" for THIS hour...we now return you to your regular programming.]

I think the interview itself was valuable. I don't agree with some of "Mac" Kilduff's conclusions, because this interview occurred before the AARB had completed its mission, and he was lacking some of the information available to us today.