Mark Knight

Greg, Maybe I'm getting old...but I'm a bit of a traditionalist in some respects. Andy and John never saw the need to pin forum threads, and I'd like to think I'm deferring to their previous display of wisdom. I understand that the best, or the most intelligent, threads don't always rise to the top of the page. A few weeks back, when a certain thread concerning "Judith Very unBelievable" kept popping up to the top, I was almost ready to look for a way to keep that from happening. But then I realized that I'd be tampering with the very structures that made the EF as good as it has been in its day. I wouldn't have a problem making judgments, to a degree, as to whether or not threads should be pinned. But sometimes my initial judgements would be flat-out wrong. Early on, I was nearly convinced that some of Robert Mady's posts [sorry to single you out, Robert...but you make a great example] were virtually worthless. But I've watched a couple of those threads turn into actual examinations of evidence, and unlike some other members, Robert Mady has been willing to modify his theory in areas where his original assumptions and assertions turned out to be contradicted by other facts and evidence. Robert's very enthusiastic for his theory, like many other members are with theirs...but he has a somewhat more open mind when asked for supporting evidence. On the other hand, when Jim Root was driving the Edwin Walker thread, that one probably should have been pinned, if any were pinned. These days, the reason it keeps coming to the top is because people keep questioning the LACK of evidence contained in the later postings. So for now, I'm fine with not pinning any posts, and letting things operate as they have since the inception of this discussion forum. Mine is not the only voice that would have to be involved with such a decision; I'm just the "visible dude" because I locked a thread the other night. [if I had my way, I would've preferred to continue in "stealth mode"...]

IMHO, in 1963 GHW Bush wasn't at the top of ANY pyramid, when it comes to the JFK assassination. He may have been a "player," he may have had a "bit" part, but there's no way he was at the top. But that's the straw man you keep dragging out whenever anyone criticizes your "theory." In a backhand way, you "accuse" your critics of supporting some equally unproven theory. The problem is, you have many of us all wrong. I'm a STUDENT of the assassination. I haven't solved anything, nor do I claim that there's any "coded" confession in anyone's papers. I'm convinced that the JFK assassination is a jigsaw puzzle. Some of the pieces are missing. And some pieces have been tossed in that won't ever fit. But it's up to us to build a case. I can't watch someone try to construct a Taj Mahal with a foundation of cardboard...and thin cardboard at that. Until or unless you can find something concrete to reinforce that cardboard, the Taj Mahal is going to come down around you and crush you. And I'm still waiting to see something concrete from you. Notice I used the term "build a case." As Bill Kelly brought up some time back, we need to come up with evidence that a prosecutor can present to a grand jury, evidence that will stand up to cross-examination from a dozen different sides. Yet when I question the quality of your evidence, suddenly I'm harassing you. Obviously, you must never have seen any courtroom proceedings; otherwise, you'd know that my questioning you HARDLY qualifies as harassment. I don't even know Ernie Lazar or Paul Brancato, but they see the same flaws and missing pieces in the structure you're building, and they question you about them for the same reasons I do. I actually WANT you to be right. I WANT you to solve the JFK assassination. But you can't have as many missing pieces in the foundation of the structure you're building as you currently do, and solve the case. So what was it that Harry Truman said about heat and the kitchen? [i think you know...] So go FIND your missing evidence...if it exists. And if it doesn't, be man enough to say so. "Coulda-woulda-shoulda-been-there" evidence never made a case...ever. It's YOUR theory; YOU have to fix the holes in the FOUNDATION before you can expect anyone to pat you on the back for the walls you're constructing.

Try this link: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Image83.jpg

I'm not sure the thread should be pinned. WHY? Because once we start down that road, chaos will ensue. Next Paul Trejo will want the Edwin Walker thread pinned...then someone else will want another thread pinned, because everyone's pet thread and everyone's pet theory is "more important" than the others. I see that as a slippery slope, one upon which I'm reluctant to embark. [And I believe Bill Kelly's thread to be quite important.]

Mr. Trejo said: "This is the CONFESSION of Edwin Walker as found encoded in his personal papers. It provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years." This quote at least IMPLIES that your theory "...provides the full solution to the JFK murder, and it was not guessed by Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Sylvia Meagher, Joan Mellen, Gaeton Fonzi, Lamar Waldron, Larry Hancock, Bill Simpich or any other researcher in the past fifty years." As I decipher Trejo-speak, you're saying that your interpretation of Walker "confessing" to the murder of JFK provides the "full solution." I didn't use the word "solution" in relation to your theory until after YOU did.

Are you saying you have NEVER....EVER...referred to your theory as a solution?

Fair enough. At what point have I lied?

I don't think you were whining. I understand your feeling. Right now I'm in the midst of a "discussion" with someone who has a problem with me pointing out that the foundation of his "solution" to the JFK assassination has assumption, rather than fact, as its basis. While I think there is value into exploring theories, theories based upon assumptions not supported by fact are the realm of novelists, rather than researchers...in my opinion. But I have faith that the re-emergence of some of the old cast here will encourage the level of the discussions to rise. Even where you and I may disagree on interpretations, I still respect your insistence that we begin with the facts, as we are able to ascertain them.

Mr. Trejo, I'm not saying your your idea that Walker and Banister are connected is wrong; I'm simply pointing out that you have no proof that they collaborated on ANYTHING...even a mundane lunch. But this missing--or even totally nonexistent--evidence is the very FOUNDATION of your theory. If it doesn't exist, your theory falls flat, like a house of cards. MOST theories begin with a fact or two and build on them. Yours starts with an unproven assumption, and builds a Trump Tower. Have I stated anything---ANYTHING at all--about your theory that isn't true? Can you answer that question? YES or NO will suffice. If Walker and Banister never met, if they have no working relationship, then it's hard to sell the idea that Walker was at the top of a pyramid which had Banister directly under him. You have yet to show that this relationship existed. You have a BELIEF that it did, and you have FAITH that you're correct. What you lack is the facts to support it. I'm challenging you, Mr. Trejo. It's not up to ME to prove YOUR theory; that part is up to YOU. And up to now, your proof is miserably lacking. You keep saying that you've solved the JFK assassination, yet your "solution" is based upon "facts" without proof. Give me proof. Give me evidence. I'm not being any tougher on you than Tommy Graves has been on some of the others for their theories. I don't think I'm anywhere nearly as relentless as Greg Parker. But the men I just mentioned have one thing in common with me: they expect facts as a basis for any "solution." If asking you for facts meant that I "waste your time," then it seems to me that your work should be labeled "fiction." For if your "solution" isn't supported by facts, then it's a novel. And your "culprit" is falsely accused.

I think you're confusing "conjecture" with "evidence." BIG difference. I was a member of the National Rifle Association at the same time that George Herbert Walker Bush was a member. But I can assure you that I never met him, never talked on the phone with him, never conspired with him, and never sent him a letter or received a letter from him. To use our membership in the same organization as a means to tie us together is a ludicrous leap of faith. That's the same leap of faith you're making with Walker and Banister. And it's just as wrong, without actual evidence that they ever met or exchanged any communications.

I've found NOTHING to date that puts Walker and Banister in the same room, or on the same telephone call, or any correspondence between them via the U. S. Mail...which means that I cannot connect them EXCEPT through "guilt-by-association" with ORGANIZATIONS, and not persons. CAN YOU CITE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THAT? I don't think you can. I think all you have is your "theory," and your "theory" hinges on a connection that you can't prove.

In other words...until this book is published... ...your response is: "I got nothin'..."

Well said, Lee. The point is NOT that this photo or sequence of frames from a movie or two shows Lee Harvey Oswald on the steps, beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt; the point is, this sequence introduced REASONABLE doubt about the whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the shooting. I think Sean Murphy has done an excellent job of ensuring that the doubt IS reasonable....with a large assist from Robin Unger's clearer photo.

Okay. Now tell me what the question was he was responding to. It's called context. If you have no context for the statement, it is as meaningless as all the statements from those on the stairs who don't mention PM. Greg, you have struck the crux of the matter: CONTEXT. A statement means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, if we don't have the correct context for it. For all we know, someone might have [but likely didn't] asked Oswald where he was when the lunch truck [we called those food vendor trucks a "roach coach"] pulled up at the dock selling sandwiches. [i fully realize that was NOT the question...but without the proper context, it might as well have been the question that caused Oswald to say he was in the building.] So Greg's point is not only valid, but spot-on. If you're giving us a statement by a witness or a principal in the assassination, we need the context from which the statement is drawn. Without context, any conclusion about the statement [and what it means] is speculation, not evidence.

Remind me again, Mr. Trejo...where is the concrete link between Banister and Walker? I don't want any guesses...please FIRMLY connect Banister with Walker.

Sweet move, Mr. Tidd. Rather than answer the question with specifics, you turn the question to ask Mr. Graves to provide the specifics. Can't wait to see how Mr. Graves turns the question back to you.... Guess we'll see who can be the most evasive...no?

In my role as a moderator, I kept this thread locked for 24 hours, as a "cooling-off" period. Now that the thread is unlocked, I expect that the [now-deleted] personal attacks will cease and desist, and that the discussion will remain on topics related to the JFK assassination, and not to the personal grievances of various members of the forum who post here. Returning to topic...In a way, I understand Mr. Roy's lament. Since the 50th anniversary of the assassination, many of our more experienced members have posted less and less. Has the quality of the discussion suffered? After doing a huge "cleanup on aisle three" on this very thread, I am inclined to agree. BUT...the fact that we have some of the old crew still contributing, members of the quality of Larry Hancock [to cite just one example], I'm encouraged in believing that we can regain the "quality" that Mr. Roy indicates has been lacking of late.

Thanks for sharing this.

I have trouble with the basic H&L premise: that 10, 15, or 20 years down the road, a pair of kids are going to grow up and become intertwined in the assassination of a President....a President who could've been taken out in that 10, 15, or 20 years prior to his becoming President without causing nearly as many waves. And since this President was elected by a then nearly-unprecedented thin margin of votes, who could have guaranteed 10, 15, or 20 years before that he would have even been elected President in the first pace? Were Marty McFly and Dr. Emmett Brown even mentioned in Armstrong's book?

Paul B., the premise of king's book is thus: A man discovers a portal back in time to 1958. Every time you enter the portal, you arrive at the same place and the same day and time in 1958. This man, who has terminal cancer, lets another man in on his secret, and requests that the second man go back and try to prevent the JFK assassination. The second man promises he'l do his best, and then...does his best.

...or Oswald being interrogated by the DPD and the FBI.

And yet you've built a "case" against Walker--oops, my mistake; you've built a THEORY--on little more. Your PROOF is sorely lacking. You seem to want a "smoking gun" from others, but give yourself a pass. Well played, Paul Trejo...well played. I have a heck of a lot more street-level evidence against Edwin WALKER in the JFK murder than *anybody* ever presented about President GHW Bush. Sorry, but the Bush-did-it theories are sillier than the LBJ-did-it-theories. Pitiful. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, Mr. Trejo. I have NEVER expressed the idea that George Herbert Walker Bush was behind the assassination. The fact that some have, on somewhat flimsy evidence, does nothing to bolster the quality, OR LACK THEREOF, of your own evidence. You seem to have lower standards of evidence for YOUR pet theory than you do anyone else's theory. I still firmly believe that Walker had NO evidence that LHO was involved in the Walker shooting. I think that Walker was simply an attention-hound, and couldn't stand the fact that, even in death, JFK was a bigger headline than Edwin Anderson Walker. So Walker called a German newspaper to MAKE a headline for himself. If some policeman or FBI agent actually DID tell Walker that LHO was "involved" in his shooting, who was that policeman or agent? Why has NOT ONE PERSON stepped forward and said, "Yeah, I was the one who told Walker...so what? The Kennedys are dead, what does it matter?" A reasonable answer COULD be that NO ONE told him this, that it came from his own tortured imagination. What of Marina's testimony? What, indeed....threaten an immigrant with deportation, and then see what kinds of stories they spin, trying to tell the authorities what they WANT to hear. And of course, in 2017, when the documents "proving" your "theory" fail to materialize...you can always say they "must've been" destroyed, right? Because that's the story behind EVERY document that never existed: someone in power must've destroyed it.

Tommy, Have you ever read Stephen King's "11/22/63" ? Once I got past the concept of time travel, it seemed plausible. Maybe that's why Mr. Josephs is working so hard on selling Armstrong's work...because we refuse to "suspend disbelief" long enough to let the fiction turn into reality. But...that's just MY take on it all. If Armstrong's story is true, then the plot to kill JFK must have BEGUN more than 10 years before the actual assassination...even before he became a Senator, while he was still in the House of Representatives. Rather than waiting for him to have become President [and by a slim margin at that], wouldn't the plotters have been smarter [and the plan less expensive] had they simply rubbed him out BEFORE he became politically powerful? I mean, doing it before he even gets elected to the Senate seems a lot simpler than killing a President....and if the [Harvey and Lee] plan was in motion in 1952-53, WHY WAIT? Then again...WTF do I know...right?

According to the late Gerry Hemming, there was much about Oswald, the Carcano rifle and its ammunition, and even the particular revolver Oswald allegedly carried to make both the CIA and the FBI shout "INCOMING!" and circle the wagons, rather than conduct an actual open-ended investigation. [EDIT: Actually, it was Tom Purvis who used the term "INCOMING!", but Hemming echoed that analysis] Unfortunately, much of what he said [to me and to others] was a bit cryptic. I gathered that what Hemming knew was more from things he figured out than from foreknowledge, but I often wonder HOW he figured it out. I'm guessing that his sometimes cryptic answers are what allowed him to live as long as he did.

And yet you've built a "case" against Walker--oops, my mistake; you've built a THEORY--on little more. Your PROOF is sorely lacking. You seem to want a "smoking gun" from others, but give yourself a pass. Well played, Paul Trejo...well played.