Mark Knight

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 was merely SUGGESTING that Oswald's "information' that he was supposed to provide to the Soviets when he "defected" may have contained a "marked card," so that the trail of this information after it left Oswald's hands might be more easily followed. I don't know, for a CERTAINTY, that there WAS a "marked card." I think the challenges of Oswald's attempted defection were 1) to get the Soviets to accept that Oswald's defection was legitimate, and 2) to know whether they accepted the "information" Oswald offered them. And one way to determine whether the information Oswald offered the Soviets was used would be to insert a "marked card" that would show the agency involved that it was, indeed the information OSWALD offered to the Soviets, and not from some other source. Once Oswald was IN the USSR, sending a bogus description of him would have been pointless, in regards to determining where, when and how the Soviets used the information. So I SUGGEST there was another "marked card"...and to date, there's no evidence that, if it existed, it garnered the desired response from the Soviets. [Well, MAYBE the Francis Gary Powers thing...but I doubt that was it.]

Thanks for the information, Gary. I know you've spent a lot of time researching this information, and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I appreciate every minute you invested in your quest for truth.

I think Oswald's change of discharge status was to help "sell" to the Soviets that Ozzie was "not an agent" of the US government. I also think that Ozzie was upset because his honorable discharge wasn't restored upon his return to the US, as if someone had reneged on an agreement [verbal or otherwise]. I think he felt he was "caught between a rock and a hard place," and if he revealed any connection between himself and any intelligence gathering [or false intelligence spreading] operation, he'd never get his discharge upgraded. Of course, this would them make him susceptible to overtures by others involved in different schemes, if they mentioned the magic words "restore your honorable discharge." By "others," I mean folks who may have had knowledge of Oswald's circumstances, but who may not have been involved in legitimate intelligence operations. It's the same scenario used by police to "coerce" informants to work for them, the carrot at the end of the stick. So my conclusion at this point is that he MAY have been taking direction from someone in intelligence, at least as far as his entry into the USSR went. And afterwards he may have been taking direction from someone he THOUGHT was connected to intelligence [CIA, FBI, ONI, Army Intel, whatever]after his return from the USSR. But his actions appear to have been directed by SOME "unseen hand," and the leverage of the phrase "If you want that honorable discharge back..." should not be underestimated, IMHO.

I honestly believe the Ford and Reagan assassination attempts were NOT meant to kill them; rather, those attempts were to get them "back into the fold," and to remind them to "stick to the program." Nixon thought he was invulnerable, and that the "knowledge" he had made him so. He was proven wrong, in a huge way.

Tommy, this one's for you... So apparently LHO was a defective defector? [Wocka-wocka-wocka...] Seriously, now... Here's my take on the Oswald [fake] defection: Ozzie wanted to play "spy." Some agency [as yet undetermined, in my "theory"] decided to see whether he'd be of any value. So they greased the wheels for his "hardship discharge," and set him up with some information [along with a standard "marked card"] to see whether he'd be taken seriously by the Soviets. He was shown where to enter to get an "instant" visa, and coached on how to "renounce" his citizenship without actually renouncing his citizenship. [The last two items are not things that would be common knowledge; someone had to have "schooled him" about these items on his checklist]. Once he got to Helsinki, Oswald was "on." Once his fake defection was in motion, the ball was in the Russians' court. No doubt they were wary. When it seemed as if he'd failed in his "mission," Oswald went off-script and did the wrist slash. It's my supposition that his purpose was twofold: to show the [TBD] agency the lengths he'd go to ensure the "mission" was successful, and to "convince" the Soviets that he was serious about his defection. But the Soviets really didn't know what to do with Ozzie. Apparently they didn't value his "information," but they didn't want to look as if they were turning away a "serious" defector, one who had "seen the light" of Communism. So they allowed him to stay, but didn't offer him a route to citizenship. When Ozzie mailed, and then returned to, the US Embassy, the [TBD] agency knew that Ozzie's mission had failed. They didn't "owe" him a trip back to the US, but since they showed him how to leave his citizenship intact, they were obligated to honor his request to come home...complicated by his Russian bride and child. But they did it, mostly to avoid Ozzie making a scene before the world press and exposing the [TBD] agency as having been behind the false defection...because they had no idea how far Ozzie might be willing to expose them if they failed to help his return. The [TBD] agency knew fully well that, should Oswald make any waves with them, the USSR would capitalize on the propaganda value, here at the height of the Cold War. That's my "theory," as it regards Oswald's sojourn to the USSR and return to the US. And NONE of this was related to any JFK assassination plot until AFTER the fact.

Much as William Jefferson Clinton pointed out, how we define words has everything to do with their meaning in a particular context. "Agent" may be the wrong word for Oswald's relationship. I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was being directed by someone--an agent or an agency themselves, though we will probably forever debate who that agent or agency is or was--as he maneuvered his way from an early discharge from the Marines to the US Embassy in Moscow. He made too few "mistakes" forhis journey to, through, and from the USSR to have simply been the result an impulsive young man operating on his own. Helsinki, for example, isn't the shortest distance between London and Moscow; but he got there JUST AS a program was launched for an "instantaneous" visa was taking place. His "failure" to "properly" renounce his US citizenship seems also as if it was scripted by someone knowledgeable in the procedures. Now, was Oswald an "agent" himself? Probably not. But it would appear that, for whatever purposes, he was being directed by an agent or an agency. It is NOT clear that he would have learned any of these things on his own from his formal education, or from personal research, or from the newspapers and books he was reading. So I have my doubts that Ozzie was himself an "agent." "Marionette" seems to be the more correct term. So who was pulling the marionette's strings? That's where, after over 50 years of research, we are still wandering in the wilderness.

"It's my guess..." "I say...." That's the entire basis of your theory. So if the "crucial" documents to prove your theory don't appear in 2017, will it be because "they were destroyed because they didin't support the original narrative," or some other such reason? Because it certainly can't be because "It's my guess..." and "I say..." are NOT provable facts...right?

Well, Paul B., I'm clearly not grasping at straws -- Joan Mellen is my source, and she's a good source. Because Bill Simpich provides evidence that the CIA Top Brass was engrossed in a MOLE HUNT, they were not involved in the JFK Murder. I realize this contradicts fifty years worth of JFK "Research," but that's OK since the past fifty years of JFK "Research" has failed to solve the JFK Murder. As one great Liberal said last December, if a strategy fails for fifty years, it's time to try something new. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Get over it. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo I don't see where you answered Paul B's question, Mr. Trejo. [You sure talked AROUND the question, though!] Is it because you CAN'T, or because you WON'T? [Just curious...]

Since there have been several references to a .30-06 being used in the Walker shooting, let's get the nomenclature correct. It's a .30-06, and is spoken as "thirty ought six." It's a .30 caliber rifle cartridge, and it "was introduced to the United States Army in 1906...." Thus...the "thirty-ought six." It is correctly written as .30-06. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield So if we're going to talk about the "thirty-ought six," then let's at least get it right. You don't have to be some kind of a "gun nut" to get this right; you just have to be a stickler for accuracy. I know some here are not.

I'm not buying Mr. Trejo's "civil war" premise. Civil war failed to break out because Americans generally don't commit to civil war EXCEPT along certain geographic lines. North/south...east/west...that sort of thing. Even during the racial battles of the '60's, and even today, there are geographic boundaries...Watts...Ferguson.... Americans do geographic battles, with "territories" for each side in the conflict. Even in today's politicized atmosphere, folks like Rush Limbaugh will tell you it's the liberal northeast, and California, that are the areas that are the "problems." So I have trouble fathoming how the rest of the nation vs. the Birchers and Minutemen would have become a full-blown civil war. In numbers alone, the rest of the nation could--and would--have crushed them like cockroaches beneath a wing-tipped brogue. Had Hoover [or the Warren Commission] found evidence that this crime could have been pinned on the JBS, they would have been summarily rounded up, not unlike the Japanese-Americans who ended up in internment camps under the very same Earl Warren. So how can your fantasy scenario play out in that light?

Jon, If Teddy wasn't politically assassinated at Chappaquiddick, he was certainly politically neutered there. SOMEONE sent him a message...and he received it loud and clear.

Mr. Trejo, a question: If Walker was the brains of the assassination, as a RESIGNED general, how did he get the 112th Army Intel unit to give the DPD the physical description of Oswald from their files? At that point, Walker had NO rank. And having resigned, he was no more powerful to an Army unit than any other civilian. So please explain how he did it.

DVP is a great example of what I hope to never become: smug, with no desire to actually listen to reasonable arguments. In that respect, he serves as a fine negative example, of what we can become if we allow our own ego to run amok. So in that respect, his presence here is more that valuable, if it causes us a moment of introspection.

Like Ahnold.....I believe he'll be back....

Mr. Varnell, I'm not debating your assertion that the throat wound came from the front. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate, and figure out from the model just how a through-and-through shot from the rear could still be defended, in light of this evidence, by Mr. Von Pein. So if we can just find the Z-frame that shows JFK with his head between his knees, then we can say that Mr. Von Pein is absolutely right and all go home agreeing that the WC got it right.

James R. Gordon has been very generous sharing his anatomical models. I've long been curious about the HSCA's analysis of the neck x-ray. I asked James if he could show what the trajectory from T1 to C7 would look like. Although he does not endorse the work, he was kind enough to demonstrate this trajectory. Well, if JFK had his head between his knees, a downward trajectory from back to front would work. Now, what Z-frame shows JFK with his head between his knees?

Mark, Many different pathologists, who certainly know the human body better than I do, have concluded that the SBT is correct and that one bullet DID, in fact, pass through President Kennedy's body without striking any vessels or organs (except for the slight bruising of the upper pleura and the lobe of the right lung--but this bruising was said to have been caused by the mere PASSAGE of the bullet through JFK's body, and not as a result of the bullet directly striking the pleura or lung). Are you saying I should just toss out the determinations of EVERY forensic pathologist who has ever studied the JFK case for the United States Government--including Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, who also concluded that one bullet passed cleanly through JFK's upper back and throat? I should just disregard the conclusions and observations of the 17 or so pathologists who have examined either JFK's body itself or the autopsy photographs and X-rays? And I should embrace the conclusions of James R. Gordon and Mark Knight instead? You actually think ALL SEVENTEEN pathologists in question were utter boobs and/or were all liars---including Dr. Wecht? Surely you jest. In other words...."They said it, I believe it BECAUSE they said it, and that's it." Mr. Von Pein, that is NOT "proof"; that's a "religion." YOU show ME how the bullet traversed the body and missed all those "obstacles", so that there was not profuse bleeding from the neck wound. DO SOME REASEARCH ON HUMAN ANATOMY; don't blindly trust the so-called "experts." Y'know what they call your approach in advertising? It's called the "bandwagon" approach; "All these people say it happened this way, so who am I to disagree?" Years ago "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Chesterfields" [or was it Camel cigarettes?]. Yes, even doctors are mistaken...and yes, sometimes even "9 out of 10." Mr. James Gordon HAS done research with 3D anatomical models, and his work shows that there is REASONABLE DOUBT that the bullet traversed the path claimed by the WC without inflicting more damage than the evidence shows. I don't know of any other researcher who has attempted to plot the actual path of the bullet past arteries, veins, muscles, tendons, and bones as Mr. Gordon has. Even the WC pathologists based their conclusions on assumptions, rather than trying to actually find and trace the path of the bullet. [Odd, really, when you consider that the doctors could tell us that the bullet that entered Connally's back actually "followed" the 5th rib and flexed the rib bone to the point that it broke and perforated the lung, but the bullet itself did NOT pass through the rib bone. That's SPECIFIC evidence; the story of how the bullet allegedly traversed front-to-back through JFK is less detailed, and more "trust us; here's what MUST'VE happened, since we didn't find a complete front-to-back wound channel." I know you won't do the research. You're too wedded to the official version. Besides, you have books to sell, and if you DID do your own research and discovered that ANY of the WC conclusions were in doubt, your entire life's work to this point would have been a total waste. I, on the other hand, can't say with 100% certainty that Oswald pulled the trigger on the 6th floor of the TSBD. But I can't say there was a conspiracy, either, because there is reasonable doubt there as well. So I'm not one of your CT'er's that you loathe, Mr. Von Pein. I'm just someone looking for answers beyond what the WC told us. IF I find those answers, and IF they conclusively prove that Oswald alone pulled the trigger from that window, with 100% certainty, then I'll agree with your conclusion that Ozzie did it. [i'm not convinced Ozzie is totally innocent; but I'm not convinced that Ozzie is solely and totally guilty, either. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE, on this forum...to hear ALL the evidence, to see ALL the research, and to even allow for NEW technology to either confirm or disprove "old" evidence.] I'm open-minded, and I'm willing to listen.

Mr. Von Pein, I have, on at least one occasion, and likely several more,asked you to use a model of the human body to prove that even the part of the SBT that has the bullet passing through JFK would miss the major arteries and veins in the neck, so that the blood loss in the region of the neck would correspond to the minimal blood loss seen on the President's clothing. You have repeatedly ignored this "opportunity" to prove the SBT to be a fact. I have much more faith in Mr. James Gordon, who has at least done some 3D modeling which shows that the likelihood of the SBT occuring is slim...and that's ONLY on the part of the bullet passing through JFK's body in the manner indicated by the WC Report. You fall back on the tired old "The Warren Report says so, so who are you gonna believe?" argument so many times that it's gotten stale. Don't tell me it happened because the WC said it happened; PROVE that their conclusion was correct. Do some research on the human body YOURSELF, or find someone who has done the research, allowing for the arteries, veins, muscles, and tendons that the bullet would have had to traverse to do what you say it did...and show that their research actually proves your point. Just a citation that "he's a doctor" or "he's a certified pathologist" doesn't cut it. I want to see some actual evidence, not more "he said it, I believe it, and that's that." Can you prove the pathologists to be correct, using a human model? Mr. Gordon has proven, to my satisfaction, that the pathologists are possibly incorrect, using a human model. That is "reasonable doubt" that the assassination occurred as you [and the WC] claim it did. I'm as able a researcher as you; I can find quotes to support whichever side I choose in the argument. I don't want to see quotes, as quotes are merely statements ABOUT the evidence. Show me some evidence. I doubt that you CAN, and I know that you WON'T [willingly]. Prove me wrong, if you can.

So why do we need to discuss the goings-on from another forum or two HERE? I agree that David Von Pein retains the right to his own opinions, same as everyone else...even if his opinion is that the WC got it right, and others believe they didn't. That's what discussion forums are for. And in a true debate or discussion, all points of view are open for discussion, as long as they remain on topic. But, if I recall correctly, this IS the JFK Assassination Debate Forum...and not the Discussion Forum Discussion Forum. Maybe the EF needs to START a Discussion Forum Discussion Forum.

That would make those alleged sightings of LHO actually driving possibly true, if a friend would have loaned him a car for practice. I simply had never heard the story of his application or of his missing his test before. I have often wondered if one reason Oswald never had a drivers license was because he was trying to operate "under the radar," for whatever purposes...and having a drivers license with a home address on it might interfere with his life of "intrigue"...real or imagined.

Hmmmmm....."Application for Texas Driver's License"..... BIG "Hmmmmmm."

Before Mr. Trejo took over the Edwin Walker thread, there was a compelling argument made that it might have been Walker himself who gave Ozzie Rabbit the lowdown on how to get an instant visa to the USSR. Both were traveling in Europe at the same time, and Ozzie's itinerary gets suddenly untraceable about the time their paths might have crossed. Even though Ozzie was a Marine, Army Intel sure seemed to have a fat folder on him by 1963...or access to someone else's fat folder.

Traditionally, where a space is too small to measure with a micrometer, the distance/diameter/whatever is being measured is checked with a divider, and the distance transferred to the divider is then measured by micrometer. Margin for error? Some...usually miniscule, depending upon the skills of the person taking the measurement.

Perhaps they had "heard" of the .257 Roberts...and wanted to sound educated?