Mark Knight

Another consideration: As a plotter, you didn't want to find a Winchester or other American brand name on the "killer gun." [i realized that back when it happened, and I was 9 years old then.] If the gun recovered had been a Marlin or a Winchester, their stock would've tanked and folks would've started buying other brands. THAT COULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. You cannot make an American company a "patsy" in the JFK assassination.

We can certainly disagree without being disrespectful here...

Looking forward to reading more soon.

Robert, I don't think that "they" want us to know about the rifling in C2766. I think "they" would be embarrassed by what might be discovered, if it turns out to be one of the "shortened" rifles. In which case, rather than "convicting" Oswald, the rifle itself might exonerate him. Just a suspicion of mine...

Tommy, I also noticed in the newspaper article that the US Embassy advised Oswald on exactly how to NOT "officially" renounce his US citizenship. In 1959, that meant little; when 1961 rolls around, that was a VERY important detail in Oswald's ability to return to the US.

I tend to think of De Mohrenschildt's departure for Haiti as more related to his role as a CIA informant. April 10, 1963 was the Walker shooting; April 14th was Easter Sunday. I think you're leaving out April 26th: http://www.defend.ht/history/articles/events/4080-april-26-1963-duvalier-s-massacre There was a lot going on in Haiti and the Dominican Republic that day....odd time to be planning a "vacation" there: http://www.windowsonhaiti.com/windowsonhaiti/warwh.shtml History doesn't occur in a vacuum...I tend to think that De Mohrenschildt was "assigned" to Haiti at this particular time.

The late Tom Purvis also mentioned that that there was a "short rifle" with conventional rifling in the barrel, and a "shortened rifle" sold in America, which had its barrel sawed off...and which had usually begin life as a long rifle with progressive twist rifling. The "shortened rifles" were inaccurate due to losing the most important part of their rifling. So has anyone ever actually examined the rifling of the barrel of C2766 to see whether it's a "short rifle" or a "shortened rifle"? Could you do this with a borescope ?

I think the Otepka story will be a "Rosetta Stone" of its own, once we finally understand the correct interpretation of it.

The WC Report is Mr. Von Pein's "bible." His faith is unshakable: "They said it, I believe it, end of story." Even if the facts don't line up well. Notice how many of his replies rely on "must have" or "could only have" type responses...or which ones cause him to bring forth "straw man" arguments. Now, I'm NOT a CTer. I'm not sure WHO killed JFK. But there are so many of the Warren Report conclusions that are either demonstrably false or which are extended speculation that I no longer believe the report. I hope we discover who killed JFK. Since even Jesse Curry couldn't place Oswald "at that window, with that rifle" at the moment the fatal shots were fired, I think the case is basically unsolved. Now, if evidence is someday uncovered that it definitely was Oswald at that window, firing a rifle, to the exclusion of any other human being, at the moment the fatal shots were fired, THEN the Oswald-did-it story becomes irrefutable. Until then, it's simply speculation.

I wasn't saying that THIS particular scope and mount were a great set-up; I was saying that, on paper, a similar setup with a quality scope and mount would seem ideal for a left-eye-dominant, right-handed person.

In another thread long ago, it was suggested that the Carcano and scope MIGHT have been a great set-up for a shooter who was right-handed, but left-eye dominant. Haven't seen any photos of a right-hander trying to look through that scope with their left eye...but such a photo would tell us whether the concept is even feasible or not.

In 1963, it was possible to own a running, driving automobile for as little as $25. $125 would buy a decent [but not recent] ride. Buy-here, pay-here lots are nothing new; many in my local area have been operating since the mid-1950's, and I'm sure that if Oswald had truly WANTED to own a car, he could have. High school kids with part-time jobs owned cars; why not an adult working full-time? Owning a car means there's a "marker" out there with your name attached to it in some government file from the moment you license it; with no car, a man can become as elusive as he chooses. I rather think that the fact that Oswald didn't own a car was less about what he could afford, and more about his desire to be "untraceable," or at least as much as possible. Does that dovetail with a desire to be a "real-life double-nought spy" [apologies to Jethro Bodine]? You make the call.

Jon: Like the late Tom Purvis before you, I believe you have uncovered an essential part of the strategy involved. And like Purvis before you, I notice that this part of your post was essentially ignored.

According to one source, the .257 Roberts, originally considered a "wildcat" round, was "legitimized" when Remington began regular production in 1934. "From then until the introduction of the hot .243 Winchester and .244/6mm Remington in 1955, the .257 was the top selling combination varmint/deer cartridge." http://www.chuckhawks.com/257Rob.htm That would imply that the .257 Roberts was readily available in April 1963. Not specifically FMJ ammo....

Edwin Walker stated, without equivocation, that CE 573 was NOT the bullet he was shown by police as the one having been fired at his home. Therefore, simply "proving" that CE 573 was fired from Carcano rifle serial number C2766 is not conclusive proof that it was Oswald who shot at Walker. Since the history of CE 573 is in question, it matters not whether it was fired from C2766. And the question of who fired CE 573, and the question of who fired at Walker's home, then, become two separate questions. Questions which have not been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. "Someone in authority said it, I believe it, end of story" is great for religion; it shows great faith. Faith is NOT evidence. Mr. Von Pein is apparently a man of great faith; that is beyond question. But I firmly believe that a competent defense attorney would put Walker on the stand and introduce VERY reasonable doubt that CE 573 was the bullet from the Walker shooting. Once the link between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting is in doubt, much of the other evidence then becomes questionable. So...now there are THREE questions that should be answered: 1) If CE 573 is not the bullet from the Walker shooting, why is it in evidence? 2)Who pulled the trigger when CE 573 was fired...and why [a two-part question]? And 3)Who actually fired the shot at Walker's home?

Regarding Mr. Prudhomme's discovery of Mr. Frazier's math error: I think Mr. Prudhomme has a legitimate point. Whether Mr. Frazier's math was simply careless, or whether he intended to mislead the Warren Commission, should be the correct question. I don't have the answer to that question. But in light of Mr. Prudhomme's discovery of the math error, Mr. Prudhomme shouldn't be derided as some sort of lunatic, simply because he can perform mathematical operations correctly. Mr. Prudhomme may have jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Frazier intended to mislead...and for that conclusion, I believe the evidence is insufficient to say. But to say flat-out that Mr. Frazier had NO intention to mislead is also a matter of speculation. So in that respect, I think Mr. Von Pein has also jumped to a conclusion not proven by the evidence. At this point, we can only guess. Did Mr. Frazier have an agenda? Certainly. Does that prove that he did--or did not--intend to mislead the Warren Commission? The evidence is inconclusive.

I just want to remind everyone that every time we post on this topic, we bring Judyth's name to the top of the page. Yeah, my post does that, too. I would suggest that the kindest thing we can do is let this thread float back to the back of the archives here. [Just a suggestion, mind you.]

I'll be looking forward to reading your book when it's available. I know that you've been "where the action is" [or was, anyway], and you were in close contact with many of the key people in the history of the last half of the 20th century.

Mr. Caddy, I would still hope that "a story for another time" you referenced could be told soon. The world deserves to hear it.

It's NOT a matter of who was worse; it's a matter of who committed treason by subverting the policies of the DULY ELECTED government of the US. Nixon did it in '68; then Reagan did it in '80. But to the extreme right, BOTH of these men are "heroes," when the truth is they both should have been tried, convicted, and executed for their treasonous acts...as should the men [and women] who acted on their behalf.

I don't think it's all that different. The US armed "rebels" in Afghanistan in 1980, and it was those same "rebels" whom we've been fighting since 2003. And that deal during the Reagan administration to "covertly" sell arms to Iran...who did we think we were arming then, other than Islamic extremists? And now we're getting upset when those people turn those same weapons on us and our allies. WHAT OTHER RESULT DID WE ACTUALLY EXPECT??

I have a later edition of the book. According to the edition I have, the leader of the coup would have been Juan Almeida, NOT Che Guevara...although apparently Che was getting disillusioned with the Castro brothers. BUT, according to this later edition, Che was on board with Alemida. This edition supposes [or concludes, depending on how you read it] that the arrest by Cuban authorities of Che Guevara on November 30, 1963 was the final nail in the coffin of the C-Day plan...as Almeida's support HIGH in the Cuban hierarchy was nullified by Che's arrest. I'm highly skeptical of ANY of the "Mafia-did-it" tales, so I'm not buying everything I read here. But 100 or so pages in, the story seems plausible...so far. And to me, it already makes more sense than any "Walker-did-it" theory-sold-as-fact by Trejo. I'm still with Jim Root on Walker's position: I believe that Walker may have been the conduit for the information Oswald needed to get into the Soviet Union quickly, and when Walker heard Oswald's name associated with the assassination, he decided to distance himself from Oswald any way possible.

Here's a link to the introduction/outline for the book: http://ultimatesacrificebook.com/outline.html

I've just begun the book myself, and I'm only just over 100 pages in. As I understand it, RFK had a plan [JFK had apparently signed off on it, but was maintaining "plausible deniability"--if it went bad RFK was going down, not JFK] to invade Cuba on December 1, 1963...following a coup led by Cuban military commander Juan Almeida, #3 in the Castro government. The US promise of help was conditional, based upon [a] the elimination of the Castro brothers, both Fidel and Raul, and a showing that they could hold control for 12 or more hours and then "asking" for US assistance. The book's premise is that the Kennedy plan was separate and distinct from the CIA's AMWORLD plan. There were a few people privy to details of BOTH plans. The authors label the Kennedy plan as "C-Day." What I've seen hinted at is that the Soviet troops on Cuban soil were to be "neutralized," first by making the Castros' demise seem to be at Soviet hands, and then by military means. If it worked, the idea that Kennedy "lost" Cuba would be dead, and politically he'd be a hero to both the left and the right in the US. Or at least that was the plan. But for the plan to succeed, the fewer who knew beforehand, the better. LeMay, for example, was not in the loop when it came to the "C-Day" plan. The fact that I'm just getting under way in the book means that it would be unfair to the authors for me to try to summarize the complete book at this point...so I won't go that far.

Jon, I also believe that JFK was killed for a practical reason -- and that reason was to push the USA into war with Cuba. I also believe that paranoia played a role in that -- because the people who wanted to invade Cuba also believed that Communists were in control of Washington DC (since the days of FDR) and that by invading Cuba, the USA would get back on a proper Anticommunist footing. That was the practical reason for killing JFK -- and it had a paranoid component (i.e. Bircher ideology is quasi-paranoid on the face of it, and Edwin Walker was probably at least mildly paranoid.). That is the reason for my opinion that the John Birch Society (and especially its members in Dallas) fully fit the profile for the conspirators who killed JFK. Yet even if we disagree on my opinion so far, Jon, I wonder if you would offer your opinion on a related theory that I maintain, as follows. I maintain that the Warren Commission, FBI and CIA clearly and demonstrably "covered-up" the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald could never have accomplished this murder as the Lone Shooter, and therefore they clearly knew who the real culprits were. HOWEVER, I maintain that their cover-up of the culprits wasn't because they were part of the conspiracy, rather, it was because of National Security -- that is, they didn't want the USA to start riots and a Civil War over the revelation that the John Birch Society led this conspiracy. So, although the US Government seems to have allowed the JFK killers to get away with it -- their judgment was mainly to prevent a Civil War during the Cold War which could easily have turned into World War Three. The price that the USA has had to pay for this "National Security" decision a half-century ago, is that the JFK killers walked away without paying for their crime. On the positive side, I believe the FBI and Earl Warren knew who the killers really were, and secretly ensured that they never prospered. For example, Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren personally made sure that Edwin Walker collected zero of his $3 million winnings in court cases against US newspapers who printed that Walker led charges at Ole Miss in September of 1962. What would be your opinion about that perception, Jon? Best regards, --Paul Trejo Mr. Trejo, Have you read "Ultimate Sacrifice"?? The primary premise of the book is that the JFK assassination occurred as a "side effect," if you will, of the top-secret plan that the Kennedy brothers had to invade Cuba on December 1, 1963...in support of a planned "palace coup" led by the leader of Cuba's military. If you've read the book, please explain how YOUR theory dovetails with this one.