Mark Knight

Thanks for sharing this information. Currently, I'm reading my copy of ULTIMATE SACRIFICE...it sat unread on my shelf long enough.

As would I.

The yellow marks on the curb, I believe,were key markers in the assassination.

Jon, obviously the murderers succeeded in committing murder. In NO WAY do I entertain the thought that they did not achieve that. I'm not COMPLETELY stupid, despite what you imply. I simply think that there were other purposes beyond simply committing murder. Whether those purposes, beyond simply killing JFK, of those involved were or were not achieved is a matter of speculations. Some consequences, I believe, were unintended by those responsible for the assassination. Since I don't believe the Mafia was primarily responsible for the assassination, I think Bobby backing off the prosecution of the mob was an unintended consequence, and not a primary purpose of the assassination. I believe that an invasion of Cuba was likely a primary purpose behind the assassination, but one that was thwarted by wiser minds who wanted to avoid WW III. I believe the question, as phrased, was what purpose was SERVED by the murder of JFK. Intended consequences doesn't always translate to that particular purpose actually being served.

I think the intended purpose and the actual outcome might have been far apart...depending on who actually was behind the killing. Maybe a Cuban invasion was the intended purpose...and that simply didn't occur. Maybe escalation in Viet Nam [back then, we wrote it as two words] was the intention. I discount the idea that the Mafia was did it, but one of the unintended consequences was that Bobby backed off the mob. It seems awfully hard to believe that, if the assassination was simply to keep LBJ out of jail and put him in the White House--and that ALONE was the reason--that LBJ would have waited until the 11th hour, as Don Reynolds was testifying before Congress. I think the purpose(s) behind the assassination were a bit more nuanced...but that's simply my theory.

Mr. Mady, I would remind you that those in agreement with you are probably LEAST likely to respond immediately. Those who disagree are usually "quick on the draw," because they are convinced you are wrong and want to show you "the error of your ways" ASAP. If people DON'T respond to your posts, there are likely a couple of primary reasons: one, they have no idea what you're saying [although those responses would usually be right behind the ones from the people who are convinced you're wrong]; and two, they are weighing the evidence you have given them, have found no flaws to attack, and are waiting for further corroboration. So the LACK of response SHOULD be ENCOURAGING, provided the readers are understanding what you're saying to begin with. So don't take that lack of response as criticism. The critics will gather like flies, and do so quickly. That's how forums such as this one seem to operate [reader-driven].

I believe that Mr. Mady's hypothesis has "legs," that it's supported by much of the testimony. And I believe it also dovetails well with Chris Davidson's analysis of the Zapruder film, which the Robert West surveys suggest very strongly [for those who can interpret the data] has been altered, most likely by the removal of frames. And again, the testimony of the witnesses to the Warren Commission and its representatives are the key. A long while back, the late Tom Purvis strongly suggested this...but he didn't give us the pieces to the puzzle as Mr. Mady and Mr. Davidson have. [Tom and I disagreed on several other points, but the survey data is quite compelling. It shows that, the closer the WC came to the SBT, the more likely it was that any post-Z313 shots would "disappear." What has been off-putting about Mr. Mady's posts has been his unwillingness or inability to put his theory together in a single thread post and then support it by the testimony, and his apparent "I can see this, so why can't everyone else?" frustration. And I would remind Mr. Mady that this is a discussion forum and not an "instant message" board, so responses are always going to be slower to trickle in than what he apparently expects. I would suggest that Mr. Mady read through some of the extensive archives here, and see what has been discussed here in the past, so that he might not treat others who are long-time researchers with a great deal of knowledge, information, and analytical abilities as either rookies or as dunderheads...because most here are neither. Just my opinions, thoughts, and impressions drawn from this thread. My standard disclaimer applies.

McCone-Rowley document has been previously discussed. Most believe it's a fake: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20024

I USED to get PM's from Gary Mack...until I said I wouldn't be his "sock puppet" and share his posts that he won't make for himself here. He actually helped put me in touch with a source of information early in my tenure here. But I believe in every man posting for himself.

The part that I'm wondering about is that, whenever Oswald's name is mentioned in the same sentence with "military intel," everyone automatically goes with ONI simply because Oswald was a Marine. But even today, there are Navy and Air Force personnel serving on Army bases and elsewhere. If I was going to "hide" Oswald in a military intel unit, I'd find a way to get him attached to Army intel...because, just as most people here look at it, it's not an OBVIOUS place for him. So folks looking for records on Oswald probably also wouldn't think to check for a file in the archives of the Army. Because ONI is the "obvious" place for him, not Army intel. And if you have an operative you want to further distance from his real operation, why not downgrade his discharge from "honorable," to divert even more suspicion? Just a theory, mind you...

The reference to being "off topic" was to the fact that this was sliding more towards rekindling an old "grudge match," in which neither side was ever going to convince the other, than it was towards actually being a civil discussion. Personally, I am no fan of Mr. Von Pein...but I hope that we can keep the discussions here not only civil, but informative. Snide remarks by either party, or a continuous sniping match, does little to raise the level of discourse here. By now, I think we all know what you believe, Mr. Varnell. And I'm pretty sure we all know what Mr. Von Pein believes. And from where I stand, obviously "never the twain shall meet." So unless there is new evidence on the subject, we return to rehashing old arguments that lead nowhere, as neither of you will ever convince the other, nor concede to the other. I think that, on a thread about a new book, perhaps having the courtesy to first read the book might bring other more enlightening questions to mind. And besides...I think there's probably more than one old thread here about the bunching/non-bunching of the shirt/jacket that might be revived, if there is some point to it other than wanting to be the man to get in the last word on the subject. And THAT is what the "back on topic" reference was about.

Thanks for that reply, Mr. Von Pein. That adds a note of clarity, AND gets the thread back on topic.

bump

Now, if you tie this information in with the John Hunt thread on the photos in the archives ["The Warren Commission Skeleton by John Hunt"], apparently from the time of the Clark Panel, then the wound trajectory depicted in Photo 13, which more closely matches the autopsy photographs than any other, not only becomes a realistic possibility, but one that the SS and the FBI were aware of.

I have ONE question about DVP's book [Remember the book? I believe this thread was started to discuss the book]: Is there any NEW information in the book, or is it a restatement of old information? Because I can get refried beans at just about any Mexican restaurant.

Robert, you need to understand something. Just because someone doesn't post the equivalent of, "BY JOVE, HE'S RIGHT!!!!" immediately after your post, that does NOT mean that people are not in agreement with you. In fact, even if folks are only in partial agreement with you, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're "against" you. Let people have time to digest what you've posted. Let them compare the information from you with the information from other sources. Personally, I think you're on the right track, for the most part. BUT I'm not always going to chime right in because [a] I like to authenticate the reports I see, such as referring back to the WC testimony posted at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website; and I'm not on the forum 24/7. And sometimes I like to sit back and watch for reactions to your posts. If you hunted deer the way you post here, you'd be ready to leave the woods 5 minutes after you arrived...and I don't mean that you'd have bagged a deer, I mean that your impatience would have done you in as a hunter.

The material Mr. Hunt found, and it's obvious ties to the Clark Panel, indicates to me that not ALL of the medical community believed the open-and-shut Warren Commission Report conclusions. After seeing the medical evidence, the fact that alternative wound trajectories were considered indicates to me that the evidence was not as cut-and-dried as the Clark Panel's conclusions would have us believe. I would like to see someone map out all the alternate wound trajectories with a 3D model, as James Gordon did on a previous thread. I believe that seeing how these proposed wound trajectories do, or do not, interfere with major arteries and muscles might be enlightening.

If the shirt and jacket were "sufficiently bunched" to allow the SBT to have occurred...then the Figure 13 wound trajectory photo wouldn't have been necessary. Figure 13 DOES seem to more correctly align with the wounds seen in the autopsy photos. But that would mean that the back/neck wound(s), if connected, were actually made by a bullet fired by someone at ground level. Not saying that is either right or wrong; just saying that this conclusion is what the trajectory indicated in Figure 13 implies.] James...with your 3D computer-generated models...can you approximate what vital spots may have been hit, or missed, if the Figure 13 trajectory is the correct one?

And the "pristine" bullet the WC used as evidence wasn't so "pristine." It was flattened quite a bit, so much that it was more oval shaped than round. Now what could squeeze a bullet in such a manner, when it allegedly ONLY passed through soft tissue?

So asking you to back up your claims with actual EVIDENCE is "rude"??? Well....apologies to Steve Martin, but....EXCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSE ME! I'm guessing you believe it to be "rude" because you actually have NO INTENTION on following up. And I'm in Indiana on a fixed income, so I'm not in nearly the position you are to access the Walker papers. In my view, Mr. Brancato isn't being rude at all. You've got plenty of time to repost your "theory" ad infinitum, but no time to request access to the Walker papers, and you're actually IN AUSTIN and work at UT? Pardon me if I have trouble believing that. Asking you to back up YOUR theory--not MINE, not MR. BRANCATO's, but YOURS--when you have MUCH easier access to the Walker papers than either of us do...that's RUDE? I won't apologize for asking for evidence, for facts to back up what is up to now merely a fantasy based on "would've" and "could've" and "might've." If that's rude, then every lawyer, every judge, and every jury in America is rude.

Mr. Trejo, I suggest you re-read that FBI report. *It does NOT state that DRENNAN claimed to be a follower of Edwin Walker. *It does NOT state that THE INFORMANT claimed that Drennan was a follower of Edwin Walker. *So it just MIGHT be that the FBI itself developed this information themselves. Unfortunately, the FBI report doesn't give a source for that information. But NOWHERE does the report state that Drennan had EVER had PERSONAL contact with Edwin Walker. You may not realize it, but it's possible for people to be followers of famous persons and yet never have any personal contact with them. So to use the words that Drennan was a FOLLOWER of Edwin Walker as evidence that Walker was a part of an alleged plot to kill JFK, RFK, Senator Javits and others that Drennan was reportedly involved in is stretching the actual EVIDENCE beyond what the evidence states. And NO, the evidence doesn't even "imply" that Walker is part of such a plot. Except in YOUR mind, apparently. Please do not INVENT evidence where evidence does not exist. Now, if you find ACTUAL evidence that connects Drennan with Walker--CONCLUSIVELY, and not SPECULATIVELY--they you may have something to build upon. For now, you're building a castle on a foundation of weak and shifting sand.

FINALLY....Mr. Trejo has posted some actual EVIDENCE! That's a step in the right direction... UNFORTUNATELY, he has MISREPRESENTED the evidence. I just read through FIFTY PAGES, and the only mention of Edwin Walker is that this Dr. Drennan is a FOLLOWER of the ex-general. NOWHERE do the documents state that Edwin walker ever ATTENDED such a meeting. There are a few redactions, but there is no reason to conclude that the redactions have anything to do with Walker's attendance at such a meeting. All I got out of this is that Harry Dean's allegations of a JBS plot were also reported by at least one other informant...NOT that WALKER was actually involved in the plot. So PLEASE, Mr. Trejo...show me EXACTLY where it says that Walker was a part of the plot. I went through FIFTY PAGES at the link, and found nothing to DIRECTLY link Walker to the JBS plot. Give me the page number that implicates Walker in the plot. Just the page number.

Thanks for the bump, Tommy.

I believe I may have a bit of insight into the situation. It's not so much the "evidence" that Robert is posting; it is as much his dismissing other evidence as "fake," such as the photographs taken in the DPD, without citing any evidence that the photos were faked. You may THINK evidence is faked; but unless you have EVIDENCE that it has been faked, then by calling the photographs fakes, you're guilty of making wild unsupported claims, rather than presenting evidence. Just because you don't agree with what you see in a particular photograph doesn't PROVE it's been faked. If you can cite evidence, perhaps an expert opinion, that a photo has been faked or altered, then by all means present that evidence. But to simply dismiss a photograph because it shows something you don't agree with, that's not evidence; that's not proof. And then there's the disrespectful tone of some of the posts. Larry Hancock and Pat Speer are definitely not the village idiots. They've likely spent more hours studying the JFK assassination, from many different angles, than 99% of other researchers. Folks here don't ask that you always agree with them; this wouldn't be a forum if there wasn't room for disagreement. But we can disagree without treating others rudely, and I believe that's a part of the Terms of Usage of the Education Forum. And that's likely a big part of why the other thread was locked. A "time-out," as it were. To give the participants on the thread a chance to take a breather, and to refer back to the behavior standards of the Education Forum.

Paul, the point you apparently don't get is that every time I question you, I also offer you a chance to PROVE your case. I'm not questioning that you believe your case; I'm just saying that simply because YOU believe something with all of your heart, doesn't necessarily make it fact for all.