Mark Knight

I appreciate the interjection of reason into this discussion, but I'm afraid Mr. Trejo's mind is made up. At least it seems that way.

So...in other words, you're citing YOUR OWN RECOLLECTION, and not any actual SOURCES that can be VERIFIED? Please...how many is a "high" number of witnesses? 30? Or 3? I'd bet there are FAR more people who will testify to a limo stop in Dealy Plaza than will testify to Oswald and Shaw sharing a limo.

THIS is what I'm talking about. NOW...time to put up or shut up. Show me where I EVER said that Lovelady was the ONLY choice for Doorman, or "that it seems unreasonable to [me] that LOVELADY might not be DOORMAN." Show me where I said that. I BEG you to show me where I said that.

At what point did I say that I thought that Lovelady was the man in the corner, and NOT Oswald? PLEASE show me where I said that...because I'm pretty sure I never said that. And I'm pretty sure I never, EVER made ANY statement about what color or style of shirt Lovelady was wearing. If you can prove otherwise, PLEASE cite a direct quotation from my posts that shows your allegations to be true. I think you're falsely accusing me of saying, and believing, things I never said, and things I don't believe. Please cite some EVIDENCE that I said what you think I said...because I'm 100% sure you can't.

Mr. Trejo...please refresh my memory: By what evidence--EVIDENCE, not innuendo, not inference, not wild guesses--can we conclude that Clay Shaw was "clearly" involved with Oswald?

Let me preface my comments by saying that I'm 99.9999% convinced that Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD when the presidential motorcade went by. Having said this, your "proof" that Oswald was on the steps is MUCH less convincing than the information in the "Prayer Man" thread. A lot of your "proof" depends on shaky comparisons with blurry images, such as post #334 above. To say that we can determine ANYTHING concrete about the color of the eyes of the man in the center photo, a really grainy black-and-white shot, is stretching the limits of credibility. And your "anyone can see this" logic isn't proof of anything. That's the kind of logic that lone nutters like David Von Pein fall back upon when they really can't prove their case conclusively. It's not that I don't agree with your conclusion; I simply don't agree with the way you got to that conclusion. Now, as far as your use of testimony to show that the shot at Z-312 is the FIRST shot that most witnesses heard, and not the last, THAT is actually some great detective work...and something that the Warren Commission should've come up, if they hadn't been so busy trying to cover up the truth.

All right, Paul...I'll spell it out for you. If Castro's Spanish-speaking bodyguards are speaking among themselves, and if they say something on the order of, "If this guy makes one move, kill him," --of if Fidel says something like that to the bodyguards, and Ozzie doesn't understand-- that could be FATAL if you don't understand the language. You DO understand the language I'm using NOW, right? So you're basically saying that Oswald was apparently TOO STUPID to understand THIS point...yet he thought he'd be a great candidate for the job of taking out Castro? To me, that's where the story about Oswald believing he'd get close enough to Castro to kill him falls apart. He wasn't sent to Russia to kill anyone, yet he knew he'd have to learn the language. But you expect us to believe that he thought he could get into Cuba and kill Castro, escape, and be hailed as a hero, without speaking any Spanish? Apparently you either believe that OSWALD was a special kind of stupid, or that WE are. And I really hope it's the former, and not the latter.

I think that Tom Purvis was steering us in this direction in years past, and most of us didn't know how to prove anything with the data he gave us. Chris, you've taken us "over the hump" on that part, and I find this information QUITE exciting. Apparently Shaneyfelt was giving us the limo speed BEFORE the frames were excised, but the edited film--which the American public wasn't supposed to have access to for years to come--allows us to excuse the SS for not moving fast enough to save anyone's life.

Paul, you missed my point. If Oswald truly thought he was going to get into Cuba and have an opportunity to kill Castro, then certainly he had to know that Castro had bodyguards...bodyguards who spoke Spanish. If the bodyguards were talking among themselves in the presence of Oswald, a lack of knowledge of Spanish would be a STUPID, and likely fatal, mistake. So unless Oswald was trying to learn Spanish--and there's NO evidence that he was, as compared to his learning of the Russian language. He was smart enough to know he needed to learn Russian to go to Russia, for whatever purpose you believe he went to Russia. But he wasn't smart enough to know that he needed to learn Spanish to go to Cuba on a "mission" that was life-or-death? I have a hard time buying that premise...unless you're trying to say that it was a suicide mission, and Oswald not only knew it was a suicide mission, but agreed to do it anyway. That's awfully hard to sell, Paul.

Paul Trejo, how much do we know about Oswald's ability to speak Spanish? Was he fluent? Could he speak Spanish at all? I ask this because I think it bears on the ability of Walker and Banister to "convince" Oswald that his fake FPCC chapter would get him into Cuba. Obviously, if Oswald thought he was going to get a chance to travel to Cuba and kill Castro, wouldn't it also be logical to believe that he'd need to know what was being said around him, in order to know he wasn't walking into a trap? And wouldn't a high level of fluency in Spanish also have perhaps helped him make his case at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City? And wouldn't Oswald have, somewhere down the line, figured all this out? Or was Oswald too stupid to know that Cuba's language is Spanish, as is Mexico's? If Oswald really was that stupid, and spoke little or no Spanish, then are you saying the reason he became the patsy was because he actually WAS that stupid? Other than Russian, I've heard little about Oswald's linguistic skills...and even the reports about how well he spoke Russian were highly contradictory. So what information do you have on Oswald's ability, or lack thereof, in speaking Spanish? This might be a little detail that might either cement your case, or show a huge crack in it.

Chris, I would truly love to see this...but my antivirus program keeps blocking it.

Mr. Caddy, I thank you for sharing this memoir with the forum. At such time as you might be willing or able to elaborate on the information implied in the final paragraph, I would think that any revelations of that nature might be of the highest value to history. I would hope that the "another time" referenced in that final paragraph would be soon.

Mr. Varnell, it should be obvious by now that Mr. Trejo's "theory," which he pushes on this forum as fact, is based primarily on conclusions and opinions unsupported by any documentation. Unsupported conclusions based upon unsupported conclusions. In other words, a house of cards.

The Harry Dean thread was locked because there was no new evidence being presented, It was the same old arguments being rehashed...THAT is what was "overdone" there. Any NEW information is always welcome on these forums, especially documentary evidence from a Freedom of Information Act search.

I was also on Tom Purvis' "mailing list," and while I also disagreed with some of Tom's conclusions, I do appreciate the legwork he did on making the survey evidence to us.

I'd love to see James Richards return and spend as much time here as he used to. I learned a lot from his posts.

Heck, Mr. Trejo...I'm still waiting for YOU to show evidence. Oh, wait...your theory is just a theory, so you don't need to show ACTUAL evidence. But anyone else's theory REQUIRES evidence. Sorry...I must've missed that ONE WAY STREET sign...

I just wish Jim Root was still commenting on this thread.

Paul Trejo is accusing Tommy Graves of "only guessing," when his OWN best estimate of what Volkmar Schmidt is trying to say is preceded by the word "arguably." Well played, Paul...if you pull that one off.

David Von Pein is probably the most persistent, adamant follower of the Warren Commission Report as their is on Earth. There is virtually nothing, in his mind, that they got wrong...and he has a website and YouTube videos to "back that up." I'm surprised he hasn't already been here telling you how wrong you are...simply because, in his view, the WC got it all 100% right, and everyone who thinks otherwise should sit down, shut up, and go home. The thing is, he has some factual stuff on his site. But I suppose the difference is in interpretation, in his eyes. He's apparently right, and anyone who disagrees with him doesn't have enough sense to fall out of bed in the morning, in his view. Which makes me wonder why he hasn't jumped all over you with both feet. In fact, I'd be curious to see how he might take those witness statements and try to debunk each and every one of them. I don't believe he can, but I'd wager he'd try really hard...even if his best argument begins with the line, "Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see...." [That's how he "proves" his "facts."] I'm surprised that, if you've been researching the JFK assassination any length of time, you haven't encountered his name...if not his scorn. There are two kind of people, in his view, who disagree with him: those he looks down upon with scorn, and those whom he WILL look down upon with scorn in the future.

I believe there are two primary reasons no one has disputed your theory: (1) Many of us believe it to be plausible, and in total accord with the evidence; and (2) David Von Pein hasn't weighed in on this one. No one, in my experience, bows down to the altar of Warren more than Von Pein.

Robert, I think you and Chris are on the same page...and that each of you simply misunderstood the other one for a moment.

I think you've got it figured out fairly well. The late Tom Purvis, who had copies of the Dealy Plaza surveys, noted that the Secret Service had the last shot occurring around Z-345...which agrees with Altgens' testimony that the President was directly alongside him when the final shot occurred. And of course this was the shot that the FBI and the WC intended to "disappear"...but it actually fits in with the initial testimony of the reporters following the President. To this day, I believe that Purvis had more right about the assassination than he had wrong. Purvis pointed out that the information in the data blocks on the surveys entered into the WC evidence had some of the numbers "fudged," changed from what the original surveys had said. WHO changed the data is unknown; WHY is pretty much a given. Purvis still clung to the "three shots, three hits"...from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD...with the Carcano...scenario. I was eventually able to get him to admit that, while Oswald was CAPABLE of making the shots, there's no ironclad PROOF that he was the one shooting from there [or anywhere else that day]. And in the thread about Connally's wounds, it would seem that it's nearly been established that, with a right-to-left wound trajectory, Connally likely wasn't shot from the SE window of the 6th floor of the TSBD anyway. So I'm interested in what you're working on here. Carry on, please.

Walker was a man of peace? Sure. That's why he was a career soldier...because he preferred peace to warfare. Soldiers don't fight; they simply preach peace, and everybody lays down their arms to them. So what was Walker taught at West Point? Peace? Or warfare? Buddah preached peace; Walker was a freakin' General. Generals do NOT lead peaceniks. They lead men who are trained to fight and kill. As a peaceful man, I will simply say "POPPYCOCK!", in reference to your characterization of Walker as a man of peace...as opposed to the term I originally had in mind.

And I see that Mr. Trejo had conveniently edited out the comment of his that I quoted... Apparently Goldwater wasn't the only one "trying to pull a fast one..."