Mark Knight

"Walker just wanted peace and calm..." Right....that's why he went to Ole Miss and helped lead the...what, "peace and calm" that occurred there? "Walker just wanted peace and calm..." Right...that's what his speaking tour with Hargis was about, to tell everyone to remain calm and be peaceful, and not rock the boat. WHAT A CROCK.

When speaking of Lovelady on the front steps, are you aware of this thread on the forum: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354 Of particular interest is the GIF on post #37, AFTER Lovelady had left the front of the TSBD. No matter WHO is in Altgens #6, Lovelady is, by his own admission, long gone from the steps by the time Officer Baker charged toward and up the steps...and yet SOMEBODY is still in that corner.

Robert, if you go to the 5th drawing at the link in the WCR, you'll notice--it jumped off the page at me--that they have the EXIT side of Connally's wrist next to the chest. NOT gonna happen...even WITH the "disclaimer" at the bottom of the drawing. [This may be something you pointed out previously, but it bears repeating, IMHO.] And just TRY to turn your right wrist in the direction the wound occurred, and hold it next to your chest. [Again, you may have covered this ground.] I think that some of the researchers who came before us may have had it right, when they said that the answers were all in the WC evidence, waiting for us to discover them. It's just that the "answers" in the 26 volumes aren't spelled out perfectly. Or, as Doyle said it: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." And I think this applies to the right-to-left trajectory across Connally's chest.

Paul, please notice that Kathy is an adminstrator of the forum. For that reason, if for no other, I would suggest you pay particular attention to her "suggestion." Not only you, but everyone else. Take a "chill" for a few days, as the thread is covering NO new ground. No one is "winning," no one is "losing," so let it rest for now. If there is any newly-discovered information, that might change things; but for now, rewarmed (re)hash is becoming unappetizing.

Thanks for that, James. Up to now we've been discussing this without the graphic evidence we're discussing. Your copies explain quite a bit. Thanks to both you and Gary Murr for your work on this topic.

In case it hasn't already been posted...Here's a link to "Gregory Exhibit 1," diagrams of the locations of Connally's wounds: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0026b.htm

Sounds as if Mr. Trejo believes that everyone involved in the JFK assassination had either died or retired by the end of 1964, and was never involved in anything of consequence again in their lives. Nope, not connected to anything else, nothing to see here, you people need to move along...The world stopped in 1964, and then started again anew in 1965 with all new players and all new structures. He's convinced me.

As a STUDENT--as opposed to a theorist--of the JFK assassination, I wish to state that this is one of the most enlightening and informative threads to grace this forum in quite some time. Thanks to all the principals involved.

Paul T: You said: "It's my hypothesis...that DAP was fooled by Guy Banister..." And then you take that "hypothesis" and turn it onto a "fact" used to support your next statement: "Since DAP was fooled by Guy Banister,..." Your "hypothesis" suddenly became a fact. Shaky foundation there, Paul.

Len, apparently you've confused the JFK Assassination Debate forum with Facebook. When you have something to post regarding the JFK assassination, I'll be "all ears." Until then...

So...in other words...when all was said and done, Tomlinson couldn't decide which was right.

Actually, Paul...that is the CRUX of your "theory": If nobody can prove he DIDN'T, then the only logical [in YOUR mind] conclusion is that he DID. Now, if that's NOT your theory in a nutshell...then perhaps you should explain it better. Because in all the pages I've read, when you strip away the extraneous matter, that's your argument. That's your argument to Ernie, regarding Harry Dean documents: that unless he can prove that documents don't exist, then they MUST exist. And we must prove Walker WASN'T part of the JBS, otherwise it proves he WAS. [Anyone BESIDES me seeing a pattern here?]

http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/negative-proof-fallacy/

I'm still trying to understand why this bit of fluff was worth posting here. And I still don't see its value.

Perhaps then, if my impression of what you're saying is incorrect, you might better explain why your "soft connections" are valid "building blocks" for your theory. Because the impression I'm getting is, even though these "soft connections" are NOT facts, you are using them to support the basic foundation of your "theory." Please point out at what point my impression of your methods are incorrect. And what I propose about the JFK murder isn't germain to discussing what appears to be serious flaws in YOUR theory. "Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. (Burden of proof reversal)"

Greg, you're correct. I will state that I simply copied this verbatim from the source at which I found it. That doesn't take me off the hook for not making sure it was correct, and to that I plead guilty.

Colby, I was pointing out that this post is a waste of time and forum space. True to form, though. Welcome back, I guess.

Paul, let me explain something to you. I know, and am friends with, local radio and TV personality John Ramsey. World-famous boxing legend Muhammad Ali knows, and is friends with, John Ramsey. In YOUR world, this might be "soft evidence" that I'm connected with Muhammad Ali. But here in the REAL world, it is nothing of the sort. Ali and I have never met, nor has either of us passed a message through Ramsey to the other. But if we follow YOUR "logic," Ali and I are "connected" by this "soft evidence." Paul, PLEASE check out my post, "The 10 Commandments of Logic." I think many of your arguments fail to meet the standards of those 10 Commandments.

On another site, I saw "The 10 Commandments of Logic" posted. I think it would be good to read them, and then do our best to adhere to them here. 1. Thou shall not attack the person's character, but the argument. [Ad hominem] 2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument in order to make them easier to attack. [straw man fallacy] 3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. [Hasty generalization] 4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. [begging the question] 5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. 6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. [False dichotomy] 7. Thou shall not argue that, because of our ignorance, your claim must be true or false. [Ad ignorantum] 8. Thou shall notlay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim. [burden of proof reversal] 9. Thou shall not "this" follows "that" when it has no logical connection. [Non sequitur] 10. Thou shall not claim that because a premise is popular, therefore it must be true. [bandwagon fallacy]

Questions for Paul Trejo: At what point can you connect Phillips and Banister? Were they ever seen together? Any phone records? Any written accounts of their meetings? If you cannot show that they ever met, how can you prove that they worked together on anything...including "the Oswald project?" Or is this something to simply be assumed, with no verification of any kind? If so, with no evidence, why should we believe it? For that matter, at what point can you place Walker and Banister in the same room? Failing that, can you produce any phone records? How about any written records of correspondence between them? I'm not talking about "he said" stuff; I mean evidence that would hold up in court. Because I don't think you can, aside from Harry Dean's account, connect Walker and Banister. And I don't think you can directly connect Phillips and Banister. If you can--aside from Harry Dean's word--then I think it's high time we saw it. Bring it on. Otherwise all you have is speculation. Asking me to prove that Walker didn't know Banister, or that Phillips didn't meet Banister, is simple: Absent any evidence that these men DID meet or know one another, we MUST assume they didn't know one another. YOU make the claims, YOU show us the proof.

I started at 16:20... Well, that's 30 seconds of my life I'll never get back. Nothing was revealed...so why did you post this?

Good info, Greg.

The article doesn't plow any new ground, but nice to see it in a major magazine.

Now, I haven't seen the drawings of JBC's back wound. But here's a thought regarding vertical vs. horizontal: With Connally in a sitting position, let's say the wound actually WAS a horizontal opening. When Connally was on the table in the ER and the OR, CONNALLY himself was horizontal, and when viewed from a standing position, the wound would appear vertical in relation to the plane of those surgeons standing on the floor of the ER and the OR. So at the time the wound was sutured, it could be described as vertical as well. Later, when examining Connally in a sitting position, the scar would then be horizontal. Yeah, I know that's probably a bit more simplistic an explanation than anyone wants to hear. But perhaps that may be the way Shaw meant his answers. Maybe it's not nearly as convoluted an answer than the one we've been seeking. And maybe what's been argued here is actually no argument at all.

Mr. Mady, I think your four-shot theory is somewhat in line with the late Tom Purvis' deductions from the original Secret Service survey done by Robert West shortly after the assassination. West's initial survey showed a shot prior to Z-210, the second shot was Z-313, and if I recall, the third shot surveyed was around Z-345...when the limo was directly in front of Altgens. Since the SS didn't have West survey in a point for a fourth shot, that's as far as Purvis' suggested maximum number of shots went. If the SS hadn't thought there was a shot as late as Z-345, why would they have had West survey in that point? It was only after the WC got involved that the shot at Z-345 got "erased."