Mark Knight

In many cases, the merchant who has the Coke machine on his premises had to buy the Coke machine, as well as but the product from Coca-Cola. BUT they weren't necessarily prohibited from putting other brands in the machine, as long as the top 2,3,or 4 rows were strictly Coca-Cola. So in 1963 you could theoretically go to buy a Coke, and end up with a Sprite, a Pepsi, a Barqs root beer, or the hot new drink that the youth were making popular, Mountain Dew [a Pepsi product]. In the town where I grew up, if it came from the Coke machine, it was a "coke"...not a "pop," not a "soda," sometimes a "soft drink"...and sometimes it was actually a Coca-Cola.

Those links are from 2008...they've probably been deleted to save on bandwidth usage.

Vince, the problem with deciding that Oswald was on the steps when the shots were fired is that, according to the LN'ers, we still haven't solved the mystery of who DID fire the shots. The LN'ers have their "solution" tied up with a bow; and if we can't hand them a better alternative "solution," then we've only gone half the way, in their eyes. I admit that, if Oswald didn't fire the rifle--as the paraffin tests indicate--then who did it, is an intriguing question. That's the question the LN'ers lob at everyone else. I suggest we lob this one back at them: if it's not Oswald in the PM position--since we can identify everyone else on the steps--then who is it? [Yeah, I know...Von Pein's logic is of the nature of "since Oswald was firing the gun, that can't possibly be him..."] To the LN'ers, it's not enough to prove that Oswald wasn't where they say he was; we also must solve who WAS there. And up to this point, we can't do that.

One interesting question: If Ruth Payne's station wagon was NOT unloaded by LHO on its return from New Orleans [which, if he was in Mexico, would have been impossible]...why would a rolled blanket allegedly concealing a rifle NOT have aroused suspicion...ESPECIALLY to a Quaker? [i mean, Marina was pregnant, and delivered daughter Rachel on October 20th...so I doubt Marina was doing a lot of heavy lifting.] Or are blankets in Ruth Paine's house USUALLY stiff as a board?

I feel sad for J. Ray...as I would for anyone else who goes through such a public "crash-and-burn". I can't say this with any authority, but from a layman's point of view, it seemed that he and reality were becoming no more than just passing acquaintances.

Pat, which do you think is more likely: a ) Prayer Man would be a TSBD (Elm Street) employee or b ) Prayer would not be a TSBD (Elm Street) employee? And how likely is it that someone from the other building would "mingle with" co-workers and have their presence there noticed by not a single one of those co-workers? Why such resistance to the obvious explanation: it's Oswald? Obvious? You've got to be kidding. We have a blurry unidentified figure in a photograph that some think looks like Oswald. It could be any one of a number of people, the number of which is unclear. It could even be a woman. From what we have uncovered, nobody standing near this person ever said this person was Oswald. And the existing record suggests that Oswald himself never said he was in this location at the time of the shooting. I mean, nothing. If it was Oswald, he could have said "Don't worry, Marina, I was out front when the shots were fired with lots of people nearby." But no, nothing. So, there's no one saying it was Oswald...up against a number of people whose stories become problematic if it was Oswald. And that's where it's likely to rest. Now, that said, I still find this topic intriguing and worthwhile. Why? A whole bunch of reasons. 1) it arouses interest in the case. 2) it invites study of the record. 3) it may lead somewhere. Several years back, I had this vague notion that the paper bag photographed outside the building was not the paper bag in the FBI photographs. It sounded kinda loopy. But as I dug deeper, I found many indications that this was indeed the case. Did I prove it? Probably not. But was it worthwhile? Yep. In this instance, you have found some evidence supporting that Baker and Truly saw Oswald as they entered the building. Have you proved it? No. It would be almost impossible to prove it at this point. But have you succeeded in blurring the once accepted fact that after the shooting Oswald was first observed by Baker in the second floor lunch room? And even raised the possibility Oswald was outside when the shots were fired? For many, the answer will be yes. Pat: One thing you're NOT using here is something I heard over and over and over when I first came here: Occam's razor. "The principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts." And the simplest hypothesis in THIS case is that, rather than an unidentified spectator "imported" from another building, perhaps Oswald slipped out the door and onto the top step, unnoticed, at the last possible moment. It would explain why no one remembered Oswald being there. It would explain why "Prayer Man" resembles Oswald. It would be a logical place for an encounter with Officer Baker, and for Roy Truly to intercede. Occam's razor.

I don't think that's a warped view of your position at all. If JFK's sexual escapades weren't the reason he was killed, you wouldn't be so obsessed with the subject. YOU say "fascinated," I say "obsessed"...to the exclusion of all else, except LBJ. I defy you to show me another "researcher" on this forum who is so obsessed with the sexual lives of any [or all] the players in this case. And since it seems to be the primary reason for you posting at all. it MUST be the primary reason behind the JFK assassination; otherwise, you wouldn't put so much emphasis on it. So I concede; you win. Everyone else is wrong, and it all revolves around sex.

I don't...but Mr. Morrow might.

Ok. You win. So JFK was killed over sex. Game over...let's all go home.

This tells me little about the JFK assassination...but it tells me a lot about Mr. Morrow's obsession with the sex lives of the Kennedys. Unless you can cite relevance to the JFK assassination--was he killed over his sexual activities?--I fail to make the connection to the assassination.

Shouldn't this all be on the Irish Songs forum instead of the JFK Assassination forum?

My guess is that the longer version will never be allowed to see daylight.

Sheriff Bill Decker? Did WC member John Sherman Cooper, Republican Senator from Kentucky, make the trip to Dallas? From photos I've seen of Cooper with his glasses on, it appears this may be Cooper.

Nevermind...I just saw Pat Speer's post.

So just what WAS that "white" item in front of "Prayer Man's" face in the film? Let's go back to what it is alleged that Oswald said he had for lunch: a cheese sandwich and a Coke. In 1963, I was a 9-year-old kid. I knew a little something about "sack lunches" of the day, before it was cool to call it "brown-bagging." In 1963, "Baggies" sandwich bags with the twist-ties MAY have already been on the market, but their usage wasn't quite universal. So there were generally three common ways to wrap a sandwich for lunch. ONE was to use aluminum foil--"Reynolds Wrap." Not common for wrapping a cheese sandwich; usually reserved for something that would be heated or chilled. But occasionally used for sandwiches. A SECOND way was to use waxed paper--"Cut Rite." Not the most secure wrapping for a sandwich, but it was still common in 1963. And if one is eating a sandwich, and only unwraps the part from which one is taking a bite, the waxed paper will appear WHITE from a distance. The THIRD way I remember seeing sandwiches wrapped in 1963 was with clear plastic wrap--"Saran Wrap." Saran Wrap might or might not reflect in a photo, depending on the angle of a light source. A cheese sandwich would be a good candidate for waxed paper. If it had mayo or some other sort of sandwich spread on it, Saran Wrap would possibly be a good way to prevent a mess in the lunch sack. And Reynolds Wrap would be a less attractive alternative all the way around, unless there was no other alternative. We have to remember to look at these things through the prism of 1963, and not 2013...not always easy to do.

Thanks for these posts today, Robin. For those of us who have never made it to Dealy Plaza in person, they add a better perspective to the photos and drawings we've already seen, and help us understand the things we DO know, just a wee bit better.

I'm intrigued. More info, please...

I'm going to hijack this thread back to the original topic...which was the reopening of the forum. John Simkin, when you closed the forum, I thought you were doing the wrong thing. I stand corrected. Some of the forum members, and some of the moderators, actually NEEDED a "time-out." I think that most of the posts contain better arguments, and the moderators keeping things relatively peaceful is a much-needed improvement.

Thanks for bringing this story to our attention, Bill. Not that anything has changed, but perhaps some media attention to the fact that not ALL the information has been released might awaken some of the public to that fact. Sad thing is, most probably won't care.

I simply don't believe that the evidence against LBJ would result in a conviction, had the case ever been brought to trial in ANY jurisdiction. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, and a lot of it also has a MUCH more innocent--and plausible--explanation available. So I would hope that you would PLEASE refrain from attempting to cut off discussion of new evidence that points at someone other than Johnson. Remember, some of the "evidence" YOU cite was new at one time, too. Statements like "no DNA test is necessary" is speculation, NOT evidence. A DNA test WOULD be evidence. Innuendo and association with other individuals is not hard evidence, either. I worked with the son of a man who was convicted of being an accessory to a murder, and I was never involved in the killing of anyone. And don't forget, it's not uncommon for some people who seek their own 15 seconds of fame to incriminate folks who are long dead; that's almost become a separate "cottage industry" these days. Madeline Brown, Judith Baker, and several others I've heard have NOT convinced me that their evidence is credible. Admitting to having been LBJ's mistress is one thing; proving that he murdered the President is another thing entirely.

So very true.

I'm beginning to think I'm seeing a pattern in some of the posts here. Maybe I'm just imagining it, maybe I'm not. But it seems that whenever an interesting thread begins to develop some momentum, certain other posters will come along with their pet theory [they apparently only have one, it seems] and tell us why none of this newly-discovered evidence would EVER matter. One who does this quite often is the biggest fan of the Warren Emission [er, COmission] to ever come down the pike. The other is convinced that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination. But it seems that sometimes these types will grasp at the most tenuous connection to their pet theory--except, in their minds, they have the facts, NOT a theory, and anything else is fantasy--and turn a thread upside down and backwards to "tie" the information in the thread to their pet theory. Sometimes. it would be refreshing if these folks would just let the threads and RELATED discussions develop, and let the rest of us determine whether we believe the piece of evidence that precipitated the thread in the first place fits with the information we already know. I'm not particularly hung up on ANY single theory; I consider myself a student of the assassination, not an expert. But I already know of many obfuscations and outright lies involved in the WC report, so I don't believe their conclusions. As for the LBJ stuff...a lot of the accusers were/are as shady as LBJ, so how much of the uncorroborated portion of their stories are we to believe? It just seems that some folks, both on the LN side AND on the CT side, are working hard to brush any newly-discovered facts aside..."Move along, folks; nothing to see here." Kinda sounds like the initial cover-up to me. If the new discoveries are significant, it will eventually become obvious...and if they're not, that will also eventually become obvious. I believe that, if your particular theory is right, any new factual discoveries will only strengthen it; and if your theory is wrong, new discoveries may poke holes in your boat.

Very insightful analysis, Bill. I think you're probably on the right track here.

I'm with the others at this point. Lets move the LBJ-did-it stuff to the LBJ-did-it thread, and the specific LHO-did-it stuff [NOT related to the discussion of the book being discussed] to the LHO-did-it threads. In the past, I've been guilty of engaging in the discussions that run hither and yon...but I'm trying to do better.

I'm adding to this thread because I think the discussion of Oswald's guilt or innocence on the James McBride book thread, with no references to McBride's book, is getting out of hand. I think that Len Colby has nailed David Von Pein's technique for arguing Oswald's guilt. Apparently, Von Pein believes that Oswald's [alleged] shooting of JFK proves him guilty of the Tippit murder...and that Oswald's [alleged] guilt in the Tippit murder proves his guilt in the JFK assassination. Circular reasoning, or "ping-pong logic"... For once, I'd like to see Von Pein argue his case without using the phrase "must have", or the phrase "any reasonable person knows..." Because I don't think he can do it. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry stated that, regarding Oswald, we cannot place that man, with that rifle, in that window at the time the fatal shots were fired at JFK...or words to that effect. So if the chief of the Dallas Police Department believed that there is some reasonable doubt that Lee Oswald shot JFK...why should the rest of us, who weren't involved in the crime scene investigation, believe differently? [And Howard Brennan's "now he IS the man I saw, now he's not" identification of Lee Oswald should make any and all of Brennan's statements of dubious value.]