Mark Knight

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.]

Could "youse guys" who want to discuss the validity of the WC report start another thread...so that those of us who want to learn more about Joseph McBride's book can do so on THIS thread? Thanks.

No, I did not get this information in my capacity as an attorney in the Watergate case. I received it earlier this year from an extremely reliable source with whom I do not have a legal relationship. There is a chance that the information may be authenticated in an undisputable fashion in the near future. Now THAT would be a HIGHLY interesting development.

If you will note, Mr. Colby...I haven't criticized Bugliosi or Posner because I don't own, and haven't read, their books, either. Check the record. "You're all the same" doesn't exactly apply here, and is NOT proper investigatory technique. I resent the fact that you seem to think you know what I would or would not do or say regarding these men, not having read the books. Considering the fact you don't know me at all, I will call your conclusion "presumptuous" and let it go at that.

I apologize for Mr. Colby. He apparently wants to challenge the book without reading it. I believe I'll refrain from criticizing the book until I've read it.

John, I'm 58 years old. During the JFK presidency, I was perhaps a little more in tune with the political situation than most my age because of a project I began. I started collecting editorial cartoons about world affairs and presidential politics from the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal, drawn by the incomparable artist Hugh Haynie. Sometimes, at 9 years of age, my dad would have to explain one particular barb or another to me. But I knew who Adenauer and DeGaulle and Kruschev and Castro and Harold Macmillan and Golda Meir were. I came here to learn from those who had done the research, as I hadn't the financial resources to do the research myself. I was "privileged" to have exchanged private messages and email with Gerry Patrick Hemming, and the content of some of those messages are still rather cryptic to me. While I was taught courtesy, I was also taught to NOT let a xxxx get away with a lie when I knew the truth. Was the Warren Commission an "extension" of the United States Supreme Court simply because both were chaired by the Chief Justice? Or is that an outright lie? Rulings by the Supreme Court have the force of law; rulings by the Warren Commission did [and do] not...among numerous other differences. So I first pointed out the error of the original poster. When he persisted with the same falsehood, THEN I called him a xxxx, and made my case. And when the same poster continuously plays fast-and-loose with the truth, until what point is he NOT a "serial xxxx?" I was taught to call a spade a spade, a man a man...and a xxxx exactly what he is. Yes, this is a violation of the "code" of the Forum; but I would rather violate the Forum's code, than to violate my own code of morality in the pursuit of the truth. Better that we build only a foundation if it is built upon the truth, than we build a tower to the heavens using falsehoods for the cornerstones.

Mr. Carroll, if the Constitution was still in force, this gathering of private information without the legal authority of a warrant would have been declared unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore...if the Fourth Amendment is null and void, why would the Fifth Amendment be upheld?

BEYOND that, whatever errors there were in the original survey were certainly subject to compounding, obfuscation, and downright manipulation at the hands of the Warren Commission. Altering the data that the surveyor computed, for whatever reason, by folks who were NOT trained in proper surveying techniques, is simply a matter of taking a less-than-ideal recreation and turning it into a completely worthless farce.

Craig, I'm not going to argue the point with you...although I'm sure you're rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect. In fact, I'm going to agree that, due to the nature of recreations, there will always be an error factor involved. Without using a tripod, try taking the same photo from the same location on two separate dates. There will inevitably be an error factor involved. The question then becomes, is the error significant or insignificant? And that depends on many factors. So I suppose you might say that, to a great extent, I agree with you.

So what are you saying, Craig? Are you saying that ALL of the recreations--BECAUSE they are recreations--are inherently flawed? That's what it SEEMS you are saying. If so, then it would appear you're saying that we'll never be able to properly examine the JFK assassination because there ARE inherent flaws in ANY attempted recreation. Since I'm NOT trying to put words in your mouth...am I correctly INTERPRETING what you're saying? If I'm not interpreting your words correctly, please tell us what you ARE trying to say.

Now, I don't want to bring up that one word again...but I'm pretty sure Oswald's camera was a Minox, and NOT a Minolta. Again, this is the EDUCATION Forum. I would hope that the information posted would be correct. Posting incorrect information, for whatever reason, shows either an intention to mislead, or a policy of doing sloppy research. Of course, if Oswald DID have a Minolta, I will delete this post and apologize.

Actually, it's NOT a case of splitting hairs. It's a case of striving for accuracy. This is still billed as the EDUCATION Forum, and not the Rumor, Speculation, and Assumption Forum. Please EDUCATE yourself on the similarities and the differences of amphetamines and methamphetamines, and how each is/was used in a medical setting. I spent some time myself searching out the terms and the the similarities and differences, and I highly recommend you do the same.

Mr. Morrow, I'm wondering if you are correctly using the term "methamphetamine," versus the accepted and highly-prescribed "amphetamine" of the 1960's. "Amphetamine is scientifically known as methylated phenylethylamine. Methamphetamine is double methylated phenylethylamine." Obviously similar, but not identical. So...are you CERTAIN that JFK was using methamphetamine?

My problem is with those who repeatedly state as fact things that have no basis whatsoever in fact, and try to pass off this information as accepted truth. If a person who makes an occasional mistake admits that they have made a mistake, I don't consider that person to be a xxxx. I've made my share of honest mistakes, and I try to make sure that I correct them. Some folks make untrue statements SO often here, it begins to fall into a pattern...as if they're trying to slide something by the unsuspecting folks. We are, after all, part of something called The Education Forum. If we cannot stick to the truth, exactly how accurate an "educational service" are we providing to those who come behind us? My position here is that you are entitled to manufacture your own theories as to how the JFK assassination came to occur; you are NOT entitled to manufacture your own facts. Those who attempt to do so should, by everything that is right in the universe, be called out for that; and those who repeatedly do so should be called exactly what they are. Apparently, my position conflicts with that of Mr. Simkin. For that, I will never apologize. But it causes me sadness to know that what began as an educational resource is now a forum in which the value of truth becomes secondary to decorum.

Bravo!

Thanks for telling the truth, Mr. Dunn! [something that Mr. Trejo could never quite master, BTW...]

This has been the problem with Paul Trejo all along. He plays fairly loose with the facts, and then bases his unwavering theories on these incorrect "facts." Watch out, Tommy: you may now have become part of the mob who is "out to get him."

Robert, I think you're covering some ground that has already been covered before, and in possibly greater detail: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781

Give it up. Lamson is like a rabid pit bull. He simply comes hear to find another "victim" from time to time, without ever sharing anything of educational value himself. Everywhere else on the internet, that behavior fits the definition of a xxxxx. Here, it's just Lamson. You will NEVER make a point that Lamson considers valid. NEVER. NO expert you cite EVER has the level of experience of Lamson...nor the credentials. Or at least none I've seen him acknowledge. Lamson claims to be neither a CT'er or an LN'er, yet he seldom attacks posts by LN'ers. So you may as well give up on this thread, before Lamson's trolling activities stretch the page count to triple digits. You've been warned. Don't say I didn't tell you what was ahead.

Paul, if you would only stick to posting words that are true, I wouldn't need to point out the falsehoods you have spread. This is, after all, the Education Forum, and is meant to be used as an educational resource. Your posts I have questioned are either lies, or they are so poorly researched that they have little to no truth in them. I was attempting to give your research skills the benefit of the doubt. Here's a helpful hint: Since you are already on the internet when you are posting on the Education Forum, if you're not sure about the veracity of something you're about to post, it's quite easy to open an additional window on IE, Chrome, or Firefox and to search for the exact information you wish to post about. Then, if you continue to post things that are untrue, your motives will be transparent.

Mark, I agree with all the legal points you wrote in that response -- but can we tone down the personal attacks? I mean, the epithet, "xxxx," has been banned on this Forum by John Simkin since 2004. When you claim that I post LIES, that's really the same thing, as we all know. I'm sure I'm as welcome to my honest opinion as you are to yours. Just tone down the rhetoric a notch, and we should be able to co-exist here. Regards, --Paul Trejo Lie (n.)- A false statement made with intent to deceive. As in the statement that Oswald's neighbors phoned police regarding Oswald beating his wife. As in the statement that there was an Executive Order for the Warren Commission to go along with the preconceived "solution." You know these statements are not true. You admitted that they are not true. Yet you built arguments based upon these statements you knew were not true. Since I'm not a qualified mental health professional, I'm not qualified to call you "delusional" based upon a medical diagnosis. So I'm really not left with many other options, other than calling a spade a spade. OK. I'll try to phrase it differently. Paul Trejo and the truth are like two ships passing in the night...on different oceans. How's that?

"The notion that the Warren Commission -- supervised by the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren -- should be respected with the title of a 'Legal Court' is regarded by a few loud members on this Forum to be a negative thing to say!"--Paul Trejo Paul, apparently you're still having troubles with definitions. The Warren Commission was set up by an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That makes it a product of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the government. If the Warren Commission was a "Legal Court"--YOUR term, not mine--it would have been sanctioned by the JUDICIAL BRANCH of the government. At MOST, it was a "board of inquiry." Public Law 88-202, which began as Senate Joint Resolution 137 and passed on December 13, 1963, gave the Warren Commission the power to issue subpoenas in order to gather witness statements and evidence. Neither PL 88-202, nor any other statute, gave the Warren Commission the power to issue an indictment, to charge a defendant with a crime, to try a defendant, nor to sentence a defendant...all of which are functions of "legal courts" in this nation. So PLEASE tell me, and the other forum members: In what manner, OTHER than having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as its nominal chairman, was the Warren Commission a "legal court" ?? They couldn't indict anyone; they couldn't try anyone; they couldn't convict anyone; and they couldn't sentence anyone. So, other than the power to subpoena witnesses, the Warren Commission had NONE of the powers of a "Legal Court." HOW, then, was the Warren Commission a "Legal Court" ??? I don't think you can answer this question and make your case while sticking to ONLY the facts. [Edit to add link: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix3.html ]

Apparently you haven't read many of Evan Burton's posts, then.