Mark Knight

Keep it coming, Tom...appreciate all the information!

I have had my disagreements with Peter Lemkin about disinfo agents and other matters of that ilk. I have never been contacted by a moderator, so I don't know from personal experience that Peter was or wasn't a good and conscientious moderator. And Len Colby and I have NEVER preciously been on the same page about ANYTHING, to my knowledge. But Len's last post on the previous thread regarding Peter Lemkin's status and the status of his posts is SPOT ON. I have not trashed this forum on any other forums, and IMHO, some of the topics on the Deep Politics Forum are...well, a bit deep in the excrement for my tastes. I do agree that Peter crossed a line by trashing this forum on the other forum; but I think there is historical and contextual value in some of his posts that have been recently removed, and I think perhaps the removal ot these posts should be at least reconsidered. Strictly MY opinion on the matter; void where prohibited, yadda, yadda, yadda....

I was going to let this one pass...and then an old poem came to mind: "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out...because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out...because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me...and there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoller So effectively Peter Lemkin is gone from the forum, banned because he stood up for himself in the face of charges that were later withdrawn. If it can be done to someone as well-known within the community as Peter, how much easier would it be to do likewise with someone such as me...or you? I understand the concept of attempting to mitigate one's liability...especially when it regards the assassination of a man's character based upon charges that were made and them withdrawn. Perhaps that's the way to silence ALL those who believe in conspiracy...make charges against their character, use those charges as justification to withdraw their priveleges here, and then withdraw the charges...but prevent the wrongly-accused party from using the forum in which they were "convicted" to defend themselves against what appear to be spurious charges. If it can happen to Peter Lemkin, who's next on the hit list in this grand non-conspiracy [since Andy Walker doesn't believe in conspiracies]? One of the lower-level contributors such as me? Someone as visible as Jim Root? Or perhaps a frequent-flier such as Bill Kelley? It would appear that, from a legal standpoint, one of the administrative "birds" of this forum has apparently "fouled" his own nest...this from a layman's point of view, since I am not an attorney.

Gil, a person wiser than me once said that the answer to most of the questions concerning the JFK assassination can be found within the Warren Commission report itself...not in the summaries, not in the text, but in the actual evidence. The difficult part is that most folks are hung up on what the text says, and are less concerned with what the evidence contained there says. The old "hide in plain sight" scenario, as I understand it. I believe that you just proved his theory to be at least partially correct.

For purposes of accuracy, I would suggest that you probably meant the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees the right to refuse to incriminate oneself. First Amendment is frequently cited in "freedom of speech" arguments, but would seem to be irrelevant in the case being cited.

I agree that this photo looks out of place for 1963. Prior to the appearance of The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show on February 9, 1964, men's hair over the ears was considered unsightly...where I grew up, he would've been told he looked like a "brush-ape." But perhaps there is an ELEMENT of truth to the story; perhaps the person in the photo [which has "1970's" or later written all over it] may have some related connection to 11/22/63.

Tosh, I'm not a "professional" researcher. I'm not writing a book, and I don't have anything to sell. I'm just here seking the truth. That said, I'm pretty sure you may have already covered the ground I plan to over in this post. But in case you haven't, it might be something to consider one way or another. As you well know, the various intelligence agencies like to play shell games. And the various military branches are, on the surface at least, quite territorial. So what better way to leave a puzzling path regarding Oswald than for him to have been part of ARMY intel...and not ONI, as one might expect of an ex-Marine? But it would make sense of his possible connection to ARMY General Edwin Walker en route to the Soviet Union...and it SURE would make sense why Army Intel in the Dallas area were the ones who had all of Oswald's addresses and provided them to police after the assassination. But then, if Oswald WAS connected to Army Intel, why would Army Intel "burn" Oswald after the shooting? I dunno...why did the Army "burn" Walker when Oswald began his return from the Soviet Union? Maybe Oswald knew sonething about the assassination, but not enough to prevent/abort it? Sure this is all speculation...but it might explain why it was so hard to find records on who Oswal was working for. I think the Bannister/ONI connection was simply to throw researchers off the trail...because everything having to to with Oswald and ANY connection to the intelligence community keeps pointing back to ARMY Intel...the ONE direction nobody was looking back when the records MIGHT still have existed. Does this make any sense to you? Or am I way out in left field? With your background, surely you might know if this scenario SOUNDS like it might possibly be plausible. Not trying to steal or divert the thread...just trying to make the Army Intel connection here.

------------------------------------------------------ 5) DiEugenio says his research has led to discussion of a third rifle, more appropriately identified as a first rifle, found before the Mauser. JG OK, you got me hooked. Tell me more about this THIRD [first?] rifle discovery...or direct me to more information, please.

Dixie, I believe it wasn't until around 1:33 PM CST that Malcolm "Mac" Kilduff announced the President's death. Therefore, the news of JFK's death wouldn't have been made public prior to this. Therefore, no official announcement of JFK's death would be on TV or on radio in a place where Oswald could have seen or heard it until AFTER Oswald was in custody. There was plenty of speculation prior to the official announcement, but I don't believe it was officially announced prior to the Parkland press conference. Therefore, Tippit couldn't have told him, because nobody could have officially told Tippit, via radio or otherwise [check DPD radio transcripts...no announcement of JFK's death was made via police radio prior to Tippit's shooting].

Kathy, you may be unaware of it, but a silencer doesn't totally silence a gunshot. It works on the same principle as a muffler on a car...and I'm sure you can hear cars running that have intact mufflers on them. They're just not nearly as loud as a straight pipe would be...and an unsilenced gun is more like a straight pipe. And bullets that are not moving at subsonic speeds, by definition, are moving faster than the speed of sound. They create shock waves and leave other "signatures." They are not completely "silent," despite the term "silencer."

Like Walt, I don't ever want to be on the "major player" list...or even listed as a "playa," in the vernacular of the youngsters. But I was born into the generation whose credo was--and is--"Question authority." I question the WC, I question Gary Mack, and when they present themselves as authorities, I question both Fetzer and White. If their theses stand up to questioning, more power to them. If they instead wilt or bristle at the mere idea of being questioned, then perhaps their theories and "truths" aren't as powerful as they claim; they become little more than Emerald City wizards, citing the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra and hiding behind the curtain. Truth should be able to stand on its own legs, even in the face of honest questions. I'm not dismissing Dr. Fetzer or Jack White, because I think they have both done well at getting people to focus upon the JFK assassnation, a heinous crime that should never be forgotten. I think they have made many great contributions to the study of the case. BUt for them to stand on the "I am the great and powerful OZ!" mantra, rather than helping further the understanding of those of us who are still trying to learn, it simply isn't bearing fruit--to refer to Jack's Biblical reference. For them to figuratively stand upon the mountain, they become exactly what they detest about folks like Gary Mack. I've got a fair JFK library at my home...for a guy on a tight budget. I try to do my homework. I read Epstein and Bishop and Manchester years ago, and have added Epstein and Bishop to my library. I have MIDP, I have Crenshaw, I have High Treason and Mortal Error; and I have a hardback copy of the WC summary that I found at Goodwill for $1. For Christmas,my wife got me a copy of the 2006 edition of Larry Hancock's book. I've bought old LIFE magazines off eBay, from 1963, 1964, and the 1966 A Matter of Reasonable Doubt issue. And I'm trying to justify spending the bucks to get the full WC 26 volumes on disc [gotta keep the wife happy with what I spend, as most married folks understand]. I'm still trying to educate myself. So I don't want to be a major player, I just want to learn the truth.

Jim, I guess what I'm suggesting is that Oswald's Marine discharge...wasn't what it seemed. I've heard stories of folks whose "official" service records failed to show them where they actually were, when they were involved in intelligence work. And if Oswald's discharge from the Marines was perhaps related to his being "shifted" to Army intel, then it may not have been ONLY walker who was burned when Ozzie came back from the USSR. Oswald's discharge was changed to less than honorable, IIRC...and if it was because of his "defection," which may have been an assignment from Army intel, then that would explain why Oswald was mad as hell about his Marine discharge being downgraded for performing his "assignment" in the Soviet Union. As I said, it's speculation...but Ozzie working for ARMY intellignece would better explain why he might be briefed on his entrance to the USSR by ARMY general Edwin Walker. To me, it makes more sense that the idea of Oswald being just a random "spook" sent to do a false defection...with Walker being the trump card for that hand. If Ozzie was CIA, why not have him briefed by just another CIA spook? And if he was still unofficially connected to the Marines, why not have someone from ONI brief him? The ONLY reason in MY mind that Oswald would be breifed by an ARMY general would be if Oswald were somehow connected to the ARMY. [i'd still like to see an unredacted copy of Oswald's 1962 income tax return...might reveal a lot about sources of income, which is why I'll not likely see one in MY lifetime.]

They're right, Jack. IF, as you say, ALL the photos are faked/altered, then why, INDEED, do you have to do all of the photo analysis? Or ANY photo analysis? Because if, as you contend, ALL of the photos are fake/altered, then it's over. Game. Set. Match. Further analysis, then, is simply beating a dead horse. Now move along, folks, nothing REAL to see here. [Kind of a reverse Posner position: nothing left to study, because everything's fake, and we'll never know the truth.] Thanks for making the case totally unsolvable, Jack. We owe you a huge debt of gratitude for that. Now we can all go home, fold this forum [and all the others], and know in our hearts that there is no solution, and all of us are doomed...because the conspirators have faked all the evidence. And thanks to Dr. Fetzer for proving all the OTHER evidence has been faked/altered. Hell, Jim...maybe JFK's DEATH was faked as well...but we'll never know, because ALL the evidence has been falsified, tampered with, altered, or destroyed. You've convinced me. /sarcasm off now/

Just speculating here...but looking this direction MIGHT turn up a previously unknown Oswald file. Oswald had been [effectively] discharged by the Marine Corps when he went to the USSR. Following along with Jim Root's theory that it might've been Walker--an Army general--who passed info along to Oswald that would accelerate his entrance into the Soviet Union... ...is it not possible that, rather than CIA or ONI, Oswald may have been working for/with ARMY intelligence? Before you dismiss this out-of-hand, was it not Jack Revill {sp.} of Army intel connections who gave the DPD Oswald's addresses--both correct and outdated information? Seems the Army intel area came up with more information in a shorter time frame on Oswald on 11/22 that the FBI, who was allegedly keeping tabs on Oswald. Has anyone ever done a FOIA request for Army files on Oswald? [Ozzie being an ex-Marine, that sounds counterintuitive...but if the Walker connection suggests anything, that would be Ozzie having Army intel connections]. I bring this up because whenever I read a story about some ex-military person going into military intelligence, it seems the person ends up in the intel division of a totally different branch of the Armed Services than the one in which they did their active duty service. The Walker connection would suggest Army intel...with the Bannister/ONI info thrown out there to derail those who seek the truth.

While I'm not one of the "Major Players," here are MY thoughts: - Believe Oswald fired any shots: Not from the 6th floor of the TSBD. - Believe Oswald killed Tippit: I have serious reservations that he did. - Believe the single bullet theory is possible: Not as presented by the Warren Commission - Believe shots were fired from the front, back or both directions: JFK's back wound proves at least one shot from the back. Throat wound suggests very strongly at least one shot from the front. - Can assess the performance of the Secret Service in Dallas: They failed in their primary mission, to protect the life of the President. - Think LBJ and/or other high public officials were involved: LBJ certainly was involved after the fact. If "high public officials" include former Vice President Nixon, then I believe he at least had knowledge that there was a plot to kill JFK, though Watergate shows him to be, ultimately, more puppet than puppetmaster. As far as Prescott Bush and his son, George H.W., I think their fingerprints are on the plans as well. Oswald's presence in the Texas Theater suggests that, as in the old dime-store secret agent novels, Ozzie THOUGHT he was going to meet a contact of some sort there. This would then suggest some level of foreknowledge on Oswald's part, if not as a participant then as someone whose intention was to infiltrate the plot...with instructions to meet his contact at the Texas Theater if/when the fecal matter hit the oscillating rotary cooling device.

Kathy, we can speculate until the cows come home on what MIGHT'VE happened had JFK and Jackie had their seating positions reversed...but since we can't even agree on who was shooting from where, heres' a few UNeducated guesses: 1) For those who believe in shots from inside the limo...Kellerman would've shot JFK instead of Greer. 2) Nellie Connally, rather than her husband, would've been felled by the magic bullet. 3) Altgens might've actually taken the photo when he was alongside JFK. 4) The motorcycle cop on the left side of the limo might've gotten perturbed by Moorman in the street. 5) There would've been absolutely no doubt that Greer stopped the limo when he turned to look at JFK. 6) Zapruder's view of the action after frame 312--if not before--would've been blocked by Jackie's movements. 7) The hole that either was or wasn't in the limo windshield might have no reason to be or not be. Do you see how absurd this endless speculation can get?

When Duncan posted the photo, he also posted that it was fake. So Jack...do you only look at the pictures these days, rather than read the accompanying text? [My 2-year old grandson does that, but for obvious reasons.]

Jack, "Harmless," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. To someone who knows snakes, a garter snake is considered harmless; to someone who trusts NO snakes, NO snakes are harmless. Sunstein certainly is a snake, IMHO...but at this point, I'm not ready to concede tht he is of the "harmless" variety. As far as Pat Speer's "mission," I believe that his "mission" is to view everything with an open mind before making a judgement call. And I believe it would behoove all of us to make that our "mission." My interpretation of Pat's motives may not be correct, but it is, after all, MY interpretation.

I suppose my position on the evidence before us is...folks, don't hold your breath on some magnificent revelation coming along that will add the "crucial" evidence we need to solve the JFK assassination. I'm pretty sure we have almost all the evidence we'll ever get to see in our lifetimes. I tend to think that ALL the evidence--the WC Report, the Zapruder film, the HSCA testimony, the misleading autopsy photos, ALL of it--is the map to solving the crime. Unfortunately, the mapmakers [Angleton, et al] have quite cleverly hidden the KEY to the map--what symbols are merely symbols, what artifacts are true artifacts, and what film records are accurate and which are not. As I understand the general gist of Doug Horne's work, it seems that just because some witnesses' testimonies are in direct conflict, it doesn't mean someone is lying; it just means that we don't yet know how to interpret what we DO know. [speaking specifically here about the Bethesda sleight-of-hand, or sleight-of-hearse, or whatever it finally turns out to be...but the same principle applies to the developing of the Z-film, whether in Dallas or at the Hawkeye works or both, and to many other situations that APPEAR, at surface level, to be in direct conflict...but which might have PARALLEL explanations, rather than CONFLICTING explanations.] So I can't totally agree that we impeach the Z-film totally...for if we do, how then do we use the frames after the shooting that contain Sitzman standing with the Hesters to "prove" Abe's vertigo was a lie? After all, we've said we can't trust ANY of the Z-film...and then we turn around and use a segment of it to attempt to prove a point? In MY eyes, the frames with Sitzman are simply another CLUE...and if we can only decode the KEY to the map before us, the complete truth will eventually become self-evident. UNTIL we find the key, the Z-film--altered or not--is simply another clue, and something we don't need to discard with such extreme haste, IMHO. [And sometimes I DO think we spend too much time, as John Bevilaqua puts it, straining to tell the "gnat xxxx" from the "peppah."]

I guess I'm just expressing my frustration here. But if Fetzer is right, if Jack White is right, if NONE of the evidence [except JFK's suit] is what it appears to be...then perhaps it's time for someone to step up and, rather than concentrating on impeaching ALL the evidence [except JFK's suit], maybe these "super sleuths" can tell us exactly what DID happen..in what exact sequence...and who did what, when, and why. If we impeach ALL the evidence...what are we left with? The "certainty" that we can never know the truth? It sure seems as if that's the direction that Fetzer, et al, are directing things. And if we can never get to the bottom of the crime, then the study of the JFK assassination certainly HAS become nothing more than a parlor game; a pastime without a purpose. Is that where we really want to end up?

Over the past few weeks, I've read all the posts discrediting this evidence and that evidence, and this witness and that witness, this photo and that photo. SO...besides the suit the JFK was wearing, is there ANY evidence in this case which is considered by all to be 100% reliable?

The RFK Oxnard allegation, as I understand it, is simply that: an allegation. But on the LHO "Raleigh call," as it's known, there are simply two questions to answer: 1) what was the phone number called [the specific digits, in correct sequence]; and 2) to whom was that phone number registered on November 22-23, 1963? Therein lies some answers that are needed to help solve the mystery. Did Oswald, by calling that number and asking for John B. Hurt, sign his own death warrant? Depends on whose number it was, and who answered the phone that night. But my suspicion is that Oswald's death was hastened by that phone call. [And unlike Harry Holmes, I'm just an amateur "suspicioner."]

Jim: A question re: Oswald's call to/for John B. Hurt: What number was called--and can we prove that by telephone company records?--and to whom was the number registered? Surely not ALL 1963 paper telephone records have been destroyed. Perhaps you are right; perhaps Oswald phoned a cut-out, whose only job was to relay a message that Ozzie called for Hurt. Or maybe there was something else involved. Perhaps this has been discussed before; but if so, I guess I missed it.

I'm coming away from this "discussion"--and I use the term only because Dr. Lifton and Pat Speer have kept it from becoming the written equivalent of a "lynching"--with a great deal of respect for Dr. Lifton...and a lower opinion of Dr. Fetzer. Josiah Thompson's SSID was, in its day, a bombshell dropped on 'the establishment'...whether it was derivative of Dr. Lifton's work or not. In the '60's, I had never heard of RAMPARTS...but I sure as hell knew The Saturday Evening Post. I thank Josiah Thompson for opening the door, even if only a crack by today's standards. He may not deserve a monument in Dealy Plaza, but IMHO he doesn't deserve the accusations being thrown about. Ans, as others have pointed out, all this discussion of Josiah Thompson is, indeed, taking away from the examination of the evidence. So PLEASE...let's go back to arguing over the evidence, rather than the [real or imagined credentials] of those presenting the evidence.

I hope you weren't being sarcastic or facetious, Peter. If the aim is to "rehabilitate" the image of Nixon, the first step is to kill JFK. The political resurrection of the Dick Nixon that "you won't have...to kick around anymore" began with the JFK hit. MLK was uniting the black voters, and he was steering them more toward the Democrat party. With MLK out of the way, there was no longer one primary black leader. And with RFK out of picture, Nixon could--and did--handily breeze into the White House. [Of course, it didn't hurt Nixon's presidential bid that Humphrey looked as commandingly presidential as the Pillsbury Doughboy.] Absent any of those three political assassinations of the '60's, a Nixon presidency would have been not only unthinkable, but laughable. Combined, they made it inevitable, IMHO. Cui bono, indeed.