Mark Knight

I agree that there are a lot of folks on the forum who have a less-than-glowing opinion of Bush. But as Americans--to paraphrase Rumsfeld--we go toward the future with the president we have, not necessarily with the president we wish we had. As in the past, though, no president is immune from criticism--nor should they be. I know there were "Kennedy bashers" in his day as well, even as is evidenced by the "Welcome" ad in the Dallas newspaper of 11/22/1963. And these were right-wingers. So, despite your comments implying such, "right" and "correct" are not ALWAYS synonymous.

Just a reminder that we're still waiting on the information about the Castro plot to bomb NYC. Lest you forget...

Interesting theory...let's see if Mr. Gratz works up as much righteous indignation about Jarman as he did for Dillon.

Tim, you're turning this thread into another Castro thread...but then you already knew that. As far as your "poll" results determining what someone believes... If the poll shows the membership is overwhelmingly leftist oriented, I want you to join the "Fidel Did It" Club. ...I don't believe it's that easy for a person of integrity to change his beliefs, based upon something so trivial as a poll. And what of me? I voted for Bush in 2000, and I voted against him [NOT for Kerry, by the way] in 2004. So does that make me a leftist? Or am I a disaffected conservative? Or am I a moderate? Or can you even tell? I believe Nixon was a crook, but I believe the same of Bill Clinton, whom many on the left revere. So where does that place me? As a pragmatist, rather than as a shill for either American political party? I've been a card-carrying member of the UAW, but I voted against Clinton [bOTH times], Gore, and Bush. Does the term "INDEPENDENT" cross your mind? Probably not, if you're still seeing things as red and blue states, and leftists and rightists. And what of forum members from England, Australia, France, Sweeden...none of whom had a choice whether to vote for Bush or not? Because they couldn't vote FOR Bush, does that make them ANTI-Bush, and therefore leftists? You know better, Tim, and yet that's what you imply: Frankly, it would surprise me if more than two other posters voted for George Bush in the last election. I don't have a hard time believing that Communists may have been behind the JFK assassination. I believe that the left can be equally evil as the right...as evil knows no party. It's not all about red and blue states, or left and right. As far as I can see, it seems that if someone doesn't believe what you do--or stand even further to the right--they're automatically a "leftist," or "on the left." I believe you're overlooking a lot of moderates, people who are standing somewhere in the middle looking for the facts. This isn't a matter of "divide and conquer"; it's a matter of presenting facts, and letting the readers decide...just as you would have had to do with a jury. So...about those facts...can I presume the NYC bombing info will be forthcoming soon?

John, I would suggest that the "X" in the street is a location derived from something like the WC's erroneous data, as explained by Tom Purvis' catch of the discrepancies between the WC's survey data and the actual survey done. Remember what Tom said about the Z-208/Z-210 descrepancy in the WC Report? If that discrepancy is extrapolated forward, it might explain the incorrect positioning of the "X" in the street. Or it might not...but that may be a plausible explanation.

I'll stop pointing out the "coincidences" when they stop occurring, Tim. Whenever I mention Rove, my computer becomes subject to attacks that my ISP's firewalls can't seem to stop, and the Microsoft can't identify their source ("we've never seen this before" is the usual response). And the week you were gone, the forum ran just fine; almost immediately upon your return, the forum came under attack. Maybe they are just coincidences...but to me it looks like a pattern of cause-and-effect. And, based upon your performance in producing the evidence you said you had back in April regarding the Cubans' bombing plans in NYC, I stand by my statement that I have my doubts that you'd actually take any real action in getting a real investigation started. I was hoping you'd do something to prove me wrong, rather than just whine about insults. By the way...are they actually insults if they're true? I challenge you, the mighty legal mind, to prove you're more cheese than whine and DO SOMETHING...beyond the usual diversion of employers' resources for personal amusement.

Link to newspaper obituary

Followed the link...the article was published on the 18th, but it states that he died on "Saturday"...presumably August 13th. Anyone have confirmation?

Dawn wrote: Hey Tim, here's your opportunity to show us you are sincere. As a W supporter and someone who says he wants this case solved why don't you write to your president and some of the people around him, say your old pal Rove and 1. Remind him (Rove) of your long time loyalty and 2. Suggest such an order. After all, it's manyof your posts here calling for such an investigation. Instead of just posting such, write some letters, then post them and any responses you get. Dawn, I would conclude from what I've seen on this forum that while Mr. Gratz might read some research materials on his own time, I don't think he'd expend any personal effort toward getting an investigation started--other than lip service--if it required him to take any actions while he's not at work. Y'know, kinda like laying down his life for George W, Bush--he's all for it in theory, but he'd draw the line at taking any real action. And I'd be careful of invoking Rove's name around here....strange things begin to happen to the forum when one does so. Of course, it's all just a coincidence.

John, I see great value in the work you've done. And I believe that the Harry Holmes info is on the right track as well...I believe that ol' Harry is trying to paint a certain picture, while omitting certain facts and dates in order to make the picture fit the frame [double meaning intended]. And I agree that the economics of the LN vs. conspiracy debate is a big factor in allowing it to go on for the past forty-some years...for if the truth is told in indisputable terms, the works of an entire industry will, as you pointed out, begin gathering dust. I say, let the dust-gathering begin! Whether it's the left, the right, or the center involved in the assassination, history deserves the truth to be revealed...let the chips fall where they may. Your work with the existing photographic evidence has been quite enlightening. IMHO, it tends to suppost the idea that JFK and Connally were struck by separate bullets, and it adds credence to the argument that the headshot seen in Z-313 came from the left front...both of which would be strong evidence of conspiracy. Keep up the good work, John...I believe you're on the right track.

Speculation to be sure but what if the documents requested included documents that established a relationship between the CIA and Oswald? Considering what is known of Oswald's "defection" and "repatriation," it would only confirm something many have speculated upon for decades. Implications of that? Depends entirely upon what other information might end up being revealed.

Remember also that there is no statute of limitations on murder...and no grand jury in the state of Texas has taken up this case, to my knowledge. Since LBJ is more than thirty years dead, there should be no further need to protect his "good name," even in Texas. Since the assassination was not a federal crime, but merely a murder in the state of Texas when it occurred, any officila investigation would have to be done in compliance with Texas laws...as no federal laws were violated in 1963, with the possible exception being interstate flight to avoid prosecution. Having said that, it would take the full informational and financial resources of the federal government to perform an investigation of the scope necessary to answer the unanswered questions of the JFK assassination. It would also take an FBI and a CIA which were more concerned with truth than with protecting long-dead or long-retired agents and contacts and operations. In an ideal world, that might occur; in this world, I have serious doubts it ever will.

So, Gratz... ...where's that info on the NYC bombing? Yeah, the stuff that you promised back in April... I'm beginning to believe you never had it; prove me wrong if you can. [For the sake of your credibility, I hope you can.]

While the term "interrogator" may be correct, in the strict definition of the word, the coercion-related baggage the word has acquired thru usage in the 20th century, e.g., the "interrogators" employed by Stalin's and Hitler's regimes, makes me wonder if there might not be a more appropriate term for such an investigator.

In the teachings of Jesus Christ, he said that it was not enough to send away the stranger from your door, to tell him to go get something to eat if he is hungry, to tell him to get some clothes on if he is naked, to tell him to go get a job if he is unemployed...without offering help from within your house. Yet that's what the so-called "religious right" in the US does every day. Unfortunately, the "religious left" [to coin a similar term] in the US apparently believes that the solution is to tax the people, and to use the proceeds to allow the government to help those who need food, clothing, jobs, or homes. To my way of thinking, the left is just as wrong as the right. Both seem to deny any personal responsibility for their fellowman. The right's position is to let him fend for himself, or "pull himself up by the bootstraps," according to a popular phrase awhile back. The left's position is that government's involvement absolves them of any personal involvement in seeking the betterment of society. Did not Jesus Christ himself walk among the lepers and those of both breoken body and spirit? Did he not lay hands upon them to perform feats of healing? Did he not cause miracles to occur, in which multitudes were fed with a few meager loaves and fishes? And yet both the "religious right" and their counterparts on the left want to keep these people who are in need at arm's length--or further--while still claiming to be walking in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Only God can judge, so I shall not; in fact, I've found myself among the aforementioned groups, staying safe and snug in my home while others in the world suffer. It's not just the will to change, but the actual act of doing something, that matters. While good works alone won't earn a reward, a faith without good works is dead. "By their fruits ye shall know them," I believe is the line. Recall that Jesus put a curse upon a fig tree that failed to bear fruit, and the tree withered and died. How similar it will be for people who have been planted on this earth and fail to bear fruit for their fellowman! And what of those whose plans are to store up riches for themselves here on earth? Did Jesus not advise the rich man to sell what he had, and give the proceeds to the poor? Imagine someone of Bill Gates' financial stature doing just that...not merely "philanthropy," which consists of giving from his excess wealth...but donating ALL his stock in Microsoft, and its income, to the poor. Would that not have some impact? Infortunately, it is inertia which drives most of us to continue upon the path we chose long ago. To counteract inertia, it takes an outside force. To use the words of one who trod here 2,000 years ago, "He who has ears, let him hear." Peace.

The question about the Paine's ownership or use of a Rambler station wagon is obviously a good one. Is this ownership information not obtainable from Texas motor vehicle files? If the vehicle was ever registered to the Paines, there should be some sort of paper trail. Another question to ask BOTH of the Paines would be whether they ever moved the blanket that purportedly contained Oswald's rifle while it was in the Paine garage, and whether the blanket appeared to contain ANY object, rifle or otherwise. And what of the ownership of the Minox camera(s)? How many actually existed? Who took it/them--DPD, FBI? More questions about Michael Paine's background and his involvement at Bell Helicopter--what he actually did, rather than just a job title--might be interesting as well.

Pat wrote: Ironically, one of the top forensic pathologists in the country in 1963 was Dr. Earl Rose, of Dallas, who was all set to do Kennedy's autopsy before those pesky SS men absconded with the body. This is a big part of what went wrong with the murder investigation. While I believe it was Kennedy's staff [Powers et al] who were the push behind getting the body out of Texas--probably reflecting the wishes of Jackie, though that's not been firmly established--it was the SS who was the "muscle" behind the decision: they had the guns at Parkland, and after the carnage that had already occurred that day, I seriously doubt that anyone wanted to play out their hand. In this particular game of "Texas Hold-'Em, " it was probably better for the local authorities to fold their hand than to "call." But history lost when they did so. By the time the body got to Bethesda, the FBI was already locked into the LN scenario, and this information was known to those in the autopsy room. How different might the conclusions have been had this idea not already have been planted, reinforced by the presence of the FBI agents in the room during the autopsy, coloring the ultimate conclusions even before the examination had begun? One can only speculate. While exhumation and re-examination by a forensic anthropologist might give us answers which are more fact-based than the conclusions arrived at 42 years ago, there is a certain reluctance of society to dig up persons long buried, for whatever reason. As the sole surviving member of the household, Caroline may wish to leave this ground undisturbed [literally and figuratively]. In strictly a sense of inquiry, while we might argue that the truth that could be revealed should override all other arguments, a sensitivity for the desires of the family cannot ethically be overlooked. And with the gravesite's status as a tourist attraction, it would obviously be impossible to "discreetly" disinter the body to conduct the investigation without generating tabloid-sized headlines. Could the body be removed under the cover of darkness, the examination of the body conducted in the wee hours, and the body reinterred before sunup? Or would this open up a bigger can of worms?

Pat wrote: Ironically, one of the top forensic pathologists in the country in 1963 was Dr. Earl Rose, of Dallas, who was all set to do Kennedy's autopsy before those pesky SS men absconded with the body. This is a big part of what went wrong with the murder investigation. While I believe it was Kennedy's staff [Powers et al] who were the push behind getting the body out of Texas--probably reflecting the wishes of Jackie, though that's not been firmly established--it was the SS who was the "muscle" behind the decision: they had the guns at Parkland, and after the carnage that had already occurred that day, I seriously doubt that anyone wanted to play out their hand. In this particular game of "Texas Hold-'Em, " it was probably better for the local authorities to fold their hand than to "call." But history lost when they did so. By the time the body got to Bethesda, the FBI was already locked into the LN scenario, and this information was known to those in the autopsy room. How different might the conclusions have been had this idea not already have been planted, reinforced by the presence of the FBI agents in the room during the autopsy, coloring the ultimate conclusions even before the examination had begun? One can only speculate. While exhumation and re-examination by a forensic anthropologist might give us answers which are more fact-based than the conclusions arrived at 42 years ago, there is a certain reluctance of society to dig up persons long buried, for whatever reason. As the sole surviving member of the household, Caroline may wish to leave this ground undisturbed [literally and figuratively]. In strictly a sense of inquiry, while we might argue that the truth that could be revealed should override all other arguments, a sensitivity for the desires of the family cannot ethically be overlooked. And with the gravesite's status as a tourist attraction, it would obviously be impossible to "discreetly" disinter the body to conduct the investigation without generating tabloid-sized headlines. Could the body be removed under the cover of darkness, the examination of the body conducted in the wee hours, and the body reinterred before sunup? Or would this open up a bigger can of worms?

Tim, since you are insisting on keeping my name in the forefront of the discussion (?) on this thread, let me give you a recap of what I actually said: Without mentioning any names, I pointed out how it seemed an odd coincidence that after a week of the forum running smoothly coinciding with the absence of a certain member, upon that member's return the forum began having a problem with attacks apparently meant to effectively end the forum. I then wondered whether whether this "coincidence" correlated with the facts that this member was known to have associated in the past with persons known to have trained others in "dirty tricks" operations, and whether this person might have been so trained during his absence. I have no personal knowledge of whether you're a technophile or a klutz, so I have no way to judge whether or not you are personally capable of such an attack...which is why my post asked this as a question, rather than positing this as a statement of fact. If you are offended that I would ask such a question, that seems to be something you'll just have to personally work out. I'm not asking such questions about Pat Speer, or Jim Root, or Antti, John Dolva, Dawn, Ron, or anyone else, because I don't find anyone else's posts as disruptive to the flow of actual discussion...whether the others are absent from the forum for a day, a week, or a month, their return does less to disrupt the flow of information and actual discussion than does yours. Witness the thread on Oswald's wallet; I honestly feel that there was a greater exchange of useful imformation on that thread by virtue of your absence there than any comments of yours might have precipitated. That's simply my opinion, but I believe it has a firm foundation in the facts. Yes, you can claim that you started the threads on the Paines and Marina, but only after someone else [Nic] began one on the same idea, but less specific. It's as if your entire purpose is to deny, delay, disrupt, and derail any serious discussions of any scenarios that don't conform to your fingering of Fidel as the fella. Tim, the world doesn't revolve around you any more than it does around me or anyone else...but I don't see anyone else here behaving as you do. No one else takes umbrage so easily, and no one else is such a "Quick-Draw McGraw" at unholstering the term "lawsuit." My saying this may be offensive to you, but it is merely a statement of fact that you cannot refute with evidence. The actual merit to this thread is that John has determined the "how" of the attack, if not the "who." So to say that this thread is without merit, save for your link on RICO law--which, if I'm not mistaken, is US law rather than international law--is rather self-serving...but, based upon your history here, I've grown to expect little else from you.

It's the summer rerun season on TV, so I figured it might be time to rerun a post that hasn't generated a response from the party toward whom it was directed: On another thread, in reply to Tim Gratz, Robert wrote: Back in April, you claimed you would soon supply us with the smoking gun news reports that bolstered your assertion Castro planned to bomb NYC. You needed only to re-type the data you had downloaded from a pay-site. Perhaps you will either provide what was promised, or acknowledge that what you originally claimed just isn't true. Either one would help to salvage your own credibility, which is just as important to readers here as Sprague's own shortcomings. It's been nearly four months, Tim...my Granny's slow, but she died in 1973, so she has a valid excuse for not moving. Do you have the information or not? If you have it, what's the delay in posting it?

I live in a rural/suburban area, just outside the 26th largest metropolitan area in the US. However, there is a state line dividing us. This metro area has a fine medical examiner's office. But until recent years, the local coroners--elected officials, and most usually funeral directors [although I knew one county coroner in a neighboring county who had no professional credentials of his own, other than being the son of an MD] had to send out autopsies to the state lab, more than 100 miles away, rather than utilize the facilities that were much closer. Of course, in 1963 here as well as in Dallas, the ambulance services were often operated by the funeral homes...in a case where a life teeters on the brink, this might be considered a potential conflict of interest. Locally, it was only in the late 1970's, when the funeral directors began getting out of the ambulance business, that government stepped in and county-run emergency medical service offices came into being. Prior to that, the only access that semi-rural areas had to EMT's was on television...there were few standards for privately-operated, funeral home-owned ambulance services. Emergency medical care has come a considerable distance since 1963, as has forensic training. Coroners with little formal training, unfortunately, still exist in communities such as where I live...as the office is still an elected one. And with conservative taxpayers revolting at the size of government budgets, I seriously doubt whether counties such as the one where I reside will ever have their own medical examiner's office. I suppose that, in response, some equally-conservative forensic pathologists could decide to open a privately-run lab, but I really don't forsee that ever happening...start-up costs would be tremendous, I'm sure. In the case of the JFK autopsy, it's my opinion that the biggest mistake was conducting it in a military facility. As Pat mentioned, the fact that Humes outranked Finck presumably had a bearing on the outcome...as did the interference of the "suits" in the room, presumably FBI, if the reports I've read regarding photographs and other evidence are correct. While an exhumation might answer a lot of questions, it might also turn out to be just another failed attempt at solving the case. After all, 40+ years later, we have a lot of evidence already that wasn't available in 1963; what we don't have is a unifying conclusion as to where all this evidence leads.

Tim wrote: I would start with the Paines and Marina Oswald. I concur. I believe they know a lot more than they have ever revealed. But since I have never been an attorney, I can only base my conclusions upon what I've witnessed...and I stand by my previous statement, that winning the case is most often a higher priority that revealing the truth [note that I said "revealing," rather than "discovering"...important difference.]

Your sense of humor brings to mind that extraterrestrial from the long-deceased but little-lamented televison program, Alf: ["HA-HA! I KILL ME!"] Now...about the alleged assassination attempt on the life of the president who was previously a peanut producer and purveyor from Plains...

Tim, you surely must admit that many of the acknowledged experts on various areas of JFK assassination research began as "amateur researchers" who had the presence of mind to either ask the pertinent questions that weren't being asked or answered, or who questioned the answers that the public was initially given and found a way to dig a bit deeper. As Jack White has noted, truth is usually the first casualty in interviewing many of these witnesses. As far as your suggestion of an assistant U.S. Attorney, I would have my doubts that he/she would elicit any different results. And why, you might ask, would I entertain these doubts? Because, in the practice of law, the focus is on winning a case; arriving at the truth is a secondary or tertiary consideration. As a former attorney, you surely have seen a case or two where the complete truth may have been detrimental to the outcome of the case...so much so that the attorney had to control exactly how much of the truth was exposed in order to win the case. [The O.J. Simpson case readily comes to mind in this context.] I do like your suggestion of a "trained police detective"...particularly one who comes in unbiased. Forty years ago, such an individual who hadn't made up his mind would have been rare; today, many people have no such predisposition to believe in any particular party's guilt or innocence...primarily because, to folks under age 30, this case is considered to be ancient history, with little or no bearing on their day-to-day lives. To my way of thinking, that's quite the double-edged sword. While they may not have any preconceived notions, they may also bring aboard a hefty dose of apathy in their carry-on luggage.

Tim wrote: Touche here, Mark! I meant voracious, of course. You score here! Of course...and I'm merely the product of the highly-maligned US public education system. I merely paid attention in class. [And in fairness, Tim, I'd give you much more than mediocre marks on your mastery of alliteration.] Now...has anyone found any further information on the disposition of this alleged case of conspiracy to assassinate Carter?