Mark Knight

The flaw in that theory is that, if one is stopped by police and subsequently searched, the presence of more than one wallet would then become evidence that the person is not who they claim to be, or that they are not as innocent as they might claim to be... In other words, when Oswald stopped at his rooming house, if he had some inkling that the police would be looking for him--which he apparently did--the most prudent course of action would be to only carry one wallet, in order to NOT appear any more suspicious than he already was. But the allegation is that the wallet Oswald carried had BOTH the Hidell and the Oswald ID's. If one was attempting to establish EITHER one identity or the other, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the Oswald and the Hidell ID's would be segregated in separate wallets? In fact, I would contend that unless Oswald wanted to confirm to police that he and Hidell were one and the same person, one simply would not, under any circumstances, carry both ID's at the same time. And carrying both in the same wallet smells of either stupidity--and Ozzie wasn't stupid--or intent. It's just hard to establish what his intent may have been, using logic as a basis.

The only relevant questions about Nagell & his ilk ...have to do with his motives: Why was he spreading this bullxxxx? I believe the politically correct term is "pablum" [thanks, Mr. Purvis!]. I don't necessarily believe Nagell, but I don't necessary disbelieve him, either. I haven't seen enough evidence to show that his "bank job" was anything other than what he says it was...but I don't find enough credible evidence to back up his other claims about his part in any conspiracy. If the alleged items from the Swiss safe-deposit box ever turn up, I guess that might back up his allegations...but otherwise, I consider him a small player in the big picture--if he was involved at all--and suggest that, knowing his "evidence" would never see the light of day, he embellished his role [and the level of his knowledge] in the plot. Do ya think the principals are gonna reveal the truth, just to prove him wrong, if there IS anything to Nagell's story? Doubtful. And if there's nothing to his story, it'll eventually fade away. Either way, I don't think I'd lose much sleep over it.

It is true that the examination of a wallet was filmed at the Tippit murder scene, but we do not know that the wallet was FOUND there ie the "finding" of the wallet was not filmed. So you contend that the wallet may have been found elsewhere, and then brought back to the Tippitt murder scene to be examined [and filmed]? There is no logical reason that would explain the bringing of evidence to a murder scene. One might take evidence from a murder scene to examine it, at a police station or a crime lab, but evidence, under normal circumstances, is not brought to a murder scene...unless it was found in the immediate vicinity...which would tend to support my original statement. So...we still have a wallet found at or near the Tippitt murder scene, and one found on Oswald's person. Can we at least agree on that? I'm not arguing that the wallet being examined at 10th and Patton wasn't from a cabdriver, a wino, or a street preacher; I'm just saying that the evidence shows that one was found and examined at the Tippitt murder scene. Can I get Pat to at least concede that this statement conforms with the photographic record?

This image shows roughly a sweep of the origin over this period. Only the red is put on by me. There are error margins involved. When I don't assume errors and I do assume I have correct body pose I get the point of origin to be the second window, not the snipers nest, of 6th floor TSBD. As one can only assume what happened behind the sign, one may extrapolate this sweep to include the Dal-Tex building. It seems to me also that at no time during this period does Kennedy line up with Connally for a shot from the TSBD in order for Connally to receive the wounds that he does. This post has been edited by John Dolva: Yesterday, 10:20 AM Attached image(s) From the thread on the Connally wounds... John, I think maybe you're onto something here. Since I don't know how to do all the graphic wizardry you're doing here, I'd like to pose a question: With the low trajectory you're projecting on the JFK back/throat wound, is there a possibility that this might align [margin of error, etc] with the low windshield defect [hole/not a hole, depending upon which report] reportedly observed in the limo at Parkland Hospital? Just brainstorming here....[not sure I've got enough brain working today to get to "partly cloudy" yet...]

I'm impressed with the images, John...they make the info we have a lot clearer. And since the limo was "cleaned" at Parkland, you've given us here at the Forum a lot more information to work with than the DPD, FBI, and SS had in the hours immediately after the assassination. Essentially, there were two crime scenes...Dealy Plaza, and the limo. The limo was the part of the crime scene that was "tampered with" prior to being investigated, so IMHO using technology that can "restore" this crime scene to its condition BEFORE it was tampered with is well worth the efforts. For even if it yields no NEW evidence, it can help confirm what we originally ASSUMED to be true. Bravo, John!

Pat, I couldn't help but notice... We have WFAA-TV newsfilm of a wallet found at the site of the Tippitt killing. We have the report that Tippitt's wallet was on his person at Parkland Hospital. And we have the police officers' reports that Oswald had a wallet on his person, with ID, when apprehended at the Texas Theater. What I couldn't help but notice was the similarity between your arguments and Groucho Marx's, in which he asks his accusers, "Who are you going to believe--me or your own two eyes?" I don't have an explanation for Fritz's motivations. But from the evidence presented, I think it's indisputable that: 1.) Oswald had a wallet on him when arrested; 2.) There was a wallet recovered at the Tippitt murder scene, and its examination was filmed. What was in either wallet, and at what time, is where the conflicts and the arguments begin. Now...am I correct that we are in agreement on these two points? I believe that Greg and Robert have the best speculative arguments as to why the second wallet may have been "dropped" at the Tippitt murder scene. I believe that, if Fritz was given the wallet from the Tippitt murder scene, complete with Oswald ID, and then discovered that Oswald had his wallet on him--complete with ID--it would raise red flags all over the place that the wallet from the Tippitt murder scene was somehow bogus...since, in the land of "innocent until proven guilty," the wallet on Oswald's person--and the ID(s) contained therein--would be considered the genuine article belonging to Oswald until or unless proven otherwise. The second wallet, then would be an unnecessary complication, in the eyes of law enforcement personnel, and would have tended to have been "swept under the rug" until or unless it produced some information of value. Not sterling police procedure, but I don't think the practice of ignoring evidence that served little purpose was uncommon in 1963...and the second wallet would serve little purpose in convicting Oswald of Tippitt's murder. As busy as the police and the press were, I actually believe that the cops who knew about the second wallet simply wished it would be forgotten, in light of the murder of the president that occurred that day...and did their best to see that it happened. And if nobody had questioned the Warren Report, I believe it would never have been brought up again.

And Pat, since you brought up the name of Mr. Dillon...and the highly esteemed [or most often, "highly steamed"] Mr. Gratz is nowhere around to register his most righteous indignation.... No. I simply can't do it. But let the record show that, in Mr. Gratz's absence, I attempted to play the role of Mr. Gratz and make this look like "business as usual" here at the Forum. I just couldn't do it with a straight face.

X Reveal, for the first time, the mysterious figure of Juan Valdes and his role in the Mary Sherman crime and the Kennedy assassination. I only know of Juan Valdes from the coffee commercials... ...so you must be referring to another Juan.

John, go to the Earl Smith thread, and you'll find a photo of JFK wearing the back brace. Whether this is the same model that he wore in the Dallas motorcade, I can't say...but it is suggestive of how one might have fit, and any effects it might or might not have had. BTW, John, your work re: the Connally wounds has impressed me.

To add to John's post above, it's quite inconsistent for the current--or any other--administration to espouse free trade within a particular hemisphere on one hand [CAFTA a recent example, and NAFTA a slightly-more-distant one], and then also support the ban on trade with Cuba. If the Cuban citizens were exposed to the fruits of capitalism--the products of industry, and the profits available from the sale of their own products as well--it's difficult to argue that they would continue to think that Castro's form of government is in any way superior. Whether the citizens would rise up and demand something more akin to democracy is dangerous speculation. But keeping the trade embargo with Cuba intact, in my opinion, only strengthen's Castro's 45-year-old contention that Cuba is, indeed, holding its own in spite of Uncle Sam...and the propaganda value of that, in my opinion, outweighs any boost Castro might get from trade with the US. In fact, I believe that lifting the embargo would do more to undermine Castro than it would to support him, as it would expose the true nature of Cuba under Castro to another 250 million people to the north, and should a citizen uprising then occur, the US would then have "humanitarian" reasons to get involved. But with the Cuban economy now a "closed book" to the average American citizen, the poverty of the average citizen there escapes notice and there is no sense of outrage...only apathy.

Tim Gratz stated: And I was never a big fan of either Richard Nixon or Richard Helms. So you worked for the presidential campaign of someone in whom you didn't believe? In a "Gratzian" sort of way, that actually makes sense...in other words, you evidently liked Nixon enough to work for him, but after he was revealed to be the kind of person he really was, you decided you really didn't like him so much anymore. Is that about right? Shows you to be a man of principle above politics, Tim...NOT!! Or, to put in in other words, you apparently thought that, compared to the sterling qualities that Nixon exhibited, McGovern's election would be the undoing of America...or would that be Muskie's? Or Wallace's? Oh, excuse me, I overlooked the chronology; Tim was on board with the Nixon campaign before the opposing candidate was selected...right, Tim? So it could be argued that, even though you weren't a "big fan" of Nixon, you chose to work for his campaign before the opposing candidate had been selected, because you evidently thought that Nixon was a better choice for America...even though, at that point, you couldn't answer the question, "better than WHOM?" Have I got that right so far? After all, I only have your actions upon which to attempt to explain your thought processes...and your actions do speak much louder than your words, Tim. "...I was never a big fan of Richard Nixon..." Your actions prove that to be a less-than-truthful statement, sir...for it's obvious that "1972" contradicts "never" in this instance. And, as I suspect you know, despite how strongly I felt at the time that it was important for the future of the country that Nixon be re-elected, I would not have even smeared a Democrat candidate to ensure the re-election of Nixon. In my opinion, morality is needed in politics. And morality means, among other things, that the ends (even important ends) cannot justify immoral means. Hmmm..."morality in politics" evidently includes actively campaigning for someone of whom you were "never a big fan"...yep, that sounds like logical behavior to me. [That was sarcasm, Tim.] Maybe it's different in your world, Tim; but in MY world, a person of morality does not actively campaign for a candidate of whom they were "never a big fan." Morality dictates that one stand up for principles, not party. So why not just admit that you were a big fan of Nixon during the 1972 campaign, as your actions confirm? Your actions betray your words, Tim. You certainly must realize that by now.

To add to Jack's comments about Felt...perhaps Felt was being used here. In his current mental state, he's obviously in no condition to dispute the stories being told by his family, lawyer, and "Woodstein"...so they might have all colluded to paint Felt--obviously a source, but not necessarily the source--as Deep Throat, and then those who accepted this explanation would walk away, allowing the real Deep Throat to remain anonymous.

There is a lot of information that suggests NSA or other military involvement. The sticky point is in proving any of it.

Pat, I appreciate your comments here. I don't think it was inconceivable that Oswald killed Tippitt; in fact, I think it's pretty likely he was there when it happened, whether he was the triggerman or whether it was the short, heavyset man described by a witness or two. But I'm trying to nail down the wallet situation. IF a wallet with Oswald's ID was actually found at the Tippitt murder scene, but Oswald still had his wallet on him when arrested, some serious questions are raised. If the short heavyset fellow exists, maybe he planted the Oswald wallet without LHO's knowledge...or maybe some other logical scenario exists which would explain it. Unlike certain others, I'm just looking to get some answers to a question or two that, left unanswered, leave more than a participle or two dangling. I agree that, if Oswald was playing the "international man of mystery" role, various wallets containing various ID's would be a necessity. But the only psuedonym revealed during the investigation was Hidell, which makes Oswald's clandestine role appear pretty lame, IMHO. At this point, it just doesn't add up.

Robert and Greg--as well as Jack--thank you for the information you've offered. I fail to see the value of Mr. Gratz bringing his sideshow to this thread, as Hughes' prior ownership of the Texas Theater has no bearing whatsoever on the question of Oswald and multiple wallets. I will henceforth ignore that intrusion on what has otherwise been an intelligent discussion. I have questioned the multiple wallets in my mind for some time...and due to the overall inconsistencies in Marina's statements, I tend to discount nearly anything she ever said on the record. Marina seemed to be telling the FBI what they wanted to hear, the WC what they wanted to hear....and nobody the absolute truth, in my estimation. So Ozzie left his wallet on the dresser at the Paine house ["the house of Paine"?]; then he dropped it at the Tippitt murder scene, he left one in his discarded jacket...and he still had one on his person when he was arrested at the Texas Theater...does that about cover it? The existence of all these wallets doesn't exactly point to a finding of "no conspiracy," as I see it. The only way it would make sense--other than the scenario that Greg and Robert cite--would be if Ozzie was the lone assassin, and if the assassination was meant as a political statement, and he wanted to be caught...but that would make sense ONLY if Oswald had immediately taken credit for the killing and announced his political agenda. In light of Oswald's steadfast denials that he had killed anyone, the propaganda value evaporates as quickly as the logic of Oswald being the source of the multiple wallets.

Thank you, Mr. White, for confirming what my sometimes-faulty memory contained regarding where Oswald's wallet was "recovered." To the best of my recollection, this matter never has been satisfactorily settled...and it casts doubt on Oswald's culpability. If Oswald had his wallet on his person when arrested, AND an "Oswald/Hidell" wallet was also found at 10th and Patton, then the case for Oswald being a "patsy" becomes clearer. I only carry one wallet...and I can't name another man who carries more than one, with identical identification in both. So I seriously doubt that Oswald did, either.

More info on the "second bullet hole through the coat of JFK", please...maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but the only bullet hole I recall being discussed is the one which generated the "bunched/not bunched" controversy re: the back/neck wound...obviously, I've missed this...??

I've read accounts that Oswald's wallet, with the Hidell ID card, was found at the Tippitt murder site; and I've seen accounts that state that Oswald had his wallet on his person when arrested in the Texas Theater. So...where was the wallet found? At 10th and Patton, or in Oswald's possession? Or were two wallets actually found, and the matter intentionally made confusing so as to make investigation all the more difficult?

Tom, I'm pretty well convinced of a shot [headshot-?] occurring after Z-313. And I'm pretty well convinced that Oswald was the designated "patsy"/"rabbit," the decoy to be chased in order to allow someone to escape. I think that, based upon West's survey materials, you've made a very logical and persuasive case that JFK was hit by three shots, and the third one was after the point at which the WC contended it occurred. And I believe we're in agreement that the WC did such a lousy investigative job on Oswald that it probably never could be proved conclusively whether he was a [the-?] shooter. The Mannlicher-Carcano was only tied to Oswald thru the Hidell alias...and then only after an FBI agent "helped" the folks at Klein Sporting Goods "find" the order blank...the only confirmation that LHO had the rifle was the disputed backyard photos, and Marina's testimony...and the only other time LHO allegedly fired it was during an alleged attempt on the life of General Walker...who just happened to possess a cache of...Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5's! And the fact that the serial number stampings on the Carcano don't match from one photo to the next would cause an impartial investigator to ask questions, I would suspect. But I think you've used the WC's own information to dispute their "crime-scene investigation" quite well....as I said, just keep the info coming.

Tom, I've been following your arguments, and I think there's some validity to your position that the WC report was a whitewash but there still may have only been one assassin. I'm not 100% sold, because I'm still weighing the evidence. But you make a very reasoned and logical case. The one point I'm questioning is whether it was LHO on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Witnesses place him on the second floor thirty seconds after the shooting stopped...yet, if the third shot was fired later than the WC admitted--as your theory postulates--would that not give Oswald less time to ditch the rifle and remove himself to the second floor corridor and lunchroom, without breaking a sweat or drawing a long breath? The WC report concludes that, under their alleged scenario, there was sufficient time for this to occur. Has this aspect of your theory been examined? In my mind, your theory about the survey work, and the signage and such being altered to make the WC report appear plausible, increases [perhaps incrementally] the likelihood that someone other than LHO may have been the sixth-floor gunman. But keep the information coming...

Ladies and gentlemen, is the above not yet another hijacking of the thread by Mr. Gratz? As far as WWII goes, it wasn't capitalism that bailed out the world with ships and planes. Capitalism, as I understand it, operates when the manufacturer of goods determines which goods he will produce and sell to the public at what price, and the public determines whether or not the manufacturer is successful. During WWII, it was the US government who determined what products would be produced at which plants, and not the corporations and individuals who owned the plants. So it was this necessity-led foray into socialism that ultimately determined what planes and ships and trucks and guns were produced in which plants, the plants themselves existing due to prewar capitalism. After WWII, US industry was allowed to reclaim control of their own plants and produce whatever products they saw fit to provide to US consumers, signaling a return to capitalism. Ditto for rationing; while necessary to ensure adequate supplies of strategic goods for combat forces, a market-based, capitalistic system of purchasing whatever goods one desired and could afford simply did not exist during the war [black-market operations notwithstanding]. And official "ceiling prices" on goods sold took the socialistic tentacles of government on down to the level of the local store owner. So, with the government determining what one could manufacture, what one could purchase, and the amounts one could purchase, as well as the prices that could be charged for certain products...how can this in any way, shape, or form be construed as capitalism and not socialism? Or maybe "socialism" is, in Tim's mind, merely a "modified" form of "capitalism." Before Tim gets the wrong impression, I will state for the record that I am a strong backer of capitalism, having grown up with my parents and grandparents all working in small businesses owned by family members including themselves. . .and harboring my own dream of one day owning my own business. But for the sake of honesty, what was going on during WWII was more socialism than capitalism. And surely even Mr. Gratz can grasp that truth, and admit it.

Russell now went to work for Security International, a company owned by James McCord and a former CIA officer named William Shea. He also carried out assignments for William Birely. According to Russell's daughter, Jean Hooper, this included several trips Rhode Island and Connecticut. In September, 1972, he did some work for Nick Beltrante at the George McGovern offices. Re my job in Rhode Island, it was lined up BEFORE I met Segretti. Russell...Rhode Island... Gratz...Rhode Island... Hmmmmm......can we get an actual time frame on either--or both--of these events from 1972?

Since I started to hint on this scenario I've had a considerable rise in high rating probes blocked by firewall. The proportion of untraceable ones has increased. Some unusual locations that repeat themselves are argentina, brazil, germany and new orleans. On one occasion it got so bad the firewalls demand on CPU time froze the computer entirely. Could other members please comment on their experiences to help me see if my experience is unusual. I know there are lots of random probing going on all the time and it may be just all a coincidence. John, a couple of months back I posted upon a scenario I considered--and STILL consider--a plausible explanation for the MOTIVATION behind the assassination. My computer was subject to outside attacks that my ISP and Microsoft (I use IE 6.something) couldn't explain...both said they'd never seen this type of intrusion...even with antispyware, firewalls, and every other option I could think of, someone or something was breaching security on my system and resetting system security levels AT WILL. For my own protection, I no longer mention that scenario...and my computer works just fine since, thank-you-very-much. But I think you're on the right track in raising questions about Harry Holmes...particularly about the PO box rental slip, and while the copy which SHOULD have been in postal files was gone, the copy produced was one which should NOT have been in postal officials' hands, according to accounts I have read. As a postal employee of over 20 years and one familiar with postal regulations, my dad had raised questions, to me, about how odd it was that Holmes had the copy that he did, but couldn't produce the one the postal authorities SHOULD have had. You might explore this further, but as for me I enjoy having a working computer.

Perhaps Tim owns "Bedtime For Bonzo" on VHS... ...or possibly Beta.