Mark Knight

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

Mark, I believe your use of the term "political illiteracy" regarding Tim is both unfair and incorrect. I don't believe that Tim is politically illiterate; I believe that he is, instead, politically agnostic...that he is quite aware of the truths that exist on the side opposite his own, but chooses to ignore them rather than to confront them.

John, the Postal Inspection Service is a fairly-well UNknown investigative agency. As with the FBI, their jurisdiction crosses state lines. As with the FBI, there are regional offices out of which postal inspectors operate. Unlike the FBI, very little is mentioned about postal inspectors in the press; therefore, not much information is in the public domain on just how they operate. My father was a postal worker, and the impression he left upon me was that one should RESPECT the authority of the FBI, but one should almost FEAR the Postal Inspectors...alas, Dad is no longer around to explain, but that is the perception he left with me.

If one researches and compiles evidence, and then refrains from publishing his/her discoveries, that material may be lost forever to the research community. But if one does publish his/her book, they at once become succeptible to the charge of marketing or promoting the sale of the books whenever they discuss the contents of the book. Based upon that thought, the idea that discussing this information merely promotes book sales is a non-starter. Mr. Purvis, whose work I have complimented on this forum, is proof that one does not necessarily purchase a book--or read it--because of its mention on this or any other forum. I read as many books on the subject as I can acquire, as I get then time to do so. Most don't agree 100% with the ideas I had initially. But to choose to NOT read them, simply because of a preconceived notion [prejudice, by definition], would merely make me WILLINGLY IGNORANT of the content, and unable to engage in an intelligent and informed dialogue or discussion. Profit motive? perhaps, in some cases. But the JFK assassination profited a LOT of people who didn't pull the trigger themselves [LBJ immediately comes to mind, among innumerable others in the oil, defense, and illegal drug "industries"]. I don't begrudge someone a profit, if the information brings us closer to the solution of what is arguably the crime of the [20th] century. Fetzer, Bishop, Manchester, Epstein, Lane, Groden. Livingstone, Crenshaw, Posner, and all the others...the public--or that part of the public which actually cares--would know considerably fewer facts of the case without their work. And without facts being brought to light, the truth would eventually elude us completely. And since NOBODY writes a book with the intention of providing a means of support for that one uneven table leg, impugning the profit motive is a fall-back position, in my opinion; one for use when one cannot--or will not--argue on the SUBSTANCE of the book(s) in question. In other words, it seems that some here subscribe to the theory that, if you cannot argue the message, then by all means attack the messenger. [iMHO, that would make one a perfect fit in a certain American political party, which I will refrain from naming due to ongoing lawsuit threats on the forum. ]

With the question of lawsuits raised on the forum recently, a few questions come to mind. 1) Since this is an international forum on the internet, in what legal jurisdiction would one file a lawsuit? In the jurisdiction where the offending party posted the offending piece? And what if the offending party lives in one jurisdiction, but posted while on a business trip out of his region, or from another nation? If I live in Alabama, for example, but post something deemed offensive to someone who lives in Australia...and post it while on a business trip to London...which court has jurisdiction? Since the person offended may have read the offending piece in his own home, did the offense occur in Australia? Or London, the location from which the offending piece was posted? Or Alabama, if the offending party is normally domiciled and posting from that location, and the offended party has no knowledge of the London business trip? 2) Since it would be impossible for the hosts of this forum to investigate every claim in every post by every forum member--and financailly ruinous to attempt to do so, since there are forum members from nearly every corner of the globe--at what point does the liability of the forum hosts begin and end...and under which nation's laws? I believe that the threat of legal action against the forum hosts is a not-so-subtle attempt to silence the forum itself. After all, it's much less difficult for John et al to terminate the forum than to incur the expense of flying across oceans and hiring legal counsel to defend what might be ruled a frivolous lawsuit. Of course, John and company might then sue to recover their expenses in defending their case, but by that time a considerable amount of time and effort may have been expended, for which they may recover nothing at all. For this reason, I believe that the forum hosts might want to add a disclaimer, something to the effect that the posts by members of the forum reflect the opinions of the respective members doing the posting, and do not necessarily reflect those of the hosts themselves or the hosting organization. While such a disclaimer might not absolve the forum hosts in all legal jurisdictions or all situations, it would send a clear message of intent, i.e., it it not the intent of this forum or its hosts to intentional slander or libel anyone, living or dead, real or imagined. While this might not dissuade the most militant folks with an agenda, it might discourage others who become momentarily offended from taking what would amount to unnecessary legal action. Or not. [Note to Tim: This post was primarily written tongue-in-cheek, but with an intentional "sideswipe" at the serious. I hope and pray that you will find no grounds to file any sort of civil suit against me in this post, as I have conscientiously refrained from mentioning your name in any part of the post EXCEPT this note which is directed to you.]

Mark Knight wrote: Turner, via Sprague, implicated you...justly or unjustly. You claim you're innocent. I'm in no position to say you're innocent simply because you SAY you're innocent Eat your words, Mark. Turner did no such thing. Tim, the point I was making was that Sprague said that Turner implicated you...notice that I also added the disclaimer "justly or unjustly." And there is no disputing that point. Sprague DID imply that Turner implicated you...that is a FACT. So I won't eat THOSE words, nor the ones that I'm in no position to judge you innocent merely on your own say-so. Had I not included the qualifier "via Sprague," I would plead guilty as charged and eat my words. But I never judged you as GUILTY, either...so I have no words to eat on that account, either. But thanks for including me in this. Just recall that I went to great pains to post that, based upon the evidence, I could neither vouch for your innocence OR guilt, and that any claims against you were based upon the Sprague account of what Turner said, and not from my own investigation or any subsequent information which turned up here on the forum.

Actually, I believe that the most honest statement would be that Oswald WAS set up, but that he may have been a knowing and willing participant in setting himself up. There was a lot of activity involved in creating his "legend," and he was a willing participitant in most of it. I suppose the correct QUESTION would be, did he have foreknowledge of the assassination, or was THAT part a surprise to him? When we can answer THAT question, we will be well on our way to discovering the truth. There is no doubt that the "squirrel concept" was used; the difficult part is determining which trails were false ones, and EXACTLY why that is so.

Nic said: I find it hard to believe that Oswald would perfectly fold newspapers back and then not show a single other side of a possible OCD, not in his boarding room, not in his writing, not in the memories of anyone else. I said: But I personally doubt that Oswald was so inclined. So you see, I agree...but there ARE those on the forum who would disagree, if only because I am one of those who believes this.

Tim, my comments about your mental state were meant as a joke...but also as an illustration that what one person sees as a joke, someone else may not. This is a point you apparently missed when YOU were the one making jokes that not everyone got; but perhaps you now understand a bit better, since it was YOU who couldn't see that I was attempting to make some humor at your expense [good-naturedly, of course]. It was when you started coming unglued about it that I just couldn't stop myself...and that IS my fault. And Tim, you need to understand that there are varying degrees of mental illness that do NOT render a person "insane." A person may be mildly schizophrenic, or mildly depressed, or mildly paranoid, for example, and their illness can be controlled by medication, allowing them to be a functioning member of society. Your characterization of mental illness as "insanity" merely shows your prejudice [preconceived notions] toward the subject, rather than any insight or understanding. While I don't have personal experience, I have had a close family member who had been treated for depression and other mental conditions, and I have been educated about the use of the word "insanity" under these circumstances by some highly qualified experts in the field. [Coincidentally, this same family member was treated for heart problems by world-famous heart transplant specialist Dr. William DeVries...just an aside, but he's another expert with whom I've discussed this person's medical conditions.] Getting back to the subject at hand, I believe that Tom is headed in the right direction. The Carcano, the lack of any records that Oswald ever purchased any ammo, and indeed Klein Sporting Goods itself are all indications that whatever transpired in Oswald's case, the groundwork was laid to point the finger of suspicion at the CIA long before the assassination itself occurred [e.g., gun ordered from Klein's in March/April (I forgot which), yet exact motorcade route was months away...as was Oswald's employment by TSBD]. Obviously, Oswald was being set up for something long before the specific 11/22/1963 assassination plot ...

John, your questions about the [apparently] unread newspapers certainly seem to raise a valid point. In all my years of reading and studying on the assassination, I don't recall anyone ever bringing up those points before. Of course, there are those among us who might say that, just because you [and I] have trouble refolding a newspaper perfectly, it may be that Oswald was sufficiently anally retentive to be obsessive about achieving a perfectly folded newspaper every time. But I personally doubt that Oswald was so inclined. Speculation on my part...no supporting evidence to this point...but so far no refuting evidence, either.

You think a person who agrees with some but not all of what you say is insane? There's a difference between what I described and insanity. At NO time did I say you were insane. Nor did I say that about persons on Prozac or antidepressants or other medications, including lithium. I don't claim to have the qualifications to judge anyone sane or insane, and unless you have a medical degree you haven't mentioned, neither do you. So please cease and desist this game of putting words in my mouth. I said exactly what I said, and not what you think I'm trying to say between the lines. Maybe that's just something lawyers do, attempting to twist and wring meanings out of statements that were never in there to begin with. I'm beginning to believe it may have been a lawyer, rather than a comedian, who originated the question, "Have you finally stopped beating your wife?" As I said: Read the words, Tim...read the words.

Then you tell me, Mark, what other discussion do you think I was attempting to direct attention away from? I have no idea...that's why I was asking the question. And as I noted above how in the heck do you presume to know my thought processes? I don't presume to know your thought processes...which is exactly what I meant when I said: Now I'm beginning to wonder WHY you thought I was alluding to that...because I can't, in my wildest dreams, make that connection from the words that I used. ...and... ...I can't discern your intent. Hell, I can't even discern how you made the leap, much less what your intent was. Read the words, Tim...read the words.

With respect to your substantive comments, Mark, I think both of the points you make are lucid. Either the conspirators did it because in their mind there was enough at stake to risk it, or the conspirators were confident of avoiding punishment because they thought they could control the investigation. And I think the next point you reach, that those assumptions lead to a possible Castro scenario or to an internal assassination plot, also seem logical. ...followed by... As Ronald Reagan famously said: There he goes again! Schizophrenia rears its ugly head once again. While I'm not a doctor, I have been exposed to persons with diagnosed mental disorders with some degree of regularity...which leads me to suggest: Ask about lithium...soon.

Mark, the fact that you seem to be implying that there might be something to the implication in Sprague's book just enfuriates me. It just further demonstrates the damage done to me on this forum by its adoption of that book, Now, let's see exactly what I said: OK, Tim...and this little exercise in blowing smoke is meant to distract us from WHAT other event or discussion that's getting into some serious territory right about now? Your thread is a distraction, a diversion...just wish I knew what you were trying to steer us away from, because that's where we probably SHOULD be looking. ...and... My instincts tell me I should've left this smokescreen alone, and instead I should've been seeking the "man behind the curtain." But for now, I'll walk awhile on Tim's "yellow brick road." [Just remember, the Scarecrow actually IS a "straw man."] Tim, it is YOU who is obsessing about the Sprague material; I just thought it odd that you would take the discussion on the forum in this direction for no apparent reason. So if you think that my comments are in any way connected to the Sprague statement, you're obviously more paranoid than even I would've thought. Actually, Tim, I'd have never connected this with the Sprague allegation UNTIL you brought it up...I was giving you more credit than that. Are you now saying I was wrong to do so? I'd have never connected a merely diversionary thread with the Bremer/Wallace allegations, except for the fact that YOU led me there just now, Tim. Now I'm beginning to wonder WHY you thought I was alluding to that...because I can't, in my wildest dreams, make that connection from the words that I used. But I won't threaten to sue you for attempting to put those words in my mouth and sully my reputation on the forum, because I can't discern your intent. Hell, I can't even discern how you made the leap, much less what your intent was.

OK, Tim...and this little exercise in blowing smoke is meant to distract us from WHAT other event or discussion that's getting into some serious territory right about now? Your thread is a distraction, a diversion...just wish I knew what you were trying to steer us away from, because that's where we probably SHOULD be looking. Actually, if the perps were discovered, it would mean the end of WHOMEVER they were...CIA, Mafia, whatever. But in a high-stakes game such as this, either (1) the results had to be worth the price to the perps, or (2) the perps had to be in a position--or have confederates in a position--to assure that the lid never came off. Or both of the above. Scenario (1) makes the Castro plot become reasonable. Scenario (2) makes a government "inside job"--whether it be CIA, MIC, or other agencies, operating alone or in concert--become a possiblilty. But I don't think EITHER scenario makes a mob hit any more probable. My instincts tell me I should've left this smokescreen alone, and instead I should've been seeking the "man behind the curtain." But for now, I'll walk awhile on Tim's "yellow brick road." [Just remember, the Scarecrow actually IS a "straw man."]

Tim, I realize I don't "have a dog in this fight," so-to-speak. But as an observer, I must say that answering a question of proof with a "do-you-really-think..." question doesn't provide ANY documentation; it merely calls for a conclusion that the recipient of the question may not have enough information to answer...a lack of information which, most likely, prompted his request for documentation to begin with. While this technique might be considered appropriate for a courtroom, it does nothing to disseminate information; it only encourages speculation, be it pure or impure. If this was a courtroom--which it's not--and you were the witness being examined, I believe that it would be within reason for the judge to direct you to "just answer the question."

I believe that Shanet made a statement which could not be confirmed by the known facts, and the statement could be construed as damaging to Tim's reputation. While I personally feel that Tim's threatened lawsuit was a bit extreme, it was nonetheless effective and precipitated the retraction and apology Tim sought. I believe that, for the most part, Tim's contributions are of some value. I also believe that Shanet's contributions to the forum have some merit. I would consider it a shame to lose either of them, but I don't feel that the forum would suffer irrepairable harm, as no individual is 100% indispensible. I agree that Tim and Shanet should figuratively shake hands and move on...and perhaps we should ALL edit what we post so that this recent moment in history doesn't repeat itself...and so we can go back to considering the assassination.

I'm not out to "lynch" Tim. I'm out to show that his own words belie his statement that he shows respect for the intelligence of folks with whom he disagrees. Tim has, on NUMEROUS occasions, questioned the intelligence of others on the forum. I have cited only FOUR examples so far; many more exist that I am aware of, in just the relatively short time I've been on the forum. And Tim has, to this point, only tried to rationalize his behavior, rather than to admit that his statement about showing respect for the intelligence of others is incorrect. Tim, I ask you: Did you, or did you NOT, post the statements I have cited? Do these statements, or do they NOT, question the intelligence of the person to whom they are directed? If the answer to these two questions is "YES," then does that not prove your statement about respecting the intelligence of others is factually incorrect? No further questions.

...FOUR... Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day.

...still waiting for you to make your case...

...THREE... Now I hate to say this but I sometimes judge a person's intelligence by their ability to discern an obvious joke.

...TWO... I hate to make sweeping generalizations judging people's intelligence but writing off the kooks on either fringe, I wonder if the young people on both the far right and the far left were "deeper thinkers" than people who subscribed to "middle-of-the-road" politics?

ONE... Today, 05:22 AM Post #22 I just love people who call names. They are usually of the highest intelligence, I have found.

...I have had good friends who were far to the left of me--because I respect their intelligence and their point of view. I think that respect for the opinions of others, and treating them courteously, is an important part of social discourse. Questioning the intelligence of nearly everyone who disagrees with you shows a VERY APPARENT lack of respect for "their intelligence and their point of view." But maybe the definition of "respect" is different in your neck of the woods. If I had "respected" my parents the same way you "respect" the intelligence and the point of view of those who disagree with you, I'd have been what is now referred to as a victim of child abuse...and deservedly so, I might add. I can cite far too many instances which prove the lie in your statement I've quoted above, Tim...a few of which were directed toward me. Would you like me to search the forum and post all of them...or just the most recent examples?

But I think the 25th Amendment only comes into play once a person is sworn in as president. I believe you're incorrect in this assertion, as the 25th Amendment details the means of presidential succession...so once a person is sworn in as president, there is no further need to invoke the 25th amendment unless THIS person serving as president becomes incapacitated. Schwartenegger notwithstanding, I believe that our founding fathers knew perfectly well what they were doing by requiring that the office of the presidency be occupied ONLY by a native. [The question was also raised, I believe, in years past in regards to the presidential aspirations of George Romney, an American citizen born to two American citizens in Mexico, IIRC.] So, truly, "there is nothing new under the sun." But the constitutional requirements to become president have, in my opinion, served us well since 1789...and I'm conservative enough to suggest that they should not be altered for at least ANOTHER 216 years or so.