Mark Knight

Tim, no need to get so hot under the collar. I just saw an unsupported statement and asked for support of it. Problem is, you answered my questions with more questions. I haven't delved into the veracity of the verbiage of Veciana [i'm working on that alliteration thing--among other literary devices--so you won't make any more comments questioning my intelligence without sounding foolish yourself], so I can't say who has questioned Veciana's honesty. If I recall correctly, it was you who brought up whether or not he was telling the truth; I just asked for some proof that your generality about "most assassination researchers" was true. I could claim that most generalities are fabricated at the time they're written [as this one was], but if called to provide evidence to prove it, I couldn't. I'm trying to learn about Veciana and whether he is to be believed or not...which is why I asked for support for your statement that "most assassination researchers" consider him to be a "truth-teller." I seldom ask a question when I already know the answer...as I consider that rhetorical device to be unnecessarily overused.

Antonio Veciana, believed to be a truth-teller by most assassination researchers Who conducted the poll of assassination researchers? When? What was the specific vote [if you don't have numbers, I'll settle for percentages]? Or...exactly how did you reach this conclusion? I've seen no information to back up your assertion that "most" researchers believe Venciana "to be a truth-teller." Is this statement verifiable, or is this some "trust me" equine defecation? I'm just after the truth. And if Venciana only told the truth most of the time, what convinces "most assassination researchers" that he's telling the truth this time? Let me try a simple analogy. Richard Nixon was a Quaker. Quakers are known for having high moral standards. Nixon said, "I am not a crook." People of high moral standards do not obstruct justice, and people of high moral standards do not lie. Yet Nixon's own White House tapes show he was involved in the obstruction of justice...which, by my standards, does make him a crook. So if I believe Nixon to be primarily a "truth-teller," there is nothing to rule out his lying in the aforementioned scenario, since the evidence that he lied is obvious. So what makes Venciana's word [pardon me here, Mr. Ford]...unimpeachable?

Alexander Haig, however, has been quoted as stating that he saw a document that demonstrated a foreign conspiracy but he was ordered to forget he saw the document. So Haig was "ORDERED to forget he saw the document"...but he evidently defied a direct order. So is Haig a man of unimpeachable morals because he admits to having seen the document, or is Haig a bad soldier--and therefore a man of questionable morals--for failing to follow orders? Tim, my point is that, if the case against Castro is as unquestionable as you believe it to be, the current administration would've taken action. After all, they went to war in Iraq on less credible evidence of WMD's than you allegedly have implicating Castro in the JFK assassination...and Castro's closer, Guantanamo is minutes from Castro's home, and we could wrap up all the speculation and go home, a la the judge and the sheriff in The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia. If government inaction against Castro is due to a lack of evidence, then that in itself shows the holes in your case. After all, Dick Cheaney is STILL proclaiming that there was a direct Saddam-Al Quaeda connection, despite a lack of evidence; yet they won't use the terrorism swatter to remove that pesky fly just 90 miles away, despite your continuous assertions that it's an open-and-shut case. Or maybe 90 miles IS too much like "fighting terrorists on our own doorstep," and we PREFER the war to be half a world away.

Thanks for the compliment, Tim...I will, of course, take it in the spirit of one whose level of intelligence you questioned a scant few days ago. Tim, I really hate performing as the language police on your posts, but since you are so quick to take others to task for crimes against the Mother Tongue, my integrity insists that I not allow you to escape the criticisms that you heap upon the others. But I'm willing to call a truce here: I will allow your felonies and misdemeanors against the English language pass, on the condition that you grant the same consideration to others here. Not all researchers can type as fast--or as well--as they think, and as doctors and Secret Service agents err without malice, so do researchers. Unless the error causes a fatal flaw in the argument, my position is that it would be quite fair to let it pass unchallenged...and that, out of respect for our fellow researchers, we should let it pass in order that the exchange of ideas and information should continue unimpeded by the examination of matters that are factually insignificant. Fair enough?

All this discussion begs the question: IF it was apparent 42 years ago that Castro was behind the JFK assassination; and IF the reason for covering up Castro's involvement was to prevent a cataclysmic nuclear war...WHY, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the decompositon of the Soviet empire of satellite states--and the threat of attack from any of them--has the truth never been officially revealed? Assuming that Tim is correct, that Fidel was the mastermind of the assassination...with the current administration's emphasis on the apprehension and detention of terrorists from around the globe...WHY would they NOT pursue the supposed perpetrator of one of the EARLIEST post-WWII examples of a state-sponsored terrorist act committed on American soil? All the US government would have to do is release the heretofore suppressed evidence, which would convince the world that Fidel Castro was the KING of modern terrorists...and it would only be a short drive to incarcerate him at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center "in perpetuity" [borrowing a phrase from a Bush Administration official describing how long they had the legal authority to detain terrorism suspects and "enemy combatants"]. THAT is what makes the Castro-did-it scenario seem far-fetched to me; if "anyone who harbors a terrorist IS a terorist," then that definition makes the entire Cuban nation a terrorist state. But Washington isn't headed that direction...so that fact makes me believe that, if the Bush administration IS sincere in what they are saying about state-sponsored terrorism, they already KNOW Castro wasn't involved. Otherwise, they are being hypocritical in their "GLOBAL" war on terrorism...and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are NOT hypocrites. So, Tim...I guess the question boils down to this: Is Castro faultless, or is the Bush administration hypocritical? I don't find room for any gray areas here. If the government has proof that Castro is the terrorist who took out JFK, why aren't they pursuing him? Fidel isn't even in hiding, as Osama is; so he should be an easy mark for a counterterrorism squad. Or is this a use of the Townes VanZandt defense ["We only let him slip away...out of kindness, I suppose...]??? Or am I the only one who connects the dots in such a pattern? Surely, if some agency [CIA, FBI, SOMEbody] knows the truth, and the truth is that Castro did it, WHAT could POSSIBLY be a deterrent TODAY to revealing the truth and demanding justice? Couldn't be nuclear war anymore...what COULD it be? Unless Castro DIDN'T do it.

But to call someone like Dillon or O'Donnell...an assassin, with not one scintilla of evidence to support the charge, is the equivalent of the final product of an equestrian's digestive system. Tim, do you even know what an equestrian is? It is one who rides a horse; a horseman, or a horsewoman. From the context of your post, it is apparent that you MUST have meant "an equine digestive system." If you are going to chide others about their usage of the language, perhaps you should first master the language yourself. And if you are going to challenge people on THEIR inconsistencies, you should first master your own. And that is the principal principle of my post.

I speculate that Ruby helps the plotters by obtaining DPD uniforms and photos of Dallas police cars (which Trafficante uses to create a bogus DPD car). So....it's OK for Tim to speculate, but it's NOT OK for anyone else. That message comes thru loud and clear, Counselor. You must live in an interesting world, one in which the rules you apply to others don't necessarily apply to yourself...kinda like Nixon's invocation of "executive privelege," in order to [attempt to] place himself above the law. [And I suppose one could argue that, in Nixon's case, his pardon by Gerald Ford--a pardon granted absent any conviction--proved that Nixon truly WAS above the law] NOW your arguments are beginning to make sense...not from the arguments themselves, but from your application of "Tim's rules."

Tim, you are leading me to believe that you are apparently not as mentally sharp as I initially gave you credit for being...or else you have an ulterior motive. When I was stating reasons that a friend would kill a friend, I was using common examples, and not compiling a list of the only reasons that such murders occur. That you are unwilling to grasp that point shows that you are unwilling to explore avenues that were unresearched before [closed-minded], apparently as much so as the Warren Commission was. I realize that, as a lawyer, YOU are trained to fight for your client, as opposed to actually seeking the truth. As for the REST of us here, I'd venture to say that most of us HAVE no case to prove; rather, we ARE seeking the truth. Again, I doubt Dillon's complicity in the assassination...primarily due to the fact that, as the head of the Treasury Department, he simply considered himself above the mundane details of the day-to-day operations of one little corner of his department [secret Service], instead trusting his subordinates to do their jobs and to make sure nothing they did reflected badly upon the Secretary. Sometimes, I wish you showed as much indignation regarding other "suspects" as you do Dillon...it would make your position a lot more defensible, in my opinion. As it is, you make me suspicious that you might even be RELATED to Dillon, as your "righteous indignation" is disproportionate to the level at which most of us view the odds of Dillon's alleged complicity [virtually nil]. Those of us who DO doubt that any conspiracy included Dillon still don't have ironclad proof that totally exonerates him...so it's my suggestion that we SEEK OUT that evidence, rather than attempt to quash any investigation that MIGHT reveal the truth. I believe that, once the evidence is gathered and examined, Dillon WILL be found guiltless; but it would be intellectually dishonest of me--or anyone else who is seeking the truth--to cry "foul!" whenever anyone suggests we look at the evidence in more than simply a perfunctory glance.

I'm sure you realize, Counselor, that Smathers' testimony is heresay, as he was not a witness to the CIA telling JFK about a plot to kill Castro. While I believe it's more likely accurate than inaccurate that JFK told Smathers this, the veracity of the claim--that the CIA informed JFK of its palns to kill Castro--wouldn't be sufficient to prove anything in a legal proceeding. Which is just a step away from being speculation, as I see it.

May I rest my case that a man who would oppose a sneak attack on our nation's enemies would not authorize a murder against his friend the President? Tim, I fail to see how you can reach an "if/therefore" relationship between the first part of your statement and the second. What if I said "May I rest my case that a man who would oppose using ketchup on french fries would not authorize its use on a hamburger"?? Would it be any less logical...or less true?? Perhaps the man who enjoys his french fries sans ketchup also enjoys the taste of ketchup on his burger; my point is, we cannot logically deduce the second merely from the first premise. Therefore, your argument is baseless. I STILL don't think Dillon had an active hand in the assassination...but your arguments are becoming weaker, logically speaking, as time goes on.

Gary Mack has so graciously reminded me via private message that it was Dave Powers, and NOT Kenny O'Donnell, who was filming from the motorcade...as Pat has pointed out in his post above. I apologize for the error, as it was one made of haste and not of an ignorance of--or willful disregard for--the facts.

Harry is making some very serious points in this thread that should NOT be overlooked. Great insight, Harry! Oswald was [remember Oswald...the subject of this thread?] probably the PERFECT patsy. With his bio, he could be painted as the loser nutcase that the WC made him...OR he could have been positioned as the brave ex-Marine who went undercover, posing as a defector, at great personal risk, for his country. His story could have been played either way, depending upon the outcome of events in Dallas. A case could be made that Oswald held menial jobs so that he could respond to assignments at a moment's notice, and the sparse lifestyle he lived was consistent with the concept of keeping a relatively low profile...except within the areas in which he was SUPPOSED to draw attention, the Dallas Russian-exile community and the New Orleans Cuban-agitator communities. Can ANYONE paint a detailed picture of Oswald's daily life, outside of Marina's accounts? Co-workers knew little of him, as did neighbors. Friends were few, and none [that I've read of] were what I would call "close" friends. So these facts allow Oswald to be a mere outline on an otherwise-blank canvas. And of the outline, it's truly difficult to determine what is the "real" Oswald and what is the "legend" one would need to create as an asset of an intelligence agency. He could be painted as either a patriot or a scoundrel, depending upon the needs of the hour. And it it THIS malleability of Oswald's image that renders him the TRUE enigma of the JFK assassination lore.

Tim, it is obvious that you are SO obsessed about the Dillon topic that you are attempting to turn this entire forum into a theater of the absurd...otherwise, why so many new threads on O'Donnell, when they ALL could have been contained within ONE? Methinks thou doth protest too loudly. Where many of us [myself included] have been content to accept that Dillon had no role in the assassination, your loud and long harangues against anyone who DARES mention the name of Dillon in connection with the assassination is causing ME to assume that maybe there WAS something afoot. Let's start with the link you posted for Dillon's "biography," which was merely some boilerplate put together for for GHWB's awarding Dillon the Medal of Freedom. Not only does it list that Dillon was Undersecretary of State from 6/12/1959 to 1/4/61 [and the State Department IS, or historically HAS BEEN, the primary cover for the CIA], but the commendation mentions Dillon's involvement with something called the "Mutual Security Program," in both the "military and non-military aspects." Now, I don't know if you're familiar with "governmentspeak," but that sounds to ME as if he was involved with the CIA in a BIG way...and, if the BOP is an indication of CIA ops--or perhaps Guatemala in the 1950's would be a more appropriate comaprison--then Dillon was apparently no stranger to using violence to effect a regime change. And your basic premise--that friends simply don't kill friends--is flat-out wrong. Friends kill friends in America every day...to get the girl, to get the job, to achieve power...and, in Texas, apparently they PLOT to kill friends so their daughters can become cheerleaders, if you recall the headlines. Surely your memory isn't so selective that you don't recall THAT tabloid-sounding headline? Or did Fox News Channel [a/k/a the Bush News Network] not carry that piece? I repeat...your premise that friends simply don't kill friends doesn't stand up to even LESS-than-rigorous scrutiny. Therefore, your argument on those grounds is invalid. By the way...I DID find O'Donnell's claim to have run out of film prior to the motorcade's entrance into Dealy Plaza to be quite "convenient," if NOT outright suspicious. Just another in a LONG string of "coincidences," I suppose.

The theory is that a deal was made between Trafficante and Fidel (by his agent): Trafficante would help supply intelligence information to Castro in exchange for which Castro would allow Trafficante to flow drugs into the US through Cuba. Presumably, the drugs became a bigger source of profits than the casinos had been. I believe that, despite my questionable level of intelligence, I found the words "theory" and "presumably" in your statement which lays the foundation for a Castro-Trafficante alliance. Perhaps my intelligence is as you suspect, because the words "theory" and "presumably" imply that this alliance is...what was that word you so detest?...SPECULATION. but no more speculation, please! Yeah...that's the quote. Many people credit this Trafficante-Castro connection, including an investigative reporter from DC named George Crile III. "Many people..." OK, Tim; at this point I've got you and Crile. Even with my questionable level of intelligence, I detect a bit of difference between "many" and "two." Nor did he, in my opinion, fear either Giancana or Rosselli. Could that yet be another case of SPECULATION? It appears to be so...but, y'know, the questionable level of intelligence on my part may just make that MY perception alone and not a perception shared by others. And about Castro: Obviously he would not mind poisoning American society with drugs. Did Castro ever state this, or is this more SPECULATION on your part? The US had been firing bullets (figuratively speaking) at Castro for years. As I said before, the real question is not whether he fired back but rather what took him so long. So...if "...the real question is not whether he fired back...", then you're obviously stating that THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT CASTRO "FIRED BACK." I just see theory, presumption, and SPECULATION here...not saying it COULDN'T have happened this way, but I don't think you'd get a conviction using the standard criteria ["beyond a reasonable doubt"]. Quite ironic, as it seems you consider anyone who doubts your scenario to be UNreasonable. So convince me, Counselor...make your case, minus the SPECULATION you claim so much to detest.

Mark, you had a very good post on the "Fidel Did It" scenario thread. Hmmm...and a few days ago you were questioning my intelligence, were you not? For reasons such as this, I figure the above quote must be either sarcastic or facetious in nature, or it's another case in which Tim compliments [yes, that's the correct spelling and usage] the post, and then questions the sanity of the poster. And frankly, I'm sick of that method of argument.

what angered him was the CIA's employment in the plot of the very Mafia preincipals he was trying to prosecute. Tim, I believe the correct word is "principals."

I've read, over and over through many various threads on many various aspects of the JFK assassination, Tim's theory that Castro was behind the Kennedy assassination. One thing that keeps coming to mind is the illogic that Santo Trafficante Jr. was the one who kept tipping Castro off that the CIA had yet another scheme to "whack" him. Trafficante was first imprisoned by Castro, then "deported" to the US. As we all know, Trafficante was the Miami mob boss, and the mob lost a considerable chunk of income and real estate when Castro came in and shut down their operations. So what was Trafficante's motivation to "buddy up" with Fidel? It was obvious then, as it is today, that Fidel Castro wasn't about to "betray" the "revolution" by EVER handing the casinos back to the Mob...couldn't happen, wouldn't happen, didn't happen. So when the CIA came up with their plans to kill Fidel, it would, logically, be in the best interest of the Mob--and, by extension, Trafficante--to cooperate, in the hopes of getting another Baptista or similarly corrupt presidente who would allow their operations to flourish. Or, to state the obvious, it would be AGAINST Trafficante's own best interests to betray the murder plots. Or, another way to say it: Trafficante KNEW what the Mob was capable of...so is it logical to conclude that he would betray the interests of the mob [i.e., the removal of Castro and the restoration of the Mob's casinos]? For Tim's scenario to be plausible, Trafficante would've had to have greater fear of Fidel than he had of Giancana et al, if word of Trafficante's double-crossing of the CIA murder plots was to be discovered. I just don't find it plausible that Trafficante was more scared of--or thought he would get a better deal from--Fidel Castro than "the boys." That just doesn't compute, Counselor.

Interesting...it's apparently not Tim's fault that he's playing self-appointed language cop: The fault, of course, is with the English language using two words with the same pronunciation but different spellings for two different meanings. Why are there are not different words for each meaning to avoid this confusion? Whether Tim realizes it or not, most of us here know the difference between "your" and "you're", and between "principal" and "principle." I tend to believe that Tim's "principal" reason to point these things out isn't the "principle," but it's Tim's desire to (1) position himself as being above the person who posted; (2) discover yet another avenue to find fault with a post; (3) distract the discussion from the point being made by the person posting and make himself the center of attention, rather than the topic under discussion. And THAT is, in itself, yet another "communication breakdown." [And Tim: in case you weren't aware, it IS still considered impolite to inquire whether one has the means to purchase something--unless you are implying that you will purchase it FOR them--as this is an invasion of one's right to privacy in their own financial matters. I would've thought that I shouldn't have to remind you of this, as I'm sure you had a proper upbringing available to you, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I doubt that you'd intentionally be this inconsiderate.]

Tim, I am shocked--shocked!!--that you would, even in jest, impugn the characters of not one but TWO loyal, patriotic Americans such as Captain Kangaroo [obviously a graduate of the same school of psuedomilitary titles as one famous but enigmatic Colonel Parker, manager of the late Mr. Presley] and Mr. Greenjeans. The difference is, Nixon had associates such as Mitchell, Stans, Dean, Hunt, Liddy, Colson, Haldeman, Erlichmann, and Magruder...men who would break the law for their Commander-In-Chief, some of whom would NOT draw the line at murder. Pardon me this one generality, but a man does not gather this type of associates in an instant; they are accumulated over a period of years. Unless there is a coverup regarding the backgrounds of Bunny Rabbit or Mr. Moose, Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Greenjeans had no such unsavory associates. In another thread, you revealed that you worked in Nixon's 1960 campaign. Could it be you're simply too close to the trees to accept that there might be a forest out there somewhere? Or did Tricky Dick TELL you he wasn't involved [and from the Watertgate tapes, we KNOW Mr. Nixon would never, EVER, tell a lie]? Again, anything is possible, but absent evidence one cannot assume something happened. Tim, you're correct...but I'm not assuming it DID happen. I'm merley postulating that it MIGHT have happened. But one cannot assume something DIDN'T happen until the evidence has been examined. For some reason, you're becoming a bit shrill about even LOOKING for any evidence, either to prove or DISprove Nixon's involvement. And, as usual, you missed my point about Nixon's meeting with Pepsi-Cola in Dallas. It wasn't his BEING in Dallas that I find suspicious; rather, it's the fact that he apparently never told the same story twice about about either being in Dallas, OR about how and when he heard of the JFK shooting. But I've come to expect such a response from you; to explain away the parts that AREN'T in question, so that you can ignore the parts that ARE. Again, your personal politics are coloring your assessment of the facts, apparently.

There is no evidence, none, zilch, zip, that Nixon had prior knowledge of a plot to kill Kennedy. Y'know, Tim...until the White House tapes emerged, there was no evidence that Nixon was involved in the obstruction of justice in the Watergate case, either. BUT THAT DIDN'T PRECLUDE HIS PARTICIPATION IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DID IT? Using your logic, Tim, just because Jimmy Hoffa's not been seen since 1975 is no reason to conclude that he was kidnapped or murdered, SINCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. Maybe he just took a long vacation without telling anyone, or seeing--or being seen by--anyone on his way to his destination. As with any theories about Nixon's involvement, there are only unanswered questions. And anyone who has read any of the Warren Commission's report knows that it's not polite to pursue unanswered questions. And since you already know for absolutely certain that Nixon not only wasn't involved in, but also had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination, it would be pointless to search for answers to these questions concerning inconsistencies in his statements. I stand enlightened by your thinking, Tim. I'm a new man, free to go on to other things now that I know that any unanswered questions about Mr. Nixon don't matter, since we have your word that he absolutely, positively wasn't involved in, and had no foreknowledge of, the JFK assassination.

Great research on Dillon, Bernice! Somehow, though, it appears that Mr. Gratz mysteriously has no comment on any of it...amazing, to me, since he's been Dillon's staunchest defender PRIOR to this point. Perhaps Mr. Gratz could be so polite as to compare and contrast this material with Sorenson's information on Dillon...maybe he could even tell us whether this information is malodorous [as the "scent" screen was optional on MY computer, I didn't purchase it]. And going 'WAY back in this thread, Tim...you missed my point completely [intentionally, I'd presume] once again. I wasn't arguing that the JFK assassination was a "crime of passion," as that argument would be absurd. I was pointing out that your blanket statement that people don't kill their friends was an inaccurate and misleading generalization...and it STILL is. People don't kill their friends ONLY during crimes of passion; in America today, one is probably more likely to be killed by someone who is known by the victim, and MAY be assumed to be a friend, than one is likely to be killed by a stranger in a random act of violence. While friends don't routinely kill friends in MY neighborhood--and probably not in yours as well--it DOES occur, with alarming frequency, in America. Friends DO kill friends...so I submit that your argument to the contrary is based upon a fallacy, and is therefore invalid. THAT is my point. But I fail to understand your perceived need to argue with ME on the point of Dillon's participation--or lack thereof--in JFK's assassination, since we APPEAR to be in agreement on this [one] point. However, I can't just stand idly by and let your blatantly false generalizations pass; that would be intellectually dishonest as well. And Tim...before you cast stones at someone else for calling names, perhaps you should recall your own usage of such terms as "looney tunes" and "insane" in recent posts. I think we can ALL disagree without resorting to these tactics. If you'll notice, I have attacked your arguments, and upon occasion your transparent political motivations...but we need to get back on track regarding the JFK assassination, and not the character assassination of fellow researchers. As far as the "communications breakdown''--remember that one? It was the original topic of this thread--it may have been planned; it may have been coincidental. But without further information, we may never know. Anyone have a clue where further information on the subject may be found?

And I can picture President Bush holding a gun on himself, a la Cleavon Little in the movie, Blazing Saddles. "HE SAID, 'THE SHERIFF IS NEAR!'"

I don't believe that Nixon was involved in the JFK assassination to avenge a "stolen election"; rather, I believe that Nixon saw his political career, which was constantly rising until the 1960 election, hit rock-bottom when he couldn't even get elected governor of his home state--a state that was apparently proud of him being vice-president--just two short years after his loss to Kennedy. Or did someone ELSE say "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" after the '62 gobernatorial debacle, and we overlooked the ventriloquist's wizardry? You can't ignore that statement, Tim. It's the statement of a defeated man. And if his prospects looked as bleak to him as the statement indicates, it's not difficult to imagine--maybe it is for YOU, since I still haven't received that mind-reading course in the mail--that Nixon realized that his downward spiral began with the 1960 election...and, by extension, for Nixon to blame Kennedy for his fate in '62. Now, if Nixon was to have been made aware of a plot to snuff JFK, it's not a long reach to conclude that, as attuned to revenge that he was, he would have enjoyed the prospect and NOT interfered...even though, as an attorney and an "officer of the court," he had a duty to report such a conspiracy, his conduct as recorded on his own White House tapes leads me to believe that no such reporting would have been made by him. And as far as LBJ having any inkling that Nixon may have been involved...if the Nixon scenario occurred, I honestly doubt that LBJ would've been privy to any of the details. But if I were to try to concoct an alibi for myself, as a public figure such as Nixon, what better one would there be than LEAVING the city where the murder is to occur, earlier on the DAY of the murder, via air, where it's impossible to leave the plane and then return unless you're Clark Kent? You now have an airtight alibi that you were nowhere on earth--you were in the sky--when the murder occurred, so YOU couldn't POSSIBLY have done it yourself. But it's rather curious that, later, Nixon couldn't even remember being in Dallas that day...and yet nearly every American who was over the age of six can remember in great details where they were that day. Or maybe, in the words of one of his successors, Nixon was merely "disassembling" [i KNOW the correct word is "dissembling", Tim]. And if Nixon was trying to cover up his presence in Dallas on 11/22/1963--despite witnesses who placed him there--one must ask WHY. To date, I've not heard an explanation that has the ring of truth.

OK...we'll try again...

Greg, here's an attempt at posting the pic on p. 71: