Mark Knight

Tim, in an odd sort of way, THAT conspiracy theory has a ring of truth to it...as it makes sense out of Oswald's actions on that day as nothing else does.

In the context of FBI and SS, the acronym SAIC stands for "special agent in charge," if my translation is correct...

This topic is the stuff of supermarket tabloid headlines...and even discussing it gives the MacAdams types ammunition for their arguments that conspiracy theorists have no foundation in reality. However, from a tongue-in cheek perspective, let's look at the similarities: JFK and Elvis both were fatally stricken while in the sitting position. Each had one daughter. Each had appeared on television, and in the 1960's their fans were predominantly young people. Each had a brother who had preceded him in death. After death, the graves of both men have become shrines that are visited by persons from all over the globe. Elvis has the "Memphis Mafia"; JFK had the "Irish Mafia." The similarities are eerie, aren't they?

Dawn, you have to look at Tim's line of reasoning: All communists are liars; The Mafia is the moral equivalent of the communists; and Jack Ruby was part of the Mafiia. Therefore, anything that Ruby said is a lie...or, mathematically: Communist = xxxx; Mafia = Communist; Ruby = Mafia; therefore, Ruby = xxxx. Simple connect-the-dots...right, Tim? Oh, if it was only that easy....

Was it his long hair and beard (unusual in Dallas in 1963)? Let's look at this from the perspective of 1963. In 1963, beards were primarily worn by academics, "beatniks," historical reenactors, and the terminally eccentric. In 1963, long hair wasn't yet fashionable in the US; that only became so after The Beatles came to the US with their "mop-tops" in February of 1964, just prior to their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show on CBS-TV. Anyone with long hair and a beard in 1963 most likely would've been considered a bum, a vagrant, someone without means of support. So if Chet Helms had long hair and a beard in 1963, he would have IMMEDIATELY stood out from the crowd, no matter where...and in Texas, the contrast with the local citizenry would've been almost blinding.

Assuming Chris' comments are tongue-in-cheek, I would suggest his reference to "Frankfurters" vs. "Frankforters" is an attempt at "hot-dogging."

Arthur Schopenhauer once said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Tim, I think another statement by someone famous--where's Bartlett's when I need it?--may also apply: If you tell the same lie over and over again, people will eventually begin to believe it. I'm not saying that this applies to your scenarios, but if one should choose to draw such a parallel, they might have a case. And I submit that, based upon the evidence on this forum, you're far more adept at lashing out at others than at taking a lashing [perhaps you should turn your Funk & Wagnall's to the word "masochist," as I don't detect that you enjoy taking a lashing at all...so I therefore question the veracity of your statement about having "masochistic tendancies."]. However, I won't disagree that you enjoy the jousting; I merely detect, from your words, that you don't enjoy the pain...which is what defines a masochist, so therefore your statement reflects self-delusion. Might I suggest that you choose your words more carefully[precisely]?

And Tim, the locals call the Derby City "LOO-a-vul." Steve, of course, is correct about the capital, where the capitol is located. John, my recollection is a bit fuzzy on just when the photo appeared...I do recall that it was an "AP Wirephoto," and it was on the right-hand side of the front page, above the fold...but the length of time between the MLK shooting and the capture of James Earl Ray at London's Heathrow Airport makes this a detail I just didn't log into the memory banks at the time. Of course, until the capture of Ray--and the realization that he looked nothing like the photo of the alleged assassin that was published previously--it wasn't of primary importance to me.

Does not seem too difficult to understand the concept that statements by the Cuban government or its representatives should be treated with at least as much caution as CIA documents. Tim, there is a distinct difference between treating statements with caution and dismissing them outright simply because of the source. For example, any of YOUR statements that I have questioned have been due to the content, and not due to the source. Yet you constantly dismiss the statements of others based solely upon the source, rather than any basis in fact. I don't have a particular axe to grind against Republicans...I think the Democrats are inept and corrupt as well, and I don't hesitate to say that. But I believe we need to reexamine ALL the evidence if we are to properly understand the JFK assassination. If evidence points to witting or unwitting cooperation by a department under the Secretary of the Treasury, then it is only fitting that we examine any evidence that may--or may not--point in the secretary's direction. To do so is the baisi of a fair and unbiased investigation. To automatically insist that the secretary is exempt from scrutiny is to investigate in the flawed manner of the Warren Commission. Again, I state that my personal belief is that Dillon is not merely "not guilty," but is "innocent"...based upon the information I DO know. However, to say that Dillon should be "above" scrutiny takes us away from the examination of evidence...evidence that just MIGHT lead us to a guilty person, even if it's NOT Dillon. But the overwhelming evidence on this forum, Tim, is that your political bias influences your judgement as to who may or may not be guilty, and what evidence may or may not be examined. Since I don't have any pro-ANYBODY biases [as I stated before, I believe that BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats are inept and corrupt...but that doesn't indict ALL members of EITHER party], I tend to think that ALL the evidence should be examined, and then conclusions reached based solely upon the evidence. While I personally think Richard M. Nixon was a vile, petty, and vindictive man, I will also concede that statements by Nixon are not to be dismissed out-of-hand simply because of any personal bias I may have. Yet I see, time and again, a willingness on your part, Tim, to dismiss statements by certain individuals based upon their affiliations: ...not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!). This is an exercise in self-deception. So if ALL communists are liars, then do we DISbelieve Nosenko, and argue that Oswald WAS working for the KGB [or another Soviet agency]? Of course not, unless we have evidence to that effect. But when it suits your purposes, you DO make such arguments, Tim. I suppose it's your inconsistency that makes folks tend to scrutinize what you say so closely. Example: ...not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!)., and: In my opinion, the Mafia is about as close to evil incarnate as can be. I would make no moral distinction between the Mafia and Communists with respect to their total lack of morality... Yet you believe the statements of Trafficante, Giancana, Rosselli, and other Mafioso in one breath while telling us that the communists are not to be believed. If there is "no moral distinction," as you state above, then why do you dismiss the statements of communists out-of-hand but believe the statements of Mobsters? It is precisely this lack of consistency, I believe, that draws so much fire your direction, Tim....well, either that, or the fact that you are prone to making such sweeping generalizations without considering the potential repercussions upon your own previous arguments. I realize that this is a long post, but I also wanted to demonstrate that some of us whose intelligence you have questioned in the past can actually sustain a train of thought and articulate an idea every now and then...in your view, I'd suppose, possibly--but not likely--as often as a blind squirrel finds an acorn. [Oh, if only my intelligence could be favorably compared to that of Joseph Califano, that it "cannot be dismissed"!!]

You'll not get much help from Oswald's income-tax return...the entire form, with the exception of his name and address, was redacted when it was released. Not that a dead alleged assassin would be bothered with concerns about his privacy, in my opinion, but...

As far as military recruiters not reaching goals...a recent article blamed "influencers" as having a negative effect on potential recruits. These "influencers" cited were parents, teachers, and clergy advising students not to join the military services. So now it's a BAD thing when teenagers and college students listen to parents, teachers, and clergy...whodathunkit? Looking into my crystal ball for an overview of American life, over the next several years the US will be sufferring from many wounds...far too many of them self-inflicted. Detroit will become a NON-factor in the "Car Wars," as the Japanese [and other Asian] auto manufacturers will continue to capture an increasing market share. In the 1960's there was some talk in GM circles that they were worried that the US government would break up GM, because they controlled about 55-56% of the US auto market. On the OTHER hand, the folks at Ford were privately worried that, if GM was to have to divest itself of Chevrolet, Ford would then have TWO competitors that might control 30% of the domestic market EACH. No such worries anymore, at least from domestic competitors. Walter P. Chrysler's namesake company is now just another underperforming subsidiary owned by the Germans, and all the other domestic makes have been swallowed up by mergers or died on the vine. Look for Asian makes to move from around 26-28% of the US market today to a figure near 40% in a very short time period...and if China enters the US market with a quality vehicle, marketed well, with a rock-bottom price, slide that figure on up the scale to around 55%. As far as the Bush administration's oil policy, consider this: If you buy oil at $26 a barrel, and your markup is, say, 18% after refining [just pulling a percentage out of the air], you make considerably less profit than if you buy oil at $60 a barrel, and your markup is the same 18% after refining...and at $60 a barrel, your processing expenses haven't appreciably increased! THAT is why the Bush administration hasn't addressed the oil price situation in more than an offhand manner. If J. Paul Crudeoil sees a president taking actions to cut his profits, J. Paul just might cut his campaign contributions to that president and his friends...don't bite the hand, you know the rest. As far as the private accounts for Social Security...just a lame attempt [which will be unsuccessful] to stave off the coming crash of the US stock market, when the Baby Boomers start cashing in their IRA's and 401(k)'s for funding their retirements. Run the numbers...the Baby Boomer demographic is the one selling, and the MUCH-smaller post-Boomer group will be buying...simple [over]supply and [under]demand of stocks, leading to a plunge in prices. Couple this with overly-aggressive selling of credit in America, and the impending [in the next 15-20 years] increase in foreclosures in real estate and defaults by borrowers--resulting in rising interest rates to compensate lenders for their losses, and Americans are almost assured of a lower standard of living despite the deflationary period that will follow, as few will have the cash to redeem these assets...in other words, a run-up comparable to the 1918-1929 period, followed by a similar 1930's-style depression. As David said, the sign-on [and re-up] bonuses are primarily oriented toward some very specific MOS's [Military Occupational Specialties]...but a lot of Army Reserve units are being split up and retrained in order to be able to fill rotations in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, even with current unit activations of 18 months at a time. So it won't be too far into the future that the politically unpopular military draft will be reinstituted--"reluctantly," of course--out of necessity, as the Iraqi quagmire continues. China and its growing economy--and its rising demand for consumer goods--means that China can wreak havoc at a moment's notice upon oil markets, much as they did not so long ago in steel. While the Chinese can claim that they are merely trying to supply their growing economy, here in America the net result can be ECONOMIC terrorism...because we really can't predict when they'll strike next, or which commodity they'll target...and we're powerless to stop them. I believe that the EU--if and/or when it gets its act together--MIGHT be able to withstand the Chinese economic engine; but the die has been cast for the US economy, and the outlook is particularly dismal. With the Bush tax cuts raising the government's deficits daily, and with the war in Iraq continuing to drain the coffers, it's only a matter of time before the US will have to admit that the government is [financially] bankrupt...and we know that, despite the revelations of Guantanamo and Abu Ghrahib [sp?], the moral bankruptcy will never be admitted. The Middle East will continue to be a political hotspot, and it won't be long until the US finds that, in that part of the world, it has no friends. Look for uprisings in places such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and don't let a chilling of relations between Egypt and Washington be a surprise to you. And look for the emphasis to shift from "regime change" and "oil" and "democracy" and "freedom" to "jihad" on BOTH sides of the conflict...as religion will become an ever-increasing source of friction [not that it hasn't been incendiary already]. Save this away for a few years...while I hope I'm absolutely wrong, I'm afraid that my predictions will be pretty close to reality in my lifetime.

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.