Terry Martin

Ed, Are you implying premeditation in Dawn's response? It sounds like another wacky conspiracy theory to me. Perhaps we should all sue each other for distracting the research community? It couldn't be more of a waste of time than this particular post or some of those humorous ones by Mr. Graves.

Apology accepted. And congratulations on 20+ years. And you're right about us not getting anywhere. Your insinuation in statements like "if you want to carry on believing the 5 items I presented favor a hoax, as opposed to the incident's reality" shows that you have a closed mind to the subject. It's like flinging down the "denier" tag or the "buff" label, appears to show equanimity but belies condescension. IMO you could be more honest in your debate style; thinking that your opinions are the only viable ones seem inclined to elevate your prognostications alone as "truth". When you presented your case before, I was interested to see how you would mathematically prove the second floor incident. All I saw was the same, tired, WC inspired rhetoric I have seen from Von Pein in the past. Then, when you were called out on taking liberties with some of the evidence, you got belligerent. Of course the entire presentation did not get off to the best possible start when you said you were planting your sword in the sand and going to prove all the others at the forum were imbeciles. I have always thought the community could agree to disagree on aspects of the case because until they are proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, all we really offer are opinions. Pompous grand prix claim their own opinions trump those of others because... well, everyone else is obviously an imbecile. IMO all aspects of the case as presented by the WC should be avoided. Like the Gospels, it is self-contradictory and baseless for founding any argument on. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks usually are defense mechanisms for those who cannot support their claims. This isn't to say that all such attacks are based in the same mechanism but it generally holds to be so. And I am sorry you were offended about my comment about your understanding of physics. As you have degrees and inventions and such, I am sure you are quite proficient at the subject within its usual applications. Its use as applied to this case, and its promised dazzlement, failed to satisfy either its marketing or its intended purpose. I disagree with your arguments but I am certain you will continue all the same. But please don't imply that all who cannot agree with your stand are stupid or ignorant. History has a long string of scientists who were badly misled, leading others astray as well. So do many other fields. Any theory set forth here may find similar ridicule in the future. Until then, all theories, including yours are free for you to maintain. Allow others the same courtesy.

Perhaps John Barleycorn is your problem as you seem to mention it repeatedly. I don't drink so you will have to come up with some better personal attack than that, Richard. "Because it sure looks to me that you are under the influence when you both read & reply to these posts. Doing so is a profound waste of your time and my time." Right back at you, big guy. Under no influences and time is what you make of it. It's only wasted if you do not use it constructively. As for the thread at the old ROKC forum, I believe it was archived due to the degree of mudslinging that ensued. A follow up to that thread is still available at http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t838-an-alternative-lunchroom-encounter-scenario which might answer some of your questions about alternatives and variations on the theme. I do not need to detail counter-arguments to your 5 items. If you had read the response properly, I was addressing your claim that 5 items was of some substantial importance, which they are not as noted by Bugliosi's 50. If you are going to debate, Richard, please try to read what you are debating before you post. Otherwise you waste everyone's time.

I'd have to agree with you. I'm from Texas and hated LBJ. After Bobby was killed, I supported Nixon but was disappointed he took so long to get us out of Nam. Most of my friends were for McGovern and quit talking to me because of the election. Go figure. Watergate was his downfall and I thought it was a bit of a setup, and he a bit of a patsy, when it went down. Sticking us with our first un-elected President, Ford, was a travesty. He of the "the WC is a Gibraltar that will stand for ages" BS.

Richard, methinks you protesteth too much. I had serious doubts about the second floor encounter long before I even heard of Greg Parker or Sean Murphy. It stank to high heaven along with almost everything in the WC volumes; the story was a late-comer to the party as was most of the "findings" of the commission. You state with some degree of certainty that there are 5 whopping pieces of theory that "sink the hoax". Bugliosi had 50+ pieces of evidence that supposedly sank any possibility of Oswald's innocence. Those 50+ points he listed are all lies and very easily proven to be unfounded. Why the hell should a measly 5 pieces of malarkey (or "mullarkey") matter against examination of the testimonies? The collective dementia, as far as I see it, are the people who cannot let go of the garbage fostered by the Warren Commission and start to look at the case logically. Your presentation was full of holes two years ago and the flaws have not been plugged yet. But, carry on, please. Show me something other than blind acceptance of Baker's later testimony, ignorance of physics, and "collective dementia" that deems sophistry superior to logic. Bring something new to the table.

Personally, I think (another opinion, of course) that had the CIA and Dulles been involved in the assassination, the cover story would have been in place already, We would not have seen the stumbling and bumbling by the DPD and FBI racing around like head with their chickens chopped off. The complete story was not in place for several months. Dulles and company would not have been so sloppy IMO. But maybe others who place so much faith in the CIA's abilities could explain the clusterf**k that was Dallas.

I don't know what the break-in was about. Some say it was about hookers, which I guess is as good a reason as any. But it was sabotaged in order to bring down Nixon. It's possible that the only real reason for the break-in was to have something to sabotage and get Nixon. (Has anyone else thought of that, or can I take credit for it?) I believe Ashton already mentioned that on another thread. But I could be wrong. Maybe you do get the credit.

I had also heard that Dulles was friends with JFK before he was still a Senator. And IIRC when the BOP blew up, Dulles offered to resign but Kennedy refused to accept the resignation. Several months later, he was allowed to leave after an awards ceremony. I never thought he was behind the assassination but I would bet the farm he was behind the cover-up. (Yes, I keep the two conspiracies separated.)

Yes, it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't part of the cover up but, as most researchers tend to include the same group in both phases of the case, it is the more unique stance to propose they were others who allowed natural reactions to cover up the case. Anyone in the intelligence community who knew Oswald was working for the FBI or CIA need only implicate him in the killing and allow the two agencies to muddy the waters for everyone. We saw the same thing happen in the Lincoln assassination, I believe. To distance themselves from the set up patsy, Hoover had to either create false trails or simply take those fed to him. IMO, the latter ruled the day. Anything but let the trail lead back to the Bureau.

I am making an assumption that the cards have a letter on one side and a number on the reverse. This may not be true as it is not stipulated in the original premise. Going on that assumption, you would have to turn over all cards except the K. The E to prove there is an even number on the reverse, the 4 to prove there is a vowel on the reverse, and the 7 to prove there is a consonant on the reverse. Of course, my original assumption may be in error.

Yes, not unless it was a "sippy cup" but I would believe that would be at home in Irving with Baby June. To my eye it appears his right hand is a shade higher than his left, as though the left hand was holding up the camera and his right hand was pushing a button on top. I wish we had a better scan to look at. It would certainly clear up a lot of questions.

Good question, Greg. Let's see what we can come up with in the next day or so. And did Oswald / Prayer Man leave the camera at work, or take it home with him, or what? Did he remove the film from the camera while still at work? Did he hide it in the second floor lunch room? --Tommy Good question, Tommy! I do not recall any camera mentioned floating loose around the TSBD in any DPD report. But it did take them a couple of weeks to locate Oswald's clipboard, so maybe it was spotted later? Maybe it was stuffed down between a couple of boxes of books... or perhaps carried out of the building in a brown home-made paper bag? Was it abandoned in the cab, perhaps? It would be interesting to do a little research for any cameras that did not turn up in the Paine's garage.

Mark, I don't know about any attacks on you at another forum. I do like the way you attempted to point out to Carmine a while back about what evidence really is. As much as I agreed with your definitions, I feared it was a losing proposition, falling on deaf ears... and it was. Kudos for the attempt, however. I would have mentioned it at the time of its occurence but circumstances intervened. (forgive me for going off topic!)

Cliff, I believe your responses have proven my point. I do not have any problem with you arguing that the operations were compartmentalized. You have stated your premise several times already and your tautology does not make the premise any stronger nor does your adherence to the idea require others to include the concept in what they theorize.

Robert, I see the same thing, regrettably, but it seems to be the way people are. They each have their pet theories and push them whatever forum they're on. Many cannot seem to try and understand any part of the assassination without weaving it around their own special subject. Even subjects I thought had been laid to rest decades ago (DoorMan, the SBT, the Second Floor Encounter, and so on) are still being debated alongside the question about how many shots were fired or which agency was most involved in the cover-up or what influence the Mafia had leveraged. As someone else has pointed out, most of the discussion seems to center on the cover-up(s) rather than the assassination. Some want to build the conspiracy so large it includes RFJ, MLK, Lincoln and the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Trying to separate out the assassination from the cover-up is extremely difficult, it seems, and so the pet theories - or "fill" as you called it - flood the forums. Unfortunately, I doubt if it can be stopped as it is the theorizing that seems to be the really interesting part of this community. Rather than worry about the direction others are taking, I concentrate on the threads that are meaningful to me. Yes, I'm just like everything else. I just ignore the fillers. There is an assassination I would like to see solved.

Cliff, I don't know what you've got against Parker but that you do is obvious. I don't see how this chest-beating facilitates a better understanding of the case even if it does showcase the depth of your animus. That you have a theory about the case is also quite obvious. To assume that everyone else's research should support your particular notions is a far stretch. Perhaps you could take this very personal vendetta elsewhere and allow the thread to continue without tangential assaults. Greg's book shows the beginnings of a method being developed by the intelligence community and how Oswald was coerced into the system. If you read the book you would see how it connects events of the past to the JFK assassination. Yes, I have read the book. And I am anxiously awaiting the second volume's release. (that's a hint, Greg) Okay, you don't like him, you don't like the way his puts things, but either discuss the case rather than semantics or find something else to do than interrupt the rest of us. Thank you.

Sad, Mark, but so very true. It's like hiring a big name star for a small town production.

David, I read Vince's book some time ago as well and was pleased with the depth of his research. On several lines he seemed to stop one iota short of accusations but I think there is enough present to see where he was headed. Perhaps he did not wish to incur the wrath of his USSS contacts. Abraham Bolden's story is another eye-opener. Jon, I read a book many years ago - I think perhaps it was Kill Zone but I may just mis-remember - and the author mentioned something on the order of six three-man teams strewn around Dealey Plaza, each team consisting of a spotter, a shooter, and a radioman. Interesting as his premise was, I cannot see the necessity of a spotter for the shooter... where's the time for that? Shooter shoots. Spotter checks. "Negatory, you missed." Shooter shoots. Spotter checks. "Missed. You got Connally." Shooter shoots. Was there really enough time for all those shenanigans? I think it was a bit simpler than that. But that could just be me.

Anyone who was going to pull this operation off - killing Kennedy and framing Oswald in order to force the CIA & FBI to do the cover-up for you - had to get to assistance of the Secret Service. If the USSS did their job there would have been no killing that day. They had to get the co-operation of that agency to stand down. Or you could go one step simpler... involve a few less people in th conspiracy, a few less tongues to wag... why include any of the high-profile in your construction? All that is really required for the conspiracy is the USSS. They had the capability of slacking the protection when needed, they had files of all the "subversive" and potentially damgerous elements in the area. In the case of Oswald, they probably also had a "pass" from FBI or CIA that the man in question was not really a subversive but one of their own. Whoever planned the killing, anticipating the agencies to cover-up for them, had to know Oswald was one of their "plants". Who else would have access to this information? Bundy? LBJ? I think not. But, I could as easily be wrong, huh?

He knew enough about the cover-up plot to declare himself a patsy. And that's the thing -- Oswald is a study of the cover-up. And given the amount of work put into sheep-dipping Oswald as a Red Agent I'd have to say it's a study of the losers. The Yalies who put out the Oswald as Lone Nut frame were the winners. "Oswald is a study of the cover-up." I find that a most intriguing way to present the case. If he was, as many suspect, entirely innocent of killing Kennedy then his presence in the affair can only be as part of the cover-up. Most posit that the intelligence handlers used him to be the fall guy... but what if, they were caught off-guard by the assassination and once Oswald had been fingered by the locals, the intelligence community quickly washed their hands of him as quickly as possible to distance themselves from the undercover operation he had been involved in. That way, they lost an operative, but were able to maintain the secrecy over the operation. Had Oswald talked, they may have lost so very much more. But this does not mean they had to have been involved in the assassination. Many researchers talk about the compartmentalizing of intelligence operations. Perhaps it would be best if we began looking at the case in the same light: as individual segments not necessarily linked together beforehand. Just a thot.

I can agree with your [a] but the I have difficulty with. As most people conflate the cover-up with the crime, it stands to reason that Oswald was set up to take the fall. What is the "highly planned" assassination (so rendered as I have difficulty seeing much evidence of any rigorous deep planning) except a common murder? Certainly more than one person was involved but how many does a theory require? Two? Eight? Fifty-seven? Six rogue teams of killers working through the combined efforts of rogue agents from six different agencies? If Oswald was an intelligence agent and was making the people he was "spying on" a bit nervous, and these people had some pull in the rather "dirty" little town of Dallas, when the assassination occurred could they not simply plant evidence - however poorly or shoddily done - to frame the guy and get him off their backs? This may sound really far-out to many people but I think the out tried-and-true ways of looking at the case have to be changed. If we keep looking at a square from the same angle it will always look like a square. Stepping a few degrees to the side one might realize it is really a parallelogram. My proposition above may be completely invalid. But at least it is thinking out of the same old box. I encourage everyone else to stretch their minds a little. The answer is out there, somewhere. I can smell it.

Evidence, Evidence, Evidence. It all depends on what one considers "evidence," doesn't it. Let's face it -- there's a lack of "provable, verifiable evidence" in this case. Nearly every bit of "evidence" is contradicted by another piece of "evidence," rendering both impossible to "prove". If this case is going to ever be solved, I believe it will be by the accumulating of an overwhelming amount of (non-provable) circumstantial evidence. --Tommy Tommy, I agree completely. It has been the contention of one member that the Prayer Man contains no "verifiable evidence" as to the identification of the mystery man/woman on the steps. The question has been asked repeatedly exactly what is the threshold required for "verifiable evidence" and no suitable answer has been forthcoming. "Verifiable evidence" is a meaningless label. Evidence that exists is verifiable because it exists. Unverifiable evidence would be any evidence that does not exist. If it is evidence, in its very existence is the verifiability to be found. Evidence is defined in legal terms by the judiciary system of the country. It has been pounded together from its long and continued use since the Anglo-Saxon things and continues to be modified even today. The most recent Rules of Evidence published by the Department of Justice (Dec.1, 2014) states: "Evidence is relevant when it has any tendency in reason to make the fact that it is offered to prove or disprove either more or less probable. Evid. Code § 210; Fed. Rules Evid. 401. To be relevant, a particular item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more probable than not. All that is required is that it have some tendency to increase the likelihood of the fact for which it is offered." Quite boldly it states that "a particular item of evidence need not make the fact for which it is offered certain, or even more probable". Using this test, I find the vast majority of the material presented in the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD?" thread by Sean Murphy and others as "evidence". Even most of the responders were of the opinion that it was evidence of something even if not the long awaited opening of the heavens. The tautological reiteration against using any of the thread because of the "verifiability" constraint has no standing. I believe what is being looked for, rather than verifiability, goes even beyond mere corroboration. What the thread is being attacked for is lack of proof. Most members of the research community know what a chimera truth can be in this investigation. In most matters dealing with anything involving the intelligence community, truth is the rarest element of all. After fifty years plus of researching the case I can state with some conviction that proof and truth are on a plateau far higher than we can envision from the trenches in which we dig. A golden nugget - here and again - are all we really ask. Signposts leading us further toward the goal of understanding the mangled threads of the case, a bone to whet our appetite to continue digging. Truth and proof are not going to be found by comparing testimonies one against the other, checking maps and floor-plans for cubbies somehow overlooked, as these tools have been used and exhausted since November 1963. Thinking out of the box, taking leaps of faith, applying quantum chaos to the much-raked-over mundane, seems to be where we should be headed in order to create some sense of order in this case. The cover-up and coup d'état are mighty puzzles to be sorted out and solved and I am certain there are droves of people spending many happy hours connecting the dots and building massive Evica/Draco models in their basements. I do not concern myself with that portion of the case. I am concerned with the assassination of the President and the cloaking of the alleged assassin in a monster costume. The conspiracy, coup d'état, and the ever-widening circles of power and madness can be solved later, I assume, but the crux of the case is and always has been the murder of a human being. The accused's subsequent execution was another crime but I would even put that aside as it is not germane to the present case, IMO. Once the central crime has been solved, the conspiracy should be revealed by necessity. Attempting to uncover the conspiracy and work it backward to the crime I find counterproductive. Now we have one golden nugget before us with which we might be able to solve the largest question in the entire case. I have never seen anything better in fifty years of searching and I do not know that we can find anything else which could offer as much leverage as this one piece of evidence. Verifiable or not. After fifty years, how can we ignore the chance?

Personally, I believe the two were separate actions. How I came to this determination was through a study of the Lincoln assassination. Otto Eisenschiml publish a theory that Edwin Stanton was the "mastermind" behind Booth's act. It seemed to me that Stanton was intelligent enough to have had a better cover story in place and yet he seemed unbalanced, confused, grasping at straws attempting to cobble together a case. Had he been behind it, it should have been more seamless. In the Kennedy assassination we see the same thing. If Hoover or Dulles had masterminded the killing, I would think there would not have been so many dangling threads to try and tie together. Back yard photos would have been impeccable, only one trip to the Paine's garage should have been needed, and all the physical evidence concerning the weapons, bullets, and so forth would have been seamless as well. It is almost as if Oswald's presence is an annoyance to someone in Dallas and when the assassination comes along it is decided to hang it on him. They first arrest him for the Tippit killing but require several hours before they can also hang him with JFK's killing as well. This seems to have been almost an afterthought after arresting him for the Tippit shooting. Do I have evidence for this? No, it is just a hunch.

I agree completely. If a group of people received a treasure map and found the clues a bit obscure, I can see them discussing every leg of the hunt. After the first few legs wound up at pointers indicating a correct interpretation, excitement would certainly mount. Some of the group might grumble about some of the interpretations but they continue anyway. Eventually they arrive at the rock under which the treasure chest lays. At this point the members who complained about misinterpreting the clues say they've got it wrong. Should they go back and double check other interpretations? Why not simply lift the rock to see if there's any treasure there rather than retracing all the steps on the map? That's where we are now. It does not matter who it is beside the door. I believe even those who think Oswald shot Kennedy would be happy to have this issue settled. The enhanced film may show us it is not Oswald and the doubters can have a feather in their cap. Without the enhancement each side will simply continue the arguments ad infinitum.

IIRC the DPD charged Oswald with the killing of Kennedy after midnight, in the early hours of 11/23/63. As far as the evidence of discrepancy in the evidence in the early days after the assassination, it almost seems as if there was more than one cover-up going on. Could this possibly indicate two separate groups working at cross purposes? In other words, it almost seems as if one group is trying to muddy the facts surrounding the assassination while another group is targeting Oswald. So Oswald was pegged for Tippit's killing early on and later on implicated in the assassination. If that makes any sense.