Glenn Viklund

You did not come between us. You insulted me. You insulted my family. You disrespected my relationship and THAT is inexcusable. Indeed, them is fighting words. Remember it, Jim. I will never forget. Next: You are misrepresenting the facts. You've been here, Jim. I have a GIGANTIC monitor. I had six versions of the Altgens 5 photo displayed of varying sizes--close ups as well as original size and everything in between. The only thing I asked Julie to do was to "describe the details" as she saw them in the Altgens photo. That was it. There need not be any more "context" beyond that. David Mantik agreed with me. After seeing her video, which I am re-posting below, David said: "Good for Julie!" http://http://www.yo...h?v=uS1-AM6e-Gg Greg, Sorry for asking, but is there a particular reason for this being displayed in public?

Ralph, Being thrown out - would literally be the same as buried, right? And for the same reason that happened over there, you are now coming up with yet another claim "this photo shows two different persons". May I ask when you came up with this theory, last Wednesday? You are a moving target, which is probably the only reason you still get this attention for all of your unsubstantiated claims. It seems to me that you are finding arguments as you go along, whenever overwhelmed you have this tendency to add something new. This shooting from the hip that you displayed in that DPF discussion is continuing here? No bets, Ralph.

"Let me close by complimenting Pat Speer, with whom I have had strenuous disagreements over any number of issues in the past. Even though I come on too strong, insist that logic and evidence have to prevail, and fault those who are not persuaded by arguments that, in my opinion, ought to be decisive, Pat has remained even tempered and dispassionate, a quality I do not possess. So I want to congratulate Pat for coming across as the most rational of the lot. I do not mean that some of you don't have grounds to fault me (which has motivated your--sometimes severe--ad hominem attacks), but that Pat (who has equally good reasons to fault me on that ground) has stood up for Ralph's right to be heard and taken seriously here. For that, Pat, I thank you! Well done." Well put. Pat Speer is given far too little credit for his studies of this case.He has, beyond the logics of his presentations, also injected a certain amount of reality to events in Dallas that day. Nice to see you giving Pat credit.

Mr Cinque, After what happened recently in the DPF, you should have some credit for trying the same thing in this forum. I followed the debate there, the reasons you were given there should prevent most people from doing the same thing all over again. Your interpretation of the clothes, how the shadows work, the faces involved and more, were decisively buried in that discussion. And so they were long before your study of this.

Another consideration is the bullet that hit JBC could have been fired from a different location and entered his body at enough of an angle to create a non-circular entry hole. I agree, Richard. That and much, much else too, regarding the bullet that hit Governor Connally. However, it's probably not such a good idea to continue on that subject in this thread.

Glenn, I haven't studied Connally's wounds closely enough to have an opinion, Thank you, Glenn. Do you have any new sources on this? I'd be interested in any new material on paralytics/toxins you've come across. I doubt they would be new to you - I did some research on this, using Fort Detrick as a starting point. It quickly became apparent that research on a paralyzing toxin goes, at least, back to 1944 (Alan Scott). The substance that would probably be used by CIA is botulinum (and yes - the very same substance as used in Botox, in fact..). The more technical aspects of this when used in a weapon is somewhat harder to find out about, but as stated in the reference you gave, it was in existence in 1960. So there's not much doubt that in theory this could have been used in the JFK assassination.

Cliff, I don't want to change the subject here. But closely related to this is of course the entrance wound in Governor Connallys back. If he was hit by a separate bullet, what's your explanation for the size of this wound? In my view it has all the hallmarks of a tumbling bullet, would you agree to this? (Btw Cliff, it seems you are correct about the existence of a toxin and the technology to inject it, with a paralyzing effect "within two seconds", so I'd agree with you that theoretically, it could have been used here..)

If you'd read my posts above you would notice that I told Jim Fetzer that I followed this subject on the deep politics forum, where it was discussed at length recently. In other words, I suggest it's a dead end for exactly some of the reasons mentioned there, as Jim certainly should be aware. As for the rest of your rant, it's worth no further comment. Shouldn't you be stalking Judy Baker or doing something more productive than trying to tease me with your messages of love quickly followed by your messages of hate? I'm assuming you've got nothing valuable to contribute to this discussion and your only purpose and aim here is to try and rile me up? Is that it, Glennie? Am I reading this one right? What is the true essence of an internet xxxxx? Oh, and by the way, Glennie, I'm not here to "impress" you. You are a meaningless and pointless distraction who I have found very easy to ignore most of the time. Now if you'll excuse me but I'm sure the rest of the members want to learn stuff. If you ever want to make a scene - do it by PM. Excellent Lee. The feeling is mutual. I've PM'd my feelings to you. What I had to say is best done in a more private manner. If you ever have anything useful to share concerning the JFK assassination then please feel free to post it but from all of your previous contributions I won't be holding my breath. Now please go and annoy someone else. There's plenty to choose from here. I think you've made enough of an unholy show of yourself by trying to xxxxx me... P.S. Have you ever reflected on your own behaviour when things like this blow up or do you only have the ability to externalise your hurt feelings? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Now, I'm sure Ralph wants some specific feedback on why his analysis is wrong. So far you have provided nothing except bringing up your unhealthy obsession with Jim Fetzer and Judy Baker. Ta ta

Shouldn't you be stalking Judy Baker or doing something more productive than trying to tease me with your messages of love quickly followed by your messages of hate? I'm assuming you've got nothing valuable to contribute to this discussion and your only purpose and aim here is to try and rile me up? Is that it, Glennie? Am I reading this one right? What is the true essence of an internet xxxxx? Oh, and by the way, Glennie, I'm not here to "impress" you. You are a meaningless and pointless distraction who I have found very easy to ignore most of the time. Now if you'll excuse me but I'm sure the rest of the members want to learn stuff. If you ever want to make a scene - do it by PM. Excellent Lee. The feeling is mutual.

Here we go again. The heavy hitting truth-seekers are making fun of and ridicule someone who does not agree. What else is new, boys? What I am not going to apologize about, is not agreeing to the fantasy-land you are living in. That'¨s not gone happen.

\Sorry, Jim, that's just a myth. Specter's chapter in which he pushed the single-bullet theory was written and handed over to the commissioners a month and a half before Tague even testified. Why not do some research instead of inaccurately pushing what "everyone knows"? Sure, I apologize. But no I didn't think it was aimed vs me, but vs Fetzer. Maybe I got that wrong.

No misread, Lee. You are the true essence of the new generation of researchers -those who claim to have the answers by way of Internet. "It's just a question of being bri9ght enough and diving deep enough", right? Seriously, I'm not impressed by conclusions based on a pattern of bashing witnesses that cannot defend themselves - and who's statements for all we know - are true!

Lee, Thanks! All professionals would be impressed by your arguments; those civilians who did not lie; those who were not bribed and those who were not idiots - Yes - those we should believe! Congrats Lee!

Lee, A question: did you find one single, honest civilian near the Dealey Plaza? No? Well, there you go....

BS. This "my way or the highway" EDIT Sorry. I only speak English and a bit of French. Never been able to get my head around jibberish. Well, that's rational. Just the same way I use one ear and half my brain when dissecting your crap.

BS. This "my way or the highway" EDIT

I followed the debate on DP that ended with Cinques ban. Another dead end, Jim. You seem to stumble in to lots of those?

Jim, I'm honored to be directed like this. Thank you. However, once you explain why Judyth Baker does not qualify for your "top 20 list" of discoveries of late, I will be happy discuss any issue with you. No one around here or anywhere else could reasonably be expected to spend three months on a dead end, right? OK, Jim?

Indeed it is.

Nice to see you back, Lee. One would have thought you were pretty much much done here, according to your pompous exit? Now, it's nice to agree with you about Cinque, a kook wouldn't you agree? //GV

Answers in red. Glenn, he was shot in the throat with something that didn't kill him! Yes, but that's only as a result of another bullet taking care of that, before the first one may well have. Perhaps I should have added in my first posting that I don't agree with your basic assumption of why we see JFK act the way he did, after being hit the first time. You describe this as him being "paralyzed". Perhaps this is an agreeable description. However, the conclusion that his actions - or lack of actions - was the result of some kind of toxin entering his body, is highly speculative. What we can agree on, surely, is that JFK had been hit in his neck by a bullet. I don't know exactly what makes you conclude that his apparently "paralyzed" reaction must have had something to do with a toxin of some kind? As you stated, Jackie said he looked quizzical. Who wouldn't look quizzical? Just a few seconds after something completely incomprehensible happened to him, and his brain had just begun to processing what was going on? The sensation, and possibly pain, that JFK must surely have felt from this shot should of course have been completely unexplainable to him. His hands came up to his throat as the result of a reflex response, not as a result of a processed thought. After this reaction his only movement was that he fell over slightly forward and towards his left, Jackie. Newton, that is. I don't know what it is that you would have expected him to do here, in these few seconds after he was hit - to not conclude that he was injected with some kind of toxin? Stand up? Lay down? Take cover, somehow? Say something? Or what? I believe that JFK was completely overwhelmed by the sensation of the hit and that he also was just beginning to register all kinds of totally unknown sensations that he was unable to comprehend. Could he swallow, for example? Had the pain of the hit begun register? Was he able to breath properly? Personally I don't believe that JFK in the few seconds before the head shot ended it all, understood the situation; that he'd been hit. I think his brain was in turbo mode to sort out all strange and never before felt signals his body was sending him. And that yes, he had begun to feel the pain. Nellie Connally, who got a glance of him after the first hit, described his eyes as "empty and frightened". Possibly his left hand fist is an indication of this. In my view, as a response to what was going on inside of him, not because he was thinking of what exactly had happened or what might happen. Cliff, I don't have the answers to all of this. But no matter how I turn the stones here, I cannot see that President Kennedy's reaction would have had to have anything to do with a toxin. Another matter is that toxins are traceable. Not only in the sense that it existed, but also possibly where it came from; was manufactured. Why risk that with the questions that would follow? So therefor, yes, he was hit with a bullet that didn't kill him. But in my view, it might well have as I believe it was a standard bullet. The doctors at Parkland suggested that there could be no guarantee that JFK would have survived the neck hit. It may well have turned out fatal. If someone was going to take a shot at JFK, why not just aim for the President's head with a standard bullet and the likelihood is very strong that it would all be game over? They didn't want to go to the gas chamber if the first shot failed to kill JFK. Well, Cliff, do you really think that anyone who would have been caught and convicted for being part of the alleged assassination team at DPD would not get the death sentence? I doubt it. Glenn, would you risk your life on a "very strong likelihood" that the first shot was a kill shot when you had the capacity to paralyze the target first? That is a question which I believe no shooter would have had any possibility of answer during the shooting. How would anyone be able to decide whether a hit had been fatal or not, in the few seconds they had to decide this? Which is confirmed by what the doctors said about the neck shot, "it may have been fatal". First-shot/kill shot was not a 100% proposition. With a blood soluble paralytic a strike anywhere on the body is successful -- this could not be assumed with a standard round. And the damage shown on the neck x-ray was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. The shallow wound in the back was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. Well, there's hardly consensus about that. The only "theory" I advance here is that the back shot -- the second shot -- was a toxin. OK. Cliff. Fair enough. No, that's not the reason. The purpose was to render the target paralyzed. What do we see in the Zapruder film? JFK seizing up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. See above for my view on this. They didn't need to hit him in the neck -- anywhere on his body would have worked. You've got a source for this toxin, and that it existed in 1963? Here you present the argument I made above -- why risk a dicey first-shot/kill-shot when you MUST score a direct hit on the head of a moving target? The risk for a blood soluble round was nil. The risks of a failed first-shot/kill-shot were enormous. Well, I see it the other way around. Two guns with standard ammunition, instead of one, would raise the chances of success by at least 50%. No matter how you slice it. First of all, it's not my theory -- it was the theory of the guys who actually handled the body on 11/22/63. This scenario was so compelling to them that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry. Did you read this? http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt A shot to the chest would work as well as a shot to the throat. GV: 2) I also find it extremely hard to believe that if there were more than a single shooter, one of them would be taking all those enormous risks involved in an endevour like this one - without having the capacity to actually to do the job, which was to kill JFK? I don't follow you. The shooters firing the blood soluble rounds weren't taking any more of a risk than anyone else. The idea behind using a paralytic was to reduce the risk for everyone. OK. At least now I do understand your argument for this. But we look at this very differently. In my view, it reduces the chances of success, it does not raise them. GV: You've got to admit that this idea is somewhat far fetched...? The autopsists didn't think it was far-fetched. The FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was far-fetched. It isn't far-fetched when you consider the minor damage to the throat the shot caused; it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that the back wound was shallow; and it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'd like to see those photos that Robert Knudsen testified about to the HSCA. Where he basically stated that he had been part of developing and thus seen photos from the autopsy of metal probes through JFKs body, one of them through the neck. If this is true, it certainly supports the notion that a single bullet went through JFKs neck. I'm not a medical expert, Cliff, (but I am now trying to dig deeper in to the medical evidence, fwiw) and the number of contradictory statements from the autopsists and what Sibert stated in that report, is remarkable. I guess most of this comes down to whether one believe that a single bullet pierced Kennedy's neck or not.

Cliff Varnell: "They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds, utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA. They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot. These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them?" Cliff, I'll give you two reasons which I find very convincing. 1) Why try to shoot the President in the neck - purposely - with something that will not kill him? If someone was going to take a shot at JFK, why not just aim for the President's head with a standard bullet and the likelihood is very strong that it would all be game over? Because they wanted no shots from in front to be visible? Come on, Cliff? This couldn't be the reason? Furthermore, the neck is a smaller target and thus more difficult to hit, right? Especially on a moving target. Why risk this? Because I take it you don't expect those two seconds to still be that short amount of time (which as I understand your theory, is an absolute requirement) if this toxin originated in, say, his chest? 2) I also find it extremely hard to believe that if there were more than a single shooter, one of them would be taking all those enormous risks involved in an endevour like this one - without having the capacity to actually to do the job, which was to kill JFK? You've got to admit that this idea is somewhat far fetched...?

Amazing. For almost fifty years the endless circling for evidence of a conspiracy has been fruitless. The WC did a bad job, which opened the field for almost any speculation. So it is really entertaining to read a thread like this one. They pop up once in a while, where all the culprits are named, their roles defined and the guilt administered. The difference over the years might be that the responsibles seems to be an ever growing population. Evidence? Nah, forgeddaboutit. Carry on.

So I've been told since I raised this question. Thanks David, it appears I've missed this entire aspect of JFK and his Presidency.

Thanks Michael. That's the clip.