Glenn Viklund

Case in point: (Horrific video, don't watch this if you cant stand these things...) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2390091327094425662 Executed from point blank range, with a Smith and Wesson 0.38. According to the logic's of some postings above, this is an illusion? If not, I'd be very interested in the explanation as to why this guys head doesn't move at all when shot.

I'd like to side with Tom Scully, regarding Robert Morrow. How many more threads is this man going to be allowed to destroy before decisive action is taken?

As this this thread is heading farther out in the woods. Personal opinions about the Clinton's are interesting, perhaps. But again I note that there's little in the way of suggesting ideas to my question. Did President Clinton actively pursue his questions about the JFK-assassination?

I agree on both accounts, JImbo.

My, my. I kind of knew we could now expect The Rant Par Excellance, as well. Thanks Jim, you just proved my point why it's a complete waste of time for me to try to discuss the JFK case with you. I am obsessed??? :rolleyes: This is coming from YOU? Relax, Jimbo. You need a break from that dark world of yours - it's eating you up. //GV

Glad your laughing, Jimbo. Because that makes two of us. Now, if this is the way you're intending to "reconcile the mess the WC made...", then, Good Luck to you. You will need it. Rambling rants like this one seems to be your trademark as soon as you find anyone disagreeing about anything with you. Another thing, dear Jimbo, the day will not arrive when I ask you what to think, write or conclude about the assassination. I could easily produce a list just like the one above, with all your ridiculous positions about the JFK-case. But I will not, as it adds zero and furthermore no one cares anyway. But I will say this: If you got rid of some of that paranoia of yours, you could learn a thing or two from Gary Mack about how to deal with facts in this case. Mack's way of dealing with facts is far, far superior to yours - and Fetzer's, btw. Of course, you will never understand this - better to just ramble away. Ridicule others and question their right to even post in this forum. And yes, I am a member of both McAdams forum and Duncan's. Because I don't have my head up where the sun doesn't shine, and am in fact open to different views on this case. A commodity long, long gone in your case. You just cannot accept that others have reached conclusions other than your own. If someone have, then they are 1) CIA 2) Disinfo 3) FBI 4)Some other dark force, or 5) plain stupid idiots. There's no way anyone can reach conclusions other than yours just by pure and simple judgment about the facts in this case. No way, thoroughly and utterly impossible. Period. The ironic thing is that you, in particular, are producing rants about the despicable "MSM", on almost a daily basis. And still, you don't seem to understand that the way you yourself behave in forums like this one (and the dozens of other places where you are a regular feature), is quite important to get your message through. Keep ranting and rambling, Jimbo! I'm sure you've found the optimal way to win of over others. No doubt about that. Brilliant, Jimbo. The Conspiracy Theories Marketeer Par Excellance! Right, Jimbo?

Congrats Kathy, best wishes!

Hold on a second here. I tried to exemplify how ridiculous it is to suggest that Gary Mack should display every "theory" between the earth and the moon in the Museum. That's the reason, the rest is just your usual speculation about other's sinister motives, whenever what they say is not your cup of tea. Period. "How could you miss that"? But I have no hesitation in giving Gary Mack credit for being far more careful with the truth than most people here seems to acknowledge. No hesitation whatsoever.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason". "Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!" Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize. Now, the question of "Treason". I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for. Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades. In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second? Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer? My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated. Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3. Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play. Well Greg, It's nice to see you and a few other CTers come together this way. At least that gives you a short break from ripping each others hearts out, which is otherwise the main activity here on the EF. But when it comes to bully someone perceived as a "lone nut", then the bullying is united among some of you guys, indeed impressive. In the past couple of weeks I've been labeled "an idiot", "an asset..", "uneducated" and more. Wow, some of you people here on the EF really strikes me as intellectual heavy weights by way of argumentation. But since you obviously know nothing about my "genuine interest" or "desire to be educated" about the JFK assassination, you should be a bit more careful with your conclusions. The other night I listened to you on Blackopsradio state that "I've learned more since the year 2000 about this case than I probably knew prior to that year..". Good for you. But you know, you're far from the only one getting educated. Moreover, you will have to excuse me, but to question my sincerity about getting educated only to state that "I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case...", doesn't seem to mix all that well together. Especially when it comes to the basics of this case, where the shooting sequence and number of shots fired certainly ranks. Of course, I have a very good idea about why "8-10 shots fired" is not discussed more here, as outlandish as it is. And I have an even better idea as to why mostly everything that the Warren Commission could have gotten correct, is off limits here. But I'll leave it at that. Nevertheless, thanks for your input. GV

I think its important to understand Bill Clinton's beliefs about the Kennedy assassination, and so its for that reason, and no other, that I'm writing this brief post. Besides what he told Web Hubbell, there is this other data: (1) A very good friend of mine--the late Robert Chapman, who was also very close with Mary Ferrell--related to me his personal experiences with Bill Clinton, at a time when Clinton was a candidate for President, and would drop by Molly's the restaurant he owned in Memphis. Robert personally talked to Clinton and there's no question but that he was a closet buff, and believed there was a conspiracy in the JFK case. But now. . read on. . (2) The Clintons were close with Jacqueline Kennedy, and in August, 1993, one can find newspaper articles (and photographs) in which Jacqueline Kennedy hosted them for several hours on the family yacht. Bill Clinton (and probably Hillary, too) also spent time with Jacqueline Kennedy at her New York apartment. All this is a matter of record. (3) On the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination, with the assassination of JFK receiving a huge amount of publicity, Clinton publicly stated, in a news conference, that he believed the Warren Report, and that Oswald acted alone. Quoting now fromthe NY Times story by David Rosenbaum, which ran under the headline, “30-Year Commemoration in Dallas and Arlington: QUOTE: President Clinton, who has often said that Kennedy was his idol, intended to take no public notice of the anniversary. But at a news conference, he was asked whether he thought Kennedy was killed by a single assassin and whether he was satisfied with his own security arrangements. The President replied: "I'm satisfied with the finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I am also very satisfied with the work done by the Secret Service in my behalf." UNQUOTE On the 30th anniversary, I happened to be in Dallas, where I spoke at the ASK conference. I also attended the ceremonies at the Sixth Floor Museum, and actually met Nellie Connally. Knowing what Clinton had said to Robert Chapman, I was astounded to read--in USA Today (as I recall)--what he was then quoted as saying about the assassination. One half year later, Jacqueline Kennedy was buried at Arlington. Because of Clinton's changed position, I have always believed that Jacqueline Kennedy personally implored Clinton not to pursue the issue, because of the damage it would do to her husband's legacy. That's just my opinion. But if one draws a time line, there's a serious delay between the time the JFK Records Act was passed (and signed) --October 1992--and the time the ARRB was actually "up and running," which was about October 1994. DSL 3/27/12; 2:30 PDT Los Angeles, Calfornia Thank you, David.

Robert, I raised a simple question. This is not and was not, about you. Your presence immediately changes this. Thread destroyed.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason". "Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!" Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize. Now, the question of "Treason". I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for. Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades. In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second? Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

Actually, Tom Scully, I don't know why; nobody has contacted me. When I post information I always document it with sources. I am certain credible to speak with some authority on the Clintons because I have literally every book written on them. You may not like my sources and you may not like my analyses, but that does not mean they are not legitimate. In the case of Chelsea Clinton, I think absolutely she is the daughter of Webb Hubbell. Bill Clinton found out about Hillary's pregnancy by reading the newspaper. I bet you did not know that. That is because the Clintons were living an extremely dysfunctional "open" marriage where Bill had his countless affairs and Hillary was running around with Webb Hubbell and Vince Foster. Larry Nichols, a Clinton insider for 10 years, told author Melrose Larry Green that Chelsea was the daughter of Webb Hubbell and that in fact Hillary had announced to Clinton insiders that she was going to have sex with Hubbell. You may not like the ugliness of it, but it is true. 2 books you can read on this are 1) http://www.amazon.com/The-Truth-About-Hillary-President/dp/B000HD1OV4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332785287&sr=1-1 2) http://www.amazon.com/Clintons-Belong-Prison-Melrose-Larry/dp/1594533016/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332785307&sr=1-1 I really think, Tom Scully, it is disgusting of you to silence viewpoints that you do not like, especially when they are back up with sources and credible analysis from someone who has spent 5 years studying a subject. Classic case of shooting the messenger, because you don't like the message. My views and opinions on the Clintons and CChelsea being the daughter of Webb Hubbell are well sourced. Additionally, Arkansas state troopers are Larry Patterson and L.D. Brown are on the record about Hillary's affair with Vince Foster. The information on Webb Hubbell came from Larry Nichols, as well as my intimate knowledge of the multi-decade dysfunctions of the Clintons. Here is L.D. Brown's book where he talks about Hillary's affair with Vince Foster - an open secret among Clinton insiders. http://www.amazon.com/Crossfire-Investigation-L-D-Brown/dp/1582750033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332785516&sr=1-1 Additionally there is Ron Kessler's book where he reveals that Vince Foster's depression over his deteriorating relationship was a big factor in his suicide. One week for his suicide, Hillary had chewed out and humiliated Vince Foster (her boyfriend, documented, multiple sources) http://www.amazon.com/The-Secrets-FBI-Ronald-Kessler/dp/0307719693/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332785603&sr=1-1 Robert Morrow, If it isn't about sex or adultery, it's about killing them all by reputation? You are the most sorry excuse for a researcher that I have ever come across. You research nothing, you confirm nothing but you are endlessly expecting others on this site to take you seriously? Despite your complete lack of evidence in combination with your complete acceptance of bullxxxx? In my view, John Simkin has a serious problem with this site's credibility as long as you are allowed to continue this path of yours.

Tom, Are you speculating? This is your version of events? Back it up.

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from. Think about it: First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story. I'm sure we would be able to take part of how her story developed over the years, with all her books, all her interviews on Fetzer's net broadcasts; Cancun, LHO's leaf letter incident explained in her own words and in a completely new light. And, I'm sure, lot's more of so far completely unknowns that would no doubt stun the research community. Ms Baker could probably be convinced that six personal appearances from her is reasonable, every year. Another little pavilion that explains the concept of "spiral nebulas" and how they work on windshields. All with specimens in secure glass boxes. The next pavilion obviously should be dedicated to the limo stop; pictures of the limo at a complete halt where Greer and Kellerman are having a nice cup of coffee while the president is being assassinated. No doubt would "the umbrella man" be at center of this presentation. Not to mention, say in scale H0, a fantastic model of Dealey Plaza where almost every rooftop, picket fence, drainage and underpass would be populated by snipers. Surely with names attached to each and every one of them. But the real block buster would be the entirely new floor where every single dis-informant would would be exposed. This would most likely have to be an interim solution as the number is much too large to squeeze in on a single floor of the building. Personally, I'm particularly interested in the new section where every faked film and photo from Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, will be displayed. Dozens of films and hundreds of photos will finally get their much longed for explanation. On the entrance floor we would experience 3-D virtual bonfires where the WC report could be thrown. The city of Dallas would at last get the museum the world has been waiting for. LOL I like you, Glenn. Thanks, Martin, it's mutual. To David Healy and Dawn Meredith: What else is new?

If so, he has kept it relatively quiet. But then again, having additional knowledge would certainly have come in handy in "blackmailing" Arlen Specter's vote on impeachment. Would it not????? Tom, "Dead serious", tells me that this was something that President Clinton would have had on his mind for a long time. Nevertheless, it's somewhat surprising that there seems to be nothing much to find about this on the Internet. Well, I'm gone just have to give him a call, no? :-) Well! Without going into any great detail, let's just say that a little "birdie" told him that in event he had any questions relative to the Kennedy assassination, that he should ask Attorney General Janet Reno. Personally, considering Specter's "back-paddling", me-thinks that he asked. Tom, Specter's back paddling with regards to Janet Reno? You lost me, please elaborate?

If so, he has kept it relatively quiet. But then again, having additional knowledge would certainly have come in handy in "blackmailing" Arlen Specter's vote on impeachment. Would it not????? Tom, "Dead serious", tells me that this was something that President Clinton would have had his mind on for a long time. Nevertheless, it's somewhat surprising that there seems to be nothing much to find about this on the Internet. Well, I'm gone just have to give him a call, no? :-)

Thanks, Tom Scully, I did not catch whatever Morrow was up to in this thread, but generally speaking I agree completely with the above.

A couple of weeks ago I stumbled across this little piece of information that I found interesting. Shortly after Bill Clinton came into office, he asked his old friend Webster Hubbell a favor. In Hubbell's book "Friends in high places", Webb Hubbell describes the episode and what Clinton asked of him: "Webb, he said, If I put you over at Justice I want you to find the answer to two questions for me. One, who killed JFK?..." Hubbell, who was shortly thereafter appointed Associate Attorney General, continues: "He was dead serious." I was not aware that Bill Clinton had this view on the JFK-assassination. In this instance nothing came out of it. Does anyone know if Clinton did anything else along those same lines, regarding JFK? I've looked into this but have so far not found much of substance at all. (Oh, the other question was about UFO's.) Thanks, Glenn V.

Duplicate. Sorry.

Since Mr Fetzer is continuously complaining about Gary Mack, let's put him in Gary's place for a minute, shall we? Let's make James Fetzer the Curator of the 6th Floor Museum. That's an interesting experiment that we can all learn from. Think about it: First, the "Real Deal" Ms Judyth Baker, would have an entire pavilion dedicated to her story. I'm sure we would be able to take part of how her story developed over the years, with all her books, all her interviews on Fetzer's net broadcasts; Cancun, LHO's leaf letter incident explained in her own words and in a completely new light. And, I'm sure, lot's more of so far completely unknowns that would no doubt stun the research community. Ms Baker could probably be convinced that six personal appearances from her is reasonable, every year. Another little pavilion that explains the concept of "spiral nebulas" and how they work on windshields. All with specimens in secure glass boxes. The next pavilion obviously should be dedicated to the limo stop; pictures of the limo at a complete halt where Greer and Kellerman are having a nice cup of coffee while the president is being assassinated. No doubt would "the umbrella man" be at center of this presentation. Not to mention, say in scale H0, a fantastic model of Dealey Plaza where almost every rooftop, picket fence, drainage and underpass would be populated by snipers. Surely with names attached to each and every one of them. But the real block buster would be the entirely new floor where every single dis-informant would would be exposed. This would most likely have to be an interim solution as the number is much too large to squeeze in on a single floor of the building. Personally, I'm particularly interested in the new section where every faked film and photo from Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, will be displayed. Dozens of films and hundreds of photos will finally get their much longed for explanation. On the entrance floor we would experience 3-D virtual bonfires where the WC report could be thrown. The city of Dallas would at last get the museum the world has been waiting for.

I interpret that a bit differently. After the Clifton tapes were released in November I noted that when AF1 left Dallas with the coffin it had not been sorted out where the autopsy was going to be conducted. If I remember correctly, somewhere other than Bethesda had been suggested, but Jackie Kennedy, during the flight, made it clear that she wanted this to be done at Bethesda as president Kennedy had been serving in the US Navy during the war. It seems likely to me that this is what they were discussing in your transcript. Glenn, First of all, it's not my transcript. It's Doug's. Second, if you only have a limited knowledge of the medical evidence in this case you will probably think there's nothing amiss here, when actually there is a great deal amiss. The decision for the body/casket and only the body/casket to go (I'm not even getting into different caskets and arrival times at Bethesda yet) ANYWHERE WITHOUT JACKIE was never a decision of Jackie's. Somebody wanted the body/casket to go, ALONE, by helicopter somewhere. That idea and the many different ways it's expressed and by many different people was never Jackie's idea. It is speculated that the conspirators thought they could separate Jackie from JFK at some point in Parkland Hospital. That didn't happen. If you read everything that is available in the public record you'll read where LBJ was kind of pissed off that a Catholic ceremony was performed at Parkland as JFK was given the Last Rites. This delayed things at Parkland. I don't think there was anyone who was Catholic or knew anything about the Roman Catholic faith, its ceremonies or traditions in the group of conspirators who killed JFK. Your opinion that this is just a misunderstanding and that they eventually got it together and went to Bethesda per Jackie's request is an opinion you're being guided into believing. Harold Weisberg goes into this whole "blame the Kennedys," mentality for when and where things seem odd in his book Post-Mortem. Third, the reason I want researchers to focus in on one conversation is because something strange is going on. JFK's body is in a bronze ceremonial casket and is already aboard AF1. When it arrives and is off loaded at Andrews its empty. JFK's body arrives at Bethesda before Jackie and the Navy ambulance get there as Lifton discovered and details in his book. I believe its Dennis David, or maybe Jerrol Custer, who is carrying X-rays and/or other autopsy photos just taken of JFK when he sees Jackie and the rest ARRIVING at Bethesda. This cannot be, if JFK is in the ceremonial casket too and is just arriving. The conclusion is obvious. JFK's body got there another way. Lifton theorizes that they took JFK out of the ceremonial casket at some point while it was on board AF1, probably shortly before LBJ swears himself in as the new POTUS. So, for Roy Kellerman, who is THE central figure in the movement of JFK's body, to say something as odd as he does, that he needs to call Gerry Behn back after SOMETHING happens to "the, ah, body," is damn strange. He doesn't say, "I don't know," or "As far as I know a decision hasn't been made," or anything like that. I would recommend you do some further reading: Post-Mortem by Harold Weisberg Best Evidence by David Lifton In the eye of History by William Matson Law Inside the ARRB by Doug Horne Joe Backes "Blame the Kennedys mentality"? "It is your opinion that.."? "Read these books..."? I simply brought forward my interpretation of this conversation, that's all. Which is a reasonable one, BTW. But let's see if I can return the favor: Basically, you disagree with what I said because you agree with David Lifton's body alteration theory. Correct?

I interpret that a bit differently. After the Clifton tapes were released in November I noted that when AF1 left Dallas with the coffin it had not been sorted out where the autopsy was going to be conducted. If I remember correctly, somewhere other than Bethesda had been suggested, but Jackie Kennedy, during the flight, made it clear that she wanted this to be done at Bethesda as president Kennedy had been serving in the US Navy during the war. It seems likely to me that this is what they were discussing in your transcript.

David, That was meant literally, more than anything. Sometimes my English language skills plays jokes with me - and others. So please bear with me in that regard. Now, from the start the WC was setup more or less to confirm the FBI report that Hoover had already put together. Hoover didn't want this at all, but LBJ threw the WC at him and he had to accept that. Later, the entire mission of the WC grew to something that initially had not been foreseen. In my view, the problem with the WC is that as their mission was to confirm LHO as the lone nut assassin, other possibilities were not followed up properly. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the WC was, or became, aware of any conspiracy and therefor they could only indirectly have been part of a cover up. If there indeed was a conspiracy.