Glenn Nall

I wonder if Wikileaks will ever give us any of Paul Manafort's e-mails? -- Tommy Perhaps Assange is only releasing material that actually contains some substance of national import.

Sandy. Please reread my original comment. It was about neither antennae nor ships.

In fact, I worked on the many antennae on A7-E Corsairs which were retired from service in 1986 when the Hornet took flight. And, unless I screwed up a whole squadron of Corsairs, not all antennae are hundred feet tall whip antennae. Some are shaped a lot like a canoe, attached to the belly of aircraft, and are called, curiously enough, canoe antennae. Some are shaped like horseshoes and extend from the back of the vertical stabilizer. I'll let you guess what they were called. I do apologize, but I do disagree with you on this. Just because a person served in the US Navy doesn't mean he would know things that were not particular to his rate. That's not good logic. And I haven't spent time looking at pictures of ships because I'm not at all interested in ships. I'm interested in planes. I know a lot about planes. Don't know xxxx about ships. Ceptin' Aircraft Carriers and how much fun they are when you pull in to Naples or Majorca. Don't think I've ever even seen a picture of the USS Liberty. But if i did, from your description i'm sure even my little ol' brain could guess that it's a communications vessel. But that would not have come from my Naval experience. My Naval experience taught me how to recognize, not ships, but beer, for which I am forever grateful.

I didn't say that the Israeli AF or the Mossad couldn't figure it out. I simply stated that your assertion that "anyone with military experience would know" is flatly wrong, and a bit condescending.

"Anyone with any military experience would know it was a communications vessel since it had so many antennas on it." really, Jim? kind of a "strong" statement there, man. I was US Navy. USS Forrestal, CV59. That's an aircraft carrier, Viet Nam era. In all my military experience I never once sat through any training on any of the lesser boats. I wouldn't know a destroyer from a frigate. perhaps I have once again failed to rise to a certain, acceptable standard. I shall try harder. what branch were you in...?

"...another big thing on J's plate was exposing Mary Ferrell as an agent? Every time I visited in those last months that was what he talked about." did anything substantial ever come of this endeavor before he died? (i only ask as a matter of curiosity.)

Last week the sentiment was posited to me that: "Anyone could lie, anyone having anything to do with the Assassination, pre, during, or post. That would include folks who also would be on either side of the JFK Debate. Not all folks who are CTs and not all witnesses are credible, as well as LNs," which is true, of course. And speaks to the point I think a list of this kind would make all on its own, which is that the number of people who would have to be wrong in order for the Warren Report to be right would be so much larger, and the odds against therefore so much larger, than that of those who CTers have to show as wrong (which is also seemingly a good bit easier). I think that very imbalance would be pretty self-evident.

I apologize for my vague wording in the original question, Michael; i'm hoping to compile a list myself, of the thousands of people who simply must be wrong for whatever reason. I kind of think that "something" began dawning on Oswald right about the time the gunshots ended in Dealey, and at that point, as he was on whatever mission he thought he was on, things began becoming a little clearer as events unfolded and he met with whomever he met with. Who knows what "reasons" he was given to rendezvous at the Theater. I think at that point he had little choice but to try to get there and in some way get out of whatever trouble he'd found himself in; even if he was fully aware of the assassination before it happened, he was still left with no option but to find this person who had in all likelihood promised him an escape, probably on a plane to "safety" in Cuba - or more likely "safety" approximately half-way to Cuba. But yes, i'm sure there were some priceless faces Oswald made on his little excursion. Aside from his appalling spelling, which itself is questionable, he was no idiot. Russian speaking or not, he was no idiot. [edit: oh, i just realized you're replying to someone named "Dave." I can't see his posts for some reason. ]

Ms. Beckett has taken umbrage to this question, as if it's not quite as valid as all the rest. So perhaps I should clarify. I happen to think that such a list would be pretty telling, since the number of errant testimonies for a LN Theorist to be right would be along the lines of astronomical. I wish to apologize if my wording wasn't to expectations. But I certainly mean what I asked, and I've seriously considered making such a list. My perfectly valid opinion is that a list of this size would be interesting to see.

I wonder if anyone's ever compiled a list of all the people who would have to have beeen intentionally deceitful or otherwise blindly wrong to support all of the claims of the generic Lone Gunman Theorist, and if so, how many 1TB hard drives would one need? just askin'. it's like, every time I read testimonies of supposedly honorable and trustworthy witnesses, I'm thinking, "How can anyone (besides the Warren Commissioners, of course) find fault or error with this many people whose testimonies are clearly sound and are supportive of other sound testimony?" I will begin one. Just a list of all those whose statements must be wrong for the LG Theory to work. For the sensitive, the basis for error can be avoided, although, in some cases one option is clearly more preferable than the other. for instance, Aquilla Clemmons: The FBI feared for her health and was of the opinion that her 'particularly low level of education and culture' negated any viability of her statement. It would be a shame to be so ignorant (according to the FBI or the WC - I feel I must qualify, here) as not to know whether you've seen two persons or just one. Option: mistaken, by virtue of... Nurse Audrey Bell: mistaken or deceitful? Nurse Diana Hamilton Bowron: mistaken or deceitful? Dr Kemp Clark: mistaken or deceitful? I wonder how long would this list be...? [i've edited out the bad words in the interest of diplomacy and so as not to incite further civil unrest. unable to edit the title, or I would, although I kind of like its play on the old joke...]

I repeat: Are you suggesting that the CIA wouldn't have done just one finger, and therefore the fingerprint must have been real and Mac left it? (Note that I am just asking. I'm not trying to make a point.) My own thought, please forgive me: yep. a) the CIA would not have just left one little pinkie print. compare that to the "evidence" that LHO bought the rifle. not necessarily that it's the only fingerprint that Mac left - if he was there - only that it's the only one they found. there was certainly not a training film of CSI going on on the 6th floor at the time.

There didn't need to be a connection, other than one perceived by Americans. Who would then demand Johnson's head on a platter. I hear ya. I'm just speaking to stricter terms than that.

"Sandy, I only wonder, would the FBI (or somebody) have inserted only a fingerprint of Wallace's little pinkie if they wanted to implicate him (and LBJ)? Why not one or two of the more major fingers? Could Wallace have moved a box using only one of his little fingers?" Just sayin'. right.

"...lead people to wonder if Johnson was involved?" no question about it. All I'm saying is that there's a big difference in 'wondering if' and 'finding a connection to' ... "Especially in light of the fact that he was about to be dropped from the Kennedy ticket because of his involvement in the Bobby Baker scandal?" right. yet another reason to suspect Johnson. but there's no connection. "As a matter of fact, Life Magazine was ready to publish two articles saying as much. Here is what former Life Magazine employee James Wagenvoord's wrote on his blog about them..." to me, the single largest reason to suspect his complicity. To me. this, with the numerous other pieces of circumstantials, pretty much hangs Johnson as at least in some way involved. I do not dispute the idea that he was involved. I'm with that. I was just trying to define clearly how to get to the proposition.

James, I clearly stated that there's no accusation against you, in this reply or another. that's where I stopped reading.

"fair and objective?" really?

Isn't Haley's book the one that Ruby had in his jail cell...? just a fleeting memory of some sentence I read somewhere...

I cannot resist reiterating a couple of your sentences, Doug. I've been trying to categorize this man's campaign and veracity for a year now (Trump's not Jim's or Jay's): "...but like Trump you undercut your effectiveness with personal attacks..." "...unwarranted attacks? As with Trump, this is puzzling as it is self-defeating." (One will note I didn't highlight "unwarranted," in the case of Trump's, only "self-defeating" and "undercutting effectiveness") nearly perfect description, for me. Grateful. my girdle is showing. I better chill.

Presence of a Mac Wallace print gives a clue as to what role Vice President Johnson played. The presence of Mac Wallace's fingerprint tells me that Johnson might have been blackmailed into cooperating with the assassination. It seems that blackmail was a popular method for the CIA at the time. For example, James Angleton had a photo of J. Edgar Hoover homosexually involved with a man. have to respectfully question this, Sandy. Even hard proof that Wallace was there would not, in and of itself, connect LBJ to the assassination. Wallace surely had other "pals," and if he was there a closer connection to why and at whose motivation would be needed, to me. Wallace's presence, if so, only tells me, in a procedural sense, that Wallace was there.

James, Didn't the "ringer" ask for a life imprisonment? (As opposed to the rest of the jury, who asked for the death sentence.) And then didn't the judge overrule the jury and give Wallace only a 5 year sentence? After which he suspended the sentence and immediately freed Wallace? That is not the way Joan presents it in her book. (Pgs. 103-04) And this is the problem I have with people who critique someone's work without reading it. And also relying on what I call the folklore in the field. May I ask another question: Who the heck is Jay Harrison? Did he ever write a book? Did he publish any essays in any journals? Did he ever compile any indexes to files? I mean even Mary Ferrell published a couple of essays. I am not one to be overly impressed by how many binders a researcher accumulates. well, now, aren't these some odd prerequisites... must needs to have published something to be considered 'reputable?' Does that mean that those who have published something have brownie points toward a "Reputable Researcher" nametag? Because I've read some real crap, from pathetic writing to pathetic expectations of sensible readers to pathetically indulged delusion. There are several nametags I can think of that some deserve. "Reputable" is not one of them. If a person has never published something, does he have to tee-off from the back tee? Must he be extra-diligent in his citations? I published an essay once, on why my puppy only destroys my living room when I'm asleep and still acts as if she's the most adorable puppy on Glenn's planet (she is). Does that count?

I think it had already established that Kinser was hooked up with Josefa (how do i forget a name like that??). This is not news. your points simply speak to the only point I'm making, that there was a "less-than-honorable," significant relationship between him and LBJ (not that LBJ had many - or any - "more-than-honorable," or "equal-to-honorable" relationships). but not to my question: don't you find such coincidences just a bit fishy, in terms of odds and all that...? I don't know a thing about Joan Mellen other than her quite versatile bibliography; I'm only trying to establish differences between folklore and fact, without an agenda. (Not an accusation, just a clarification, as it is that agenda often plays a role in much of this research...)

Amen Doug. But I don't expect the truth about this from Caro. I fact I doubt he will even go near it. I just listened to an interview with Stone for the first time ever. Most interesting. I agreed with a lot of it, but I do not see LBJ was the mastermind, just deeply involved. And I said THAT day one at age 14 . I no longer believe Joan had a mission for the truth. But that is as far as I will go on a forum. I spoke with Nathan Darby's son today to see if he had any proof - aside from his personal recollection- that his father had kept up his certification. He is not certain if such still exists. I also told him about an alleged note his dad had sent to the IAI and his response to that was "then let her produce this note". (Which no one will I am sure as I know that never occurred). J had told me about meeting with you Doug and had a copy of your book. A funny Jism: One day after I had returned from court he called and just told me to go find a copy of that day's Wall St journal. Nothing else. (Cryptic as usual) then to call him back So I did. Then it was "open to such and such a page", then lo and behold there was an editorial by you about your days as Watergate atty. I was taken aback as I knew you had represented Billy sol in his letters to AG Trott (etc). "Strange bedfellows", I thought at the time. I hope someone does a TRUE bio of Mac. Not a whitewash. He was truly a stone cold killer. I have a lot more on my mind about this but have a very early morning. I wonder if non Texan residents are quick to dismiss the TX connection out of some Democratic loyalty to LBJ. It simply baffles me. Dawn Dawn: You must possess a form of ESP. You reference above my article to which Jay Harrison called your attention, "What If Judge Sirica Were With Us Today?", that the Wall Street Journal published on March 24, 1998. It was later included in a book that the Journal published on the Clintons. As I write this my priority mail envelop is being delivered to the Wall Street Journal this morning in which, 18 years later, I submit a second article. This one is titled, "Contrasting the roles of the FBI in Watergate and Clinton's Email Case." In It I draw upon a FBI internal 1974 report to show how the Bureau mishandled both cases. I don't know if the Journal, which receives 300 submissions each day, will publish my latest article but the coincidence in your mentioning my prior one after all these years leads me to be hopeful. VERY eager and hopeful to read this new article, Doug. I'd like to think that your submission might earn its way toward the top of the list. Here's hoping...

LOL, yeah David said that earlier this year. Too funny! man, I blocked his stuff a year ago. His arguments were changing me as a person, and I didn't like who I was becoming. Beating my dog, abject failure at simple math and logic problems... mysterious disdain for KFC, (which I've grown up loving)... when I began questioning Galileo's theories, I knew something was wrong, and I had to draw the line.

Glenn, AFIS results are "incredibly accurate" only when a tenprint is in the database, and a tenprint from the same person is searched for. In other words, the person's fingerprints are taken twice, one set of which is entered into the database, and then the other set is entered as though it were a latent print to be searched on. All ten fingers, not just one. This is the ideal case in terms of easily identifying a print. The odds of the system finding the tenprint is near 100%.. It's a much different story for latent prints, and even more so if only one latent print (one finger) is available, especially if it is smeared or incomplete. According to this document, the odds of locating a print (known to be in the database) that matches a LATENT print is 70% to 80%. But guess what... actual statistics have not been done to show these numbers to be the case. These numbers are what the purchasing agent specifies when they order the AFIS system. The vendor makes up a small database, does some testing, gets a result in or above that 70 to 80% range, and sells their system.. It is not a real world statistic, and the testing is most likely done in a way that benefits the vendor. (Search on "70 to 80%" to find this in the document.) Inversely, the odds of not even finding the matching print -- known to be in the database -- is 20% to 30%. Which is not stellar. But, yes, the AFIS is useful. But it's no replacement for human experts. WAIT. What...? David Von Pein was never a full-fledged CTer?? Man, I really need to pay more attention.

Glenn, AFIS results are "incredibly accurate" only when a tenprint is in the database, and a tenprint from the same person is searched for. In other words, the person's fingerprints are taken twice, one set of which is entered into the database, and then the other set is entered as though it were a latent print to be searched on. All ten fingers, not just one. This is the ideal case in terms of easily identifying a print. The odds of the system finding the print is near 100%.. It's a much different story for latent prints, and even more so if only one latent print is available, especially if it is smeared or incomplete. According to this document, the odds of locating a print (known to be in the database) that matches a LATENT print is 70% to 80%. But guess what... actual statistics have not been done to show these numbers to be the case. These numbers are what the purchasing agent specifies when they order the AFIS system. The vendor makes up a small database, does some testing, gets a result in or above that 70 to 80% range, and sells their system.. It is not a real world statistic, and the testing is most likely done in a way that benefits the vendor. (Search on "70 to 80%" to find this in the document.) Inversely, the odds of not even finding the matching print -- known to be in the database -- is 20% to 30%. Which is not stellar. But, yes, the AFIS is useful. But it's no replacement for human experts. Yes, I was also left with the impressions that a) it's not exactly like we see on CSI, Des Moines and similar shows, and the Dallas Cowboys and the Atlanta Falcons are two very serious football teams this year.