Glenn Nall

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

I should have said Naval experience.

But you would object to that also.

As I said, you are free to do so. Maybe you are too young to recall what antennas were back then.

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.

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

Yes, Dave, but oh, did Oswald say so, so much more.

So what was Oswald supposed to say when asked why he was carrying a gun? That he was a raving lunatic, a former defected-to-Russia Marxist who just shot the president, then while he was at it, shot a police officer, too, down the street from his rooming house? And oh, yeah, while he did that, he scattered the gun's shells all over the place and, for even better good measure, he threw down his wallet at the scene that contained an ID card under the name Hidell?

I would love to know whether he made his "because I felt like it" statement before or after his "I'm a patsy" statement. Crazy Kid was no dummy so I'd love to have seen his expression on his face when it dawned on him, "Holy s###, so *that's* why they told me to take the gun and meet up with ------ at the theater."

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...]

"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.

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.

"...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.

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.

Yes it is a fair and objective question.

Did you ever see Jay Harrison posting on any forums Glenn?

I have not.

Then how else do we get a measure of the guy and where is he coming from.

To give you an example which punctures your accusation against me:

There used to be a guy who posted on this forum who's name was Charles Dunne. To my knowledge he never wrote a book and I never saw any essay he wrote.

But I had the utmost respect for him as a writer and researcher, because of the quite intelligent, and quite informational and astute quality of his posting here.

I cannot say that about the late Jay Harrison. For the simple reason there is no way to measure what his ideas were and what the quality of his research was.

And then you say that somehow that does not matter? Sorry if I disagree with you. But I think that is the only rational way to measure someone, through empirical evidence.

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

that's where I stopped reading.

J. Evetts Haley was a great American?

The guy who called the New Deal socialism, and was anti integration into the sixties?

If that is your definition of a Great American then one has to ask: Were you also a John Birch Society member as he was?

As per Darby and Harrison:

What I am saying about the first is simply that his work on the JFK case would seem to me to be superseded by Garrett's for two reasons: 1.) The quality of his materials and 2.) The better technology we have today.

How is that a personal smear?

About Jay Harrison, I am simply asking an empirical question: What did the guy ever produce as far as scholarly work is concerned?

That is not a smear. It is a fair and objective question.

Which has not been answered.

And BTW, Hoffmeister's declaration of recantation is in Joan's book. He specifically states that the quality of the materials rendered were simply not adequate and therefore allowed for varying estimates of matches.

"fair and objective?" really?

Jim E.:

J. Evetts Haley was indeed a great American. His book, A Texan Looks At Lyndon, sold 7.5 million copies, making it one of the most successful books of all time.

Senator Barry Goldwater, like Haley, was also a great American. He termed President Eisenhower's domestic policies to be a "dime store New Deal" and voted against Civil Rights legislation. Later on his views moderated quite a bit (as did mine) so that at the time of his death he and I viewed the world the same way in most respects. Of course, I may be biased because Goldwater when being interviewed in Life Magazine by Gore Vidal in the June 9, 1961, issue ("A Liberal Interviews Senator Goldwater") was kind enough to single me out for special praise. My guess is that Goldwater today would be a card-carrying member of the ACLU as I am.

Here is Haley's Wikipedia biography:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Evetts_Haley

To head off you spreading false information about me, I hereby declare that at no time was I ever a member of the John Birch Society. However, here is an interesting story. I was the National Director of Young Americans for Freedom after it was formed in1960. YAF's chairman was Robert Schuchman, a brilliant student at Yale University Law School. Schuchman soon after YAF's formation had occasion to have breakfast alone with Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb. The subject arose at breakfast of Robert Welch, who was head of the John Birch Society, calling President Eisenhower a communist. To Schuchman's shock and surprise, Teller said he agreed with Welch!

Teller, like Goldwater and Haley, was also a great American.

Teller for all his fame and power was a modest man and readily available to the public. I met him once when he spoke in Houston to a small gathering of about a dozen people although the announcement of his forthcoming speech had been widely publicized. I spoke with him for a few minutes after his speech.

The criteria for being a great American does not require that the American in question agree with your personal political or social views. So I believe FDR and George McGovern were great Americans, just as Goldwater and Haley.

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

Jim:

Jay Harrison was a great American as were J. Evetts Haley and Nathan Darby, all of whom you never miss a chance to defame and villify. They are deceased but those of us who were privileged to know them are still able to speak up in their behalf.

Jim, you are an extremely talented researcher and writer, one of the best, but like Trump you undercut your effectiveness with personal attacks like these. Why do you want to alienate those would gladly boost your public persona except for these unwarranted attacks? As with Trump, this is puzzling as it is self-defeating.

In memory of these three great Americans, I am mailing to Robert Caro the most relevant documents that Jay compiled although I suspect that he already has these as he writes his fifth installment of the LBJ biography.

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.

Just a question:

What exactly is the significance of "proving" that Mac Wallace either was there or was not there, aside from gaining some real satisfaction if he is shown to have been there?

Where exactly does this get anyone?

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.

And [Joan Mellen] found out about the circumstances of that trial, things that no one has ever written about before. Namely that there was a ringer on the jury.

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?

GN: And Wallace is known to have "dated" LBJ's wacky-named sister... don't you find all of these "coincidences" a bit smelly? After a time, all the tedious explanations of tedious coincidences start to ring hollow, no matter how factual they may be...

​This is another point Joan goes into. According to her, it was Kinser who had the sexual relationship with Johnson's sister. That is because he was trying to use her to get a government loan to expand his golf course. (pgs. 81-82)

​Joan writes that Wallace, working for the Agriculture Dept. at the time, was supposed to keep an eye out for Josefa through a LBJ crony named Horace Busby. It does not appear that he had the same kind of relationship with Josefa as Kinser had. Kinser seems to have been a real player.

Since, among others, he was fooling around with Wallace's wife.

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...)

Decades ago when Jay Harrison was compiling evidence on LBJ, Billie Sol Estes and Mac Wallace, I visited him in his trailer in Austin. He described to me the research in which he was engaged. I later received three binders containing documents on the three aforementioned persons that Jay had compiled. A year ago I gave a set of the most relevant of these documents, a pile about a foot and a half high, to Roger Stone and also to Robert Morrow. I also gave these to a highly credible person whom I am not at liberty to name but who is legend in Texas history and who knows plenty about the murdering trio.

I am exploring the feasibility to reproducing these documents and making them available to those who want to see them.

I plan to cite some of them in my review of Joan Mellen's new book.

Anyone who sees these documents compiled by Jay Harrison when quickly realize that there remains a big story not yet told about LBJ, Billie Sol Estes and Mac Wallace. Hopefully Robert Caro will tell this saga in the fifth installment of his LBJ biography that he is working on now. This may the reason why Caro did not even mention Billie Sol or Mac Wallace in his most recent volume that covered the years Billie Sol and Mac Wallace had contact with LBJ.

Barr McClellan, Dawn Meredith and I have lived in Texas and we know what it was like when LBJ exercised supreme power both within the state and nationally. This knowledge sets us apart from others in the JFK assassination community who may live in California or Pennsylvania or elsewhere. Texas was a world of its own when LBJ and his cronies held sway in the Lone Star State.

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...

WAIT. What...?

David Von Pein was never a full-fledged CTer??

Man, I really need to pay more attention.

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.

I did a little reading on this yesterday after Larry mentioned AFIS, which I think is a good point. I was curious about procedures and accuracy.

Briefly, it seems that many state and local AFIS systems (apparently they're not all directly FBI AFIS) require a dual AFIS/Human verification, which tells me that they're at least acknowledging the possibility of false results.

I was also left with the impression that AFIS results are incredibly accurate.

And it was kind of looking like there seems to be a difference in AFIS' programming to match one fingerprint to one of millions versus comparing one against another, but at this point in my reading The Atlanta Braves last game at Turner and the Dallas Cowboys usurped precedence, so that's as far as I got.

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.

I did a little reading on this yesterday after Larry mentioned AFIS, which I think is a good point. I was curious about procedures and accuracy.

Briefly, it seems that many state and local AFIS systems (apparently they're not all directly FBI AFIS) require a dual AFIS/Human verification, which tells me that they're at least acknowledging the possibility of false results.

I was also left with the impression that AFIS results are incredibly accurate.

And it was kind of looking like there seems to be a difference in AFIS' programming to match one fingerprint to one of millions versus comparing one against another, but at this point in my reading The Atlanta Braves last game at Turner and the Dallas Cowboys usurped precedence, so that's as far as I got.

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.

I did a little reading on this yesterday after Larry mentioned AFIS, which I think is a good point. I was curious about procedures and accuracy.

Briefly, it seems that many state and local AFIS systems (apparently they're not all directly FBI AFIS) require a dual AFIS/Human verification, which tells me that they're at least acknowledging the possibility of false results.

I was also left with the impression that AFIS results are incredibly accurate.

And it was kind of looking like there seems to be a difference in AFIS' programming to match one fingerprint to one of millions versus comparing one against another, but at this point in my reading The Atlanta Braves last game at Turner and the Dallas Cowboys usurped precedence, so that's as far as I got.