Glenn Nall

yeah, uh, Ramon, in human communication there's also what's called nuance, which at time defies strict definition.

a person who is sanctimonious possesses, by definition: "Righteousness accompanied by an unwarranted attitude of moral or social superiority; smug or hypocritical righteousness."

which was exactly the personality of the Kremlin and of Communism.

as well as some in this forum who do not know the difference between fact, opinion, and "my inarguable opinion."

fitting that it was you who attempted to parse the words into obsoletion, fully proving my point.

Fetzer notwithstanding, the fact does remain that there is plenty of responsible and legitimate literature, circumstance and evidence that LBJ was at least a high end player. To me it takes more effort to ignore his motive and opportunity for this thing than to simply consider it.

sometimes I think there's more sanctimony in this forum than in Kruschev's Kremlin.

Intelligence agents provide information to their handlers.

If Oswald (Marina's husband) was an intelligence agent, to what intelligence service was he providing information? What was the nature of the information?

Oswald doesn't strike me as an intelligence agent for several reasons. The most significant is that he never had access to information the Ruskies or anyone else wanted.

Agents get worked hard by their handlers. Is there any sign Oswald was being worked hard by anyone? I don't see it.

Intelligence agents provide information to their handlers.

If Oswald (Marina's husband) was an intelligence agent, to what intelligence service was he providing information? What was the nature of the information?

Oswald doesn't strike me as an intelligence agent for several reasons. The most significant is that he never had access to information the Ruskies or anyone else wanted.

Agents get worked hard by their handlers. Is there any sign Oswald was being worked hard by anyone? I don't see it.

*** The most significant is that he never had access to information the Ruskies or anyone else wanted.

how in the world is this so easily ascertained?

enough of this thread. i'm going to go find one in which Paul Trejo is not demanding the spotlight, or is in fact not involved at all.

such a shame...

I read it in Weberman years ago. The caption isn't where I read it!

I'm trying to be fair. It's just that it's about the weakest citation ever. It's akin to reading about it on the back cover in the bookstore.

What; you feel entitled to access every book every published with a single click?

Read a book!

--Paul

Not contemptuous, Paul?

i've discovered another similarity between you and DVP - you both further damage your credibility with each post. You are, indeed, aspiring to his status...

Facts do not come naturally to doctrinaire Christians of any stripe. Faith is their creed.

I'm glad that Paul T made it clear (again) that he judges veracity through his Christian lens. I suppose atheists, or undecideds like myself are just misled folks who are missing an essential piece of life's puzzle. its ironic that the 'true' church (btw Paul which one is that?)

learned Christians believe that there is just one Church, which defines the body of human beings who really Believe that the empty grave is spiritual in nature and that the main problem facing human beings (death) was thereby defeated.

criticized as Hubris the propensity of Jewish and early Christian sects to question authority.

not certain to what you're referring as the True church, since to my education i don't think that it can be defined in human standards - I sincerely believe that God knows his church, and that I know I am part of it.

In any case, in many of our eyes the propensity to challenge authority is a redeemable characteristic. Remember, it was the Authorities, both Roman and Jewish, who crucified the man who promised to restore Jerusalem.

And they ended up creating the most authoritarian organization in the history of man.

what Organization is that? please understand that organized religion today is nothing like the early Christians of 65 to 160AD created. it consisted of human beings, who, to the chagrin of many, behaved like humans.

One thing I learned early on - you can't really argue with 'Christians' of faith, since to them you are full of hubris if you use anything but faith to define your beliefs.

Utterly unfair statement. I am a Christian of Faith, my faith being brought about by REAL history and REAL experience. I do not consider anyone full of hubris; in fact, i welcome a scientific and intellectual debate on the validity of Intelligent Design of our planet and of the man Jesus and whether something fantastically spiritual was at play. My Faith is mine. My intellect and education is anyone's for the taking.

And keep in mind Paul, that your namesake and mine, the man responsible for modern Christianity? WHAT? and the apostolic ordination you refer to, never met Jesus,

Paul, in fact, states otherwise.

and moreover was in conflict with the Jewish followers of Jesus including his brother James, on this very issue of faith. James insisted that good works were more important, Paul insisted that faith alone was the key to the kingdom.

Are you speaking of the 6th and 7th chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans? That's not what he says.

Why the lecture? To make the point, in a round about way, that ascribing Ruth's kind actions towards Marina to her Christian beliefs suggests that only real Christians are capable of such charity.

Sorry. No, it doesn't. It suggests that because of her spiritual stance, she would have, perhaps, more of a tendency to exhibit charity. Just like if he'd said Ruth's kind actions were because of her Muslim belief, or Hindi belief. It only suggests tendency. Nothing exclusive.

that's some pretty personal ground you tread on, Paul, for not being in any way personally invested.

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material facts to be facts.

legal definition of fact:

A thing done; an action performed or an Incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence. In the earlier days of the law “fact” was used almost exclusively in the sense of “action”or “deed;” but, although this usage survives, in some such phrases as “accessary before the fact,” it lias now acquired the broader meaning given above.A fact is either a state of things, that is, an existence, or a motion, that is, an event.1 Benth. Jud. Ev. 48.In the law of evidence. A circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually takes or took place; a physical object or appearance, as it actually exists or existed. An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 218.”Fact” is very frequently used in opposition or contrast to “law.” Thus, questions offact are for the jury ; questions of law for the court. So an attorney at laic is an officer of the courts of justice; an attorney in fact is appointed by the written authorization of a principal to manage business affairs usually not professional. Fraud in fact consists in an actual intention to defraud, carried into effect; while fraud imputed by law arises from the man’s conduct in its necessary relations and consequences.The word is much used in phrases which contrast it with law. Law is a principle; factis an event Law is conceived; fact is actual. Law is a rule of duty; fact is that which has been according to or in contravention of the rule. The distinction is well illustrated in the rule that the existence of foreign laws is matter of fact. Within the territory of its jurisdiction, law operates as an obligatory rule which judges must recognize and enforce; but, in a tribunal outside that jurisdiction, it loses its obligatory force and its claim to judicial notice. The fact that it exists, if important to the rights of parties, must be alleged and proved the same as the actual existence of any other institution. Abbott. The terms “fact” and “truth” are often used in common parlance as synonymous,but as employed in reference to pleading, they are widely different. A fact in pleading is a circumstance, act, event, or incident; a truth Is the legal principle which declares or governs the facts and their operative effect. Admitting the facts stated in a complaint the truth may be that the plaintiff is not entitled, upon the face of his complaint to what the claims. The mode in which a defendant sets up that truth for his protection is a demurrer. Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 37.

fact: noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth:

Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened:

Space travel is now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:

Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.

something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.

Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, asdistinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

Compare question of fact, question of law.

sso a fact doesn't necessarily have to be true, i take from this: something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

universally accepted? do we know if all legal systems accept this? at the present time we don't

just subjecting your facts to close scrutiny. i made no ad hominem attacks.

with this one thing i have to disagree:

just sayin':

sworn testimony that has not been contradicted IS ONLY sworn testimony that has not been contradicted.; it is not necessarily fact

in the strict definition of the word, idea, concept, "Fact," uncontested sworn testimony can either contain or not contain fact. i'm sure you would agree that you know of examples of witnesses lying under oath who were never challenged or proven to have lied. this would constitute sworn testimony uncontradicted. but it was still unfactual.

if you can't think of any, I can help.

Glenn Nall @ post #44

Your conceptual analysis is correct according the law of Conservation of Energy, the most fundamental law of physics. Which states that the total energy of a "closed system" (for example, a system consisting of a rifle bullet, the air through which it travels, the head it strikes, the body to which the head is attached, the car seat on which the body rests) is constant at all times; the total energy neither increases nor decreases. This is a deep principle, which underlies all engineering.

We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost." This is true whether the bullet is jacketed and does not break apart in the skull or whether, as Robert Prudhomme argues, the bullet was frangible and broke apart in the skull.

If the bullet did not exit the skull, all of the bullet's kinetic energy was transferred initially to the skull. What became of this energy? Some of it was transferred as kinetic energy of bone, scalp, hair, and brain matter that the bullet or its fragments blasted into motion. Some of the kinetic energy was absorbed by muscles supporting the head; this energy was converted to electrical energy within the muscles and dissipated as heat (a form of energy).

If the bullet exited the skull, its kinetic energy as it exited was transferred to something else. If an intact bullet exited through the right top of JFK's skull, the kinetic energy of the bullet as it exited the skull was imparted somewhat to the air through which it traveled until it hit, say, the dashboard of the presidential limo; thereupon it transferred its remaining kinetic energy to the dashboard, mostly as heat energy.

Kinetic energy, all energy in fact, is a vector quantity, meaning it has values in the x, y, and z directions.

Luiz Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Mr. Tidd,

For the sake of physics correctness:

First of all, you are correct that Conservation of Energy is a deep and fundamental principle of physics. Correctly stated, the energy of an isolated system remains constant. (A closed system is defined as one in which matter cannot enter of leave; however energy can.) Contrary to your statement, energy is not a vector quantity. Energy, kinetic or otherwise, is a scalar quantity defined without direction.

The problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that if there is any plastic deformation, fragmentation, etc. of the objects involved in the collision (i.e. anything that is not simple and complete bouncing), then mechanical energy will be transformed into thermal energy or sound energy that will radiate away and become very difficult to quantify. So a statement like, “We know from Conservation of Energy that the kinetic energy of the bullet that strikes JFK's head is conserved; none of this kinetic energy is "lost."” is potentially incorrect or at best a bit misleading. Energy will not be “lost” when the bullet strikes JFK, the total energy will stay the same (at least instantaneously); but the amount of kinetic energy will absolutely very quickly decrease as both bullet and body fragment and deform and the objects heat up. And then extremely quickly energy will radiate away (eventually into outer space) in the form of heat (since there is no way to thermally isolate the system of bullet/JFK/etc.). A further problem with using Conservation of Energy to analyze collisions is that energy is not directional. No conclusion about the direction of anything can be made based on energy arguments.

Therefore, when analyzing collisions, it is typically another bedrock principle of physics, Conservation of Momentum, that is much more useful. Like energy, the momentum of an isolated system remains constant. Unlike kinetic energy, momentum will not transform into a different type that radiates away or becomes difficult to quantify. Unlike energy, momentum is a vector quantity, conserved in any given direction, and directional conclusions can be drawn.

Now, the bigger point here is correct: the “jet effect” can in no way explain the backwards movement of JFK’s head. So while I could certainly imagine a situation where upon being shot, a vessel or object fractures in such a way that the shell of the object falls in the direction the shot came from, conservation of momentum dictates that in this case there must be a corresponding spray of material in the opposite direction, that is the direction the bullet is traveling; the net final momentum equals the original momentum of the bullet. So for JFK’s head to lurch backwards due to a shot from behind, there must be a very significant net spray of blood, skull, and brain tissue to the front. But as we all know, Jackie climbed onto the back of the limo to retrieve a piece of skull and from reliable eyewitness testimony, especially that of DPD motorcycle policeman Bobby Hargis, the mass of spray went to the back. So by the law of conservation of momentum, skull thrown to back + spray to the back = shot from the front. This is elementary physics.

Now that won’t prevent some from arguing otherwise. They’ll pretend that Hargis wasn’t hit by massive high-velocity spray and Jackie was trying to help Hill on board and neural-muscular reaction occurred to throw JFK back. But I know intellectual dishonestly when I see it, and the whole Alvarez/Jet Effect is just that.

um; Amen.

yes, you're right. i've made yet another (damnit, that's three this year!) mistake. it was Ruth who met LHO at the party for the second time, allegedly. Perhaps it was at this little dig that Schmidt decided Michael had to meet Lee. I confess to an imperfect memory. I hope you never have to suffer from this affliction. It's cumbersome.

Forgive me, Paul, but your clear assumption (and statement) that you know as much of this mystery as anyone else in this forum is about as contemptuous as can be. Your common opinions poorly disguised as statements of fact are contemptuous.

the fact that I just extended a modicum of recognition to your content and you reply with insult is rather contemptuous.

Have you read Richard Bartholomew's paper on the UT Rambler? It's not so much about the damn car as it is about an enormous confluence of influential people - among them the Paines, and the Paines and Bell and General Dynamics and DH Byrd and - oh, lord, this list extends ...

I'm thinking you haven't read this thing. It proposes no accusation, or theory, but a singularly well researched piece on "who knew who."

There's probably a ton of it you'll choose to not believe.

I beg your pardon, Glenn, but my own opinion about myself -- whatever it is -- can hardly be held to express contempt about anybody else.

My opinions are hardly common -- my theory about General Walker masterminding the JFK murder was unique on this Forum since 2010, until the appearance of Jeff Caufield's new book just last month.

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material facts to be facts.

This is what I demand from anybody who claims to assert a new fact to the JFK assassination debate. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own "facts."

Your attitude towards me in this thread has been one of ridicule -- and though you do recognize the Content in my posts, still, that doesn't prevent you from acting as the Smart Alek here, and encouraging that attitude in others. I'm very sincere in asking for HONEST INFORMATION about Ruth Paine.

I certainly deserve more than the Smart Alek insults that you and Martin have been posting.

As for the UT Rambler, yes, I've read a lot about it. It's a puzzle to me because I happen to accept the testimony of Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig -- and he does mention Ruth Paine. So, I'm glad you brought that up.

It's worth a discussion. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald did get into a Green Rambler at the TSBD immediately after the JFK murder -- but also IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Roger Craig when he told her that the car belonged to Ruth Paine.

If somebody has better evidence one way or the other, I want to hear it.

Also -- it does no good at all just to keep repeating that Michael Paine worked at Bell Helicopter. Don't you get it? If you have something SPECIFIC to charge, then do that. But the generic suspicion is just useless. We've heard enough of it by now.

It's not what I "choose" to believe, Glenn. It's the ACTUAL, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that is presented. Otherwise, y'all are just taking a CT on blind faith. And that's pretty sad. And no, I don't regard that as a contemptuous remark -- because I still hold out hope for you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'll ask you to forgive me and I'll behave better. I told Martin that i had no control over ignoring some of your contemptuous statements (contempt doesn't require intent - it can arrive in the form of sanctimony, superioritive inflection, or presenting opinion as fact.), but of course I do. without blocking you, even.

in any case, my apologies - I'll behave. which means I'll have to ignore quite a lot of your "content."

don't read ABOUT it. READ it. as i stated, his somewhat minor points about the damn car are well overshadowed by the very complex "interrelationships."

and i said nothing about that Michael worked at Bell. I just mentioned Bell. There's a wee bit more history there than Michael's employ.

and that's just a sampling.

you should read it. pick out the parts you like and disregard the rest.

Dallas Engineers' Party - is that the Magnolia Labs party Schmidt threw for LHO and Michael Paine "to meet?"

It can't be, Glenn, according to Michael Paine himself, who claims that he met LHO only once before October 1963, and that was on April 2nd 1963, when he and Ruth invited the Oswalds over for dinner.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

and it's well established that Michael Paine would never lie.

so, egads, what to do with the February Magnolia Labs party where the three were to have first met (which is also doubtful)???

CIA or FBI have documentation showing that Ruth had done a little legwork on LHO i think a couple of years before they've claimed to have met.

why would she have done that?

OH! I KNOW!!! You can ask her this when you're Good and Ready to interview her!!! that could actually be one of your questions, to which she might every well have a quite suitable reply...

Don't thank me - pretend you thought of it yourself.

Forgive me, Paul, but your clear assumption (and statement) that you know as much of this mystery as anyone else in this forum is about as contemptuous as can be. Your common opinions poorly disguised as statements of fact are contemptuous.

the fact that I just extended a modicum of recognition to your content and you reply with insult is rather contemptuous.

Have you read Richard Bartholomew's paper on the UT Rambler? It's not so much about the damn car as it is about an enormous confluence of influential people - among them the Paines, and the Paines and Bell and General Dynamics and DH Byrd and - oh, lord, this list extends ...

I'm thinking you haven't read this thing. It proposes no accusation, or theory, but a singularly well researched piece on "who knew who."

There's probably a ton of it you'll choose to not believe.

"one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place"

Sandy, to my potentially limited recollection, that was Lipsey describing an extensive and unsuccessful search for a missing bullet, and I think that even at that time the point he was making was that considering the time spent by the doctors in this search, and that it proved fruitless, they were completely convinced that there was, and remained, a missing bullet.

and that it was never mentioned in any testimony.

but my memory has proven faulty before. I lost a bar bet last week that the West won the Civil War, so I encourage people to listen carefully to my nuance. I also like to encourage people to remind me what the word nuance means.

Glenn,

By coincidence I happened to have come across Lipsey's testimony before the HSCA the other day. I read nearly the whole thing and found it thoroughly fascinating. I plan on posting a link and maybe relevant portions of it with commentary. One thing fascinating about it is that it possibly reveals some of what Hume's burnt autopsy report might have reported. It's a three-bullet scenario.

Someone earlier in the thread commented that Lipsey might have said that they searched three or four hours for the back wound bullet. What Lipsey actually says is that the autopsy lasted the three or four hours, but that a large portion of that time was spent looking for the bullet.

Anyway, I do know from reading that that it was not Lipsey who reported the extensive probing. I'm pretty sure that it was reported at some point in time by one of the lower level personnel who were present. Because I remember reading the statement.

You are right that Lipsey said they were convinced that there was a missing bullet.

anyway. as i'd stated in an earlier post, I trust Lipsey's words many more times than I do Humes' or the rest of those cluster-wearing inbreds.

LOL, me too!

yes, that was me, too - appreciate the correction; i do remember that he'd mentioned the four hours, but now that you mention it, i remember his saying only that the search for that bullet took a lot of that time. which, if true, is pretty effin' revealing.

keeping things simple, it seems to me that this missing bullet for which they sought so hard, or even simply the proof that they did in fact conduct such a search, could very possibly resolve many of the "shots fired" conflicts.

Question for Paul --

when and where did Ruth and Lee first meet? i don't remember. IMHO.

thank you

you realize, Martin, that this move of Paul's means he may never know the truth about General Walker's and Burl Ives' secret, and very "close," association. 'cause I'M not about to tell him.

damn. and he was so close to solving this thing.

that you call anyone's tone contemptuous.

amazing.

do you own a mirror in your house?

for the record, as much adversity as I find in a General Walker did it theory, I still think that you provide some useful content. not that it's "accidental" per se, but i have found some value in some of your opinings.

but sure, if other people's opinions make you uncomfortable - by all means, block them! (IMHO, Martin's always been one of the more gentlemanly posters in this forum. the only statement your blocking of his posts makes is one that doesn't serve your credibility too well.)

Martin, with respect to Mr Trejo: "and wait you shall."

i like that - missing the donut for the hole.

it's from a song by burl ives (and good philosophy too)

[Chorus]

When you walk the streets you'll have no cares,

If you walk the lines and not the squares,

As you go through life make this your goal

Watch the donut, not the hole

It's written on the rainbow

In letters made of gold

Written on the rainbow

There's wisdom to behold

My friends the little sparrow

Flew close enough to see

Written on the rainbow

Is this philosophy

[Chorus]

It's written on the rainbow

In letters made of gold

Written on the rainbow

There's wisdom to behold

My friend the little sparrow

Agrees it must be so

Little angels wrote it

So folks on earth would know

[Chorus]

Watch the donut, not the hole

I'm off to jolly England

Where bulldogs all wear pants

Off to Pango Pango

Where alligators dance

My friend the little sparrow

Will take me when he flies

Even to the rainbow

To read with my own eyes

[Chorus]

It's written on the rainbow

In letters made of gold

Written on the rainbow

There's wisdom to behold

My friend the little sparrow

Flew close enough to see

Written on the rainbow

Is this philosophy

[Chorus]

Watch the donut, not the hole!

Fantastic! now i know TWO Burl Ives songs (the other was about that reindeer).

Wait - are you saying Burl Ives was in on the conspiracy to kill the President?

Which President?

Does Paul Trejo know about this???

In fact I would add, notwithstanding what Bill Kelly thought, that I found Volkmar very self serving and not at all believable. What nerve - taking credit for LHO trying to kill Walker and apologizing for the end result, a dead president. Give me a break. It's nothing but a story.

Actually, Paul B., you're just guessing now, and using your imagination. We have ample evidence of that Dallas Engineer's party.

It just doesn't fit your 49-year old CIA-did-it scenario.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dallas Engineers' Party - is that the Magnolia Labs party Schmidt threw for LHO and Michael Paine "to meet?"

Martin, with respect to Mr Trejo: "and wait you shall."

i like that - missing the donut for the hole.

Luis Alvarez, a paid stooge, treated the jet effect, which is real, as being the dominant absorbent of the bullet's kinetic energy. He was a xxxx. Like Dartmouth's Farid.

Hi Jon:

I find very hard to believe that professor Farid's research is not legitimate:

( a ) I am sure he has students. There were assignments, homework. This was teamwork. The reputation of Dartmouth is at stake here. Other professors (even outside the Computer Science Department) are implicitly certifying, not that Dr. Farid is infallible, mind you, but that he has academic honesty and integrity.

Note: I always say this: "When it comes to the truth, the only reference is our universities"

( b ) His study can easily be replicated. It is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than the one for which I am lobbying, related to the Physics of the Fatal Shot.

Just to give you an idea. All these people have PhDs, Master's, etc. (from Cornell and other universities more prestigious than Dartmouth):

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany

https://github.com/gahansen/Albany/network/members (Members)

and have not achieved the bullet penetrating software functions yet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2OUrnQ3mRU

If you read the Comments Section under the YouTube video, you will learn that the author of the original software, Alejandro Mota, had to relinquish it to its owner, CalTech.

-Ramon

"When it comes to the truth, the only reference is our universities"

really?

i mean, REALLY? you believe that?

Ruth Paine was seeing to the welfare of the Oswalds in concert with the White Russian community, and a point came just before the assassination that the Oswalds were inexplicably and suddenly ignored by the community, except for Ruth and that guy Buehe (sp?) who had the desire to drive many miles each way just to babysit (oh, and who also had some "ultra level" associations.)

Very odd circumstances overall, it seems to me.

or better yet, IMHO.

So I can ask, what would be the point of lying in book when the writer planned to kill himself afterwards?

If he committed suicide.......

Thank you, Ray. I think it is one of the better bets that he did not commit suicide. Since I'm not a member of a jury, I have the luxury of giving as much credence to a piece of evidence as I wish, and to me the sound recording that occurred at the time is pretty damn convincing.

GdM did not commit suicide.

and as far as his desire to be completely honest previous to an alleged planned suicide, that assumption escapes me completely. I can think just off the top of my head of two famous (in the CI annals) cases where the suicider purposefully deceived others for particular reasons. If a person's not dead yet, he still has plenty of time to be a selfish bastard.

I'm not saying GdM was - I don't know. But to assume his bold honesty JUST because he's planning suicide possesses very little logic.

but it's irrelevant. GdM did not commit suicide (which almost gives me more reason to trust his veracity, actually).