Glenn Nall

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).

By reading "Best Evidence" many years ago, I learned of Humes statement regarding "surgery of the head area." I was of the opinion that if he performed the surgery himself, the best thing he could have done was to say nothing at all. That wasn't quite enough to make me certain, however. Adding the weight of O'Neill's "Wayne, there was no brain" statement to Paul O'Connor's testimony, and Humes outburst: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where", convinces me that Humes had no knowledge of the head surgery until he began the autopsy. By all means, please do. Two questions, please:1. Do you believe Boswell witnessed the creation of the two false back wounds? 2. I presume you believe that Humes had nothing to do with the alteration of the 'throat wound'? Thanks for the info, and of course I eagerly await the publication of "Final Charade"! Tom Tom, Ebersole stated that the throat wound was "neatly sutured" when he saw it. I don't think the autopsy photos show a "neatly sutured" wound- more a gash. well, now, that's pretty interesting. never once heard mention of sutures in the throat. I'd also like to point out that while everyone is deciding on the level of suspicion to attribute the doctors, I'm not certain at all how far above suspicion Sibert and O'Neill are. There have been plenty of reasons to distrust some elements of the FBI, also.

I already did explain, Glenn. DVP attacks the CIA-did-it CTers. IMHO, all CIA-did-it CTers are BACKWARD. The CIA didn't kill JFK. Two CIA guys -- ROGUES -- confessed. This most likely means that these ROGUES were supporting a CIVILIAN effort. It was AMERICAN CIVILIANS (with military training) who killed JFK. That's what the facts will show. Did you miss that? Regards, --Paul Trejo I think what i missed is how you know so much of DVPs theory if you yourself have never read anything by him until this thread. that was my question. IMHO.

I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.) Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said -- simply because the CIA-did-it CT's are so backward. If DVP is really an LN, I can imagine that he's won 90% of his battles, and y'all fear him. Good. That's hilarious. His logic defies the laws of physics. No one fears him; most have just tired of him. But if DVP is really an LN, then I hope to be able to convince DVP that the scientific evidence supports multiple shooters at JFK in Dealey Plaza. In no way could LHO have acted alone in the JFK murder. I would also argue to DVP that the US Government covered up the CONSPIRACY to kill JFK. HOWEVER -- I would also like to assure DVP that I think the US Government did the RIGHT THING by the Cover-up, because the alternatives in 1963 were (1) riots in the streets; (2) Civil War; and (3) World War Three. So, I would argue with DVP that even though Hoover-LBJ-Dulles-Warren covered up the JFK murder, still, they all remain Great Americans who did the best thing for the USA by (ultimately) preventing World War Three as a possible outcome of the JFK murder. Interestingly, this is exactly the argument LBJ used to convince Chief Justice Earl Warren, after much resistance, to Board the Commission (and which is what many believe is what had him in tears as he left the meeting between the two). I would also like to convince DVP that the Radical Right in 1963 Dallas murdered JFK. The evidence is mounting. Clues were available 50 years ago, but the noise-level of the CIA-did-it CTers was too chaotic -- and they wouldn't bother with General Walker -- the true mastermind of the JFK murder. (The HSCA didn't even consider Walker.) With ridiculous theories that the Mafia-did-it, or Castro-did-it, or LBJ-did-it, it surely must sound ridiculous for somebody to even consider another, alternative, Walker-did-it CT. But that's my position. If I sound like DVP to some of you CIA-did-it CTers, then that is because the CIA-did-it CTers are ALL MISTAKEN. IMHO, you sound like DVP because your logic and disinterest in anyone else's opinions are so similar. And on that point DVP and I can surely agree -- and I welcome his support on that aspect of my theory, if no other. Yes, your theory does need the support. To bring this thread back to Ruth Paine -- she has always remained an LN after the WC Circumstantial Evidence was presented to her (and all other evidence was hidden from her and all Americans). She always said she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK, but that the WC Circumstantial Evidence was overwhelming. I'd hope to convince Ruth Paine with the same points I'd hope to convince DVP. yeah. let us know how this works out. I'm still curious as to how you know so much of his theories if you've "never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread." Regards, --Paul Trejo

I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.) Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said -- simply because the CIA-did-it CT's are so backward. If DVP is really an LN, I can imagine that he's won 90% of his battles, and y'all fear him. Good. But if DVP is really an LN, then I hope to be able to convince DVP that the scientific evidence supports multiple shooters at JFK in Dealey Plaza. In no way could LHO have acted alone in the JFK murder. I would also argue to DVP that the US Government covered up the CONSPIRACY to kill JFK. HOWEVER -- I would also like to assure DVP that I think the US Government did the RIGHT THING by the Cover-up, because the alternatives in 1963 were (1) riots in the streets; (2) Civil War; and (3) World War Three. So, I would argue with DVP that even though Hoover-LBJ-Dulles-Warren covered up the JFK murder, still, they all remain Great Americans who did the best thing for the USA by (ultimately) preventing World War Three as a possible outcome of the JFK murder. I would also like to convince DVP that the Radical Right in 1963 Dallas murdered JFK. The evidence is mounting. Clues were available 50 years ago, but the noise-level of the CIA-did-it CTers was too chaotic -- and they wouldn't bother with General Walker -- the true mastermind of the JFK murder. (The HSCA didn't even consider Walker.) With ridiculous theories that the Mafia-did-it, or Castro-did-it, or LBJ-did-it, it surely must sound ridiculous for somebody to even consider another, alternative, Walker-did-it CT. But that's my position. If I sound like DVP to some of you CIA-did-it CTers, then that is because the CIA-did-it CTers are ALL MISTAKEN. And on that point DVP and I can surely agree -- and I welcome his support on that aspect of my theory, if no other. To bring this thread back to Ruth Paine -- she has always remained an LN after the WC Circumstantial Evidence was presented to her (and all other evidence was hidden from her and all Americans). She always said she thought LHO *couldn't* have shot JFK, but that the WC Circumstantial Evidence was overwhelming. I'd hope to convince Ruth Paine with the same points I'd hope to convince DVP. Regards, --Paul Trejo "I myself never read anything by DVP (David Von Pein) until this thread -- and I gather from the posts that he's a Lone-Nutter (LN). (Please correct me, DVP, if I'm mistaken here.) Well, I'm not an LN, but I do agree with 90% of what DVP has said..." please explain?

Well, David, before I would even think of that, I would first ensure that I did this: (1) flowcharted every page of Ruth Page's Testimony to the WC (2) flowcharted every page of Michael Paine's Testimony to the WC (3) read and re-read every book and article ever written about Ruth Paine in the past 50 years (4) watch every YouTube video and interview ever given by Ruth Paine. I have come fairly well along with that project already -- and all the evidence points in one direction: Quaker Charity Lady. Here's what I know about Ruth Paine today: (i) She never changed her story about LHO at any time in 50 years. (ii) She always remained open to interviewers, worldwide, for 50 years, just to prevent wild rumors from spreading. (iii) She has enough dignity to slam the door in the faces of strangers who come up to hear and scream L-I-A-R in her face -- and twice as hard for those who never read her WC testimony. It should embarrass anybody to demand Ruth Paine to "come clean" when they never even read her WC testimony! Actually, David, what I already know about Ruth Paine is that she's open to honest JFK researchers, and always has been. (Rabid, semi-literate CTers are the normal exception.) So, I have every confidence, David, that when I'm good and ready to approach Ruth Paine, that she'll speak with me. So -- trust me, David, if I ever find any smidgen or any crumb of material evidence that contradicts ANYTHING that Ruth Paine ever said in any interview in the past 50 years -- I will make this promise to you -- I'LL TAKE IT TO HER. Until then, please, somebody, anybody, impress me with something I don't know about Ruth Paine! So far, the rumor, naked speculation and innuendo are all anybody has seen for miles and miles! Regards, --Paul Trejo "when I'm good and ready to approach Ruth Paine, that she'll speak with me" how convincing. when you're good and ready. can't imagine the preparation required in reaching such a point. you must have spent years at this point, SO FAR, getting ready. and good. i'd love to see just some of the questions you've spent so much time preparing. seriously. they must be some agonizingly astute and delving questions. by the time you're good and ready, hell, you might cause her to have a heart attack. please go easy on her as you pounce.

Yes, Martin, but Osborne/Bowen was a crackpot racist NUT. In no way was he a CIA officer, nor did he claim to be. HOWEVER -- there two others I can name who were close to the JFK murder and who used Religion as a cover, and also brazenly lied about being officers of the CIA, namely: (1) David Ferrie (2) Jack S. Martin Both of these street-level mercenaries who were "outed" by Jim Garrison, were both Fake Ministers of some Fake Church, and they also claimed (to young boys like Tommy Beckham) to be with the CIA. But NEITHER was an officer of the CIA -- they were both street-trash mercenaries, bent on Military Overthrow in Cuba for money. To blame the CIA for their twisted behavior is REACHING. Regards, --Paul Trejo Ladies and Gentlemen, I am privileged to now present to you the critically acclaimed "DVP II". at least he's not malicious in his attacks. I think the illogic requires too much energy for him to be mean.

excuse me for butting in, because George DM wrote anything, that means it's true? - you're not butting in. this is a Forum, by definition where anyone present is invited to speak. which clearly has both its good points and its bad. and you're saying what's obvious to many, so...

hate to say it, David, but Ruth, and her fairly large circle of associates, has been a focus of some people for quite some time. Perhaps it's not as romantic a concept, or maybe it's too obscure, but though there's been some focus there over the decades, there's been paid little energy. The route from the Paines to Henry Crown to Trafficante and Marcello (with some "company" collaboration) is rich with material, and thus far only skimmed. Maybe you're right. Maybe it's gaining attraction. But while people continue to propel - well, i was going to say, propel delusions of General Walker's ideologies, but in fact General Walker fits nicely into this route - while people continue to muddy the waters with theories of Umbrella Guns and other irrelevant details, a diversion from this font of data will prevail. There is significance in the connections between Dresser Industries and Magnolia Labs and DH Byrd and GHW Bush and Allen Dulles and Malcolm Wallace and ... that this roster is ignored astounds me.

Yes, but i'll have a Release printed up and emailed to you, maintaining mainly that the quote is correctly quoted.

personally my professional opinion on the nature of JFK's back wound is that there was one.

Dear Paul, regarding the remark, "Well, Chris, I like to think I'm as well-informed about the JFK murder as anybody here." (i don't know how to punctuate the end of a quote with a colon, so I'm winging it) : Really? Are you serious? Regards, Glenn

this is so far off subject, I hope the forum gods will forgive me... Glen, no one saw or heard arrows (I suppose they swoosh or something) but an arrow tipped with a target point that was subsequently pulled out could account for the wound and missing projectile in JFK's back. I suppose they could have accomplished this archery down in the baggage compartment of Air Force One.... No, I think it was Cowboys not Indians. Well, NOW. I wish to give a nod to this most terrific and appropriate analogy in the name of really bad humor. Chris - great shot: yes, i was simply injecting a little levity in the hopes of "loosening up the crowd." It was not my intention to provide such an appropriate back door to the issue at hand, which is, if you've read Oglesby's The Yankee and Cowboy War, you know that the group of malcontents that Carl labeled Cowboys are exactly and most likely those that did, in fact, orchestrate this "coup" (i don't use that word lightly). Yours was such a perfect response, intentional or not - it wasn't the Yankee Establishment that killed one of their own - (it's pretty unlikely that an Apache or Commanche Indian did it) - it was beget from the Cowboy Establishment, the rock out from under which crawled such creatures as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, the Cabell Brothers, ad nauseum. Perfect response. It were Cowboys. No, you're not at all off subject. I was. You segued us back. nice shot PS - If you've not read this book, you should be ashamed of yourself. seriously.

"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. 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.

Thanks Sandy. I was really only trying to point out how low that FPS is. I am aware of the factors and wasn't suggesting it would penetrate the skin although I have seen some bloody welts 280-300 fps is also a common velocity for an arrow fired from a bow which could certainly penetrate the skin (no I'm not suggesting JFK was killed by indians). sure, but CAN IT BE PROVED that there was no Indian in the TSBD? I mean, if the three empty bullet casings prove that LHO orchestrated, perpetrated and fled, just because there were no unused arrows left behind does not prove that K was not shot by an Apache or two.

Are you aware that one witness (at least) later described to a researcher how the autopsy physicians were at one point probing all over the place, trying to figure out the path(s) of the bullet(s)? Unfortunately I don't remember who it was that gave the interview, and I don't remember if they were probing primarily from the throat wound or back wound. But I'm pretty sure the person said they did try to see if there was a path from the back wound to the throat. Or if such a path was possible. The reason I make a point of this is perhaps it explains why Humes probed through to the pleura. Having probed everywhere else, why not there too? Upon read the description of this probing, I came away with the impression that it was a far-from-methodical thing. More like frantically looking for an explanation. If the back wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, as claimed by many witnesses, and Humes knew the basics of human anatomy (one would assume a doctor of his standing would have such knowledge), he would have been aware of the fact the only way to get to the throat wound, from the back wound, was by going through the top of the right lung. As Paul O'Connors' sketch clearly shows, there is only a thin layer of skin, intercostal muscle and ribs between the outside and the pleura. If Humes did any probing of the back wound, it was all part of a charade. this is what my question is - why is it assumed that there was a shallow wound? it sounds almost as if people think this is a given, but given the propensity of those involved in the autopsy to be disingenuous, isn't it more possible that it was simply a bullet wound that was disguised as superficial or whatever? this "probe" that's described sounds much more suspect than a low velocity, "puncture wound."

Calculations done with sliding rule ... With lots of wrong assumptions. LMAO. I posted 5 YouTube videos at the top of the thread. In all of them the target is pushed/knocked over in the direction of the bullet. Unfortunately, only the first one was a direct hit in the sweet spot and the bad guy was blasted away. Went airborne. Had it been JFK, the corpse would have ended outside the limo, on the pavement. See that video below. 3 other bullets barely touched the top of head. The Colombian criminal has hit in the jaw. Not the best specimen. I have shown in the "Parkland Effect" that you need a Perfect Storm alignment in order to achieve lift-off at Cape Canaveral. Will repost it. I have a book with calculations that say that a 6.5mm M/C could not make JFK's head move that fast BUT a Winchester could. -Ramon ======================================== Sniper Shot Barret M107https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaFprrcs7jo Fast forward to minute 4:15" that's neat, that book. I have a gun that says those calculations are wrong.

who said anything about any such requirement? i'm not aware of any theory in existence that posits this degree of planning. all i've said is that i believe he was hit by two bullets, probably simultaneously, and that one was likely a fragmentary bullet (accounting for the many minuscule lead particles in the xrays, and what some pictures show to be some heavy damage to his right forehead). i do not think any group of people said, "we've got to make sure that the bullet wounds are indistinguishable." that's plain crazy.

Chris, if you speak of "doorknob functionality" you are probably being sarcastic about Marina's claim about LHO's so-called threat to assassinate Richard Nixon. In that story, Marina reported that she "locked" LHO in the bathroom until he changed his mind. -- But the bathroom locked from the inside. One can be cynical about that, or one can be reasonable about it. First, English was not Marina's first language. So the word "locked" can mean multiple things to an ESL speaker. (I'm a certified ESL instructor, so I know.) Secondly, one can doubt whether a slight, pregnant woman could hold back a Marine on the other side of any door. But it all makes sense -- all of it -- when we consider that LHO was merely *teasing* Marina to get a rise out of her. That is, LHO told her (long after the Walker shooting) that he was going to shoot Richard Nixon! He was joking, but she didn't grasp that -- so she freaked out, and pushed him into the bathroom, while he was still joking and teasing her, pretending to be half-serious. That's a logical explanation on all counts. LHO really did try to kill General Walker -- we have this not only from Marina Oswald, not only from LHO's own "Walker Letter," but also from Volkmar Schmidt and George De Mohrenschildt. Based on that horrific event, Marina could no longer trust LHO's teasing. The rest of it makes sense. Regards, --Paul Trejo amazing - it's as if --- "you were there"... the details of your knowledge - spooky, i tell ya... you might go re-research the evolution of her story before you decide exactly what she meant by locking him in the bathroom - and from which side she ultimately decided needed the locking.

Well, James, if you mean Ruth's Paine's calendar in which she marked the date of LHO's "purchase of rifle" in March, then surely you know that the Warren Commission pointedly asked her about it, and she explained it rather well. She explained that she added that notation *after* the JFK murder, and *after* the discussion in the news media about it. Is this what you regard this as "stunning," James? Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission on the morning of Saturday 21 March 1964 (WC vol. 9, p. 331) that she had heard on TV on Saturday 23 November 1963 1963 that LHO purchased his rifle on March 20th. THIS WAS AMONG THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES AT THE TIME. So, Ruth went to her personal calendar notebook, and put a little star in the March 20 square, and then in the margins noted the star with the words, “LHO purchase of rifle.” Then Ruth directed the WC attention to the notation next to that note, a date, "October 23rd". Ruth explained that she figured that the FBI was going to ask her about that entry she had just made, so she wrote down the date in which she made the entry -- but it was an unusually hectic and confounding day for her, so instead of writing down, "November 23rd," she wrote down "October 23rd." Also, Ruth learned that LHO had a middle name when she filled out the Parkland Hospital paperwork for Marina before baby Rachel was born. That's when she learned that LHO were his initials. That, to me, James, is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The WC was correct to ask her about it, and Ruth was forthcoming in her logical answer. Why would anybody think this was "stunning?" Regards, --Paul Trejo you're something else, Paul. wow.

I'm guessing something about the mention of Jack Ruby having loaned Ruth his car occasionally...?

not so. go do some reading on the various instantiations of fragmenting ammunition. "exploding" is a term of convenience.

Glenn: I am afraid you may be conflating the terms "jet" and "self-propelled". In none of the scenarios considered: • Experiments by Dr. Alvarez and others • Billiard • Water balloons delivered from automobile • Baseball player diving in one direction, throwing the ball in the opposite direction. was self-propulsion involved. Then again, there was an example of salmon swimming upstream. -RFH did you not even notice the word "thrust" in the article you just lauded above Robert's own experiences? http://patriot.net/~ramon/jfk/Jet-Effect-Rebuttal-by-Szamboti.pdf "Figure 1. Rocket engine thrust diagram" dude. relax.

i'm mostly convinced that he was struck in the head by two bullets (and that one was an "exploding" bullet). and if so, then it would have had to be simultaneous (considering the accounts of shots heard, the dictabelt recording, etc). and if this is the case, then any interpretation of head and body movement is at best guesswork. this makes me want to agree with Robert, that, assuming for a moment an unretouched Z312-314, what we see is fairly ambiguous, and interpretive. As well, assuming an 'edited' Z film, all the more that 312-314 is, at best, interpretive. one thing i feel i can bank on, Penn and Teller aside, a rifle bullet from behind did not make his head and body move backward. didn't happen, and it's time this myth gets flushed.

Glenn: I am afraid you are conflating the terms "jet" and "self-propelled". In none of the scenarios considered: • Experiments by Dr. Alvarez and others • Billiard • Water balloons delivered from automobile • Baseball player diving in one direction, throwing the ball in the opposite direction. was self-propulsion involved. -RFH right. i'm referring to jet propulsion, such as that which jet engines provide on aircraft. what causes the aircraft to move forward is the thrust that the jet engines provide. self-propulsion never entered my mind. perhaps it's on yours a bit...? when people are discussing something called a "jet effect" i can only think that the idea of propulsion is implied by the word jet. is there a reason I should not have made that connection?