Glenn Nall

JFK Assassin Lee Harvey Oswald Claimed This Photo Was a ‘Fake.’ So Was He Right?Among the many questions and “inconsistencies” pointed to us by JFK assassination conspiracy buffs for more than 50 years, a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in his backyard holding the same model rifle used to kill Kennedy has been near the top of the list. >>> http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/449817-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald-claimed-this-photo-was-a-fake-so-was-he-right/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned

at yet another attempt at peace, Thomas, may I say that I enjoyed the title of this thread as much as I've enjoyed most any other parts of the forum. and then the physical resemblance: brings to mind imagery not suitable for public display. damn that's funny. now i'll go and read the thread and find some meat amongst the gristle. If he was Oliver Hardy, who was Stanley Laurel? Lee Harvey Oswald?

i read somewhere that the phrase in the speech was originally written "military, industrial, congressional complex", but was for some crazy reason seen as antagonistic, and amended. or true, and amended. anyone? (oh,and thanks, Roger, for your reference to Joshua. people today do not know what backbone is. Joshua, historically, defined it.)

i think that this was pretty much assumed, with all the indie awards it received. the question is, does it say anything substantial. Mr Caddy is, i'm assuming, pointing out that there are times objectivity gets through. You'll forgive me for speaking for you, Mr Caddy, and if i'm wrong, for that too. yes, the low budget production bothered me, too. honestly, i can't be bothered with film on this subject, except perhaps taped interviews. Filming gives a producer too much room for negative nuance. the written word, on the other hand, is just what it is - citable, provable or disprovable, and permanent. i stand on the idea that, if this thing were to ever be found solved, it will be because of a document, a recorded comment, a record of someone's interrelationship with someone else, and in turn with someone else. it will be that simple. but it's still lying at the bottom of some crap API drivel that the less diligent just don't have time for. but it will be found.

Um. wow. isn't it interesting in human behavior that we may know what we know but are terrified of being shown what we know? Like the "C" word (cancer, not c-). If we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist. i watch this trailer and think, "of course - I know this xxxx happens" and then i think, "God i don't want to see this movie - I'm afraid of what I might learn."

Glenn, Hollywood is as big a piece of the propaganda machine as any other medium. Name me one Hollywood film shot for the purposes of monetary profit that was factually correct or one that was close to being correct. It is entertainment but I hesitate to call it "pure entertainment" because of Hollywood's long association with Big Brother for the purposes of propaganda dating back to before WW2. There are many terrific stories that will never get told because they are politically "incorrect" and some that are going to get re-told in a way that entirely obscures the real facts. The fact is that Studios are largely owned by corporations that determine what messages need to be told, what messages need to be re-told and which stories cannot be told at all. I fully concur. I was once (i think it was just once ) afforded the privilege of attending one of those weekend long "DUI Classes" for some reason or another, and the one thing that jumped out at me, besides the immeasurable number of other things I could have been doing that weekend, like sticking needles in my eyes, for instance, was the enormous amount of money JUST BUDWEISER spent on advertising in a year - "enormous" doesn't begin to define the numbers. The magnitude of this kind of power drove home for me what is exactly involved in advertising, and how long it has been ruining America. i think it was once somewhat understood that Uncle Sam had a hand in those propaganda films being shown to the soldiers in WW2 that you mentioned. And as i've studied this thing of ours i've finally accepted that, indeed, the govt, the CIA, etc, dictate to a large extent what is presented in our daily news diet. I mention three different facets of the American entertainment vehicle (as did HL Mencken, as only he so humorously can) to say, "Yep. I fully concur. Who do we distrust the least in the industry? Oliver Stone? Spielberg? Michael (I can hardly finish the name) Moore?" what a bleak picture.

i implied no such thing. darn, Ramon, why the aggression? do you even know what the Golden Mean is, and its history, and what it has meant to mathematicians for centuries? It's a most incredible bit of math, and it involves the Masons, and the Knights Templar, etc etc. I simply stated that math, numbers, are so much bigger than what they represent on paper, or even in theory. I was supporting your assertion that there is, should be, a crossover between science and art, and was pointing out that some of the higher intellects have been working on this for centuries. please don't pick fights with me. You'll win, i'll lose, and I'll have yet learned more.

Hi David: As I have told you in the past, I have a hard time figuring you out. You have made it clear that you are not a political person. You don't bother to vote, or seldom do. That leaves one possibility: you are a deeply religious person. Correct? You have stated in the past: "I just open it in any random page and find peace and solace in it" My reaction was: "What the heck? Is he talking about the Bible in a public forum?" Little did I know: You were referring to the Old Testament (Posner) or the New Testament (Bugliosi). Please, please, please ... dispel this doubt: You are a Bible Belt sort of fellow, aren't you? One of the reason I ask is because you have shown absolutely no respect for science, academia, university knowledge, etc. TIA -Ramon may i say, Ramon, it's not that DVP has no respect for science, higher education, etc, it's that he lacks a means of grasping it - its logic evades him, and he's boldly unaware of the simplicities of binary, conditional thinking (which is a natural to most people). and fyi, i am one of those Bible Belt fellows, and have become so because of my respect for science and logic and historical research. Please do not assume that all us christian kinds are of the blind-faith blast science to hell types. There are some exponentially brilliant scientists who happen to believe the christian faith, in its entirety. i have no affection for DVP, but why should he not be allowed to mention the Bible in a public forum? and please don't say that it's not "on topic." that would be almost as funny as Penn and Teller attempting to pass off a serious research project using guns and honey-dew melons. almost, but not quite. but for the record, I AM with you - i blocked him a long time ago, along with some others who have or have not maintained said filter, strictly because his utter illogic and malicious rants were about to make me buy a ticket to Indiana, and NOT for their Kentucky Fried Chicken. He remains blocked from my account, and i enjoy this forum so much more. [i had also tried to block one G. Parker, finally, but could not remember how to - he has been noticeably absent from some threads of late, so i've seen a calm to the forums - not a Peace, but a calm... ]

that caught my attention, too - "insurance lawyer?" there's creative license, then there's creative license... i'm sure the movie is terrific, but bold inaccuracies i cannot abide. these are the reasons i've refused to see any of those biopics (?) - the Aviator, Hoffa, Hoover, etc. I can't deal with drama confusing the facts when the facts area already as evasive as ever.

just a little FWIW: "Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett gushed over disgraced journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes on Monday's New Day on CNN. Michaela Pereira interviewed the Oscar winners about their new film, Truth, which is adaptation of Mapes's account of the Memogate scandal. Redford underlined that the apparent loyalty between Rather and Mapes "made a big impression on me." Blanchett hyped that "they're both compelling, fascinating, vital, intelligent, hilarious people." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/10/19/cnn-cate-blanchett-praises-intelligent-hilarious-dan-rather

my thought exactly. maybe now that he's well retired he's not so beholden to Propaganda. I can't remember when he actually told a complete truth. so, Yay, congrats on the plug - regardless of his character, he in fact carries some extreme weight.

I hope you're joking. i think (I hope) i'm hearing you asking the same question that came to my mind - not so much that they had the motive, means and opportunity to sabotage Zapata, but were they actually WILLING to let so many men die just to screw Dulles? Ok, i can see the powers that be fixing the BOPs job, for national interests, or even financial interests - but just to do in a piece of sh== like Dulles? say it ain't so, Rocky!!!

- let's cut to the chase, why don't we...

well, now that you put it that way...

i'm reading a book about the origin of CODE and Pythagoras is a major portion of the first part of the book, and the Golden Mean, and Phi, and exactly what was being sought by these people three thousand years ago was the merging of science, the Golden Mean, and art, to the extent that major artistic and architectural movements were directed to these ends - Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man was an interpretation of this (and many architectural efforts) - science/math + art = pleasing to the human eye. this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Z film, etc, I know, but it served to enforce something i've always felt - as much as we think so, numbers are not always absolute - there's something else going on in there. there's a reason no one has yet completely solved the Golden Mean, and other more complex scientific psychiatrics.

the idea behind this "jet effect" is that the energy produced by the explosion and expulsion of skull and brain matter at the exit point of the missile is such that it overcomes the energy expended by the bullet itself as it FIRST HITS and then ENTERS the solid skullbone (as Pat described) and thereby propels the mans head TOWARD the source of the initial energy. This is not possible. The majority of the energy expended is at once spent at impact, and as resistance decreases (when the bullet enters tissue and bone fragments), so does the energy expenditure - and any "jet propulsion" that might occur at the other end can IN NO WAY equal the impact that bullet just created. it would take something of equal force and energy acting in reverse to the bullet in the back of the head to change the head's direction. like another bullet. can anyone smarter than an amoeba convince themselves that this kind of energy transference is even possible?

OK, let's do that.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-jfk-conspiracy-myths.html Another "fake" video, Glenn? Really? You fell for that? From chapter 16 at patspeer.com In a 2005 episode purportedly debunking that Kennedy was killed by anyone other than Oswald, the TV show Bullsh*t shot a melon to demonstrate that bullets enter small and exit big, and that Kennedy's wounds could easily be replicated. To show that there was no mystery to Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement following the head shot, moreover, they showed the melon falling backwards in slow motion after impact. They were bullsh*tting their audience, of course. (People seem to forget that the hosts of the show, Penn & Teller, are first and foremost magicians--illusionists.) That they performed multiple takes in order to perfect their trick is confirmed by the fact that in the long shot melon goo flies out and knocks a pink hat off another melon, but in the slow-motion shot that followed the hat never moves. From what I can gather, the trick works like this: 1) the bullet strikes the melon, imparting energy into the melon, and explodes from the far side of the melon; 2) a portion of this energy is projected downwards as the melon expands; 3) this causes the melon to recoil slightly from the table; 4) due to there now being far more melon missing by the exit than at the entrance of the bullet, however, the primary motion of the melon is to roll backwards and re-establish equilibrium; 5) the poorly secured table, recoiling from the expansion of the melon forwards, tilts back towards the shooter; 6) the melon rolls off the edge of the extremely small table. TA DA! If the table had been a larger table the melon would barely have moved. If the table had been solidly secured and had not tilted backwards the melon would barely have moved. If the melon had had a flat bottom it would barely have moved. Of course, there's also the fact that a melon isn't a skull. As the forward momentum created by a bullet's impact is in large part determined by the amount of energy expended while entering and exiting the object receiving the impact, and as a skull is many times more difficult to penetrate than a melon, it only makes sense that a skull would be the recipient of far more forward momentum than a melon. An online paper by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti estimates that a human skull pierced by a bullet will receive 50-100 times the amount of energy and forward momentum as a melon pierced by a bullet. I suspect he's right. I mean, you can't exactly pierce a skull with a toothpick, can you? This simple fact, apparently overlooked by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez in his own studies, helps explain why the skulls fired on by Alfred Olivier's team in 1964 moved in the direction of the bullet far better than team member Larry Sturdivan's subsequent guess that the gelatin was to blame. not to mention that the melon is not attached to a 200 pound body influencing its motion a very great deal....

he says, "ok, let's do that" and then links to a premade video of something, which is, of course, NOT doing that. it's watching a video of someone else shooting something (i'm presuming, since it never even occurred to me to click that link). there are so many ballistic and integrity problems with those tests that only Lone Nut Theorists can refer to them and still sleep at night. I've blocked Mr Von Pein for quite some time now, and have enjoyed some intellectual neutrality and peace. How the hell is he back in MY posts??? David. Please stay the xxxx out of my posts, ok? I purposely avoid addressing you; the adult thing to do would be to reciprocate.

the Jet Effect. really? is this proposition really worth the time it's given? is it coincidental that people who have actually shot things with bullets are the ones who know better, and the ones who haven't are the ones questioning its validity? this Jet Effect is a sham. go shoot something, even something attached to something else, with a high velocity bullet. then let's talk about this jet effect. effin' please. few of you in here seem to have any respect for my opinions, but they are nevertheless valid: it seems to me that an awful lot of time is spent trying to solve unsolvable riddles that would resolve nothing in any case, If I want to find out who orchestrated a coup in Dallas in 1963, and I had proof that there were four gunshots that day, or that one trajectory originated from the Dal-Tex bldg, where would that get me? it would prove to me what i already knew. if suddenly proof were available that an entrance wound existed above JFK's right eye, where does that get us? it tells us what we already know. there were more than three gunshots, and that the Govt at the Bethesda level are liars. xxxx, my dog Strider knows that.

The Internet, of course. Along with a cast of thousands. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22302&p=315660 I was fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time. For the whole story: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674 -Ramon i just found it interesting that you'd use it as a credential only to then downplay it as one of thousands. don't quite get the point of braggadocio. don't get me wrong. i'm on your CT side, just find your claims a bit, um, ... well....

not we. you.

what a most unusual thread. Internet Pioneer and Co-Founder while at MIT System Administrator for 30 Years Holder of 2 Computer-Related Engineering Degrees Author of Forum Software Co founder of what? author of what forum software, exactly? just curious.

whew. when i get these posts in my email, they're without formatting, and the italics were absent from the first line, so that what i thought i was reading was James saying he regards ADulles as a Great American, while going on to describe the very accurate behaviors he undertook that cost thousands of innocent lives. i'm glad i came to see the post and clear up my confusion, that your first line was a quote. Paul is claiming objective study and his acclaim for Allen Dulles' patriotism. cute. i enjoy humor.

Politics is a fuzzy business. Allen Dulles and Joe Kennedy might have been compeitors -- but at one time Joe Kennedy predicted that Hitler was going to win WW2. If the only choices we have are Hard Right and Hard Left, David, then I must lose, because I'm in the middle. But it's so fuzzy -- we must define our terms. When you say Hard Right, do you mean, as Hitler meant, and as the KKK mean, White Supremacy? If so, then I can't be with them -- I'm not White. When you say Hard Left, do you mean State Ownership of all Property? If so, then I can't be with them -- I advocate Private Property as sanity itself. If these are the meanings of the terms, then Allen Dulles wasn't on the Hard Right. The problem with the Cold War was that the USSR was openly advocating the abolition of Private Property. That's a declaration of War all by itself. Worse than that, the Marxist "Communist Manifesto" openly advocated the Abolition of: (1) Private Property; (2) Religion; (3) the Family; (4) the Nation. It was like a science-fiction nightmare. This was the Hard-Left in the Cold War. Just because Allen Dulles opposed that nonsense -- did that make him a Neo-Nazi? I don't think so. The problem with any criticism of Allen Dulles that suggests he was a Neo-Nazi is that it is inspired by the Hard Left. For the Left-wing, EVERYTHING that isn't Hard Left is too far Right -- and they use the word "Nazi" as a euphemism. So, as I say, we must define our terms. In the objective study of US History, I regard Allen Dulles as a Great American. What a genius he was. He brought stability to the world during the Cold War -- which required only the greatest of minds. By contrast, a mediocre mind like General Edwin Walker, who claimed to be Anticommunist, was really a Segregationist, and so he made Allen Dulles' work that much more difficult. General Walker gave America a bad name, IMHO, while Allen Dulles did great work that will stand the test of time. But first, it must stand the test of this new book by David Talbot. I still don't have my own copy, but I will get one soon. Allen Dulles didn't kill JFK -- that's my position. I'm a CTer, not a LNer, but I totally absolve Allen Dulles and the CIA high-command from the murder of JFK. Now -- if somebody has already condemned the CIA and Allen Dulles, then by mere proxy and innuendo they will conclude that Dulles and the CIA killed JFK, right? Regards, --Paul Trejo nope. not right. there are alternatives.

this will be as unpopular, but my take on the topic was in regards to Jackie the woman and her grace and strength, and her anguish (you can tell by the title) - and NOT about whatever decisions she made post facto. Or her son, or her money - in my studies of the subject of the murder of john f kennedy, one of the richest things i've sustained is what little knowledge i've gained from seeing what kind of a human being she was. I'm brought to emotion when I see photos of her at Love Field less than an hour before her life is to be shattered. who she married later, and what political ramifications were held therein are irrelevant. Jackie Kennedy endured what very few people in the world could have with the very definition of Grace and Honor. When Gary Mack passed, the thread that was to honor him went so far astray as to be embarrassing. I'd like to think this forum contains the dignity to let honor lie where it belongs, and let politics and tedium be damned. Forgive me. Jackie Kennedy means a lot to me, and I feel the need to speak up.