Glenn Nall

i'm glad to see this thread begun. I've been looking for the chance to say how immeasurable my admiration for this woman has grown over time. From the thousands of photos of Jackie in various levels of candidacy, a person can begin to see the depth of her soul if he looks. She is more beautiful than I ever used to think she was (to get that out of the way...). Her passion for each breath she took, and her children, and her husband, even though she knew his games, is obvious, and it is beautiful, as well. Her backbone is so obviously of the highest order; the hours following the death of her husband, the murder which occurred physically in her lap, her husband, the President of the United States, another spine of steel, she holding his head together - standing next to that rotten POS as he took the oath of office on his own terms - the anguish and strength she endured those next few days, all the while making executive decisions on the minutiae of burying a murdered President. ALL of that with the Grace and Calm incomparable. I've come to know that she was one amazing woman, and i will admit that, although she's passed on, it's partly for her pain that I wish this tragedy solved and, if possible, someone drawn and quartered. Grace and Peace to Jacqueline Kennedy.

when i read Oglesby's Yankee Cowboy War and first grasped the significance of the Gehlen (and that Russian spy/general cat) enterprise, the irony - the absolute hypocrisy - of the US being in bed with these people at the same time the American citizenry is building bomb-shelters in their backyards and the US Senate is witch-hunting "commies" is mind-boggling. Absolutely despicable. This realization i think i can say is when the light went on and I became fully open to the depths to which our 'shadow' govt are willing to reach to get what they want. It's at this point that I reached the inability to be surprised by anything in this arena. General Landsdale and/or GHWBush pulling strings in 63? Why the hell not? Reagan and Bush bargaining with American hostages with some guns and then blaming a good old-fashioned Colonel when it hit the fan? Why the hell not? Dulles helping plan a political assassination? Why the hell not?

I'm failing to understand people's needs to introduce their own current political labels into this thing. "I'm no Right-Winger" - "self described liberal" ... it escapes me how today's partisanship has ANY relevance to yesterday's political scenery and power and destruction. This was 50+ years ago. I'm a self-described conservative/libertarian - it is NO SKIN OFF MY BACK if the right-wingers were mostly responsible for this - i happen to believe that this is the case. But just because I lean right doesn't mean i'm willing to defend GHWBush and his ilk. Or Nixon. From what i've seen in present day politics, both parties can produce some low slung dung. Especially in Texas. i'm just sayin'. If your particular political persuasion affects your approach to this kind of research, then good luck to ya.

General George Custer was a hero, to some. William Tecumseh Sherman was, too. (I'm from Atlanta - he's not my favorite person, as persons go). Funny, the things that impress people as heroic, manly...

Notwithstanding that the Dulles brothers, Harriman, and others of their circle helped create Nazi Germany and revive its economy, industry and military. Great heroics there, if decades' accumulated money and murder equal heroics. Your arguments are the same as those that have sustained a hard-right vs. hard-left system worldwide, with the US continually backing repressive, murderous right-wing governments. and let's not forget that little mishap in dallas. with heroes like him, who needs treasonous, back-stabbing, spineless whores in our government?

My gosh, Martin, you're completely mistaken about this accusation. It surely makes a difference if the Nazis were DEFEATED or UNDEFEATED before somebody made a deal with them. If you can't follow that logic, then there's no reasoning with you. Allen Dulles was a great American patriot. He advanced the cause of the USA in the 1940's and 1950's as few others in public service. Further, there's nothing Right-wing about me, Martin. I'm very liberal -- but I'm clearly not Left-wing. Nor is Left-wing defined as the only moral, honest and fair people -- as they like to think. They make as many mistakes as anybody else. The Radical Right in the USA were probably the ones who killed JFK. I detest the Radical Right. But the Radical Left in the USA were quick to defend LHO on the theory that he was a Fidelista, and they could not imagine a Fidelista killing JFK (e.g. Lyman Paine). So they joined Jim Garrison to defend LHO for the past 47 years. I agree that LHO was a Patsy, and so one of the victims of the JFK plot. Yet it's a mistake to imagine that LHO was a Leftist; he worked for Guy Banister. (Jim Garrison saw this in the early days of his investigation which led him to 544 Camp Street and the Radical Right. But events frightened Garrison away.) But let's focus on Allen Dulles and the flaw of the Left-wing in the USA that fails to recognize the necessity of the CIA in World Politics. There simply is no such thing as International "Law" -- and War is the most common condition in International Relations. The USSR wanted to push into Europe, and Allen Dulles defended Europe by appropriating the DEFEATED Nazi databases about USSR spies. We own Allen Dulles a patriotic debt of gratitude. Regards, --Paul Trejo "If you can't follow that logic, then there's no reasoning with you." that's very funny, Paul, coming from you... almost like you intended the irony...

exactly, and to the best of my inside information, the United States had quite a few.

i'm thinking you're not reading the same stuff i'm reading. don't you get The National Enquirer? The New York Post...?

maybe he had that perfect balance because he was two people yes, i've become, er, "interested" in this approach. very intriguing, at least. i just wish i weren't so busy having to make a living and sh** like that so i could spend some time with this stuff.

the press and backbone; two words i don't think we'll ever see in the same sentence outside of platforms like this...

i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors. i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi.

Well, Paul B., I have always recognized that LHO was tracked by the CIA, starting with his trek into the USSR in 1959. LHO was moving in Intelligence Circles since 1959, IMHO, but not as an important figure, rather, only as a trainee. IMHO, former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti is right when he says that Oswald went to the USSR as a "dangle" in a large system of dozens of "dangles" organized by the ONI. IMHO, LHO pissed off the ONI by quitting on them -- abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission. That explains, IMHO, why the Marines lowered LHO's discharge status. After that, the FBI did interview him, and the CIA admitted that it considered "laying on of interviews" with regard to LHO. But LHO never got hired. LHO was bright enough to learn Russian at a young age, as well as radar secrets and perhaps "micro-dots", but LHO was also too independent to be a Team Player. Neither the FBI, CIA nor ONI hired him full time (but possibly gave him "informant" status and some chump change(. LHO really got into trouble with the FBI and CIA, however, when, at the urging of George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt (and possibly Michael Paine), LHO tried to murder General Walker at his Dallas home. Dick Russell (1992) says Mrs. Igor Voshinin told the FBI about Oswald-as-a-Walker-suspect only four days later. This corresponds with many of Walker's personal papers, for example, his letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf After that, I will bet my bottom dollar that the FBI, CIA and ONI just wrote Oswald off as a potential Agent, and only put him on their watch lists as just another crackpot mixed up with Guy Banister in New Orleans. Regards, --Paul Trejo PT *** abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission. Only problem with that is his very mysteriously expedited visa and return to the US so soon after he'd just pronounced his allegiance to the Party. We're talking weeks. You think a normal US citizen could renounce americanism, move to russia, marry a russian and then just up and change his mind? xxxx, man, that would have taken a year at a minimum. someone helped him get there, AND someone helped him get back. pure as pickles.

At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy. But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals. I'm glad to have helped in some way. The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears. It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads. perhaps you could provide a list of who's missing from these witnesses? I'm attempting a bona fide comparison of visual ID's between Elm and Bethesda, short and sweet, with no riff raff. who's missing from these lists...? little help?

PS *** Lawyers know that if the evidence doesn't show what you want to show, you simply find an "expert" who'll say it doesn't show it, and that arguing that medical evidence has been faked is a sure loser in the eyes of a judge or jury. not a very fair, or true, accusation, Pat. Not that it matters to anyone in here, but i take a little offense to this. darn, dude... that's pretty bold.

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite. Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists. I imagine it would be a lot like holding 26 NYYankees World Series rings in one hand, and say 3 of those of say, The Cubs and then listening to the myriad YHers come up with hundreds of reasons why, well, some of them are really fake, and that others don't count, and how many Yankees were in fact way too unqualified to have played well enough... and these Yankees weren't actually Forensics Baseball players, so THEIR rings don't count - ... And I'm like !!! , "But David, I'm holding 26 Rings! You're holding 3!!" If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. Those pushing that there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos are fake, routinely ignore a number of the best witnesses, and prop up a number of witnesses who are totally unreliable. But there remain a number of credible witnesses for a wound on the back of the head. This creates a quandary. This is why it takes two chapters to explain my position on the matter. Here's an example of something that is overlooked by most holding that the wound was really on the back of the head. While they love to flash those photos of witnesses taken 20-30 years after the fact, in which they point to the back of their head, they rarely acknowledge that the first witnesses unanimously pointed to a location on the front of the head. from 18b ...As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the right temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound. And not only them, but Malcolm Kilduff himself. A 10-26-77 article found in the Michigan City News-Dispatch reveals that upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital, Kilduff observed Kennedy’s head wound, and that, according to Kilduff “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat." While the location of the wound observed by Kilduff is far from clear, it seems likely that, if he felt it was somewhere other than the right temple, he would have questioned Burkley's claim it was by the temple. This is supported, moreover, by Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." No offense, Pat, but - that's some real serious irresponsible and illogical writing. I'm not quite sure how you get from one assumption to another. but i still respect the energy you put in, just maybe not so much your conclusions... What's irresponsible about it? A lot of CTs assume that when Kilduff pointed towards his temple he was pointing to the location of a small entrance wound that led to a large exit wound on the back of the head. That's hogwash. 1. No one at Parkland had noticed such a wound. 2. Kilduff specifically denied he was pointing out such a wound. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22096&page=6

i for one am not biased or glued to the CIA's collusion - it's just that everywhere you look, some member or another of the organization keeps popping up, from the BOP to the Paines to Howard Hunt's lies to de Morenschildt's assoc. with LHO, ad infinitum. It's hard to ignore them when they're everywhere you look.

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite. Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists. o o o If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe. wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite. Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists. o o o If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe. Thank you, Sandy, for getting my point. That's what i'm looking to compile, strictly a comparison of testimonies of where anyone saw what kind of wound, knowing good and well that the vast majority will show [i dunno, what do you think?] and that the initial impressions would carry more weight than the 'filtered' impressions. and thanks for the link.

i really do appreciate the weight of disdain that can be conveyed in such a concise statement: "what a very bad man." I think that sums him up fairly nicely.

and I agree with Jon - in this game of life (which i as a teenager studied, tested, and failed miserably) it occurred to me that sometimes pawns are the exact right approach. if what's her name had succeeded in poisoning Adolfidel Castro (there are those who think she got quite close), what would we have called that other than a checkmate by a (doomed, for certain) pawn. these things are quite situational. and to compare life to chess other than in terminology makes no sense to me whatsoever. i rather like Pink Floyd's metaphor (or is it an asimile?). Pigs, Dogs, and Sheep. simplifies things...

a couple of years ago I read a really terrific book on the BOP that had just recently been published in 2012 - i forget the author's name - but in it he describes some very heated last minute (the night of BOP) White House meetings between Dulles, et al, and some Mil Staff and Kennedy where the moves being made were to mislead AND coerce Jack into action, and in which Jack really vacillated... anyone remember or know of this book? it seemed very well researched and integrous.

IMHO, Mark, Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had accomplices in Dallas, in New Orleans and also in Mexico City. In my reading, the Warren Commission had to pretend that LHO took a bus to Mexico City, in order to support their "Lone Nut" theory of LHO. Mexican officials -- when asked apart from the US Government -- reported that LHO entered and exited Mexico as a passenger in a car. (No Mexican officials or records have LHO on a bus, and no Mexican witnesses saw LHO on a bus. Only four American tourists claimed to see Oswald, and their testimony is contradictory.) So, IMHO, just as Oswald rode in a car to and from the Walker shooting in April 1963, so also did Oswald ride in a car from Mexico City in September 1963. His rifle was with him the entire time. That's my reading. Regards, --Paul Trejo i find your reasoning quite solid and informative when a certain General is not the topic. seriously. 'cept for that MP being a genius among geniuses bit... so LHO had accomplices in Dallas AND N.O., AND Mexico? really????? i'm just kiddin' with ya. I'm pretty sure he had accomplices in Atlanta (FBI) and Tampa and Kansas City, as well. And Raleigh (phone call from jail...?). Lee Harvey Oswald, the Jet Setter.

It's in the Warren Commission testimony of Michael Paine, Glenn. You should read it sometime. Regards, --Paul Trejo Really? Michael Paine said, "I'm a brilliant intellectual" in WC testimony? Wonder how that went over in front of a group of bona fide (pseudo)brilliant intellectuals... and this "good reason" that MP looked down on LHO was established in testimony? and he couldn't get past page 1 of "Karl Marx" - but ate up Trotsky, spent half his life embracing socialism, moved to Russia, married a Russian woman, was embraced by the White Russians upon his return... maybe he was able to get to the third, or maybe even the fourth, page... "Yep, Justice Warren, I happen to be a brilliant intellectual - no offense to you, of course." you're right, i need to go read that...

thanks Mark for clearing that up for me. I knew something didn't sound quite right about that. makes just a wee bit more sense.

This is still a relevant thread, Bill Kelly, so I'll try to address a few of your original ten questions with my own opinions: (2) It is one of the most important puzzles in the 21st century analysis of the JFK murder history -- that Michael Paine contradicted himself on this critical topic. I'm convinced that Michael Paine didn't tell his wife, Ruth, about seeing the Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) Backyard Photograph. They were separated at the time, and aside from their children (and his money) they had very little in common. However, the fact that Michael Paine knew about the Backyard Photographs on April 2, 1963, suggests that Michael Paine spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald about General Walker, also. This makes Paine a potential part of the plot to assassinate General Walker. I think far more should be done to investigate this. (4) The reason Michael Paine didn't open up to LHO about his own family, was because Michael was a Harvard man, a brilliant intellectual, and LHO was a phony who tried to read Karl Marx, but couldn't really get past the first page. Michael really looked down on LHO, for good reason. (7) It's not really relevant that Ruth Paine's mother's friend was once a lover of Allen Dulles in the 1940's. It says utterly nothing about the JFK assassination. George Michael Evica to the contrary. (8) Ruth Paine herself says that in her post-assassination conversation with Michael, the "one's who really did it" mentioned, were merely the generic "they" who published the Black-bordered Ad (Welcome to Dallas, Mr. Kennedy), and the "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills. I find that eminently believable. (9) Ruth Paine felt sorry for the Oswalds -- especially for Marina whom she liked very much. Lee was a loser who couldn't hold down a steady job, and didn't know how to drive when he was 23 years old. Ruth tried to teach LHO how to drive. It's not surprising that Ruth would beg Michael Paine (who was rich) to help LHO buy his own car, so LHO could hold down a decent job and support his own wife and children. (10) The reason that nobody noticed a rifle was in the luggage atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in her trip from New Orleans to Irving, Texas in September 1963, was because THERE WAS NO RIFLE THERE. Instead, the rifle appeared in Ruth Paine's garage only after October 4th, when LHO finally appeared at Ruth's doorstep after his Mexico City episode. Best regards, --Paul Trejo PT *** The reason Michael Paine didn't open up to LHO about his own family, was because Michael was a Harvard man, a brilliant intellectual, and LHO was a phony who tried to read Karl Marx, but couldn't really get past the first page. Michael really looked down on LHO, for good reason. um. where do you get this crap? Has it been so stated that that's why MP didn't open up to LHO? By whom? Because he was 'a Harvard Man' he's a brilliant intellectual? Hate to break it to you, but one does NOT necessarily follow the other. It might impress you, but I know personally a Harvard man with 2 Master's and he is quite a distance from brilliantly intellectual. And LHO couldn't get past the first page of Karl Marx? really...? Being the intrepid, experienced journalist you so obviously are, I can understand the privilege you maintain in not revealing your sources for these most fascinating, and heretofore unrevealed, minutiae. But surely you can cite just ONE source for this drivel... please? I'll accept the distinct possibility that some of this might be stuff that i've never seen it before, but your skills in gigantic leaps to nowhere really does make me doubt it.