Glenn Nall

James A. Warren ably asks us: ...Finally, from a practical standpoint, is it at all plausible that John McCone, the Kennedy-appointed CIA director at the time of the assassination, stood by passively as the retired Dulles waltzed back into CIA headquarters two years after having been fired to spearhead the greatest conspiracy in U.S. history? And if Dulles was behind it all, one wonders why Robert Kennedy pleaded with President Johnson to ask the gentleman spy to serve on the commission to investigate the murder of his beloved brother. Was Bobby in on it, too? Excellent questions, IMHO. All the CIA-did-it theories are winding down. It's been 47 years since Jim Garrison first blamed the CIA -- and only rumor and innuendo keep this train running. Facts are lacking, and logic is missing. All the fuss over the CIA prevents sincere JFK researchers from finding the REAL killers of JFK -- the Radical Right in Dallas. More relevant than Talbot, IMHO, is the new book by Jeffrey Caufield: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015). Regards, --Paul Trejo ***stood by passively as the retired Dulles waltzed back into CIA headquarters two years after having been fired to spearhead the greatest conspiracy in U.S. history? False assumptions: --That Dulles spearheaded anything. Being involved and spearheading are two completely different animals. this is a grand example of zealots jumping to unjustified conclusions. --And, that it was done from CIA HQ. IMO, when people, like me, who say "the CIA" in this context, we don't mean THE CIA, we mean some members, rogue elements (which happen to be the type of people the CIA was built with), and which were most certainly NOT operating from Langley... So those are great leaps of illogic. And Jim Garrison did more to show CIA involvement than he did to dissuade the idea. OH. And what's THIS??? Paul Trejo, taking yet another opportunity to mention General Walker? Say it ain't so...

To the contrary, with just a little objective research one would find more than a few highly irregular "interrelationships" within a pretty broad circle of people quite possibly connected with this thing. It would, of course, require objective research. The people Mary Bancroft and Allen Dulles knew are in fact about as relevent as an objective person would find when examining the layers of personalities involved.

Richard Bartholomew made serious mention of some of these facts, in energetic detail, in 1996.

David, Just how hard would it be to take a picture of an altered picture? I myself,don`t believe this to be the case.I honestly feel that the HSCA was not being truthful in their statement. Relying on the veracity of the HSCA is a lot like relying on that of the Priests in Salem, Massachusetts. Sure, there are those who still wish to see if witches can float, but for the most part they're placed at the kid's table when the adults come over. And ignored.

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...

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. A) the list on your website is just what i'm looking for. um, i don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that some of these people are describing where the bullet struck the Pres (Kilduff's words at the time of that photo make this very clear) and others are describing a more visible gaping wound. the fact that some use a single finger strengthen this idea. so i see little discrepancy in these myriad pics...

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!!"

Oglesby's interview with McCone is worth rereading. I personally enjoyed Mr. McCone audibly squirming as his complexion was reduced to the color of Lyndon B. Johnson's neck.

i'm just so grateful that the images aren't too big. god, i hate it when important pictures are so big that you can actually discern what's being proposed.

really. still? never mind. you'll figure it out.

php.ini file, on the server, sometimes in the root, sometimes above the root folder... [xxxx. i'm an idiot. this is only affecting two users? effin' wow. disregard the previous.]

i agree with you, Don, mostly (i hate giving Nixon a pass on anything). I'm just probing the possibility of answers to JFK being unearthed in the solutions to RFK and MLK, since they're so clearly connected at some level...

ah, Mark, I knew I could rely on you. ty right. hence my term "broad." I the outside-looking-in angle is what wins the game. my proposal, or suggestion, even, is that iF most of the actors of the two crimes were disclosed, wouldn't something large be learned about the JFK murder? again. just a suggestion...

this is a server error. well, ok, a configuration error. Jupiter was not aligned properly last week and the deficits are only now appearing. Mars revealed its water, and ... hell, i'll refrain. but i'm pretty sure it's a server error, as Greg has acknowledged (config errors == server errors).

"With a successors like that, JFK looks pretty darn good." right. which was the whole idea. toiletry, by design.

Armor, SGT E-5, at the time the picture was taken. Hell no. I actually worked for a living and I could read a map, Ah. Armored. Even better... There is still honor. Rah.

that's SO funny you ask that, as i JUST implied the same question with my allusion to LCDR (he's clearly not Navy). As if he's not listening, I'm guessing he's USArmy and those are the Bronze Oak Leaves of an O-5... but I could be wrong. I've been wrong before. (don't tell TGraves - he thinks if i touch my keyboard I'm wrong)

yep. Chris (what's that, like LCDR Newton...? , you're right. The man has been given some attention. Short list? cool. The irony is that people like me wish people like him would get more attention, but his truths are no more likely to take us to the light than discovering how many bullets hit Jack and where. God: yep, Glenn, Mac was involved. so was Lyndon, Edgar and Mr. Ruby. Five bullets came from the rear, three from the front. Umbrella Man did his job. Sturgis and Hunt were in DalTex, and Files doesn't know his ass from a hole George HW Bush dug. Me: great. helps a lot, God. Thanks for nothing. God: you're welcome. and wait ten minutes before you get your paper tomorrow morning. Tree limb's set to fall and it might hurt.

a simple matter of curiosity. I've glanced at the RFK/MLK murders - which is important in that a simple glance is all it takes to see as clearly as a mountaintop that there were conspirators involved. and it appears to me that many serious CTers accept that it's a JFK related circle of persons who did Bobby and Martin. and it appears to me that those two crimes are MUCH more "provable" (in the researchers sense of the word) than the quite challenging JFK murder. so i'm wondering, if a collusion of scum within the RFK/MLK/JFK is assumed (this is a conditional statement, KD - I don't expect you to get it), would it be an appropriate back way into the JFK solution if one of the other two were "solved" (again, in a researcher's sense of the word)? just wondering why more attention isn't paid to the easier tasks when they so clearly offer a path to the King Slugs...

I agree. it's my guess, and that's all it is, that Mac's (Bundy) still cowering under a table somewhere (is he dead yet?). he's one of those overlooked puddles of mud. you step in it, cuss, shake it off and keep going, not too curious what the eff it was you just stepped in. some will say i must be thinking of LBJ, but anyone who stepped in him knew exactly what it was. Their foot stank for a week.

agreed. i don't suspect every LGer (i don't like the term "Nutter" even though it's referring to the theory and not the theorist) is out for CT blood. But I much adhere to Eldridge Cleaver's idea that if we're not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. In this arena I feel that's a pretty appropriate sentiment.

no offense. you and i are on the same page, mostly. except that i hold the entire planet suspect, except for my mom and dad, cause i know where they were that day. right. if nothing else, K had backbone (dissimilar to today's D. Party). He took the bullet. Metaphorically. It's more likely, knowing CIA tactics and morals, that it wasn't Ks choice, anyway. We'll never know.

yes. I know this. I'm quite tired of some members in here assuming that i'm uneducated in JFK legacy, and/or that i'm an idiot. from what i've assessed, there's very little room for either judgement from very many contributors to this dialog. i force myself to remember that some of you likely know things that are not very public. I'd encourage you all (not you, so much, Don, you've always been fair and objective --- please offer understandable definitions of these two words where required? I've given up) to extend others similar possibilities. What some people know might incontrovertibly xxxx your theories up. Dulles - Bissell - oh, AND Cabell. Let's not forget that name....

It was, in fact, Nixon's Pet. Ike went with it, but, curiously enough, Nixon "bequeathed" it to Kennedy. How interesting. things that make one go, "hmmm."

yes. I know this. I'm quite tired of some members in here assuming that i'm uneducated in JFK legacy, and/or that i'm an idiot. from what i've assessed, there's very little room for either judgement from very many contributors to this dialog. i force myself to remember that some of you likely know things that are not very public. I'd encourage you all (not you, so much, Don, you've always been fair and objective --- please offer understandable definitions of these two words where required? I've given up) to extend others similar possibilities. What some people know might incontrovertibly xxxx your theories up.