Glenn Nall

Bill, I find the relationship of Ruth Paine's mother's friend (Mary Bancroft) to Allen Dulles in the 1940's to be utterly irrelevant to the JFK assassination. It's really reaching.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

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.

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

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.

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

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...

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

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...

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

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.

Not to my knowledge, in 1962:

If you read the memo attached, ( &^&%$^ I am out of KB for attachments ) the organization was not founded in 1963 as indicated in the exile group's web site where a $0.96 donation gets you a poster.

http://cuban-exile.com/menu1/!group.html

Go to Mary Ferrel's site and look for Argimino Fonseca and Hermandad Cubana, A New Anti-castro Group in Miami ...

There is a clear ( no blacked out lines ) version of both pages there.

The memo mentions September of 1962 as the time CIA got the "untested source" report.,

It was founded in my living room, in 169 NW 28 Street, Miami Fla., prior to the Missile Crisis of October of 1962.

Fonseca et al left for Cuba in late mid-October and were announced as captured and shot just before Holloween - bummed that holiday out for us.

The bonds I attached a copy of, above, were designed at that time ( I had input into their design and I put the dry seal on each of them ); not in 1963.

No one I have contacted remembers the name Pedro De Haro.

Maybe you can find him in the two pictures I attached above.

If you have contemporaneous photos of him or any biographical information, I could use it.

-HH

P.S., I need more attachment KB's .

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.

What is your branch and rank in the photo you present? Thanks.

Armor, SGT E-5, at the time the picture was taken.

O-5

Hell no. I actually worked for a living and I could read a map,

Ah. Armored. Even better...

There is still honor.

Rah.

Chris,

What is your branch and rank in the photo you present? Thanks.

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.

I don't think King has an agenda per se, at least the way a lot of others in the media do in relation to the assassination.

King has talked a lot about how the Kennedy assassination was a watershed moment in his life in various interviews throughout the years. If I remember correctly, years back, he was skeptical of the official story and was open to a conspiracy. He references the assassination in many of his novels. In the Tommyknockers, the Dallas PD are a symbol of incompetence and possibly corruption.

I suspect his 'research' before writing the book wasn't all that in depth and he read Bugliosi and Posner and was swayed over relatively quickly, giving a cursory look at everything else. He may have even had an idea in his mind beforehand about where he wanted to take the book and the official story might work better for his purposes.

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.

David Andrews,

I believe I'm in the minority here in reading NSAM 263 not as a plan for withdrawing from Viet Nam per se but rather as an expression of hope that the South Vietnamese government could, by the end of 1965, take full responsibility for defending itself and its territory from the Viet Cong and NVA. It's clear to me, at least, that if the South Vietnamese government had not stepped up to the plate by the end of 1965, there would have been U.S. ground forces, in whatever number was needed, to keep South Viet Nam afloat in a second JFK term. JFK may have had a relatively good read on Viet Nam, but he was not about to hand the country over to Ho Chi Minh.

Ho Chi Minh and his compatriots wanted to take over South Viet Nam and were willing to try to do so at any cost. None of this changed on or after November 22, 1963.

Glenn Nall,

I was wrong to say JFK opposed the BOP invasion. IMO, he did not oppose the invasion forcibly enough to deter the half-hearted attempt that was made. As I understand, JFK told Richard Bissell of CIA that air cover would not be provided until the landing force had secured a beachhead. To me, that instruction, if it was in fact given, allowed for ambiguity. When would a beachhead be considered secured? That question does not have a precise answer. Ineffective air cover was provided and made no difference. To me, JFK was trying to game the situation. Surely IMO he would have claimed success if the landing had succeeded in overthrowing Castro. The fact he took responsibility for the landing's failure means nothing to me. He was going to get blamed no matter what. By taking responsibility, he seized the high road, a basic JFK strategy.

Just so you don't get me wrong Glenn, I consider the JFK murder to be the most important crime of the 20th century. I want justice for those responsible. At the same time, I don't wear rose colored glasses when it comes to JFK.

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.

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

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.

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

Dulles - Bissell - oh, AND Cabell. Let's not forget that name....

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

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."

Glenn,

JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs from the Eisenhower administration. It was a CIA project, and they expected the new young president to rubber-stamp it. The myth that JFK refused to provide air protection at the last minute is just one of the many smears against the Kennedys which aren't supported by the facts.

JFK was new to the job, and extremely naive politically at the time of the Bay of Pigs. More than any other event, in my view, this disaster changed the way he looked at the military-industrial complex and the intelligence agencies. His response- especially the firing of Dulles and Bissell- certainly impacted the way the tptb looked at the Kennedys.

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.

Yes, King has no agenda. Neither does Tom Hanks, or James Franco, or any other celebrity who just happens to accept the impossible lone assassin fairy tale. I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes.

King's armchair psychological diagnosis of Oswald was even more contrived than Don DeLilo's in Libra. He even said, in one interview, that Marguerite used to inspect Oswald's genitals regularly, to see how he was developing. This is pure fabrication, not even based on Renatus Hartogs' type of "evidence." And like so many other liberals, King has admitted that he was never a fan of the Kennedys.

The disconnect between the general public and those who have achieved notoriety in this society, on this issue alone, should be enough to convince anyone we're being lied to. As Richard Belzer so astutely once said, "90% of the public believes there was a conspiracy. The other 10% work for the government or the media."

i see two things:

the american public assumes intellectual integrity is part and parcel of celebrity (thanks, Mr. Mencken), and that celebrities know this and capitalize on it.