Glenn Nall

"In fact, the word "unbelievable" comes to mind" RP, you speak the truth.

one of the photos to which i was referring earlier.

I read somewhere in the past month or so a fairly exhaustive assessment of the clip being forced in from above vs. inserted from below with and without 6 rounds, or 3, the possibilities of the clip working properly if damaged, etc... all since the 'rifle' is seen on film with the clip inserted outside of the TSBD. As best I remember there was no conclusion, just the assessment of the different possibilities - the concern of course being why the 'rifle' contained the clip in the street in the possession of Lt Day...

Bravo! Seriously, there needs to be a block button on these toxic posters! It's just this sort of sarcastic bickering that drives good researchers and newbies away from forums like this. Any chance that can be developed and added to the system, Mr. Simkin? If you won't ban people like this, we need to have a way to personally block them for our own sanity! "Why do you guys waste your time on this clown? If we all ignored him, he would be ranting in an empty room..." i remember when this was proposed, and I can only guess that you're referring to the same person it referred to at the time, because I, having wholeheartedly agreed to do so and blocked him, can't see anything he posts. You're right, it has done wonders for my sanity. I don't know about the others who agreed to this at that time - i'd have assumed a concerted effort to ignore him would have made a point, but with people like that, one never knows. with what i've seen of his reasoning skills, he's liable to imagine all kinds of reasons we don't take him seriously. HE, and people LIKE HIM, certainly have discouraged me from engaging in any serious discussion in Ed Forum for a time, and it's quite clear to me that these types are a malignant distraction to our earnest efforts at progress...

unfollowing so i can get something done. ta ta

Yo, genius... how would you know if you are not familiar with the information? How can you even begin to entertain any thoughts based on your preconcieved conclusions which are, in turn, not based on the material... Imagine you know nothing about the JFK murder and I tell you that Oswald wasn't at the window, never owned the rifle or pistol and that the films and photos have been altered to cover up a government conspiracy... And the proof is in this book. In 1964 that sounded pretty crazy. but lo and behold... if you read the work that shows this to be true you can actually form an educated opinion. Are you normally in the habit of providing others your completely uninformed opinions and expect them to be given any credibility? When JVB claimed to do what she did, she offered proof which at every turn, at every look - FELL APART. When JA points to and goes the extra mile to acquire the info our gov't wouldn't, and over and over again the conflicts rear their head... you, Bernie and Greg... ....might consider not repeatedly looking the fool and read up on it. Or at least admit you're so out of your league related to the info and evidence that you CAN'T come to an opinion - that you'd reserve it until you did some work. Is this how you approach other subjects tommy? Decide BEFORE you do the research what you're going to think and then stubbornly refuse to consider the source materials which are easily available. then stand on a soap box and proclaim your ignorance? Sure looks that way to everyone here... and your attempts to cover this ignorance with "wittiness" are almost as bad as your dedication to NOT learning the subject. I now know a great deal about H&L. I studied it and continue to discover new things all the time, just like the JFK assassination. What do YOU know a great deal about Tommy? D. at the risk of sounding like i'm brown-nosing (I'm not since i haven't even pronounced my own definitive stance since i don't have one yet), I think i'm beginning to see a separation of the instigators and the objective truth seekers. some say they're real researchers, but they honestly only bash others' theories, while some somehow just naturally sound credible in their posts. speaking of which, where's DVP?

whether he answers or not, I'm thinkin' the answer is pretty clear... but that's just me... -- Nall Glenn, Hargrove asked me whether or not I had read Harvey and Lee. I answered his question. Before you made your inane statement in post # 1420. Did you read my answer five posts before yours? I'm thinkin' the answer's real clear -- No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have posted your inane, vaguely insulting, chicken-you-know-what statement. Here's the pertinent part, Glenn, so you can read it and get over it. [from post #1415] Now, to answer your question, [Jim Hargrove], heck no, I haven't read Harvey and Lee! Why the heck would I want to waste my time doing given its patently ridiculous premises -- 1 ) that two young boys (and their mothers!) were chosen by the bad guys to participate in an elaborate double-doppelganger project, and that the bad guys somehow knew that the two boys would grow up to look very similar (when necessary) and very different (when necessary); ditto their mothers after they were already adults, 2 ) that "Lee" was (evidently) moved around and hidden in "safe" houses for two-and-one-half years so that he wouldn't bump into any of his friends and acquaintances while "Harvey" was in the USSR, and 3 ) that both "Lee's" and "Harvey's" families were "in on" the project all the way, and have miraculously been able to keep from "spilling the beans" / "letting the cat out of the bag" on it, both before and after the assassination, for about 60 years now. Seems to me the bad guys would have killed them all a long time ago to prevent that from happening. But then again maybe that wasn't necessary because the bad guys just MKULTRA-ed all of them 60 years ago to exhibit zombie-like silence and programmed ..... obfuscation. You know, with occasional "limited hangouts." That's it, isn't it, Jim. (Speaking of pinto beans, I think Armstrong must have eaten a 55-gallon drum of them and the resultant gas caused him to come up with these weirdo ideas. Or was it ... mushrooms???) To tell you the truth, Jim, I'm starting to entertain the idea that H&L is nothing but an elaborate CIA "disinfo project," designed to divide and confuse the JFK assassination research community. For now, Jim, I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna assume that you're just suffering from the effects of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy and its psychological corollary,the Clustering Illusion Syndrome. Add a liberal dash of paranoia and what do you hav? The Harvey and Lee Cult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion --Tommy I'm starting to realize that your name could easily mis-spelled by anybody as ""Null" (almost did it myself --LOL), which would be ironic and perfect because, well, although you post often, you don't seem to have much of value to say on this forum. You seem to be kind of a .... dilettante? A gadfly, ... if you will? "No offense," Glenn. --Tommy nothing chicken xxxx about it, Thomas. I implied that i don't think you've read it, and then you admitted you haven't, then i said i don't know how someone can be such an authority as to so summarily dismiss such a complex theory without having read a book by its proponent. it's simple. to defeat an enemy you have to know the enemy. what's chicken xxxx is attacking me when i've given you no reason to. and before you go saying i'm being a baby, i'll refer any of the instigators to the fact that the admin here have already posted a warning against such agitation. I'm remiss in responding to it, but I'm damn sure not guilty of instigating it. if you don't like the fact that my opinion differs from yours, then there has to be some means of peace within yourself to overcome it. therapy, something. but attacking me isn't going to help your situation at all. and believe me, it's not going to hurt mine.

The evidence that Jim Garrison presented in the early days of his investigation into the JFK murder came from the Warren Report. There were two citations in particular: (1) In the testimony of New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews, he said he met Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of "Clay Bertrand" paying for his legal fees. According to Dean Andrews, Lee Harvey Oswald came to his office accompanied by two "gay kids." Handling legal cases for New Orleans arrests for public homosexuality was Dean Andrews' staple income. (2) In the testimony of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina complained to them that Lee Harvey Oswald had seriously neglected their marriage bed. George said he believed that Lee Oswald was "asexual." The fact that Jim Garrison was able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to David Ferrie -- a known homosexual -- prompted Garrison to begin reasoning along these lines in the early stage of his investigation into the JFK murder. Again, the topic of the resigned General Walker being involved in the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- because Walker was allegedly gay -- so we should beware. Regards, --Paul Trejo Good assessment. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. I think he was interested in the spy business and those were some he was in contact with. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. What? I'm an old traditional southerner with traditional southern concepts of homosexuality in and of itself - and with fairly contemporary and accepting views of individuals in and of themselves, regardless of what they choose to do in private or whether or not they know that Ian Paice is the second greatest drummer of all time. And if, in my circles, which contain some homosexuals, I were heard to make that statement i'd be quickly compared to a socially inept puritan. "I know there are those in his circle that are gay, but i'm not sure if that means he is also." what the heck does one have to do with the other? "I know that there are some librarians and some Iowans in his circle, but i'm not sure if that means he is." a most FASCINATING use of logic. t Ian Paice is the second greatest drummer of all time. Certainly no higher than 4th. And if, in my circles, which contain some homosexuals, I'll bet you'd be p*ssed if someone mistook you for one of them, My circle does not include any. there are some librarians and some Iowans in his circle, How many of each? I'm not sure why i'm surprised you bit, but you did. cool. I'm from Atlanta, GA, where there is a LARGE community of gay people. I also grew up, and I decided that even though I am a Christian and do not approve of the practice and philosophy of the Gay community, I have NO room to pass judgement on another individual's behavior when mine is so far from ideal. SO, NO, i don't judge gay people, and like i told ol' Bernie, NO, i don't get pissed when people call me names, (mistake me for gay - it happens often, just like i'm called racist often), or italian, or Iowan (I'm thinkin you missed my point, and at this i'm not surprised). Some people grow up... maybe you don't have any in your circles because they won't have you...? just wonderin'...

"who the hell am I to pass judgement on someone else's opinions?" A citizen with his own (maybe contradictory, maybe complimentary) opinions. That's the fun of living in a democracy. Do you say this before you vote for anyone? Do you say that whilst doing jury service? Do you not pass judgement on the opinions of violent dictators? Would communists in the Whitehouse encourage your judgement on their opinions? You have an extremely over inflated sense of your own self worth that doesn't tally with reality. You've done nothing BUT pass judgement since you exploded onto here a few weeks ago. That's why you are here! pass judgement versus have an opinion. to me these are two entirely different things. they are apparently not to you.

for what it's worth, integrous, subjective and honest researchers and reviewers read BOTH sides of an issue before attempting any kind of subjective judgement. that's just plain responsible research. if I TRULY want to know the truth, then i CANNOT be afraid to read literature from "the other side." I cannot be confident in my convictions if I have NOT weighed them against alternatives. For instance, inwardly I cannot in any way see how Gen Walker could be a major leader in something of this size. BUT - In my honest quest for TRUTH, i have refrained from blasting it since I have read nothing to speak of on the subject. I can only solidify my convictions when i've satisfactorily refuted the rest for myself. And I CANNOT honestly lambast the opposing theories if I haven't actually read the research first. key word being 'honestly.' I cannot imagine being so vehemently against anything without first having actually studied what it is about it that I find improbable, impossible or just plain stupid. that'd be stupid. but maybe that's just me. EDIT: I mean, there's even an option having been presented that ---> an alien presence plays a large role in this thing. Now, everything in me wants to scream "are you effin' kidding me?" But this 'option' coming from a most reputable person, and since i do my best to adhere to an honest approach to theories both comfortable and not so much (i said 'do my best to', not 'do'), i refrain from bucking at this quite astronomic idea. It comes from a respectful source, and - with a certain few in mind: who the hell am I to pass judgement on someone else's opinions? effin' God?

on the subject of unique sexual habits in the US Military, I came across this interesting video of an interview with one Kay Griggs, wife of Marine Corps General George Griggs, an intel type - and apparent "Illuminati" (not into the illuminati theme too much, i just happened to take a peek at the video out of curiosity and found her talking about Oswald, New Orleans, homosexuality, etc.) - with some odd connections according to his wife (the decision's yours whether this woman is on point, nuts or hypnotized - there's a curious "10,9,8,7..." countdown with fingers before the interview starts, someone suggests hypno - anyway. some interesting comments she makes. these are notes and quotes from the first 20 minutes of the interview. part 1 of 4 is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8ly0c0_Rnk [in deference to those whose logic would take them from my having posted this text to that i'm firmly committed to this as gospel, i will emphasize: THIS IS JUST SOMETHING INTERESTING I'VE COME ACROSS THAT MENTIONED MILITARY GENERALS AND HOMOSEXUALITY. IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY REPRESENT MY OPINION. I HAVE SIMPLY POINTED IT OUT. ANY ATTEMPTS TO USE THESE WORDS IN THE FUTURE TO MISREPRESENT MY BELIEFS WILL, AS USUAL, FAIL. ] interview w/ Kay Griggs, wife of Marine Colonel George Griggs [disappeared 28 Dec '95] [first wife murdered...?] "JAG > Judge John Moore, et al > VMI > these judges are military men and they're 'not independant - they take orders'... Sarah McLendon saved my life > they, ha ha, 'they', Gens. Sheehan Krulak, Al Gray, Cook, esp. Jim Joy, Carl Steiner > evil men, met with husb. almost every day in Beirut, trained "men in black" - trained young boys from Haiti, romania, etc. - profile them similar to Oswald, McVeigh, Jeff Dahmler[sic]..." ME: then she says 'Dahmer' - one thing that makes me a bit untrusting ... HER:" - picked out because sex. perversion, therefore ... twisted - profiled w/ strong mom, weak father, poor, looking for security - my husb and LHO were two peas in a pod - exact same personality, same type - in the same ELITE group which was doing work with communist Russians, Czechs and Romanians --- i met assassins, drug lords, um, Fahim Qortabawi family dg lords in Bekaa valley" "not christians, existentialists - study german klauswitz, neitzche, sartre, kamu, montesque? ..." "his thesis in Richmond was on this, which was written for him by very good friend 'Todave?', a French Count" "In the intelligence world, and the communist world, the world my husband was in... one had to know French because all of the terrorist groups and the guys who were funding this ... were in Paris - and New Orleans - still 4th Marines out of NO - terrorist training, Lake Pontchartrain, places like that..." "you see, my husband and Oswald were in the same 'club'... Gen Jim Joy, Gen Louis Buehl[?] ... in fact, I've got the name of [reaching for something in purse]... there are Russians in that club..." "what I wanna tell you about General Al Gray - my husband was the Chief of Staff for Gen Al Gray - who was the Commandant of the Marine Corps ... and I probably shouldn't say this on the tape, and you all can get rid of it, but - he's a homosexual ... what they call a 'cherry marine' ..." here it sounded like she was going to go further with this train of thought, but it went to Nam, etc. [following]. I haven't watched any more of the vid, it's no longer interesting to me in my area of interest - yet... there might be more along the sexual entanglement angle... "viet nam ... yadda yadda ... [sounds like:]MaxOg Program, Phoenix Program, O'Boyle, Whipple, ... remember Mengez, USS Pueblo? run by Mob, Military Joint Op in Korea and Nam - highest levels of the marine corps and army in nam, those levels the individuals are in the brooklyn NJ mob - my husband, Gray, Sheehan, Cap Weinberger >> Brooklyn" [searching for name of Russian] husband disappeared 28 Dec 95/6, "I was being handled psych., break-in March 4, 'seeking Griggs' diary'" has his Beirut Diary "tells how the intel comm., the army and marine assassins, operate in city during a crisis - my husb was liaison betw WH and Pres Gamal [Abdel Nasser?], husb friend of [sounds like:]Scrokoff[?], McFarland's a Marine ... Colby i spoke with pers. on the phone... was murdered [?] 2 weeks later..."

whether he answers or not, I'm thinkin' the answer is pretty clear... but that's just me...

I trust your data that any accusations of Hoover's "promiscuity" came from people who were not close enough to really know, if that's what you are saying. This is, after all, a common problem with rumors - they're usually not from the best sources. You'd know more than I would, since I've spent very little time on him. Nevertheless, I find it incredibly hard to believe that two men spend as much of the type of time that they spent together and there NOT be "something" unusual going on. ALL of their vacations to France, etc, together? ALL of their lunches together? Daily commute together? For how many years...? Maybe these are all exaggerations, too...? The rumors of his alternative dress habits i think came from the Justice Dept who was investigating Frank Costello, a known confidant of JEH's. It was widely accepted, but that doesn't make it true. You're the first i've heard to directly challenge the proposal, and out of deference to the more studied (you), I'm open to this as an enormous exaggeration - EXCEPT for all that alone time he and Tolson shared. Is all that closeness an exaggeration, too? as far as: "My point continues to be that almost every assassination of a political figure produces conspiracy theories which, by their very construction, are incapable of being falsified.---" i'm not so sure about that... "---Consequently, people argue about such murders for decades after the original event. [If memory serves me correctly, there is also a conspiracy theory regarding the murder of RFK, i.e. a supposed second gunman)." Really? I believe that a conspiracy of the RFK ass. could easily be shown if it were ever opened again. Simple mathematics and simple trajectory physics proves a conspiracy. Have you ever seen the fatal bullet wound in RFK's skull? That investigation was shut down before it started, for all intents and purposes. A conspiracy is even more obvious than the JFK one. I'll make an opinionated comment: I happen to think that we'd ALL do well to remember that the single most immovable reason that these three murders (including MLK) are not solved, officially or even unofficially, is that the various authorities flatly refuse to let the cases be reopened. Including the JFK case, I believe that these are very solvable cases IF 1) there were powers to subpoena, and 2) the, or some, powerful hindrances were removed, both of which would happen if the case were officially reopened. The real reason this case, these cases, cannot make great progress is that ALL of the most brilliant minds, intrepid PI's, resourceful investigative journalists cannot do what an honest government investigator can do with a subpoena and access to a judge. I think it's distinctly possible that someone, or a team of someones, could happen across a "smoking gun" item that could shake up the right people enough to break something open, but if so, it's still a long road to hoe. I would certainly never for a second consider NOT caring for a positive outcome of this travesty. I have more fun these days than ever before following my little angle into the shadows, and reading about all of your angles. But it's my opinion that the lack of governmental cooperation (and its active resistance) is an enormous factor in its success.

Oh, I always understand you and your intent... I don't write to instigate controversy... ...and understand the thoughts of the person I'm reading. these are reasons i really do consider your thoughts superfluous. you are blind.

like someone did on DVP... i'm surprised it hasn't already been done - one for him, one for you... you're right. you did say Hi Glenn. but it quickly changed. ya'll are boring. You say something, I respond, and Thomas blames me for derailing. how interesting. and boring.

i don't want you to enjoy my writing, in this context; i just wish you'd understand it, so when you disagree you'd know what the hell you're disagreeing with.

The evidence that Jim Garrison presented in the early days of his investigation into the JFK murder came from the Warren Report. There were two citations in particular: (1) In the testimony of New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews, he said he met Lee Harvey Oswald in the context of "Clay Bertrand" paying for his legal fees. According to Dean Andrews, Lee Harvey Oswald came to his office accompanied by two "gay kids." Handling legal cases for New Orleans arrests for public homosexuality was Dean Andrews' staple income. (2) In the testimony of George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina complained to them that Lee Harvey Oswald had seriously neglected their marriage bed. George said he believed that Lee Oswald was "asexual." The fact that Jim Garrison was able to connect Lee Harvey Oswald to David Ferrie -- a known homosexual -- prompted Garrison to begin reasoning along these lines in the early stage of his investigation into the JFK murder. Again, the topic of the resigned General Walker being involved in the JFK murder might possibly resurrect these errors -- because Walker was allegedly gay -- so we should beware. Regards, --Paul Trejo Good assessment. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. I think he was interested in the spy business and those were some he was in contact with. I know there were those in LHO's 'circle' that were homosexual but I'm not sure that means LHO was also. What? I'm an old traditional southerner with traditional southern concepts of homosexuality in and of itself - and with fairly contemporary and accepting views of individuals in and of themselves, regardless of what they choose to do in private or whether or not they know that Ian Paice is the second greatest drummer of all time. And if, in my circles, which contain some homosexuals, I were heard to make that statement i'd be quickly compared to a socially inept puritan. "I know there are those in his circle that are gay, but i'm not sure if that means he is also." what the heck does one have to do with the other? "I know that there are some librarians and some Iowans in his circle, but i'm not sure if that means he is." a most FASCINATING use of logic.

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory. i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ... missed that too, did ya? of course... your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.) that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing. I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions do you not see the um, "irony" in that? do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile. go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself. look ma, no hands! You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you? Why? You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'. Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response. But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism? Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation. Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be. I'll leave it there. How do you block people? You conveniently overloooked two of my points: "How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now." "Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation." the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it. you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be." 1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm... 2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely. you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...? the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal. anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them. this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering. also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg. you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it. ta ta also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. Sorry I didn't realise I had to somehow "impress" you when addressing your obsession with Greg. I guess I've failed the interview now. Yes, it's Bernie. The clue is in the first name. That is...Bernie. Well done, you now know how to discern someone's name. "Right. it's no big deal to be called names." Referring to Gaal's libellous accusation of Greg's anti Semitism (not to me being called Bernie!) Really? Oh I'm sure I could push some buttons to get you to react Glenn. I'm too nice a person though. But you do seem to be a man of obsessive habits... i'm saying most people are concerned with some initial civility - its very basic standards of behavior. there are different definitions of the root "impress." my phrase "first impression" is of an obviously different definition than that of "impressing someone." did you not know that? i just couldn't remember your name. it wasn't a reference to any libelous label that you and Greg are so terrified of. As i said, i'm called racist regularly here in Atlanta. I know better, so it doesn't bother me. NO. you could not push any buttons to get a bad reaction from me. you're not nearly as complex and tempting as you think. don't flatter yourself. you've still failed to reply to the points i made and mentioned that you ignored them. how bout that.

Jon Tidd, I've never even hinted at a concern for which side of H&L Greg comes down on. I've explicitly stated that I dislike unnecessarily mean people, and that he is one. I don't care whether Greg is wrong or not. I've even stated that he may have some good info. It's not about H&L. It was in response to yet another rude comment he made. That's all.

i read some of Lipsey's early testimony. will get around to Best Evidence, and Horne. I like what i've read of Horne already, esp in light of the fact that he was on the HSCA...

Bernie, I appreciate the candor. I understand our first amendment better than you think, though. I never intimated that i had a problem with his verbally disagreeing with another theory. i have a problem with how he talks to people in general. If you read more than that last post of mine, you'd see that i said that very thing. also, if you'd read more than you clearly read, you'd see that i also stated more then once that I bet he has some good intellect and research to offer, but that i'd lost interest in it once i saw how he "rolls." in fact, that's how i started this little string, saying that his point about that mimeographed form might be interesting, but i'll never know cause i don't care to read his stuff ... missed that too, did ya? of course... your logic is flawed. i've done nothing to lead anyone to think i dislike Greg - "intensely." it's his rudeness i dislike intensely, and if i'd seen anything resembling a good reason to act the way he does, then i'd feel differently. but i haven't. (How long have i been active in this forum, um - Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see what you're talking about? do you even know how long? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now - i've only seen Cliff show his arse to Pat, and i said the same thing to him. Rudeness is for children. period.) that sentence you quoted was probably more in response to something Greg said to me, and not in response to his approach to this H&L thing. I am quite capable of making sound judgement on available information. i don't need any of these fellows "thoughts" or biases to urge my direction. The funny thing is, the ones who i respect the most are the ones who are NOT trying to pull me away from their detractors, whereas Greg - and now you - seem to be concerned with my ability to form my own opinions do you not see the um, "irony" in that? do not be so condescending as to tell me who to listen to, Bernie. I'm an adult now. I've been thinking all by myself for quite awhile. go read ALL the things i said to Greg, you'll see where you may have jumped the gun. It's nothing to do with H&L or any theory. You just made that assumption all by yourself. look ma, no hands! You have a really creepy and very unhealthy obsession with Greg. You do know that don't you? Why? You castigate him for being a whiner when he is publicly labelled an anti Semite by Steven Gaal, a mere "slight" according to you, yet here you are with lots of "whining" words on Greg and his... 'rudeness'. Obviously being 'rude' needs 1,000's of reprimanding words in response. But defending oneself against baseless trolling accusations of anti Semitism? Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation. Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be. I'll leave it there. How do you block people? You conveniently overloooked two of my points: "How long have i been active in this forum, Bernie? long enough to have had the chance to see [these attacks from Steve, et al] you're talking about? do you even know how long (NO, you don't)? yet you assume i should have witnessed improper behavior from John or Jon or whomever toward Greg by now." "Shame on you for not condemning Gaal and his libellous accusation." the point is, i've never seen Gaal and his libelous accusation. so STOP with whatever i'm ignoring. I can't ignore it if i haven't seen it. you're weird. "Presumably being labelled an anti Semite is no big deal to you. But being labelled 'rude' would be." 1. Right. it's no big deal to be called names. i kinda grew out of being bothered by it once I became aware of and confident in my own person. I live in Atlanta, GA where caucasians are a minority in public and in government. BY FAR. I'm called a racist ALL THE TIME. I laugh at people who clearly do not know me. If I were not confident in myself, then it would bother me. hmmm... 2. Wrong. first, i'm not labelling Greg rude. I'm describing his behavior and simply stating that i can't stand that kind of behavior, especially when it's directed "downhill." and secondly, I happen to be quite a brash, opinionated and sometimes obstinate person. I'm also called rude quite often, and i cannot typically argue the case. They're often right. so, NO, being called rude is no big deal, either. I know myself. I know when I'm being rude - in FACT, i've admitted it earlier when i said i blocked DVP because he makes me react rudely. you seemed to miss that, too. don't some people call this 'cherry-picking'...? the difference in my occasional rudeness and Greg's is that he resorts to and repeats personal insult, often out of context (re his words to Steve) and mine is usually just in response to someone else's crap. also, i'm aware of mine, and i'm not happy with mine. Greg seems to wear his like a medal. anyway. I'm just defending the forum and its environment, and a few of the people. if they've said anything to justify Greg's words, then (i think i've said this before, which you've again overlooked) i'd say the same thing to them. this forum is fodder for rabbit-trails and petty, lengthy backbiting. I still get a lot out of it, and i'm just hoping the cancers are eventually excised so the rest of us can get on with the business of joyous intel gathering. also, right, what's your name? Bernie? nice first impression you've made. i'm thoroughly unimpressed with your fair and objective observations in culling my words for your errant assertions. try reading my posts slowly, maybe you'll see where i've been very fair in my comments. you continue to accuse me knowing i'll respond and then accuse me of being obsessed with Greg. you're way out of your league in your accusations. you're just plain wrong. i know what i've said, and you've overlooked it. ta ta

No, Paul B., in my personal opinion, RFK did not send Lee Harvey Oswald to kill the resigned Major General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963. IMHO, George De Mohrenschildt convinced Oswald to hate and despise the resigned General Walker, and this was common knowledge in Dallas in 1963 by Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt, Marina Oswald, Volkmar Schmidt, Everett Glover and Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin -- and probably several other yuppie Dallas oil engineers in their circle. (It was the best kept secret of the WC witnesses, IMHO.) Yet the resigned General Edwin Walker was a complex character -- a shrewd and victorious US General on the one hand, and a man suffering from a homosexual conflict with his US Army oath on the other hand. Sigmund Freud's analysis of paranoia in the early 20th century concluded that classical paranoia begins as closeted homosexuality. The psychological reversal, according to Freud, goes something like this -- "Step 1: I love this man; Step 2: No, that is taboo, so, I obsessively hate this man; Step 3: No, that is taboo, so instead, this man hates me and continually wants to kill me." So, the sexual attraction of the closeted homosexual, said Freud, would transform a continual homosexual passion into a continual fear of being stalked. (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) This seems to be the case with the resigned General Edwin Walker. As a military man, he would respect and admire people of great political power. That would include JFK and RFK. As a homosexual, that would necessarily lead to homosexual fantasies in Walker's mind. Evidence of this is found in Walker's personal papers, where we find a cartoon published by the John Birch Society, showing JFK in a wedding gown. Walker preserved that cartoon separately from all other literature. I take this to refer to Walker's fantasy life. Yet for social purposes in Dallas polite society, all homosexual feelings, thoughts and fantasies must have been forcefully suppressed. This suppression, said Freud, leads to paranoia and its transformation of passion into continual fear. In my personal opinion, the resigned General Walker lived in at least a mild state of paranoia for his entire Military career, and perhaps even before, going back to childhood. Jim Root once wrote in this FORUM that he interviewed the neighbors of Edwin Walker near Kerrville, Texas, and they believed that Walker's father sent him to military school because he feared young Edwin was gay. That fits the pattern I see. When the resigned General Edwin Walker faced a Grand Jury for his role in the 1962 racial riots of Ole Miss University, two psychiatrists testified that they believed on the basis of Walker's testimony at the April 1962 Senate Subcommittee on Military Preparedness (called by Senators John Stennis and Strom Thurmond) that Walker showed signs of "mild paranoia", e.g. in his referring all major world events to himself. Two other psychiatrists testified, on the contrary, that Walker was fit as a fiddle -- and the Grand Jury believed the latter. I think this Grand Jury was wrong in all its decisions that day. So, in conclusion, Paul B., I think that the resigned Walker was at least mildly paranoid -- and that his medical condition played a key role in the JFK assassination there in Dallas. I also believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did try to kill the resigned General Walker, as persuaded by George De Mohrenschildt, Michael Paine and Volkmar Schmidt, among others. (I think the sworn testimony, and the material evidence for this view is overwhelming.) I also believe that George suspected Oswald as soon as the news hit the streets, and that he told his suspicions to Mr. and Mrs. Igor Voshinin four days later, who told the FBI that same day -- and the FBI told officials in Dallas, and one of those officials told Walker on that same day. That would explain Walker's letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975 -- as well as Walker's claims to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung newspaper in Germany less than 24 hours after the JFK murder. Oswald tried to kill Walker. Walker took this shooting at him at his home in Dallas as a direct threat from Communism. The JBS had told Walker that JFK and RFK were Communists. Therefore, in the paranoid mind of the resigned General Walker, RFK and JFK were continually trying to kill him. Therefore, Walker's plans to assassinate JFK would have been, on this paranoid logic, simple self-defense. Regards, --Paul Trejo (It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia. This leap in logic brings back my If, Then proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. (Freud's quote is analog - with gray areas, varying degrees of severity, and your oversimplification of it is digital, black or white, ON or OFF, 1 or 0 - it's just a comment, no insult intended.) so, NO, not, "so no more closet, no more paranoia." it's not that simple. the closeted condition - suggesting a lesser or greater degree of being closeted rather than a solidified state of it - "leads to", again implying degrees, and not a simple state of paranoia. And I'm certain that he did not mean, "no one who is in a closeted condition will suffer from paranoia, and everyone who is in the condition of being closeted will suffer from it." it's not that simple. you will possibly want to accuse me of splitting hairs or taking your words too literally or too seriously; if so, I'd say nonsense. on subjects like mental health and a person's periodic persecution for his sexual "self," and as these may or may not play a role in the possible (I italicized it so that Paul won't think, "yay, he's coming 'round!") involvement in an assassination of a head of state, I kinda think word choice - and the understanding of them - is pretty important. which reminds me; i have my most fantastic laptop back (i'm now a converted HP loyalist from the ankles up after what they did for me!) so i can type again, and am STILL eager to throw together some observations from my position as onlooker on what was just meant to be a quaint little exercise at which hopefully a few people might take a stab and then forget - in my born fascination with how humans think I was no question blown away at the many different ways various people viewed and then thought about an identical situation. I didn't ultimately see it so much as right or wrong as I did, wow, now isn't THAT interesting! ya'll forgive me, but it really was much more than I thought it was going to be. can't wait to go through that stuff and write about it. [Cheshire Cat Smile] proposal and your more-than-minor difficulties with it. Unfortunately for your side, the problem was not the answer. The problem was that one question was asked, a different question was answered. So the question was the problem, not the answer. Once I determined that, I haven't been back to that thread so don't know of any subsequent discussion. Okay now to your response to this thread just above. The main error you're making is that you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement: "(It isn't homosexuality that leads to paranoia, said Freud, but the closeted condition of it.) " when, in fact, it was Freud that made that statement. My statement is only that "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer. Notice that I didn't make the statement that 'it is true and ......" So you read into Freud's statement that it is analog and has a whole lot of 'if's, and's, and but's. Seems as if you would have to actually know what he had on his mind when he wrote that and then that you would have to actually be able to prove that he had that in mind. So diagram his simple sentence and show me all the if's and then's that have to be satisfied to make it either true, neutral or false. Take it easy on the HP keys until they get fully broken in. you're so funny. "you are stating the situation as if I had made the statement" - you must think i'm an idiot. i stated very clearly that Freud's statement is analog. I did not in any way attribute it to you. i stated very clearly that you leaped from analog (with gray areas) to digital (black and white) which does not work. and then i gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps it was just poor word choice. this sentence: "Interesting, so no more in the closet, no more paranoia" leaves no room for gray area. it's black and white - "no more" means just that. NONE. and there's no room for misunderstanding those particular words, either. that sentence gets nowhere close to "if that is true and now it doesn't exist anymore then the resulting condition, which was dependent on the assumed situation, would not exist any longer." Freud spoke of variation. You spoke of All or None. No one has to know or prove what was in his mind when he said that. don't be childish. all one has to do is have more than a fundamental understanding of English as expressed with nuance, context, circumstance. hell you don't even need that with that sentence. there's no way it means anything other than variations of paranoia and variations of being closeted. he respects his reader enough to know that most people will know this so he doesn't have to clarify. and neither does he resort to oversimplification by using shorter, more concise words for effect. like you do. Mark Twain, in my opinion the best sentence stucturist this world has ever seen, said: "The difference between the right word and almost the right word is like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." this is why "no more in the closet, no more paranoia" is wrong. that's not what he said. and as far as the conditional reasoning problem, you exhibited your skill in totally evading the correct meaning of certain relevant terms, like 'conditional' and 'reasoning', so what you determined is of absolutely no consequence to what I got out of the exercise. unfortunately for my side? what the hell is my side?

"...I suppose calling me an anti-Semite (Steve), neocon (Brian Doyle) and a believer in witchcraft (you) is fair" These are the slights to which you've taken such an exception??? anti-semite? a believer in witchcraft (not a witch, just a person who believes...!!!)? neocon? Those hurt your feelings so bad you said what you said to Steve? my word...

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them. I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps. DJ edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff. (oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!) if it's not, then - God, that's funny. yay (oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!) if it's not, then - God, that's funny. Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that? Hang on here... dead serious Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night... Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45. FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17 The actual start is 8pm... This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there. Sorry, but what's so funny? (Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was) I'm just catching up to this thread. been too busy telling Greg what I think of him telling everyone else what he thinks of them thinking for themselves. David, my apologies - from a distance (i never clicked on it) your diagram in fact did look to me like an analogy of the complete clusterf**k that sounds like occurred almost everywhere JFKs body went. I thought you were kidding. to decipher that thing would take me some time - I'll have to read Best Evidence. with Greg's approval, of course, since he feels relying on books is a sure sign of poor scholarship, which is odd coming from a man who has written a book with the hopes that someone will rely on it for some facts. weird... my reference to the If, Then statement was MY comment, "David, If that's your idea of some kind of humor, THEN ... " which reminded me of the other thread in which Ken struggled a wee bit. I got childish and took a shot at him. a bit hypocritical of me, truthfully. but back to reality - isn't it odd that these such blatantly conflicting, otherwise totally reliable time figures by the two supposedly synchronized entities, Humes and the Feds, are so earnestly skipped over by those who find inconvenience with them...? in a normal, generic murder trial based solely on testimony and circumstance, a discrepancy like that would almost guarantee a reasonable doubt all on its own. it's ok, though. i still like you more the more i read your stuff. mainly because you have the personal integrity to not tell me or others who NOT to believe. and you don't cram your stupid theory down our throats. and you can take a joke.