Glenn Nall

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

and BTW, "NO", DVP got it much worse from me and many others than Greg does. some of us made a certain pact a while back, and i simply blocked him, not only because of his immature insults but too because his assimilation of what others call rationale was enough to drive me crazy - i was often unable to bite my tongue and keep from talking to him in the way i dislike so much. this is just as unacceptable from my own mouth as anyone else's. so I will block anyone who continues to belittle others (read the way he spoke to Steven when not whatsoever provoked. what he said was completely out of line, and completely unnecessary. except that it served to reveal Greg's true nature.)

nice way of introducing yourself to me, Bernie. nice to meet you, too.

"...If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

Hi Glenn, that's a very forthright statement to make regarding freedom of speech and beliefs. Please note though that freedom of speech does NOT mean others don't have the right to criticise or challenge what you say. In fact, that is the essence of free speech. Yes you can say what you want (within reason) but likewise, anyone can then, using their right of free speech, respond in a manner they see fit. We have this in England anyway...

Say I were to make a horrible personal verbal attack against a loved member of your family Glen, with gritted teeth you may accept my 'right' to say it, but you too would then have every right to respond in kind. Wouldn't you? And quite right too. There's a price to pay for freedom of speech. Too many people these days truly believe freedom of speech means freedom to speak without any one else's opinion on what was said. It isn't.

So why the surprise when on a public forum dedicated to the most complex murder in the history of humanity some theories and beliefs are questioned and not just left unanswered? Does DVP get this easy ride? Of course he doesn't. There must be theories on this subject that you now know are so impossible they can and should be ruled out, ridiculed even, with better reasoning and research. Do you simply let them go unchallenged? And if so, why does that mean others should too?

Those who attack the H&L story do so because they truly believe that it is an impediment to finding out what really happened. They believe it to be a huge red herring that tells us absolutely nothing about the assassination of JFK. Nothing! DVP's conclusions also tell us nothing about what really happened, but should his Lone-Nuttery go unchallenged too?

So why shouldn't those who believe H&L is a tenuously knocked together string of admin errors and witness fallibility rolled into a complex espionage story straight from some awful B movie express that doubt? This is Don Jeffries territory. He too simply cannot understand why on a public forum those promoting a certain theory should be questioned on it, even if it can easily be proved to be bogus. "If you don't believe it, read another thread!" is his summarised advice.

Well, actually, no. David Josephs often posts on issues where he strongly disagrees with the originator's premise. So does practically everyone else on here. Someone makes a post, others point out possible errors. That's really the whole point isn't it?

But the H&L group don't want that. They don't want to be questioned on their theory. They don't feel it is incumbent on them to have to reply to glaring inconsistencies raised by other forum members. My experience on here is that anyone who takes them on will be subjected to heaps of personal abuse. Maybe you are not aware of this toxic history Glenn. I've seen people come and go on here for years. In that time I've also seen many people take on the H&L theory and as soon as members start asking pertinent questions that cannot be answered they get personal. Very personal! Only a few days ago Steven Gaal started a thread basically accusing Greg of anti Semitism. I complained about the legal ramifications of this and it was taken down. This is the type of tactics Greg deals with all the time.

You clearly dislike him intensely yet you turn a blind eye (again, as does Don Jeffries) to the constant baiting (going back years) from this group that has all the hallmarks of a cult. Not once in the ten years I have followed this forum has anyone of them ever admitted that they are, or have been, wrong at any time and not one new piece of 'proof' has emerged that in any way even slightly backs up their basic premise.

Such a theory needs to be felled to the ground Glenn. That you don't like the method being used is not a reason to believe in any of this nonsense though. Check what has been said. But more importantly check what is always ignored and always unanswered.

Best regards,

Bernie

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!

yep, VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. Jacksonville, FL. America's navel. LCdr Scott Speicher was the very first american casualty of the first Gulf War when his F18 was shot down by an incredibly lucky Iraqi when Scott made an error on his turnback (the story is told in a book called Bogeys and Bandits, about the training and fighting capabilities of a few special F18 pilots). Lt Speicher was a Corsair pilot in VA 105 and i remembered him well when i saw his name on the casualty list Jan 16, 1991.

He was never recovered - when we went back into Iraq our illustrious govt didn't want to mess with finding his him until an iraqi showed someone the downed plane and an intact flight-suit. meaning of course that he'd survived the down and ... who knows ... it was in the news periodically because his family were trying to get attention drawn to the govt's apathy in order to find him, but to no avail.

anyway, i don't know why i went into that. one of those things that connects you to something so otherwise foreign and terrible.

The Forrestal was unable to sell to scrap metal companies, so it eventually sold to the highest bidder for an entire dollar (the truth, as you're probably aware). Even the Coast Guard didn't want it.

It's at that scrap metal company All Star Metals on the channel near Brownsville Tx, being chopped up at the present time. I was hoping some city would want it because it was the first Supercarrier and had a history. But we all go back to 'dust to dust'. eventually.

Brownsville, TX, huh... how suspicious... how close to Dallas is that...? smells suspiciously like part of a conspiracy to me... and Adm Forestal was active at the time, right? wasn't he on the cabinet then?

I think this needs to be investigated.

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

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]

Having no professional skills in analyzing the mental health of a subject, I will not venture to declare a diagnosis on Walker. However, I will say he definitely suffered from some sort of (or several) maladies or afflictions.

After studying his speeches visually on film, it seems he had bouts of stage-fright and or drug induced type lapses. His hands would shake, his lips would quiver, he would stutter and stammer over simple words as if he were distracted by some unseen affliction. In the next minute he would seemingly be able to compose himself and speak with authority as if the moment had passed. Was he just a poor speaker in general? Yes, yet not always! I think it went deeper than that on some other level that I can't pinpoint. I think a psychologist could have field day watching this man, in some ways he reminded me of Hitler, and his up and down speech cadence, and bursts of venom.

Bill

William, would you link me or steer me to one of those videos of Walker's that show the 'stage fright, lapses, etc'. I checked out several and the only thing I see is that he reads all of his speeches and sometimes has a little problem with 'finding his place again when he glances down'. I'm sure I just wasn't able to find the right ones to show the things you mentioned.

I'd have to say, after watching several videos, he seems to have his head screwed on straight. I had no idea that the tactic of 'not fighting a war to win' started before Viet Nam, but he clearly says he was told that the strategy in Korea did not include 'winning'. That he could not mount any offensive with more than 30 troops without prior approval and anytime they did some damage to the enemy, he had to withdraw to give them time to rebuild and re-arm. I'm not sure if Truman were still the president during the time he mentions or if Ike had already taken over. Seems likely that it was under Truman since Ike only was Pres for about 6 months of that war, while Truman had it for about 2 1/2 years.

I second this request. I'd love to see the man in action.

I too have left those few seconds behind Stemmons open to possibilities. With no biased presupposition from having read beforehand any the multiple accounts of when which bullet hit who, or what, i had considered it pretty apparent that K is hit at least once behind the sign, or maybe just before it, because, you're right, he's already bringing his hands upward as they emerge - it also appears to me that he might be just beginning to raise his right arm, at least that we can see, more swiftly upward in reaction to a possible strike just before he goes behind the sign.

I haven't put a lot of thought or time into it as my interests are mostly focused elsewhere. But I surely haven't reached my own conclusion as to any millisecond timeline of Elm Street's events.

The other day i was looking at Z and it appeared to me that JC reacts physically to a second bullet strike, as well. I don't remember at which exact point it was, but at the point that he's already laid over on his wife and beginning to lean forward it appears to me that his forward motion seems to quickly speed up - and i think it's almost in time with one of the obvious K bullet strikes, but i can't remember. It made visual sense to me at the time, but i had had to move on to what i was doing (probably drifting off to sleep, since I just now remembered this).

correct me if i'm wrong, but the number and location of the wounds in C does not necessarily preclude him being hit by more than one bullet... [?] I'm aware he is known to only have 1 back wound [?], but ... i dunno, it's just something that appeared to me to be an odd second reaction...

I want to look more at the time lapse wrapped around the sign - it has nagged at me that there seems to be an awful lot of actions and sub-actions around that thing, both during the film and afterwards - the sign seems to want to lend itself directly to the mystery, as if it has its own secrets.

After all, it did abscond fairly well just after the crime...

there's also been talk of bullet strikes, or gunshots at least, up around zFrames 345ish...

things that make you go 'hmmm.'

Thanks, I can assure people that their are startling revelations in this book. It's not just about Walker, it's over 900 pages and covers a large area of Right Wing activity from 1956 through 1968.

From the likes of Guy Bainister to James O. Eastland to Joesph Milteer to HL Hunt, Robert Morris,Walker, Hoover etc etc........it covers the gamut. The book was originally over 1,200 pages, but the publisher though it best to keep under that figure. So,some things had to be left out or condensed. Hopefully a website in the future can be a repository for these eliminated items and more. This work will be self published and all costs are paid out of pocket. We don't expect to make much at all, it was a labor of love and a search for truth.

Bill

Those of us who are old enough to remember those dark and incomprehensible days of November 1963 have never thought of this subject as merely a crime. Something profound changed in our country as a consequence of JFK's murder---and that something has never been made right.

Subsequent developments including the murders of RFK and MLK only deepened our depression and the sense that we had lost our way as a nation. Then the Vietnam War, the racial riots, Watergate, and the resignation of Nixon made it impossible to believe that we could ever believe in ourselves and our future potential again.

Given this background, it comes as no surprise that 52 years later we still want to find some indisputable answer and some unmistakable villain(s) who were clearly responsible for taking our innocence from us. And I am absolutely certain that on the 100-year anniversary of JFK's murder, a new generation will still be arguing about whom was responsible.

Mr Lazar, i like the first two paragraphs so much that i would ask your permission to quote them, for the most part, on another website i'm beginning. with proper credit, of course.

well said. well focused.

on another website i'm beginning. What's that about?

I'm a professional, contractual web developer and programmer. I haven't wanted to work all that much for a while, and so I've been puttering about with two or three of my own projects, one (my most energetic by far, of course) being a "JFK" site mainly catering to the uninformed by way of 1) the more pertinent, tangible and understandable data, and 2) more logically organized data.

i'm about to go lay up in the VA hospital for a considerable length of time, and I very fully look forward to getting a lot done and getting on some of your nerves. a lot.

just kidding. mostly.

One more off topic, but i wanted to add this after visiting yet some other incredibly unattractive and unnavigable JFK websites: my gosh there are some incredibly unattractive and unnavigable JFK websites out there!!!

Glen; Nobody has said that you need to be below the 'Mason -Dixon line' to have a similar agenda...have they? Did I miss your point?

Bill

Bil,

I thought that's what this

/** Yet I suspect that Dr. Caufield will name the members of the "Old South" conspiracy who killed JFK, including the resigned General Walker, along with Guy Banister and the White Citizens' Councils of Texas and Louisiana. **/

meant. "Old South" doesn't mean "south?" Was the "Old South" from, like, South Dakota...? I dunno - I'm from Atlanta. the "New South."

This is a side by side comparison of a section of the PS 44 records. On the left is from MFF. On the right is what David Josephs uses.

I put it to members here that the Josephs document has a slightly darkened area around the height and weight section and that some of the numbers within it have a slightly different appearance to the MFF document. Both these aspects of the document are indicative of it having been tampered with. I am aware that distortions may be present, but even with that taken into account, those indistinct 5's have been transformed into 6's while the 5 in 115 has been made look more 5-like to distinguish it and perhaps allay any chance of comparison.

If you weren't being such a jerk (i'm refraining from calling YOU a jerk, for Kathy's sake) I'd actually be interested in taking a look at this. Case: "...WITHOUT recourse to fact checking and you've already made it clear that you have an aversion to that."

abjectly false. I stated that 'research' meant just that - my attempts to investigate the facts with my own mind. You simply cannot not be rude when making a point, it seems. The fact is, as a coder and analyzer, my mind works best with black and white facts (digitally, if, then - either, or, and not so much analog - and I am very cautious about things that others say are true, without first verifying the assertions. You wouldn't know that because you've probably not read half the posts i've posted in here. I will challenge any here whose logic eludes me until i'm satisfied that the mistake is either theirs or mine. This will shock you, but some of the more mature in here can accept my challenges as an interest in facts, and not a personal bias.

I've never once doubted your intellect or research skills. I've only spotlighted your social deficits. It's your rudeness to which I'm admittedly biased.

If Steven was inappropriate in a thread, get over it. First graders seek recompense down the road for such trivial sh**. And yours wasn't even relevant. Face it, you blindsided Steven because he posted links to that woman researcher (forgot her name) who happens to be pretty damn sharp and hard working, as an "alternative" to something of yours and you took it personally when it was nothing of the kind. And even if it was, he has every right to post that - I'm delighted that he did, because she's not mainstream and she's got some TERRIFIC material.

/** Then how can you claim I am here pushing a theory, as you did? How can you claim I have no understanding of the "evidence" being presented by the 3 amigos, as you did? Every time you address me, you display your bias making claims about me you won't and can't substantiate. **/

Let me explain what some people mean by the phrase "selling something." I mean, in this context, which is i guess a kind of colloquialism, that someone is pushing an ideology, or agenda, above and beyond its actual value or integrity. It's the approach you get on a used car lot. Almost makes a person want to go take a shower. If a person wants to believe that there were THREE Oswalds, or that Jackie did it, or that JFK was in on it (which is my theory, for which I have photographic evidence), then what is that to you? Why attack someone for their beliefs? Are all of your beliefs beyond reproach? Is it only in America that we've preserved freedom of speech and expression?

In this case, it's your approach that makes clear what you're doing, and not the theory itself. THAT's why I can say that i don't really know what your thoughts are within your theories - it doesn't matter. it seems to me that your insistence on someone believing your theory is more important than the theory itself. A lot like Paul Trejo's approach, except that he's not nearly so personally insulting. I don't know what you mean that i asserted that you don't understand some evidence. I didn't mean to imply that, i don't think. I'm not going to waste more time looking it up. I don't think you're deficient.

Look, Greg - one of the first posts i saw of yours in here was rudeness to someone in an attempt to make a point, and you and I have had some civil exchange since then because i was still thinking that you had some 'intel' to offer. But i continued to see rudeness for such little reason and i REALLY don't like that. So i lost any interest in what you had to offer. I'm not sure why ANYONE would think that people will listen to them more when they pack their words with explosives. Makes no sense to me. How can you really think people respect your intellect if you're constantly belittling them? Because you've written a book? I don't know.

I'm dead solid in here to LEARN - i'm soaking up what i read, and i cannot afford to muddy my own waters with anything other than reputable material. In my opinion there's an awful lot of fantastically wasted words and time - on ALL fronts, including my own - but much of it is because of a few people who were so well described by David Healey. Healy. whichever.

When I vocalize my objections to you and others for being 'mean' and distracting, then you guys get personally insulting to ME - you, and Cliff (esp. Cliff ) - proving my point. i'm certainly gruff in my statements, and i've lowered myself to personal insult at times in response to others'. And I recognise it and am not happy about it. It's COUNTERproductive, and besides it's not nice (call me old-fashioned). But i'm going to remain productive, and i'm going to support those others who are. I want reputable literature to read, and WAS interested in what you've teased with some "new" evidence, but surely you can't expect me to read your book after you've warned me of the dangers of trusting books.

Bet you wished you had that one back.

Greg. Effin' chill. The idea is to FIND a path to the answer, NOT cover it up.

Paul - do you personally, after years of Walker research, think that RFK sent Oswald to kill Walker?

In all sincerity, and obvious ignorance, is it even being suggested - is it in any way a possibility - that RFK knew LHO?

it's not MY bias, Greg. i don't adhere to any of the prevalent theories floating around in here, for the mere reason that I'm working on my OWN ideas. An understanding of Dallas, and of the politics and of the motives and of some of the moving parts is but a glimpse into a very complex organism. i have no "theory" - i have several "theories." some line up with some of these in here, but it's not because of any loyalty, it's because two people came to similar conclusions by thinking on our own.

I left my mind open to the idea of two O's in order to weight the many pieces and decide on my own what works and what doesn't, but you failed to either notice this or acknowledge it. You immediately accused me of collusion with others for the sake of being lazy and possibly attacking you. You have some idea that I'm unable to think for myself, or think at all, when I happen to be more and more convinced that much of my intellect is a good bit superior to yours, mainly because I don't berate others' in order to strengthen my own, and i'm not trying to sound the battle cry that I've discovered the solution, boy you just wait and all that bullxxxx. All because i didn't do exactly what you're accusing me of and fall in line behind you.

i have no idea what you think in theory because i don't place enough value on your posts to remember them. When you said what you said to Steven, i confirmed what i already knew about what kind of person you are.

You have nothing positive to offer anyone here. The others for some reason want to argue with you in hopes of changing your mind, but I'd rather go watch Ishtar all night than listen to your drivel.

the sad thing is, you probably have some good ideas, some quality research that would find some interest if you weren't such an -

I'm thinking I'll never know. For about 6 more seconds I'm thinking that. Then I'm not.

yep, VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. Jacksonville, FL. America's navel. LCdr Scott Speicher was the very first american casualty of the first Gulf War when his F18 was shot down by an incredibly lucky Iraqi when Scott made an error on his turnback (the story is told in a book called Bogeys and Bandits, about the training and fighting capabilities of a few special F18 pilots). Lt Speicher was a Corsair pilot in VA 105 and i remembered him well when i saw his name on the casualty list Jan 16, 1991.

He was never recovered - when we went back into Iraq our illustrious govt didn't want to mess with finding his him until an iraqi showed someone the downed plane and an intact flight-suit. meaning of course that he'd survived the down and ... who knows ... it was in the news periodically because his family were trying to get attention drawn to the govt's apathy in order to find him, but to no avail.

anyway, i don't know why i went into that. one of those things that connects you to something so otherwise foreign and terrible.

The Forrestal was unable to sell to scrap metal companies, so it eventually sold to the highest bidder for an entire dollar (the truth, as you're probably aware). Even the Coast Guard didn't want it.

you're selling your theory like it's a used car you've been stuck with past tax day.

who ties your shoes, Greg?

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

everyone did their job.

You sometime wonder if they don't have a "Pounce" button on their keyboards which kicks in their "Post faith-based beliefs without proof once again" auto-reply functionality...

David,

H&L has many folks running in circles as to just WHO was Lee Harvey Oswald? It's been my experience that when "JFK researchers" start attacking another researchers project, the attackers own project(s) foundation, yes foundation is crumbling...

If one can't figure out, just who LHO was, it makes little or no difference how many books or videos one is producing covering the JFK assassination. That project will fail! And chance for failure is much higher these days...

Lifton's book concerning LHO was suppose to be out, what, 14-15 years ago? It seems David has a problem with LHO's identity too!

The Zapruder film has been called into question, as have other Elm St. assassination films and photos. All questions challenging the WCR findings concerning conspiracy are now met with deaf ears and indifference...

LHO, the alleged assassin, his identity is challenged, that is met with fear!

It's simple, post ones project research and results (tentative or final), that's it... There is no reason to DEBATE that research result. Researchers looking for endorsement(s), will get them or not. On and off-line.

As far as I'm concerned Greg and his team are biding time concerning release of their books/video programs. That's telling in and of itself. They're simply not sure of their results, or worse yet, some might be trolling for results, and doubly worse, make unnecessary arguments regarding the results they've arrived at. Hence, the recent bravado, arrogance and posturing. And frankly another wholesale assault on an already fractured research community, and of course that attracts a certain type of attention, usually the wrong kind, but attention none-the-less...

Why some persist doing this, despite the best of intentions (one hopes) is a wonder in and of itself. It's happened what seems like hundreds of times, and here it is again.

Keep on truckin', might be time for a book, eh?

--David

Very revealing, David. as having only been a part of this forum for a short time, i'm still annoyed at the very lengthy rabbit trails and back biting that is so prevalent. I'm not ignoring the fact that i'm sucked into it, as well, but i try very hard to duck out when i can. I blocked DVP for this very reason. I was not able to avoid below the belt comments, and i'm not proud of that. as well with his highness in this thread.

we all know what kind of people we're dealing with, at least for the time being. perhaps these are otherwise fairly 'all right' people; but i haven't observed it. I don't like mean people when they're mean for no reason. your point that it is serving to divide (and conquer?) is quite true. there are spurts of constructive dialogue from which I learn something, but the few whose intentions are to poke and jab really make it not so much fun.

in my brief experiences in other forums, I happen to think that this is a pretty solid group of people, with a high-end, if not 'versatile' intellect. there seems to be more civility in here than elsewhere, but not lately, but i could be wrong. i have the impression that this is a cyclic thing and that it's been on the ebb for a bit. as you've stated, it seems that one or two are trying to awaken the monster for some reason. and the passionate in here cannot help but respond. like i do.

I don't like mean people, Greg is one, and he doesn't have a clue that this doesn't sell cars, books or good reputations. or, like DVP, he doesn't care.

i'm here to learn, as i've stated before, and to occasionally have something new to offer, like a new approach, or a Jedi Mind Four Cards Game. I intend to get something from this group.

As a fairly successful web developer for over 12 years, i know the power of Forums. I've learned most everything I know about coding from the very benevolent and generous and brilliant people in forums. And often there's a lot of fun to be had by people who appreciate the joy of learning. It seems obvious to me that it would behoove the genuine ones in here to step away from the id10Ts and concentrate more on teaching and learning.

It's an absolute fact that we just don't know when and from whom a game changing item or piece of evidence or idea is going to come. a lot of good could come from this little group here, and some others who are most definitely reading it might be more apt to participate if it were a bit more inviting.

you just never know.

anybody remember an all girl rock band from the 70's called Fanny? wow...

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

How's the 'research' going on it, Glenn? Has it verified that they are correctly reading the school records?

Has it found any 1958 FW riots which vindicate that Oswald wrote to McBride that year?

Has it uncovered the relevance of a 1953 Queens PS 44 class photo?

Let me know. I have a lot more questions on your 'research' after that.

1 - I used the term 'researched' within apostrophes as the term applies to my own reading and sorting through literature with which to learn something - NOT as it applies to you professional types who think everything they read and every thought they form is directly from God.

2 - I don't know who you think you are, or how many books you've written, or whether they're worthy of holding the back kitchen door open on a hot day in the outback, or are of actual value, or if you were Norman Mailer or Stephen King, but the way you talk to human beings tells ME who you are and what kind of person you are - AND that your opinions, no matter how well you do or do not write, aren't worth the oxygen they required to leave your mouth.

so personally, you can ask all the effin' questions you want. i do not give A DAMN.

no offense.

Not apostrophes, Glenn. Quote marks. The trouble with limiting yourself to reading books is that you are forced to take them (or not) on face value. People like Armstrong count on you doing that. You are far more likely to become a believer that way.

So here you are criticizing someone who has dug into the records to prove or refute Armstrong's claims when you refuse to do the same. Personally, I don't give a damn. I am reaching out to the THINKING person.

Thinking people are not paying your theories any attention, Greg. You can think you're getting through to someone all you want, but you're wrong. What Mr Healey just described is both accurate and revelatory to me.

The big difference between yours and my participation in here is that I'M NOT trying to sell anything; i'm discovering who is respectable and intelligent and honorable in their participation in this forum and am learning from them. You fit none of those descriptions. I have nothing to learn from you; the only reason i haven't blocked you like I blocked DVP is because you do provide the occasional Sesame Street type comedy. I'm frankly surprised that with your attitude you've attracted the attentions of any reputable publisher.

no offense.

any other punctuation of mine you need to attack? i remember how it was to have no defense... oh - and your statement about not trusting books is just about the stupidest thing i've ever heard. If that were the case, then no one would ever have learned anything from books.

maybe you're referring to your own minimal readership... perhaps they're errant in trusting you as a source, then...?

is that it?

that's what it is, isn't it. you're worried you won't break into the double digits in sales...

Glenn,

What branch did you serve in, and, were you in Viet Nam? My father was a 20yr career military man and a Viet Nam veteran as well. He didn't deal too much with the VA here in CO.

I'm US Navy - VA 105 Light Attack Squadron (A-7E Corsairs). My ship, the USS Forrestal, was in the Gulf of Tonkin with John McCain, who was in the lucky cockpit when the ship caught fire in 1967, but alas, i was unable to be there. I was only 5.

We are all so sorry you remain so terribly confused over these issues mate...

Not me. I'm not. I think it's funny.

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

How's the 'research' going on it, Glenn? Has it verified that they are correctly reading the school records?

Has it found any 1958 FW riots which vindicate that Oswald wrote to McBride that year?

Has it uncovered the relevance of a 1953 Queens PS 44 class photo?

Let me know. I have a lot more questions on your 'research' after that.

1 - I used the term 'researched' within apostrophes as the term applies to my own reading and sorting through literature with which to learn something - NOT as it applies to you professional types who think everything they read and every thought they form is directly from God.

2 - I don't know who you think you are, or how many books you've written, or whether they're worthy of holding the back kitchen door open on a hot day in the outback, or are of actual value, or if you were Norman Mailer or Stephen King, but the way you talk to human beings tells ME who you are and what kind of person you are - AND that your opinions, no matter how well you do or do not write, aren't worth the oxygen they required to leave your mouth.

so personally, you can ask all the effin' questions you want. i do not give A DAMN.

no offense.

Glenn, if you can't tell the difference between a critique of someone's ideas and a personal attack -- what business do you have here?

Pat Speer has repeatedly stated JFK had a wound in his back at T1.

This is incorrect. JFK was provably shot in the back at T3 -- a major distniction

To attack this mis-information about the T3 back wound with a fact-based argument is what this forum is all about.

Funny how you never bring anything of substance to the discussion, Glenn...

sure I do, Cliff - I once pointed out that DVP had misspelled the word "misremembered," and i think that's fairly substantial, considering the number of times he's used the word.

More substance? I think you should consider different eyeglass frames. Those make you look smart.

(really? you resort to personal insult when i point out that you've been crying about something you have no hope of changing for about 6 months? that tells me you have no REAL ammunition, so you're, ummm... reverting to first grade...? yeah, that's it.

change your glasses.)

BREAKING NEWS [posted on Facebook by Jim Marrs]

NEW STUDY OF JFK AUTOPSY REVEALS FALISIFICATION OF X-RAY

Recent find adds weight to conspiracy theories of government cover-up in the Kennedy assassination

By Jim Marrs

author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy

August 19, 2015

A bullet fragment depicted in an autopsy X-ray used to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy recently has been found to be a faked artifact superimposed on the X-ray sometime after JFK’s autopsy.

Such tampering with official evidence could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of high-level federal officials and adds considerable weight to the claims of government cover-up in that tragic event

The X-ray fabrication was the topic of a 2015 paper by Dr. David Dr. Mantik published in issue three of Medical Research Archives, an international scientific peer-reviewed journal publishing articles in all disciplines of medicine, with a focus on new research.

Oswald, an ex-Marine who had attempted to defect to Russia in 1959, was identified in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s handpicked commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren as the lone assassin of President Kennedy. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had used a 6.5 mm Italian WWII carbine to shoot Kennedy from the sixth-floor of a book depository building in downtown Dallas on November 22, 1963.

In 1968, amid controversy over the commission’s conclusion, the Justice Department selected four prominent medical experts to review the JFK autopsy evidence. This became known as the Clark Panel, named after then-Atty. General Ramsey Clark.

Although, the panels’ report was delayed until after the New Orleans JFK conspiracy trial led by Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison, in 1969 it concluded that the Warren Commission had been correct in its major findings though some issues remained in question, such as the location of the president’s head wound.

Interestingly, it was this Clark Panel report that first mentioned a fragment said to be from a 6.5 mm bullet found in the anterior-posterior (AP) X-ray of Kennedy’s skull. The image of this fragment became a critical piece of evidence, although it was not mentioned anywhere in the 26-volumes of the Warren Commission nor in the original autopsy report.

The fragment in question has been described as “the most curious—and unsolved—mystery in the history of diagnostic radiology.”

Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics consultant to the House Select Commission on Assassinations (HSCA), created by Congress in 1976 in the midst of continuing controversy over Kennedy’s death, studied this fragment and concluded the object could not be metal and that he had never seen the cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull X-ray. “I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is,” reported Sturdivan. “One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and un-deformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it.”

Mystery indeed, as the HSCA had relied on the authenticity of this fragment as key evidence in connecting the 6.5 mm bullet piece to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Furthermore, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), formed by Congress in 1994 to study all government documents relating to the assassination, the three JFK autopsy doctors testified under oath that they had never seen such a fragment during the autopsy.

The mystery deepened in 2015 with the work of Dr. David Mantik, a California physician, who along with Dr. Cyril Wecht, a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science, had studied the JFK X-rays and other material for nine days at the National Archives. “Hundreds of optical density measurements were made from the (supposed) original skull X-rays, with a specific focus on the 6.5 mm object that lies within JFK’s right orbit on the AP skull X-ray,” said Dr. Mantik.

After careful study, Dr. Mantik saw the fragment was strangely transparent. He realized this artifact had been added to the JFK X-ray in the darkroom. He explained it was accomplished by means of a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture, such as a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of cardboard. “[T]he first step was to imprint the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e., superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate film was then developed to yield the image [as it appears in the X-ray]. This process inevitably produces a phantom effect, whereby objects (e.g., bullet fragments in this case) on the original film are seen separately [emphasis in the original] from the superimposed 6.5 mm image. On JFK’s AP skull X-ray, the original metal fragment (that lay at the back of the skull) can be seen separately through the 6.5 mm image.”

Dr. Mantik added that the double exposure was so unprofessional it produced a significant overexposure of the 6.5 mm image. He even found one tiny particle of bullet metal inside the 6.5 mm object, indicating the use of a well-known Hollywood technique using photographic double exposure.

Using studies of optical density, which differentiates the lightness or darkness of specific points on X-ray film, Dr. Mantik was able to determine that some time before the 1968 Clark Panel, someone in a darkroom had superimposed the fake bullet fragment onto Kennedy’s X-ray.

Following his extensive study of this issue, Dr. Mantik concluded, “This mysterious 6.5 mm image was (secretly) added to the original X- ray via a second exposure. The alteration of the AP X-ray was likely completed shortly after the autopsy. Its proximate purpose was to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald and his supposed 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, to the exclusion of any other suspect, and thereby to rule out a possible conspiracy.”

Dr.Mantik said while the purpose of the X-ray alteration could only have been to “implicate the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine (supposedly owned by Oswald) in the assassination. Its ultimate purpose, however, awaits resolution by professional historians, who have been remarkably reticent about accepting responsibility for their task.”

In his paper, Dr. Mantik identified Dr. John H. Ebersole, the assistant chief radiologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as the one person who had the means and opportunity to devise the X-ray forgery. Dr. Ebersole, aided by X-ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed, took the X-rays of Kennedy’s head the night of the Autopsy. At that time no one saw any evidence of a bullet in the X-rays. Custer said the next day, contrary to protocol, he burned the page in the duty log concerning the taking of Kennedy’s X-rays on the order of Dr. Ebersole.

Custer also recalled that after the autopsy he was instructed by Dr. Ebersole to make X-rays of bullet fragments taped onto skull X-rays. However, no such X-rays were ever made public. Mantik opined that probably it was decided “alteration was easier to perform in the darkroom via a double exposure.”

Dr. Mantik also found that several weeks after the assassination, Dr. Ebersole was called to the Johnson White House ostensibly to assist in preparing a bust of Kennedy. “More likely, in my opinion, the reason for his summons to the White House was to see how he would react to the now-altered X-rays,” said Dr. Mantik. “Based on this episode then, the alteration must have occurred within several weeks (quite possibly immediately) after the assassination.”

He added that such actions might “explain why the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, refused to discuss this artifact with me. After all, he was the single individual most likely to possess the required expertise and creativity to perform X–ray alteration.” Dr. Ebersole died in 1993, shortly after his conversation with Dr. Mantik.

JFK’S X-RAY VS. AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH --- The vertical arrow on the X-ray, left, of the anterior-posterior (AP) right side of Kennedy’s skull previously has been identified as a fragment of a 6.5 mm carbine bullet and used to link the wound to the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald. Dr. David W. Mantik, after arduous study, found this evidence was a fabrication superimposed on the X-ray sometime after Kennedy’s autopsy. Also shown, at right, is an altered X-ray that Mantik prepared to demonstrate how objects could be superimposed on X-rays using techniques available in 1963.

In recent years, Custer has even questioned the validity of the X-rays themselves. In 1992, after studying the JFK X-rays in the National Archives, Custer decclared, “These are fake X-rays.”

Dr. Mantik’s conclusions have been supported by others, including Dr, Michael Chesser, an Arkansas neurologist, who noted, “I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed his optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth.”

Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB’s chief analyst for military records including the Bethesda autopsy, commented. “The fact that Dr. Mantik's scientific paper on the forgery indicators present in the A-P skull x-ray has survived the rigorous gauntlet of scientific peer review is further indication that his arguments about the three surviving JFK skull x-rays are sound, and worthy of the most serious consideration. … t is no longer possible for others who are not radiologists, or MDs (like he is), or who do not hold PhDs in physics (like he does), to dismiss his work as that of a mere 'enthusiast.'”

“n the mid-1990s, I recognized the scientific validity of his pioneering work on the JFK skull x-rays, and at my recommendation he was requested by Jeremy Gunn, the General Counsel for the ARRB, to prepare questions for the three JFK autopsy pathologists… The answers the three JFK pathologists provided to his questions, under oath, corroborated Mantik's assertions that the three skull x-rays in the official collection are indeed copy films (not originals), and are altered images,” said Horne.

He added, “The problem with the medical evidence has always been missing and tainted evidence---the destruction of some evidence, and the alteration of much of the evidence that remains in the record today --- [and] is representative of the fact that the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of the way in which JFK died, and therefore intentionally engaged in selling the American people a false bill of goods in regard to how our government changed hands in November of 1963."

# # # #

this reads like a news release - is Marrs a journalist? is he a journalist with the backing of a legitimate publication?

i'm just curious - i have no opinion on his work, as i've read so little of it. I have no reason to doubt his wisdom; i'm just saying that it sounds official but without a byline. wondering why...

^{So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?}

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

fantastic video of a 1200 ft/s gunshot/muzzle blast on a Phantom v2010 camera at >>> 73,000 frames per second. worth watching. (it's Adam and Jamie from MythBusters, good stuff).

i couldn't figure out how to embed it:

https://youtu.be/7y9apnbI6GA

Chairman of the HSCA. was just mentioning it...

thanks - i'm fine.

I've been a member of the Atlanta VA for about 30 years. Its efficiency has ebbed and flowed like Waimea Beach. During this latest public 'snafu,' the scandalous performances have been quite national, and federally responsible, as you've noticed.

Certain Med Centers had their individual parts in it all, and Atlanta is included. As far as I've experienced, though, the actual medical care that we were and are receiving has never been in question - just the pathetically apathetic, archaic means of getting the patients face time with doctors.

Ninety percent of our doctors are Emory Doctors - some of the best you can get anywhere. I'm in good hands.

The nurses, on the other hand, are all unattractive and ornery approaching a point of general competence. Welcome to the VA.

For Glenn Nall....

I can't stop at one or two examples, but here are ten of my favorite "smoking guns" demonstrating the truth of the Harvey and Lee thesis. Feel free to chose one or two and dig in, but the only way to really see the depth of this evidence is to read all thousand plus pages of Harvey and Lee.

10. The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Harvey at Youth House for truancy followed by Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while Lee has good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC.

9. John Pic's inability to recognize clear photographs of his own brother.

8. The refusal of the Social Security Administration to corroborate the official story of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."

7. The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: my favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.

6. The Bolton Ford incident while Harvey was in Russia.

5. Marita Lorenz's secret testimony describing Lee Oswald with anti-Castro operatives in Miami and the Everglades while Harvey was in Russia.

4. Lee Oswald visiting the Texas Employment Commission, filling out forms and taking tests, while Harvey was in Russia.

3. The impossible answer(s) to the simple questions: Could Lee Harvey Oswald drive a car? Did he have a drivers license?

2. The well documented appearance of Lee Oswald in the balcony of the Texas Theater soon after the murder of J.D. Tippit with the simultaneous arrest of Harvey Oswald on the main floor of the same theater.

1. The behavior of the FBI in the first 48 hours of the "investigation," during which the Bureau confiscated many of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" school records and employment histories. Six months later, the Bureau decided to test for fingerprints on boxes in the so-called "sniper's nest."

Actually, Jim, I really appreciate this pithy summary of the Harvey & Lee theory.

Nevertheless, these ten arguments are insufficient to convince me that the Harvey & Lee theory has a firm grasp on reality, because most of these ten can easily be viewed as simple cases of mistaken identity.

Nobody here doubts that the FBI obsessively stomped on any data that might suggest anything other than a "Lone Nut" in the JFK assassination.

However, it is more likely that the FBI decided on the "Lone Nut" obsession on 11/22/1963 in the interest of National Security (as they said), than that they planned every detail of the JFK murder and Coverup so many months ahead of time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm sure, Paul, that reading and understanding was a task you mastered more than a few years ago.

I asked for some "points." I didn't ask for definitive, convincing proof.

They responded with points, and in no way attempted to prove a thing. So maybe you've once again put the cart before the horse.

As well, i'm certain that these two particular fellows are not sitting around wondering how they can convince Paul Trejo of anything.

i asked for some highlights with which i can 'research.' They offered some. You and Parker tried to xxxx it up.

everyone did their job.