Glenn Nall

seeing a picture of the little bugger does change my perspective just a bit, i have to admit. certainly looks effective. my concerns are still around its delivery, though. i just think there would be better ways to have done it than an umbrella on a sunny day. doesn't sound to me like something i'd plan in advance when i KNOW there are other delivery methods. The designers of these things didn't rely on rain for implementation; they simply worked with it ("ok, let's put one of these 'guns' in an umbrella, for use when it's raining"... and "let's put one in a cane, and one in a rolled up newspaper, and one in a woman's tampon...' - hey, you never know when it's the right time to kill, right?). anyway, you get my point. there HAD to be a better way to fire a flechette that day. IF one were even used...

This, Kenneth, is the line of thinking that will eventually solve the JFK murder, IMHO. The most confusing part of the JFK literature, IMHO, is trying to solve two separate problems as though they were one problem; i.e. trying to solve the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up as though they were both pre-planned at the same time by the same people. Jim Garrison was not alone in his belief that those who planned the JFK murder were the same as those who planned the JFK Coverup. If (and only if) that is an error, and if the JFK murder was actually separate from the JFK Cover-up, then attempting to solve both problems at one and the same time could result in wasting fifty years of quality research. That is, if LHO was set up as a Communist Patsy, then the gargantuan effort to make LHO appear to be a Lone Nut (even altering autopsy evidence and X-rays, as well as ballistics evidence, photographs, and tampering with witnesses and more) was entirely separate -- and actually a counter-movement to the Communist Patsy CT. With regard to the theme of this thread -- the Proof of the Motorcade Stopping must be regarded as a problem in the JFK murder, IMHO, with utterly nothing to do with the JFK Cover-up, SBT or Lone Nut theory. That's the way to approach the Motorcade Stopping question -- to ensure a logical resolution. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, IS that, in fact, IN your HO?

but Paul - you cannot separate the two in order to solve other quandaries when you have no valid reason to believe the two acts are separate other than their convenience in doing so, just because these quandaries are hard to solve. you have to actually use reasonable and evidenced propositions to resolve them. as i pointed out, to which you have given NO viable opposition, this, and any crime, is naturally a single entity UNTIL it is shown to have separate, unrelated parts - a crime is not a series of unrelated events UNTIL they are shown to be related.

totally agreed, Nixon was yuckier than JFK. and, in my opinion, LBJ was more yucky than RMN. "When you are to the right of Reagan on the USSR in 1987, how smart can you be?" not quite sure about necessity or purpose of this comment. just sayin'.

THANK you for this, Steven.

and speaking of Hunt and them, when i was watching Episode 9, i believe, of that History Channel series, (the Guilty Men or something...?), there was this other "Powerful" man around Dallas county that apparently had his hands on all the judges and police, etc. in that part of Texas at the time. what was his name? Even more powerful than HL Hunt, i got the impression. with these names coming up here in this thread, Rothermel, etc. I'm wondering how this guy plays into it, wondering why i haven't seen his name more, really... does anyone know who I'm talking about?

Bill -- first of all please call me Ernie. I feel older than Moses when someone appends "Mr." to my last name. Second, it is exceptionally interesting that the new book does not claim Walker was the "mastermind" of the assassination. [sorry Paul T.] Lastly, I don't dismiss Rothermel as inconsequential but I am not currently aware of anything that makes him a central character. However----do you know about this? In 1979 Rothermel contacted the FBI to complain about information they had released as a result of an FOIA request concerning Rothermel providing documents in 11/63 to a Dallas Morning News reporter (Earl Golz) that pertained to JFK's assassination. In 11/63, Rothermel had sent H.L. Hunt a memo reporting that "a reliable source" of his had said there would be a violent incident in Dallas directed against JFK. Rothermel claims he gave this info to the Dallas Police and to the FBI. Golz believed that H.L. Hunt gave money to JBS members in California who allegedly were training assassins --- one of whom visited Hunt just prior to the assassination. In 1970, Rothermel's phone was tapped and he told the FBI that he believed two of H.L. Hunt's sons were behind it in order to secure information to discredit him and other former Hunt employees and to discover info which they could use to have H.L. Hunt declared incompetent. Not sure if all this is known or not. "...but I am not currently aware of anything that makes him a central character." just a couple of points: A) this is of course how those with control ('they') would have it; to keep as many of the complicit as under the radar as possible. right? and this could have been said about a LOT of others at one point. until it couldn't be said anymore, once enough was uncovered... just a point to remember. right, nothing points to Rothermel. maybe never will. but i BET he's an interesting subject...

If I may, Jim - we HAVE the Mafia killed JFK... and there still IS LBJ killed... and, again with respect, the author of this thread regained some credibility (with me at least), by clarifying that Walker Did It isn't the mainline. I find that all too often CTers tend to word things so as to limit any theory to a singular causality, "the Mafia" did it, etc... I think we're going to find that there is a nice smorgasbord of strange bedfellows in this thing. I think it's important to remember that as we seek that evasive little tidbit (that DOES exist) that can unlock yet one more thread with which to unravel... no offense, Jim. i know what you meant. just took the opportunity to expound a bit...

"Dr. Caufield never says or states that Walker was the mastermind behind the 11-22-63 hit , OK!?" I"m glad to hear you say this. It has been nagging the back of my mind how "some" have made the assumption that this is the claim. I assumed "some" knew more than I did about Dr Caufield and the direction he was likely to take in this upcoming book. I should have known better. I have no problem allowing room for Walker in this thing to some level or another, even "high up" - but when "some" (i won't say his name, but his initials are Paul Trejo) try to shove the mastermind idea down my throat, it surely destroys my willingness to listen to what would be otherwise good reasoning about the man. Many in here have said really good things about Dr Caufield and his research and writing skills - and i respect their thoughts, mostly. But after listening to Trejo sell Walker Did It like it was Pomegranate Gold Water, i have no interest in reading much of anything about General Walker, whether he was smarter than General George Armstrong Custer or not (which to me has so very little relevance to whether he could organize this thing, in the grand scheme of things). At least i know that this new book isn't as closed minded as Paul Trejo. Maybe i'll read it after I reread Montgomery a few more tiimes.

I'm sure General Walker took appropriate solace in the fact that George Custer graduated even lower than 229th, and look how intelligent HE turned out.

"you regard it as absolute" wrong; i said "almost invariable," which left open the RARE cases where a criminal intends to get caught, as in your second example. he clearly planned on giving himself up, therefore had no plan of escape. "John Wilkes Booth did not run away and hide immediately after killing President Lincoln, but he jumped onto the Theater Stage, letting everybody see his face, and gave his short speech..." this is not accurate. he ran across the stage making his escape, as he had a horse tied up just out the back door for this very purpose. to ESCAPE. he made NO speech, Paul, he shouted "death to tyrants," that many people didn't even hear as he was running/hobbling on his broken ankle. he didn't mind his face being seen, as it was the mid 1800's and he knew the internet was a century away - he had confederates along the way to aid his escape. you knew that, right? You're WRONG, Paul. his full AND PRE-PLANNED intention was to escape and not get caught. are you really saying he didn't try to escape? that it was not pre-planned??? wanting the world to know the politics has nothing to do with the desire to remain free. My point is solid. As a rule, criminals plan to get away with their crime, and this 'atypical' assassination is even more the case. as i said, the evasion of prosecution required extensive cover-up. no way around that. (you failed to address that part).

My point, Glenn, was that we can consider the JFK murder apart from the JFK Cover-up. Why does that seem so difficult? From this vantage, there are two halves to the JFK saga -- the Murder and the Coverup. From this vantage, to solve the JFK saga, we need TWO solutions -- the Solution to the Murder, and the Solution to the Coverup. Two different Teams with two opposite motives. That's a viable solution that no JFK researcher in the past 50 years has ever guessed. Two halves then make a whole. Regards, --Paul Trejo it's not that it's difficult, it's that it's illogical. it is not where the evidence AS I'VE SEEN IT has taken me, and if i were to consider it it would be contrary to reason. which is what i use to get from one conclusion to another, regardless of whether it is what you or DVP use. Did you read my post the other day about the generic criminal and the crime? I explained very simply why the vast majority of CTers "jump" to the conclusion that the two (three, really) phases of the murder are connected. You didn't respond, not surprisingly, but i didn't sit around for too much more of the day wondering why ol' Paul didn't respond to my post. my claim was this: that's how crime works. humans commit crimes, and humans obey their lizard-brained need of survival. They obey this need even more than they would obey the need to know, biblically, Kate Hudson. here is how a generic crime invariably occurs - and this is almost invariable (did i say that?) - phase 1) Bill considers, at various degrees, committing a crime because he has a need (for money, for revenge or for survival; i.e. keeping someone else from threatening his survival). Let's say Bill wants to rob a bank, or kill his girlfriend. phase 2) Bill robs a bank, and kills his girlfriend who was the getaway driver because she turned left when he said right. phase 3) - and this is the invariable part - because Bill does not possess the brains of an amoeba, he knew when he was considering these crimes that he will not want to get caught and so he makes plans to avoid capture - OR: Bill has the brains of an amoeba and does not think about things that would immediately follow said crimes UNTIL he's committed them, at which point he THEN realizes that he will probably not want to be caught and tried for robbing a bank and killing his girlfriend even if she just wouldn't listen. THE FACT is that this is how crime works, this is ALWAYS how crime does work and has worked since Cain killed Abel (read the story, Cain attempted to avoid capture, too). There is no avoiding the fact that WHOEVER planned and committed the murder of JFK that day ALSO planned an escape - an escape the complexity of which must parallel the complexity of the crime. Paul, THIS is why anyone with brains more advanced than basic protozoi assume, reasonably, that one follows the other. and this is why to assume otherwise is quite contrary to the natural order of events that surround crime. The person committing the crime MUST commit the escape, and in this case, making good the escape mandates making good the cover-up. I cannot think of a way around this, but I'm open to being wrong. I've been wrong before. (and this is also why i can safely assume that you will not agree with my (empirically solid) reasoning in any way.)

"Most JFK Conspiracy Theories bite off more than anybody can chew, that is, they try to solve BOTH the JFK murder AND the JFK Cover-up at once, by regarding them as one single plot. Then they quickly fall into fantasy and fiction." an fantastically unsupported and highly unlikely statement, and, even strictly in reference to written material, mathematically impossible for you to even be able to guess at. "Dr. Caufield only needs to show that resigned General Edwin Walker planned and executed the murder of JFK, full stop, and allow the entire Cover-up scenario to be explained separately (perhaps as a ..." allow me to suggest something of a truth about human nature; NO ONE would begin to be satisfied with "half" an answer. If someone were to present what he considers a finished research project ending on 11/22/1963 and with who arranged the hit and who pulled the triggers without offering an explanation of the much more complex and mysterious cover-up, and especially while suggesting how it does not relate to the other culprits, it would appear to be just what it is: a half-assed research effort which only attempts to answer some of the questions, and the least enigmatic ones, no less. this will not satisfy the public, no matter how convincing its proposition; you show this to be so yourself, by succumbing to the need to explain Stage 2 yourself even while describing the book as leaving that part completely alone. this is human nature. if someone's going to claim the mystery solved, then the answers need to be compelling and exhaustive, or the mystery is not solved. just ask any jury.

right. the implied choices not being the preclusion of your thread but as an offering to any who WANT another option. "You have the alternative of either Greg's thread or Jennifer's."

to clarify my part: i'm in with the original agreement.

my question - to anyone who adheres to the Buell Frazier Story Of What Lee Carried, and not to any one person in particular, (as it is that i'm on 2nd) - is, why is Buell Frazier's testimony any better or more valuable than any others who witnessed LHO the same morning? it has been asked "why is his story not good enough" to which my response is, "why is his any better than the multiple others?" i'm just asking in general. i probably won't care too much about the answer.

DJ, tried to PM you, can't get through...

Good stuff, Steven. I like this girl's writing. Who is she? She says: "It takes no special talent to ride with a torrent –merely a skill to maintain position and allow the flow to work for you." an approach I have tried to maintain throughout my years of attention to "this thing of ours" - sometimes successfully, sometimes not. But i happen to think it's the ideal approach in maintaining objectivity. works for me, i think. not so much for some who seem to dislike the lack of commitment to a concrete theory.

Is Jennifer an alternative for Veronica? This is not an alternative to my work on the Straus family - unless you believe my work on them is all wrong. It is complimentary to, not a replacement for. which is why he used the words "alternative material," which in no way suggests that it could replace anything. if that was what he was suggesting, he wouldn't have THEN reattributed YOUR thread, Greg. Defensive much?

Paul, what in the world would be the difference within the present context?

Pat - "only sex addicts have affairs." ??? who in the world said that...??? KC - fascinating, valuable little tidbit. I love it. that's one of those things you file away under "You Never Know What This Might Mean One Day"... what surprises me is what Karen's dad said about that not whatsoever being a "hit" when it so much looks like one. Him being a journalist (right?) he'd likely be threatened for talking, but still...

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder. Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day. And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt. Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO. But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing. It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too.... ROB CAPRIO SAID: So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there. DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID: The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest. It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there". The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd. DVP November 2007 ----------------- Related articles of interest: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, That doesn't work. If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless. For example, you know someone died at 10PM sharp and you have a video that shows the defendent was somewhere else at that time, then all the circumstancial evidence is no good. For example, we know that when the shots were fired at JFK, LHO was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom. So far, no one has attempted to show that he could successfully shoot at JFK from that lunchroom. Therefore, it wasn't LHO. No other evidence is necessary. in fairness to the artist formerly known as prince, "If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless" is the hurdle he's had the most difficult time crossing. or the most difficult time finding the willingness to cross... if he were to grasp this simple concept, then he would either 1) get it, or 2) have to admit where he's wrong. it's too bad. he'd make quite a formidable proponent if he were actually correct in the things he's so passionate about.

"We could assume that but, I've found that to assume makes an a-s-s out of u-m-e." I'm just tickled that he had the bells to write it.

I'm playing 2nd base if you pick me! (ok, i'll play left field, but only if i HAVE to...)

isn't that cute. you have some silly idea that i visit your website. awwwww.....