Glenn Nall

Vinnie B. is gone DVP, you have my permission to think for yourself. Make your own argument for a change. After all, it's your name you're posting under, and no one else's including your idol worship Vinne daBug... in fact, you had permission to think for yourself before he was gone. you just may not have realized it, it seems...

Great tactic, Jim. Make Buell Wesley Frazier the villain, instead of accepting the truth about Oswald's curtain rod lie. That's exactly the type of argument that only a truly desperate conspiracy theorist would even consider making. A conspiracy theorist like, say, James DiEugenio, who admitted on July 26, 2015, that he considers himself to be "part of the defense team". More pure fantasy on DiEugenio's behalf. Or--to be more accurate--pure wishful thinking. No reasonable person thinks Oswald never ordered the rifle. And, once again, the preposterous "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" theory is precisely the kind of claptrap that you'd expect to come from a person who said --- "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team." Who's leading with their chin now, Jimmy? Jim...?

larry, this is the kind of stuff i love to hear. great to be able to file it away for future reference. it's not in my line of theory at the moment, but it's reliable testimony in my book, because I'm not a court of law and i can accept hearsay from known reliable persons. that's you.

unable or unwilling to see that he included YOU in that, D. for the record, are you saying that Oswald's lie about the rods is good evidence of guilt? cause i want to use this later...

However, Robert, if one gun can explain the puff of smoke, then I imagine other guns could also explain it. The witnesses were all ex-military men, I take it, and also believable. Wesley Liebeler stunned David Lifton with his remark -- but Liebeler also hid vital data about Bethesda, with full awareness. So, he can't be trusted. I'm getting a general consensus from those knowledgeable about fire-arms that the puff of smoke was plausible. Yet you also mentioned James Files. It seems to former CIA Agent Gary Shaw that James Files manufactured this legend out of his real experiences as chauffeur for Mafia leader Charles Nicoletti, who got stories and data from Johnny Roselli about the alleged Mafia role in the JFK murder. Having some real connection to the JFK murder through David Morales to Johnny Roselli to Sam Giancana to Charles Nicoletti to himself, James Files got a free ticket to write his story (much as Judyth Vary Baker got a free ticket by having a brief affair with Lee Harvey Oswald). I don't believe James Files in the slightest. Con-men make the best fibbers. Regards, --Paul Trejo this explanation of Files' source explains a lot to me. I couldn't understand how he could have simply created such a somewhat accurate story, so i tended to believe some of it. with this, i can see how, and, right, this makes the whole thing pretty suspect. good stuff. this is what seeking the truth is all about. the willingness to be wrong, and to be corrected, and to be taught. in the name of getting to the truth, not in the name of being right. i'm not always successful, but if i keep an open mind, i'm always learning.

interesting. it's never occurred to me that 2 shots have been proposed to have been shot at this point. by either the warren commission OR pee wee herman. re the 2 SS guys looking back - that's what i've thought, too, that something got their attention and not the others because they've heard similar things before whereas others haven't - AND that coupled with a bullet passing closer to them than the others, if a silenced rifle was used, and i think the odds are good that one was either in Dal Tex or TSBD West, would explain their action in Altgens 6. i've looked at the huge format of this pic, and you could literally lose yourself in it. hours and hours, there's so much to go over. last night i looked at some good copies of Z frames on my Galaxy Tab - zoomed in - a MUCH better resolution than a regular PC monitor - and again got lost in the minutiae. on another note: i've found some other pics, and i think I've solved the crime. stay tuned for further developments. i mean, don't hold your breath, just stay tuned.

However, Robert, if one gun can explain the puff of smoke, then I imagine other guns could also explain it. The witnesses were all ex-military men, I take it, and also believable. Wesley Liebeler stunned David Lifton with his remark -- but Liebeler also hid vital data about Bethesda, with full awareness. So, he can't be trusted. I'm getting a general consensus from those knowledgeable about fire-arms that the puff of smoke was plausible. Yet you also mentioned James Files. It seems to former CIA Agent Gary Shaw that James Files manufactured this legend out of his real experiences as chauffeur for Mafia leader Charles Nicoletti, who got stories and data from Johnny Roselli about the alleged Mafia role in the JFK murder. Having some real connection to the JFK murder through David Morales to Johnny Roselli to Sam Giancana to Charles Nicoletti to himself, James Files got a free ticket to write his story (much as Judyth Vary Baker got a free ticket by having a brief affair with Lee Harvey Oswald). I don't believe James Files in the slightest. Con-men make the best fibbers. Regards, --Paul Trejo Wesley Liebeler stunned David Lifton with his remark -- but Liebeler also hid vital data about Bethesda, with full awareness. So, he can't be trusted. ?? if that's the case, then why did you cite his remarks to Lifton to support your own assertion? that's not exactly responsible debate, is it...?

Actually, Glenn, the shoving of the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team together wasn't done for a REASON as you claim, but out of sheer LAZINESS, combined with a lack of INSIGHT. Vincent Salandria in 1965 might have been the first to insist that the JFK Killers planned the Coverup. Or it might have been Harold Weinberg in 1964. Sylvia Meagher was also of that opinion. So was Mark Lane. Yet it was Jim Garrison in 1968 who got the widest audience for that idea, and blamed the CIA for the whole mess. Today the CIA-did-it CTers still reign supreme. But I say they were mistaken in 1964, and they're mistaken today. There is no narrative in their literature that explains the unity of the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team -- IT IS MERELY ASSUMED. As for the MIST vs. SMOKE theory -- I thought I was clear, but let me be perfectly clear -- I have no experience with guns or rifles or any such weapons. I am learning about them through kind writers like Robert Prudhomme who are willing to share such data without insulting readers who admit they don't know. David Lifton was stunned by Wesley Liebeler's remark and laughter about smoke and guns. Yet Lifton adequately proved that Liebeler deliberately hid other key information about the JFK murder, so I keep an open mind. Regards, --Paul Trejo once it's written, it's in the email. editing only prevents those not subscribed from reading what you first wrote. "but out of sheer LAZINESS, combined with a lack of INSIGHT." i'd say that's pretty insulting. so, yes, you have insulted me. it's also insulting to belittle others' theories as inadequate as compared to yours. this is highly insulting. i'm sorry you can't see that. you say that these two people might have been the first to believe that the killers also did the cover up - in 1964 or 5. good. this doesn't mean they were lazy, this means that their information was obviously much different than it was later. is that hard to believe? doesn't it make sense that the more time passes, the more info is revealed??? lazy? damn. does that mean that the translators of the Bibles before 1947 were lazy because the Dead Sea Scrolls hadn't been found yet? There is no narrative in their literature that explains --- what? a crime of this magnitude it's NATURALLY assumed that those who perpetrated the crime perpetrated the cover up - in fact, a crime of any magnitude. this is how crime works, Paul: a person plans a crime (I think i'll rob that bank), a person commits the crime (he does so), and the person makes good his escape (he takes steps to prevent investigators from discovering his identity and catching him). can you please tell me how this is NOT the natural order of events in any given crime? how this is NOT what people would assume happened in THIS crime??? and there are very few CIA-did-it CTers - get it straight. There are MANY CTers who think SOME 'perhaps rogue' members of the CIA were involved, either surreptitiously or not, but certainly NOT representing their employer. if you think no CIA members were involved, why did Hunt lie like a rug about where he was that day? you need to be more careful in your accusations. You're not helping your cause.

DJ, i hope you didn't take that out of context - i value your input. the quote was just that, a quote, and appropriate as referred to other contributors, not yours. sorry about that.

"and the paper bag as being conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt" i'd sure like to see this exact post, Jim...

Again, Glenn, most CT's presume that the Lone Nut Coverup was planned at the same time as the JFK murder. Your view here also presumes that, IMHO. Yet the original CT was that Oswald was a Communist -- not a Lone Nut. Edwin Walker repeated this. Revilo P. Oliver repeated this. David Morales repeated this. Johnny Martino repeated this. Johnny Roselli repeated this. On and on. The JFK Killers, IMHO, hated the idea of a Lone Nut, because that removed any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba. The purpose of Hoover's Lone Nut theory was to remove any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba, thus frustrating the JFK Killers from obtaining the main prize of their crime. Thus, the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions (and so would not have insisted on hiding or 'losing' JFK's brain'). Finally -- as to your first question -- it seems to me that paralyzing a victim prior to slaughter is a case of mercy; of humane capital punishment -- like offering a cigarette to a man facing a firing squad. IMHO, the Killers of JFK believed in their own minds that they were performing a patriotic duty -- like a firing squad. Regards, --Paul Trejo just like DVP, you've managed to tell me how to build a watch, but not what time it is. my question was: what's this all-out need to interject a poison chemical into the mix, as you and others were discussing. THAT is all i asked. and you skirted it in your agenda to preach. secondly - yes, that's what my theory supports - it's the most common one FOR A REASON. There's no glory in having the most unique theory. There's only satisfaction in using good reason to get as close to the solution as possible, for the sake of the solution, not for the sake of attention. it may surprise you, but most of the opinions in here are going to be on the assumption that the entire thing was somewhat a single collusion and plan. of course mine presumes that. why would it not, if that's what my premise is? NOW >> "I admit that some weapons -- perhaps special weapons -- even today might emit a mist." really? you're so proud that in your reticence to admit a small correction you even have to change the wording to "mist?" you'll agree with the smell of gunpowder, but not to someone seeing "smoke?" you take the word of Liebeler for some reason, even though there's a picture RIGHT HERE which shows a modern rifle produce smoke (or mist, or vapor - to a layperson witnessing a public shooting, "smoke" explains it just FINE.) OVER Robert and Me and whomever will say first hand that there are guns which "smoke" even today. that smokeless powder does not mean "smokeless." good god. no wonder your theory has no traction.

Saying the earth is the center of the universe is true, until proven false the other day i saw a bumper sticker, said: "The Truth doesn't give a sh** what your opinion is."

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 and move around boxes. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing. It took me just 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 i said this: you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt you said this (before you deleted it): And you don't think I could add any "other evidence" that could be added to the pile to prove O's guilt? and then this: Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that all points to Oswald that an "Oswald Must Be Guilty" conclusion must be reached by any reasonable person but my point was that that's not what you SAY. You too often SAY that some such single piece of evidence proves his guilt. i didn't say you can't, i said you don't. and i will prove this to you in time so that you cannot say that you didn't say that.

and what is the all-out necessity in adding a paralyzing or poisonous agent to the mix? if they're going to fire 3 bullets, why not fire 4 or 5 (which i happen to believe they did)? is someone going to say that it was so well orchestrated that the only bullet wounds found were planned to be explained by a single shooter? planned before the fact? confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan? i surely hope that is not what a rational CTer thinks. i'm going to start a new thread on how i think it's possible to hide a rifle shot.

scopes don't help in aiming - they help in aiming at a distance. on a rifle, from the sniper's nest, let's say - a competent shooter would not have needed that scope under normal conditions. from the picket fence, either. from the railway, maybe. because of the magnification, other factors are then added to the equation. tracking a moving object is changed, since the motion is exaggerated. and because of the magnification, you have to have your eye right up against the device, pretty much, just like you would a microscope or telescope. this makes the idea of one mounted, practically, to an umbrella pretty weird. you picture UM standing on the street 10 feet from the president, pretty much in many people's peripheral vision, at least, and indiscriminately putting his eye to something in order to sight a hidden dart gun... i don't see it. pardon the pun. Robert may correct me. and Robert, about the Fireball and James Files --- a) do you think that there's any possible substance to his story? another point is that, since the Fireball is capable of emitting smoke that would be visible to the area, then there are obviously other weapons that would do so. unrestricted to the Fireball scenario, assuming a conspiracy, this allows for the distinct possibility that the stories of seeing "smoke", etc., are quite valid, contrary to the naysayers... yes, it, or a similar weapon, could explain the testimonies of these rational, reasonable people.

"And, btw, I think I do choose my words carefully." and, therefore, another one...

"But I've never claimed that just ONE piece of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt." a statement you will come to regret, i predict...

the rison that killed the Russian spy a few years ago was said to have been administered by the tip of an umbrella. no problem. but its administration didn't require accuracy and distance and a scope. come to think of it - if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope?

Robert, I can't find that article I was thinking of -- an opinion piece, anyway. Yet if one can construct a dart-gun inside a folding umbrella, then installing a telescopic lens (with mirrors, most likely) is not a scientifically impossible task. Otherwise, one would have to agree that aiming an 'umbrella dart-gun' at a moving target would be an impossible task. Yet as the article-link that I did post here noted -- the 'umbrella dart-gun' was really a CIA invention back in the early 1960's. James Bond and all that. Regards, --Paul Trejo i cannot believe you just wrote that with a straight face (assuming you did). with mirrors? really? this is what I mean about the tendencies to further complicate the investigation of an already complex JFK Assassination.

but you so often say that "such and such" proves his guilt, when it does not. as i just posted, your own definition of evidence shows that none of what you call evidence proves anything of its own. you should choose your words more carefully.

" ...the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion?" DVP: Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while. BACK TO ME: you delay in answering so that the context is lost. if someone asks if you know the answer, then the implied request is to provide the answer, and you know that. if you'd provided the answer then it would invalidate your reasoning that the evidence, as you've defined it in the post, supports your assertion, that the evidence proves such and such, when, according to your definition, it only helps in forming a conclusion (requiring further supporting evidence), and does not prove the conclusion (in this context, a VAST difference). please show us how your definition of evidence supports your assertion? /******************************/ the follow up to this request: for instance, your statement: "why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE?" precedes your definition: "A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." and refers to the items collected by the DPD at the crime scenes. ok. but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included. you have thereby contradicted yourself, and will do so in the future, by asserting that any such evidence as you may posit "proves" Oswald's guilt.

David (and Stephen and Kathy), Right. Glenn

Charles Givens had two alibi witnesses standing with him when President Kennedy was shot (James and Edward Shields) [see 6 H 351]. Plus, Givens went back to the TSBD after the shooting, but it had been sealed off by then and he couldn't get back in. So he left. That's hardly a situation that could be defined as fleeing the crime scene.... CHARLES GIVENS -- "Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in, the officer at the door wouldn't let me in." [6 H 355] he wasn't suggesting that Givens is guilty, David. Damn. He was pointing out that, by your reasoning, if someone was missing from roll call, then he must be guilty. And that this is NOT a logic follow.

Bill, I hear the natives are getting restless. I think Jeff's book is going to be the benchmark on Walker. On another note, Ernie said earlier in this thread : "Nobody who actually knew Edwin Walker would conclude that he had the level of intelligence or the people skills and organizational ability required to implement or facilitate (undetected) any complex event such as the assassination of the President of the United States." Which is hearsay from unknown sources. edit. Re-reading, it's not even hearsay. It's Ernie telling us what others would say. Here is what Dr Stubblefield said in his psych report on Walker: Walker was "functioning correctly at the superior level of intelligence" Greg, forgive my newness, but - you're of one of them there "Walker did it" schools...?

Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points: (1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk (2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object. Regards, --Paul Trejo Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella. Robert, are you suggesting that Paul skirted the question about where a scope might be practically mounted to an umbrella? (i can't believe I'm hearing myself ask that question. If my family read this, they'd be calling the guys in white coats on the double. "hey Sharon, do you have any idea how i can clamp a transaxle to this toaster oven?")