Glenn Nall

Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour. Robert - THANK YOU. I am amazed at the expertise that is revealed by members of the JFK Assassination Research Community who, having read "something" about "something", sometimes know an awful lot about an awful lot, though having never actually experienced said "something". i've shot guns. I've seen them produce smoke. there is literature that says the powder is smokeless, but i know better.

"Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" ..." you said earlier that we CTers believe that ALL of the evidence is fake. you stereotype based on one person's statement, pure and simple.

Jon, I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G., ...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.... So did Charles Givens. James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens. Does that also make Givens guilty? condition: there were in fact many people shown to have lied during this criminal investigation. condition: lying in a criminal investigation is as much guilty behavior as any behavior i can think of. conditional proposal: if, according to DVP, guilty behavior in the wake of a crime proves guilt, then, my friends, we have proof of a conspiracy. has my conditional reasoning failed me, D.? or are any of the conditions errant?

the following is the second example. I'll find the one with Jon and prove you did so in that astounding bit of reason, too... You used this: "I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater" to support your assertion that Greg must therefore think O was unarmed. there's no way around that. it was what you thought, implied and said. and lumping Greg into the equation with no other reason to think he thinks O was unarmed is tantamount to including any CTer. so YES, you used some people to assume another person thought the same thing. admit it.

i am in O's defense because I FIRST believed that there's a Conspiracy. I didn't come to be a CTer at the sake of O's defense. you've ignored my question: do you know the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion? if you avoid questions then you do not have the right to berate others for doing so.

I have no idea what are you're talking about here, or what "ONE CTer" you're referring to. Care to clarify? "Jon has been saying for weeks now that he thinks NONE of the evidence in the JFK case is really "evidence" because it never found its way into a courtroom. That's the ONLY thing that can make it "evidence", per Jon G. Tidd." Jon (you can tell because he used the name 'Jon' in the subject) is the one CTer he and you were referring to. You very clearly grouped all of us into your opinion based on Jon's statement. This is your specialty, of which your mom is likely quite proud. here's another: I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him.

D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say". this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or... Exactly. That was kind of my whole point, Glenn. Note the quote marks around the word "hearsay" in my post. Duh! I do not believe you, not with the way your question was worded. "Do you consider all of the bullets, ..." bs

??? what??? Glenn, I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him. That's why I asked Greg Parker that question. And Greg certainly seems to be entertaining the "No Gun" idea when he said this.... "I'm not ashamed to be skeptical about any official story put out by proven rogues and benders of the laws." -- G. Parker Pretty soon we'll probably have CTers denying the assassination occurred in Dallas. David, do you know the difference in helpful in forming a conclusion and proving a conclusion?

that's because it's my signature and not JIm's, David. Jimmy doesn't need his reputation enhanced. I think it's in good shape, and i also think he's not worried about his reputation any more than I am - you see, his thoughts and statements are mostly well formed, well supported and reasonable. so people trust that they can make reasonable choices in either agreeing or not with him. yours, on the other hand - well, how many books did you sell...? i made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. i figured it'd get to you. also, i happen to like it. the way i see it, we all are part of LHO's defense, since he has the Three Stooges for a prosecution team.

Why on Earth would you be appalled, Jon? Vince's statement about the evidence proving Oswald's guilt is perfectly acceptable---and 100% accurate. there are very few ways that that statement could be any more wrong. The only way such a statement is wrong is if all the "evidence" had been fake. And such an over-the-top assertion is "appalling", IMO. wrong. amazingly wrong. there are many ways such a statement could be wrong. Jon, 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? he's not. he's saying it's not convincing, valuable evidence that proves something. that it might, or might not, help in the formation of a conclusion, but doesn't prove anything. there's a big difference. Don't you agree that this definition of "evidence" is an accurate one?..... "A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." read this last line slowly. David, do you know the difference in helpful in forming a conclusion and proving a conclusion?

absolutely well put. i've always had great respect for VBs trial skills, and for his personal integrity. i'm continually shocked that he's a SBT, and that he would even say something like that.

D. - objects can't be hearsay. hearsay is limited to testimony, because it's things that people "say". this is why they called it hearsay. otherwise they'd have called it hearstuff. or hearsomething. or...

??? what???

Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary] ------------------------------ Hi Rosemary, If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit. Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to. Thanks. Best wishes always, David Von Pein Feb. 27, 2010 ============================================== Subject: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Rosemary Newton To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Hi Dave, Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." " Regards, Rosemary ============================================== Subject: Re: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton ------------------------------ Thank you, Rosemary and Vince. I will. David V.P. ============================================== More Correspondence With Vince B. Really? 5 year old letters from people who had to ask other people to relay his quotes is what you're posting? have you ever attempted an individual thought - you know, one that didn't originate in someone else's head...?

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 "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." /** wrong. as a writer, i interchange words for the same object more often than not, and on purpose, just as many people do. earlier today i wrote this: The crux of the entire mystery - and make no mistake, it IS a mystery, as no one has ever been brought to trial and convicted for this crime - is whether the organization, execution and covering up of the murder was performed by a single person or as a conspiracy of persons. i refer to the same incident with three different terms (mystery, crime and murder), for a reason: repetition is tedious. I also use the same term twice (mystery), in context, for emphasis. or something. it's about context. but no one "justly expected a third type of" incident. unless reading just isn't their specialty... the use of the word missile implies neither the bullet or an alternate object without the context to consider.

"If I had the Kennedys here I would line them up and shoot them." how could anyone realistically use this as an intended action/threat? i very truly wonder just how many people in the 50's and 60's have expressed this very sentiment IN HEARING RANGE of others -- less than 50? doubtful. i guarantee it's been said of every President that's ever served - oops > INCLUDING the present one! that line in and of itself isn't worth repeating. ESPECIALLY about the Kennedys.

bullets are often referred to as missiles, and projectiles, etc. Just cause some FBI guy who needed to show off his vocabulary called it a missile, to ME, doesn't in any way imply something 'secretive.' to be more ballistically correct, missiles hang from aircraft wings, not umbrellas. i think a missile is anything that flies through the air with a direction. like a bullet. fwiw.

i don't even understand the need to complicate the scheme with a "dart". and right, how the hell do you aim the rib of an umbrella? whatever. Hoover had plenty of motive all on his own. couple him with Johnson's Motive and i see a dynamic duo. if he was directed by higher ups, it sure didn't take much prodding.

i say you don't read other people's posts closely enough to exhibit that you actually care what other people think. this is obvious, and this leads me to not want to know the things that you DO know. you've proven the other guys' statements correct. and mine.

Paul what is IMHO? In My Humble Opinion? In My Honest Opinion? In My Hilarious Opinion? just wondering. I'm pretty sure i already know.

whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman. On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield. /*** both really good points. i am relieved. you and Mark have realigned my faith in the human power of reason. it was touch and go there for a minute. whew.

Paul. Read this slowly. NO. As i said in my previous post, i do NOT think High Command when I think CIA and JFK. YOU are the one who said we (the CTers) think High Command. I think rogue CIA, for many good reasons, none of which have ANYTHING to do with General Walker. You ARE more frustrating than DVP. You're doing your job. any of you guys remember the old movie Ten Little Indians, or Clue? where nobody knows who the shill is, and everybody's running around trying to guess...?

i was beginning to question my own sanity and memory. he exonerates the CIA and yet Morales or Hunt could possibly have been rogue... you're right, with supporters like that, who needs enemies? i'm learning as i go. thanks.

you're a hunter. a small tree branch can turn a bullet, right? my next question would be: understanding the unreliability of deflections - if you were planning such an intricate scheme to shoot someone from various positions, or even one, would you even risk this unreliability of firing through the windshield, past TWO rows of moving people to target a MOVING person in the third seat? is that something you'd do on purpose in Dealey Plaza with fences and RR underpasses and open windows everywhere?

you make assumptions you have no right or reason to make. debate with you is a waste of time because you put words in my mouth (like DVP does). i've tried to say several times that we agree on many of these things, yet you re-present them as in a disagreement. i.e. - i do NOT think the High Command of the CIA was involved. I DO think some people from the CIA were involved. If YOU need to split hairs, do it with someone else. You'll not be happy until i say "Walker DID IT." //*** "if you wish to dismiss the claims of Harry Dean on the basis that he was not under oath when he made them..." this is not what i said. i said that hearsay is inadmissible for good reason, distrust of the witness being, if any, a very small part of the reason. Damn.