Glenn Nall

first i've heard a pen could fit in the whole in the windshield. where'd that come from? Kellerman mentioned the bevelled appearance, i think, indicating (suggesting, really) that the direction was inbound from the front. i didn't get the idea that there was an actual hole... Robert knows bullets and holes. What do you say about a bullet piercing a windshield and NOT spiderwebbing the whole thing, Robert?

Say, Bruce, I'm not clear on what you mean by a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat, which you evidently believe. Would you please explain? Also, does the notion of a silent first shot (e.g. umbrella gun) interest you at all? I ask because the only people that seemed to notice that first shot were those seated immediately close to JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo I've read more than one theory of the positions of gunmen all over the plaza, and of the likelihood of silenced guns - that a shot was heard by an SA on Houston before the turn, etc. I'm quite open to the possibility of silenced weapons, rifles, in the area. would make sense. Don't know why a silenced weapon has to equal a poison or something. Is that not making it more complicated than necessary? is there a reason to insert a secret shooting umbrella if there's nothing to suggest it? yeah, why not silenced guns?

Kellerman testifies to this "flurry" of shots to the WC and discusses the interaction between he and Greer a bit at this time, of them looking back and seeing Connally and Kennedy, etc. and yelling something, etc. he mentions the SA being the first to look over the car back in washington, and the bullet fragments from the front seat, and the brain and "matter" flying all over them up front. He never mentions a bullet coming through the windshield even though the interviewer questioned him pretty well about the three shots and thier intervals. Either there was no bullet through the windshield or Kellerman was lying through his teeth. what am i missing? if a bullet came through that windshield, then the two in front HEARD it. I haven't read Greer's testimony, but i'm guessing he, too, has said nothing about this...

--- Harry Dean said he personally heard Edwin Walker threaten JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same sentence in September 1963 in SoCal. Hearsay is inadmissible in court for a very good reason. --- We would probably blame anybody else in the world for the JFK murder, except one of our beloved, victorious Generals of WW2. not me, buster. I'd finger Lansdale in a heartbeat if something called good evidence pointed me to him. alas, there's so little of it for either "beloved" Generals. --- effectively exonerates the CIA high-command from the JFK murder this is putting words in my, and I'm sure others', mouth. high command is not who i think of when i consider the CIA moving-parts in this thing. --- "LHO shot at Walker" ... ? and...? you'd be hard pressed to get that into court, mainly because no one can see what that has to do with the price of cumquats in China.

so none of you are even willing to consider the validity of my assertion that the NBA assisted in the cover-up of the Celtics' alteration of the famous Wojohowitz film?

OK, Glenn, what do you think of this narrative about the "umbrella" gun? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk Regards, --Paul Trejo you completely missed my point, Paul. I have even less of a desire to discuss or consider an umbrella gun at the moment than i do General Walker.

good GRIEF, MAN!!! this is AND-GATE (or is it OR GATE...?) LOGIC like i haven't seen IN YEARS!!!!! Well DONE! oh my word, that's beautiful.

and if in the film we see Kareem's knees bend to make the jump and then next see him standing under the basket without the basketball and the scoreboard has mysteriously increased at an increment of 2, and if 59 people at the game said that they saw him "slam" the ball through the hoop, or "slamdunk" the ball, or "do a really high layup," it would be safe to assume that the film was edited and that the NBA is in conspiracy with the Boston Celtics to manipulate the outcome of the game.

you've learned the art of condescension well. you sound like DVP now. how's that feel? let's see if your logic works better (condescension is ugly, isn't it?). So, let's see if I have this straight, Glenn. You believe that the 59 witnesses were correct, and that the limo actually stopped for the head shot? -- I never suggested that i think all 59 are "correct" - if you read my first post you'll see that i put emphasis on the vagaries of the terms "slowed", "near stopped" and "stopped" -- i DO think that if 59 people say that the limo did something resembling nearly stopping then that's what happened. it did something like nearly stopping. -- i did't say stopped - i said slowed, didn't i? did i say stopped? let me go look. [clop, clop, clop ... clop, clop, clop - I'm back] just took a look. nope, it says slowed. And then the Z-film was tampered to remove the stop itself? -- yes, i think that the Zapruder film was most likely altered at some point in time, and that part of the alteration included changing the speed of the limo - since the limo was almost always moving, any alteration would have pretty much had to change the speed of the limo... yes? no? -- if the limo comes to a stop and that part of the film is removed, then it stands to reason that the limo would then appear to continue moving. yes? no? (this is rhetoric) -- Yet in that case I would ask how the head-shot appears so full and complete in the Z-film. There seems to be no tampering with the film at precisely that second in time. -- I disagree. the head shot perhaps appears mostly full, but a) i've never seen a real headshot to compare this with (have you?), the blood and matter cloud disappears WAY too fast (within about 3 frames, which is FASTER than any mist should dissipate in those current winds), and c) there seems to be the matter of a missing hole in the back of Ks head that should be visible. I really feel that the film was tampered with at precisely that time (and probably at the turn onto Elm), which, if the limo were to have stopped at that time like 59 people suggest that it did to one degree or another, would also be part of the film that was affected. not too sure about that last assumption. i think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. sorry about being a smarta** to you. i did it in response to yours, and i didn't like it very much. i think it's very unnecessary and totally ineffective. look where it gets David.

it also slowed down just next to the Umbrella, so many people call that proof that the Umbrella was a weapon. I call it a stretch without further evidence to support that, just like i need further evidence to support a gun from the storm drain. what i DO see is that the limo slowed down at the same time the President got shot, and that there was a man in charge of the speed of the limo. i made all of these observations without the aid of conjecture and supposition. yay me.

i too believe that the SS are involved. much because of Doug Horne's story, and others... didn't dispute that. it just seems that you often try to steer a topic in your pet direction, and i think that's tacky. what the SS carousing the night before has to do with the topic of the limo slowing i have no idea. i think everyone agrees that the SS got drunk the night before. of course it's relevant in the bigger picture, but unless we want to charge Greer with a DUI, i'm not sure it bears on the speed of the limo and what Z shows... what the slowest speed of the limo being 7.6 on film and the witnesses statements to the contrary have to do with the topic is obvious. it's yet another nail in the Zapruder coffin (for me), and in the WC's con-game (for me).

you asked: does the speed of the limo really matter when the question is only about a "Lone Shooter"? i answered: it does if for no other reason that we enjoy talking about it. you minimize others' topics of conversations in order to wedge in your own agenda. we know that you think Walker is the mastermind. we know that you want to talk about that. i enjoy other topics along with some other people who enjoy other topics. i enjoy talking about these things, except with you and DVP who belittle the things I enjoy talking about. the topic doesn't always have to turn to General Walker. Sometimes it's just about the car and the film. sorry. no offense.

and for the record, if it makes anyone happy, i will pay closer attention to Pat's theories when i get to them. better now? is that your goal, to warn people of his eccentricities?

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement. Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions. So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness. This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything. its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand. Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble. Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble." The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved. In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another. Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test". Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria. SPRING 1965- UCLA It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence. There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket. I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head. Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong! I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses. Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered? Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible. If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility. Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense. Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film. Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway) He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop). But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data. The list goes on. Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble. SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . . I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?) Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7. Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth. I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head. That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head. That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home. Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on. Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics. Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess. DSL 8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT Los Angeles, California with all due respect, this is an absurd statement. no - it's not. it's one thing to "set the record straight." that requires saying something JUST ONCE. look at the amount of energy you have spent trying to set PAT, not the Record, straight. if you think that's normal, then you have control issues. the record is set straight = Your Opinions differ from Pat's. straight? everybody got it? i hope my opinions are worthy of your approval when i get around to relaying them. may i run them by your before i publish them to make sure they're suitable for public consumption? you can tell me how to improve my way of thinking, too. yay. my point is that it's the constant barrage, not the setting straight of the record. what i as the newcomer here see is infighting. useless arguing that changes nothing. kinda like romper room. do you not see it?

exactly, Ron. thank you for seeing what i see. it's quite embarrassing, i think. and he feels it's his duty to "correct" Pat. THAT is my point. Oy.

WTF? It's my "job" and "responsibility" to "monitor" Pat Speer's posts (i.e., "behavior")? Why did you decide to just make up such crap out of whole cloth, Glenn? Any particular reason? Or is it just part of your growing obsession with "all things DVP", which you now wear on your sleeve on a daily basis? it was sarcasm, david. look it up. i was being sarcastic. see, Cliff was being intentionally judgemental of Pat's opinions, and i was pointing out that that is not a human's job to judge other humans. you just happen to make yourself a convenient target for jokes. most people who are able to think for themselves recognized that. of course it's not a person's job to monitor other people.

Glenn, Speer didn't resurrect this thread. I did. Personally, I have a hard time understanding what Speer is getting at because it seems that half the time he's not presenting his point of view but trying to explain his opponent's arguments. --Tommy PS I "resurrected" this thread by bumping and writing about Greg Warner's post #13 which I've copied and pasted, below: Regarding the presence of military intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, James Richards recently offered a bit of information (and this photo) that was previously unknown to me. David A. Sooy was an ONI officer stationed in Dallas. He was photographed with another ONI man named Frank Krystinic. Krystinic was close friends with Michael Paine. Sooy was in his car parked in front of the TSBD when the shots were fired, a fact which is referenced in his obituary. Just another coincidence? Edited by Greg Wagner, 22 November 2014 - 06:40 AM. Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3252"This isn't right; this isn't even wrong." ~Wolfgang Pauli Speer didn't resurrect this thread. I did. I know that. it was a joke. Personally, I have a hard time understanding what Speer is getting at because it seems that half the time he's not presenting his point of view but trying to explain his opponent's arguments. that's fine. at least you're not spending all of your energy creating confrontation as Cliff is. He clearly wants to fight, and THAT is the point i've been trying to make. I think it's pathetic, People don't even pick at DVP like this, and he INVITES it. i don't know why what i've pointed out is hard to understand. Pat might be a buffoon. i don't know. i'm just saying that this infighting that Cliff is clearly bent on is sad. and very uncomfortable. now i am outa here. i'll shop somewhere else for a while.

even if you did say something as ludicrous as that, it shouldn't matter to anyone to that extent. any adult can just ignore you. what i've tried to point out is that, unlike your opining, his is something others have to wade through, and the infighting is what about closed this forum down. i happen to think that there's a bullet that was never found in the autopsy room. i happen to think that in soft tissue like the throat there, after a trach has been performed, or even before, it's easy enough for even a doctor to mistake a wound under an emergency situation. i happen to think if your opinion gets to someone else that much, then there are other issues than the defense of a bunch of Texans. i know you didn't resurrect the thread. i was kidding with you. i also don't think you're an idiot. but what do i know.

explain to me how "Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?" doesn't require editing, but mine does?

i think i said that as well, Kathy. If you look at my last post you'll see that. in any case, the recognition is pretty obvious. thanks.

well, the thread is about the motorcade stopping, and not about a shooter, i think. but we are mostly in agreement in your particular post. Answer -- there are basically two reasons anyone participates in this kind of forum, in my opinion. one is that we all have, to one degree or another, that intense desire to at least "be there" when some, or all, of the solution is revealed; the other is the thrill of the hunt itself. I do not think that i am going to solve this thing. However, i enjoy very much the learning of things, and especially of unsolved mysteries, and esp. this one, of course, and I love talking about it. we discuss ad infinitum (that's hard to type!) the back of Kennedy's skull, and Frank Sturgis taking guns to Miami, and how useless Brennan's testimony is. we discuss the limo because we enjoy it. else we'd be in the kitchen washing dishes with the missus. does it matter? how is the question only about a lone shooter? did i miss something?

i'm not defending Pat, even though I so far respect his energy - i'm defending myself. I LIKE it here in this forum. there are some smart people, and some nice people. when i read a few months ago about how this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you, I was honestly worried, and that is when i came looking to participate. I was delighted to see that it was still alive, that an admin had posted a sticky about infighting JUST such as this, and that SOME people are not happy with it. i do not want to go to another forum where this personal affrontery is commonplace. perhaps i can suggest one, tho... so i speak my mind when i see someone clearly just picking a fight over SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL. just in case it's not clear: The witnesses do not need a hero. nothing you can say or do is going to make Pat or anyone else change their behavior to suit you. how is it that you don't know this?

7.6 mph is not "nearly stopped" to 59 people (or whatever portion did not say "stopped"). i'm considering the difference in what we see on Zapruder and what the witnesses saw, and if 7.6 is as slow as it gets, then ...

I would add that the idea of "stopped" as a linguistic term is often over-used in cases of exaggeration or hyperbole. People will say "stopped" when they mean "practically stopped." /** too late. someone else was just saying this same exact thing. who was that....??? let's see... hmmm.... OH! it was ME!!!

no, but Ruth was teaching English to Marina, and Russian (technical Russian) as was her friend, can't remember the name, to several students connected to Magnolia Labs and indirectly to the July 20th Ass. plot on Hitler - it was actually the russian community who introduced the Paines to the Oswalds. Names slip my mind, but there are others in here who can provide them. Bartholomew: Can there be any doubt that Bancroft asked, if she did not know first hand, how her close friend's son and daughter-in-law, Ruth and Michael Paine, came to know Lee Harvey Oswald? If she did, she would have learned that George de Mohrenschildt, who in 1940 worked briefly for his distant cousin, Baron Constantine Maydell, then the top German Abwehr agent in the U.S., had introduced Oswald to Volkmar Schmidt, who had lived and studied with one of the July 20 plotters. She would have learned that after talking to Oswald, Schmidt particularly wanted him to meet Michael Paine. Schmidt arranged the party where, allegedly, Oswald and Ruth Paine met. And Paine eventually got him the job in the School Book Depository. Oswald also met, at that party, a man whose father had worked for C.D. Jackson's Radio Free Europe. Jackson, along with being the man who bought the Zapruder film for Bancroft's lover Henry Luce's Life magazine, was the CIA's propaganda mastermind. What did Mary Bancroft think of all this? Did she know Michael's friend, Volkmar? Did she know Volkmar's former professor and housemate, Dr. Wilhelm Kuetemeyer? Did she know de Mohrenschildt?