Glenn Nall

there you go with your dogmatic adjectives again. conflict may be quite ubiquitous in your own self-described "intense battles," but in the civil debates and disagreements i've experienced in here and elsewhere, there WAS NO conflict, in this sense of the word. Far be it from you to understand, but other people can disagree without it getting rude and personal. i've experienced nothing but good logic and manners from every other non-CTer and alternative theoretician in here, except for you. it's easy enough to recite the definition of a word (and copy and paste it) for anyone who can read; knowing its meaning in context is what i was referring to. here's your next homework assignment: go look up "context." don't bother me with it; i already know what it means, too. just read it.

Gee, there's a surprise. An LNer in conflict with CTers. Amazing, huh? in fact it IS disappointing and none at all necessary, David. contrary to what appears to be your own experience, there do exist adults who can vehemently disagree and still avoid conflict with mature, impersonal and reasonable discussion, debate. conflict is something different. what's amazing is that this would need to be pointed out to you at your age.

as predicted, your overuse of inconsequential adjectives and adverbs weakens your argument even more than its clear lack of any factual basis.

"The conversation has to change.... CTs don't need to prove his innocence and shouldn't try. LNers need to prove guilt." this is the point that is so frequently and conveniently forgotten, it seems. the zealots have forgotten that THEY are the ones who have leveled the charge and are therefore obligated to provide the proof. instead, they continually berate the populace and demand that his innocence be proven when he is, in fact and in spirit, already and STILL innocent. this basic practice has been in place since the beginning of the written language. for a reason.

it's not even ironic that as enters DVP the thread, so enters conflict. it's more a given, really... and on a lighter note: "...might have taken no notice at all of the smaller stamped date of [...] Or perhaps the FBI just didn't know what the [...]. So they just decided to go with the March 20 date as the "order date", even though that was really the "Shipping Date"." are you serious? is that really your conception of how the Federal Bureau of Information operates, even in 1963? really?

ha! very good... glad to see someone else attempting a little levity in here...

i was just reading today in Yankee Cowboy how Chief Justice Warren, who had an otherwise impeccable record, MIGHT have been hiding the truth for this reason. His lengthy meeting with Johnson may have been all about how the Reds did it and letting that cat out of the bag was the first step to nuclear war. an interesting supposition. Oglesby doesn't claim that this is what happened, only that this might explain Warren's actions. in another thread someone describes his picture of this thing as an hourglass, with powerful entities on either end, mostly unknowing of each other, and a group of "pawns" in the waist, not knowing exactly who or what they're working for. this kind of works for me, and the idea of Warren being one of those in the middle, just going on what he's been told by "the president" might be pretty plausible. at my age, just having missed the nuclear, communist patriotism/anti-patriotism, it took me a while to understand how patriotism could explain such bold deceit - i understand it more now when you guys discuss it. i also understand it more at my age because of the passion my patriotism incurs within myself. There are lots of things i'd do for my country that i would not have once before. i cannot place Hoover in that category. I think his hypocrisy and ego spoke clearly enough to remove him far from any sacrifice for any other cause but his own.

see, this is what was throwing me: 6.5 mm = .2559" 6.65mm = .2618" the numbers both grow in the same direction - UP. when i saw "6.5mm rifles shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, while the Carcano shoots a bullet .268" What i saw was 6.5mm = .264" or = .268" which are both HIGHER than .2618" because the 6.5 designation you refer to is the bore width and the bullet is actually the groove width (6.8 in this case). and 6.65 refers to "who knows" since it complies with neither land nor groove in a 6.5mm Carcano rifle (happens to be right in the middle, doesn't it). out of curiosity, is it that the MC grooves are deeper than other 6.5's since the bullets are 2 different sizes?

How far that extends into post-Military life, I don't know that's pretty much what i'm saying. the irony is, by them saying that they're under strict orders to say nothing of the events fairly well implies sneakiness, cover-up when that's what was being asked about. so they were spared from sharing the details, but by pleading secrecy they admitted something. i agree with what you've said here, mostly. my original question was simply of the validity of the phrase "Military orders," and in reality how far that extends and not all the extraneous stuff. i think being afraid to talk for fear of repercussion or being loath to talk in the interest of letting sleeping dogs lie, or whatever their reasoning, is a LOT different than what a phrase like "military orders" implies. and by wearing out this little subtopic i now sound like i'm splitting hairs. never mind. it was just my little ol' useless input.

right - they're what's known as Divigmentary (or Smart) Bullets (ask DVP about them) - they're designed to Divide precisely at the moment of impact of any human skull, pretty much cleanly down the middle, at which point the right half (or the bottom half, depending on how fast the bullet is spinning) continues along its path to immediately fragment into a state of complete disintegration doing minimal damage and requiring no exit - the other half is designed to absorb ~ 92.3% of the energy of the impact and delay its response just long enough to reverse its path and THEN fragment, creating a verifiably ugly exit wound very near to its own entrance. Its purpose is to create havoc among paranoid, conspiracy driven maniacs causing decades of divisiveness within the ranks, as well as to assist the shootist with enough theoretic ambiguity to avoid a criminal conviction. it does not always work.

i think what i'm asking is, if 6.5mm converts to .268 inches ("6.5mm rifles shoot a bullet .264" in diameter, while the Carcano shoots a bullet .268"), how does a larger metric number, 6.65mm, convert to a smaller standard measurement, .2618 inches ("However, 6.65 mm works out to .2618")...?

isn't that really odd... i find it hard to believe that that is where he thinks he saw the large wound, or even where he meant to draw it. i remember seeing that particular pic once before and thought in passing that it's just some odd mistake by some small player. didn't know that was Kellerman's. it's easy enough to understand some ambiguity about the general area of the left of the ear, etc, with all the malleable skull pieces and blood and mess - but not to that extent. to the point of this thread, tho - there is clearly an agreement on a) a low entrance wound, and a different, larger wound in the rear. of course.

that's all well and good - i can't speak for how he thinks or even sounds, as i have read very little of his testimony - it does seem to me that the gravity of this particular situation - a cover up of some kind of the death of the POTUS - if he were to have witnessed something 'questionable', would override any loyalties to any agency. I was speaking strictly to the phrase, idea of "Military orders" and how wide a circle that might cast. i don't think anybody of any substance relishes the idea of contradicting the federal government even if it's to expose a corruption at that level. i don't think there's any "great, i get to" tell the government that i know the army is lying about the autopsy. I'd think of it more as a duty to the philosophy of truth and honor, and patriotism. quite uncomfortable, but necessary - which would be felt by both the loyal and the not-so-loyal. i can see how he can feel a distrust for Congressional Committees - but my concern is simply the idea of whatever "Military orders" might mean. there's a tendency among some of us to over dramatize things, to cloak-and-dagger things that just don't wear it well. I'm not at all saying that that's what I think you've done. just saying i've never heard the term in any official capacity, (or unofficial, really), and don't think that there is such a thing outside of the 'inner-sanctum'. no offense. just my little ol' thoughts. at least you reply to my replies. and questions.

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. Be my guest----but many historians have made similar comments. of course; i just liked your wording. thanks

i've seen Mr Truly's name mentioned in a curious way a few times - THE GUN THAT DIDN'T SMOKE piece states that a Mauser was seen in his possession two days before the shooting; Bartholomew also suggests some significance in the floors of the TSBD being "redone" during the months of October and the first of November, up to the 5th floor, curiously enough, and suggests that as Mr Truly was more of a building manager than a company manager he would have worked more directly for DH Byrd... just some suspicious points... is there any reason to wonder if he was in collusion with someone at some level...?

oh - right. a diameter is a diameter, perfect circle or not.

Also being a vet, don't the powers that be control his pension and other benefits? Well, that's right Ray. Yet even more pressing, people with high security clearances are never really free from them, IMHO, no matter how old they get. Military secrets are forever -- until formally released in writing. Notice the first question that Lipsey asked his HSCA interviewer -- 'Am I free from that contract I signed back then?' The HSCA interviewer had no clear answer to that question; he only replied, 'Consult your own attorney.' If that was the response to me, I would quickly conclude, "Nope, I guess I'm not free from it." At that point, if it were me, I'd start at the beginning with the Pre-Fab story we worked out as a team. Regards, --Paul Trejo I was Naval Aviation and had a Secret clearance - but that's not nearly as special as some may presume. many had a Secret clearance. when I said "except in intelligence matters" that's kinda what i meant, that obviously there are some resigned, retired Intel types who are "never really resigned" - but i have to disagree with a few of those points. one, the powers that control our pensions are not of a particular branch of the military, i'm pretty sure. so for the Army to issue 'military orders' in my opinion is far removed from those who could cause pension and benefit problems - AND, if those people were so inclined, it's not as easy as it might sound to "eff" with a man's pension. i can think of several old veterans in VA hospitals getting their benefits messed up and the news channels being all over it. xxxx like that gets attention. if it were the case that talking too much would likely get some people dead even today, i'd have to say that there are several ex-CIA types (and others) who could be considered very curiously still alive, in light of things they've said (i'm thinking of the pilot who used to frequent this forum and the things he's publicized regarding his old flying habits). In MY honest opinion, retribution isn't as easy as it used to be. I agree, 'Consult your own attorney' sounds pretty fishy, and I'd have thought the same thing if it were me he was saying it to. But in all fairness, he could have just been giving the pro forma response to such a question. I'm not sure why the HSCA would even know if Lipsey was released from a Military order. I think Prouty and people like him were obviously still under a military thumb. but not so many people as to get as low as Lipsey. The destruction of our US Constitution is mostly limited to the US Supreme court and their gavels - they get jealous and ornery if the lowly Army Generals try their hand at it.

Robert, please explain? am i having some math issues? 6.5mm = .268" & 6.65mm (bigger) = .2618" (smaller) ?

I believe the entire Alba situation was used to suggest the sling was made for Oswald as opposed to provided and atached to the rifle by whoever it was that left it on the 6th floor. I'd suggest that either no sling was sent and this other thing was used - some say it looks like a rope, I think it may be the cloth standard sling that Klein's says they send with rifles tha do not request a specific sling.... Point remain.. The BYPs are composites... the black clothing seen in the image was never found in Oswald's possessions... I've seen the original, as have a few people who do the looking. While Roscoe White may have helped create the final product, I do not think it is he in the photo... there are other names to consider - but since the sources are unconfirmed I'll just leave it at that. THAT rifle - I do believe I am in the process of proving via this essay I'm trying to finish - was never at Klein's along with the other 100 rifles in that shipment. In fact, there is not one shred of evidence which support that Klein's ever shipped or had in inventory these rilfes... only that 10 of 520 packing slips - one of which with C2766 listed - were used to create the evidence that Klein's rec'd that shipment. I will prove otherwise. It's called "closed loop evidence" . As long as the evidence corroborates itself it can be believed. If it does not corroborate with any other process or order of shipment received (or that info is never offered to corroborate) we have a tautological presentation of evidence... Slip #3620 with carton #3376 = Feb shipment = VC document = Blank Order = Hidell = Oswald Except the only shipment related by the man who originally offered the slips is to June 1962 not Feb 1963. And as much as DVP and other LNers cannot fathom it, each and every item in Evidence IS the conspiracy, NOT the investigation of the event... except for JFK's shirt and JAcket - there is no way to spin that to incriminate Oswald. you have piqued my interest with this essay you're working on. i'm eager to see it. (and I don't think that "fathoming" is their specialty.)

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.

many times when i'm contemplating the thought of just exactly who is "in on it" i get stuck thinking that "there's just no way" that number of people could all be in collusion, yet realizing that it sure seems that way. this model of yours really does make some sense in that respect. it might be an effective way of filling in some gaps and remaining realistic. i can see how it coould make the placement of certain people less tedious. i like this idea, as a new approach, at least, for now.

I'm not sure I understand your comment. LBJ was famous for his people skills -- which involved cajoling, reasoning, pressuring, and threatening in various measures to accomplish his purposes. However, let me be clear about what I meant: 1. For his entire adult life, Walker functioned in a top-down authoritarian environment. In other words, his people skills were limited to giving orders to subordinates whom operated in a clear hierarchical system with explicit (and often severe) penalties for disobedience. 2. When somebody contemplates planning, organizing, and facilitating a complex crime (particularly one that requires the acquiescence and support and participation of numerous individuals in a non-hierarchical system --- i.e. where everyone has their own opinions and judgments about what should be done and on what schedule and whom should be given specific responsibilities) --- that requires an entirely different set of people skills. The temperament required to assure the success of the proposed objective is much different because so many different stakeholders are involved and they all have egos which must be taken into account. 3. My point about Walker is that he was not accustomed to using normal people skills - i.e. instead he was used to merely giving orders and having them obeyed. That is probably why (in 1959) he was attracted to, and joined, the John Birch Society because Robert Welch explicitly created it as "a monolithic body" to eliminate what he contemptuously described as follows: "A republican form of government or of organization has many attractions and advantages under certain favorable conditions. But under less happy circumstances it lends itself too readily to infiltration, distortion, and disruption." Because, (according to Welch), the "certain favorable conditions" were NOT in existence in December 1958 when the JBS came into existence, he proposed to create the JBS as a "monolithic" organization which "will operate under completely authoritative control at all levels" -- because, again quoting Welch, "democracy, of course, in government or organization, as the Greeks and Romans both found out, as I believe every man in this room clearly recognizes -- democracy is merely a deceptive phrase, a weapon of demagoguery and a perennial fraud." Welch also explained how he would eliminate "parliamentary procedures" and what he described as the "two-sides-to-every question" problem. It is this contempt for democratic processes which also explains why, in 1965, Walker assisted in the formation of the American Royal Rangers (Bossier City LA). The Rangers group was designed to take the place of the Klan and it was to be organized along military lines. Members were going to wear uniforms and be assigned ranks. Walker was to become a "five star general having jurisdiction over the entire organization" but he wanted to "remain in the background". So, again, you see Walker's pre-disposition for authoritarian top-down decision making where HE gave orders and subordinates obeyed them. "LBJ was famous for his people skills -- which involved cajoling, reasoning, pressuring, and threatening in various measures to accomplish his purposes." that's all I meant. I meant to be more clear at the end when i said that i was really just enjoying the phrase. the phrase "people skills" to me implies more of a Dale Carnegie talent - which is why i made fun of the fact that LBJ's were more of an aggressive, threatening or purchasing assortment. i didn't mean to disagree at all. i agreed with what you said. just liked the refreshing way you said it. sorry. not necessary to explain...

As well, it sounds to me Kellerman puts the entry in the same place: Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Specter had clarified earlier that he was referring to the right side of center of the REAR of his head, not the right of the SIDE of his head, which I initially thought. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. Mr. SPECTER. All right. Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. It's interesting to me that FORD tries to imply (maybe not intentionally, maybe so) more above the ear than back of it, to which Kellerman corrects "to the left of the ear, and a little high" - which i think is significantly different in describing the placement of the wound, and is a significant difference in the placement itself. this is why i changed my mind to take Specter to mean the center of the rear of his head instead of center of the right side view. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed. Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. as much as i'm convinced that Kellerman described an entry wound below the gaping wound, and that the gaping wound was more to the left of the ear than above the ear, and emphatically in the hairline, i can only assume that Kellerman didn't notice or hear the word "right" as Specter attempted to redirect the placement - or something - sinnce there IS NO hairline to the right lower third of the ear. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent? Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below. Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below. thought this was interesting, too: Mr. KELLERMAN. That is three. The fourth one I will have to collaborate with--the medical people in Dallas said that he had entry in the throat or an exit. Mr. SPECTER. Now, you are indicating a part on the throat right underneath your tie as you sit there, the knot of your tie. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Who told you that? Mr. KELLERMAN. This comes from a report from Dr. Kemp Clark. Mr. SPECTER. Did you talk to Dr. Clark personally? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did not. This is a written report. underneath the knot of his tie...? really?

"The people skills ... required to ... facilitate ... the assassination of the President of the United States." while i agree with you that Walker "didn't do it," I have to admit I haven't thought of it in those terms before... i do, however, think that it's very likely that LBJ was one of "them," and i surely don't see his people skills helping him much, either. i realize my editing the sentence blows the context - i was just really enjoying that phrase...

"under Military Orders" ... while i agree with most everything you said, in all sincerity, what could that possibly mean to someone who is no longer in the military? except in intelligence matters, i would presume - the military has no further jurisdiction over any veteran who has resigned or retired, i'm fairly sure. just wonderin'... (bein' a veteran and all...)