Glenn Nall

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway. yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David? Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job. you missed it and you know it.

if it could very well be wrong, then why did you use it to correct Thomas? his simple claim was that O weighed 131-132 lbs. you argued that he was shown to weigh ~150, which, since you've been proven to be wrong, you say "it's just an estimate" - yet it was good enough for you to tell Thomas he was wrong. Now that you're put in the corner, DVP said "that figure could very well be wrong" - but when you wanted to show Thomas that he was wrong, it was quite good enough for you: DVP said: "And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs." very good.

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David. Which do you prefer? Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door. To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter." --Tommy I've read a lot regarding eyewitness testimony, Tommy, and there's nothing to your contention Baker would be less likely to misjudge a man's size than a non-police officer. Motorcycle cops are not "trained" to guess people's weight anymore than bank tellers or grease monkeys. Are cops trained (or at least encouraged) to be good observers, Pat? Do they have to write lots of reports about the people they have to deal with in criminal situations? Aren't they expected to describe these people accurately in their reports? Are you aware of your own height and weight? When you meet someone who is significantly lighter or heavier than you, do you take notice, Pat? If so, don't you think that Baker, looking for the sniper about a minute-and-a-half after the final shot would have been even more likely than you or I to take note of the fact that the "Oswald" he allegedly confronted in the second-floor lunch room was really only a puny 131-ish lbs? Do you think you would have described the 5'9" - 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald as weighing "about 165 pounds" if you had confronted him like Baker claimed he'd encountered him on 11/22/63? --Tommy I don't think there's a person on this forum who could be relied upon in such a situation. Baker was running into a dangerous situation. When you're racing towards a possible gunman, you don't stop to make notes on the size and shape of every person you pass along the way. Sure, you might remember there was a fat lady on the sidewalk blocking your way, but you would be unlikely to remember her height, etc. In Baker's case, he remembered he came across someone in the building whom Truly said was okay, who was about Oswald's height, but failed to accurately remember, at least at first, where he saw him, and whether he was of average build or skinny. He was probably wrong about his shirt, as well. This isn't remotely surprising. It's a cliche, but it bears repeating. People are not camcorders. yes, i agree - eye witness accounts are notoriously inaccurate, law enforcement or not - esp when entering a possibly armed situation. eye witness testimony in court is most often where cases fall apart these days, as far as evidentiary value goes - just look at the number of witnesses to the murder itself and how far any of that has gotten anyone, WC or Realists. Marion Baker's not to blame for any misidentification, nor is Brennan, in my eyes. i'd say that was a pretty hectic half hour or so. I've never heard that particular cliche, but it works for me.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway. yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David?

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence? i think the question was "when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department? Wasn't this the first time he'd been "booked" at the DPD?" not "as part of what procedure do you think Oswald was measured"... nothing to do with whether or not Marion Baker saw someone else, or about CTers' desperation (although I do agree to your qualifications in this arena). the question was about Oswald's weight, since that's what you argued in the previous post - you can tell by what's at the end of the post: How many members think Oswald weighed closer to 131 pounds than 150 pounds on 11/22/63? I say he weighed much closer to 131. Like spot on. Please see my new thread: "How Much Do You Think Oswald Weighed On 11/22/63?" which is why my inquiring mind wants to know - are you asserting that he gained ~19 lbs between the time he was weighed by DPD and the time his weight was estimated at autopsy? no need to dodge. what's your answer?

in my 54 years of existence, in three colleges, in the US Navy, in Manhattan and LA, and Italy, in Macon, GA, in cyber technology - I'm quite sure I've never met a man or woman who's wrong less than you are, David.

yes, it seems to me that his rifle would be depicted in more of a Russian Red, maybe... or a Fascist Fucsia ... oh wait - i get it - "Pinko" Commie F** like Archie pointed out. That's why you chose pink...? cool. i hope you know i was kidding.

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence? if you're puzzled by those figures, then why were you so quick to say that Thomas was a bit mixed up? i had asked, "are you trying to say he gained 19 lbs since he gave those fingerprints and then died...?" (which was ignored) and by that was saying the same things that Thomas declared - it seems more likely that LHO was closer to 131 lbs than to 150. you're quick to point out others' apparent errors even when you're puzzled by the material you use to do so. very solid technique there, D.

so, D., you're trying to say he gained 19 lbs since he gave those fingerprints and then died...? i wanna hear how that happened. (if i gotta gain 20 lbs when I die then i KNOW i don't want to!)

the main problem i have with this illustration is that you made Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano rifle that he purchased with his own hard-earned money from toting heavy school books pink.

pretty hard to misread that, isn't it. sounds to me like Clint knows what he saw and didn't let the specter of Mr Specter intimidate him into softening his testimony. Kellerman also described brain and body matter flying upward toward the two men and the windshield, it being all over his coat - and pieces of bullet on the right floorboard. so not only do we not see Ks missing rear skull in Zapruder, we don't see any cloud or mist of brain and bone and blood lasting long enough to reach the windshield. looking at the back of Ks head in the autopsy "photos" (Fox?) i can see what looks like dry hair below the patch of wet scalp and i've always thought that that was a patch or flap lain over the hole, differentiated from the attached, dry lower portion of his hairline. oi thought this before i read Humes testimony. i think the placement of a gaping wound is a given amongst the realists (us). and the techniques used to present this deceit, whether film editing or the manipulation of the body, isn't really important to me except as how it would lead to the bigger answer. few real CTers argue the integrity (the lack of) of the WC's findings. I guess their motives are still up in the air to some (me). who snowed who back then... sure was a lot of snowing going on between DC and Dallas and Cuba back then, wasn't there...

i'm always glad to see something contemporary, Gayle, and I take everything I come across at face value, considering the source where possible. I'd like to think that any reasonable person would take it item by item. no one WANTS the stuff to be tainted. but caution is necessary.

there's no inbetween with him - a person is either accurate or they're a l-i-a-r. this is why using reason with him is pointless.

forgive me (or not), but you're using DVP logic - just because i assign a value to the shell casings in no way goes to show i, and all other CTers, assign value to all data points. it goes to show that i assign a value to the shell casings. that's it. assuming i'm telling the truth, that is. and you spoke of a value being assigned to Brennan, and i assigned value to the shell casings. i haven't even considered Brennan enough to assign a value or not. haven't read his testimony, haven't read much of others' comments on him. so i haven't really gotten as far as giving him a 0. (does that make him a negative value...?) my point is that there are a great number of things to which many CTers assign no value, realistically (like the Oswald look-alike in the blue rambler seen by the mechanic - that doesn't even get a second look from me, so i guess that's a 0), and it is that when I do, going on my experiences here, then mine range from realistic to cautiously low. so i don't know about this stereotypical "CTers do too" ---

a) i take umbrage to "CT-ers do the same thing," especially in the context of being compared to DVPs tendency to do so. ALL CTers do not mis-assign values, and not nearly to the extent that he does (few do). And those who do to any great extent are soon ignored by their own, as well as the dark siders. ALL cannot be spoken for to begin with. you're welcome to qualify that with "some" or "many" or "most," but CT-ers do the same thing is incorrect. yep, most of us assign a 0 to Brennan's claim - the main reason is because we can afford to; there is an ocean of other more valuable evidence with which we can work. Not so with SBTers. They cannot afford to scoot aside such potentially valuable evidence, because they have so little to turn to. It's vital to them to overemphasise the empty casings and the rifle and LHO's dodgy behaviour because they need a lot of points. They are in a point deficit. I was waiting for you to break open some good old fashioned AND Gate and OR Gate stuff - i tend to view it, too, in a 1s or 0s fashion (if else statements) which is known as - wait for it - logic. It works better though for me when I have to go with "if this" then "probably that" or "definitely that" and "unlikely that" instead of just "if this" then "that"; which takes it all back around to your value system, the need to assign varying values... On a 1 - 100 scale, i give the empty casings on the 6th about a 15, whereas DVP seems to give them about a 90. 95... 98... i guess. and the more i read about the circumstances on that floor, the way the Detectives mishandled things, the way LHO's whereabouts are MORE THAN questionable, the more my value assignation to these casings changes. It becomes quite a complex circuit board when you keep adding variables. and as far as the thread goes, it's my opinion that DVP simply does so on purpose. i think his own personal JFK ass. philosophy is mostly secondary to his intent to keep others from theirs. it reminds me of some toddlers i've known.

I thought so, too, once. I said, "Hey Mom, maybe we can convert Santa to Judaism so he can come see us. too!" and she said, "Honey, that kinda sh** runs much deeper than you think. You have no idea what you ask." and I took that to mean that Santa was CIA, too, and all this making a list and checking it twice meant a lot more than who gets coal in their stockings and from then on - oh, hell, it was a long childhood...

in one of the doctor's testimonies to WC, Humes, i think, he describes the flap as being held "forward toward the scalp" even while he was describing the gaping rear wound, and it sounded very much to me like he was saying that this flap was large enough to have covered that wound - he admitted that the finger in the other rear head pic was his and said that the flap would have fallen away if not held in place - i'm under the impression that the wound is being "hidden" perhaps by the flap AND by not releasing existing pictures of the wound with the flap out of the way. easy deceit by negligence, instead of even having to "doctor" the photos. or perhaps a combination of both. both the WC interviewer and Humes points out the small, white piece at the hairline (more visible in the other pic of Ks head and somewhat visible in this one) and both wondered what it was, as part of a wound (i think Humes said he'd worried about that little piece for part of the day or something) or not. Kellerman also describes the wound in the same place, of course (as do many others) along with the second entrance wound, finger's width in diameter. which goes to distinctly separate the two wounds in size and location. and then in another similar angle they point out an obvious entrance hole right in the calic there, which doesn't sound to me to be in the area Kellerman described, and doesn't seem to be visible here. am i misremembering this "entrance hole?"

ah - right - silly me (our Fox affiliate in Atlanta is Fox 5, so that's what jumped to the forebrain first).

"the above" ... i'm not sure what that refers to as it relates to this thread... if Davey says it didn't happen then the premise is that it did? what happened? in any case, I'd love to see this is that you've submitted which demonstrates that it did. whatever it is.

'FOX 5?" autopsy photo? since when have they claimed such a discovery...?

which is funny, because even some of the WCers disagreed with their own report eventually. so which is it? were they right and then they were wrong? and as far as numbers go - the millions who think SBT are STILL a minority, while you're comparing. and getting smaller. so put your numbers to the test before you try to make them work for you.

well put, Brian. that's not offensive, it's just what people tend to do. like old doctors who are loath to take on new medicine, wizened researchers can get past their prime, i think. DVP, on the other hand, is salt LOOKING for an open wound anywhere he can find one, and is not unwilling in creating some where he can. /////////////////////////// he called us "swine". as in "swine filled". that's personal, a sign when someone knows he's beat in a debate. that's effin' tacky, Davey.

i owe DVP some thanks, by proxy of course, for making me study up on some of my old education - more solidify my positions on some things, and remember some others. Ad Hoc hypotheses - rules of reasonable doubt - i reread Critical Thinking, about the many forms of fallacial argument, and saw DVP in so many of the case studies. the man is a walking study in ad hoc, ad populum,appeal to authority, appeal to tradition, causal irrationality. "An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality--but it is not what people and organizations want." -- Daniel Kahneman (this man wrote Thinking Fast and Slow, and is a Nobel Prize winner in economics, and as such has spent his whole life studying the way people think - one amazing book about how we think - and he's a man D. would steer well clear of...) DVP has only as much power to divert as he is given. I engage him very minimally, at best, and encourage others to do the same. when the kids don't pick the runt for kickball team, the runt quits showing up. and when a kid does pick him, the other kids wonder...

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that! Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly. Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery. Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon? For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan? Thank you so much, Jon. In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963. There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come. ------------- "Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961 "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com you are not "reasonable" enough to be a patsy. don't flatter yourself.

Your butt on a platter, DVP, and handed to you. *SNICKER* I'm just trying to get him to reconcile two simple statements - just the fact that he SAID they don't need Brennan - so why cite him so often...? he can't even admit to this contradiction. *** DVP is noticeably absent from the thread by now ***