Glenn Nall

Nixon spoke publicly about a secret plan to end the Viet Nam War in 1968, during the presidential contest.

In the 1968 election, Americans chose between two old-line politicians: Nixon, a re-tread in some respects but still a good campaigner, and Humphrey, a VP tied to Johnson.

It was hardly a choice. In some respects. Americans chose Nixon over Humphrey (i.e., the Johnson surrogate).

that's right - he gets credit for "ending the war." but is it really that "they" allowed the war to come to an end...? just a question...

yeah, Bartholomew speaks of his post-military activities - he's described as having animosity for not being given "Nam"...

due respect, Brian, but retirement from the Army can actually mean more freedom to counteract, not less interest in it... but i'm "just sayin'" - my jury's out on Lansdale's guilt or lack of it. i know he didn't hang out with a circle of boy scouts.

Autopsy materials? What autopsy materials? Besides no W.C. member or staff member was competent to judge autopsy materials.

The fact is, the Warren Commission members did not want the public to see the autopsy materials.

The argument at the time is that individuals would have exploited them for profit in a disrespectful way.

Against which the cry was never trumpeted: Facts can't be exploited for profit in a disrespectful way. They can be exploited sometimes. But never in a disrespectful way.

with all due respect, i disagree with so much of that i'm not going to bother...

the Martin Schotz philosophy is all well and good, but it's a smoke screen while it describes a smoke screen. I'll not STOP debating the mystery because some people fall prey the smoke screen.

the best i can do is AVOID debate with idi--- with people who purposely confuse and muddy this water. The mystery exists, a solution exists, and it will not be found without dialog.

the division is the mature dialog versus the malignant dialog.

Glenn, there's certainly nothing wrong with your philosophy, most of the discussion on this forum (and most forums) deal with 'what if' or 'yes, but' . As polls show, most people, I think about 85% accept that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Probably half think LHO might have been involved. Most people now recognize what the Warren Report actually is. It is a guidebook of talking points to mislead, for the Lone Nutters. It is clear that the objective was to convince as many as possible, that there was no conspiracy. Everything that points to conspiracy is not included in the Report. I, and you, and, I assume, most theorists wonder how Nutters can continue to argue the points they do when they obviously know that no one is buying what they're pushing. There is not one sane person in the world that believes that Brennan actually saw what he said he saw that day, including Brennan. Yet the Nutters will argue it forever. There are many other points that are completely impossible but it doesn't slow the nutters.

The tactic seems to be to bog everyone down in minute details about things that don't matter. My example of that is; all the discussion about the shots from the sniper's nest, how much space he had, how many shots were fired, the empty shells, the rifle, the lunch bag, the finger prints, etc, etc. A total waste of time. First, there is absolutely no evidence that any shots were fired from that spot, there is no evidence that LHO was ever at that spot, and there certainly is no evidence that a Manlicher Carcano rifle was fired on that day. I think all discussion about the snipers nest should be put on hold until it has been proven that a shot was fired from there. But, of course, that's not gonna happen because CTer's allow themselves to be distracted.

Yes, i feel the same way - i watched that particular thread go on and on and on, and it was a thread that I started about that damn camera on 6 and wondered when I did it if it would get any replies at all. little did i know...

I was amazed that the thing went the direction it did, and stayed there, in an entirely useless and frustrating spin. i'm too new to really have said something - but i wasn't going to stay stuck to this guy who has such an obvious agenda to irritate and antagonize and "bog down." no offense to my friends in here, but this guy is a complete waste of time and surely needs to be ignored. the most mundane and fundamental rationale has been offered him and he still persists in pretending he doesn't understand.

Mr Finley's explanation doesn't work for me, i don't think. i just read SA Roy Kellerman's description of the head wounds to the WC, and the location of the large opening was very clear and precise; as well, the descriptions by these same doctors placed the large wound in the same spot. we all know this. It doesn't seem to me that the drawings I've seen depicted the wounds that Kellerman or these doctors described.

has time proven the drawings damaging to the WR? i don't think so. to me they seem to be just ambiguous drawings with varying ambiguous interpretations, nothing people turn to in defense of any theory - they just turn to the words of the witnesses themselves. right?

as well, the statement that the WC would act to prevent actual photos from damning their case is an awfully irresponsible assertion. If the Warren Commission is guilty of more than just allowing itself to be fed Bullxxxx, and is guilty of conspiracy, it would not have been the entire Warren Commission - it would have been certain members of the Warren Commission - Ford, Dulles, Specter - and at that, having to work around the others. I don't doubt the likelihood of these men's complicity, but to have been so complicit would require some real juggling of evidence. The odds of the entire group of men and investigators being "involved" are highly against, in my opinion.

If I were to want to sound convincing, I think I'd choose my words more carefully.

i was so very grateful that they posted the transcript along with the video, so i didn't actually have to HEAR the woman's voice, but this is what Rachel Maddow has recently stated (she's such an effin' genius):

MADDOW: Hundreds of thousands of American troops for years and years and years... LBJ didn't want a war in Vietnam. He campaigned against it and said it was a terrible idea. But once he was president... Nixon said he had a 'secret plan' to end the war. He didn't have a secret plan... It started in the 50s and it didn't end until the 70s, and even then it was lost...

she's truly amazing...

one of the reasons I'm guilty (and others) of jumping to conclusions on this is the quickness with which 273 was presented. I'm not schooled enough to know that Bundy was the driver, but it clearly came from inside as it happened so fast.

It's crucial for me to remember that there are SO many moving parts up there and just because we see one move doesn't mean it wasn't "moved"... this machinery is what appears to be something that eventually takes us back outside of the white house, to other places...

Glenn: i'll read your review (i'll read the book one day, but there's a line...) - that's how i first saw your name before, a review you wrote of some quack who had at first gained my trust - i thought, "who's this jerk DiEugenio, being so hateful to this guy..." but soon learned you were right, i think. something made me think you were an SBTer, but learned differently.

Oh no. But see, at CTKA we are as hard on the pro conspiracy books as we are on the anti-conspiracy ones. I mean just read my current review of Prof. Souza's book, or especially my work on Waldron and Hartmann. You don't get a pass just because you don't buy the WC baloney. That's not good enough. Especially today after the ARRB declassification process.

as well you should be. WC bs is worse for the cause than LN bs, by far. if a CTer is legitimate, he or she should demand research and publication be as integrous as it can be. the "bad guys" don't need more fodder and ammo. they create enough of their own.

we only hurt ourselves with shoddy work and theory. it's amazing that this even needs to be pointed out, but it does.

so i can assume that what's stricken through in 263 is what was actually in 263 and was changed in 273? even though it's stricken, it's the original wording?

and even though Lansdale wasn't given his life's desire to "run" viet nam, isn't it safe to say he would have been a mover in this thing before hand?

Glenn: Here is the clip

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/11/maddow_iraq_mission_creep_an_eerie_echo_of_vietnam.html

It actually was not bad. She is perhaps the first MSM TV host to say that Kennedy would not have expanded the war and his murder allowed LBJ and Nixon to do so.

She also mentions Gordon Goldstein's fine book, Lessons in Disaster. Which is an important book concerning how LBJ turned around Kennedy's policies in Vietnam.

If you don't want to read the book, read my review of it: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/virtual_jfk_3.html

Bundy admitted here that he was wrong and JFK was right about Vietnam. And it was not until later that he saw how misguided LBJ was and then resigned.

Is your quote from her of a different show at a different time?

no, that quote was just below the video you sent me in the typed transcript. i'd come across the same webpage (realclearpolitics) an hour ago, looking for something else.

i'll read your review (i'll read the book one day, but there's a line...) - that's how i first saw your name before, a review you wrote of some quack who had at first gained my trust - i thought, "who's this jerk DiEugenio, being so hateful to this guy..." but soon learned you were right, i think. something made me think you were an SBTer, but learned differently.

i like discovering more obscure books, ones that are not so mainstream. easier to tell right off whether they're FOS or not, usually. and they're usually not tempted to follow the crowd's thinking.

peace out

actually, that's a great point - i didn't think of it in those terms. the MSM have been such knee-biting Fed-humpers nary a one would admit to anything resembling conspiracy; that Maddow did is pretty newsworthy, in reality. maybe if another does so in the next decade we could call it a trend. a "movement," like Arlo incited...

really, that's an important thing.

the fact remains, i'll have nothing to do with any moving pictures of the b***** in my vicinity, much less the sound of her voice.

You may wish to look a little more closely to the author of NSAM 273 - McGeorge Bundy...

This was the man representing the "Sponsors" on the inside and he pushed harder than anyone for this war...

LBJ, like Nixon, was a pawn. If he had been doing what he was supposed to, he would have been assured a 2nd Term. I think the man was simply out of his class when he got what he wanted - the seat in the Oval - and realized he would never be in as much control as he had as Senate Majority leader... that and the Bush's, Harriman, Brown, Root and gang wanted their man Nixon in 1968.

The way was most assuredly cleared for him... Thane Eugene Cesar nods in agreement...

and Lansdale...?

yes, i can see this... i wonder who's actually NOT out of their class once arriving, to be honest.

it's one thing for us - me - to hear and agree to the idea that the Pres is just a pawn; it's another to find and understand the particulars, the mechanics, the players - sounds like you've got a bit of a grasp of it.

after reading a great 'new' book on the Bay Of Pigs released 2012 and seeing GHWBush's name attached i began accepting that Bush is a player throughout.

Still. LBJ was such a POS. it's hard not to want to blame him for stuff.

i was so very grateful that they posted the transcript along with the video, so i didn't actually have to HEAR the woman's voice, but this is what Rachel Maddow has recently stated (she's such an effin' genius):

MADDOW: Hundreds of thousands of American troops for years and years and years... LBJ didn't want a war in Vietnam. He campaigned against it and said it was a terrible idea. But once he was president... Nixon said he had a 'secret plan' to end the war. He didn't have a secret plan... It started in the 50s and it didn't end until the 70s, and even then it was lost...

she's truly amazing...

the Martin Schotz philosophy is all well and good, but it's a smoke screen while it describes a smoke screen. I'll not STOP debating the mystery because some people fall prey the smoke screen.

the best i can do is AVOID debate with idi--- with people who purposely confuse and muddy this water. The mystery exists, a solution exists, and it will not be found without dialog.

the division is the mature dialog versus the malignant dialog.

RIGHT! i forgot about that. I just got to that late last night before i had to sleep. I hope to follow that out a little bit -

i remember reading about Oltmans' project years ago, hoping to follow up on whatever he ended up publishing, but haven't until now. Don't know what happened with him or his work since dM died. Has Oltman died? Forgive my ignorance, and if DVP says a single word about my not knowing this, I will personally move to Indiana and...

And this is Davey's fatal problem as a writer. HIs acceptance of the official record as sacred.

In Ian Griggs' book, No Case to Answer, which I wager Davey has never heard of let alone read, he goes after Brennan in a very original way.

Griggs was a former British detective, and he studied the line ups meticulously. In fact I have never seen anyone do as thorough a job on these line ups as Ian did. (See pages 85-90)

Now, the WC says Brennan was at a line up. Yet he could not even recall how many men were in the one he watched! I kid you not. He said there were 6 or 7. Not true. There were four.

He was then asked if there were any black men in the line up. He said he did not remember if there were any. Now, recall, this is Texas in 1963. And Kennedy has made a big move in civil rights and riots etc all over the TV box at night.

Griggs now goes through all the sources where Brennan should be named as watching a line up:

CE 2003 details the line ups and the witness, no mention of Brennan

Raw notes of DPD on the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Affidavits of police officers who supervised the line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Testimony of witnesses to line ups. No mention of Brennan.

Some witness eh? The invisible man.

he's a writer? of what? (and do NOT say "websites")

in my attempts to keep it simple with D., i'm centering on the contradiction w/

"Well we don' t need Brennan in our case."

and

"Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin...?"

in my tendency to do myself the usual disservice, I have this inner fantasy that he will be able to somehow reconcile these. Alas, I'll never learn...

But I'm proud of myself in not addressing him directly. Very often. Hey, it's progress, not perfection...

I'm surprised that I found no discussion in here of the Willem Oltmans testimony (to the HSCA?) of his time, interviews and "rescue" of George de Mohrenschildt. There are some pretty bold statements Oltmans makes of GdM's words and claims which sound fairly reliable, researchable, surely.

Except that he gets evasive at some points because his notes are not before him and he seems to strongly desire to be "exact" in his quotes of dM's words... a little unnerving, but really really interesting testimony. It takes dM all the way back to Hitler (which wasn't so far back at the time, i have to remember) and all the way UP to HL Hunt as a direct connection between Hunt and LHO.

of GdM "confessing" to a semi-direct role in the assass...

This is not at all unrealistic in and of itself. This scenario could still merge with others (the way i try to look at all scenarios - the ability for one to play well with others), though I don't know what of these words of Oltmans' have been debunked or supported.

he discusses GdM's major transition from stud to fragile, his regular mentions of suicide and his paranoia (of both the Feds and Jewish "nazi-ist" activists). of being forced off the road and wrecked by someone in the earlier days.

overall he sounds very credible - if he's making things up, he'd have had to do a LOT of homework with international airline flight info, etc. And I don't think he had an internet connection, so...

anyone with any thoughts?

I mean even if you think it's altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

No, not at all. Not even close.

You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

Not at all. Not even close.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html

The fact that it's the wrong rifle is pretty good also.

Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence.

Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399. But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?....

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288)

Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.

"So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case." (did he really say that?)

And yet he cites Brennan regularly.

[edit] and constantly cites his own website as supporting evidence.

One of Davey's constant refrains on the JFK case is this:

If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?

Well not really. I mean even if you think its altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy is it not?

The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?

The fact that its the wrong rifle is pretty good also. That is why its not in the WR.

The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?

etc etc

But please read the following:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Martin Hay critiques Beyond Reasonable Doubt without pleading everything is fake. He especially smashes Brennan.

So what did Davey say: Well we don' t need Brennan in our case.

Well, why did you use him then? And without Brennan, who puts Oswald in that window at the right time?

(Sound of ants crawling up a drain pipe.)

But this is typically Davey. Shifting gears to avoid a pointed fact that works against him.

right - this logic is an exercise in ridiculous. "if you don't trust the WC you must think everything's fake." ??? how does someone reach such a conclusion from one point to another?

If i don't believe every word of the Koran, then I must think all written forms of spirituality are false.

If I don't believe the textbook stories of George Washington and the cherry tree (don't tell anyone, but i don't) then I must distrust everything i've learned from textbooks.

this same person sells the idea that the entire report is proven reliable and accurate because of the portions of it that are, and then accuses skeptics of distrusting the whole document, and therefore all documents of the same theory, when even the strictest skeptics openly discuss the portions of the WR that are valuable. (the Warren Report contains many documents which are obviously quite reliable and honest, accurate, and which played no role whatsoever in the Commission's findings.)

i don't understand how a sane person can get one thing from another. there is no connection. such a person would be a waste of time and energy, and i wouldn't spend very much of either with him.

i kinda thought so - that'd be a pretty brazen attack if there weren't something to his claim - and the party does sound fairly far-fetched when you stop and think about it. I've always just assumed it happened without so much publicity because the media just cooperated.

I just came across this (below), obviously the subject of this very thread - did anything ever come of some "new" film?

http://www.thewrap.com/jfk-assassination-gersh-shopping-rare-footage-dallas-motorcade-exclusive/

The Wrap:

JFK Assassination: New Motorcade Footage Could Challenge Lone-Gunman Theory (Exclusive)

A Hollywood producer believes the footage may support John Kerry and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s comments doubting that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone

(WHAT? John Kerry started this whole thing???)

In a development that could shed new light on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a Hollywood movie producer is shopping new, long-hidden footage of JFK’s Dallas motorcade which the producer believes may support the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t act alone, TheWrap has learned.

Stephen Bowen is a successful Texas-based real estate developer who is a principal at Waterstone Entertainment, represented by the Gersh Agency. Bowen acquired the footage from a local Houston television news producer who has held it for more than 40 years, according to an individual involved in the deal. Bowen decided the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death was a good time to bring it to market.

not that I am defending these bozos in any way, but Gawker and the toronto star were laughed at when they said they had seen a video of...wait for it...

the crack smoking mayor of Torana Canuckistan....

but yeah...it looks pretty dubious to overstate the obvious.

I wanna see Jack Valenti getting a hot oil rubdown from LBJ while Connally cleans the pool in one of Buckleys "Hoover hand me down" twotwos....

" Naw, you dun git all them leaves outta my pool Johnny or hot damn if i don't get's 'em ta shoot ya's again" says LBJ between swigs of moonshine...

I'd pay for that...

i would too if they could just black out LBJ's please-god-don't-let-it-be-so naked body.

NOW i I feel even better. and yep, that answers my question.

aside from simply sounding like a lonely, angry child not getting his way, does this guy David Perry (his JFK Ass. pages) offer any substance to things like the night before party (what did he call it - nonevent), or Roger Craig's statements, etc...?