Glenn Nall
-
Posts
1,422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Glenn Nall
-
-
"distort" being his particular area of expertise.
we all have a talents to offer...
-
i'm just so downright delighted that you answered a question i don't care how stupid your answers are, Dave, my boy!
-
i don't know what to say. I'm beside myself with glee. I'm pinching myself.
I'm going to have to look back on this tomorrow to see that i wasn't dreaming.
you answered a question. on the first try.
my gosh.
wait'll Robert and Ken see this! they're going to be so proud...
-
Well DVP we're still waiting for you to tell where the fragments came from and how they got on the drivers seat. Is there a reason, other than you don't have a clue, that you don't answer?
That's an easy one ----
The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windsield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there.
But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP.....
Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile.
Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
==================
(I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.)
ok, so they blew out the RIGHT side of his head (with no damage to the left side of his head), then somehow got into the DRIVER'S seat...
how'd they manage that? IAE
(I'm All Ears - I'm using IAE cause I'm betting I'm going to be writing that a LOT)
-
and why are you afraid of taking my word for it, anyway, D?
you're saying JEH is more trustworthy than I AM?
you're saying that there are some people whose word we should choose not to take...? really?
-
yeah, and take my word for it, David - Connally has not reacted to a bullet wound the same time K has.
Oh yes he has -----> Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
That link is to a DVP site, kinda useless.
of course it is. you don't think i'm reading his stuff, do you?
i have great copies of the frames, great software and two eyes. i can see the same frames he's going to mark up with circles and arrows (remember Alice's Restaurant?) all on my own, and contrary to what he says he thinks, can make up my own mind. as i have.
and unless the forgers fixed it so that C looks to be unharmed when K is holding his throat, he's not. he testified to it and the film shows it.
D think he has some credibility. I think his bosses need to find a new patsy.
-
yeah, and take my word for it, David - Connally has not reacted to a bullet wound the same time K has.
take my word for it.
-
simply answer a question, David. damn. grow up.
-
i take the word of people who are not proven hypocrites and liars, D. that's the difference.
and your insults make you look a lot worse than me, dude. so keep them coming.
-
"The Costello – Hoover relationship was hidden for many years. However, it was later discovered that whenever Hoover was in New York City he would meet secretly with Costello for breakfast, and sometimes even on a park bench.
The question that should be asked, is if Costello was providing Hoover with information on fixed horse races, what did Hoover do for Costello?
The answer is simple. During this period of time, although Hoover went rabidly after such Number One Public Enemies like John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, Hoover absolutely refused to recognize that the Mafia, or the “Cosa Nostra” even existed."
this is the man who would not frame a person for murder?
-
No, Glenn. It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. You know, it's that stuff ("common sense and deductive reasoning") that you said there is "NO room for" when trying to ascertain someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can just hear Vince Bugliosi laughing aloud at this ludicrous statement....
"Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning"." -- Glenn Nall; 6/26/15
It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. Something which you don't seem to have a walking acquaintance with. If you can hear Bug Man laughing, you've lost your mind. If you were on trial for murder and the jury were told to use common sense on the evidence that they didn't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would you be okay with that?
yet another question he won't answer truthfully. or at all.
-
"Now, David, can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?"
remember lesson 1 in making accusations, Davey? It's not the Defender who has to prove the Accuser wrong, it's the Accuser who has to PROVE his accusations.
we don't HAVE to effin' prove they are fraudulent. YOU have to effin' prove that they're evidence.
why is that so effin' hard to understand???
-
or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it?
Yes, we are.
What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder.
But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD. And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence.
So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22?
Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness?
There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this:
Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy.
I'm not like the CTers. I don't automatically think J. Edgar and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does).
so then you don't believe Hoover knew Frank Costello personally while he lied to america about the Mafia, or slept with his main man, or blackmailed the Kennedys - and you don't believe that LBJ lied and cheated his way through the Senate and the White House... all that's made up, too... right?
you think Mac Wallace and Billy Sol Estes are lying...
-
"Yes, we are."
ah. this explains pretty much everything.
-
no, not that one. it looks like it's really from the time period. i'll snip a clip out of it and post it.
-
Can someone ID this piece of film? I've never seen it.
(I just took a couple of frames out of it - it's about a 30 second clip, or less...)
-
ok, well, that's cool.
in the meantime, the list of questions you've ducked is growing leaps and bounds.
like RABBIT'S families. like bacteria.
it just grows... and grows...
and your credibility?
well, now...
-
see?
bob and weave. stick and move.
when a man cannot reason, his only response is a counter-attack.
-
at least i'm trying not to. that's funny...
as a newbie in here, i don't even know if this post is intentionally ambiguous, or a red herring. heck i don't even know if you're real name is Tom -
so i'll just ask: does it matter if LHO was at the museum in July of 63?
why would it be 62 if the other entries are mostly 63?
-
good GOD, David you're attempting REASON and EVIDENCE with the man - I think that trickery's been used and he saw right through it.
i believe he's more wiley than we thought, but good luck with that.
-
is there any way of knowing - has someone already discerned and made public the zFrames in which the tree branches are conclusively blocking the window from which the shots were allegedly fired?
i came across a graph showing the quickness of the head turns in the frames (my those Kennedys and Connallys were some ATHLETIC people!) and the graph mentions these frames and the tree, i think - but i'm not sure if that's what this person is getting at.
-
DVP
I am still waiting for you to explain how the bullet made its way through JFK's neck without hitting any vertebrae.
Robert,
Really?
One of the things I've learned in life is the application of REALISTIC expectations. Expectations are, in general, very dangerous. Learning from previous experience what to expect next time around is what maintains the serenity.
From previous experience we know that D. habitually dodges uncomfortable questions, ergo, the expectation of his answering a new one - with a reasonable, logical answer, no less - should be kept to a bare minimum, much like expecting a bullet to bend its course in midair.
oh! that analogy just came out from nowhere. wow.
I'm being melodramatic (i've discovered that i might need to explain that at times), i hope you realize.
One must learn from experience. Don't hold your breath.
-
Glenn, you should bear in mind that much has changed in 50 years, trees have grown, etc. I noticed the trees were much different back in the 90's than they were back in the 60's the first time I was there. So you can't rely on the view from the 6th floor as being very similar. One thing you also can't get the feel for is that you can't just stand at that window and get that view. The camera appears to be about 3 feet above floor level, a position that would not have been possible in 63 because of the upper half of the window. Actually firing a rifle from the spot necessary based on window opening at the time, shooter would have to be sitting or lying on the floor and sighting with his left eye. Basically an impossible shot. You can't see any of the obstructions within the room itself.
please don't read so much into my comments, Ken - was just saying that the whole idea is, to me, tacky. I still hold to a need for some dignity and reverence to the area. nothing to do with the many obvious problems with the SBT.
simply the lack of respect, TO ME, of the whole thing. even the hordes of people milling about makes me a bit jittery, even though I hold the same fascination (more than, really) as they do.
to me it's like walking through a graveyard. I lower my voice and step around things. why? reverence. I'm pretty I'm not disturbing the dead people.
-
ah. you're one... ok.
i don't mean HSCA lies kind of explosive, i mean getting caught on live TV knowing a building that's part of a NYC terrorist attack is going to fall explosive. a wee bit different in the boom department. sheep can be led to overlook an ambiguous "lie" by a governing body. the WTC7 blunder "would be" an international event if it had actually happened.
totally different ballgame.
there are plenty of lies throughout the JFK ass. that have been ignored by the media, sure. I agree with your assessment of the media's power.
but not on that scale. sorry
I've never seen this film before, similar to Z, but...
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
interesting - may I try to understand this...?
they're saying that shot 3 was fired at Frame 375? that 2 was at 313? and that far lamp post would have been in frame 375, only in reality it had already come and gone, right?
i have noted that DVP is curiously silent on this...