Glenn Nall

folks, this is eerie - and I know many have already seen this, but I just came across it for the first time (further proof that I don't know a single thing about... anyway...) and had to put it out there for some extraneous commentary, opining and what not.

a LIVE camera from the 6th floor museum "sniper's position" provided by earthcam and - Gary, did you have something to do with this...???

egads. how creepy.

http://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

ok, not creepy - i'm thinkin' tacky...

ok, D. here's your chance - show how this proves O. did it alone...

Ron, he was referring to my memory of the JFK Australia news report that was "early," i believe.

By the way, I enjoyed this little book by Carl. It succeeds in detailing the case for conspiracy in a very short and small book (to accommodate a sound bite, low attention span public turned off to lengthy works)

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Killed-JFK-Real-Story/dp/1878825100/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435424551&sr=1-3&keywords=carl+oglesby

re short and small book: This is the problem I'm noticing about the material that's available to the general public online today, and what my direction is with the website i'm putting together:

the material is plentiful, so much so that the organization of it is usually a disaster; that coupled with so much minutiae (that's often quite necessary, AND interesting to we "buffs") that the average interested party just doesn't need to weed through. It's tricky publishing a fact, or even conjecture, and keeping the tedium out while still supporting the assertion.

the average person who's somewhat interested in this thing but knows very little has NO idea what to click on at a site like History Matters, or in one of these forums. Mary Ferrell offers a starting point that gets tedious - (and now i'm reading about some controversy with that resource...?).

So I'm attempting a website that centers on the high points and is better organized visually - which matters when trying to keep a reader interested on your website. So many of the JFK websites are so old-fashioned looking today (or just downright ugly or cheap looking), primitive in layout and design such that some people will wonder how good or current the information can be.

The bottom line is that there are semi-interested parties out there who need to be given something readable and informative so that they might stay interested. I never finished Yankee/Cowboy my first go-round 'cause I was young and that's a complex book; i stayed interested because I already was sold on it (Mafia Kingfish by Douglas set the hook, i think, after Death of A President which didn't promote a Conspiracy of course, but told me something was wrong in there somewhere).

plus, I LOVE my work and if i'm not working for money then i'm working for play.

I have another of his that I read, JFK, The Facts and The Theories, which contains mainly a synopsis of the various main theories and his notes and essays regarding his JFK projects, etc.

Stephen, i lean toward your concern, honestly - i cannot imagine how the film could be suppressed so completely. YET - the descriptions by those who saw something else are just that - something else. And I don't suspect their veracity, that much, anyway. I fully believe Doug Horne's story - well, I believe his sincerity and the details as much as he could believe them. No doubt SOMETHING surreptitious happened that weekend that pretty much HAS to lead to something shady done with the ORIGINAL.

The young French journalist who says he saw it "sounds" sincere (as sincere as one can sound without much English proficiency) but states some DUMBASS reason the owner of said film won't come forward with it.

As you've said, something isn't right here.

Just like, to me, it was the perfect storm that brought the elements of assassination together to do that thing, I think sometimes elements work together to cover-up a thing like this. Between hacks who think they have an "in camera original", and the secrecy of the handling of the original - that's not making sense - but it's easier for me to believe that the film is somehow less than authentic than it is to think it can't be because we'd have seen it by now.

It simply cannot be original, I think, not because my theory needs it to be altered, but because of the "preponderance of suggestion" that it is. i.e., the damn sign moves - i can't show exactly how it moves, and John Costella didn't prove to me that it does, nor any other scientist, but still my eyes tell me something is wrong there. and that's just an example.

I'm sold, but i'm not giving it much energy - real solution can be found without the film, i think. i hope.

Godfrey Hodgson points out that in his 1967 essay Vietnamese Crucible, Oglesby rejected the "socialist radical, the corporatist conservative, and the welfare-state liberal" and "challenged the new left to embrace American democratic populism and the American libertarian right." Hodgson adds: "Oglesby was essentially an autodidact and developed a hybrid political philosophy of his own. He made himself unpopular with some by insisting that the men who led the US into the war were not bad people as individuals, and that the war was the product of systemic faults in American society. He came under the influence of the libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard and even aspired to a kind of fusion between the old right, in which he included such conservative figures as General Douglas MacArthur and Senator Robert Taft, and the new left." Did he ever reject this strange philosophy?

wow. how clarifying this is. what an original person he must have been...

rejected the "socialist radical, the corporatist conservative, and the welfare-state liberal". wow. and so few were listening...

the entire piece by Fred Gardner is terrific - i liked this line.

"When I knew him he also used mj for disinhibition, inspiration, improved mood, etc."

hey! that's what we used it for!!

in all seriousness, Carl was obviously one of those destined to change things but squelched by the bosses. I agree with Paul that he got Yankee/Cowboy right, and someone else who said that it's still happening - As technical and intricate as Yankee/Cowboy is, it's surely a terrific way to start ones research journey. You don't have to agree with it, just read it.

September 14, 2011

Man on Fire

Remembering Carl Oglesby

by MIKE DAVIS

www.counterpunch.org

In my lifetime I’ve heard two speakers whose unadorned eloquence and moral clarity pulled my heart right out of my chest.

One was Bernadette Devlin (nee McAlliskey), speaking from the roof of the Busy Bee Market in Andersonstown in Belfast the apocalyptic day that Bobby Sands died.

The other was Carl Oglesby, president of SDS in 1965. He was ten years older than most of us, had just resigned from Bendix corporation where he had worked as a technical writer, and wore a beard because his face was cratered from a poor-white childhood. His father was a rubber worker in Akron and his people came from the mountains.

I’m not capable of accurately describing the kindness, intensity and melancholy that were alloyed in Carl’s character, or the profound role he played in deepening our commitment to the anti-war movement. He literally moved the hearts of thousands of people.

He was also for many young SDSers – like myself and the wonderful Ross Altman (original UCLA SDSer and Carl’s close friend, whom I salute) – both a beloved mentor but also leader of the wild bunch. At a crucial moment in the tragic history of this desert country, he precisely and unwaveringly defined our duty. He was a man on fire.

To those who knew him, I send my deepest love and solidarity – as I do to those yet to discover this great, tormented and most-old-fashionedly American radical.

Mike Davis is currently a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

Are these Doug's words or Mike Davis'? just curious.

How eloquent the words themselves about such an eloquent writer - and so much more, obviously.

DAWN

Bartholomew did some great work http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_4.html (I quote it in my Dulles did it thread)

The UT article is also great.

I should have put in my Dulles thread that Rambler owner Wing taught a Dulles relative.,gaal

Steven, I'm very very impressed with both Oglesby and Bartholomew's extensive energy and research and writing. I only just happened across both of them, have found a second copy of Yankee/Cowboy and am KEEPING it, and at this point only know of the UTRambler story by Richard. I'm working my way slowly though it, and know that i'm going to want to find more, so thanks for that link. He seems to be very trustworthy in that he puts so much work, obviously, into his, um, work.

So many people in this thing just shoot from the hip, conjecture becomes "everybody knows" becomes fact (right, D.?). It's very clear when someone really knows what they're doing, knows their subject and has done some homework.

It's good to be able to read people like these two, not feeling obligated to buy into their school hook-line-and -sinker like you feel sometimes when you're reading someone's agenda - that they're trying to sell you a car. Knowing the research is trustworth gives one the freedom to form his or her own opinion on the research and not the voice, or the conjecture.

I guess. right?

thanks

regarding the report of BBC reporting 9/11 early - I remember one of the very first things i ever read about the JFK conspiracy being that some newspapers in Australia had actually printed the news predated to some extent or the other - by a few hours or something.

Willing to be corrected but I think that was a misunderstanding regarding the international date line / time zones. For example, as I write this it is 9.03PM on Saturday 27 June 2015. At the same instant in Washington DC it is 7.03AM on the same day.

yes, of course that's probably what it was. an inexperienced novice researcher like myself at that time would have (well, did) assumed that whoever reported such a thing would have had enough integrity and brains to consider the time zone differences; also I didn't consider the variables we have today, like idiots, trouble-makers, alarmists (people with good intentions who scream Conspiracy when they see the first anomaly, like a 7am news article in an Australian newspaper). Oh, and LoneNutters. another unavoidable variable. Kind of like a cold sore.

unavoidable.

also it didn't pass longevity test (there has to be a better name for...) the fact that if an item is that explosive AND accurate it's going to get attention and traction. if it dies out, it simply couldn't have contained any substance.

the BBC film report on WTC7 is just such a thing. no matter how convincing it appeared, there's just no way it's true if it didn't pan out. If it was true, back then, we'd have known about it by now. These "truthers" seem to ignore this part.

wonder if that's on YouTube - I'll look for it. Let me know if you come across anything like that, please Vince?

Kenneth Drew,

After slogging through much of your inane "LHO NEVER SHOT ANYBODY" and "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" crap on this forum, I am pretty much convinced that you wouldn't know a "FACT" regarding the JFK case if your life hung in the balance.

And if you think I've ignored the "two different brands of bullets" controversy re: the Tippit murder, think again. I've covered it many times on my sites. The keywords to put into my search engine are: REMINGTON, WINCHESTER, and MIS-MATCH (with a hyphen).

And you do know, don't you Ken, that the man whom you think never shot Tippit DID have BOTH of those brands of bullets (Remingtons and Winchesters) in his revolver when he was arrested? You're not IGNORING that crucial FACT, are you Ken? (No, not Ken.)

"After slogging through much of your inane "LHO NEVER SHOT ANYBODY" and "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" crap on this forum, I am pretty much convinced that you wouldn't know a "FACT" regarding the JFK case if your life hung in the balance."

egads that's ripe.

i wish i could frame that.

"double-guilt" - is that a legal term in Indiana? cool.

Oswald killed two people on Nov. 22. Hence, his "double-guilt". Simple.

i've just never heard it before. i think it's cute.

Well, yes, Pat. But I think most CTers consider the timing of Oswald's death to be "quite suspicious" even without factoring in the stuff you just talked about above. Wouldn't you agree?

Not just CTs. Any reasonable person would find it suspicious.

My point was that it wasn't just suspicious because Oswald was killed while in police custody, and that he had not yet consulted with a lawyer, but it was extra suspicious due to the fact the evidence was fairly strong against him in the Tippit killing, whereby he would almost certainly want to deal his knowledge regarding the JFK assassination to avoid the death penalty for killing a cop.

In other words, if Oswald had been arrested for the assassination, and only the assassination, he may have kept quiet and taken his chances with a jury. The Tippit killing changed that, IMO.

oh heck, good point. under normal circumstances, the PD would have wanted him alive at all costs so that they could have done a deal - under these particular circumstances, the fact that he was not so well protected speaks volumes... right?

or am i just ignorant of all of the evidence in this case, and by now, of most everything i've learned since i was 15...

and really, i don't see LHO as the stalwart kind - i think he'da dealt anyway. assuming he had something to trade. he may not have. he may have.

let it be known (as if it's not already): DVP squirms when he's put in a corner, and will chew off his leg to get out of it. oh, and he thinks people from this website read his website.

Glenn,

I was just trying to help you overcome your admitted ignorance when it comes to many areas of the JFK and Tippit cases. If you want to use the links, fine. If not, just wallow in your ignorance. I don't care. I was just trying to be helpful. And you will find a lot of "proof" of Oswald's double-guilt on my pages, as well as hundreds (if not thousands) of primary sources to back up my claims.

hell, i'm just trying to get you to commit to one of your claims, much less cite it.

"double-guilt" - is that a legal term in Indiana? cool. are your courthouses made of stone yet, or jest wood like ours are still?

his logic took him from me not knowing an item to "that you apparently don't know any of the evidence in this case."

all that arrogance AND a sense of humor. yay!

Ken, I know that. my own agenda was to see how hard he'll duck a question that won't go in his favor.

the answer: pretty damn hard.

i've tired of this thread and all his arrogant [sic]'s (as if i don't know i'm mistyping sh*t) and unfollowed it. it's run its course, anyway. he's clearly not going to answer even the easiest questions, so, onward...

let it be known (as if it's not already): DVP squirms when he's put in a corner, and will chew off his leg to get out of it. oh, and he thinks people from this website read his website.

oh! so just as I admit the lack of knowledge of something, you are too...???

are you admitting you don't know? i admitted it. surely you can..

and i'm not scolding you, i'm trying to get you to answer. my pride isn't such that i have to bob and weave when i don't know something. I just admit it.

don't worry. i already can see the answer. it's been clear for a while. i tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you'd hear none of it.

you don't have an effin' clue the difference between "proof" and "assumption". face it.

ta ta

Ken, there's GOT to be SOME evidence, right? I mean, so many LNers keep saying that there's evidence that LHO did it. and they wouldn't say that if it wasn't true, would they?

the bullets match the gun LHO owned? ... no...? what? they return to an automatic, is that what I heard?

how about fingerprints on the gun that was left behind...?

how about no alibi (which is not really evidence, but hey i'm trying to be fair)? i bet he doesn't have an alibi for that time of the day, right? oh, he does? he was watching a dumb movie and making a seen so much that the employees couldn't help but note the time...?

wow.

I wonder if there's any evidence so we can string 'im up like horse thief!!

This tells you all you need to know. He's equating murder conviction with basic reasoning ability.

The only possible way to make Oswald innocent of shooting Officer Tippit is to literally ignore all of the evidence.

And why would anyone want to do that?

Care to answer that one, Glenn?

Fortunately in the US, you don't make people 'innocent' you are required to make them guilty and using any evidence you think applies you can't prove with any certainty that he is guilty. The main reason why you can't prove it is because he didn't do it. The most credible witness involved with the tippit deal says that LHO was at the Texas Theatre when JDT was killed. That would make reasonable doubt a certainty. Bingo, there goes your case. Well, actually you never had a case so it didn't really go anywhere.

Well, actually you never had a case so it didn't really go anywhere.

i like that one.

ok, I'll bite: what's the "evidence"?

(pay close attention to that word, because I'm trying to trick you into revealing the fact that you really DO know what it means)

Nice. Another silly taunt from Mr. Nall. Thanks so much.

(However, given your latest reply regarding your seeming ignorance of the fact that the TSBD shells have been linked conclusively to the C2766 rifle, it makes me wonder if you know about any of the Tippit evidence either. Do you?)

I started to admit as much, but didn't think it was necessary. you might not be used to it, but it's called humility. there's a LOT of stuff I don't know. not ashamed whatsoever. it's why i'm here, to learn.

from the learned ones.

now. what's the "evidence"?

ok, i haven't seen that report. i'll eat that one. i'm sure it's not the last item i don't know about this. if i ever think of one that i don't know yet, i'll ask you. cool?

now, that's one of about a thousand hurdles. that puts the shells in the gun.

now put the bullets in those shells, OR the gun.

*** >>> which is what i asked to begin with that you ignored by switching to the shells.

ok, I'll bite: what's the "evidence"?

(pay close attention to that word, because I'm trying to trick you into revealing the fact that you really DO know what it means)

Sorry, you cannot prove when the cartridges were fired from C2766.

it cannot even be proven IF those cartridges were fired from that gun, unless they did tests, and they have not published any tests, so DVP or me or anyone else cannot connect those shells with the gun POSITIVELY.

and if we were to assume that they were, the real trick would be proving WHEN it was done, as you said.

there are SO many of these hurdles that the LNers cannot leap and they just don't see it. the entire accusation is based on a string of a thousand assumptions.

i [sic] asked a simple, relevant question - can DVP define "proof" - with the qualifier that if he doesn't reply then the assumption is that he can't.

[H]e has not replied.

Such a juvenile taunt requires no response, Glenn. You should have realized that.

so then it's official. you formally refuse to answer, even though your credibility is on the line. what little you have, anyway.

there's nothing taunting about this. I'm dead serious. I do not think you get the idea behind "proof", based on the many things you've said. I really do not think you know the difference between proof and deduction, or opinion.