Glenn Nall

bingo.

i'm practicing ignoring him.

It seems to me something should be cleared up about this Sum Total concept. Not that it will be heard, but I'll take a stab at it for future reference.

In legal proceedings, though a lawyer might try to say "folks, i can't explain every action of the defendant - they all just make him LOOK really guilty" what's going to happen is that EACH piece will be examined and shown to either support the accusation or to be irrelevant - shown to be 'VERY curious indeed' (supporting the accuser) or very explainable (there are many reasons he could have for saying such and such, not ONLY ONE reason...) supporting the defense.

when circumstantial evidence is presented (like a suspects lying, or acting differently than normal), context and perspective is paramount in attaching value to any one particular piece of circumstantial evidence. for instance, LHO lying about his lunch - it admittedly looks KIND OF bad, but in court it would have picked apart as "minor" and possibly explainable - remember that only reasonable doubt is required.

Compare lying about a package, or running in and back out of your house in a panic, items that are explainable in a number of ways, to once-Senator and VP Richard Nixon lying about where he was on the day of the assassination of the POTUS when he was shown to BE IN DALLAS (please no one, DVP, pick apart that he was actually there the night before, etc etc - my point is his lying about such an important matter), or E Howard Hunt lying about it IN COURT, or the greater likelihood of more than 3 bullets being fired; JUST as a matter of perspective, I think a reasonable person can see the vast difference in value that would be attached to each piece of circumstantial evidence.

I think a jury member would be much more interested in Nixon or Hunt lying about their whereabouts on the Ass. than LHO lying about his lunch, and the more reasonable doubt that is placed on his likelihood of being on 6, then the less valuable each of these items - his lunch and his bus/taxicab habits - become AS they prove or disprove LHO's guilt.

As a person who has been brought to believe in some form of a theory of conspiracy after seeing mountains of similarly valuable circumstantial "coincidences" I am always willing to view, objectively, anything that can strongly imply LHO's guilt. No problem. The 10 items as they are presented are NOT, even in Sum Total, valuable enough to imply his guilt, because, AS IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING, they are individually open to too many alternate explanations.

And when the items of a Sum Total are individually weakened, the Sum Total loses its value. Period.

So DVP - the Sum Total Value of your ten points is less than 0. The Jury would have already forgotten about them when presented with some things of actual value.

And quit belittling people's words. You're not nearly as smart as many of the others in here. Act like an adult.

edit - but i really think you're just doing this sh** on purpose, and i do not know why i don't simply ignore it...

By all means, please do. You haven't said a single thing worthy of consideration anyway. And I've already archived enough of your statements about all the evidence being "irrelevant" that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

"that I certainly don't need any more of your preposterous comments for my files." Did you get that Glenn, DVP is keeping your comments on file. Apparently he has the 'freedom' to keep files.......

yeah, i saw that. wondered what that meant for a split second, then considered what all i've seen of his files and stopped wondering.

"whatever"

Brennan: It was the ugliest man I've ever seen. He had a nose like a...

none of them do. they're irrelevant and some would not have even been allowed.

i tried to describe what direct evidence is and how none of those put him on the 6th floor, but they don't get the concept.

i told him Cousin Vinnie could have destroyed that in court. some people think acting suspicious or crazy or different than normal is proof of guilt; forgetting that our system works the other way around - he's NOT guilty until proven so, and taking a different bus and even having a missing rifle at the house has no bearing on where he was at 12.30 that day. there's no connection until someone can concretely SHOW the connection.

which has never been done. EVER.

all units, be on the lookout for... um... hey sarge, what does this say...?

it does seem so, doesn't it. it's hard for me to comprehend anyone these days referring to the WR for anything other than perhaps some data for which the WR was not designed (like examples of confusion, hypocrisy, etc.). But to actually refer to its findings today is pretty odd, to be sure.

As the New Boy in here, I have to say I was really surprised for a moment when - must have been DVP - not only referred to the HSCA as gospel, but with the assumption that its reliability also is simply a given. He clearly expected no rebuttal on that. I wondered if he was kidding and thought it was kinda funny after a minute.

it was my understanding that those "missing pages" was a very small part of all of the other things he stated, all of the connections of people that he went through to get to these books and this car had nothing to do with them except perhaps after the fact. these torn pages, although intriguing, have nothing to do with a lot of the really interesting stuff, such as what i quoted in this thread. all that seems pretty fact-checkable to me. all of these people connected to UT, for instance. that's pretty odd, i you ask me.

i find his writing without agenda or bias, well written and sincere. that may sound 'trite' but in my life experience i've learned to hear the lack of sincerity and genuineness pretty well. the clowns who are trying to sell something are usually pretty obvious.

in any case, i'm enjoying the reading - and as i stated, i found it strictly seeking something that would provide names of people on the outskirts. i've learned quite a lot, regardless of whether this car story is a load of crap or not.

this is copied from R Bartholomew's piece on the Rambler - quite fascinating - yes, i was reading about Otto in that piece last night.

the link is at the bottom of my quote. I spose i should have put the "citation" at the top...

he mentions Scott often, and he mentioned Sourwine in passing, assuming i knew the name (Bart's assuming a well schooled reader, in fact). And the ISubcommittee, and... and...

i was looking for some material which would offer a goodly list of "names on the fringe" and came across Bartholomew's story of the Rambler. It's more than I could have hoped for - that little snippet i just posted floored me; the clear albeit indirect connections between the MI complex and the mafia AND the White House.

how can people see that and not at least step back for a minute?

thnk you, Jon - i'm conventional only when it makes most sense. this is some convoluted stuff, and good reason doesn't come easy. you probably would not be surprised how many different theories i've guaranteed over the years.

thanks again. i do want to be able to contribute as well as learn.

honestly, my gut feeling is that many "agencies" were represented, whether funding, or shooting, or just making sandwiches for the guys' road trip.

my gut feeling is that he (they) who stood to benefit most would be who put things in motion.

Those who stood to gain the most is where the action is - not DID benefit the most, just HOPED to benefit. And that's not too hard to figure out.

Paul - that is not me speaking. oh my gosh. that's a quote from the link I left below the quote - PLEASE go click that link and see that. I did NOT mean to imply that that's me.

i've got to be more careful when I paste something from elsewhere. i'm SO sorry...

here's my favorite part (so much that i stopped reading right about there):

"merely careless misstatements"

The autopsy of the President of the United States investigated by the very FIRST Presidentially appointed Commission ever, and the speaker, a Senator, makes careless misstatements about the placement of bullet wounds. wounds made by a bullet. not calcium buildup, or hard arteries.

bullet wounds.

right.

It was reported that Brennan couldn't even identify the race of the men in the police lineup. He must have terrific vision, not being able to recognize that at, what 10 feet, maybe?

I recall reading somewhere that Brennan or someone describing him said that he could read a license plate from 100 feet away (or was it yards?). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?) Maybe someone can tell us where I read this, since I no longer have any idea.

that sounds like something some guy named Dave would say. Super Brennan, unimpeachable at 100 yards.

i'm still thinking that is he saw LHO standing up, then his best description of him would have been of his crotch. no...?

what's REALLY interesting is that there are several of us who disagree on much theory and yet are quite civil in conversation and debate without much effort. Ken here and I, and Paul T and I SURELY do not agree on much, yet have been quite friendly as I see it.

But there is one who DOES seem to attempt provocation and antagonism at the drop of a hat (or a thread), and this person is who, IN MY OPINION, diverts a thread's natural course.

But that's just my opinion, like anything else, worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

interesting approach in a thread entirely devoted to shills.

I'd suggest closing the thread, honestly. i posted my intention to ignore this person this morning, and that's what I've done.

yes, i thought so...

I would love to see those photos of Connally's back, if you could find them. I don't believe any exist, though.

here are the drawings by Shaw and Gregory (with some story by the great Michael Baden to add "color"...)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/BigLieSmallWound/BigLieSmallWound.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0077a.htm

he admitted to changing the wording of the description of K's back wound, not Connally's wounds.

//**

here's some really interesting commentary on the MD's testimony of Connally:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5648

do you hear a gnat, Robert, Ken?

he admitted to changing the wording of the description of K's back wound, not Connally's wounds.

//**

here's some really interesting commentary on the MD's testimony of Connally:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5648

there was a TV show last year with some MD describing the deaths of a few celebs - Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston - and he had the autopsies and stated that autopsies are eventually accessible to the public. whether that's the case or not, aren't there pics of the wounds of JConnally? i'd think the entrance wound to his mid-post-axillary section would be pretty persuasive on its face.

i really get more glee out of "watching" the WC members squirm in the face of this kind of evidence.

"My question has not seemed to arouse any curiosity, which is not surprising. This is a complex medical issue, and few seem to want to delve into it, despite the fact we can completely disprove the Single Bullet Theory simply by examining Dr. Robert Shaw's medical report and Warren Commission testimony."

for me it's kinda the opposite, Robert - I am quite fascinated with medical and physiological interests (more psychological than physical, but still), and will read more about this when i have time. But in my mind, the SBT is already fairly moot - this info will be necessary for some still on the fence, perhaps - but there's plenty of other stuff that's already convinced me...

right, that's what I'm thinking, too - even if he DID look up at someone in the window, he may or may not have a clear image/memory of his face, considering the circumstances. it's hard to say, isn't it. to be honest, yeah, i might have a pretty good look at someone from this distance. but i dunno for sure

but didn't he fail to point out LHO later, in a line up or photo? i would say that if Brennan didn't do so well in a definite ID, then that tells the whole story. a lawyer would negate that pretty quickly, especially with others in the area that resembled him, like Lovelady, etc.