Glenn Nall

Jim, Pat, and anyone else using Windows, here's a free app that will convert an image of a document to text, which you can save to a text file: doc, docx, txt, etc. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/photo-to-text-ocr/9nblggh6hrzh it's a nice little app. It works terrific, clean text as long as the image file is crisp. And you can save any pdf to a jpg with the free version of Adobe Acrobat, I believe. EDIT >> Oh, and this one says it'll convert a pdf to text, not sure tho. But it's free from MS. FWIW. >> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/a9t9-free-ocr-software/9nblgggz5nsn * See me for all your PDF conversion-to-anything needs using Acrobat Pro. * ** No charge for Conspiracy Theorists. ** *** Lone Gunman theorists get a $200 discount all this week. ***

Damn. God I hope Paul Bronco doesn't see this. He'll go apesh**.

- chill, Jim, I was just curious. I ask a lot of questions. I'm totally behind the idea of the CIA getting beyond Kennedy's grip (and more so today); am kind of excited to see this warning as far back as that - the line just after the last highlighted section, "the greater will grow its potentials of hampering the real war against the Viet Cong..." seems to me loaded with insinuation of something was neither considered nor possible in Oct of 1963, that there are - as we now surmise pretty safely - "unpatriotic" government shadow powers that actually do indeed wish to start - and lengthen - wars, for reasons that were not so obvious back then. (Regardless of whichever sitting President at the time wishes.) Eisenhower's warning of the Mil-Ind-(Congressional?) Complex was a new and unique idea at that point. The fact that the subsequent President just as soon as he was in office escalated the damn thing, in light of the hidden implication in this article and the line I quoted, makes one wonder just how many people LBJ WAS in bed with. I already consider him a primary, if not singular, candidate for the ultimate execution of "the plan." In whatever form "the plan" really was. Not at all surprising to read something like this, but in that period, from others besides John Kennedy, is a little surprising. Just how close WAS LBJ to the CIA...? i place my finger on my chin, scowl my eyebrows and go "h-h-m-m-m-m."

Jim, at the top left corner of the NYTimes article by Arthur Krock (didn't he create McDonald's restaurants, too?), what does it say in the parentheses after New York Times, (________?);... Something like 1857-Current file; ... ? what's that mean, if you have any idea?

Paul, you sure make great efforts at defending the CIA, I've noticed. That's kind of embarrassing. IMHO.

Hey Don - Since 2011-2 have you come across any updates or additions or amendments to this fantastic map that you haven't included? Not that I have any in mind, whatsoever. Just wondering if it's as current as you want it to be. I'm wanting to do some programming with it to make it "interactive" - more readable, less overwhelming (to some, anyway). If you're ok with that, and that I let you see it before I do anything with it beyond my own computer, do you happen to have the draft of the map without the texts - or even without the shading (which I would preserve, of course...)? EDIT>> OH - and GO NAVY. CVs 59 and 60 for me. When the Forrestal existed. 1985-6. Airdale. VA 105, NAS Cecil Field. When it existed.

agreed. how does one pronounce "sstth?" it'd be a lot quicker in the annals of "how this guy died following his JFK assassination research attempts." like John Roselli. "SCUSIABTITR." (Shot, chopped up, stuffed in a barrel, thrown in the river). Not necessary, tho, in his case, I guess..........

I'm with you on Pitzer, Bruce, although most everyone officially involved with that event has officially stated that it was officially a suicide. And that officially he made no such video of anything. Unofficially I think there's something unofficial about all that.

Robert, pdfs are a snap to convert to other formats - .docx, .doc (Word) - as long as you can download the pdf. FWIW, just lettin' you know. If you have other such issues, holler at me, or at anyone with Adobe Acrobat Pro.

Mark Lane's last book alludes to Mockingbird often; he's certainly discussing the CIA's efforts to oppress his literature, as far back as Rush to Judgment, and as far as Russia, even, though I don't remember in which context. It took years for the publishing of his books to overcome the hurdles. But they did, clearly. I'm curious about the Church Committee's final, complete report. I'd love to see it, but don't know if it's easy to find, or even public. Anyone know?

Kind of like George de Mohrenschildt did(n't)...?

It's ironic how so much of the hated Right actually has its roots in the Left...

yeah, it's been suggested that there was a shooter in the West window - what was the book about the interviews with the guy who met Mac Wallace at the funeral and getting sucked into the shooting?? don't remember the book's name or the author, but he said that there was a second shooter toward the west end of the floor, and there are pics of it that MIGHT show a figure in the window. That pic to me is more convincing than those of Badgeman. I've yet to see badgeman without the aid of overlaid graphics drawing him/them in for me... I read also from one person that the limo couldn't be seen from the west window because of the tree(s), but that sounds like as much speculation as the idea itself. Professional Officials come from the woodwork in this thing... I tend to think that would have been a terrific spot with a diversion in the east window. I like that or the Dal-Tex stair railing or window, but I'm not convinced of anything, 'cept that this thing took more than one person. edit>> The Men on the Sixth Floor. Glen Sample. that was it. interesting, pseudo-plausible book. makes for some good speculative consideration of accesses and egresses, etc... I personally don't get what all the hullabaloo is about "the only employee missing after the shooting" and "no one else was in the building" and all that. too small of a theoretical box, if you ask me (which few ever do). there are other possibilities...

check out this gem of an advertisement (TSBD building, 1908):

Ron - I'm not sure about "sworn testimony of several people" in cases like this, as sworn testimony these days has been shown to be quite ambiguous. Just ask all of those people exonerated by the Innocence Project (getting toward 350, now...). Or read the "sworn testimony" of what's-her-name standing at the bus stop at Oak when Tippit was shot. Would you trust that crazy lady to take a message while you're at lunch??? Egads. According to JFK.org (https://www.jfk.org/the-assassination/history-of-the-texas-school-book-depository/) the TSBD Company leased the building in 1963, before which it was housed by John Sexton & Co. (a grocery company out of - you guessed it - Chicago, incidentally), as most know. If even on the day of the assassination there was much confusion over the name of the building, as it was still called "the Sexton building" up until then, I tend to think that the present occupants had not been there for any number of years, but of months, in fact. re: https://flashbackdallas.com/2014/04/04/sexton-foods-bldg/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog "The building ... would later become the Texas School Book Depository. But prior to that, the building housed Sexton Foods, a Chicago-based wholesale grocer which occupied the building for twenty years (1941-1961). The building was known commonly in town as “the Sexton building,” even after it was leased to the Texas School Book Depository in 1963, which explains why some people — citizens and police officers alike — were still referring to it by that name on the day of the Kennedy assassination..." Granted, the Spider's Web article is clearly published without benefit of an editor, but I kinda think Mr.Weston's overall premise - Federally funded drugs-for-guns (hear that, GHWB and BC? ya'll WEREN'T the first), the origins of Shelley and the floor layers; and in fact of the TSBD company as a whole, along with DH Byrd's, HL Hunt's and Pawley's backgrounds - is pretty damn intriguing. Minutiae in bigger stories like this tend to be distracting, as is so well exemplified by the perpetual snarking and slandering that goes on in all of these forums by "researchers" who claim to "just want the facts" over men in brown suit coats and revolver barrels and whatever. The discussion of this stuff is addicting, for sure, and I'm eager to look further into this felonious fleeing fellow in a brown suit coat - I also try to keep my eye on the big picture, which, to me, is who knew who and how and why, i.e. Shelley was CIA? No xxxx? And Eva Ruby facilitated opium sales through Mexico? And the Sexton Co., Scott Foresman's enterprise, Hugh Perry/TSBD and the Rubynsteins (and on and on) were ALL based in Chicago, land of The Outfit...??? No offense, Ron - I respect your thoughts and your posts; it's important to question even the smallest incidentals - people in "this thing of ours" (JFK studies - a nod to la Cosa Nostra ) really will write the most outlandish crap - I feel comfortable that TSBD leased and occupied the building in 63. That they were in the Dal-Tex building previous to this is pretty interesting, too. But I yet again refer to Mary Bancroft (and my signature): "General material about background and people’s interrelationships can be both illuminating and important. Quite often missing pieces of the mosaic emerge that make a previously incomprehensible picture unexpectedly clear." I think she was on to something.

so being a school teacher decreases one's likelihood of being associated with the CIA??? how's that, Paul? think Harry Hunt Ransom or Walt Rostow might have disagreed with you...?

he didn't say "agent," Paul. he said "had close ties with." There's a difference, and having close ties with the CIA is mysterious enough for most logically driven people. And this fact, coupled with that she was O's cousin, and associated closely (not an agent for) Dutz Murret, would typically be enough to toss her testimony in the lake. "would typically..." I seem to remember another thread wherein you had some difficulty distinguishing between "agent" and "asset." Wherein you spun others' words in weak defense. I think it was you. I could be wrong. Nevertheless - what size shoe do you wear...?

eager to read this when i get a moment. that Doctor fellow (Walt Brown) who wrote that Chronology set, who speaks Russian, made the same claim - that he never had time nor opportunity to learn such a harrowing language, and that there were plenty of O's peers who never saw him studying Russian language books, that he maybe listened to the music and "read" some literature, but that's about it.

According to https://www.globalresearch.ca/entire-volume-of-cia-files-on-lee-harvey-oswald-set-to-be-released-in-october-has-gone-missing/5609684 (it's temporarily up and down due to excessive, sudden traffic), Volume 5 of the CIA's Oswald files - set to be released on Oct 26 of this year - have disappeared. hmmm...

As a show of support for impending Cuban relations improvements (being announced now, 1.25pm), and reflecting the Latino vote swing last November, the 1st POTUS to be endorsed by Brigade 2506 Museum is President Donald J Trump. (Don't bother with negativity, we saw enough of that yesterday in VA/DC. If you wish to shoot me, I'll forward my address.)

Jim. I meant a diversion in this thread. you know what a thread is, right? these threads RARELY stay on topic. THAT's what I meant. damn. and yes, I've read John's material and in fact subscribe to about half of his opinions. please reread the comments to which I replied - in context...?

yes, and as 99.9% of the threads here, this took a diversion. hatin' it for ya, but it seems unavoidable. I responded to an earlier statement/theory/claim. i didn't write that out of clear, blue sky.

this is conjecture and speculation. nothing more.

You say this as if there is nothing in-between "gospel" and flat out "rejection," which is obviously not the case. everyone knows that singular eye-witness testimony is automatically suspect; multiple, unacquainted witnesses' testimonies which agree are a totally different animal, and cannot be ignored. sure, witnesses may have been mistaken on slack color, or hair color, or height - but when the testimonies agree in a broader spectrum, to suggest that they're all insignificant because it's "eye-witness" testimony is, well... there's singular testimony, and then there's a conglomerate of testimonies which agree in certain, important, aspects. two different things.

I SIMPLY stated that if a person who really knew Oswald, like Truly, were to have happened to run into BOTH Oswald's within a matter of minutes, this person would have 1) recognized a REAL problem, and 2) blown the whole thing. that's all i proposed. it was really just a suggestion of a potential problem, not soliciting ridicule - except from those prone to ridicule, of course.