Glenn Nall

Ken, your question is silly (i.e., dumb). inane and ridiculous.

got that? don't forget it.

Glenn / Ken,

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is right there before your eyes. It's not my fault you can't (or won't) add up the pieces.

You say you want the truth. I say "the truth" has been staring you in the face since 11/22/63. Unfortunately, you choose to look the other way.

And I'd love to hear Ken (or any CTer) try to logically explain to a jury Oswald's actions (and his utterances) in the theater within the context of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody On Nov. 22" framework. Would ANY of the jurors not be doubling over from laughter? I doubt it.

Here is just a sample of the type of silliness a defense lawyer would have to present to a jury if Lee Oswald had lived long enough to stand trial for J.D. Tippit's murder....

The Hilarious Defense Of Lee Harvey Oswald

again, you've missed the point - it's not the defense's obligation to explain his defendants actions - it's the prosecution's obligation to prove his guilt. that's how american justice works.

but you won't accept that. i know this.

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...

i should have made the subject "no meaningful evidence of a conspiracy."

how cute...

From Richard Bartholomew... http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html

"From 1952 to 1954, Pittsburgh's Mannarino brothers (Samuel and Gabriel) were part-owners, with Trafficante of Havana's San Souci Hotel, managed by Norman "Rough-house" Rothman, a syndicate figure in both Miami and Havana. Rothman co-owned the nearby Tropicana with Meyer and Jake Lansky. The man they hired to be their casino boss was Lewis J. McWillie -- Jack Ruby's friend and idol.

Both Mannarino brothers are said to have participated in Syndicate gun-smuggling to Castro in 1958, along with Vito Genovese's son Michael. The Warren Commission mentions Ruby's role as middleman in the sale of jeeps to Cuba and the release of prisoners from a Cuban prison (R 369). But the Commission ignored testimony by Nancy Perrin Rich that she had witnessed Ruby in gunrunning negotiations with her husband, a colonel, a Cuban, and "unless I am very much mistaken...Vito Genovese's son." (14 H 353). Ruby's contact in these ventures (on behalf of "a person in Las Vegas, Nevada") was Robert Ray McKeown..."

Andrew St. George, the man who may have captured George Wing in his 1961 photograph of E. Howard Hunt's men in Miami, was reportedly heavily involved with two men who were in turn connected to the Mannarino brothers and the Havana Hilton. St. George was named by informed witnesses before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee as one of three Americans who were prominent in Castro's campaign against Batista, along with James Gentry and "gunrunning pilot Frank Fiorini [sturgis]." Subcommittee Counsel Sourwine described St. George as an American double agent. According to Scott, "...U.S. intelligence agents such as Jules Dubois of Army Intelligence and Andrew St. George were allied with Syndicate figures such as Norman Rothman [the close associate of the Mannarino brothers] in efforts which supported Castro in 1958 but swiftly turned against him [by September 1959]." As mentioned earlier, St. George, after the assassination, had given a false story -- about Castro plots against U.S. ambassadors -- to the Free Cuba Committee, headed by Eladio Del Valle and Loran Eugene Hall. By 1965, St. George was serving as a publicity agent for Manolo Ray, "the engineer in charge of the Havana Hilton, co-conspirator with Dubois against Batista, and personal friend of Sylvia Odio.

...The one man on the Commission's staff who would have easily seen the red flags in a General Dynamics employee introducing Oswald to the CIA connected Russian community in Dallas, was assistant Counsel Albert E. Jenner. Jenner was put in charge of investigating the possibility of a conspiracy in the assassination. He was also Henry Crown's [Dir. Hilton Hotels, Havana Hilton, leading stockholder General Dynamics] attorney in 1964. Considering this inexcusable conflict of interest, his conclusion comes as no surprise. He wrote that, "Review of Oswald's life and activities since 1959...did not produce any meaningful evidence of a conspiracy...." Nor did the Commission's investigation of Jack Ruby "produce any grounds for believing that Ruby's killing of Oswald was part of a conspiracy" (R 374, emphasis added). Jenner, who carefully chose the Warren Report's wording as one of its key authors, was sitting on the board of directors of General Dynamics by 1970 with his former client Henry Crown. In 1974, Nixon approved the appointment of Mr. Jenner as minority counsel for the House Judiciary's investigation into his impeachment."

-- oh, From Bartholomew... http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html

um. are you effin' kidding me...!?

no. there's no evidence of a conspiracy...

neato. i'm familiar with suppressors in theory and the speed of sound. gotcha. there's even been talk of subsonic rifles being used - the idea of noise suppressed fire in conjunction with a normal rifle works fine in considering setting up a patsy. you can get an idiot (or not an idiot) to think he's about to shoot the Pres and have Pres shot from elsewhere, set up the fall guy and saunter on down the sidewalk at your leisure...

two things:

1) i came across that video of some cat, "Do The Math pt 6", that was showing that Altgens6 couldn't coincide with z255 - Greer's hand movements, etc. Sounded pretty convincing - he wasn't a LNer, i don't think - just an alternate theory, or something.

so, is it a given that Altgens6 = z255?

2) i happen to read - it's funny how often something i JUST happened to read comes up soon afterward, when it's something i've never before seen in 30 years... - about another agent/person, on Houston I think, say he heard a "suppressed" gunshot.

on the subject of rifles and balistics - i've read some of Fistzer's theory (it IS exciting, whether realistic or not) and kinda like it, but wonder: about noise suppressors, is it that possible that they could have been employed that day in multiple locations? has there been much talk of them besides Fitzer?

right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right.

seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress.

hard not to ignore evidence for a Lone Gunman when there's just so little of it.

OH! you mean in general... yep, i can admit getting a little uncomfortable when reading some things. not too often, tho...

I suspect DVP is about to bail on this thread, he's now not answering questions. " And why don't you have 'total freedom'? Who or what constrains you from having the freedom to see the truth?" He made the statement but won't tell us why he's not free to tell the truth.....

AH. i've reread your statement. Terrific question he walked himself into...

Glenn,

You asked some questions. Then I asked you some questions in return. And this somehow equals "shill"-like behavior?

My question about the TSBD witnesses is neither insulting nor embarrassing -- to anyone. And why you think it is is a mystery.

What's truly embarrassing (for you), Glenn, is your complete dismissal of virtually all of the evidence because you can't classify it as "Direct Evidence". Your repeated claims that my points regarding LHO's odd behavior on 11/21 and 11/22 are ALL "irrelevant" is something you should have been embarrassed to write.

In fact, given the OTHER evidence which all points in one way or another to Oswald (whether it be "direct" or "circumstantial" in nature), the ten items on my "Out Of The Ordinary Behavior" list are entirely relevant. Crucial, in fact. You even dismiss the Tippit murder on my 10-point list! A murder committed by Oswald is just brushed aside by Glenn Nall as if it's totally unimportant when talking about the events of 11/22/63....

DVP SAID:

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

GLENN NALL SAID:

NOT proven, AND irrelevant

[unquote.]

Now THAT'S not only embarrassing for you, Glenn. It's just plain ridiculous.

in fact. You even dismiss the Tippit murder on my 10-point list! A murder committed by Oswald is just brushed aside by Glenn Nall Why shouldn't it be brushed aside. No witnesses place LHO there, the time of deaths place LHO at the Texas theatre at the time of JDT's death. the bullets removed from Tippets body did not come from LHO's revolver. In short, Davey, you got nothing.....

heck, i didn't know all that. i was simply speaking to the lack of evidence. trying to keep it simple.

this is why i've come to the conclusion that his agenda is not in the LG arena. I think it's elsewhere. in this thread (and how many others?), reason was left behind a long way back.

Glenn,

You asked some questions. Then I asked you some questions in return. And this somehow equals "shill"-like behavior?

My question about the TSBD witnesses is neither insulting nor embarrassing -- to anyone. And why you think it is is a mystery.

What's truly embarrassing (for you), Glenn, is your complete dismissal of virtually all of the evidence because you can't classify it as "Direct Evidence". Your repeated claims that my points regarding LHO's odd behavior on 11/21 and 11/22 are ALL "irrelevant" is something you should have been embarrassed to write.

In fact, given the OTHER evidence which all points in one way or another to Oswald (whether it be "direct" or "circumstantial" in nature), the ten items on my "Out Of The Ordinary Behavior" list are entirely relevant. Crucial, in fact. You even dismiss the Tippit murder on my 10-point list! A murder committed by Oswald is just brushed aside by Glenn Nall as if it's totally unimportant when talking about the events of 11/22/63....

DVP SAID:

9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street.

GLENN NALL SAID:

NOT proven, AND irrelevant

[unquote.]

Now THAT'S not only embarrassing for you, Glenn. It's just plain ridiculous.

I'm imagining a conversation something like this on your side of the universe:

"Hey, let's see how many times we can get Glenn to bite on an increasingly unreasonable string of unconnected provocation! That'd be a hoot!"

"Good idea - I bet he canNOT resist. Let's!"

I give. You win.

Glenn,

A - Each of those witnesses saw LHO inside the building (in different places within the building) throughout the day on 11/22. But the important point I was making is: NONE of those TSBD employees said they saw LHO at precisely 12:30.

B - Do you disagree with that? Do you think Arnold or Shelley or Frazier or Lovelady (or some other TSBD worker of your choosing) provides Oswald with a "12:30" alibi?

A - We know this, Dave.

B - this is what people mean when they discuss "shill" behavior. You're egging for an argument (does that work, "egging for"?), you're trying to put insinuation into my very simple question. I did not intend for there to be an implication in it - if i had, it would have been a bit more obvious. I don't disagree with that. I don't care where he was at 12.30. It's YOU who have to place him somewhere at 12.30.

Your question, "Do you think..." is so entirely loaded with provocation it's (should be) embarrassing. Your MO is embarrassing. Your assumption that others know so much less than you is insulting. If you wonder why your "defense" isn't given more consideration, you can look at this little string of yours and mine for a really good explanation.

and LHO doesn't need an alibi for 12.30. Reasonable doubt is all that's necessary. And there's plenty of that.

was simply trying to understand how you might have misunderstood the question, since you must have.

is it a tricky question? is Robert's question tricky...?

there must be some reason you don't want to answer some of these questions that are, quite fairly, asked.

oh, sorry. i can see how that question might be misunderstood. you're right, it sounds a lot like i asked, "where did they say they saw him at precisely 12.30?" when in actuality I should have written:

Carolyn Arnold, Bill Shelley, Wesley Frazier, Billy Lovelady, etc

where do they say they saw him?

...you're so predictable (and funny). i KNEW you'd run straight to the mock trial (staged in LONDON for a reason, in 1980! i think...?), while some of us are trying to stick with reality.

Carolyn Arnold, Bill Shelley, Wesley Frazier, Billy Lovelady, etc

where do they say they saw him?

in fact, that was his tack, too - that dark patch. i'm not sold on the frechette idea anyway, and how that patch would relate, if it is a patch - it does look darker, tho. but to ME that could be sunlight (loss of) or anything with that kind of photography.

this guy stated that he could see signs of image manipulation (smudgery) in that area. I'm still a little curious about the suddenly very hard to see NORTH 77 sign, almost non-existent... but only a little concerned.

i occasionally see some really HIGH quality Zap film and wish I could get my hands on those frames, or better yet, the software that can clean up stuff like that. I know it's beyond Photoshop... So there must be better images of Betzner and Willis than what I'm looking at.

you seem familiar with the flechette UM theory - are you aware of this website I got this tale from? I cannot remember where i got them.

i saw an interview with F Sturgis last night in which he made what i think is a good point. The CIA might not go as far as direct murder in the USA because of patriotism and their badge - "if they'd do that, then what next" -- explaining that they weren't above murdering JFK, just pulling the trigger themselves. which is why they'd involve italians or cubans. I'd go with that. some false sense of sanctimony - i dunno.

but the use of a flechette firing mechanism, as described by the CIA guys. almost definitively places real Operatives on the triggers. Did they cross THAT line? Is there a reason to think they wouldn't?

Dr. SHAW - All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more than three grains of metal missing as far as the I mean in the wrist.
Mr. SPECTER - Your answer there, though, depends upon the assumption that the bullet which we have identified as Exhibit 399 is the bullet which did the damage to the Governor. Aside from whether or not that is the bullet which inflicted the Governor's wounds.

?? Was Specter opening up the possibility, this early in the investigation, of another bullet? Or was he just maintaining complete objectivity?

Dr. SHAW - I see.
Mr. SPECTER - Could a bullet traveling in the path which I have described in the prior hypothetical question, have inflicted nil of the wounds on the Governor?
Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And so far as the velocity and the dimension of the bullet are concerned, is it possible that the same bullet could have gone through the President in the way that I have described and proceed through the Governor causing all of his wounds without regard to whether or not it was bullet 399?

Here it looks like he's separating Energy expended from the consequent Material expended - so as to be able to contravene one at a time - divide and conquer, so to speak. He gets a "For" in the Energy possibility of 399, whereas he can then attack JUST the "Against" testimony in the Material loss problem.

Maybe... just trying to wonder what he's thinking here... realistically, it's a proper way of getting accurate testimony, it seems to me. defining the possibilities one factor at a time...?

Dr. SHAW - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?
Dr. SHAW - I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?
Dr. SHAW - I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.
(Discussion off the record.)

It's the SUM TOTAL of stuff that puts Oswald in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30.

No. It's not. i'm not sure how else it can be stated. Those points do NOT do ANYTHING to prove him being there. NOTHING.

You've tried to change the subject, and you've avoided the question.

please go look up the definitions of direct evidence, understand what is being asked, and then try to provide some. OTHER THAN THAT attempt to continue this discussion, I'm done.

key words. "direct evidence" (remember, the CT's don't claim direct evidence - we don't need it. it's the "prosecution" - the LNers - whose obligation it is to prove perpetration beyond a reasonable doubt, and in most prosecutorial events, direct evidence is the only thing that will work. And you've yet to provide any.

ANY.

"direct evidence" - Google is your friend.

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating.

I have no idea what that means.

right.

re howard brennan - wrong. for every ONE brennan there are THREE people who place LHO elsewhere. His testimony in court would be useless. and that's not considered direct evidence. eye-witness testimony is eye-witness testimony, it's not direct evidence (like a fingerprint that's proven not to have been present the day before). AND it is the most UNreliable evidence, really. for reasons just such as this. too vague, too reliant on memory, excitement, possible faulty vision - too many variables. this is why most wrongly convicted people are found that way on bad eye-witness testimony (followed by errant prosecutorial conduct, or something to that effect, I believe).

even Judaistic Law requires the testimony of TWO eye-witnesses to an incident. One is unacceptable.

when circumstantial evidence proves a case, the case is PROVEN. If Texas v. LHO had gone to trial in 1964, he would never have been found guilty. If our Common Law were opposite and the defendant was forced to prove his innocence, it'd be cut and dry on circumstance alone. WHY?

Because there is NOTHING that can prove he was on 6 AT 12.30. Brennan is destroyed by three (or more) other witnesses who would testify differently.

again. it's odd, I know, but we're looking. for. Proof.

David, could you explain your opinion of why the Secret Service "stole" the President's coffin at gun point, when the law should have been upheld and the autopsy held in Dallas?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/removing-body-of-jfk-from-dallas.html

he has deferred to the preordained defense which he himself has bored of repeating.

The accusation is NOT that Oswald acted mysteriously, or that he lied, or that he left work early, or even that he shot Tippit (this is secondary to the charge of murdering JFK).

But don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on Nov. 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"?

Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald?

In my opinion, it's a package deal that fit together perfectly ---

Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

AGAIN. "all that physical evidence that came out..."

this is what i've asked for, Direct Evidence, and what you've avoided. NO. Those items do NOT prove anything but that Oswald was weird, a xxxx, lazy, whatever, but they DO NOT put him on the 6th floor at 12.30, and if you in any way think they can, then you've proven my point, that you know NOTHING about probative evidence (you' e proven it anyway).

Joe Pesci in south Georgia would destroy your case.

We're looking for evidence that puts Oswald on 6 at 12.30. Even the paraffin tests can't do that.

NOTHING can put him on 6 at 12.30. NOTHING.

and, OTH, MUCH puts a - others there, and b - him somewhere else. I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about WHAT puts him on 6 at 12.30. Don't change the subject. Ignore it or answer it.

a better look at the angles

I'm probably mixed up about the time of some other images . Perhaps bronson film for a different view of that area. I've got a vague idea this was discussed some time ago on this forum. Could have been years. From memory I think all matters were dealt with and no sign of alteration is there in the end.

right, good enough. I could look for it, but if it's long ago, no telling what's been redecided since...

ultimately i think it's false alarm, too. like the face in the background opening in the pergola. I'm CERTAIN that's been seen before. It's not like "OH!!! LOOK!!! something noone's seen yet!!! - A FACE!!!"

Here's another piece about this: http://assassinationofjfk.net/was-umbrella-man-a-shooter/. It's really hard to say when the films are so unclear.

Excellent article. We know from Bronson that UM was in front of the sign, not behind it as in Willis and Betzner. And there is no way the part of the umbrella where the suspect dark patch is should be seen in Willis and Betzner because it obviously would be behind the "North" sign. Based on this, the article makes a strong case for UM having been moved by photo alteration, which would most likely have been deemed necessary if UM acted as a shooter and not just a bystander or signaler. It also makes sense that the weird BDM image would be added as a distraction from the alterations.

The only question I still have about the fletchette theory is whether firing the umbrella gun could be that accurate as to hit a moving target that precisely. Was there no danger of hitting Jackie instead? The Warren Commission would have had a fine time explaining that.

that's what i thought at first, because that's what the guy was talking about who posted this about the altered signs - the movement of UM - but as i looked more closely, it looks to me like UM is in front still, just obscured by a motorcycle antenna, angle, etc...

my good graphics software brings it in close without screwing it up, but not as nicely as some can - i'd sure like to know what the pros use with images that's better than Photoshop in this regard.