Glenn Nall

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!!!"

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.

not so much as to cause that. i'll post the positions of Betzner and Willis... ah - you may be right >>

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd. Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963? Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?) By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like.... 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind. Things like that. Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree? most people agree that "debate" is different than "argue," and that a "shill" is a person pretending to prefer the latter over the former, usually for an alternate motive. this is the reason i felt that calling someone a shill was not overly insulting. this is a thread about shills. i'm wondering if it has strayed far from its point, or if it has proven it. I'm possibly guilty of promoting them at this point by keeping the damn thing alive...

And yet you've joined a forum that is devoted (literally) to "argument". That seems a tad bit odd. Well, Glenn, for starters, what do you make of OSWALD"S OWN ACTIONS on both Nov. 21 and 22, 1963? Do you think the "out of the ordinary" things he did on both of those days tend to make him look INNOCENT or GUILTY? (Or neither?) By "out of the ordinary", I mean things like.... 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind. Things like that. Also, don't you think most of those things I just mentioned above tend to indicate that Lee H. Oswald was doing things completely on his own on both November 21st and 22nd, 1963? I mean, if he had some alleged "co-conspirators", they sure were useless to Oswald when he really needed them the most on those two days (especially on Assassination Day), wouldn't you agree? a) you overlooked the "concrete forensic or other direct evidence" part... you overlooked the "unique and different that I've not likely heard" part... c) you expectedly are not well attuned to probative values and the rules of evidence in legal settings. not a single one of those 'points' gets anywhere near proof of his being on the 6th floor firing that rifle, which is the accusation in question. 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, which he was never officially charged with anyway). The charge, by you and your rightful attempts to prove it, is that Oswald fired a rifle from the 6th floor at 12.30 that day of his own accord and planning. Right? 1.) The unusual Thursday trip to Irving. not probative whatsoever. Any lawyer and any juror will say "So what?" - irrelevant to the charge 2.) The "paper bag" and the provable lies associated with that bag that LHO told. ("Curtain rods" anyone?) irrelevant to the charge 3.) Not carrying any lunch at all with him to work on Nov. 22nd. irrelevant to the charge 4.) Leaving work at 12:33 PM (just three minutes after the assassination). not even proven [edit - maybe i'm wrong here - terrifically irrelevant either way] 5.) Not waiting for his usual bus at the corner of Elm & Houston after departing the TSBD at 12:33 on 11/22. irrelevant - a DOUBLE so what 6.) Being in such a hurry after getting on McWatters' bus that he felt he just had to get off the bus. irrelevant - a TRIPLE so what - more like a "WHAT?" 7.) Taking a cab to his roominghouse. (And there's not another provable instance of the penny-pinching Oswald ever spending money to take a cab while within the borders of the USA.) irrelevant 8.) Rushing in and out of his roominghouse on 11/22. irrelevant 9.) Murdering a policeman on Tenth Street. NOT proven, AND irrelevant 10.) Waving a gun around in the theater while shouting out some things that can only be looked upon as things being uttered by a person with a guilty state of mind. shows consciousness of guilt. but of WHAT? you said something earlier about his guilt of something - by saying that you've defeated your own argument (charge). not ONE of those items goes to the charge in question. and you know that. half of that stuff wouldn't even be admissable. the other would be humorous. i was looking for direct evidence of his guilt, and something unique. you failed fabulously on both counts. sorry.

i wonder how many people were walking when POTUS was driving by 10 feet away...

not so sure, and i'm not trying to create what's not there. but the two photographers were no more than a few feet apart up the street. that accounts for the slightly different angles of the stationary objects and the two Agents. the movement of that one car that's visible is taken into consideration. that doesn't explain the gap in the lower group of people OR the bright sunlight on the two taller figures that are centered. and there seems to be a gap to the other side of these two figures in the opposite group. you're saying that gap is because someone is walking behind them? hmmm... looks like a face to me, not the left side of a person's head.

I don't mean this personally, like golly i think you're not a nice person kind of "personally" -I can't help but wonder why you're not hanging out with like minded persons who would welcome your input. there is not a chance in hades of you changing a person's mind in a forum designed for the discussion of conspiracy theories (unless I'm wrong there), so the only conclusion i can enjoy is that you either like to argue or like to be out down. seriously, i'm not trying to be mean, just simplifying things. i'm ignoring most of your challenges BECAUSE i'm not here to argue. i'm here to learn. (don't even ask the next question that comes to your mind on that one). Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT attempt to kill the President of his own accord, there is little, if any, concrete forensic or other direct evidence that can place him on the 6th floor, and there's not likely a soul in any of these forums that's going to change their position on that any time soon. so really - do you have something unique and different that I've not likely heard before regarding the Single Assassin possibility? I'm all ears. really. I'll listen. (ask Paul T. - he's got my attention, and i agree with him hardly at all.) But i won't argue with you. I don't enjoy that.

here's an obscurity: "I have never been certain of the book he was referring to in that phone call. Books connecting the mob to the assassination began to appear at that time. An example is Mafia Kingfish, by John Davis. Davis' thesis is that Kennedy was hit in a vendetta against him by the Marcello organization. That book, in the 1989 paper back Signet edition, on page 451, establishes my father as a "connection to the Marcello organization" and "the representative of the Mob controlled American Guild of Variety Artists." The same book makes mention of an ultra-right wing John Birch Society individual named Major General Edwin Walker. It is a piece of unverified apocrypha that Oswald is supposed to have taken a pot shot at him in his Dallas home some time prior to the Kennedy shots. I have a childhood memory of my father becoming enthusiastically involved in the political campaign of a General Walker. I recall helping staple together his campaign yard signs. Beyond that there are no more details in my memory, but again it shows my father in that mix of people bound together by JFK's death." http://www.lotuseaters.org/jfkdad.shtml

not sure what you're getting at, John...

And none of the source material I present is "credible" either, is that correct? IOW, the only "credible" and "convincing" stuff is the material put up by CTers. Right, Glenn? Despite the fact that no CTer in history has ever produced any solid (or physical) evidence to PROVE their claims of a JFK conspiracy. There are many people properly convicted and in prison based solely on circumstantial evidence. In fact, most people who are being exonerated are the ones who were convicted on "eye-witness" testimony. a little perspective...

There's some guy trying to say that the "NORTH 77" on the left post of Stemmons is missing in Betzner and Willis because of Umbrella Man standing there and the Feds had to "fix" the film - it took some time, but I finally could see the NORTH 77 signs - but there IS an issue with the group of people. Hard to imagine there's not more talk about this. This person actually suggested that the Black Dog Man figure is another alteration as a diversion of the mess they made below the sign.

this is my first real foray into a forum such as this, and i've been very impressed by the fantastic intellect in those with whom i do and do not agree. before this venture i would have laughed at the idea of someone spending this much energy and time just trying to dissuade others from getting in the longer line for no real reason. i don't scoff at that any more. none of us are idiots - i value everyone's opinions. i don't value a transparent agenda in the face of good, solid reasoning, sincerity notwithstanding. interpretation is one thing. denial is another (i'm a recovered alcoholic - i don't judge denial either). but plain bad logic is hard to put up with, and is what makes me think that there ARE shills, for whatever motive. just plain old bad reasoning is what kills the credibility, in my mind, not interpretation or opinion.

Specter made two assumptions that were not supported by the medical report or the WC testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw. The first assumption was that the bullet actually passed through Connally's chest, inflicting a through and through wound of the right lung. The second assumption is that the bullet was tumbling as it travelled between JFK and Connally. The back wound suffered by Connally is perhaps the least understood of any of the wounds that day. It was, in actuality, not really a back wound. It struck Connally a tangential blow at the extreme right outside edge of his chest, at a point called the mid axillary line. If Connally had been facing forward when shot, as he clearly is at z224, this would have been a minor wound that would have travelled through a couple of inches of muscle before exiting the side of Connally's chest. What it actually did was enter at the mid axillary line, follow the OUTSIDE of Connally's wrist downward for 10 cm. (4 inches) and exit just below and slightly to the LEFT of Connally's right nipple. Anatomically, this describes a right to left bullet path of roughly 40° across the front of Connally's chest. Knowing this as stated fact by Dr. Shaw, Connally was either turned halfway to the rear when shot, eliminating z224 as a possible time of him being shot, or the shot originated from the west end of the TSBD. The important thing about this wound is that at no point does Dr. Shaw state that the bullet ever penetrates the chest cavity but, rather, it followed the course of the outside of the 5th rib, stripping out much of it for the 4 inches it was in contact with it. He states that the open pneumothorax (sucking chest wound) suffered by Connally was caused by shattered fragments of the 5th rib. The possibility of this bullet tumbling when it hit the side of Connally's chest is ruled out by something Dr. Shaw stated in his WC testimony: "Mr. McCLOY - Is it possible that it could have not, the actual bullet could not have hit the rib at all but it might have been the expanding flesh that would cause the wound or the proper contusion, I guess you would call it on the rib itself? Dr. SHAW - I think we would have to postulate that the bullet hit the rib itself by the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it." The ribs are fairly narrow, and if this bullet stripped out the 5th rib, and left the intercostal muscles above and below it relatively undamaged, the bullet could not have been tumbling in order to have inflicted such a confined amount of damage. It must have been travelling straight and true. My experience in hunting has shown me that tumbling bullets tend to make large messes, and tear up great amounts of flesh. Many military bullets, such as the .303 British Mk. VII bullet, are purposely designed to tumble, once in a wound, to maximize damage. Further evidence of a non-tumbling bullet is provided by SA Robert Frazier of the FBI, who examined Connally's suit coat. He described to the WC a perfectly round bullet exit hole on the front of Connally's suit coat that measured a mere 3/8" in diameter; less than 1/8" larger in diameter than a 6.5mm Carcano bullet. How could an extremely long bullet, such as the 6.5mm Carcano, make a 3/8" diameter exit hole in the suit coat if it were tumbling? great reading, guys - i've not read much on Connally's wounds in such detail, and am only now beginning to open up to multiple shooter options (like TSBD west window, etc...). What's your take on all of that? aside from that the bullet wasn't magic. more than one bullet? didn't Menck's (is that his name?) particle analysis show that the bullet fragments weren't all represented by one bullet?

Oh, well, if he said it on page 118 then that must make it official. or something. yes, using page 118 in any book of secrets is "code" for "you can take THIS to the bank." u didn't no that? if you don't believe me, see pg 118 in my next book.

i mean, not that I'll reply, but fire away...

Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). But here's the translation of Glenn's post above.... Glenn DID click the link, but when he found out that it said "DVP's Archives", he immediately left the page without bothering to check any of the source links DVP provided to back up the things he was saying in the article regarding John Connally's bullet fragments. True or false, Glenn? Yeah, prob'ly. ~eyeroll~ But you don't like the idea of me doing the same thing, right? Nice double standard, Glenn. Easy. By the visible URL (jfk-archives.blogspot...). * How does that tell me it's yours, David? True or false, Glenn? * False, I read until i got to the part about someone shaving minute sections of lead from the lead core of the butt of the bullet. Nice double standard, Glenn * Not a double standard at all. I know what kind of material you present, and I know what kind he presents. His is credible in a good defense; yours is not. In fact, you'd be properly advised NOT to use your own material if you actually intend to be convincing. any other questions, Dave?

how would If you would have bothered to click on the link, "dude", you'd find dozens of source links to support the things I talk about at my own site regarding the Connally fragments. And, BTW, I sure don't see Pat Speer being nailed to the cross for the many times we see these words in a post written by Mr. Speer himself.... "From Chapter 7b of PatSpeer.com..." But I would never fault Pat for citing stuff from his own website. Of course he's going to do that (and often). And that's because he has put a lot of time and effort into the things he places on his site. Just as I have done on my sites. And Pat, like me, is proud of the things he has written on his site. What website operator wouldn't want to prop up his own work and articles? And, as I said above, I normally provide tons of source links to back up my arguments. how would i have known it's your own website if i didn't click on it, David? the difference in Pat's website and yours is probably the credibility and content. Of course he can cite his own website.

came across a couple of different websites, one of them French, discussing different problems with the Stemmons sign in Zapruder (using the "damaged" Life Mag frames) and the supposed missing North Hwy 77 signs on the left post - while I don't think the signs are actually painted out, I am convinced some people under Stemmons got "moved around" between Betzner and Willis. how have these people rearranged themselves within about a second span? what's going on here...?

oh good, thanks ...

they ran out of arguments years ago, just haven't accepted it yet.

I think you have perfectly described the entire phenomena. I kept wanting to highlight and quote parts of that with "Exactly!" until i just decided the whole think should be mounted and framed. Nicely put, Pat. they confuse me, so I long ago quit trying to understand them. I'll listen, but I know where it usually ends up.

Glenn, you're making many of the same points I made when you said I wasn't saying anything interesting. I believe the nutters are here to create controversy and prevent meaningful discussion. those are not my quotes, Kenneth - those were by someone else - I simply suggested that I remember learning the same "erroneous tactics" in Critical Thinking.

"but I think many more are invested in a visceral/emotional way that is integral to their personal identity. Like some warped version of patriotism." bingo. something much more valuable than money. their pride. I'm about to address one... DVP: are you serious? that's your reply? you cite your own website? dude, you're desparate. Mr Drew - we cannot ALWAYS disagree.

re #3 - it's even more simple than geometry - there's too much lead in Connally to have come from one "whole" bullet. Period. He was buried with lead in his leg. There's only one explanation for that.