Glenn Nall

i'm fairly certain that there have never been individuals who have not ever been wrong, Jon. Never meant VB was not wrong, simply stated that I respected his brilliance despite his agenda. Kathy had discussed people who are not willing to listen to an alternate view, and I agreed with her, that I am not one of those unwilling to listen to the LNers, esp VB because of the respect for him I have. I've learned many things from people I'd never has suspected could teach me something.

where I lose respect is with persons who are just fishing for opportunities to find negative sides of people with whom they disagree.

Sole Assassin theory is ridiculous, we know it's ridiculous and we even scoff at its ridiculousness. I get that. I just chose to say something nice about one of them.

I've read that Einstein ended up a little bitter at the fact that he was wrong with a couple of things. I'm certainly hoping he was more able to allow for the room for error than the room you seem to be able to give him. Of course he missed marks. That particular one is a matter of opinion, tho. Not fact.

have you read And The Sea Will Tell? Vince was a serious good trial lawyer.

Fair enough, but OTOH, I have seen CTs who will not view a video or read an article or a book by an LN.

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

The Second "Watergate" Law states: “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially

denied.

God I love that. :-)

you're dead right - in here, even, sometimes it seems that having the "right" theory is the goal to winning. I'm chatting with another CTer at the moment in another thread whose CT theory is far from mine, but we've both respected each other, used reason, and i've learned much from his larger knowledge - and have been glad to do so. I just posted that i'll even listen to a LNer, until he (invariably) leaves reason behind.

there are CTers, too, who are closed minded. this is a contrary behavior to a desire for the truth, in my opinion. i don't get that.

and my joke about Dems was just friendly ribbing. I think most people in here are Dems (likely, anyway). Our common goal *should* supercede such other agendas. shouldn't it?

Finally, to bring this all back to the theme of this thread -- Michael Paine -- I believe that Michael Paine always knew that Edwin Walker was the killer of JFK.

right, that's what i was reading. the UT Rambler thing. It's pretty interesting, and new to me. I'm open to Walker being at the top. (poss. he and LBJ could have colluded - "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...

yes, this is all great stuff, and i know i can learn a lot from you and others as informed as you. because two people disagree doesn't in any way mean there's nothing they can get from each other or respect of each other. even LNers I'm willing to listen to, until they exhibit the oh too common lack of reason.

re Ruby's limited mental faculties. don't dispute that whatsoever. I don't think he was a part of the Big one, just a part of the smaller acts, like maybe Tippit, or providing transportation or something. Sure he was too dimwitted to trust with Knowledge, but then (in my theory) the heavies wouldn't trust many people at all with more than the absolute "need to know". (LHO, if used at all, was most likely thinking something far from reality.) I agree with you, but whatever Ruby's role, his connections are what form the bridge, in my eyes, not his responsibilities. Never intended to imply Ruby was important - just that his connections with Roselli, Giancana, Marcello should NOT be ignored.

I was reading other stuff on Walker's motives with LHO - i know very little about that, and I'm quite open to his being a planner. I haven't decided on ANY names strategically, other than LBJ and prob. JEH (at least having knowledge before the fact - knowledge before the fact IS guilt.)

Interesting about Kantor obviously telling the truth about meeting Ruby at Parkland, AND the WC deciding that this most integrous man is suddenly not so reliable. Of course.

I'm doing several things re JFK on one of my websites (i'm a programmer) that i'm hoping are a little unique, as far as lists go, nothing definitive - and I'm hoping to put together a list of testimonies/people who were actually snubbed by the WC and HSCA AFTER hearing the testimony - not including the vast number of people who were not even called.

just a matter of curiosity, and the fun of making lists.

thanks for your candor - I really do learn from your posts.

I'm still stuck on the UT connections, too. That pretty much leads straight to the top. no tellin'...

"They are just so invested in the system"

sometimes I think that's simply the bottom line - for whatever reason they're afraid to be "wrong", or unable to think because of this investment...

"for if any component, no matter how seemingly insignificant fails, the case for a single assassin evaporates"

bingo. makes you wonder why they even put all their eggs into that basket, doesn't it.

and really, "expert testimony" can be found to support anything. it's no surprise at all that there are people who will say that "this gun" or "this bullet" can do "this". hardly even matters, really.

the fact that anyone is still trying to verify the Warren Commission findings says all that needs to be said about this person's access to reality.

why were multiple bullet fragments found in Connally's body that were "some as large as a matchhead, some larger than a matchhead"?

where did they come from?

and DON'T say the three people who saw them were a) mistaken, lying, c) otherwise wrong. Three people saying the same thing were not "wrong".

where did these fragments come from?

it's funny that we present our cases in here as if we're going to change someone's mind, but that's not my mindset when i stop and think about it. I enjoy banter with someone like you who uses reason and not insult - and I know you're as convinced as I am (moreso, probably).

but when i present a case "outloud", I rehear it and get more attached to it, or less. It does me good to mull it over. In this way i'm remaining teachable - malleable... which is vital to learning a truth.

nice - but no, Ruby came from Chicago at the time Giancana gained power - he was one of the boys sent to NO/Dallas by them. He is factually connected to Marcello and Traficante thru Murrett and Carousel Club. Anyone with those kinds of friends are not as impressed by a bunch of hick cops except as how they can give him, the narcissist, attention (which was his motivator).

Martino talks about Ruby/Oswald's fate, as well as too many other people, none of them knowing each other (Cheramie or whatever her name was did NOT know Martino). No way. Ruby's the bridge between the low levels (corrupt cops) and the brass - he was in too tight with both. That he was in tight with the Outfit is hardly disputable. Dorothy's death convinces me of that, in fact. And i happen to believe his testimony to the WC. He was dead serious.

Hoover on the other hand had as much to lose as LBJ, almost. He would not be fired at the hands of both Kennedys. LBJ was NOT going to go to prison, which is exactly where he was heading, no way around it.

The details aren't vital - whether the shooters were italian or cuban doesn't matter. K had so many enemies they probably all wanted a piece. It will be super to know all the details (J Files, even?), but not crucial.

I don't have the majority opinion, i have one that happens to coincide with a majority for a probable reason. Sometimes the majority is on track, sometimes it's what to avoid. Like Jerry Springer.

I've heard about Seth Kantor, but don't remember where - a researcher / author?

Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

This is one of the most effective LNer shill tactics employed followed by these two:

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

these are all basic arguments learned in any Critical Thinking class. I notice them a lot when I'm talking with Democrats.

oh wow, thanks so much for sharing this - this explains some questions I had, how he came to find the Rambler at UT in the first place - makes sense. So his dad worked with Marina's future husband. Fascinating.

his stuff is hosted on Acorn.net - don't even know who they are - i'm sure he has more literature available.

I like most of that - I have a problem with the fact that they latched onto LHO so fast. Ruby's history and his complicity connects all the parties, i feel. Two separate conspiracies of this magnitude is too much for me. Giancana and Chicago and Ruby and Trafficante/Luciano and Lansky and FDR - it's widely known that the government reached way into the Mafia, and Ruby surely did - that connects it all for me.

I respect you guys, and will always consider your offerings. I really, really think LBJ's imminent indictment was the tipping point, tho.

i misunderstood - my fault. I didn't even see that last phrase... oops.

i've been enjoying the story so much, all the while wondering who this Bartholomew fellow is because he writes well enough and his research is so meticulous, and now you're saying he may have been in dallas on that day?

I've been reading it slowly, making some notes and fitting into my day - i found it just doing some minor look into DH Byrd - i'm just now getting to the end of the torn-up books, and the Rambler. It's almost like getting to the end of a Nelson DeMille novel...

hmmm. ok... two totally separate conspiracies - one to kill JFK, and then, "well, since he's just been killed, we need to cover up what really happened"... including whisking away that blasted home movie in the fastest of possible times to a major CIA facility AND ...

i'm sure THAT's going over well with the Lone Nutters.

nah, i can't buy it. too complicated. Occam's Razor and all that. the fewer the moving parts the more likely the story.

that's where i fall, anyway.

but some of that i like - Hunt and Morales as involved, just not with a CIA hat on. works for me.

has this been done by anyone? publicly...?

"The study and analysis of the missing pages has proven to be a lengthy and time-consuming project. The findings concerning them are beyond the scope this paper. A thorough analysis of the missing pages would require another paper of considerable length. For researchers who would like to attempt their own analysis and critique, however, a complete list of the books, their missing pages and their discovery dates, as well as the back seat magazines, can be found in this paper's appendix. This paper will deal with some significant aspects of the missing pages that led to a greater understanding of the interrelationships previously discussed and yet to be discussed."

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler3.html

i don't find much talk of LHO at all, anymore. He certainly doesn't occur to me except how he might explain GdM or MPaine. That's all.

You have some very odd information and conclusions which have ceased to interest me.

for those who don't believe that there was any upper level FBI or CIA involvement, that it was a more immature group of people while the alphabet groups sat back and watched - how does that explain the ensuing cover-up? IF there was a conspiracy of any kind, then there WAS a cover-up (of JFK's head wounds and other items after the fact), right?

I'm reading about MP, and wonder what this means:

"the mother of the chief patron of the accused assassin (being in league with Allen Dulles)...?

thanks much,

gn

Doug, I think you look quite distinguished either way - and clearly your ego is not such that you're worried enough about your picture to change it. My ego, on the other hand, would have me changing mine every other day or so until i looked like Robert Redford.

vanity of vanities, all is vanity!!!

i'm not as impressed as i'd hoped to be - every time he said, "as you can see here," pointing to some model, i could not. none of the visuals made ANY sense to me.

on the other hand, I'm shocked that i didn't know about or didn't remember the sewer on the right side of Elm - i've been thinking of the one farther down on the opposite side, which is why i thought the windshield would be in the way. I can see how a shot could have come from this sewer, and how everyone would have missed it.

i CANNOT see anyone popping up from the manhole at any time after the shots to escape. didn't happen. if he's saying that the exit was through the sewer system to the Trinity River, then ok. But why would they have filmed this guy acting like he's escaping upward?

and what of the police report of a "man with a rifle" around the Trinity River? Is that legitimate - did that happen? that's not insignificant if it did.

ok, i'm open to someone being under the street. i'm also convinced there was at least another or two behind the fence AND/OR the retaining wall. The animated gif of the retaining wall from the NIX film is quite convincing to me.

i was deathly afraid that someone would take that seriously - it was sarcasm, in response to the well meaning but misguided fellow in this thread who felt I am wasting my time with this research because I don't think a bullet went through the Limo windshield. I was making fun of him.

there is more of a chance of me becoming a democrat than me becoming a lone nutter. (not really, but it's close).

I'm afraid I lean more to toward a "bigger" collusion than I ever have before. It's quite scary, actually, the thought of how big this could go.

what's almost as scary are the Nut Loners who actually think things like "everybody knows he was shot from the manhole cover!" or, "anyone can see Greer shot him over his shoulder using the rear-view mirror with one hand tied behind Kellerman's back!"

"anyone can see Greer shot him over his shoulder using the rear-view mirror with one hand tied behind Kellerman's back!" So now you think it was Greer? I've never bought that theory, no evidence. Unlike 'everyone' knowing there was a shot through the windshield, 'Nobody' thinks Greer did it.

Mr Drew, I'm afraid you're really struggling recognizing sarcasm. Or maybe you're not, and I am. But i doubt that seriously.

and yes, there actually are people who think Greer did it. That was the joke.