Glenn Nall

i thought the melodrama was just NPR as usual.

i couldn't stop the interview for some time - interesting about his alcohol consumption and the cabinet making the decision to escalate without him. wow.

makes me wonder what demons from years previous he was trying to drown...

i'm still wondering why no one has an opinion on the discrepancies between Summers' description of the Dictabelt gunshots timing and the Z film. is this completely my imagination, or is my math fabulously wrong, or just an unrectifiable issue...?

oh - THAT Tom Wilson. I'll look forward to reading it. I've heard about his work - i cannot but help think that there HAS to be a technology available to better clear up some of the ancient photography we have - somewhere!!!

Glenn and Roger. Wilson shows with his computer program how the shot did (in his reading of the evidence) come from the drain.

Unfortunately he did not leave the details of his program, before he died, so his results cannot be peer reviewed.

just saw this reply, Ray - well, now i AM interested in reading his book. my only question would be its lack of traction if it was indeed a reasonable theory. but i'm not stuck to the popular thought; the popular thought is what has made Professional Wrestling and Jerry Springer so successful.

i surely think it's possible, no doubt. it just seems to me that a shot from there would have had to go through the windshield closer to the right side than the left, and i've never seen a bullet go through glass of any kind without it being very obvious. i could be wrong about that angle - i've never looked at that direction for too much time.

i've heard it before, too - but not very regularly, and not with any real reasonableness (from the more reliable sources we've come to recognize, i mean). so for anyone to say that "this is a foregone conclusion at this point in time" speaks loudly of his own credibility.

Greg - i know you weren't. I was just ribbing you in good nature.

just out of curiosity, have you read Bartholomew's piece on the UT Rambler? I haven't gotten to the very end yet, but I'm finding all of those personalities connected fascinating.

This criticism that I get for with-holding my research for a book is a bit puzzling to me. I know of no other author that has been subjected to similar criticism. I am certainly not planning on being able to retire as a result...

I bet it's more common than you think.

i totally respect that, and don't blame you one iota - i was really making a joke out of it, mainly because anytime anyone even legitimately plugs their book (rightfully so) on TV or anywhere, they get a little friendly ribbing for it.

i left the little caveat for that reason - i really do realize there could be some merit to your claim - and if that's the case, I'm excited for you - and i'm sorry people have been snakes; some people are just snakes, and there's no way out of it.

you've been a bit out of line with people in here, too, and i had a bad taste for your approach at first, but i've come to know that you are genuine in your threads. in this thing, that's pretty refreshing.

i can't wait to hear it - this is why i like American Idol - i like rooting for the underdog.

how bout a clue (in a PM???)??? even a really, really, really hard to get one???

just kidding. peace.

oh - THAT Tom Wilson. I'll look forward to reading it. I've heard about his work - i cannot but help think that there HAS to be a technology available to better clear up some of the ancient photography we have - somewhere!!!

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!"

THAT is exactly what I'm talking about - what a piece of real research (detective work)! This kind of thing took looking outside the box, just as you said. Wonder how many people may have seen one of those names in the past and kept right on going... I've seen Naushon Island come up before, have no reason for that to cause a pause.

I'm hoping this thread can bring up many more of these kinds of anecdotes - real excitement coupled with a discussion of evidence. Thanks for bringing that up, Greg.

And thanks for trying to convince me that you've solved the Crime of the Century before anyone else on the planet and yet still think the sales of your book is more important than revealing it to the world. I will mull this one over for at least, i dunno, minutes...

(i realize there could be some merit to your claim - and I do hope to hear something juicy - I'm afraid I doubt its power in the face of a book plug, in all sincerity - hope i'm wrong. if i am, will you still autograph a copy for me?)

Everyone, it's with great alacrity and relief that I announce my decision to leave the closet of shame and denial, and, in the face of overwhelming evidence, embrace the Truth of The Church of The Lone Gunman, whose members have welcomed me as only the desperate can.

I cannot confidently say what it is that led me to this decision, other than my utter inability to find anything that even suggests someone other than Oswald was capable of this crime and its orchestration; that and the advice of a certain SAGE of the Dark Side (the dreaded CTers!) who encouraged me in no uncertain terms that I'd do better at the Church.

So farewell, reasonable people!! Ta Ta, Logic! I shall go, and ONLY read Posner and Bugliosi! And the Enquirer!

and this lamp... and this chair...

no, we all DON'T know that. I count as one of "all", and I don't know that.

and my money says there is another person who doesn't know this, either, the poor fellow...

great point - and realistic, too.

while i do concede that that's a valid point (it really is), my original point was specifically Jackie as the risk in question - and my point was that i don't think (with any real shooter at that range) they considered it a real risk, i.e. "not a concern" - IF they had a concern, as you've pointed out. They probably didn't. I say it's because that was not a hard shot - you say it's because they didn't care. maybe they didn't.

i think shooting him at a speech would have been easier overall - so there was SOME PARTICULAR reason the chose Dealey Plaza. Wasn't because it was easiest, collateral damage be damned. I think personnel was much of the choice, for both the city and location. which is why Chicago was a viable first option, if in fact it had been an option as many think.

and Mr Drew -

"I didn't even think there was any doubt at this late date that the shot that hit JFK in the throat went thru the windshield. Is there? And also the one that blew his brains out came from the manhole?"

I'd love to hear numbers of people who actually think a bullet went through the windshield. and or the sewer. has a poll been done?

are you sure you're not a CIA plant? (I'm reading History Will Not Absolve Us, and now think everyone's a CIA plant).

When ya'll are doing your research in the many various manners with which you do, going through the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of documents that are now available, with more and more continuously becoming available -- and that so many others have likely already gone over -- do any of you find yourself thinking that there is always the possibility of coming across that one overlooked, apparently meaningless item which, when and if paired with just the right other piece of "lonely" evidence somewhere, would bust this whole thing wide open, or at least take everyone in a seriously different direction...?

I mean, the amount of relative material today is just so absolutely enormous -- does anyone think that there still could be something of immense significance waiting to be found? or perhap that someone might still be holding on to something, or some things, of such value?

this almost answers itself - but I'd really like to hear what go through your minds, especially you real professional researchers and writers

i saw where someone 'in here' won an award (from Mary Ferrell's Organization?) for discovering some "new" items - way cool. this tells me that one never know what's under the next stone... (besides the one LBJ crawled out from under)

yes? no...?

thru the windshield. manhole covers. 6 guns...?

could the fact that no bullet went through the windshield to hit K., or anything, in fact, signify that no one orchestrated a shot through the windshield? from a manhole cover or anywhere that would require a shot thru it?

maybe i need to look again - maybe the windshield was between the fence and K. at some point. but I'm sure i don't need to 'relook' at the manhole trajectory...

and right - if there had been plans for 6 shooters, or 4, collateral damage would have had to be more acceptable.

again. i don't think it was a concern.

IMO, I don't buy a gunman placed in the area in front of the fence because an oblique angle like that would have put Jackie in the line of fire, which I don't think would have been done. To me, the trajectory of the blood and brain matter going to the rear left and hitting MC cop Hargis makes more sense with a shooter location behind the fence several feet west of the corner. Also the area in front of the fence looks to be very similar to where some have placed Badgeman, which I don't buy either.

Why would anyone care if Jackie got hit? The objective was to kill JFK, not to 'not kill' Jackie.

I think even monsters like this were still somewhat concerned about such severe collateral damage as Jackie - as well, any potential obstacle is still an obstacle.

i've heard some of talk about "poison" or "disabling" type ammo in order to render a person motionless for whatever reason in lieu of just shooting the man, and other talk of various 'missing the target' scenarios. I don't know about others, but I'm fairly certain that the firearm proficiency that would have been present in anyone who'd have been chosen to shoot, what, 35 yards from a target moving at 11 mph would NOT have had any concerns over missing. I cannot see that being a concern at all.

am I imagining the large discrepancy between the Summers/Dictabelt/HSCA shots and the visible signs on the zFilm? is this too off-topic...?

i thought it was on topic because the analysts claim that shot #3 came from the front-right (specifically the fence or the retaining wall, i don't remember which, when they were pressed), and the others from behind.

as well, on topic, i just came across the portion of the Nix film of the retaining wall, enlarged and slowed, that showed what seemed to me a very definite downward movement of something - has anyone seen this (by Martin Hinrichs, i think?):

why does Anthony Summers state that the shots are timed starting with shot #1 at 0, then #2 at 1.66 seconds, #3 at 7.49 and #4 at 8.43 seconds ?

in any situation this places 313 long before shots 3 and 4 according to Summers / Dictabelt...

what i'm saying is, if that's the timing of the shots, then neither of the 3rd or 4th shots hit K. at 313. so the Dictabelt analysis has to be wrong. right?

thanks Chris - having read about his lapel jumping at about 224 and now seeing it for myself, I think maybe there's something to 1 bullet wounding both men - i'm NOT saying SBT theory - there are still too many bullet marks for that - a proven SBT would not negate a conspiracy, surely.

just trying to line up gunshots with frames of the different films.

i was going off of Connally's reaction at 236 and counting backwards - but i just saw clearly where his lapel jumped and realized my mistake.

was looking for some help in here, but wasn't getting any, so after i saw my mistake i just deleted the content of the thread.

me being just a novice and all, perhaps i should just be reading instead of attempting input.

guess not.

oh well.

Who here believes he or she knows for sure what became of JFK's brain?

How could anyone know? I believe O'Connor said there was no brain in JFK's head when the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue. I believe there was also a brain at the autopsy that was almost intact and thus could not possibly have been JFK's brain. Then there was the extra brain apparently used per Horne's memo.

But I'm sure DVP will tell you that anyone with a brain knows there is nothing to see here!

right, i remember one of the testimonies by an attending md was that the brain was on the side table when he entered...?

I have a question, please. Regarding motive for the brain in question to have disappeared; is the material and texture of a human brain such that close examination of it can still provide details of the damage and from what direction it came, etc? I've always been under the (likely erroneous) impression that brain tissue is too soft to be able to learn this kind of thing.

and for what it's worth, I think DVP has it and won't tell us out of sheer spite.

Is that smoke from the gunshot, or it that dust from the tower?

really???