Glenn Nall

i hope you didn't misunderstand me - i was making fun of the Lone Nutters who will overlook your good logic and attack based on your use of the word imagine. as it is that they have no real argument. i'm on your side. esp. now that you've clarified Crenshaw's credibility for me. have no idea what DLI is, so i don't know what your experience is, or expertise. i am new to this board, and am still feeling out who's credible and who's not (although one or two made themselves apparent pretty quickly...) you seem to be one of the credible (read: level headed) ones. tell me what DLI is so i can be properly impressed...? feel free to PM me so we don't get too far down the rabbithole. the fact that you've learned an asian language is impressive enough. glenn oh, and what is ROKC?

We KNOW that McClelland's crazy "scalped pulled up over the wound in the BOH" theory is not accurate, because if it were accurate, then this X-ray would show a big hole in the back of the head---and it shows no such thing. This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head. There is NO MISSING BONE at the back of the head. And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out.... "...because if it were accurate, then this X-ray would show..." poor logic. that doesn't follow at all. there are several reasons other than Mc's inaccuracy for this Xray not to show... "This X-ray is the #1 pictorial item that proves there was no massive hole in the rear of JFK's head..." again, who says? an xray can be falsified like any other image. or swapped. or... i'm not saying that it was, but you're claiming that this xray is a #1, as if it's widely accepted as authentic, indisputable, but that's just not the case. that's like saying, "cause EVERYBODY does it" - not true. "There is NO MISSING BONE" you can't prove a negative. it's more likely that 4 MDs are correct in their collective and agreeing memories than images supplied by people who are under the suspicion of deceit anyway. you're asking us to suspect conspiracy, but leave the Bethesda doctors out of it. and yet you expect your credibility to maintain. i'mm not being offensive, personally, just making an observation. perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reasoning skills. "And McClelland (and Company) insist that the BACK of Kennedy's head was blown out." sounds to me like they've simply stuck to their story for 50 years. if you call that "insisting", well, so be it.

"My concern is ... with Parkland and Zapruder." Right, mine too. I'd started a thread about that last week, got a few nibbles - i was at that point not sure of what i was seeing in the film. I reached the personal conclusion, without having become firm in any altered film theory, that I'm much more comfortable believing the eyes, and words, of four MDs (and a number of other testimonies), as their words match, than that of the film. considering all involved, no problem.

yes, but i'm afraid, Jon, that by using the word "imagine" twice in your comments you've nullified the good logic and made yourself a target for the LN fusillade. Prepare to dive.

Parkland v. Bethesda > what i see here are a group of absolutely innocent, accidental (situationally), well-trained ER doctors describing what they professionally observed versus a group of administration connected, untrained (in autopsy) doctors who knew well in advance that they were receiving the dead President illegally and under the pressure of observing FBI. gee, i dunno. who to believe...

Good stuff, Vince - with the amount of opinions, theories and material, both legit and ridiculous, available today, a comprehensive who's who and what's what is probably pretty damn nice.

good stuff. man gets long winded developing a foundation for an opinion, doesn't he. bless his heart, though, to be so clear at his age. good stuff.

First I've seen of any interview with Dr McLelland - Of the rear head wounds, i've only seen the sketch of it by one of the Drs that accompanies the other graphics of the autopsy stuff, and heard about the Drs agreeing to a "gaping hole" - His and Dr Crenshaw's graphic descriptions of the wound leave NO room for misinterpretation. As far as I know, and I'm no doctor, there's only one cerebellum in a human brain (even mine) and 9 times out of 10 it's in the back. nearer the top of the spine than the right ear. so correct me if i'm wrong, (Gary) but if someone can see a person's cerebellum through a hole in his skull, doesn't that pretty much mean that the hole would be positioned in proximity to the cerebellum...? am i missing something here? could the Kennedy genetic be such that their brain physiology is eons more advanced than a normal person's, in which the placement of some of the more important parts has evolved? Maybe John's cerebellum was closer to his right ear, thereby causing (according to some research) an uncontrollable propensity for adulterous behavior. Which would clear some other things up. somehow this doesn't work for me - I'm thinking JFK's cerebellum was where it should have been. Until some bastards moved it with a bullet or two. From the front.

"I'm sure it will provoke a lot of discussion." mostly for reasons relating to my aversion to conflict, and somewhat in my reluctance to express openly my true feelings for the wayward, innocent ones, (much in the same way i keep from saying to children, "hush up, boy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about yet"), i refuse to let it provoke any discussion on my part.

I had to write "wow" last night cause i was on my phone, which i pretty much refuse to use as a typewriter. but i wanted to point out a couple of things relative i came across in Bartholomew's Rambler paper (i think i found it in the box.com link with the hard-to-find literature somewhere in this forum). Note both Radio Free Europe and MIT "CENIS" - (I'm not at all familiar with this aspect of the 'whole thing', the European angle, and not really that interested except as it connects these "Americans" in Texas and Washington): "C.D. Jackson, former president of the CIA's National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), and friend of Allen Dulles, had worked closely with Walt Rostow. Among other things they co-authored Eisenhower's "Chance for Peace" address of April 16, 1953, which was "the opening gun of the post-Stalin phase of the Cold War." It is noteworthy here that the NCFE's most important operation was Radio Free Europe.45 Jackson's connection, through Radio Free Europe, Henry Luce, and Allen Dulles, to the Paines and therefore possibly to Oswald and the Rambler will be discussed further in this paper. In 1951 Rostow "helped launch" CENIS46 with backing from his former OSS buddies now in the CIA. It is a think tank and well known CIA front that defended communist ideology while admitting to its industry benefactors that it was actually fighting communism.47 For ten years at CENIS, Rostow worked closely with Isaacs. Warren Commission Document 942 says that it had been alleged that Marilyn Dorothea Murret (Oswald's cousin) was linked in some manner with the apparatus of Professor Harold Isaacs. And Warren Commission Document 1080 (CD 1080), an FBI report entitled "Marilyn Dorothea Murret," is entirely about Isaacs' background and contains no mention of Murret. This document describes Isaacs as a disillusioned leftist intellectual who had become a professional anti-communist -- which also reveals the true nature of the secret goals of CENIS. This report had been classified by the Warren Commission as a withheld file open only to the federal government and the Commission. It would probably still be secret if an assassination researcher had not discovered it misfiled in the National Archives in the mid-1970s.48"

Wow

http://gizadeathstar.com/2011/01/the-tentacles-of-the-nazi-octopus/ Dr Joseph Farrell: "Headquarters of the CIA/Gehlen/Vlassov combine, staffed in the mid-fifties by 4000 full-time agents, were in Pullach, near Munich. There Gehlen danced to the tune of more than one piper, having remained in touch with the old Nazi heirarchy relocated in Latin America, whose coordinator, Otto Skorzeny, was in Spain. Skorzeny had infiltrated the Spanish intelligence agency DGS, and effectively controlled it single-handedly." (Henrik Krueger, The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence, and International Fascism, p. 205). General Vlassov, let it be noted, was the Ukrainian general who led Ukrainian SS troops against the Soviet Union. In any case, so pervasive was this Nazi penetration into American intelligence that CIA historian Carl Oglesby noted "How can a naive, trusting, democratic republic give its secrets to crime and its innermost ear to the spirit of Central European fascism and expect not to see its Constitution polluted, its traditions abused, and its consciousness of the surrounding world manipulated ultimately out of all realistic shape." (Carl Oglesby, The Yankee and Cowboy War, (Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, 1976). It was this international "Fascista" organization that sponsored the notorious Operation Condor assassinations in South America in the 1970s. (Krueger, pp. 212-213). And it was Skorzeny, of course, who was also the nominal leader of the postwar West German efforts to aid Gamel Abdul Nasser's Egypt in the 1950s. as I outline in The Nazi International, and I strongly suspect - as I argued in LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy, that Oswald's sojourn in the USSR was handled by Gehlen's organization, who may very well have been behind Oswald's handler in Dallas, George De Mohrenschildt, who was also connected to the Texas oil barons, and who may have been their conduit to German intelligence. /**/ How very interesting. Of course, some will think this a "pack of lies", too.

I just read Mimi Alford's book last month - i know this is not about the assassination, but I thought the book was pretty good, a bit enlightening (to me) in the ways of JFK, etc. I thought it was well written, pretty revealing in the ways of human behavior and feelings - a "darkish" side to the President that i've read (probably by inadvertant choice) very little of before. Anyone else read it? Any thoughts?

I agree Paul - i take umbrage too, believe me - my political leanings even have their say within my head - I just feel that there are civil and uncivil means being used in here, and the uncivil is neither necessary nor effective. It seems to me that "the cause" is forgotten, even weakened, in these efforts to insult. If I could witness the truth at the cost of being totally wrong in my hypothesis, then let it be - thems MY thoughts. /***************/ I began reading UT Rambler in looking up some stuff on DH Byrd and his connections with Cabell Bros. (i'm doing a thing on my website strictly on connections between people - Byrd > Mac Wallace > LBJ, etc, which is pretty unavoidable circumstance, I like to think) and I'm finding all this great stuff on U.T., Rostow, de Mohrenschildt, Lansdale - Lansdale's "mistreatment" by K. re Viet Nam... that whole circle of dastardly persons is hard to ignore. This guy Newman seems to do good homework. I'm coming to learn the upper level researchers, Newman, Oglesby - Posner (just kidding)... I'm just on the first of the 3 LONG pages of Rambler - wow. It's one thing to consider (i said "Consider", you convinced ones, not "believe") rogue CIA did it - quite another to think of the possibility that a serving AF Colonel might have been involved. one thing i've learned in 30+ years: Kennedy sure knew how to piss people off!

it's funny (ironic) that this topic has come back up today (for me, anyway) - i was JUST reading the part about Landsdale in Bartholomew's article last night, wondering... Lansdale's Viet Nam comm. with LBJ, the whole USAF Intel circle... hhmmm... on another topic: reading through these threads must be what listening in on Senate debates sounds like. Isn't the endgame supposed to be the same, here? what's with all the animosity? Does the guy with the closest theory win?

Although I already believe it's Lansdale, the amateurish "photographic study" you posted does not persuade. damn, Greg - "amateurish"? what an amateurish comment...

Brian, the LNers apparently do not consider "circumstantial evidence" of any degree, in any amount, no matter how mathematically improbable, to be evidence - EVEN THOUGH there are thousands of guilty people in prison strictly because of this same type of evidence - purely circumstantial, though convincing to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence. in FACT, the majority of wrong convictions are based on faulty eye-witness testimony, NOT faulty circumstantial evidence. and yet the LNers do not consider it "solid" lest it ruin their agenda.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it. As an alcoholic in recovery for the past 30+ years, this is a form of denial very similar to what I've experienced in the realm of addiction. It's like seeing someone suffer needlessly, knowing that they won't stop suffering until they're ready, thinking "you poor soul"...

and yet the amazement continues...

I'm reading Mr Bartholomew's most fascinating article (ya'll please forgive my excitement - haven't seen good stuff like this in years) on this circle of ... people, and UT and this car, etc, and am getting a clearer picture of DH Byrd, et al. I'm curious about a couple of things - did BS Estes ever get the immunity he requested after he offered what appears to be pretty hefty information? Whatever happened to Bobby Baker after he left his position in the Senate?

when i read this: "Second, I must thank my comrades of the press — whose reporting at every level of America politics purifies, protects and refreshes our system from year to year." Hunter S. Thompson's coverage of Richard Nixon did not come to mind.

read this book a little while after it came out, i think. of all the books i've read in my lifetime about this stuff, it was certainly one of them.

how very interesting. someone let me know if you come across a motive...?

No. Benavides said in his WC testimony that the man he saw shoot Tippit "looked like" and "resembled" Oswald. So he was, in effect, identifying Oswald during his 1964 WC session here. So it seems kind of funny to me that the "Hit Squad" would have had any desire at all to rub out Domingo, because he is essentially saying here that it WAS Oswald. So why the need to rub him out (as so many CTers seem to want to believe)?.... DAVID BELIN -- "You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?" DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald." Ron, Robert - that's my whole point, in fact. I CANNOT imagine being THAT scared (i have just shot, or have been framed for just shooting, the President, i have (whoever the person running was) just killed a policeman in broad daylight) and being able to think enough, while running full speed, and be dexterous enough to open the cylinder of a revolver and manually pull out two, and only the correct two, shells. That is NOT what would have been on his or anyone's mind in that situation. Revolver using murderers at a normal crime scene don't even leave their shells behind; this didn't happen. amazing. DVP - I come from a long line of criminal activity, i'm afraid to admit. I know criminals' mindsets. If this "runner" slowed down enough to eject two shells manually from a revolver, he had good reason to, such as knowing he wasn't going to be 1) IDed, 2) arrested and 3) IDed. How many people think they saw LHO downstairs at the TBSD, etc...? or Lovelady,,, so suddenly these people are trustworthy when the others are not? It was not LHO if he slowed down to eject those shells. trust me. this story is just effed up enough to give the diehards something to hang on to.

Outstanding - I will make these adjustments. I'm not sure how old the spreadsheets are, but I'm willing to bet there is room for amendment. And as it is that the Spartacus links are previewing on the timeline, I might require John's permission for them to be visible...? Not sure, I can remove them easily if necessary.