Glenn Nall

browsing through H. Weisman's archives - lots of neat stuff. Here's one that makes me go, "I'm sorry, WHAT?!!" "Officer Tiypit, shot t.ice„ fell to the ground and Oswald turned an."4 ran. Oswald ran across the front yard of 400 E. 10th Street and V22.7.7; un3c,-,dod two shells from the .38 calibre 3 with laich he cad the hi11n. The cmrity shell odes were recovered and were sot, to FIZ Laboratory for tests." this is what happens when you copy and paste from a pdf of a 50 year old document. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Post%20Mortem%20Appendix%20Pages/Page%20081.pdf "Officer Tippit, shot twice, fell... Oswald turned and ran across the front yard ... and while running unloaded two shells from the 38 Smith & Wesson he had with which he did the killing. The empty shell cartridges were recovered and sent...", not to the FIZ Laboratory, but the FBI Laboratory, thank GOD, else we'd have NEVER gotten to the bottom of this!!! Ok, for real - this police report is to be believed, that someone having just shot a policeman will unload a revolver while fleeing? For what reason could anyone possibly do this? also notable was is Jack Ruby's name at the bottom of this report. interesting...

sure, video will work - any suggestions or offerings are welcome...

Yankee & Cowboy War would be a nice addition to this - very hard to find (paperbacks are $70 online). I came across a pdf of it last year, but have lost it. Could be found, tho...

i was looking up stuff on Dorothy Kilgallen yesterday and came across Richard Charnin's & John Simkin's JFKCalc spreadsheets on all the deaths - I'd already had in mind to make a webbased timeline of certain aspects of the Assassination (a nice visual for some folks) and this spreadsheet came in handy, so I put one together today just using the data from it - I'd love some input from you all. A lot of details and images could be added since there are over 400 entries - I don't in any way mean to put together something as comprehensive as this and other websites, but it's something a little different, a different approach visually, i think. anyway, if ya'll could take a peek and tell me what you think - if anyone would like to add more info or photos (like on some of the more prominent deaths, Kilgallen, Pinchot Meyer, etc...), it's just a matter of putting into a spreadsheet - I'd appreciate the help! http://glennnall.com/string-of-jfk-related-deaths/#36 you can drag the timeline along the bottom or use the arrows, of course. If this post is inappropriate here, my apologies - I just wanted you all to see this. Thanks, Glenn Nall

thank you so much, John - i was thinking last night that i'd like to see her in an episode of What's My Line. My memories of the show are a few years more recent, with Soupy Sales and Anita Gillette...? I hope you're well. I don't know you, John, but i read a little about the consternation with the forum, and that you've moved on to 'greener pastures'. Hope you're well... GN

"...easy to concoct conspiracy theories about the assassination ... because JFK made numerous and diverse enemies..." It is my humble opinion that anyone who has concocted a theory of murderous conspiracy based on something like the victim's behaviors and popularity is likely in the wrong forum and would be more at home in one catering to the grand imaginatives and other paranoiacs. I did not devise an idea of conspiracy for myself, I fell into it once enough circumstantial evidence led me to it (which admittedly didn't take that long). I know that is not exactly what you meant with that wording, but it seemed to me apropos in defining the reasonable Conspiracists from the rest, so I wanted to say that. For anyone who is making an effort to believe a conspiracy occurred, (much like atheists make the effort to NOT believe), I'd say they just haven't read enough yet. It's the Lone Nutters who seem to be straining against the evidence, it seems to me. "Occam's Razor -- the preference for the least assumptions to explain an occurrence -- does not apply to conspiracies. Occam's Razor applies when an explanation is sought of an event not controlled by humans. An event such as planetary motion. For events controlled entirely by humans, there is no governing principle." I'm not sure what that means. I think Occam's Razor does apply in my attempts to reach a conclusion in regards to the conspiracy - in my attempt to "solve it" for myself. I think people tend to use way too many assumptions in this conundrum as well as every day ones. These really seem to muddy the waters, I think. When a detective states that the person who most benefits from a crime is most likely going to be the perpetrator, isn't that an example of Occam's Razor, in a way - not reading too much into the details? It seems to work for me here. The Russian's and Castro certainly did NOT benefit from it - the anti-castro group didn't so much - the Mafia did, somewhat, by the end of the decade; Hoover and the FBI and the CIA most assuredly did - and LBJ did more than anyone, I think (relatively) - staying out of prison and becoming POTUS, in relative terms, is about as positive an outcome as any one entity could acquire. Maybe that's not O.R. - I just think people read too much into details. With all of the theories floating around, there'd be thousands of people IN ON the conspiracy if half held water. What's funny is, when I first got hooked into this thing 30+ years ago, the talk was Cuba and The Bay Of Pigs, then that became "blase", ridiculous (at least to my recollection), and the talk was all about Carlos Marcello (one of my first books was Mafia Kingpin) and then the CIA - and then Viet Nam... and lo and behold, it's circled back around and the "talk" is - All Of The Above, and throw in JEH and JBJ. Greg - my thoughts exactly.

that's what it was - Adlai S. - my memory didn't serve... tx I remember more than what's in this video, tho - more about a "new power in government" or something... you got me on the right track tho.

that's what it was - Adlai S. - my memory didn't serve... tx

I was googling for quotes made by Ruby when he was being walked down a hallway outside of a courtroom (it appears, and if my memory serves) where he warns of the high level of this thing, "even as high as Agnew, or higher" he aludes to ... and I came across some of Don Fulsom's stuff (on some ODD domain, surftofind.com) which mentioned Giancana's alleged words about Ruby and Nixon's and his associations, made by SG's half-bro and nephew in Double Cross. I read this book a few years ago, thought it was somewhat believable - these claims seem perfectly plausible to me, considering Chicago's broad reach at the time. was wondering what some of you thought about these supposed connections, Giancana and Ruby - has any real research been done on Ruby's activities in Chicago when he was young...? also, can someone please point me to a transcript or video of this interchange between Ruby and the press where he mentions Spiro Agnew? Not having much success with Google today. thanks for any input! GN

Hi Paul - Yes, i'm afraid I'm being led in that direction - more of a LBJ-et-al-did-it, of course. I read R Stone's book last year, but in pdf format on my phone (for the first and probably last time) and consequently didn't retain a lot of it. I want to learn more about Baker and Sol Estes, and more details about LBJ's historically disgraceful character, the literal and virtual skeletons in his closet i've read so much about. Carl Oglesby's stuff leads me to a Texas connection, for sure, and that's 20ish year old material. I read a terrific book on the Bay of Pigs that was published in 2012 and discovered GHWB's apparent involvement that far back - this Conservative has had to reframe some of my political loyalties in my objective research, that's for sure. So, sure, between LBJ, Bush(es) and the mob, Texas looks like a convenient arena for all involved. I'll put Craig's book in line. This forum is such a terrific starting point for great material, starting with some of you smart people's insights. (now i have to go look up Hegelian Philosophy, damnit cheers, GN AG

yes, i think you and i agree on this pretense - when Brugioni described the discrepancy of 313 he just described the blood and matter cloud being different (white?). he didn't go into so many drastic differences, just this comparatively minor one (and probably others). This certainly suggests small alterations, not a complete rework. But there were clearly differences - i don't think there's any way around SOME changes having been made.

Larry, please forgive me, i'm knew in here - "SWHT"? I'm starting to realize there are some real "rock stars" in here - Doug Caddy and R Stone - r u one too?

bingo - and all this coupled with LIFE's story about some frames being 'damaged', and LIFE's CEO once being in intelligence (do i remember that correctly?).

Larry - "another option" ... ? as opposed to what initial option? I think you're right, that what Doug did was raise some real issues. I haven't come to any solid conclusions on the extent of alteration, even if ANY has been done, or WHO might have done so (SS, CIA, Army Intel...), or WHEN or WHERE or WHY, even - I take his revelations at face value, that some games were played (a euphemism for "some lies were told"). The fact that these lies were told, the fact that the SS and the CIA took an interest in this film to the extent that they had to lie to everyone before AND after the two events, provides great evidence that a conspiracy occurred and that some elements of the government are involved. If my logic doesn't fail me in this regard, then the next step is no leap - that SOME level of alteration was performed, and that's all i need to know. Jonathan - right - it shouldn't matter in what way "so many believe" the film might have been altered - just that it was (if it was) is all that matters. I think Mr Horne has shown well enough that something surreptitious occurred. That's the uptake i'm concerned with.

right, Mark - that's really the whole problem, isn't it. the wounds as they are described by many reliable witnesses VS. the wounds are they are portrayed in video (suspect) and postmortem photographs (suspect) and pm. xrays (suspect). These artifacts are all suspect - and i only say 'suspect', not false or authentic - because of evidence of chain-of-custody deceit and some visual anomalies. i've never given the altered zFilm any real consideration until last night when i read, for the first time, Doug Horne's very believable article on the actual chain of custody of the film immediately following the Event; and the very believable, separate accounts of the camera-original events at the CIA's NPIC before LIFE had the "films" Monday. Does anyone remember "And Gates" and "Or Gates" (these are not obscure Government Scandals)? These were the beginning of what we know as logic circuits, right? "1's" and "0's", either or, if else... To me many arguments in this murder case, and esp the one for or against an altered film, come down to an "either or" - Either Mr Horne is making all that up, or he's not. The authentic film traditionalists seem to have very little to say about this chain-of-custody problem, or about this article. I can't imagine anyone saying "all that's a load of hogwash, unbelievable on its face". I cannot imagine much of that story at all being ignored as insubstantial. I'm not yet fully convinced of an altered film by the SS or the CIA, but as I ask myself how I could not be after reading the article, I have no answer to that. If Doug Horne is telling the truth, there's simply no argument. A BOATLOAD of controversy regarding head wounds, bullets - autopsy discrepancies - disappears. Not the details, of course, as we would like (i wanna know who pulled the triggers!) but the overall is explained. If Doug Horne is telling the truth, it all makes sense.

yes, thanks, Ron - and that makes me wonder why it's not so obviously going up and down in Zapruder... this and other oddities make me wonder about the films authenticity.

every time i come across DVP in these forums, he's arguing with someone. rather rudely, i might add.

Burnham: "For those who know me, I would normally reject "theories" that do not live up to certain standards. However, in this case, I am not relying on any "theory" of alteration." what a load bearing statement that is. I LOVE it.

I was not convinced that this was even a consideration by serious researchers until i looked at some of the alignment problems in some of the frames. I'm open to the idea, am a bit concerned how the crowd does seem so lethargic - wonder how such an enormous spray of blood and brain can disappear from the air in less than 1 quarter of a second - wonder why the sign jumps so drastically... i've heard several people describe umbrella man raising and lowering the umb. for whatever reason (and read his expl.) but haven't noticed it on the film. it seems to me too many people unknown to each other have something to say about it for that to be chalked up to the delusional wanting special attention. that's too easy.

Then I assume you believe the temple wound in the Z film isn't real. that and he apparently wanted another opportunity to flame when it was completely unnecessary. kinda makes me wanna think twice before i ask more questions in here. or perhaps address them to the more civilized...?

thanks, in fact - i can see what appears to be a large 'flap' hanging loosely there and am glad it's been pointed out by you now. just want to be sure of what i think i'm seeing. I like Ron's suggestion following, too - that Jackie likely put it back in place and then coagulation, etc pretty much held it in place.

has anyone seen William Orchard's take on the shots and the sign being damaged in Zapruder film: http://theshotsindealeyplaza.com/?page_id=156? any thoughts? (perhaps I should do a search in the forum...) on this note, though, i'm reminded of something i thought the other day that i'd like to see: I came across an exact sequence of shots (i think it was in Anthony Summers' book i was reading last month and subsequently lost on the subway halfway through it - aarrrgggghhh!!!) which made clear the difficulty in firing two shots from any bolt action so close together - something like 1.7 seconds between #'s 2 and 3...? does anyone have these times and does anyone know of a layout of Zframes chronologically timed to the known and possible other gunshots? does that make any sense?

right, that's what i'm thinking. there has to be some reconciliation. Not just the doctors, Clint Hill and others have said they observed the same thing. If so many have seen a rear wound, i almost have to tell myself that Z is just in too poor a condition to see more clearly what's happening at 313...? then there're the xrays - fake ones vs real ones. and the photos - fake vs real. back to 313, tho - i'm really tempted to think that it's quite possible that 2 bullets hit at the same time (the sound tapes and proximity of shots 3 and 4 support this idea), throwing the study of blood cast evidence out the window. considering 2 simultaneous bullets is not forcing the facts, to me - it's really more of a sound explanation for other questions unanswered... you cite Clint Hill's testimony - do you or do you not believe there was a 'gaping' wound to the rear...?

I wouldn't have believed that before, but i think you've convinced me. The motive of the LNer has been from the very start -- patriotic loyalty. It makes sense that it starts with the FBI. Hoover told his guys to stomp on all JFK evidence that contradicted the Lone Nut theory of OSWALD, and that's exactly what they did -- out of patriotic loyalty. When Posner and Bugliosi wrote their defenses of the WC Report -- years after the HSCA update -- they were mainly parading down Main Street wearing their Uncle Sam costumes. It was a display of patriotic loyalty. Even to this very day, LNers don't dig deeply into the evidence -- because that could be disloyal. Yet the HSCA has contradicted the WC Report, and openly declares a "Conspiracy" in the JFK murder. It criticizes the WC Report -- not out of disloyalty -- on the contrary -- it was our own US Congress that published the HSCA findings. Since 1979, the official position of the US Government on the JFK murder is actually the HSCA, and not the WC Report. Therefore, Posner and Bugliosi were parading for nothing -- their loyalty was already out-of-date and out-of-touch, even back in the 1990's when they made headlines. Anybody who is still fighting the Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey Oswald is 35 years behind the times. The Lone Nut theory isn't our real problem here. Isn't it obvious? Our real problem on this Forum is the massive disagreement that we CTers have just among ourselves. The main reward of being a LNer today, in 2015, is the comedy of watching CTers fall all over each other like Keystone Kops. Regards, --Paul Trejo I have to wholeheartedly agree with you, Paul. At this point there's just no real sense in debating a Lone Nut Theory person, just as there's no real sense in the theory itself. The people who still hold to it, for whatever reasons they do, are as easily dismissable as, as,... any moron or sellout. The gallant and most constructive battle waged today is, unfortunately, separating the Conspiracy Nuts from the Conspiracy Legitimates. Just as the Populist Christians (please forgive my analogy, some of you who might bristle at it) make the Legitimate ones a laughing-stock, it is in the legitimate CTers best interests to first remove the inane before the sane can be taken seriously. It's probably not too easy to convince a Congressman to take a look at something if he thinks we think a Limo driver, or a clumsy Secret Service agent, or a UFO shot John Kennedy. How crazy is that when any sensible person knows that Ruth Paine shot JFK because JFK spurned her advances. Well, that's my theory this week, anyway. I got the idea from DVP.

I've respected and appreciated much of what i've read of yours in here, Robert - particularly your signature which symbolizes the clarity i'm looking for. A link to a 21st century ammunitions website doesn't really go that far in the way of helping me with my confusion about the 'large, gaping wound in the right, rear portion" of the President's head or the apparent explosion in the front of it or exploding ammunition from the 1960's (i'm not going to directly mention James Files' Fireball cause i don't know what i think about that yet - of course, some 'more educated' input on that is as welcome as anything else). Thanks, tho. I'd really like to know what I'm not seeing, or a clearer explanation of what i am seeing...