Glenn Nall

OK, I'll risk a little ignorance in this particular area in order to try to understand a little more. First off, I'm utterly convinced of a considerably large conspiracy involving several 'high level' interests. And it's not so much because of the events leading up to the crime as it is because of the cover-up and otherwise pathetic actions of so many people afterwards. I don't believe that any solution to bullet paths, etc. can have much bearing on the solution to the crime at this point, other than to tell us what we already know. (Although some vindication would be kinda sweet - i'd love little more than to say "see, i told you so" to Peter Effin' Jennings and Dan Rather, et al.) One of the first books i read on this was by one of the Dr's from Parkland describing the scene and the wounds from that day. I've never doubted that from that point forward the cover-up began and that wound discrepancies were notable. And to me, all of the rifle shot replications and studies on human bodies, etc, means very little. I know lots of soldiers who have shot people, and they all say bullets and people do very different things when introduced to each other. So research be damned. I know what I see in the film. And i want to ask some of you if i'm missing something. Records today state quite clearly that several, if not all, of the doctors, saw the gaping wound in the back of his head. Other witnesses state the same thing, even referring to Z313 while doing so. The problem is, I refuse to be told what I'm looking at, and what I'm seeing is his head clearly and suddenly rocked backwards at the exact same time the front-right part of his skull is exploding. People have said that the rear of his skull is visibly damaged even in this film, but i just don't see it. what i'm hoping someone can tell me is if i'm not seeing some wound in the back of his head in the film. is that not the front-right of his head blowing outward and upward? IS THERE a gaping wound in the back of his head? and maybe someone can say something about the existence and behaviors of exploding bullets (many tiny bullet fragments in the brain and skull of JFK...) versus simple metal-jacketed ones like the MC fired (which are clearly indestructible when going through ribs, wristbones and legbones). the explosion i see could be the exit of a bullet or the entrance of an exploding bullet - or a combination of the two. which is what i think, mostly. thanks good people, Glenn

"Sometimes things really are as they appear to be" I agree, and I'm amazed that this thing appears to anyone to be anything other than a chaotic conspiracy. There is NOTHING about this murder that leads anyone to believe that it was the work of one person except for the immediate propaganda machine.

a few really sound theories i've encountered in here - I'm personally leaning toward LBJ as the most likely benefactor as more and more evidence comes to light. But I'm a bit surprised that more is not made of his impending imprisonment - perhaps it's because so few people can empirically relate to the horrors of prison. everyone - well, most everyone - can agree that he was a dirty, greedy son of a bitch and more than capable of murder for his own ends; it is tough to imagine even him killing the POTUS. But I'm dead certain that the fear of prison, coupled with everything else that was going on, was enough to motivate him. There's a question someone asked in Quora.com: "is the negative representation of LBJ in the movie Selma an accurate one?" After considering a number of appropriate replies, I settled on something to the effect that I haven't seen the movie, but from what i know of LBJ, an accurate representation of him couldn't have reached a proper depth of negativity. I have lots of fun in Quora, but I will actually learn many things in this fantastic forum.

thanks, Paul - i'm eating up all of the great wisdom from you guys (even that of you who are wrong :-) - love some things you and Douglas and Brian have said; it's encouraging to find some real thinkers in this melting pot of CT's. I've never taken from the term "coup" anything other than the drama it's intended to present. I think the people i've read have used it loosely to mean just a culmination of a long series of unfortunate events; it reminds me of the warning Jack Ruby issued outside of the courtroom, and it certainly does seem to me that something has changed since this incredible, world-changing event. To me it does stink of an end of one thing and the beginning of another, esp. in light of the direction the US has gone since. I believe that the philosophies that you mentioned are justified; i also think it was a bit bigger than that. I believe Jack Ruby's words might have been given some credence. I think some powerful people instead stayed seated and snickered to each other, "We're now in charge." Nevertheless, I'm in these forums with an open mind, to learn about some names i've not yet read about and to wipe some from my mind. I will enjoy getting to know some of you. Some others i can see i will simply tolerate.

Don: "It's extremely naive to doubt the words of FDR himself, who said, "If something happens in politics, you can bet it was planned that way." We have been ruled by primarily corrupt leaders since well before the assassination of JFK. However, things really went into overdrive at that point." Bingo! Carl Oglesby got me to seeing things this way - the being in bed with anti-Bolshevists and Nazis and the Mafia at the same time we're publicly fighting communism, it's easier for this layman and Patriot to see that there were things leading up to this "coup" for a long time. I don't necessarily subscribe to the paranoiac "Illuminati did it" theories (well meaning CT's tend to shoot themselves in the foot by making things more complicated than they really are), but Clinton's quote is spot on - there is a government in the government. It's my thought that discovering the secrets behind JFK's death will tell us how and when it got there. Where did it start? Somewhere. What can we do about it? Probably nothing, except know that it's there.

be that as it may, i'm pretty sure Nixon doesn't have a few dead people and a professional hit-man in his closet.

what an absolutely delightful read that thread was!!! I'll be tickled when the personal flaming can be eliminated (Mark) but I thoroughly loved the thought provocation - the conjecture. Sure, Nixon was never powerless, was well "connected", as was LBJ. If Nixon was not complicit directly, it does seem he must have at least known "something." Mark, I'm sorry if Ms Coulter confuses you. Perhaps we can get her to slow down a little...? (a joke. kindof.)

as we watch evidence appear over the decades, it is slowly dawning on some of us where this is all going to end up - not that we've known it all along, but that once it's clear, we'll see how obvious it should have been. it's the simplest solution, ultimately, and it's going to land right square in that rat-bastard's lap.

and Larry, thanks for this post - i've been out of the loop for a couple of years, nice to see a good list of books i can use to catch up with.

One of the first books I read on this is Carl Oglesby's Yankee and Cowboy War - reading it again now, in fact (found a copy at the VA hospital, in fact! the damn thing fetches $65+ online!). I was too young to really get it then, but I'm still impressed by his writing skills and his insights. I realize that it, too, is old-school stuff, but it seems to me there's some real merit to some things he says, about the early spy networks post WWII, etc. As some of you offer what seems to be terrific foundational reading, what are some opinions on Mr Oglesby's books, esp. the Yankee Cowboy War...?

If a revelation is new, it's not old news. If we had known that the former French President had previously said that Ford believed in conspiracy this would be old news. Can you explain why you said it's "old news"? i agree, Andric - that it was a "plot" isn't the news, but another admission by Gerald Ford, even a hearsay from another national president, IS news, as far as I know. Other than his allusion to the edits of the WR, this is yet another to add to the thousand shards of evidence. Lest many forget (they do), overwhelming circumstantial evidence is usually more reliable than eye-witness evidence.

A simple, "I have no idea, Robert" will suffice. I often find my decision to avail myself of the opportunity to say nothing when i have nothing to say works to my advantage more often than not.

When I was a boy I read my dad’s copy of Death Of A President, and even at that age realized that there were problems with it. This began in me an ‘interest’ in the crime – a book about Carlos Marcello some time later made some real sense and fanned the flames. When I came across The Yankee and Cowboy War in a thrift store in my early twenties and read that brilliant book, (yes, I’ve since lost it, darn it), I finally understood the enormous impact that these events have had on the country, and why knowing what happened ‘then’ (such a large window) is so vital an element in understanding what has happened to our most fantastic nation, to our democracy and liberties. I am by no means a natural ‘conspiracy theorist’, but I know a good case when I see one, and my love for my country, my sense of loss of JFK (and RFK, perhaps, and MLK) – the last great chance this country had – and my sense of justice and principle and “right” has led me to read and study, ponder and discuss this beast for the past two-thirds of my life. I don’t suggest that I’m a JFK scholar – I’m just a fanatic about learning the truth and perhaps being a witness, in some small way, to its exposure once it becomes available. I surely do believe that it will be exposed, to one degree or another, sooner or later. It really does seem that we get closer, inch by inch, every year.