Glenn Nall

yes, very much like Henry Marshall did. what disappoints me is that Roger Craig didn't possess the commitment to pull the trigger more than once and secure its success with CO1 poisoning. what a pu***. right, Dave?

not sure why - i think i would begin proceedings to get that fixed, if it was me. anyway, peace.

Ron, I think I owe you a very sincere apology. I'm sorry, I think I was thinking of someone else (JGTidd) when i said that - no offense. I had posted an exercise in logic/reason, designed by a couple of respected scientists/psychologists, a year or so ago and it got some fervent attention - including that of a couple of people who insisted on telling me where and how wrong I was in my logic (and that of the scientists who wrote the exercise) while presenting some very creative logic of their own. it was based on the very basic "if then" - investigative practice - concept, one which apparently evades some people altogether. my apologies.

Doug, this thread remains curiously ignored by many...

yeah, i'm real strong on some SW corner activity, of whatever kind, too.

the fact that multiple attempts were made on Roger Craig's life - until one was successful - tells me all i need to know. He had apparently upset the wrong people. was it because he never liked his ex-boss? i doubt it - at least at the "professional" level...

AND, tell me where i'm wrong, but i think several more people than just Craig identified the rifle at first as a Mauser, well before the news media first began reporting that a German Mauser had been discovered (I really don't think that Walter Kronkite, et al, would have been reporting "Mauser" on the word of one background cop - which is what he was on the 6th floor...). so, right - 'controversial' is an understatement. fodder for persons like DVP...

Michael - the ENTIRE reason DVP claims this stuff is for the emotion he experiences when he does so - and it's a guarantee that 'queasiness' is not it.

i've wondered about this image of a long-gun on that film, appearing to lean against some boxes or some pole; i finally decided that it looks to me like a shotgun, i.e. a Dallas PO's shotgun. But what confuses me most, if that is what it is, is why in the world the owner - much more a Dallas Policeman - would lean a gun muzzle down, to the ground. man, when i was 12 years old the first three things i was taught about my hunting rifle was how to carry it, how to cross a fence with it and how NOT to lean it - when you had to (is never a good idea to lean a rifle, right?). You do NOT put the muzzle in the dirt, on the ground, either. so we have Dallas Police officers leaning a shotgun, AND with the muzzle down??? really? to me, pretty weird.

It absolutely boggles my mind that - after "they" had spent so many years and so much effort cultivating such a person - there was any conceivable reason to risk all that by putting two indistinguishable people - one of whom was about to take the blame for murdering the President - in the same building, even for but those few minutes. makes NO sense to me whatsoever (unless it was simply to confuse testimony? - there are easier ways to do THAT). if just ONE person - like Roy Truly - happened to see BOTH of them within a few minutes, wearing different clothing - then THE ENTIRE MISSION (I can't believe i'm using that word) WOULD HAVE BEEN FLUSHED. JUST LIKE THAT. Truly: "I saw Oswald on 2 wearing a brown shirt and drinking a Coke and i also saw Oswald on 1 wearing a white shirt - all while the President of the US was being murdered in our front yard." Operation destroyed, just like that. Risk/reward insanity. No?

in this article is this statement which seems to convey the mystery that many people see in this scene, but that i cannot find: "On November 22, a few minutes before 12:30 PM, two [or more] men were seen on the 6th floor. Minutes after the shooting these men were gone (my emphasis). How did they manage to leave the TSBD without being heard or seen by anyone? ..." Now, someone correct me where i'm wrong, but the little I know about the interior operations of the TSBD is that it was not under guard - in fact it housed some offices of unrelated companies (at least two publishing companies which are most likely to have clients and potential clients visiting...?) - AND there were some subcontractors "replacing some flooring" on 5, 6 and 7...? Why is it unlikely that there would be total strangers - persons likely not known to many of the regulars to the building - who would be missed when they "were gone"...? am I missing something? it seems to me that before the motorcade arrived and after the shooting occurred there was a flow of people in and out the front door there on Elm - until the DPD sealed the doors, of course. what's the mystery here if some non-employees walked out? Ingress, egress from the TSBD I used to date a girl named Ingress, but I had to break up with her - she dated, like, way too many guys.

all good theoretics (why isn't that a word?!), but by them you all imply that you put no stock in the multiple witnesses - reliable ones - who saw, and described, more than one person on 6 in more than one window - with guns, some of them. i'm not usually one to put stock in eye-witness testimony; according to the Innocence Project the vast majority of bad convictions are made based on bad eye-witness testimony (that which once upon a time was considered typically the best evidence - ha), but the congruence of these witnesses' statements lead me to believe their veracity more than a hypothesis that it would be 'just too difficult to remove the rifles' - while they were removing themselves, which i tend to think would be a bit harder.there is no question that at least some of the Dallas Police Dept - and likely some officers of same - were involved to some extent. so hiding stuff in boxes to be removed later doesn't seem to me to be a problem at all. there are plenty of ways items - and people - could have been secreted away in the ensuing chaos - especially since we know next to nothing about the people who had been laying floor for Mr Byrd for the previous month. after all, they got a crappy rifle up there. right?

IF what this article's title claims is true, then it's certainly not hard to follow the yellow brick road to those 'wizards' who set it all up, is it. In fact, whether or not... oh well...

yeah, i had my eye on that one. wish i could remember which one it was I read in 2012... it was really enlightening for the less informed like myself.

4 years ago i read a book on the Bay of Pigs, published that year, which was very enlightening to me since i'd never really delved into the events before then (don't judge, ya'll - it's why they make wallpaper). I don't remember its name or author, and in googling it I see that there were a number of similar books published in 2012. I remember two main items from the book. 1, that - according to the author, who seemed to me to be studied and reliable - the cabinet en masse did a real snow job on K that last night (the 16th?), and 2, the revelation - to ME, don't judge - that GHWB was involved, the 'coincidence' of the name Zapata, and that two boats were Houston and Barbara (a coincidence explained by Bartholomew, I think, as possibly named after Howard Burris' wife as easily as Barbara Bush). This bit about GHWB came toward the end of the book, a late chapter or even the epilogue, as best I recall. emphasis: anyone have an idea which book this might have been? Wyden's? Rasenberger's? Kornbluh's (tho not likely)? not emphasized: and, not that i need to ask, but are there any opinions on which of these - or any since - would be more reputable?

well, so much for content on ‘The Brothers’ by Stephen Kinzer... :)

you've nailed it again, Ron - clarified what i was trying to say. that the "accepted" adjudication of the murder is that LHO did it alone, shots from the front, although almost everyone who can read knows that at least one occurred, it's still "theory." I love this question: how many eyewitness accounts does it take [...] for something to be taken as fact? right. i ask myself about a formulaic ratio (something like Brennan versus all the rest...) - including the reliability of witnesses and the reasonableness of their testimony, the probability of their having "seen" what they say they "saw," into the formula. a formula like this alone would pretty much destroy the "accepted" findings.

great example. The Theory of Evolution, regardless of Scopes and Darwin's 'findings,' is still known as a theory. hence the name. go tell Cliff.

do you ever really ask yourself if he's laughing - what's that diabolical "mwa-ha-ha-ha!" laugh...? - while he's typing, luring yet another unsuspecting victim into his lair of illogic? i think he laughs when he types this stuff. surely people don't really think in circles like that, do they?

right. oddly, context is sometimes important in these threads. but maybe that's just me. unlike some, i really don't mind being wrong. it's happened before. i fully agree. in the JFK assassination school of inquiry, i am a conspiracy theorist. i am not a lone-nut theorist -- even though i consider the fact of a conspiracy to be just that, fact. people who think (in broader terms) that a conspiracy was involved are known as Conspiracy Theorists. People who do not are referred to as Lone-Nut Theorists. I don't think there is a third possibility. Am I wrong? Is there a secret group known as Conspiracy Factists? Have i been misdiagnosed all these years??? Ron, in the spirit of predetermined and accepted (though in a nit-pickily inaccurate way) nomenclature, do you consider yourself to be 'conspiracy theorist?' /***************/ are you aware of the context of this particular 'sub-thread' between Sir Varnell and I? i said: wow, Cliff. it's a truly unique position for any conspiracy theorist to defend Allen effin' Dulles, i gotta hand it to ya. he said, in his need to argue: That's because I'm not a "conspiracy theorist." (noting that he did not defend defending Allen Dulles, curiously enough) then i said: you know what i mean, Cliff. i mean any non-Lone nut theorist. then he said, in his perennial need to argue: I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist." "Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy. /***************/ you can see the absolutely inane argument Cliff is attempting in an otherwise simple statement. and so i simply pointed out that, in the strictest sense, it is just a theory. and now it is, once again, at this point that i berate myself for my lack of self control in avoiding such ridiculous dialog. and why i blocked Mr Varnell. He does seem to cherish dragging others into his own drivel. what a waste of time arguing semantics, when even less-than-perfect 'labels' have worked for 99.9% of us for over fifty years. i may be wrong on that number. perhaps the phrases were coined a couple years after the event. god forbid the meaning of a statement be maintained as long as the minutiae can be corrected, argued by the 'analists.' damn.

don't be coy, Ron. of course you do.

no, that's good. you're right. i'm with that. which is why i specified, (once again, *sigh*...), in a legal/investigative sense versus scientific. are some of my words being typed in invisible photons? let me reprint what I said earlier, and i'll try to use better ink: "In legal proceedings/investigations, something becomes a “fact” when “found” by the fact-finder. Judges or juries “find” facts after all the evidence is in and attorneys have given closing statements." AND since this entire forum is all about the minutiae of investigative evidence (some of it scientific, to be sure) surrounding the JFK assassination - a legal/investigative arena in the broadest spectrum - although i'll also guess that you and Cliff might wish to argue that - i'm thinkin' that the JFK ass. plethora of theories is just a bit bigger than whether you exist (scientific, or at least philosophical) or whether the sun also rises (scientific) or whether 2+2+4 means anything (scientific) and whether it contains a typo. but good try, Ron. (I remember your flails at logic in my little test last year. you are truly an individual.)