Glenn Nall

10 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Hey Dave, did Roger Craig commit suicide by shooting himself with a rifle?

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.

On 4/12/2017 at 1:48 PM, Ron Ecker said:

but good try, Ron. (I remember your flails at logic in my little test last year. you are truly an individual.)

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...

12 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The image referred to ( http://harveyandlee.net/TSBD_Elevator/6th_Floor_Oz.jpg ) is of Badgeman quality.

right. "Eidolon" comes to mind - especially since I just learned that word while looking for another one...   

 

Several of the superimposed dotted lines don't actually correspond to tonal boundaries in the image. Take away the dotted lines and you'd have trouble discerning any type of human face there, let alone one that looks like Oswald.

this has always bothered me about the badgeman "image." the human mind - even mine - is enormously gullible to suggestion. i am open to the possibility (probability, even) of someone impersonating a cop behind the fence, but, try as i have, i have been completely unable to see what the assistance of several well meaning artists have tried to tell me to see. no telling how many people are walking around fully convinced that badgeman (and a man in a hardhat next to him) was photographed strictly because they've been shown what to see.

NOT that I don't believe it's not there. I just wish i could see what others have seen without their artistic "assistance."

my eyes are more convinced of a human form in the west window than they are of badgeman.

 

The whole 'Harvey and Lee and Marguerite and Marguerite' concept requires a religious-fundamentalist level of faith?, but only the most uncritical believers will go along with this part.

hmm... i think you're stretching it, respectfully. while there's no question Armstrong has stretched his points to an extreme, chronological/geographical/testimonial incongruencies (?) in O's and M's history are enough for me to consider the possibilities. In light of the enormity of this event, and all the moving parts that had to have been involved, i remain open to almost anything - balanced with "feet on the ground" logic as I can maintain - until the presenter shoots his/herself in the foot with some really poor logic - which is WAY too often, unfortunately. and i don't count myself at all as "uncritical." Quite the contrary. I just refrain from concrete theory in deference to actual truth-seeking.

respectfully.

Just now, Roger DeLaria said:

Regarding shooting from the TSBD, I've always thought that some shots may have come from the 6th floor SW corner, and if any even came from the SE corner at all, they were "distraction" shots, designed to confuse witnesses and muddy up the waters.

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

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Deprecating Officer Craig is shameful. I hope it makes you queasy when you make such claims.

A reader of this thread can watch this video and decide for themselves if Officer Craig is credible, instead of going to David Von Pines site where the matter can not be discussed here.

 

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...

7 hours ago, George Sawtelle said:

There may have been multiple people on the sixth floor, but there was only one shooter. Only one rifle. The plotters would never leave a rifle in a box and walk off to recover it later. Too much risk.

this is strictly a matter of opinion. i only mentioned the boxes as a suggestion - i have to believe that people smart enough to have concocted - successfully - the assassination of the POTUS were smart enough to hide a rifle or two - ESPECIALLY since they were smart enough to get the damn thing IN there under calm circumstances.

Any unknown male, client or otherwise, seen in the building would arouse suspicion.

speculative, at best, and I completely disagree. this is to assert that EVERYBODY knew EVERYBODY, which is just not the case. As far as I know, there weren't even sign-in logs at the door. and Mrs Reid even admitted that she only recognized Oswald by face - didn't even know his name. so, NO, everybody did NOT know everybody.

sorry.

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

There may have been multiple people on the sixth floor, but there was only one shooter. Only one rifle.

What about the controversial rifle stamped "Mauser" that Roger Craig witnessed, or the mysterious second rifle glimpsed in the Alyea film?

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...

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I hope it makes you queasy when you make such claims.

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.

3 hours ago, David Andrews said:

There may have been multiple people on the sixth floor, but there was only one shooter. Only one rifle.

What about the controversial rifle stamped "Mauser" that Roger Craig witnessed, or the mysterious second rifle glimpsed in the Alyea film?

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.

8 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Lee Oswald and the man with the brown jacket were now safely out of the building. Harvey Oswald, wearing a long-sleeved brown shirt, was in the 2^nd floor lunchroom where he would soon be confronted by Dallas Police Officer Marion Baker and Roy Truly.

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...

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Glenn, as an aside, I think the best book on Zapata is Bay of Pigs Declassified, by Peter Kornbluh.

That includes the Kirkpatrick Report, which the CIA did not want to give up and a very valuable chronology by Kornbluh at the end.

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.

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Glenn,

I don't know which book you're referring to, but I wouldn't consider it reliable if it was still peddling the old story that the Houston and Barbara may have been named by or in honor of the Bushes. The Houston was one of six cargo ships procured by the CIA from the Cuban-owned Garcia Line in Havana. (No one renamed it from something else.) The converted LCI (Landing Craft Infantry) "Barbara" was the BARBARA J, and Barbara Bush has no middle name.

Ron.

I know all of this.

I know you say you don't want to be nit-picky. whatever. I didn't say that the author "was peddling the old story that the Houston and Barbara may have been named by or in honor of the Bushes," but only that these things were mentioned near the end of the book. As best i can remember. I don't remember his exact assertion, but most probably that those BOP/Bush 'coincidences' bear mentioning - with which i wholeheartedly agree.

and, 'coincidentally,' Col Howard Burris' wife's name is (although she died 5 years ago) 'Barbara J.' In light of BOTH of their loyalties, that, too, warrants a nod.

 

You might want to read Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, by Grayston Lynch, one of the two American CIA agents (the other was Rip Robertson) who were at the Bay of Pigs.

I know who Robertson was - didn't I read he was the first agent/soldier/something ashore? 

Only two CIA agents present? i wasn't aware. there were certainly many Americans, too, right? but only two actual agents present at the beach...? (notwithstanding the untoward number of them "drawing it up...") I was thinking Sturgis and/or Hemming were there, but... my memories mingle if i don't keep them motivated...

 

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...

:)

18 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

The gaping wound in the back of the head?

Granted, it no longer physically exists like JFK's clothes. But how many eyewitness accounts does it take (some officially lied about and suppressed, some included as WC exhibits and simply ignored) for something to be taken as fact?

I would put it second on a list (the "theory" being a shot from the front) after the holes in the clothes.

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.

7 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Yes. It's like the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory. It's a fact that evolution has occurred over the course of life on Earth. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the facts. It's the same with the assassination. It's a fact that there was a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories (the CIA did it, the Mob did it, Castro did it, Walker did it) seek to explain the facts.

 

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.

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

 

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?

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Fair enough. I didn't see the "legal proceedings/investigations" part, because I didn't read all the posts between you and Cliff. It was your last one that caught my eye, which didn't mention legal proceedings. 

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.

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

I will simply say that while there have been no legal proceedings/investigations with judges and juries of the JFK case, it is a fact that there was a conspiracy. (Nothing "probably" about it, to quote the HSCA.) No judge or jury is needed. 

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.

18 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I don't want to be nit-picky

don't be coy, Ron.

of course you do.

19 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Glenn,

I don't want to be nit-picky, but the fact that I woke up and got out of bed this morning is not a theory. And no recognized officials have to formally decide that that's what I did.

Now you can argue that none of us can really prove that we're here. But to that I say, "I think, therefore I am."

 

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.)