Glenn Nall

oh. well, it saddens me that Cliff will not be able to "clarify" what he meant. I'm sure he'd like to be able to. darn.

wait - it was Nixon who picked him up at the airport? and had a drink with him? and offered "candid" testimony regarding Dulles? Richard Nixon? and Varnell calls what Richard Nixon says "salient?" egads.

and Cliff, please don't let your ego convince you that I'm blocking you because of your debate skills and unsurpassed knowledge of salient evidence. this is not the case.

yes, it does, Cliff. Theory based on salience is ONLY THEORY until formally decided upon be recognized officials. You can argue semantics until your cow comes home, but you will still be wrong. Salient facts, though plentiful and largely inarguable, cannot move us beyond theory until a decision is made on the theory - which WAS done, in part, in 1979, but not to all of these salient truths. The point i also made was that, although we are mostly all on the same side of the field, it's odd that a small number of persons like yourself would still rather argue with his teammates (and defend Allen Dulles...?) than solidify the common cause. or rather than, say breathing and eating, it seems.

Cliff Varnell has become just another DVP - (the only person i've blocked in this forum - until now) in our otherwise admirable attempts here to discuss, reasonably, JFK's assassination. he exists here to argue. as he is about to see, I'm not the one.

UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.' . THAT is the point, Cliff. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THERE IS A LEGAL PROCEEDING, all of this is JUST THEORY. SALIENCE does not in any way equate to findings (in this case, legal ones). PERIOD. LIVE WITH IT. the sun's and mathematical behaviors are not legal - they are scientific, which is different, and which is why i referred to legal/investigatory theory. Cliff. empirical observation does not equal official findings by fact-finders (jurors and jurists).

"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." UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.' "In the case of juries, they give answers (mostly “yes” or “no” but sometimes a dollar amount) to a series of written questions proposed by the lawyers (theorists) and approved by the judge. For example: is the defendant guilty of aggravated assault? Yes ___ No ___" UNTIL SUCH TIME, it is still 'theory.' "In the case of judges, they will write documents called “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” which will probably be in the form of numbered paragraphs describing the facts which the judge finds credible and supported by the evidence." UNTIL SUCH TIME, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU OR I AM CONVINCED OF THE TRUTH'S SALIENCE, it is still 'theory,' Cliff. Live with it. and please go find someone else to argue with. I'm sure you have a list.

read it more slowly, Cliff: "I'm not the one." damn.

you know what i mean, Cliff. i mean any non-Lone nut theorist. you were born to argue, weren't you Cliff. i'm not the one, sir.

hence the word "feign." wow, Cliff. it's a truly unique position for any conspiracy theorist to defend Allen effin' Dulles, i gotta hand it to ya.

"feigned" - the phrase would be "feigned little interest in the disaster," Cliff. a subtle, but important, difference.

interestingly (well to some), i came across this book review from an article - https://sharylattkisson.com/that-time-china-interfered-with-u-s-elections/ - by the great Sharyl Attkisson which was pointing out that China was much more egregious in its attempts to subvert our elections than Russia was - and that we've ALL been doing this for decades. here's a neat little paragraph: The [Washington] Post [of all publications!] reported evidence of China directing contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the presidential contest between Bill Clinton and Republican Bob Dole—a violation of U.S. law. Eventually, Taiwan-born Maria Hsia, a fundraiser for Clinton Vice President Al Gore, was convicted of illegal campaign fundraising; Taiwan-born Charlie Trie was convicted of improperly attempting to give large donations to the Clinton’s legal defense fund; Taiwan-born Johnny Chung was convicted of violating election law after making large donations to the DNC (which were later returned); and Chinese-born John Huang—a DNC fundraiser and Commerce Department official in the Clinton administration—was convicted of campaign finance fraud. Sharyl made the cutest remark at the beginning of her article: "...because intelligence officials I trust tell me that Russia and other nations have attempted to influence our elections for decades, the same way we’ve often dabbled in influencing foreign elections." cute, huh (I really love Sharyl's work, especially since she's suing Eric Holder for yet more of his typical behavior - https://sharylattkisson.com/attkisson-v-eric-holder-department-of-justice-et-al - , but...). I tweeted to her the names Allende, Lumumba, Diem, and a few others, and wondered if that was what constitutes "dabbling." later in the article she links to The WashPo's https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.f5e1d326ed5f which did clarify what dabbling means when it comes to Assassinating world leaders, and in which John Foster Dulles, and this book, and Kissinger are mentioned. God. how did i get so far off topic...???

right. didn't really occur to me that anyone would think he was not of his complete faculties. I happen to think that he was, in some ways, even more powerful since his dismissal, with all those inconvenient restraints removed. It's pretty clear he still had a loyal following from within the CIA ranks, Tracy Barnes, et al. So... to not understand - or to deny - Dulles' senior (to say the least) role in the Warren Commission is admit some pretty weak research. hell, he'd only been removed from office less than two years prior, right? It's not like he went into a mental tailspin at that point. it's probably a great example of how literature (is it fair to call books of this nature literature?) can be used to tell us what to think - facts be damned. Just look at how Mark Lane's work was handled when he wrote some inconvenient truths.

i came across some old Tim Conway stuff the other day and "wasted" the next two days watching him on Youtube. If you haven't seen it, you gotta google "the elephant story" on the Carol Burnett show. make sure you're sitting down. I think he's really referring to Allen Dulles.

oh. cool.

"probably because his brother was being stalked by Carol Burnett" was a joke. sorry.

thank you for you signature, Roger. amen.

probably because his brother was being stalked by Carol Burnett.

and, more importantly, as regards JFK assassination research, was John Foster Dulles ever in love with Carol Burnett... Inquiring minds want to know.

‘The Brothers,’ on John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, by Stephen Kinzer - anyone read it? comments? anything 'JFK Ass.' notable? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-the-brothers-on-john-foster-dulles-and-allen-dulles-by-stephen-kinzer/2013/11/14/a1ddf9ba-3683-11e3-be86-6aeaa439845b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.dfaace9b8a3b

I know most everybody has seen this video a thousand times, but i'm just trying to get some clarity on this other long-gun laying there as the DP find the MC - is this simply a DP Officer's 12 Gauge automatic that's seen on the floor, muzzle presumably in the dirt, as they're lifting the MC...? I mean, it's not the Mauser, obviously - any news video of the point at which they lifted the Mauser for all to read "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel - assuming that occurred (and I do) - would have never seen the light of day... right?

how incredibly interesting. I know Mr Plumlee used to contribute here, and perhaps still does, but this is the first I've seen this video... has That Day been published?

right. that video was 1998? and as long as Larry agrees with this, then I'll consider its possibility, too. interesting to say that Fletcher (first name basis, James?) was not aware of something rings as about as ironic as anything i've read in this forum. including most things said by DVP and Paul Trejo... and speaking of authoritative voice, though Mr Trejo's overuse of "IMHO" grates, I appreciate his acknowledgment of humility. Wonder if it might have fit in with some sentence similar to "Fletcher Prouty was wrong...". just sayin'.

Come to think of it, R Bartholomew puts Bundy in a fairly dark shadow, too, which was the first I'd heard this about him; but it's a pretty bleak image of the guy - his closeness with Dulles and other WH ne'er-do-wells - redundancy not intended - etc... Read Bartholomew's piece in the "Possible Discovery of an Automobile..." - oh hell, you know what? acorn.net where it was posted was taken down. It's hard to find the complete copy (it's an essay that rivals War and Peace in length - RB calls it - hell i forgot what he calls it - i shouldn't have had those last 4or beers at luhcn.) I need to post it somewhere. Like in a JFK asasni - asnasstn - Murder forum.