single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[tsig]

The single bullet theory was the absolute essence of the Warren commission, without it they believed there had to be more than one gunman. The only evidence ever offered by the warren commission for the single bullet theory was essentially the endorsment of the reputable and respected men on the committee that it was likely. That 3 of those men and the president of the united states actually did not believe the single bullet theory and kept that from the American people was a cover-up pure and simple.

And the single bullet theory is not true, thats a fact not an opinion and I'll happily prove it if you want, although this is probably not the right thread.

The above was a post by Soily since he has expressed his willingness to prove it I have provided a thread for him.

[Soily]

Thanks very much!

This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!

[dafydd]

Thanks very much!

This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!

So we can take it that you have no concrete proof,only questions and speculation?

[The Platypus]

Anyone who blatantly states "it's a fact", or uses words like "fact" repeatedly, without backing it up, is making a sales pitch and trying to be convincing without actually meeting their burden of proof...

[FreshHat]

The above was a post by Soily since he has expressed his willingness to prove it I have provided a thread for him.

[leslie neilson mode] Yes, you did... and don't call him Soily.[/leslie neilson mode]

[Soily]

I was hoping someone would post the proof that CE399 was found at parkland, but i'm not holding my breathe.

Neither the 3 civilians who found the bullet at parkland or the 2 secret service agents they gave it could ever identify CE399 as the bullet they found. Nathan Pool, Darrel Tomlinson and OP wright, the men who actually found the bullet all seperetly described the bullet they found as a point nose hunting round, not CE399. The only evidence in existence that CE399 was the bullet found at parkland was an FBI memo presented to the Warren Commission describing a interview by FBI agent Bardwell Odum of Wright and Tomlinson where they identified the bullet as CE399. Unfortently, Odum himself has confirmed that this meeting never happened, it was fabricated by Hoover. There is not the slightest shred of evidence CE399 was the bullet found at parkland, all the available evidence we have shows it was a point nosed hunting round which could not have been fired by Oswald. There are a whole list of corroborating points that CE399 was never fired at Kennedy which we can go through too, but the main point is the legendary magic bullet is not only magic but non existent.

[Soily]

Anyone who blatantly states "it's a fact", or uses words like "fact" repeatedly, without backing it up, is making a sales pitch and trying to be convincing without actually meeting their burden of proof...

Well of these 2 statements:
1 Dogs definitely exist
2 Santa Clause definitely doesn't exist

Only 1 of them is actually a fact, but most reasonable people would regard them both as true. The magic bullet is like Santa, there's no evidence it exists and plenty of evidence it doesn't but of course you can't definitively proof it.

[riptowtan]

"all the available evidence we have shows it was a point nosed hunting round which could not have been fired by Oswald."
Where is this evidence? Are you claiming that they found a bullet fired from a completely different gun? How dumb could the conspirators be?
You should read through Mcadam's site, or check out Case Closed by Gerald Posner. The conspiracy arguments are all logically flawed and lacking positive evidence.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
From the site:

"Anybody who wants to posit that CE 399 was faked and planted by conspirators needs to supply plausible answers to all of the following questions. Why did the conspirators . . .

1. Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?
2. Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?
3. Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?
4. Plant the bullet so it was found before it was known how much lead was in JFK's neck/upper back? What if a big chunk of lead was found in JFK's neck or upper back, a chunk too big to have come from CE 399? "

[The Platypus]

I was hoping someone would post the proof that CE399 was found at parkland, but i'm not holding my breathe.

Neither the 3 civilians who found the bullet at parkland or the 2 secret service agents they gave it could ever identify CE399 as the bullet they found. Nathan Pool, Darrel Tomlinson and OP wright, the men who actually found the bullet all seperetly described the bullet they found as a point nose hunting round, not CE399. The only evidence in existence that CE399 was the bullet found at parkland was an FBI memo presented to the Warren Commission describing a interview by FBI agent Bardwell Odum of Wright and Tomlinson where they identified the bullet as CE399. Unfortently, Odum himself has confirmed that this meeting never happened, it was fabricated by Hoover. There is not the slightest shred of evidence CE399 was the bullet found at parkland, all the available evidence we have shows it was a point nosed hunting round which could not have been fired by Oswald. There are a whole list of corroborating points that CE399 was never fired at Kennedy which we can go through too, but the main point is the legendary magic bullet is not only magic but non existent.


So you, like many CTers i've encountered, think that people, when asked to recall something they experienced during a traumatic situation, never ever make mistakes when asked to describe what they remember?

Hate to bust your bubble, but they simply could have been mistaken. It's not a big secret these days that peoples recollections and witnesses perceptions are more often flawed than not, especially when the experience was stressful and chaotic or happened very quickly.

[carlitos]

Anyone who blatantly states "it's a fact", or uses words like "fact" repeatedly, without backing it up, is making a sales pitch and trying to be convincing without actually meeting their burden of proof...

Well of these 2 statements:
1 Dogs definitely exist
2 Santa Clause definitely doesn't exist

Only 1 of them is actually a fact, but most reasonable people would regard them both as true. The magic bullet is like Santa, there's no evidence it exists and plenty of evidence it doesn't but of course you can't definitively proof it.
The highlighted portion appears to have gone over your head. Your statements 1 and 2 do not contain the word "fact."

[The Platypus]

Well of these 2 statements:
1 Dogs definitely exist
2 Santa Clause definitely doesn't exist

Only 1 of them is actually a fact, but most reasonable people would regard them both as true. The magic bullet is like Santa, there's no evidence it exists and plenty of evidence it doesn't but of course you can't definitively proof it.

Trying another sales pitch technique isn't very convincing and just hurt your credibility even more...

[Soily]

So you, like many CTers i've encountered, think that people, when asked to recall something they experienced during a traumatic situation, never ever make mistakes when asked to describe what they remember?

Hate to bust your bubble, but they simply could have been mistaken. It's not a big secret these days that peoples recollections and witnesses perceptions are more often flawed than not, especially when the experience was stressful and chaotic or happened very quickly.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that highly contensious statement doesn't magically make evidence that CE399 was the parkland bullet appear out of the ether. There is no evidence CE399 was the Parkland bullet, do you understand what that means? Not even circumstantial evidence. And all the physically evidence also rules out CE399 been that bullet. The single bullet theory is an entirely evidence free fantasy that is utterly unbelievable on every single level. It's a sort of intellectual benchmark for me, if you believe the SBT you will literally believe anything.

[The Platypus]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that highly contensious statement doesn't magically make evidence that CE399 was the parkland bullet appear out of the ether. There is no evidence CE399 was the Parkland bullet, do you understand what that means? Not even circumstantial evidence. And all the physically evidence also rules out CE399 been that bullet. The single bullet theory is an entirely evidence free fantasy that is utterly unbelievable on every single level. It's a sort of intellectual benchmark for me, if you believe the SBT you will literally believe anything.

Wow, that's quite the emotional investment you attach to this... which again doesn't help your credibility and is also quite bizarre...

You can insist on your opinion all you want, but that's all you have shown is your opinion and you are just using weak tricks to try and sell it...

[Soily]

Wow, that's quite the emotional investment you attach to this... which again doesn't help your credibility and is also quite bizarre...

You can insist on your opinion all you want, but that's all you have shown is your opinion and you are just using weak tricks to try and sell it...

Again you just huff and bluster. Care to actually address the issues? Do you support the sbt? And if so on what evidence?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The single bullet theory was the absolute essence of the Warren commission, without it they believed there had to be more than one gunman. The only evidence ever offered by the warren commission for the single bullet theory was essentially the endorsment of the reputable and respected men on the committee that it was likely. That 3 of those men and the president of the united states actually did not believe the single bullet theory and kept that from the American people was a cover-up pure and simple.

And the single bullet theory is not true, thats a fact not an opinion and I'll happily prove it if you want, although this is probably not the right thread.

The above was a post by Soily since he has expressed his willingness to prove it I have provided a thread for him.

He doesn't repeat the tired false claim that the recovered bullet was "pristine", does he?

[carlitos]

I could understand it if Soily couldn't get through all of Bugliosi's book and all of the supporting documentation included, but what about Posner's Case Closed? It's only 600 pages or so, and you can get a used paperback copy for cheap.

[CurtC]

Well, all the wounds line up to have originated somewhere high in the southeast corner of the Book Depository building, so if the CE399 bullet wasn't the actual item, and another one was, you're still left with a slightly different single bullet theory with Oswald as the source.

[The Platypus]

Again you just huff and bluster. Care to actually address the issues? Do you support the sbt? And if so on what evidence?

I not claiming support of anything nor do i need evidence, i simply am listening to what you have given which is only your opinion of the story and i not convinced by what you are trying to push by on just your say so.

Cope. nobody is obligated to just take your word for anything you claim, if you can't back yourself up with anything more then song and dance sales pitches that's your problem. You can say "it's a fact" and try to pigeon hole people into your version of reality all you want with lame statements like "if you believe the SBT you will literally believe anything", and it may work for you on some people, but that doesn't work on everyone...

[Soily]

I could understand it if Soily couldn't get through all of Bugliosi's book and all of the supporting documentation included, but what about Posner's Case Closed? It's only 600 pages or so, and you can get a used paperback copy for cheap.

Sounds like you haven't read bugliosi's epic book yourself, since even he trashes case closed in it.

[riptowtan]

Sounds like you haven't read bugliosi's epic book yourself, since even he trashes case closed in it.

Bugliosi does not trash Cased Closed. He says that Posner made some minor omissions and distortions but that overall it's a good book. He also agrees with Posner's conclusion, which is that Oswald did it alone. The site I linked before goes over the chain of evidence for the bullet(CE399). Buglosi does a much better job in his book "Reclaiming History", which I am currently reading. Again this whole switched bullet claim has a hidden premise. The conspirators would be both incredibly sneaky and competent but also incomprehensibly stupid at the same time. How is this possible? If someone were to plan a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to blame it all on Oswald, why use different guns, or too many bullets? This would blow their cover and risk themselves to jail time.

[Soily]

Well, all the wounds line up to have originated somewhere high in the southeast corner of the Book Depository building, so if the CE399 bullet wasn't the actual item, and another one was, you're still left with a slightly different single bullet theory with Oswald as the source.

And pray tell how do you know that? The warren commission fraudulently moved the wound in kennedy's back down 3 inches from the actual position of the wound and still couldn't get it to line up. Just look at the pictures of spectre recreating it, e wounds are in the wrong position and it still doesnt line up! And please don't quote Dale Myer's hilarious 3d cartoon as proof. Not only is it completely absurd to think you can extract sufficiently accurate 3d information from an incredibly grainy 40 year old cine film, but he uses every trick in the book to make it fit the preconceived notion of spectres sbt, including lying about how far in Connelly was to having jfk lean forward to a degree he demonstrably never is in the Zapruder film. If CE399 was the bullet passed through the bodies of 2 men 4 times, how come it didn't have 1 single microscopic piece of blood, human tissue of clothes fibres on it? How come the Warren commissions own ballistics experts did 100s of test firings of identical ammunition to CE399 was an identical rifle into cadavers and animal carcasses and on every single occasion the bullets were massively more deformed than CE399?

But as I said, the main point is there is no evidence CE399 was the bullet from parkland. So how can you have a theory when you haven't got a bullet?

If the sbt if now a different bullet, where is it? According to the theory, the bullet ended up in connoleys thigh, so where is it? Where did it go? All 3 of the witnesses who found the bullet at parkland seperetly described it as point nosed, how come by the time the WC get it its changed shape and type?

The whole point here is we only have 1 piece of known evidence about the origins of the bullet from parkland, and that's the witness statements that all describe it as point nosed. That's it.

[Soily]

Bugliosi does not trash Cased Closed. He says that Posner made some minor omissions and distortions but that overall it's a good book. He also agrees with Posner's conclusion, which is that Oswald did it alone. The site I linked before goes over the chain of evidence for the bullet(CE399). Buglosi does a much better job in his book "Reclaiming History", which I am currently reading. Again this whole switched bullet claim has a hidden premise. The conspirators would be both incredibly sneaky and competent but also incomprehensibly stupid at the same time. How is this possible? If someone were to plan a conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to blame it all on Oswald, why use different guns, or too many bullets? This would blow their cover and risk themselves to jail time.
The chain of evidence? See whilst bugliosi just sits in his office regurgating the work of others, some people actually go out and do their own research. John hunt for instance, actually went to the national archives with a magnifying glass and studied CE399, taking close up photos from every angle. One of the key chains in the evidence chain, Elmer Todd said he put his initials on the bullet when he had it in his possession. Yet his initials are not on ce399. Buggy oddly fails to mention this in his epic doorstop. Where's the bullet Elmer Todd initialed? In fact it's even worse than that. None of the three FBI agents who handle the bullet on it's way from parkland to the FBI lab have their initials on CE399. None of the FBI agents who handle the bullet that day can identify it as CE399. In fact nobody ever could.

You genuinely have nothing, absolutely nothing to back up the fantasy of the sbt.

[riptowtan]

And pray tell how do you know that? The warren commission fraudulently moved the wound in kennedy's back down 3 inches from the actual position of the wound and still couldn't get it to line up.
This is because his jacket was bunched up. There are some pretty clear photos in Bugliosi's book that demostrate this is true.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched.htm

And please don't quote Dale Myer's hilarious 3d cartoon as proof. Not only is it completely absurd to think you can extract sufficiently accurate 3d information from an incredibly grainy 40 year old cine film, but he uses every trick in the book to make it fit the preconceived notion of spectres sbt, including lying about how far in Connelly was to having jfk lean forward to a degree he demonstrably never is in the Zapruder film.

Have you tried to make a computer model refuting the theory? Why hasn't any of the conspiracy researchers? But how about an actual experiment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk

An important point to think about that in my opinion makes the multiple gunmen hypothesis untenable is that if you accept Kennedy got shot in the back (which all evidence indicates this is true), it follows that the bullet went through into Connally. Where else would it go? Did it zig zag off to the left like Cyril Wecht has suggested? It now seems that the conspiracy theorists have an indefensible magic bullet theory.

If CE399 was the bullet passed through the bodies of 2 men 4 times, how come it didn't have 1 single microscopic piece of blood, human tissue of clothes fibres on it? How come the Warren commissions own ballistics experts did 100s of test firings of identical ammunition to CE399 was an identical rifle into cadavers and animal carcasses and on every single occasion the bullets were massively more deformed than CE399?

Again a little bit of logic should clear this up. If the whole investigation was fraudulent why didn't they fake the ballistic tests?? The CE399 bullet was tested with neutron activation analysis to find that it was consistent with the metal fragments found in Connally. The bullets have all been confirmed to be from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association
fired a bullet into a human cadaver's wrist. This is what the bullet looked like.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

But as I said, the main point is there is no evidence CE399 was the bullet from parkland. So how can you have a theory when you haven't got a bullet?
But we do have the bullet. I've shown you a link that goes over the chain of evidence. CE399 is the bullet that killed Kennedy.

The whole point here is we only have 1 piece of known evidence about the origins of the bullet from parkland, and that's the witness statements that all describe it as point nosed. That's it.
Flat out false. Read Buglisosi's chapter on the Magic Bullet.

[riptowtan]

The chain of evidence? See whilst bugliosi just sits in his office regurgating the work of others, some people actually go out and do their own research. John hunt for instance, actually went to the national archives with a magnifying glass and studied CE399, taking close up photos from every angle. One of the key chains in the evidence chain, Elmer Todd said he put his initials on the bullet when he had it in his possession. Yet his initials are not on ce399. Buggy oddly fails to mention this in his epic doorstop. Where's the bullet Elmer Todd initialed?

Elmer Todd identified the bullet with his initials present in 1964. Are you calling him a liar? His initials probably would have been very faint even back then due to the fact that he is trying to write his name on a bullet with a pen. It's possible that the ink wore off after 50 years. Here are some close ups of the bullet. I can't make out any initials, but the fact of the matter is that Elmer Todd identified it in 1964.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image005.jpg

[carlitos]

Elmer Todd identified the bullet with his initials present in 1964. Are you calling him a liar?
False Dilemma

[Soily]

This is because his jacket was bunched up.

An important point to think about that in my opinion makes the multiple gunmen hypothesis untenable is that if you accept Kennedy got shot in the back (which all evidence indicates this is true), it follows that the bullet went through into Connally. Where else would it go? Did it zig zag off to the left like Cyril Wecht has suggested? It now seems that the conspiracy theorists have an indefensible magic bullet theory.

Since we don't have the first clue what the shooting sequence actually was beyond the headshot, that's all speculation. Even the lone nuts have a hundred different variations, of course when we're talking about magic bullets, the LN crowd have 2 don't they? The first bullet, which Oswald had the most time to set up, missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air, never to be seen again.


Again a little bit of logic should clear this up. If the whole investigation was fraudulent why didn't they fake the ballistic tests?? The CE399 bullet was tested with neutron activation analysis to find that it was consistent with the metal fragments found in Connally. The bullets have all been confirmed to be from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Wrong. The application of neutron activation analysis in this case (and others) has been discredited I'm afraid. See the papers by Randich and Grant. I'm sure Bugliosi was aware of but was, as is so often guilty by omission. You still have absolutely nothing to link the CE399 to the bullet at parkland or the hypothetical magic bullet.

Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association
fired a bullet into a human cadaver's wrist. This is what the bullet looked like.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

Well Josepth Dolce, the warren commissions own expert's tests conclusively show otherwise.

But we do have the bullet. I've shown you a link that goes over the chain of evidence. CE399 is the bullet that killed Kennedy.

That's a fib. See my previous post, read John Hunt's article. Read Gary Aguilar's article. You and Bugliosi are just plain wrong on this one. You in fact have no chain of evidence for CE399 at all. No witness evidence, no documentary evidence, no physical evidence. Just a wild, completely evidence free fantasy.

[Soily]

Elmer Todd identified the bullet with his initials present in 1964. Are you calling him a liar? His initials probably would have been very faint even back then due to the fact that he is trying to write his name on a bullet with a pen. It's possible that the ink wore off after 50 years. Here are some close ups of the bullet. I can't make out any initials, but the fact of the matter is that Elmer Todd identified it in 1964.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image005.jpg
They didn't use pens, they scratched the initials on. The other FBi agents who had the bullet later have clearly identifiable initials. His aren't there. No FBI agent who had the bullet from Parkland on the 22nd ever identified CE399 as the bullet they saw.

[carlitos]

The first bullet, which Oswald had the most time to set up, missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air, never to be seen again.
False dilemma. That's 1:1 for you guys.

There really isn't any need for the hyperbole. Just present evidence for your assertions.

[Soily]

That's not my assertion, that's the Warren commission and lone nuts assertion. They say oswald's first shot, the one he had the most time to set up, missed the car, even when it was at it's closest to him, by an absolutely huge margin, ricocheted on a curb and hit james tague. Check the photographs to see how big a miss this is. Oddly, the next two shots, which he had just a few seconds to make, were really accurate.

[carlitos]

That's not my assertion, that's the Warren commission and lone nuts assertion. They say oswald's first shot, the one he had the most time to set up, missed the car, even when it was at it's closest to him, by an absolutely huge margin, ricocheted on a curb and hit james tague. Check the photographs to see how big a miss this is. Oddly, the next two shots, which he had just a few seconds to make, were really accurate.

OK, so they didn't claim it "missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air." That's your claim, right? Will you be presenting evidence to this effect?

[Soily]

OK, so they didn't claim it "missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air." That's your claim, right? Will you be presenting evidence to this effect?
That's what the Warren commission proposed yes, although of course it was not a direct quote as it was not in their interests to phrase it in that way. Maybe you should read up on the case a little bit?

[carlitos]

I'm not at all interested in your imagined reasons for why the Warren Commission phrased something in a certain way.

[Gawdzilla]

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

[riptowtan]

That's not my assertion, that's the Warren commission and lone nuts assertion. They say oswald's first shot, the one he had the most time to set up, missed the car, even when it was at it's closest to him, by an absolutely huge margin, ricocheted on a curb and hit james tague. Check the photographs to see how big a miss this is. Oddly, the next two shots, which he had just a few seconds to make, were really accurate.

The bullet probably was deflected by a tree branch. This would explain why is missed by such a huge margin.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague.htm

I'll have to get back to you about the neutron activation analysis. I'm not too familiar with how it works or how reliable it is.

Since we don't have the first clue what the shooting sequence actually was beyond the headshot, that's all speculation. Even the lone nuts have a hundred different variations, of course when we're talking about magic bullets, the LN crowd have 2 don't they?

How is it speculation? We can infer that the second bullet hit JFK in the back and then exited his throat, based off of the zapruder film and autopsy reports. If you grant this as being true, the whole conspiracy theory breaks down. Where did the "magic bullet" go after it hit JFK in the back?

They didn't use pens, they scratched the initials on. The other FBi agents who had the bullet later have clearly identifiable initials. His aren't there. No FBI agent who had the bullet from Parkland on the 22nd ever identified CE399 as the bullet they saw.

Thanks for the correction.

John Hunt never actually went to the archives to handle the bullet himself. It says so in his own article. He posted pictures from this website
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

"The question for me became, is Todd's mark on the CE-399
bullet? To answer that question, I put together an illustration using
photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the entire surface of the
bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos." -- John Hunt

Couldn't the reason why we can't see the initials be that the picture is just not clear enough to see them?

My main problem with this whole switched bullet claim, is that it is logically absurd. Why would they plant a phony bullet when they could end up with too many bullets, exposing the plot? The FBI agents said that the bullet "appeared to be the same", but did not positively identify it. Better yet, knowing that Todd and other marked the bullet, why not get them in on the vast conspiracy as well? And we're still left with the problem that CE399 was fired from Oswald's rife to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Another reason why I think CE399 is the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally.

"There is another piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to
the stretcher bullet as the bullet that passed through Kennedy's and
Connally's bodies. If it weren't, then what happened to that bullet,
which, its velocity nearly spent, barely penetrated the governor's
left thigh? Since we know that the FBI and Secret Service scoured the
limousine for evidence and even found several small bullet fragments,
surely they would have found the bullet, inside the limousine, that
dropped from the governor's left thigh. The fact that no such bullet was found in the presidential limousine is fairly strong circumstantial evidence that that bullet is the same one found on the governor's stretcher."
from "Reclaiming History"

[riptowtan]

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

I agree. I think Bugliosi said it best. First there is hair splitting, then there are the splitting of the split hairs.

[riptowtan]

False Dilemma

Darn, you got me! I should have phrased it differently.

[Gawdzilla]

I agree. I think Bugliosi said it best. First there is hair splitting, then there are the splitting of the split hairs.

What else do we expect from a hair-brained idea?

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks very much!

This one is really easy. There's a whole list of reasons why it's false which we can go through if you want but they're largely irrelevant because of one simple fact. There is no single bullet theory because there is no single bullet. The bullet found at parkland hospital was absolutely not the same bullet entered into evidence as CE399. If anyone has proof it was I'd contact the authorities as you have a major new breakthrough on your hands!

Let's express this as a line of reasoning.

P1: CE399 was not the bullet that injured Kennedy and Connally.

C: There was no single bullet that injured Kennedy and Connally.

Your conclusion wouldn't follow from your premise even if your premise were established (which it isn't).

Would you like to try that again, but coherently?

Dave

[Soily]

The bullet probably was deflected by a tree branch. This would explain why is missed by such a huge margin.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague.htm

And the evidence for that is...? Ohh that's right, absolutely nothing. Talk about double standards.

How is it speculation? We can infer that the second bullet hit JFK in the back and then exited his throat, based off of the zapruder film and autopsy reports. If you grant this as being true, the whole conspiracy theory breaks down. Where did the "magic bullet" go after it hit JFK in the back

Err no we can't infer that at all. I don't really want to get into the sad saga of the autopsy and the ever changing wounds because that could be another dozen threads in itself, but there's good reason to believe the back wound was shallow. And regardless of what fantasists like myers say, there's absolutely nothing obvious in the zapruder film that proves they were hit by the same bullet. Get a thousand different people and they'll see a thousand different things. Connolley and his wife both maintained till the end of their days they were hit by a different bullet. And the hilarious 'scientific' trajectory analysis of myers and the rest of them disproves their theory own anyway , they have to keep shifting the wounds about or putting Kennedy in positions he never is. The whole idea you can actually draw a line back from a wound with any accuracy, based on a 40 year old grainy, low resolution cine film is utterly absurd. Any one measurement would only have to be a fraction out for a line then drawn back 200 yards to be massively out. And with these recreations every measurement will be at least a fraction out. It's absolutely pseudo science, but people seem to be impressed because if it's a 3d computer simulation it must somehow have space age accuracy. Well sorry, but it's only as good as the information entered into it. And besides that, I can think of at least one of these recreations, for the discovery channel documentary the KGB jfk files which shows the line going back to the daltek. Another one from last year shows the wound exiting in kennedys chest!

John Hunt never actually went to the archives to handle the bullet himself. It says so in his own article. He posted pictures from this website
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

"The question for me became, is Todd's mark on the CE-399
bullet? To answer that question, I put together an illustration using
photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the entire surface of the
bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos." -- John Hunt

Couldn't the reason why we can't see the initials be that the picture is just not clear enough to see them?

I was under the impression he'd examined it himself with a magnifying glass, he certainly went to the national archives on many occasions to study the evidence. Seems like he didn't take the photos but used the nara preservation photos, which are incidentally available in bigger versions than he uses for illustration in his piece. I agree that initials could have somehow worn off, but since the others didn't, and they were made within days of each other, it's hard to think why.


My main problem with this whole switched bullet claim, is that it is logically absurd. Why would they plant a phony bullet when they could end up with too many bullets, exposing the plot? The FBI agents said that the bullet "appeared to be the same", but did not positively identify it. Better yet, knowing that Todd and other marked the bullet, why not get them in on the vast conspiracy as well? And we're still left with the problem that CE399 was fired from Oswald's rife to the exclusion of all other weapons.

I'm not sure you fully appreciate what we're saying. The bullet wasn't planted. A bullet was found at parkland, and the only evidence we have in existence about that bullet was that it was a point nosed hunting round. This bullet was taken to the FBI where at some point it became apparent that it could not have been fired by Oswald. At which point that bullet was deep sixed and replaced with a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle at some later point. That bullet was then shown to the witneses, none of whom could identity it, although a fraudulent memo from the FBI gives the impression they did. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
[/quote]

Another reason why I think CE399 is the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally.

"There is another piece of circumstantial evidence pointing to
the stretcher bullet as the bullet that passed through Kennedy's and
Connally's bodies. If it weren't, then what happened to that bullet,
which, its velocity nearly spent, barely penetrated the governor's
left thigh? Since we know that the FBI and Secret Service scoured the
limousine for evidence and even found several small bullet fragments,
surely they would have found the bullet, inside the limousine, that
dropped from the governor's left thigh. The fact that no such bullet was found in the presidential limousine is fairly strong circumstantial evidence that that bullet is the same one found on the governor's stretcher."
from "Reclaiming History"[/QUOTE]
It's evidence of nothing. We have several missing bullets in this case. The first shot is missing. One of the tippet bullets is missing. Lots of missing evidence. And there is some pretty good evidence there was another bullet at parkland, both Henry Wade and governor connolly describe a bullet that fell out of his clothing in the emergency room, which a nurse put in her pocket. Bob Harris has a good video on YouTube that goes through this.

The other thing its important to understand about the sbt is it was not the FBI theory. The FBI had concluded their report and their shot sequence was entirely different, there was no sbt, jfk and connolly were struck by different bullets and CE399 fell out of JFKs back. If it wasn't for he inconvenient James Tague that would be the version you and macadams and bugliosi would be twisting and turning to defend today. The sbt theory was entirely a work of imagination from specter and his lawyers, to get them out of a terrible fix.

Other things you have to ask, if CE399 caused all those wounds, why was there no blood, human tissue, bone of cloth fragments on it?

And also regarding the NAA, a whole slew of new experts have come forward to descredit

In May 2007, a second paper appeared reporting on a chemical, forensic and statistical analysis of bullets derived from the same batch as those supposedly used by Oswald. The authors, Cliff Spiegelman, professor of statistics at Texas A&M and an expert in bullet lead analysis, William A. Tobin, the FBI's former Chief Forensic Metallurgist, William D. James, research chemist with the Texas A&M Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, and Stuart Wexler, brought considerable expertise to their study. As with Randich and Grant, they also concluded that, "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed." They reported that, "many bullets within a box of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition." Thus, it was not true, as Guinn had said, that such matches are extraordinarily rare

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation _Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt

[Soily]

Let's express this as a line of reasoning.

P1: CE399 was not the bullet that injured Kennedy and Connally.

C: There was no single bullet that injured Kennedy and Connally.

Your conclusion wouldn't follow from your premise even if your premise were established (which it isn't).

Would you like to try that again, but coherently?

Dave
Mmm if you want to provide the evidence CE399 was the bullet then please do and this thread would be over. My point is really simple so I'll repeat it again for the hard of understanding. There is no evidence CE399 was the bullet found at parkland. There is no evidence CE399 was fired at Kennedy.

[Fourbrick]

I could understand it if Soily couldn't get through all of Bugliosi's book and all of the supporting documentation included, but what about Posner's Case Closed? It's only 600 pages or so, and you can get a used paperback copy for cheap.


Posner makes so many mistakes and assumptions that it isn't a book worth reading.

Have a look here. at some of the mistakes he makes.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/Gal.htm

[Soily]

Posner makes so many mistakes and assumptions that it isn't a book worth reading.

Have a look here. at some of the mistakes he makes.

http://www.assassinationweb.com/Gal.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKposner.htm http://assassinationweb.com/twpos.htm some more examples of errors and dishonest arguments here.

Case closed and reclaiming history are lawyers prosecution cases, not an impartial attempt to find out what happened. I mean the idea that Bugliosi started his book with an open mind is ludicrous, since the book evolved from the Thames tv mock trial of Oswald in 1988, where Bugliosi acted for the prosecution!

[Dave Rogers]

Mmm if you want to provide the evidence CE399 was the bullet then please do and this thread would be over. My point is really simple so I'll repeat it again for the hard of understanding. There is no evidence CE399 was the bullet found at parkland. There is no evidence CE399 was fired at Kennedy.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "repeat". Here's your original statement:

And the single bullet theory is not true, thats a fact not an opinion and I'll happily prove it if you want, although this is probably not the right thread.

You have offered to prove that the single bullet theory is not true. This is not the same as casting reasonable doubt on the evidence supporting the single bullet theory; it is in fact a far higher burden of proof that you have chosen to assume. Please stop, therefore, avoiding the issue by repeating your personal opinion that CE399 was misidentified, and present your convincing evidence that it is impossible for a single bullet fired by Oswald to have inflicted the known wounds of both Kennedy and Connally.

Dave

[Gawdzilla]

Really, where do these people come from?

[Soily]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "repeat". Here's your original statement:



You have offered to prove that the single bullet theory is not true. This is not the same as casting reasonable doubt on the evidence supporting the single bullet theory; it is in fact a far higher burden of proof that you have chosen to assume. Please stop, therefore, avoiding the issue by repeating your personal opinion that CE399 was misidentified, and present your convincing evidence that it is impossible for a single bullet fired by Oswald to have inflicted the known wounds of both Kennedy and Connally.

Dave
You're right, I can't prove that no evidence of something means its not true. I'm not interested in getting into squabble with you or arguing about arguing, posters motives or anything like that. If we genuinely want to talk about the SBT rather than win an argument, lets change tack slightly. I guess it would be best if we stuck to discussing what evidence there is to believe CE399 was either the bullet found at Parkland or was fired at Kennedy. Lets do this in a series of for and against arguments. I will post the against, obviously.

Against - the witnesses
Nathan Pool, Darrell Tomlinson and OP Wright are the 3 men involved with the discovery of the bullet at Parkland. Their description of the bullet they found was as follows.

Hospital employees Nathan Pool and Darrel Tomlinson are the 2 men who actually found the bullet. Pool told the HSCA in 1977 it was "long, pointed and smooth". Darrell Tomlinson,told Josiah Thompson in his book 6 seconds in Dallas in 1966 the bullet was a hunting round. Tomlinson gave the bullet to OP Wright, the personnel manager. He not only told Thompson it was a point nosed hunting round -"That bullet had a pointed tip", but produced a similar bullet to the one he saw at Parkland, which is pictured in the book. Its an entirely different type of bullet to CE399.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4.GIF

Neither of these 3 men, or the FBI agents who also handled the bullet that day could ever identify CE399 as the bullet they saw at Parkland as shown by these suppressed FBI memos not shown to the Warren Commuision (no cover up eh?)
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6.GIF
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide5-1.GIF

There was however, an FBI memo to the Warren Commision that stated FBI agent Bardwell Odum interviewed Wright and Tomlinson and they told him CE399 "appears to be the same" as the bullet they found. Unfortunetly, this seems to be a lie. Bardwell Odum was asked about this incident and he replied:
“I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.”

Could his memory be playing tricks after all these years? Well the FBI report detailing the interview appears to have never existed, its not in the national archives, and despite the reports been numbered consecutively, there are no gaps where it once might have existed.

Full details of this can be seen here - http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

I guess we should for now, probably discard John Hunts apperent evidence that Agent Elmer Todd's initials don't appear on the bullet in evidence today as CE399 until it can be fully confirmed, but if true would appear to be further evidence against the Parkland bullet been CE399.

So, in terms of witnesses and identification, there is no evidence extant that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, and some evidence that it was not.

[Dave Rogers]

So, in terms of witnesses and identification, there is no evidence extant that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, and some evidence that it was not.

Even if that were accepted, all that you're suggesting is that a piece of evidence thought to be relevant is, in fact, not relevant. Since CE399 is not crucial to the single bullet theory - indeed, not a few conspiracy theorists believe that the relatively undamaged condition of CE399 refutes the single bullet theory - this doesn't change anything significant.

Dave

[dafydd]

Really, where do these people come from?

Their parent's basements?

[Gawdzilla]

Their parent's basements?

So, not "Twenty Thousand Fathoms". Color me shocked. :eek:

[Soily]

Even if that were accepted, all that you're suggesting is that a piece of evidence thought to be relevant is, in fact, not relevant. Since CE399 is not crucial to the single bullet theory - indeed, not a few conspiracy theorists believe that the relatively undamaged condition of CE399 refutes the single bullet theory - this doesn't change anything significant.

Dave
This ignores 2 vital points. The FBI, the Warren commission and it's supporters say CE399 was the bullet found at parkland, the bullet that they say was the single bullet in the SBT. If it isn't then several people are lying about a key piece of evidence in the case. You don't think this undermines it at all? Secondly, if CE399 is not the bullet found at parkland where the he'll did it come from? I know it's been labelled the magic bullet, but how much magic are you willing to believe in? That it spontaneously appeared in evidence out of nowhere and with no provenance? You don't think building a massive and key theory on such a shaky foundation is satisfactory do you?

[Gawdzilla]

"The Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name!"

[Dave Rogers]

This ignores 2 vital points. The FBI, the Warren commission and it's supporters say CE399 was the bullet found at parkland, the bullet that they say was the single bullet in the SBT. If it isn't then several people are lying about a key piece of evidence in the case.

Or they honestly believe it to be the truth, but are mistaken. Or the witnesses are mistaken about the precise shape of the bullet, human memory being a very imperfect thing. False dilemma.

Secondly, if CE399 is not the bullet found at parkland where the he'll did it come from? I know it's been labelled the magic bullet, but how much magic are you willing to believe in? That it spontaneously appeared in evidence out of nowhere and with no provenance? You don't think building a massive and key theory on such a shaky foundation is satisfactory do you?

I'm not willing to believe in any magic at all. "Magic bullet" is a conspiracist's way to sow seeds of doubt about a theory that actually simply requires the bullet to obey simple mechanics.

So let's look at the alternatives:

(1) CE399 is not the bullet found at Parkland, nor is it the bullet that wounded Kennedy and Connally. The origin of CE399 is a mystery, as is the fate of the bullet or bullets that wounded Kennedy and Connally. A conspiracy took place to substitute a bullet for the real bullet that bore no resemblance to it, in the vain hope that the witnesses would fail to notice the difference, this conspiracy is supported by the FBI, by the Warren Commission - despite the fact that three of its members did not support parts of its findings - and this still doesn't have any bearing on whether Kennedy and Connally could have been wounded by the same bullet.

Or:

(2) Witness recollection is fallible.

One requires the erection of a conspiracist house of cards. The other requires that something well-known is assumed to be possible. Occam's Razor is very simply applied.

Dave

[KoihimeNakamura]

I would say something, but you do realize that the job of a prosecutor is to assemble evidence and make a case right?

...?

[riptowtan]

I know I am not going to get around to address every claim, but I'd like to go back to where you said the first shot can't be linked to a deflection of a tree branch. Before presenting evidence, I would like to ask whether this would account for the huge margin of error. Looking at still frames from the FBI's reenactment of the shooting, frame 161 shows that a tree is in the way of the shot. This is approximately when the first shot is fired. If the tree was in the way of the shot, when the presidential limousine was first shot at, then it is very probably that the bullet was deflected from the tree branch.




There was however, an FBI memo to the Warren Commision that stated FBI agent Bardwell Odum interviewed Wright and Tomlinson and they told him CE399 "appears to be the same" as the bullet they found. Unfortunetly, this seems to be a lie. Bardwell Odum was asked about this incident and he replied:


Could his memory be playing tricks after all these years?
Yes. Remember this was 37 years after the event. Someone could have false memories about what happened yesterday. Do you know what the other FBI agents say about the report?

terms of witnesses and identification, there is no evidence extant that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, and some evidence that it was not.
But the bullet was fired from Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. This matches the amount of gun shells found in the 6th floor of the book depository and has additional eyewitness evidence. There were three construction workers on the fifth floor who heard the three shots from above, including the shells hitting the ground.

Secondly, if CE399 is not the bullet found at parkland where the he'll did it come from? I know it's been labelled the magic bullet, but how much magic are you willing to believe in? That it spontaneously appeared in evidence out of nowhere and with no provenance? You don't think building a massive and key theory on such a shaky foundation is satisfactory do you?

I don't see why the chain of custody for CE399 is hard to believe. If you probe any murder case to the extent of which the JFK conspiracy researchers do, you will find small pockets of inconsistencies or anomalies. I do not agree that they can undermine all of the really clear evidence that we have about the case. Namely, all of the evidence linking the shots to Oswald on the 6th floor. (Palm print, finger print, 3 gun shells, eyewitness testimony, Oswald's neighbor reporting that Oswald brought in "curtain rods" that morning) I don't think the memory of an event that happened 37 years ago trumps all of the documents and physical evidence, nor do I think any rational person would.

[Fourbrick]

Regarding the "curtain rods", the neighbour was one, Mr Frazier

"Officials assumed that the package Oswald carried to work that morning was the Italian-made rifle he used to kill Kennedy.

Mr. Frazier still doesn't believe it.

When Oswald got in his car that morning, Mr. Frazier hardly noticed the bundle Oswald laid on the back seat.

"He told me he was taking some curtain rods for his room," Mr. Frazier said. "I didn't think much about it."

Mr. Frazier parked his car behind the depository building and revved his engine for a few moments, charging his low battery, and watched Oswald walk about 200 yards into the building with the package under his arm.

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit. "

Re the palm print, This is what the later commission found about that.

"Lieutenant J. C. Day, the man who claimed he discovered and lifted Oswald's palm print off the barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, was not properly questioned by the Warren Commission (WC). Years after the WC disbanded, it came to light through an internal WC memo that the Commission was suspicious of the manner in which the palm print was obtained. When Day appeared before the Commission, the questioning to which he was subjected can politely be called unproductive and overly friendly. Later on in the investigation, when the Commission's doubts about the palm print began to come to a head, chief counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to secure more information from Lt. Day about the palm print. Day refused to make a sworn statement regarding his handling of the print, and there the matter has rested ever since."

The three gun shells prove nothing.

The sloppiness of the Dallas police was amazing.

[Soily]

Against - CE399 the physical evidence

Since CE399 was never found in the body of either Kennedy or connally, the witnesses, documentation and chain of evidence all testify against it, we need to look at the physical evidence.

CE399 is alleged to have made entered the bodies of Kennedy and connally 4 time, through flesh, clothing and bones. Yet there was no blood, human tissue, bone or clothing fibres on the bullet.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219a.htm pgs 428-440

The Warren commission did ballistics tests with the same rifle and ammunition to see if they could match their test bullets with CE399. The got in the armies top ballistics expert, Dr Joseph Dolce, who concluded that Connally was shot by 2 bullets and CE399 could not have caused the damage attributed to it without been significantly more damaged. He did tests at an army base with Oswald rifle, firing 100 shots at various goat carcases and cadavers wrists. On every occasion the bullets were significantly more damaged than CE399.

Here's an interview with Dolce where he explains his findings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pi-O_Rjh7g#t=03m35s . The Warren Commision ignored and suppressed the report because it didn't fit in with the single bullet theory they were concocting.

Ahh, but neutron activation analysis probed that bullet fragments found in he limousine were from CE399 right? Well no, not really. The NAA tests have been all but invalidated by numerous scientists. A paper by Pat Grant and Erik Randich first brought the results into question - http://www.dickrussell.org/articles/mason.htm

"It basically shatters what some people call the best physical evidence around," said chemist Pat Grant, director of the lab's Forensic Science Center.


A whole slew of experts in the field corrobatered Grant and Randich's findings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051601967.html?hpid=moreheadlines
The "evidence used to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed," concludes a new article in the Annals of Applied Statistics written by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A&M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman and William D. James.

So where does that leave us? With little or no physical evidence that CE399 was ever fired at Kennedy, let alone was the the 'magic bullet'.

[riptowtan]

Regarding the "curtain rods", the neighbour was one, Mr Frazier

"Officials assumed that the package Oswald carried to work that morning was the Italian-made rifle he used to kill Kennedy.

Mr. Frazier still doesn't believe it.

Come one now. Do you really think Oswald was bringing curtain rods into work?? He had to have some excuse for why he was bringing in a paper package. The reason why it looked to short to be a rifle was because it was disassembled.


"Lieutenant J. C. Day, the man who claimed he discovered and lifted Oswald's palm print off the barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building, was not properly questioned by the Warren Commission (WC). Years after the WC disbanded, it came to light through an internal WC memo that the Commission was suspicious of the manner in which the palm print was obtained. When Day appeared before the Commission, the questioning to which he was subjected can politely be called unproductive and overly friendly. Later on in the investigation, when the Commission's doubts about the palm print began to come to a head, chief counsel J. Lee Rankin asked the FBI to secure more information from Lt. Day about the palm print. Day refused to make a sworn statement regarding his handling of the print, and there the matter has rested ever since."

FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona resolved this issue in 1978. He has said he has "no doubt whatsoever that the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle." (Reclaiming History pg. 803)

This is also taking issue with one of the palm prints. There were two. Not to mention the fingerprint found on the trigger of the Mannlicher Carcano matches Oswald's fingerprint by 18 points of identity.
"These are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald and... they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it." -Vincent J. Scalice, leading fingerprint expert for the NYC police department in 1993.

The three gun shells prove nothing.

The sloppiness of the Dallas police was amazing.
The gun shells along with the fact that they were fired from Oswald's gun proves that someone used Oswald's gun in the book depository 6th floor. The construction workers on the 5th floor heard the shells hitting the ground and the gunfire right above them. This along with the fingerprint, and palm print evidence conclusively links Oswald to the assassination.

[JerryGarcia]

And interestingly, no curtain rods were even found in the Texas School Book Depository. And when Oswald's apartment was searched, it found to already have curtain rods hanging up.

[Soily]

Occam's Razor is very simply applied.

Dave

You're mangling the whole concept of Occam's razor. A theory with the least number of steps is a great rule of thumb, but parsimonous theories should not exclude data in order to reach the neatest solution. A theory with the least number of steps is not in itself proof of that theory and doesn't trump dissenting information I'm afraid. It's a neat debating trick on messageboards but rhetoric is no substitute for evidence. You're very fond of false dilmemas, yet you've offered one yourself. If you discard everything else, then a grand conspiracy versus some people were mistaken is a no brainer, but you make a whole slew of assumptions and discard a whole slew of other information in order to get there. So the memory is faulty? How can 3 men have a faulty memory in the same direction? If the memory is faulty, how come contemporary FBI documents say nobody could identity the bullet? If Odum's memory is faulty, where's the FBI report detailing his interview with Wright and Tomlinson? What about the physical evidence I just posted, you also have to exclude all that for your Occam's razor to apply. Where's the evidence that switching a bullet is a house of cards?

In truth you're not applying Occam's Razor to the argument, but Occam's Eraser.

[Soily]

Would it be possible to spin off the posts about the other aspect of the case into other threads and keep this about the single bullet theory? it's going to get really messy otherwise.

[riptowtan]

CE399 is alleged to have made entered the bodies of Kennedy and connally 4 time, through flesh, clothing and bones. Yet there was no blood, human tissue, bone or clothing fibres on the bullet.


The Warren commission did ballistics tests with the same rifle and ammunition to see if they could match their test bullets with CE399. The got in the armies top ballistics expert, Dr Joseph Dolce, who concluded that Connally was shot by 2 bullets and CE399 could not have caused the damage attributed to it without been significantly more damaged. He did tests at an army base with Oswald rifle, firing 100 shots at various goat carcases and cadavers wrists. On every occasion the bullets were significantly more damaged than CE399.

Dr. John Lattimer, who himself conducted tests with the Carcano bullet had said: "the warren commission did not conduct proper experiments. They fired a 6.5 mm bullet traveling at over 2000 ft. per second directly into a wristbone."

Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert concluded that the CE399 was quite capable of passing through both Kennedy and Connally's bodies, striking the bones they did to end up in the same shape CE399 is currently in.
And when they retested the experiment at proper speeds. (1200fps) They came out with a bullet that looks just like CE399. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg





So where does that leave us? With little or no physical evidence that CE399 was ever fired at Kennedy, let alone was the the 'magic bullet'.
Like I've already said, you are the one who has the magic bullet. A straight trajectory from the 6th floor of the book depository lines up with all the wounds. I hope you don't use the seating arrangements from the JFK movie in your theory because those are erroneous. We are left we plenty of clear evidence that links Oswald to the assassination, you just keep cherry picking anything you can find that supports your theory while rejecting everything that contradicts it.

[Soily]

Dr. John Lattimer, who himself conducted tests with the Carcano bullet had said: "the warren commission did not conduct proper experiments. They fired a 6.5 mm bullet traveling at over 2000 ft. per second directly into a wristbone."

Larry Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert concluded that the CE399 was quite capable of passing through both Kennedy and Connally's bodies, striking the bones they did to end up in the same shape CE399 is currently in.
And when they retested the experiment at proper speeds. (1200fps) They came out with a bullet that looks just like CE399. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

That's the same Larry Sturdivan who championed the NAA work that has been mercilessly exposed in recent years as been deeply flawed and full of incorrect assumptions isn't it? I notice Bugliosi is very fond of using Sturdivan.

I'm not dismissing what you say, but I'm not in a position to decide on the merits of differing ballistics experts.

Ohh and the fingerprint allegedly found in the 90s on Oswald's rifle is a bit contentious to say the least. The original FBI fingerprint experts had the actual fingerprint right in front of them, not an old photo, and they couldn't find a match. Just to put this into context, in the 90s another new fingerprint was identified in the snipers nest in a similar way to the new Oswald match. Not an 18 point match, but a 34 point match was found with Mac Wallace, a known associate of Lyndon B Johnson. Are you saying he was involved in the assassination too? You can't have it both ways.

[carlitos]

How can 3 men have a faulty memory in the same direction?
I can't believe you are serious with this line of incredulity you're spewing.

[Soily]

Like I've already said, you are the one who has the magic bullet. A straight trajectory from the 6th floor of the book depository lines up with all the wounds. I hope you don't use the seating arrangements from the JFK movie in your theory because those are erroneous. We are left we plenty of clear evidence that links Oswald to the assassination, you just keep cherry picking anything you can find that supports your theory while rejecting everything that contradicts it.
As opposed to Dale myers, whose been caught telling so many fibs about the 3 dimensional positions of the various pertinent features of the assassination i'm surprised he still has the cheek to show his face in public. See Pat Speers excellent work exposing him. Probably the worst one was misrepresenting how far Connallys jump seat was in from the car, actually 2.5 inches rather than 6. As I said before, a forensically accurate 3d simulation based on a low res grainy old cine film is just not possible. It's the worst kind of politically motivated pseudo science. Even a few small errors are going to be magnified by orders of magnitude when extrapolated back 200 yards. So your statement that the wounds line up with the 6th floor window is completely unsupported by anything real. That a shot might have come from the 6th floor window is a near certainty for other reasons, but the computer simulations are worthless as evidence. You could just easily create a 3d simulation to 'prove' a shot came from the daltex building where a known criminal was arrested in the aftermath of the assasination. It's really not evidence as much as wishful thinking.

[Soily]

I can't believe you are serious with this line of incredulity you're spewing.
Yes, it was actually a conspiracy. They all got together in a darkened room to lie in unison about it. The lone nut side are ironically, full of conspiracy theorists. All sorts of people getting together to lie about the same things for no apparent reason.

[riptowtan]

That's the same Larry Sturdivan who championed the NAA work that has been mercilessly exposed in recent years as been deeply flawed and full of incorrect assumptions isn't it? I notice Bugliosi is very fond of using Sturdivan.

I'm not dismissing what you say, but I'm not in a position to decide on the merits of differing ballistics experts.

Ohh and the fingerprint allegedly found in the 90s on Oswald's rifle is a bit contentious to say the least. The original FBI fingerprint experts had the actual fingerprint right in front of them, not an old photo, and they couldn't find a match. Just to put this into context, in the 90s another new fingerprint was identified in the snipers nest in a similar way to the new Oswald match. Not an 18 point match, but a 34 point match was found with Mac Wallace, a known associate of Lyndon B Johnson. Are you saying he was involved in the assassination too? You can't have it both ways.

So what about the test bullet from a shot fired at 1200fps? That looks just like CE399, showing that it is possible for the bullet to come out "near-pristine".

[riptowtan]

Yes, it was actually a conspiracy. They all got together in a darkened room to lie in unison about it. The lone nut side are ironically, full of conspiracy theorists. All sorts of people getting together to lie about the same things for no apparent reason.

False Dilemma.

[riptowtan]

As opposed to Dale myers, whose been caught telling so many fibs about the 3 dimensional positions of the various pertinent features of the assassination i'm surprised he still has the cheek to show his face in public. See Pat Speers excellent work exposing him. Probably the worst one was misrepresenting how far Connallys jump seat was in from the car, actually 2.5 inches rather than 6. As I said before, a forensically accurate 3d simulation based on a low res grainy old cine film is just not possible. It's the worst kind of politically motivated pseudo science. Even a few small errors are going to be magnified by orders of magnitude when extrapolated back 200 yards. So your statement that the wounds line up with the 6th floor window is completely unsupported by anything real. That a shot might have come from the 6th floor window is a near certainty for other reasons, but the computer simulations are worthless as evidence. You could just easily create a 3d simulation to 'prove' a shot came from the daltex building where a known criminal was arrested in the aftermath of the assasination. It's really not evidence as much as wishful thinking.

If that is true then why haven't any conspiracy theorists made a simulation to show it's possible for a daltex building shooter? Please list your sources for the 2.5 inch seat distance. Dale Myers responds to his criticisms here:http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm. His work has been independently tested by experts from Z-Axis Corportation, one of the nation's leading forensic animation companies.

[Soily]

So what about the test bullet from a shot fired at 1200fps? That looks just like CE399, showing that it is possible for the bullet to come out "near-pristine".
Have you got anything more than a quote from Reclaiming History? I notice you use this book endlessly, have you ever read any other books on the subject?

[Soily]

If that is true then why haven't any conspiracy theorists made a simulation to show it's possible for a daltex building shooter? Please list your sources for the 2.5 inch seat distance. Dale Myers responds to his criticisms here:http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm. His work has been independently tested by experts from Z-Axis Corportation, one of the nation's leading forensic animation companies.
Thats both a false dilemma and an appeal to authority. Both logical fallacies.

[riptowtan]

Have you got anything more than a quote from Reclaiming History? I notice you use this book endlessly, have you ever read any other books on the subject?

That wasn't a quote from Reclaiming History, and yes I have read other books. There is nothing of any use in any of the conspiracy books I have read. I try to only use good sources.

[riptowtan]

Thats both a false dilemma and an appeal to authority. Both logical fallacies.

Not at all. The first part was a simple question, and the second showing that Myers has responded to his criticisms. I am not saying that Myers is right, but that he has been backed up by other experts, and there isn't any other computer models that have come up with conflicting results. As a layman I side with relevant expert opinion rather than what some conspiracy author says. If you would like to discuss a particular issue you have with Myer's work, we can do that.

[Soily]

That wasn't a quote from Reclaiming History, and yes I have read other books. There is nothing of any use in any of the conspiracy books I have read. I try to only use good sources.
That's both a gross generalisation and a superb example of circular reasoning.

[riptowtan]

That's both a gross generalisation and a superb example of circular reasoning.

No that is my opinion after reviewing all of the evidence. I find that the conspiracy books have very weak arguments and rely upon anomaly hunting and cherry picking quotes and data from the Warren Commission report and other investigations. You still haven't addressed several important points I have raised.
-You asked for an experiment showing that a 6.5 mm bullet can look like CE399 after going through bone. I've provided one.
-I've provided you with evidence that conclusively links the Mannlicher Carcano and the 3 bullets fired to Oswald
-I've come up with a plausible explanation for some of the confusion for the chain of custody for CE399
-And I've explained that the first bullet most likely was deflected from a tree based upon the FBI reenactment still frames.
You have yet to present any clear positive evidence for your case, and are still carrying the burden of proof.

[Soily]

Not at all. The first part was a simple question, and the second showing that Myers has responded to his criticisms. I am not saying that Myers is right, but that he has been backed up by other experts, and there isn't any other computer models that have come up with conflicting results. As a layman I side with relevant expert opinion rather than what some conspiracy author says. If you would like to discuss a particular issue you have with Myer's work, we can do that.

So you genuinely don't see any problems with trying to extrapolate forensically accurate 3d information from a grainy 2d cinefilm? You really think its possible to accurately determine 3 or 4 points, within a few inches if each other, with pin point accuracy from a blurry film? A film in which several of those points aren't even visible? Then extrapolate these points 200 yards back and it to be accurate enough to be remotely worthwhile? Appeals to authority are great, but its pseudo science.

[riptowtan]

So you genuinely don't see any problems with trying to extrapolate forensically accurate 3d information from a grainy 2d cinefilm? You really think its possible to accurately determine 3 or 4 points, within a few inches if each other, with pin point accuracy from a blurry film? A film in which several of those points aren't even visible? Then extrapolate these points 200 yards back and it to be accurate enough to be remotely worthwhile? Appeals to authority are great, but its pseudo science.

There would be problems with getting exact measurements for some cases. But I think this is negligible to the measurements we can make. The location of JFK and Connally can be seen on the Zapruder Film. The height of the 6th floor window is known. The approximate distance from the Book Depository can be figured from the zapruder film and by doing some measurements in the Dealey plaza. I don't think this is at all pseudoscience. It is modeling based on actual measurements. And while I am not arguing that Myers is definitively right, I say it's something the conspiracy researchers should try to experiment themselves. They should do computer models of the grassy knoll shot or from other locations. Where is all the conspiracy theory science? You have shown no positive evidence or even a remotely plausible scenario that better explains the event than the SBT.

[Soily]

There would be problems with getting exact measurements for some cases. But I think this is negligible to the measurements we can make. The location of JFK and Connally can be seen on the Zapruder Film. The height of the 6th floor window is known. The approximate distance from the Book Depository can be figured from the zapruder film and by doing some measurements in the Dealey plaza. I don't think this is at all pseudoscience. It is modeling based on actual measurements. And while I am not arguing that Myers is definitively right, I say it's something the conspiracy researchers should try to experiment themselves. They should do computer models of the grassy knoll shot or from other locations. Where is all the conspiracy theory science? You have shown no positive evidence or even a remotely plausible scenario that better explains the event than the SBT.

The location of Connally and JFK can clearly not be determined with any accuracy in 3D space from the Zapruder film, it's jut too blurry and grainy to make those judgements. It doesn't matter what actual measurements you make in dealy plaza 40 years later, you cannot know with any accuracy what the positions of the key players were. You can approximate, but that isn't good enough when you're extrapolating pin point measurements within a few inches of each other out towards a distance of 200 feet. You seem incredulous that nobody else has bothered to indulge in the fantasy of a 3d recreation based on a fuzzy, grainy low-res cine film. Maybe it's because they recognize the inherent flaws and dishonesty in doing so?

[Dave Rogers]

You're mangling the whole concept of Occam's razor. A theory with the least number of steps is a great rule of thumb, but parsimonous theories should not exclude data in order to reach the neatest solution. A theory with the least number of steps is not in itself proof of that theory and doesn't trump dissenting information I'm afraid.

I see you don't understand the nature of Occam's Razor. Nobody is excluding data; I'm simply choosing the explanation of the data which requires the fewest unknowns to be assumed.

You're very fond of false dilmemas, yet you've offered one yourself. If you discard everything else, then a grand conspiracy versus some people were mistaken is a no brainer, but you make a whole slew of assumptions and discard a whole slew of other information in order to get there.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. You're setting preconditions that demand a wide-ranging conspiracy of some sort; the alternative is a faulty recollection by a group of witnesses.

So the memory is faulty? How can 3 men have a faulty memory in the same direction?

Very easily, if they've had any chance to discuss the memory between witnessing and making statements. All it takes is for one of them to say with some certainty that his recollection differs from the others', and they start to re-evaluate what they saw. This is fairly normal psychology, and is a good reason why witness statements have to be collected and examined very carefully.

If the memory is faulty, how come contemporary FBI documents say nobody could identity the bullet?

Doesn't make sense. Any confusion about the appearance of the bullet would make it harder, not easier, for anyone to identify it.

What about the physical evidence I just posted, you also have to exclude all that for your Occam's razor to apply.

All of it contradicted by other work.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

The location of Connally and JFK can clearly not be determined with any accuracy in 3D space from the Zapruder film, it's jut too blurry and grainy to make those judgements. It doesn't matter what actual measurements you make in dealy plaza 40 years later, you cannot know with any accuracy what the positions of the key players were. You can approximate, but that isn't good enough when you're extrapolating pin point measurements within a few inches of each other out towards a distance of 200 feet.

So, do you admit that reconstructing the positions can't provide a refutation of the single bullet theory?

Dave

[Soily]

I see you don't understand the nature of Occam's Razor. Nobody is excluding data; I'm simply choosing the explanation of the data which requires the fewest unknowns to be assumed.



That doesn't make a lot of sense. You're setting preconditions that demand a wide-ranging conspiracy of some sort; the alternative is a faulty recollection by a group of witnesses.



Very easily, if they've had any chance to discuss the memory between witnessing and making statements. All it takes is for one of them to say with some certainty that his recollection differs from the others', and they start to re-evaluate what they saw. This is fairly normal psychology, and is a good reason why witness statements have to be collected and examined very carefully.



Doesn't make sense. Any confusion about the appearance of the bullet would make it harder, not easier, for anyone to identify it.



All of it contradicted by other work.

Dave
You still don't understand then oft abused concept of Occam's razor. Even accepting your multitude of contentious points, you have to jump through a vast amount of hoops to accept that as the simplest explanation. Again you're good at debating tricks but poor on basic logic.

[Soily]

So, do you admit that reconstructing the positions can't provide a refutation of the single bullet theory?

Dave

It can't provide anything. It's pseudo-science.

[Gawdzilla]

Soily, how many bullets did Oswald fire?

[Soily]

Soily, how many bullets did Oswald fire?

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.

[dafydd]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

[Soily]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

I think the other tests on the cast were briefly mentioned at the WC but the implications are not mentioned at all. Instead the WC concentrates on the opinion of a few FBI agents who say they wouldn't even expect nitrates to be found on a cheek cast when Oswald's rifle was fired, an opinion their own tests showed was wrong. The point is the FBI knew their own tests were strongly exculpatory of Oswald and made false and misleading statements to the WC to hide this. Pat Speer has a very long and detailed article on all this on his website that well worth reading.

[Gawdzilla]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.

All that to defend your inability to count. Excellent. You get five chew-toy points.

[Soily]

All that to defend your inability to count. Excellent. You get five chew-toy points.
You asked me a direct question - how many bullets did Oswald fire? The physical evidence in the case suggest Oswald didn't fire a rifle so that's my answer to your question. Did you mean to ask how many shots were fired?

[Gawdzilla]

You asked me a direct question - how many bullets did Oswald fire? The physical evidence in the case suggest Oswald didn't fire a rifle so that's my answer to your question. Did you mean to ask how many shots were fired?

I wrote what I meant to write. Your denial of reality kicked in at that point.

[Soily]

I wrote what I meant to write. Your denial of reality kicked in at that point.

I think pretending the tests that suggest Oswald had not fired a rifle that day don't exist is denying reality.

[Gawdzilla]

I think pretending the tests that suggest Oswald had not fired a rifle that day don't exist is denying reality.

Well, if you resolutely ignore the sum total of the evidence in a furious effort to rewrite history to suit your personal delusions you would be an expert at spotting denial of reality. But I doubt you'd recognize it when you spotted it.

[Soily]

Well, if you resolutely ignore the sum total of the evidence in a furious effort to rewrite history to suit your personal delusions you would be an expert at spotting denial of reality. But I doubt you'd recognize it when you spotted it.
A man, a gun, a dead body. It's obvious Oswald did it. Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is always the best right? The law of parsimony tends to appeal to the hard of thinking and the uninqisitive and all things been equal, the simplest solution is usually favourable, but correct solutions have to consider all the data, and not exclude dissenting information. A circumstantial case certainly can be constructed in favour of Oswald as a lone assassin, but only by excluding a whole slew of contradictory evidence. So all the witnesses that contradict your circumstantial case are wrong because they contradict. All the hard evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts. All the circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts.

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.

[Gawdzilla]

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.
So you're logical fallacies, as repeatedly explained to you, aren't dishonest and prejudiced? You are the last person to claim the moral high ground here, your agenda is obvious and pretty sad.

[JimBenArm]

Accusations of dishonesty and prejudice from a JFK conspiracy nut?
Next we'll have accusations of insanity from 9/11 conspiracy nuts.
Or accusations of stupidity from chemtrail nuts.

Gotta love the nutters.

Damn, now I'm all hungry for a Payday bar!

[RoboTimbo]

A man, a gun, a dead body. It's obvious Oswald did it. Occam's razor? The simplest explanation is always the best right? The law of parsimony tends to appeal to the hard of thinking and the uninqisitive and all things been equal, the simplest solution is usually favourable, but correct solutions have to consider all the data, and not exclude dissenting information. A circumstantial case certainly can be constructed in favour of Oswald as a lone assassin, but only by excluding a whole slew of contradictory evidence. So all the witnesses that contradict your circumstantial case are wrong because they contradict. All the hard evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts. All the circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial case is wrong because it contradicts.

Sorry but that's not logic, it's dishonesty and prejudice.

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with? Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting? Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater? Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?

[Soily]

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with?

We don't know for sure. Whatever the answer it doesn't mean Oswald took the shots.

Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting?

Unknown.

Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater?

No evidence he did. In a mealy and a tangled mess of arms and hands all trying to get hold of the revolver it may has appeared that way to some witnesses. However examination of the gun and bullet could find now evidence of any misfire.

Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?
If he did, it doesn't automatically follow he was the lone assassin of Kennedy. It's entirely consistent with other scenarios, such as Oswald realising he was set up.

[RoboTimbo]

How did Oswald's rifle get into the building to begin with?

We don't know for sure. Whatever the answer it doesn't mean Oswald took the shots.
Yes we do know for absolutely sure. Oswald carried it in wrapped in a bundle claiming them to be curtain rods. The empty wrapper was found on the sixth floor of the book depository. The wrapper had his palmprint on it and a fiber was found consistent with fibers from the blanket he kept his rifle wrapped in at Marina's home.

Why did Oswald leave the book depository building after the shooting?

Unknown.
Correct. We can't know the exact motivation without Oswald telling us but it would make sense that he would try to get far away from the scene of his crime.

Why did he try to shoot the officers in the theater?

No evidence he did. In a mealy and a tangled mess of arms and hands all trying to get hold of the revolver it may has appeared that way to some witnesses. However examination of the gun and bullet could find now evidence of any misfire.
Yes, there is evidence that he did. Oswald hit officer McDonald with his left hand while drawing the revolver out of his waistband with his right.

Why did he kill the other officer who stopped him in the street?
If he did, it doesn't automatically follow he was the lone assassin of Kennedy. It's entirely consistent with other scenarios, such as Oswald realising he was set up.
There is no 'if' about it. He killed officer JD Tippit with the same revolver that he was apprehended with in the theater. Four spent casings were found at that crime scene and identified as being fired from that revolver.

What else do you have to deny to make your story plausible?

[tsig]

Evidence that these supposed tests were suppressed by the FBI?

You didn't know about them so obviously they were suppressed. :yinyang:

[RoboTimbo]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day.
On the contrary, we know to an almost absolute certainty that Oswald fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle killing President Kennedy.
A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected.
This is a red herring fallacy. The question isn't whether the test picks up on nitrates that are on the skin but whether someone firing the rifle would get nitrates on their cheek.
Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren Commision.
Except for where they are discussed in detail in Appendix 10 pages 561-562 in the Report. I specifically direct you to a test done by the FBI:
In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative.
Pretty definitively you can fire a rifle and not get powder residue on your cheek.
Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.
I refer you again to the above Appendix.
So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not.
On the contrary, the hard physical evidence overwhelmingly points to him doing it.

[riptowtan]

Well we know Oswald himself almost certainly did not fire a rifle that day. A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected. Furthermore, the FBI, frustrated at not finding nitrates on Oswald's cheek, subjected the paraffin cast to a whole slew of more advanced tests. All of them were negative. These tests were suppressed by the FBI and not shown to the Warren
Commision. Some lone nuts, like Bugliosi, have claimed that Oswalds cheap WW2 rifle was actually so finely tooled that it was airtight and no gun powder residue could escape. Unfortuntely, both the FBI and later American jurisprudence did a series of tests with the rifle. On every occasion test shooters were left with abundant gun powder residue on their cheeks.

So whilst you can construct a flimsy circumstantial case that Oswald fired the rifle, the hard physical evidence suggests he did not. .

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

[RoboTimbo]

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

Sorry for being late to the party, I don't normally monitor CT. Did I miss anything good?

[Soily]

Yes we do know for absolutely sure. *Oswald carried it in wrapped in a bundle claiming them to be curtain rods. *The empty wrapper was found on the sixth floor of the book depository. *The wrapper had his palmprint on it and a fiber was found consistent with fibers from the blanket he kept his rifle wrapped in at Marina's home.
No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*

Yes, there is evidence that he did. *Oswald hit officer McDonald with his left hand while drawing the revolver out of his waistband with his right.

Sorry but we just don't know what happened with any certainty. It was a melée, punches were flying, a tangled mess of bodies. Understandably the witness statements tell many different stories and are just not reliable. The pysical evidence shows there was no misfire, everything else is conjecture, so the statement that oswald*tried to shoot a policeman at the theatre is tendentious nonsense. *

There is no 'if' about it. *He killed officer JD Tippit with the same revolver that he was apprehended with in the theater. *Four spent casings were found at that crime scene and identified as being fired from that revolver.

Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*

[Soily]

Paraffin tests don't prove squat. They are about as useful if not less than a lie detector test. It is simply untrue that that paraffin tests do not produce false negatives. To rely upon the least reliable evidence and to ignore very good evidence is absurd. What do you think about the three construction workers on the 5th floor who heard the shells hit the ground right above their heads? What about the witnesses who saw a man sitting in the window with a rifle. Then there is all the physical evidence. Palm prints, finger prints, clothing fibers matched to the shirt Oswald was wearing, the fact that it was Oswald's rifle, the matching of the bullets to Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons. etc.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ptest.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

This is completely wrong, the tests they did on the cast are still used today. They did spectographic and neutron activation analysis tests, both of which strongly suggest he hadn't fired a rifle that day. Try reading Pat Speers excellent chapter on this rather than using the one sided Mcadams site for everything.

[Soily]

On the contrary, we know to an almost absolute certainty that Oswald fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle killing President Kennedy.

You know that. We don't know it at all. You can't prove he was on the 6th floor and you can't prove he fired a rifle that day. Indeed, the evidence points against those 2 statements.

This is a red herring fallacy. The question isn't whether the test picks up on nitrates that are on the skin but whether someone firing the rifle would get nitrates on their cheek.

I don't care if its a pink salmon fallacy, it doesn't make the tests showing Oswald probably hadn't fired a rifle go away.

Except for where they are discussed in detail in Appendix 10 pages 561-562 in the Report. I specifically direct you to a test done by the FBI:

Pretty definitively you can fire a rifle and not get powder residue on your cheek.

Sorry but that just is not true. The FBI and American Jurisprudence did tests with the same rifle, and on every occasion there was plently of gunpower residue on the cheeks of the shooter. Harold Weisberg found the documents through a freedom of information requests and Pat Speer has those and other documents which definitely show this on his website.

[RoboTimbo]

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*
Then you deny that the murder weapon belonging to Oswald was in the building at all since nobody could have carried it in unnoticed?

Sorry but we just don't know what happened with any certainty. It was a melée, punches were flying, a tangled mess of bodies. Understandably the witness statements tell many different stories and are just not reliable. The pysical evidence shows there was no misfire, everything else is conjecture, so the statement that oswald*tried to shoot a policeman at the theatre is tendentious nonsense. *
To deny it is tendentious nonsense. Oswald had already murdered Kennedy and Tippit. He pulled the revolver from his waistband while going on the attack. How can you possibly deny that he was going to fire it?

Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*
Quite the opposite. With the evidence so mountainous against your client, you would be looking for any way to plea bargain your way out. But sorry, the prosecution is taking this airtight case all the way.

[riptowtan]

Sorry for being late to the party, I don't normally monitor CT. Did I miss anything good?

We went over the chain of custody for CE399, and spent a little bit of time arguing whether Dale Myers' video helps out in this or not.

[Soily]

Oh yeah, I couldn't let the shirt fiber point go. Yes fibers from the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested were found in the rifle butt. Unfortunately virtually all the witnesses suggest Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the TSBD. Whoops.

[RoboTimbo]

You know that. We don't know it at all. You can't prove he was on the 6th floor and you can't prove he fired a rifle that day. Indeed, the evidence points against those 2 statements.
You are quite right. I can't prove it. It's just all that circumstantial evidence that points to only that one inescapable conclusion.

I don't care if its a pink salmon fallacy, it doesn't make the tests showing Oswald probably hadn't fired a rifle go away.
I even provided the quote from the Warren Commission report for you and told you exactly which appendix and what page.

Sorry but that just is not true. The FBI and American Jurisprudence did tests with the same rifle, and on every occasion there was plently of gunpower residue on the cheeks of the shooter. Harold Weisberg found the documents through a freedom of information requests and Pat Speer has those and other documents which definitely show this on his website.
See above.

To deny it is to deny, literally, reality. Oswald's rifle, Oswald's revolver, Oswald carrying the rifle broken down wrapped in a bundle that he carried into the TSBD, Oswald's palmprint on an inner surface of the rifle where it could only be if the rifle were broken down, Oswald leaving after he assassinated the President, Oswald changing clothes, Oswald murdering Tippit, Oswald attempting to take more police officers with him when they finally had him cornered.

Who do you think fired the rifle and killed the President from the sixth floor window?

[riptowtan]

No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. Forgotten witness Essie Mae Williams was actually the first *to see oswald that day as he arrived at Wesley Frazier's house. She noticed no bag. Jack Dougherty who saw Oswald arrive at the TSBD noticed no bag. The crime scene photos right were the bag should be...there is no bag. The investigating offers who supposedly found the bag offer nothing but a hopelessly*confused miasma of contradictory statements about it's discovery. The paper photographed been taken out of the TSBD appears to be a different size and shape from the one in evidence. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.*

So again you are relying upon someone's memory, over physical evidence. Its reasonable to say that she was mistaken by some inches.

And let's just back up for a second and remember something. This bag was huge. just shy of 3 foot in length, it was more than half Oswald's own height. Oswald simply would not have been able to carry such a large package without it been incredibly conspicuous. It'd either go right over his head or be scraping along the floor. If someone was carrying such a weirdly large bag, causing them to struggle to carry it people would notice it. Yet he strolls into the TSBD, past witnesses, and nobody notices or remembers it. And Frazier himself could not see such a conspicuously enormous bag and mistake it for a smaller one, as he still maintains to this day.*

So first the bag was too small, now its too big? Could it be that the bag could have been folded or tucked in? They found fibers from the bag in the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. And the bag had Oswald's fingerprints and palm prints on it. We can rule out eyewitness testimony hear as probably being mistaken since we have tons of physical evidence that contradict it.


Sorry there are plenty of ifs about that. There are all sort of problems with the case against oswald in the tippit murder, but on balance i think he probably did shoot Tippit. I can't have my gunshot residue evidence that is excuplary of Oswald shooting Kennedy if I don't also accept that that same evidence shows he fired a handgun that day. But as a case, there are so many problems with it I think you would struggle if it had ever gone to court.*

Why do you think Oswald rushed home to get his revolver? Why would he shoot Tippit?

A few questions for Soily:
Why did Oswald take off his wedding ring before leaving for work that morning? (First Time)
Where did his rifle go? Or should I say how was it found in the Book Depository if he didn't bring it in? (Marina found the rifle bag empty)
Do you really think Oswald brought curtain rods to work? If so, why did he bring them in?
And where did the curtain rods go?

*Hint (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/room1.htm)

[RoboTimbo]

We went over the chain of custody for CE399, and spent a little bit of time arguing whether Dale Myers' video helps out in this or not.

That Dale Myers video is about the last dozen nails in the coffin on all the CT theories about the assassination.

[riptowtan]

Oh yeah, I couldn't let the shirt fiber point go. Yes fibers from the shirt Oswald had on when he was arrested were found in the rifle butt. Unfortunately virtually all the witnesses suggest Oswald was wearing a different shirt at the TSBD. Whoops.

Which witnesses? He was wearing two shirts. When he got home he took off his blue shirt (the one with the fibers) and had a white shirt on underneath.

[Soily]

I even provided the quote from the Warren Commission report for you and told you exactly which appendix.
Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

[riptowtan]

Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence

[Soily]

Which witnesses? He was wearing two shirts. When he got home he took off his blue shirt (the one with the fibers) and had a white shirt on underneath.

You're confused. The fibers were from the shirt he was arrested in. Which according to key LN witnesses like Brennan, Marion Baker and Bledsoe was not the shirt he had on when they saw him. Indeed Oswald himself said he changed his shirt when he got home, a story which appears to check out. So how on earth did those fibres get on that gun?

[Soily]

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence
You've not been paying attention have you? These were not the 'paraffin test'. These were different tests, spectrographic and naa tests, which were also exculpatory of Oswald. These tests are still used today and have none of the false positive flaws of the traditional paraffin test.

[riptowtan]

You're confused. The fibers were from the shirt he was arrested in. Which according to key LN witnesses like Brennan, Marion Baker and Bledsoe was not the shirt he had on when they saw him. Indeed Oswald himself said he changed his shirt when he got home, a story which appears to check out. So how on earth did those fibres get on that gun?

The blue/brown shirt he was wearing at the book depository was taken off and put in his drawer. He told the cops that he put his dirty clothes there. Again you are taking the eyewitnesses word as fact. We're focusing too much on these tiny details. Address the hard evidence. The fibers were on his gun because he brought the gun into the building. Do you really think he brought curtain rods into the building?

[riptowtan]

You've not been paying attention have you? These were not the 'paraffin test'. These were different tests, spectrographic and naa tests, which were also exculpatory of Oswald. These tests are still used today and have none of the false positive flaws of the traditional paraffin test.

Specifically where were these tests done? The link you sent was broken. You are not making yourself clear. Are you talking about Speer's tests? What background does he have in science?

[RoboTimbo]

Pat Speer has got the actual test results on his website, which show that the rifle could not be fired without depositing gunshot residue on the cheek of the shooter http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%

So it really doesn't matter what the Warren commission say.

Indeed one of these tests was conducted by Vincent guinn himself, who lone nuts trust implicty on everything else.

I'm more than half way through that page and so far, it's saying that there was residue on the cast of Oswald's right cheek. It looks like he wants to lead the reader to believe that it proves Oswald can't have fired a rifle but the evidence and testimony he is presenting isn't backing that up. Can you just cite the exact passage where it says that it was impossible for Oswald to have fired a rifle and the evidence/testimony?

[Soily]

The blue/brown shirt he was wearing at the book depository was taken off and put in his drawer. He told the cops that he put his dirty clothes there. Again you are taking the eyewitnesses word as fact. We're focusing too much on these tiny details. Address the hard evidence. The fibers were on his gun because he brought the gun into the building. Do you really think he brought curtain rods into the building?
A key piece of evidence is hardly a tiny detail. The Warren Commission report said the fibers matched the shirt he had on when he was arrested, yet it seems highly likely he changed shirts when he got home.

And of course I don't think he brought curtain rods in with him. As I posted earlier, the whole bag story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. It's actually laughable.

[RoboTimbo]

A key piece of evidence is hardly a tiny detail. The Warren Commission report said the fibers matched the shirt he had on when he was arrested, yet it seems highly likely he changed shirts when he got home.

And of course I don't think he brought curtain rods in with him. As I posted earlier, the whole bag story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. It's actually laughable.

Perhaps that was the shirt he was wearing when he attempted to assassinate General Walker with the same rifle.

[RoboTimbo]

Soily, would you be so kind as to take up the torch where roundhead/7forever dropped it in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139658)? 7forever seems to have fled the building again, leaving holes in his argument that Freightliners have been using as parking space.

[JohnG]

In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Mr. Frazier said the brown paper package Oswald carried that morning was too short to contain a rifle. Oswald cupped the package in his hand, he said, and it fit under his armpit.


No we do not know it for sure. You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle.


Wait a second, what was Frazier actually saying? That the package was too small to contain an assembled rifle or a disassembled rifle? If it really was the latter, was he knowledgeable enough on the subject of rifles (the Mannlicher Carcano in particular) to accurately make that kind of assessment? Had he ever seen what that rifle looks like when disassembled? Saying the package was cupped in Oswald's hand and that it fit under his armpit seems a little vague, but assuming that he meant that the package's length was essentially the same length as Oswald's arm, is that roughly equivalent to the length of a package containing a disassembled Mannlicher Carcano rifle?

[riptowtan]

A key piece of evidence is hardly a tiny detail. The Warren Commission report said the fibers matched the shirt he had on when he was arrested, yet it seems highly likely he changed shirts when he got home.

And of course I don't think he brought curtain rods in with him. As I posted earlier, the whole bag story has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese. It's actually laughable.

Are you saying they planted fibers from the wrong shirt? How on earth could they be that stupid? Occam's Razor should be used for this one.

So I guess Frazier's testimony is to no use here...

[Soily]

Perhaps that was the shirt he was wearing when he attempted to assassinate General Walker with the same rifle.
Weird that prior to the Kennedy assassantion, the police and general walker both describe a bullet of a complete different caliber to one fired from Oswalds rifle. And eye witnesses say two men were there. So Oswald may well have shot at Walker(incidentally something Walker himself did not believe), but all the evidence shows he used a different rifle and had confederates.

Here are the contemporary documents which show the bullet fired at Walker was not from the Oswald rifle http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

[Soily]

Are you saying they planted fibers from the wrong shirt? How on earth could they be that stupid? Occam's Razor should be used for this one.

So I guess Frazier's testimony is to no use here...
False dilemma. The fibres could have gotten snagged when all the Oswald evidence was stored together. They don't have to have been planted. Although if they were, they were done before they knew Oswald had changed shirts.

[Soily]

Wait a second, what was Frazier actually saying? That the package was too small to contain an assembled rifle or a disassembled rifle? If it really was the latter, was he knowledgeable enough on the subject of rifles (the Mannlicher Carcano in particular) to accurately make that kind of assessment? Had he ever seen what that rifle looks like when disassembled? Saying the package was cupped in Oswald's hand and that it fit under his armpit seems a little vague, but assuming that he meant that the package's length was essentially the same length as Oswald's arm, is that roughly equivalent to the length of a package containing a disassembled Mannlicher Carcano rifle?
No one has ever argued this. The package had to be at least 35 inches, just over half Oswald's height. You try holding a package over half your own height without it either going right over your own head or scraping along the floor. You most certainly could not hold it how Frazier described unless your were a particularly freakish Orangutan. Nobody could see Oswald carrying such a huge package without it been the single most notable thing about him. Yet the four known witnesses either didn't see it at all or barely noticed he had a much smaller package. It's completely unbelievable, and add this to the myriad of other problems with the bag and you get a huge ugly question mark over the whole thing.

And by the way, I think Frazier knew about firearms. He had a rifle at his house, one that matched the early erroneous descriptions of the TSBD rifle. I believe he was even briefly thought to be a suspect himself.

[riptowtan]

False dilemma. The fibres could have gotten snagged when all the Oswald evidence was stored together. They don't have to have been planted. Although if they were, they were done before they knew Oswald had changed shirts.

So then you would say that the fibers don't necessarily prove anything? This is contrary to what you said before when you said the fibers were key piece of evidence. Your obsession with these moot points make it clear that you don't have any alternative narrative or positive evidence for your theory.

[riptowtan]

No one has ever argued this. The package had to be at least 35 inches, just over half Oswald's height. You try holding a package over half your own height without it either going right over your own head or scraping along the floor. You most certainly could not hold it how Frazier described unless your were a particularly freakish Orangutan. Nobody could see Oswald carrying such a huge package without it been the single most notable thing about him. Yet the four known witnesses either didn't see it at all or barely noticed he had a much smaller package. It's completely unbelievable, and add this to the myriad of other problems with the bag and you get a huge ugly question mark over the whole thing.

And by the way, I think Frazier knew about firearms. He had a rifle at his house, one that matched the early erroneous descriptions of the TSBD rifle. I believe he was even briefly thought to be a suspect himself.

His finger prints and palm print were found on the bag along with his clipboard on the sixth floor.
The below clears up all of the confusion with the bag. This covers the testimonies from the eyewitnesses you mentioned earlier.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

[Soily]

His finger prints and palm print were found on the bag along with his clipboard on the sixth floor.
The below clears up all of the confusion with the bag. This covers the testimonies from the eyewitnesses you mentioned earlier.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm
Oh what a surprise, a link to mcadams.

Here's a more accurate account of the miasma of contradictory evidence surrounding the paper bag, from an actual police professional http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html

And you know, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that bag magically reappear in the crime scene photos.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/1302.gif

[RoboTimbo]

Weird that prior to the Kennedy assassantion, the police and general walker both describe a bullet of a complete different caliber to one fired from Oswalds rifle. And eye witnesses say two men were there. So Oswald may well have shot at Walker(incidentally something Walker himself did not believe), but all the evidence shows he used a different rifle and had confederates.

Here are the contemporary documents which show the bullet fired at Walker was not from the Oswald rifle http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

From a page on that website:
Specimen Q188 was fired from a barrel rifled with four lands and grooves, right twist. Mannlicher-Carcano rifles of the type used in the assassination of President Kennedy (described as specimen K1 in the Laboratory report PC-73243 EX) are among those which produce general rifling impressions such as were found on specimen Q188.
Again, I don't think this is helping you much. Here's the Warren Commission report, FBI expert testimony of Robert Frazier:
He concluded that "the general rifling characteristics of the rifle ... are of the same type as those found on the bullet ... and, further, on this basis ... the bullet could have been fired from the rifle on the basis of its land and groove impressions."
So at least everyone agrees that the bullet could definitely have come from Oswald's rifle.

[riptowtan]

Oh what a surprise, a link to mcadams.

Here's a more accurate account of the miasma of contradictory evidence surrounding the paper bag, from an actual police professional http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html

And you know, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that bag magically reappear in the crime scene photos.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/1302.gif

It's all covered in Mcadam's article. The reason why the bag isn't in the crime scene photos is because two of the detectives took it with them when they left. Again, a little logic please.

"If the police officers forged a paper bag to explain how Oswald brought the rifle into the building unseen, wouldn't they have taken the time to photograph it where they were going to claim it was discovered on the sixth floor? "
"More importantly, how would they have known that Randle and Frazier were going to say they saw Oswald with a bag? They had not talked to either one yet. They were both friends with Oswald, so what motivation would they have to lie and frame him? "

"Among the six officers who did see the bag was Lieutenant J. C. Day, who not only saw it in the Depository but labeled it, "'Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day'" (4H267). Detective Robert Studebaker not only saw the bag but also dusted the bag for fingerprints while the bag was still in the depository. He also drew diagrams to show the placement of the bag (7H144-9). Both Officer Marvin Johnson and Detective L. D. Montgomery saw the bag and carried it out of the building to the station. Montgomery actually found the bag and left it so Studebaker could dust it for fingerprints (7H97-8). Detective Richard Sims, who assisted Lieutenant Day in removing the hulls, was also there when the bag was discovered (7H162). Officer E. D. Brewer was there for the discovery of every piece of evidence and hence saw the bag (6H306-8). While Montgomery and Johnson were leaving the depository with the bag, they were photographed by Jack Beers of the Dallas Morning News, William Allen of the Dallas Times-Herald and George Smith of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "

"The bag held a hard, heavy object that contained fibers matching those from the blanket the rifle was in and had Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint on it. But that's all a coincidence, right?"

[Soily]

From a page on that website:

Again, I don't think this is helping you much. Here's the Warren Commission report, FBI expert testimony of Robert Frazier:

So at least everyone agrees that the bullet could definitely have come from Oswald's rifle.
Sorry but it's completely irrelevant whether the bullet in the WC evidence came from Oswald's rifle. The bullet fired at Walker was a different bullet. Every single scrap of evidence we have shows that. Look at the 7 contemporary pre WC documents which show this. Even walker, who handled the bullet on the night of the failed assassination attempt was adamant it was not from the Oswald rifle. His own private investigation into the matter fingered an embittered former employee. Similar ammunition was even found on this former employees person.

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry but it's completely irrelevant whether the bullet in the WC evidence came from Oswald's rifle. The bullet fired at Walker was a different bullet. Every single scrap of evidence we have shows that. Look at the 7 contemporary pre WC documents which show this. Even walker, who handled the bullet on the night of the failed assassination attempt was adamant it was not from the Oswald rifle. His own private investigation into the matter fingered an embittered former employee. Similar ammunition was even found on this former employees person.

No, Walker suspected an embittered employee because he had never heard of Oswald. But Oswald had heard of him. The bullet was a 6.5 mm bullet, not .30-06 as claimed. If it had been a .30 caliber bullet, there would have been no way to tell if it had come from a .30-06, a .308, or any of a dozen other .30 caliber cartridges. That's a moot point because the bullet was 6.5 mm, same as the Mannlicher-Carcano. Someone's been feeding you a line.

[riptowtan]

Sorry but it's completely irrelevant whether the bullet in the WC evidence came from Oswald's rifle. The bullet fired at Walker was a different bullet. Every single scrap of evidence we have shows that. Look at the 7 contemporary pre WC documents which show this. Even walker, who handled the bullet on the night of the failed assassination attempt was adamant it was not from the Oswald rifle. His own private investigation into the matter fingered an embittered former employee. Similar ammunition was even found on this former employees person.

I know you love Mcadam's site Soily, so here's another one to read over. :D
In all seriousness, Mcadam's site is pretty much the only debunking website, and I think it refutes everything you brought up. We obviously disagree about that but I will reference it when a relevant issue comes up.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

[riptowtan]

Based on (1) the contents of the note which
Oswald left for his wife on April 10, 1963, (2) the photographs
found among Oswald's possessions, (3) the testimony of firearms
identification experts, and (4) the testimony of Marina Oswald,
the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to
take the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army)
on April 10, 1963. The finding that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted
to murder a public figure in April 1963 was considered of
probative value in this investigation, although the Commission's
conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin was based on
evidence independent of the finding that Oswald attempted to kill
General Walker.

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

[Soily]

It's all covered in Mcadam's article. The reason why the bag isn't in the crime scene photos is because two of the detectives took it with them when they left. Again, a little logic please.

"If the police officers forged a paper bag to explain how Oswald brought the rifle into the building unseen, wouldn't they have taken the time to photograph it where they were going to claim it was discovered on the sixth floor? "
"More importantly, how would they have known that Randle and Frazier were going to say they saw Oswald with a bag? They had not talked to either one yet. They were both friends with Oswald, so what motivation would they have to lie and frame him? "

"Among the six officers who did see the bag was Lieutenant J. C. Day, who not only saw it in the Depository but labeled it, "'Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day'" (4H267). Detective Robert Studebaker not only saw the bag but also dusted the bag for fingerprints while the bag was still in the depository. He also drew diagrams to show the placement of the bag (7H144-9). Both Officer Marvin Johnson and Detective L. D. Montgomery saw the bag and carried it out of the building to the station. Montgomery actually found the bag and left it so Studebaker could dust it for fingerprints (7H97-8). Detective Richard Sims, who assisted Lieutenant Day in removing the hulls, was also there when the bag was discovered (7H162). Officer E. D. Brewer was there for the discovery of every piece of evidence and hence saw the bag (6H306-8). While Montgomery and Johnson were leaving the depository with the bag, they were photographed by Jack Beers of the Dallas Morning News, William Allen of the Dallas Times-Herald and George Smith of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "

"The bag held a hard, heavy object that contained fibers matching those from the blanket the rifle was in and had Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint on it. But that's all a coincidence, right?"

I believe the Griggs article, written by an agnostic former policeman is more revealing that the mcadams article, written by a man who is a fanatical believer in Oswald's guilt.

A crime scene photo that doesn't show the evidence is evidentially worthless. You appear to not understand the purpose of crime scene photos, which are to show the evidence how it was found. If they don't show this then there is a massive question mark over that evidence. In the light of the almost farcical level of contradictory witness evidence shown in the Griggs article well you'd have to be a mcadams level fanatic not to have severe doubts over the bag. At the very least you have to conclude an unbelievable amount of incompetence on the part of the dallas police. Your beliefs are one thing, but try and take the bag evidence to a court of law and you'd be laughed out of town.

[Soily]

From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/walker.txt

The only evidence that counts in the walker case, is the contemporary uncontaminated by the contentious case of JFK, evidence. All of that evidence shows the bullet was not fired from the Oswald rifle. It's really clear. Even Walker, a senior army professional of many many years experience, who actually held the bullet in his hand, said it wasn't from the Oswald rifle. That all this evidence magically metamorphosed during the Warren commission is hardly surprising. If you can provide a cogent case as to how all the contemporary investigations show a different bullet, and how this direct contemporary evidence was retrospectively rewritten post JFK then I will concede the point.

[RoboTimbo]

The only evidence that counts in the walker case, is the contemporary uncontaminated by the contentious case of JFK, evidence. All of that evidence shows the bullet was not fired from the Oswald rifle. It's really clear. Even Walker, a senior army professional of many many years experience, who actually held the bullet in his hand, said it wasn't from the Oswald rifle. That all this evidence magically metamorphosed during the Warren commission is hardly surprising. If you can provide a cogent case as to how all the contemporary investigations show a different bullet, and how this direct contemporary evidence was retrospectively rewritten post JFK then I will concede the point.

Cite to Walker's claim that it definitely didn't come from a Mannlicher-Carcano? Where is his lab for examining the land and groove pattern? Which type of calipers did he use to measure the diameter? Where does he keep the side-by-side comparison microscope for comparing two different bullets? I already gave you the cite for the FBI's ballistics expert's testimony. Remember, Walker's two private investigators came up empty when they investigated the alleged miffed employee, contrary to your previous assertion.

[Soily]

No, Walker suspected an embittered employee because he had never heard of Oswald. But Oswald had heard of him. The bullet was a 6.5 mm bullet, not .30-06 as claimed. If it had been a .30 caliber bullet, there would have been no way to tell if it had come from a .30-06, a .308, or any of a dozen other .30 caliber cartridges. That's a moot point because the bullet was 6.5 mm, same as the Mannlicher-Carcano. Someone's been feeding you a line.
Sorry, but the contemporary reports all show the bullet fired at walker was steel jacketed. The bullet the Warren commission say Oswald fired is one of the copper jacketed jfk bullets. Please don't try to rewrite history.

[Soily]

Cite to Walker's claim that it definitely didn't come from a Mannlicher-Carcano? Where is his lab for examining the land and groove pattern? Which type of calipers did he use to measure the diameter? Where does he keep the side-by-side comparison microscope for comparing two different bullets? I already gave you the cite for the FBI's ballistics expert's testimony. Remember, Walker's two private investigators came up empty when they investigated the alleged miffed employee, contrary to your previous assertion.
The ballistics testimony of the WC is completely worthless when all the evidence shows the walker bullet was steel jacketed, not the copper jacketed Oswald bullet. Unless you can explain how all the contemporary reports, those pre JFK, got the bullet type so completely wrong, you have nothing.

Now the steel jacketed bullet fired at walker could have come from the Oswald rifle, but that's not what the Warren Commision said. They said the same ammunition as the jfk shooting was fired at walker. Wrong.

[RoboTimbo]

Sorry, but the contemporary reports all show the bullet fired at walker was steel jacketed. The bullet the Warren commission say Oswald fired is one of the copper jacketed jfk bullets. Please don't try to rewrite history.

Incredible as it sounds, there are steel jacketed bullets and copper jacketed bullets and they can both be fired from the same gun. Which part of history did you have me rewriting?

Now the steel jacketed bullet fired at walker could have come from the Oswald rifle, but that's not what the Warren Commision said. They said the same ammunition as the jfk shooting was fired at walker. Wrong.
Cite?

[RoboTimbo]

Even Walker, a senior army professional of many many years experience, who actually held the bullet in his hand, said it wasn't from the Oswald rifle.

Special Agent Robert Frazier of the FBI, ballistics expert, said it could have come from the Oswald rifle. That means that it was the same caliber and had the same number and width lands and grooves. Frazier
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000" firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
How many had Walker made? Also, if you could provide a citation to Walker's analysis, that would be super. You're kind of falling behind in your citations here.

[Soily]

Incredible as it sounds, there are steel jacketed bullets and copper jacketed bullets and they can both be fired from the same gun. Which part of history did you have me rewriting?


Cite?
Here's the WC photo of the Walker bullet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Ce573.gif

Is that steel jacketed as the contemporary reports show?

[RoboTimbo]

Here's the WC photo of the Walker bullet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Ce573.gif

Is that steel jacketed as the contemporary reports show?

There's that red herring (or pink salmon if you prefer) fallacy. I can't tell from the photo. It doesn't matter.

[Soily]

There's that red herring (or pink salmon if you prefer) fallacy. I can't tell from the photo. It doesn't matter.
It's not a pink salmon fallacy, it's more copper coloured. Please explain to everyone how steel, a silver coloured metallic compound, becomes copper coloured?

[RoboTimbo]

I'm going to give you some time to catch up on your citations that have been asked for. No idea where you're going with steel and copper.

[riptowtan]

The Dallas Police Department's "General Offense Report," on April 10,1963, its first report on the Walker shooting, described the bullet as having a "steel jacketed bullet", whereas the 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano bullets were copper jacketed. Frazier told the Warren Commission that "some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket"

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695

[riptowtan]

We can know that Oswald attempted to murder General Walker because he confessed to Marina that he did so. Along with letters of instruction that Oswald left behind for Marina, and the photos he took of Walker's house, we have a pretty solid case linking Oswald to the assassination attempt of Walker.

[RoboTimbo]

The Dallas Police Department's "General Offense Report," on April 10,1963, its first report on the Walker shooting, described the bullet as having a "steel jacketed bullet", whereas the 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano bullets were copper jacketed. Frazier told the Warren Commission that "some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket"

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695
Ah, that makes sense now. Amazing how thin the threads they will grasp at become. So, red herring, as I said.

[Soily]

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695
Haa nice, a classic example of Bugliosi waving away multiple contemporary police documents with an unverifiable personal opinion. That something that is coppered coloured would be described as steel, a silver coloured material is wishful thinking of the highest order. And besides, there are other aspects of the walker shooting that you are wishing away in your desperate attempts to have Oswald as the lone nut. From the HSCA final report:

According to a general offense report of the Dallas police, Walker reported at approximately 9:10 p.m. on April 10 1963, that a bullet had been fired through a first floor window of his home at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Dallas. Detectives subsequently found that a bullet had first shattered a window, then gone through a wall and had landed on a stack of papers in an adjoining room. In their report the detectives described the bullet as steel-jacketed of unknown caliber.

Police located a 14-year-old boy in Walker's neighborhood who said that after hearing the shot, he climbed a fence and looked into an alley to the rear of Walker's home. The boy said he then saw some men speeding down the alley in a light green or light blue Ford, either a 1959 or 1960 model. He said he also saw another car, a 1958 Chevrolet, black with white down the side, in a church parking lot adjacent to Walker's house. The car door was open, and a man was bending over the back seat, as though he was placing something on the floor of the car.

On the night of the incident, police interviewed Robert Surrey, an aide to Walker. Surrey said that on Saturday, April 6, at about 9 p.m., he had seen two men sitting in a dark purple or brown 1963 Ford at the rear of Walker's house. Surrey also said the two men got out of the car and walked around the house. Surrey said he was suspicious and followed the car, noting that it carried no license plate.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1c.html

And as Gerald McKnight points out in breach of trust Walker, an army general, actually held the bullet in his hand and didn't think it was the same bullet. He was so outraged that he wrote to the HSCA:

“The bullet before your Select Committee called the “Walker bullet” is not the Walker bullet. It is not the bullet that was fired at me and taken out of my house by the Dallas City Police on April 10, 1963.”

That the endlessly unreliable Marina Oswald said much later that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, and that a note of dubious provence that makes no mention of Walker turned up prove nothing.

Oswald may well have shot at Walker, but all the evidence shows us that if he did he had confederates and if he did the FBI 'finessed' the evidence somewhat. Obviously the lone nuts simply cannot accept this and have to cherry pick the evidence to fit the conclusion rather than have a conclusion that fits the totality of the evidence.

[SpitfireIX]

Source: Reclaiming History pg. 695


Original testimony:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0224a.htm

Mr. EISENBERG - Can you think of any reason why someone might have called this a steel-jacketed bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; except that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper-alloy jacket.

[Soily]

Original testimony:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0224a.htm

That's an unverifiable personal opinion been used to wave away contemporary police reports. This case wasn't investigated by a passing colour blind traffic cop, but trained homicide detectives. Walker held the bullet in his hand and said it wasn't the same bullet. Contemporary eyewitnesses describe men fleeing the scene in cars. The available evidence just does not support the WC conclusion.

[RoboTimbo]

That's an unverifiable personal opinion been used to wave away contemporary police reports. This case wasn't investigated by a passing colour blind traffic cop, but trained homicide detectives. Walker held the bullet in his hand and said it wasn't the same bullet. Contemporary eyewitnesses describe men fleeing the scene in cars. The available evidence just does not support the WC conclusion.

A 14 year old boy saw two different cars with three different people in them in two different locations. Why do you now describe them as "fleeing"? How were they related to the crime? Did you even read the citation given to you? You've been pretty lax at giving citations yourself.

[Soily]

A 14 year old boy saw two different cars with three different people in them in two different locations. Why do you now describe them as "fleeing"? How were they related to the crime? Did you even read the citation given to you? You've been pretty lax at giving citations yourself.
From your cherished Mcadams:

A Dallas Police report stated: "A witness by ear, Kirk Coleman, w/m 14 states he was sitting in the back room of his home and heard what sounded like a shot. (Illegible) up over the backyard fence and he looked onto the church parking lot he saw some unknown white male speed down the driveway towards Turtle Creek, in either 1949 or 1950 Ford, light green

General Edwin Walker believed OSWALD had accomplices: "There were two people in the alley and they were seen by a 15-year-old boy, that was a-carpenterin' with his daddy. The kid saw them sitting in the church parking lot, the two men got into their cars and sped away." [FBI DL-100-10461-6.8.64 Barrett & Lee; 11WH404; WCD 1124]

In May 1977 I questioned General Edwin Walker: "I don't think the Warren Commission would have found out if it was OSWALD unless they had to and were sure of that. He did not deliberately miss. He was dead on me with a telescopic sight. I didn't move. He hit the window framework and the bullet was deflected. There were two people in the alley and they were seen by a kid out in the alley 15 years old that was carpentering with his daddy and he told the police there were two men in the alley...there were two cars. The kid saw them sitting in the church parking lot, the two men got in the cars and drove away. I never heard of OSWALD or knew he was at a DRE meeting."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/nodule10.htm

Another problem you have is if, as you appear to, believe Marinas story. Because she said Oswald didn't know if he'd hit Walker or not and didn't find out until he heard about it on the radio. But Oswald's got a static target, Walkers head, in his telescopic sights at less than 30 metres. How could he possibly not know if he'd hit? The Kennedy shooter knew full well he hadn't killed him after the first shot and carried on firing, why didn't Oswald do that here?

[RoboTimbo]

From your cherished Mcadams:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/nodule10.htm
I've never quoted McAdams. Why were the cars speeding away? And why did you change it to "fleeing"?

Another problem you have is if, as you appear to, believe Marinas story. Because she said Oswald didn't know if he'd hit Walker or not and didn't find out until he heard about it on the radio. But Oswald's got a static target, Walkers head, in his telescopic sights at less than 30 metres. How could he possibly not know if he'd hit? The Kennedy shooter knew full well he hadn't killed him after the first shot and carried on firing, why didn't Oswald do that here?
That's actually a problem for you. Why did anyone miss, regardless of who the shooter was? We know Oswald was capable of missing. More problems for you, we still have Marina's testimony about Oswald's confession to it. We still have the note. We still have the bullet consistent with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

[manxman]

So you're logical fallacies, as repeatedly explained to you, aren't dishonest and prejudiced? You are the last person to claim the moral high ground here, your agenda is obvious and pretty sad.

And so is yours.

Interesting stuff soily, never really taken much notice of jfk stuff, carry on son.

[RoboTimbo]

Your lucky day, Soily! You now have manxman on your side and you both seem to possess equal knowledge of the JFK assassination.

[manxman]

Who is Pat Speer, and why should I take his word? Is he a scientist? Does he specialize in ballistics? Like I've said, paraffin tests are a joke and do not prove anything. Address the very clear evidence I've presented you and try to answer some of the questions about the curtain rods i raised.

"Dr. Rachel Fortun, a forensic pathologist from the University of the Philippines (UP), told GMA news Friday night that experts debunked the paraffin test decades ago, saying other advanced countries currently use other methods.

The Supreme Court (SC), on the other hand, has repeatedly ruled that paraffin tests are inconclusive and cannot be solely used as basis in determining whether or not the subject in question actually fired a weapon."
http://archives.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/sc-finds-limited-value-paraffin-tests-evidence

Thats all handwaving rubbish.

All that matters is whether the rifle in question could be fired without leaving residue, it could not be fired at any point after its retrieval without leaving residue, its real easy.

It matters not one iota about other guns and other situations, only that rifle and that situation.

If oswald fired the rifle in question he would have had residue on him, no ifs or buts, the rifle could not be fired without leaving a residue.

All the handwaving in the world will not overcome that simple fact.

[Soily]

I've never quoted McAdams. Why were the cars speeding away? And why did you change it to "fleeing"?


That's actually a problem for you. Why did anyone miss, regardless of who the shooter was? We know Oswald was capable of missing. More problems for you, we still have Marina's testimony about Oswald's confession to it. We still have the note. We still have the bullet consistent with a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.
Thats not a problem for me at all, because i'm not arguing Oswald wasn't involved. I'm arguing, based on the totality of the evidence that if he was involved he had confederates, who used different ammunition. I think the shot was much much easier than the jfk shooting - less than half the distance, a static target. Indicating either the shooter was very poor (which LNs can't argue), or they intended to miss and it was a stunt or an attempt to scare walker. And I still don't understand how if Oswald was the actual shooter, rather than just there, he didn't know if he'd hit Walker, despite having his head in his sights when he fired. Unless he was lying to Marina about not knowing? Oswald also supposedly told Marina he buried the rifle after trying to shoot Walker, another highly dubious detail. An assassin with a spade?

[RoboTimbo]

Do you do any homework at all on this?
Page 186

A fourth photograph, showing a stretch of railroad tracks, was also identified by Marina Oswald as having been taken by her husband, presumably in connection with the Walker shooting.725 Investigation determined that this photograph was taken approximately seven-tenths of a mile from Walker's house.726 Another photograph of railroad tracks found among Oswald's possessions was not identified by his wife, but investigation revealed that it was taken from a point slightly less than half a mile from General Walker's house.727 Marina Oswald stated that- when she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection. She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle and brought it back to their apartment.728
That's from Chapter 4. You should read it.

[Soily]

Do you do any homework at all on this?

That's from Chapter 4. You should read it.
Well which is it? Hidden in some bushes sounds more believable, albeit highly risky. 'Buried' sounds highly fanciful, that means he has to bury and dig up the rifle 4 times, without tools and without been seen. Still this is a petty detail, you have not addressed the more substantive points.

[Ranb]

The only evidence ever offered by the warren commission for the single bullet theory was essentially the endorsment of the reputable and respected men on the committee that it was likely. This is incorrect. There was ballistic evidence and tests to support the theory. This is much more than the opinion of the men on the committee.

Neither the 3 civilians who found the bullet at parkland or the 2 secret service agents they gave it could ever identify CE399 as the bullet they found. Nathan Pool, Darrel Tomlinson and OP wright, the men who actually found the bullet all seperetly described the bullet they found as a point nose hunting round, not CE399. I read that Tomlinson said it “appears to be the same one”. A failure to positively identify a small bullet does not mean it was not the one they found. Unless they had plenty of time to examine the bullet or take a photo, it is not surprising that they would not be sure of their identification. Where are you finding the statements made by these people?

The single bullet theory is an entirely evidence free fantasy that is utterly unbelievable on every single level. That a 6.5mm bullet with a high cross sectional density can pass through two bodies and stay together for the most part is not utterly unbelievable. FMJ bullets are able to stay together and penetrate well. This part is very believable to those with some knowledge of ballistics.

Concerning the condition of fired test bullets;
Well Josepth Dolce, the warren commissions own expert's tests conclusively show otherwise.
Have more info on these tests?

The first bullet, which Oswald had the most time to set up, missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air, never to be seen again. This is more than “misquoting” the Warren Commission. They quite plainly said “it follows that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants.” And “If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possible he fired as he President passed under the tree and, the tree obstructed his view.”

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol3_0219a.htm pgs 428-440
You are misrepresenting what your source says about the presence of material on CE399. You should read it again and quote from it instead of just making up a statement about what it says.

A gun powder residue test was done of his face and was negative. Whilst the test is often critised as flawed, that is because it can in some circumstances produce false positives, ie nitrates can get on the skin in other innocent ways. It does not however produce false negatives, you can't have gun powder residue on your skin and it remain undetected.
A paraffin test picks up nitrates and other chemicals from the pores of the skin. Testing the paraffin with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine to make the nitrates (or other substances) turn blue gives us a positive or negative result. Claiming that the paraffin test cannot give a false positive is foolish. Do you have anything to support this claim?

You can quote Frazier's story about the cutain rods if you like, but he was also adamant the bag he glanced at that day was much too small to hold the disassembled rifle. The bag in evidence contained no signs of there ever been anything in it, scratches, abrasions, oil, grease, dirt etc. This is despite it having several bits of a disassembled rifle rattling about in it for 5 miles on the back of Fraziers car.
Several bits? Don’t you mean two? Remove four small screws and the action/barrel/scope separates from the stock. The small pieces and screws readily attach to the stock and action to prevent their loss, something a former Marine like Oswald would probably be familiar with. There is no reason to believe that grease or oil would be present on the paper. Although the rifle was described as well lubricated, I know from experience with my own Carcano that it only takes a single drop of oil on the bolt to make it operate smoothly.


If you spent as much time researching as you do saying sorry, then your arguments would make more sense.

Ranb

[RoboTimbo]

Well which is it? Hidden in some bushes sounds more believable, albeit highly risky. 'Buried' sounds highly fanciful, that means he has to bury and dig up the rifle 4 times, without tools and without been seen. Still this is a petty detail, you have not addressed the more substantive points.

You didn't have a substantive point.

[riptowtan]

Thats not a problem for me at all, because i'm not arguing Oswald wasn't involved. I'm arguing, based on the totality of the evidence that if he was involved he had confederates, who used different ammunition. I think the shot was much much easier than the jfk shooting - less than half the distance, a static target. Indicating either the shooter was very poor (which LNs can't argue), or they intended to miss and it was a stunt or an attempt to scare walker. And I still don't understand how if Oswald was the actual shooter, rather than just there, he didn't know if he'd hit Walker, despite having his head in his sights when he fired. Unless he was lying to Marina about not knowing? Oswald also supposedly told Marina he buried the rifle after trying to shoot Walker, another highly dubious detail. An assassin with a spade?

Just because there were cars that took off after the shooting, it doesn't follow that they were connected to the crime. They could have taken off because they heard or saw someone with a gun. Who would Oswald's confederates even be? Oswald's shot missed because the bullet hit part of the window frame. If it weren't for that deflection of a few inches, he would have hit him.

[bynmdsue]

That something that is coppered coloured would be described as steel, a silver coloured material is wishful thinking of the highest order.

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.

[uk_dave]

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.

Don't do it!! You have so much to live for.....

[Soily]

This is incorrect. There was ballistic evidence and tests to support the theory. This is much more than the opinion of the men on the committee.

No, the whole Specter theory was concocted on the basis of fraudulently moving the back wound up by 6 inches - http://i47.tinypic.com/fpbkt4.jpg and lying about the position of Kennedy. Indeed the autopsy didn't even bother to find out of the back and neck wound were linked, instead suggesting that the back wound was shallow. Later 3d cartoon recreations acknowledge this lie and turn kennedy into a hunchback tieing his shoelaces in order to ram the facts into the theory.

I read that Tomlinson said it “appears to be the same one”.

That's from the fictitious FBI memo to the Warren Commission that details events that never happened. None of the 3 civilians or the FBI agents who handed it that day could ever identify the bullet as CE399. Its all in that Garry Aguilar and Josiah Thompson article I posted earlier. There genuinely isnt any evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland or fired at Kennedy.

That a 6.5mm bullet with a high cross sectional density can pass through two bodies and stay together for the most part is not utterly unbelievable. FMJ bullets are able to stay together and penetrate well. This part is very believable to those with some knowledge of ballistics.

Where's the bullet that did this and what evidence is there that it was ever fired at Kennedy and Connelly, was ever in either of their bodies and could in anyway be linked to them?

Concerning the condition of fired test bullets;

Have more info on these tests?

The ballistics test were done by the WCs expert, I posted a link early to an interview with him. Wecht goes through it with the test bullets here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7482146129368381942 And even if the tests were not 100% accurate as some on here have claimed the argument that that highly dubious bullet did those wounds its still completely and utterly ridiculous on every level.

Regarding the paraffin tests, as I said before these weren't 'the paraffin test' but more advanced tests including NAA which are still used today. The Pat Speer chapter I posted earlier is the most detailed article I've ever read on the subject and goes through the whole thing with multiple references and original test results. The FBI did tests with the same rifle - nitrates on face every time and Vincent Guinn did some tests.

This is more than “misquoting” the Warren Commission. They quite plainly said “it follows that one shot probably missed the car and its occupants.” And “If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possible he fired as he President passed under the tree and, the tree obstructed his view.”

Wow, incredible amount of conjecture. Why can't they just admit they haven't got a clue? Also doesn't explain why Oswald didn't just shoot Kennedy when he was right in front of him before the turn. Also doesn't explain why the FBI, who actually did the investigation for the Warren commission, had a different shooting pattern with no missed shots. Doesn't explain how, even amongst the WC supporters, they have a million and 1 completely different scenarios for the shot pattern. Or how most of the witnesses have two of the shots right on top of each other. The SBT is an act of faith, because in truth nobody has got a bloody clue what the shooting pattern was beyond the fatal headshot.


You are misrepresenting what your source says about the presence of material on CE399. You should read it again and quote from it instead of just making up a statement about what it says.

It says there was nothing on the bullet, it was 'clean'. Indeed the reason for this would probably be because that was not the bullet found at parkland.

A paraffin test picks up nitrates and other chemicals from the pores of the skin. Testing the paraffin with diphenylamine or diphenylbenzidine to make the nitrates (or other substances) turn blue gives us a positive or negative result. Claiming that the paraffin test cannot give a false positive is foolish. Do you have anything to support this claim?

I've already gone through this. You need to read the links. We don't need the science lesson, we know what it does. And the tests conducted were actually not prone to false negatives or positives:
According to Larry Ragle, a retired Director of Forensic Sciences for Santa Ana, California, in his 1995 book Crime Scene, as NAA grew in acceptance, "the historical method of painting heated paraffin on the hands of the suspect shooter was selected as the method of choice" for collecting the residue. While this method of gunshot reside detection was prohibitively costly, and replaced almost entirely by the use of Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometers (AA) in the 70's and Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEM) in the 90's, I have found nothing to indicate that NAA tests for gunshot residue were prone to false positives or negatives, as would often occur with the standard paraffin test for nitrates performed in Dallas. A September 1990 article in the Journal of Forensic Science by Havekorst, Peters and Koons, for example, describes a study in which 267 random sets of hands were sampled using NAA or AA (which was generally considered a cheaper and slightly inferior alternative to NAA). Less than 2 percent of these came up positive.

Several bits? Don’t you mean two? Remove four small screws and the action/barrel/scope separates from the stock. The small pieces and screws readily attach to the stock and action to prevent their loss, something a former Marine like Oswald would probably be familiar with. There is no reason to believe that grease or oil would be present on the paper. Although the rifle was described as well lubricated, I know from experience with my own Carcano that it only takes a single drop of oil on the bolt to make it operate smoothly.

Ian Griggs has an identical rifle to the Oswald rifle and he actually did an experiment with it and a paper bag here in the article I posted earlier - http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag2.html



If you spent as much time researching as you do saying sorry, then your arguments would make more sense.

Ranb
Mmm may I cordially suggest you actually do a bit more research yourself, or at the very least have the courtesy to read the things I'm posting, which you quite obviously aren't because you keep asking questions that are addressed in those articles and links. You're perfectly entitled to disagree with anything I say, but at least read the arguments before you do.

[sadhatter]

So you, like many CTers i've encountered, think that people, when asked to recall something they experienced during a traumatic situation, never ever make mistakes when asked to describe what they remember?

Hate to bust your bubble, but they simply could have been mistaken. It's not a big secret these days that peoples recollections and witnesses perceptions are more often flawed than not, especially when the experience was stressful and chaotic or happened very quickly.

i hate when the cters use this logic, my only explanation is that they have never experienced a traumatic situation.

About 2 years ago i got into a car wreck ( it was actually in a swift article) and first off i find when i tell the story, if i have anyone else that was with me, our descriptions vary a bit. And not only that but during the wreck itself i was so disoriented i thought i lost a leg, and an eye at one point.

a traumatic situation is the worst possible place to expect consistency of statements. I think if cters would realize this it would clear up a lot of problems.

[Soily]

I'm looking at a box of steel jacketed ammo right now that are copper colored.
Out of interest, would you describe this as steel jacketed?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Ce399-1.gif
Also, according to Sylvia Meagher, Ira Van Cleave one of the detectives on the Walker case told the press it was a 30.06 http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html
What about Walker, do you think a former General would be familiar with ammo?

[Soily]

i hate when the cters use this logic, my only explanation is that they have never experienced a traumatic situation.

About 2 years ago i got into a car wreck ( it was actually in a swift article) and first off i find when i tell the story, if i have anyone else that was with me, our descriptions vary a bit. And not only that but during the wreck itself i was so disoriented i thought i lost a leg, and an eye at one point.

a traumatic situation is the worst possible place to expect consistency of statements. I think if cters would realize this it would clear up a lot of problems.
The total lack of self awareness there is absolutely hilarious.

LNs are perfectly happy to accept as accurate the testimony of people in exactly the same circumstances you describe when it supports what they argue. Like Brennan, Helen Markham, the police at the Texas Theatre etc? Even when its incredibly contradictory.

You can't have it both ways.

Would you also agree that witness testimony that is corroborated by something else is a lot more sound? So when Bardwell Odum says categorically that he never interviewed the men at the hospital about CE399 and indeed never even had the bullet in his possession and this account is backed up by the complete absense of any FBI reports, even though the reports are listed numerically with no gaps? And when their contemporary inability or unwillingness to identify the bullet are recorded in suppressed FBI memos?

[RoboTimbo]

Out of interest, would you describe this as steel jacketed?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Ce399-1.gif

Nope, that's copper jacket. Looks like the one that went through Kennedy and then Connelly that Oswald shot them with.
Also, according to Sylvia Meagher, Ira Van Cleave one of the detectives on the Walker case told the press it was a 30.06 http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/meagher/Notes_for_a_new_investigation.html
Which, as I earlier explained, is a silly ass thing to tell the press. It wasn't .30 caliber and even if it were, you wouldn't know which .30 caliber it was. Refer back to my earlier explanation if you're still unsure about it.
out Walker, do you think a former General would be familiar with ammo?
What about Robert Frazier? I gave his qualifications earlier. You must have missed them.

[sadhatter]

It's not a pink salmon fallacy, it's more copper coloured. Please explain to everyone how steel, a silver coloured metallic compound, becomes copper coloured?

Um, you realize this statement does not do much for people's opinion of your intellect right? You need to make it more specific or some smart ass like myself is going to post the process for forming rust. I would suggest naming the compound, and defining what you mean by " becomes copper coloured".

Blanket statements may make you sound more assertive to the ct crowd but they just get you laughed at but the skeptics.

[Ranb]

Soily,

In my previoius post (#160) I was commenting on the claims you made. Instead of defending your claims, you simply ask more questions which means you are not interested in being accurate. Why are you doing this?

Ranb

[sadhatter]

The total lack of self awareness there is absolutely hilarious.

LNs are perfectly happy to accept as accurate the testimony of people in exactly the same circumstances you describe when it supports what they argue. Like Brennan, Helen Markham, the police at the Texas Theatre etc? Even when its incredibly contradictory.

You can't have it both ways.

Would you also agree that witness testimony that is corroborated by something else is a lot more sound? So when Bardwell Odum says categorically that he never interviewed the men at the hospital about CE399 and indeed never even had the bullet in his possession and this account is backed up by the complete absense of any FBI reports, even though the reports are listed numerically with no gaps? And when their contemporary inability or unwillingness to identify the bullet are recorded in suppressed FBI memos?

I would if you sourced your information instead of hoping i will take your word what another person has said. Due to your track record i would have to see the quote, in context , in full before i made any decision.

And your making a basic mistake when discussing the issues of eyewitness testimony in a traumatic situation. Let's take the car accident for example.

While the reports form those there differ, when they are synched up with known information from other sources we can tell what actually happened. Which is the key difference between saying " tim and fred said something different CONSPIRACY!" and " Tim said the car was black, when we see the paint streaks on the other car we can see black paint, so the evidence would point toward tim being right. ."

[Soily]

Nope, that's copper jacket. Looks like the one that went through Kennedy and then Connelly that Oswald shot them with.

Which, as I earlier explained, is a silly ass thing to tell the press. It wasn't .30 caliber and even if it were, you wouldn't know which .30 caliber it was. Refer back to my earlier explanation if you're still unsure about it.

What about Robert Frazier? I gave his qualifications earlier. You must have missed them.
Robert Frazier didn't hold the actual bullet in his hand on the night of the shooting.

So you agree that the ammo Oswald supposedly used could not be described as steel jacketed, yet that's exactly what were asked to believe.

[Soily]

I would if you sourced your information instead of hoping i will take your word what another person has said. Due to your track record i would have to see the quote, in context , in full before i made any decision.

And your making a basic mistake when discussing the issues of eyewitness testimony in a traumatic situation. Let's take the car accident for example.

While the reports form those there differ, when they are synched up with known information from other sources we can tell what actually happened. Which is the key difference between saying " tim and fred said something different CONSPIRACY!" and " Tim said the car was black, when we see the paint streaks on the other car we can see black paint, so the evidence would point toward tim being right. ."
I see didn't bother to read the article by Gary Aguilar that has scans of the actual declassified FBI memos and an interview with an FBI agent involved in the investigation? How's that for sources eh?

You make an excellent point about witness evidence, but for some unknown reason you're so blinded by prejudice you can't see that is applies to both sides. Brennan said the shooter was stood up and wearing a white shirt, unsupported by any other evidence, yet because he helps nail Oswald he's miraculously a reliable witness.

Markham and Bledsoe both made a whole series of completely ridiculous and unsportable claims, yet they help nail Oswald so they're reliable.

Absolutely laughable.

[RoboTimbo]

Robert Frazier didn't hold the actual bullet in his hand on the night of the shooting.

So you agree that the ammo Oswald supposedly used could not be described as steel jacketed, yet that's exactly what were asked to believe.

I now see where you are seeing a conspiracy. It's that Oswald could have used two types of ammo. I'll agree with you on that one. Or someone simply used the term "steel-jacketed bullet" when in fact it was copper jacket. Or you are saying anyone else in the world could have used steel jacketed bullets as long as their name wasn't Oswald. Funny how the bullet was a 6.5 mm though.

[Ranb]

Ian Griggs has an identical rifle to the Oswald rifle and he actually did an experiment with it and a paper bag here in the article I posted earlier - http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag2.html

Griggs claims Fraszer said Oswald was carrying the package in his right hand "parallel to his body" with one end of it "under the armpit" and the "other part with his right hand." and that Oswald would "require a body height in excess of seven feet and arms like an orang-utan"

I am 5'9" and can easily hold a bagged Carcano with one end up my armpit and my hand on the bag near the middle. Fraizer did not say Oswald's hand was grasping the lower end of the bag. No need to be seven feet tall to hold the bag easily. I can provide a pic if this makes it clearer to you.

While Griggs gets most of the description of the Carcano right, he makes mistakes. He claims the bagged disassembled rifle as "they do not make a smooth, easily-handled item." I think it is easily handled when bagged.

Griggs also claims that the stock would signs of "severe scoring and scratching" if carried this way. I find that this is not so when I packaged mine. In any case a simple way to avoid scratching the stock is to wrap the end of the barrel with more paper, tape or cloth to avoid it ripping through the bag. While I cannot show this was done, it is a simple solution and could have been done.

Griggs goes to great lengths to explain how the bag could not have been made by Oswald at the TSBD, but he omits something very important. While it was made from the type of paper and tape available at the TSBD, it does not mean it was made with the same material obtained elsewhere.

Ranb

[Soily]

Griggs claims Fraszer said Oswald was carrying the package in his right hand "parallel to his body" with one end of it "under the armpit" and the "other part with his right hand." and that Oswald would "require a body height in excess of seven feet and arms like an orang-utan"

I am 5'9" and can easily hold a bagged Carcano with one end up my armpit and my hand on the bag near the middle. Fraizer did not say Oswald's hand was grasping the lower end of the bag. No need to be seven feet tall to hold the bag easily. I can provide a pic if this makes it clearer to you.

While Griggs gets most of the description of the Carcano right, he makes mistakes. He claims the bagged disassembled rifle as "they do not make a smooth, easily-handled item." I think it is easily handled when bagged.

Griggs also claims that the stock would signs of "severe scoring and scratching" if carried this way. I find that this is not so when I packaged mine. In any case a simple way to avoid scratching the stock is to wrap the end of the barrel with more paper, tape or cloth to avoid it ripping through the bag. While I cannot show this was done, it is a simple solution and could have been done.

Griggs goes to great lengths to explain how the bag could not have been made by Oswald at the TSBD, but he omits something very important. While it was made from the type of paper and tape available at the TSBD, it does not mean it was made with the same material obtained elsewhere.

Ranb
Thanks for the considered reply. Here's a picture of the alleged bag
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20ASSASSINATION%20PHOTO%20ALBUM%20--%20VOLUME%202/Empty_Paper_Bag_Removed_From_TSBD.jpg

As you can see it's a bit of a monster, more than half of Oswalds own height. The WC said it was 38 by 8 inches. Do you think Oswald could have carried such a large bag without it been quite conspicuous? Would your rifle leave any marks in the bag if it'd rattled about on the backseat of a car for 5 miles? The WC said the rifle was well oiled. And I believe the WC also stated Oswald made the bag using materials at the TSBD, although i'm not sure why they came to that conclusion when for a variety of reasons it's quite hard to believe.

[bynmdsue]

"well oiled" does not mean slathered in oil.

[RoboTimbo]

Here's a picture of the alleged bag
Why did you try to lead people to believe that there was no bag at all earlier?

No, the WC did not come to the conclusion that it was made with the same materials at the TSBD. You really should research some of the things you say rather than making them up on the spot.

[jargon buster]

"well oiled" does not mean slathered in oil.

Could it possibly mean that it was oiled well, as in oiled properly?

JB

[Ranb]

Do you think Oswald could have carried such a large bag without it been quite conspicuous? Would your rifle leave any marks in the bag if it'd rattled about on the backseat of a car for 5 miles? The WC said the rifle was well oiled.

Sure, no problem unless for some reason people never carried large bags near or in the TSBD. That bag looks well wrinkled, like it held a lumpy object with abrupt edges, like a firearm.

Well oiled. This has got to be one of the most misunderstood terms after "pristine bullet". Most rifles like the Carcano only need a small amount of lubricant on the internals, and none on the outside, especially those with fixed sights. Lubing a rifle is not the same as getting your body lubed at a massage parlor.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/carcanoaction.jpg

Here is my carcano rifle. It is nearly the same as Oswald's. Only the mount, scope and lack of sling are different. A points to grease inside the bolt to prevent the firing pin from freezing up. B and C is where I put up to one drop of gun oil on the interior to ensure the bolt operates slick and fast. Nowhere on the exterior of the rifle is any oil or other lubrication needed. A well oiled Carcano simply does not need to have any oil on the exterior which could leave a spot on a paper bag.

Well oiled is the only term I have ever read regarding how well it was lubricated. No one examining the rifle has ever said there was oil on the exterior surfaces as far as I know.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Here is a picture of my 5'9" self holding my bagged carcano. It is easy to carry. I made the bag from an old shopping bag and masking tape. It does not look like I am holding a rifle, but then it does not exactly look like curtain rods either. If I was to wrap the rifle in a T-shirt then put it in the bag, it would look even less conspicuous.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/holdingcarcano.jpg

Ranb

[riptowtan]

No, the whole Specter theory was concocted on the basis of fraudulently moving the back wound up by 6 inches - http://i47.tinypic.com/fpbkt4.jpg and lying about the position of Kennedy. Indeed the autopsy didn't even bother to find out of the back and neck wound were linked, instead suggesting that the back wound was shallow. Later 3d cartoon recreations acknowledge this lie and turn kennedy into a hunchback tieing his shoelaces in order to ram the facts into the theory.
Source?

The ballistics test were done by the WCs expert, I posted a link early to an interview with him. Wecht goes through it with the test bullets here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7482146129368381942 And even if the tests were not 100% accurate as some on here have claimed the argument that that highly dubious bullet did those wounds its still completely and utterly ridiculous on every level.
Argument from personal incredulity. Experiments say otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk

Wow, incredible amount of conjecture. Why can't they just admit they haven't got a clue? Also doesn't explain why Oswald didn't just shoot Kennedy when he was right in front of him before the turn. Also doesn't explain why the FBI, who actually did the investigation for the Warren commission, had a different shooting pattern with no missed shots. Doesn't explain how, even amongst the WC supporters, they have a million and 1 completely different scenarios for the shot pattern. Or how most of the witnesses have two of the shots right on top of each other. The SBT is an act of faith, because in truth nobody has got a bloody clue what the shooting pattern was beyond the fatal headshot.

What million scenarios are you talking about? It's only the conspiracy theorists that are confused about the sequence of shots because they keep probing everything for anomalies, ignoring all of the very clear evidence that Oswald did it. Bugliosi's chapter on "Oswald's guilt" shows without a shadow of a doubt that Oswald brought the rifle in and fired three shots at JFK.

[RoboTimbo]

Your lucky day, Soily! You now have manxman on your side and you both seem to possess equal knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Sorry Soily, that was a short lucky day.

[SpitfireIX]

It's not a pink salmon fallacy, it's more copper coloured. Please explain to everyone how steel, a silver coloured metallic compound, becomes copper coloured?


From http://firearmsid.com/Bullets/bullet1.htm:

Steel jacketed bullets are usually coated or plated to help prevent rusting


Copper plated steel jacketed bullet (http://firearmsid.com/Bullets/images/j_bullet2.jpg)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[Soily]

Why did you try to lead people to believe that there was no bag at all earlier?

No, the WC did not come to the conclusion that it was made with the same materials at the TSBD. You really should research some of the things you say rather than making them up on the spot.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

From the WC report:
However, the complete identity of characteristics between the paper and tape in the bag found on the sixth floor and the paper and tape found in the shipping room of the Depository on November 22 enabled the Commission to conclude that the bag was made from these materials
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#scientific

[Soily]

Here is a picture of my 5'9" self holding my bagged carcano. It is easy to carry. I made the bag from an old shopping bag and masking tape. It does not look like I am holding a rifle, but then it does not exactly look like curtain rods either. If I was to wrap the rifle in a T-shirt then put it in the bag, it would look even less conspicuous.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/holdingcarcano.jpg

Ranb
Interesting. How long is that package? Oswalds was at least 35 inches long.

Here's a video of Wesley Buell Frazier describing how Oswald held the package he saw, which is not how you are carrying yours, but cupped under his hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWaOjFqgHk

[Soily]

Source?
Argument from personal incredulity. Experiments say otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk

Hahaha! You're actually serious aren't you? Do you even bother to look at what these snake oil salesman tell you? The bullet in that decidedly unscientific test exits in Kennedy's chest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgec6oCdIvE&feature=related

Myers is the ultimate deciever, constantly shifting the wounds and the positions of the bodies in order to make the magic shot fit.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

Pure pseduo-science, if you choose to believe it then its an act of faith.

[Fourbrick]

The magic bullet supporters say that Connolly was sitting well inboard of JFK

Look at the youtube recommended by Riptowan

"Argument from personal incredulity. Experiments say otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk"

At frames 28 to 33 they are both in line rather than offset. JFK appears to be further to the right only because he has his arm over the side of the limo.

[Soily]

The magic bullet supporters say that Connolly was sitting well inboard of JFK

Look at the youtube recommended by Riptowan

"Argument from personal incredulity. Experiments say otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13wfsdACktk"

At frames 28 to 33 they are both in line rather than offset. JFK appears to be further to the right only because he has his arm over the side of the limo.

And the bullet exits in the chest, much lower than the wound in Kennedy's neck alleged to be the exit wound.

And as Speer points out, for a simulation purporting to be measuring events with scientific accuracy, Myers either accidentally or deliberately gets the position of Connolly's jump seat 3 and a half inches out. Which when you are extrapolating lines outwards for 250 feet, is a chasm. There are so many problems with it just generally, as well as specifically. The actual event it purports to show is never visible in the Zapruder film, they are behind the Stemmons freeway sign. It's impossible to see exactly where either men is in 3d space at any point in the Zapruder film, its too blurry and low res. Extrapolating where they are from other films and photographs has similar problems, especially when the men are twisting and moving about in their seats to greet the crowds. Speer also shows quite clearly the sneak games Myers plays with the relative size of the men and their body shapes. What Myers does is shift and twist one of dozens of measurements in order to fit the facts to the theory. And even then, their own simulations don't show what they say they do.

Pseudo-science for the gullible.

[RoboTimbo]

Stop embarrassing yourself.

From the WC report:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html#scientific

I accept your correction and applaud your use of the WC report. Here is what they concluded about the bag:
Conclusion

The preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) told the curtain rod story to Frazier to explain both the return to Irving on a Thursday and the obvious bulk of the package which he intended to bring to work the next day; (2) took paper and tape from the wrapping bench of the Depository and fashioned a bag large enough to carry the disassembled rifle; (3) removed the rifle from the blanket in the Paines' garage on Thursday evening; (4) carried the rifle into the Depository Building, concealed in the bag; and, (5) left the bag alongside the window from which the shots were fired.
Thank you for validating the WC report. Now, why did you dishonestly try to mislead people that there was no bag at all earlier?

[Soily]

I accept your correction and applaud your use of the WC report. Here is what they concluded about the bag:

Thank you for validating the WC report. Now, why did you dishonestly try to mislead people that there was no bag at all earlier?

Wow shifty!

You said:
No, the WC did not come to the conclusion that it was made with the same materials at the TSBD. You really should research some of the things you say rather than making them up on the spot.

And accused me of making things up.

When the reality is you made it up, because the WC did say that:

However, the complete identity of characteristics between the paper and tape in the bag found on the sixth floor and the paper and tape found in the shipping room of the Depository on November 22 enabled the Commission to conclude that the bag was made from these materials

I never said there was no bag. I asked the question as to how Oswald could have carried such an enormous bag into work that day without it been incredibly conspicuous. Yet the 4 known witnesses either didn't see it at all, or were absolutely adamant it was a much smaller bag.

[RoboTimbo]

I never said there was no bag.

And you know, no amount of wishful thinking is going to make that bag magically reappear in the crime scene photos.

Yes, you did. Here's the title of the article you linked to in that post:

The Paper Bag that Never Was
by Ian Griggs (http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html)

If you click the link to the article, you can see for yourself what you were linking to. You really, really need to read what you're posting.

[riptowtan]

Hahaha! You're actually serious aren't you? Do you even bother to look at what these snake oil salesman tell you? The bullet in that decidedly unscientific test exits in Kennedy's chest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgec6oCdIvE&feature=related

Myers is the ultimate deciever, constantly shifting the wounds and the positions of the bodies in order to make the magic shot fit.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

Pure pseduo-science, if you choose to believe it then its an act of faith.

Of course. Anything experiment that falsifies your belief you call pseudoscience. Can you tell us a test that would falsify your belief if anything? The video I sent was in response to your claim that the bullet couldn't do all that damage. Since the experiment clearly showed it could you have widened the goalposts to attack the trajectory of the bullet. (A completely different claim). Your whining about how it exited the chest of JFK is a moot point, because the experiment is not going to replicate the shot exactly. It was an inch or two off, but showed that a similar trajectory and bullet wounds are indeed possible for a gunman in the 6th floor of the Book Depository. And have you considered that Pat Speer may be the snake oil salesman here? What are his credentials, and where are his calculations to show that the single bullet theory is wrong. Why hasn't he done any computer models, or even a diagram of the proper seating arrangements? Show me some science, you have had 44 years to come up with ONE piece of positive evidence and are still in the anomaly hunting phase. I can give you 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald did it. Sure you can point out small inconsistencies with eyewitnesses, and discrepancies in reports, but that is all irrelevant to the big picture. Here are 5 pieces of hard evidence connected Oswald to the assassination.(Remember there are 48 more!) We know that Oswald's gun was found on the sixth floor, with eyewitnesses on the floor below who heard the shots above including that shells hitting the ground. We have multiple witnesses who saw Oswald in the window with his rifle thinking it was a secret serviceman. All of the bullets found were fired from Oswald's gun to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and Oswald's fingerprints and palm prints are all over the sixth floor.(Bag, Gun, Boxes, Clipboard) In addition to all of this, we know Oswald left his wedding ring and practically all of his money out for his wife that morning.(Only time) When the assassination took place, Oswald fleed from the scene, went home and picked up his revolver, killed a police officer and then hid in a movie theater. That sounds just like what I would do if I was innocent...

[Soily]

Yes, you did. Here's the title of the article you linked to in that post:

The Paper Bag that Never Was
by Ian Griggs (http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag1.html)

If you click the link to the article, you can see for yourself what you were linking to. You really, really need to read what you're posting.

Hang on, lets not conflate two different issues here. You accused me of making stuff about about what the WC said about the materials used to make the paper bag. In fact, you were dead wrong, and have been furiously shifting the goalposts to try and avoid this!

I posted Ian Grigg's article because it excellently exposes just how problematic and hard to believe the official paper bag story is. I don't necessarily have to wholeheartedly and 100% agree with his conclusions to recognize the valuable points he makes.

I suspect the DPD took some unconnected paper or a paper bag from the TSDB (a place, lest we forget, where books were wrapped in paper and tape every day) and needed to shore up their then shaky case against Oswald (remember on the night of the 22nd, they had found no prints of Oswald's on the rifle, the parafin test had come back negative, Marion Baker had cast doubt on whether he could have been on the 6th floor at all, - from their point of view they may have privately felt they had little or nothing to connect Oswald with the rifle on the day of the 22nd). They needed that bag, the perfect way to directly connect Oswald and the rifle on the 22nd. I think its a plausible possibilty that Oswald's own words on this were for once true. Remember the curtain rods story did not come from Oswald himself, during his interrogation he actually said he had brought his lunch in with him. Some witnesses saw Oswald eating his lunch that day and if this is correct, its never adequetly been explained where this lunch came from, if he hadn't as he said brought it in himself.

[RoboTimbo]

Hang on, lets not conflate two different issues here. You accused me of making stuff about about what the WC said about the materials used to make the paper bag. In fact, you were dead wrong, and have been furiously shifting the goalposts to try and avoid this!
Yes, let's not. I asked why you tried to mislead people into believing there was no bag at all earlier. You posted a picture where the bag had been removed and linked to an article claiming there was no bag. I admitted I was incorrect in saying the WC had not said the bag was made with materials from the TSBD. I'm not sure how you get goal post shifting out of that.

I posted Ian Grigg's article because it excellently exposes just how problematic and hard to believe the official paper bag story is. I don't necessarily have to wholeheartedly and 100% agree with his conclusions to recognize the valuable points he makes.
Your posting of that article exposes how CTers can't get their stories straight. You posted a link to an article whose title is "The Bag That Never Was" and then say that you aren't trying to say there was no bag. You've got your goalposts on a rocket sled.

I suspect the DPD took some unconnected paper or a paper bag from the TSDB (a place, lest we forget, where books were wrapped in paper and tape every day) and needed to shore up their then shaky case against Oswald (remember on the night of the 22nd, they had found no prints of Oswald's on the rifle, the parafin test had come back negative, Marion Baker had cast doubt on whether he could have been on the 6th floor at all, - from their point of view they may have privately felt they had little or nothing to connect Oswald with the rifle on the day of the 22nd). They needed that bag, the perfect way to directly connect Oswald and the rifle on the 22nd. I think its a plausible possibilty that Oswald's own words on this were for once true. Remember the curtain rods story did not come from Oswald himself, during his interrogation he actually said he had brought his lunch in with him. Some witnesses saw Oswald eating his lunch that day and if this is correct, its never adequetly been explained where this lunch came from, if he hadn't as he said brought it in himself.
What was Oswald carrying into the TSBD in the long bag, Soily?

[Soily]

Yes, let's not. *I asked why you tried to mislead people into believing there was no bag at all earlier. *You posted a picture where the bag had been removed and linked to an article claiming there was no bag. *I admitted I was incorrect in saying the WC had not said the bag was made with materials from the TSBD. *I'm not sure how you get goal post shifting out of that.

If by admit you were wrong you mean rapidly backtrack and change the subject then yeah. And it's not that you were wrong that's the problem, everyones wrong on the Internet sometimes, its that in the same breath you accuse me of lying and making stuff up!*

Your posting of that article exposes how CTers can't get their stories straight. *You posted a link to an article whose title is "The Bag That Never Was" and then say that you aren't trying to say there was no bag. *You've got your goalposts on a rocket sled.

This is an unbelievably contrived mangling of what I said. I never for a second said there was no bag at all, my position is that i'm extremely sketpical of the official story on the bag. In my opinion a credible alternative scenario would successfully square off the contrary evidence. Oswald's own story may be correct, and like he did every day he took some lunch to work with him, perhaps in an old shopping bag. Let's consider these points:

1. Of the 4 witnesses we have that day, 2 saw no bag at all and 2 glanced at what they were sure was a much smaller bag than the one alleged by the WC. 1 way to square that is that Oswald was carrying a smaller bag, 1 that could be noticed or not depending on what angle you saw Oswald from.
2. Oswald always brought his lunch in with him prior to the 22nd.
3. Oswald told his interograters he brought his lunch with him that day
4. Some witnesses saw Oswald eating his lunch that day
5. The alleged WC bag appears in none of the crime scene photos and the account of it's finding is unbelievably confused and contradictory.
6. The bag showed no signs of having contained a rifle.
7. The WC said oswald used tape and paper from the TSBD. Yet the man in charge of the paper and tape dispenser, Troy West, told them he never left his station, even for lunch. Yet Oswald never came to him for paper on any occasion. Furthermore, the tape could only be removed from the dispenser when wet, meaning the user would have to use it there in front of West.
8 Nobody ever saw Oswald with the massive piece of paper or the tape the WC said he had, not even Frazier who gave him a lift everyday.
9 Despite the extensive handling needed by Oswald to fashion this massive piece of paper into a bag, and all the handling requited to put a disassembled rifle and carry it to work, and despite at least 3 other men handling the bag after Oswald, only 1 singular identifiable fingerprint was found on it - oswald's.
10 The FBI created a second bag themselves, which the used for identification purposes (!)
11 According to authors John Armstrong, Sylvia Meagher and Anthony Summers, on the 20th of November, somebody tried to mail something addressed to Lee Oswald but at Ruth Paines address in Irving. A postage due note was left at the Paines on the 23rd, with 13 cents to pay. On december the 4th a package addressed to Lee Oswald but with the wrong address was found at the dead letter section of the Dallas post office. It had 13 cents due and contained a brown paper bag similar to the one found in the TSBD. Since the package was tossed into the dead letter pile, it's reasonable to conclude that this was posted before Lee Oswald became the most infamous man in the world. Question is, by who and why?

[RoboTimbo]

If by admit you were wrong you mean rapidly backtrack and change the subject then yeah.
No, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. By admit I was wrong I meant that I admitted I was wrong.
And it's not that you were wrong that's the problem, everyones wrong on the Internet sometimes, its that in the same breath you accuse me of lying and making stuff up!*
You have yet to acknowledge that you were mistaken about steel jacketed bullets. You have yet to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you seemed to believe that only one type of ammo can be fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano. You have yet to acknowledge that the Myers video accurately explains the wounds. You have yet to acknowledge that the first bullet didn't "missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air". You have yet to acknowledge that you erred in claiming that you had proof that the single bullet theory is incorrect. I think you get my point. I can give you a few dozen more if you like.

This is an unbelievably contrived mangling of what I said. I never for a second said there was no bag at all, my position is that i'm extremely sketpical of the official story on the bag. In my opinion a credible alternative scenario would successfully square off the contrary evidence. Oswald's own story may be correct, and like he did every day he took some lunch to work with him, perhaps in an old shopping bag. Let's consider these points:
If I had claimed to be quoting you, you might have a point. What I actually said, rather than your strawman, is that you were giving the impression that you didn't believe there was a bag at all by posting a link to a site with the name "The Bag That Never Was." I don't know how I can make it more clear to you. If you still fail to understand, get someone local to help you with it.

[Soily]

No, you're letting your emotions get the better of you. By admit I was wrong I meant that I admitted I was wrong.

You have yet to acknowledge that you were mistaken about steel jacketed bullets. You have yet to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you seemed to believe that only one type of ammo can be fired in a Mannlicher-Carcano. You have yet to acknowledge that the Myers video accurately explains the wounds. You have yet to acknowledge that the first bullet didn't "missed by an entire city block and disappeared into thin air". You have yet to acknowledge that you erred in claiming that you had proof that the single bullet theory is incorrect. I think you get my point. I can give you a few dozen more if you like.


If I had claimed to be quoting you, you might have a point. What I actually said, rather than your strawman, is that you were giving the impression that you didn't believe there was a bag at all by posting a link to a site with the name "The Bag That Never Was." I don't know how I can make it more clear to you. If you still fail to understand, get someone local to help you with it.
Grigg's article, if you read it all, does not say there never was a bag, it alleges that the WC bag as supposedly found in the empty dotted line area did not exist at that time and was concocted later. I actually disagree with him on a few things and his conclusions don't always follow on from the text. But he's also done some great work with that article.

And I reckon this is exchange is getting circular and tedious for everyone else here so lets move on eh.

[RoboTimbo]

What part do you think Oswald played in it?

[TraneWreck]

Maybe this was already mentioned in the thread, I didn't read the whole thing, but in addition to all the excellent points made, I would love a non-single bulleter to explain how the bullet managed to lodge itself in Governor Connally's thigh.

That thigh was obviously below the edge of the car. What are the possible angles for a bullet to travel such that it lodged in his thigh without going through the car door or window?

None of the car doors were affected, so it had to come at an angle from above. The window wasn't broken, so it couldn't come from the front.

Nothing on either side was high enough to generate the appropriate angle. Because his right thigh was pressed up againt the door, for it to come from the direction of the grassy knoll without hitting the car, it almost would have had to come straight down.

There's nothing tall enough to give the right angle on other side of the street, and if the bullet had just hit his leg, without being slowed by the President, the seat, and Connally's torso, it likely would have gone straight through the thigh and lodged in the door.

None of it makes sense. The bullet in his thigh could only have come from something really tall behind him. In order to get to that thigh, it had to travel through Kennedy and Connally, and what do we notice? Wounds in both men consistent with that theory.

THere's no other remotely decent explanation.

[riptowtan]

If by admit you were wrong you mean rapidly backtrack and change the subject then yeah. And it's not that you were wrong that's the problem, everyones wrong on the Internet sometimes, its that in the same breath you accuse me of lying and making stuff up!*

This is an unbelievably contrived mangling of what I said. I never for a second said there was no bag at all, my position is that i'm extremely sketpical of the official story on the bag. In my opinion a credible alternative scenario would successfully square off the contrary evidence. Oswald's own story may be correct, and like he did every day he took some lunch to work with him, perhaps in an old shopping bag. Let's consider these points:

1. Of the 4 witnesses we have that day, 2 saw no bag at all and 2 glanced at what they were sure was a much smaller bag than the one alleged by the WC. 1 way to square that is that Oswald was carrying a smaller bag, 1 that could be noticed or not depending on what angle you saw Oswald from.
2. Oswald always brought his lunch in with him prior to the 22nd.
3. Oswald told his interograters he brought his lunch with him that day
4. Some witnesses saw Oswald eating his lunch that day
5. The alleged WC bag appears in none of the crime scene photos and the account of it's finding is unbelievably confused and contradictory.
6. The bag showed no signs of having contained a rifle.
7. The WC said oswald used tape and paper from the TSBD. Yet the man in charge of the paper and tape dispenser, Troy West, told them he never left his station, even for lunch. Yet Oswald never came to him for paper on any occasion. Furthermore, the tape could only be removed from the dispenser when wet, meaning the user would have to use it there in front of West.
8 Nobody ever saw Oswald with the massive piece of paper or the tape the WC said he had, not even Frazier who gave him a lift everyday.
9 Despite the extensive handling needed by Oswald to fashion this massive piece of paper into a bag, and all the handling requited to put a disassembled rifle and carry it to work, and despite at least 3 other men handling the bag after Oswald, only 1 singular identifiable fingerprint was found on it - oswald's.
10 The FBI created a second bag themselves, which the used for identification purposes (!)
11 According to authors John Armstrong, Sylvia Meagher and Anthony Summers, on the 20th of November, somebody tried to mail something addressed to Lee Oswald but at Ruth Paines address in Irving. A postage due note was left at the Paines on the 23rd, with 13 cents to pay. On december the 4th a package addressed to Lee Oswald but with the wrong address was found at the dead letter section of the Dallas post office. It had 13 cents due and contained a brown paper bag similar to the one found in the TSBD. Since the package was tossed into the dead letter pile, it's reasonable to conclude that this was posted before Lee Oswald became the most infamous man in the world. Question is, by who and why?

Weston Frazier, who would have been the best person to ask, said he brought in a bag that day and that instead of walking in with him, he walked ahead of him into the building.

" Wes Frazier was one of Oswald's co-workers and since the Paine residence, where Marina Oswald was staying, was near Randle's house, Oswald would ride with Frazier to Irving every Friday night and the back to Dallas on Monday morning. The morning before the assassination, Oswald asked Frazier if he could have a ride to Irving to pick up curtain rods from the Paine's for his room in Dallas (2H222). Frazier said he could. The next morning as Oswald walked over to Randle's house, Randle happened to be looking out her window and saw Oswald carrying a heavy package (2H251). Frazier also saw the package in his back seat on their way to work. He asked Oswald what was in the package and Oswald said it was the curtain rods (CE 2009). When questioned later about the length of the package, both Frazier and Randle testified that is about 27 inches long while the longest part of the rifle when disassembled is 34.8 inches (CE 2009, 2H250, 3H395).

While Frazier testified the bag was only 24 inches long, give or take several inches, he made it clear he was very unsure about the length of the bag and constantly mentioned that he "didn't pay too much attention" (2H226-7, 240). "

"Randle drove over to the Paine house while police were there on the afternoon of November 22. Detective Stovall testified that she told him "that her brother had taken Oswald to work that morning and she said that she had seen him put some kind of a package in the back seat of her brother's car. She told us it could have been a rifle is what she said" (7H192 — emphasis added). She also stated on the day of the assassination that the bag was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" (Commission Document 5, p. 320). "

"It is also interesting to note that Mr. Raymond Krystinik, a friend of Michael Paine, testified that Michael, who saw the blanket that contained the rifle in his garage, moved the rifle several times, and stepped over it constantly, thought the blanket was only 27 inches shortly after the assassination (9H475-6, 437). When Mr. Paine testified, he stated that he thought the blanket contained 30 inch camping rods (9H437 and 2H415). When asked if he thought the blanket was 30 inches in length, he replied in the negative and held up his hands to indicate how long he thought the blanket was, which was measured as 37 1/2 inches (2H415 and 9H438). "

"When questioned by police officers after his arrest, Oswald told them that he did not bring a long bag to work and the only thing he brought to work was a bag lunch (4H217-8). Frazier testified that Oswald did not bring a lunch to work the day of the assassination. He even asked Oswald where his lunch was, since Oswald always brought a lunch, and Oswald told him he was going to buy his lunch that day (2H228). Oswald lied about the lunch bag when there was little reason to do so. Oswald lied about bringing a long package, even when the police officers suggested it contained curtain rods (7H305, 4H218). "
Obviously Oswald was lying about the bag. Everything else completely contradicts what he has alleged including the findings of his fingerprints and palm prints on the bag. The reason why conspiracy theorists make such a big deal out of the bag is because with it, everything becomes so obvious. The bag obviously contained his rifle which would explain why people saw him shooting the president in the sixth floor, the fact that his rifle was on the 6th floor, all of the fingerprint evidence and the eyewitnesses who heard the shots fired from the floor below. The totality of the evidence makes any of the so-called anomalies worthless. If you probe any murder case close enough you will find the same kinds of inconsistencies, and anomalies. The question is, are there really these tiny inconsistencies or are people just connecting imaginary dots? If Oswald was innocent you would expect there to be no evidence of his involvement. Every now and then one or two pieces of evidence could be pointed in the direction of an innocent man, but name one other case where 53 pieces of evidence have been connected to an innocent man? Oswald was guilty. Case Closed.

[Soily]

Maybe this was already mentioned in the thread, I didn't read the whole thing, but in addition to all the excellent points made, I would love a non-single bulleter to explain how the bullet managed to lodge itself in Governor Connally's thigh.

That thigh was obviously below the edge of the car. What are the possible angles for a bullet to travel such that it lodged in his thigh without going through the car door or window?

None of the car doors were affected, so it had to come at an angle from above. The window wasn't broken, so it couldn't come from the front.

Nothing on either side was high enough to generate the appropriate angle. Because his right thigh was pressed up againt the door, for it to come from the direction of the grassy knoll without hitting the car, it almost would have had to come straight down.

There's nothing tall enough to give the right angle on other side of the street, and if the bullet had just hit his leg, without being slowed by the President, the seat, and Connally's torso, it likely would have gone straight through the thigh and lodged in the door.

None of it makes sense. The bullet in his thigh could only have come from something really tall behind him. In order to get to that thigh, it had to travel through Kennedy and Connally, and what do we notice? Wounds in both men consistent with that theory.

THere's no other remotely decent explanation.

Problem: there was no bullet in Governor Connolley's thigh. There were bullet fragments in his thigh, but these could just as easily come from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head and fragmented into dozens of pieces. But, I think you're quite right, there's little doubt in my mind that shots came from the rear, kennedy's back wound proves that. Unfortunately several important things were not sone properly either through accident or design. Connolley's clothes were immediately sent off to be laundered, the limousine was cleaned before it could be properly examined, Kennedy's brain was never sectioned to track the path of the bullet and probably worse of all, the autopsy, which initially didn't even notice the neck wound, never properly established whether that wound was connected to the back wound. Indeed the FBI thought right up until the Tague revelation that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy appeared to show. This is probably the worst aspect of the entire Kennedy assassination for me, the autopsy is just a total mess. From the autopsy, through the at least 3 official investigations into the autopsy, the wounds change shape and position every time. Not just the back wound, which ossicilates from been at the base of the neck to 6 inches lower, but the head entrance wound ossicilates from the location of the eop to the cowlick. It,s a total mess, and add that to the fact at the ARRB revealed that not only did virtually all the eyewitnesses at Parkland say Kennedy had a massive gaping wound in the back of his head, but virtually all the eyewitnesses at Bethesda say the same thing.

[TraneWreck]

Problem: there was no bullet in Governor Connolley's thigh. There were bullet fragments in his thigh, but these could just as easily come from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head and fragmented into dozens of pieces. But, I think you're quite right, there's little doubt in my mind that shots came from the rear, kennedy's back wound proves that. Unfortunately several important things were not sone properly either through accident or design. Connolley's clothes were immediately sent off to be laundered, the limousine was cleaned before it could be properly examined, Kennedy's brain was never sectioned to track the path of the bullet and probably worse of all, the autopsy, which initially didn't even notice the neck wound, never properly established whether that wound was connected to the back wound. Indeed the FBI thought right up until the Tague revelation that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy appeared to show. This is probably the worst aspect of the entire Kennedy assassination for me, the autopsy is just a total mess. From the autopsy, through the at least 3 official investigations into the autopsy, the wounds change shape and position every time. Not just the back wound, which ossicilates from been at the base of the neck to 6 inches lower, but the head entrance wound ossicilates from the location of the eop to the cowlick. It,s a total mess, and add that to the fact at the ARRB revealed that not only did virtually all the eyewitnesses at Parkland say Kennedy had a massive gaping wound in the back of his head, but virtually all the eyewitnesses at Bethesda say the same thing.

No fragments could have lodged themselves in Connally's leg without going through Connally.

Is this the Magic Fragment theory? Somehow a fragment from the Kill Shot twists around in the air, dodging Connally's body, then drops down into his thigh? The bullet also glanced off Connally's forearm, which was in his lap, below the edge of the car door, and close to his Chest. Put your arm in your lap and explain how a fragment could shatter your wrist from directly behind you without hitting your back.

Again, the single bullet theory is the only available explanation for all of the evidence.

It should also be pointed out that the confusion over where the bullet entered Kennedy's back is 100% the result of comparing the wounds on the body with the bullet-hole in his jacket, which was bunched up. Lift up your arms and notice what happens to the back of your shirt.

[riptowtan]

Problem: there was no bullet in Governor Connolley's thigh. There were bullet fragments in his thigh, but these could just as easily come from the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head and fragmented into dozens of pieces. But, I think you're quite right, there's little doubt in my mind that shots came from the rear, kennedy's back wound proves that. Unfortunately several important things were not sone properly either through accident or design. Connolley's clothes were immediately sent off to be laundered, the limousine was cleaned before it could be properly examined, Kennedy's brain was never sectioned to track the path of the bullet and probably worse of all, the autopsy, which initially didn't even notice the neck wound, never properly established whether that wound was connected to the back wound. Indeed the FBI thought right up until the Tague revelation that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy appeared to show. This is probably the worst aspect of the entire Kennedy assassination for me, the autopsy is just a total mess. From the autopsy, through the at least 3 official investigations into the autopsy, the wounds change shape and position every time. Not just the back wound, which ossicilates from been at the base of the neck to 6 inches lower, but the head entrance wound ossicilates from the location of the eop to the cowlick. It,s a total mess, and add that to the fact at the ARRB revealed that not only did virtually all the eyewitnesses at Parkland say Kennedy had a massive gaping wound in the back of his head, but virtually all the eyewitnesses at Bethesda say the same thing.
So we have multiple claims here.
Claim #1: The wounds and position change every time.
The Warren Commission's drawings were done without reference to any autopsy photo.
Here are some pictures of the wounds. By looking at the frames from the Zapruder film, you can see that the whole "back of the head wound" is garbage.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixetal.htm

Claim #2: Virtually all the eyewitnesses at Bethesda say Kennedy had a gaping wound in the back of his head

Give some examples or a source.
In McAdam's anaylsis of these so-called "eyewitnesses" he shows that either they were not in a position to see the back of his head or have been taken out of context by conspiracy theorists.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#witnesses

[riptowtan]

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence"
-Vincent Bugliosi

[Soily]

No fragments could have lodged themselves in Connally's leg without going through Connally.

Is this the Magic Fragment theory? Somehow a fragment from the Kill Shot twists around in the air, dodging Connally's body, then drops down into his thigh?

Connolly was almost flat on his back against his wife during the headshot. The fact remains there was no bullet in Connolly's thigh. It certainly wasn't the bullet found at parkland.

[TraneWreck]

Connolly was almost flat on his back against his wife during the headshot. The fact remains there was no bullet in Connolly's thigh. It certainly wasn't the bullet found at parkland.

I just watched the video again, you're right about his position, but...you think this helps your case?

Why was he leaning back?

I still can't imagine how you're getting extra bullets out of this:

1) The miss.

2) Kennedy is hit, at the same time Connally is hit and recoils. Where and how do you think Connally was hit by this bullet? It's just coincidence that they react at the same time and their wounds line up in a straight line?

3) Kill shot. Clearly from behind. This is when you claim Connally's wrist and thigh are hit. Ok. This still fully supports the notion that Lee Harvey was the lone shooter.

Maybe I don't understand your perspective on this, but you're dismissing the single bullet theory only in so far as it explains Connally's wrist and thigh injuries. How do you explain the injuries to Connally's torso and why was he laying on his wife's lap?

Edit: and by the way, I'm not agreeing with you that there was no bullet in Connally. They found it on his gurney. I'm just granting your claim for the sake of argument to point out that a single bullet is still the only rational explanation.

Remember, you need to explain ALL the available evidence, not just some of it.

[riptowtan]

Soily, do you think a bullet passed through Kennedy's back exiting his throat? If so, where do you think that bullet went?

[Soily]

Weston Frazier, who would have been the best person to ask, said he brought in a bag that day and that instead of walking in with him, he walked ahead of him into the building.

" Wes Frazier was one of Oswald's co-workers and since the Paine residence, where Marina Oswald was staying, was near Randle's house, Oswald would ride with Frazier to Irving every Friday night and the back to Dallas on Monday morning. The morning before the assassination, Oswald asked Frazier if he could have a ride to Irving to pick up curtain rods from the Paine's for his room in Dallas (2H222). Frazier said he could. The next morning as Oswald walked over to Randle's house, Randle happened to be looking out her window and saw Oswald carrying a heavy package (2H251). Frazier also saw the package in his back seat on their way to work. He asked Oswald what was in the package and Oswald said it was the curtain rods (CE 2009). When questioned later about the length of the package, both Frazier and Randle testified that is about 27 inches long while the longest part of the rifle when disassembled is 34.8 inches (CE 2009, 2H250, 3H395).

While Frazier testified the bag was only 24 inches long, give or take several inches, he made it clear he was very unsure about the length of the bag and constantly mentioned that he "didn't pay too much attention" (2H226-7, 240). "

"Randle drove over to the Paine house while police were there on the afternoon of November 22. Detective Stovall testified that she told him "that her brother had taken Oswald to work that morning and she said that she had seen him put some kind of a package in the back seat of her brother's car. She told us it could have been a rifle is what she said" (7H192 — emphasis added). She also stated on the day of the assassination that the bag was "approximately 3 feet by 6 inches" (Commission Document 5, p. 320). "

"It is also interesting to note that Mr. Raymond Krystinik, a friend of Michael Paine, testified that Michael, who saw the blanket that contained the rifle in his garage, moved the rifle several times, and stepped over it constantly, thought the blanket was only 27 inches shortly after the assassination (9H475-6, 437). When Mr. Paine testified, he stated that he thought the blanket contained 30 inch camping rods (9H437 and 2H415). When asked if he thought the blanket was 30 inches in length, he replied in the negative and held up his hands to indicate how long he thought the blanket was, which was measured as 37 1/2 inches (2H415 and 9H438). "

"When questioned by police officers after his arrest, Oswald told them that he did not bring a long bag to work and the only thing he brought to work was a bag lunch (4H217-8). Frazier testified that Oswald did not bring a lunch to work the day of the assassination. He even asked Oswald where his lunch was, since Oswald always brought a lunch, and Oswald told him he was going to buy his lunch that day (2H228). Oswald lied about the lunch bag when there was little reason to do so. Oswald lied about bringing a long package, even when the police officers suggested it contained curtain rods (7H305, 4H218). "
Obviously Oswald was lying about the bag. Everything else completely contradicts what he has alleged including the findings of his fingerprints and palm prints on the bag. The reason why conspiracy theorists make such a big deal out of the bag is because with it, everything becomes so obvious. The bag obviously contained his rifle which would explain why people saw him shooting the president in the sixth floor, the fact that his rifle was on the 6th floor, all of the fingerprint evidence and the eyewitnesses who heard the shots fired from the floor below. The totality of the evidence makes any of the so-called anomalies worthless. If you probe any murder case close enough you will find the same kinds of inconsistencies, and anomalies. The question is, are there really these tiny inconsistencies or are people just connecting imaginary dots? If Oswald was innocent you would expect there to be no evidence of his involvement. Every now and then one or two pieces of evidence could be pointed in the direction of an innocent man, but name one other case where 53 pieces of evidence have been connected to an innocent man? Oswald was guilty. Case Closed.
So its going to be the Bugliosi tactic of trying to win the argument purely through length is it, aware that few people will have the time to counter his seemingly endless list of rhetoric arguing tricks. Some random observations on that collection of cack.

Who saw Oswald firing from the 6th floor? The fact that you (or bugliosi which is where you seem to get everything from seemingly unable to check anything out for yourself) need to make stuff up like that indicates you are not an entirely unbiased commentator here. You can't place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting at all, and indeed the totality of the witnesses in the TSBD point to the impossibility of Oswald been on the 6th floor. Indeed Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor until 12:20 eating his lunch. So oswald would have had to sneak up there and set up his snipers nest in under 10 minutes. Unfortunetly there's a huge problem, the motorcade that day was 5 minutes late, something Oswald could not have known. Jack Dougherty was working on the 5 and 6th floor during the assassination, between the elevator and the stairs, yet the escaping Oswald never ran past him, unless he was also invisible. Marion Baker saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom no more than 90 seconds after the shooting, looking calm and not out of breath. The rifle and the bag were both dusted for prints on the 22nd, nothing was found. It was only days later, after Oswalds death that Oswald prints were found on these items. Bugliosi makes a big play about Oswald going to se Marina on a Thursday, as if this was massively out of his routine. Except the weekend arrangement had only been going a few weeks, there was no pattern to break. And if he had this huge paper bag with him, which he must have had, how come no one else ever saw it? Where was it, down his trousers? Linnie Mae Randall simply could not have seen Oswald from where she was stood, so her assertion that he put something that could have been a rifle seem more like mischief and gossip more than anything else. Her mum was the one who actually saw Oswald approach the house that day and she mentioned no bag. Something that is rarely pointed out - Wes Frazier was arrested on the 22nd on suspicion of been involved in the murder of Kennedy. An Enfield rifle was found at his house. He was subjected to a reportedly terrifying midnight polygraph test that left him hysterical. Frazier is the only source for the curtain rod story, nobody else in the world ever said it, it all comes from him. Frazier was very specific about how Oswald held the package as he saw him walk towards the TSBD, and it simply could not have been long enough to hold a rifle however unsure Bugliosi claims he was in his estimate of the size. Of course Bugliosi and his disciples love the paper bag, because its the only thing they have linking Oswald with the rifle that day. Unfortunetly it can be challegened every step of the way. And despite the fact Bugliosi's book is ten billion pages long (and indeed of the 12 people that actually bought it, only about 3 ever read it al) he still can't find room for the fact that sometime before the 22nd someone tried to post Oswald a paper bag like the one found in the TSBD.

[RoboTimbo]

How did Oswald's rifle get out of the house where Oswald kept it wrapped in a blanket?

[Soily]

I just watched the video again, you're right about his position, but...you think this helps your case?

Why was he leaning back?

I still can't imagine how you're getting extra bullets out of this:

1) The miss.

2) Kennedy is hit, at the same time Connally is hit and recoils. Where and how do you think Connally was hit by this bullet? It's just coincidence that they react at the same time and their wounds line up in a straight line?

3) Kill shot. Clearly from behind. This is when you claim Connally's wrist and thigh are hit. Ok. This still fully supports the notion that Lee Harvey was the lone shooter.

Maybe I don't understand your perspective on this, but you're dismissing the single bullet theory only in so far as it explains Connally's wrist and thigh injuries. How do you explain the injuries to Connally's torso and why was he laying on his wife's lap?

Edit: and by the way, I'm not agreeing with you that there was no bullet in Connally. They found it on his gurney. I'm just granting your claim for the sake of argument to point out that a single bullet is still the only rational explanation.

Remember, you need to explain ALL the available evidence, not just some of it.

This is pure rorschach stuff. I don't see Connolley reacting at the same time as Kennedy at all, it appears much later to me. Everyone sees something different in that film because it's a grainy, low resolution blurry mess and its impossible to discern with even the slightest accuracy what's happening, aside from frame 313. Buggy loves to play where's the bullet here, as if that proves a anything in a case that already has at least 2 other missing bullets ('tague', 'tippit') indeed in the Tague case, the missed shot is so completely improbable that it's far more likely to be a fragment from the 313 shot, which is actually far closer to the right trajectory to hit tague. Bulgiosi has the first tague shot at 160' which is actually before Kennedy goes under the tree, making any fantasy bullet deflection from a branch impossible. So you have to explain how Oswald missed on his first and best shot by such an astonishingly large distance, and how that bullet then vanished. It's also worth pointing out that the hsca concluding from the abrasion collar that the back wound was at an upward angle of around 11 degrees, making - 6th floor window shot even more unlikely without having Kennedy leaning forward tying his show laces at te time, something he never is in the zapruder film. Dale myers rammed a square beg into a round hole, but that magic bullet trajectory just does not add up unless you have a shooter in the daltex. It's a house of cards and there simply isn't enough evidence to be certain about any of this, and as I said before the FBI, John connolly and his wife were all certain pre WC that him and Kennedy were struck by separate bullets, and that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy seemed to show. The back and neck wound were never shown to be connected. That was the FBi report delievred to the WC and this would be the scenario you and bugliosi would be parroting as the absolute truth now and dale myers would be 'proving' it with cgi cartoons. Except james tague took a dump in the punchbowl and forced specter to get imaginative.

[riptowtan]

So its going to be the Bugliosi tactic of trying to win the argument purely through length is it, aware that few people will have the time to counter his seemingly endless list of rhetoric arguing tricks. Some random observations on that collection of cack.

Who saw Oswald firing from the 6th floor? The fact that you (or bugliosi which is where you seem to get everything from seemingly unable to check anything out for yourself) need to make stuff up like that indicates you are not an entirely unbiased commentator here. You can't place Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting at all, and indeed the totality of the witnesses in the TSBD point to the impossibility of Oswald been on the 6th floor. Indeed Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor until 12:20 eating his lunch. So oswald would have had to sneak up there and set up his snipers nest in under 10 minutes. Unfortunetly there's a huge problem, the motorcade that day was 5 minutes late, something Oswald could not have known. Jack Dougherty was working on the 5 and 6th floor during the assassination, between the elevator and the stairs, yet the escaping Oswald never ran past him, unless he was also invisible. Marion Baker saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom no more than 90 seconds after the shooting, looking calm and not out of breath. The rifle and the bag were both dusted for prints on the 22nd, nothing was found. It was only days later, after Oswalds death that Oswald prints were found on these items. Bugliosi makes a big play about Oswald going to se Marina on a Thursday, as if this was massively out of his routine. Except the weekend arrangement had only been going a few weeks, there was no pattern to break. And if he had this huge paper bag with him, which he must have had, how come no one else ever saw it? Where was it, down his trousers? Linnie Mae Randall simply could not have seen Oswald from where she was stood, so her assertion that he put something that could have been a rifle seem more like mischief and gossip more than anything else. Her mum was the one who actually saw Oswald approach the house that day and she mentioned no bag. Something that is rarely pointed out - Wes Frazier was arrested on the 22nd on suspicion of been involved in the murder of Kennedy. An Enfield rifle was found at his house. He was subjected to a reportedly terrifying midnight polygraph test that left him hysterical. Frazier is the only source for the curtain rod story, nobody else in the world ever said it, it all comes from him. Frazier was very specific about how Oswald held the package as he saw him walk towards the TSBD, and it simply could not have been long enough to hold a rifle however unsure Bugliosi claims he was in his estimate of the size. Of course Bugliosi and his disciples love the paper bag, because its the only thing they have linking Oswald with the rifle that day. Unfortunetly it can be challegened every step of the way. And despite the fact Bugliosi's book is ten billion pages long (and indeed of the 12 people that actually bought it, only about 3 ever read it al) he still can't find room for the fact that sometime before the 22nd someone tried to post Oswald a paper bag like the one found in the TSBD.

I didn't make anything up. A police officer named Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle right after the second shot was fired. There were other witnesses who saw Oswald sitting up in the window with his rifle thinking he was with the secret service. During the Sunday interrogation Oswald actually slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. (The only one)
Bonnie Ray Williams was on the fifth floor during the time of the shooting and heard the shots coming from right above. He had lunch around 12, but left around 12:12. How do you think Frazier got everything so wrong. He said Oswald didn't bring a lunch for the first time, and that he brought in a long paper bag containing curtain rods. These are specific details that fit all of the other evidence. To take the word of Oswald over Frazier is silly.

[TraneWreck]

This is pure rorschach stuff. I don't see Connolley reacting at the same time as Kennedy at all, it appears much later to me. Everyone sees something different in that film because it's a grainy, low resolution blurry mess and its impossible to discern with even the slightest accuracy what's happening, aside from frame 313. Buggy loves to play where's the bullet here, as if that proves a anything in a case that already has at least 2 other missing bullets ('tague', 'tippit') indeed in the Tague case, the missed shot is so completely improbable that it's far more likely to be a fragment from the 313 shot, which is actually far closer to the right trajectory to hit tague. Bulgiosi has the first tague shot at 160' which is actually before Kennedy goes under the tree, making any fantasy bullet deflection from a branch impossible. So you have to explain how Oswald missed on his first and best shot by such an astonishingly large distance, and how that bullet then vanished. It's also worth pointing out that the hsca concluding from the abrasion collar that the back wound was at an upward angle of around 11 degrees, making - 6th floor window shot even more unlikely without having Kennedy leaning forward tying his show laces at te time, something he never is in the zapruder film. Dale myers rammed a square beg into a round hole, but that magic bullet trajectory just does not add up unless you have a shooter in the daltex. It's a house of cards and there simply isn't enough evidence to be certain about any of this, and as I said before the FBI, John connolly and his wife were all certain pre WC that him and Kennedy were struck by separate bullets, and that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy seemed to show. The back and neck wound were never shown to be connected. That was the FBi report delievred to the WC and this would be the scenario you and bugliosi would be parroting as the absolute truth now and dale myers would be 'proving' it with cgi cartoons. Except james tague took a dump in the punchbowl and forced specter to get imaginative.

This is just wholesale nonsense.

The trajectory is fine. It has to be remembered that there are certain details that are impossible to replicate such Kennedy's exact posture under his clothes and what the bullet hit inside peoples' bodies that could slightly alter the path.

Once again, the wounds simply cannot be explained by a bullet coming from any other direction. The head shot was clearly from behind, Kennedy and Connally react almost simultaneously. You can even see Connally's jacket flap out as the bullet exits his body.

There just isn't another plausible explanation, as you've demonstrated.

[riptowtan]

This is pure rorschach stuff. I don't see Connolley reacting at the same time as Kennedy at all, it appears much later to me. Everyone sees something different in that film because it's a grainy, low resolution blurry mess and its impossible to discern with even the slightest accuracy what's happening, aside from frame 313.
http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/137b.+ZAPRUDER+FILM+Z225-Z226+CLIP?gda=WTh5MFwAAABJPd41iw6FFGKEXXGXfN8WRCWR eU6iP217t5hZPyCgDLeN477Ep8qi3pxe7TTjf9r3w2VdTWGf5H OASCZwyiPVsC4Wz00ORzWxGjHHuhecvv1ab5qObNWgAVSUTtz9 8C0

Buggy loves to play where's the bullet here, as if that proves a anything in a case that already has at least 2 other missing bullets ('tague', 'tippit') indeed in the Tague case, the missed shot is so completely improbable that it's far more likely to be a fragment from the 313 shot, which is actually far closer to the right trajectory to hit tague. Bulgiosi has the first tague shot at 160' which is actually before Kennedy goes under the tree, making any fantasy bullet deflection from a branch impossible. So you have to explain how Oswald missed on his first and best shot by such an astonishingly large distance, and how that bullet then vanished.
The reason why you say it was impossible for the bullet to deflect off the tree branch is because this would explain why the first shot missed. Cognitive closure seen in full effect. Other factors include that Oswald may have been nervous at first causing him to jerk the gun.

It's also worth pointing out that the hsca concluding from the abrasion collar that the back wound was at an upward angle of around 11 degrees, making - 6th floor window shot even more unlikely without having Kennedy leaning forward tying his show laces at te time, something he never is in the zapruder film. Dale myers rammed a square beg into a round hole, but that magic bullet trajectory just does not add up unless you have a shooter in the daltex.
If you take the 11 degrees upward claim and follow it to its reductio ad absurdum, that puts the gunman lying down on the pavement in the middle of the street. We know that that didn't happen. This is resolved when you realize that it was a downward angle of 11 degrees!

It's a house of cards and there simply isn't enough evidence to be certain about any of this, and as I said before the FBI, John connolly and his wife were all certain pre WC that him and Kennedy were struck by separate bullets, and that the back wound was shallow because that's what the autopsy seemed to show. The back and neck wound were never shown to be connected. That was the FBi report delievred to the WC and this would be the scenario you and bugliosi would be parroting as the absolute truth now and dale myers would be 'proving' it with cgi cartoons. Except james tague took a dump in the punchbowl and forced specter to get imaginative.

You are the one with the house of cards. You can hunt for anomalies all you like. After 44 years, the warren commission critics haven't come up with anything convincing. The back and neck wounds are clearly connected. There was no bullet found in Kennedy's back, and the throat wound matches a trajectory from the 6th floor. How would Kennedy get shot from the front? Did the bullet jump over the front of the car and then Connally? And once you understand that those are connected, it follows that the bullet then traveled into Connally, for that was the only place for it to go. I don't understand how you can keep ignoring all of the clear evidence. Sometimes a little bit of logic does the trick. This is a really simple case. If you have 50+ pieces of evidence pointing towards someone, it is really a no brainer.

[RoboTimbo]

So you have to explain how Oswald missed on his first and best shot by such an astonishingly large distance, and how that bullet then vanished.

Remember how he missed General Walker?

[Soily]

I didn't make anything up. A police officer named Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window holding his rifle right after the second shot was fired. There were other witnesses who saw Oswald sitting up in the window with his rifle thinking he was with the secret service. During the Sunday interrogation Oswald actually slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. (The only one)
Bonnie Ray Williams was on the fifth floor during the time of the shooting and heard the shots coming from right above. He had lunch around 12, but left around 12:12. How do you think Frazier got everything so wrong. He said Oswald didn't bring a lunch for the first time, and that he brought in a long paper bag containing curtain rods. These are specific details that fit all of the other evidence. To take the word of Oswald over Frazier is silly.

Hahaha! You're joking right? Brennan! A steam fitter not a policeman by the way.

Remington begins his first chapter with the unwise words of Gerald Ford in Life magazine of 10/2/64. With a mixture of laughter and tears, the reader will recall that Ford described Howard Brennan like this: "The most important witness to appear before the Warren Commission in the 10 months we sat was a neat, Bible-reading steam fitter from Dallas. His name was H. L. Brennan, and he had seen Lee Harvey Oswald thrust a rifle from a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and shoot the President of the United States." (Remington, p. 22)

Immediately afterwards, the author shows just how biased Ford must have been to write this. For Brennan told assistant counsel David Belin, "Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot." (ibid)

In his discussion of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, Remington points out that this is very hard to believe since it would necessitate a bullet going through a glass window. (Remington, p. 352; see also Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 83) Further, the author shows that, during his visit to Dallas for reconstruction purposes, Belin almost certainly falsified the positioning of Brennan in CE 477. Belin placed him on the wrong ledge of a retaining wall and facing the wrong street. As Rodger points out, the Zapruder frames featured on the cover of Reclaiming History show that Belin was wrong in this. Yet Bugliosi fails to point this out. (ibid, Remington)

The author points out something else worth noting about this curious witness that Ford was so enamored with. Brennan admitted that he didn't see the first shot. He actually thought it was a firecracker. But he also admitted that he did not see the rifle explode for the second and third shots either. (WC Vol. III, p. 154) The author deduces that if we are to take this seriously, then Brennan must have been jerking his head back and forth between Kennedy being killed and the shooter in the TSBD – and with miraculous speed and anticipation. In reality, Brennan is not to be taken seriously. As Rodger writes, given these qualifications, "...there is absolutely no factual basis for identifying Howard Brennan as an eyewitness to the shooting..." (pgs. 35-36) Amen.

But I should add, there may be a reason that Brennan said what he did, in the way he did. As attorney Bob Tanenbaum has stated, if one goes with the Commission's version of the so-called sniper's nest, Brennan's testimony is weird. He is supposed to be the source of the original description of the assassin's height and weight. But as Tanenbaum notes: If Oswald was kneeling down behind that stack of boxes, how could Brennan have determined his clothing color, height and weight? (WC Vol. III p. 144) This may be why Brennan depicted him standing. But, if that was so, then why did he build the "sniper's nest"? (It is true that Brennan also said he saw the man before the shooting, but then he said he was sitting on the sill. He later seemed to contradict himself by saying he did not see the window until after the first shot. WC Vol. III, pgs. 144, 154)

And Bonnie Ray Williams said 12:20. But even been generous, that still leaves Oswald with just over 10 minutes to sneak up there, assemble the rifle, build the snipers nest and get himself into position. Laughable.

[riptowtan]

Hahaha! You're joking right? Brennan! A steam fitter not a policeman by the way.



And Bonnie Ray Williams said 12:20. But even been generous, that still leaves Oswald with just over 10 minutes to sneak up there, assemble the rifle, build the snipers nest and get himself into position. Laughable.
My mistake, you're right about Brennan's occupation, but I don't see why this makes him less credible of a witness. He did see Oswald and later identified him. His description was a young white male around 5'10 even before seeing Oswald after his arrest. You fail to address the three men who heard the shots fired from above, and the other witnesses who saw Oswald with the rifle just before the assassination.

"Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. "

Even if William's testimony was correct,Who is to say that he didn't set up the sniper's nest earlier? Oswald could have done all of that in 10 minutes without a problem. It only takes 2-3 minutes to assemble the gun, and a minute to set up the sniper's nest. It would be foolish for Oswald to have everything set up way in advance. Others could have seen the assembled rifle. Since there was undoubtedly three shots fired from the 6th floor, with no one else seeing Oswald at the time of the assassination, it is obvious that that's who was firing the shots. This would it explain why he was the only one who left the depository, why he didn't fill out one order on his clipboard, why he left his wedding ring and 170$ cash for Marina, why he later grabbed his pistol and shot Tippit, and why after he was arrested raised his fist in the air for victory. Just the kind of thing you would expect if the man was innocent..

[Meadmaker]

It's also worth pointing out that the hsca concluding from the abrasion collar that the back wound was at an upward angle of around 11 degrees, making - 6th floor window shot even more unlikely without having Kennedy leaning forward tying his show laces at te time, something he never is in the zapruder film.

It's also worth pointing out that the HSCA concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at the limousine, two of which struck President Kennedy. They also concluded that no other shooter hit President Kennedy, the vehicle, or any other occupant.

[Soily]

It's also worth pointing out that the HSCA concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at the limousine, two of which struck President Kennedy. They also concluded that no other shooter hit President Kennedy, the vehicle, or any other occupant.

It's also worth pointing out the HSCA ignore loads of their own evidence, such as their conclusion that the boxes in the snipers nest were moved by someone sometime between the last shot and approximately 2 minutes later, when an invisible Oswald was springing unseen by people in his path down the stairs on the way to his meeting with Baker no more than 90 seconds later. The HSCA also concluded Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy, a result they came to on the basis of more than just the acoustic evidence. Sprague, Blakey, and Billings all believed in a conspiracy.

[Soily]

My mistake, you're right about Brennan's occupation, but I don't see why this makes him less credible of a witness. He did see Oswald and later identified him. His description was a young white male around 5'10 even before seeing Oswald after his arrest. You fail to address the three men who heard the shots fired from above, and the other witnesses who saw Oswald with the rifle just before the assassination.

"Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. "

Even if William's testimony was correct,Who is to say that he didn't set up the sniper's nest earlier? Oswald could have done all of that in 10 minutes without a problem. It only takes 2-3 minutes to assemble the gun, and a minute to set up the sniper's nest. It would be foolish for Oswald to have everything set up way in advance. Others could have seen the assembled rifle. Since there was undoubtedly three shots fired from the 6th floor, with no one else seeing Oswald at the time of the assassination, it is obvious that that's who was firing the shots. This would it explain why he was the only one who left the depository, why he didn't fill out one order on his clipboard, why he left his wedding ring and 170$ cash for Marina, why he later grabbed his pistol and shot Tippit, and why after he was arrested raised his fist in the air for victory. Just the kind of thing you would expect if the man was innocent..

Haha unbelievable stuff. Why do you feel the need to lie? Raised his fist in victory indeed. He did that and then vehemenly protested his innocence even when he was dying did he? His MO in the walker shooting was supposedly to write everything down, maps, plans, photos, mea cupla, then confess to it afterwards. Yet this time he absolutely denied any involvement even on his dead bed. Weird. Bugliosi loves his wedding ring factoid, conveniently forgetting Oswald also left his wallet too, a fact that could just as easily square with someone in a rush and forgetting them. Bulgiosi of course doesn't like to talk about the wallet Oswald left on the dresser because when Oswald was arrested the police found his wallet on him.


And the fact you rely on Brennan so much show how desperate your are. He's a total clown:

My first instinct was to look back up to that man on the sixth floor. "Was he going to fire again?" I wondered. By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do. He seemed pleased that no one had realized where the shots were coming from. Then he did something that puzzled me. Very slowly and deliberatley he set the rifle on its butt and just stayed there for a moment to savor what he had done, like a hunter who had "bagged his buck." Then, with no sense of haste, he simply moved slowly away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision.

Haha! Love the numerous made up details like the smirk. I'm surprised he didn't stop to do an evil cackle like Skeletor too. And you think this clown is a reliable witness. A man who kept changing his story, a man who describes things that are impossible, such as the height of the killer because he was stood up, which Oswald wasn't. A man who couldn't pick Oswald out of a lineup and later lied about this saying he was scared he was the target of a communist plot. Pathetic.

[Meadmaker]

It's also worth pointing out the HSCA ignore loads of their own evidence, such as their conclusion that the boxes in the snipers nest were moved by someone sometime between the last shot and approximately 2 minutes later, when an invisible Oswald was springing unseen by people in his path down the stairs on the way to his meeting with Baker no more than 90 seconds later. The HSCA also concluded Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy, a result they came to on the basis of more than just the acoustic evidence. Sprague, Blakey, and Billings all believed in a conspiracy.

Well, they were a pretty pathetic bunch, and their conclusions were indeed laughable. I wouldn't put much stock in much of what came out of that committee, but since you were citing a portion of their conclusion regarding the bullet wounds, I figured it was relevant to note that their conclusion about that wound was that it was caused by a bullet from Lee Oswald's rifle, as were all of the wounds on everyone in that car.

[dafydd]

It's also worth pointing out the HSCA ignore loads of their own evidence, such as their conclusion that the boxes in the snipers nest were moved by someone sometime between the last shot and approximately 2 minutes later, when an invisible Oswald was springing unseen by people in his path down the stairs on the way to his meeting with Baker no more than 90 seconds later. The HSCA also concluded Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy, a result they came to on the basis of more than just the acoustic evidence. Sprague, Blakey, and Billings all believed in a conspiracy.

Why do you need to believe in a conspiracy? Is your life really that boring?

[Soily]

Bugliosi, which is where you're getting most of this from is very attached to little factoids of his own, that he repeatedly uses to embroider his tendentious prosecutors case. But like most of what Bulgiosi says, a cursory poke and it all falls apart.

The rifle in the Paines garage.
Ruth Paine (and Michael) was an avowed pacifist who would not allow guns in her home or her garage, as she testified. She didn't know anything about this supposed rifle in the garage. The rifle wrapped in a soft blanket was loaded and unloaded by Ruth and Michael Paine from their car when they transported the Oswald's possessions, yet neither of them noticed any rifle. The rifle was in their garage wrapped in a blanket and neither of them noticed. Michael Paine even said he'd seen the backyard photos pre-assassination, yet he loads and unloads the rifle wrapped in a blanket from the back of the Paine's car and doesn't notice. Michael Paine in particular also lied about the Minox spy camera found by the Dallas police so his trustworthiness is already highly suspect. No evidence the blanket ever contained a rifle was found, and the alleged shirt and blanket fibre evidence is null and void anyway because all the Oswald evidence was stored together by the DP, and even spread out on the floor together and photographed, as shown in Jesse Curry's book (a scan of which i think i have at home so i'll post it later) . Nobody that Thursday saw Oswald with a large piece of packing paper and some tape, where was it? Nobody in that small house saw or heard him make the bag or go to the garage and get his rifle and put it in the bag.

Further more, no ammo, ammo boxes, rifle cleaning equipment or any other paraphernalia was ever found. Instead we are to believe Oswald owned a rifle and 4 bullets. Nobody who knew one rifle from another had ever seen Lee in possession of it, nobody ever saw him shoot it. There's no evidence that Oswald had practiced firing a rifle at all in nearly 5 years.

The reality is there is absolutely no evidence that rifle was ever in that bag.

Lee visited his wife at the Paines the previous evening, conflicting with his usual routine.
The arrangement hadn't been going on long enough for there to be a routine and Oswald had only been working at the TSBD for a few weeks. And what Bugliosis doesn't mention is the fact that Ruth Paine was the one who actually changed her routine, because she was planning to have a child's birthday party at her house on Saturday, as likely an explanation was that Lee wanted to spend a bit of time with his wife and kid without having a house full of screaming kids on Saturday morning.

The 3 amigos on floor five heard shells landed on the floor and the bolt action of the rifle.
Bugliosi loves this one. Sadly its nonsense. Of the 3 men, only Norman ever mentioned the falling of the shells or the sound of the bolt action. Unfortunately, his first and most contemporary statement makes no mention of any of this, these details only getting mysteriously inserted into the story in interviews later on:

Some of the testimony has been challenged in the past by critics of the Warren Commission but no one has demonstrated how much these stories have in common, nor examined the implications of the extraordinary parallels. In each instance these witnesses first gave totally different testimony to the FBI; in each instance their testimony changed the first week in December; in each instance the new story surfaced during interviews conducted by the same three Secret Service agents; in each instance the story influenced the Warren Commission's interpretation of the events of November 22; and finally, all three stories were important enough to be included in the Commission's one-volume Report. And the parallels do not end there. None of these stories holds up under close scrutiny. A review of the evidence casts serious doubt on their credibility and suggests that all of them evolved days after the assassination in order to support a particular interpretation of certain evidence, an interpretation which is inconsistent with the real facts.

During that interview, Norman made no mention of hearing the shells and the bolt action of the rifle. He told the FBI that after the first shot:

... he stuck his head from the window and looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him. He stated two additional shots were fired after he had pulled his head back in from the window.[2]

This is Norman's earliest, most credible statement and there are no falling shells here only falling "particles of dirt" which struck Norman when he stuck his head out the window. This original version is buttressed by testimony from two other sources.

Norman's allegation that he heard the shells hit the floor and the bolt action of the rifle surfaced in toto in SS491. Twelve days after the assassination and eight days after his interview by the FBI, Norman's startling disclosure made its belated appearance.

Missing entirely from this new version is the description of Norman putting his head out the window and looking up toward the roof, a gesture which was witnessed by at least four people. Norman permanently eliminated this event from this testimony at this point. Also, the particles of dirt, which he told the FBI fell outside the building and prevented him from seeing anything when he looked up, are changed in this version to "some dust." This dust fell "from the ceiling" inside the building and the intended implication appears to be that it was dislodged by the shells hitting the floor of the sniper's nest.

This then is Norman's new story. Not only are the sounds of the gunman added for the first time, but one part of his earlier statement to the FBI is excised and another part altered to accommodate the new information. This new story transformed Norman from an inconsequential witness to one of major importance who provided firsthand evidence linking the shots that were fired at 12:30 to the hulls that were found on the sixth floor 40 minutes later. This important information became the focus of his interview three months later before the Warren Commission

http://mysite.verizon.net/respxxbt/dukelane/ss491.htm

Unique serial number on rifle
Nope, thats a LN factoid that doesn't get challenged often enough. The serial numbers were not unique. Of the several million Carcanos knocking about at that time, we already know without searching that there were 2 others with the same serial number. Michael Lattimer had one which he used to try and recreate the shooting in his book kenendy and Lincoln, and Klein's had one in 1962 and one in 1963 (the one Oswald allegedly ordered).


Some more information on the Norman, Williams, Jarman story here, which is yet more evidence to the growing mountain that shows Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

Junior Jarman and Hank Norman did not begin their walk to the fifth floor until they'd heard - either over a police radio or through the buzz of the crowd after someone else had heard it - that the motorcade was on Main Street. This was mentioned on Channel 2 two times, once at 12:22 and again at either 12:26 or 12:27, but the earliest time 12:22.

They walked from the front of the building, up Houston Street and entered the building, first noting that the passenger elevator was not in its first-floor stop, then walking around to the freight elevator, which they rode up to, according to their testimony, the fifth floor. There was nobody else on that floor as they made their way to the front windows. This walk and elevator ride - the latter at one floor every six seconds, or 24 seconds total - could have taken as little as a minute and a half, possibly a little shorter or longer.

Bonnie Ray Williams had been on the sixth floor, claimed that he'd heard footsteps or something below him, and rode the passenger elevator - that he'd taken up during the lunch hour - down to the fifth floor, where he joined his compatriots at the front windows. Only Hank Norman equivocated about whether Bonnie Ray was there when he and Junior had gotten there or if he joined them later; the other two agreed he joined the two of them later.

Also on both the fifth and sixth floors, "getting stock," was "great big husky fellow" Jack Dougherty, whom none of the three claimed to have seen.

If Bonnie Ray ate his lunch where he said he did and where remnants were later found, there is no way anyone could have been in the southeast corner without being seen or heard by him: anyone who's stood at the end of the next set of windows from the "sniper's nest" exhibit on the sixth floor would agree.

If anyone planned on shooting at Kennedy, they'd have had to have been ready to do so no later than 12:25 when the motorcade was scheduled to arrive (five minutes before the 12:30 luncheon at the Trade Mart), and earlier in case the motorcade was ahead of schedule.

If Hank and Junior didn't start to go upstairs until after 12:22 and Bonnie Ray was upstairs until after the other two had arrived on the fifth floor, then Bonnie Ray was on the sixth floor even later than the latest he'd estimated (12:15), to within a minute or so before 12:25 or - if Hank and Junior didn't start up until after the 12:26/27 broadcast of the motorcade's being on Main Street, as late as 12:28 or even 12:29.

Either of those times being so, Bonnie Ray was on the sixth floor when whoever was setting up to shoot was there, and within 20 feet or less from him or them. That being so, if the shooter was Oswald, by the time Williams had much to say to anyone, Oswald was dead: what harm could there possibly be in identifying him as the shooter, eyewitnessed by someone who knew him?

When he heard what he thought was a "backfire," Jack Dougherty was standing "10 feet west of the west elevator," that is, right smack dab where the fleeing Oswald had to have run to get downstairs in time to meet Baker & Truly in the second floor lunch room. Dougherty remained there with the gate up until after Truly yelled up to "let that elevator loose" and began his ascent with Baker by stairs. If Oswald didn't run by - or even into - Jack Dougherty, then he didn't run down the stairs to the lunchroom.

There's more to the story, but this is sufficient to mark the main points: Williams didn't see Oswald and neither did Jack Dougherty, ergo Oswald wasn't there. If they saw anyone else, they didn't say ... and if they saw anyone other than Oswald, they may very well have had something to fear. But if Oswald had done what he supposedly did, then there'd have been no reason not to identify him.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779&st=15

[Fourbrick]

There is no 'if' about it. He killed officer JD Tippit with the same revolver that he was apprehended with in the theater. F


That's not what a neighbour said about the "people" who were involved in Tippitt's murder.. see the Aquila Clemens interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRToGPV4W7M

More about the two men seen at the murder scene later.

[RoboTimbo]

That's not what a neighbour said about the "people" who were involved in Tippitt's murder.. see the Aquila Clemens interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRToGPV4W7M

More about the two men seen at the murder scene later.

I don't do youtube. What does it say?

[SpitfireIX]

Further more, no ammo, ammo boxes, rifle cleaning equipment or any other paraphernalia was ever found.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=374706

Two empty boxes marked "6.5 Italian ammunition"


Unique serial number on rifle
Nope, thats a LN factoid that doesn't get challenged often enough. The serial numbers were not unique. Of the several million Carcanos knocking about at that time, we already know without searching that there were 2 others with the same serial number. Michael Lattimer had one which he used to try and recreate the shooting in his book kenendy and Lincoln, and Klein's had one in 1962 and one in 1963 (the one Oswald allegedly ordered).


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476

I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was a error...."..the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to correct it."

John Canal


As for the duplicate serial number in the gun seller's records, if you'd ever worked in any kind of business you would know that clerks misread, miswrite, and mistype numbers all the time. Considering that no one has ever produced credible evidence of any Carcanos with duplicate serial numbers, the most likely explanation is that someone miscopied another weapon's number.

[Fourbrick]

Robo. This is transcription of her interview except for the very beginning, which I find hard to understand.

"Q “ Did you know Officer Tippitt?”

A.C. "Yeh, I saw him.. many times”

Q "Did you hear the shots?

AC. “Yes, I heard the shots”

Q “What did you do?”

A.C. "I ran out into the street… and looked down the street. I ran down the street where he was lying, and I looked at him."

Q “ Now when you heard the shots, and you went out of the house, did you see a man with a gun?”

A.C. “Yes I did”

Q “What was he doing?”

A.C. “ Oh he was reloading.. I think he was reloading his gun.”

Q “And how would you describe that man?”

A.C.” He was kinda chunky.. He was kinda heavy. He wasn’t a big man”

Q “ Was he tall or short?”

A.C. “He was a kinda short guy”

Q “Short and heavy?”

A.C. “Yeh”

Q ”Was there any other man?”

A.C. "Yeh . One on the other side of the street…all I know, he throw him the gun.”

Q “Mrs Clemens.. the man who had the gun.. Did he make any motion at all to the other man across the street?”

A.C.”No more than throw him the gun”

Q “ And then what happened to the man with the gun?”

A.C. “He unloaded and reloaded.”

Q “And what did the other man do ?”

A.C. “He kept going straight down the street.”

Q “And then did they go in opposite directions?

A.C. "Yeh, they weren’t together, they went this way from each other . The one who did the shooting went this way [points right] and the other went this way down Pear (sp?) Street [points to her left] that way”

Q “What was the man who did not do the shooting, but the man who went in the other direction from the man who did the shooting.. What was he wearing if you remember?”

A.C. “ Well as far as I can remember, he was wearing a light jacket and a white shirt.”

Q “And was he tall or short?”

A.C. "He was tall”

Q “And was he heavy or thin?”

A.C. “He was thin”

Q “But the one who did the sh....the one who had the gun seconds after Tippitt was shot, he was short..”

A.C. "Yeh he was short and kinda heavy”

Q "Now, did you testify before the Warren Commission about this?”

A.C. “No, I never said a word to anyone”

Q “Did anyone come to see you after the murder of Officer Tippitt?”

A.C. “Yeh, There was man came. I didn’t know what he was. He came to my house and talked to me, but he looked like he was a policeman to me”

Q “ He did? Did he have a gun?”

A.C. “Yes. He wore a gun.”

Q “ Mrs Clemens, how long after Tippitt was shot, did this man with the gun come to visit you?”

A.C. “ About two day, about two days. Said that I might get hurt or someone might hurt me if I would talk.”

Q “About what you saw?”

A.C. [nodding] “What I saw. He just told me it might be best if I didn’t say anything, because I might get hurt.”

[riptowtan]

Bugliosi, which is where you're getting most of this from is very attached to little factoids of his own, that he repeatedly uses to embroider his tendentious prosecutors case. But like most of what Bulgiosi says, a cursory poke and it all falls apart.

The rifle in the Paines garage.
Ruth Paine (and Michael) was an avowed pacifist who would not allow guns in her home or her garage, as she testified. She didn't know anything about this supposed rifle in the garage. The rifle wrapped in a soft blanket was loaded and unloaded by Ruth and Michael Paine from their car when they transported the Oswald's possessions, yet neither of them noticed any rifle. The rifle was in their garage wrapped in a blanket and neither of them noticed. Michael Paine even said he'd seen the backyard photos pre-assassination, yet he loads and unloads the rifle wrapped in a blanket from the back of the Paine's car and doesn't notice. Michael Paine in particular also lied about the Minox spy camera found by the Dallas police so his trustworthiness is already highly suspect. No evidence the blanket ever contained a rifle was found, and the alleged shirt and blanket fibre evidence is null and void anyway because all the Oswald evidence was stored together by the DP, and even spread out on the floor together and photographed, as shown in Jesse Curry's book (a scan of which i think i have at home so i'll post it later) . Nobody that Thursday saw Oswald with a large piece of packing paper and some tape, where was it? Nobody in that small house saw or heard him make the bag or go to the garage and get his rifle and put it in the bag.

Further more, no ammo, ammo boxes, rifle cleaning equipment or any other paraphernalia was ever found. Instead we are to believe Oswald owned a rifle and 4 bullets. Nobody who knew one rifle from another had ever seen Lee in possession of it, nobody ever saw him shoot it. There's no evidence that Oswald had practiced firing a rifle at all in nearly 5 years.

The reality is there is absolutely no evidence that rifle was ever in that bag.

Lee visited his wife at the Paines the previous evening, conflicting with his usual routine.
The arrangement hadn't been going on long enough for there to be a routine and Oswald had only been working at the TSBD for a few weeks. And what Bugliosis doesn't mention is the fact that Ruth Paine was the one who actually changed her routine, because she was planning to have a child's birthday party at her house on Saturday, as likely an explanation was that Lee wanted to spend a bit of time with his wife and kid without having a house full of screaming kids on Saturday morning.

The 3 amigos on floor five heard shells landed on the floor and the bolt action of the rifle.
Bugliosi loves this one. Sadly its nonsense. Of the 3 men, only Norman ever mentioned the falling of the shells or the sound of the bolt action. Unfortunately, his first and most contemporary statement makes no mention of any of this, these details only getting mysteriously inserted into the story in interviews later on:








http://mysite.verizon.net/respxxbt/dukelane/ss491.htm

Unique serial number on rifle
Nope, thats a LN factoid that doesn't get challenged often enough. The serial numbers were not unique. Of the several million Carcanos knocking about at that time, we already know without searching that there were 2 others with the same serial number. Michael Lattimer had one which he used to try and recreate the shooting in his book kenendy and Lincoln, and Klein's had one in 1962 and one in 1963 (the one Oswald allegedly ordered).


Some more information on the Norman, Williams, Jarman story here, which is yet more evidence to the growing mountain that shows Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13779&st=15

So what exactly are you claiming? Do you think Oswald owned the rifle or not? Do you think everyone who gives details that incriminate Oswald are lying and we should just trust Oswald? You've managed to nitpick what I've said, rather unconvincingly i must say, in order to make the evidence fit an unstated narrative. What do you think happened? If you try to put together all of your factoids you are left with no coherent theory that explains everything. How do you explain the specific details given by Frazier and Linnie Randle?
"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a
big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack
was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of
folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain
rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was
going to bring some curtain rods."
KEY PART:
"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the
sack had been kind of folded under."

As for your other points I will go over them quickly.
Marina has testified that Oswald kept his rifle in the blanket. She had seen the rifle in the blanket before, but on the morning of the assassination, the rifle was missing. (Hint:Oswald took it with him) http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aff-mari.gif

Your hand waving away of Brennan, the 3 construction workers on the 5th floor and the other witnesses who saw a while man with a rifle in the 6th floor window makes it clear that you are in denial. How do you get from what you have said to the conclusion that their testimony is nonsense? It doesn't follow in any form of logic I've ever heard. They all heard the shots from above did they not? The majority of witnesses at the Dealey Plaza have also said the shoots came from the direction of the Depository so we have very good evidence that that is where the shots were fired. Since we know that the gun was Oswald's, that the three bullets were fired from that gun to the exclusion of all other guns in the world, and because of the additional evidence found in the Book Depository, it is clear Oswald did it.

As for when and where Oswald made the paper bag, clearly he did it out of sight. We can speculate all we want on when he made it, but the fact of the matter is that the bag had his palm prints on in the exact location of where his hand would have been according to Frazier's testimony.

Some questions for Soily:
How did Oswald's gun get on the 6th floor?
Why was Oswald's clipboard completely blank that day? (found on 6th floor)
Why did Oswald leave the book depository to get his revolver?

[riptowtan]

Robo. This is transcription of her interview except for the very beginning, which I find hard to understand.

"Q “ Did you know Officer Tippitt?”

A.C. "Yeh, I saw him.. many times”

Q "Did you hear the shots?

AC. “Yes, I heard the shots”

Q “What did you do?”

A.C. "I ran out into the street… and looked down the street. I ran down the street where he was lying, and I looked at him."

Q “ Now when you heard the shots, and you went out of the house, did you see a man with a gun?”

A.C. “Yes I did”

Q “What was he doing?”

A.C. “ Oh he was reloading.. I think he was reloading his gun.”

Q “And how would you describe that man?”

A.C.” He was kinda chunky.. He was kinda heavy. He wasn’t a big man”

Q “ Was he tall or short?”

A.C. “He was a kinda short guy”

Q “Short and heavy?”

A.C. “Yeh”

Q ”Was there any other man?”

A.C. "Yeh . One on the other side of the street…all I know, he throw him the gun.”

Q “Mrs Clemens.. the man who had the gun.. Did he make any motion at all to the other man across the street?”

A.C.”No more than throw him the gun”

Q “ And then what happened to the man with the gun?”

A.C. “He unloaded and reloaded.”

Q “And what did the other man do ?”

A.C. “He kept going straight down the street.”

Q “And then did they go in opposite directions?

A.C. "Yeh, they weren’t together, they went this way from each other . The one who did the shooting went this way [points right] and the other went this way down Pear (sp?) Street [points to her left] that way”

Q “What was the man who did not do the shooting, but the man who went in the other direction from the man who did the shooting.. What was he wearing if you remember?”

A.C. “ Well as far as I can remember, he was wearing a light jacket and a white shirt.”

Q “And was he tall or short?”

A.C. "He was tall”

Q “And was he heavy or thin?”

A.C. “He was thin”

Q “But the one who did the sh....the one who had the gun seconds after Tippitt was shot, he was short..”

A.C. "Yeh he was short and kinda heavy”

Q "Now, did you testify before the Warren Commission about this?”

A.C. “No, I never said a word to anyone”

Q “Did anyone come to see you after the murder of Officer Tippitt?”

A.C. “Yeh, There was man came. I didn’t know what he was. He came to my house and talked to me, but he looked like he was a policeman to me”

Q “ He did? Did he have a gun?”

A.C. “Yes. He wore a gun.”

Q “ Mrs Clemens, how long after Tippitt was shot, did this man with the gun come to visit you?”

A.C. “ About two day, about two days. Said that I might get hurt or someone might hurt me if I would talk.”

Q “About what you saw?”

A.C. [nodding] “What I saw. He just told me it might be best if I didn’t say anything, because I might get hurt.”

There were ten witnesses who identified Oswald as the murderer of Tippit, along with the fact that it was Oswald's gun. (The same gun that was found on him at his arrest) Clemons was clearly mistaken.

[Soily]

That's not what a neighbour said about the "people" who were involved in Tippitt's murder.. see the Aquila Clemens interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRToGPV4W7M

More about the two men seen at the murder scene later.

Helen Markham's testimony doesn't square with the facts in almost every sense, but because the LNs like to cherry pick both witnesses and what they said as much as any CT, she is used as a solid ID for Oswald. I mean Macadams is so desperate to keep HM as a witness on his side he even tries to defends her ridiculous suggestion that she sat with Tippit and talked with him after he was shot, even though he was shot in the head and killed instantly. The only thing we know from the dotty Markham is that she was on the way for her bus when she saw whatever she saw, and unless she set off to get it after it had already left, places the murder at about 1:05-1:06, earlier than the timeframe needed for Oswald to have gotten there.

[jargon buster]

The single bullet theory is clearly not true.

The real killer of Kennedy was Joe diMaggio.
He was sitting on the back of Kennedy's car concealed by a "cloaking device".
you can see clearly from the Zapruder film that the fatal blow was from a baseball bat coming from the "right and to the left, right and to the left, right and to the left"

:D

[riptowtan]

Haha unbelievable stuff. Why do you feel the need to lie? Raised his fist in victory indeed. He did that and then vehemenly protested his innocence even when he was dying did he? His MO in the walker shooting was supposedly to write everything down, maps, plans, photos, mea cupla, then confess to it afterwards. Yet this time he absolutely denied any involvement even on his dead bed. Weird. Bugliosi loves his wedding ring factoid, conveniently forgetting Oswald also left his wallet too, a fact that could just as easily square with someone in a rush and forgetting them. Bulgiosi of course doesn't like to talk about the wallet Oswald left on the dresser because when Oswald was arrested the police found his wallet on him.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/oswald_fist.jpg
I didn't lie about anything. Here is a picture of him raising his fist. Upon arrest Oswald punched a cop and then drew his gun. Is that what an innocent person would do when a police officer approaches? If he was innocent he would have cooperated with the cops giving his name and shown to them that he was innocent with some evidence. Instead he lies multiple times, even slips up and says he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and to this day conspiracy theorists are gullible enough to buy it. I suppose it was just a mere coincidence that for the first time Oswald left his wedding ring. Oh and the 170$ he left out, which was practically all the money he had owned, is also just a coincidence. Nice try with bringing up the wallet as a distraction, but it doesn't fool anyone here.

And the fact you rely on Brennan so much show how desperate your are. He's a total clown:



Haha! Love the numerous made up details like the smirk. I'm surprised he didn't stop to do an evil cackle like Skeletor too. And you think this clown is a reliable witness. A man who kept changing his story, a man who describes things that are impossible, such as the height of the killer because he was stood up, which Oswald wasn't. A man who couldn't pick Oswald out of a lineup and later lied about this saying he was scared he was the target of a communist plot. Pathetic.

How is he a clown? And how do you know he is making up the details? Oh yea i forgot. Anything that contradicts your view it thrown in the garbage or is just added to the wildly implausible grand conspiracy.Why is it so hard to believe that Brennan feared he may be targeted? If it is not clear whether a conspiracy went down or not, I would have waited till late as well.

[Fourbrick]

Here is my carcano rifle. It is nearly the same as Oswald's. Only the mount, scope and lack of sling are different.

Ranb


Ranb, Does your Carcano have side sling mounts as the rifle found in the Depository or bottom mounts as the rifle in the famous photo taken in his yard?

[TraneWreck]

Eyewitness testimony is the lowest, most unreliable type of evidence. No case should be based on the recollections of human beings. It's only useful as a supplement to hard evidence, but the same human frailty that makes us terrible at accurate recall causes us to find such testimony pursuasive, thus it continues to be used in a legal context.

If all eyewitness testimony is ignored on both sides with respect to the Kennedy assassination, a much clearer picture emerges. There's simply no credible evidence for anyone other than Oswald as the shooter.

[Fourbrick]

"Mrs. Markham gave the only detailed account of what occurred between the gunman and Tippit from the moment the patrolman stopped on 10th Street. According to the Report: “Her description and that of other eyewitnesses led to the police broadcast at 1:22 p.m. describing [Tippit’s] slayer as ‘about 30, 5’8”, black hair, slender.’” But Mrs. Markham also told attorney Mark Lane that the gunman was “short, a little on the heavy side,” with “somewhat bushy” hair. In testifying before the Commission, she first denied that she had ever said this and changed her story only when confronted with a tape recording of the conversation. The Commission observes that “in her various statements and in her testimony, Mrs. Markham was uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the slaying.”

Bolded part seems to confirm how Mrs Clemens described Officer Tppit's killer. Or as Soily said a unreliable witness.

[Soily]

Eyewitness testimony is the lowest, most unreliable type of evidence. No case should be based on the recollections of human beings. It's only useful as a supplement to hard evidence, but the same human frailty that makes us terrible at accurate recall causes us to find such testimony pursuasive, thus it continues to be used in a legal context.

If all eyewitness testimony is ignored on both sides with respect to the Kennedy assassination, a much clearer picture emerges. There's simply no credible evidence for anyone other than Oswald as the shooter.
In that case the LN side should stop using ridiculous witnesses like Howard Brennan, Bledsoe and Markham as 'proof' then. The tippit witnesses can only be said to support Oswald as the lone killer unless you filter it through the prejudged certainty that Oswald was.

[TraneWreck]

In that case the LN side should stop using ridiculous witnesses like Howard Brennan, Bledsoe and Markham as 'proof' then. The tippit witnesses can only be said to support Oswald as the lone killer unless you filter it through the prejudged certainty that Oswald was.

Notice that I suggested ignoring ALL eyewitness testimony.

Remove the eyewitnesses and you remove all basis for multiple gunmen, but the evidence for a single shooter from the book depository remains.

[Fourbrick]

Notice that I suggested ignoring ALL eyewitness testimony.



Does that include Police officers as well?

[TraneWreck]

Does that include Police officers as well?

Yes. They have training, but they're subject to the same fundamental errors of observation and recollection that plague all humans.

[Fourbrick]

So apart from witnesses, what proof do you have that Oswald killed J.F.
K.?

[TraneWreck]

So apart from witnesses, what proof do you have that Oswald killed J.F.
K.?

You mean other than the bullets recovered from the bodies matching the gun Oswald ordered with the scope he bought attached, as well as the fact that it had his palm print on it?

[Soily]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=374706







http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476




As for the duplicate serial number in the gun seller's records, if you'd ever worked in any kind of business you would know that clerks misread, miswrite, and mistype numbers all the time. Considering that no one has ever produced credible evidence of any Carcanos with duplicate serial numbers, the most likely explanation is that someone miscopied another weapon's number.

Although it is intended to somehow give the impression the ammunition boxes were found at the Paine's, they weren't. They were found in a gravel pit in Irvine sometime later. They were unrelated to the assassination, I don't think even Bugliosi has argued otherwise. The 'Oswald' bullets were not Italian 6.5 ammo, it was Western Cartridge Company ammo.


1. The WCC ammo came in 20-round cardboard boxes which were similar in size and composition to the standard issue Italian Ammo boxes.

However:

A. The Italian ammo box contained 18 rounds which was pre- loaded into three clips.
B. The Italian ammo box was fully marked (Block Printing)

C. The WCC ammo contined 20-rounds to the box with no clips.
D. The WCC ammo box was completely "sterile" with absollutely no markings on the exterior of the box.
E. The WCC ammo contained a small white slip of paper which was packed inside the box which identified the ammo as well as the Department of Army Ordnance code/standard to which the ammunition was manufactured, as well as the ammo size.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13304&st=0

If the reference checks out about Lattimer I will happily concede the point. Kleins certainly did have 2 MC's with the Oswald serial number, they bought a batch with it on in 1962 and an entirely separate batch in 1963. If you're arguing that it just happens to be an error on the most important rifle of all time then fine, but you can't have it both ways and say the number is unique.

The whole rifle story, which LNs like to think off as their strongest suit, falls apart with even the most cursory examination. The main problem is of course the rifle ordered, purchased and shipped to Oswald was an entirely different rifle to the one found in the TSBD. Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle, the TSBD rifle was 40 inches long. And there's a whole list of reasons in the links below that show this wasn't yet another in the seemingly endless list of mistakes the LNs rely on. You also have to accept a whole range of postal regulations and procedures were broken in order to buy it. The Postal inspector in 1963 was FBI informant and good ol boy Harry Holmes, the only man to witness the assassination through binoculars and amazingly, actually in on the interrogation of Oswald. Think about it a postman interrogating the assassin of the President. According to the review of Bulgiosis book, Holmes was the one that alerted James Hosty to the fact Oswald was getting subversive fair play for Cuba material through the mail. And yet were asked to believe than on his watch he'd let Oswald order guns through his post office and flout postal regulations in doing so? And worse of all Oswald would chose such a risky method that left such an obvious paper trail when he could have bought a virtually untraceable gun for cash in any gunshop in texas.

Good article summarizing this here http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html

That picture from Police Chief Jesse Curry's book, the bag is actually touching the blanket for god sake. This one picture alone and you've lost half your supposed evidence.
http://i56.tinypic.com/6o277o.jpg
(And by the way, number 3 is labeled fragment of bullet taken from Government Connolley's arm. Wooah look at the size of it, that's meant to come from CE399! http://www.ctka.net/besmirch.html)

[carlitos]

The whole rifle story, which LNs like to think off as their strongest suit, falls apart with even the most cursory examination. The main problem is of course the rifle ordered, purchased and shipped to Oswald was an entirely different rifle to the one found in the TSBD. Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle, the TSBD rifle was 40 inches long. And there's a whole list of reasons in the links below that show this wasn't yet another in the seemingly endless list of mistakes the LNs rely on. You also have to accept a whole range of postal regulations and procedures were broken in order to buy it. I do? Will you be listing them here? Here's a website where you can buy guns by mail today. http://dallasguns.com/

The Postal inspector in 1963 was FBI informant and good ol boy Harry Holmes, the only man to witness the assassination through binoculars and amazingly, actually in on the interrogation of Oswald. Think about it a postman interrogating the assassin of the President. According to the review of Bulgiosis book, Holmes was the one that alerted James Hosty to the fact Oswald was getting subversive fair play for Cuba material through the mail. And yet were asked to believe than on his watch he'd let Oswald order guns through his post office and flout postal regulations in doing so? And worse of all Oswald would chose such a risky method that left such an obvious paper trail when he could have bought a virtually untraceable gun for cash in any gunshop in texas.What regulations were flouted?
That picture from Police Chief Jesse Curry's book, the bag is actually touching the blanket for god sake. This one picture alone and you've lost half your supposed evidence.
A picture of the evidence somehow "loses" half the evidence? What is magical about a bag touching a blanket?

[Fourbrick]

You mean other than the bullets recovered from the bodies matching the gun Oswald ordered with the scope he bought attached, as well as the fact that it had his palm print on it?

You mean the Magic bullet and gun that Oswald was supposed to have bought, which didn't match the gun found in the Depository?


Incidentally, according to the first two Police officers who found the rifle in the Depository, it was a Mauser. But then I forgot, you don't believe eye witnesses, even Police.

The whole case is as full of holes as a Gruyere Cheese.

[Soily]

I do? Will you be listing them here? Here's a website where you can buy guns by mail today. http://dallasguns.com/
What regulations were flouted?

A picture of the evidence somehow "loses" half the evidence? What is magical about a bag touching a blanket?

Are you kidding? The LNs like macadam and bugliosi trumpet the blanket fibbers found on the bag and gun, and here we have not only the evidence been stored together, but it's laid out on the floor with the bag actually touching the blanket! If they're that incompetent you've basically lost all your fibber evidence already, it'd be laughed out of court.

[RoboTimbo]

You mean the Magic bullet and gun that Oswald was supposed to have bought, which didn't match the gun found in the Depository?
It was Oswald's gun, which has been 100% absolutely nailed down. If you are going to blatantly ignore reality to that extent, you better get permission from the other CT's first.

Incidentally, according to the first two Police officers who found the rifle in the Depository, it was a Mauser. But then I forgot, you don't believe eye witnesses, even Police.
That's because it looks like, guess what? That's right! A Mauser! Good job, gold star for you for the day!

The whole case is as full of holes as a Gruyere Cheese.
So quit defending it then.

[EventHorizon]

That's because it looks like, guess what? That's right! A Mauser! Good job, gold star for you for the day!


I love how in CT World nobody can ever make a mistake.

Here is a Mauser:

http://www.micksguns.com/images/rug%2022250%201.jpg

And here is a Mannlicher Carcano:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a115/Jay_G/MannlicherCarcano.jpg

Gee, I can't see how those 2 could have been confused at all. :rolleyes:

[TraneWreck]

You mean the Magic bullet and gun that Oswald was supposed to have bought, which didn't match the gun found in the Depository?

This is just false. The bullet taken from Connally's gurney was matched to Oswald's gun.


Incidentally, according to the first two Police officers who found the rifle in the Depository, it was a Mauser. But then I forgot, you don't believe eye witnesses, even Police.

The whole case is as full of holes as a Gruyere Cheese.

Thank you for providing a wonderful example of why eyewitnesses should be ignored.

In the Warren Commission, one of the officers on the scene, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police Department, admitted that he didn't know much about the differences between the two riffles at the time.

If your case exclusively relies on eyewitnesses, it's not much of a case.

[carlitos]

Are you kidding? The LNs like macadam and bugliosi trumpet the blanket fibbers found on the bag and gun, and here we have not only the evidence been stored together, but it's laid out on the floor with the bag actually touching the blanket! If they're that incompetent you've basically lost all your fibber evidence already, it'd be laughed out of court.

No, I wasn't kidding. What postal regulations were flouted?

The "fibber" thing is unintentionally funny, though. Just like this:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_334674c9906440e0c6.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21115)