The Warren Commission Sham

[Lance Payette]

But as you have deluded yourself into believing you have all the answers, why not help Thomas out - What makes you believe CE399 was found at Parkland Hospital?

I don't need to help Thomas out. Tom is asking the "What sense does that make?" questions that are central to any discussion of CE 399. You cannot answer those fundamental questions in a way that makes conspiratorial sense because - wait for it - no one can. There is abundant evidence that CE 399 was found at Parkland with no contrary evidence apart from what Wright told Tink Thompson three years later. Those who said they "couldn't identify" CE 399 were not "refusing" but simply saying they had no way of knowing it was the same bullet they had handled.

Good grief, I started a thread on THIS VERY TOPIC - "Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?" - in April of this year: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4291.msg164009.html#msg164009. The issue was beaten to death, or so it seems to me. Yet here we go again, as though it had never been discussed.

This is the problem with a forum such as this. There is no historical memory. An issue is beaten to death in April, pops right back up in June, and August, and three times the next year, and four times the year after that. The same old, same old over and over. If you want to know my thoughts in detail, I refer you to the April thread. The first page has three long posts by me.

There is a distinction between "having all the answers" - which I do not claim - and having a reasonable, evidence-based position that can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions. As I've said previously, the Conspiracy Game pretends that if we don't have absolute ontological certainty then we can have no position at all - one theory is as good as another, even if one of them is plausible, evidence-based, and can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions and the other can't. Whatever the provenance of CE 399 may be, whatever Wright may have told Thompson, whatever those in the chain may have said when asked to identify CE 399, I am satisfied that it was fired from Oswald's rifle on 11-22, struck its target, and made its way into Parkland to be found on a stretcher. This is what the best evidence indicates and what can most plausibly and reasonably answer the "What sense does that make?" questions.

"You can't prove to an ontological certainty CE 399 was found at Parkland! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't planted! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't created in the FBI Lab!" No, I can't. What those who make such assertions can't do - as Tom keeps trying to point out - is answer "What sense would that make?"

[Richard Smith]

If the US government had wanted to cover up some involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, the very last thing they would have done is form a commission to look into it.  There was absolutely no obligation to do so.  The Dallas authorities were convinced that Oswald was the guilty party and there was no evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Case closed.   The conspirators could have knocked off for lunch and congratulated themselves.  The WC conducted an extensive investigation into the crime.  Was it perfect?  No.  Did they pursue every line of inquiry?  No.  Were they perhaps influenced to confirm Oswald's guilt and view the evidence in that light?  Perhaps but the evidence of Oswald's guilt was convincing to any reasonable person.   I give them credit for acquiring a great deal of information that can be used to this day by anyone on either side. 

[Tom Graves]

I don't need to help Thomas out. Tom is asking the "What sense does that make?" questions that are central to any discussion of CE 399. You cannot answer those fundamental questions in a way that makes conspiratorial sense because - wait for it - no one can. There is abundant evidence that CE 399 was found at Parkland with no contrary evidence apart from what Wright told Tink Thompson three years later. Those who said they "couldn't identify" CE 399 were not "refusing" but simply saying they had no way of knowing it was the same bullet they had handled.

Good grief, I started a thread on THIS VERY TOPIC - "Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?" - in April of this year: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4291.msg164009.html#msg164009. The issue was beaten to death, or so it seems to me. Yet here we go again, as though it had never been discussed.

This is the problem with a forum such as this. There is no historical memory. An issue is beaten to death in April, pops right back up in June, and August, and three times the next year, and four times the year after that. The same old, same old over and over. If you want to know my thoughts in detail, I refer you to the April thread. The first page has three long posts by me.

There is a distinction between "having all the answers" - which I do not claim - and having a reasonable, evidence-based position that can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions. As I've said previously, the Conspiracy Game pretends that if we don't have absolute ontological certainty then we can have no position at all - one theory is as good as another, even if one of them is plausible, evidence-based, and can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions and the other can't. Whatever the provenance of CE 399 may be, whatever Wright may have told Thompson, whatever those in the chain may have said when asked to identify CE 399, I am satisfied that it was fired from Oswald's rifle on 11-22, struck its target, and made its way into Parkland to be found on a stretcher. This is what the best evidence indicates and what can most plausibly and reasonably answer the "What sense does that make?" questions.

"You can't prove to an ontological certainty CE 399 was found at Parkland! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't planted! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't created in the FBI Lab!" No, I can't. What those who make such assertions can't do - as Tom keeps trying to point out - is answer "What sense would that make?"

Edited and bumped for Danny Boy O'meara:

Dear Danny Boy,

You keep avoiding the implications of your "case."

You refuse to answer the questions:

1) "How the heck did the bad guys manage to take possession of Oswald's Carcano so they could fire CE-399 through it?"

2) How in the world did the bad guys deform CE-399 in such a strange way?", and

3) "Why in tarnation did the bad guys deform CE-399 in such a strange way?"

Until you can give plausible answers to these questions, you're just a laughingstock, dude.

-- Tom

[Dan O'meara]

Edited and bumped for Danny Boy O'meara:

Dear Danny Boy,

You keep avoiding the implications of your "case."

You refuse to answer the questions:

1) "How the heck did the bad guys manage to take possession of Oswald's Carcano so they could fire CE-399 through it?"

2) How in the world did the bad guys deform CE-399 in such a strange way?", and

3) "Why in tarnation did the bad guys deform CE-399 in such a strange way?"

Until you can give plausible answers to these questions, you're just a laughingstock, dude.

-- Tom

Quid Pro Quo bro.
Time for you to start answering questions.
What evidence makes you believe CE399 was found at Parkland?
It can't be a debate if it's just me answering questions.

[Dan O'meara]

I don't need to help Thomas out. Tom is asking the "What sense does that make?" questions that are central to any discussion of CE 399. You cannot answer those fundamental questions in a way that makes conspiratorial sense because - wait for it - no one can. There is abundant evidence that CE 399 was found at Parkland with no contrary evidence apart from what Wright told Tink Thompson three years later. Those who said they "couldn't identify" CE 399 were not "refusing" but simply saying they had no way of knowing it was the same bullet they had handled.

Good grief, I started a thread on THIS VERY TOPIC - "Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?" - in April of this year: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4291.msg164009.html#msg164009. The issue was beaten to death, or so it seems to me. Yet here we go again, as though it had never been discussed.

This is the problem with a forum such as this. There is no historical memory. An issue is beaten to death in April, pops right back up in June, and August, and three times the next year, and four times the year after that. The same old, same old over and over. If you want to know my thoughts in detail, I refer you to the April thread. The first page has three long posts by me.

There is a distinction between "having all the answers" - which I do not claim - and having a reasonable, evidence-based position that can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions. As I've said previously, the Conspiracy Game pretends that if we don't have absolute ontological certainty then we can have no position at all - one theory is as good as another, even if one of them is plausible, evidence-based, and can answer the "What sense does that make?" questions and the other can't. Whatever the provenance of CE 399 may be, whatever Wright may have told Thompson, whatever those in the chain may have said when asked to identify CE 399, I am satisfied that it was fired from Oswald's rifle on 11-22, struck its target, and made its way into Parkland to be found on a stretcher. This is what the best evidence indicates and what can most plausibly and reasonably answer the "What sense does that make?" questions.

"You can't prove to an ontological certainty CE 399 was found at Parkland! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't planted! You can't prove to an ontological certainty it wasn't created in the FBI Lab!" No, I can't. What those who make such assertions can't do - as Tom keeps trying to point out - is answer "What sense would that make?"

There is abundant evidence that CE 399 was found at Parkland

Great!
Just post that evidence in your next Reply.
That is, basically, the question I have been asking.
The reason these things go on and on is because people like you won't answer a straightforward question.
Just post this "abundant evidence" which you have at your fingertips and we can move on with this issue..
I've answered every question asked of me but you guys don't answer anything.
That's why things just go round and round.

POST THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR NEXT REPLY!

[Tom Graves]

Quid Pro Quo bro.
Time for you to start answering questions.
What evidence makes you believe CE399 was found at Parkland?
It can't be a debate if it's just me answering questions.

The ball's in your court, dude.

I can totally understand why you "have no idea" how to go about answering my three questions (above) in such a way that won't contradict your cockamamie theory.

That's because the only logical answer is:

1) Unless Russophile Ruthie or probable KGB agent Marina loaned the Carcano to the "bad guys," they couldn't have fired CE-399 through it, and

2) Given JBC's wounds (and the fact that fibers from his clothing were found in his wrist wound), the only way CE-399 could end up being deformed the way is is if it penetrated JBC's back, shattered his fifth rib tangentially, and, while was twirling / tumbling, fractured his radial bone rear-end first.

[Lance Payette]

There is abundant evidence that CE 399 was found at Parkland

Great!
Just post that evidence in your next Reply.
That is, basically, the question I have been asking.
The reason these things go on and on is because people like you won't answer a straightforward question.
Just post this "abundant evidence" which you have at your fingertips and we can move on with this issue..
I've answered every question asked of me but you guys don't answer anything.
That's why things just go round and round.

POST THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR NEXT REPLY!

You seem to think that by assuming the role of Question Man, the rest of us are obligated to play Answer People. The "found at Parkland" issue is disposed of by the chain of custody beginning at Parkland. It was dealt with in the thread I started and to which I referred you. I am not going to regurgitate it all here. There are no significant issues with the chain of custody from Tomlinson to the FBI Lab with the exception of what Wright, who just happened to have a pointy-headed bullet in his desk, ostensibly told Tink Thompson several years later. As I pointed out in the earlier thread (1) this is inconsistent with what Wright originally said, (2) we don't know what he would have said under oath, and (3) his "outlier" testimony (if he had stuck with the pointy-headed version under oath) likely would carry no weight if those on either side of him in the chain of custody (Johnson and Wright) said CE 399 appeared to be the same bullet. I am not going to repeat it all here. (You will note that even Wright's supposed pointy-headed bullet was as pristine as CE 399 - does that seem likely?)

Here's a novel idea: Instead of playing Question Man, how about setting forth your theory of CE 399? That should be simple enough, no? Without asking you any questions, I will then patiently and in my most statesmanlike manner explain why this makes no sense. Regardless of whether CE 399 were planted on a stretcher at Parkland or were later substituted by the FBI for a pointy-headed bullet actually found at Parkland, producing a bullet from Oswald's rifle in the highly unusual condition of CE 399, and that raises as many questions as CE 399, and then using that bullet to attempt to explain JFK's and JBC's numerous wounds, simply makes no sense. A far more plausible, badly damaged bullet that would have raised no questions at all would actually have been far easier to produce. Once again, a conspiratorial theory must posit the Three Stooges as conspirators.