The Warren Commission Sham

[Dan O'meara]

O'meara,

You're willfully conflating someone's refusing to identify something they'd seen seven months earlier with his or her being unable to remember what they'd seen seven months earlier.

And you are desperately avoiding all the evidence proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that CE399 was not the bullet found in Parkland.
Doesn't it bother you that you can't point to a single piece of evidence supporting your "theory" that CE399 was the bullet found in Parkland.
You seem like an intelligent guy. How can you turn a blind eye to this issue? Aren't you genuinely interested in what happened?
Doesn't it bother you that the WC entered CE399 into evidence without a single person identifying it as such?
Doesn't it bother you that none of these men were asked by the WC to identify it?

Nutters like to go on about CTers being in denial or turning a blind eye to damning evidence.
Who's in denial now?

[John Iacoletti]

Payette asked: "What is the CT explanation for the conspirators' planting a suspiciously non-deformed bullet (CE-399), fired from Oswald's rifle, at Parkland on a stretcher of unknown provenance?"

O'meara's responded: "This shows an extreme level of ignorance regarding this issue."

My comment: Your "response," O'meara, screams that you can't answer the question.

Which is totally understandable given the fact that CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC and therefore wasn't planted by one of your oodles and gobs of bad guys and . . . gasp . . . very, very bad gals.

And what is your evidence that CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC?

[John Iacoletti]

No, not at all. Each item of evidence must be considered separately. If CTers wish to assert that CE 399 was fabricated, planted, etc., we must ask how fabricating and planting it makes any sense in the context of a conspiracy. The notion of fabricating CE 399 and then claiming that it was found at Parkland on a stretcher that we're not even sure was Connally's and then was so badly handled that there are chain-of-custody issues - what possible sense does that make? It's so silly that it does indeed argue in favor of authenticity.

So if the evidence is ridiculous then it's genuine.  If it's not ridiculous then it's also genuine.  No matter what, it's genuine.

What's silly is the assertion that CE399 was related to the assassination based solely on it having been fired from the rifle that LNers want to be the murder weapon.

[John Iacoletti]

I still am unable to fathom - really, I am quite dull - the central issue as to why, if CE 399 were in any sense a "plant," our dumbass conspirators would have used a bullet that raises as many obvious red flags as CE 399 and not had the various participants get their stories straight. If what was found at Parkland was actually nothing, or a 30.06 slug that you needed to make disappear because it didn't match Oswald's rifle, why would you substitute a bullet like CE 399 and coach your witnesses to tell a consistent story?

WHAT consistent story?

And where did it come from in the first place? Was it always ready, "just in case?" How and why?

For all the imagining you do, you seem to have run into a creative block.  If CE399 was not ever actually in Dealey Plaza or at Parkland, it could have been fired from CE139 at any time prior to Robert Frazier receiving it.  Including after the assassination.

CTers seem to miss this critical distinction. Out here in the Real World, you can't get by just by playing Oswald Defense Counsel and raising legal objections. The theory you are promoting has to make sense, or at least not blatantly Not Make Sense.

Doesn't the same go for the people playing prosecuting counsel?

[John Mytton]

For all the imagining you do, you seem to have run into a creative block.  If CE399 was not ever actually in Dealey Plaza or at Parkland, it could have been fired from CE139 at any time prior to Robert Frazier receiving it.  Including after the assassination.

Cool story Bro! 

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Cool story Bro! 

The difference is, I admit when I am imagining things and don't try to present them as facts.

Like you do, bro!

Lance was calling for speculation, which you would know if you ever actually read these conversations before chiming in with your canned nonsense.

[Dan O'meara]

I still am unable to fathom - really, I am quite dull - the central issue as to why, if CE 399 were in any sense a "plant," our dumbass conspirators would have used a bullet that raises as many obvious red flags as CE 399 and not had the various participants get their stories straight. If what was found at Parkland was actually nothing, or a 30.06 slug that you needed to make disappear because it didn't match Oswald's rifle, why would you substitute a bullet like CE 399 and coach your witnesses to tell a consistent story? And where did it come from in the first place? Was it always ready, "just in case?" How and why?

I can certainly appreciate that there would be very significant chain-of-custody issues if CE 399 were offered into evidence in a criminal trial. But in a criminal trial, you merely need to object that the chain of custody is insufficient to make reasonably certain that CE 399 is in fact the bullet found at Parkland. You don't need any rationale. But if you're asserting a conspiracy out here in the Real World, you DO need a coherent rationale as to why sane conspirators would have done what you are alleging they did.

CTers seem to miss this critical distinction. Out here in the Real World, you can't get by just by playing Oswald Defense Counsel and raising legal objections. The theory you are promoting has to make sense, or at least not blatantly Not Make Sense.

"But if you're asserting a conspiracy out here in the Real World, you DO need a coherent rationale as to why sane conspirators would have done what you are alleging they did."

Lance seems to be unaware that Nutters need a coherent rationale to explain why Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
Or why the WC refused to ask any of these men to identify CE399, even when the man who actually found the bullet was giving testimony.
Nutters have to offer a coherent rationale as to how CE399 could be entered into evidence by the WC Sham without a single person identifying it as such.
They have to offer a coherent rationale to explain why O P Wright categorically denied that CE399 was the bullet he received from Tomlinson or gave to Johnsen.
And their coherent rationale has to take in all these issues as a whole rather than trying to divide them up and offer piss-poor individual explanations.

Rather than deal with these insurmountable issues, the "coherent rationale" for Nutters like Lance is to cry "you have to explain the conspiracy first".
That is what Lance believes is a coherent rationale.