JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 26, 2026, 01:41:06 PM
-
Another missed shot that the lone-gunman theory cannot explain is the bullet that hit the grass near the manhole cover on the south side of Main Street about 350 feet from the TSBD's sixth-floor window.
This bullet strike was observed by a police officer stationed on top of the triple underpass, J. W. Foster, who then reported the strike to a superior officer, and the superior officer ordered Foster to guard the area where the bullet hit, which he did. Moreover, we have a photo of the hole in the grass, and also photos of Officer Foster, Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers, and an unidentified man in a suit, among others, standing over the spot where the bullet landed. We even have photos that show the man in the suit bending down, reaching his hand toward the hole in the grass, and standing back up with his hand in cupping shape, obviously holding something in his hand, and then putting his hand in his pocket.
Before anyone knew what they were supposed to say, no one denied that a bullet dug a hole into the grass near the manhole cover, and the bullet strike and the finding of the bullet were matter-of-factly reported in newspapers the next day.
Anyone who has seen rifle bullets hit grass knows such strikes are readily observable. During my years in the Army, I saw a few bullets hit grass and saw them kick up dirt when they hit. This is exactly what Officer Foster saw and why he reported that a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover.
And how, you might wonder, do lone-gunman theorists explain this bullet strike? Answer: They simply deny that it happened. They claim it was all a giant misunderstanding, a remarkable series of "mistakes." Some of them admit that an object hit the grass but that the object was a piece of brain tissue blown from JFK's head.
We can dispense with the silly piece-of-brain theory by noting that a piece of brain tissue blown from JFK's head at Z313 would not have had enough velocity to dig a hole into the grass and to kick up dirt that would be visible to a police officer standing on the triple underpass. In addition, in order to make the hole in the grass, this magic brain tissue would have had to veer sharply leftward after being blown from the right side of JFK's skull, since the hole in the grass was on the south side of Main Street, i.e., markedly to the left of the limo as of Z313, not to mention the fact that the brain tissue would have had to somehow, someway clear the limo's roll bar and windshield.
A few other notable facts about this bullet strike:
-- Journalists and bystanders were kept at a distance from the spot where the bullet landed.
-- The bullet hole was even photographed, and the picture appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 11/23/63.
-- Of course, by the time Officer Foster testified to the WC, he denied that a bullet was recovered from the hole in the grass near the manhole cover, though he did not explain what the man in the suit picked up and put into his pocket. Additionally, Foster did acknowledge that a bullet "had hit the turf there at that location." Again, anyone who has seen rifle bullets hit grass and has seen the dirt they kick up upon impact knows what Foster was talking about.
-- Contemporary press accounts reported that a bullet was retrieved from the dug-out hole in the grass near the manhole cover. For example, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram not only published a photo of the hole in the grass, it included the following caption:
One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street. . . .
The next day the Dallas Times Herald, in referring to the hole in the grass, reported that a bullet was recovered from the hole:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window . . . to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.
Newsman Richard Dudman reported in an article published in the 12/21/63 issue of the New Republic that when he was on Elm Street shortly after the shooting, a Dallas police inspector told him that a bullet had been found in the grass:
On the day the President was shot I happened to learn of a possible fifth [bullet]. A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.
-- WC apologists point out that Jim Murray and Bill Allen, two of the photographers who took pictures of the man in the suit standing near the hole in the grass, later denied that a bullet was found. However, Murray nor Allen did not say they saw nothing in the suited man's hand, nor did they explain what the suited man was holding in his hand and what he put in his pocket. Rather, they simply did not believe that a bullet had been found.
Richard Trask, in his monumental collection of the photographic evidence in the JFK case, Pictures of the Pain, concedes that the photos show that the left hand of the unidentified suited man is "cupped" after he stands up from reaching toward the hole and that the man then puts his hand in his pocket.
Murray said he accepted "the later speculation" that the hole and accompanying mound in the grass were made by "brain matter from Kennedy's skull."
Are we to believe that the unidentified man in the suit picked up brain matter and put it in his pocket?
Allen said he did not believe a bullet was found because neither Walthers, Foster, nor the suited man specifically mentioned having just picked up a bullet. This was surely a dubious reason for concluding the man did not pick up a bullet.
Furthermore, as mentioned, when newsman Richard Dudman was walking on Elm Street after the shooting, a police inspector informed him they had "found another bullet in the grass."
-- The unidentified man in the suit was likely a federal agent. Dallas police chief Jesse Curry believed the man was an FBI agent, and some researchers have tentatively identified the man as FBI Agent Robert Barrett.
-- Dr. Donald Thomas points out that soon after the assassination, Walthers was quoted as saying that they found a bullet near the manhole cover, and that the WC was aware of this. He also notes that Walthers’ widow told a researcher that her husband told her they did in fact find a bullet in the grass:
Prominent in the photographs, wearing a black suit, is Deputy Sheriff Ed "Buddy" Walthers.
Just before testifying to the Warren Commission, the Commission's counsel exchanged an internal memorandum containing a statement concerning Walthers and the incident.
"At one time Walthers was quoted as having found a bullet, but he seems to have backed away from this position."
This memorandum suggests that the Commission was in receipt of a report or document quoting Walthers as having found a bullet and/or subsequently retracting. No such reports or documents are now present in the Archives. In subsequent years Walthers' wife Dorothy told researcher Mark Oakes (who told this writer) that her late husband had told her they had indeed found a bullet in the grass. (Hear No Evil: Social Constructivism and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, p. 402)
The bullet strike in the grass near the manhole cover was falsely and wrongly dismissed and then ignored by federal investigators because they were already committed to a scenario of only three shots fired by a lone gunman from the sixth floor of the Book Depository building.
I discuss this extra miss in chapter 4 of my book A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. A condensed version of this chapter is available in the form of my online article (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view?usp=shot;Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza."[/url)
-
MTG--
Obviously, intelligent and knowledgeable observers thought there had been a bullet strike near or at the manhole cover off Elm St., a strike made during the JFKA.
Did the HSCA follow up on this at all?
I like to say, "There were three audible shots during the JFKA, although some witnesses heard four."
This does not rule out the possibility of shots fired using a silencer on 11.22, or simultaneous shots heard as one shot.
-
The evidence for this supposed shot is as thin as gruel. The CTs do what CTs always do. They assume that every unexplained event is evidence of a conspiracy. Their thought process for this event is, "Well, we don't know what this was, so it must have been a gunshot.". That is a completely illogical approach. If you want to argue it was gunshot, you need to find evidence it was a gunshot. Got any?
Better questions would be, "How do the CTs explain this gunshot?". Where do they think it was fired from? When do they think it was fired? Why did that shooter miss his target so badly?
CTs revel in ambiguity. They will be as vague as possible in presenting their beliefs, but then demand that LNs prove every last detail with 100% certainty. The reality is that i don't know what Foster saw or thought he saw but in absence of definitive evidence it was a gunshot, I have no reason to assume it was.
MTG has another favorite ploy. He tells LNs what their explanation for events must be, attacks that explanation, and expects LNs to defend it. I had never heard of anyone claiming the hole in the grass was made by brain tissue. It's possible some LN sometime, somewhere did offer this as an explanation. In 35 years, I'm sure I have posted a few silly ideas of my own, but the LN community is not burdened with having to defend every silly idea every LN has come up with over the years.
-
MTG--
Obviously, intelligent and knowledgeable observers thought there had been a bullet strike near or at the manhole cover off Elm St., a strike made during the JFKA.
What would you know about what "intelligent and knowledgeable observers" think?
Did the HSCA follow up on this at all?
I like to say, "There were three audible shots during the JFKA, although some witnesses heard four."
e shot.
This does not rule out the possibility of shots fired using a silencer on 11.22, or simultaneous shots heard as on
It doesn't rule in that possibility either. If you want to believe that there was shot fired that no one heard, no one saw, for which there is no physical evidence, and that didn't hit anybody, you are free to do so.
-
Michael - Here is the actual picture of the bullet seen in the grass - This was taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website.
“One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street.” Fort Worth Star Telegram 11/23/63
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315952_f02c7a2a2c.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315932_68483858c4.jpg)
Mr. FOSTER – I moved down the roadway there,
down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit.
Mr. BALL – Find anything?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.
Mr. BALL – Hit the turf?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER – No, a manhole cover. It was hit.
they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and –
Mr. BALL – You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes sir.
Mr. BALL – Went into the turf?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Did you recover any bullet?
Mr. FOSTER – No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That Day In Dallas | Richard B. Trask
"Fort Worth Star Telegram photo of .45 cal bullet ½ inch below pencil point recovered at manhole.
Another photo was printed in the evening edition November 23, 1963. Only the photo caption was printed to explain this bullet.
The story of this bullet was not printed if it was written."
Thumb1: It is too far from both Teague and the hunk of concrete they pulled out of the curb 9 months too late.
-
Michael - Here is the actual picture of the bullet seen in the grass - This was taken from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website.
“One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street.” Fort Worth Star Telegram 11/23/63
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315952_f02c7a2a2c.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315932_68483858c4.jpg)
Mr. FOSTER – I moved down the roadway there,
down to see if I could find where any of the shots hit.
Mr. BALL – Find anything?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.
Mr. BALL – Hit the turf?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER – No, a manhole cover. It was hit.
they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and –
Mr. BALL – You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes sir.
Mr. BALL – Went into the turf?
Mr. FOSTER – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Did you recover any bullet?
Mr. FOSTER – No, sir. It ricocheted on out.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That Day In Dallas | Richard B. Trask
"Fort Worth Star Telegram photo of .45 cal bullet ½ inch below pencil point recovered at manhole.
Another photo was printed in the evening edition November 23, 1963. Only the photo caption was printed to explain this bullet.
The story of this bullet was not printed if it was written."
Thumb1: It is too far from both Teague and the hunk of concrete they pulled out of the curb 9 months too late.
I have a rather obvious question. If it ricocheted out, how did he know it was a bullet that went in?
-
I have a rather obvious question. If it ricocheted out, how did he know it was a bullet that went in?
WC never asked.
...they did that a lot.
-
WC never asked.
...they did that a lot.
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. Apparently, the question didn't occur to Joseph Ball to ask. He seemed a bit skeptical that Foster had seen a bullet whole in the turf didn't seem to think it was worth pursuing. After Foster testified he had seen a mark on the manhole cover, but when shown a photo of the manhole cover, admitted he could see no mark in the photo.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.
Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?
Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.
-
Mine was more of a rhetorical question. Apparently, the question didn't occur to Joseph Ball to ask. He seemed a bit skeptical that Foster had seen a bullet whole in the turf didn't seem to think it was worth pursuing. After Foster testified he had seen a mark on the manhole cover, but when shown a photo of the manhole cover, admitted he could see no mark in the photo.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.
Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?
Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.
It was not in the angle they showed him
::) so what?
Apparently, the question didn't occur to Joseph Ball to ask. He seemed a bit skeptical that Foster had seen a bullet whole in the turf didn't seem to think it was worth pursuing.
There is a PICTURE of a bullet in the grass.
-
It was not in the angle they showed him
::) so what?
There is a PICTURE of a bullet in the grass.
There is no bullet in the grass. Do you think a bullet is going to hit the turf and remain in sight. Just what have you been smoking?
-
There is no bullet in the grass. Do you think a bullet is going to hit the turf and remain in sight. Just what have you been smoking?
Who said it remained in sight?
Richard Dudman | The Republic 12/21/63
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit,
and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.“
Dallas Times Herald 11/23/63
"Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window...
to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.”
There is no bullet in the grass.
“One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street.”
Fort Worth Star Telegram 11/23/63
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315952_f02c7a2a2c.jpg)
-
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 06:32:15 PM
There is no bullet in the grass. Do you think a bullet is going to hit the turf and remain in sight. Just what have you been smoking?
Who said it remained in sight?
Richard Dudman | The Republic 12/21/63
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.“
Dallas Times Herald 11/23/63
"Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window... to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.”
“One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street.”
Fort Worth Star Telegram 11/23/63
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50318315952_f02c7a2a2c.jpg)
Yes, this is the kind of discrediting, disingenuous ducking and dodging that Corbett does all the time when faced with facts he can't explain. As you've noticed, he simply ignores contrary evidence, and then makes arguments that are refuted by the evidence he's ignoring. He pulls this stunt all the time, and I do mean all the time.
Obviously, he has no rational explanation for what created the hole and its accompanying mound in the grass, nor for what the suited man picked up from the hole and put in his pocket, nor for the matter-of-fact news reports, based on police sources, that a bullet was recovered from the hole.
-
Who said it remained in sight?
You did. You said "There is a PICTURE of a bullet in the grass.".
How could there be a picture of the bullet in the grass if it had not remained in sight?
-
Yes, this is the kind of discrediting, disingenuous ducking and dodging that Corbett does all the time when faced with facts he can't explain. As you've noticed, he simply ignores contrary evidence, and then makes arguments that are refuted by the evidence he's ignoring. He pulls this stunt all the time, and I do mean all the time.
Obviously, he has no rational explanation for what created the hole and its accompanying mound in the grass, nor for what the suited man picked up from the hole and put in his pocket, nor for the matter-of-fact news reports, based on police sources, that a bullet was recovered from the hole.
I don't need a rational explanation. I'm not the one claiming it is a bullet hole. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is a bullet hole. Nobody has the burden to prove it is not.
Once again, you employ the faulty logic that every unexplained fact is proof of a conspiracy. Conspiracy is not the default explanation of every unexplained fact, yet that is your SOP. You think you can make the case for a conspiracy by raising unanswered questions. That's not the way it works. The person postulating a theory has the burden to prove the theory. You don't prove anything by raising questions. You prove things by coming up with answers, proving the validity of those answers, then explaining how those answers prove your hypothesis. You constantly fail to do that with your half-assed arguments.
-
You did. You said "There is a PICTURE of a bullet in the grass.".
How could there be a picture of the bullet in the grass if it had not remained in sight?
What is this crap?
it was long enough to have been photographed.
-
What is this crap?
it was long enough to have been photographed.
So where is that photograph of the bullet in the grass?
-
So where is that photograph of the bullet in the grass?
I don't respond to intentional stupidity.
-
:D already posted
There is no bullet in the picture you posted. The pencil is pointing to the hole in the ground.
-
There is no bullet in the picture you posted. The pencil is pointing to the hole in the ground.
:D whatever.
-
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 11:50:58 AM
So where is that photograph of the bullet in the grass?
I don't respond to intentional stupidity.
I'm not sure it's intentional. Seriously. He seems incapable of grasping even the simplest facts and logic. I think part of his difficulty stems from his apparent reading-comprehension problem. I'm not joking here. Go look at my exchanges with him in other threads. He literally does not seem able to comprehend English at a high-school level.
Anyway, now, by the time that photo was taken, the bullet had already been removed from the hole. Journalists weren't allowed close to the hole until after the suited man had taken something from it and put it in his pocket.
No one, but no one, denied the hole was made by a bullet, not until much later. Even when Foster testified before the WC, he insisted a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover.
Anyone with two working eyes can see the hole was dug out and had a visible mound around part of it. As I've mentioned, I saw a few bullets hit grass during my time in the Army. You could tell when they hit because they would kick up dirt. Foster saw the same thing and knew what it meant, which is why he immediately notified a supervisor, and which is why police surrounded the hole while it was examined and would not let any journalists or bystanders near the hole for a time.
Lt. Day confirmed that a bullet was recovered from the hole. We have photographic evidence that the suited man removed something from the hole and put it in his pocket. A police inspector told journalist Richard Dudman that a bullet was found in the hole. And, Walthers told his wife that a bullet was found in the hole.
For a while, some people floated the theory that a piece of brain blown from JFK's head created the hole. I actually had one WC apologist tell me that the suited man removed brain tissue from the hole and put it in his pocket.
Truth be told, I'd almost be glad to go with the brain-tissue theory because it would further expose the autopsy brain photos as bogus. The brain photos show a brain with "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue, yet we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown or fell onto 16 surfaces, not counting the "large chunk of brain" that Jackie brought to the ER and gave to Dr. Jenkins. And, of course, the autopsy skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing.
-
I'm not sure it's intentional. Seriously. He seems incapable of grasping even the simplest facts and logic.
MTG seems incapable of grasping that his numerous factoids are completely illogical.
-
MTG seems incapable of grasping that his numerous factoids are completely illogical.
Anyone who reads the OP and Capasse's and my replies in this thread will laugh at this statement.
Is the photo of the hole a "factoid"? What in the world would have created that hole in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain it was a bullet strike?
Is Officer Foster's WC testimony a "factoid"? (Note: Foster told the WC that he saw a bullet hit the grass, and that he assumed the bullet had ricocheted out of the hole.)
Is Dudman's account of being told by a police inspector that bullet had been found in the grass a "factoid"?
Is the fact that Lt. Day told the Dallas Times-Herald that a bullet was recovered from the hole in the grass and that Day even estimated the distance between the hole and the sixth-floor window a "factoid"?
I just have to laugh at this howler:
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on August 26, 2026, 08:23:03 PM
Obviously, he has no rational explanation for what created the hole and its accompanying mound in the grass, . . .
I don't need a rational explanation. I'm not the one claiming it is a bullet hole. The burden of proof is on those making the claim that it is a bullet hole. Nobody has the burden to prove it is not.
You "don't need a rational explanation"?! LOL! Yeah, who needs rational explanations, right?!
No, of course you're not the one claiming it is a bullet hole. No kidding. Officer Foster, Deputy Sheriff Walthers, Richard Dudman, Lt. J. C. Day, and reporters at two Dallas-Fort Worth newspapers said the hole was made by a bullet. Foster, Walthers, Day, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter saw the hole. Foster saw the hole made and recognized it as a bullet strike, and never wavered from that position.
Since you say they were all wrong, it is up to you to explain why they were wrong and what made the hole in the grass if it wasn't a bullet.
You are still ducking and dodging about what made the dug-out hole if it was not made by a bullet and about why Foster was certain that a bullet made the hole.
This thread is a perfect example of your abject refusal to deal honestly and credibly with facts that refute your theory of the shooting. No matter how clear and compelling the evidence is, no matter how well corroborated the evidence is, you won't budge but instead will offer lame, vacuous evasions and falsehoods.
-
Anyone who reads the OP and Capasse's and my replies in this thread will laugh at this statement.
If only you could hear what people think.
Is the photo of the hole a "factoid"? What in the world would have created that hole in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain it was a bullet strike?
There was no hole. It was crack caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield from the inside. Why are you willing to believe Foster but not the Secret Service agents who closely examined the windshield in the White House garage that night?
Is Officer Foster's WC testimony a "factoid"? (Note: Foster told the WC that he saw a bullet hit the grass, and that he assumed the bullet had ricocheted out of the hole.)
Much of what Foster said is his assumptions. You combined his assumptions with your lies to create a factoid. Foster did not say he saw a bullet hit the grass. This is what he told the WC:
Mr. FOSTER - I moved to -down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of he shots hit.
Mr. BALL - Find anything?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.
Mr. BALL - Hit the turf?
All he saw was a hole in the grass and he just assumed it was caused by a bullet just as he assumed it had ricocheted out of the hole.
Is Dudman's account of being told by a police inspector that bullet had been found in the grass a "factoid"?
I don't know what Dudman was told. I know there was no bullet found in the grass. According to Foster's account, the bullet had ricocheted out. That doesn't square with the bullet being found in the grass.
Is the fact that Lt. Day told the Dallas Times-Herald that a bullet was recovered from the hole in the grass and that Day even estimated the distance between the hole and the sixth-floor window a "factoid"?
In an event such as this, what people hear and what actually happened are not necessarily one and the same. A lot of misinformation gets reported. What we know is that Foster, by his own admission, said he didn't find a bullet. The other people you have cited didn't find a bullet either. They reported what they had heard. IOW, hearsay.
If you are going to insist that a bullet was found in the grass or anywhere else, tell us who said they found it.
I just have to laugh at this howler:
You "don't need a rational explanation"?! LOL! Yeah, who needs rational explanations, right?!
I hope everyone notices that MTG has quoted a phrase out of context to hide the point that was actually being made. He did this because MTG is a liar and the biggest liars are the ones who tell half truths, as MTG has done here.
No, of course you're not the one claiming it is a bullet hole. No kidding. Officer Foster, Deputy Sheriff Walthers, Richard Dudman, Lt. J. C. Day, and reporters at two Dallas-Fort Worth newspapers said the hole was made by a bullet. Foster, Walthers, Day, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter saw the hole. Foster saw the hole made and recognized it as a bullet strike, and never wavered from that position.
They saw a hole in the turf. There is no evidence the hole was caused by a bullet. That is pure assumption.
Since you say they were all wrong, it is up to you to explain why they were wrong and what made the hole in the grass if it wasn't a bullet.
Another of your feeble attempts at shifting the burden of proof. You are the one claiming the hole they saw was caused by a bullet. Since none of these people actually saw a bullet, that is going to be quite difficult. Of course we can count on doing what you always do. Assume what you can't prove.
I don't dispute that these people saw a hole in the turf. I dispute that there is credible evidence the hole was caused by a bullet strike. You have provided no evidence it was.
You are still ducking and dodging about what made the dug-out hole if it was not made by a bullet and about why Foster was certain that a bullet made the hole.
Again, I don't have to prove what caused the hole in the turf because I don't pretend to know what caused it. You have resorted to the standard CT practice of assuming every unexplained event is evidence of a conspiracy. Since it is unknown what caused the hole in the turf, you take that as an invitation to assume it was a bullet strike. Completely illogical.
This thread is a perfect example of your abject refusal to deal honestly and credibly with facts that refute your theory of the shooting. No matter how clear and compelling the evidence is, no matter how well corroborated the evidence is, you won't budge but instead will offer lame, vacuous evasions and falsehoods.
You are the last person on this forum who has the moral authority to talk about honesty, given your long history of deceit. You have presented no facts which refute the lone gunman position. You have strung together assumptions and mixed in your own lies to create your factoids. You have been doing this sort of thing for the 35 years I have been reading your crap.
You have presented zero witnesses to a bullet being found in the turf or anywhere else along Elm St. You have taken a hole in the turf and simply assumed it was made by a bullet. Are we supposed to believe that every hole in the turf is evidence of a bullet strike. If that is the case, I could go down to my local park and I'll bet I could find 100 bullet holes in no time.
-
There is an “X” and a note on the 63 map of Dealey Plaza denoting the manhole cover and uprooted grass location and it has “missed shot” Z285 written there. Somebody originally thought that Z285 was a missed shot that struck the manhole cover and then went into the grass.
That is certainly wrong if it’s the TSBD shooter because it would be an even MORE absurd shot missing the limo To the left side and at Z285, it’s only 1.5 sec preceding Z313. Highly improbable if the rifle used was the MC rifle.
Other than Corbett dismissing witnesses, then it’s either a 2nd gunman or it’s the TSBD shooter who fired a 1st shot that for some reason missed far LEFT of the limo.
Would a 2nd gunman have missed the entire limo that far left even if it was a shot intended to hit Greer the driver or the left front tire to cause the limo to come to a stop. ( could it be that far off due to malfunction caused by a suppressor device on the rifle IDK)
Cannot explain the manhole cover strike / grass uprooted with the Andrew Mason
Z190-Z270-Z313 sequence.
The Tom Graves early Z124 standing up shot from TSBD is highly unlikely to have hit the manhole cover as it’s too downward an angle, and the shot supposedly buries into the asphalt.
The other LN proposed missed 1st shots somewhere from Z140-z170 are predicated on the shot missing just RIGHT of JFK and maybe struck the street to the RIGHT side of the limo. So that does not explain a manhole cover on the left side of the limo ever being struck by any of 3 shots fired by a TSBD 6th floor shooter.
Charles idea of an unintentional accidental firing the 1st shot AS the shooter was adjusting /placing the rifle on the box platform is therefore the best LN alternative because it’s an unaimed shot. However Tague thought it was either the 2nd shot OR 3rd shot that hit curb. Opps!
One other alternative is the Dan the Man’s Z224 1st shot theory where the 3rd shot is fired approx 2.5 sec AFTER Z313. However this one seems a little strange that the shooter was not still aiming after Z313 and just took a final unaimed no shot fired as rapidly as an MC rifle can be operated.
The only way ANY of the above alternatives would explain the curb being hit by the bullet hitting the manhole cover requires the bullet broke up into pieces after striking the manhole cover, where some lead fragment separated completely from the copper jacket and flew across the green almost nearly horizontal to the ground, while the rest of the bullet with lead and copper jacket still joined together as a 2nd fragment that buried into the grass just a few feet away from the manhole cover.
-
Other than Corbett dismissing witnesses, then it’s either a 2nd gunman or it’s the TSBD shooter who fired a 1st shot that for some reason missed far LEFT of the limo.
Do you think everything every witness told us about the assassination is accurate? If not, you are dismissing witnesses too.
Have you bothered to consider that the hole in the turf near the manhole is NOT a bullet strike? There is no record of anyone saying they found a bullet in the turf on the southside of Elm St. There are people who said they HEARD that a bullet was found in the turf on the southside of Elm St.
-
The only way ANY of the above alternatives would explain the curb being hit by the bullet hitting the manhole cover requires the bullet broke up into pieces after striking the manhole cover, where some lead fragment separated completely from the copper jacket and flew across the green almost nearly horizontal to the ground, while the rest of the bullet with lead and copper jacket still joined together as a 2nd fragment that buried into the grass just a few feet away from the manhole cover.
There is no definitive proof as to which shot hit the curb near Tague. Only possibilities. I lean toward it being a ricochet from the first shot but I can't rule out a lead fragment from the head shot having passed over the windshield and gone down range to strike the curb near Tague. Any theoretical shot from a different rifle from another location faces the same unanswered questions as either Oswald's first or third shots. How did such a shot miss JFK and end up hitting the curb near Tague?
-
The manhole did have a gouge in it did it not? Is not there a photo of the manhole cover showing there is a mark? ( or am I experiencing the Mandela effect?)
If there is no photo then it’s just a witness having seen something but no actual physical evidence
on the manhole cover, and the bullet (or partial bullet with missing lead ) that caused the uprooted grass, not in the archives or in WC documented items, means either it was not found or that there was a post event conspiracy of avoiding introducing that bullet.
Why does it always wind up there being a possibility of conspiracy? The photo with the man reaching into that uprooted grass, where is his WC testimony?
-
The manhole did have a gouge in it did it not? Is not there a photo of the manhole cover showing there is a mark? ( or am I experiencing the Mandela effect?)
That was Foster's initial claim but when showed a picture of the manhole during his WC testimony, he couldn't point out any such gouge.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.
Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?
Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.
If there is no photo then it’s just a witness having seen something but no actual physical evidence
on the manhole cover, and the bullet (or partial bullet with missing lead ) that caused the uprooted grass, not in the archives or in WC documented items, means either it was not found or that there was a post event conspiracy of avoiding introducing that bullet.
Why does it always wind up there being a possibility of conspiracy? The photo with the man reaching into that uprooted grass, where is his WC testimony?
Why is there never any actual evidence of a conspiracy?
-
There is an “X” and a note on the 63 map of Dealey Plaza denoting the manhole cover and uprooted grass location and it has “missed shot” Z285 written there. Somebody originally thought that Z285 was a missed shot that struck the manhole cover and then went into the grass.
That is a very good point. I had forgotten about that map.
Yes, initially federal investigators acknowledged the bullet strike that Foster had observed and that Dallas police sources had initially confirmed, and they tried to determine when it was fired.
Of course, the main problem was that they were already chained down by the three-shot scenario. They soon realized that none of their supposed three shots, nor a fragment from those shots, could have hit the grass near the manhole cover. And that's why the WC ended up lamely dismissing the bullet strike.
The WC's lone-gunman theory would have been much more credible and defensible if the Commission had posited that the supposed single shooter fired four shots, one shot before the Z133 break in the Zapruder film, one shot while the limo was passing beneath the oak tree at (the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage), one shot at around Z234-236 (which would have aligned with Connally's choice of impact frame), and one shot at Z312. This would have given the alleged lone assassin a plausible amount of time between shots (4 shots in 379 frames or 20.7 seconds), and would have given the WC one more missed shot. Ah, but the three shell casings conveniently and suspiciously left behind in the sixth-floor sniper's nest prevented the positing of such a scenario.
That is certainly wrong if it’s the TSBD shooter because it would be an even MORE absurd shot missing the limo To the left side and at Z285, it’s only 1.5 sec preceding Z313. Highly improbable if the rifle used was the MC rifle.
Yes, and federal investigators and WC staffers soon realized this, which is one of the reasons the bullet strike had to be denied, even though it was well documented.
Other than Corbett dismissing witnesses, then it’s either a 2nd gunman or it’s the TSBD shooter who fired a 1st shot that for some reason missed far LEFT of the limo.
The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.
Would a 2nd gunman have missed the entire limo that far left even if it was a shot intended to hit Greer the driver or the left front tire to cause the limo to come to a stop. (could it be that far off due to malfunction caused by a suppressor device on the rifle IDK).
Cannot explain the manhole cover strike / grass uprooted with the Andrew Mason
Z190-Z270-Z313 sequence.
The Tom Graves early Z124 standing up shot from TSBD is highly unlikely to have hit the manhole cover as it’s too downward an angle, and the shot supposedly buries into the asphalt.
The other LN proposed missed 1st shots somewhere from Z140-z170 are predicated on the shot missing just RIGHT of JFK and maybe struck the street to the RIGHT side of the limo. So that does not explain a manhole cover on the left side of the limo ever being struck by any of 3 shots fired by a TSBD 6th floor shooter.
Charles idea of an unintentional accidental firing the 1st shot AS the shooter was adjusting /placing the rifle on the box platform is therefore the best LN alternative because it’s an unaimed shot. However Tague thought it was either the 2nd shot OR 3rd shot that hit curb. Opps!
One other alternative is the Dan the Man’s Z224 1st shot theory where the 3rd shot is fired approx 2.5 sec AFTER Z313. However this one seems a little strange that the shooter was not still aiming after Z313 and just took a final unaimed no shot fired as rapidly as an MC rifle can be operated.
The only way ANY of the above alternatives would explain the curb being hit by the bullet hitting the manhole cover requires the bullet broke up into pieces after striking the manhole cover, where some lead fragment separated completely from the copper jacket and flew across the green almost nearly horizontal to the ground, while the rest of the bullet with lead and copper jacket still joined together as a 2nd fragment that buried into the grass just a few feet away from the manhole cover.
Yes, the theories that WC apologists have offered to explain the bullet strike in the grass require wildly implausible scenarios. Their attempts to explain the bullet strike are even worse and zanier than their attempts to explain the Tague wounding -- and that's saying a lot.
-
That is a very good point. I had forgotten about that map.
Yes, initially federal investigators acknowledged the bullet strike that Foster had observed and that Dallas police sources had initially confirmed, and they tried to determine when it was fired.
How could they confirm that was a bullet strike when no bullet was found at that location?
Of course, the main problem was that they were already chained down by the three-shot scenario. They soon realized that none of their supposed three shots, nor a fragment from those shots, could have hit the grass near the manhole cover. And that's why the WC ended up lamely dismissing the bullet strike.
The WC's lone-gunman theory would have been much more credible and defensible if the Commission had posited that the supposed single shooter fired four shots, one shot before the Z133 break in the Zapruder film, one shot while the limo was passing beneath the oak tree at (the split-second break in the oak tree's foliage), one shot at around Z234-236 (which would have aligned with Connally's choice of impact frame), and one shot at Z312. This would have given the alleged lone assassin a plausible amount of time between shots (4 shots in 379 frames or 20.7 seconds), and would have given the WC one more missed shot. Ah, but the three shell casings conveniently and suspiciously left behind in the sixth-floor sniper's nest prevented the positing of such a scenario.
As bad as you are at making your own arguments, the LNs would be crazy to let you make our arguments for us.
Yes, and federal investigators and WC staffers soon realized this, which is one of the reasons the bullet strike had to be denied, even though it was well documented.
Just how was that documented? By a photo of a hole in the turf with no bullet in the hole? Compelling stuff
The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.
I've never claimed the witnesses were mistaken. They probably did see a hole in the turf. None of them saw a bullet in the hole in the turf.
Yes, the theories that WC apologists have offered to explain the bullet strike in the grass require wildly implausible scenarios. Their attempts to explain the bullet strike are even worse and zanier than their attempts to explain the Tague wounding -- and that's saying a lot.
It has never been established that there was a bullet strike in the grass at that location. Only assumptions based on the flimsiest of evidence.
-
The argument that every single one of the witnesses was mistaken and that this was all just a giant misunderstanding is unserious and discrediting. Anyone who peddles this line needs to explain what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster believe that a bullet had hit the grass.
I should add that people who peddle this argument also need to explain why Lt. Day confirmed that a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover, why Dudman reported that a police inspector told him that a bullet was found in the grass, why Walthers told his wife that they found a bullet in the grass, and what the suited man picked up from the hole in the grass and put in his pocket.
Also, I may have been wrong in saying the bullet was removed from the hole before the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo was taken. As I look at the enlargement of the photo in "Michael Capasse's first reply" (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5187.msg184930.html#msg184930), there appears to be what looks like the bottom of a bullet in the upper part of the hole, as if the bullet hit the grass, created the dug-out hole, and then lodged in the top part of the hole just under the mound it created.
Yes, the object could just be another rock, but the object seems to have a visible ring inside the circular outside edge.
It's possible that the reporter was allowed to take that photograph before the suited man removed the bullet from the hole. I assumed the photo must have been taken after the bullet was removed because other photos show bystanders being kept at a distance from the hole in the grass.
-
I should add that people who peddle this argument also need to explain why Lt. Day confirmed that a bullet hit the grass near the manhole cover, why Dudman reported that a police inspector told him that a bullet was found in the grass, why Walthers told his wife that they found a bullet in the grass, and what the suited man picked up from the hole in the grass and put in his pocket.
These people are reporting what they heard, not what they saw. You don't care. Rumors are all you have, not real evidence.
Also, I may have been wrong in saying the bullet was removed from the hole before the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photo was taken. As I look at the enlargement of the photo in "Michael Capasse's first reply" (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5187.msg184930.html#msg184930), there appears to be what looks like the bottom of a bullet in the upper part of the hole, as if the bullet hit the grass, created the dug-out hole, and then lodged in the top part of the hole just under the mound it created.
The photo shows no bullet, just a hole. It was investigated and no bullet was found in the hole. But that didn't stop the rumor that a bullet was found there from spreading. 62+ years later, you are still believing the rumor.
Yes, the object could just be another rock, but the object seems to have a visible ring inside the circular outside edge.
Seems? IOW, it's in the eye of the beholder. There is no bullet in the photo.
It's possible that the reporter was allowed to take that photograph before the suited man removed the bullet from the hole.
"The suited man"? IOW, you can't name anyone who actually found a bullet in that hole.
I assumed the photo must have been taken after the bullet was removed because other photos show bystanders being kept at a distance from the hole in the grass.
You assume a lot. Rumors and assumptions are the building blocks of your beliefs. It certainly isn't evidence.
-
These people are reporting what they heard, not what they saw. You don't care. Rumors are all you have, not real evidence.
The photo shows no bullet, just a hole. It was investigated and no bullet was found in the hole. But that didn't stop the rumor that a bullet was found there from spreading. 62+ years later, you are still believing the rumor.
Seems? IOW, it's in the eye of the beholder. There is no bullet in the photo.
"The suited man"? IOW, you can't name anyone who actually found a bullet in that hole.
You assume a lot. Rumors and assumptions are the building blocks of your beliefs. It certainly isn't evidence.
BS: rinse & repeat
-
BS: rinse & repeat
Yes, exactly.
Notice he still has not explained what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain that a bullet had hit the grass.
Of course, to believe his lame denial, we'd have to believe that Lt. Day merely repeated what he'd heard, that the police inspector who talked with Dudman merely repeated what he'd heard, and that Walters' wife was lying when she said her husband told her they found a bullet in the grass.
And I guess we're supposed to believe that it means nothing that photos show that the man in the suit leaned down, put his hand in the hole, brought his hand upward with the hand cupped, and then put his hand in his pocket.
-
Yes, exactly.
Notice he still has not explained what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain that a bullet had hit the grass.
Of course, to believe his lame denial, we'd have to believe that Lt. Day merely repeated what he'd heard, that the police inspector who talked with Dudman merely repeated what he'd heard, and that Walters' wife was lying when she said her husband told her they found a bullet in the grass.
And I guess we're supposed to believe that it means nothing that photos show that the man in the suit leaned down, put his hand in the hole, brought his hand upward with the hand cupped, and then put his hand in his pocket.
very good.
When did Mrs Walthers make her statement about it?
-
Yes, exactly.
Notice he still has not explained what else could have hit the grass in such a way as to make Officer Foster feel certain that a bullet had hit the grass.
I don't need to explain it. You do. You are the one who has postulated that the hole in the turf is a bullet hole. The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that. You have failed miserably.
Of course, to believe his lme denial, we'd have to believe that Lt. Day merely repeated what he'd heard, that the police inspector who talked with Dudman merely repeated what he'd heard, and that Walters' wife was lying when she said her husband told her they found a bullet in the grass.
All hearsay. Not one of these people is on record as saying they saw a bullet. [/quote]
And I guess we're supposed to believe that it means nothing that photos show that the man in the suit leaned down, put his hand in the hole, brought his hand upward with the hand cupped, and then put his hand in his pocket.
[/quote]
Tell us who that man was and what he said he found? Cite a source for these alleged photos so we can judge for ourselves what they show.
-
I don't need to explain it. You do. You are the one who has postulated that the hole in the turf is a bullet hole. The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that. You have failed miserably.
All hearsay. Not one of these people is on record as saying they saw a bullet.
And I guess we're supposed to believe that it means nothing that photos show that the man in the suit leaned down, put his hand in the hole, brought his hand upward with the hand cupped, and then put his hand in his pocket.
Tell us who that man was and what he said he found? Cite a source for these alleged photos so we can judge for ourselves what they show.
Garbage - Take it up with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the picture and caption was in their paper and on their website.
Three witness confirm a bullet in the grass. You just don't like what they said.
-
Garbage - Take it up with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the picture and caption was in their paper and on their website.
Three witness confirm a bullet in the grass. You just don't like what they said.
Tell us who those witnesses were and what they said they saw.
-
Tell us who those witnesses were and what they said they saw.
already posted.
You would know that after having falsely tagged it as hear-say
-
already posted.
You would know that after having falsely tagged it as hear-say
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
The standard CT dodge when asked to produce evidence that doesn't exist. In the last few days, MTG has resorted to this 3 times. Anthony Marsh was famous for this tactic on McAdams' forum. He would invariably follow it up with "Learn to google".
-
BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:
The standard CT dodge when asked to produce evidence that doesn't exist. In the last few days, MTG has resorted to this 3 times. Anthony Marsh was famous for this tactic on McAdams' forum. He would invariably follow it up with "Learn to google".
What dodge? U are already aware two of them have been posted on the second page of this thread.
:D Are stalling for time or is it just lame excuses to somehow hold it together?
-
What dodge? U are already aware two of them have been posted on the second page of this thread.
:D Are stalling for time or is it just lame excuses to somehow hold it together?
You said three witnesses confirm a bullet in the grass. On the second page of this thread you posted this:
Richard Dudman | The Republic 12/21/63
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit,
and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.“
Dallas Times Herald 11/23/63
"Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window...
to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.”
You cited Dudman saying somebody told him he saw a bullet. That's hearsay. Dudman did not say he saw a bullet.
There is no record of Day saying he saw a bullet. There is no record of anyone saying he saw a bullet. All of this nonsense comes from embellishments of things people said they heard, not something they actually saw.
We can safely label claims that somebody saw a bullet in the grass or saw a bullet taken from the grass as total BS:
-
You said three witnesses said they saw a bullet. One the second page of this thread you posted this:
Richard Dudman | The Republic 12/21/63
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit,
and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass.“
Dallas Times Herald 11/23/63
"Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window...
to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards.”
You cited Dudman saying somebody told him he saw a bullet. That's hearsay. Dudman did not say he saw a bullet.
There is no record of Day saying he saw a bullet. There is no record of anyone saying he saw a bullet. All of this nonsense comes from embellishments of things people said they heard, not something they actually saw.
We can safely label claims that somebody saw a bullet in the grass or saw a bullet taken from the grass as total BS:
You cited Dudman saying somebody told him he saw a bullet. That's hearsay. Dudman did not say he saw a bullet.
A cop told him directly - how is that hearsay?
There is no record of Day saying he saw a bullet. There is no record of anyone saying he saw a bullet. All of this nonsense comes from embellishments of things people said they heard, not something they actually saw.
He said it directly to the Dallas Times Herald - in fact, he gave an estimation of yardage - Record of it was printed in the paper on 11/23
:D Your faulted opinion of what is or isn't hear-say are just lame excuses that don't mean very much
-
A cop told him directly - how is that hearsay?
hear·say
[ˈhɪəseɪ]
noun
hearsay (noun)
information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:
Did Dudman substantiate that a bullet was taken from the grass? No, he only told us what he heard, or more to the point, what he thinks he was told. Often people misinterpret what they are told. Either way, Dudman's account is hearsay.
He said it directly to the Dallas Times Herald - in fact, he gave an estimation of yardage - Record of it was printed in the paper on 11/23
:D Your faulted opinion of what is or isn't hear-say are just lame excuses that don't mean very much
I have yet to see you, MTG, or anybody else provide a direct quote from Day saying he saw a bullet in the grass. I can believe after being told there was a bullet hole that he might have estimated the distance. That doesn't mean Day confirmed there had been a bullet in the grass.
-
hear·say
[ˈhɪəseɪ]
noun
hearsay (noun)
information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour:
Did Dudman substantiate that a bullet was taken from the grass? No, he only told us what he heard, or more to the point, what he thinks he was told. Often people misinterpret what they are told. Either way, Dudman's account is hearsay.
I have yet to see you, MTG, or anybody else provide a direct quote from Day saying he saw a bullet in the grass. I can believe after being told there was a bullet hole that he might have estimated the distance. That doesn't mean Day confirmed there had been a bullet in the grass.
BS: lame
Dudman was told directly and is substantiated by the other witnesses.
The Day quote is a first hand statement to the newspaper.
hearsay/ˈhirˌsā/
"Hearsay is information or a statement you heard from someone else rather than something you saw or experienced yourself."
There is nothing hear-say about either one.
:D You just made that up.
-
BS: lame
Dudman was told directly and is substantiated by the other witnesses.
The Day quote is a first hand statement to the newspaper.
hearsay/ˈhirˌsā/
"Hearsay is information or a statement you heard from someone else rather than something you saw or experienced yourself."
There is nothing hear-say about either one.
:D You just made that up.
Still waiting for you to name just one person who is on record as saying they saw a bullet taken from the grass. In lieu of that, it is nothing more than a rumor.
-
Dr. Donald Thomas's analysis of the bullet that hit the grass near the manhole cover is worth quoting at length:
Without asking Foster what spurred him to look for a bullet, or why he searched where he did, Counsel Joseph Ball queried in an offhanded aside, "Find anything?" To which Foster responded,
"Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location."
There then followed a somewhat convoluted account in which Foster variously declared that the bullet had hit a manhole cover, that it had ricocheted off the pavement surrounding the manhole cover, or that directly or indirectly, it had wound up in the turf. Foster allowed that he had not actually found a bullet but he did call the crime scene unit's attention to the spot. Predictably, the Warren Commission took no further interest in Foster's testimony. That is to say, neither the crime scene unit, or Foster's partner J.C. White, who was with Foster on the Triple Underpass, were asked about the incident.
As it happens, Dallas Times Herald reporters interviewed crime scene detective Carl Day about the incident on the day after the assassination. In these early days before gag orders had been issued, Day told reporters that he had measured the distance from the sixth floor window to the spot where the bullet had been recovered in the turf at 100 yards!
The Saturday edition of the Fort Worth Star Telegram published a photograph of the turf next to the manhole cover with the caption,
"Assassin's Bullet - One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street from the building in which the killer was hiding and from where he launched his assault."
Harry Cabluck, the news photographer who took the picture, told researcher Jim Marrs that he did not actually see the bullet but was told by someone that a bullet had struck the grass at this spot.
There were other contemporary reports. St. Louis Dispatch journalist Richard Dudman was among the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. His firsthand report states,
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass."
The FBI also learned of the incident. Witness Jean Lois Hill was interviewed by agents at the Sheriffs headquarters that afternoon. Learning that she had been standing on the Dealey Plaza lawn, they asked her if she had seen a bullet hit the grass (she had not). Another witness, Hugh Betzner, told Dallas agents that he had seen police digging for a bullet in the lawn.
Researcher Jim Marrs located and interviewed two other witnesses mentioned in the FBI report: Wayne and Edna Hartman told the FBI that they had seen the ground mounded up and asked the policemen if it was the work of moles. They were told that bullets had struck the ground. Nor was Foster the only person to see the initial strike. Richard Randolph Carr testified that one shot "knocked a bunch of grass up."
Now this is very interesting, and telling: so two other people noticed that the spot of grass near the manhole cover was "mounded up," and one other person saw a bullet knock "a bunch of grass up" near the manhole cover, just as Officer Foster saw and immediately reported.
Let's continue with Dr. Thomas's analysis:
The factor which lends weight to these accounts is that the whole incident was recorded in photographs taken by Black Star photographer, Jim Murray. With the Texas School Book Depository as a backdrop, and the Hertz clock on the roof reading 12:40, patrolman Foster can be seen with other officers hovering over the manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street (Fig. 11.4). In the series of photographs a sandy-haired man with a side-wall hair cut and a dark gray suit is seen bent over and probing the turf with his left hand. He rises with his left hand making a fist--seeming to clutch something--then in the next picture his hand is stuffed deep into his left side pants pocket.
The man in the pictures was later identified by police chief Jesse Curry as an FBI agent. Yet, he has never been officially identified. Prominent in the photographs, wearing a black suit, is Deputy Sheriff Ed "Buddy" Walthers. Just before testifying to the Warren Commission, the Commission's counsel exchanged an internal memorandum containing a statement concerning Walthers and the incident.
"At one time Walthers was quoted as having found a bullet, but he seems to have backed away from this position."
This memorandum suggests that the Commission was in receipt of a report or document quoting Walthers as having found a bullet and/or subsequently retracting. No such reports or documents are now present in the Archives. In subsequent years Walthers' wife Dorothy told researcher Mark Oakes (who told this writer) that her late husband had told her they had indeed found a bullet in the grass. (Hear No Evil, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 400-401)[/font][/size]
-
Dr. Donald Thomas's analysis of the bullet that hit the grass near the manhole cover is worth quoting at length:
Without asking Foster what spurred him to look for a bullet, or why he searched where he did, Counsel Joseph Ball queried in an offhanded aside, "Find anything?" To which Foster responded,
"Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location."
There then followed a somewhat convoluted account in which Foster variously declared that the bullet had hit a manhole cover, that it had ricocheted off the pavement surrounding the manhole cover, or that directly or indirectly, it had wound up in the turf. Foster allowed that he had not actually found a bullet but he did call the crime scene unit's attention to the spot. Predictably, the Warren Commission took no further interest in Foster's testimony. That is to say, neither the crime scene unit, or Foster's partner J.C. White, who was with Foster on the Triple Underpass, were asked about the incident.
As it happens, Dallas Times Herald reporters interviewed crime scene detective Carl Day about the incident on the day after the assassination. In these early days before gag orders had been issued, Day told reporters that he had measured the distance from the sixth floor window to the spot where the bullet had been recovered in the turf at 100 yards!
The Saturday edition of the Fort Worth Star Telegram published a photograph of the turf next to the manhole cover with the caption,
"Assassin's Bullet - One of the rifle bullets fired by the murderer of President Kennedy lies in the grass across Elm Street from the building in which the killer was hiding and from where he launched his assault."
Harry Cabluck, the news photographer who took the picture, told researcher Jim Marrs that he did not actually see the bullet but was told by someone that a bullet had struck the grass at this spot.
There were other contemporary reports. St. Louis Dispatch journalist Richard Dudman was among the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. His firsthand report states,
"A group of police officers were examining the area at the side of the street where the President was hit, and a police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass."
The FBI also learned of the incident. Witness Jean Lois Hill was interviewed by agents at the Sheriffs headquarters that afternoon. Learning that she had been standing on the Dealey Plaza lawn, they asked her if she had seen a bullet hit the grass (she had not). Another witness, Hugh Betzner, told Dallas agents that he had seen police digging for a bullet in the lawn.
Researcher Jim Marrs located and interviewed two other witnesses mentioned in the FBI report: Wayne and Edna Hartman told the FBI that they had seen the ground mounded up and asked the policemen if it was the work of moles. They were told that bullets had struck the ground. Nor was Foster the only person to see the initial strike. Richard Randolph Carr testified that one shot "knocked a bunch of grass up."
Now this is very interesting, and telling: so two other people noticed that the spot of grass near the manhole cover was "mounded up," and one other person saw a bullet knock "a bunch of grass up" near the manhole cover, just as Officer Foster saw and immediately reported.
Let's continue with Dr. Thomas's analysis:
The factor which lends weight to these accounts is that the whole incident was recorded in photographs taken by Black Star photographer, Jim Murray. With the Texas School Book Depository as a backdrop, and the Hertz clock on the roof reading 12:40, patrolman Foster can be seen with other officers hovering over the manhole cover on the south side of Elm Street (Fig. 11.4). In the series of photographs a sandy-haired man with a side-wall hair cut and a dark gray suit is seen bent over and probing the turf with his left hand. He rises with his left hand making a fist--seeming to clutch something--then in the next picture his hand is stuffed deep into his left side pants pocket.
The man in the pictures was later identified by police chief Jesse Curry as an FBI agent. Yet, he has never been officially identified. Prominent in the photographs, wearing a black suit, is Deputy Sheriff Ed "Buddy" Walthers. Just before testifying to the Warren Commission, the Commission's counsel exchanged an internal memorandum containing a statement concerning Walthers and the incident.
"At one time Walthers was quoted as having found a bullet, but he seems to have backed away from this position."
This memorandum suggests that the Commission was in receipt of a report or document quoting Walthers as having found a bullet and/or subsequently retracting. No such reports or documents are now present in the Archives. In subsequent years Walthers' wife Dorothy told researcher Mark Oakes (who told this writer) that her late husband had told her they had indeed found a bullet in the grass. (Hear No Evil, Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2010, pp. 400-401)[/font][/size]
Much ado about nothing.
That pretty much describes the nearly 63 year long snipe hunt the conspiracy hobbyists have been on. And what do they have to show for their efforts? A hole in the ground.
-
Much ado about nothing. That pretty much describes the nearly 63 year long snipe hunt the conspiracy hobbyists have been on. And what do they have to show for their efforts? A hole in the ground.
I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.
So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.
So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?
BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!
I have yet to see you, MTG, or anybody else provide a direct quote from Day saying he saw a bullet in the grass. I can believe after being told there was a bullet hole that he might have estimated the distance. That doesn't mean Day confirmed there had been a bullet in the grass.
Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.
Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?
Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.
I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass.
I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:
FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10S5K17jRpk)
The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.
Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.
Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cinMzeQDY) (3:53 to 7:08)
But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass, much less that it was recovered, because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.
-
I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.
I'm glad people like you don't find my writings credible, because if people like you ever found me credible, I would take it as a sign I was in cognitive decline.
So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.
I wouldn't believe anyone who said they saw a bullet hit the ground because bullets travel too fast to be seen by the naked eye. It had been raining in the DFW area that morning so the ground would have been wet, so there wouldn't have been "bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green". I also find it hard to believe the with the POTUS, whom the spectators had come out to see, coming down Elm St., that anyone would have been focused on a one little patch of ground where this bullet supposedly hit. This is the kind of critical thinking which people like you never seem willing to apply to the rumors they read about.
So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?
There is no credible evidence that refutes my theory of the shooting, which in actuality is the fact of the shooting. The Hartman's did not see a bullet hit the ground nor did they see a bullet taken out of the ground at the spot. The believed what they were told. No one saw a bullet hit the ground and no one saw a bullet removed from the ground. There were people who HEARD that a bullet had hit the ground in that spot or that a bullet had been taken out of the ground, but no one seems to have actually seen a bullet. That makes these reports of a bullet striking the ground at that point nothing but rumors and rumors are not evidence. But you don't care. You prefer the rumors to the facts because the facts don't support your beliefs.
BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!
OH!!! Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass. Did Walthers show him the bullet he found in the grass? What did Walthers do with the bullet he found in the grass? Are we supposed to believe what Walthers told Maddox? Why should we?
Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.
Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?
Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.
Oh, goody. We have an estimate of how far it was from the sniper's nest to the spot in the ground where no bullet was found. The fact that Day made an estimate of the distance to the sniper's nest is hardly compelling evidence that a bullet was found at that location?
I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass.
Oh, goody. One more guy who was TOLD a bullet was found in the grass. If only there was someone who actually had the bullet that was found in the grass. That would be a story.
I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
I don't have to explain it. You are the one claiming a bullet was found there. The burden is on you to provide evidence of that. I have no idea what some unidentified person might have put in his pocket. I do know that rumors of an unidentified person putting something in his pocket is not evidence of a bullet having been found.
For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:
FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10S5K17jRpk)
The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.
Oh, some people believe the unidentified man who put an unidentified object in his pocket might have been FBI agent Robert Barrett. You're really closing in on it, Columbo.
Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.
Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cinMzeQDY) (3:53 to 7:08)
Did you happen to notice at the 1:58 mark the limo was surrounded by uniformed officers which means they weren't letting anyone near the limo. It's not surprising that someone looking at the crack in the windshield might assume they were looking at a bullet hole, but as the Secret Service determined on CLOSE EXAMINATION, the windshield was cracked from the inside and the outer surface of the windshield was intact. Also, earlier you had claimed a cop put a pencil through the hole in the windshield. According to the video, the cop SAID, "You could put a pencil through the hole". He did not say he had put a pencil through the hole. Just another example of you fudging facts to support your claim.
But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass,
Not without evidence of that.
much less that it was recovered,
Not without evidence of that.
because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.
I find it strange that you think it implausible that one of Oswald's shot could have caused the Tague wounding but you have no problem believing one of your phantom shooters could have caused the same wounding. Where's your explanation for how that happened. For that matter, just how bad were your phantom shooters firing from all over Dealey Plaza. A few weeks ago you scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have missed the limo with one of his shots. Yet your shooters all seem to have gotten Maggie's Drawers for their efforts. The medical evidence indicates all the shots that hit JFK and JBC were fired from above an behind them. Your GK shooter completely whiffed with his shot. A few weeks ago, you suggested a shooter from the Dal-Tex building had fired over the windshield and that stray shot was the one that struck the curb near Tague. All one has to do is look at Altgens 6 and see how bad a miss that would have to be to completely miss the limo, even if the shooter was as low as the second floor. As for your frontal shot through the windshield, I don't recall you telling us where that shooter might have fired from. I'm sure that explanation would be quite amusing, which is probably why you haven't given us that yet.
In any case, it's quite puzzling how such a sophisticated and massive conspiracy, capable of completely controlling the investigation, couldn't find any competent shooters to get the job done. The only guy who hit what he was aiming at that day was Oswald.