JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on December 20, 2022, 10:50:48 PM

Title: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 20, 2022, 10:50:48 PM
For this one, I fear, we are going to need the timemachine Richard is always talking about.

Unless of course Richard or any of the other LNs can explain this obvious time anomaly.

As the official narrative goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on a stretcher and gave it to Wright, who in turn give it to Secret Service Agent Johnsen.
Johnsen put the bullet in his pocket and took it to Washington. Upon his arrival there, he gave the bullet to his boss J.J. Rowley along with a typed note on White House paper saying that he had received the bullet from O.P. Wright. The note was dated and the time on it was 7:30 PM.

Rowley then called the FBI who sent Special Agent Elmer L. Todd to collect it. Todd confirmed the receipt by writing in his own hand on the evelope containing the bullet: "Received from Chief Rowley USSS 8:50 p.m. 11-22-63" He signed that note! On December 19, 1963 James Rowley wrote and signed a "memorandum to file" in which he confirmed that he had delivered the bullet tp Todd at "approximately 8:50 pm, Friday November 22, 1963.

During his WC testimony, Mr Eisenberg showed FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier bullet CE399 which he said "for the record" that it was the bullet which was found at Parkland. He asked Frazier if he was familiar with that bullet and Frazier answered; Yes, this is the bullet which was delivered to me by Elmer Todd (who btw did not testify before the WC).

There are two mysteries;

1. Elmer Todd claimed that he initialed the bullet he received from Rowley but the bullet now at the National Archives as CE399 doesn't have his initials on it. Those of Robert Frazier and three other FBI lab assistants are there but not those of Todd.

2. Even stranger is that Todd and Rowley have both confirmed that Todd received the envelope containing the bullet from Rowley at 8:50 pm. However, in several documents of the FBI lab it says that Frazier received the bullet from Todd at 7:35 pm. On at least one of those documents the time is written by Frazier himself.

Can anybody explain to me how it can be that Todd delivered the bullet to Frazier more than an hour before he received it from Rowley? And where did Todd's initials on the bullet go?
 
Title: Re: A time to recieve and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 21, 2022, 01:14:30 AM
It’s been claimed that Todd’s initials have now been located in new high-res pictures from the National Archives.

 https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html)
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 21, 2022, 02:10:11 AM
It’s been claimed that Todd’s initials have now been located in new high-res pictures from the National Archives.

 https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2022/06/roe3.html)


About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Frazier had no reason to falsify the record, and the chain of custody, by not writing the actual time he received the bullet and using the time on Johnsen's note instead. Also, the time 7:30 PM is not only mentioned in Frazier's notes for his testimony, some four months after actually receiving the bullet, but it shows up on several contemporary documents produced by the FBI lab.

On the one hand, for Roe's explanation to be correct, Frazier would have had to alter the real time of 8:50 PM to 7:30 PM directly after receiving the bullet and thus four months prior to his testimony.

On the other hand, if Frazier did in fact only use Todd's 7:30 PM time in preparation for his testimony he must have done so knowing that it was not correct and - even worse - that the real time was actually documented. At best it would have been negligence, at worst it would have been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, when there would have been no reason for Frazier to be so careless and risk his credibility being questioned.

Obviously, the latter never happened because the WC simply wasn't interested in those kind of details.

Just how many of these so-called "honest mistakes" are there that the LNs are willing to overlook?
Title: Re: A time to recieve and give (CE399)
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 21, 2022, 02:50:46 AM

About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Frazier had no reason to falsify the record, and the chain of custody, by not writing the actual time he received the bullet and using the time on Johnsen's note instead. Also, the time 7:30 PM is not only mentioned in Frazier's notes for his testimony, some four months after actually receiving the bullet, but it shows up on several contemporary documents produced by the FBI lab.

On the one hand, for Roe's explanation to be correct, Frazier would have had to alter the real time of 8:50 PM to 7:30 PM directly after receiving the bullet and thus four months prior to his testimony.

On the other hand, if Frazier did in fact only use Todd's 7:30 PM time in preparation for his testimony he must have done so knowing that it was not correct and - even worse - that the real time was actually documented. At best it would have been negligence, at worst it would have been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, when there would have been no reason for Frazier to be so careless and risk his credibility being questioned.

Obviously, the latter never happened because the WC simply wasn't interested in those kind of details.

Just how many of these so-called "honest mistakes" are there that the LNs are willing to overlook?

From White House Garage Logs (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10482#relPageId=10)

(https://i.imgur.com/kKXoaFk.jpg)

Robert Frazier's scribbling:

(https://i.imgur.com/BHl0QyH.jpg)

Frazier received those two fragments from Sibert and O'Neill at the FBI Lab.



Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 21, 2022, 12:59:52 PM
From White House Garage Logs (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10482#relPageId=10)

(https://i.imgur.com/kKXoaFk.jpg)

Robert Frazier's scribbling:

(https://i.imgur.com/BHl0QyH.jpg)

Frazier received those two fragments from Sibert and O'Neill at the FBI Lab.

So, what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that we can't rely on Frazier's information?

Frazier knew the importance of a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised the integrity of that chain by using incorrect information?

Is that the point you are making?

Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 21, 2022, 09:24:57 PM
About the time issue, Steve Roe writes in his article;

There was nothing sinister about the timing. When Frazier received the bullet, attached to the envelope was a brief note from Richard Johnsen, dictated or typed at 7:30 PM, in which the Secret Service agent described from whom, and under what circumstances—to the best of this knowledge—the bullet was retrieved at Parkland. Presumably he did this in lieu of putting his own initials on what would eventually be designated CE 399. Subsequently, while Frazier was preparing to testify before the Warren Commission for the first time on 31 March 1964, rather than use the time he actually received the bullet, he simply jotted down on his testimony worksheet the time referenced in Johnsen’s note.

but he offers not a shred of proof for that assumption (because that's what it is).

Indeed. Another one for the “lame LN excuses” file.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 23, 2022, 02:33:33 AM
So, what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that we can't rely on Frazier's information?

Frazier knew the importance of a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised the integrity of that chain by using incorrect information?

Is that the point you are making?

Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?

So, that means that someone, possibly Frazier, put down false information. Let's call that person, who faked this evidence, Mr. Shady.

Now, Mr. Shady knew the importance of creating a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised this effort by being sloppy with the inconsistent information?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?


If we know for a fact that someone made an error, despite the importance of this case, why couldn't the error have been made by Mr. Frazier? Why must we assume that the error was made by Mr. Shady?

 * * * * *

A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate. After all, for all the conspirators may know, the doctors may discover a bullet in Connally's body and two bullets in JFK's body, giving three bullets that they have to account for. Plus, they don't know if any bystanders, like James Tague, and possibly others, may turn up with bullet wounds, however minor. And now, after planting CE 399, they have only made the problem worse. How could Oswald have fired all those bullets?

Surely, rational plotters would wait for the dust to settle, find out how many bullets the doctors recovered, from JFK, from Connally, from the limousine, from other bystanders before they go ahead and start to plant additional bullets. But, perhaps, the plotters employed a psychic so they knew that this would not be a problem.

Why is this problem so rarely addressed by CTers?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 02:55:01 AM
So, that means that someone, possibly Frazier, put down false information. Let's call that person, who faked this evidence, Mr. Shady.

Now, Mr. Shady knew the importance of creating a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised this effort by being sloppy with the inconsistent information?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?


If we know for a fact that someone made an error, despite the importance of this case, why couldn't the error have been made by Mr. Frazier? Why must we assume that the error was made by Mr. Shady?

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?


Not sure where you are trying to go with this Mr. Shady stuff, but as far as Frazier is concerned; if there is anybody at the FBI who understands the significance of an unbroken chain of custody, it's Frazier. The irony is that, prior to his testimony, Frazier made a list of times he received the pieces of evidence, to protect the chain of custody. He would be the last person to use incorrect times and thus compromise the evidence.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 23, 2022, 04:26:43 AM

Question:

Why do you find it implausible for Mr. Frazier to make an error, but totally plausible for Mr. Shady to have made an error?


Not sure where you are trying to go with this Mr. Shady stuff, but as far as Frazier is concerned; if there is anybody at the FBI who understands the significance of an unbroken chain of custody, it's Frazier. The irony is that, prior to his testimony, Frazier made a list of times he received the pieces of evidence, to protect the chain of custody. He would be the last person to use incorrect times and thus compromise the evidence.

So, what point are you trying to make? You don't think there was a Mr. Shady. So you think the evidence is legitimate? But Mr. Frazier made a careless error? Therefore, you are free to ignore CE 399?

Is that all your saying?

So what, exactly is your point about an apparent error by Mr. Frazier? Was someone planting or faking evidence or not?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 23, 2022, 07:55:58 AM

Btw how do you know where Sibert and O'Neill gave the fragments to Frazier?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=6
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 01:20:44 PM
So, what point are you trying to make? You don't think there was a Mr. Shady. So you think the evidence is legitimate? But Mr. Frazier made a careless error? Therefore, you are free to ignore CE 399?

Is that all your saying?

So what, exactly is your point about an apparent error by Mr. Frazier? Was someone planting or faking evidence or not?

The point I made is clear enough. I can't help it if you don't understand it.

You may call it an "apparent error" by Frazier, and maybe it was, but it shouldn't have happened because it compromises the chain of custody and justifies the question about what else Frazier was in error.

I see you added the text below to an earlier post;

Quote
* * * * *

A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate. After all, for all the conspirators may know, the doctors may discover a bullet in Connally's body and two bullets in JFK's body, giving three bullets that they have to account for. Plus, they don't know if any bystanders, like James Tague, and possibly others, may turn up with bullet wounds, however minor. And now, after planting CE 399, they have only made the problem worse. How could Oswald have fired all those bullets?

Surely, rational plotters would wait for the dust to settle, find out how many bullets the doctors recovered, from JFK, from Connally, from the limousine, from other bystanders before they go ahead and start to plant additional bullets. But, perhaps, the plotters employed a psychic so they knew that this would not be a problem.

Why is this problem so rarely addressed by CTers?


A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate.

You are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. Tomlinson, found a bullet on a stretcher which was never conclusively linked to Connally. There is not a shred of evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 ever went through two bodies. Any physical evidence (like blood and or tissue parts on the bullet) was destroyed when SA Johnsen put the bullet in his pocket. Even Dr. Humes told the WC in his testimony that he did not believe CE399 could have passed through two bodies, hitting bone, and still come out in the condition it is in. And it gets even worse. Arlen Specter introduced CE399 into evidence subject to later proof of it's authenticity but that proof was never provided! And then there is Joseph Dolce, a US Army ballistics expert, who worked for the Warren Commission. He confirms on video that he was given the original MC rifle and 100 bullets. He shot all 100 bullets into animal cadavers and all of the bullets were smashed. None of the bullets did even resemble CE399. Not surprisingly, Dolce's testimony was not included in the Warren Report.

After all, for all the conspirators may know, the doctors may discover a bullet in Connally's body and two bullets in JFK's body, giving three bullets that they have to account for. Plus, they don't know if any bystanders, like James Tague, and possibly others, may turn up with bullet wounds, however minor. And now, after planting CE 399, they have only made the problem worse. How could Oswald have fired all those bullets?

Why would any of this be a problem, when the conspirators contol the autopsy, the investigation and the cover up, if there was one? LNs keep going on about CE399 being planted, but there is no proof for that. It may well be that Tomlinson found a completely unrelated bullet, which would explain why O.V. Wright said (I'm paraphrasing) that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 isn't the pointed bullet he saw.

But let's take this a bit further and consider all the circumstances, shall we?

There are three sources for bullets and fragments. The first one is CE399, which I have already discussed. The second is the fragments that allegedly came from the limo, which became a crime scene after the bullets were fired. In any normal investigation the crime scene would be preserved until the forensic team examined it. Not in this case! The limo was illegally taken back to Washington and parked in the Secret Service garage. FBI expert Frazier and two of his men arrived at the garage at around 1:00 PM to examine the limo. When they got there they learned that the car had already been searched by an unqualified Secret Service agent and another man (I can't remember who that was, I would have to look it up) and no in situ photos were taken. Frazier was given some bullet fragments and was told they came from the limo, so, just as with CE399 there is no authentication of those fragments which could have come from anywhere. There is not a shred of proof those fragments actually came from the limo.

And then, thirdly, there is the so-called Walker bullet. In all the contemporary DPD reports the bullet recovered from Walker's home in April 1963 is described as a 30.06 calibre. This only changed after Oswald was arrested. General Walker, who was not aware of this was surprised when the HSCA showed a photograph of the bullet allegedly taken from his home and he instantly noticed that the bullet in the photograph was not the bullet that DPD took from his home. He wrote to the HSCA who ignored him. He then instructed his lawyer to contact the HSCA but that was in vain also.

So, we have two bullets and some fragments from three different locations and none of them have a solid chain of custody. Name me one other case in history where none of the bullets and fragments allegedly fired from the murder weapon can be authenticated? You can't and nobody can because it simply doesn't happen, yet we are somehow to believe that the bullets and fragments are in fact authentic? Really?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 23, 2022, 06:15:11 PM
The point I made is clear enough. I can't help it if you don't understand it.

You may call it an "apparent error" by Frazier, and maybe it was, but it shouldn't have happened because it compromises the chain of custody and justifies the question about what else Frazier was in error.

Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?

What's the "worst" interpretation that could mean conspiracy?


I see you added the text below to an earlier post;
A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate.

You are jumping to a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence. Tomlinson, found a bullet on a stretcher which was never conclusively linked to Connally.

There is not a shred of evidence that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 ever went through two bodies. Any physical evidence (like blood and or tissue parts on the bullet) was destroyed when SA Johnsen put the bullet in his pocket.

But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.

Even Dr. Humes told the WC in his testimony that he did not believe CE399 could have passed through two bodies, hitting bone, and still come out in the condition it is in.

Dr. Humes was a medical doctor, one of those who performed the autopsy. But not a ballistic expert. Not an expert who can judge the likely condition of a bullet after striking one or more people. Only a ballistic expert who does real world tests with ballistic gel targets can make that determination. And all the ballistic experts that I know of, who are trusted to give testimony in criminal cases, believe that CE 399 quite plausibly caused the wounds to JFK and Connally, expect for JFK's head wound, of course.

You can find all kinds of testimony from non ballistic experts on how impossible it is for CE 399 to end up in the condition it is. But not one "true" ballistic expert. Maybe someone who is called a "ballistic expert". But not a true one. Not one who makes extensive tests firing into ballistic gel targets. Or who has been called upon to give expert ballistic testimony in criminal trials.

And it gets even worse.

Oh Dear!

Arlen Specter introduced CE399 into evidence subject to later proof of it's authenticity but that proof was never provided!

It is difficult to imagine who such "proof" could ever be provided for any bullet. Maybe a bullet fragment, using recent DNA technology. Although even that could be faked.

And then there is Joseph Dolce, a US Army ballistics expert, who worked for the Warren Commission. He confirms on video that he was given the original MC rifle and 100 bullets. He shot all 100 bullets into animal cadavers and all of the bullets were smashed. None of the bullets did even resemble CE399. Not surprisingly, Dolce's testimony was not included in the Warren Report.

I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.

As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.

Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.

Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?

You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.

Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.

Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.

Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths". But Sturdivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are Sturdivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.

After all, for all the conspirators may know, the doctors may discover a bullet in Connally's body and two bullets in JFK's body, giving three bullets that they have to account for. Plus, they don't know if any bystanders, like James Tague, and possibly others, may turn up with bullet wounds, however minor. And now, after planting CE 399, they have only made the problem worse. How could Oswald have fired all those bullets?

Why would any of this be a problem, when the conspirators contol the autopsy, the investigation and the cover up, if there was one? LNs keep going on about CE399 being planted, but there is no proof for that.

. . .


Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.

The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.

If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.


Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:

The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

and yes, the:

U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.

This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.

Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2022, 07:12:34 PM
Now, Mr. Shady knew the importance of creating a credible chain of custody, yet he compromised this effort by being sloppy with the inconsistent information?

This argument is comical every time it’s used. If there was a solid, consistent chain of custody it would be trumpeted as showing that Oswald was guilty. If there is inconsistent evidence with no solid chain of custody, well, the conspirators I just dreamed up in my head would have created a solid consistent chain of custody, therefore it must be authentic and Oswald did it. Either way, you win.

Quote
A point that is given way to little consideration, is that the early discovery of CE 399, while the doctors were still working on the President and Connally means it almost certainly is legitimate.

That would be great if you could actually establish that CE399 is what was discovered early.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2022, 07:31:53 PM
Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?

Really, Joe? It might mean that the thing that Todd supposedly gave Frazier at 7:35 was not the same thing Rowley gave Todd later, at 8:50.

Quote
But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.

So then what reason do we have to believe that CE399 ever went through Kennedy or Connally — even if somebody thinks it “could have”?

Quote

Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.

Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.

How could you possibly know that CE399 did any of that? Or that the bullet that broke Connally’s wrist was CE399? The answer is, you don’t. It’s yet another “could have” story made up to try to fit the existing evidence to a predetermined conclusion.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 07:36:29 PM
Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?

What's the "worst" interpretation that could mean conspiracy?


The error, if that's what is was, is by itself inexcusable for a forensic specialist as Frazier who was or should have been aware of the importance of a credible chain of custody.

Having said that, if it wasn't an error I could mean that Frazier was delivered another bullet than the one Johnsen gave to Rowley, which in turn would mean that evidence was being manipulated. That by itself points to a conspiracy.

Quote

But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.


"as much evidence as one would expect" ? What in the world are you talking about? The lack of evidence that a bullet went through bodies is exactly that; no evidence at all! Regardless of what you expected! You can not argue that the fact that no evidence was found is somehow evidence of it happening just because you didn't expect to find any evidence.

Quote

Dr. Humes was a medical doctor, one of those who performed the autopsy. But not a ballistic expert.



This is probably true, but he would have seen plenty of bullets and bullet wounds in his time to have an opinion. And one can only wonder why Arlen Specter introduced CE399 into evidence (subject to later proof, which never came) during Humes' testimony and asked him for his opinion?

Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.
Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES - I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, please do.
Commander HUMES - The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.
Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:
"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."
The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.


Since when do you have to be a ballistics expert to determine if a bullet could have caused all the wounds. Seems more a question for a medical examiner to answer, which is of course why Specter asked Humes.

Quote
Not an expert who can judge the likely condition of a bullet after striking one or more people. Only a ballistic expert who does real world tests with ballistic gel targets can make that determination.

Like Joseph Dolce, right?

Quote
And all the ballistic experts that I know of, who are trusted to give testimony in criminal cases, believe that CE 399 quite plausibly caused the wounds to JFK and Connally, expect for JFK's head wound, of course.


Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?

Quote
You can find all kinds of testimony from non ballistic experts on how impossible it is for CE 399 to end up in the condition it is. But not one "true" ballistic expert. Maybe someone who is called a "ballistic expert". But not a true one. Not one who makes extensive tests firing into ballistic gel targets. Or who has been called upon to give expert ballistic testimony in criminal trials.

I'm not sure who you are talking about. And what do you mean by a "true ballistic expert"? Could that be one who says what you want to hear? It sure looks that way!

Quote

Oh Dear!

It is difficult to imagine who such "proof" could ever be provided for any bullet. Maybe a bullet fragment, using recent DNA technology. Although even that could be faked.


Take it up with Specter. He said it

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

In other words, the proof Specter was talking about was the authentication of the bullet by way of the chain of custody. Clearly, Specter wasn't convinced that there was a solid chain of custody for CE399 and other pieces of evidence, which is exactly why the WC asked the FBI to verify the chains of custody about a month after Humes' testimony.

Quote
I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.

As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.

I am not really interested in what you think or believe you know. Dolce is on video saying that he was given the original rifle and 100 bullets to conduct tests. Hear and see the man say it himself at 42.34.


Quote

Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.


And yet, Dolce was the man picked by the WC to do the tests. Your argument that he did not have experience in criminal cases is invalid. Dolce saw plenty of gunshot wounds in WW2 and there is no difference whatsoever between a bullet striking a man in combat or a bullet striking a man during a crime. Dolce got the details exactly right, but they just were not what Arlen Specter wanted to hear, which is why Dolce's testimony and report were left out of the WC report.

Quote
Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?

You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.


This is an irrelevant question. I don't know enough about Dolce to say if he was ever called as an expert in a criminal proceeding. He was in the miitary and may well not have been allowed to be involved in crimimal cases. The bottom line is that the WC called upon him to do the work, which is exactly what he did. You second guessing his procedures is of no importance.

Quote

Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.

Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.

Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths". But Sturdivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are Sturdivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.


Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

There was no need for you to point that out. It is pretty obvious that you just parrotted the opinion of somebody else who you seem to think is credible, simply because what he says sound plausible to you.
The problem is that your opinion is a biased one and Sturdivan clearly had an objective to discredit anything that didn't fit with the lone nut narrative.

I, on the other hand, listen to the man who actually conducted the tests and I have no reason to assume that he is not telling to truth or is incompetent or did not conduct his tests correctly.


Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No.

This comment of yours tells the whole story;

Earlier in your post you wrote; "Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert." (which he was) but by the time you get to questioning his procedures he has suddenly become a "ballistic expert"

And how do you even know how Dolce conducted the tests, when you don't even know he used the original rifle and used 100 bullets? Dolce's report is at the National Archives. Perhaps you should read it before making comments about something you clearly don't know anything about.

Quote

Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.

The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.

If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.


I don't believe in a large secret conspiracy, whatever that is supposed to mean, nor did I describe one.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 23, 2022, 07:45:21 PM
I don't believe in a large secret conspiracy, whatever that is supposed to mean.

It’s the only alternative that Joe can think of to the WC fiction.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 08:12:08 PM
It’s the only alternative that Joe can think of to the WC fiction.

Indeed. He seems to think that in a conspiracy every individual player needs to be a willing participant who knows the entire plan and goes along with it.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 23, 2022, 08:32:20 PM
I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.
The point was that none of the bullets fired looked like CE399. Clearly CE399 was the most damaged bullet fired into and retrieved from a swimming pool, otherwise it would have been smashed and covered with DNA.

Quote
As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.

Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.

Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?

You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.
You sound like a defense lawyer trying to discredit testimony you don't like.

Quote
Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Let's go with the WCR:

The magic bullet arced very slightly while traveling 189 ft (58 m) in a downward net angle of 19 degrees (allowing for the 3 degrees downward slope of Elm Street), after an initial supersonic rifle exit muzzle velocity of 1,850 to 2,000 feet per second (560 to 610 m/s), then entered President Kennedy's rear suit coat at about 1,700 feet per second (520 m/s)

Quote
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.
Clothes, skin and muscle do not appreciably slow down or deflect a full metal jacketed bullet shot with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps.

Quote
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Impossible. If JFK's backwound is connected to the throat wound, as you claim, then the bullet must pass thru bone.

Here is an overhead of the magic bullet’s trajectory thru JFK relative to the TSBD. It must have passed thru a vertebrae.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png)

JFK's alleged x-ray shows the magic bullet striking the T1 vertebrae, which would have smashed the MB.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/x-ray_mb.gif (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/x-ray_mb.gif)

Quote
Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before.
If the exit wound was a small hole in JFK's throat, the magic bullet wasn't tumbling as it struck Connally's 5th rib since there wasn't enough distance between JFK and Connally to tumble.

Quote
Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
A tumbling bullet's cross section has nothing to do with deacceleration over such a short distance.

Quote
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.
The MB's trajectory from the TSBD goes thru JFK's T1 vertebrae yet exited cleanly thru a small hole in the throat in pristine condition. This meant it wasn't tumbling when it exited JFK and had not smashed thru bone. This irreconcilable contradiction is compounded by the MB continuing to smash thru Connally's 5th rib then into his wrist bone and was found on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition. You do the math counsellor.

Quote
Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths". But Sturdivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are Sturdivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.
You can convince yourself that the MB was impossible using some photogrammetry and a simple reenactment:
Get in between 2 lasers aimed at each other at a 17 degree angle and note where each laser strikes your body and do whatever it takes to match JFK's autopsy photos of the alleged exit and entrance wounds. I couldn't do it, maybe you can.
www.kohlbstudio.com/images/JFK_2lasers.png (http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/JFK_2lasers.png)

Quote
Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.

The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.

If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.

Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:

The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

and yes, the:

U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.

This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.

Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.
Skeptics yes, scoftics no. But what you scoftics fail to explain are all the inconsistencies and contradictions associated with the LN hypothesis, which is a house of cards that toppled long ago. Nothing but endless excuse making remains from the diehard LNers. However, it is the LN hypothesis that is the nutbar conspiracy theory. It only takes 1 inescapable fact supporting a conspiracy that destroys decades of LN apologizing and excuse making. If you reenact the MB with 2 lasers, you can only come to 1 conclusion. But it appears the truth isn't what LNers are looking for.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 08:53:33 PM
I see you added this to your post after I answered it. So, I'll reply to it now.



Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:

The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

and yes, the:

U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.

This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.

Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.

Freemasons do exist (don't ask me how I know, but I do) but I am clueless about what kind of conspiracy you are talking about involving them.

I am not only skeptical about;

The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

I just don't believe any of those conspiracy theories nor do I believe the world is flat.

That only leaves the JFK case and there I am also skeptical, but mainly about the offical narrative. I do think it's possible there was a conspiracy but if there was one, it wasn't a "Large-Secret-Enduring" one. In fact most of the evidence for such a conspiracy is IMO buried in the official narrative and the records at the National Archives. It's all a matter of interpretation.

The best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible. It's very possible that's exactly what happened here.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jon Banks on December 23, 2022, 09:59:58 PM
I see you added this to your post after I answered it. So, I'll reply to it now.


Freemasons do exist (don't ask me how I know, but I do) but I am clueless about what kind of conspiracy you are talking about involving them.

I am not only skeptical about;

The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

I just don't believe any of those conspiracy theories nor do I believe the world is flat.

That only leaves the JFK case and there I am also skeptical, but mainly about the offical narrative. I do think it's possible there was a conspiracy but if there was one, it wasn't a "Large-Secret-Enduring" one. In fact most of the evidence for such a conspiracy is IMO buried in the official narrative and the records at the National Archives. It's all a matter of interpretation.

The best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible. It's very possible that's exactly what happened here.


I'm right there with you.

I'm a HUGE skeptic most of the time when people share conspiracy theories with me. But a conspiracy in the JFK assassination seems plausible based on the evidence.

In the Kennedy assassination, people don't even need to speculate about "who" did it. One can simply conclude that there might've been a conspiracy based on the hard and circumstantial evidence.

There are a number of JFK assassination researchers who make plausible arguments on "why" there was a conspiracy without speculating about "who did it". Josiah Thompson is the first name that comes to mind but there are many others.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 23, 2022, 10:21:11 PM



Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?

1. Luke Haag

2. Michael G. Haag

a website about him is at:

https://forensicfirearms.com/

Below is an interview of Luke and Michael Haag:


3. Larry Sturdivan


Since when do you have to be a ballistics expert to determine if a bullet could have caused all the wounds. Seems more a question for a medical examiner to answer, which is of course why Specter asked Humes.

No, it's a question for a ballistic expert. Only a true ballistic expert can determine what shape a bullet may end up in after causing a certain number of wounds.

I'm not sure who you are talking about. And what do you mean by a "true ballistic expert"? Could that be one who says what you want to hear? It sure looks that way!

I will go over this, one more time.

The type of ballistic expert I'm talking about is:

1. Some one who does real world testing shooting at ballistic gel targets.

Only in that way can one have a hope of recreating a shot. Firing into animals is not too good, because you can't see through their bodies. It's hard to tell if any bones were hit.

I is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.

From 63 yards away shoot through:

a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block

Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.

This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.

I would like a ballistic expert to have extensive experience with these types of expertiments.

2. Has testified in criminal cases as a ballistic expert. Which shows that his knowledge is considered by the legal profession to be very high.

These are the ideal qualifications. Luke and Michael Haag meet both conditions. Larry Sturdivan meets qualification 1 but not 2, as far as I know.



I am not really interested in what you think or believe you know. Dolce is on video saying that he was given the original rifle and 100 bullets to conduct tests. Hear and see the man say it himself at 42.34.


I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case. I was under the impression the rifle was not fired too many times. But it doesn't matter if the rifle was fired one hundred times, or one thousand times, or ten thousand times. Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones. No one denies this will greatly deform the bullet. The question is "What happens if the bullet is first slowed by something else, like JFK's neck?".

No where does Dolce say that he tried to account for this. No where does Dolce indicates that he is even aware of this problem, and needs to slow down the bullet to better replicate the Single Bullet Theory. You need to first slow down the bullet some, as JFK's neck would have done. If nothing else, you can make special bullets with less of a powered charge. Anything is better than simply firing the rifle almost directly into bone.

Dolce is not the ideal choice for three reasons:

1. He works for the Army. The Army is not interested in "Who done it?". So throughout his career, he wasn't doing the sort of experiments a regular ballistic expert would do, like Luke and Michael Haag.

2. He did not work with ballistic gel, where, with each firing test, you can see the path of the bullet and see which targets (bones) the bullet hit and which it missed.

3. But for all these disadvantages, it could have occurred to him that he needs to slow the bullet, as the 63 yards to the target, and the path through JFK's neck, would have done, before hitting a dead animals rib cage. But this never seems to have occurred to him. His biggest weakest, in my opinion, is that he did not think things through.



And yet, Dolce was the man picked by the WC to do the tests. Your argument that he did not have experience in criminal cases is invalid. Dolce saw plenty of gunshot wounds in WW2 and there is no difference whatsoever between a bullet striking a man in combat or a bullet striking a man during a crime. Dolce got the details exactly right, but they just were not what Arlen Specter wanted to hear, which is why Dolce's testimony and report were left out of the WC report.

This is an irrelevant question. I don't know enough about Dolce to say if he was ever called as an expert in a criminal proceeding. He was in the miitary and may well not have been allowed to be involved in crimimal cases. The bottom line is that the WC called upon him to do the work, which is exactly what he did. You second guessing his procedures is of no importance.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 23, 2022, 10:24:30 PM

Indeed. He seems to think that in a conspiracy every individual player needs to be a willing participant who knows the entire plan and goes along with it.

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 11:16:24 PM
Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it.

Go along with what? Be precise and please give an example.

For example, what would SA Frazier have to go along with when all that happened was that he was given a bullet and some fragments and told the latter came from the limo?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 23, 2022, 11:44:59 PM
You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;

Quote
Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?

1. Luke Haag
2. Michael G. Haag

a website about him is at:

https://forensicfirearms.com/

Below is an interview of Luke and Michael Haag:

3. Larry Sturdivan


I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.

So, let's have a look at another, recent, video


I don't think he is a ballistics expert but, as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.

Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.

The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.

Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!

Quote
I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case. I was under the impression the rifle was not fired too many times. But it doesn't matter if the rifle was fired one hundred times, or one thousand times, or ten thousand times. Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones. No one denies this will greatly deform the bullet. The question is "What happens if the bullet is first slowed by something else, like JFK's neck?".


I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.

Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?

Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.

"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!

Quote

No where does Dolce say that he tried to account for this. No where does Dolce indicates that he is even aware of this problem, and needs to slow down the bullet to better replicate the Single Bullet Theory. You need to first slow down the bullet some, as JFK's neck would have done. If nothing else, you can make special bullets with less of a powered charge. Anything is better than simply firing the rifle almost directly into bone.


For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.
 
Quote

Dolce is not the ideal choice for three reasons:

1. He works for the Army. The Army is not interested in "Who done it?". So throughout his career, he wasn't doing the sort of experiments a regular ballistic expert would do, like Luke and Michael Haag.

2. He did not work with ballistic gel, where, with each firing test, you can see the path of the bullet and see which targets (bones) the bullet hit and which it missed.

3. But for all these disadvantages, it could have occurred to him that he needs to slow the bullet, as the 63 yards to the target, and the path through JFK's neck, would have done, before hitting a dead animals rib cage. But this never seems to have occurred to him. His biggest weakest, in my opinion, is that he did not think things through.


Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.

And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?

Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jon Banks on December 24, 2022, 01:36:55 AM
Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

The law doesn’t always excuse participation in a conspiracy if you’re an unwitting participant.

So the fear of being prosecuted or facing other consequences may be enough to ensure that even people who were unwitting don’t talk.

And that logic applies typically to criminal conspiracies (ie organized crime) but it extends to the government when they engage in illegal activities.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 24, 2022, 06:17:09 PM
You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;

I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.

So, let's have a look at another, recent, video


I don't think he is a ballistics expert but,

You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.

His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.



as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.

Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.


Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".



The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.

Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!


The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.


I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.

Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?


Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".



Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.

"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!


Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.


For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.


Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.



Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.

And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?


To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.


Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.



Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?

What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 24, 2022, 06:41:49 PM
Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 24, 2022, 07:03:32 PM
You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.


And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will


Quote
His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.

Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.

Quote
Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".


Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.

Quote
The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.

Quote
This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.


Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

Quote
Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!

It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

Quote
Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.

Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.

I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.

Quote
To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.


Which confirms perfectly my earlier comment that the only person you consider an "expert" is somebody who does the tests the way you want him to do it (probably the way Sturdivan did) and reaches the conclusion that you want to hear.


Quote
You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.


Thank you for telling me what isn't good enough for you. It makes a conversation so much easier. If he were still alive, I seriously doubt that Dolce would give a damn about your opinion of how he was supposed to do the test.

Quote
What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

Let me guess.... probably none, because who ever gets named will, in your opinion, not be a "real expert who conducted a valid test"

Quote
You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".

Again, valid as in really valid or valid as in your opinion valid? Of course Dolce will not do for you. He will never do for you, regardless of whatever evidence you are shown. He will not do for you because you don't like what he said.

Regardless of your opinions, the facts remain that Dolce was hired by the WC to do the tests. He was given the original rifle and 100 bullets and concluded in a detailed report that CE399 could not have been fired through two bodies, hitting bone and staying nearly intact. I know you don't like it, but there it is; deal with it!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 24, 2022, 08:10:53 PM
And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will


Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.


Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.



Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.


I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.

If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.

Special Note:

I'm not saying a WCC/MC can directly strike a head and come out pristine. I'm saying that Martin seems to accept these "Ballistic Dummy Labs" models as a good model for the human body and so he seems to accept that a real human head won't greatly damage a WCC/MC bullet, just as in the video he provided.




That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.


The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.



Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!


Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.



It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.



I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.


You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 24, 2022, 08:37:54 PM
Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.
/quote]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm

???   1.5 cm X 10 = 15.0 mm    .6 cm X 10 = 6mm

A mannlicher catcano projectile is ----6.5mm in diameter and 30.5mm long

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 24, 2022, 08:50:36 PM

Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?

Btw both bullets went through the "head"

Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.

Quote
I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.


I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.

It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.

Quote

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.


We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine

No we don't know that from the video. That is a gross misrepresentation of what the video actually shows. Neither bullet came out "pretty prisitine"

Quote
If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.


There is no point to answer this because the premise of the question is simply not true.

Quote
The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.


If you say so...

Quote
Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.

Reluctant to admit that? Really? You are sinking this low? I've said this several times before on this forum, but I'll gladly repeat it here. Except for the Warren Report, I haven't read a single book (LN or CT) about the Kennedy murder. I'm just not interested in opinions of writers who clearly have an agenda. As much as I can, I prefer to do my own research using the actual evidence and make up my own mind that way.

Quote
No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.

Yeah sure. Who do you think you are fooling?

Quote
You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Do you mistake me for your personal assistant? But it's a good illustration how you jump to conclusions based on assumptions.

Quote
Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Having said that, I still wish you and your loved ones a Merry Xmas.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 24, 2022, 09:29:01 PM

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:

https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/

Quote
Willy,

“You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.”

On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.

The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.

This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. For example, see the last paragraph here which says, “The comparative sizes of the entrance and exit wound, the amount of bone damage and the lack of bullet deformation [in CE 399] all indicate that the wrist was struck by a tumbling bullet traveling at a reduced velocity”:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=6

That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.


WILLY WHITTEN
APRIL 4, 2015 AT 2:09 PM
“I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.”~Jean

Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission. He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted.
. . . .

“Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.”

Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood.
Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.

So, it appears the bullets were

Quote
The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
...
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

On Dr. Dolce:

Quote
On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
...
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".

That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 24, 2022, 10:02:19 PM
Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:

https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/

So, it appears the bullets were

On Dr. Dolce:

So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".

That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?


Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

Not the way it works in the real world. When you make a claim you need to provide the evidence for it. Even if nobody can prove you're wrong that still doesn't mean you are right. So, instead of pulling the same old "prove me wrong" LN crap, why don't you provide the evidence that Davison was right.

In the meantime, this might be useful.

https://palmbeachpost.newspapers.com/clip/86888004/joseph-dolce-2/
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 25, 2022, 12:41:14 AM


When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?

Btw both bullets went through the "head"

Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.

Irrelevant. We don't know WCC/MC bullets fragment in human heads when striking at a high speed (>= 1900 fps) just from the fragments found in the limousine. Let's ignore that evidence.

We know this just from ballistic tests. If a WCC/MC strikes bone at speeds at or over 1900 fps, it will fragment. Indeed, if it strikes any material with a density twice that of water, it will fragment.

And yet, a WCC/MC bullet, in the video, struck the Ballistic Dummy Labs "skull" and did not fragment.

The obvious explanation? The "bone" in these Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" do not have twice the density of water. Hence, they do not cause WCC/MC bullets to fragment. Hence, they are not very good models for a real human head. Regardless of what a Ballistic Dummy Labs sales brochures may say.



I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.

It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.


If you can find definitive information that shows differently, that Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" are good models of a human head, that the "bone" in these models have twice the density of water, just like human bones, let's hear it. Find us something on the Ballistic Dummy Labs website, or from some other source.

Now, let's test your knowledge of ballistics:

Question:

What is the highest velocity a WCC/MC bullet will NOT start to deform (the first stage of fragmentation) upon first striking human bone?


* 2000 fps ?

* 1500 fps ?

* 1000 fps ?

* 500 fps ?

* 0 fps, because a WCC/MC bullet will always fragment upon striking bone regardless of the speed?

If you don't know, then stop questioning the judgment of people like Larry Sturdivan who do know, from the systematic ballistic experiments they have run using WCC/MC bullets.

That is the source of my information. If you think his information is no good, then who does have this information?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 25, 2022, 01:15:49 AM

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

Not the way it works in the real world. When you make a claim you need to provide the evidence for it. Even if nobody can prove you're wrong that still doesn't mean you are right. So, instead of pulling the same old "prove me wrong" LN crap, why don't you provide the evidence that Davison was right.

Evidence? I suppose none. Since the Edgewood people did not record their experiments on film.

But we have various people, like Jean Davison, who claim the Edgewood people fired their rifles directly into "torsos" and "wrists". And none who say otherwise.

And we have experiments conducted by Luke and Michael Haag, and other experiments involving Larry Sturdivan show, time and time again, that WCC bullets fired directly into bones do fragment (like in the Edgewood experiments), but the same bullets slowed down, just a modest amount, like by six inches of ballistic gel, do not fragment nor become greatly deformed. Much like CE-399.

So, we don't have to rely on the Edgewood experiment, which I think is flawed because the bullets were fired directly into the targets, and which you think is flawed (if you are rational) because you basically say we don't know if the rifles were fired directly fired into the targets, or the bullets were first slowed down some how.

We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film, like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want. So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets, but the details on those experiments are disputed, but seem to be that the rifles were fired directly into the targets, making them invalid for judging if CE-399 is valid evidence.


In the meantime, this might be useful.

https://palmbeachpost.newspapers.com/clip/86888004/joseph-dolce-2/

This is helpful. It conforms that Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor. Not a real ballistic expert.

I think the confusion comes form the term "ballistic expert" There are two types of "ballistic experts".

1. Medical doctors. Who determine what a bullet can do to a human body.

2. Real Ballistic Experts. Who determine what a human body can do to a bullet.

Dr. Dolce's opinion on the SBT was based on the condition of CE-399. He didn't think the human body can do this to a WCC/MCbullet.

This opinion is totally out his field of expertise. It would be as if Dr. Dolce determined that a murder victim died from an excessive loss of blood and Ballistic Expert Luke Haag, said no, the victim died from shock.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 25, 2022, 01:16:27 AM
Irrelevant. We don't know WCC/MC bullets fragment in human heads when striking at a high speed (>= 1900 fps) just from the fragments found in the limousine. Let's ignore that evidence.

We know this just from ballistic tests. If a WCC/MC strikes bone at speeds at or over 1900 fps, it will fragment. Indeed, if it strikes any material with a density twice that of water, it will fragment.

And yet, a WCC/MC bullet, in the video, struck the Ballistic Dummy Labs "skull" and did not fragment.

The obvious explanation? The "bone" in these Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" do not have twice the density of water. Hence, they do not cause WCC/MC bullets to fragment. Hence, they are not very good models for a real human head. Regardless of what a Ballistic Dummy Labs sales brochures may say.


The "obvious explanation"? Really? What about the most self-serving explanation? And as for Ballistic Dummy Labs, I understand they are one of the main suppliers in the country of dummies for all sorts of ballistic experts. That should tell you something, but it probably doesn't. I don't need to defend them because you've got nothing but hot air to attack them with.

Quote
If you can find definitive information that shows differently, that Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" are good models of a human head, that the "bone" in these models have twice the density of water, just like human bones, let's hear it. Find us something on the Ballistic Dummy Labs website, or from some other source.

Quote
Now, let's test your knowledge of ballistics:

Question:

What is the highest velocity a WCC/MC bullet will NOT start to deform (the first stage of fragmentation) upon first striking human bone?


* 2000 fps ?

* 1500 fps ?

* 1000 fps ?

* 500 fps ?

* 0 fps, because a WCC/MC bullet will always fragment upon striking bone regardless of the speed?

If you don't know, then stop questioning the judgment of people like Larry Sturdivan who do know, from the systematic ballistic experiments they have run using WCC/MC bullets.


To answer your question; I don't know because, just like you, I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be one. And when did I question the judgment of Larry Sturdivan? Never! I don't know the man or his background and I haven't read his book, so what is there for me to question. What I do question is your ability to understand this stuff and reach sound conclusions. Just reading his book somehow makes you an expert? Really? Pathetic.

If anybody questions the judgment of an actual expert it's you. You are the one who was badmouthing Joseph Dolce in every way possible, questioning his credentials and his wide range of experience for one reason only; you did not like what he said. First you claimed that he never was given the original MC rifle and 100 bullets. When that didn't work you started to attack him personally. Because you read something in Sturdivan's book, you suddenly decided that Dolce did the tests wrong, despite the fact that you don't even know what he did, because you refused to read his report. Then, when you were show an unbiased factual video of MC bullets being fired through a skull into water and coming out more damaged than CE399 is, you started to claim that the skulls were not up to par and trash one of the leading suppliers of ballistic materials. So, if anybody is judgmental about anything it's you.

And there is something you completely overlooked when you claimed Dolce was incompetent. And that is that the WC put him in charge of a team of experts doing the tests. So, now you have to start attacking those guys as well..... Have fun!

Quote
That is the source of my information. If you think his information is no good, then who does have this information?

I can not judge of Sturdivan's information is any good or not and neither can you. All I can say is that Dolce and his team were hired by the WC to do the tests and when the WC got their report they buried it and Dolce's testimony. So much for an honest fact finding investigation. To the best of my knowledge Dolce and his team are the only ones who actually conducted tests with the original weapon! Everybody else has only theories!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 25, 2022, 01:37:20 AM
Evidence? I suppose none. Since the Edgewood people did not record their experiments on film.

But we have various people, like Jean Davison, who claim the Edgewood people fired their rifles directly into "torsos" and "wrists". And none who say otherwise.


And just because nobody said otherwise, that makes it true? Really?  Let me ask you this; if the Edgewood team didn't record their experiments on film, how did Jean Davison (and others) know what they did or did not do?

Quote

And we have experiments conducted by Luke and Michael Haag, and other experiments involving Larry Sturdivan show, time and time again, that WCC bullets fired directly into bones do fragment (like in the Edgewood experiments), but the same bullets slowed down, just a modest amount, like by six inches of ballistic gel, do not fragment nor become greatly deformed. Much like CE-399.

So, we don't have to rely on the Edgewood experiment, which I think is flawed because the bullets were fired directly into the targets, and which you think is flawed (if you are rational) because you basically say we don't know if the rifles were fired directly fired into the targets, or the bullets were first slowed down some how.

We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film, like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want. So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets, but the details on those experiments are disputed, but seem to be that the rifles were fired directly into the targets, making them invalid for judging if CE-399 is valid evidence.

We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film,

Really? Just not on the experiments recorded on video by a guy who fired through a skull and into water bottles, right? You keep saying that the Edgewood experiment is flawed but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for that claim.

like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want.

Where did I say any of this. I have been aware of the conclusions of Haag for some time. It's nothing new. In fact, it's just one opinion that means very little unless they used actual human bone. Because that needs to be used to get the right results, right? Well, did they?

So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets,

Did I say that? Where exactly? All I said is what Dolce said on video. But, let's stay accurate; it resulted in 100 greatly deformed bullets! Not a single bullet came even close to looking like CE399.

but the details on those experiments are disputed,

Only by people like yourself, who don't like the result.

You sound like Trump saying that he 2020 elections result is disputed, when in fact he is the only one doing the disputing.

but seem to be that the rifles were fired directly into the targets, making them invalid for judging if CE-399 is valid evidence.

Seem to be? You wouldn't have to speculate anymore if you read their report. So why don't you?

One more comment; at least Dolce and his team used real animal bone for their experiments, unlike the Haag team who merely fired a bullet through a block of gel.

Quote
This is helpful. It conforms that Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor. Not a real ballistic expert.

I think the confusion comes form the term "ballistic expert" There are two types of "ballistic experts".

1. Medical doctors. Who determine what a bullet can do to a human body.

2. Real Ballistic Experts. Who determine what a human body can do to a bullet.

Dr. Dolce's opinion on the SBT was based on the condition of CE-399. He didn't think the human body can do this to a WCC/MCbullet.

This opinion is totally out his field of expertise. It would be as if Dr. Dolce determined that a murder victim died from an excessive loss of blood and Ballistic Expert Luke Haag, said no, the victim died from shock.

Oh please, give me a break. You really need to stop with this "real ballistic expert" crap. It's total BS and you know it. Dolce was a little bit more than just a medical doctor. But I can understand your desperate need to play down his credentials. The fact remains - and there is no way you can get around this - that the WC hired him, as the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics and they had good reason to do so. The self-serving opinion of a narrowminded man behind a computer keyboard doesn't alter that one bit. 

Btw, you can attack Dolce as much as you like, but the report that was submitted to the WC was the opinion of a team of experts! Let's not overlook that! That the WC buried the report tells us all we need to know about their agenda.

Two more questions; (1) Unless Jean Davison was a bonafide expert on ballistics, which I don't believe she was, why would her opinion on this subject be of any significant value? And (2), how can you describe Larry Sturdivan as a "real ballistic expert" when he calls himself a research physical scientist in his HSCA testimony? When asked, he told the HSSCA that he studies the behavior of bullets and the effect they have on a human body. That sounds very much like what you called above a "medical doctor", wouldn't you say?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 25, 2022, 07:31:34 PM


To answer your question; I don't know because, just like you, I'm not an expert and I don't pretend to be one. And when did I question the judgment of Larry Sturdivan? Never! I don't know the man or his background and I haven't read his book, so what is there for me to question. What I do question is your ability to understand this stuff and reach sound conclusions. Just reading his book somehow makes you an expert? Really? Pathetic.


You can make the same criticism about anyone who posts here. Like, one can say:

"Reading the Warren Report, or the Edgewood Report, or the Autopsy Reports, is that supposed to make you can expert?"

No, I am not an expert. But I do choose quality sources. Dr. Joseph Dolce is not a bad source because he thinks CE-399 thinks it could not have caused the wounds. He is a bad source because he was not a ballistic expert. He was a medical doctor, who worked with the Edgewood Arsenal. But not a ballistic expert. His opinion on CE-399 was no more valid that that of a janitor who worked at the facility.

On the question of "Could CE-399" have wounded JFK and Connally, you need to access real ballistic experts. You need to answer basic questions, like "What is the minimum velocity needed to deform a WCC/MC?" If you don't know it's 1400 to 1700 fps, it's real hard to say. You're just guessing, like Dr. Dolce. You don't need to become an expert, but you should at least read books or reports from real ballistic experts. But you have no need to do that. You think you already know.

A medical doctor (Dr. Joseph Dolce), who was a consultant with the Edgewood Arsenal, is not a ballistic expert. An expert is one who conducts scientific tests, with WCC/MC bullets, to learn what can and cannot happen to bullets. And does so in an appropriate way, like test the SBT by including a "neck" in the bullet path to account for the effects of JFK's neck on a bullet.

Question:

Why can't you find a real ballistic expert who disputes CE-399?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 25, 2022, 08:38:55 PM
You can make the same criticism about anyone who posts here. Like, one can say:

"Reading the Warren Report, or the Edgewood Report, or the Autopsy Reports, is that supposed to make you can expert?"

No, I am not an expert. But I do choose quality sources. Dr. Joseph Dolce is not a bad source because he thinks CE-399 thinks it could not have caused the wounds. He is a bad source because he was not a ballistic expert. He was a medical doctor, who worked with the Edgewood Arsenal. But not a ballistic expert. His opinion on CE-399 was no more valid that that of a janitor who worked at the facility.

On the question of "Could CE-399" have wounded JFK and Connally, you need to access real ballistic experts. You need to answer basic questions, like "What is the minimum velocity needed to deform a WCC/MC?" If you don't know it's 1400 to 1700 fps, it's real hard to say. You're just guessing, like Dr. Dolce. You don't need to become an expert, but you should at least read books or reports from real ballistic experts. But you have no need to do that. You think you already know.

A medical doctor (Dr. Joseph Dolce), who was a consultant with the Edgewood Arsenal, is not a ballistic expert. An expert is one who conducts scientific tests, with WCC/MC bullets, to learn what can and cannot happen to bullets. And does so in an appropriate way, like test the SBT by including a "neck" in the bullet path to account for the effects of JFK's neck on a bullet.

Question:

Why can't you find a real ballistic expert who disputes CE-399?


Why can't you find a real ballistic expert who disputes CE-399?

That's easy. I simply haven't looked for one. Unlike you, I am not in the habit of looking for experts who say what I want to hear. Besides, your question is once again a loaded one, because who ever I would name you would simply dismiss as not a "real ballistic expert", just like you did with Joseph Dolce, despite the fact that he and his team were the only ones who used the original rifle and fired bullets at actual bones. I'm simply not playing your utterly dishonest game.

For me, the far more important take away is not that the bullet could have gone through two bodies - as Haas claims, based on experiments where he only fires bullets through gel and does not use bone, human or otherwise - but the fact that the WC buried the report of Dolce and his team when it didn't confirm Specter's theory. That's what a really unbiased commission would do, right?   :D

I have already explained why your entire "real ballistics expert" nonsense is utter BS.

Jean Davison is not an ballistics expert which makes her basically nothing more than another person with an opinion.

Larry Sturdivan is, by your own definition, not a "real ballistic expert" because he called himself a research physical scientist in his HSCA testimony. He studied the behavior of bullets and the effect they have on a human body, which is what your definition would call a medical doctor.

And the Haas team set out to prove that CE399 could have gone through two bodies and come out nearly pristine. But in their tests, shown in the PBS/Nova show, they only fired bullets through blocks of gel and they did not use human bone or anything that comes close to it. And even then, all they could say is that they believe the bullet could have come out nearly pristine, which is hardly conclusive.

A "could have" may be good enough for you, but for me it is meaningless. Show me a "real ballistics expert" that can conclusively show that the bullet did in fact go through Kennedy and Connally and then we'll have something to talk about.

Quote
You can make the same criticism about anyone who posts here. Like, one can say:

"Reading the Warren Report, or the Edgewood Report, or the Autopsy Reports, is that supposed to make you can expert?"

The answer is; no.

No, I am not an expert. But I do choose quality sources.

This is just plain stupid. When you are not an expert, how in the world can you determine a "quality source"?
The answer is of course that you can't, so what you really do is consider anybody who supports your point of view to be a "quality source".
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mike Orr on December 26, 2022, 01:57:36 AM
CE 399 is still in John Connallys left thigh because as far as we know what's left of CE 399 was never removed from Connallys thigh . the conundrum of CE 399 is that there can't be " 2 " CE 399 bullets . Dr. Shaw at a press conference said that the bullet was still in John Connallys left thigh and would be removed later . We know there were some fragments in the wrist and of course the bullet broke ribs but it was still said that CE 399 was not damaged enough to have caused all this damage . Let's be honest , we have not seen the bullet that ended up in Connallys thigh because the bullet went with Connally to his grave .
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 26, 2022, 02:25:14 AM
And just because nobody said otherwise, that makes it true? Really?  Let me ask you this; if the Edgewood team didn't record their experiments on film, how did Jean Davison (and others) know what they did or did not do?

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.



We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film,

Really? Just not on the experiments recorded on video by a guy who fired through a skull and into water bottles, right? You keep saying that the Edgewood experiment is flawed but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for that claim.

We cannot rely on films by amateurs, using models which we have no idea replicate the same effects on bullets that real bullets. We cannot judge by the name of the company "Ballistic Dummy Lab" or a slick sales website with unsupported claims "The Most Realistic Ballistic Dummies on the Planet". Anyone can make that claim. Where do they specify the density of the "soft tissue" inside the dummies? Where do the specify the density of the "bone" inside the dummies? One needs to know this information before one can judge how realistic these dummies really are.

If these really are realistic dummies, then CTers have really been missing a trick. All they have to do is to point out that WCC/MC bullets do not fragment upon being fired into human heads. Not even at close range. That would disprove the claim of the Warren Commission, accepted by all LNers since then, and also by all or almost all CTers since then.

Question: If what you say is true, why don't CTers claim that WCC/MC bullets cannot fragment when fired into human heads?

Until you read a book on ballistics by a real expert, you will remain a ballistic dummy yourself. Maybe you should go work for "Ballistic Dummy Lab". You should fit in.


like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want.

Where did I say any of this. I have been aware of the conclusions of Haag for some time. It's nothing new. In fact, it's just one opinion that means very little unless they used actual human bone. Because that needs to be used to get the right results, right? Well, did they?

No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones. Human bones available for ballistic testing are in very short supply. Primarily do to questions of ethics of using human bodies, or even human bones, in ballistic tests. There is a strong feeling, not from me but from some, that using humans remains this way is an affront to human dignity.

By the way, using bones from recently deceased animals is better than using bones from humans who died a while back. Bones dry out over time and lose their density.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else. Yes, using real living human subjects would be the most 'scientific method', but is not an option. And even using recently deceased bodies is usually not an option either because of some ethical concerns.


So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets,

Did I say that? Where exactly? All I said is what Dolce said on video. But, let's stay accurate; it resulted in 100 greatly deformed bullets! Not a single bullet came even close to looking like CE399.

My understanding is that the Edgewood tests were very limited, due to number of human cadavers available. They may have been given 100 WCC/MC bullets.

Question: Where is the evidence that they actually fired 100 WCC/MC bullets into human remains?

I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

Looking again at the film you provided of Dr. Dolce being interviewed, he says why he believes the bullet could not have struck a wrist bone. Because the tip was undamaged. The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet. That is why the tip is undamaged but the side of the bullet is, with the sides of the bullet being deformed enough to make the cross section of the bullet no longer round.

Medical doctor Dolce should not have been looking only at the tip of the bullet, but at the sides as well. But not being a ballistic expert, he had no idea that bullets don't always travel point first.

Question: Can you give any evidence that Dr. Dolce was aware that bullets don't always travel through bodies point first?


but the details on those experiments are disputed,

Only by people like yourself, who don't like the result.

I never heard anyone, LNer or CTer, claim the Edgewood texts did not fire bullets directly into rib cages or wrists. Not even from you. You merely imply that perhaps they were not.


You sound like Trump saying that he 2020 elections result is disputed, when in fact he is the only one doing the disputing.

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Joe Elliott on December 26, 2022, 02:33:02 AM

CE 399 is still in John Connallys left thigh because as far as we know what's left of CE 399 was never removed from Connallys thigh . the conundrum of CE 399 is that there can't be " 2 " CE 399 bullets . Dr. Shaw at a press conference said that the bullet was still in John Connallys left thigh and would be removed later . We know there were some fragments in the wrist and of course the bullet broke ribs but it was still said that CE 399 was not damaged enough to have caused all this damage . Let's be honest , we have not seen the bullet that ended up in Connallys thigh because the bullet went with Connally to his grave .

Wow. Connally was involved in the ultimate coverup. Keeping one of the bullets covered up by his flesh.

The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg. That would be malpractice. They said that X-rays showed some small fragments of a bullet still in his thigh, As I recall, some fragments, from the wrist and/or thigh were removed but not all. Removing all fragments might not be worth it for a patient. But an entire bullet will be removed, except in rare exceptions, like a bullet lodged in a critical area of the brain.

Now, let's see if I have this straight. The CT side is that one bullet was planted. Another bullet came out of Connally, fell to the floor, and was put in the pocket of a nurse. And another bullet remained in his thigh for the rest of his life.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2022, 03:05:29 AM
The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet.

Like you could possibly know what, if anything, CE399 struck and where.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 26, 2022, 03:11:08 AM
The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg.

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.” — Dr. Robert Shaw.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 26, 2022, 05:16:48 AM
Wow. Connally was involved in the ultimate coverup. Keeping one of the bullets covered up by his flesh.

The doctors never said they left an entire bullet in Connally's leg. That would be malpractice. They said that X-rays showed some small fragments of a bullet still in his thigh, As I recall, some fragments, from the wrist and/or thigh were removed but not all. Removing all fragments might not be worth it for a patient. But an entire bullet will be removed, except in rare exceptions, like a bullet lodged in a critical area of the brain.

Now, let's see if I have this straight. The CT side is that one bullet was planted. Another bullet came out of Connally, fell to the floor, and was put in the pocket of a nurse. And another bullet remained in his thigh for the rest of his life.

Oswald arse kissers are all living in a van down by the river
At least learn SNL lingo or get the fck out of town




Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 26, 2022, 02:24:06 PM

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.

We cannot rely on films by amateurs, using models which we have no idea replicate the same effects on bullets that real bullets. We cannot judge by the name of the company "Ballistic Dummy Lab" or a slick sales website with unsupported claims "The Most Realistic Ballistic Dummies on the Planet". Anyone can make that claim. Where do they specify the density of the "soft tissue" inside the dummies? Where do the specify the density of the "bone" inside the dummies? One needs to know this information before one can judge how realistic these dummies really are.

If these really are realistic dummies, then CTers have really been missing a trick. All they have to do is to point out that WCC/MC bullets do not fragment upon being fired into human heads. Not even at close range. That would disprove the claim of the Warren Commission, accepted by all LNers since then, and also by all or almost all CTers since then.

Question: If what you say is true, why don't CTers claim that WCC/MC bullets cannot fragment when fired into human heads?

Until you read a book on ballistics by a real expert, you will remain a ballistic dummy yourself. Maybe you should go work for "Ballistic Dummy Lab". You should fit in.


No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones. Human bones available for ballistic testing are in very short supply. Primarily do to questions of ethics of using human bodies, or even human bones, in ballistic tests. There is a strong feeling, not from me but from some, that using humans remains this way is an affront to human dignity.

By the way, using bones from recently deceased animals is better than using bones from humans who died a while back. Bones dry out over time and lose their density.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else. Yes, using real living human subjects would be the most 'scientific method', but is not an option. And even using recently deceased bodies is usually not an option either because of some ethical concerns.


My understanding is that the Edgewood tests were very limited, due to number of human cadavers available. They may have been given 100 WCC/MC bullets.

Question: Where is the evidence that they actually fired 100 WCC/MC bullets into human remains?

I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

Looking again at the film you provided of Dr. Dolce being interviewed, he says why he believes the bullet could not have struck a wrist bone. Because the tip was undamaged. The problem is that the Warren Commission, nor any LNer claims that CE-399 first struck bones with the tip. It struck with the side of the bullet. That is why the tip is undamaged but the side of the bullet is, with the sides of the bullet being deformed enough to make the cross section of the bullet no longer round.

Medical doctor Dolce should not have been looking only at the tip of the bullet, but at the sides as well. But not being a ballistic expert, he had no idea that bullets don't always travel point first.

Question: Can you give any evidence that Dr. Dolce was aware that bullets don't always travel through bodies point first?

I never heard anyone, LNer or CTer, claim the Edgewood texts did not fire bullets directly into rib cages or wrists. Not even from you. You merely imply that perhaps they were not.

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.

The same way historians always find out about events that were not recorded. Rely on questions.

Hilarious! With all the files of the WC, including those regarding Joseph Dolce and his test, declared secret, and staying that way for more than a decade, who was Davison asking questions?
But what you are really saying is that Davison somehow collected opinions of others and - not restricting herself in any way by a total lack of first hand knowledge - based her conclusion on those opinions. Am I right?

No need to use human bones. Animal bones have about the same density as human bones.

That's why I said bones, human or otherwise, but you edited that out to somehow make some sort of weird point that goes nowhere.

Professional ballistic experts know what to use as targets better than anyone else.

On page 3 you did say this, right?

Quote

It is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.

From 63 yards away shoot through:

a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block

Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.

This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.

But Haas didn't use any bones at al and only used one gelatin block. Go figure.... by your logic he can't be a Professional ballistic experts, can he now?


I see in the film, Dr. Dolce says he was given 100 WCC/MC bullets. No where does he say they used all 100, or 20, or 10, or how many.

Actually they had more than 100 bullets. Olivier obtained 100 rounds from Remington at Bridgeport, Conn., and his colleague Dziemian obtained another 160 rounds from Winchester in New Haven, but they didn't use those.

Since they conducted all the tests they wanted to do, what difference does it make if they used 90 or 100 bullets. Is your next silly claim going to be that the test are not valid because they did not use all the bullets? Or is it perhaps that they performed the test at the wrong time of day or something else just as ludicrous? If that's the plan than don't bother, because it will only mean that I can't take anything you say seriously (I'm struggling to do so already) and it would end the conversation.

The limiting factor was not the number of bullets. It was the number of human cadavers.

This is what happens when you refuse to read his report. You start asking silly questions and say silly things out of pure ignorance.

If you had watched a little of the video (from 41.10) before they showed Dolce, you would have known that the Edgewood team used human and animal bones and, according to Alfred Olivier (who was part of the team) fired the bullets through two gelatin blocks.

Now isn't that something? Didn't you say earlier;


To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.


And then you asked this question;

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

to which the answer is a resounding YES!

Haas, on the other hand, did not use bones (human or otherwise) at all, so he doesn't meet your laughable "minimum qualification"

I guess you need to look for something else to throw at the wall and hope it will stick!

Lots of people have disputed the Edgewood tests, on the grounds that firing bullets directly into rib cages and wrists does not test the SBT properly.

With Alfred Olivier on record saying that Dolce's team fired the bullets through two gelatin blocks, your comment becomes insignificant and requires no reply.

Btw, who are these "lots of people" who have disputed the Edgewood tests. Name them!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 27, 2022, 01:07:41 AM
How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?" The only person I would say for sure fits the description (at least as far as the arguments here are running) is Dr Martin L Fackler. Fackler had been a field surgeon in Da Nang during the Vietnam war, then spent the next 20 or so years investigating what they euphemistically call "terminal ballistics." He was interested in the treatment of GSWs, but also spent considerable amounts of time looking at how bullet design, construction, materials, and velocity affected deformation and wounding potential. He ultimately wanted to start a better conversation between weapons designers and physicians regarding what would be done to make weapons less needlessly mangle-y while preserving their effectiveness. He thought there was room for improvement. He also came to the conclusion that surgeons overtreated gunshot wounds. And he found that the NATO standard 20% gelatin solution did a poor job of simulating tissue, and advocated 10%-15% concentration as a replacement.

Whether or not he falls under anyone's definition of above, Dolce was ignorant of a number of important points. For instance, Dolce wrote that Dr Charles Gregory "has no wound ballistic experience." This isn't true. Gregory was had been presented with "the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School" Not only that, but he'd also "covered a tour of duty in the, Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division." Gregory estimated that he'd "dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds." Gregory's experience with GSWs, including those caused by military rifles, was considerable.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Gregory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce based his objection on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no uncertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

And, as Jean Hill, I, and several other people have pointed out over the years, it is important to look at the x-rays of the target wrists as well as photos of the bullets. Connally's radius was badly fractured, but fractured into relatively large pieces with a negligible amount of missing bone. The x-rays of the test wrists show that the target radii were essentially pulverized, with most of the bone around the impact site completely missing. Gregory said that he would have been forced to amputate Connally's forearm had he been faced with an injury like the ones from the cadaver wrist tests. Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corollary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

[many misc edits. That's the last time I do a post this long on an IPad]
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 27, 2022, 01:53:43 AM
How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?" The only person I would say for sure fits the description (at least as far as the arguments here are running) is Dr Martin L Fackler. Fackler had been a field surgeon in Da Nang during the Vietnam war, then spent the next 20 or so years investigating what they euphamistically call "terminal ballistics." He was insterested in the treatment of GSWs, but also spent considerably amoundsa of time looking at how bullet design, construction, materials, and velocity affected deformation and wounding potential. He ultimately wanted to start a better conversation between weapons designers and physicians regarding what would be done to make weapons less needlessly mangle-y while preserving their effectiveness, He thought there was room for imprtovement. He also came to the conclusion that surgeons overtreated gunshot wounds. Also, he found that the NATO standard 20% gelatine solution did a poor job of simulating tissue, and advocated 10%-15% concentration as a replacement.

As for Dolce, whether or not he falls under anyone's definition of above, he was ignornant of a number of important points. For instance, Dolce wrote that Dr Charles Gregory "has no wound ballistic experience." This isn't true. Gregory was had been presented with "the rather indigenous nature of such wounds in the main teaching hospital at Southwestern Medical School" Not only that, but he'd also "covered a tour of duty in the, Navy during World War II, and a considerably more active period of time in the Korean war in support of the 1st Marine Corps Division" Gregory estimated that he'd "dealt directly with approximately 500 such wounds." So Gregory's experience with GSWs, including those caused by military rifles, was considerable.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

And, as Jean Hill, I and several other people have pointed out over the years, it is important to look at the x-rays of the target wrists as well as photos of the bullets. Connally's radius was badly fractured, but into relatively large pieces with a negligible amount of missibng bone. But the x-rays of the wrist tests sho that the target radii were essentially pulverized, with most of the bone around the impact site ocmpletly missing. Gregory pointed out that, had he been faced with an injury like the ones from the cadaver wrist tests, he would have been forced to amputate Connally's forearm. Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?"

Ask Joe Elliot, as he seems to be desperate to make a distinction.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al,

From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

So this is merely a disagreement about where the bullet entered and left Connally's arm? How is that in anyway significant for the shape of the bullet and the damage to it? During his testimony Gregory was asked if the bullet could have hit the wrist bone and come out lokking as CE399 and although he gave a long winded reply he never really answered the question.

Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

As court cases all over the country demonstrate over and over again, experts will differ in opinions, depending for what side they testify for. That's why I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong or more qualified or not (as Joe seems to be) but instead I wonder why Specter would bury a report by ballistics experts his own commission had appointed. There can only be one explanation and that is that the report said what he didn't want to hear, because it would destroy his pet single bullet theory. And that - and a whole lot more - tells me all I need to know about the real objective of the Warren Commission.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mike Orr on December 27, 2022, 04:57:52 PM
CE 399 was supposed to be the end all for the Warren Commission's pick as the smoking gun for the " Magic Bullet " to have been one of the 3 shots that was fired by one person even if that one person was in the break room with a coke in his hand . John Connally was walking around with what was left of CE 399 in his left thigh so the Magic single bullet theory holds no water at all and the you have Gerald Ford moving the back wound up to the base of the neck to try and help the Magic Bullet theory try to fit all of those wounds through 2 people .  Did Gerald Ford move the back shot to the base of the neck all on his own because I can't imagine anyone else on the Warren Commission agreeing with Ford on the new placement of CE 399 ! We should have known that Dulles ( who was fired by JFK ) being on the Warren Commission was not going to be on the up and up .
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 29, 2022, 02:37:21 AM
Note: I went back and fixed a lot of spelling, grammar and style issues in the post that Martin replied to, but after Martin responded. None of my arguments changed, however. In this reply, I will not correct the parts of the unedited post that Martin replies to.

How does anyone actually define a "ballistics expert" or a "wound ballistics expert?"

Ask Joe Elliot, as he seems to be desperate to make a distinction.
Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.


In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al,

From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.
Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward  in his WC testimony.


In particular, Dolce takes issue with Olivier, et al, accepting Grogory's assignation of entry and exit for the wrist wound. Dolce does this based on the fact that the dorsal wound was larger than the volar wound. He should have done his homework. Gregory noted that while the dorsal wound was larger, ragged, and irregular, but the volar wound was "slit-like." The term "slit-like" screams "low velocity exit" in no undcertain terms. Further, Gregory noted that he found fabric debris from Connally's clothing in the dorsal side of the wound, but not the volar side.

So this is merely a disagreement about where the bullet entered and left Connally's arm? How is that in anyway significant for the shape of the bullet and the damage to it? During his testimony Gregory was asked if the bullet could have hit the wrist bone and come out lokking as CE399 and although he gave a long winded reply he never really answered the question.

Edgewood and Gregory both noted that the cadaver wrist tests proved that Connally could only have been hit by bullet that had been significantly slowed before impact. The corallary to this is, the cadaver wrist bullets aren't relevant in the JFK case, no matter what Dolce wanted to believe.

Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

I didn't say that Dolce only objected to Oliver's acceptance of Gregory's explanation of the wound. I bought it up because it particularly illuminates the ignorance underlying Dolce's objections. He didn't bother to understand Gregory's diagnosis of the wrist wound, and did not understand that Gregory's qualifications in GSW ballistics were comparable to his own.

Further, Dolce assumed that the wrist tests his team performed by his team were applicable for all cases of a 6.5mm WCC 6.5mm bullet striking a radius. That's a gigantic assumption. The reality is, his tests turned out to be irrelevant to the case at hand (pun intended, in case you were wondering).


As court cases all over the country demonstrate over and over again, experts will differ in opinions, depending for what side they testify for. That's why I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong or more qualified or not (as Joe seems to be) but instead I wonder why Specter would bury a report by ballistics experts his own commission had appointed. There can only be one explanation and that is that the report said what he didn't want to hear, because it would destroy his pet single bullet theory. And that - and a whole lot more - tells me all I need to know about the real objective of the Warren Commission.

You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it. I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed. You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood  and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 29, 2022, 12:08:15 PM
Note: I went back and fixed a lot of spelling, grammar and style issues in the post that Martin replied to, but after Martin responded. None of my arguments changed, however. In this reply, I will not correct the parts of the unedited post that Martin replies to.
Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.

Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward  in his WC testimony.


I didn't say that Dolce only objected to Oliver's acceptance of Gregory's explanation of the wound. I bought it up because it particularly illuminates the ignorance underlying Dolce's objections. He didn't bother to understand Gregory's diagnosis of the wrist wound, and did not understand that Gregory's qualifications in GSW ballistics were comparable to his own.

Further, Dolce assumed that the wrist tests his team performed by his team were applicable for all cases of a 6.5mm WCC 6.5mm bullet striking a radius. That's a gigantic assumption. The reality is, his tests turned out to be irrelevant to the case at hand (pun intended, in case you were wondering).


You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it. I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed. You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood  and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.


Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.

"Implicated" LOL

Dolce and his team were hired by the WC. Should I perhaps assume that the WC didn't know what they were doing and that they hired a few bumbling idiots?

I assumed nothing. I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.

Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward  in his WC testimony.

Really? Where in the report does it say this?

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


Btw, this exchange was based upon a lie, because earlier in the testimony Specter said this;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally

which was simply not true. CE399 was introduced into evidence during Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it was the bullet found at Parkland. That proof was never provided!

But let me ask you this; if what Olivier testified was the same as is in the report, why did Specter bury the report? There is no mention of it in the entire WC report!

You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it.

Again, did the WC not know what they were doing when they hired Dolce? And why would Dolce have to be an expert in this case, whatever that means? I would think it is enough if he is an expert in his own field of expertise and his peers considered him to be so.

I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed.

Your biased opinion isn't worth much of anything.

You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.

What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website. You have seen it! I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it! Your dishonesty is on full display here when you want me to to demonstrate that a report was generated by Edgewood when, in the same posts, you falsely claim that Olivier testimony was that his conclusions were the same as in the report!

As for the WC suppressing it; Specter made no reference to the report during the testimony of Olivier and Dziemian although he slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report. Now, why would Specter not use the report during the testimony of Olivier, when he - as you falsely claim - put forward the same conclusions that are in the report?

The report concluded that it was possible that Connally was hit by the same shot that hit Kennedy in neck but that it could also have been a separate shot. Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men. On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

This was, as I understand it, the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. And that, in turn, is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Bill Brown on December 30, 2022, 11:09:11 PM
“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.” — Dr. Robert Shaw.


Shaw had nothing to do with the leg wound.  He couldn't possibly know.

The superficial wound to the leg was the last of Connally's wounds to be addressed, long after Shaw had performed surgery and left.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 30, 2022, 11:20:40 PM
Why would Shaw report the existence of a bullet that he “couldn’t possibly know” about?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Bill Brown on December 30, 2022, 11:25:16 PM
Why would Shaw report the existence of a bullet that he “couldn’t possibly know” about?

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.

Go read the operative record.  The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 30, 2022, 11:57:57 PM

Since your arguments assume that Dolce is a relevant expert, you are implicated on this matter as well.

Dolce and his team were hired by the WC. Should I perhaps assume that the WC didn't know what they were doing?

[...]

You haven't demonstrated that Dolce should be considered an expert in this case, or that he has anything meaningful to say about it.

Again, did the WC not know what they were doing when they hired Dolce?

Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.     


Which Edgewood report is this? This one: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296#relPageId=1 ? It reached the same conclusions that Olivier puts forward  in his WC testimony.

Really? Where in the report does it say this?

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.

Btw, this exchange was based upon a lie, because earlier in the testimony Specter said this;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally

which was simply not true. CE399 was introduced during Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it was the bullet found at Parkland. That proof was never provided!

But let me ask you this; if what Olivier testified was the same as is in the report, why did Specter bury the report? There is no mention of it in the entire WC report!
1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.

2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland"  have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.

Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?


I would say that he managed only to betray his reasoning as lazy and uniformed.

Your biased opinion isn't worth much.
I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.


You have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it.

What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website. I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it! Your dishonesty is on full display here when you want me to to demonstrate that a report was generated by Edgewood when, in the same posts, you falsely claim that Olivier testified the same conclusions as were in the report!

As for the WC suppressing it; Specter made no reference to the report during the testimony of Olivier and Dziemian although he slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report. Now, why would Specter not use the report during the testimony of Olivier, when he - as you falsely claim - put forward the same conclusions that are in the report?

The report concluded that it was possible that Connally was hit by the same shot that hit Kennedy in neck but that it could also have been a separate shot. Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men. On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.


MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website.  I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!

I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.


MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.

The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing.  BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?


MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.

So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.


MW:  On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.


MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.

Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.

You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 31, 2022, 12:48:26 AM
Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.     

1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.

2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland"  have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.

Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?

I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.



MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website.  I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!

I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.


MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.

The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing.  BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?


MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.

So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.


MW:  On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.


MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.

Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.

You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 31, 2022, 01:18:05 AM
Who said that the Warren Commission "hired" Dolce themselves? Dolce listed his position as "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics" while Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision. That is, the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier, and Dolce performed certain tasks under Olivier's command. Given the emphasis that Dolce places on the wrist tests, I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD, and the wrist tests involved amputated human cadaver arms. Olivier and Dziemian were, IIRC DVMs and could not legally work directly with human cadavers.     

1.) Who said that Olivier/Edgewood ever presented a report to Specter or anyone else serving with the Commission in the first place? That notion is simply your own presumption. You've presented no evidence for it.

2.) what does the question "when was ce399 entered into evidence by the WC" or "subject ot proof it was the bullet found at Parkland"  have to do with whether Specter had seen any supposed report created by Edgewood? That's just a red herring.

Finally:
MW: Really? Where in the report does it say this?
Let me put it another way: where does the report contradict Olivier's testimony to the Commission, as you claim it does?

I pointed out the deficiencies in Dolce's thinking. He didn't understand the wounds in Connally's arm and why those proved that the bullet travelled in a dorsal-to-volar direction rather than the volar-to-dorsal direction Dolce believed. He thought that Gregory "had no wound ballistic experience" when Gregory had quite a bit. And, I noted that Dolce believed that the wrist tests he performed were applicable to all possible cases, which is a very, very foolish presumption. All of it indicative of lazy thinking. All you can do in response is to poison the well and avoid dealing with the points I made. Probably because you are unable to deal with the points I've made.

MW: What a silly comment. The report was found in the WC documents at the National Archives and is now available on the Mary Ferrell website.  I don't need to assume it exist, when I can read it!

I said, "you have also failed so far to demonstrate that there was report generated by Edgewood and suppressed by the WC. You seem to assume it exists, but can generate no evidence of it." Note the "and." There is an Edgewood report, but it's dated "March 1965." The Commission had wound up and published it's report many months before. If the report didn't exist before March 1965, then Specter could not have seen it before Olivier's testimony in May 1964, and therefore could not have suppressed it. QED. And you've still given us no reason to believe that Specter suppressed any supposed report in any case.


MW: [Specter] slipped up when he referred to "the goat depicted in the photographs and X-ray" which are in the report.

The photos and x-rays would have been created before any report was written, by necessity. As such, their existence is independent of any report. While it would be possible for them to be submitted as part of some report, it is also possible that they could be submitted as evidence by themselves, without any report ever being generated. Therefore, Specter's statement is evidence of nothing.  BTW, you saw the date on the Edgewood report, right?


MW: Nowhere does the report confirm that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact the bullet that hit both men.

So what? In his testimony, Olivier never says that CE399 was the bullet that hit both men, either. ce399 doesn't even com up in Dzeimian's deposition. The Edgewood report parallels the two men's testimony and does not contradict it.


MW:  On page 43 of the report it becomes clear why; it shows two bullets, one that hit a rib and another one that was recovered from a gelatin model. The first bullet doesn't come close to looking anything like CE399, but the second one does.

The WC published photos of the goat-rib test bullets, and also published photos of the reference bullets (ce572) that Frazier and the FBI fired into a soft capture target just like the second bullet shown in the Edgewood report's 43rd page. If the WC was so concerned about the photos on page 43, they wouldn't have published photos of both the goat rib bullets and the FBI reference bullets, which really show roughly same difference. If they didn't care about publishing those, then they wouldn't have bothered worrying about page 43 in the Edgewood report.


MW: This was the reason for Dolce to conclude that CE399 could not have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out in the condition it is in. That is why Specter buried the report and did not call Dolce to testify.

Dolce only talks about the cadaver wrist tests in his "My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination" letter and in his recorded interview. The goat rib tests go
unmentioned in either source.

You've still generated nothing more than your own presumption that some report existed prior to Olivier's deposition with Specter, an that it was suppressed.

Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision.

"It would appear?

I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD,

"I suspect"?

When you know for sure, get back to me... I couldn't care less how something appears to you or what you suspect.

the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier,

Did they? Did you check the record and the correspondence on the subject? I doubt it! But cite please...

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 31, 2022, 01:22:49 AM
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.

Go read the operative record.  The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.

That doesn’t demonstrate that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” about a bullet in Connally’s leg.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Bill Brown on December 31, 2022, 02:12:31 AM
That doesn’t demonstrate that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” about a bullet in Connally’s leg.

It demonstrates that your point (posting the footage of Shaw's press conference after performing surgery to Connally's chest) is moot.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 31, 2022, 02:32:18 AM
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

Nevertheless, the thigh wound wasn't dealt with until after Shaw was gone from the operating room.

Go read the operative record.  The order of surgery was chest, wrist and then thigh.

You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

What makes you say that it was an assumption?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 31, 2022, 04:39:49 AM
It demonstrates that your point (posting the footage of Shaw's press conference after performing surgery to Connally's chest) is moot.

Not moot at all. It’s a contemporary report of a bullet being in Connally’s leg.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 31, 2022, 04:40:37 AM
You'd have to ask Shaw why he felt it okay to make an assumption.

What makes you say that it was an assumption?

Seems like that is the assumption here.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 31, 2022, 04:25:16 PM
Not moot at all. It’s a contemporary report of a bullet being in Connally’s leg.

A report based on what, exactly?

This is how Shaw describes the wound in Connally's thigh when he first saw it: 

Mr. SPECTER - You have described, in a general way, the chest wound. What other wounds, if any, was Governor Connally suffering from at the time you saw him?
Dr. SHAW - I will describe then the wound of the wrist which was obvious. He had a wound of the lower right forearm that I did not accurately examine because I had already talked to Dr. Gregory while I was scrubbing for the operation, told him that this wound would need his attention as soon as we were able to get the chest in a satisfactory condition. There was also, I was told, I didn't see the wound, on the thigh, I was told that there was a small wound on the thigh which I saw later.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?
Dr. SHAW - He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh?
Dr. SHAW - No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the wound you described on the thigh, Dr. Shaw, was there any point of exit as to that wound?
Dr. SHAW - No.
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you----
Mr. DULLES - Could I ask one more question there, how deep was the wound of entry, could you tell at all?
Dr. SHAW - Mr. Dulles, I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have.

Shaw did not treat the wound. Shaw never even claimed that he really examined the wound. Nor did he ever claim to have seen an x-ray showing a bullet in the thigh. For that matter, no one else claimed that a bullet was found in the wound, or that bullet could be seen in the x-rays taken of the Governor's thigh.

From his own testimony, all Shaw would have known at the time was that there was one, and only one, wound in the thigh. It's no stretch to think that Shaw concluded that a projectile had entered the thigh through the wound and remained in the leg, based on what little he knew. But he knew little about it, as he admitted.

You can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 31, 2022, 04:44:13 PM
Given these titles, it would appear that Dolce was simply a "consultant" or otherwise an employee working under Olivier's supervision.

"It would appear?

I suspect that he was engaged in the endeavor simply due to the fact that he was the consulting MD,

"I suspect"?

When you know for sure, get back to me... I couldn't care less how something appears to you or what you suspect.

the WC engaged Edgewood arsenal via Olivier,

Did they? Did you check the record and the correspondence on the subject? I doubt it! But cite please...

I've already laid out the reasons why one thing "would appear" a certain way and why I "suspect" another thing to be so. It appears that you can't engage with the arguments I made, and I suspect you would never be able to in any case. All you are able  to do now is push some lame sematic jabs that look more like sour grapes than an attempt to rebut what I've said.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 31, 2022, 05:09:15 PM
I've already laid out the reasons why one thing "would appear" a certain way and why I "suspect" another thing to be so. It appears that you can't engage with the arguments I made, and I suspect you would never be able to in any case. All you are able  to do now is push some lame sematic jabs that look more like sour grapes than an attempt to rebut what I've said.

So, you can not support your claims (regardless how you describe them) that Dolce was "simply a consultant" and "working under Olivier's supervision" and that the "WC engaged Edgewood via Olivier".

Got it!.

You may want to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support, but don't expect me to play along.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 31, 2022, 05:59:50 PM
Your can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.

But Shaw didn’t say in this contemporary clip that there was a wound that he didn’t examine and so he was presuming (based on what?) that a bullet was still in the leg. He said a bullet was still in the leg. That specific information would have come from somewhere specific to be so specific.

Besides, this whole “he didn’t actually inspect the wound” thing is a convenient argument given that all the subsequent medical “investigations” of Kennedy’s wounds were done by people who never examined the actual body.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 31, 2022, 06:03:30 PM
So, you can not support your claims (regardless how you describe them) that Dolce was "simply a consultant" and "working under Olivier's supervision" and that the "WC engaged Edgewood via Olivier".

Got it!.

You may want to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support, but don't expect me to play along.

The current kerfluffle began when you decided, for reasons known to only you and God, to presume that:

1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964

2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition

3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

4.) So Specter suppressed it somehow

But you have been unable to provide a single shred of evidence that your presumptions are anything but your own presumptions. Just a few spastic stabs of wharrrrgarbl that mean nothing.

Yet you chide me for "want[ing] to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support.

Well, ain't that rich!!

Was Dolce "simply a consultant?" Yes! He said so himself: "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics." A "chief consultant" is still a consultant. Again, Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Comparing the two titles, it's not hard to figure out who is the bigger dog in the pack here, even if we don't have the org chart in front of us. Further, as I've already noted, Dolce's own statements deal almost exclusively with the wrist tests, but not the skull, goat meat, or goat rib tests. This strongly implies unfamiliarity with these other tests, which in turn indicates that he wasn't involved in these tests, just the cadaver wrist ones.

Now, your evidence to support the notion that Dolce was anything other than a "consultant" to Olivier who was only involved in the wrist tests is.......?




 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 31, 2022, 06:41:03 PM
The current kerfluffle began when you decided, for reasons known to only you and God, to presume that:

1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964

2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition

3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

4.) So Specter suppressed it somehow

But you have been unable to provide a single shred of evidence that your presumption are anything but your own presumptions. Just a few spastic stabs of wharrrrgarbl that mean nothing.

Yet you chide me for "want[ing] to have a discussion based on pure speculation, which you can not support.

Well, ain't that rich!!

Was Dolce "simply a consultant?" Yes! He said so himself: "Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics." A "chief consultant" is still a consultant. Again, Olivier was "Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch." Comparing the two titles, it's not hard to figure out who is the bigger dog in the pack here, even if we don't have the org chart in front of us. Further, as I've already noted, Dolce's own statements deal almost exclusively with the wrist tests, but not the skull, goat meat, or goat rib tests. This strongly implies unfamiliarity with these other tests, which in turn indicates that he wasn't involved in these tests, just the cadaver wrist ones.

Now, your evidence to support the notion that Dolce was anything other than a "consultant" to Olivier who was only involved in the wrist tests is.......?

1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964

Where did I say that?

2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition

Where did I say that?

What is absolutely true is that Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before anybody testified. Dolce was questioned by Specter on April 21st, 1964. One can only wonder why Specter talked to Dolce on that day, if he was merely a consultant. Also, during that conversation, at least some of the test results must have been known, don't you think? Otherwise they would have had nothing to talk about, right? According to Dolce, it was only after this meeting that Specter decided not to call him to testify and turned to Olivier and Dziemian. Again, one can only wonder why!

3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,

CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!

Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.

and

Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."

What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

Btw, I don't think the date of March 1965 on the report is of major significance. Although I can not explain why that date is there to begin with, the actual report states that the work was started in April 1964 and ended in October 1964. But more importantly, I found two other Edgewood reports that are similar. One was written by Dr. Light and covered work started in March 1951 and completed in January 1961. The date on that report was September 1965 and December 1965 respectively.  The other report was written by Janice Mendelson and dated August 1966. Her report states that the actual work was done between July 1963 and October 1965.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on December 31, 2022, 06:59:47 PM
But Shaw didn’t say in this contemporary clip that there was a wound that he didn’t examine and so he was presuming (based on what?) that a bullet was still in the leg. He said a bullet was still in the leg. That specific information would have come from somewhere specific to be so specific.

Besides, this whole “he didn’t actually inspect the wound” thing is a convenient argument given that all the subsequent medical “investigations” of Kennedy’s wounds were done by people who never examined the actual body.

But Shaw didn’t say in this contemporary clip that there was a wound that he didn’t examine and so he was presuming (based on what?) that a bullet was still in the leg.

So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?


That specific information would have come from somewhere specific to be so specific

Again, so what? Shaw was aware of a single entry wound in the thigh, with no corresponding exit. That is specific information. Shaw making a reasonable assumption from the two facts he had at hand, that the projectile remained in the thigh, is specific as well.


Besides, this whole “he didn’t actually inspect the wound” thing is a convenient argument given that all the subsequent medical “investigations” of Kennedy’s wounds were done by people who never examined the actual body

The subsequent medical investigations had plenty of x-rays and photographs to work with. They also were staffed by specialists who were experienced and well-qualified in the field of medical forensic investigation, and had the time to go over the evidence carefully before reaching a conclusion. Those were luxuries that the Parkland and Bethesda practitioners simply lacked. In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found. And we have the various testimonies and statements from Gregory and --especially-- Shires. Guess what? No evidence of a bullet remaining in the thigh from those two, either.


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 01, 2023, 02:11:31 AM
So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?

I didn’t say it does. How does his later testimony show that his 11/22 statement was merely an assumption?

Quote
The subsequent medical investigations had plenty of x-rays and photographs to work with.

True — at least the ones that were given to them.

Quote
In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found.

It could have been the bullet that Connally said hit the floor before Gregory’s surgery and subsequently “disappeared”.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 01, 2023, 06:26:17 PM
1.) Edgewood had produced a report in early 1964

Where did I say that?

2.) It was shown to Specter before Olivier's and Dziemian's deposition

Where did I say that?

This has pretty much been the whole thrust of your arguments regarding Dolce. This is the most succinct statement of your scenario:

All I can say is that Dolce and his team were hired by the WC to do the tests and when the WC got their report they buried it and Dolce's testimony

You might want to quibble as to how exact my characterization of your position is, but is essentially correct.


What is absolutely true is that Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before anybody testified. Dolce was questioned by Specter on April 21st, 1964. One can only wonder why Specter talked to Dolce on that day, if he was merely a consultant. Also, during that conversation, at least some of the test results must have been known, don't you think? Otherwise they would have had nothing to talk about, right? According to Dolce, it was only after this meeting that Specter decided not to call him to testify and turned to Olivier and Dziemian. Again, one can only wonder why!

This is just a big chunk of presumption glued together by misapprehension.

Dolce said that "I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connally, his wife and his doctors." He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in. In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Table B1 in the Edgewood report shows that the firing tests commenced on April 27, 1964 and continued through May 11. In other words, when Dolce walked into the VA Building, none of the testing had even begun. This strengthens the idea that Dolce was there only to collect information that would be used to determine what sort of tests would be run. And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.


3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,

CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!

Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.

and

Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."

What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;


This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Specter's question encompasses both the case where the bullet passes through both JFK and Connally and the case where the bullet passes through just Connally. The degree of vagueness within the question may well have been by design, but it's still there. And again, there is no contradiction as to what Olivier testifies to and what is in the Edgewood report. Specter gets Dziemian to go a little further, but not much. The best Dr D can do is say that the "probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet," which is one of the two scenarios put forward in the report. Still he doesn't actually commit to that particular scenario. Dziemian's answer thus also does not contradict the Edgewood report's conclusions.


Btw, I don't think the date of March 1965 on the report is of major significance. Although I can not explain why that date is there to begin with, the actual report states that the work was started in April 1964 and ended in October 1964. But more importantly, I found two other Edgewood reports that are similar. One was written by Dr. Light and covered work started in March 1951 and completed in January 1961. The date on that report was September 1965 and December 1965 respectively.  The other report was written by Janice Mendelson and dated August 1966. Her report states that the actual work was done between July 1963 and October 1965.

Again, the report itself notes that the shooting didn't begin until April 27, 1964, six days after Dolce met the Connallys. This fact alone demolishes the idea that Dolce went into the VA Building on the 21st with any conclusions.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 01, 2023, 07:59:02 PM

MT: So what? How does that invalidate what he testified to later on?

I didn’t say it does.

That is exactly what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want to admit it or not.


How does his later testimony show that his 11/22 statement was merely an assumption?
I've already said it: "[Shaw] admitted that he 'didn't examine [the thigh wound] that closely, except for its general location.'"

If Shaw didn't examine the wound other than noting its location, then he could not have known whether or not a bullet was still in the thigh.


MT:  In Connally's case, x-rays are available. Guess what? There is no bullet to be found.

True — at least the ones that were given to them.

And now, lacking any other evidence, all you can do is insinuate that something suspicious must have happened.


It could have been the bullet that Connally said hit the floor before Gregory’s surgery and subsequently “disappeared”.

Connally actually does say this in his autobiography. However, he also has a lot to say about what happened that day that he could not possibly have seen. And good deal of it is garbled or even wrong. He wrote that the Secret Service agents in the SS followup car immediately jumped out and ran to the front door of the TSBD "even as some in the crowd were still waving to the President"... which absolutely did not happen. He helpfully notes that "Many of my memories are secondhand" and "It is no longer possible to say with certitude how much of the race to Parkland I remember, and how much I have been told by Nellie, or picked up from watching news films or reading official reports." In short, he admits he might not be the most reliable narrator. At that time, he was suffering from severe blood loss, and was about to receive stout doses of anesthesia, neither of which are good for memory.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 01, 2023, 09:24:29 PM
That is exactly what you are arguing, whether you realize it or not. Whether you want to admit it or not.

You don’t get to decide what I’m arguing. Just because there wasn’t a bullet in Connally’s leg at the time of his surgery doesn’t mean that there was no bullet in his leg at the time of Shaw’s comment.

Quote
If Shaw didn't examine the wound other than noting its location, then he could not have known whether or not a bullet was still in the thigh.

That all depends on what the basis for his statement was. It’s a definitive statement, and you don’t have any more insight about it than anybody else.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 01, 2023, 09:40:50 PM
This has pretty much been the whole thrust of your arguments regarding Dolce. This is the most succinct statement of your scenario:

You might want to quibble as to how exact my characterization of your position is, but is essentially correct.


Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?

Quote
This is just a big chunk of presumption glued together by misapprehension.

Dolce said that "I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connally, his wife and his doctors." He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in. In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Table B1 in the Edgewood report shows that the firing tests commenced on April 27, 1964 and continued through May 11. In other words, when Dolce walked into the VA Building, none of the testing had even begun. This strengthens the idea that Dolce was there only to collect information that would be used to determine what sort of tests would be run. And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in

Who said anything about Dolce testifying?

Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Sounds like?

And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?

You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.

Quote

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;


This is just sloppy thinking on your part. Specter's question encompasses both the case where the bullet passes through both JFK and Connally and the case where the bullet passes through just Connally. The degree of vagueness within the question may well have been by design, but it's still there. And again, there is no contradiction as to what Olivier testifies to and what is in the Edgewood report. Specter gets Dziemian to go a little further, but not much. The best Dr D can do is say that the "probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet," which is one of the two scenarios put forward in the report. Still he doesn't actually commit to that particular scenario. Dziemian's answer thus also does not contradict the Edgewood report's conclusions.


If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.

In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.

which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.

So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?


Quote
Again, the report itself notes that the shooting didn't begin until April 27, 1964, six days after Dolce met the Connallys. This fact alone demolishes the idea that Dolce went into the VA Building on the 21st with any conclusions.

So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?

And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 01, 2023, 11:28:11 PM
You don’t get to decide what I’m arguing.

If only you would decide what you are arguing....


Just because there wasn’t a bullet in Connally’s leg at the time of his surgery doesn’t mean that there was no bullet in his leg at the time of Shaw’s comment.

During the press conference, Shaw's noted that Gregory was still in the ER working on Connally's arm. The surgery was still going on, and Shires had yet to start his part of the operation.


That all depends on what the basis for his statement was. It’s a definitive statement, and you don’t have any more insight about it than anybody else.

Which statement is "definitive"?
 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 02, 2023, 02:10:48 AM
If only you would decide what you are arguing....

Which hasn't changed despite your best efforts to change it.

Quote
Which statement is "definitive"?

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 02, 2023, 02:33:32 AM
Why would I want to quibble with somebody who is already quiblling about how "essentially correct" his position is, just after having basically confirmed that the statements he previously atributed to me were not correct?

He didn't say that he testified at this meeting. Nor did he say that he had any conclusions to share going in

Who said anything about Dolce testifying?

You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."


In fact, this sounds more like he was there to gather information, rather than disseminate it.

Sounds like?
Again, Dolce wrote:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

Reviewing X-rays is gathering information.

Reviewing the Zapruder film is gathering information.

Listening to Connally talk about his injuries is gathering information.

And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?



And it demolishes the any notion that Dolce "testified" as to any conclusions based on the tests.

Who said that Dolce testified on April 21, 1964?

Again, you did. You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."


You keep forgetting that Dolce's letter to the HSCA was written in 1976 and most likely did not provide all the information.
It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.


If you are only selectively answering a part of what I actually said, your answer is of no value or credibility at all. In fact, the report offers two possibilities; Connally was hit by a bullet that first went through Kennedy (that could only be CE399) or he was hit by a separate shot. Of course Specter's question was vague by design, but Olivier's answer wasn't. He believed that bullet CE399 caused Connally's wrist wound.

In doing so, whether you like it or not, he basically confirmed by implication that CE399 was indeed the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And that's exactly what it says in Chapter 3 of the WC report;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.

which, purely by coincidence, I'm sure, you selectively ignored.

So, I'll ask you again; What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?

I keep ignoring it because it's an inchoate red herring. You have yet to show how any of this changes the current conversation.  Let's go back to what you've previously written that forms the point of departure for the current entanglement as a refresher:

MW: From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

[...]

MW: Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

[...]

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

[...]

MW: I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington. Nor did Olivier and Dzeimian issue testimony contradicted by the report they wrote. Dolce's beef with the Edgewood report is based solely on Dolce's own interpretation of the wrist tests and only the wrist tests. This whole angle that you've pursued is so full of errors that you might as well just abandon it.


So, you now agree that the report on the Mary Ferrell site is the actual report, despite the March 1965 date on it?

I always said it was the actual report. I also noted that the report is dated March 1965, and details a set of tests that were performed between April 27, 1964 and May 11 1964. That is, tests that did not begin until several after Dolce's encounter in the VA Building. You have yourself noted that the report is base on work that began in April and concluded in October. Therefore, the earliest the report would have been issued is still a month after the WCR has been published.


And Dolce did not meet with the Connallys. They were just there as well. He actually met with the investigating team of the WC, which seems an odd thing to do if he had no information to share. Or are you suggesting they just had a coffee together and talked about the weather?

Let's go back to Dolce's letter:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

If Dolce was talking to Connally, then he definitely met with Connally, ipso facto. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 02, 2023, 02:51:37 AM
MT: Which statement is "definitive"?

“The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

"I didn't examine the wound of the thigh" and "I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location" are just as definitive as “The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

In reality, "definitive" is just a tag that you arbitrarily added in a lame attempt to give Shaw's press conference statement an authority that you can't establish with supporting evidence and argument. Because you have no supporting evidence or arguments.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 02, 2023, 05:04:40 AM
"I didn't examine the wound of the thigh" and "I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location" are just as definitive as “The bullet is in the leg. It hasn’t been removed.”

Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive.

“Definitive” is a tag that’s appropriate. He didn’t qualify his 11/22 statement in any way. The info came from somewhere, even if it was secondhand. If direct examination is necessary for knowledge, then we can throw out the single-bullet fantasy along with mostly everything else about the wounds.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 02, 2023, 11:49:05 AM
You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."


That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

Do you even believe this BS yourself?

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

Meaningless. The person who wrote the obituary may simply have been misinformed or used a poor choice of words.


Quote

Again, Dolce wrote:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

Reviewing X-rays is gathering information.

Reviewing the Zapruder film is gathering information.

Listening to Connally talk about his injuries is gathering information.

And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?


And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Where did I say I think that?

Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?

Dolce didn't say, so how would I know? Are you now going to say that just because Dolce did not say, it didn't happen?

Quote

Again, you did. You have previously said:

"In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission"

That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

It may be an incomplete record, but this is not license to insert whatever random fantasy you can concoct. We have to go with what he said.


But it seems to be a license for you to foolishly call talking to investigators testifying.

Quote

I keep ignoring it because it's an inchoate red herring. You have yet to show how any of this changes the current conversation.  Let's go back to what you've previously written that forms the point of departure for the current entanglement as a refresher:

MW: From what I have seen Dolce takes issue with Olivier because when he testified before the WC (after Specter had decided not to call Dolce) he told a different story than was in the Edgewood report, of which he (Olivier) was one of the authors.

[...]

MW: Nobody disputed that Connally's wrist was hit by a slowed down bullet, at least not as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what you think Dolce wanted to believe, but his position seems to have been that CE399 could not have hit two men, hit bone in Connally's body twice and somehow come out in near pristine condition. That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

[...]

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?

[...]

MW: I merely stated as a matter of fact that the WC hired Dolce and that his experiments did not support the SBT, which is why Specter buried his report.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington. Nor did Olivier and Dzeimian issue testimony contradicted by the report they wrote. Dolce's beef with the Edgewood report is based solely on Dolce's own interpretation of the wrist tests and only the wrist tests. This whole angle that you've pursued is so full of errors that you might as well just abandon it.


Your selectively quoting from what I have written doesn't alter the fact that I actually did make my point and you just prefer to ignore it and misrepresent it by focusing on other parts of what I said.

But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report.

Where did I say he did?

The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington.

So what? There may well have been preliminary drafts that were available earlier. Olivier, Dziemian and Light all testified on May 6, 1964. How could they do that if there were no test results known?

And nobody said that Specter decided not to call Dolce on April 21, 1964. Dolce merely stated that he wasn't called to testify. There is no information about when exactly Specter made that decision.

Quote

I always said it was the actual report. I also noted that the report is dated March 1965, and details a set of tests that were performed between April 27, 1964 and May 11 1964. That is, tests that did not begin until several after Dolce's encounter in the VA Building. You have yourself noted that the report is base on work that began in April and concluded in October. Therefore, the earliest the report would have been issued is still a month after the WCR has been published.


So, how did the report end up in the Warren Commission's archive and as classified document in the National Archive?

Quote
Let's go back to Dolce's letter:

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

If Dolce was talking to Connally, then he definitely met with Connally, ipso facto. Where did you get the idea that it was any different?

You are correct. I should have said that Dolce didn't necessarily go to Washington on April 21, 1964 for the sole purpose of meeting Connally.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 02, 2023, 07:15:58 PM
Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive.

“Definitive” is a tag that’s appropriate. He didn’t qualify his 11/22 statement in any way. The info came from somewhere, even if it was secondhand. If direct examination is necessary for knowledge, then we can throw out the single-bullet fantasy along with mostly everything else about the wounds.

"Definitive" is simply an adjective arbitrarily assigned to Shaw's words in a backhanded attempt to give those words an authority they lack. That's all it is.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 02, 2023, 08:46:58 PM
And yet his words are light years more authoritative than Mitch Todd’s desperate attempt to make them mean something other than what he said.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 02, 2023, 09:14:23 PM
And yet his words are light years more authoritative than Mitch Todd’s desperate attempt to make them mean something other than what he said.
I never said that anything he said meant anything other than what he said. Including the part where he said he didn't examine the thigh wound beyond noting where it was, and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh. You seem to skip that part for some strange reason.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 02, 2023, 10:01:06 PM
This is something other than what he said:

"and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh"

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 03, 2023, 12:00:38 AM
This is something other than what he said:

"and therefore could not have himself known whether a bullet was in the thigh"
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll. 

Anyway, if you want to assert that Shaw heard it from some other source, you need to provide evidence for such a thing. So far, we ain't even heard crickets from you regarding this.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 03, 2023, 12:16:10 AM
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself. Or maybe Descartes' clever demon is messing with the plumbing of reality again. You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll. 

Anyway, if you want to assert that Shaw heard it from some other source, you need to provide evidence for such a thing. So far, we ain't even heard crickets from you regarding this.

Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

This is really where you want to go?

So, by this same logic, we can't rely anything the WC concluded based on one source, without corroboration, or no source at all?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 03, 2023, 12:59:37 AM
That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

Do you even believe this BS yourself?

And the Dolce obituary that you previously linked said "Dr. Dolce's testimony before the Warren Commission was excluded from its report."

Meaningless. The person who wrote the obituary may simply have used a poor choice of words.

The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

If he appeared before Specter on April 21 bearing the the Edgewood report, or at least results of the firing tests (a position you've already expressed), and Dolce explained what he thought happened, it would falls under either definition. Dolce himself complained that he wasn't allowed to give "final testimony." Dolce's use of the term "final testimony" implies that he thought he had given testimony of some sort at some point prior to Olivier's deposition.


And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?

Where did I say I think that?

It was a rhetorical question, Martin.


Now, what questions did Dolce say that Specter (or any other member of the "investigating team") asked?

Dolce didn't say, so how would I know? Are you now going to say that just because Dolce did not say, it didn't happen?

But it seems to be a license for you to foolishly call talking to investigators testifying.

My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.


Your selectively quoting from what I have written doesn't alter the fact that I actually did make my point and you just prefer to ignore it and misrepresent it by focusing on other parts of what I said.

The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.

You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests. Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report. In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands. And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report. You then shifted gears, and made a fuss about Specter bringing up CE399, but that's a side issue with respect whether Olivier's testimony contradicted the Edgewood report. You then tried to push some argument about how the WCR was worded, but that doesn't change the Edgewood report or what Olivier testified to. It's just a red herring.


But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report.

Where did I say he did?

Right here:

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC?

Also,

That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.


The report wouldn't be issued until after the WCR had already been published, and the tests that the report was derived from wouldn't begin until April 27, several days after Dolce's trip to Washington.

So what? There may well have been preliminary drafts that were available earlier. Olivier, Dziemian and Light all testified on May 6, 1964. How could they do that if there were no test results known?

The shooting tests weren't complete until May 11. If Olivier testified on May 6, it's really hard to believe that something that could reasonably be called a "draft report" would have existed on the 6th. Olivier did bring photos and some of the test bullets and some x-rays. At one point he says he has to refer to his notes. He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.


And nobody said that Specter decided not to call Dolce on April 21, 1964. Dolce merely stated that he wasn't called to testify. There is no information about when exactly Specter made that decision.

I never claimed that Specter made a decision on the 21st to not have Dolce testify. But in the scenario you presented, that is when Dolce shows up to the VA building and delivers a turd to Specter's punchbowl, which you claim is why Specter didn't call Dolce to testify.


So, how did the report end up in the Warren Commission's archive and as classified document in the National Archive?

Because it was a document that was generated because of the Commission. However, that doesn't prove when it was created.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 03, 2023, 01:11:31 AM
Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

This is really where you want to go?

So, by this same logic, we can't rely anything the WC concluded based on one source, without corroboration, or no source at all?

You left out the concluding sentence in the paragraph, which is important and bears directly on the art you quoted: "You're not the only guy who can play the epistemology troll."
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 03, 2023, 05:10:36 AM
The only way Shaw could truly know for himself is by direct observation. You'll claim that someone could have told Shaw about it; however, Shaw cannot know if that person is telling the truth, lying,  mistaken, or delusional without seeing the bullet for himself.

Fair enough. But you cannot know if a person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional even if he did claim to see the bullet for himself. Or all the people who made conclusions about JFK’s wounds (like Specter) without seeing them themselves. So you’re special-pleading again.

Shaw said what he said. If you don’t know the basis, then you don’t know the basis. Period. You don’t get to demand evidence for a claim I didn’t make while offering none for the claim you did make.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 04, 2023, 01:30:15 AM
Fair enough. But you cannot know if a person is telling the truth, lying, mistaken, or delusional even if he did claim to see the bullet for himself. Or all the people who made conclusions about JFK’s wounds (like Specter) without seeing them themselves. So you’re special-pleading again.

Shaw said what he said. If you don’t know the basis, then you don’t know the basis. Period. You don’t get to demand evidence for a claim I didn’t make while offering none for the claim you did make.
What I did is simply mirror the solipsistic benders you revert to after you've run out of arguments.

As for Shaw, you're right. He said what he said. On 11/22 and afterwards. He also didn't say things.

For that matter, Gregory said what he said. He also didn't say things.

And Shires said what he said. And Shires also didn't say things.

And the x-rays show what the x-rays show. And they show what they don't show.

Shaw, who did not treat the thigh wound, said that the bullet had yet to be removed from the leg in his 11/22 press conference. He also said that he didn't examine the thigh wound other than noting where it was.
He never again said that a bullet was left in the thigh when discussing Connally's wounds.

Gregory, who assisted in treating the thigh wound,  said that he examined the thigh wound and ordered x-rays of the thigh along with those of the wrist. He testified that he and Shires were "we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all" in Connally's leg. He never claimed at any other time that a bullet was found in the leg.

Shires, sho was responsible for the great majority of the treatment of the thigh wound, said that the "wound was either a tangential wound or that a larger fragment had penetrated or stopped in the skin and had subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound." That is to say, he didn't find a bullet in Connally's leg.

The x-rays, of course, showed no bullet in the leg.



Most people can figure out what happened, no matter You just don't want to. That's why you ignore everything but "well, Shaw said XXXX at the press conference"

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 04, 2023, 02:47:13 PM
And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 05, 2023, 12:36:18 AM
And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.
I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.

BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?




Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 05, 2023, 06:13:31 PM
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

If he appeared before Specter on April 21 bearing the the Edgewood report, or at least results of the firing tests (a position you've already expressed), and Dolce explained what he thought happened, it would falls under either definition. Dolce himself complained that he wasn't allowed to give "final testimony." Dolce's use of the term "final testimony" implies that he thought he had given testimony of some sort at some point prior to Olivier's deposition.


The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

BS. Testimony is taken under oath

But don't take my word for it;

Cornell law school

Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures. According to Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, testimony taking should be conducted in an open court unless other federal rules apply, like the Federal Rules of Evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony#:~:text=Testimony%20is%20oral%20or%20written,trial%20or%20other%20legal%20procedures.

Law insider

Testimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/testimony

Quote
It was a rhetorical question, Martin.

Yeah, sure...

Quote
My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.

Another selfserving opinion.

Quote

The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.

You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests. Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report. In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands. And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report. You then shifted gears, and made a fuss about Specter bringing up CE399, but that's a side issue with respect whether Olivier's testimony contradicted the Edgewood report. You then tried to push some argument about how the WCR was worded, but that doesn't change the Edgewood report or what Olivier testified to. It's just a red herring.


The only thing you proved is that you'll try to change the subject when you've argued yourself into a corner.

Hilarious and, of course, not true

You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests.

Lie number 1: I never said anything like that

Specter didn't like what he heard from Dolce, had the Edgewood report suppressed, then called Olivier to testify instead of Dolce, and Olivier testified contrary to the findings of the report.

All true. That's exactly what I have been saying all along and it actually happened. There is no mention of Dolce and/or the Edgewood report in the WC report and Specter did call Olivier to testify.

In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands.

Lie number 2: I never said that Dolce had testing results "in his hand"

And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report.

BS. The report, co-written by Olivier, did not confirm CE399 as the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. In fact it leaves open the possibility that there were two seperate shots.
In his testimony, however, Olivier stated that CE399 was, in his opinion, the bullet that caused all the wounds in Kennedy and Connally, except for Kennedy's headwound.
If you don't see the contradiction there, you are either blind or utterly dishonest.

Quote
Earlier in this conversation;

MT :But Dolce didn't go to Specter on April 21 with a report. [/b]

MW : Where did I say he did?


Quote

Now; 

MT : Right here:

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC?

Also,

That was what the Edgewood team concluded in their report and that was why Specter buried the report and decided not to call Dolce as a witness.

Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.


All you have done here is demonstrate clearly that you don't understand what you are reading. Nowhere in those two quotes did I say that Dolce had a report with him on April 21.

Note that for things to work out the way you've stated, Specter would have had to have had the report before calling Olivier.

Why in the world would you say something so stupid? All it would have taken for Specter to decide not to call Dolce and call Olivier et all instead, is Dolce making comments on April 21 that indicated to Specter that he wasn't fully on board with the single bullet theory, like for instance agreeing with Connally. And before you go there; putting Connally on the stand was unavoidable but considerably less risky as he could be called mistaken where as Dolce, as an expert, couldn't. Better not take the risk and leave Dolce out of it all together.

In much the same way as that he didn't take the risk of putting Sibert and O'Neill on the stand or of showing bullet CE399 to Tomlinson despite the fact that itwas already admitted into evidence. He already had Humes being skeptical about CE399 being the bullet that caused all the wounds. Just imagine if Tomlinson failed to identify the bullet, or worse still say that it wasn't the bullet he saw. Add Dolce to that mix and the SBT would have been destroyed.

Quote
The shooting tests weren't complete until May 11. If Olivier testified on May 6, it's really hard to believe that something that could reasonably be called a "draft report" would have existed on the 6th. Olivier did bring photos and some of the test bullets and some x-rays. At one point he says he has to refer to his notes. He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.

Olivier states in his testimony;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any record which would be more specific on the point of entrance?
Dr. OLIVIER. Our notebook has all.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you refer to your notes, then?
Dr. OLIVIER. The notebook is in the safe in there in the briefcase.
Mr. SPECTER. Would you get the notebook and refer to it so we can be as specific as possible on this point.
Dr. OLIVIER. I have the location of that wound.


He never says he has to refer to a report or a draft report. Nor is a report or draft report covering the tests is mentioned in his testimony.

Semantics. A notebook that "has all" in his briefcase serves the same purpose as a draft report.

Quote
I never claimed that Specter made a decision on the 21st to not have Dolce testify. But in the scenario you presented, that is when Dolce shows up to the VA building and delivers a turd to Specter's punchbowl, which you claim is why Specter didn't call Dolce to testify.

Well to be more precise; that's what Dolce claimed happened. I just have no reason to doubt him.

Quote

Because it was a document that was generated because of the Commission. However, that doesn't prove when it was created.

Both true. So I take it you are no longer making a big thing out of the March 1965 date on the report?


And finally, going over some earlier parts of our conversation, I noticed you never answered this question;


3.) And Specter saw that it contradicted his SBT

Well, let's see... During Olivier's testimony, Specter started with a lie;

Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which has been heretofore in Commission proceedings identified as the bullet found on the stretcher of Governor Connally,

CE399 was never identified as the bullet found on Connally's stretcher!

Although it is true that Specter never asked Olivier directly if CE399 was the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally, it is beyond obvious that if CE399 caused the wound on Connally's wrist, it must be the bullet that went through the two men. Why? Because (1) if it was any other bullet there would be no SBT and (2) no other bullet except CE399 was ever identified in relation to Connally's wrist wound.

In other words; when Specter asked Olivier;

Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an opinion as to whether, in fact, bullet 399 did cause the wound on the Governor's wrist, assuming if you will that it was the missile found on the Governor's stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Dr. OLIVIER. I believe that it was. That is my feeling.


he clearly was actually asking him if CE399 is the single bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally and in doing so injured Connally's wrist.

That wasn't a finding of the Edgewood tests! But that didn't stop Specter from claiming that it was;

In chapter 3 of the Warren Report it says;

Additional experiments by the Army Wound Ballistics Branch further suggested that the same bullet probably passed through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally. (See app. X, pp. 582-585. ) Correlation of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments.' indicated that course. After reviewing the Parkland Hospital medical records and X-rays of the Governor and discussing his chest injury with the attending surgeon, the Army ballistics experts virtually duplicated the wound using the assassination weapon and animal flesh covered by cloth.

and

Arsenal, Drs. Olivier and Arthur J. Dziemian, chief of the Army Wound Ballistics Branch, who had spent 17 years in that area of specialization, concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor.317 Referring to the President's neck wound and all the Governor's wounds, Dr. Dziemian testified: "I think the probability is very good that it is, that all the wounds were caused by one bullet."

What other bullet than CE399 (which can't even be authenticated) is the bullet they were talking about? And where in their test results is their conclusion supported?


Why did you overlook that?

Were Specter and Olivier talking about CE399 as the bullets that caused the wounds in Kennedy and Connally or were they talking about another bullet?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 07, 2023, 01:10:11 AM
The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

BS. Testimony is taken under oath

But don't take my word for it;

Cornell law school

Testimony is oral or written evidence given by the witness under oath, affidavit, or deposition during a trial or other legal procedures. According to Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, testimony taking should be conducted in an open court unless other federal rules apply, like the Federal Rules of Evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/testimony#:~:text=Testimony%20is%20oral%20or%20written,trial%20or%20other%20legal%20procedures.

Law insider

Testimony means statements given by a witness under oath or affirmation.

I'm going to split this out, because it's kind of a pointless distraction at this point. However:

I actually did kinda do a wee little messup, but not in the way that you think. Let's go to the replay official for how his subthread got to this point.

This is the statement of mine that you originally objected to, and your response:

MW: [Dolce] didn't say that he testified at this meeting.

MT: That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

MW: BS


And, at this very moment, I did a boo-boo:

MT: The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

I should have said "testify" here, as I did in the original in reply to your own use of "testify". And the two definitions I gave you are from the entry for "testify" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From M-W.

Testify:
intransitive verb:

   1: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court)

   2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
   2b: to serve as evidence or proof

   3: to express a personal conviction

transitive verb

   1a: to bear witness to : ATTEST
   1b: to serve as evidence of : PROVE

   2: to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body


So far as concerns the word we were really arguing about, ie, testimony, I am still correct.

For that matter, Merriam-Webster defines Testimony  as:

   1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
   1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
   1c: an outward sign

   2a: an open acknowledgment
   2b: a public profession of religious experience

   3 [these are entirely religious references, and couldn't be here because it's Friday, and the sun already set, so they can't perform any labor
]

Even the definition of "testimony" here is not exclusively province of a legal matter. So I am correct with "testimony" as well. Why you resorted to using legal dictionaries is a mystery. After all, Dr Dolce was not a lawyer, Dr Olivier was not a lawyer, Dr Dzeimian was not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, either. The only person lawyer I can think of in this tawdry little drama is Arlen Specter, and you don't believe anything he says.

And again, Dolce said he wasn't asked to give "final testimony" which implies that he thought he did testify in some manner at some point prior.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 07, 2023, 04:06:26 AM
I said anyone can figure it out. Not just me. The only ones who can't are the ones who just don't want to. Those people think that ignoring all of the evidence except for one statement, then arbitrarily tack on some random adjective in the hope that they can prove something via willful ignorance and insinuation.

Translation: “my assumptions are automatically correct, and I’m going to project them to “anyone”, because of my narcissism”.

Quote
BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?

You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on January 07, 2023, 01:55:28 PM
I'm going to split this out, because it's kind of a pointless distraction at this point. However:

I actually did kinda do a wee little messup, but not in the way that you think. Let's go to the replay official for how his subthread got to this point.

This is the statement of mine that you originally objected to, and your response:

MW: [Dolce] didn't say that he testified at this meeting.

MT: That falls under the definition of "testify" even if it was not for the record.

MW: BS


And, at this very moment, I did a boo-boo:

MT: The definition of testimony includes: "to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness" and "to express a personal conviction"

I should have said "testify" here, as I did in the original in reply to your own use of "testify". And the two definitions I gave you are from the entry for "testify" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. From M-W.

Testify:
intransitive verb:

   1: to make a solemn declaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court)

   2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
   2b: to serve as evidence or proof

   3: to express a personal conviction

transitive verb

   1a: to bear witness to : ATTEST
   1b: to serve as evidence of : PROVE

   2: to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body


So far as concerns the word we were really arguing about, ie, testimony, I am still correct.

For that matter, Merriam-Webster defines Testimony  as:

   1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
   1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE
   1c: an outward sign

   2a: an open acknowledgment
   2b: a public profession of religious experience

   3 [these are entirely religious references, and couldn't be here because it's Friday, and the sun already set, so they can't perform any labor
]

Even the definition of "testimony" here is not exclusively province of a legal matter. So I am correct with "testimony" as well. Why you resorted to using legal dictionaries is a mystery. After all, Dr Dolce was not a lawyer, Dr Olivier was not a lawyer, Dr Dzeimian was not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and I suspect that you aren't a lawyer, either. The only person lawyer I can think of in this tawdry little drama is Arlen Specter, and you don't believe anything he says.

And again, Dolce said he wasn't asked to give "final testimony" which implies that he thought he did testify in some manner at some point prior.

Wow, in one post from "I made a mistake and used the wrong word" to "I am still correct", while completely ignoring that testimony is given under oath. Hilarious.

So desperate to twist and turn in any possible way to "win" an argument. It's pathetic and sad. Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not?

The bottom line is a simple one; if you tell 100 people that you have testified there won't be anybody who thinks you possibly did so somewhere else but in court and under oath.

Your claim that Dolce testified simply because he had a conversation (that was not recorded in any way) with Specter and his team is simply not true, no matter how many times you say it is.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 07, 2023, 04:46:35 PM
Translation: “my assumptions are automatically correct, and I’m going to project them to “anyone”, because of my narcissism”.

You start by putting words in my mouth, and end by calling me a narcissist. Classic!

The former is a strawman argument. The latter is just some childish name-calling, and really just an ad hominem smear.
Good job there, Mr Logic!

As for assumptions:

It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.

It's not an assumption to point out  that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.

It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound

It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.
 
Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.

You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.

Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth. Mr Logic strikes again!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 07, 2023, 07:18:00 PM
Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not? Thumb1:

 Thumb1: Nailed it!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 07, 2023, 07:28:07 PM
As for assumptions:

It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.

It's not an assumption to point out  that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.

It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound

It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.

Nor did I say they were. Speaking of strawmen…

Quote
Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.

No, the only assumption required is that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.

But the key point is that I don’t claim to know which alternative is true. You do.

Quote
Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth. Mr Logic strikes again!

No, Einstein. My response to Bill was my response to Bill. It’s not all about you, narcissist. Maybe if you didn't jump in to try to be his proxy you would have realized that.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 08, 2023, 09:07:10 PM
MT:It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.
It's not an assumption to point out  that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.
It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound
It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.


Nor did I say they were. Speaking of strawmen…
You completely failed to mention exactly what assumptions you thought I was making, so I worked with what I had.



MT: Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.

No, the only assumption required is that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.


But the key point is that I don’t claim to know which alternative is true. You do.

Go back and read what I wrote.

"Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference."

If you were a little more careful, you'd notice I didn't say that my position is "true." I said that it required fewer assumptions. Shaw's statements are mutually exclusive of Gregory's, Shires' and the x-rays. Gregory's and Shires' statements are equivalent, and are equivalent with the x-rays. To say that Shaw is correct, them we have to assume that Gregory is incorrect. And assume that Shires is incorrect. And assume that the x-rays are incorrect. But to say that Shaw is incorrect, I only have to assume that Shaw was incorrect. The rest is up to Occam's Razor, etc.

Plus, if Shaw is incorrect, it's easy to explain why. He saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh. It's a simple and quite reasonable explanation, and requires minimal additional assumptions. However, If we assume that Shaw was right, then it becomes difficult to explain how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could have been wrong. Some conspiracy between the two surgeons, most likely involving others, would have to be presumed. That's direction presents quite an assumptive complex.

I already said this early on, but in a less formal way:

MT: You can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while [I shoulda said "before" rather than "while"] the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.

Hopefully, you've figured out by now that I'm not claiming a metaphysical certainty here. I don't need to. The requirement to do so is simply your attempt to impose an impossible burden of proof, now that your other excuses have been peeled away.


JI: And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.

MT: BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?

JI: You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.

MT: Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth


No, Einstein. My response to Bill was my response to Bill. It’s not all about you, narcissist. Maybe if you didn't jump in to try to be his proxy you would have realized that.

If your response to Bill was your response to Bill and only your response to Bill, then why add the quote from your response to Bill when you responded to something that I wrote? Also, you quoted something I said in the same paragraph, but without doing anything to disambiguate the two. That's a curious way to behave.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 09, 2023, 10:14:48 PM
Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.

Bull. Those things occurred at different times.

Quote
Plus, if Shaw is incorrect, it's easy to explain why. He saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh. It's a simple and quite reasonable explanation, and requires minimal additional assumptions.

That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify.

Quote
If your response to Bill was your response to Bill and only your response to Bill, then why add the quote from your response to Bill when you responded to something that I wrote? Also, you quoted something I said in the same paragraph, but without doing anything to disambiguate the two. That's a curious way to behave.

I think my error was in assuming that you would actually read the previous comments in the thread before chiming in.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 10, 2023, 12:02:37 AM
Since the thread is becoming a mess, I'm going to split my reply up. The what-did-Olivier-say-and-when-did-he-say-it question seems to be the cornerstone at this point, so I'll address that first.

And Olivier's testimony didn't contradict anything in the report.

BS. The report, co-written by Olivier, did not confirm CE399 as the bullet that hit both Kennedy and Connally. In fact it leaves open the possibility that there were two seperate shots.
In his testimony, however, Olivier stated that CE399 was, in his opinion, the bullet that caused all the wounds in Kennedy and Connally, except for Kennedy's headwound.
If you don't see the contradiction there, you are either blind or utterly dishonest.

Let's go back to what Olivier actually said:

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the nature of the wound inflicted on the Governor's wrist, and on the tests which you have conducted then, do you have an opinion as to which is more probable on whether the bullet passed through only the Governor's chest before striking his wrist, or passed through the President first and then the Governor's chest before striking the Governor's wrist?

Dr. OLIVIER Will you say that again to make sure I have it?

Mr. SPECTER. [To the reporter.] Could you repeat that question, please? (The question was read by the reporter.)

Dr. OLIVIER. You couldn't say exactly at all. My feeling is that it would be more probable that it passed through the President first. At least I think it is important to establish line of flight to try to determine it.


Notice that he says that the JFK-JBC explanation is "more probable," which doesn't rule out a JBC-only path. His earlier statement, "you couldn't say exactly at all" makes this even clearer. Just like the later Edgewood report says.

 

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 10, 2023, 12:11:08 AM
MT: Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.

Bull. Those things occurred at different times.

The assumptions are simultaneous, not necessarily the events they describe.


That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify.

I'm unaware of any complexity or detail requirements for Occam's razor.


I think my error was in assuming that you would actually read the previous comments in the thread before chiming in.

It's probably not the best idea to expect other posters to remember verbatim every single post several pages back. Just sayin'.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 10, 2023, 12:42:01 AM
Wow, in one post from "I made a mistake and used the wrong word" to "I am still correct", while completely ignoring that testimony is given under oath. Hilarious.

So desperate to twist and turn in any possible way to "win" an argument. It's pathetic and sad. Is it that you are so narcissistic that you think you are always right, even when you are not?

Says the guy who's keeps making a huge deal over whether or not I used the words "testimony" and or "testify" correctly. My intended use of testify fits the standard definitions of the word, as given by Merriam-Webster:

   2a: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief : bear witness
   2b: to serve as evidence or proof

   3: to express a personal conviction

Dolce's statements fit under 2a and 3. Take your pick.

Further, the word I mistakenly wrote, "testimony" includes the following definitions:

   1a: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
   1b: firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE

Note that while definition 1a uses "under oath," it doesn't exclusively say that testimony requires an oath. That's the consequence of the preceding "usually." In any case, that Dolce's outing to WC HQ also fits under definition 1b.
 

The bottom line is a simple one; if you tell 100 people that you have testified there won't be anybody who thinks you possibly did so somewhere else but in court and under oath.

If I was summoned before a government fact-finding body, few people other than lawyers would give a single thought as to whether or not any oath was administered, or to how formally the event was conducted. They would just think that I testified is some way. There's a reason why "testify under oath" is fairly commonly used phrase. If "testify" automatically required an oath, then there would be no reason to say "testify under oath" when just plain "testify" would do.


Your claim that Dolce testified simply because he had a conversation (that was not recorded in any way) with Specter and his team is simply not true, no matter how many times you say it is.

Again, that's not what Dolce thought. His letter also includes this gem: "My testimony on the one bullet theory are [sic] clearly written in Dr. Thompson’s book — “Six Seconds in Dallas” on pages 152 and 206." I don't think Tink Thompson administered any oath to Dolce, but Dolce saw it as "testimony" anyway.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 10, 2023, 12:51:48 AM

MT: ["And why do you think that they had Dolce in the room with Shaw, Shires, and Gregory?"] was a rhetorical question, Martin.

Yeah, sure...

It was most certainly rhetorical. Also, I note that you were unable to answer it on the first pass and now on the second.


MT: My point is that Dolce's description of the meeting doesn't sounds like medical evidence is being screened. More like some confab is going on regarding how to interpret Connally's wounds, and where to go next with it. Something like what is described in Dolce's obit.

Another selfserving opinion.

That's what the Dolce obit said. This is the FBI summary of the April 21 meeting:

April 22, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO:  Mr. Conrad

FROM:  W.D. Griffith 

SUBJECT:  Assassination of President Kennedy

At the request of the President's Commission, Inspector J.R. Malley of the General Investigation Division, Inspector L.J. Gauthier of the Administrative Division and Special Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt of the Laboratory on 4/21/64 were at the Commission for a review of the Zapruder film of the assassination. Purpose of this review was to determine from Governor and Mrs. John Connally, who were present, whether or not it could be established at what point in the film the Governor was shot. The following individuals were also present:

Dr. Gregory and Dr. Shaw who examined Governor Connally at Parkland Hospital in Dallas

Dr. F.W. Light, Jr. and Dr. A.G. Olivier from the Wound Assessment and Wound Ballistics Department of Edgewood Arsenal

Dr. Joseph Dolce, consultant to the Biophysics Division of Edgewood Arsenal

It is noted that representatives of the Secret Service who have attended past reviews were not present.

The principal fact brought out by the Governor and Mrs. Connally was their selection of a portion of the film where "he has been hit"; however, they could not pin point the exact frame of the motion picture film where the bullet struck. The portion of the sequence they selected is only one-fourth to one-half second after the approximate point where the President was believed to have been shot at the base of the neck. Allowing for variations in reaction times, this lends support to the theory that one bullet passed through the President's neck, the Governor's chest, hit in the Governor's leg, and lodged in his clothing.

Both the Governor and Mrs. Connally stated that they heard the first shot and the second shot was the one that hit the Governor, however, neither of them saw the President between the first and third shots or can state that the President was actually hit by the first shot.


This document says that the purpose of the meeting was to screen the Zapruder film for the attendees in order to determine "whether or not it could be established at what point in the film the Governor was shot."


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 10, 2023, 01:28:34 AM
You started off arguing that Dolce went to see Specter on the 21st of April with the report generated from the shooting tests.

Lie number 1: I never said anything like that

In reality, the shooting tests didn't begin until the 27th of April, so Dolce couldn't have approached the April 21st meeting with any testing results in his hands.

Lie number 2: I never said that Dolce had testing results "in his hand"

This is what you said:

MW: All I can say is that Dolce and his team were hired by the WC to do the tests and when the WC got their report they buried it and Dolce's testimony

A couple of posts later in the exchange, you write:

MW: Specter screened all the medical and ballistic witnesses before any testimony was taken from them. In Dolce's case that was on April 21, 1964 when he "appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission". If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC? The fact that Dolce did not go into details in his letter to the HSCA, 12 years later, doesn't mean that Specter and his team didn't question him. Also, are we to believe that the WC let Dolce review all the X–rays and Zapruder film and then decided not to call him to testify, all without having questioned him?


If Dolce had no information to share, why would he appear before the investigating team of the WC?

What "information" was Dolce going to "share" if not the results of shooting tests?

PS, yes, you did say "Dolce's testimony" but I won't tell, I swear!  ;)

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 13, 2023, 10:28:26 PM
The assumptions are simultaneous, not necessarily the events they describe.

But there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken.

Quote
I'm unaware of any complexity or detail requirements for Occam's razor.

The more detailed the narrative, the greater number of assumptions there are.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 13, 2023, 11:34:08 PM
But there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken.

If that's the story you want to advance, then it's up to you to put forth a convincing argument for it.



The more detailed the narrative, the greater number of assumptions there are.

There is no reason to automatically tie the detail of a narrative to the number of underlying assumptions.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 14, 2023, 06:25:39 PM
If that's the story you want to advance, then it's up to you to put forth a convincing argument for it.

I’m not “advancing” anything. This conversation started with me saying that Bill can’t just assume that this definitive statement by Shaw was merely an assumption and nothing else, and then just state that as a fact.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on January 14, 2023, 06:44:26 PM
I’m not “advancing” anything. This conversation started with me saying that Bill can’t just assume that this definitive statement by Shaw was merely an assumption and nothing else, and then just state that as a fact.

Yes, you certainly failed to put forth a convincing argument for Shaw's "definitive statement".
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Tom Scully on January 14, 2023, 08:01:33 PM
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/conversation-eugene-rostow-november-24-1963
Conversation with EUGENE ROSTOW, November 24, 1963

Recorded conversation above resulted in the drafting of this memo :
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
"On November 25 1963, the day of the Kennedy funeral, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent a memo to Bill Moyers of the new Johnson White House. He had begun writing it the day earlier, within hours after Oswald's death at the hands of Jack Ruby.

The second paragraph stated: "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

Given that the authorities could not possibly by November 25 know these things to be true, and Katzenbach later admitted he knew very little at this stage, the memo is clearly advocating a political course irrespective of the truth of the assassination. ..."

In a nutshell, the reason "it", the WC "investigation" and Report seem suspect is because instead of following rules of evidence, conclusions were drafted by January, 1964, and then the evidence supporting the conclusions was obtained, organized, and an attempt was made to knit it all together,

versus acquiring and then following the evidence wherever it lead.... permitting findings to evolve into conclusions on the weight of the evidence.

David Lifton and I cannot be described as close. I do not quote him often but I think this recent post of his is worth sharing.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27388-ce-2011/
David Lifton - Posted October 2, 2021
"...As everyone knows, the key "evidence against Oswald" consisted such items as "the rifle", "fingerprints at the sniper' nest", bullet fragments removed from JFK's body. And of course, thee was the body itself.  The President's body was critical evidence in "the case against Oswald.  So it, too, had to have a "chain of possession," (All  of this is discussed in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence.")

Had Oswald lived--and the case against him gone to trial--many of the key items could not have been "admitted into evidence" without a valid "chain of possession."

Oswald was murdered on Sunday 11/24/63, so the case being built against him began with the Dallas Police file, and then the FBI file, and --finally--the Warren Commission investigation.

So... faced with these legal requirements, how did the Warren Commission legal staff behave?

Basically, they accepted all the basic evidence --the "found rifle,"  the "found bullets" (or bullet fragments) etc. --as evidence, without paying sufficient attention to the "chain of possession."

Accepting the validity of these items of evidence, the Warren Commission legal staff then set out to write their "report".   But note: Just as when a high school or college student writes a term paper, the Warren Commission's legal staff first wrote an "outline" -- an "Oswald was guilty" outline as the basic structure for the Warren Report.  These outlines --in the "office files" at the National Archives (and designated the "REP" files) --were dated between January and March, 1964. Once these outlines were approved by Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, the work for the individual chapters was parceled out to individual staff lawyers, who then proceeded  to write their 'preliminary drafts" for the document which, when completed, would emerge as the Warren Commission Report (the WCR). (All of this-- what I have just described here -- is documented in the "Office Files" of the Warren Commission -- abbreviated as the "REP" files in the "office files" of the Warren Commission.  (I examined this material -- the REP files -- back around 1970. (Arlen Specter, for example, wrote the "original drafts" for the section of the Warren Report about the autopsy.  Wesley Liebeler --and Albert Jenner -- were in charge of the chapters on Oswald's biography.)

What I found-- again, back around 1970, when I first examined the Warren Commission's "working paper's" at the National Archives-- was simply this: : The Warren Commission legal staff wrote their "first drafts" of the "Oswald-did-it" Warren Report in mid-January 1964!

Just consider what this means: President Kennedy was murdered on 11/22/63; the Warren Commission was created by 11/29/63; several weeks passed while staff was hired, the nation was told that the Warren Commission was hard work.  Meanwhile,  by January 1964, the earliest "Oswald did it" outlines were already created!  (This same bizarre situation was addressed by author Howard Roffman, whose book -- appropriately titled "Presumed Guilty"  --was published around 1970,

Bottom line: the "Oswald did it" fix was in by January 1964. 

All i can say is: "Wow! What a betrayal of the public trust!"

Once this bizarre "preliminary outline"  was adopted (i.e., "green lighted") by the WC's General Counsel), what happened next was predictable.

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT --i.e., starting in January 1964

Between January and June 1964, when the senior  Warren Commission staff lawyers (e.g., Stuart Eisenberg, and Norman Redlich)  were already drafting the document that became known as "the Warren Report-- some of the senior legal staff in effect recognized the emerging legal problem. Indeed, the documents show that senior members had a serious "Oops!" moment. Someone apparently realized "Oops!  We are constructing this "Oswald did it" narrative  based on the "sniper's nest evidence"  (e.g the rifle, the bullet fragments, etc.) --but we (the WC legal staff) have  neglected to establish a "chain of possession" on the key items of evidence!

 In other words, it was as if they (the WC legal staff)  were building a house that had no proper legal foundation!

So now, having conducted their investigation without bothering to establish a chain of possession, senior attorneys Eisenberg and Redlich let out an enormous "OOPS!" exclamation;  consulted with Gen. Counsel Rankin, and that's how (and why) it wasn't until May 1964, that the Warren Commission legal staff set out to repair the situation.  At this rather "late" date, the FBI was requested (by the Warren Commission) to establish a "chain of possession" on a whole array of "sniper's nest" items of evidence: i.e., the rifle, the bullets, the shells, etc.

All I can say is: "Welcome to law school, and the "legal way" of viewing theWarren Commission's view of 11/22/63. 

This --of course--  was akin to putting the cart before the horse, but the legal eagles of the WC staff behaved as if none of this mattered. It was as if their attitude was: "Oswald killed the President. Here's the official narrative; we can worry about the legal details later."

The country deserved better."

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17951-ce-399s-broken-chain-of-custody/
Gil Jesus     Posted July 19, 2011

"Commission Exhibit 2011 ( 24 H 412 ) shows the break in the chain of custody of bullet 399.

"Darrell C. Tomlinson...cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O. P. Wright."

"Mr. O.P. Wright could not positively identify C1 ( CE 399 ) as the bullet that was found on November 22, 1963."

"Special Agent Richard E. Johnson, United States Secret Service, could not identify this bullet as the one he obtained from O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital, Dallas Texas, and gave to James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963."

"James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, advised that he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnson and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963."

All four of the people who handled the "stretcher bullet" before it came into the possession of the FBI could not identify CE 399 as being that bullet."
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 14, 2023, 09:38:28 PM
Yes, you certainly failed to put forth a convincing argument for Shaw's "definitive statement".

Be honest, only the official theology convinces you.

I don’t give a damn what people believe — knock yourself out. I do care about assumptions being stated as if they were facts.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 15, 2023, 12:12:55 AM
I’m not “advancing” anything. This conversation started with me saying that Bill can’t just assume that this definitive statement by Shaw was merely an assumption and nothing else, and then just state that as a fact.

When you say "there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken" you are advancing some alternative take on the evidence. Period.

Whatever Bill assumed WRT Shaw's level of knowledge at that point, Shaw's other statements indicate that he didn't actually know whether there was a bullet in the thigh. And the other two surgeon's statements support Bill's take on Shaw's statement.

Oh, and once again, you try to wedge "definitive statement" into the mix. That tactic works now about the same as it did before. You need a new catchphrase.






Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 15, 2023, 06:36:04 PM
When you say "there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken" you are advancing some alternative take on the evidence. Period.

There's no reason to prefer "Shaw was only assuming that a bullet was there and nothing more" to "a bullet was still in Connally's leg when Shaw made his statement". It's just the assumption you prefer to make.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 16, 2023, 01:30:59 AM
There's no reason to prefer "Shaw was only assuming that a bullet was there and nothing more" to "a bullet was still in Connally's leg when Shaw made his statement". It's just the assumption you prefer to make.

Several posts back, I explained why the Shaw-assumed-the-bullet-was-still-there explanation is the best explanation of the evidence:

Plus, if Shaw is incorrect, it's easy to explain why. He saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh. It's a simple and quite reasonable explanation, and requires minimal additional assumptions. However, If we assume that Shaw was right, then it becomes difficult to explain how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could have been wrong. Some conspiracy between the two surgeons, most likely involving others, would have to be presumed. That's direction presents quite an assumptive complex.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 16, 2023, 04:23:12 AM
Several posts back, I explained why the Shaw-assumed-the-bullet-was-still-there explanation is the best explanation of the evidence:

Of course you would think that your own conjecture is “the best”.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 16, 2023, 06:04:42 AM
Of course you would think that your own conjecture is “the best”.

Deduction is the proper word for it, not conjecture. Anyway, we haven't seen you put forth anything better. Or anything at all. All you've managed to do is hide behind the word "definitive"

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 17, 2023, 04:23:13 AM
No, the proper word is conjecture because there is no evidence that it’s actually true.

I “put forth” an equally plausible conjecture. You just think yours is better because it’s yours, not because there’s any objective reason to prefer it.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 18, 2023, 01:17:43 AM
No, the proper word is conjecture because there is no evidence that it’s actually true.

I laid out the evidence, and inferred the most likely explanation using parsimony as a guide. That is deduction.

On the other hand:

I “put forth” an equally plausible conjecture.

You asserted that some other thing musta/coulda happened, but failed to offer any reason or evidence why anyone else should consider such a case. As I said before, "If that's the story you want to advance, then it's up to you to put forth a convincing argument for it." You continue to fail at even trying to do this.
'

You just think yours is better because it’s yours, not because there’s any objective reason to prefer it.

As I've said before, I came to prefer "mine" because it explains the evidence while requiring the least amount of assumption. You think you can read my mind, while continuing to demonstrate that you don't read what I write. All that will get you is the Yuri Gellar Junior Achievement Award
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 19, 2023, 05:43:33 AM
No, your “most likely thing that happened” has no evidence to support it and requires way more assumptions than just taking the statements at face value.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 20, 2023, 12:14:07 AM
No, your “most likely thing that happened” has no evidence to support it and requires way more assumptions than just taking the statements at face value.

I called out your unsupported assertion, "I 'put forth' an equally plausible conjecture" as such; your response is to follow up with another, equally unsubstantiated assertion. Good job, Dr Wisdom! 1
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 20, 2023, 01:03:51 AM
In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 20, 2023, 01:50:55 AM
MT: I called out your unsupported assertion, "I 'put forth' an equally plausible conjecture" as such; your response is to follow up with another, equally unsubstantiated assertion

In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.

I laid out my reasoning in reply #99. Actually, elsewhere as well, but #99 contains the most formal statement of it. The best you could do was claim that is was too "detailed" a "narratve" for Occam's razor to handle, an unsupported assertion (that word again) that you stopped following when challenged. 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 20, 2023, 09:37:09 PM
No, I said that your speculative “reason” contains more assumptions than my speculative “reason” and therefore fails Occam. Laying out the reasons for your speculation doesn’t make it anything more than speculation.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 21, 2023, 05:00:31 PM
MT: I laid out my reasoning in reply #99. Actually, elsewhere as well, but #99 contains the most formal statement of it. The best you could do was claim that is was too "detailed" a "narratve" for Occam's razor to handle, an unsupported assertion (that word again) that you stopped following when challenged.

No, I said that your speculative “reason” contains more assumptions than my speculative “reason” and therefore fails Occam

You are incorrect. This is your verbatim reply (in reply #100) to the reasoning I laid out in reply #99: "That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify."

You've never shown that your "speculative reason" required fewer assumptions than my explanation of the situation. You haven't even attempted to. You just repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over again.


Laying out the reasons for your speculation doesn’t make it anything more than speculation.

You can call it what you want, but my explanation for what happened neatly contains all the known evidence and doesn't require anything extra other than Shaw's looking at a single entry wound in the thigh and figuring that the bullet must have still been inside Connally's leg.  That would be a perfectly reasonable assumption on for him, or anyone else, to make at that time.

Your version of events demands that Shaw actually knew that there was a bullet in the thigh, something that Shaw himself never claimed. It also demands that the bullet found it's way out of the thigh at some point during surgery, somehow disappearing in the process. This requires one of two things. Either the surgeons and nurses in the room at the time conspired to make the bullet disappear, or that it mysteriously vanished without a trace in the OR.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 21, 2023, 07:17:33 PM
You are incorrect. This is your verbatim reply (in reply #100) to the reasoning I laid out in reply #99: "That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify."

You've never shown that your "speculative reason" required fewer assumptions than my explanation of the situation. You haven't even attempted to. You just repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over again.

The only assumption mine requires is that both Shaw and Gregory were correct at the time they made their statements.

Your speculation requires that Shaw "saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh."

The fact that you find this speculation "more reasonable" is irrelevant.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 22, 2023, 09:57:49 PM
The only assumption mine requires is that both Shaw and Gregory were correct at the time they made their statements.
This isn't even "speculation." It's nothing more than a simple tautology. Or, really, it's another pair of your assertions bereft of evidence, deduction, or argument. Good job, Mr Logic!

You have to be able to explain how Shaw and Gregory (you forgot the x-rays and Shires) can both have been right. That's the point of the exercise.


Your speculation requires that Shaw "saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh."

My "speculation" only involves the part about what Shaw concluded about what he saw. Shaw actually said that he saw the hole, and that he didn't examine it other than noting it's location. Importantly, note that my "speculation" actually explains how Shaw could have been wrong, and does so with minimal addition.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 23, 2023, 04:04:46 AM
You have to be able to explain how Shaw and Gregory (you forgot the x-rays and Shires) can both have been right. That's the point of the exercise.

Easy. The bullet was there when Shaw spoke (he didn’t say where he got the information, but he didn’t say he just assumed it), and then either fell out or was removed before the surgery.

We have Connally’s report of a bullet falling on the floor and we also have Wade saying in an interview that a nurse showed him a bullet that he told her to give to a policeman, and Bobby Nolan saying that he was handed an envelope that he was told by a nurse had a bullet in it.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 26, 2023, 04:04:36 AM
Easy. The bullet was there when Shaw spoke (he didn’t say where he got the information, but he didn’t say he just assumed it), and then either fell out or was removed before the surgery.

We have Connally’s report of a bullet falling on the floor and we also have Wade saying in an interview that a nurse showed him a bullet that he told her to give to a policeman, and Bobby Nolan saying that he was handed an envelope that he was told by a nurse had a bullet in it.

The bit from Connally's book doesn't work in this scenario. There is the previously mentioned admission by Connally that he's not really the most reliable narrator on this. But there's something more. He said that the bullet fell out wen he was being moved from a gurney to "the examining table."  "Examining table" implies Trauma Room 2, rather than the OR, which would have an operating table. The bullet didn't even make it out of the ER, and was therefore unavailable to be in Connally's thigh in the OR. 

Even if we assume (Iacoletti.assumptions++) that Connally really meant "operating table," there's still a problem. If you read the nurses' and surgeons' testimony, Connally's gurney was never actually wheeled into the operating room. Instead, the Operating table was brought out of the OR and Connally was moved onto it before being whisked into the OR. So the bullet would still have never made it into the OR, and would have fallen out well before sawbones Shaw ever sawed the Governor bones. Shaw is still wrong here, no matter how you cut it.

And you bring up Robert Harris' beloved wandering-nurse-with-a-bullet. As you note, Henry Wade said a nurse came to him with what he said was a bullet while he was in the waiting room  with the Connally party.  And Trooper Nolan, another member of the Connally party in the waiting room, was given an envelope by a nurse who told him it contained a bullet. Nolan himself said he didn't know whether it really was a bullet or not. Bill Stinson, Connally's aide who actually insisted on being in the OR while the surgery was going on, was talking with Nolan at the time and remembered it about the same was as Nolan. And I will admit that this is something of a mystery as to what actually occurred. Complicating matters is that there is a small envelope in evidence that is filled out in Audrey Bell's handwriting and has Nolan's initials in his handwriting. Both Bell and Nolan authenticated their own writing on the envelope. The problem is that this envelope contained "bullet fragment," as stated in Bell's writing. Bell herself says it contained small fragments she retrieved from the scrub nurse at the end of Connally's surgery, and not a bullet.  In fact, it's the CE842 envelope.

To shoehorn the wandering nurse into our debate, you need to assume some large combination of:

1.) Bell was lying or Nolan was visited by a second nurse (he only ever mentioned one)
2.) that said bullet was retrieved from Connally's thigh, and not from some other source after Shaw left the OR
3.) that Gregory and/or Shaw were lying and the x-rays were forged
4.) that this happed with out Stinson noticing, or maybe Stinson was in on it.
5.) that the other OR personnel (ie, scrub nurses, circulating nurses, assistant surgeons) either didn't notice or were part of the coverup.

Those are a lot assumptions that have to be added for Robert Harris' patented wandering nurse theory to be correct. My explanation is simpler and requires much less assumption.



Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 26, 2023, 05:18:21 AM
In fact, it’s not necessary to assume any of those things. That’s just you inventing a contrived, complicated strawman argument in order to buttress your own argument. The only assumption required is that Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg, that was no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery. I agree that it is a mystery as to what actually occurred. Like most aspects of this case.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 27, 2023, 01:51:30 AM
In fact, it’s not necessary to assume any of those things. That’s just you inventing a contrived, complicated strawman argument in order to buttress your own argument. The only assumption required is that Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg, that was no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery. I agree that it is a mystery as to what actually occurred. Like most aspects of this case.

What I said is not contrived at all. It's the natural consequence of mashing up the Bob Harris' Wandering Nurse (hereafter BHWN) into the Shaw/OR Bullet discussion. If we take the BHWN meme at face value, we still have to assume that the bullet she carried came from Connally's thigh. While it was in the operating room. After Shaw left the OR. And then we have to explain how that happened when Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays all say there was no bullet in the thigh at the time. If you find that too complicated, well...that's my point.

I think you see the problem with it, because you dropped the whole line of attack in favor of, "Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg." Much simpler but still fraught with problems. Like "Who told Shaw there was a bullet in Connally's leg," and "how did they actually know?" If you claim that the bullet was "no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery," you have to explain what happened to the bullet that made it not be in Connally's thigh, and how that happened without anyone knowing about it or admitting it. It's good to keep in mind that Gregory entered the OR well before Shaw left.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 27, 2023, 06:47:38 AM
I didn’t “drop” anything. If Shaw didn’t examine the thigh wound then he got the information some other way. And if the thigh bullet came out or was removed, it didn’t necessarily have to happen in the OR either. I don’t know what somebody called Bob Harris postulates, nor do I particularly care. Why do you keep dragging him in as if I did? Perhaps so you can contrive more complications?

I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 29, 2023, 12:37:38 AM
I didn’t “drop” anything. If Shaw didn’t examine the thigh wound then he got the information some other way. And if the thigh bullet came out or was removed, it didn’t necessarily have to happen in the OR either. I don’t know what somebody called Bob Harris postulates, nor do I particularly care. Why do you keep dragging him in as if I did? Perhaps so you can contrive more complications?

I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else.
For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR. If the bullet didn't come out in the OR, then it either was never removed after Shaw left or was removed during some surreptitious post-surgery surgery. Either way, you have a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy, if you want to push that idea. Which is to say, you have a lot of assumptions to generate to make everything work.

Quantum theory is really nothing more than a set of mathematical models built around a a set of metaphors. We can't directly see what going on, and don't really know if the subatomic really works the way that we understand them to. But we still use these metaphors and models and theoretical understanding because they explain what we see better and more elegantly than anything else we've com up with. In fact, they are seen as being true for all but the most persnickety philosophical martinets. For that matter A number of mathematical mavens have noted that you can create a Ptolemaic solar system that predicts the known movements of the planets just as well as the Keplerian model. But you have to generate epicycles within epicycles within epicycles within epicycles, etc, etc, etc. I figure you'd need at least a kiloherbert worth of nested epicycles to pull it off. So, should we just give up on Keplarian astronomy if we can shoehorn in the older Ptolemaic universe with the appropriate number of additions?

When you say "I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else," you are trying to claim that any explanation of the evidence is equal to any other. This is simply not true, and misguided to boot. It's the old false equivalency BS often seen hanging out with dissolute characters like creationists and "intelligent design" advocates.  Is that the crowd you want to emulate?

BTW, Robert Harris was once a relatively well known assassination researcher who associated himself with the LaFontaines. I used to spar with him on the second moderated usenet assassination group; Harris single-handedly killed the first one by being a petty little turd. A number of other posters (including Duncan himself) likewise tangled with him; I doubt you'll find much complimentary commentary about him from either side of the fence.  I don't know what he was like in person, but he had a particularly unpleasant online persona. One that ultimately earned him, and his LaFontaine  associates, a pretty nasty libel suit. anyway, he had this theory that the nurse Wade/Nolan/Stinson saw was a "newbie nurse" that found the "real CE399" and put it in a wadded-up foreign body envelope she fished out of the trash. That's why I brought him "into this." His name is a good way to shorthand the wandering nurse testimony.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2023, 06:22:48 AM
For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.

Quote
When you say "I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else," you are trying to claim that any explanation of the evidence is equal to any other. This is simply not true, and misguided to boot.


In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.

Quote
It's the old false equivalency BS often seen hanging out with dissolute characters like creationists and "intelligent design" advocates.  Is that the crowd you want to emulate?

The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 29, 2023, 04:52:36 PM
MT: For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.
What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.


In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.
In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another.

Parsimony, that is, Occam's razor, is a good way to choose between possible explanations. 

And let's go over the basics again:

If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing. I'm still obligated to explain how Shaw could be wrong, then it's easy to believe that Shaw, who's knowledge of the thigh wound at the time went no further than knowing of it's existence, assumed that a bullet hole would lead to a bullet inside that hole. A perfectly understandable conclusion given the circumstances.

If I say that Shaw was right, the evidence I have for it is nothing other than Shaw said it  at the presser. The evidence against consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. And the obligation to explain will have to explain quite a bit. Not only how Shaw was right, but also how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could all be wrong. There be dragons. Big, assumption-laden ones. So far, you haven't made any real effort to explain how any of it could come to pass other than mumbling that some nebulous something something something darkside might have happened. You've trotted out some choice items out of the Robert Harris back catalogue, but none of them actually help you here, as noted. In fact, the bit from Connally's autobiography would count as evidence that Shaw is wrong. 


It’s not testable or falsifiable.

Shaw's press conference statement is entirely falsifiable. If it were true, then a bullet would be found in the x-rays of Connally's leg. And Shaw would have found a bullet when he examined and excised the wound. But Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays are all negative. For that matter, if Shaw really did know there was a bullet left in the thigh after he left the OR, then I would expect him to say so in at least one of his several later interviews. But he never says anything like it.


You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions
I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine.


The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.
What I said is that the the better solution is the one that requires the least assumption, this time pitting Ptolemy against Kepler in a fifteen-round caged Occamian deathmatch. 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2023, 05:38:58 PM
What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.

No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.

Quote
If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing.

That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.

Quote
I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine

No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 29, 2023, 10:55:17 PM
No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.
Let's go back to what I said:

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.


That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.
What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR? Nothing. So any scenario you might be dreaming of here requires a whole slew of assumptions to explain what happened, whodunnit, and why we don't know about it. in short, FAIL.

A few things you might want to consider:

Gregory arrived in the OR not long after Shaw. Shires arrived in the OR when  "the chest wound had been debrided and was being closed [...] and the arm and leg wounds were being prepared for surgery. There are no gaps between Shaw's, Gregory's and Shires' presences.

Operating rooms are, by sanitational necessity, austere spaces. It's not hard to spot a foreign object that's fallen onto the table or onto the floor. They are also, by the same necessity, cleaned often and thoroughly. The only place in the OR where you might expect to lose something is in the patient's body. The chances that a bullet would roll around on the floor undetected is close enough to nil to be discounted unless evidence of this comes to light. And that evidence is also nil.

In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.


MT: I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine

No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.
If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR, but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over, then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence. And there isn't any evidence that it went down this way. You're left with assumption stacked upon assumption all the way down, like turtles. I'm just reminding you of this. And you don't like it one bit.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 29, 2023, 11:19:42 PM
Let's go back to what I said:

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

That's what you're doing.  Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR? 

Quote
What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR?

Why couldn't it have come out or been removed prior to Connally's presence in the OR?

Quote
In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

Uh.....isn't that exactly what the narrative says was the case with CE399?

Quote
If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR,

Nope, that was one of your assumptions.

Quote
but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,

That too.

Quote
then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence.

Which is exactly what you did with your speculation that Shaw reported a bullet in the leg merely because he "saw one hole".  There's no evidence for that.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on January 30, 2023, 03:52:41 AM
That's what you're doing.  Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR? 
I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.


Why couldn't it have come out or been removed prior to Connally's presence in the OR?
If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?


MT: In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

Uh.....isn't that exactly what the narrative says was the case with CE399?
Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.


MT: If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR

Nope, that was one of your assumptions.
If there was a  bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR. Unless you want to argue that Shaw installed the bullet into the thigh himself, you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when the Governor was pushed into the OR, if you wan to argue that Shaw was right at the press conference. Do you not know what you've previously been arguing?

MT: but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over,

That too.
If you assert that Shaw and Gregory were both correct, then you have to assume that the bullet was in the thigh when Shaw was in the OR, but had mysteriously vanished by the time  Gregory had x-rays made.


Which is exactly what you did with your speculation that Shaw reported a bullet in the leg merely because he "saw one hole".  There's no evidence for that.
Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption. That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg. The only way this corpus of (non) statements works with Shaw's original press conference statements, the x-rays, and the testimony and interviews of Shires and Gregory is for Shaw to have been wrong about the bullet that afternoon. The simplest and most reasonable way to explain the discrepancy is to say that Shaw saw the one wound in Connally's thigh and assumed that it still had a bullet inside.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 30, 2023, 05:33:29 AM
I've never argued that Shaw couldn't have become aware of the bullet wound (which is all the claimed to have seen himself) in Connally's thigh before Connally entered the OR.

I didn’t say bullet wound, I said bullet.

Quote
If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning. Do you not know what you've been arguing?

No, you’ve been arguing that Shaw’s report of a bullet in the leg was merely an assumption.

Quote
Nope. I've yet to find a take on the SBT/CE399 that said that the bullet penetrated all the way into the thigh.

Now, I’m not sure if you really know what you’re arguing. Why does Shaw’s bullet have to be “all the way in” (whatever that means)?

Quote
If there was a  bullet in Connally's thigh when Shaw left the OR, then it had to have been there when Connally entered the OR.

Just because Shaw mentioned the bullet after he left the OR, doesn’t mean that the bullet was still there when Shaw left the OR. Remember, he didn’t examine the wound in the OR.

Quote
Shaw's only seeing one hole is a matter of record, not a speculation nor an assumption.

It’s an assumption that this is the reason he reported that a bullet remained in Connally’s leg.

Quote
That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.

You know what else he never claimed in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63? That he had reported a bullet remaining in the governors leg merely on the basis that he saw a single hole.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on February 01, 2023, 05:01:05 AM
I didn’t say bullet wound, I said bullet.
You said "Why couldn't Shaw have become aware of the bullet prior to Connally having entered the OR?" This question presupposes something that hasn't been established. I figured that you were maybe back to trying to insinuate something that you haven't been able to prove, so I stated the question in terms of what has bee established in my reply.


MT: If the bullet came out of Connally's thigh before Connally was wheeled into the OR, then Shaw's press conference statement is wrong, just like I've said from the very beginning

No, you’ve been arguing that Shaw’s report of a bullet in the leg was merely an assumption.
I've been arguing from the beginning that Shaw was wrong. The assumption bit is the explanation of how he could be wrong. This is what I originally wrote:

Shaw did not treat the wound. Shaw never even claimed that he really examined the wound. Nor did he ever claim to have seen an x-ray showing a bullet in the thigh. For that matter, no one else claimed that a bullet was found in the wound, or that bullet could be seen in the x-rays taken of the Governor's thigh.

From his own testimony, all Shaw would have known at the time was that there was one, and only one, wound in the thigh. It's no stretch to think that Shaw concluded that a projectile had entered the thigh through the wound and remained in the leg, based on what little he knew. But he knew little about it, as he admitted.

You can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.


The bit about Shaw assuming that a bullet was still in the thigh takes up all of one sentence in three paragraphs. The rest explains that Shaw wasn't in position to actually know if there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh, and that Shires and the x-rays tell a different story than what we got from Shaw's press conference.


Now, I’m not sure if you really know what you’re arguing. Why does Shaw’s bullet have to be “all the way in” (whatever that means)?

You don't know what "all the way in" means? My my!

In this case, it means that the bullet is embedded completely within the body. Had part of it been sticking out, Shaw (and/or someone else) would have said so at some point.

Just because Shaw mentioned the bullet after he left the OR, doesn’t mean that the bullet was still there when Shaw left the OR. Remember, he didn’t examine the wound in the OR.

He *did* examine the wound in the OR. He testified that when he was in TR2, he "observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound."

It’s an assumption that this is the reason he reported that a bullet remained in Connally’s leg.
It's a single assumption that neatly ties together Shaw's statement with the evidence given by Gregory, Shires, and Parkland's radiology department without requiring any additional baggage. This is something that none of the inchoate alternative explanations that you've tentatively wiggled forward can accomplish.                                           


MT: That is the only statement he made about what he knew of the wound. By his own account, he did not examine the wound other than just looking at it to note it's location. He never claimed, in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63 that there was a bullet in the leg, that anyone else told him that there was a bullet in the leg, or that he knew for any reason that there was a bullet in the leg.

You know what else he never claimed in any interview or testimony after 11/22/63? That he had reported a bullet remaining in the governors leg merely on the basis that he saw a single hole.
Sour grapes, Mr Iacoletti. Sour grapes that do not change the lack of any subsequent attempt by Shaw to defend his press conference statement.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 01, 2023, 08:29:34 PM
Shaw did not treat the wound. Shaw never even claimed that he really examined the wound.
. . .
He *did* examine the wound in the OR

Make up your mind.  Did he examine the wound or not?

Quote
You don't know what "all the way in" means? My my!

In this case, it means that the bullet is embedded completely within the body. Had part of it been sticking out, Shaw (and/or someone else) would have said so at some point.

Funny....nobody ever said that they saw part of CE399 "sticking out" at some point.  Apparently this is only a requirement for Shaw's bullet.
 
Quote
He *did* examine the wound in the OR. He testified that when he was in TR2, he "observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound."

He's talking about the chest wound there.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on February 02, 2023, 04:18:22 AM
Make up your mind.  Did he examine the wound or not?
As far as Shaw was concerned, he examined it, just superficially: "No; I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location."

Funny....nobody ever said that they saw part of CE399 "sticking out" at some point.  Apparently this is only a requirement for Shaw's bullet.

It might be a surprise to some, but Connally was fully clothed when he was hit, and remained so until he was undressed in the flurry of activity in TR2. It could have come out at any time between Dealey Plaza and TR2, falling out of his pants at some point unnoticed because Connally, and not his pants, was the center of the activity flurry. There is also this provocative coincidence that I find interesting, but that's a story for another day.


He's talking about the chest wound there.
More than that:

Mr. SPECTER - What wounds, if any, did you observe on the Governor at that time?
Dr. SHAW - I observed no wounds on the Governor at this time. It wasn't until he was taken to the operating room that I properly examined him from the standpoint of the wound

Note the "s" in wounds, and that Specter's question isn't specific to any part of the body. Though the singular 'wound' is probably is a reference to the chest wound, which had been obscured by an 'occlusive seal'
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 02, 2023, 03:47:04 PM
The bit about Shaw assuming that a bullet was still in the thigh takes up all of one sentence in three paragraphs. The rest explains that Shaw wasn't in position to actually know if there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh, and that Shires and the x-rays tell a different story than what we got from Shaw's press conference.
I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.

In my view, the most significant issue is the location of the metal piece that remained in the thigh.

Dr. Gregory thought the metal piece appeared just below the skin but it is not clear what he based that on.

Dr. Shires had debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. This involved cleaning the wound and removing dead tissue. I am not sure why he would be removing dead tissue down as far as the femur unless the bullet had travelled that far.

Dr. Shires always maintained that the metal piece was embedded in the femur.  That metal piece shows up on both the anterior-posterior and lateral views at the same location relative to the femur (CE694 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm), 695 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm), 696 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm)).

If Dr. Shires was right, the object that made the thigh wound was a missile that had entered the thigh obliquely along the direction of the femur, travelled down to the femur where it left a small amount of lead, but did not remain in the thigh for some reason.  How long it was in the thigh cannot be determined from the evidence we have. There is evidence that CE399, whose condition fits the wound characteristics of the thigh wound, was found on Connally's stretcher.  It is a reasonable inference that CE399 caused the thigh wound.  That is about all we can say from that evidence.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2023, 04:27:19 PM
I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.

In my view, the most significant issue is the location of the metal piece that remained in the thigh.

Dr. Gregory thought the metal piece appeared just below the skin but it is not clear what he based that on.

Dr. Shires had debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. This involved cleaning the wound and removing dead tissue. I am not sure why he would be removing dead tissue down as far as the femur unless the bullet had travelled that far.

Dr. Shires always maintained that the metal piece was embedded in the femur.  That metal piece shows up on both the anterior-posterior and lateral views at the same location relative to the femur (CE694 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm), 695 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm), 696 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm)).

If Dr. Shires was right, the object that made the thigh wound was a missile that had entered the thigh obliquely along the direction of the femur, travelled down to the femur where it left a small amount of lead, but did not remain in the thigh for some reason.  How long it was in the thigh cannot be determined from the evidence we have. There is evidence that CE399, whose condition fits the wound characteristics of the thigh wound, was found on Connally's stretcher.  It is a reasonable inference that CE399 caused the thigh wound.  That is about all we can say from that evidence.

There is evidence that CE399, whose condition fits the wound characteristics of the thigh wound, was found on Connally's stretcher.

What would that evidence be?

Tomlinson couldn't even say on which stretcher he found the bullet nor is there - as far as I know - any evidence that confirms the stretcher used for Connally was indeed in the room when Tomlinson found the bullet.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 02, 2023, 11:56:22 PM
Here is the whole thing:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Connally_Thigh_xrays_both_views_sxs.jpg)
Quote
The bullet going "obliquely along the direction of the femur" fits Mason's silly notion that the bullet from Kennedy's throat travel forward and passed-without-striking (get this) Connally's left torso and thus entered the left thigh from behind.
With Connally turned right as he is up to z200 and with his left leg out a bit to the side (natural) the right to left path through JFK's neck goes directly there - to the left thigh. 

Dr. Shires testified: (6 H 106):

"Mr. SPECTER. What size bullet would it take to create the punctate hole which
you described in the thigh?
Dr. SHIRES. This would depend entirely on the angle and the speed and
weight of the bullet. For example, a small missile on a tangent may create a
surprisingly large defect. A large bullet with fast or a relatively slow velocity
will create the same defect."

Quote
This is in contrast to the SBT scenario that the bullet entered the thigh after slapping off the right wrist.
Perhaps you could explain how "slapping" off the right wrist results in the bullet going through the french cuff causing a jagged long tear:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)
and going down and to the left rather than away from the point of contact.  Keep in mind that the damage to the right radius bone was to the right side of the bone not the inner left side.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 03, 2023, 01:23:20 AM
I'm not sure if this article by Aguilar and Thompson has come up yet, but the only question it leaves unanswered is - when was CE399 introduced into the chain of custody?:

https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 03, 2023, 04:07:15 AM
I agree with the comment that "Shires and the x-rays tell a different story". I am not sure why Dr. Shaw's or even Dr. Gregory's comments are all that important. Dr. Shires had the closest and longest look at the thigh wound and x-rays.

In my view, the most significant issue is the location of the metal piece that remained in the thigh.

Dr. Gregory thought the metal piece appeared just below the skin but it is not clear what he based that on.
Oh, but yes it is clear. And we've been through all this before over at a.a.jfk, if you recall. It starts with a Dr Jack Reynolds, the Parkland radiologist responsible for examining the Connally's X-rays  in the late fall of 1963. Reynolds reported that the fragment was 8mm from the surface of the skin, not buried in the femur.  Gregory read those x-rays the same way. So did Shaw. In fact, every physician that I know of who've examined the thigh x-rays have stated that the thigh fragment is near the surface, except for Shires. The explanation given by the HSCA FPP was that Shires was confused by an artifact in one of the x-rays that overlies the image of the femur. Ultimately, you have Shires' opinion versus basically everyone else's.

Further, had a bullet hit Connally's thigh hard enough to drive a fragment deep into the bone, it would have caused noticeable damage to the bone. No such injury is evident in the x-rays, the of the operative records, the medical testimony, or anywhere else. There just isn't a case for a fragment driven into the bone.

Dr. Shires had debrided the wound down to the region of the femur. This involved cleaning the wound and removing dead tissue. I am not sure why he would be removing dead tissue down as far as the femur unless the bullet had travelled that far.
Which doesn't even begin to prove anything one way or the other about how far in the fragment was.

Dr. Shires always maintained that the metal piece was embedded in the femur.  That metal piece shows up on both the anterior-posterior and lateral views at the same location relative to the femur (CE694 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189a.htm), 695 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0189b.htm), 696 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0190a.htm)).
Whatever Shires claimed, and for how long, every other physician who's studied those x-rays state that the fragment is not in the femur, but a few mm from the surface. Also, if you notice, and you don't even have to look carefully, there are multiple little bright, fragment-like spots on those x-rays. So which is the real fragment and which are artifacts?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 03, 2023, 07:49:37 AM


(https://images2.imgbox.com/4f/eb/JDcfdy0M_o.jpg)

So Mitch caught you cherry-picking the doctor's opinions. You're like the defense attorney at the Murdaugh Trial pretending the shotgun couldn't work because of Murdaugh's height. What a farce.

Quote
With Connally turned right as he is up to z200 and with his left leg out a bit to the side (natural) the right to left path through JFK's neck goes directly there - to the left thigh.

That might be if the assassination occurred in Pepperland.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aYjGiTqpiM6uMGRAjRIn6IQXTsWZDPan)

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12b3CKvA-fsFDAHc36s2bX7U73u48loSO)

The only way you could make your models look similar to the men in the Zapruder film was to distort perspective.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ZzOxJVXfcigIKhKEHdTcmn96XqNnSSIV)

Z193 is the clearest frame near to Z200 that shows Connally's position. His chest isn't facing the interior of the side of the car as much as you have it. The chest seems to be facing towards the camera.

Quote
Perhaps you could explain how "slapping" off the right wrist results in the bullet going through the french cuff causing a jagged long tear:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)
and going down and to the left rather than away from the point of contact.  Keep in mind that the damage to the right radius bone was to the right side of the bone not the inner left side.

Put it in visual form so we can indulge in another of your fantasies. When are you taking your 20-year-old theory to the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 03, 2023, 06:57:07 PM

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12b3CKvA-fsFDAHc36s2bX7U73u48loSO)


Another thing to note about Andrew's model is Connally's head is far closer to the side of the limo than JFK's
In reality JFK (in any photo I've seen of the motorcade) is jammed into the corner of his seat with his right arm resting on the edge of the limo, while Connally is sat further away from the edge of the limo:

(https://i.postimg.cc/cLbsNPrR/motorcade-from-behinda.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

If Connally is positioned to replicate the image above in Andrew's model it would bring his right armpit nicely into line with a bullet fired from the SN and exiting JFK's throat.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 03, 2023, 08:00:06 PM
Another thing to note about Andrew's model is Connally's head is far closer to the side of the limo than JFK's.
That is because I am basing their positions at the time, according to the evidence, first shot occurred (z190-200), not how they were positioned 20 minutes earlier.  The zfilm shows how they were positioned at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z200.jpg)

JBC is turned to the right.  Since the seat back prevents him just turning if he is leaning against it, he had to lean forward a bit and then turn his shoulders pivoting on his right shoulder.  This appears to have moved his midline slightly to the right of centre of the seat.
Quote
If Connally is positioned to replicate the image above in Andrew's model it would bring his right armpit nicely into line with a bullet fired from the SN and exiting JFK's throat.
Only if JBC was sitting on the left edge of his seat over the drive shaft so that his midline was 12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 03, 2023, 11:45:23 PM
That is because I am basing their positions at the time, according to the evidence, first shot occurred (z190-200), not how they were positioned 20 minutes earlier.  The zfilm shows how they were positioned at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z200.jpg)

JBC is turned to the right.  Since the seat back prevents him just turning if he is leaning against it, he had to lean forward a bit and then turn his shoulders pivoting on his right shoulder.  This appears to have moved his midline slightly to the right of centre of the seat. Only if JBC was sitting on the left edge of his seat over the drive shaft so that his midline was 12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cLbsNPrR/motorcade-from-behinda.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

I can only post actual photographic evidence of the relative sitting positions of JFK and Connally.
The ludicrous sitting positions you have in your model are based on nothing but your futile attempt to bolster your truly bizarre theory. They have no basis in reality and have zero evidentiery support.

Only if JBC was sitting...12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.

A bit like the photo posted above  ;)
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 04, 2023, 12:58:30 AM
That is because I am basing their positions at the time, according to the evidence, first shot occurred (z190-200),

That's quite debate-able.

Quote
not how they were positioned 20 minutes earlier.  The zfilm shows how they were positioned at that time:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z200.jpg)

Are you purposely trying obscure their seated positions with those mucky Z-frames?

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1X2yb5u7l9CuouFDagDZdn4ytbyi3emDW)

One can get a good idea of the positions of Kennedy and Connally by how they appear in the Croft Photo. There are no major shifts in their seating positions between Z161 and Z200.

Quote
JBC is turned to the right.  Since the seat back prevents him just turning if he is leaning against it, he had to lean forward a bit and then turn his shoulders pivoting on his right shoulder.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/2b/f0/CgxATcSm_o.jpg)

Well, this fellow got part of his shoulder joint over and to the rear of the jumpseat. The seatback of the seat doesn't go all the way up.

Quote
This appears to have moved his midline slightly to the right of centre of the seat. Only if JBC was sitting on the left edge of his seat over the drive shaft so that his midline was 12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.

Mason's Voodoo Geometry.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1NRbOI_ZkhBwiHM8PqQCt0oHfRKmHzYwt)
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 04, 2023, 10:13:05 PM
I can only post actual photographic evidence of the relative sitting positions of JFK and Connally.
The ludicrous sitting positions you have in your model are based on nothing but your futile attempt to bolster your truly bizarre theory. They have no basis in reality and have zero evidentiery support.
I am puzzled that you think a photo taken 20 minutes before the first shot is a more accurate portrayal of their relative positions than a photo taken just before:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Limo_Houston.jpg)

or at the time of the first shot:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

I know that you think TE Moore, Betzner, Phil Willis and Linda Willis as to the time of the first shot were wrong; and that the witnesses who said the head shot was the last shot were wrong.  That's fine. But their evidence is consistent and it is real and capable of being correct.  I disagree that this evidence carries no weight.  Based on that evidence a reasonable conclusion can be reached that the first shot was just before z202 and the above photos show the relative positions of the two men at that time. At that time there is not 13 inches lateral distance between the midlines of the two men. 

Quote
Only if JBC was sitting...12-13 inches left of JFK's midline.

A bit like the photo posted above  ;)
That photo was taken from a film made by Dave Powers in the QM. He is in the middle of the car so naturally JBC and JFK would both be seen even if JBC was directly in front of JFK.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 06, 2023, 09:24:45 PM
I am puzzled that you think a photo taken 20 minutes before the first shot is a more accurate portrayal of their relative positions than a photo taken just before:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Limo_Houston.jpg)

This is Mason cherry-picking the photographs.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/41/S0U9kTX8_o.jpg)

He's a defense attorney.

Quote
or at the time of the first shot:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/z193.JPG)

I know that you think TE Moore, Betzner, Phil Willis and Linda Willis as to the time of the first shot were wrong; and that the witnesses who said the head shot was the last shot were wrong.  That's fine. But their evidence is consistent and it is real and capable of being correct.  I disagree that this evidence carries no weight.  Based on that evidence a reasonable conclusion can be reached that the first shot was just before z202 and the above photos show the relative positions of the two men at that time. At that time there is not 13 inches lateral distance between the midlines of the two men.

The Zapruder film shows Kennedy seated tight against the car interior, and Connally seated inboard relative to Kennedy.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/04/8STJSsPW_o.jpg)  (https://images2.imgbox.com/91/1d/uwiEZsww_o.jpg)

In the SBT model, the pivot of Connally's neck is about eight inches inboard relative to the same feature on Kennedy. This is the same amount as in the Croft Photo model posted earlier ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3643.msg143526.html#msg143526) ).

Quote
That photo was taken from a film made by Dave Powers in the QM. He is in the middle of the car so naturally JBC and JFK would both be seen even if JBC was directly in front of JFK.

(https://i.postimg.cc/cLbsNPrR/motorcade-from-behinda.jpg)

The particular still of the Powers film that was posted shows the limousine relatively centered in Powers' viewfinder. Because Connally is greatly inboard relative to Kennedy, the Governor is also inboard relative to Kellerman. If Connally were directly in-front of Kennedy, he (Connally) should also appear to be relatively directly behind Kellerman.

The amount that Mrs. Kennedy appears inboard relative to Greer (the driver) is comparable to the amount of inboard that Connally has relative to the President. Of all the people in the limousine, the two nearest the mid-line of the car are Jackie and the Governor.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 06, 2023, 09:27:31 PM

I can only post actual photographic evidence of the relative sitting positions of JFK and Connally.
The ludicrous sitting positions you have in your model are based on nothing but your futile attempt to bolster your truly bizarre theory. They have no basis in reality and have zero evidentiary support.
The relative seating positions can be readily determined from a 3D model.  The trajectory from the SN is what is critical. This is my rather primitive but accurate 3D model that I did in Sketchup using a scale map of Dealey Plaza:

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_front_closeup.JPG)


The trajectory is very similar to that which the WC considered when they made their 3D model of Dealey Plaza and placed the limousine at the point where they considered the evidence showed that the first shot occurred (a position that I suggest was correct):

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0121_closeup.jpg)
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 06, 2023, 10:40:45 PM
The relative seating positions can be readily determined from a 3D model.  The trajectory from the SN is what is critical. This is my rather primitive but accurate 3D model that I did in Sketchup using a scale map of Dealey Plaza:

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/View_from_front_closeup.JPG)


The trajectory is very similar to that which the WC considered when they made their 3D model of Dealey Plaza and placed the limousine at the point where they considered the evidence showed that the first shot occurred (a position that I suggest was correct):

(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/kennedy_john_f_3_shots_jan_1964-0121_closeup.jpg)

Since you ignored my last questions, I fully expect you to do the same with this one, but, despite the fact that IMO it has very little to do with CE399, I'm going to ask it anyway.

The trajectory from the SN is what is critical.

What makes you so sure that the shots came from the so-called SN at the TSBD?

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 07, 2023, 01:35:31 AM
Since you ignored my last questions, I fully expect you to do the same with this one, but, despite the fact that IMO it has very little to do with CE399, I'm going to ask it anyway.

The trajectory from the SN is what is critical.

What makes you so sure that the shots came from the so-called SN at the TSBD?
Not sure what questions I missed?  If I missed responding just send me a reminder and I will respond.

First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399 (as well as the first shot hitting JFK and the second hitting only JBC, the 1.......2...3 shot pattern, Tague's evidence, Greer, Hickey, Powers, Gayle Newman etc).

As far as the evidence that the shots came from the SN there are several witnesses whose evidence puts the shots originating there: Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots. The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.

Furthermore, the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399. There were boxes in the SN placed in an unusual way consistent with use to support a rifle. Most witnesses said the shots all sounded similar and almost all witnesses said the shots sounded like they all came from the same location (although there was disagreement as to the location of the source).

If that's not enough, let me know and I will refer to more.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 07, 2023, 11:47:07 PM
Not sure what questions I missed?  If I missed responding just send me a reminder and I will respond.

First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399 (as well as the first shot hitting JFK and the second hitting only JBC, the 1.......2...3 shot pattern, Tague's evidence, Greer, Hickey, Powers, Gayle Newman etc).

As far as the evidence that the shots came from the SN there are several witnesses whose evidence puts the shots originating there: Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots. The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.

Furthermore, the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399. There were boxes in the SN placed in an unusual way consistent with use to support a rifle. Most witnesses said the shots all sounded similar and almost all witnesses said the shots sounded like they all came from the same location (although there was disagreement as to the location of the source).

If that's not enough, let me know and I will refer to more.

There are so many assumptions here that I don't even know where to start. Oh well, let's give it a try.

First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399

And you somehow know it was CE399 that passed through JFK and JBC? How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots.

They saw which rifle? Since when does seeing a rifle equate to seeing a rifle being fired?

The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.

How does what they think they heard prove that a rifle was actually being fired on the 6th floor?

the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399.

When exactly was CE399 fired by that rifle and how do you know?

So, now it's my turn.

What evidence is there that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland hospital in Dallas?

The chain of evidence for that bullet starts at the FBI lab in Washington!

None of the four men who were involved in the discovery and transportation (to DC) were able to positively identify CE399 as the bullet they had seen on 11/22/63
In mid 1964 the WC asked the FBI to authenticate several pieces of evidence, including CE399.

Although the FBI later claimed in CE2011 that Tomlinson and Wright thought that it was the same bullet, this so-called "identification" conflicted completely with the content of an Airtel message from SAC Shanklin in Dallas, which clearly states that both men could not identify the bullet. In addition they claimed in CE2011 that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, but Odum is on record saying he never did such a thing and that he never had CE399 in his possession. Add to this that Wright later stated that the bullet he had seen was pointed which CE399 clearly isn't you you've got all sorts of evidentiary problems you just can't ignore.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 08, 2023, 03:19:36 AM
There are so many assumptions here that I don't even know where to start. Oh well, let's give it a try.

First of all, the trajectory has everything to do with CE399. The path through JFK's neck into JBC's thigh, butt-first, explains the condition of CE399

And you somehow know it was CE399 that passed through JFK and JBC? How exactly did you reach that conclusion?

Robert Jackson, Mrs. Cabell, and Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window during or immediately after the shots. Arnold Rowland saw a man with a rifle 15 minutes before the shots.

They saw which rifle? Since when does seeing a rifle equate to seeing a rifle being fired?

The three men below on the 5th floor heard 3 loud shots from above them and Harold Norman heard the bolt action operated 3 times and heard 3 shells hit the floor.

How does what they think they heard prove that a rifle was actually being fired on the 6th floor?

the rifle found on the 6th floor had fired CE399.

When exactly was CE399 fired by that rifle and how do you know?

So, now it's my turn.

What evidence is there that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland hospital in Dallas?

The chain of evidence for that bullet starts at the FBI lab in Washington!

None of the four men who were involved in the discovery and transportation (to DC) were able to positively identify CE399 as the bullet they had seen on 11/22/63
In mid 1964 the WC asked the FBI to authenticate several pieces of evidence, including CE399.

Although the FBI later claimed in CE2011 that Tomlinson and Wright thought that it was the same bullet, this so-called "identification" conflicted completely with the content of an Airtel message from SAC Shanklin in Dallas, which clearly states that both men could not identify the bullet. In addition they claimed in CE2011 that SA Odum had shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, but Odum is on record saying he never did such a thing and that he never had CE399 in his possession. Add to this that Wright later stated that the bullet he had seen was pointed which CE399 clearly isn't you you've got all sorts of evidentiary problems you just can't ignore.
Martin, we appear to live in different universes. By your standard circumstantial evidence can never lead to a conclusion.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2023, 04:04:23 AM
Martin, we appear to live in different universes. By your standard circumstantial evidence can never lead to a conclusion.

Evidence should be self explanatory. It may not be perfect but there should be at least a superficial basis to reach a conclusion.
As we have just seen in the Alex Murdaugh trial, circumstantial evidence can indeed lead to a conclusion but only when it is based on conclusive facts rather than mere assumptions.

The evidence against the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is sufficiently compelling that it can not be merely assumed that it was the bullet which went through both men. Should I perhaps just simply conclude that you don't have answers for my basic questions?

Now, rather than just coming up with a cop out, why don't you just simply try to answer my questions and we'll take it from there?
Or is that too far out of your comfort zone?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 08, 2023, 08:24:16 PM
Evidence should be self explanatory. It may not be perfect but there should be at least a superficial basis to reach a conclusion.
As we have just seen in the Alex Murdaugh trial, circumstantial evidence can indeed lead to a conclusion but only when it is based on conclusive facts rather than mere assumptions.

The evidence against the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is sufficiently compelling that it can not be merely assumed that it was the bullet which went through both men. Should I perhaps just simply conclude that you don't have answers for my basic questions?

Now, rather than just coming up with a cop out, why don't you just simply try to answer my questions and we'll take it from there?
Or is that too far out of your comfort zone?
The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted.  The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that the bullet passaed through JFK's neck exiting his midline on a right to left trajectory and struck JBC. I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC. Unlike others who accept the WC conclusion, I disagree with the SBT.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2023, 09:59:51 PM
The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted.  The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK. That is more than enough evidence to conclude that the bullet passaed through JFK's neck exiting his midline on a right to left trajectory and struck JBC. I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC. Unlike others who accept the WC conclusion, I disagree with the SBT.

The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted.

Who said anything about it being planted? You may not have noticed it, but there's something very strange (IMO at least) going on regarding the rifle and the bullets. As I said earlier, the chain of custody for CE399 started in the FBI lab in Washington after the bullet now in evidence was handed over to the FBI by the Chief of the Secret Service. The FBI was told this was the bullet that had been found in Parkland! Btw, when CE399 was introduced into evidence, during the testimony of Dr. Humes, Arlen Specter did so subject to later authentication of the bullet. Such authentication never came!

A little later that same night, Frazier and his men were supposed to examine the Presidential limo, which had been brought to the Secret Service garage in Washington. When the FBI got there, Frazier found out that two men, who were not forensic experts, had already searched the car (thus contaminating the crime scene) and they had allegedly found several bullet fragments which they handed to Frazier. They had taken no photographs of the fragments in situ and they simply told Frazier that these were the fragments they had found.

So now we go fast forward in time, to the HSCA hearings, which showed a bullet (or rather a photograph of a bullet) they said was fired from the same MC rifle and was recovered from the wall in General Walker's home. As soon as Walker saw that picture he instantly tried to contact the HSCA to tell them they had the wrong bullet, because the one in the photograph was not the one he had seen in April 1963. Now add to this that in all the reports about the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, a different type of bullet was mentioned than the one now in evidence.

Three different events with the same problem; bullets and fragments of bullets that were all fired by the same rifle but can not be authenticated as being the actual items that were recovered from the three locations involved. That doesn't strike you as odd?

Now let me give you an alternative scenario in which Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy involving men in high positions of the US Government. Men who were in a position to control the investigation and the evidence. Now let's assume for a second that the MC rifle and three shells were purposely left on the 6th floor because they could be tentatively traced back to Oswald. However, the bullet fragments found in Kennedy's body and the limo did not match that rifle as it simply wasn't used to shoot Kennedy and it didn't need to, because within less than 24 hours after the shooting the rifle and all the bullets and fragments were in Washington. All that needed to be done was to switch the actual bullets and fragments by those that had indeed been fired by the MC rifle prior to the assassination. In this scenario there wouldn't be a need to plant a bullet at Parkland. The fact that a bullet (not related to the crime) was found by Tomlinson was in fact an added bonus. Switch the bullet that was found with the one we now know as CE399 and nobody would be the wiser.

Is this a far fetched scenario? Maybe, but it is a possibility that needs to be eliminated by the investigators and it never was. It was never even considered despite the fact that it does one thing that the official narrative doesn't do; it answers a great deal of questions for which the FBI and WC could never provide an answer. 


The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK.

No, that's not what the evidence is. I won't go into the rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald, because that's another conversation entirely, but what the evidence doesn't say is that CE399 came from JBC's gurney at Parkland. That is in fact nothing more than an flawed assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever. You have to ignore a whole set of circumstantial evidence to the contrary to reach that conclusion.

I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC.

What is this "other evidence" that makes you accept this? There isn't even a shred of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the moment the shots were fired. The WC never provided any evidence for that. They just said he was and never provided any evidence for it.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 08, 2023, 10:56:57 PM
The main reason for believing that CE399 passed through JFK's neck is that I don't see a reason to believe that CE399 was, or could have been, planted.

So now we go fast forward in time, to the HSCA hearings, which showed a bullet (or rather a photograph of a bullet) they said was fired from the same MC rifle and was recovered from the wall in General Walker's home. As soon as Walker saw that picture he instantly tried to contact the HSCA to tell them they had the wrong bullet, because the one in the photograph was not the one he had seen in April 1963. Now add to this that in all the reports about the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, a different type of bullet was mentioned than the one now in evidence.
It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination.  Did he have a photographic memory?  The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Walker_Bullet_CE573.JPG)

How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?

Quote
Three different events with the same problem; bullets and fragments of bullets that were all fired by the same rifle but can not be authenticated as being the actual items that were recovered from the three locations involved. That doesn't strike you as odd?
Probably not back in 1963.

Quote
Switch the bullet that was found with the one we now know as CE399 and nobody would be the wiser.
That is called planting.  Switch=plant=falsifying evidence etc.

Quote
Is this a far fetched scenario? Maybe, but it is a possibility that needs to be eliminated by the investigators and it never was. It was never even considered despite the fact that it does one thing that the official narrative doesn't do; it answers a great deal of questions for which the FBI and WC could never provide an answer. 
It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.

Quote
The evidence is that it came from Oswald's gun, it was found on JBC's gurney at Parkland, that JBC was in front of JFK, that the bullet did not strike any bone in passing through JFK.

No, that's not what the evidence is. I won't go into the rifle allegedly belonging to Oswald, because that's another conversation entirely, but what the evidence doesn't say is that CE399 came from JBC's gurney at Parkland. That is in fact nothing more than an flawed assumption based on no factual evidence whatsoever. You have to ignore a whole set of circumstantial evidence to the contrary to reach that conclusion.
So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?

Quote
I accept, on all the other evidence that Oswald fired all three shots as found by the WC.

What is this "other evidence" that makes you accept this? There isn't even a shred of evidence placing Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the moment the shots were fired. The WC never provided any evidence for that. They just said he was and never provided any evidence for it.
You should read Bugliosi's book. It is circumstantial, but it is very compelling.  Leaving the TSBD without permission, hurrying home to pick up his revolver - the same one used to kill Tippit, punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun ......  Not difficult to draw an inference of there, even without the Walker shooting evidence.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 09, 2023, 12:02:21 AM
It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination.  Did he have a photographic memory?  The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:
(http://dufourlaw.com/JFK/Walker_Bullet_CE573.JPG)

How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?

Probably not back in 1963.
That is called planting.  Switch=plant=falsifying evidence etc.
It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.
So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?
You should read Bugliosi's book. It is circumstantial, but it is very compelling.  Leaving the TSBD without permission, hurrying home to pick up his revolver - the same one used to kill Tippit, punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun ......  Not difficult to draw an inference of there, even without the Walker shooting evidence.

It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination.  Did he have a photographic memory?  The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:

Walker wasn't aware of the problem until he saw the picture of the bullet during the HSCA hearings. Not really surprising because until the HSCA investigation all the evidence was locked away at the National Archives. He then instantly objected and was completely ignored by the HSCA. He may well have had a photographic memory. I don't know. What I do know is that all the DPD reports on the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, mention a different type of bullet. Are we really to believe that all the people who wrote those reports got the type of bullet wrong in exactly the same way?

How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?

Duh, if the scenario I proposed is correct, it was most likely switched on purpose so it could be used to argue that Oswald had a violent history.

Probably not back in 1963.

We are not in 1963! Doesn't it strike you as odd today?

It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.

So, manipulation of evidence by law enforcement isn't a reasonable possibility to consider? Is that what you are saying?

So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?

Are you purposely pretending not to understand what I have said? And if so, why?

If you are still talking about the bullet we now know as CE399 than the answer is, no it did disappear nor did it end up in the car. It's evidentiary life did not begin until it was delivered to the FBI lab in Washington. In my scenario CE399 was never in Dallas, wasn't found on a stretcher at Parkland and was not fired on 11/22/63

You should read Bugliosi's book. It is circumstantial, but it is very compelling.  Leaving the TSBD without permission, hurrying home to pick up his revolver - the same one used to kill Tippit, punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun ......  Not difficult to draw an inference of there, even without the Walker shooting evidence.

And open goes another Pandora's box....

Leaving the TSBD without permission

If that's what really happened, then I agree it's problematic. However, it's most certainly not conclusive as there are at least two possible reasons why Oswald left the TSBD so quickly. The first one is that he did the shooting and wanted to get out of there as quickly as he could. The second one is that, when he heard the shots and learned that Kennedy was hit, he understood that he had been set up for the murder and he simply panicked. The latter would of course also require him to be involved in what was going on, as it's highly unlikely that it would have been possible to set him up as a patsy without him being involved in some scheme or another.

Having said this, his behavior after he left the TSBD is also strange. Why would he get on a bus that would take him directly back to the crime scene? Why not take a bus in the other direction? And why would he offer his cab to a woman if he was truly in a rush to get out of there? It doesn't make any sense.

hurrying home to pick up his revolver

He apparently admitted to Fritz that he did pick up his revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth some months earlier.

- the same one used to kill Tippit,

That's an assumption for which there is no evidence. Even worse, there is no chain of custody for the revolver they claimed belonged to Oswald. Hill carried it around with him for several hours before he had some officers in the DPD lunchroom put their mark on it, despite the fact that some were not even at the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested.

punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun

Too bad that not one single witness inside the Texas Theater heard Oswald say those words or saw him reaching for his gun.

This is precisely the kind of thing why Bugliosi has very little credibility. In a strong case, even a strong circumstantial one, you don't need this kind of "evidence". The mere fact that he did use this kind of BS material in his prosecutorial brief (which is basically what his book is) exposes the weakness of his case.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 09, 2023, 09:39:38 PM
It is interesting that he first objected 14 years after the assassination.  Did he have a photographic memory?  The bullet had been entered as CE573 before the WC:

Walker wasn't aware of the problem until he saw the picture of the bullet during the HSCA hearings. Not really surprising because until the HSCA investigation all the evidence was locked away at the National Archives. He then instantly objected and was completely ignored by the HSCA. He may well have had a photographic memory. I don't know. What I do know is that all the DPD reports on the Walker shooting, written prior to the assassination, mention a different type of bullet. Are we really to believe that all the people who wrote those reports got the type of bullet wrong in exactly the same way?
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?

Quote
How could it have come about that this bullet, which is consistent with all the lands and groves on bullets fired by Oswald's rifle, gotten mixed up with the Walker bullet?

Duh, if the scenario I proposed is correct, it was most likely switched on purpose so it could be used to argue that Oswald had a violent history.
Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?

Quote
Probably not back in 1963.

We are not in 1963! Doesn't it strike you as odd today?
The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.

Quote
It is only necessary to eliminate reasonable possibilities. They did not consider, for example, that aliens did it.

So, manipulation of evidence by law enforcement isn't a reasonable possibility to consider? Is that what you are saying?
It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.

Quote
So that bullet disappeared and did not end up in the car?

Are you purposely pretending not to understand what I have said? And if so, why?

If you are still talking about the bullet we now know as CE399 than the answer is, no it did disappear nor did it end up in the car. It's evidentiary life did not begin until it was delivered to the FBI lab in Washington. In my scenario CE399 was never in Dallas, wasn't found on a stretcher at Parkland and was not fired on 11/22/63
So, you are saying that it was planted.

Quote
Leaving the TSBD without permission

If that's what really happened, then I agree it's problematic. However, it's most certainly not conclusive as there are at least two possible reasons why Oswald left the TSBD so quickly. The first one is that he did the shooting and wanted to get out of there as quickly as he could. The second one is that, when he heard the shots and learned that Kennedy was hit, he understood that he had been set up for the murder and he simply panicked. The latter would of course also require him to be involved in what was going on, as it's highly unlikely that it would have been possible to set him up as a patsy without him being involved in some scheme or another.

For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD

So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?

Quote
Having said this, his behavior after he left the TSBD is also strange. Why would he get on a bus that would take him directly back to the crime scene? Why not take a bus in the other direction? And why would he offer his cab to a woman if he was truly in a rush to get out of there? It doesn't make any sense.
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him.  But he didn't.  He was broke.  He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.

Quote
hurrying home to pick up his revolver

He apparently admitted to Fritz that he did pick up his revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth some months earlier.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth.  Why would he do that? 

We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.

Quote
- the same one used to kill Tippit,

That's an assumption for which there is no evidence.
Plenty of evidence.  The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511).  The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.

Quote
punching the arresting officer in the face as he uttered "well, it's all over now" as he reached for his gun

Too bad that not one single witness inside the Texas Theater heard Oswald say those words or saw him reaching for his gun.
The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 10, 2023, 12:36:43 AM
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?
Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?
The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.
It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.
So, you are saying that it was planted.

For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD

So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him.  But he didn't.  He was broke.  He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth.  Why would he do that? 

We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.
Plenty of evidence.  The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511).  The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.
The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
  • "And just as I got to the row where the suspect was sitting, I stopped abruptly,
    and turned in and told him to get on his feet. He rose immediately, bringing
    up both hands. He got this hand about shoulder high, his left hand shoulder
    high, and he got his right hand about breast high. He said, “Well, it is all over
    now.”
    As he said this, I put my left hand on his waist and then his hand went to the
    waist. And this hand struck me between the eyes on the bridge of the nose.
    Mr. BALL. Did he cock his fist?
    Mr. MCDONALD. Yes, sir ; knocking my cap off.
    Mr. BALL. Which fist did he hit you with?
    Mr. MCDONALD. His left fist.
    Mr. BALL. What happened then?
    Mr. MCDONALD Well, whenever he knocked my hat off, any normal reaction
    was for me to go at him with this hand.
    Mr. BALL.. Right hand?
    Mr. MCDONALD. Yes. I went at him with this hand, and I believe I struck him
    on the face, but I don’t know where. And with my hand, that was on his hand over the pistol."

So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?

Not so fast.... First of all, it was not one description by an "unknown DPD officer". If I recall correctly, there were at least six or seven reports which all described the bullet in the same way. The first of those reports was written on 4/10/63 by Detectives Van Cleave & McElroy. On the day of the crime, they described the bullet as a "steel jacket". They also say that the bullet was given, at the scene, to Dot. B.G. Brown of the CSSS. There is no mention of an officer named B.G. Norvall in that report and I couldn't find any document generated by Norvall about this matter. In his WC testimony, Joseph Nicol said nothing about finding initials on the bullet, except for his own. Nicol was also not able to positively identify the bullet as having been fired by the MC rifle. The best he could do was a "probable". So, I really wonder where you got the story of a police officer named Norvall initialling the bullet and Nicol confirming it was there. And then there is the memo written by Jevons to Conrad on 3/27/64 in which it says that SA Heiberger advised that "the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot"

As far as Walker himself, he wrote to the U.S. Attorney General on 02/12/79 that the bullet shown by Robert Blakey's Committe is a ridiculous substitute for a bullet completely mutilated by such obstruction, baring no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form. Walker actually described it as a "hunk of lead", which is clearly not what we see on the photographs of CE573.

Ok. So the Walker bullet was also planted, along with CE399?

Most likely, if the scenario I proposed is correct.

The point is that this occurred in 1963 so one should look at the police practices at that time to assess how odd it might have been.

You are missing the point. I asked you if you didn't think it was odd that all the bullets and fragments were given to the FBI by others who told the FBI lab where the items allegedly came from. It happened on three different occassions. Back in 1963 nobody, except perhaps for Frazier, would probably have known this and he wasn't talking to anybody. So, by today's standards do you consider this odd, yes or no?

It might be if there was any evidence that law enforcement manipulated evidence in this case.

Oh, but there is. Take for example the white jacket (that later turned gray) found under a car in Oak Cliff. It was found by an unidentified officer who pointed it out to Captain Westbrook. The latter then went to the Texas Theater and allegedly gave the jacket to yet another unidentified officer to take it to DPD HQ. The jacket then shows up, about two hours later, again in Westbrook's possession and it carries markings of officers who were not even near the parking lot where the jacket were found. Yet, they still marked it as if they were part of a chain of custody, which in reality simply did not exist.

Another example is the discovery of the BY photos. DPD officers first searched Ruth Paine's home on Friday afternoon. A day later they returned with a search warrant and this is when they claim they found the BY photos. The problem is that this second search took place in the afternoon and earlier that day Fritz had already shown Oswald a blow up of one of the photos. Even worse, Michael Paine testified that he was shown a BY photo by an FBI agent on Friday evening. This is confirmed by Fritz who told Oswald that he already knew where the photo was taken, which is information that could only have come from Michael Paine.

Add to this that the FBI told the Warren Commission in CE2011 that S.A. Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men could not positively identify the bullet but they thought it was the right one (I'm paraphrasing). This of course contradicts the Airtel written by SAC Shanklin in Dallas who merely said both men could not identify the bullet! And let's not forget that Odum is on record saying that he never had CE399 or showed it to anyone.

So, you are saying that it was planted.

Again, I'm saying that it must have been planted, if the scenario I proposed is correct. I'm merely stating that there is no solid chain of custody for the bullet now in evidence as CE399 and that it's evidentiary life started in Washington. There most certainly is circumstantial evidence to support the conclusion that the bullet found at Parkland was substituted for the one we now know as CE399. You may want to ignore that, but I won't.

For starters, being a "patsy" would require involvement with someone who could have persuaded Oswald, for some innocent purpose, (on the very day that JFK was to pass beneath the window) to:
1. have Wesley Frazier drive him to Fort Worth the day before,
2. go into Ruth Paine's garage, get his rifle,
3. secretly take it with him in Wesley Frazier's car to the TSBD without raising suspicions
4. walk with it into the TSBD without anyone seeing the rifle,
5. place it on the 6th floor where the SN was located
6. make sure that he was not seen with anyone from 12:15 until the president passed by the TSBD


You are going completely off the rails here. Oswald's trip to Irving may well have been an attempt to convince Marina to live with him again. Marina and Ruth Paine both believe that this was his reason for the trip. There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63 for Oswald to collect. There also is no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle into the TSBD. What there is, are two witnesses who actually saw the package he carried and they described it in such a way that it couldn't possibly have contained a broken down MC rifle.

So what do you suppose the "innocent purpose" was that this phantom agent provocateur used to get Oswald to do all that?
It wouldn't make sense if he had lots of money on him.  But he didn't.  He was broke.  He had only $13.87 on him when arrested and that was barely enough to buy a bus ticket to get out of town.
So he lied about buying it in Fort Worth.  Why would he do that? 


Why would you even think that there would have to be someone to persuade Oswald to do something? The mere fact that Oswald left most of his money, after Marina turned him down, points exactly in the direction of a man wanting to provide for his children. If he really planned to kill Kennedy, he would have kept the money as it could provide him the means to escape. And what makes you think that Oswald lied about buying a revolver in Fort Worth. They never checked if he was telling the truth. They visited some 400 dry-cleaners in the greater Dallas and New Orleans area to get more information about the jacket, but nobody ever bothered to check the gun dealers in Fort Worth. Go figure!

We know he ordered it from Seaport Traders of Los Angeles on January 27, 1963, that it was shipped to A. Hidell at Oswald's Dallas post office box No. 2915. The law required it to be picked up at the Railway Express Agency. The REA receipt shows that it was picked up by A. Hidell on March 20, 1963.

You are refering to Michaelis Exhibit 4? That document does indeed have the name A. Hidell on it, but I fail to see how you can conclude from it that Oswald collected the revolver. If you believe that Oswald used a false name to collect this revolver, you also must believe that anybody else could have done exactly the same, right? Remember, in the scenario I proposed Oswald was being set up. All that was really required to do so succesfully was to associate him somehow with the alleged murder weapons. Now, let's assume for a moment that, in early January 1963, he simply filled out the order form as a favor to somebody and allowed that person to use his p.o. box for the purchase. We don't know where and with whom Oswald was 24/7 for months prior to the assassination, so it can not be ruled out. There could very well have been somebody we know nothing about in the background who manipulated Oswald.

Plenty of evidence.  The shells that the shooter ejected after shooting Tippit had a unique firing pin mark that had all the unusual characteristics of shells fired from Oswald's revolver. For that reason, Joseph Nicol was able to positively conclude that the four shells found at the scene (CE 594) were fired from Oswald's revolver (3 H 511).  The shells were also consistent with shells of the six .38 Special cartridges (CE145 and CE518) still in Oswald's revolver and the four .38 Special cartridges (CE592) found in his pocket.

You mean the bullets they "found" in his pocket hours after he was arrested? There is no doubt in my mind that the revolver purchased at Seaport Traders was the one used to kill Tippit. The problem is, once again, that there is no chain of custody for the revolver they took from Oswald at the Texas Theater. The revolver was given to Hill when he got in the car that drove Oswald to DPD HQ. He was told this was the revolver taken from Oswald, but he had no way to check if this was true. He then walked around with that revolver for two hours before he took it to the DPD lunchroom where he had some officers (who were not involved in the chain of custody) mark it with their initials.

The officer who was punched heard him: McDonald 3 H 300:
[/b]

So it's another one of those "the cop said so" arguments? Where is the corroboration?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 10, 2023, 06:38:19 PM
So you are saying that we should accept at face value the description of it by some unknown DPD officer in April 1963 that it was a steel jacketed bullet and ignore the evidence of a police officer (B.G. Norvall) who retrieved the bullet from Walker's wall and put his initials on it, and the evidence of the laboratory officer who examined the same bullet, noted the same initials, and took pictures of it and compared it to the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle (J. Nicol)?

Not so fast.... First of all, it was not one description by an "unknown DPD officer". If I recall correctly, there were at least six or seven reports which all described the bullet in the same way. The first of those reports was written on 4/10/63 by Detectives Van Cleave & McElroy. On the day of the crime, they described the bullet as a "steel jacket". They also say that the bullet was given, at the scene, to Dot. B.G. Brown of the CSSS. There is no mention of an officer named B.G. Norvall in that report and I couldn't find any document generated by Norvall about this matter.

In his WC testimony, Joseph Nicol said nothing about finding initials on the bullet, except for his own. Nicol was also not able to positively identify the bullet as having been fired by the MC rifle. The best he could do was a "probable". So, I really wonder where you got the story of a police officer named Norvall initialling the bullet and Nicol confirming it was there. And then there is the memo written by Jevons to Conrad on 3/27/64 in which it says that SA Heiberger advised that "the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot"
The chain of custody of CE 573 (FBI Exhibit C148) is found in CE1953 (23 H 757ff) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm) and also CE2011 (24 H 414) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm). 

Officer B. G. Norvell found the bullet in the wall and scratched his initials on it. He then handed it either to Officer McElroy who handed it to Officer B. G. Brown who was assigned to the Crime Search Scene Section (CSSS), or he may have handed it to Brown directly. Either way, it ended up with Officer Brown and was part of the CSSS case file. On April 25, 1963 Lt. Day of CSSS took it to the Crime Lab at Parkland Hospital to see if they could identify the type of gun that fired it.  It remained there until December 2, 1963 when it was turned over to Agent Bardwell Odum of the FBI.  It was analysed by the FBI (Frazier/Nicol) and on March 21, 1964 it was turned over to the WC. On June 12, 1964 Odum showed the bullet to Norvell who confirmed that it was the same bullet that he had obtained from the Walker residence and identified his marking on it.

The bullet was too damaged to align lands and grooves with a known bullet but they were compared visually and there were no differences identified. Nicol put it this way:

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 10, 2023, 09:20:38 PM
The chain of custody of CE 573 (FBI Exhibit C148) is found in CE1953 (23 H 757ff) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/html/WH_Vol23_0395a.htm) and also CE2011 (24 H 414) (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215a.htm). 

Officer B. G. Norvell found the bullet in the wall and scratched his initials on it. He then handed it either to Officer McElroy who handed it to Officer B. G. Brown who was assigned to the Crime Search Scene Section (CSSS), or he may have handed it to Brown directly. Either way, it ended up with Officer Brown and was part of the CSSS case file. On April 25, 1963 Lt. Day of CSSS took it to the Crime Lab at Parkland Hospital to see if they could identify the type of gun that fired it.  It remained there until December 2, 1963 when it was turned over to Agent Bardwell Odum of the FBI.  It was analysed by the FBI (Frazier/Nicol) and on March 21, 1964 it was turned over to the WC. On June 12, 1964 Odum showed the bullet to Norvell who confirmed that it was the same bullet that he had obtained from the Walker residence and identified his marking on it.

The bullet was too damaged to align lands and grooves with a known bullet but they were compared visually and there were no differences identified. Nicol put it this way:

  • Mr. EISENBERG. As I understand your testimony, therefore, you feel that there are sufficient identical microscopic characteristics on 572 and 573 to say that they were probably fired from the same weapon, but not enough to say that they were definitely fired from the same weapon.
    Mr. NICOL. Yes. My opinion would be based upon the finding of families of lines that would be of the order of two to four fine striations on the burr that I referred to. For a stronger identification, I would want a larger group, I would want perhaps five or six in a given area, all matching in terms of contour as well as position. But this I did not find. And so for that reason, I would not want to express this as a positive finding. However, I would not want to be misunderstood or suggest that this could not have come from that particular gun.

You bring up two basic points to which I will respond. The first one relates to the chain of custody.

You say Norvell found the bullet in the wall which contradicts what McElroy said. According to CE1953 he claimed to have found the damaged bullet "among some papers and literature".
Secondly you say that Norvell marked the bullet, which is indeed what he said in CE1953, except he couldn't remember if he marked it with "B.N." or "S". This is at least somewhat strange because Nicol found no markings, except for his own, on the bullet. Even more strange is that when Odum (according to CE2011) showed the bullet to Norvell, more than a year after he had last seen it, he allegedly identified it by his marking on the bullet. The same marking that Nicol couldn't find under a microscope!

Personally, I don't place much value on what is written in CE2011 as this is the report by the FBI to the WC in which they also claimed that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought it was the same bullet, which we know is simply not true, as Odum is on record saying he never showed CE399 or any other bullet to anybody and it also clearly contradicts the content of the Airtel written by SAC Shacklin.

Anyway, all there is to confirm the chain of custody is Norvell saying that it was the same bullet, yet it was this same Norvell who said, according to CE1953, that he passed the bullet he had marked to Detective McElroy and that he did not observe him marking the bullet as well, thus breaking the chain of custody. In my book none of this is even remotely conclusive. But it gets even worse. Lt Day said, according to CE1953, that seven photographs were taken at the Walker residence, yet not a single one of them showed the bullet. A defense lawyer would have a field day with that!

Now let's turn to the second part; the condition of the bullet that was recovered from Walker's house.

Walker described it, in his letter to the U.S. Attorney General on 02/12/79, as being as a bullet completely mutilated and a hunk of leadwhich had no resemblance to any unfired bullet in shape or form.

In his memo to Conrad on 3/27/64 Jevons wrote that according to SA Heiberger "the lead alloy of the bullet recovered from the attempted shooting of General Walker was different from the lead alloy of a large bullet fragment recovered from the car in which President Kennedy was shot"

And, according to CE1953, the CSSS at the DPD confirmed that they could not identify the gun that had fired the bullet due to the battered condition of the bullet.

And even Nicol, in his WC testimony, agreed his conclusion was not a positive finding. He explained that he came to his "probable" conclusion because he wanted to avoid the suggestion that the bullet could not have come from that particular gun.

How anybody can argue that the bullet recovered from Walker's house was conclusively fired by the MC rifle later found at the TSBD and allegedly belonging to Oswald is completely beyond me.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 10, 2023, 11:21:32 PM
Just to clear up a point that might be getting lost in translation regarding the "planting" of CE399.
What is NOT being said in this thread is that CE399 was planted on a stretcher in the Emergency Unit of Parkland Hospital.
For anyone actually interested in this aspect of the case I recommend this article:

https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

The take away from this article is that the bullet found on the stretcher was NOT CE399.
The bullet was originally discovered by Darrell Tomlinson on a stretcher in the Emergency Unit of Parkland Hospital.
O P Wright entered the Emergency Unit and was called over by Tomlinson to examine the bullet. Wright then contacted SA Richard Johnsen and handed the bullet to him. It was at this point the bullet entered the official chain of custody.
Josiah Thompson interviewed Wright:

Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”

As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”


Wright, the civilian who handed the bullet into the official chain of custody, is categorically stating that the bullet he handed over to Johnsen was NOT CE399.
Thompson took a picture of the bullet Wright said looked like the one discovered on the stretcher. It could hardly be more different from CE399:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj1HKkJx/Stretcher-Bullet1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

So, we have the following situation - Tomlinson discovers the bullet, he calls over Wright, Wright gives the bullet to Johnsen, Johnsen takes the bullet to Washington and gives it to Rowley, Rowley gives it to Todd, Todd gives it to Frazier.
The chain of possession looks like this - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd, Frazier.
The problem is that the bullet given to Johnsen is NOT CE399 but by the time it reaches Elmer Todd it has become the bullet recognised as CE399.
This leads to the conclusion that CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody at some point.
There is strong supporting circumstantial evidence to indicate that this is indeed the case.

What mustn't be forgotten is that Wright categorically denies that CE399 was the pointed bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 11, 2023, 03:30:28 AM
Personally, I don't place much value on what is written in CE2011 as this is the report by the FBI to the WC in which they also claimed that Odum had shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright and that both men thought it was the same bullet, which we know is simply not true, as Odum is on record saying he never showed CE399 or any other bullet to anybody and it also clearly contradicts the content of the Airtel written by SAC Shacklin.

Not to mention, the entirety of CE2011 is anonymously written hearsay.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 12:21:12 PM

So, we have the following situation - Tomlinson discovers the bullet, he calls over Wright, Wright gives the bullet to Johnsen, Johnsen takes the bullet to Washington and gives it to Rowley, Rowley gives it to Todd, Todd gives it to Frazier.
The chain of possession looks like this - Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd, Frazier.
The problem is that the bullet given to Johnsen is NOT CE399 but by the time it reaches Elmer Todd it has become the bullet recognised as CE399.
This leads to the conclusion that CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody at some point.
There is strong supporting circumstantial evidence to indicate that this is indeed the case.

What mustn't be forgotten is that Wright categorically denies that CE399 was the pointed bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen.
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 11, 2023, 12:32:34 PM
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!

So he needs “definitive proof” that CE399 was substituted, but you don’t need definitive proof that CE 399 was found on Connally’s stretcher, or that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally.

How convenient.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 03:23:59 PM
So he needs “definitive proof” that CE399 was substituted, but you don’t need definitive proof that CE 399 was found on Connally’s stretcher, or that it ever went through Kennedy or Connally.

How convenient.
It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 04:44:32 PM
It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

To accept JRT one just has to believe that they were just doing their job. To believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2023, 04:57:12 PM
It does not work that way. You have to fit all this evidence with the rest of the evidence.

We have evidence that a bullet was found at Parkland. The bullet that makes its way from Tomlinson-Wright (TW) to Johnsen-Rowley-Todd (JRT) is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

TW supposedly claims that the bullet they had and handed over was not a bullet from the murder weapon.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case. TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.  IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

This is simply not true. Johnsen and Rowley failed to identify the bullet and neither man as well as Todd could possibly have known which rifle fired that bullet.

JRT's evidence fits with the rest of the entire case.

Not really, but it wouldn't have been surprising if it did if the entire case was a fabrication to begin with.

TW's "evidence" implies that evidence was deliberately falsified by JRT because this could not be a random error. That bullet could not have been substituted by carelessness or inadvertence.

IT HAD BEEN FIRED FROM C2766!

I don't think that anybody disputes this. The real question that should be asked is when was it fired by C2766?

So to believe TW, one has to conclude, without any evidence to corroborate, that JRT were involved in a conspiracy to plant evidence without any evidence at all of how that could have been done let alone that the Secret Service at its highest level was involved.

And yet, we still have Wright on record as saying the bullet he was given by Tomlinson was pointed, which CE399 clearly isn't. We have SA Odum denying that he ever showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright which means the FBI lied to the WC in CE2011. And we don't have a shred of evidence to confirm that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital, as there is no chain of custody for it.

I started my proposed scenario by saying that there had to have been people in high places (who could control the investigation and the evidence) involved for the conspiracy to work. If you are not willing to even accept the possibility that some Secret Service agents were involved you will never be able to look at this case objectively.

But let's take a closer look at this case;

There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63
There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oswald brought the MC rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, but there are two witnesses who described the bag Oswald carried in such a way that it was clearly to small to conceal a broken down rifle.
There is no evidence that Oswald was actually on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.
There is no evidence that Oswald came down the stairs within 75 seconds after  the last shot and managed to do so unnoticed by anybody, despite the fact that several women on the 4th floor were close to the stairs at that time.
There is no evidence that confirms that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor had actually been fired that day
There is no chain of custody for the bullet CE399 that confirms it was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland hospital.
Even Dr. Humes, when asked during his testimony, stated he did not believe CE399 could have gone through Kennedy and Connally and come out is the condition it is in.
The rifle was used to fired 100 test bullets and not a single one came even close the being in the same condition CE399 is in.
There is no evidence to confirm that the bullet fragments given to Frazier at the Secret Service garage actually came from the Presidential limo. Frazier was simply told they did.
There is serious doubt about the so-called Walker bullet now in evidence as CE573 being the bullet that was actually recovered from General Walker's home.

Some case!

The bottom line is obvious; either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy. Those are the two options. When you rule out the possibility of a conspiracy simply because you can't imagine how that could have worked or who was behind it, you are left with only one option, which is that regardless of what the evidence (or lack thereof) tells you Oswald needs to be a lone assassin. The possibility of a conspiracy was never seriously investigated simply because it did not fit with Hoover's and perhaps LBJ's agenda. That's a hell of a way to conduct an investigation....
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 06:46:20 PM
is claimed by JRT to be a bullet that was fired by the murder weapon.

This is simply not true. Johnsen and Rowley failed to identify the bullet and neither man as well as Todd could possibly have known which rifle fired that bullet.

....And yet, we still have Wright on record as saying the bullet he was given by Tomlinson was pointed, which CE399 clearly isn't. We have SA Odum denying that he ever showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright which means the FBI lied to the WC in CE2011. And we don't have a shred of evidence to confirm that CE399 was ever in Parkland Hospital, as there is no chain of custody for it.

They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody.  Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession.  So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it.  If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland.  So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.

Quote
But let's take a closer look at this case;

There is not a shred of evidence that there was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63

There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oswald brought the MC rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63, but there are two witnesses who described the bag Oswald carried in such a way that it was clearly to small to conceal a broken down rifle.
Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63.  But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage.  When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.

Quote
There is no evidence that Oswald was actually on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.
There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
Quote
There is no evidence that Oswald came down the stairs within 75 seconds after  the last shot and managed to do so unnoticed by anybody, despite the fact that several women on the 4th floor were close to the stairs at that time.
There is no evidence that confirms that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor had actually been fired that day
There is no chain of custody for the bullet CE399 that confirms it was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson at Parkland hospital.
Even Dr. Humes, when asked during his testimony, stated he did not believe CE399 could have gone through Kennedy and Connally and come out is the condition it is in.
The rifle was used to fired 100 test bullets and not a single one came even close the being in the same condition CE399 is in.
There is no evidence to confirm that the bullet fragments given to Frazier at the Secret Service garage actually came from the Presidential limo. Frazier was simply told they did.
There is serious doubt about the so-called Walker bullet now in evidence as CE573 being the bullet that was actually recovered from General Walker's home.
You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence.

Quote
The bottom line is obvious; either Oswald did it alone or there was a conspiracy.
I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter.  I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2023, 08:19:02 PM
They don't have to be able to recognize it to prove a chain of custody.  Todd marked it so we know that Todd received CE399. Each said that they delivered the only bullet in their possession.  So if Todd didn't switch it, that means Rowley had CE399. If Rowley didn't switch it, then Johnsen had it.  If Johnsen didn't switch it, then Wright had it. If Wright didn't switch it, then Tomlinson had it. If Tomlinson didn't switch it, then CE399 was the bullet he found after it fell from the stretcher at Parkland.  So unless one of those five switched it, CE399 was the stretcher bullet.

The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley gave it to Todd.

Is it just a coincidence that it was the Secret Service who gave both the Parkland bullet and the fragments allegedly found in the Presidential limo to the FBI after, in both cases, not following the correct evidentiary procedure? It also was the Secret Service who, ignored the law and took the body of the President and the Presidential limo to Washington before anybody in Dallas could examine either.

Quote
Lots of circumstantial evidence that Oswald took his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.  It doesn't matter where it was on 11/21/63.  But the place where it had been kept was in the green-brown blanket in the Paine garage.  When she saw that it wasn't there, Marina began to fear the worst.

There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63. All there is, are assumptions based on hot air. The whole "Oswald took the rifle to the TSBD" is a flawed theory based on the one hand on the presumed presence of a rifle Ruth Paine's garage and on the other hand on the alleged presence of a bag in the sniper's nest which is believed he used to carry the rifle in. The only two witnesses who actually saw Oswald carry a bag described an entirely different bag and when Frazier was shown the SN bag on Friday evening he instantly denied that it was the bag he had seen. So, not only does the theory make a giant leap to reach a "conclusion" but it also ignores actual evidence that undermines that conclusion.

Of course it matters where the rifle was on 11/21/63, because if it wasn't in Ruth Paine's garage than Oswald couldn't have made the trip to Irving to get it and, as he stayed at the Paine residence from the moment of his arrival until his departure the next day, Oswald wouldn't have been able to get the rifle from elsewhere.

The story about the rifle in the blanket comes from one source only; Marina, who is not the most reliable witness to say the least. And even she didn't get beyond saying that, about a week after leaving New Orleans, she got curious about what was in the blanket. So, in late september she pulled back part of it and saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. Even if one assumes that she did indeed see a rifle in that blanket, there is no evidence that it was the rifle that was later found at the TSBD, there is no evidence who the rifle belonged to and there is nothing, except wishful thinking, to conclude that this same rifle was still in that blanket some two months later, when Oswald is supposed to have picked it up.


Quote
There is lots of circumstantial evidence from which one can infer that he fired the shots and that the shots came from the 6th floor. That puts him on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.

Enlighten me, what is this circumstantial evidence you are talking about? I mean factual evidence from which something can indeed be inferred and which can actually be used in a credible way to connect the dots and not just one assumption piled on another!

The Warren Commission didn't even bother to present factual or circumstantial evidence to show that Oswald was on the 6th floor. They just assumed it to be the case and presented it as such in their report. I would argue that there is more circumstantial evidence that places Oswald on the 1st and 2nd floor at the time of the shooting than there ever was for him being on the 6th floor.

You seem to think that every fact has to be independently and all by itself proven beyond a reasonable doubt, without regard to any other facts. Facts are proven by the totality of the evidence.

No, I don't think that every fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself, but I do think that the individual facts which are used to connect the dots a narrative in a circumstantial case should at least be provable factual. Building a circumstantial case based on mere assumptions is like building a house of cards without a foundation.

I have given you a small part of a much bigger list of all sorts of things for which there is not a shred of evidence. You can not prove a fact by a "totality of evidence" that simply doesn't exits.

Quote
I would agree that if there was a conspiracy, Oswald was involved and was the shooter.  I would also add that I don't see any evidence of a conspiracy or any reason to believe that conspirators would have chosen Oswald to carry out the plan.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 11, 2023, 10:50:02 PM
The purpose of a chain of custody is to authenticate a piece of evidence. It needs to be proven that the evidence presented hasn't been manipulated and is the same as the evidence recovered from the crime scene. You can not assume that evidence is authentic unless it is proven not to be. That's the world upside down. Johnsen didn't follow procedure by not placing the bullet he received from Wright in a sealed evidence envelope (which were available at Parkland) and mark it. Instead he put it in his pocket. Nobody knows what happened to the bullet from the moment Johnsen received it and Rowley give it to Todd.
Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.

Quote
There is no circumstantial evidence at all that Oswald took any rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/63.
His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.

Quote

There is no doubt in my mind that if there was a conspiracy Oswald must have been involved to some extent for the simple reason that you can not manipulate somebody who is completely uninvolved. I agree with you that the conspirators probably wouldn't have relied on Oswald to carry out their plan but he would make a perfect patsy!
You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 11, 2023, 11:28:33 PM
Ultimately, one has to rely on people to provide the evidence. If you assume all people are lying you won't accept any evidence. As I said, we seem to inhabit different universes.

What are you really saying? That Johnsen and/or Rowley couldn't possibly be involved in a high level conspiracy because they are law enforcement? Really? Are you actually this naive?

I don't assume that all people are lying, although some do in just about every case, but I am also not foolish enough to believe that witness testimony is always reliable. As a lawyer you seem to be willing to ignore that the chain of custody's sole purpose is to protect the authenticity of the evidence against possible manipulation by law enforcement.

If you are willing to accept evidence simply because a cop said so, then we are indeed living in different universes. I can't help but notice that you are willing to overlook the problem caused by the way Johnsen and Rowley handled the bullet. Why is that?

Quote
His rifle was found there. There is unchallenged evidence that he took a long unmeasured package to work. That's all you need. That is circumstantial evidence.

For starters, it is in no way certain that it was Oswald's rifle that was found at the TSBD. The only evidence that links Oswald tentatively  to any rifle are easy to manipulate photocopies of a Klein's order form, a money order and an envelope, allegedly in his handwriting, taken from a microfilm which since has mysteriously been lost, just as the original documents. As the order document is in name of A. Hidell, it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated to fill out the documents. In any case, we only have the word of an FBI handwriting expert that it is Oswald's handwriting on the forms in the first place. The most troubling part, as far as I am concerned, is that the rifle ordered was a 36" and the rifle found at the TSBD was a 40". Nothing seems to match up and most of the "evidence" is extremely vague to say the least.

As for the "unmeasured package", that's not really true, is it now? Frazier described it as being held by Oswald in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry the package next to his leg and it didn't reach the ground. Frazier showed FBI agents to where on the backseat the package reached from the door and they measured it at 27". Although the package itself was not physically measured, these descriptions make it beyond clear that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal a rifle.

All this is circumstantial evidence that contradicts your circumstantial evidence, but you seem willing to ignore it all.

Quote
You are convinced of a conspiracy yet you cannot point to any evidence of a conspiracy let alone evidence as to who was involved. If we live in the same universe, it appears that we speak different languages.

No, I am not convinced of a conspiracy. Unlike you, who seems to be convinced Oswald did it alone, I don't know what really happened. Unlike you, I am willing to consider both possibilities and I am more than happy to be convinced either way by actual evidence. What I do not accept are flawed assumptions to create a narrative that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

As for me pointing to any evidence of a conspiracy, we first have to determine which conspiracy we are talking about. On the one hand there is the one which planned and executed the assassination and on the other hand there is the cover up after the fact. For the first, it will probably be impossible after all this time to find any evidence but for the second one I've already provided you with several examples.

If there is one thing that I am convinced of by now, it is that after Oswald's death the evidence was shaped in such a way that it wrapped tightly around him as the lone gunman, regardless of his guilt or innocence.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 12, 2023, 06:51:01 PM
What are you really saying? That Johnsen and/or Rowley couldn't possibly be involved in a high level conspiracy because they are law enforcement? Really? Are you actually this naive?

I don't assume that all people are lying, although some do in just about every case, but I am also not foolish enough to believe that witness testimony is always reliable. As a lawyer you seem to be willing to ignore that the chain of custody's sole purpose is to protect the authenticity of the evidence against possible manipulation by law enforcement.

A chain of custody is required to guard against accidents or mistakes that can happen within a busy police force where evidence from cases could get mixed up. It is not intended to guard against deliberate evidence tampering by police, nor does it.

It is apparent that the bullet found by Tomlinson did not get accidentally mixed up here because CE399 is definitely related to the C2766 rifle.

You seem to think that everyone has to be able to identify the bullet, months even years later. There is no expectation that Tomlinson or Wright should have put their initials on the bullet. Why should they be expected to identify it later? There is no reason for 3 Secret Service agents to put their initials on it.

Even if Johnsen had put his initial on it, that would not prove that he hadn't deliberately switched the bullet that Wright gave him.
Quote

If you are willing to accept evidence simply because a cop said so, then we are indeed living in different universes. I can't help but notice that you are willing to overlook the problem caused by the way Johnsen and Rowley handled the bullet. Why is that?

I just don't have any evidence that leads me to suspect, let alone conclude, that Johnsen, Rowley or Todd fabricated evidence. Unless you have evidence that someone planted CE399 after Tomlinson, what reason would there be to find that Tomlinson did not find CE399?

Quote
For starters, it is in no way certain that it was Oswald's rifle that was found at the TSBD. The only evidence that links Oswald tentatively  to any rifle are easy to manipulate photocopies of a Klein's order form, a money order and an envelope, allegedly in his handwriting, taken from a microfilm which since has mysteriously been lost, just as the original documents. As the order document is in name of A. Hidell, it can not be ruled out that Oswald was manipulated to fill out the documents. In any case, we only have the word of an FBI handwriting expert that it is Oswald's handwriting on the forms in the first place. The most troubling part, as far as I am concerned, is that the rifle ordered was a 36" and the rifle found at the TSBD was a 40". Nothing seems to match up and most of the "evidence" is extremely vague to say the least.
Some jurors had doubts that OJ Simpson was guilty. I didn't.

Quote
As for the "unmeasured package", that's not really true, is it now? Frazier described it as being held by Oswald in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. Randle said she saw Oswald carry the package next to his leg and it didn't reach the ground. Frazier showed FBI agents to where on the backseat the package reached from the door and they measured it at 27". Although the package itself was not physically measured, these descriptions make it beyond clear that the package couldn't have been long enough to conceal a rifle.
You just admitted it was not measured.

Quote
No, I am not convinced of a conspiracy. Unlike you, who seems to be convinced Oswald did it alone, I don't know what really happened. Unlike you, I am willing to consider both possibilities and I am more than happy to be convinced either way by actual evidence.
I am open to the possibility that there may be reliable, credible evidence somewhere of a conspiracy. But none has been found and it is highly improbable that any will be found.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 12, 2023, 09:14:09 PM
A chain of custody is required to guard against accidents or mistakes that can happen within a busy police force where evidence from cases could get mixed up. It is not intended to guard against deliberate evidence tampering by police, nor does it.

The chain of custody is the most critical process of evidence documentation. It is a must to assure the court of law that the evidence is authentic, i.e., it is the same evidence seized at the crime scene.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551677/

This is exactly what I said all along. The chain of custody is required to authenticate the evidence by keeping it safe from any kind of manipulation. This is done by registering every person who handled that piece of evidence and retracing the chain of custody to it's origin. A piece of evidence can not be considered authentic when the chain of custody is broken or non-existent.

Quote
It is apparent that the bullet found by Tomlinson did not get accidentally mixed up here because CE399 is definitely related to the C2766 rifle.

There is nothing apparent about it. It is in fact completely ignorant to say that CE399 matches C2766 and so Tomlinson must have found that bullet at Parkland.

Tomlinson may in fact have found a completely different bullet which in no way was related to C2766. In order to establish which bullet Tomlinson actually found you need an unbroken chain of custody. If - as you seem to suggest - a chain of custody is unimportant, why did the WC ask the FBI to authenticate a large number of pieces of evidence, including CE399?

Quote
You seem to think that everyone has to be able to identify the bullet, months even years later. There is no expectation that Tomlinson or Wright should have put their initials on the bullet. Why should they be expected to identify it later? There is no reason for 3 Secret Service agents to put their initials on it.

You are correct that Tomlinson and Wright could not be expected to mark the bullet, but you are wrong about the three Secret Service agents. When Wright gave him the bullet, Johnsen should have marked it and started the chain of custody, at Parkland Hospital. He failed to do so, yet after his arrival in Washington he put his initial on an envelope allegedly containing the bullet now known as CE399. Why did Johnsen do this if - as you claim - there was no reason for him to do so?

Quote
Even if Johnsen had put his initial on it, that would not prove that he hadn't deliberately switched the bullet that Wright gave him.

That's true. Which is why Wright's claim that he gave Johnsen a pointed bullet is so relevant. The only way the chain of custody would be able to authenticate the bullet was if Johnsen had put it in an evidence envelope at Parkland and sealed it in the presence of Wright. Johnsen made the mistake and can not expect that the bullet he gave to Rowley is authenticated simply by him saying that it is the same bullet.

Quote
I just don't have any evidence that leads me to suspect, let alone conclude, that Johnsen, Rowley or Todd fabricated evidence. Unless you have evidence that someone planted CE399 after Tomlinson, what reason would there be to find that Tomlinson did not find CE399?

First of all, there is no assumption of evidence being authentic simply because manipulation can not be proven. It's the other way around. In order for evidence to be considered authentic it needs to be proven to be so. The WC did not ask the FBI for authentication for nothing. Secondly, Wright is on record saying that he gave Johnsen a pointed bullet, which CE399 clearly is not. That alone justifies the questioning of the authenticity of CE399. It's just too bad that nobody was willing to investigate Wright's claim after the book "Six seconds in Dallas" was released. One can only wonder why Specter introduced CE399 during Humes' testimony, subject to later authentication which of course never came, or why CE399 was never shown to Tomlinson when he testified...

Quote
Some jurors had doubts that OJ Simpson was guilty. I didn't.

I'm not sure what this comment has to do with anything but I also believed OJ was guilty. Having said that, I did consider the jury verdict correct because the state failed to prove it's case.

Quote
You just admitted it was not measured.

Word games! There are several ways of measuring an object. One of those is placing it next to another measurable object. It's really very simple. Frazier said that Oswald carried the package under his armpit and in the cup of his hand. There is nothing to suggest that this observation is not correct and that means there simply is no way that the package could have contained a much larger broken down MC rifle.

Quote
I am open to the possibility that there may be reliable, credible evidence somewhere of a conspiracy. But none has been found and it is highly improbable that any will be found.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence! Where it comes to a possible conspiracy you seem to put the bar as high as you possibly can (by asking for reliable, credible evidence) but when it comes to Oswald being a lone gun man you keep the bar so low it nearly touches the ground and even then you can not produce "reliable, credible evidence" as we have just seen when to made a giant leap from a rifle that was possibly in Ruth Paine's garage to a paper bag that allegedly was found in the sniper's nest at the TSBD. Why the double standard?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 13, 2023, 04:45:20 AM
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!
This might be a bit of a quibble, but....

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. After all, if something doesn't exist, then the would be no evidence of it existing. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, since there may be some as-yet-unknown fact sitting out there in the dark waiting to rear its ugly head when you least expect. However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2023, 05:02:07 AM
This might be a bit of a quibble, but....

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. After all, if something doesn't exist, then the would be no evidence of it existing. Absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence, since there may be some as-yet-unknown fact sitting out there in the dark waiting to rear its ugly head when you least expect. However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.

This might be a bit of a quibble,

Yes it is.

However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.

Only in theory, because it can never been determined with 100% certainty that complete information is available in a particular case.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2023, 10:59:19 AM
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!

 ;D
It is unlike you to be so facetious but, the fact of the matter is, you have nothing else to offer on this aspect of the case.
O P Wright, the civilian who handed the bullet into the official chain of custody, categorically denies that CE399 is the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen. He is specific that the bullet he handed over had a pointed tip, he even produces an example of such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what type of bullet he is talking about. He then repeats his denial of CE399 in front of other witnesses.
Wright is unequivocal, he is absolutely certain that CE399 is not the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen.

Obviously, this is a massive problem for you and your beliefs concerning this case, and your response reflects the corner you have painted yourself into.

There is circumstantial evidence that the bullet is not the one Wright handed over to SA Johnsen:

A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .”

The men who originally discovered and examined the bullet cannot identify it! The reason they cannot identify it is revealed by O P Wright in his interview with Thompson - it was not the same bullet. More importantly, when shown the bullet, neither SA Johnsen or Rowley can identify the bullet as the one given to Johnsen by Wright. Todd has no problem immediately recognising the bullet, neither does Frazier.
So why can't Johnsen and Rowley recognise it?
Is it something to do with why they destroyed the chain of custody?
It is inconceivable that an experienced agent like Johnsen would knowingly destroy the chain of custody by not putting his initials on the bullet.
It is inconceivable that Rowley, head of the Secret Service, would be unaware that by not putting his initials on the bullet he was destroying the chain of custody for such a key piece of evidence. Are we supposed to believe that both men simply forgot to perform this most basic task?
Neither agent can identify the bullet and both agents "forgot" to put their initials on this fundamentally key piece of evidence.
Todd has no problems recognising the bullet and neither does Frazier. And both men remember to put their initials on the evidence!
And Wright is adamant that CE399 is not the bullet he handed over to Johnsen. This is surely why Johnsen cannot identify CE399 - because Wright gave him a pointy-tipped bullet. This is surely why Johnsen's initials weren't on CE399 - because he put them on the pointy-tipped bullet and never saw CE399 until he was asked to identify it as the bullet he received from Wright. Something he refused to do.
We can assume Johnsen handed over the pointy-tipped bullet to Rowley, who also put his initials on it before handing over to Todd. Rowley can't identify CE399 as the bullet he dealt with that day- because he had never seen it before. The bullet he received from Johnsen was pointy-tipped.

It is with Todd that CE399 seems to materialise out of thin air. If only Todd had been asked to give evidence before the WC. But, incredibly, he wasn't.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2023, 03:14:11 PM
So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is the co-conspirator behind the assassination! Amazing!

No wonder Mr. Mason is getting whupped on this thread. Let's fix his non sequitur nonsense for him:

So the case is solved! The chain of custody together with the definitive proof the CE399 was substituted for the real bullet by James Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service, perhaps with the knowledge and assistance of SA Richard Johnsen means that Rowley is one of the the co-conspirators behind the assassination cover-up! Amazing!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 13, 2023, 03:47:47 PM
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?

There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.

The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2023, 04:15:34 PM
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?

There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.

The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.

So when O P Wright categorically denies that the bullet he gave to SA Johnsen is CE399 - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??
That we are supposed to simply accept experienced agents, Johnsen and Rowley, knowingly destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on this crucial piece of evidence - that's rabbit-hole nonsense is it??
When Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??

Yeah Jerry, you go ahead and start your own sub-forum.

"There are some posters here who want to research the assassination..."

And you believe you're one of those, do you?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2023, 04:30:37 PM
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?

There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.

The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.

 :D :D :D

They really are in mourning for their McAdams Safe Space!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2023, 05:01:29 PM
Here's another one for the "rabbit-hole nonsense" category.
Darrell Tomlinson, the man who initially discovered the bullet in Parkland Hospital gives a deposition included in the WC hearings.
Note - he is not called before the Warren Commission where a very obvious question might be asked of him - he gives his deposition at Parkland Hospital to Arlen Specter and a court reporter.
The sole reason Tomlinson is asked to give a deposition is because he is the man who initially found the bullet.

Have a guess how many questions he is asked about the bullet during his deposition.
A dozen, ten, five, one?
The answer, staggeringly enough, is zero!!
He is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered that day!
Is he given CE399 to inspect to confirm it is the bullet he found?
No.
Is he even shown a picture of CE399 to confirm whether or not it's the bullet he found?
No.
He is not asked a single question about it.

The only other person out of the six involved in the bullet's chain of custody to answer a question about it is Frazier.
Wright, Johnsen and Todd are never called to give their testimonies (if you can believe that) and Rowley, who gives a very lengthy and detailed testimony, is never once asked about the bullet.

Frazier's testimony concerning the bullet found that day begins like this:

Mr. Eisenberg: Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.


Frazier is immediately handed CE399 and asked if he recognises it. Even though he is the last person in the chain of custody to handle the bullet (I am not counting the two technicians in the FBI lab who also handled it, even though they correctly put their initials on it).
Why isn't Tomlinson, the discoverer of the bullet, asked to identify it?
Why isn't he asked a single question about his most important discovery?
Those of us down in the rabbit hole are going to suggest it's because he wouldn't have identified it as the same bullet.

Specter starts off Tomlinson's deposition like this:

"Mr. Tomlinson, the purpose of this deposition proceeding is to take your deposition in connection with an inquiry made by the President's Commission in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy to determine from you all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy..."

"All the facts"??
I don't think so.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 13, 2023, 05:42:13 PM
So when O P Wright categorically denies that the bullet he gave to SA Johnsen is CE399 - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??
That we are supposed to simply accept experienced agents, Johnsen and Rowley, knowingly destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on this crucial piece of evidence - that's rabbit-hole nonsense is it??
When Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day - that's rabbit-hole nonsense??
All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. Is it possible that CE399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher due to accidental mixup with a bullet from some other source?

2. Is it possible that CE399 was deliberately substituted for the bullet found at Parkland?

3. Is it possible that the evidence as to the provenance of CE399 is accurate.

We can easily eliminate 1 because CE399, having been matched to the type of ammunition used in C2766 rifle (you don't even need to know that it had been fired by C2766), it could not have been accidentally substituted.

The no. 2 possibility would require one or more of the 5 people involved (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd) to be part of a conspiracy to plant evidence. A conspiracy would be required because there is no way that any of them could have had access to C2766 on their own after the assassination.  Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas.  So we look at the evidence.

First of all, we consider motive.  Why would a conspirator involved in the most heinous act of the 20thC plant CE399?  One answer is obvious: it would be to link C2766 and Oswald to the assassination and create a "patsy" on whom to pin the assassination. 

But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination.  That only works if a slightly damaged bullet makes sense to how the shots, injuries and discovered fragments (in the future) would occur. So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.

It would also not be known if there would be an opportunity to put CE399 into the evidence stream.  That only arose because a bullet was actually discovered at Parkland.

So now we not only have a hospital staff or Secret Service officer being part of an elaborate conspiracy, but taking the risk of tampering with evidence with the result of demonstrating a conspiracy if the evidence did not fit or if a natural opportunity to insert a bullet into the evidence did not arise.

Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet.  Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.

Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people.  There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.

And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3. 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2023, 06:57:16 PM
All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. Is it possible that CE399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher due to accidental mixup with a bullet from some other source?

2. Is it possible that CE399 was deliberately substituted for the bullet found at Parkland?

3. Is it possible that the evidence as to the provenance of CE399 is accurate.

We can easily eliminate 1 because CE399, having been matched to the type of ammunition used in C2766 rifle (you don't even need to know that it had been fired by C2766), it could not have been accidentally substituted.

The no. 2 possibility would require one or more of the 5 people involved (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd) to be part of a conspiracy to plant evidence. A conspiracy would be required because there is no way that any of them could have had access to C2766 on their own after the assassination.  Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas.  So we look at the evidence.

First of all, we consider motive.  Why would a conspirator involved in the most heinous act of the 20thC plant CE399?  One answer is obvious: it would be to link C2766 and Oswald to the assassination and create a "patsy" on whom to pin the assassination. 

But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination.  That only works if a slightly damaged bullet makes sense to how the shots, injuries and discovered fragments (in the future) would occur. So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.

It would also not be known if there would be an opportunity to put CE399 into the evidence stream.  That only arose because a bullet was actually discovered at Parkland.

So now we not only have a hospital staff or Secret Service officer being part of an elaborate conspiracy, but taking the risk of tampering with evidence with the result of demonstrating a conspiracy if the evidence did not fit or if a natural opportunity to insert a bullet into the evidence did not arise.

Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet.  Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.

Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people.  There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.

And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3.

Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas.

No. The rifle did not stay in Dallas. It was sent to the FBI lab in Washington that same day.

But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination.

Yes, that's likely, unless it wasn't Johnsen and Rowley involved in switching of the bullet but Todd and Frazier were.

So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.

Only if the conspirators did not control the investigation and evidence.

Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet.  Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.

Your reasoning is sound but not complete. A bullet being found at Parkland may simply have been a bonus for the conspirators. All that was required to make it fit in the narrative was firing a bullet with C2766 into cotton wool or water. The FBI lab most certainly had the means to do both. That's the problem with just about every aspect of this case. There are always multiple possibilities.

Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people.  There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.

Indeed. The same applies to the DPD officers who searched Ruth Paine's garage and then falsified the record by claiming the BY photos were found during the second search (with a search warrant) when in truth they, or at least one of them, were/was found during the first search on Friday afternoon. How do we know this for sure? Easy, Michael Paine confirmed that he was shown a BY photo by an FBI agent on Friday evening and Fritz showed Oswald a blow up of a BY photo on Saturday morning, before the second search took place in the afternoon.

And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3.

No so fast... just because you can't imagine that a cop or Secret Service agent could do something like switching a bullet, doesn't mean you can eliminate that possibility. Hosty burned a piece of evidence because his boss SAC Shanklin told him to do so. The FBI under Hoover was many things but certainly not a democracy.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 13, 2023, 07:20:18 PM
All reasonable possibilities have to be considered. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. Is it possible that CE399 was not the bullet found on the stretcher due to accidental mixup with a bullet from some other source?

2. Is it possible that CE399 was deliberately substituted for the bullet found at Parkland?

3. Is it possible that the evidence as to the provenance of CE399 is accurate.

We can easily eliminate 1 because CE399, having been matched to the type of ammunition used in C2766 rifle (you don't even need to know that it had been fired by C2766), it could not have been accidentally substituted.

The no. 2 possibility would require one or more of the 5 people involved (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd) to be part of a conspiracy to plant evidence. A conspiracy would be required because there is no way that any of them could have had access to C2766 on their own after the assassination.  Johnsen went to Washington and C2766 stayed in Dallas.  So we look at the evidence.

First of all, we consider motive.  Why would a conspirator involved in the most heinous act of the 20thC plant CE399?  One answer is obvious: it would be to link C2766 and Oswald to the assassination and create a "patsy" on whom to pin the assassination. 

But it is also obvious that if CE399 was a plant, it must have been fired by Oswald's rifle prior to the assassination.  That only works if a slightly damaged bullet makes sense to how the shots, injuries and discovered fragments (in the future) would occur. So, planting CE399 before they had all that evidence, would be extremely risky for the conspirators and might just as easily provide evidence of a conspiracy if the bullet did not fit.

It would also not be known if there would be an opportunity to put CE399 into the evidence stream.  That only arose because a bullet was actually discovered at Parkland.

So now we not only have a hospital staff or Secret Service officer being part of an elaborate conspiracy, but taking the risk of tampering with evidence with the result of demonstrating a conspiracy if the evidence did not fit or if a natural opportunity to insert a bullet into the evidence did not arise.

Then we look at the inherently random events that led to CE399 being initialed by Todd (unless we have a doubt that he was telling the truth that he initialed it on 22/11/63 in Washington). Someone has to find a bullet.  Tomlinson only discovered it because it was blocking the washroom door and someone pushed it out of the way to access the washroom. Tomlinson then pushed it forward against the wall and he heard something fall. No guarantee that would happen. It could just as easily have stayed on the stretcher and found by the laundry staff (and given to someone not in on the conspiracy) or it could have gotten lost in the laundry system. If that occurred, Johnsen, Rowley and Todd would never have been involved. And if Tomlinson had given it to some other person than O.P. Wright or if Wright had given it to someone else who remained in Dallas, the chance that it would end up in the hands of a conspirator in the Secret Service would be gone.

Even if you get around the problems of inutility, risk and randomness with the no. 2 possibility and have a conspirator do something that makes no sense in order to possibly deflect scrutiny of the conspiracy or perhaps reveal it, there is a lack of evidence of such conspiracy or treasonous inclination of anyone and certainly not among these five people.  There has not been one iota of evidence suggesting that any of these five people were doing anything but trying to do their job at a time of great confusion and stress.

And that leaves the only other possibility, no.3.

As usual, instead of dealing with actual evidence, and the arguments stemming from that evidence, I have presented in my previous posts, you have decided to counter with some sort of stream-of conscious, evidence-free, garbled speculation.

Fact - O P Wright, the civilian who hands over the bullet into the official chain of custody, categorically states that the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen was NOT CE399.
From this we can assume the bullet carried by Johnsen and given to Rowley in Washington was the pointy-tipped bullet Wright is unequivocally stating he gave to Johnsen.

Fact - experienced Secret Service agent Johnsen and Head of Secret Service Rowley, both "forget" to initial CE399, a most basic prerequisite when handling evidence. And the importance of this particular piece of evidence cannot be understated.
It can be safely assumed that both men are aware that they must initial this evidence in order to maintain the chain of custody, so we are being expected to believe both men knowingly destroyed the chain of evidence. Key evidence in the murder of the President of the United States.
This incomprehensible failure is explained if, following on from the first fact, the bullet they have in their possession is NOT CE399, but the pointy-tipped bullet given to Johnsen by Wright.

Fact - When asked, Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley, all refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. Not one or two of them, but all four. This seems incredible, particularly as Todd and Frazier seem to have no trouble whatsoever identifying CE399 as the bullet that eventually reached the FBI lab.
What could account for this incredible mass amnesia?
Go back to the first fact - the bullet that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley handled was NOT CE399. Very simple really.

Let's forget the stupid notion of CE399 just falling out of Connally's leg as if a bullet entering flesh was like a hole drilled in wood and if you turn it upside down the bullet just falls out. It's not worth getting dragged into the silliness of that argument.
Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with.
And let's forget the fact that Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet, is not asked a single question about his discovery in his WC deposition. It's just too bizarre to contemplate.

And let's forget your unbelievably naive argument that the bullet couldn't have been planted because there was no conspiracy. If you argument were any more circular it would have infinite angles.

Let's just deal with the evidence and the arguments I have presented.
If you have counter-evidence from which you've gleaned a counter-argument, let's hear it.

And just to show you anyone can make up any old bollocks they like, here's my completely spurious argument for what would have happened if there was no conspiracy:

1) O P Wright, upon seeing a picture of CE399 would have immediately said, "That's the bullet, there can be no doubt about it".
2) Agents Johnsen and Rowley would have put their initials on CE399 as their most basic training would've required.
3) When asked to identify CE399, Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley would have all sung in barber-shop hamony style, "C-E-3-9-9 is the bullet in question, and we ain't lyin'." Or maybe cheerleader style, "Give us a "C", give us an "E"...etc"

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 13, 2023, 08:50:56 PM
As usual, instead of dealing with actual evidence, and the arguments stemming from that evidence, I have presented in my previous posts, you have decided to counter with some sort of stream-of conscious, evidence-free, garbled speculation.

Fact - O P Wright, the civilian who hands over the bullet into the official chain of custody, categorically states that the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen was NOT CE399.
It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967.  It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was. 

What I am saying is that real evidence fits together and makes sense.

Quote
From this we can assume the bullet carried by Johnsen and given to Rowley in Washington was the pointy-tipped bullet Wright is unequivocally stating he gave to Johnsen.
I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175).  I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.

Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399 or at least a photo of it when he examined him under oath in March 1964 (6 H 128).  But I don't see any reason to think that Specter was trying to hide anything. The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

Quote
Fact - experienced Secret Service agent Johnsen and Head of Secret Service Rowley, both "forget" to initial CE399, a most basic prerequisite when handling evidence. And the importance of this particular piece of evidence cannot be understated.
It can be safely assumed that both men are aware that they must initial this evidence in order to maintain the chain of custody, so we are being expected to believe both men knowingly destroyed the chain of evidence. Key evidence in the murder of the President of the United States.
Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators?  How do we know that?   It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI. 

Quote
Let's forget the stupid notion of CE399 just falling out of Connally's leg as if a bullet entering flesh was like a hole drilled in wood and if you turn it upside down the bullet just falls out. It's not worth getting dragged into the silliness of that argument.
Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with.
I actually agree with you on this.  CE399 did not go through JBC.  CE399 was the first shot.  There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK.  JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot.  He never felt the thigh shot.  It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher.  It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 13, 2023, 09:16:08 PM
Rather than this rabbit-hole nonsense, are there any "LNers" on the Forum who would like to start up a new Forum (or a sub-Forum here with invitation-only posters)?

There are some posters here who want to research the assassination and/or recreate it through 3D. No problem with an "LNer" like Mason who accepts most of the evidence and official findings in its totality but who has a unique theory, which I found interesting enough to investigate through 3D. Other "LNers" might want to make a full-scale build of the SN box arrangement or the paper package used to transport the rifle, or conduct Carcano firing tests, for example. Maybe some medical experts might be tempted to join.

The rabbit-hole CTs and impossible-standard "skeptics" can stay with the Forum or request their own sub-Forum.
If we were to have a discussion between LNers the main points in contention appear to be:

1. the timing of the shots, SBT, which shot Tague was struck on, whether and which shot missed (whether the head shot was the last shot)
2. why JFK recoils rearward after the head shot.

It might just be simpler to start new threads.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 13, 2023, 10:17:49 PM
Jerry wants an echo chamber of people who all share the same faith-based dogma and pretend to do “research” that reinforces what they already believe.

Don’t let the door smack you in the ass.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 13, 2023, 10:26:02 PM
It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967.  It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was. 

What I am saying is that real evidence fits together and makes sense.
I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175).  I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.

Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399 or at least a photo of it when he examined him under oath in March 1964 (6 H 128).  But I don't see any reason to think that Specter was trying to hide anything. The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.
Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators?  How do we know that?   It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI. 
I actually agree with you on this.  CE399 did not go through JBC.  CE399 was the first shot.  There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK.  JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot.  He never felt the thigh shot.  It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher.  It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.

It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.

Wrong, he didn't recognize it because he was never shown the bullet. S.A. Odum who, according to CE2011, is supposed to have shown CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright denied that he did so.

The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

What bullet would that be? In order to identify where Tomlinson found "the bullet" one first has to establish which bullet one is talking about? And why not simply to both things? Identify the bullet and the location? During Humes' testimony, didn't Specter introduce CE399 into evidence subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally?

Tomlinson was the only person who could identify the bullet and the location where he found it. IMO Specter did noy ask him a single question about the bullet because he could not risk Tomlinson saying on the record that the bullet shown to him wasn't the one he had found.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 13, 2023, 10:30:05 PM
Jerry wants an echo chamber of people who all share the same faith-based dogma and pretend to do “research” that reinforces what they already believe.

Don’t let the door smack you in the ass.

 Thumb1:

Mr. Organ & Co.----------in reluctant exile from the defunct McAdams newsgroup---------find real debate triggering. These smug gentlemen think they own this case, because they have the establishment on their side, and are made deeply uncomfortable by the regular reminders they get here that they don't. And now they want a safe space where they can disagree on minutiae whilst reassuring each other their understanding of the case is not completely bonkers.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 13, 2023, 11:16:54 PM
Jerry wants an echo chamber of people who all share the same faith-based dogma and pretend to do “research” that reinforces what they already believe.

Collins and I recently worked together on the carton box sizes. And before that, the palm-print size on the rifle barrel. But not without pages of rabbit-hole distraction. Just a sub-Forum for "LNers" versus hundreds of pro-CT Forums and blogs; this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.

Don’t let the door smack you in the ass.

I am on the verge of leaving.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Richard Smith on March 13, 2023, 11:39:00 PM
Collins and I recently worked together on the carton box sizes. And before that, the palm-print size on the rifle barrel. But not without pages of rabbit-hole distraction. Just a sub-Forum for "LNers" versus hundreds of pro-CT Forums and blogs; this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.



You don't believe that Oswald was on the front steps waving a Cuban flag?  And that Buell Frazier was secretly signaling that Oswald was standing on the stairs because he posed for a picture decades later with a finger extended?  This case is straightforward and simple.  Oswald did it.  Everyone knows that including many of these nuts since they never take their evidence to anyone other than the Internet.  What is going on now is just a circus to pass the time. 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2023, 12:21:43 AM
Collins and I recently worked together on the carton box sizes. And before that, the palm-print size on the rifle barrel. But not without pages of rabbit-hole distraction. Just a sub-Forum for "LNers" versus hundreds of pro-CT Forums and blogs; this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.

~Grin~

You & your buddies are in a panic at having completely lost control of the narrative. All you can do at this point is gaslight, distract, run away------------and then misrepresent what it was you ran away from. But, without Prof. McAdams' biased 'moderation' to protect you, all you do is reveal yourselves, to the many smart folks reading, for what you are: shameless peddlers of misinformation.

Your beloved cause is toast, Mr. Organ. You lost. Bye!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2023, 12:27:43 AM
You don't believe that Oswald was on the front steps waving a Cuban flag?  And that Buell Frazier was secretly signaling that Oswald was standing on the stairs because he posed for a picture decades later with a finger extended?  This case is straightforward and simple.  Oswald did it.  Everyone knows that including many of these nuts since they never take their evidence to anyone other than the Internet.  What is going on now is just a circus to pass the time.

~Grin~

Like Mr. Organ, Mr. Smith flees questions he can't answer, and then spins his humiliation into a glorious victory.

It just ain't working anymore, guys!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Richard Smith on March 14, 2023, 12:47:37 AM
~Grin~

Like Mr. Organ, Mr. Smith flees questions he can't answer, and then spins his humiliation into a glorious victory.

It just ain't working anymore, guys!

 Thumb1:

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2023, 12:52:18 AM

Grumpy is back....  :D
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 14, 2023, 12:54:38 AM
~Grin~

You & your buddies are in a panic at having completely lost control of the narrative. All you can do at this point is gaslight, distract, run away------------and then misrepresent what it was you ran away from. But, without Prof. McAdams' biased 'moderation' to protect you, all you do is reveal yourselves, to the many smart folks reading, for what you are: shameless peddlers of misinformation.

Your beloved cause is toast, Mr. Organ. You lost. Bye!

 Thumb1:

I might have posted ten times on the moderated forum. Seems like it didn't lack for CTers.

Getting time to bump "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" back to the top.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2023, 02:14:09 AM
I might have posted ten times on the moderated forum. Seems like it didn't lack for CTers.

Getting time to bump "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" back to the top.

'Please everyone, stop looking at that doorway-----------we have BOXES to model!'

 :D

But let's leave Mr. Organ to nurse his wounds as he prepares to retreat into his proposed Warren Gullible gated community. This thread needs to get back on topic: the demolition of Mr. Mason's nonsense by Messrs. O'Meara & Weidmann
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 14, 2023, 01:24:07 PM
this Forum's lead Topic for years is Alan Ford's "Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )" about Lovelady being Oswald.

Well you obviously haven’t read any of it if you think Alan is saying that Lovelady is Oswald.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 14, 2023, 01:38:21 PM
Well you obviously haven’t read any of it if you think Alan is saying that Lovelady is Oswald.

Thank you, Mr. Iacoletti---------I am saying that Mr. Organ is saying that Mr. Oswald is Mr. Lovelady. And that Mr. Organ knows damn well he hasn't a leg to stand on. His 'threat' to flounce off this forum is his graceless way of waving the white flag. He can't take the heat of humiliation. I think what broke his spirit was the knowledge that it was his own posting of the longer Hughes GIF that put the capstone on his defeat.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 14, 2023, 05:05:40 PM
It depends on how reliable and accurate O.P. Wright's memory was in 1967.  It also depends on how reliable and accurate Josiah Thompson's account of his interaction with Wright was. 

What I am saying is that real evidence fits together and makes sense.
I am not sure how "unequivocal" he was in 1966. Thompson says "he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story" that the bullet he gave to Johnsen had a pointed tip. (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 175).  I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked. But he also did not deny it like Thompson would have us believe he did in November 1966.

It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj1HKkJx/Stretcher-Bullet1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.
You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.
And then you come up with this gem:

I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.

Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??
Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen. Wright is absolutely certain the bullet he handed over to Johnsen is NOT CE399. Sometime later Wright is shown CE399 and he refuses to identify it as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day. Tomlinson also refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day.
There is nothing wrong with Wright's memory and his decades spent as a cop give him a good idea about different types of bullet. And the bullet he handled that day is a completely different type of bullet to the one he is asked to identify.

Quote
Having said that, it is somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399 or at least a photo of it when he examined him under oath in March 1964 (6 H 128).  But I don't see any reason to think that Specter was trying to hide anything. The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:

"Mr. Tomlinson, the purpose of this deposition proceeding is to take your deposition in connection with an inquiry made by the President's Commission in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy to determine from you all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy..."

The whole point of the deposition is to determine from Tomlinson "all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy."
"ALL THE FACTS."

But that's not what happens.
Tomlinson is called to testify because he is the man who discovered the bullet in Parkland.
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??
Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."


But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?
Surely it's because Specter knows that Tomlinson will not identify CE399 as the bullet he found that day. Worse, he might start describing the bullet with the pointed tip. This also feeds into the fact that Tomlinson is not brought before the WC to give his testimony, which is instead given at Parkland with only Specter and a court reporter in attendance. No awkward (or obvious) questions from anyone else.
The notion that Tomlinson was there to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery is a sick joke.

Quote
Secret Service agents are trained as law enforcement officers or investigators?  How do we know that?   It seems that no one wanted to take responsibility for it and kept passing it off until it eventually reached Todd who then turned it over to the FBI.

Your inference, that the Head of the Secret Service was unfamiliar with the concept of a chain of custody, is derisory.
There is a far more important point to be made here.
The last paragraph of the declassified Shanklin memo states the following:

"Obtain C1 (the original classification of CE399) from FBI laboratory and thereafter immediately exhibit to SA ROBERT E. JOHNSEN, Secret Service, who is attached to White House detail, and to JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, Secret Service, to have C1 identified."

Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.
Remember, it was Todd who was showing them the bullet - Todd, the man who received the bullet from Rowley, was asking Rowley to acknowledge that the bullet Todd was showing him was the bullet he gave him. Basically, it's as if Todd was telling him "this is the bullet you gave me that day. I am telling you this was the bullet you gave me. now, say you recognise it?"
But both Rowley and Johnsen refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. I can only imagine it was because the bullet they were being asked to identify (CE399), was so different from the bullet they handled, that they refused to identify it.
It's really extraordinary that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399.
It's really coincidental that the only men to put their initials on the bullet have no problem recognising it.

Quote
I actually agree with you on this.  CE399 did not go through JBC.  CE399 was the first shot.  There is no clear evidence as to where it went after passing through JFK.  JBC said he was hit in the back on the second shot.  He never felt the thigh shot.  It would not be surprising if the bullet stuck in his left thigh and came out of his thigh when they put him on the stretcher.  It might have been spinning rapidly after exiting JFK's neck (it came out under his tie), struck JBC's thigh and kept going - landing somehow on the outside of his clothing. It is not something that can be determined because we don't have evidence of anything except the general trajectory.

This paragraph is so mental, I don't know where to begin.
So I won't bother.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 14, 2023, 05:17:01 PM
It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Kj1HKkJx/Stretcher-Bullet1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.
You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.
And then you come up with this gem:

I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.

Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??
Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen. Wright is absolutely certain the bullet he handed over to Johnsen is NOT CE399. Sometime later Wright is shown CE399 and he refuses to identify it as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day. Tomlinson also refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day because it is NOT the bullet he handled that day.
There is nothing wrong with Wright's memory and his decades spent as a cop give him a good idea about different types of bullet. And the bullet he handled that day is a completely different type of bullet to the one he is asked to identify.

The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:

"Mr. Tomlinson, the purpose of this deposition proceeding is to take your deposition in connection with an inquiry made by the President's Commission in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy to determine from you all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy..."

The whole point of the deposition is to determine from Tomlinson "all the facts, if any, which you know concerning the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy."
"ALL THE FACTS."

But that's not what happens.
Tomlinson is called to testify because he is the man who discovered the bullet in Parkland.
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??
Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."


But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?
Surely it's because Specter knows that Tomlinson will not identify CE399 as the bullet he found that day. Worse, he might start describing the bullet with the pointed tip. This also feeds into the fact that Tomlinson is not brought before the WC to give his testimony, which is instead given at Parkland with only Specter and a court reporter in attendance. No awkward (or obvious) questions from anyone else.
The notion that Tomlinson was there to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery is a sick joke.

Your inference, that the Head of the Secret Service was unfamiliar with the concept of a chain of custody, is derisory.
There is a far more important point to be made here.
The last paragraph of the declassified Shanklin memo states the following:

"Obtain C1 (the original classification of CE399) from FBI laboratory and thereafter immediately exhibit to SA ROBERT E. JOHNSEN, Secret Service, who is attached to White House detail, and to JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, Secret Service, to have C1 identified."

Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.
Remember, it was Todd who was showing them the bullet - Todd, the man who received the bullet from Rowley, was asking Rowley to acknowledge that the bullet Todd was showing him was the bullet he gave him. Basically, it's as if Todd was telling him "this is the bullet you gave me that day. I am telling you this was the bullet you gave me. now, say you recognise it?"
But both Rowley and Johnsen refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. I can only imagine it was because the bullet they were being asked to identify (CE399), was so different from the bullet they handled, that they refused to identify it.
It's really extraordinary that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley refuse to identify CE399.
It's really coincidental that the only men to put their initials on the bullet have no problem recognising it.

This paragraph is so mental, I don't know where to begin.
So I won't bother.

What he said..... Thumb1:

Andrew is trying to marginalize the chain of custody and completely ignores that Arlen Specter introduced the bullet we now know as CE399 into evidence during Dr. Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it is the bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
Obviously, that proof was never provided!

Not only that, but he also ignores that the WC asked the FBI for authentication of many pieces of evidence, including CE399, which would have been a strange thing to do if the chain of custody wasn't important.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 14, 2023, 11:51:02 PM
It's very difficult to take you seriously sometimes.
Wright is adamant CE399 is not the pointed bullet he gave to Johnsen. He couldn't be any more certain. From the outset of the interview with Thompson he states the bullet found that day had a pointed tip. He even produces such a bullet to demonstrate exactly what he's talking about - this is not the display of someone who is in any way unsure of what he's talking about:

According to Thompson, Wright was an ex-deputy Chief of Police, someone who "had an educated eye for bullets". Wright is then shown photos of CE399 and flatly denies that this is the pointed bullet he hands over to Johnsen. Wright then repeats this categorical denial in front of witnesses. Wright is unequivocal that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to Johnsen.

You counter Wright's certainty by noting that he was "prepared to stick by his story"!!
How you imagine that Wright being prepared to stick by his story is a sign of uncertainty is beyond me. He will not be swayed from his denial of CE399 as the bullet he handed over to Johnsen, and you imagine that his refusal to be swayed is a sign of uncertainty!
You seem to be arguing that Wright's certainty is a sign of his uncertainty!!
You really are something else.
Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.
Quote
And then you come up with this gem:

I am also not sure how reliable we can expect Wright's memory of this to be 3 years after the fact. It wasn't very good 6 months after the fact (CE2011) because he couldn't recognize it when asked.

Unbelievably, you seem to be arguing that, because Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet Tomlinson discovered, he has a bad memory!!
Really??
Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!
Quote
Let me run you through the argument I've been presenting in my previous posts;
Tomlinson discovers a bullet on the ground floor of Parkland. Wright enters the same area and Tomlinson calls him over to check out the bullet. The bullet Wright sees has a pointed tip and this is the bullet he hands over to SA Johnsen.
When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.
Quote
The point in speaking with Tomlinson was not to identify CE399 but to identify where the bullet that he found came from.

As I've already stated in a previous post, at the beginning of Tomlinson's deposition, Specter makes it absolutely clear what the point of speaking to Tomlinson is:
...
It is not "somewhat surprising that Arlen Specter did not show Tomlinson the bullet CE399", it is a staggering failure of the purpose of the deposition.
Tomlinson is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!!
How is this determining "all the facts"??

Specter goes out of his way not to ask this question. He keeps asking Tomlinson about the positioning of the stretchers which Tomlinson answers:

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that much attention to it..."


But Specter keeps asking him the same question over and over and Tomlinson keeps telling him he can't be sure.
And that's that!
Not a single question about the bullet.
Why not?
As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.

Quote
Because both Johnsen and Rowley destroyed the chain of custody by not putting their initials on the bullet, it might be expected they would be more than willing to make amends when asked to identify the bullet they handled that day.
Both men refuse to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day!!
Both have destroyed the opportunity to have CE399 placed in the chain of custody, not once, but twice!
The only plausible explanation for this incredible refusal is that CE399 is not the bullet they handled that day. If they really couldn't remember it was the bullet (and let's remember both Todd and Frazier had no problem remembering the bullet), they could still have played along and agreed it was the bullet that Todd received from Rowley later in the evening of the day of the assassination.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2023, 12:38:19 AM
What he said..... Thumb1:

Andrew is trying to marginalize the chain of custody and completely ignores that Arlen Specter introduced the bullet we now know as CE399 into evidence during Dr. Humes' testimony, subject to later proof that it is the bullet that was found at Parkland Hospital.
Obviously, that proof was never provided!

Not only that, but he also ignores that the WC asked the FBI for authentication of many pieces of evidence, including CE399, which would have been a strange thing to do if the chain of custody wasn't important.

At least Specter was qualifying CE399 as "subject to later proof". During Frazier's testimony, Eisenberg couldn't even be bothered with that nicety:

Mr. Eisenberg: Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?
Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.


Just in case you didn't know, Mr Frazier, this is the bullet which was found at Parkland (for the record)!!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2023, 12:46:05 AM
Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 
  • "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
    to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.

Every single sentence of your post is utter waffle, devoid of any content.
As usual, you have forgotten that these threads are a written record , any readers interested in the arguments presented can read through the last few pages and judge for themselves the strength of these arguments.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 15, 2023, 01:10:35 AM
Every single sentence of your post is utter waffle, devoid of any content.
It obviously has content. You just don't find it persuasive.
Quote
As usual, you have forgotten that these threads are a written record , any readers interested in the arguments presented can read through the last few pages and judge for themselves the strength of these arguments.
That is exactly what the forum is for!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2023, 01:44:34 AM
Thompson also thought that it was unequivocal that Tomlinson had not found the bullet on Connally's stretcher. You want to rely on Thompson's description of Wright's answer to conclude that Wright was absolutely certain.

If Wright was absolutely certain, why would he ask Thompson if the Secret Service was saying that he had handed over a different bullet?  Does this sound like he was absolutely certain (Six Seconds, p. 175)?: 
  • "Sometime later he asked me if one of the pictures I had shown him was supposed
    to be the bullet found on the stretcher. I replied, "Yes," and he seemed quite prepared to stick by his story."

The degree of sureness of a witness that is less than 100% is often an indication that they are really not sure at all.  The fact that Wright asked Thompson whether the photographs showed the bullet that the Secret Service said was the one he had given them indicates he was not really sure.

Even if they feel sure, witnesses can be mistaken for many reasons. There are many reasons Wright may have remembered it as a pointy bullet - e.g. because that is the kind of bullet that he was familiar with.  The 6.5 mm. round tip bullet was not a typical or usual kind of bullet. No hand gun would use such a shaped bullet. It is not clear how familiar Wright was with rifle ammunition.Six months after the assassination he could not recognize CE399 as the bullet.  According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.  So six months after he was uncertain.  But 3 years later he is absolutely certain?!.   Memories do not improve with age!When does Wright say he saw that it had a pointed tip? The first time that I am aware was in 1966. That is not seeing that the bullet had a pointed tip. That is thinking in 1966 that the bullet he saw in 1963 had a pointed tip. Big difference.As I said, it is a bit surprising. But I can understand it because no one was, at that time, suggesting that CE399 was not the bullet.  The issue was where it came from.  By suggesting that Specter was deliberately not asking him to identify CE399 because Tomlinson would say it was a different bullet you are suggesting that Specter was trying to prevent the Commission from concluding there was a conspiracy.  The evidence shows otherwise.  David Belin wrote in his book Final Disclosure that they were all trying to find evidence of a conspiracy.
If officers were expected to remember an object in evidence by what it looked like, they would not need to initial the object.  The very reason investigators put their initials on the exhibit is because they will likely be unable to identify the object from just its appearance.  So Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley's inability to identify it from appearance should not be surprising.

According to CE2011 Wright did not say that CE399 was not the bullet he held.

You keep relying on CE2011 despite the fact that SA Odum is on record saying that he never showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

CE2011 also doesn't match with SAC Dallas Gorden Shanklin's airtel. CE2011 is a fabrication by the FBI!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2023, 01:48:04 AM
This is not an area of the case I've given that much thought to in the past but my understanding of the evidence as it stands leads me to really suspect that CE399 was introduced into the evidence chain at some point.
As I don't believe Oswald actually took the shots that day I am, by default, a Conspiracy Theorist. For Lone Nutters it's plain sailing, your narrative has been provided for you, your thinking has been done for you and, although there may be small variations in specific details, the outcome is set in stone. As a Cter I am part of a spectrum of thinking that ranges from eminently sensible through to I'm-riding-a-unicorn-to-my-nearest-mothership.
I'm a minimalist, that is to say, things happened as per the official narrative except it wasn't Oswald who took the shots. Even this leads to massive, unprovable assumptions.
But now I find myself being dragged into a much larger conspiracy and I find I have to play Devil's Advocate against myself!
The arguments I've presented in the last few pages are leading me to suspect FBI agent Elmer Todd as the person who introduced CE399 into the chain of custody. This leads to a massive problem as far as a conspiracy is concerned:

If CE399 is introduced into the chain of custody at the FBI lab in Washington on the evening of the 22nd, how is this possible if the rifle this bullet was fired from didn't get to the same FBI lab until the morning of the 23rd?

It seems beyond unlikely that Todd had a slightly distorted bullet on his person that could be matched to the MC. As Andrew has already pointed out, it is the completely random discovery of a bullet at Parkland that has led to the possibility that CE399 could be introduced in the first place.
The idea that Todd had this slightly distorted bullet on him just in case someone found a random bullet at Parkland is a non-starter.

I've no doubt the Unicorn Crew will have an instant solution to this problem.
But I'm not in a position where I can say "Wow, that's such a difficult question to answer I might as well ignore what the evidence is actually saying."
Maybe Wright is wrong or lying when he says the bullet had a pointed tip.
Maybe Thompson misunderstood or lied about what Wright actually said.
Maybe Johnsen didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Rowley didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Tomlinson genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Wright genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Johnsen genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Rowley genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe a bullet passing through two men, smashing bones on the way, doesn't leave a trace on the bullet.
Maybe a bullet can just fall out of a persons body.
Maybe Specter genuinely forgot to ask Tomlinson about the bullet.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...

On one hand, the evidence strongly suggests CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody, on the other, how could anyone have known that it needed to be introduced into the chain of custody.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 15, 2023, 05:10:50 AM
This might be a bit of a quibble,

Yes it is.
No, not really.

However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence.

Only in theory, because it can never been determined with 100% certainty that complete information is available in a particular case.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

[turn out left pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here

[turn out right pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.

I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2023, 12:50:18 PM
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

You has a strawman argeyment
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2023, 02:38:04 PM
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

[turn out left pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here

[turn out right pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.

I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED

Why am I not surprised that you once again have started to argue in your special tedious way. It's pathetic.... and, yes I know, you disagree. Bye
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 15, 2023, 04:22:48 PM
This is not an area of the case I've given that much thought to in the past but my understanding of the evidence as it stands leads me to really suspect that CE399 was introduced into the evidence chain at some point.
As I don't believe Oswald actually took the shots that day I am, by default, a Conspiracy Theorist. For Lone Nutters it's plain sailing, your narrative has been provided for you, your thinking has been done for you and, although there may be small variations in specific details, the outcome is set in stone. As a Cter I am part of a spectrum of thinking that ranges from eminently sensible through to I'm-riding-a-unicorn-to-my-nearest-mothership.
I'm a minimalist, that is to say, things happened as per the official narrative except it wasn't Oswald who took the shots. Even this leads to massive, unprovable assumptions.
But now I find myself being dragged into a much larger conspiracy and I find I have to play Devil's Advocate against myself!
The arguments I've presented in the last few pages are leading me to suspect FBI agent Elmer Todd as the person who introduced CE399 into the chain of custody. This leads to a massive problem as far as a conspiracy is concerned:

If CE399 is introduced into the chain of custody at the FBI lab in Washington on the evening of the 22nd, how is this possible if the rifle this bullet was fired from didn't get to the same FBI lab until the morning of the 23rd?

It seems beyond unlikely that Todd had a slightly distorted bullet on his person that could be matched to the MC. As Andrew has already pointed out, it is the completely random discovery of a bullet at Parkland that has led to the possibility that CE399 could be introduced in the first place.
The idea that Todd had this slightly distorted bullet on him just in case someone found a random bullet at Parkland is a non-starter.

I've no doubt the Unicorn Crew will have an instant solution to this problem.
But I'm not in a position where I can say "Wow, that's such a difficult question to answer I might as well ignore what the evidence is actually saying."
Maybe Wright is wrong or lying when he says the bullet had a pointed tip.
Maybe Thompson misunderstood or lied about what Wright actually said.
Maybe Johnsen didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Rowley didn't know he was supposed to initial the bullet.
Maybe Tomlinson genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Wright genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Johnsen genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe Rowley genuinely forgot what CE399 looked like.
Maybe a bullet passing through two men, smashing bones on the way, doesn't leave a trace on the bullet.
Maybe a bullet can just fall out of a persons body.
Maybe Specter genuinely forgot to ask Tomlinson about the bullet.
Maybe, maybe, maybe...

On one hand, the evidence strongly suggests CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody, on the other, how could anyone have known that it needed to be introduced into the chain of custody.
You have expressed the problem better than I could.  The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated. 

I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.

C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact.  And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2023, 07:10:22 PM
You have expressed the problem better than I could.  The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated. 

I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.

C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact.  And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.

You have expressed the problem better than I could.

That's because I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what's going on and allowing the evidence to guide my opinion. Unlike you, who's only interest is to peddle your long defunct theory that only you believe in.

The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated. 

Wrong.
The litany of problems I have outlined in my previous posts ALL go away if it is assumed Todd placed CE399 into the chain of custody.
What happens is that a new set of problems arise.
Even if it is planted evidence, I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?
No-one could have expected the random discovery of a bullet at Parkland so it is difficult to imagine CE399 would have been "pre-prepared." I find it most unlikely Todd had a stash of bullets on him that matched the MC before the assassination occurred.
Another problem that arises when CE399 is taken out of the picture can be summed up by the question - What happened to all the bullets?
Without CE399 there are enough fragments to just about make a single bullet. What happened to the other two bullets that were supposed to have been fired from the SN?

I've no doubt there are other significant problems I haven't thought of yet.

I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.

I've read this sentence a few times but can't make out what it means. Because you use he phrase "I am alone on this", I can only assume it is a reference to your dead theory.

C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact.  And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.

Putting aside your obvious attempt to shoehorn your dead theory into proceedings, I think there is something to what you're saying.
CE399 has been fired through/into something. I doubt there are few who would disagree with that. If it is planted evidence I have to assume that whoever fired it was trying to mimic what they thought the bullet should look like. They were trying to replicate the damage a bullet should have sustained in a specific scenario. This automatically rules out trying to mimic a bullet that caused the wounds to Connally as, common sense would dictate, this would require a bullet with a smashed nose.
Was it assumed on the night of the assassination that there had been three hits - one through JFK's neck, one causing the damage to Connally and the headshot. If so, the only bullet they could have been trying to replicate would have been the one that passed through JFK's neck.
This, alone, creates a whole slew of new problems if CE399 was planted into evidence.

It's getting tricky. ???
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2023, 07:48:49 PM
You have expressed the problem better than I could.

That's because I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what's going on and allowing the evidence to guide my opinion. Unlike you, who's only interest is to peddle your long defunct theory that only you believe in.

The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated. 

Wrong.
The litany of problems I have outlined in my previous posts ALL go away if it is assumed Todd placed CE399 into the chain of custody.
What happens is that a new set of problems arise.
Even if it is planted evidence, I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?
No-one could have expected the random discovery of a bullet at Parkland so it is difficult to imagine CE399 would have been "pre-prepared." I find it most unlikely Todd had a stash of bullets on him that matched the MC before the assassination occurred.
Another problem that arises when CE399 is taken out of the picture can be summed up by the question - What happened to all the bullets?
Without CE399 there are enough fragments to just about make a single bullet. What happened to the other two bullets that were supposed to have been fired from the SN?

I've no doubt there are other significant problems I haven't thought of yet.

I realize that I am alone on this, but CE399 did not have to cause a lot of bone damage without deforming.

I've read this sentence a few times but can't make out what it means. Because you use he phrase "I am alone on this", I can only assume it is a reference to your dead theory.

C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact.  And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.

Putting aside your obvious attempt to shoehorn your dead theory into proceedings, I think there is something to what you're saying.
CE399 has been fired through/into something. I doubt there are few who would disagree with that. If it is planted evidence I have to assume that whoever fired it was trying to mimic what they thought the bullet should look like. They were trying to replicate the damage a bullet should have sustained in a specific scenario. This automatically rules out trying to mimic a bullet that caused the wounds to Connally as, common sense would dictate, this would require a bullet with a smashed nose.
Was it assumed on the night of the assassination that there had been three hits - one through JFK's neck, one causing the damage to Connally and the headshot. If so, the only bullet they could have been trying to replicate would have been the one that passed through JFK's neck.
This, alone, creates a whole slew of new problems if CE399 was planted into evidence.

It's getting tricky. ???

I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?

What makes you think that the bullet must have been fired that friday night? If we consider it to be possible that Todd switched the bullet, then why wouldn't also be possible that he marked the switched bullet at a later moment?But it's also possible that somebody else just scratched the initials on the new bullet, so that Todd could indeed recognize his mark.

It is a fact that the Parkland bullet and the rifle were both in Washington on saturday 11/23/63. It's possible the FBI knew early on that the bullet found at Parkland did not match the rifle. With Hoover already having stated that Oswald was the lone gunman, just how easy would it have been to switch the bullet on saturday and mark it with Todd's initials.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 15, 2023, 08:56:38 PM
I have to assume that CE399 must have been fired from the MC found on the 6th floor. A bullet fired from a different rifle would have easily been detected by anyone else inspecting it and would have instantly rang alarm bells. How could this have been done if CE399 was at the FBI lab in Washington and the MC was still in Dallas?

What makes you think that the bullet must have been fired that friday night? If we consider it to be possible that Todd switched the bullet, then why wouldn't also be possible that he marked the switched bullet at a later moment?But it's also possible that somebody else just scratched the initials on the new bullet, so that Todd could indeed recognize his mark.

It is a fact that the Parkland bullet and the rifle were both in Washington on saturday 11/23/63. It's possible the FBI knew early on that the bullet found at Parkland did not match the rifle. With Hoover already having stated that Oswald was the lone gunman, just how easy would it have been to switch the bullet on saturday and mark it with Todd's initials.

What makes you think that the bullet must have been fired that friday night?

I don't think the bullet must have been fired on Friday.
That's the point I'm making - it can't have been fired Friday as the MC was still in Dallas.
As you say, the evidence Drain brings from Dallas doesn't get to the FBI lab until Saturday morning - for argument's sake, let's say 8:00am.
It seems likely that it is at this time a very large problem raises it's head.

Time for a bit of imaginative speculation:
Tomlinson finds the bullet with the pointed tip and calls over Wright.
Wright finds SA Johnsen and gives him the bullet. Johnsen even initials it.
Johnsen gives it to Rowley and maybe he initials it as well.
Rowley gives the bullet to Todd who also initials it.
And Todd gives it to Frazier who initials it and assigns it Q1.

Early on Saturday morning, the evidence from Dallas arrives and among the evidence is an unspent bullet taken from the MC.
The order has come down from the very top - "Oswald is the lone assassin, Make It So!"
Frazier looks at the unspent bullet and then looks at the pointy-tipped bullet, Q1, and realises he has a problem on his hands. The pointy-tipped bullet has nothing to do with the assassination. He looks at the few bullet fragments that have been recovered and realises he doesn't have enough bullets.
What to do?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 15, 2023, 09:22:07 PM
You have expressed the problem better than I could.

That's because I am genuinely interested in trying to understand what's going on and allowing the evidence to guide my opinion. Unlike you, who's only interest is to peddle your long defunct theory that only you believe in.
Well, at least no one can accuse you of munificence!

It is not theory that we disagree on. It is the essential facts and the evidence to support them.

You agree with me that the first shot struck JFK. But where we disagree is on the third shot.  I maintain that the head shot was the third shot. There is evidence to support that. Lots of evidence.  You reject that evidence and prefer the evidence of a few that suggests the head shot was the second shot and there was a shot after the head shot.

So my "long defunct theory" is based on the first shot that you agree with and the third shot that almost everyone else agrees with.  If those are the facts establishing shots 1 and 3, and I suggest there is overwhelming evidence to support those two facts, then it is just a matter of trying to locate the time of the second shot. The 1......2...3 shot pattern (which is not a theory but is simply a conclusion that the abundant evidence of such a pattern is reliable) then tells you when/where the second shot occurred.

Quote
The problems with CE399 are not solved by saying it was planted by Todd. They only get more complicated. 

Wrong.
The litany of problems I have outlined in my previous posts ALL go away if it is assumed Todd placed CE399 into the chain of custody.
What happens is that a new set of problems arise.
Yes, but they are still problems with CE399!!
Quote
C399 is genuine because it was fired by C2766 and the trajectory of the first shot through JFK went to JBC's left side where there was minimal damage to JBC or to the car. That bullet had to have remained intact.  And prior to Robert Frazier receiving it from Todd, there was no way that this would have been known.

...This automatically rules out trying to mimic a bullet that caused the wounds to Connally as, common sense would dictate, this would require a bullet with a smashed nose.

Was it assumed on the night of the assassination that there had been three hits - one through JFK's neck, one causing the damage to Connally and the headshot. If so, the only bullet they could have been trying to replicate would have been the one that passed through JFK's neck.
Exactly my point.  CE399 does not have to explain JBC's chest and wrist wounds and until March 1964 no one was suggesting that CE399 caused those wounds. Then David Belin came along and had Robert Frazier opine that JBC could not have been hit after z240 (an opinion that, in my view, he was not qualified nor sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts to give).  Since the FBI had mistakenly concluded that the first shot occurred no earlier than z210, that did not leave enough time for two shots (one for JFK and one for JBC).  That is when Arlen Specter came up with the SBT.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 15, 2023, 10:14:40 PM
You has a strawman argeyment
Not a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation. I replied with an example where complete information is achievable. That is, Martin responded directly to what I said, and I responded directly to what he said.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 15, 2023, 11:14:39 PM
You has a strawman argeyment

Alan, I wish you all the best if you are planning to debate Todd, but be aware that he will try to drag you down to his level.
Either that or he will keep on arguing, with pathetic arguments, until you lose all energy and want to jump off a cliff.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 15, 2023, 11:38:22 PM
Not a strawman at all. Martin said something that is commonly said --and maybe based on some grain of truth-- but isn't correct. Martin responded with t o the effect that impossible to have complete information about a situation.

No he didn'tses. He used the word "case", meaning criminal case. You then cutely strawmanned what he'd said.

Now go bore someone else with your pocketful of nonsenses

 ::)
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 16, 2023, 05:00:02 AM
Alan, I wish you all the best if you are planning to debate Todd, but be aware that he will try to drag you down to his level.
Either that or he will keep on arguing, with pathetic arguments, until you lose all energy and want to jump off a cliff.
Martin, why is it that every time you try to come off High and Mighty you wind up making yourself look huffy and prissy?

Anyway, any "descent" you make is purely your own doing. Don't blame me for your own mistakes.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 16, 2023, 05:07:41 AM
No he didn'tses. He used the word "case", meaning criminal case. You then cutely strawmanned what he'd said.

Now go bore someone else with your pocketful of nonsenses

 ::)
I'm the person who brought the word "case" into the discussion ("However, in cases where complete information is available, then absence of evidence is absolute proof of absence."). I meant it in the most general, Mirriam-Webster-definition-1.a. meaning: "a set of circumstances or conditions."

Unlike you, I cannot speak to being able to read Martin's mind for secret meanings. While he uses the term "case" in his response, there is nothing in the context of his reply that indicates any other, more specific meaning that what I'd originally said.

Whatever you seek to impose otherwise is likely to be merely the act of your own imagination.

 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2023, 10:22:09 AM
No, not really.
Let's see. I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses?

[turn out left pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here

[turn out right pocket]

No evidence of Bentley keys here, either.

I've run out of pocketses, and having turned them out have completed the task of gathering all available information about what is in them, so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses. QED

so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses.

This statement is incorrect.
You may conclude from your example that you didn't have Bentley keys in your pocketses ( ::)) at the time you turned them out.
The Bentley keys may have been removed before you checked your pocketses, so you can't say definitively that you did not have Bentley keys in your pocketses.
What tests have been performed to detect the presence or absence Bentley key in your pocketses prior to you turning them out? We are missing key information (do you see what I did there? "Key" information. Do you get it? "Key" as in...oh, forget it..."

Even in this most basic of all examples there is not complete information.
The simplest criminal case is manifestly more complex than this, so the idea of having "complete information" is a non-starter.


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2023, 10:42:48 AM
And so the conversation we had with Andrew is going off the rails, just like Todd intended.
Have fun with the next 10 pages or so of yes vs no arguments.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2023, 11:37:41 AM
And so the conversation we had with Andrew is going off the rails, just like Todd intended.
Have fun with the next 10 pages or so of yes vs no arguments.

I don't think so.
To be honest, I reckon this thread has run it's course.
The weight of evidence regarding CE399, as it stands, strongly supports the view that it was not the bullet found by Tomlinson in Parkland.
The evidence supporting the counter-position, the CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, is almost non-existent.
It appears that at some point in the FBI lab in Washington, the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen, becomes CE399.
Beyond that we can only speculate as to what happened, who did it and why.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 16, 2023, 12:52:44 PM
I don't think so.
To be honest, I reckon this thread has run it's course.
The weight of evidence regarding CE399, as it stands, strongly supports the view that it was not the bullet found by Tomlinson in Parkland.
The evidence supporting the counter-position, the CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, is almost non-existent.
It appears that at some point in the FBI lab in Washington, the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen, becomes CE399.
Beyond that we can only speculate as to what happened, who did it and why.

Excellent work!

But whatever about the 'what' and the 'who', the answer to 'Why?' is surely logical rather than speculative..........

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2023, 02:05:08 PM
Excellent work!

But whatever about the 'what' and the 'who', the answer to 'Why?' is surely logical rather than speculative..........

 Thumb1:

Thanks Alan.

It isn't an either/or situation.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Alan Ford on March 16, 2023, 02:26:58 PM
Thanks Alan.

It isn't an either/or situation.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.

Well, whatever adjective we want to use for the answer to the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody?", the answer itself is pretty obvious: to promote a lone-gunman scenario
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 16, 2023, 04:29:58 PM
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.
Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2023, 05:41:28 PM
Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

Who said anything about all the evidence being false?

the issue is whether the evidence fits together.

No. The evidence needs to be authentic and fit together.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 16, 2023, 05:52:46 PM
Who said anything about all the evidence being false?

the issue is whether the evidence fits together.

No. The evidence needs to be authentic and fit together.
Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together: e.g. a witness says they saw the same thing that was independently reported by two other witnesses.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 16, 2023, 05:55:09 PM
Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

If your premise is that all the evidence [contradicting your dead theory] is false then there is nothing to talk about.
#fixed

What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 16, 2023, 06:24:42 PM
Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together: e.g. a witness says they saw the same thing that was independently reported by two other witnesses.

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together

No. Falsified or manipulated evidence can also fit together. In fact false evidence would normally be shaped in such a way that it would fit together.
By your logic (if it can be called that) you would be able to consider false evidence to be authentic when it clearly isn't.

Authenticity needs to be proven by a credible chain of custody.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2023, 09:16:32 PM
Dan’s argument is sound. Andrew is making the usual circular argument:

Since we know that CE 399 came from “Oswald’s rifle” (“Oswald’s rifle” — LOL), and we know that Oswald shot the president, then CE 399 must have been the bullet that Tomlinson found. Therefore Wright must have had a memory problem.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 17, 2023, 05:03:08 AM
Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.
Quote
What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 17, 2023, 11:39:19 AM

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.

A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!

Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.

But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.

The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.


Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

More importantly, there is also no evidence that CE399 is authentic. It doesn't have to be proven that it was planted. It's need to be authenticated before it can be considered credible evidence!

The defense would run rings around the prosecutor if he tried to introduce into evidence a bullet that he can not authenticate!
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 17, 2023, 02:42:29 PM
Wrong again...

The evidence only shows that Tomlinson found a bullet and gave it to Wright, who gave it to Johnsen. Wright is on record saying the bullet he gave Johnsen was pointed.
Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

Quote
A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright.

It is in now way established that the bullet Johnsen gave to Rowley was the same bullet that he received from Wright. The evidence simply doesn't show this!
It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

Quote
Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd.

The problem is that Rowley could not identify that bullet when asked to do so.
That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

Quote
But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.

No it isn't because nowhere in the evidence is it shown that it was indeed the same bullet that passed from Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, to Todd. You only claim that it is the same bullet and that's simply not good enough.
It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

Quote
The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Amazing... first he says that juries are not instructed to find facts using logic and then he tries to use flawed logic to explain why CE399 must be the bullet found by Tomlinson.
It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 17, 2023, 03:15:49 PM
Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.
It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.
That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.
It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.
It is not logic. Logic is: Premise: If A is true then B is true. Fact: A is true. Conclusion: B is true. Reason deals with setting the correct premise and determining the predicate fact. 

Reason says that the correct premise is: "If A:Tomlinson did not find CE399 then B:it must have been planted".  Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

Ok.  But Wright may be mistaken.  We don't know that he is not wrong. In fact, reason (not logic) would suggest that he is wrong.

This is pure desperation. The only "reason" is that you need the bullet to be the same one. Wright used to be a police officer and had knowledge of weapons and bullets. Your assumption that he may be mistaken is only based on your need for CE399 to be the bullet that was found at Parkland.

It is established by Johnsen saying it. The existence of evidence and the acceptance of evidence by the fact-finder are two different things.

This is another one of those "it's true because a cop said so" arguments.

That is like asking a pitcher to identify a baseball as the one that he held in his hand for a few minutes 6 months earlier.

Well, it worked with Todd! Rowley being unable to indentify the bullet resulted from his failure to mark it. The same goes for Johnsen. No pitcher ever marks a baseball.

It was not my claim.  It was the FBI's claim based on the interviews with each of the men who said that they passed on the bullet given to them.

That's what the FBI claimed in CE2011. The problem is that SA Odum, who is supposed to have interviewed all four men and showed them the bullet, denied that he ever did such a thing.

Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination by someone connected with the assassination at a time when there was no way of knowing it would fit the way the assassination unfolded. So reason says: A is false.

That's not reason. It is jumping to a conclusion not supported by all the possible facts. I agree that, in your scenario, the bullet must have been produced prior to the assassination to enable a switch at some point in the chain of custody. But just because you think this couldn't have happened, doesn't mean it didn't and/or that "A is false". Besides, there is another alternative secenario that's also possible. Tomlinson did find a pointed bullet and it was this bullet Todd marked with his initial and gave to Frazier. When they learned that this bullet did not match the MC rifle, it was switched for the one we now know as CE399. All they needed to do was scratch Todd's initial on that bullet.

None of this is really important because it does not need to be proven that CE399 was planted. The burden of proof and thus authentication is on the side that offers CE399 as evidence and we have already established that there is no authentication for that bullet.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2023, 04:41:13 PM
Reason says that if it was planted, then it must have been produced in advance of the assassination

False premise.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 18, 2023, 01:44:48 AM

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic.  They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence. You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.
The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.

That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399. The alternative - that CE399 was not found at Parkland - leads to the many absurditues that you have listed.

Wow!
I'm amazed you've let this post stand.
I can only assume you've had some kind of senior moment.

Juries are not instructed to find facts using logic. They are instructed to try to reach findings from the evidence.You may be conflating "reason" with "logic".

Reason - "The application of Logic to understand and judge something."
Without Logic there is no Reason.
Without Reason there is no Meaning.

Implying juries are not to use Logic to reach their findings based on the evidence is embarrassing.
It's the same as saying juries are not to use Reason to reach their findings.
You seem to have tenuous grasp on the concept of Logic.

Your conclusion that CE399 was planted lacks evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that it was planted.

The unequivocal, categorical insistence of O P Wright that CE399 is NOT the bullet he handed over to SA Johnsen that day is very strong evidence that CE399 was introduced into the chain of custody at a later point.
I am quite surprised that you are unaware this constitutes evidence and I'm also surprised you are unaware of it's significance.
When we look at the rest of the evidence regarding the provenance of CE399 we find that it is full of oddities, contradictions and downright strangeness.
ALL of these abnormalities disappear when we accept the testimonial evidence of O P Wright - the bullet he handed to SA Johnsen that day had a pointed tip and that CE399 was NOT the bullet that was handed into the official chain of custody that day.

After receipt of the bullet from Wright, we are supposed to believe SA Johnsen, an experienced Secret Service agent, destroyed the chain of custody for this piece of evidence by not putting initials on it. This most basic investigative procedure relating to the handling of evidence was ignored. Johnsen would have known he was destroying the chain of custody so we are being asked to believe that Johnsen knowingly destroyed the chain of custody by not putting his initials on CE399.
And let's not forget the significance of this key piece of evidence in the assassination of the President of the United States.
After receiving the bullet from SA Johnsen, James Rowley, Head of the Secret Service, also "forgot" the uphold the chain of custody by not putting his initials on the bullet. We are supposed to believe he, too, knowingly destroyed the chain of custody regarding this critical piece of evidence.
Both of these startling lapses disappear if we acknowledge Wright's testimonial evidence - the bullet both Johnsen and Rowley handled was the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen meaning both Johnsen and Rowley never had the opportunity to put their initials on CE399.
We can only assume that Rowley handed over the bullet with the pointed tip to FBI agent Elmer Todd but it vanishes, to be replaced by CE399 which is initialed by all those working in the FBI lab.
When asked to identify the bullet he discovered that day, Darrell Tomlinson refuses to identify CE399 as that bullet. Are we supposed to believe Tomlinson forgot what it looked like? That he'd discovered a bullet on a stretcher at the same time doctors in the same hospital were trying to revive JFK, and didn't think it was all that important? Are we supposed to believe he didn't know what the bullet looked like?
Of course he knew what it looked like, it had a pointed tip and looked nothing like CE399.
Wright examines the bullet with Tomlinson and realises it's significance so he looks for someone "official" to hand it to. He realises this bullet may, in some way, be connected to the assassination. But when asked to identify the bullet he handed to Johnsen, he also refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day. Because, as we've already heard, Wright is absolutely adamant the bullet he handed over to Johnsen was NOT CE399. And let's remember, Wright was ex-DPD, a man very familiar with various bullets.
When Johnsen is handed the bullet, he also realises it's importance and carries it all the way from Dallas to Washington to hand it over to the Head of the Secret Service. Are we supposed to believe he didn't examine it? That he just slipped it into his pocket and said "thanks"?
And when he is asked to identify the bullet he handled that day, he too refuses to identify CE399 as that bullet. And remember, Johnsen had already destroyed the chain of custody once and has a chance to redeem himself. Instead he destroys the chain of custody twice!
Because CE399 was not the bullet he handled that day.
Like Johnsen, by the time he is asked to identify the bullet he handled that day, Rowley fully understands it's evidentiary value. It is a crucial piece of evidence linking the rifle discovered on the 6th floor to the actual assassination. It's importance cannot be understated. He is presented CE399 by Elmer Todd, the man he handed it over to that day, and asked to identify it. And like Johnsen, he too refuses to identify CE399 as the bullet he handled that day.
The mind truly boggles.
Like Johnsen, it appears that Rowley has destroyed the chain of custody, not once but twice. However, this may not strictly be true because they may well have put their initials on the bullet they handled that day, but they didn't handle CE399 that day so their initials are not on it.

This explains why, after passing through the flesh and bone of two men, CE399 is clean when Frazier examines it - because it never passed through the flesh and bone of two men. This explains how a bullet that is gripped in the flesh of Connally's leg can just fall out - because it never fell out.
And this explains why Tomlinson, when giving his deposition for the Warren Commission, is never asked a single question about the bullet, even though the purpose of the deposition is to determine ALL THE FACTS Tomlinson is aware of surrounding the discovery of the bullet. He is asked to give a deposition because he is the man who discovered the bullet, yet he is not asked a single question about it, let alone identify it as CE399. The obvious reason for this is because he would not identify CE399 as the bullet he found that day! Why else would he be asked to give his deposition is in a room in Parkland Hospital, with only Specter and a court reporter present, and not before the Warren Commission itself as a "star witness" - the man who discovered the bullet that tied the rifle to the assassination.
Tomlinson's deposition is the clearest example of a whitewash you can have.

The evidence is that a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson. The evidence is that this bullet was, within minutes given to Wright and that, again within a few minutes, Wright gave it to Johnsen. A few minutes later Johnsen left Parkland for Washington. Later that evening in Washington Johnsen gave to Rowley the same bullet that he received from Wright. Rowley said he gave the same bullet that he received from Johnsen to Todd. Todd said he marked it and gave it to Frazier. There is unimpeachible evidence that CE 399 was fired from the C2766 rifle.
That is the evidence. It doesn't satisfy you. But it is sufficient to establish that the bullet found at Parkland is CE399.


This is an example of Logic without Reason.
It's almost child-like in it's quality.
A bullet was found at Parkland Hospital, it went from person to person until it became CE399. Therefore the bullet found at Parkland was CE399.
And that's that!
You're right, it doesn't satisfy me, but it clearly satisfies you.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 18, 2023, 06:34:08 AM
This explains why, after passing through the flesh and bone of two men, CE399 is clean when Frazier examines it - because it never passed through the flesh and bone of two men.

Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

Quote
This explains how a bullet that is gripped in the flesh of Connally's leg can just fall out - because it never fell out.

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 19, 2023, 12:32:37 AM
so I definitely did not have Bentley keys in my pocketses.

This statement is incorrect.
You may conclude from your example that you didn't have Bentley keys in your pocketses ( ::)) at the time you turned them out.
The Bentley keys may have been removed before you checked your pocketses, so you can't say definitively that you did not have Bentley keys in your pocketses.
What tests have been performed to detect the presence or absence Bentley key in your pocketses prior to you turning them out? We are missing key information (do you see what I did there? "Key" information. Do you get it? "Key" as in...oh, forget it..."

Even in this most basic of all examples there is not complete information.
The simplest criminal case is manifestly more complex than this, so the idea of having "complete information" is a non-starter.

Go back and read again and read the original premise: "I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses"

I stated it in the immediate now ("I have") for a reason. It doesn't leave time between formulating the theory and testing it to make room for unnoticed extrapocketal key excursion without resorting to magical thinking. 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2023, 12:44:27 AM
Go back and read again and read the original premise: "I have this theory that I have a set of Bentley keys in my pantses pocketses. So whats does I has in my pocketses"

I stated it in the immediate now ("I have") for a reason. It doesn't leave time between formulating the theory and testing it to make room for unnoticed extrapocketal key excursion without resorting to magical thinking.

Arguments for the sake of arguments....

Nobody is interested and still he tries to keep his pathetic argument going. Such a desperate need to "win" that he doesn't understand he has already lost.

I'm pretty sure he's going to argue about this next....  :D

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 19, 2023, 06:54:28 PM
Arguments for the sake of arguments....

Nobody is interested and still he tries to keep his pathetic argument going. Such a desperate need to "win" that he doesn't understand he has already lost.

I'm pretty sure he's going to argue about this next....  :D
I guess I shouldn't disappoint you.

You're claiming that I'm somehow trying to create a diversion by pointing out that some old saw you repeated was incorrect. And you think that you're somehow going to fix this by taking the thread further afield by making it about me. I'm not sure how you think that's going to work out, but good luck with it, I guess.

As for "nobody is interested," Alan, Dan, and.....you were interested enough to respond to my arguments, so there must be some interest in what I said. Your last reply is, what, the third time you've chimed in on this particular eddy in the thread? You certainly seem interested! So are you this "nobody" that you mention?

And, finally, here again we see the usual Weidman exit strategy when his arguments invariably fall apart: preemptively declare victory, then use the word "pathetic" liberally. I guess it's easier for you to do that than actually think.


Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 19, 2023, 08:27:03 PM
Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.

What a stupendously piss-poor response to my post.
You totally ignore the vast bulk of it to make these two watery "points". It's a compliment in a way.

Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

I don't know if they did ever describe seeing blood or tissue on the bullet they found. I can't find any detailed description of the bullet by Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet. Isn't that strange?
The main reason I can't find a detailed description of the bullet Tomlinson found is because when he is asked to make a deposition about the bullet he found, a deposition in which he is supposed to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery, he is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!
He is not asked to describe it, he is not asked what happened to it, and he is not asked to identify it.
He is not asked a single question about it.

But let's say the bullet he found was totally clean - what difference does that make as to whether that bullet was CE399 or not?
What is the point of the "point" you are making.

It must be remembered that Frazier examined at a microscopic level and he described the bullet as "clean".

Firstly, Frazier examined this bullet at a microscopic level:

"...after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification; were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photo graph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and in between size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon."

When asked whether he had to clean the bullet for this microscopic examination, Frazier is adamant:

Mr. Eisenberg: Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.


On a microscopic level, CE399 was "clean". On a microscopic level there was no blood or tissue on CE399.
It's a pity no-one ever got the chance to examine the bullet Tomlinson discovered that day.

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.

Thanks for letting us all know what you don't believe.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 20, 2023, 01:38:11 AM
What a stupendously piss-poor response to my post.

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

Quote
You totally ignore the vast bulk of it to make these two watery "points". It's a compliment in a way.

You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Quote
Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?

I don't know if they did ever describe seeing blood or tissue on the bullet they found. I can't find any detailed description of the bullet by Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet. Isn't that strange?
The main reason I can't find a detailed description of the bullet Tomlinson found is because when he is asked to make a deposition about the bullet he found, a deposition in which he is supposed to reveal "all the facts" about his discovery, he is not asked a single question about the bullet he discovered!
He is not asked to describe it, he is not asked what happened to it, and he is not asked to identify it.
He is not asked a single question about it.

But let's say the bullet he found was totally clean - what difference does that make as to whether that bullet was CE399 or not?
What is the point of the "point" you are making.

Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?

Quote
It must be remembered that Frazier examined at a microscopic level and he described the bullet as "clean".

Firstly, Frazier examined this bullet at a microscopic level:

"...after being observed through the microscope and making the comparison and the identification; were photographed, and this photograph shows a portion of the surface of that bullet, showing parallel lines extending from the left side of the photograph coming up to the hairline and continuing across on the right side of the photo graph, these microscopic marks being very fine grooves and ridges on the surface of the bullet, very coarse ridges on the surface of the bullet, and in between size scratches left on the bullet by the barrel of the weapon."

When asked whether he had to clean the bullet for this microscopic examination, Frazier is adamant:

Mr. Eisenberg: Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. Frazier: No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.


On a microscopic level, CE399 was "clean". On a microscopic level there was no blood or tissue on CE399.
It's a pity no-one ever got the chance to examine the bullet Tomlinson discovered that day.

I don't believe any doctor or pathologist has suggested a low-velocity bullet making a shallow wound couldn't have fallen out of soft tissue.

Thanks for letting us all know what you don't believe.

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2023, 09:53:56 AM
You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews?

That's exactly the problem. They don't exist. Odum said that if he had talked to Tomlinson and Wright he would have written a FD-302 report. The non-existence of these reports is a further indication that Odum never showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright.

And there is more. Tomlinson is on record saying that he was only shown the bullet once, about a week after the assassination, by SAC Shanklin at Parkland Hospital. He confirmed this on 07/25/66 in an interview with Marcus, the transcript of which is in the HSCA collection at the National Archives. Noteworthy is also that Tomlinson said in the same interview he had been told by the FBI to keep his mouth shut, which by itself is remarkable.

One more final comment about the chain of custody matter. So far it has been argued that SA Todd put his initial in the bullet he received from Secret Service chief Rowley. The impression was that Todd marked the bullet as soon as he received it, but I just came across an FBI report that says that Todd received a bullet from Rowley in a closed envelope with two notes attached. One was written by Johnsen and the other by Rowley. Todd opened the envelope, in the presence of Frazier, at the FBI lab and only then marked the bullet with his initials.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on March 20, 2023, 11:08:09 AM
You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

You mean the ridiculous article where two Conspiracy Kooks prey on the memory of an 82-year-old man who left the Bureau decades before. He's asked to remember some minor request mission from decades ago he was tasked with while maintaining a full workload of pending criminal cases. CE399 wasn't the subject of notoriety it became in the aftermath of the Warren Report.

If Odum is so clear and alert, where are the full transcripts of the two interviews? Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Just asking an innocent question. Is it some threat to your kooky conspiracy confirmation bias?

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.
Who's had an adverse reaction?
I urge any reader to go through the comprehensive handling of the evidence and the arguments relating to the evidence, as far as CE399 is concerned, that I lay out in Reply#246.
Then look at Jerry's response to that post in Reply#247
Then, honestly answer this question - is my description of Jerry's response as being "stupendously piss-poor" an adverse reaction or a completely accurate assessment.
I felt I was actually being a little kind to Jerry when describing his efforts - and this is the thanks I get!

Jerry likes to think his toothless mumblings are some kind of "threat" to the arguments I have presented, but I would urge any reader to go through posts #246 and #247 and ask, who is the one feeling threatened by the arguments. Who is the one who can't deal with the issues being raised in this thread?

Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Another sign that someone feels threatened by the arguments is when they start to twist the facts in order to create doubt.
Odum is certain he never saw CE399, never handled it and never showed it to Johnsen or Rowley. He then makes the point that, if he is somehow mistaken about it, then all they had to do was check the records and find the "302" that would have been raised by the interviews. After various archives have been scoured, no sign of the 302 can be found, supporting Odum's claims.

So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

Yet another sign of feeling threatened is the creation of strawman arguments.
Nowhere has the "absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them" ever been mentioned. Jerry has created this fictitious point in order create a point he can win.
An FMJ bullet is designed not to deform when passing through a body, it has a smooth and hard surface that is not conducive to having blood or tissue sticking to it. There is also the cavitation effect that takes place when a bullet passes through a body that might interfere with blood and tissue sticking to the surface. Lastly, there is the "wipe" effect - as the bullet passes through the material of the clothes worn by JFK and JBC the material wipes matter from the surface from the bullet.
This is the case for an FMJ bullet that passes through JFK and Connally.
However, this is not the full story with CE399. According to the official version of events CE399 ends up lodged in Connally's thigh from which it somehow works itself out. Think about that - CE399 is supposed to be lodged in a bloody, open wound from which it slowly slips out. How is it possible not to have blood or tissue on it in this scenario? How is it possible for the bullet to slip out clean?

There is also another aspect to this part of the official story that I have never heard anyone mention. It is a consideration that makes it seem incredibly unlikely that a bullet slipping out of Connally's leg could be found on his stretcher.
The key point is that this bullet would have to pass through Connally's trouser leg before entering his thigh. Obviously, it creates a hole in his trouser leg as it passes through.
It is surely the case that as the bullet works it way out of Connaly's leg it would simply fall inside his trouser leg.
In order to make it onto the stretcher the bullet would have to somehow work it's way out of the hole in his trouser leg as well.
What are the chances that the hole in his trouser leg lined up perfectly with the bullet in his leg as he lay on the stretcher. It's not like Connally was wearing cycle shorts. He was wearing loose fitting suit trousers. The chances that the hole in his trousers somehow lined up perfectly with the bullet as it worked his way out of his leg seem astronomically small.
The bullet would fall inside Connally's trouser leg and, as he was lying down, would stay pretty much where it was.
How could the bullet have found it's way on to the stretcher?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 20, 2023, 12:48:09 PM
You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.
Who's had an adverse reaction?
I urge any reader to go through the comprehensive handling of the evidence and the arguments relating to the evidence, as far as CE399 is concerned, that I lay out in Reply#246.
Then look at Jerry's response to that post in Reply#247
Then, honestly answer this question - is my description of Jerry's response as being "stupendously piss-poor" an adverse reaction or a completely accurate assessment.
I felt I was actually being a little kind to Jerry when describing his efforts - and this is the thanks I get!

More obsessive harking. You're becoming Arnold Rowland.

Remember, folks, the innocent question that provoked all this: "Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?"

Quote
Jerry likes to think his toothless mumblings are some kind of "threat" to the arguments I have presented, but I would urge any reader to go through posts #246 and #247 and ask, who is the one feeling threatened by the arguments. Who is the one who can't deal with the issues being raised in this thread?

Why does Odum allow that he might have actually went to Parkland but lost memory of it over the decades?

Another sign that someone feels threatened by the arguments is when they start to twist the facts in order to create doubt.
Odum is certain he never saw CE399, never handled it and never showed it to Johnsen or Rowley. He then makes the point that, if he is somehow mistaken about it, then all they had to do was check the records and find the "302" that would have been raised by the interviews. After various archives have been scoured, no sign of the 302 can be found, supporting Odum's claims.

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks. Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.

Quote
So Frazier wasn't surprised there was no blood or tissue on CE399 or seemed to harbour some expectation for such. Same with the HSCA. Is the absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them something from Dr. Wecht? Or some other CT "medical expert"?

Yet another sign of feeling threatened is the creation of strawman arguments.
Nowhere has the "absurd notion that FMJs always have blood and tissue stick on them" ever been mentioned. Jerry has created this fictitious point in order create a point he can win.

You forget you were going on about it.

    "Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to
     have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the
     way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human
     tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent
     decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with."

My, what drama and sarcasm.

Quote
An FMJ bullet is designed not to deform when passing through a body, it has a smooth and hard surface that is not conducive to having blood or tissue sticking to it. There is also the cavitation effect that takes place when a bullet passes through a body that might interfere with blood and tissue sticking to the surface. Lastly, there is the "wipe" effect - as the bullet passes through the material of the clothes worn by JFK and JBC the material wipes matter from the surface from the bullet.
This is the case for an FMJ bullet that passes through JFK and Connally.

So, you no longer think blood and tissue was picked up as the bullet "traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way". OK.

Quote
However, this is not the full story with CE399. According to the official version of events CE399 ends up lodged in Connally's thigh from which it somehow works itself out. Think about that - CE399 is supposed to be lodged in a bloody, open wound from which it slowly slips out. How is it possible not to have blood or tissue on it in this scenario? How is it possible for the bullet to slip out clean?

You just mentioned "wipe". Blood might not have had time to dry in order to stick to the surface of the bullet. Presumably, during the ride to Parkland, the bullet was lodged in an area where there was little air. Connally's clothing was removed early-on. Could be a subject for experimentation, but you critics don't seem interested in that approach.

Quote
There is also another aspect to this part of the official story that I have never heard anyone mention. It is a consideration that makes it seem incredibly unlikely that a bullet slipping out of Connally's leg could be found on his stretcher.
The key point is that this bullet would have to pass through Connally's trouser leg before entering his thigh. Obviously, it creates a hole in his trouser leg as it passes through.
It is surely the case that as the bullet works it way out of Connaly's leg it would simply fall inside his trouser leg.
In order to make it onto the stretcher the bullet would have to somehow work it's way out of the hole in his trouser leg as well.
What are the chances that the hole in his trouser leg lined up perfectly with the bullet in his leg as he lay on the stretcher. It's not like Connally was wearing cycle shorts. He was wearing loose fitting suit trousers. The chances that the hole in his trousers somehow lined up perfectly with the bullet as it worked his way out of his leg seem astronomically small.
The bullet would fall inside Connally's trouser leg and, as he was lying down, would stay pretty much where it was.
How could the bullet have found it's way on to the stretcher?

You're inventing silly roadblocks. Maybe the bullet didn't pass all the way through the trousers. Or the bullet hole in the clothing remained over the missile in-shoot for awhile. Have you seen the angle of knee bend required to sit in one of those jump-seats, that makes the upper part of the pants tight near the knees? And not much room to straighten the legs after he collapsed onto Nellie.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth875422/m1/1/high_res/)

Here's a picture of Connally wearing dress pants. The right leg is down, showing the clothing was loose when upright. The left leg is partially up showing the clothing tight against the upper surface of the thigh near the knee. And the amount of leg bend in the car was much greater.

If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?

Was Connally left unattended for a few minutes while a "conspirator" dug the bullet out of his thigh? Were the doctors and nurses who treated Connally in on the "conspiracy" when they took X-rays and said there was no bullet in his thigh?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2023, 03:56:52 PM
More obsessive harking. You're becoming Arnold Rowland.

Remember, folks, the innocent question that provoked all this: "Did Tomlinson or Wright describe tissue and blood on the bullet they saw at Parkland?"

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks. Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.

You forget you were going on about it.

    "Let's forget the fact that, even though the bullet is supposed to
     have traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the
     way, by the time it reaches Frazier there is not a speck of human
     tissue or blood on the bullet. Maybe some nice agent
     decided Frazier would like a lovely, clean bullet to work with."

My, what drama and sarcasm.

So, you no longer think blood and tissue was picked up as the bullet "traveled through two men, smashing various bones on the way". OK.

You just mentioned "wipe". Blood might not have had time to dry in order to stick to the surface of the bullet. Presumably, during the ride to Parkland, the bullet was lodged in an area where there was little air. Connally's clothing was removed early-on. Could be a subject for experimentation, but you critics don't seem interested in that approach.

You're inventing silly roadblocks. Maybe the bullet didn't pass all the way through the trousers. Or the bullet hole in the clothing remained over the missile in-shoot for awhile. Have you seen the angle of knee bend required to sit in one of those jump-seats, that makes the upper part of the pants tight near the knees? And not much room to straighten the legs after he collapsed onto Nellie.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth875422/m1/1/high_res/)

Here's a picture of Connally wearing dress pants. The right leg is down, showing the clothing was loose when upright. The left leg is partially up showing the clothing tight against the upper surface of the thigh near the knee. And the amount of leg bend in the car was much greater.

If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?

Was Connally left unattended for a few minutes while a "conspirator" dug the bullet out of his thigh? Were the doctors and nurses who treated Connally in on the "conspiracy" when they took X-rays and said there was no bullet in his thigh?


You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.

Where does it say that Odum was "cajoled" by anybody? Or did you just make that up out of thin air?

Rather than ignoring it, why don't you try to explain the absense of the FD 302's Odum said he would have produced (as was custom at the FBI) if he had spoken to Tomlinson and Wright?

And while you are at it, explain to us please why Tomlinson is on record, twice, saying that he was only shown a bullet once, about a week after the assassination, by SAC Shanklin at Parkland Hospital.
We know for certain this happened as it is also mentioned in a Secret Service report.

So, Tomlinson says only SAC Shanklin showed him a bullet, in december 1963, SA Odum denies he ever showed Tomlinson and Wright a bullet in june 1964 and there are no FD 302 reports that should have been on file if Odum had talked to both men.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2023, 04:29:56 PM
You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.

“Cajoled” LOL. This is another one for the Lame LN excuses file. And you prefer hearsay from an anonymously written “report”….why?

Because it’s what you want to hear.

Quote
Why only one page of phone transcript? What actually went on with their treatment of Odum such that they had to go meet him in person? Imagine the Warren Commission taking testimony and publishing just the first page of each transcript.

Imagine the Warren Commission “cajoling” witnesses with pre-interviews to see what they are going to say before taking their testimonies on the record.

Quote
If not a bullet, what caused the injury to the thigh and left a small lead fragment behind?

You’re missing the point. Just because a bullet did this doesn’t make CE399 that bullet.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 20, 2023, 06:27:53 PM

You mean the article's characterization of Odum's sharpness once after he's been cajoled by two Conspiracy Kooks.

Where does it say that Odum was "cajoled" by anybody? Or did you just make that up out of thin air?

Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened.  :D

What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?

Quote
Rather than ignoring it, why don't you try to explain the absense of the FD 302's Odum said he would have produced (as was custom at the FBI) if he had spoken to Tomlinson and Wright?

Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28495-bardwell-odum-ce2011-and-ce399/) ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.

Quote
And while you are at it, explain to us please why Tomlinson is on record, twice, saying that he was only shown a bullet once, about a week after the assassination, by SAC Shaklin at Parkland Hospital.
We know for certain this happened as it is also mentioned in a Secret Service report.

So, Tomlinson say only SAC Shanklin showed him a bullet, in december 1963,

Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.

   Marcus: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found
          it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?

   Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from
          the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with
          Mr. Wright there when they called me in.

   Marcus: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time,
          did they show you the bullet?

   Tomlinson: Yes.

   Marcus: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?

   Tomlinson: Yes, I believe they did.

   Marcus: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making
          a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like
          the same one to you?

   Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

Quote
SA Odum denies he ever showed Tomlinson and Wright a bullet in june 1964

Odum said he couldn't remember.

One can gauge the primary motivation for Aguilar/Thompson's cajoling of Odum, with:

    "For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once
     secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for
     him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had
     worked for and admired."

The guy said he couldn't remember but that it might have happened. But the authors score it as a victory that "besmirches" the Bureau.

Quote
and there are no FD 302 reports that should have been on file if Odum had talked to both men.

The AirTel has all the information and is formatted the same same as a FC-302. Odum was 82 and trying to remember some insignificant request mission from four decades ago (the "Magic Bullet" acquired most of its notoriety later). Odum might have thought they were talking about him having the bullet in hand on the day of the assassination. We'll never know because the authors' phone and visit transcripts are sealed until 2072.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 20, 2023, 07:43:06 PM
Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened.  :D

What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?

That doesn't answer my question. You claimed Odum was "cajoled", so you need to be able to show where you obtained this information. If you can't, you shouldn't use such a word.

Quote
Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28495-bardwell-odum-ce2011-and-ce399/) ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.

So, Odum talks to Tomlinson and Wright. Both men fail to identify the bullet shown to them. Odum files no FD 302 reports, although he normally always does. Then suddenly SAC Shanklin writes in his Airtel message that both men could not identify the bullet. How did Shanklin know, without any report from Odum? Do you really think Shanklin is going to communicate to his superiors what an agent told him?

And then some anonymous person at the FBI in Washington writes CE2011 in which it suddenly says that (I paraphrase) although Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet they still thought it could be the same one. Now where did that last part come from? All the FBI in Washington had was Shanklin's Airtel and that doesn't say both men thought it could be the same one? Are we to believe that somehow Odum passed on information to Washington, without writing anything down and passing by his superior officer Shanklin?

The WC asked the FBI to authenticate pieces of evidence that could link their prime suspect to the crime and the FBI just does away with normal procedures and doesn't document anything correctly. Really?

And then there is this; if Odum received CE399 and later returned it, his name or initial should be recorded in the chain of custody! It isn't... Go figure

Quote

Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.


And possibly Tomlinson did not forget at all and knew exactly what he was saying.

He clearly states to Marcus that he has been shown a bullet once, by Shanklin from the FBI. This encounter took place about a week after the assassination and is documented in at least one Secret Service report.

Quote

Odum said he couldn't remember.

One can gauge the primary motivation for Aguilar/Thompson's cajoling of Odum, with:

    "For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once
     secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for
     him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had
     worked for and admired."

The guy said he couldn't remember but that it might have happened. But the authors score it as a victory that "besmirches" the Bureau.

The AirTel has all the information and is formatted the same same as a FC-302. Odum was 82 and trying to remember some insignificant request mission from four decades ago (the "Magic Bullet" acquired most of its notoriety later). Odum might have thought they were talking about him having the bullet in hand on the day of the assassination. We'll never know because the authors' phone and visit transcripts are sealed until 2072.

The AirTel has all the information and is formatted the same same as a FC-302.

If the Airtel has all the information and was used as a subtitute for a FD 302, then why not simply let Odum write his reports as per usual instead of SAC Shanklin writing it for him?

Odum was 82 and trying to remember some insignificant request mission from four decades ago

Being old doesn't automatically mean you don't remember something that's part of the biggest case of the decade, if not century.
When he died, my father was 90 and even in his last days he could tell us about all sorts of things that actually happened when I was growing up.

Odum might have thought they were talking about him having the bullet in hand on the day of the assassination.

And he just might have remembered everything correctly.

You are twisting and turning in every direction to keep your favorite narrative alive. It isn't working!
 
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 25, 2023, 11:14:57 PM
And then there is this; if Odum received CE399 and later returned it, his name or initial should be recorded in the chain of custody! It isn't... Go figure

Is this the question that got Andrew and Jerry running for cover?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 29, 2023, 04:53:09 PM
And then there is this; if Odum received CE399 and later returned it, his name or initial should be recorded in the chain of custody! It isn't... Go figure

Is this the question that got Andrew and Jerry running for cover?
Only one person needs to initial the bullet.  Why would Odum add his initials to a bullet that already has been initialed by an FBI agent?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 29, 2023, 05:08:48 PM
Only one person needs to initial the bullet.  Why would Odum add his initials to a bullet that already has been initialed by an FBI agent?

Nobody said anything about adding his initials to the bullet, but the bullet was allegedly sent from Washington to Dallas and back in june 1964.
The chain of custody requires that it is recorded who had the bullet and when. There is no such registration for Odum receiving or returning the bullet.

Only one person needs to initial the bullet.

Really? Then why did Frazier mark it after Todd had already done so?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Dan O'meara on April 08, 2023, 12:45:58 AM
My interpretation of the evidence regarding CE 399 is that at some point this bullet was introduced into the chain of custody.
It may not necessarily have been the case but after examining the evidence I felt it was the best interpretation, the one that made sense of the many anomalies surrounding this aspect of the case.
In order for this to be the case the bullet, CE 399, would have to be fired from the MC in order to match the rifle. However, this couldn't have been done until the rifle reached the FBI lab in Washington on Saturday morning.
By Saturday evening an evidence report compiled by Frazier and signed by Hoover was sent to Chief Curry:

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbzZ3gH8/FBIreportfragments.jpg) (https://postimages.org/) (https://suwalls.com/fantasy/fantasy-world)

At the end it identifies Q1, the bullet supposedly found on the stretcher, as "a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle bullet. Specimen Q1 weighs 158.6 grains. It consists of a copper alloy jacket with a lead core".
The weight and general description of the bullet is identifies it as CE 399. Which means that if the bullet was indeed a plant it must have been fired from the rifle on the Saturday, before the evidence was returned to Dallas Saturday night.
Until now it has been a matter of pure speculation that the rifle was fired that day in order for it to be possible to produce a bullet which could be planted in the chain of custody.
Whilst trying to track down a decent copy of a photo of the evidence that was taken by Vince Drain to Washington I came across an article by Ken Rahn documenting Drain's recollection of the assassination, which includes this passage:

"...I was taken by helicopter over to the Justice Building and landed on the White House lawn. During this time, I had an armed guard from the Air Force until I got safely into the Justice Building.
I talked to Mr. Hoover briefly and then watched them do a lot of the experiments such as firing the rifle, looking for prints, ballistic markings, hairs, fibers, blood stains and anything else that later, down the road, might be relevant to evidence which could be used in the prosecution.
By around midnight on Saturday night, they had the plane ready to go..."

It would appear that at some point on Saturday the FBI lab was in possession of bullets fired from the MC found on the 6th floor.

PS: Does anyone have a decent copy of a photograph of the evidence Drain took from Dallas on Friday night?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2023, 12:26:45 PM
Well the authors aren't going to admit that's what happened.  :D

What's in the rest of the phone transcript of their call to Odum? Is there a transcript for their visit to Odum?

Some requests from the Commission didn't warrant FD-302s. ( Link (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28495-bardwell-odum-ce2011-and-ce399/) ) FD-302s are normally done for criminal cases that could lead to a trial; Odum probably had an active case load of such investigations. Which is why he later thought he would have prepared a 302 for the requests from the Commission, when he probably only relayed what he was told to the author of the AirTel.

Possible Tomlinson forgot about the July 1964 visit or thought the interviewer in 1966 wanted to know about the first time he was shown the bullet after the assassination.

Bardwell Odum ultimately deferred to the FBI documentation. He essentially told Thompson that if FBI documents say that he showed CE-399 to Wright and Tomlinson, then he did indeed. He also recalled being in Wright's office sometime after the assasination.

Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 09, 2023, 02:33:03 PM
Bardwell Odum ultimately deferred to the FBI documentation. He essentially told Thompson that if FBI documents say that he showed CE-399 to Wright and Tomlinson, then he did indeed. He also recalled being in Wright's office sometime after the assasination.


Then why is his name not mentioned in the chain of custody for CE399?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2023, 02:54:23 PM
Then why is his name not mentioned in the chain of custody for CE399?

Why would it be? The bullet didn't really need a chain of custody anyway. Also, it had already been examined by the FBI and admitted into evidence during WC testimony.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 09, 2023, 05:32:30 PM
Why would it be? The bullet didn't really need a chain of custody anyway. Also, it had already been examined by the FBI and admitted into evidence during WC testimony.

Then why did Specter introduce the bullet into evidence (during Humes' testimony) subject to later authentication?

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally.

And why did the WC ask the FBI for authentication by way of the chain of custody? You know, the reason for which Odum was allegedly given the bullet to begin with?

Are you actually arguing that Odum's name didn't have to be in the chain of custody of CE399 when the sole purpose for him allegedly having it in the first place is to establish a conclusive chain of custody? Really?
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2023, 07:59:54 PM
If hearsay in an anonymously written letter with an FBI letterhead at the top says so, then it must be true.

LOL
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 09, 2023, 08:09:31 PM
Then why did Specter introduce the bullet into evidence (during Humes' testimony) subject to later authentication?

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally.

I don't know why.

Quote
And why did the WC ask the FBI for authentication by way of the chain of custody? You know, the reason for which Odum was allegedly given the bullet to begin with?

Is that what it was for?  Authentication by way of the chain of custody? How do you know?

Quote
Are you actually arguing that Odum's name didn't have to be in the chain of custody of CE399 when the sole purpose for him allegedly having it in the first place is to establish a conclusive chain of custody? Really?

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.
Title: Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 09, 2023, 09:24:48 PM
I don't know why.

Is that what it was for?  Authentication by way of the chain of custody? How do you know?

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.

Yes, that's what I'm arguing. Really.

How can you argue that, when you don't know why Specter introduced the bullet subject to later proof and you don't know why the WC asked the FBI for authentication of the evidence?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, perhaps?