Much ado about nothing. That pretty much describes the nearly 63 year long snipe hunt the conspiracy hobbyists have been on. And what do they have to show for their efforts? A hole in the ground.
I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.
So the fact that
two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.
So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?
BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas,
Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!
I have yet to see you, MTG, or anybody else provide a direct quote from Day saying he saw a bullet in the grass. I can believe after being told there was a bullet hole that he might have estimated the distance. That doesn't mean Day confirmed there had been a bullet in the grass.
Day was interviewed by reporters from the
Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did
another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?
Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.
I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass.
I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:
FBI Agent Picks Up BulletThe video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.
Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.
Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (3:53 to 7:08)
But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass, much less that it was recovered, because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.
Recent Posts
Did you like Social Studies in school? Did you pay attention?