I see your campaign to prove you have no credibility and should not even be posting in this forum continues. You're doing a great job.
I'm glad people like you don't find my writings credible, because if people like you ever found me credible, I would take it as a sign I was in cognitive decline.
So the fact that two witnesses independently said they saw the bullet hit the grass and create a visible mound is "much ado about nothing"? Well, I guess if you're trying to prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case, such mutually corroborating evidence must indeed be "much ado about nothing" -- at least in your mind.
I wouldn't believe anyone who said they saw a bullet hit the ground because bullets travel too fast to be seen by the naked eye. It had been raining in the DFW area that morning so the ground would have been wet, so there wouldn't have been "bullets kickin' dust-spots on the green". I also find it hard to believe the with the POTUS, whom the spectators had come out to see, coming down Elm St., that anyone would have been focused on a one little patch of ground where this bullet supposedly hit. This is the kind of critical thinking which people like you never seem willing to apply to the rumors they read about.
So the fact that two additional witnesses, Wayne and Edna Hartman, informed the FBI that they saw the ground mounded up and were told by policemen at the scene that a bullet had hit the ground there -- that's your idea of "much ado about nothing"? Well, again, if you're trying to show that your presence in this forum is a continual clown show, then it makes sense that you would dismiss this additional, FBI-recorded evidence as "much ado about nothing." I mean, what else are you going to do, since you're pathologically determined to deny any and all evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting?
There is no credible evidence that refutes my theory of the shooting, which in actuality is the fact of the shooting. The Hartman's did not see a bullet hit the ground nor did they see a bullet taken out of the ground at the spot. The believed what they were told. No one saw a bullet hit the ground and no one saw a bullet removed from the ground. There were people who HEARD that a bullet had hit the ground in that spot or that a bullet had been taken out of the ground, but no one seems to have actually seen a bullet. That makes these reports of a bullet striking the ground at that point nothing but rumors and rumors are not evidence. But you don't care. You prefer the rumors to the facts because the facts don't support your beliefs.
BTW, are you aware that Walthers' friend Al Maddox, at the time an agent for the Liquor Control Board, acknowledged that Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass (Thomas, Hear No Evil, p. 418)? Let me just guess: Maddox was "lying" or "mistaken," right?!
OH!!! Walthers told him he found a bullet in the grass. Did Walthers show him the bullet he found in the grass? What did Walthers do with the bullet he found in the grass? Are we supposed to believe what Walthers told Maddox? Why should we?
Day was interviewed by reporters from the Dallas Times-Herald and the interview summary was published on 11/24/63. Let's read it, and notice that another Dallas policeman also estimated the distance from the sixth-floor window to the hole in the grass:
Dallas Police Lt. J. C. Day of the crime lab estimated the distance from the sixth-floor corner window the slayer used to the spot where one of the bullets was recovered at 100 yards. He added that it could be more. Another Dallas policeman estimated the distance at 125 yards.
Where in the article do you see any indication whatsoever that Day had any doubt about the bullet in the grass? Where do you see even a hint that Day only estimated the distance because he was told there was a bullet hole in the grass? Why did another policeman tell the reporters that the distance may have been 125 yards?
Surely if Day and the other police officer had had any doubt that a bullet had hit the grass near the manhole cover, they would have said so. At the very least, they surely would have qualified their estimates of the distance from the sixth-floor window to the bullet hole by noting that the bullet strike had not yet been confirmed.
Oh, goody. We have an estimate of how far it was from the sniper's nest to the spot in the ground where no bullet was found. The fact that Day made an estimate of the distance to the sniper's nest is hardly compelling evidence that a bullet was found at that location?
I'm still waiting for you explain why journalist Richard Dudman would have reported, in a published news story, that a "police inspector told me they had just found another bullet in the grass." Explain how Dudman could have been "mistaken" about this. Give an example of the wording that the police inspector could have used that Dudman could have confused as a statement that a bullet had been found in the grass.
Oh, goody. One more guy who was TOLD a bullet was found in the grass. If only there was someone who actually had the bullet that was found in the grass. That would be a story.
I'm still waiting for you explain what the man in the suit picked up and put in his pocket after he reached down to the hole in the grass. BTW, Hugh Betzner noticed this scene and described it as "police officers and some men in plain clothes . . . digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet" (https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/138955293/wayne-eldridge-hartman). Gee, what a coincidence, hey?
I don't have to explain it. You are the one claiming a bullet was found there. The burden is on you to provide evidence of that. I have no idea what some unidentified person might have put in his pocket. I do know that rumors of an unidentified person putting something in his pocket is not evidence of a bullet having been found.
For those who want to see the photographic evidence of the suited man doing this, here's a brief video that shows the sequence of the man's actions:
FBI Agent Picks Up Bullet
The video notes that a 12/3/63 FBI memo documents that FBI agent Robert Barrett, believed by some researchers to be the suited man in the photos, submitted a bullet to the FBI lab. This could not be CE 399, because Barrett never handled CE 399 and is not listed in any CE 399 chain-of-custody document.
Oh, some people believe the unidentified man who put an unidentified object in his pocket might have been FBI agent Robert Barrett. You're really closing in on it, Columbo.
Here is a good segment on the evidence regarding the bullet that hit the grass by Vincent Palamara. It includes an interview with Edna Hartman where she describes seeing the bullet hole.
Bullet holes in limousine and extra bullets in Dealey Plaza 11/22/63 PART 1 OF 3 (3:53 to 7:08)
Did you happen to notice at the 1:58 mark the limo was surrounded by uniformed officers which means they weren't letting anyone near the limo. It's not surprising that someone looking at the crack in the windshield might assume they were looking at a bullet hole, but as the Secret Service determined on CLOSE EXAMINATION, the windshield was cracked from the inside and the outer surface of the windshield was intact. Also, earlier you had claimed a cop put a pencil through the hole in the windshield. According to the video, the cop SAID, "You could put a pencil through the hole". He did not say he had put a pencil through the hole. Just another example of you fudging facts to support your claim.
But, of course, you're never going to admit that a bullet hit the grass,
Not without evidence of that.
much less that it was recovered,
Not without evidence of that.
because you can't do so without repudiating the lone-gunman theory. This is why you can't offer a rational explanation for the Tague wounding. This is why you must duck and dodge and strain and blunder in trying to explain Dr. James Young's corroborated account of seeing a misshapen bullet at the autopsy. These are do-or-die issues for you. If just one of these credible and corroborated accounts is valid, your theory of the shooting collapses.
I find it strange that you think it implausible that one of Oswald's shot could have caused the Tague wounding but you have no problem believing one of your phantom shooters could have caused the same wounding. Where's your explanation for how that happened. For that matter, just how bad were your phantom shooters firing from all over Dealey Plaza. A few weeks ago you scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have missed the limo with one of his shots. Yet your shooters all seem to have gotten Maggie's Drawers for their efforts. The medical evidence indicates all the shots that hit JFK and JBC were fired from above an behind them. Your GK shooter completely whiffed with his shot. A few weeks ago, you suggested a shooter from the Dal-Tex building had fired over the windshield and that stray shot was the one that struck the curb near Tague. All one has to do is look at Altgens 6 and see how bad a miss that would have to be to completely miss the limo, even if the shooter was as low as the second floor. As for your frontal shot through the windshield, I don't recall you telling us where that shooter might have fired from. I'm sure that explanation would be quite amusing, which is probably why you haven't given us that yet.
In any case, it's quite puzzling how such a sophisticated and massive conspiracy, capable of completely controlling the investigation, couldn't find any competent shooters to get the job done. The only guy who hit what he was aiming at that day was Oswald.
Recent Posts
Did you like Social Studies in school? Did you pay attention?