The CE-399 chain of custody issue is a red herring that was dreamed up by the CT crowd as an excuse to dismiss one of the damning pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt.

I'd like to know how tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists think (sic) the bad guys fired the CE-399 bullet in Oswald's Carcano in such a way that it ended up so unusually deformed -- and deformed in a way that matched the wounds to JBC's back, rib, chest, rib, and thigh.

I will accept any evidence you can produce that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

CE399 was discovered by Darrel Tomlinson. He summoned Parkland security chief O.P. Wright.
O.P Wright took possession of the bullet and delivered it to Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen.
Richard Johnsen handed the bullet to Secret Service Chief James Rowley.
James Rowley delivered the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Todd.
Elmer Todd delivered the bullet to Robert Frazier of the FBI crime lab.
Robert Frazier and everyone who handled the bullet at the crime lab initialed it.
Had the case gone to trial, every person in this chain would have testified who delivered the bullet to them and to whom they passed it on to.
That is all that would be required to establish a legal chain of custody.

NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.

All you can do is lie to yourself about it.
You probably don't even realise you're lying to yourself about it.

You probably don't even realize you are a dumbass.

What are you going to do when you realise that there is zero evidence that CE399 was ever found at Parkland?
Are you going to do a Payette, and disappear?

Seriously, what does it mean to you that there is no evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland?

The chain of custody issue is a red herring that was dreamed up by the CT crowd as an excuse to dismiss one of the damning pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt.
CE399 was positively matched to Oswald's rifle because it was fired by Oswald's rifle by Oswald when he shot JFK and JBC with it..

Correction. There is no evidence you will accept. That's not a litmus test for the validity of the evidence.

I will accept any evidence you can produce that CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS.

All you can do is lie to yourself about it.
You probably don't even realise you're lying to yourself about it.
What are you going to do when you realise that there is zero evidence that CE399 was ever found at Parkland?
Are you going to do a Payette, and disappear?

Seriously, what does it mean to you that there is no evidence that CE399 was found at Parkland?

The subject must be oriented to the fact that the person seen fast-walking up the extension in the plaid shirt is provably Lovelady...

Since Lovelady is shown on the extension then the only person the man in front of Calvery can be is Molina...When podcasters say in front of Bart Kamp that the man facing Calvery is Lovelady he doesn't correct them...When you go to point this out in the comments you find that your posts don't go through...

We need someone to obtain the 1st generation Darnell copy from the 6th Floor Museum and digitally enhance it...This will show the man facing Calvery to be Molina...The clique doesn't want this to happen because the clique guards its lies and then brags how it has the best group of "academic" researchers...

   You have Not responded to Molina wearing a full length coat that day. The figure we are discussing is wearing a shirt and standing where we see Lovelady on Altgens 6.

Let's go back to a conversation in the "The Brown Paper Bag" thread.

Translation:  When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.

I found that "evidence" at the Ripley "believe or not" website years ago, but feel free to prove that the documents are authentic.

Point being, in October of '64, Buell Frazier acknowledged that the assassination weapon was in the package and his car transported the rifle to the Depository building.  He even says that Oswald finalized his plans to carry out the assassination in that car.

Like it or not, Frazier states, in the affidavit, that the rifle was in the bag and therefore by default he is telling you that the bag was large enough.

No one cares what or when you found anything.

Along with Frank Badalson, I had pizza with Buell Frazier and Dave Perry last November.  There's nothing fake about the affidavits.

Should be easy to prove it then. Just ask Buell to confirm it. Beyond that, nobody cares who you claim to have eaten pizza with.

Btw; Frazier and/or the notary didn't know that Erwin was actually Irving?

And what was the notary's name exactly? The signature isn't very clear.

Surely you've heard Buell Frazier talk before, with that VERY strong accent.  The fact that the affidavit says "Erwin" instead of Irving should make it obvious to you that Frazier was talking as the transcriber was typing it out.  Use your common sense.

As for the pizza, my point was that we talked about the affidavit.  Out of respect for Dave Perry (Buell's friend and who set up the pizza night), I won't tell you what was said.  However, I had a video call with Perry last Monday and I'm trying to get Perry to agree to release the details of the conversation with Frazier.

This is what you'd call FREAL research, i.e. going straight to the horse's mouth (as opposed to doing what YOU do, which is simply call it fake and ignore it).

This exchange tells us several things;

First of all, Bill "I'm a real researcher" Brown instantly jumped to the conclusion that the Ripley's "affidavits" were authentic.
When his claim failed to persuade, he became his usual arrogant self and tried an appeal to authority by mentioning that he had eaten pizza with Frazier.
He clearly implied (without actually saying so) that Frazier had confirmed the authenticity of the "affidavits" and, pretending to speak with some authority, he stated: "There's nothing fake about the affidavits."

When that still failed to persuade, he claimed that while eating pizza "we talked about the affidavit" but he refused to disclose what had been said. He then got back on his high horse and claimed that he was doing "real research" by "going straight to the horse's mouth"

Back in april, Bill refused to tell us about his conversation with Frazier, but now, only three months later he freely confirmed in this thread that Frazier had in fact denied ever seeing those "affidavits". This means that Bill must have known for some time that "the horse's mouth" had rejected the "affidavits", but his ego wouldn't allow him to just simply accept that he got it wrong. So, now he clearly doesn't believe Frazier and is desperately trying to find arguments to somehow declare the "affidavits" authentic after all.

And that brings it back to the first quote posted in this post;

Translation:  When you don't like what the EVIDENCE tells you, call it fake and move on.

Translation:  When you don't like what the WITNESS tells you, just call him mistaken and maintain that the documents are authentic nevertheless.

You've got to love those "real researchers"