JFK Assassination Forum

Well, I said you wouldn't understand what I was saying and it turns out I was right. 

You don't understand the obvious point.

Yes, I do... and it's a pathetically stupid point.

Hunter, Ukraine Joe, and the leftist media contended that the laptop and its contents were the product of Russian disinformation. 

This demonstrably false, Hunter and Joe Biden never made any such claim and all the media did was speculate, just like the crazy right wing media did when they claimed there was incriminating material on the laptop.

[

This is a demonstrable lie.  Ukraine Joe has on multiple occasions claimed the laptop was the product of Russian disinformation.   He did so during the debates.  When he was recently asked if he still held that conclusion his answer was "yes, yes, yes."  Why lie about this? 

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?

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.

As a number of researchers have noted in the past, a certain motorcycle policeman seems to be heading not straight for the front steps but for a point somewhat east of them

It was Mr. Sandy Larsen who first spotted this back in 2016, posting this striking GIF:



Mr. Larsen suspected Officer Baker was heading for the Dal-Tex building, but------------to his lasting credit-------------was not dogmatic about this single solution.

He wrote: "It is obvious that Baker was not headed for the TSBD entrance. (He was headed to the right of it.) But if not, what explains the path he is taking?"

I believe we now have the answer to his question.

 

What a stupendously piss-poor response to my post.

You critics sure have adverse reactions to innocent questions.

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?

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?

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"?