"Whatever happened, happened."
Kenneth A. Rahn
I don't normally consider myself an impulse buyer, but I have to
confess that tonight I bought Vince Bugliosi's book without much planning.
I knew something was going on when I heard a lot of talk about it on the
newsgroups. When nonconspiracists praised it and conspiracists started
trashing it months before it appeared, that gave me two positive reasons
to go ahead. Another reason was that I have a couple of short driving
trips coming up, and books like this are always good in hotels after long
days on the road. I have just about finished my fiction thriller, and need
a change of pace with a nonfiction thriller.
The impulse hit as I was emerging from supper at the local Hometown
Buffet. I figured that after stuffing my face, I should consider stuffing
my mind. After all, the two are close together, and the mind part might
sort of atone for the face part. What better way to stuff my mind that
with the big new book, I thought. Plus, there was a Barnes & Noble close
to the buffet.
As I parked the car and walked toward the store, scenarios flashed
through my mind. The first was that I might see ten people in a row emerge
from the store, all carrying the book. But that didn't happen. There were
just one or two, and they seemed to be carrying something else. Then I
thought I might have to break up a fight between two rabid customers over
the last copy in the store, but that didn't happen, either.
As I neared the store, I silently practiced pronouncing Vince's last
name, so that I would not inadvertently say it wrong to someone who knew
better and appear to be a greenhorn. "BOO-lee-OH-see, BOO-lee-OH-see," I
repeated, and it seemed to settle me down.
Once inside, I realized that the steak, mashed potatoes, and rich
chocolate dessert were having their usual effect, and the name of the book
started to blur. "Recording History"? No, that didn't sound right.
"Rewriting History"? Not that one, either (though some here might think
so). "Reciting History"? Nah, too dull. Finally "Reclaiming History" hit
me, and I proceeded.
I half expected to be confronted by it as the very first book in the
store, but that didn't happen, either. That meant I had decide where to
look for it. The first two tables were "New Fiction" and "New Nonfiction."
I decided to check them both, to appear neutral to the casual observer.
Not there. Behind them were "Recent Fiction" and "Recent Nonfiction." Not
there, either. Off to the side was "Bargain Books," but something told me
it wouldn't be there, either.
I thought a bit, and decided to try "History," and there it was. I
could see that it was twice as thick as any of the other books. I flexed
my arm muscles to warm them up for the task ahead, and tried to lift it.
Happily, I succeeded. I skimmed a little, checked to make sure that the CD
was in place on the back cover, and proceeded to the check-out counter. I
avoided the urge to put my name on the waiting list for the final Harry
Potter book, even though I will probably finish it before Bugliosi's.
(With Harry Potter, you know, you can jump to the end to see who dies, but
with JFK you already know, so there is no point in hurrying through.)
The clerk was a decent fifty-something guy, a little overweight, but
that is understandable if you just ring up sales all day. I told him I
wasn't a member of the B&N Club, but wondered whether I could still get
the 20% off because of not asking one of the strapping young employees to
help me carry it to the counter. He didn't feel my pain.
Before tax, the full price was $50. I realize that I am probably the
only reader of this newsgroup who has paid full price, but after all, it
was on impulse, and who can begrudge the writer $2.50 a year for his
efforts? It certainly was worth it to me.
As the clerk was putting it into the reinforced bag, he said, "After
all these years, what is there left to find?" I mumbled something like,
"They say he uncovered a lot of little things," and then, "One of the big
selling points is that he claims to have debunked every big conspiracy
theory and many of the little ones. It's really good to have them all
under one cover, eh?" (I slipped in the "eh?" to make Peter Fokes feel
happy, because I know he likes it when people acknowledge Canadian customs
and culture.)
Then came the seminal moment, and the reason for this post. The clerk
looked me straight in the eye and said, with a expression of utter calm
and tranquility, "Whatever happened, happened." At that moment I realized
that he was far wiser than me. He hadn't fretted over the assassination
for so many years, and doesn't care now. It was what it was. He doesn't
have nervous tics like me, and he doesn't have trouble falling asleep at
night. He is not set off by expressions like "J. Edgar Hoover,"
"single-bullet theory," "NAA," "grassy knoll shooter," "conspiracy
theory," "back and to the left," and "EOP entry." He lives a life of peace
because whatever happened, happened. The Republic survived, he has his
job, and the world is not such a bad place after all.
I have resolved to become more like him. I will try not to worry so
much and get upset over little things. I will accept the fact that many
people out there still don't see the light, and try not to blame them.
"Hate the sin but love the sinner" will be my new motto. On second
thought, however, maybe it should be "Strongly dislike the sin, ..."
Ken Rahn
P.S. I almost forgot to note the main reason for buying Bugliosi's book.
With it in the back seat, I never have to worry about driving erratically
and tipping the car. P.S. 2. (For Ricland) I understand that I may have
written one or two paragraphs that are more than four lines long, and
remember that you said we should never do that when posting messages to
newsgroups. Please try to find it in your heart to forgive me. Also, you
surely know that subjects should never be separated from their verbs by
punctuation marks. In the case of "Whatever happened, happened," however,
the need for clarity and separating the two "happened"s trumps this rule.
Again, please don't be too hard on me.
Ken Rahn
--
Kenneth A. Rahn
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>To All:
>
> I don't normally consider myself an impulse buyer, but I have to
>confess that tonight I bought Vince Bugliosi's book without much planning.
>I knew something was going on when I heard a lot of talk about it on the
>newsgroups. When nonconspiracists praised it and conspiracists started
>trashing it months before it appeared, that gave me two positive reasons
>to go ahead.
You are correct. Some posters did trash it. Not me.
For example in Feb. 2007, I wrote:
<quote on>
I'm looking forward to this chapter.
Some of the most bizarre theories in the world have been concocted for
this case.
It is also encouraging that he is attempting to tackle the conspiracy
theories of individual theorists rather than a generic make-believe
CT.
The latter mythic creature is often portrayed on this newsgroup.
<quote off>
David VP sent us some posts with excerpts from the book before it was
released. As I pointed out at the time, several of those posts were up
for adjudication due to generalized personal attacks on CTs by
Bugliosi. As John McAdams noted on the newsgroup at that time: "It's a
long established rule here that you can't insult somebody. But it's
also well established that you can't insult somebody under color of
posting the opinions of somebody *else.* If we didn't do it that way,
people could just dredge up the nastiest things said about a poster
from some grudge web site or from the Nuthouse and post them here." I
also commented on the fact that part of the book is based on a "play
trial" many decades after the actual assassination. There was a lively
debate about the validity of evidence emerging from that trial.
Of course, John is correct. Quotes from Bugliosi's book had to be
vetted to make sure they didn't violate our rules.
To lighten the mood, I also initiated a few humorous threads about the
forthcoming publication. Someone suggested they could judge the book
before it was published (I think it was Tony who said: "We can
certainly judge a book by the author. I was telling people while
Posner was writing his book that it was full of errors.") If I recall
correctly, I asked members of the newsgroup if they thought Bugliosi's
book would make money. Many responded. I also posted links to positive
reviews of Reclaiming History. Back in February I asked if anyone had
been given a chance to read the book before it was released.
I also started a post about the forthcoming book by using a quote from
Larry Sturdivan's JFK Myths: "There have been hundreds of books and
articles written about a Kennedy assassination 'conspiracy'. The
reader would not tolerate a point-by-point refutation of all the
allegations they contain. As I have no desire to try the patience of
the reader, most must be ignored. The task would be pointless, at
best.... My goal will be to establish what is true -- not the
interminable task of countering all that is false." I urged people to
read Larry's book before reading Bugliosi's book. Do you agree?
I also asked a number of questions about the book. For example, "does
he credit anyone with helping him write the book?" Later on when
someone suggested he employed ghostwriters, I defended Bugliosi and
told the accuser to prove his point. He never did. I also started a
few threads with "actual quotes" from the book. The quotes were
disparaging of CTs in general (for example, claiming some of them are
obsessed. I also noted Bugliosi was somewhat obsessed himself, having
spent decades working on the book.) I also observed that Bugliosi
argued that the WC Report was so long that CTs could take bits and
pieces and argue conspiracy. I also observed a good prosecuting
attorney does the same thing in the courtroom to prove his case.
When the book actually appeared, I began reading it. I noted a number
of errors. David VP accused some of us of "harsh" attacks on Bugliosi
simply because we were pointing out errors in the book.
All in all, I took a neutral stance in the months leading up to the
publication of the book except for the issue of the play trial. I
joked that I would not buy the book until it hit the bargain bin, but
then discovered a sale at Amazon for $25 Canadian. Since buying the
book, I have been reading it slowly when I get a chance.
I just wanted to clear up any misunderstandings your post might cause
about my treatment of the book in the "couple" of months before
publication and after publication.
The book was indeed trashed by some people though.
Are you Canadian? Did you buy the book in Canada?
How would your "eh" comment to a bookseller make me happy when I had
no way of "hearing it" or even "knowing" about it until this post?
Maybe you really just wanted to include my name in this post. Not sure
why. Motive is sometimes hard to fathom ... as researchers of the
case well know, eh?
> Then came the seminal moment, and the reason for this post. The clerk
>looked me straight in the eye and said, with a expression of utter calm
>and tranquility, "Whatever happened, happened." At that moment I realized
>that he was far wiser than me. He hadn't fretted over the assassination
>for so many years, and doesn't care now. It was what it was. He doesn't
>have nervous tics like me, and he doesn't have trouble falling asleep at
>night. He is not set off by expressions like "J. Edgar Hoover,"
>"single-bullet theory," "NAA," "grassy knoll shooter," "conspiracy
>theory," "back and to the left," and "EOP entry." He lives a life of peace
>because whatever happened, happened. The Republic survived, he has his
>job, and the world is not such a bad place after all.
> I have resolved to become more like him. I will try not to worry so
>much and get upset over little things. I will accept the fact that many
>people out there still don't see the light, and try not to blame them.
>"Hate the sin but love the sinner" will be my new motto. On second
>thought, however, maybe it should be "Strongly dislike the sin, ..."
>
>Ken Rahn
<snip>
How you enjoy it, Ken. Don't drive while reading.
I guess an audio version is not available .... yet!
PF
bigdog
> To All:
...
> Ken Rahn
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu
Ken, I think the attitude of the clerk pretty much sums up the
attitude of mose Americans about the JFK assassination. Whether they
believe the WCR or not, it's history and they have put it behind him.
The subject might come up when sitting around a table drinking beer
with my friends (it has) but the topic will quickly change. It is left
to the JFK junkies such as us, both LNs and CTs, to carry on the
dialogue, but this forum is like Las Vegas. What happens here, stays
here. I think any of us who actually thinks anything we write here is
going to have any impact on public opinion or the verdict of history
is kidding themselves.
Gerry Simone (O)
We can't change what happened.
The Republic has survived and WWIII did not happen.
In Canada, when ethnic groups demanded apologies & compensation for being
interned during WWII, then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said, 'Let bygones
be bygones'.
Maybe there is wisdom in those words, eh?
However, some might say that 50K+ U.S. soldiers might not have ended their
lives in Viet Nam & that the People would have had more faith in their
government, but who can really predict what otherwise might have happened?
Others say that a vigilant citizenry is necessary in a democracy.
Perhaps it's an issue of priorities.
I believe I saw Bugliosi on the Discovery Channel's Magic Bullet documentary
almost warning people to stay away from the JFK assassination debate unless
they want to be CONSUMED by it.
Judging by the look on his face as he looked to the ground while shaking his
head, I believe he was sincere in those remarks.
Thank you for your story.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:4679...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
The real message from the clerk echoes the CIA directive: Stay Asleep.
Do not learn your history, so we can keep repeating it.
François Carlier
Thank you, Mister Rahn, for you rather philosophical post.
Now that you own the book, I would be interested in knowing what you think
of it.
I have read it already. Well, I admit having skipped some parts I was less
interested in (for example, the beginning, when he tells the story of
November 22, is nothing new, albeit well told. His arguments against
conspiracy thinking are what the book is most useful for).
Mister Rahn, as you know, I believe in the official version of the event,
just like you.
I believe that Oswald acted alone. I have spent some years trying to debunk
conspiracy theories (sometimes posting sound and reasonable messages on
alt.assassination.jfk, and from time to time posting sarcastic messages on
alt.conspiracy;jfk, which, like it or not, I think that conspiracy believers
deserve to receive. Indeed, I think that people like Jim Fetzer, for
instance, by spreading falsehoods and lies and silly theories to the
American people, and denying the obvious truth - such as irrationally
claiming that the Zapruder film is a fake - are doing something very bad,
and even morally reprehensible).
But that's not today's point.
Regarding Bugliosi's book, I must tell you I was rather disappointed.
I mean, I have great admiration for him as a man. I have even watched every
video on him on the Internet, and listened to all his radio audio files.
His book is important.
But there is nothing new in it.
We already had the Warren report + the HSCA + Jim Moore + Gerald Posner +
Robert Oswald + Dale Myers + Larry Sturdivan + your web site + John McAdams
web site.
So we already had all the evidence, all the proof, we needed to reach the
inescapable conclusion that Oswald was indeed the lone killer.
With Internet, and especially your web site + John Mc Adams web site and
others, we already had ample evidence to debunk even the new conspiracy
silly theories (sorry, I can't help adding the word "silly"... I think it
does belong here).
So Bugliosi's book is not that necessary.
More to the point. I think Bugliosi sometimes fails to be convincing. He
makes fun of some theories, and rejects them out of hand (he is absolutely
right in that regard, I know), rather than debunking them with arguments.
On Lifton, I think he has not done a good enough job. Other people have done
a better job at completely debunking Lifton's silly theory.
And I am disappointed at Bugliosi for criticizing Posner as much as he does.
That's not right. What is amusing to me, is that Bugliosi boasted that he,
unlike Posner, had made no omissions, falsifications, or distortions in his
book.
Oh, really ?
See the hundreds of posts and articles on the Internet from bad-faith
conspiracists who claim that Bugliosi did just that.
Bugliosi is receiving the same treatment that Posner once received.
Of course, I am on Bugliosi's side, and know that conspiracy theorists are
not honest in their complaints.
Listening to what Fetzer has to say, on Black Op Radio, is so pathetic ! I
feel at a loss for words and so sorry for Fetzer, who is cornered, and still
pretends to act as if he was the one who was right....
Anyway. Mister Rahn, you are far brighter than I am, and most of all far
better at English than I am, so I am looking forward to reading what you
have to say about Bugliosi's book.
Thanks in advance.
François Carlier
Fra-C...@orange.fr
).
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
4679...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
RICLAND
> To All:
>
>
>[...]
> Then came the seminal moment, and the reason for this post. The clerk
> looked me straight in the eye and said, with a expression of utter calm
> and tranquility, "Whatever happened, happened." At that moment I realized
> that he was far wiser than me. He hadn't fretted over the assassination
> for so many years, and doesn't care now. It was what it was. He doesn't
> have nervous tics like me, and he doesn't have trouble falling asleep at
> night. He is not set off by expressions like "J. Edgar Hoover,"
> "single-bullet theory," "NAA," "grassy knoll shooter," "conspiracy
> theory," "back and to the left," and "EOP entry." He lives a life of peace
> because whatever happened, happened. The Republic survived, he has his
> job, and the world is not such a bad place after all.
> I have resolved to become more like him. I will try not to worry so
> much and get upset over little things. I will accept the fact that many
> people out there still don't see the light, and try not to blame them.
> "Hate the sin but love the sinner" will be my new motto. On second
> thought, however, maybe it should be "Strongly dislike the sin, ..."
>
> Ken Rahn
>
>
This is good stuff, Ken, and I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we
would welcome you in our camp with open arms.
What can we do to help bring this about, sir?
ricland
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
cdddraftsman
practically touched the face of God on that post ! Move over Bug !
Ken , I hope someday soon will write a book on the JFK assassination ,
which unlike Da Bugs will not discuss who didn't kill JFK but exactely
how he was killed , a subject Ken is a leading intellectual on . Need
I say more ? ..................tl
PS : http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html
François Carlier
François Carlier
Fra-C...@orange.fr
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
4679...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps Bugliosi and his book are
deserving of harsh attacks?
Narrated by Bugliosi? Isn't there some law against driving while being
hypnotized?
>
> PF
>
>
David Von Pein
Sure it is. I have it.
15 CDs (a little less than 18 hours of abridged material from "RH",
narrated by actor Edward Herrmann). ....
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
http://imdb.com/name/nm0001346/
Anthony Marsh
Your buddy at the checkout counter is merely echoing a standard CIA
dogma. Don't study history. Those who don't know their history are
doomed to repeat it. Stay Asleep. Keep you head in the sand.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ToednZaWLMFes-fb...@comcast.com...
> Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
>> To All:
>>
>> [...]
>> Then came the seminal moment, and the reason for this post. The clerk
>> looked me straight in the eye and said, with a expression of utter calm
>> and tranquility, "Whatever happened, happened." At that moment I realized
>> that he was far wiser than me. He hadn't fretted over the assassination
>> for so many years, and doesn't care now. It was what it was. He doesn't
>> have nervous tics like me, and he doesn't have trouble falling asleep at
>> night. He is not set off by expressions like "J. Edgar Hoover,"
>> "single-bullet theory," "NAA," "grassy knoll shooter," "conspiracy
>> theory," "back and to the left," and "EOP entry." He lives a life of
>> peace because whatever happened, happened. The Republic survived, he has
>> his job, and the world is not such a bad place after all.
>> I have resolved to become more like him. I will try not to worry so
>> much and get upset over little things. I will accept the fact that many
>> people out there still don't see the light, and try not to blame them.
>> "Hate the sin but love the sinner" will be my new motto. On second
>> thought, however, maybe it should be "Strongly dislike the sin, ..."
>>
>> Ken Rahn
>>
>
>
> This is good stuff, Ken, and I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say we
> would welcome you in our camp with open arms.
>
> What can we do to help bring this about, sir?
Easy. Provide me solid, validated physical evidence for conspiracy and I
will be the first in line to sign on to it. I have been saying this for 15
years now (the length of my JFK study), because it is required by the
critical thinking that I adhere to. But so far, no one has been able to
provide any such evidence.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
Thanks for your note. I do not intend to read this book quickly,
however, but will certainly be willing share occasional thoughts on it as
I go along. I'm not sure that my reactions will have any more validity
that those of many other posters here, however, and I'm not sure that they
will be different from those posters'.
Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
Just for the record, the reference to "nonconspiracists" and
"conspiracists" cannot be properly read as meaning "all nonconspiracists"
and "all conspiracists," nor did I intend it that way. I expect that my
readers will understand the role of modifiers and their absence.
Ken Rahn
"Peter Fokes" <jp...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:mb4l7398bdturlemo...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
Great post! We need more stuff like this here.
I have also had some of those rather whimsical philosophical thoughts,
like the clerk at the bookstore. However, to my chagrin, they don't last
very long.
My Dad, a very wise and intelligent fellow, though not extremely formally
educated, used to say to me quite often......."Son, you can't change the
spots on a leopard." I must say, when I was younger, those words didn't
carry the same weight as they do today.
My Dad died in April of 1963. The same year as JFK. Now that I'm older, if
not wiser, I think I miss him more than ever.
I have a feeling you'll give it the old college try. But something tells
me, you'll still toss and turn a little during the night -- Just like I
still do. And confronted with some of those keywords and phrases about the
JFK assassination, you'll still continue to fret
Maybe that's not really so bad.
John F.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:4679...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Peter,
>
> Just for the record, the reference to "nonconspiracists" and
>"conspiracists" cannot be properly read as meaning "all nonconspiracists"
>and "all conspiracists," nor did I intend it that way. I expect that my
>readers will understand the role of modifiers and their absence.
>
>Ken Rahn
I certainly did. I'm sure others will understand as well if they read
your post carefully.
PF
tomnln
That's why you're here trying to influence people.
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182423047.5...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
>
> ).
>
> "Kenneth A. Rahn" <k...@uri.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4679d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I haven't read the book yet and it will probably be a while before I find
the time, but from what I gather from both positive and negative reviews
is that Bugliosi has presented a comprehensive case for the LN view of the
assassination while at the same time debunking most of the popular myths.
It is hardly surprising that Bugliosi has offered nothing new. There has
been very little new in this case in the last 30 years, with a notable
exception of sophisctated computer graphics which allow for 3-D
recreations of the shooting. It sounds like Bugliosi's book is a
repository of a lot of useful information which others have offered
before. Bugliosi's fame can be useful in bringing that wealth of
information to the masses.
François Carlier
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1182477701.4...@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I haven't read the book yet and it will probably be a while before I find
the time, but from what I gather from both positive and negative reviews
is that Bugliosi has presented a comprehensive case for the LN view of the
assassination while at the same time debunking most of the popular myths.
It is hardly surprising that Bugliosi has offered nothing new. There has
been very little new in this case in the last 30 years, with a notable
exception of sophisctated computer graphics which allow for 3-D
recreations of the shooting. It sounds like Bugliosi's book is a
repository of a lot of useful information which others have offered
before. Bugliosi's fame can be useful in bringing that wealth of
information to the masses.
--> Very well said. I agree with you.
François Carlier
Fra-C...@orange.fr
Stug...@aol.com
"solid physical evidence" was deep-sixed. One cannot sculpt the
Statue of David from bull diarrhea.
Kenneth A. Rahn
Stu continues to push the mistaken notion that absence of evidence must
mean something important. In this case, it is the alleged absence of a
marking on CE 399 that John Hunt thinks must have been there if the bullet
were genuine. John could come up with only one possible benign reason for
its absence, which he thought he could eliminate. He then asked what
happened to the original bullet, but didn't answer his question. Stu goes
farther, and claims this as solid physical evidence for deep-sixing.
It obviously isn't, because the logic and the facts are too full of
holes. And even if the original bullet had been made to disappear, that
would by no means prove conspiracy.
So I'm still waiting for that solid physical evidence of conspiracy.
Ken Rahn
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182532074....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Stug...@aol.com
His entire approach assumes that if person A commits a crime with
person B that there MUST be hard physical evidence to prove that
person B was at the scene of the crime. Ignoring the fact, as we were
reminded ad nauseum during the OJ trial, that criminals are convicted
every day with the weakest of evidence (although, ironically, Ken's
precious comparative bullet lead analysis does not even measure up as
weak evidence anymore other then to Ken), Ken simply states an
assumption that itself is dubious. Evidence is often lost,
overlooked, contaminated, or (sometimes) deliberately falsified/deep-
sixed. Criminals often preserve themselves by removing or discarding
evidence on their own-- hence many reasonable people are rather
convinced that Scott Peterson killed his wife sans ANY physical
evidence OR testimony to the link him to the crime. Only those with a
very limited understanding of the context of a crime would rest their
entire approach to this case or any case on the idea that there MUST
be a smoking gun in order to believe in a conspiracy. Half the
mobsters in jail would be released if it weren't for the *testimony*
of one or more witnesses (often of dubious background) to a criminal
conspiracy. But away from Ken's double standards and back to the
issue at hand...
Ken, there are many *possible* explanations for the absence of those
markings on the round. Each is more absurd and more illogical than
the other. The one scenario that makes the most sense, and also
explains the work that Gary and Tink Thompson have done on the chain-
of-custody, is that the bullet in evidence (CE399) is not the bullet
found at Parkland.
Now perhaps you'd like to add to this list below of possible
explanations... That would be the demand of critical thinking,
scholarship, etc.... Somehow I doubt we'll see you make an effort
beyond your typical, skirt-the-issue, refuse-to-use-specifics,
approach (while demanding that CTs do what you won't)
1) The carvings on the bullet faded. This has been offered by Jean
Davison. While this is still remotely possible, this would mean that
they faded to the point that they can't be seen by either high
resolution photography or personal observation (David Mantik's
independent, recorded observations of CE399 confirm that exact
markings we see in John Hunt's pictures and no more.) It would also
be very difficult to explain physically-- because the other markings,
made at virtually the same time with the same procedure, are patently
obvious both to the eye observer and in photographs.
2) The document is wrong. This would mean one of two things.
First, that Elmer Todd did *not* see his carvings on C1, and therefor,
the bullet is evidence is not the bullet recovered at Parkland;
conspiracy confirmed. OR... that Elmer Todd never marked the
bullet. This would require two very serious, unlikely errors--
one, that Todd didn't follow customary FBI procedure in the most
important case of the century; as any FBI agent will tell you,
marking evidence is like washing your hands after you go to the
potty. But the problem would be compounded by the FBI writing up a
report that said the opposite of what was Todd actually said. This
is probably the best case scenario for the LNs; and it is not only
unlikely, it ruins the chain of evidence they have touted (including,
most recently, Mr. McAdams.)
3) The document is right; Elmer Todd lied to hide his incompetence
(a "benign" coverup.) This would mean that Elmer Todd forgot to mark
C1, but that the FBI /Todd sought to cover up this matter by claiming
he DID do something he didn't. Firstly, let's start off with the
implications of such an approach-- it would prove the very kinds of
cover-ups that Ken and his friends claim didn't happen thus raising
doubts about the entire FBI suite of evidence. Secondly, it would
mean that there is no clear chain of evidence in this case, something
that Ken has explicitly denied. But this scenario is even more
ridiculous than that: it would mean that the FBI/Todd decided to lie
about the chain of custody in this case by lying about the presence of
Todd marks on the bullet instead of simply having Elmer Todd MARK THE
ROUND AFTER THE FACT. Does this make sense to anyone?
So in the best case scenario, one of the most important pieces of
physical evidence would lack any corroboration for its transport from
Parkland to D.C. This would mean the best evidence as to its
authenticity would be O.P. Wright, the sporting goods owner (ie he
sold ammo) who found the round, and who insisted that it was not the
bullet we know as CE399.
Or does Ken want to play ball and offer up an alternative scenario?
Anyone holding their breath may want to buy additional life insurance.
-Stu
Jean Davison
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182603136.8...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Ken, there are many *possible* explanations for the absence of those
> markings on the round. Each is more absurd and more illogical than
> the other. The one scenario that makes the most sense, and also
> explains the work that Gary and Tink Thompson have done on the chain-
> of-custody, is that the bullet in evidence (CE399) is not the bullet
> found at Parkland.
>
> Now perhaps you'd like to add to this list below of possible
> explanations... That would be the demand of critical thinking,
> scholarship, etc.... Somehow I doubt we'll see you make an effort
> beyond your typical, skirt-the-issue, refuse-to-use-specifics,
> approach (while demanding that CTs do what you won't)
>
> 1) The carvings on the bullet faded. This has been offered by Jean
> Davison. While this is still remotely possible, this would mean that
> they faded to the point that they can't be seen by either high
> resolution photography or personal observation (David Mantik's
> independent, recorded observations of CE399 confirm that exact
> markings we see in John Hunt's pictures and no more.) It would also
> be very difficult to explain physically-- because the other markings,
> made at virtually the same time with the same procedure, are patently
> obvious both to the eye observer and in photographs.
I didn't say "faded," Stu. I quoted an FBI description of the
Walker bullet which said, "It must be understood that certain markings are
clearly discernible, others admit of more than one interpretation, while
others may be obscured by oxidation or otherwise." Why don't you address
that quote instead of behaving as if I'd come up with "faded" on my own?
You've also left out the rest of my argument. The WC's non-FBI
firearms expert Joseph Nicol testified that he marked this bullet in 1964.
Here's the relevant part of Nicol's testimony:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, I will hand you 3 exhibits, 3 items,
Commission Exhibits 399, 567, and 569, which I will describe for the record
as being a bullet and 2 bullet fragments, and I ask you whether you are
familiar with those 3 Commission Exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. May I examine them?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes, you may.
Mr. NICOL. Yes, this was the exhibit that was given to me as Q-1 in the
original transmission.
Mr. EISENBERG. This being which Commission exhibit?
Mr. NICOL. This being 399. Exhibit 567, this was referred to as Q-2, and
also accompanied the other exhibit. Commission Exhibit 569, this is Q-3.
Mr. EISENBERG. Are your marks on those exhibits?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I have marked my initials on an unrifled portion of each one
of these exhibits. There were also other marks on it at the time I received
the specimens.
>>>>
UNQUOTE
(III, 496-7)
Notice that Nicol asked to examine CE 399 before he IDed it, and that
he then said, "Yes, I have marked my initials on an unrifled portion of each
one of these exhibits." This was in March 1964, long after the "switch"
was supposedly made. According to you, his mark is not among those
now on CE 399. What's your explanation for that, Stu?
Jean
<snip>
Anthony Marsh
If you are really interested in CE 399 I would suggest that you could
advance our understanding of this issue by obtaining a negative of the
very first photo taken of C1 before it became CE 399. A small print was
attached to the evidence sheet. This print appears to show the base of
the bullet less undamaged than in later photos.
Stug...@aol.com
Let's take these one by one... that the bullet "faded"... whether you
said it or have confirmation that it is possible (last I checked, I didn't
say the the markings cannot "disappear" for reasons such as those
described) the question has to be asked: how on earth did markings on
different parts of the same bullet all remain intact, and those from
another FBI agent using the same procedure at virtually the *same exact
time* suddenly disappear??? Nicol's did not mark the rounds in Nov of 63
and may have used a different instrument/procedure than FBI agents use to
mark the round. But I do wonder if perhaps the initials that look like a
JH are actually a JN... the direction of the middle line can easily be
misinterpreted.
-Stu
David Von Pein
worthless red herring argument. And the main reason it's worthless
(and stupid) is due to the fact that such a "switch"/"plant" isn't the
slightest bit necessary, even under the crazy circumstances believed
by so many CTers -- i.e., the "Let's Frame Lee Oswald For JFK's
Murder" circumstances.
And everyone knows why such a switch/plant would be totally
unnecessary (even via such "Let's Get LHO" conditions).....It's
because there was already ample physical evidence elsewhere to link
Oswald to JFK's murder (e.g., bullet fragments CE567 & 569 in the limo
itself, the Carcano (CE139), the paper bag (CE142) with Oswald's
prints, and the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest.
Good gravy! How much LHO-incriminating stuff do you need to frame the
guy?! Why on Earth would ANYONE feel the burning need or desire to
plant ADDITIONAL evidence against the man to whom ALL OF THE OTHER
PHYSICAL (AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL) EVIDENCE LEADS?
Were these plotters just overactive? Or just flat-out morons who
WANTED to probably get caught? (I can't think of a reasonable third
option here. Can anyone?)
And the idea of putting into the official body of evidence in this
case a phony Oswald bullet to replace the "real" stretcher bullet is
absurd (even if civilians saw the so-called "real" "pointy" bullet at
Parkland).
Under those conditions (and assuming all the authorities were rotten,
lying scumbags, like many CTers firmly believe evidently), why not
just get rid of the "pointy" bullet?
Why wouldn't the plotters merely make that bullet "disappear", just
like "they" did with multiple other bullets in this case (per certain
CTers who disbelieve the wholly-accurate SBT)?
And at least one of those vanishing bullets, per some CTers, was also
SEEN by witnesses who weren't part of the plot. But evidently the bad
guys didn't hesitate to get rid of those bullets that went into JFK
but never exited his body. And those mystery missiles never got a
CE399-like "replacement".
So, why should the stretcher bullet be treated any differently by
these conspiratorial lowlifes who wanted Oswald framed so badly?
Now seems like a good time to reiterate my favorite quote from author
and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.....
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L.M.
Sturdivan "The JFK Myths" (2005)
Jean Davison
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182645408....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Jean,
>
> Let's take these one by one... that the bullet "faded"... whether you
> said it or have confirmation that it is possible (last I checked, I didn't
> say the the markings cannot "disappear" for reasons such as those
> described) the question has to be asked: how on earth did markings on
> different parts of the same bullet all remain intact, and those from
> another FBI agent using the same procedure at virtually the *same exact
> time* suddenly disappear???
I don't think anyone said the marks disappeared "suddenly," as if
by magic. But doesn't the quote I gave you say that some markings "are
clearly discernible... while others may be obscured..." on a single bullet,
the one fired at Walker? I don't know how that works. You'd need
to ask experienced firearms examiners, not me.
Besides, I'm not positive that the markings aren't actually
there. I can't tell from those "high-res" photos.
> Nicol's did not mark the rounds in Nov of 63
> and may have used a different instrument/procedure than FBI agents use to
> mark the round.
Way to go, Stu -- an innocent explanation! So why is it
that Elmer Todd couldn't have used "a different instrument/procedure"?
Todd was a Washington field agent and not a lab guy, as I understand it.
I'm not arguing that's what happened. If his marks are no longer visible,
there may be some other explanation we haven't thought of.
>But I do wonder if perhaps the initials that look like a
> JH are actually a JN... the direction of the middle line can easily be
> misinterpreted.
>
But in that case, Stu, where is Cunningham's marking?? According
to the article you linked to, "there is no question" that the JH is
Cunningham's mark.
Jean
Kenneth A. Rahn
Stu needs evidence tampering, switched bullets, and accidental matches
with third bullets to support his theory of two hits from MC rifles from the
rear. That's what these two revisionist NAA articles are all about, as well
has his long messages here. Unfortunately, none of it is working out. Jean
Davison's rebuttal is the latest to demonstrate its feet of clay. Before
that, the two revisionist articles were fatally flawed, each in its own way.
Ken Rahn
Stug...@aol.com
She does raise valid, substantive points, which is more than I can say for
99% of the posts from the guy who loves critical thinking......
More importantly, the only person who is becoming a revisionist is you...
science has left you and your NAA work in the dust. Your response to the
Grant/Randich article showed a poor understanding of metallurgy, which
Grant has since pointed out to you, which others pointed out to you before
he did, and which you have yet to respond to. To wit: none of the
so-called correlations you claim should exist have to exist if you
understand micro-segregation... that amateurs who read the article
figured that out should speak to the kind of effort you put into truly
understanding what the two were saying. Your response to our article was
even more pathetic. Do you really think the "your sample was different
from mine, so mine must be right" reply actually works with sensible
people????? Try getting that one through any publication. Additionally,
your now running around claiming that it is more likely that a conspiracy
would buy two separate boxes in two different areas of the country than
simply share a box(es) from the same store. The second option is not only
more reasonable but cannot be excluded-- which all by itself ruins your
precious NAA, since any amateur in statistics/probably could tell you that
drawing a bullet with one profile from a box increases the likelihood that
you draw another bullet with the same profile. That many bullets with the
same profile can be found in the same box is something that every expert
on CABL recognizes and that our study established for the JFK case. And
please don't run down the pathetically poor logic that you and Larry threw
out in your monograph-- no is claiming that two independent people
selected ammunition by chance that was the same; we are claiming that two
people CONSPIRED to kill the president, hence they collaborated.
Go back and read your own work on Ockham's Razor and consider the kind
ridiculously complex answer you are giving to a simple question. Your
entire argument rests on the idea that Oswald chose the only brand of ammo
fabricated, packaged and shipped like it in the world. The
counter-argument is that Oswald bought ammunition that was fabricated and
packaged just like any other ammo. Grant/Randich prove the former and our
publication establishes the latter. You can bury your head in the sand
and countinue with your "super special fabrication" theory, or you can
accept common sense. Inconclusive is as far as you can go, Ken. Strong
probabilistic claims for a science that has abandoned even the possibility
of strong probabilistic claims is unreasonable and unscientific.
Zealotry cannot replace science.
-Stu
Stug...@aol.com
You are giving a "switched" bullet scenario and inventing a straw man a la
Bugliosi. CE399 doesn't have to be switched; it could be part of a suite
of evidence collected on Nov 22nd; there is documentation that suggests a
bullet arrived at a time inconsistent with any officially-accounted for
round. All we are suggesting is that a different bullet was found at
Parkland and discarded. What the other evidence suggests means nothing.
All that matters is that this other bullet found at Parkland would
implicate ANOTHER person. They are removing evidence of conspiracy, not
substituting evidence for a lone nut.
-Stu
tomnln
Are you Denying that the authorities
Withheld evidence?
Altered evidence?
Destroyed evidence?
AND, LIED?
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:467e9aff$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
And exactly what did these "more than 2 or as many as five bullets" do
Stu?
I mean, where did they HIT? WHO did they hit?
Tell us won't you?
John F.
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182714657.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Andrew Mason
Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
Ken,
I agree that if a theory that depends upon CE399 being planted is
hopelessly doomed. But to equate "switched bullets" to "accidental
matchings with third bullets" is simply not reasonable. There is direct
evidence, after all, that three bullets hit in the car (JBC and Nellie
C.). There is also a great deal of evidence that support a reasonable
inference that 3 bullets hit, from the 60 odd witnesses who said that the
second bullet was late, that the first hit JFK and that the first shot was
after z191.
Of the four bullets of Oswalds that we know about, at least two were
"matches" by Guinn's own data (the Walker bullet fragment and the unfired
bullet). If you call a match anything within 40 ppm in Sb concentration,
the probability is greater then 50% that there will be a "match" in any
random sample of 8 bullets. And that is if the Sb concentrations are
completely random and not weighted in the 600-1000 ppm range.
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein
>>> "They are removing evidence of conspiracy, not substituting evidence
for a lone nut." <<<
Maybe you'd better tell that to the many people who seem to have fallen
for the "Switched Bullet" nonsense. Because they must not have heard this
news that a switch wasn't really needed (and would, of course, have been
utterly stupid to attempt).
Common sense (plus the mass of other evidence that also links to Oswald
and his gun) certainly tells a reasonable person that CE399 is a legit,
Real-McCoy bullet that came out of the barrel of C2766 on 11/22/63 and
went into the body of John B. Connally Jr. and fell out of his body and
onto his stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital.
Any other scenario, given the sum total of all the evidence, reeks with
the make-believe odor of unsupportable fantasy.
Anthony Marsh
Maybe you think Stu does, but many of us do not. We realize that the two
large fragments could have come from two different bullets and that a
bullet could have missed, as both the WC and the HSCA said. Some of us
even realize that the head shot did not have to come from Oswald's rifle,
but from a bullet which fragmented into many pieces never found. Was the
base fragment of the bullet which hit James Brady ever found? If not, does
that mean there was tampering with the evidence and a massive government
conspiracy?
Anthony Marsh
>
> And exactly what did these "more than 2 or as many as five bullets" do Stu?
>
> I mean, where did they HIT? WHO did they hit?
>
Kennedy and Connally.
David Von Pein
And a separate base portion of a C2766 missile and a separate nose
portion of a C2766 missile just happened to each fly out of the car,
becoming unrecoverable, while each mating part of these TWO C2766
bullets ended up inches from each other in the front part of the
limousine....right?
I'd sooner believe that it snows regularly in Phoenix in August.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "...The two large fragments could have come from two different bullets..." <<<
>
> And a separate base portion of a C2766 missile and a separate nose
> portion of a C2766 missile just happened to each fly out of the car,
> becoming unrecoverable, while each mating part of these TWO C2766
> bullets ended up inches from each other in the front part of the
> limousine....right?
>
I didn't say that was my theory. It is just one possibility.