Todd's missing initials

Robert Harris

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 9:09:30 AM10/28/11

to

When John Hunt examined closeup photos of all four sides of CE399, he
found the initials for SA's Frazier, Killion and Cunningham but there
were none for Elmer Todd, the FBI agent who after failing to get
confirmation of CE399 from two Secret Service agents, then declared that
he saw his own initials on the bullet.

Nutters here reacted predictably, calling Hunt a "shmuck" and assuring
us that it was just not possible to distinguish the initials on the
photos - an amazing proclamation coming from people who have never seen
the original pictures, as Hunt did.

But fortunately for us, there are better copies of those pictures on the
web and some pretty good Mac software for enhancing the images to make
the initials easier to see.

This is the result.

http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png

In this image, we can easily see the initials for the three agents who
just happen to be the same FBI people who initialed CE-842. But there
are absolutely no initials for Elmer Todd.

Of course, we still aren't seeing the original photos like Hunt did. His
conclusion:

"There is no question but that only three sets of initials appear on
CE-399. There is likewise no question that they have all been
positively identified: RF was Robert Frazier, CK was Charles Killion,
and JH was Cortland Cunningham. (See Figure 5.) It can be stated as a
fact that SA Elmer Lee Todd's mark is not on the historical CE-399
bullet."

Hunt's article can be seen here,

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 28, 2011, 6:14:38 PM10/28/11

to

On 10/28/2011 9:09 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> When John Hunt examined closeup photos of all four sides of CE399, he
> found the initials for SA's Frazier, Killion and Cunningham but there
> were none for Elmer Todd, the FBI agent who after failing to get
> confirmation of CE399 from two Secret Service agents, then declared that
> he saw his own initials on the bullet.
>
> Nutters here reacted predictably, calling Hunt a "shmuck" and assuring
> us that it was just not possible to distinguish the initials on the
> photos - an amazing proclamation coming from people who have never seen
> the original pictures, as Hunt did.
>
> But fortunately for us, there are better copies of those pictures on the
> web and some pretty good Mac software for enhancing the images to make
> the initials easier to see.
>
> This is the result.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
>

Hey, that's not fair!

You are posting evidence that the WC defenders have never seen before. How
long will we have to wait for all the messages from the cover-up artists
claiming that they can't see the FBI agents initials on the bullet? Can we
predict which WC defender will claim that the initials do not match Cort
Cunningham and YOU made up that silly story about changing it to JH
because CC might be confused with "carbon copy"?

And I am sure that we'll have one WC defender who will claim that YOU are
the one who put those initials on the bullets with your fancy Mac
software.

> In this image, we can easily see the initials for the three agents who
> just happen to be the same FBI people who initialed CE-842. But there
> are absolutely no initials for Elmer Todd.
>

BTW, look at the second photo. What is that mark on the nose? Maybe it it
Elmer Todd's initials which some scratched out or gouged out.

doctorw

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 9:41:40 AM10/30/11

to

Given, that CE399 is about 30mm long, I am surprised at how very small
(roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm) the three men's initials each are!

Could Todd's initials have been accidentally removed when the nose's
small portion was removed for NAA testing? What do photos of the
bullet show before that small section was removed?

Dr. Thompson and Dr. Aguilar's article, "The Magic Bullet; Even More
Magical Than we Knew" is very interesting
http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/evenmoremagical/evenmoremagical.htm

Robert Harris

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 9:42:41 AM10/30/11

to

In article
<bobharris77-4A26...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> When John Hunt examined closeup photos of all four sides of CE399, he
> found the initials for SA's Frazier, Killion and Cunningham but there
> were none for Elmer Todd, the FBI agent who after failing to get
> confirmation of CE399 from two Secret Service agents, then declared that
> he saw his own initials on the bullet.
>
> Nutters here reacted predictably, calling Hunt a "shmuck" and assuring
> us that it was just not possible to distinguish the initials on the
> photos - an amazing proclamation coming from people who have never seen
> the original pictures, as Hunt did.
>
> But fortunately for us, there are better copies of those pictures on the
> web and some pretty good Mac software for enhancing the images to make
> the initials easier to see.
>
> This is the result.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png

The silence speaks volumes.

Robert Harris

bigdog

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 2:26:26 PM10/30/11

to

On Oct 30, 9:42 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-4A26E8.04243328102...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

> Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > When John Hunt examined closeup photos of all four sides of CE399, he
> > found the initials for SA's Frazier, Killion and Cunningham but there
> > were none for Elmer Todd, the FBI agent who after failing to get
> > confirmation of CE399 from two Secret Service agents, then declared that
> > he saw his own initials on the bullet.
>
> > Nutters here reacted predictably, calling Hunt a "shmuck" and assuring
> > us that it was just not possible to distinguish the initials on the
> > photos - an amazing proclamation coming from people who have never seen
> > the original pictures, as Hunt did.
>
> > But fortunately for us, there are better copies of those pictures on the
> > web and some pretty good Mac software for enhancing the images to make
> > the initials easier to see.
>
> > This is the result.
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
>
> The silence speaks volumes.
>

Yes, it means you have become boring.

Robert Harris

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 2:41:27 PM10/30/11

to

In article
<b2283af3-c4ea-4b8a...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
doctorw <PSA...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Oct 28, 9:09?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When John Hunt examined closeup photos of all four sides of CE399, he
> > found the initials for SA's Frazier, Killion and Cunningham but there
> > were none for Elmer Todd, the FBI agent who after failing to get
> > confirmation of CE399 from two Secret Service agents, then declared that
> > he saw his own initials on the bullet.
> >
> > Nutters here reacted predictably, calling Hunt a "shmuck" and assuring
> > us that it was just not possible to distinguish the initials on the
> > photos - an amazing proclamation coming from people who have never seen
> > the original pictures, as Hunt did.
> >
> > But fortunately for us, there are better copies of those pictures on the
> > web and some pretty good Mac software for enhancing the images to make
> > the initials easier to see.
> >
> > This is the result.
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
> >
> > In this image, we can easily see the initials for the three agents who
> > just happen to be the same FBI people who initialed CE-842. But there
> > are absolutely no initials for Elmer Todd.
> >
> > Of course, we still aren't seeing the original photos like Hunt did. His
> > conclusion:
> >
> > "There is no question but that only three sets of initials appear on

> > CE-399. There is likewise no question that they have all ?been

> > positively identified: RF was Robert Frazier, CK was Charles Killion,
> > and JH was Cortland Cunningham. (See Figure 5.) It can be stated as a
> > fact that SA Elmer Lee Todd's mark is not on the historical CE-399
> > bullet."
> >
> > Hunt's article can be seen here,
> >
> > http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Given, that CE399 is about 30mm long, I am surprised at how very small
> (roughly 1.5 to 2.0 mm) the three men's initials each are!
>
> Could Todd's initials have been accidentally removed when the nose's
> small portion was removed for NAA testing?

The removed section was much too small to have contained a set of
initials, and I have to believe that the people who did it would have
taken care not to delete anyone's initials.

You should get the rest of the story. There even better reasons to
conclude that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 3:53:36 PM10/30/11

to

You don't know that for a fact. And given the sloppy way they handled
the evidence we might expect such a thing.

> You should get the rest of the story. There even better reasons to
> conclude that CE399 was not the bullet that wounded Connally.
>

Fine, but it still could have been fired during the assassination.

>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

Jean Davison

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 7:45:08 PM10/30/11

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On Oct 30, 8:42 am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-4A26E8.04243328102...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,

> Robert Harris-

We've been there, done that, when John Hurt was posting here
several years ago. One point raised then is that Joseph Nicol,
firearms expert for the state of Illinois, also marked the bullet.

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.
UNQUOTE

Why don't *his* initials show up in the photos?

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 30, 2011, 7:48:18 PM10/30/11

to

How big were the gouges on the nose?

> Could Todd's initials have been accidentally removed when the nose's
> small portion was removed for NAA testing? What do photos of the
> bullet show before that small section was removed?
>

Do we know for sure that the copper was removed only for NAA? When Robert
Frazier wrote up his evidence sheet that night he already knew that the
brand of the bullet was WCC. And probably knew the jacket was copper. But
he may not have had any way to know the exact mix of chemicals, which
alloy. BTW, notice that someone had stapled a photo of CE399 on the
worksheet even before it was known as CE399. This was the very first photo
taken of CE399 and the government has never released the original photo.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

> Dr. Thompson and Dr. Aguilar's article, "The Magic Bullet; Even More
> Magical Than we Knew" is very interesting
> http://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/evenmoremagical/evenmoremagical.htm
>

This is the type of collaboration between researchers that I like to see.
Did you see the article about the windshield which was a collaboration?

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 6:11:33 PM10/31/11

to

In article
<eb48105f-a09b-4f20...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 30, 10:48?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <14940ac8-2edf-4831-9a38-4afa50c3e...@s9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

> > > ? ? ? ? ?We've been there, done that, when John Hurt was posting here
> > > several years ago. ?One point raised then is that Joseph Nicol,

> > > firearms expert for the state of Illinois, also marked the bullet.
> >
> > > 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.
> > > UNQUOTE
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? Why don't *his* initials show up in the photos?

> >
> > Duh.. because they aren't there.
> >
> > I'm sure there is some kind of logic to your argument, but it eludes me
> > entirely. He either lied or just forgot to initial it.
> >
> > Isn't that pretty common with these witnesses Jean?
> >
> > Robert Harris-
>
> Nicol asked to examine CE 399 and then said his initials
> were on it.

I don't recall him specifically stating that he saw any particular sets
of initials. He may have just assumed his initials were there.

Obviously, if he looked for the initials he would have seen the same
thing we see.

> Suppose Eisenberg looked for these initials too and
> couldn't find them?

Why don't you show us what he would have found?

> Lying would've been rather reckless behavior on
> Nicol's part, and for what?

Ok, let's suppose that somehow, he saw something that is invisible in
the photos. Don't you think that would have been a rather improbable
fluke, especially since we have no problem at all, seeing the three FBI
initials that Hunt confirmed?

Just because you won the lottery, doesn't mean that I won it too, does
it, Jean?

I say we go with Mr. Occam and conclude that the absence of Todd's
initials means they aren't there.

>
> Nowadays when law enforcement agencies submit bullets to
> the FBI Lab for examination, the FBI tells them to NOT mark the
> bullets in any way. They recommend instead that the bullet be put in
> a signed container. When the cops go to trial with these bullets, how
> is the chain of possession preserved? Not by ID-ing marks on the
> bullets, that's for sure.

Yes, mainly because analysis is much more sophisticated these days and
might include DNA testing, so they want no risk of anything being removed
or contaminated. Courts have therefore been forced to change their
standards and trust the police more than they used to.

But that wasn't the case in 1963. The simple fact that three FBI agents
did indeed, initial CE399 confirms that.

Robert Harris

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 8:35:45 PM10/31/11

to

The initials on the "enhanced" version of the photos supplied by Robert
Harris in this thread still are not very distinct. The only initial that's
fairly clear is the "J". All others are almost impossible to read, even
via Harris' enhanced photos.

A set or two of initials (representing Elmer Todd's mark and Joe Nicol's
mark, the latter firearms expert being mentioned by Jean Davison) could
very easily be on that bullet and just not be distinct enough to be seen
clearly.

BTW, when did Elmer Todd die? Or has he? Anyone know?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 9:22:19 PM10/31/11

to

No. Two people can look at the same object and one will see something that
the other does not. Especially after the object has changed over time
and/or been altered. Do we know exactly when Nicols supposedly put his
initials on CE399 and exactly when he supposedly look at it again later?

>
>> Suppose Eisenberg looked for these initials too and
>> couldn't find them?
>
> Why don't you show us what he would have found?
>
>
>> Lying would've been rather reckless behavior on
>> Nicol's part, and for what?
>
> Ok, let's suppose that somehow, he saw something that is invisible in
> the photos. Don't you think that would have been a rather improbable
> fluke, especially since we have no problem at all, seeing the three FBI
> initials that Hunt confirmed?
>

Does anyone have a theory that their initials were forged on a different
bullet or that they conspired to mark CE399 years after the assassination?
Still no one has explained what that mark on the second photo is. Maybe
that is where Nicols originally marked it.

> Just because you won the lottery, doesn't mean that I won it too, does
> it, Jean?
>
> I say we go with Mr. Occam and conclude that the absence of Todd's
> initials means they aren't there.
>

Maybe they were there originally but aren't there now.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Oct 31, 2011, 10:44:13 PM10/31/11

to

On 10/31/2011 8:35 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> The initials on the "enhanced" version of the photos supplied by Robert
> Harris in this thread still are not very distinct. The only initial that's
> fairly clear is the "J". All others are almost impossible to read, even
> via Harris' enhanced photos.
>

So are you claiming that you can not see the initials? Had you seen
those enhancements before? Did you look at the same photos that John
Hunt did?

> A set or two of initials (representing Elmer Todd's mark and Joe Nicol's
> mark, the latter firearms expert being mentioned by Jean Davison) could
> very easily be on that bullet and just not be distinct enough to be seen
> clearly.
>

So far I like your answer the best. So now what do you do to resolve it?
Any possibility that you could duplicate what John Hunt did and actually
go to the National Archives and look at exactly the same photos that he
did? Why don't you call them up and tell them that you are a WC defender
with a fancy camera and want to take a new set of photos of CE399? As
long as you are a WC defender I bet they'd let you take it home.

Jean Davison

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 7:02:50 PM11/1/11

to jjdavi...@yahoo.com

On Oct 31, 5:11 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <eb48105f-a09b-4f20-a87e-84cd545be...@m19g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

Nicol asked, "May I examine them?" and Eisenberg said, "Yes, you
may." And you think he just *assumed* his initials were there?

>
> Obviously, if he looked for the initials he would have seen the same
> thing we see.

Not obvious at all. He was looking at the actual bullet, not a
photo.

>
> > Suppose Eisenberg looked for these initials too and
> > couldn't find them?
>
> Why don't you show us what he would have found?

Put CE399 in my hand, and I'll try.

>
> > Lying would've been rather reckless behavior on
> > Nicol's part, and for what?
>
> Ok, let's suppose that somehow, he saw something that is invisible in
> the photos. Don't you think that would have been a rather improbable
> fluke, especially since we have no problem at all, seeing the three FBI
> initials that Hunt confirmed?
>
> Just because you won the lottery, doesn't mean that I won it too, does
> it, Jean?
>
> I say we go with Mr. Occam and conclude that the absence of Todd's
> initials means they aren't there.
>

I disagree. Todd and Nicol both said they found their marks
on CE 399. I don't think "they both lied" is the simplest explanation.
More likely, we don't see their marks for some other reason.

>
> > Nowadays when law enforcement agencies submit bullets to
> > the FBI Lab for examination, the FBI tells them to NOT mark the
> > bullets in any way. They recommend instead that the bullet be put in
> > a signed container. When the cops go to trial with these bullets, how
> > is the chain of possession preserved? Not by ID-ing marks on the
> > bullets, that's for sure.
>
> Yes, mainly because analysis is much more sophisticated these days and
> might include DNA testing, so they want no risk of anything being removed
> or contaminated. Courts have therefore been forced to change their
> standards and trust the police more than they used to.
>
> But that wasn't the case in 1963. The simple fact that three FBI agents
> did indeed, initial CE399 confirms that.

Marking a bullet isn't (and wasn't) the only method available.
Earlier, John McAdams provided this link quoting an expert who listed
"identification by chain of possession" as an alternative to marking the
evidence:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/chain.htm

Jean

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Nov 1, 2011, 9:05:27 PM11/1/11

to

What happened with the Walker bullet? Supposedly that was marked by
several people, from the DPD to the FBI.
ON THE BULLET. The heavily mutilated bullet.

The bullet in evidence is a copper-jacketed, lead-core bullet fired from a
6.5 caliber Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. It is too mutilated to be traced to
any particular rifle. The FBI investigated the chain of possession of the
bullet designated Q188. They reported it was found by Officer Billy Gene
Norvell. As per routine procedure, he scratched his initial or initials --
either "BN" or just "N" -- onto the bullet's surface. Norvell handed the
bullet over to B. G. Brown of the DPD's Crime Scene Search Section. Brown
marked the bullet either "B" or "BB." On April 25, 1963, Lt. J. C. Day,
the head of the Identifications Bureau, marked the bullet either "JD" or
"D," and transported it to the City/County Investigation Laboratory and
turned it over to F. T Alexander ("FA" or "A") and Louie L. Anderson ("LA"
or "A"). On December 2, 1963 (when it was deemed relevant to the
assassination), Day retrieved the bullet and gave it to FBI Special Agent
Bardwell Odum ("BO" or "O"), who forwarded it to the FBI Laboratory, where
it was initialed "RF" by FBI weapons expert Robert Frazier and an
unidentified "HJ" (see also CE 1953).

In June 1979, the FBI reported, "Identifiable marks were found inscribed
on varying portions of the bullet itself. 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."
And in fairness, sixteen years is much, much longer than the standard
procedures regarding the handling of evidence are expected to encompass.
That said, the markings found were "Q 188," "HJ," "RF," "N," "B," "J,"
"A," and a character that is either "D" or "O." The bullet was contained
in an original DPD evidence box, dated 4-10-63 and marked by "BGB," "Day,"
"HJ" and "RF" (Memo from J. Edgar Hoover, July 3, 1979, #621-17290-144).

And yet you say these guys could not mark CE399? In the second photo from
the National Archives there is plenty of room on that side of the bullet
for more initials. Why so different for CE399?

Robert Harris

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 8:56:12 AM11/2/11

to

In article
<c2a549af-6459-4dea...@a12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

But he did not ask to examine them for the purpose of verifying his
initials. He was asked that afterward.

And he never stated anything like, "Yes, I see my initials on CE399." or
"yes, my initials are right there.".

His initials aren't on CE399. That's all that matters.

>
> >
> > Obviously, if he looked for the initials he would have seen the same
> > thing we see.
>
> Not obvious at all. He was looking at the actual bullet, not a
> photo.

The "actual bullet" is not superior to a magnified, enhanced image. We
are getting a better look at the bullet than he was, unless he was using
a microscope or other form of magnification. And his testimony does not
suggest that he was.

I admire how you can twist things around to make lemonade here, but you
cannot support one discredited statement with another.

>
> >
> > > Suppose Eisenberg looked for these initials too and
> > > couldn't find them?
> >
> > Why don't you show us what he would have found?
>
> Put CE399 in my hand, and I'll try.
>
> >
> > > Lying would've been rather reckless behavior on
> > > Nicol's part, and for what?
> >
> > Ok, let's suppose that somehow, he saw something that is invisible in
> > the photos. Don't you think that would have been a rather improbable
> > fluke, especially since we have no problem at all, seeing the three FBI
> > initials that Hunt confirmed?
> >
> > Just because you won the lottery, doesn't mean that I won it too, does
> > it, Jean?
> >
> > I say we go with Mr. Occam and conclude that the absence of Todd's
> > initials means they aren't there.
> >
>
> I disagree. Todd and Nicol both said they found their marks
> on CE 399. I don't think "they both lied" is the simplest explanation.
> More likely, we don't see their marks for some other reason.

Jean, they are NOT THERE.

If they were, we would see them and Hunt would have seen them. It really
is, just that simple.

Robert Harris

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Nov 2, 2011, 10:06:13 PM11/2/11

to

What part of change do you not understand? Things change. Evidence
changes. Objects change over time. Metal tarnishes. Maybe his initials
were really on CE399, but they aren't now. Maybe they are but we can't see
them.

The appearance and weight of CE399 has changed over the years.
The appearance and weight of CE367 has changed over the years.
Do you know what "patina" is?

http://www.crescentcitycopper.com/images/copper-weathering-chart-425x425.gif