Re: A law journal, "The Federal Lawyer," has published my review of
garag...@gmail.com
> >>> "How unfortunate that Gary has used this vehicle to promote more carp
>
> [sic]." <<<
>
> And crap, too, even.
>
> http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
>
> Gary A., as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying to prop
> up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The truth is, of
> course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been) merely
> corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in order to
> determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet fragments associated
> with the JFK case.
>
Oh, so then you're saying that Sturdivan is wrong; that the NAA is NOT
the "Rosetta Stone" proof that Oswald did it, to use Sturdivan's own
description. In that case you're saying that Guinn's stoutest
defenders are wrong. [Say, who's side are you on, anyway?!]
> For, I still want to know what the odds are of ZERO pieces of any non-
> Oswald bullets (large enough to be tested via traditional ballistics
> means, that is) showing up anywhere (car, hospital, victims) and yet still
> have bullets from any non-Oswald guns striking any victims in that
> limousine?
>
> The ONLY bullets/fragments large enough to be tested ballistically are
> linked irrevocably to Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano Rifle #C2766. This is a
> FACT that cannot be denied...no matter how many CTers show up in the
> future to try and dispute this irreversible fact.
>
Yes, yes. And history has always proven that the FBI lab can be
trusted implicitly, hasn't it?
> And that irreversible fact about the bullets and fragments is an
> absolutely incredible fact IF OTHER GUNS WERE INVOLVED IN HITTING THE
> VICTIMS TOO. (Don't you think?)
>
> Is there anyone out there who thinks it's actually LIKELY, given the
> above-mentioned fact about the bullet evidence, for multiple non-C2766
> guns to have been involved in the assassination? If anyone thinks such a
> scenario IS "likely", they must be living in a different galaxy.
>
> Common sense alone solves the bullet "mystery" (which isn't a mystery at
> all, of course, if you're a reasonable person).
>
J. Edgar Hoover was a man of absolute reasonableness, wasn't he?
> And I'm guessing that the chances were mighty, mighty low indeed for Dr.
> Guinn to have arrived at a "2 Bullets From C2766" conclusion in 1977-78,
> even based on 1970s standards, IF MULTIPLE OTHER TYPES OF BULLETS/GUNS had
> really been in the bullet mix that Guinn examined for the HSCA.
>
> That's yet another "absolutely incredible" one-gun-favoring conclusion if
> THREE different guns had actually fired bullets that struck JFK & JBC on
> 11/22/63 (as almost all anti-SBT advocates MUST believe, due to several
> factors).
>
You really hate Lawrence Livermore Lab Ph.D.s who actually know
something about metallurgy (which Guinn decidedly did NOT), don't you?
And you hate Texas A&M statistics professors who've debunked Guinn's
statistics, don't you? It must pain you (unintended) to have to argue
that men with better credentials than Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have
concluded that Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan can't be taken to the bank,
eh?
> So, per those anti-SBTers, bullets from THREE different guns (at least!)
> entered the victims and yet the only pieces of bullet large enough to be
> tested ballistically (in order to exclude or include Oswald's C2766) just
> happened to be a whole bullet and two fragments from that exact
> gun--C2766.
>
> (Is this truly higher math....or brain surgery? To me, it's obvious. But
> to many CTers, it's completely up in the air. Go figure.)
>
> Regarding CE399.......
>
> I thinks it's quite humorous that many CTers have "switched" to a "The
> Bullet Was Switched Instead Of Planted" mindset with respect to CE399 (as
> Dr. Aguilar mentions having occurred over the last several years).
>
> Maybe it's akin to David Lifton's conspiratorial mindset -- i.e., if one
> theory falls flat, just move on to the next wholly-unsupportable one.
>
> Mr. Lifton has seemingly utilized that motto on various occasions since
> his mind-numbing piece of tripe called "Best Evidence" was released and
> gobbled up with glee by a lot of CT-Kooks in 1980 and 1981.
>
> But the idea of a "switched" bullet is every bit as silly as a "planted"
> 399....if for no other reason, it just about totally demolishes ANOTHER
> long-held belief of the anti-SBT CTers -- that being: the belief by
> theorists that NO BULLET (399 or otherwise) could have ended up in the
> near-perfect condition that 399 was in after being discovered on Governor
> Connally's stretcher by Darrell Tomlinson.
>
> But the "switched" theory includes a WHOLE, INTACT, and (per most CTers
> I've encountered who love this "switched" theory) POINTY-NOSED bullet
> being found by Tomlinson instead of CE399.
>
> So, per that "switched" scenario, I guess a bullet remained pretty much
> INTACT and (just exactly like CE399) suffered no damage at all to the
> "business end of the bullet--the tip" (to use the verbatim words of Dr.
> Gary Aguilar from the above-linked article), because that "pointy" bullet
> was still "pointy-nosed" when discovered by Tomlinson (per many
> conspiracists).
>
And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and
Connally is, exactly, what?
> It makes me wonder HOW those same CTers can possibly accept the idea of a
> pointy-nosed bullet remaining "pointy-nosed" after having done THE VERY
> SAME DAMAGE TO GOVERNOR CONNALLY that CE399 is said to have done per the
> Warren Commission and the HSCA?
>
And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and
Connally is, exactly, what?
> Or do those "switched"-favoring CTers think that the "pointy" bullet
> wasn't really the bullet that was inside John Connally either? Was THAT
> bullet "planted", and then "switched" for Oswald's 399?
>
> Seems to me it's a "six of one, half-dozen of the other" type of argument
> here. Either a pointy bullet remained intact and without a crushed nose
> after going through Connally's body and ended up on that stretcher inside
> Parkland Hospital....or CE399 did. And the best evidence is that JBC was
> hit by just a SINGLE bullet, not two or three missiles.
>
And the evidence Connally actually lay on that stretcher, rather than,
say, Ronnie Fuller, is, exactly, what?
> Either way that argument is sliced and theorized, it would appear that a
> decent-sized number of CTers are going to have to jettison a theory
> they've held so dear for a long, long time -- that being the theory that a
> bullet could not possibly end up in a whole, unfragmented, non- mutilated
> condition after breaking the bones it must have broken in John Connally's
> body.
>
Oh, has evidence proved that the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's
stretcher had passed through Connally? [See "Six Seconds in Dallas"
for the Fuller ref.]
> In the final (and logical) analysis, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming
> History" will probably remain the JFK Bible for many decades to come,
> despite the CTers who have a desire to pick apart every evidence-based
> sentence within it.
>
But of course! And the same people who believed that Johah was in the
belly of a whale for three days will believe that Oswald did it, too.
It's quite amusing to me that you've not touched on any of the
examples I cited of VB's omissions and distortions of evidence. I'm
sure you were just too busy with more important things.
Gary
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> On Dec 3, 5:09 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "How unfortunate that Gary has used this vehicle to promote more carp
>
> > [sic]." <<<
>
> > And crap, too, even.
>
> >http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html
>
> > Gary A., as expected, spends an inordinate amount of time trying to prop
> > up the idea that Guinn's NAA data is totally invalid. The truth is, of
> > course, that the NAA analysis is (and always has been) merely
> > corroborative in nature and is actually completely unneeded in order to
> > determine the very-likely origin of the small bullet fragments associated
> > with the JFK case.
>
> Oh, so then you're saying that Sturdivan is wrong; that the NAA is NOT
> the "Rosetta Stone" proof that Oswald did it, to use Sturdivan's own
> description. In that case you're saying that Guinn's stoutest
> defenders are wrong. [Say, who's side are you on, anyway?!]
>
>
The NAA as Prof. Rahn said was a 'Rosetta Stone' in the case .
a 'Rosetta Stone' does not equate into the 'Rosetta Stone' .
There are upwards of 12 individual 'Rosetta Stone' s , from front to
back , from JFK's back to JBC's thigh , each can and are individually
'Rosetta Stone' s , that in their summation all indicate that the
same
bullet struck both men and as it traversed their body's , while
slowing ,
went fast enough to cause breakage of bone , but not fast enough to
deform the bullet substantially . AAMOF CE-399 is the 'Rosetta Stone'
that proves SBT rocks and rocks the CT boat so violently , CTer's
spend a inordinant amount of time trying to object but , it's so
sweat ,
futility is all they've come up with so far !
tl
aeffects
sitdown you inchoate moron.... your an embarrassment to human kind
> tl
Kenneth A. Rahn
Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
background again.
Ken Rahn
(Who has known a few tangents himself)
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0d877466-5e47-40f7...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
>
>CDD,
>
> Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
>tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
>background again.
>
>Ken Rahn
>(Who has known a few tangents himself)
The NAA is dead... too bad you can't admit this...
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a545a45c91fa9
>>> "David, there is NO evidence the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher..." <<<
Sure there is. Connally's stretcher just BEING in that hallway is
circumstantial evidence that CE399 was found on CONNALLY'S stretcher.
When coupled with the fact that the occupant (Ronnie Fuller) of the
ONLY OTHER stretcher that is a candidate of producing Bullet CE399 was
most certainly NOT shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63 (was he?)....well, the stretcher choices get
narrowed down to a pretty small number -- to one -- Connally's.
Plus: There's Darrell Tomlinson himself, who certainly seemed a tad
bit confused regarding the stretcher issue when he said this to the
Warren Commission:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was
stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher
"B"?"
DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be
perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really
didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the
elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two
calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
>>> "As a result it's difficult to figure out where the bullet came from and what wounds it created." <<<
It's not difficult at all....unless you want to believe in something
quite EXTRAordinary in nature, i.e., either a "planted" bullet or a
"switched" bullet.
And the latter option requires most/many CTers to abandon the notion
that ANY bullet could emerge in very good shape after breaking those
bones in JBC. Because isn't it the conventional theory among many
CTers that WHATEVER bullet was found on WHATEVER stretcher it was
found on, it was an INTACT, UNFRAGMENTED bullet that certainly wasn't
mangled beyond recognition?
And don't extraordinary accusations and theories require some degree
of associated extraordinary PROOF to back them up and make them take
flight?
Or, as Vince B. is wont to say, is the mere accusation and rumor
enough to substitute for proof of bullet-handling
underhandedness? .....
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; ...treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
========
"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't
troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that
Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation
that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
========
>>> "Dr. Aguilar has successfully demonstrated that Bugliosi's book fails to answer some of the questions surrounding this bullet {CE399}." <<<
Bugliosi has answered them just fine. And that's because Vince relies
not only on the other "LHO bullet" evidence to prop up the obviousness
regarding CE399 (and all of the other many things that spell out "LHO
Shot JFK With Rifle C2766"), but Vincent also uses ample amounts of
common sense to beat the CTers into the backwoods (where they belong)
with respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, too.
Like this short (but sweet) example:
"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet was found on,
Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
========
By the way, regarding the "admissibility" of certain JFK assassination
evidence, Bugliosi has this to say (although, granted, VB doesn't
mention "CE399" in this passage specifically, but it's worth a look
anyway, coming as it does from a seasoned ex-prosecutor who certainly
knows his "Rules of Law"):
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
========
>>> "This is the kind of essay {the one written by Dr. Gary Aguilar} Bugliosi would have welcomed, prior to publication, should he have been sincerely interested in writing a great book. Instead he hid out and wrote up a prosecutor's brief. Horribly disappointing." <<<
"Reclaiming History" is not disappointing to a reasonable person who
is tired of wading through the incessant, unsupportable theories being
spouted by CTers (and an endless stream of associated CT books).
But, one's man "reasonable" is another man's "horribly
disappointing".
~shrug~
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a5...
aeffects
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a545a45c91fa9
>>> "Oh, so then you're saying that Sturdivan is wrong; that the NAA is NOT the "Rosetta Stone" proof that Oswald did it, to use Sturdivan's own description." <<<
Oh, I definitely disagree (strongly) with that type of "Rosetta Stone"
assessment, to be sure!
If Mr. Sturdivan said that very thing you attribute him as having said
about NAA (I'm not 100% sure, but I'll take your word for it, Gary),
then, yes, I positively think Larry is wrong regarding such a strong
statement.
NAA isn't the "Rosetta Stone", in my opinion. Far from it. Because
common sense ALONE comes very, very close to verifying (for reasonable
people looking at the sum total of the bullet evidence) that no other
bullets struck the two limo victims on Elm Street on November 22. NAA
is merely the icing on an already adequately-iced "All Oswald's
Bullets" cake.
IMO, the "Rosetta Stones" (if I'm allowed to have more than just one
single "Stone") that prove Oswald's guilt (and his almost certain lone
guilt) are the following things:
1.) Rifle C2766 being found on the 6th Floor.
2.) The paper bag (with LHO's prints on it).
More.....
THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
3.) Oswald's immediate departure (on foot) from the murder scene.
4.) The Tippit murder.
5.) Oswald's many lies that he told to the police after his arrest
(including the critical lie about the "curtain rods", i.e., LHO
telling police that he had never said a word to Buell Wesley Frazier
about "curtain rods").
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
>>> "Say, who's [sic] side are you on, anyway?!" <<<
The one marked "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic). ;)
Which side are you on, Gary? The "Complicate The Uncomplicated" side
perhaps?
>>> "And history has always proven that the FBI lab can be trusted implicitly, hasn't it?" <<<
Which, of course, MUST mean that Hoover and his evil boys (including
the FBI "lab" boys and girls) would fake everything in sight (or pert-
near, per many CTers) when it comes to the assassination of their own
Chief Executive. Right, Gary?
Where's the proof that the FBI "faked" anything in this case? Or that
they hid anything from view in this case (with the one exception of
the Hosty note, which I'll readily admit was flushed down the toilet
in Dallas)?
But why on Earth would Hosty EVER admit to doing such a thing if the
FBI was really "behind" the assassination or the kind of massive
"cover-up" that many conspiracists suspect?
The "Hosty Note" topic reminds me of Dr. James Humes and his example
of truth-telling that backfired on him too. Humes ADMITTED flat-out
(on paper and in front of the WC) that he burned his autopsy notes and
the first rough draft of the autopsy report....and he's then raked
over the hot coals by CTers for telling that hunk of TRUTH.
But why in heck would Humes had ever admitted to burning those items
in his home fireplace (when he really didn't have to admit to any such
burning at all) if he was part of some kind of covert plot or cover-
up?
It's just....silly.
>>> "J. Edgar Hoover was a man of absolute reasonableness, wasn't he?" <<<
No. By all accounts of the man, he was a kook and pretty much a
nutcase. But, so what?
He never liked to make left turns while being driven around (after
being involved in a fender-bender while making a left turn one day),
so he instructed his drivers to never make any left turns ever again
while he was in the car. Must've been fun planning J. Edgar's
excursions after that. ;)
Hoover was a kook in many ways, yes. But does that mean he plotted to
cover up the truth about the murder of his own President?
Plus, as I've said several times in the past, it's fervently my belief
that J. Edgar Hoover would have been anxious and foaming at the mouth
to REVEAL the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder, in order to
possibly exonerate Lee Oswald (which would have certainly relieved the
pressure that his Bureau was under after the assassination for having
not kept betting tabs on this freak of nature named Oswald, who was
right under James Hosty's nose for several weeks prior to November
22nd).
Hoover certainly wouldn't have been trying to FALSELY CONVICT (as some
CTers seem to actually believe) the one man whom his Bureau should
have been watching more closely leading up to the assassination, for
Pete sake.
That theory is, again, just silly, IMO.
>>> "It must pain you to have to argue that men with better credentials than Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have concluded that Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan can't be taken to the bank, eh?" <<<
You can have the NAA stuff all to yourself if you want it. As
mentioned earlier, it's merely a coating of redundant icing on the LHO-
Did-It cake anyway.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not nice to have Guinn's NAA analysis in
the official record connected to the JFK case (as added "icing", that
is). Because it is nice to have that there. But it's certainly not
essential in determining the truth of the assassination.
And I'd still like to know just how big a crook/liar/schemer Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn was in 1977 and 1978 (per many CTers, that is).
By that I mean....What are the odds that Dr. Guinn would be able to
reasonably conclude (even via his 1970s standards and NAA methodology)
that only TWO bullets and no more were in the "mix" of bullet lead,
among the 5 specimens he examined for the HSCA -- and both bullets, of
course, coming from Oswald's gun (since CE399 and CE567 were 2 of
those 5 bullet samples) -- IF THERE HAD REALLY BEEN TWO OR MORE GUNS
being pointed at JFK in Dealey Plaza?
Was Guinn just a rotten chemist? Or was he deliberately skewing his
results to meet a predestined WC-backing "two bullets and no more"
conclusion when he said what he said about those five bullet specimens
in 1977-78?
Food for thought (IMO).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
And allow me to once again quote the man who wrote the Bible
("Reclaiming History"), Vince Bugliosi, with respect to the NAA debate
(all emphasis is Bugliosi's here):
"Even if the new findings {not the 2007 study however} were to
render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we
DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of ALL other weapons.
"Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
Connally's wrist? Next to nothing. In other words, when all is said
and done, what difference does it make if it turns out that the NAA
tests are completely invalid?
"But there is a more important point to be made. Let's not
forget that the NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
with all the other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's
nest window and it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets
that hit Kennedy.
"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes
CD)(c.2007)
>>> "And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and Connally is, exactly, what?" <<<
LOL. You tell me, Gary. It's certainly not MY silly theory.
But many CTers I've conversed with DO seem to like that "pointy
bullet" theory. Which, if true, means that either THAT bullet, too,
was "planted", or it must mean that a pointy bullet hit Connally, did
a substantial amount of bony damage inside the Governor, and emerged
in a condition that, I would think, rivals the near-pristine state of
the bullet all CTers love to hate and scorn -- Commission Exhibit
Number Three-Niner-Niner.
It's a silly theory no matter which way CTers wish to go with it.
>>> "And the evidence that the pointy tipped bullet hit Kennedy and Connally is, exactly, what?" <<<
Goodie, a reprise.....
LOL. You tell me, Gary. It's certainly not MY silly theory.
(Wanna go for a Hat Trick here?)
>>> "And the evidence Connally actually lay on that stretcher, rather than, say, Ronnie Fuller, is, exactly, what?" <<<
Was Ronnie hit by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (or ANY bullet) on
November 22, 1963, Gary?
The "Fuller" argument goes nowhere, of course. It's quite obvious that
Darrell Tomlinson was not paying strict attention to the stretchers
when he retrieved Bullet CE399 from Connally's stretcher (i.e., the
only stretcher, among the two available, that ANY bullet could have
possibly come off of).
But some CTers would rather rely on hazy human memories, instead of
turning to Occam's, whose Razor is razor-sharp in almost all aspects
of this murder case. (The constant obfuscation exhibited by CTers
notwithstanding, of course.)
Conspiracy-hungry individuals love to complicate things, even when
complicating things isn't necessary (or reasonable) in order to figure
out what probably happened in a given situation.
LNers, though, enjoy Occam's [aka Ockham's] company.
>>> "Has evidence proved that the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher had passed through Connally?" <<<
Was Ronnie hit by any bullet on 11/22/63?
If not, where does the argument really go regarding any bullet being
plucked off of Ronnie Fuller's stretcher?
Were the plotters so stupid they couldn't even plant a bullet on the
correct stretcher?
There's nothing I hate worse than an overpaid, ignorant, bullet-
planting "Patsy Framer"! Don't you agree?
>>> "It's quite amusing to me that you've not touched on any of the examples I cited of VB's omissions and distortions of evidence." <<<
All chaff. That's what CTers love--the chaff. Even when the wheat
field is slapping them in the face daily. Go figure.
That's possibly what Mr. Bugliosi thinks too, when it comes to your so-
called cites of VB's "omissions and distortions of evidence".
For CTers, even when a logical, reasonable, Occam's-like answer is
readily available (and such answers exist for virtually every
discrepancy and "oddity" in this case), the conspiracy theorists, who
are bent on promoting their make-believe "plots" or "cover-ups", will
opt for a more complicated, always-unsupportable cloak-and-dagger
explanation to explain away the discrepancy.
The CE399 debate is a perfect example of this. For, is it truly likely
for a bullet from Oswald's gun (which is a gun that we KNOW beyond all
doubt was, indeed, involved in the shooting of President Kennedy in
Dealey Plaza; CE567 and CE569 in the limo prove that fact without
question) to have really been "planted" or "switched" or
"substituted" (or whatever) shortly after the assassination?....
....Or is it really MORE likely for CE399 to be just what it seems to
be -- i.e., a bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's very own rifle that was
found on 11/22/63 in the hospital where both shooting victims were
taken right after having been shot by rifle bullets on that very same
day and right after those two victims had been shot at by someone who
was using THE VERY SAME RIFLE THAT FIRED BULLET CE399?
Let me call up William of Occam and get his opinion. (I think I know
what he'll say.)
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a5...
not much of a post here either.....
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a5...
"Sure there is. Connally's stretcher just BEING in that hallway is
circumstantial evidence that CE399 was found on CONNALLY'S stretcher."
The term circumstantial is even a reach here. The chain of custody
custodianship would not have allowed this bullet to be admitted into
court.
"When coupled with the fact that the occupant (Ronnie Fuller) of the
ONLY OTHER stretcher that is a candidate of producing Bullet CE399 was
most certainly NOT shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63 (was he?)....well, the stretcher choices get
narrowed down to a pretty small number -- to one -- Connally's."
Prove this (Fuller's strectcher) as I did not see him mentioned in the
WCR. The real strong option for the other stretcher is JFK, but since
the WCR was so vague on who was on it, and the time of when Tomlinson
brought JBC's back down as compared to when the bullet was found we
are left with conjecture.
>
> Plus: There's Darrell Tomlinson himself, who certainly seemed a tad
> bit confused regarding the stretcher issue when he said this to the
> Warren Commission:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was
> stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher
> "B"?"
>
> DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be
> perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really
> didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the
> elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two
> calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."
Exactly, this is hardly chain of evidence since the person who found
it wasn't even sure which stretcher it came out of. Furthermore, if a
"bump" against the wall knocked it out, why didn't the ride back down
from the operating room do this instead? It is much more likely that
it came from the non-JBC stretcher. Finally, Tomlinson said the bullet
that is in evidence as CE399 was not the one he found.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
"
It's not difficult at all (to tell where the wounds came
from)....unless you want to believe in something quite EXTRAordinary
in nature, i.e., either a "planted" bullet or a "switched" bullet.
A "planted" bullet is EXTRAordinary to Dave, but a bullet causing 7
wounds, including breaking the 5th rib bone and the wrist of JBC, and
coming our virtually intact is commonplace for him. Talk about
backwards logic.
"And don't extraordinary accusations and theories (that a bullet can
cause 7 wounds & break bones & not come out pristine) require some
degree of associated extraordinary PROOF to back them up and make
them take flight?"
How about the head of the Edgewood arsenal for one who said it can't
be done (magic bullet scenario)? You remember him don't you? He
refused to bend and so they got a *Vet* at the same place to conduct
tests for them even though he had no real experience in this area. Is
that what you mean by PROOF?
> ========
>
> >>> "Dr. Aguilar has successfully demonstrated that Bugliosi's book fails to answer some of the questions surrounding this bullet {CE399}." <<<
>
> Bugliosi has answered them just fine. And that's because Vince relies
> not only on the other "LHO bullet" evidence to prop up the obviousness
> regarding CE399 (and all of the other many things that spell out "LHO
> Shot JFK With Rifle C2766"), but Vincent also uses ample amounts of
> common sense to beat the CTers into the backwoods (where they belong)
> with respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, too.
Why don't you lay out all this evidence and how Bugliosi handled the
CE399 issue?
> Like this short (but sweet) example:
>
> "The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet was found on,
> Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
> know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
> know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
> on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming
> History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
And he was once a practising lawyer? He is making a mockery of the
whole judicial system with this claim. BTW, how does he know for sure
it was not found on JFK's stretcher? Hoover thought so.
>
> ========
>
> By the way, regarding the "admissibility" of certain JFK assassination
> evidence, Bugliosi has this to say (although, granted, VB doesn't
> mention "CE399" in this passage specifically, but it's worth a look
> anyway, coming as it does from a seasoned ex-prosecutor who certainly
> knows his "Rules of Law"):
>
> "An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
> that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
> the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
> not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
> law. ....
>
> "The first observation I have to make is that I would think
> conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
> not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
It goes hand in hand, but since he was not an investigator he wouldn't
know this.
>
> "Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
> of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
> large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
Is he joking?
>
> "Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
> practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
> ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
> believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
> admissible.
Sure, they go by legal precedent and the defense would not have
allowed much of this evidence since the origins of it was so unknown
in many cases. If it was allowed for LHO, you might as well do away
with our legal system since anything would be fair game for entry.
>
> "I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
> at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
> exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
> is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
> admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
> "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
> jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
> 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
This is an out and out fib, since the origins of any evidence has to
be established. Now granted, in small cases where the defendent is a
small time crook there probably is more allowed in, and much of this
could be due to the public defender having too many cases. In a big
case like this with the country watching and the best of the best
defending LHO for publicity, much of this evidence would be prohibited
based on how it came to be evidence (or more to the point in some
cases, the lack of knowledge of it got to the crime scene at all).
>
> ========
>
> >>> "This is the kind of essay {the one written by Dr. Gary Aguilar} Bugliosi would have welcomed, prior to publication, should he have been sincerely interested in writing a great book. Instead he hid out and wrote up a prosecutor's brief. Horribly disappointing." <<<
>
> "Reclaiming History" is not disappointing to a reasonable person who
> is tired of wading through the incessant, unsupportable theories being
> spouted by CTers (and an endless stream of associated CT books).
It is funny, how a goup of people who believe in the magical bullet
and so many other fantasies in the official version, believe they
think reasonably at all.
>
> But, one's man "reasonable" is another man's "horribly
> disappointing".
You took the words right out of my mouth.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a143937bfc2e0aba
>>> "How does he {Bugliosi} know for sure it was not found on JFK's stretcher?" <<<
Why not learn the case, Rob? (It couldn't hurt your current crap-like
standing to actually LEARN the facts before vomiting your pro-
conspiracy tripe.)
Fact is, JFK's stretcher was never located in the area of Parkland
Hospital where the bullet was found by Tomlinson. Never. Nor was JFK's
body ever in that area down the hall from Trauma Room 1. Kennedy
remained in ER-1 the whole time he was in Parkland.
So it is physically impossible for any bullet from Kennedy's stretcher
to magically appear down the hall.
And if you think the bullet was picked up in Trauma Room No. 1 and
then deposited on a stretcher down the hall...ask yourself: What the
fuck for??!!
Why on Earth would anyone even have the slightest desire to do
something stupid like that? If there was actually a REAL bullet from
LHO's gun that fell out of Kennedy's back (which there wasn't of
course, I'm merely playing the silly CT game for a moment here), then
why would anybody bent on framing Oswald want to tamper with such
great evidence that was already right THERE near Kennedy's own body
and on HIS stretcher, in order to place it on a different stretcher
down the hall?
That's just nuts all around.
Plus: Even if some moron plotter thought it was a good idea to move
the bullet, why plant it on the WRONG stretcher down the hall...or
even on Connally's own stretcher? Why not plant it IN THE LIMO WHERE
JFK WAS SHOT (which would nicely accompany CE567 & CE569, the
fragments also from Rifle #C2766)?
Did any of the so-called "plotters" have a working brain on 11/22?
==================================
"The movements and handling of President Kennedy's stretcher
negates the possibility that the bullet could have originated from the
president's stretcher." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 811 of "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
==================================
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a5...
"NAA isn't the "Rosetta Stone", in my opinion. Far from it. Because
common sense ALONE comes very, very close to verifying (for reasonable
people looking at the sum total of the bullet evidence) that no other
bullets struck the two limo victims on Elm Street on November 22. NAA
is merely the icing on an already adequately-iced "All Oswald's
Bullets" cake."
Only a non-reasonable person would come to this conclusion since the
metallic compostion of the bullets is/was so similar to many other
types of bullets. The test did not exist then, and many scientist are
saying it is not available today, so how do you know the fragments
found match the Carcano? Because the WCR said so?
>
"IMO, the "Rosetta Stones" (if I'm allowed to have more than just one
> single "Stone") that prove Oswald's guilt (and his almost certain lone
> guilt) are the following things:
>
> 1.) Rifle C2766 being found on the 6th Floor.
This is not proof in and of itself. There are questions to be
answered about the ordering of the rifle (i.e. ownership), the lack of
LHO's prints on the gun, ammo and scope.
>
> 2.) The paper bag (with LHO's prints on it).
As Sylvia Meagher so aptly pointed out, "The Commission . . . offered
no firm physical evidence of a link between the paper bag and the
rifle. The [Warren] Report does not mention the negative examination
made by FBI expert James Cadigan. Cadigan said explicitly that he had
been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other
indications that would tie the bag to the rifle. Those negative
findings assume greater significance in the light of an FBI report (CE
2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository was in a well-oiled condition. It is difficult to
understand why a well-oiled rifle carried in separate parts [as the WC
claimed] would not have left distinct traces of oil on the paper bag,
easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye. The
expert testimony includes no mention of oil traces, a fact which in
itself is cogent evidence against the Commission's conclusions."
> More.....
>
> THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
>
> 3.) Oswald's immediate departure (on foot) from the murder scene.
What about Buell Wesley Frazier's departure. How about Charles
Given's departure from the TSBD?
>
> 4.) The Tippit murder.
What about it? How does this involve LHO?
>
> 5.) Oswald's many lies that he told to the police after his arrest
> (including the critical lie about the "curtain rods", i.e., LHO
> telling police that he had never said a word to Buell Wesley Frazier
> about "curtain rods").
Why is it a lie? You take Wesley Frazier's word for it? How come?
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a6b3390021d657c
>
> >>> "Say, who's [sic] side are you on, anyway?!" <<<
>
> The one marked "CS&L" (Common Sense & Logic). ;)
This is funny since you believe in magical bullets and cases that are
"solved" in 48-72 hours.
>
> Which side are you on, Gary? The "Complicate The Uncomplicated" side
> perhaps?
Uncomplicated does not mean it is the truth.
>
> >>> "And history has always proven that the FBI lab can be trusted implicitly, hasn't it?" <<<
"Where's the proof that the FBI "faked" anything in this case? Or that
they hid anything from view in this case (with the one exception of
the Hosty note, which I'll readily admit was flushed down the toilet
in Dallas)?"
So you feel it is normal to wrap-up a major case in 48-72 hours if you
are really investigating the crime? If you answer yes, forget ever
saying you are reasonable person. They only way you close a case that
fast is when you have it all worked out ahead of time. Most FBI
employees are honest, hard-working people, so to say they "faked"
everything would be untrue. But to say those at the top of the food
chain coordinated things to reach the preconceived solution is not a
stretch.
> But why on Earth would Hosty EVER admit to doing such a thing if the
> FBI was really "behind" the assassination or the kind of massive
> "cover-up" that many conspiracists suspect?
Because the note was possibly a warning of the assassination and they
FBI did not act on it. The FBI, and by this I mean JEH since in many
ways he had become the bureau, could be an accomplice without being
involved in the planning at all. Hoover wrote quite a few memos
stating in harsh words how the bureau dropped the ball on this one,
and in an effort to cover this he could have been manipulated into
doing all of this. Or, since he invested his whole life to build the
bureau, he didn't need any manipulation to realize his 39 years of
hard work could go down the toilet if the American people learned they
knew about the plan ahead of time and did not stop it. Or Hoover could
have been involved as some researchers have stated, either way, you
have three scenarios to get the FBI to do this.
>
> The "Hosty Note" topic reminds me of Dr. James Humes and his example
> of truth-telling that backfired on him too. Humes ADMITTED flat-out
> (on paper and in front of the WC) that he burned his autopsy notes and
> the first rough draft of the autopsy report....and he's then raked
> over the hot coals by CTers for telling that hunk of TRUTH.
Sure, deflect the blame away from him for burning autopsy notes. Do
you really buy that he did it because there was blood on it? It is
possible I guess, but why not keep them AND transfer them to a clean
version?
> But why in heck would Humes had ever admitted to burning those items
> in his home fireplace (when he really didn't have to admit to any such
> burning at all) if he was part of some kind of covert plot or cover-
> up?
>
> It's just....silly.
It is just as silly to say he needed to burn them in the first place
as he could have had his secretary transfer them to a clean sheet (or
he could do it himself), and he could have kept the original version
as well. There is no good reason to burn them so quit putting the
blame on CT's.
>
> >>> "J. Edgar Hoover was a man of absolute reasonableness, wasn't he?" <<<
>
> No. By all accounts of the man, he was a kook and pretty much a
> nutcase. But, so what?
>
> He never liked to make left turns while being driven around (after
> being involved in a fender-bender while making a left turn one day),
> so he instructed his drivers to never make any left turns ever again
> while he was in the car. Must've been fun planning J. Edgar's
> excursions after that. ;)
>
> Hoover was a kook in many ways, yes. But does that mean he plotted to
> cover up the truth about the murder of his own President?
He may not have plotted (although it would be very helpful for the
plotters to have him on board), but he certainly helped with the cover-
up and this makes him just as guilty. He, along with the CIA,
impeeded the investigation by not exploring anything that did not
point to LHO, and this is a crime. If you were to not assist the
police in their investigation of a family member or friend, you can be
arrested.
>
> Plus, as I've said several times in the past, it's fervently my belief
> that J. Edgar Hoover would have been anxious and foaming at the mouth
> to REVEAL the existence of a conspiracy in the JFK murder, in order to
> possibly exonerate Lee Oswald (which would have certainly relieved the
> pressure that his Bureau was under after the assassination for having
> not kept betting tabs on this freak of nature named Oswald, who was
> right under James Hosty's nose for several weeks prior to November
> 22nd).
Not if he was part of it, or faced losing everything he had worked for
he wouldn't. Besides he was friends with LBJ and he did away with the
mandatory age retirement for him. Nixon didn't trust him and was the
one who finally got rid of him. Strangely, some have said Hoover
himself was killed as he died quite suddenly. I don't know all the
details, but I think they point to the CIA (Hunt).
>
> Hoover certainly wouldn't have been trying to FALSELY CONVICT (as some
> CTers seem to actually believe) the one man whom his Bureau should
> have been watching more closely leading up to the assassination, for
> Pete sake.
You are a naive one, who do you think Hoover would care about more,
himself (by extension the bureau) or LHO? Please.
>
> That theory is, again, just silly, IMO.
>
> >>> "It must pain you to have to argue that men with better credentials than Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan have concluded that Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan can't be taken to the bank, eh?" <<<
>
> You can have the NAA stuff all to yourself if you want it. As
> mentioned earlier, it's merely a coating of redundant icing on the LHO-
> Did-It cake anyway.
Good answer since Milam has shown through his research that Guinn
wasn't even testing the same evidence as the FBI did in 1964,
therefore, for that reason alone the conclusions are of no value. The
weights of the sampe were not the same.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that it's not nice to have Guinn's NAA analysis in
> the official record connected to the JFK case (as added "icing", that
> is). Because it is nice to have that there. But it's certainly not
> essential in determining the truth of the assassination.
You would have a zero account balance if it was in your bank.
>
> And I'd still like to know just how big a crook/liar/schemer Dr.
> Vincent P. Guinn was in 1977 and 1978 (per many CTers, that is).
Very big, he tested things that he knew where not the original samples
and still claimed they matched to LHO rifle.
>
> By that I mean....What are the odds that Dr. Guinn would be able to
> reasonably conclude (even via his 1970s standards and NAA methodology)
> that only TWO bullets and no more were in the "mix" of bullet lead,
> among the 5 specimens he examined for the HSCA -- and both bullets, of
> course, coming from Oswald's gun (since CE399 and CE567 were 2 of
> those 5 bullet samples) -- IF THERE HAD REALLY BEEN TWO OR MORE GUNS
> being pointed at JFK in Dealey Plaza?
This was not possible. He was there to point the guilt at LHO, but
couldn't do it in a scientific method, so they resorted to what works
best, they lied.
>
> Was Guinn just a rotten chemist? Or was he deliberately skewing his
> results to meet a predestined WC-backing "two bullets and no more"
> conclusion when he said what he said about those five bullet specimens
> in 1977-78?
You answered your own questions.
>
> Food for thought (IMO).
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43
>
> And allow me to once again quote the man who wrote the Bible
> ("Reclaiming History"), Vince Bugliosi, with respect to the NAA debate
> (all emphasis is Bugliosi's here):
>
> "Even if the new findings {not the 2007 study however} were to
> render NAA, and hence {Dr. Vincent} Guinn's conclusions, invalid, we
> DO know that the stretcher bullet was fired from Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of ALL other weapons.
Big deal, what does this prove? It proves someone shot the bullet
into cotton wadding and plated it since there was no blood or tissue
on it. Furthermore, since it was not removed from one of the bodies
it is not viable to say it entered either one with out their blood or
tissue on it. You have nothing.
> "Since THAT is definite, what is the likelihood that a bullet
> found on CONNALLY'S stretcher, which we know was fired from Oswald's
> gun, is not the same bullet that deposited its missing fragments in
> Connally's wrist? Next to nothing. In other words, when all is said
> and done, what difference does it make if it turns out that the NAA
> tests are completely invalid?
Yes, you have a bullet fired by the Carcano, but you don't have proof
LHO fired it or that it was ever in JFK's or JBc's bodies. We know for
sure since we know the magic bullet only lost 2.4 grains and there was
3.0 to 3.2 grains in JBC's wrist. Can't be the same bullet. You do
have next to nothing, in fact, you have nothing. Well, you do have a
nice little bullet to show off.
>
> "But there is a more important point to be made. Let's not
> forget that the NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT
> with all the other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's
> nest window and it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets
> that hit Kennedy.
What? How?
>
> "This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the
> likelihood that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --
> Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 436-437 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes
> CD)(c.2007)
What a lame comment. How does another area of evidence gathering
support the NAA tests? Either these test are accurate and provable or
not.
> >>> "And the evidence Connally actually lay on that stretcher, rather than, say, Ronnie Fuller, is, exactly, what?" <<<
>
> Was Ronnie hit by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet (or ANY bullet) on
> November 22, 1963, Gary?
Was the bullet found on the stretcher JBC was on? Prove it. Good luck
since the only one there when it was found couldn't say for sure.
>
> The "Fuller" argument goes nowhere, of course. It's quite obvious that
> Darrell Tomlinson was not paying strict attention to the stretchers
> when he retrieved Bullet CE399 from Connally's stretcher (i.e., the
> only stretcher, among the two available, that ANY bullet could have
> possibly come off of).
Sure, and I can say he was not paying attention when he took the
bullet off of JFK's stretcher. Either way we can't prove it.
>
> But some CTers would rather rely on hazy human memories, instead of
> turning to Occam's, whose Razor is razor-sharp in almost all aspects
> of this murder case. (The constant obfuscation exhibited by CTers
> notwithstanding, of course.)
Sure, pull this lame theory out. Tomlinson had no hazy memory, he was
honest and said he DID NOT know which stretcher it came from.
>
> Conspiracy-hungry individuals love to complicate things, even when
> complicating things isn't necessary (or reasonable) in order to figure
> out what probably happened in a given situation.
This is a complicated case and you cannot boil it down to the simplest
point and guarantee the truth. The evidence alone shows it is
anything but simple.
>
> LNers, though, enjoy Occam's [aka Ockham's] company.
Of course you do as this allows you to avoid all the crappy evidence
the WC left for you. You just ignore it and say LHO did it over and
over.
>
> >>> "Has evidence proved that the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher had passed through Connally?" <<<
>
> Was Ronnie hit by any bullet on 11/22/63?
Answer his question Dave. You brought up Ronnie Fuller, he is asking
if any evidence showed it had passed through JBC so answer it.
>
> If not, where does the argument really go regarding any bullet being
> plucked off of Ronnie Fuller's stretcher?
It goes in the trash can like it did in 1964 when you can't prove
CE399 ever went into JBC or JFK. You are adding Fuller as a screen.
>
> Were the plotters so stupid they couldn't even plant a bullet on the
> correct stretcher?
No, they knew it would be taken care of for them and it was. Despite
the man finding it saying he could not say it came from JBC's
stretcher they ruled it did.
>
> There's nothing I hate worse than an overpaid, ignorant, bullet-
> planting "Patsy Framer"! Don't you agree?
Yet you love the WC.
>
> >>> "It's quite amusing to me that you've not touched on any of the examples I cited of VB's omissions and distortions of evidence." <<<
>
> All chaff. That's what CTers love--the chaff. Even when the wheat
> field is slapping them in the face ...
Of course not, he has 1650 pages of omissions and distortions of
evidence, Dave would be typing for years.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a143937b...
>
> >>> "How does he {Bugliosi} know for sure it was not found on JFK's stretcher?" <<<
>
> Why not learn the case, Rob? (It couldn't hurt your current crap-like
> standing to actually LEARN the facts before vomiting your pro-
> conspiracy tripe.)
I know the case Dave, I want to hear Bugliosi's take on this since you
said it was definitely from JBC's. Quit stalling.
>
> Fact is, JFK's stretcher was never located in the area of Parkland
> Hospital where the bullet was found by Tomlinson. Never. Nor was JFK's
> body ever in that area down the hall from Trauma Room 1. Kennedy
> remained in ER-1 the whole time he was in Parkland.
How do you know for sure it couldn't be? He was on the the stretcher
the whole time until he was put into the casket. Meanwhile, the
stretcher that took JBC to the second floor was put in the hallway,
but the WC never mentions how long it sat there before Tomlinson took
it down. You have no timeframe either way, so why is it wrong to say
it was JFK's stretcher? I have Dr. Humes, Siebert, O'Neill and Hoover
on my side, but you can't prove it was on JBC's because NO ONE can say
for sure it was on it.
>
> So it is physically impossible for any bullet from Kennedy's stretcher
> to magically appear down the hall.
Sure it is, if you could prove it was not JFK's, but alas the WC left
you nothing to work with as usual.
>
> And if you think the bullet was picked up in Trauma Room No. 1 and
> then deposited on a stretcher down the hall...ask yourself: What the
> fuck for??!!
Actually, there were several bullets found that day in the Hospital,
but I'll stick with Dr. Humes's theory that it came out of JFK during
cardiac massage and then the stretcher was just taken to the hallway
with no one seeing it.
>
> Why on Earth would anyone even have the slightest desire to do
> something stupid like that? If there was actually a REAL bullet from
> LHO's gun that fell out of Kennedy's back (which there wasn't of
> course, I'm merely playing the silly CT game for a moment here), then
> why would anybody bent on framing Oswald want to tamper with such
> great evidence that was already right THERE near Kennedy's own body
> and on HIS stretcher, in order to place it on a different stretcher
> down the hall?
Who tampered with it? Tomlinson said he couldn't say which stretcher
it came from and all I'm saying is the other one was JFK's. Not a
stretch at all to me.
>
> That's just nuts all around.
Not when you know how to think. It makes more sense than the
stretcher being pushed down from the second floor and not coming out,
but then it is bumped and does.
>
> Plus: Even if some moron plotter thought it was a good idea to move
> the bullet, why plant it on the WRONG stretcher down the hall...or
> even on Connally's own stretcher? Why not plant it IN THE LIMO WHERE
> JFK WAS SHOT (which would nicely accompany CE567 & CE569, the
> fragments also from Rifle #C2766)?
I'm not saying it was moved and you can't prove it so stop saying it.
You have no proof it was found on JBC's stretcher. WC's word is not
proof.
>
> Did any of the so-called "plotters" have a working brain on 11/22?
They did, but you obviously don't.
>
> ==================================
>
> "The movements and handling of President Kennedy's stretcher
> negates the possibility that the bullet could have originated from the
> president's stretcher." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 811 of "Reclaiming
> History" (c.2007)
Is this supposed to be proof? How come when I write stuff it is nutty,
but when he says something he can't prove you believe every word?
>
> ==================================
lazu...@webtv.net
the magic bullet could never be id'd, by all those who saw it, or
handled it in the chain of possession...and no Saundra Spencer, no
Morales and Hunt confession either..
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
My favorite is Bugliosi knowing about the "16 Smoking Guns"... even mentioning
them... but refusing to discuss or refute them.
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
news:fj3qm...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <fj3o5...@news2.newsguy.com>, Kenneth A. Rahn says...
>>
>>CDD,
>>
>> Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
>>tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
>>background again.
>>
>>Ken Rahn
>>(Who has known a few tangents himself)
>
>
> The NAA is dead... too bad you can't admit this...
Not dead, not even dying. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand the
situation.
Ken Rahn
(Still alive and kicking, too)
aeffects
> Bne,
>
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fj3qm...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> >>CDD,
>
> >> Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
> >>tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
> >>background again.
>
> >>Ken Rahn
> >>(Who has known a few tangents himself)
>
> > The NAA is dead... too bad you can't admit this...
>
> Not dead, not even dying. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand the
> situation.
send up a flag, Ken Rahn got to China and back.... didn't even get
lost. Now if you could of did that kind of gig when the Vietnam war
was underway, I might give you a round of applause......
Kenneth A. Rahn
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9dd227d-079b-436c...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
When did I say I came back, David? Or are you just assuming things again?
Ken Rahn
(Still at Tsinghua University in Beijing)
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
in that case we'll send Fast Eddy Cage to bring you back -- he's a
hero don'tcha know. Don't lose your passport, that's a real bitch in
China.....
Ben Holmes
I don't "misunderstand" it at all. I never have. That's the problem you face.
tomnln
Is Rahn Re-Writing Mao's "Little Red Book"?
Is Rahn Translating the WCR into Chinese?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aeffects
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fj6d2...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> >>Bne,
>
> >>"Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fj3qm...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> >>>>CDD,
>
> >>>> Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
> >>>>tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
> >>>>background again.
>
> >>>>Ken Rahn
> >>>>(Who has known a few tangents himself)
>
> >>> The NAA is dead... too bad you can't admit this...
>
> >>Not dead, not even dying. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand the
> >>situation.
>
> >>Ken Rahn
> >>(Still alive and kicking, too)
>
> > I don't "misunderstand" it at all. I never have. That's the problem you
> > face.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Is Rahn Re-Writing Mao's "Little Red Book"?
>
> Is Rahn Translating the WCR into Chinese?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tsk-tsk!
cdddraftsman
> Bne,
>
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fj3qm...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
> >>CDD,
>
> >> Maybe we should just leave Gary alone to go off on whatever weird
> >>tangents he chooses. Just ignore him, and maybe he will retreat into the
> >>background again.
>
> >>Ken Rahn
> >>(Who has known a few tangents himself)
>
> > The NAA is dead... too bad you can't admit this...
>
> Not dead, not even dying. I'm afraid that you completely misunderstand the
> situation.
>
> Ken Rahn
> (Still alive and kicking, too)
Hehehehhee !
They would love it to be as dead as their " No Name > To No Face > To
No Gun > To No Assassin > To No Shooting Location > To No Wounds
Identified or Inflicted " scenario that that spells disaster if you
actually think about it .
Think about it ! :-)
tl