Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 28)

[David Von Pein]

DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 28):

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.

FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- There were provably a number of
{rifles} in the TSBD just days before {11/22/63}. What happened to
them?

DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- What difference does it really make? Were any
of those other rifles linked to Stretcher Bullet 399 and/or the two
front-seat bullet fragments?

Answer--no. But don't let that minor detail dissuade you from your
precious multi-gun theory.

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- One of {the guns used to kill Tippit} was an automatic.

DVP -- A great "Let's Frame Oswald" plan there. They use an automatic
gun when the resident Patsy owns a revolver. But nobody will care or
investigate this thoroughly. Is that what these idiot plotters
supposedly thought prior to killing J.D. Tippit with a gun that
couldn't possibly be tied to their patsy?

Only the rabid kooks who are two theories away from the rubber room
think that an automatic gun was used on Tenth Street.

All of the witnesses (save Ted Callaway) described the general
characteristics of a REVOLVER being used in Tippit's murder, not an
AUTOMATIC....

e.g.,

Oswald was seen physically shaking shells out of the chamber; and the
fact that the shells were found many yards from where the ONE KILLER
{Oswald} pulled the trigger, indicating that an automatic couldn't
possibly have been used....unless the killer decided to pick up the
shells near Tippit's squad car and then toss them into the Davis' yard
down the street. Can anybody think of a single good reason for the
killer to perform that task with his bullet cartridges?

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- {The shells on 10th St.}, according to the on-scene cops, were
from an automatic.

DVP -- And yet we have the lone killer (identified as Oswald up-close
by multiple non-Patsy-framing witnesses) shaking shells from the one
and only murder weapon near the Davis' front lawn. Were BOTH Davis
women out to get Lee Harvey too? If so....please tell us why?

And we've also got only shells in evidence from the gun Oswald had on
him when arrested.

And yet the kooks still think Oswald didn't fire a shot on Tenth
Street. Pathetic.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- One of {the three bullet shells in the SN} *provably* couldn't
have been fired from the MC (CE543).

DVP -- This is complete bullshit. And it's yet another instance (among
hundreds) of the kooks chasing after a make-believe conspiracy by
totally misrepresenting the evidence in the case.

All three of the shells that were found in the Depository's Sniper's
Nest were PROVABLY fired in Rifle CE139/C2766. Many of the conspiracy
kooks, for some reason, think they know more than Robert Frazier, the
FBI, the DPD, and all the other experts who examined the ballistics
evidence first-hand.

So, should I trust these kooks? Or should I trust the FBI's Bob
Frazier when he said this in 1964? (Not too tough a choice.).....

MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine
them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit
139?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. .... I found all three of the cartridge
cases had been fired in this particular weapon."

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- {The paper bag in the SN was} never photographed; many of the
TSBD eyewitnesses never saw it.

DVP -- Oswald wasn't photographed pulling the trigger from the SN
either....but does that fact make him any less guilty (given the
wealth of stuff saying he's a murderer)?

The paper bag was obviously left in the SN by a certain murderer named
Lee Harvey. Lee's prints are on the bag....it was completely empty
when found near the same window from where Oswald was seen firing a
rifle....and Oswald was seen carrying a similar paper sack into the
Book Depository that day.

Plus -- Oswald lied about the package he carried that day (telling
police he only took his "lunch" to work on November 22).

And we're supposed to toss all this stuff in the gutter just because
there's not a snapshot of the bag inside the Nest?? Nonsense.

I suppose Robert L. Studebaker is a dirty, lying scumbucket too (like
all of the other cops whom many kooks believe had that strangely-
unified desire to frame a man for two murders on 11/22/63),
right?.....

MR. BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around
there?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."

MR. BALL -- "Where?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of
the building folded."

MR. BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the
top two were Rolling Readers?"

MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- No chain of possession {for CE399}. The witnesses who HELD IT
IN THEIR HAND deny that it was the same type of bullet.

DVP -- And yet Darrell Tomlinson agreed that 399 looked like the same
bullet he found at Parkland on November 22nd. Go figure.

BTW, has any conspiracy theorist ever figured out the logic of the
patsy-framing plotters wanting to plant a bullet that was barely
damaged? And planting it under a mat on a stretcher where it may never
be found (or directly connected with the Kennedy case)? Or planting it
at a time when it was impossible for ANY plotter to know for certain
if all bullets and fragments would be recovered later on (since
Connally was just going into surgery at the time)?

Did these plotters just get really, really lucky when the amount of
lead missing from this so-called "planted" missile just happened to
approximate the very tiny amount of lead recovered from the victims?
Or did these incredible plotters use a crystal ball? Or did they just
throw up their collective evidence-planting hands and shout: "What the
fuck...we'll plant this almost-whole bullet anyway...even though we
have little to no information at our disposal to support such a
planting prior to 2:00 PM CST on Nov. 22nd"?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- Yep...they were there {the two bullet fragments in the front
seat of the limo}. They didn't have Oswald's name on them,
unfortunately.

DVP -- Almost as good as Oswald's signature. They were both fired in
Oz's gun. And Oz was seen firing a gun in the window. The math isn't
too hard from this point. (Except if you reside in Kookville, where
the letters O-S-W-A-L-D aren't found in any dictionary in the whole
town. Go figure.)

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- You see, there aren't any CT'ers who will claim that JFK was
knifed rather than shot.

DVP -- No. You kooks will merely claim that virtually all of the
ballistics evidence leading to Pope Lee Harvey was tampered with in
order to vilify an innocent patsy.

You'd be better off trying to prove that JFK had, indeed, been knifed.
Or hanged.

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- The {paraffin/nitrate} tests show that Oswald had not fired
either a pistol or a rifle that day.

DVP -- I guess it's the time of the month when conspiracy kooks like
to drag tired, worn-out information out of their stale CT
closets....like this paraffin stuff. (Or maybe these CTers just simply
have no memory whatsoever.)

In any event, the entire topic of paraffin/nitrate tests is useless
and meaningless to begin with....because such tests have been proven
to be totally unreliable when attempting to determine whether or not a
person fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.

On some occasions, the only reason that the police even use the
paraffin test at all is for psychological reasons, in order to observe
the reaction of the person being suspected of the gun crime (i.e., to
see if the suspect will balk or not when it's suggested he undergo
such a nitrate test, and to possibly get a quicker confession out of
the person being accused of a gun-related crime).

This type of "psychological" use for the otherwise relatively-useless
paraffin test was brought up by FBI agent Cortlandt Cunningham during
his 1964 Warren Commission testimony.....

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "There may be some law-enforcement agencies which
use the test for psychological reasons. ... What they do is they ask,
say, 'We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well
confess now'."

Additional testimony garnered from FBI Agent Cunningham concerning the
subject of paraffin tests is quite interesting as well, with
Cunningham admitting that such nitrate tests are "definitely not
reliable".....

MR. EISENBERG -- "You testified this morning that many common
substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-
called paraffin test. Will the handling of an unclean weapon also
produce a positive reaction?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes
this test so unreliable. Handling a recently-fired weapon that is
covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in
the form of nitrates and nitrates on your hands as you would from
firing it...and in some cases more."

MR. EISENBERG -- "If the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a
matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin
test?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "No; not the paraffin-chemical test."

MR. FORD -- "Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable
as it should be?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "It is the feeling that it is definitely not
reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a
weapon..."

MR. DULLES -- "You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here,
wouldn't we?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Yes, sir. ... I would be willing to state right now
if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because
invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would
get a positive reaction. I am a cigar smoker; I also would come up
positive."

MR. RHYNE -- "I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests
are practically worthless?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "For the determination of whether or not a person
has fired a weapon."

MR. RHYNE -- "A gun?"

MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Yes."

~~~~~~

Also.....

Following JFK's assassination, an FBI agent fired Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle and was then given a paraffin test. The results -- no
sign of any nitrates on either of the FBI agent's hands or his
cheek....thus proving the total unreliability of the test.

On pages 16 through 18 of the 1973 book "November 22, 1963: You Are
The Jury" (written by WC lawyer David Belin), we find this passage:

"Therefore, a POSITIVE reaction to the paraffin test is worthless in
determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon." -- David
W. Belin

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- Now there's a reliable source...David Belin, the prime author
of the Warren Report, a book which most Americans believe is a crock.

DVP -- Which must mean, of course, that the Warren Report and Belin
definitely ARE crocks....right, kook?

In actuality, the late Mr. Belin's books (both of them -- the Warren
Report itself and "You Are The Jury") are excellent volumes for anyone
interested in the truth about the events of 11/22/63.

Belin was no Government-controlled shill or cover-up man; and anyone
saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about -- period.
But, naturally, many CT-Kooks feel the ever-present need to rake Mr.
Belin and all of the work he did for the WC over hot coals for no good
reason whatsoever.

It's also worth noting that David Belin wasn't shy about stepping on
some Government-related toes when he felt such action was warranted.
Would a shill or a WC puppet be willing to do that?

And he does step on several toes within his 1973 publication. It's a
very, very good book, serving as a first-rate extension to the 888-
page Warren Report volume:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3

[eca...@comcast.net]

> read more »...

Great David.. The paraffin tests and their
limitations are widely misunderstood.
Hey I just got two left-handed compliments
from the "There's Something Fishy Here"
gang.. One (Sperm tank Walt) accused me of being on the
government payroll with my JFK posts!
Yeah, right.
And poor ol Gentle bin sez I must be crazy if I'm
doing it for free (paraphrased)

MR ;~D

[Ben Holmes]

Again, LNT'ers must snip and re-arrange posts before answering... rather
dishonest, isn't it?

In article <1171013903....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
eca...@comcast.net says...

>
>On Feb 9, 2:17 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 28):
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
>> Conspiracy" Debate.
>>
>> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- There were provably a number of
>> {rifles} in the TSBD just days before {11/22/63}. What happened to
>> them?
>>
>> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- What difference does it really make?

There's the answer, folks!

(no comment I could make would make a difference to that one!)

>> Were any
>> of those other rifles linked to Stretcher Bullet 399 and/or the two
>> front-seat bullet fragments?
>>
>> Answer--no.

Not that we know of - but then again, we *know* bullets disappeared. We even
have a photo of one of them being dug out of the grass.

>> But don't let that minor detail dissuade you from your
>> precious multi-gun theory.

It's the *evidence* that I'm using...

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- One of {the guns used to kill Tippit} was an automatic.
>>
>> DVP -- A great "Let's Frame Oswald" plan there. They use an automatic
>> gun when the resident Patsy owns a revolver. But nobody will care or
>> investigate this thoroughly. Is that what these idiot plotters
>> supposedly thought prior to killing J.D. Tippit with a gun that
>> couldn't possibly be tied to their patsy?
>>
>> Only the rabid kooks who are two theories away from the rubber room
>> think that an automatic gun was used on Tenth Street.

So it's nutty to believe the evidence???

>> All of the witnesses (save Ted Callaway) described the general
>> characteristics of a REVOLVER being used in Tippit's murder, not an
>> AUTOMATIC....

No, not all of the witnesses... why bother to lie?

>> e.g.,
>>
>> Oswald was seen physically shaking shells out of the chamber; and the
>> fact that the shells were found many yards from where the ONE KILLER

Although at least one witness described *two* suspects...

>> {Oswald} pulled the trigger, indicating that an automatic couldn't
>> possibly have been used....unless the killer decided to pick up the
>> shells near Tippit's squad car and then toss them into the Davis' yard
>> down the street. Can anybody think of a single good reason for the
>> killer to perform that task with his bullet cartridges?

Yep... don't deal with the actual evidence... when speculation will do.

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- {The shells on 10th St.}, according to the on-scene cops, were
>> from an automatic.
>>
>> DVP -- And yet

And yet *what*? You have to answer that fact. Speculation won't do the trick.

>> we have the lone killer (identified as Oswald up-close
>> by multiple non-Patsy-framing witnesses) shaking shells from the one
>> and only murder weapon near the Davis' front lawn. Were BOTH Davis
>> women out to get Lee Harvey too? If so....please tell us why?

Tell us the truth about the evidence... can you?

>> And we've also got only shells in evidence from the gun Oswald had on
>> him when arrested.

Do you really think so?

>> And yet the kooks still think Oswald didn't fire a shot on Tenth
>> Street. Pathetic.

Yep... it's "pathetic" to trust the evidence when speculation is so much more
'reliable', right?

>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- One of {the three bullet shells in the SN} *provably* couldn't
>> have been fired from the MC (CE543).
>>
>> DVP -- This is complete bullshit. And it's yet another instance (among
>> hundreds) of the kooks chasing after a make-believe conspiracy by
>> totally misrepresenting the evidence in the case.

Strangely enough, DVP can't answer the problem... the lack of a 'chamber mark'
that *ALL* other cartridges fired from that MC are known to have shown.

Wonder why this is such a verboten topic to LNT'ers?

>> All three of the shells that were found in the Depository's Sniper's
>> Nest were PROVABLY fired in Rifle CE139/C2766.

Nope... that's a lie.

>> Many of the conspiracy
>> kooks, for some reason, think they know more than Robert Frazier, the
>> FBI, the DPD, and all the other experts who examined the ballistics
>> evidence first-hand.
>>
>> So, should I trust these kooks? Or should I trust the FBI's Bob
>> Frazier when he said this in 1964? (Not too tough a choice.).....
>>
>> MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine
>> them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit
>> 139?"
>>
>> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. .... I found all three of the cartridge
>> cases had been fired in this particular weapon."

Frazier gave quite a bit of rather interesting testimony....

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- {The paper bag in the SN was} never photographed; many of the
>> TSBD eyewitnesses never saw it.
>>
>> DVP -- Oswald wasn't photographed pulling the trigger from the SN
>> either....but does that fact make him any less guilty (given the
>> wealth of stuff saying he's a murderer)?

Speculation again...

>> The paper bag was obviously left in the SN by a certain murderer named
>> Lee Harvey.

You've given your Hypothesis... now present the evidence:

>> Lee's prints are on the bag....it was completely empty
>> when found near the same window from where Oswald was seen firing a
>> rifle....and Oswald was seen carrying a similar paper sack into the
>> Book Depository that day.
>>
>> Plus -- Oswald lied about the package he carried that day (telling
>> police he only took his "lunch" to work on November 22).

Did he lie? Can you demonstrate this?

>> And we're supposed to toss all this stuff in the gutter just because
>> there's not a snapshot of the bag inside the Nest?? Nonsense.

Actually, there's far more than merely the lack of a photograph... there's also
multiple eyewitnesses who testify to *not* seeing the bag. But don't let that
get you down...

>> I suppose Robert L. Studebaker is a dirty, lying scumbucket too (like
>> all of the other cops whom many kooks believe had that strangely-
>> unified desire to frame a man for two murders on 11/22/63),
>> right?.....
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around
>> there?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Where?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of
>> the building folded."
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the
>> top two were Rolling Readers?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe

And the multiple eyewitnesses who stated that they *didn't* see a paper bag?
Were they all lying?

Somebody was...

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- No chain of possession {for CE399}. The witnesses who HELD IT
>> IN THEIR HAND deny that it was the same type of bullet.
>>
>> DVP -- And yet Darrell Tomlinson agreed that 399 looked like the same
>> bullet he found at Parkland on November 22nd. Go figure.

Sorry, you didn't refute my statement.

>> BTW, has any conspiracy theorist ever figured out the logic of the
>> patsy-framing plotters wanting to plant a bullet that was barely
>> damaged?

Of course! And so could you if you were more honest. They took a bullet that
had been fired into a water tank - and used it to be sure that a connection to
the MC would be made. (Removing, at the same time, a bullet that would not)

>> And planting it under a mat on a stretcher where it may never
>> be found (or directly connected with the Kennedy case)?

It wasn't planted, it was swapped. *THAT* is what the evidence shows...

>> Or planting it
>> at a time when it was impossible for ANY plotter to know for certain
>> if all bullets and fragments would be recovered later on (since
>> Connally was just going into surgery at the time)?
>>
>> Did these plotters just get really, really lucky when the amount of
>> lead missing from this so-called "planted" missile just happened to
>> approximate the very tiny amount of lead recovered from the victims?

It didn't. That's why these fragments disappeared.

>> Or did these incredible plotters use a crystal ball? Or did they just
>> throw up their collective evidence-planting hands and shout: "What the
>> fuck...we'll plant this almost-whole bullet anyway...even though we
>> have little to no information at our disposal to support such a
>> planting prior to 2:00 PM CST on Nov. 22nd"?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- Yep...they were there {the two bullet fragments in the front
>> seat of the limo}. They didn't have Oswald's name on them,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> DVP -- Almost as good as Oswald's signature.

How silly!

>> They were both fired in
>> Oz's gun. And Oz was seen firing a gun in the window.

No, Oswald was *NOT* seen at the window. Why bother to lie about the eyewitness
testimony?

>> The math isn't
>> too hard from this point. (Except if you reside in Kookville, where
>> the letters O-S-W-A-L-D aren't found in any dictionary in the whole
>> town. Go figure.)
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- You see, there aren't any CT'ers who will claim that JFK was
>> knifed rather than shot.
>>
>> DVP -- No. You kooks will merely claim that virtually all of the
>> ballistics evidence leading to Pope Lee Harvey was tampered with in
>> order to vilify an innocent patsy.

Some of it *proveably* was.

>> You'd be better off trying to prove that JFK had, indeed, been knifed.
>> Or hanged.

If the evidence showed that, then that's what I'd argue.

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- The {paraffin/nitrate} tests show that Oswald had not fired
>> either a pistol or a rifle that day.
>>
>> DVP -- I guess it's the time of the month when conspiracy kooks like
>> to drag tired, worn-out information out of their stale CT
>> closets....like this paraffin stuff. (Or maybe these CTers just simply
>> have no memory whatsoever.)
>>
>> In any event, the entire topic of paraffin/nitrate tests is useless
>> and meaningless to begin with....because such tests have been proven
>> to be totally unreliable when attempting to determine whether or not a
>> person fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.

Sadly, simply untrue.

Of course, none of this addresses a *negative* result.

>> read more =BB...

>
>Great David.. The paraffin tests and their
>limitations are widely misunderstood.

Yep... mostly by police departments...

[jfn...@msn.com]

On Friday, February 9, 2007 3:17:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 28):
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- There were provably a number of
> {rifles} in the TSBD just days before {11/22/63}. What happened to
> them?
>
>
> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- What difference does it really make? Were any
> of those other rifles linked to Stretcher Bullet 399 and/or the two
> front-seat bullet fragments?
>
> Answer--no. But don't let that minor detail dissuade you from your
> precious multi-gun theory.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> CTer -- One of {the guns used to kill Tippit} was an automatic.
>
>
> DVP -- A great "Let's Frame Oswald" plan there. They use an automatic
> gun when the resident Patsy owns a revolver. But nobody will care or
> investigate this thoroughly. Is that what these idiot plotters
> supposedly thought prior to killing J.D. Tippit with a gun that
> couldn't possibly be tied to their patsy?
>
> Only the rabid kooks who are two theories away from the rubber room
> think that an automatic gun was used on Tenth Street.

ONLY THE RABID KOOKS? Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert MacNeil? Wecht?

ONLY THE "RABID KOOKS?" Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert MacNeil? Wecht?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <d89b1f56-3a99-45f7...@googlegroups.com>,
jfn...@msn.com says...

>
>On Friday, February 9, 2007 3:17:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 28):
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
>> Conspiracy" Debate.
>>
>> FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- There were provably a number of
>> {rifles} in the TSBD just days before {11/22/63}. What happened to
>> them?
>>
>>
>> DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- What difference does it really make?

And that... says it all.

>> Were any
>> of those other rifles linked to Stretcher Bullet 399 and/or the two
>> front-seat bullet fragments?

Were any of those other rifles linked to the bullet found in the grass?

>> Answer--no. But don't let that minor detail dissuade you from your
>> precious multi-gun theory.

I know it irritates you that you can't explain the evidence in credible and
non-conspiratorial terms...

But keep trying...

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- One of {the guns used to kill Tippit} was an automatic.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- A great "Let's Frame Oswald" plan there.

You cannot refute the evidence with speculation.

Indeed, your idea that conspirators intentionally planned the murder of a police
officer in order to more firmly establish Oswald's guilt is sillier and less
credible than anything the WCR ever put out.

>> They use an automatic
>> gun when the resident Patsy owns a revolver. But nobody will care or
>> investigate this thoroughly.

You mean, of course, that *YOU* will not care or investigate this thoroughly.

The earliest evidence *CLEARLY* shows that an automatic was used in the murder.

>> Is that what these idiot plotters
>> supposedly thought prior to killing J.D. Tippit with a gun that
>> couldn't possibly be tied to their patsy?

Only a kook like you could come up with a silly theory like that one...

>> Only the rabid kooks who are two theories away from the rubber room
>> think that an automatic gun was used on Tenth Street.
>
>ONLY THE RABID KOOKS? Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert MacNeil?
>Wecht?

The kook can't explain the actual evidence, so he has no-where to go.

>> All of the witnesses (save Ted Callaway) described the general
>> characteristics of a REVOLVER being used in Tippit's murder, not an
>> AUTOMATIC....

You're lying again.

>> e.g.,
>>
>> Oswald was seen physically shaking shells out of the chamber; and the
>> fact that the shells were found many yards from where the ONE KILLER
>> {Oswald} pulled the trigger, indicating that an automatic couldn't
>> possibly have been used....unless the killer decided to pick up the
>> shells near Tippit's squad car and then toss them into the Davis' yard
>> down the street. Can anybody think of a single good reason for the
>> killer to perform that task with his bullet cartridges?
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- {The shells on 10th St.}, according to the on-scene cops, were
>> from an automatic.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- And yet we have the lone killer (identified as Oswald up-close
>> by multiple non-Patsy-framing witnesses) shaking shells from the one
>> and only murder weapon near the Davis' front lawn. Were BOTH Davis
>> women out to get Lee Harvey too? If so....please tell us why?

There are so many things wrong with that sentence that it's hard to know where
to start.

Other than pointing out yet again, that you *KNOW* you're lying.

By your refusal to address it, you *KNOW* that the statement that the shells
"according to the on-scene cops, were from an automatic" is true, yet above, you
labeled Callaway as the ONLY eyewitness that didn't describe a revolver.

>> And we've also got only shells in evidence from the gun Oswald had on
>> him when arrested.

According to whom?

And refuted by whom?

>> And yet the kooks still think Oswald didn't fire a shot on Tenth
>> Street. Pathetic.

You can run from the evidence, but you can't provide credible and
non-conspiratorial explanations for it.

>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d1790303e6fcc19
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- One of {the three bullet shells in the SN} *provably* couldn't
>> have been fired from the MC (CE543).
>>
>>
>> DVP -- This is complete bullshit.

Oh?

So tell us how the chamber mark was seen on *ALL* other shells provably fired
from the rifle, but not from CE543.

WHY CAN'T YOU EXPLAIN THE *EVIDENCE*, KOOK?

>> And it's yet another instance (among
>> hundreds) of the kooks chasing after a make-believe conspiracy by
>> totally misrepresenting the evidence in the case.

We "misrepresent" it???

You refuse to address it.

>> All three of the shells that were found in the Depository's Sniper's
>> Nest were PROVABLY fired in Rifle CE139/C2766.

Then simply provide the proof.

But you can't. It doesn't exist.

>> Many of the conspiracy
>> kooks, for some reason, think they know more than Robert Frazier, the
>> FBI, the DPD, and all the other experts who examined the ballistics
>> evidence first-hand.

Yep.

>> So, should I trust these kooks? Or should I trust the FBI's Bob
>> Frazier when he said this in 1964? (Not too tough a choice.).....
>>
>> MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine
>> them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit
>> 139?"
>>
>> MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. .... I found all three of the cartridge
>> cases had been fired in this particular weapon."

I do enjoy watching you "believe" an eyewitness or expert when they support your
faith, yet refuse to do the same when they contradict what you believe.

The only standard is your faith in the WCR.

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- {The paper bag in the SN was} never photographed; many of the
>> TSBD eyewitnesses never saw it.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- Oswald wasn't photographed pulling the trigger from the SN
>> either....but does that fact make him any less guilty (given the
>> wealth of stuff saying he's a murderer)?

Ran from that one, didn't you?

>> The paper bag was obviously left in the SN by a certain murderer named
>> Lee Harvey. Lee's prints are on the bag....it was completely empty
>> when found near the same window from where Oswald was seen firing a
>> rifle....and Oswald was seen carrying a similar paper sack into the
>> Book Depository that day.

No he wasn't. You're lying again.

>> Plus -- Oswald lied about the package he carried that day (telling
>> police he only took his "lunch" to work on November 22).
>>
>> And we're supposed to toss all this stuff in the gutter just because
>> there's not a snapshot of the bag inside the Nest?? Nonsense.

Just can't deal with the evidence, can you?

>> I suppose Robert L. Studebaker is a dirty, lying scumbucket too (like
>> all of the other cops whom many kooks believe had that strangely-
>> unified desire to frame a man for two murders on 11/22/63),
>> right?.....
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around
>> there?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Where?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of
>> the building folded."
>>
>> MR. BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the
>> top two were Rolling Readers?"
>>
>> MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east."

Tell us kook, would you be surprised to find a wrench in an automotive shop?


Would you be shocked to find clothing for sale in a mall?


Would your mind be blown if you spotted handcuffs in a police station?


Yet you seem surprised to find paper that books were wrapped in in a book
depository. Tell us why...

And tell us how the folds got in the paper "sack"....

>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- No chain of possession {for CE399}. The witnesses who HELD IT
>> IN THEIR HAND deny that it was the same type of bullet.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- And yet Darrell Tomlinson agreed that 399 looked like the same
>> bullet he found at Parkland on November 22nd. Go figure.

Ran from that one, didn't you? Once again... No chain of possession {for CE399}.

The witnesses who HELD IT IN THEIR HAND deny that it was the same type of
bullet.

>> BTW, has any conspiracy theorist ever figured out the logic of the
>> patsy-framing plotters wanting to plant a bullet

You're lying again...

>> that was barely
>> damaged? And planting it under a mat on a stretcher where it may never
>> be found (or directly connected with the Kennedy case)? Or planting it
>> at a time when it was impossible for ANY plotter to know for certain
>> if all bullets and fragments would be recovered later on (since
>> Connally was just going into surgery at the time)?

*NONE* of these strawmen will explain the FBI simply switching one bullet for
another.

Nor will you address that probability, because you can't...

>> Did these plotters just get really, really lucky when the amount of
>> lead missing from this so-called "planted" missile just happened to
>> approximate the very tiny amount of lead recovered from the victims?

Untrue. You're lying again.

>> Or did these incredible plotters use a crystal ball? Or did they just
>> throw up their collective evidence-planting hands and shout: "What the
>> fuck...we'll plant this almost-whole bullet anyway...even though we
>> have little to no information at our disposal to support such a
>> planting prior to 2:00 PM CST on Nov. 22nd"?

It's easy when you create a *STUPID* strawman to argue against, isn't it?


Now address the FBI switching bullets. (Which is, of course, what my statement
implies.)

>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- Yep...they were there {the two bullet fragments in the front
>> seat of the limo}. They didn't have Oswald's name on them,
>> unfortunately.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- Almost as good as Oswald's signature. They were both fired in
>> Oz's gun. And Oz was seen firing a gun in the window. The math isn't
>> too hard from this point. (Except if you reside in Kookville, where
>> the letters O-S-W-A-L-D aren't found in any dictionary in the whole
>> town. Go figure.)


Yep...they were there {the two bullet fragments in the front seat of the limo}.
They didn't have Oswald's name on them, unfortunately.


>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- You see, there aren't any CT'ers who will claim that JFK was
>> knifed rather than shot.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- No. You kooks will merely claim that virtually all of the
>> ballistics evidence leading to Pope Lee Harvey was tampered with in
>> order to vilify an innocent patsy.

The problem, of course, is that the *EVIDENCE* shows this. You can't, and
indeed, you refuse to even try... to deal with it.

>> You'd be better off trying to prove that JFK had, indeed, been knifed.
>> Or hanged.
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- The {paraffin/nitrate} tests show that Oswald had not fired
>> either a pistol or a rifle that day.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- I guess it's the time of the month when conspiracy kooks like
>> to drag tired, worn-out information out of their stale CT
>> closets....like this paraffin stuff. (Or maybe these CTers just simply
>> have no memory whatsoever.)
>>
>> In any event, the entire topic of paraffin/nitrate tests is useless
>> and meaningless to begin with....because such tests have been proven
>> to be totally unreliable when attempting to determine whether or not a
>> person fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.

You're lying again...

Yep... no possible bias there.

Unfortunately, other tests *were* conducted, then buried by the WCR when it
contradicted this "test".

And you can't face that fact.

>> On pages 16 through 18 of the 1973 book "November 22, 1963: You Are
>> The Jury" (written by WC lawyer David Belin), we find this passage:
>>
>> "Therefore, a POSITIVE reaction to the paraffin test is worthless in
>> determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon." -- David
>> W. Belin

A lawyer, telling us about science... you're kidding, right?

>> -------------------------------------------
>>
>> CTer -- Now there's a reliable source...David Belin, the prime author
>> of the Warren Report, a book which most Americans believe is a crock.
>>
>>
>> DVP -- Which must mean, of course, that the Warren Report and Belin
>> definitely ARE crocks....right, kook?
>>
>> In actuality, the late Mr. Belin's books (both of them -- the Warren
>> Report itself and "You Are The Jury") are excellent volumes for anyone
>> interested in the truth about the events of 11/22/63.
>>
>> Belin was no Government-controlled shill or cover-up man; and anyone
>> saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about -- period.

Says the kook who can't admit that Bugliosi lied - even though it's plainly
obvious.

>> But, naturally, many CT-Kooks feel the ever-present need to rake Mr.
>> Belin and all of the work he did for the WC over hot coals for no good
>> reason whatsoever.
>>
>> It's also worth noting that David Belin wasn't shy about stepping on
>> some Government-related toes when he felt such action was warranted.
>> Would a shill or a WC puppet be willing to do that?
>>
>> And he does step on several toes within his 1973 publication. It's a
>> very, very good book, serving as a first-rate extension to the 888-
>> page Warren Report volume:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3
>
>
>ONLY THE "RABID KOOKS?" Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert MacNeil?
>Wecht?

You can't reason with a kook who runs from the points you raise.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[tom...@cox.net]

i find it difficult to believe von pein (in the ass)when he neglects to
give citations for his "claims" ! ! !

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[mainframetech]

On Aug 19, 11:27 pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> i find it difficult to believe von pein (in the ass)when he neglects to
> give citations for his "claims" ! ! !
>

> jfna...@msn.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2007 3:17:05 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 28):
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
> > > Conspiracy" Debate.
>
> > > FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2007.
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- There were provably a number of
> > > {rifles} in the TSBD just days before {11/22/63}. What happened to
> > > them?
>
> > > DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- What difference does it really make? Were any
> > > of those other rifles linked to Stretcher Bullet 399 and/or the two
> > > front-seat bullet fragments?
>
> > > Answer--no. But don't let that minor detail dissuade you from your
> > > precious multi-gun theory.
>

What an incompetent, to make such a stupid statement. To act like
CE399 was a valid piece of evidence when it was found on a stretcher
completely unconnected to JFK or Connally. Listen to the clear
statement of Tomlinson saying where CE399 was found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Then on top of that, suggesting that the 2 bullet fragments under
the limo seat went through the president and are evidence also, is the
height of foolishness. This guy tries to pretend he's a serious
researcher, but it's always some made up set of baloney.

The 2 fragments were supposedly found under the front seat of the
limousine late at night after the Secret Service has stolen the limo
from the proper venue for investigation. They kept no log for chain
of custody and followed none of the rules of evidence that Texas has
in place. That alone made the fragments useless at a trial, which
they had no way of knowing would not happen at that time. The
fragments were terribly damaged as if they had run into something very
hard, harder than a skull. Perhaps the overhead support on the limo
where a bullet obviously struck. That would make more sense than
saying they went through soft tissue and skull and suddenly stopped in
midair and dropped to the limo floor and then grew legs and scuttled
under the front seat!

And to be coupled with CE399, the 'magic' bullet, which went through
JFK then in and out of Connally a few times too and came out with
hardly any damage at all. Strange that the least amount of body
penetration (according to the WCR) gets the most damage, and the most
penetration, hitting bones too, gets less damage. Or maybe neither
bullet went through JFK. CE399 has already been dealt with as a phony
that suddenly appeared on an uninvolved stretcher at Parkland...but
who put it there, and where did they get it? Those wee the questions
that should have been asked.

Now make a comparison with CE399 and the test bullet CE572. Note
the almost exact likeness between them. The same slight bend, and a
bit of material protruding from the tail end. Here's a good picture
for comparison:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

Go down to the bottom left for the picture of 4-5 bullets and make
the comparison. Nope, CE399 was a test bullet that was either created
by test firing before the murder and saved, or created after the
murder and inserted into the evidence during the incompetent handling
by the FBI, where they actually had TWO CE399's extant at one point!

> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- One of {the guns used to kill Tippit} was an automatic.
>
> > > DVP -- A great "Let's Frame Oswald" plan there. They use an automatic
> > > gun when the resident Patsy owns a revolver. But nobody will care or
> > > investigate this thoroughly. Is that what these idiot plotters
> > > supposedly thought prior to killing J.D. Tippit with a gun that
> > > couldn't possibly be tied to their patsy?
>
> > > Only the rabid kooks who are two theories away from the rubber room
> > > think that an automatic gun was used on Tenth Street.
>
> > ONLY THE RABID KOOKS? Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert
> > MacNeil? Wecht?
>
> > > All of the witnesses (save Ted Callaway) described the general
> > > characteristics of a REVOLVER being used in Tippit's murder, not an
> > > AUTOMATIC....
>

Ah...was that the revolver that failed to fire on at least one
bullet and maybe more?

>
> > > Oswald was seen physically shaking shells out of the chamber; and the
> > > fact that the shells were found many yards from where the ONE KILLER
> > > {Oswald} pulled the trigger, indicating that an automatic couldn't
> > > possibly have been used....unless the killer decided to pick up the
> > > shells near Tippit's squad car and then toss them into the Davis' yard
> > > down the street. Can anybody think of a single good reason for the
> > > killer to perform that task with his bullet cartridges?
>

That's in dispute. See the statement of Acquilla Clemmons here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

Acquilla saw a man she described as different from Oswald reloading
his gun. She saw an Oswald type further away being told to go on
ahead by the reloader, and he then ran away. She stated that the FBI
told her to shut up about what she saw or she might get hurt, which
she did for a while before coming forward. When you look at the
details of the statements of the other witnesses to the Tippit street
scene, many of them were not in a position to see the shooting, and
when they saw a thin man running they assumed he was the shooter.
Check it out.

> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- {The shells on 10th St.}, according to the on-scene cops, were
> > > from an automatic.
>
> > > DVP -- And yet we have the lone killer (identified as Oswald up-close
> > > by multiple non-Patsy-framing witnesses) shaking shells from the one
> > > and only murder weapon near the Davis' front lawn. Were BOTH Davis
> > > women out to get Lee Harvey too? If so....please tell us why?
>

Wee both Davis women questioned by the FBI, who has been proven to
intimidate witnesses into changing testimony to fit Hoover's
scenario?

> > > And we've also got only shells in evidence from the gun Oswald had on
> > > him when arrested.
>
> > > And yet the kooks still think Oswald didn't fire a shot on Tenth
> > > Street. Pathetic.
>

Pathetic that you tried to leave out Acquilla Clemmons statement,
which changes who was reloading a gun. And what he looked like,
Short and heavy and 'chunky'.

> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- One of {the three bullet shells in the SN} *provably* couldn't
> > > have been fired from the MC (CE543).
>
> > > DVP -- This is complete bullshit. And it's yet another instance (among
> > > hundreds) of the kooks chasing after a make-believe conspiracy by
> > > totally misrepresenting the evidence in the case.
>
> > > All three of the shells that were found in the Depository's Sniper's
> > > Nest were PROVABLY fired in Rifle CE139/C2766. Many of the conspiracy
> > > kooks, for some reason, think they know more than Robert Frazier, the
> > > FBI, the DPD, and all the other experts who examined the ballistics
> > > evidence first-hand.
>
> > > So, should I trust these kooks? Or should I trust the FBI's Bob
> > > Frazier when he said this in 1964? (Not too tough a choice.).....
>
> > > MR. EISENBERG -- "After receiving the cartridge cases, did you examine
> > > them to determine whether they had been fired in Commission Exhibit
> > > 139?"
>
> > > MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. .... I found all three of the cartridge
> > > cases had been fired in this particular weapon."
>

Let's listen to Robert Frazier at a different point in his
testimony when he spoke of his stupidity in wiping evidence off the
bullet fragments he was examining. The material or blood from the
bullet fragments might have nailed down what the bullet passed
through, such as a person, if the 'blood or material' was human. So
far the information we have is that the fragments hit something more
solid than a skull and broke up, which jacketed bullets are made not
to do. Here's the testimony:
"Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned,
Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been
received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some
other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the
examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination,
but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other
substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination,
or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials."

From: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/ce_567/new_look_at_ce567--backes/new_look.html



> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- {The paper bag in the SN was} never photographed; many of the
> > > TSBD eyewitnesses never saw it.
>
> > > DVP -- Oswald wasn't photographed pulling the trigger from the SN
> > > either....but does that fact make him any less guilty (given the
> > > wealth of stuff saying he's a murderer)?
>

Yes. There are just as many facts that suggest he didn't take the
shots. One of the facts is his terrible shooting record with a semi-
automatic rifle and no experience with a bolt action. Here's his
buddy in the Marines (Sgt. Delgado) discussing his marksmanship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

> > > The paper bag was obviously left in the SN by a certain murderer named
> > > Lee Harvey. Lee's prints are on the bag....it was completely empty
> > > when found near the same window from where Oswald was seen firing a
> > > rifle....and Oswald was seen carrying a similar paper sack into the
> > > Book Depository that day.
>
> > > Plus -- Oswald lied about the package he carried that day (telling
> > > police he only took his "lunch" to work on November 22).
>
> > > And we're supposed to toss all this stuff in the gutter just because
> > > there's not a snapshot of the bag inside the Nest?? Nonsense.
>
> > > I suppose Robert L. Studebaker is a dirty, lying scumbucket too (like
> > > all of the other cops whom many kooks believe had that strangely-
> > > unified desire to frame a man for two murders on 11/22/63),
> > > right?.....
>
> > > MR. BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around
> > > there?"
>
> > > MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."
>
> > > MR. BALL -- "Where?"
>
> > > MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of
> > > the building folded."
>
> > > MR. BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the
> > > top two were Rolling Readers?"
>
> > > MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east."
>

Hmm. It's good that we're depending on statements from the DPD.
Here's one from an officer familiar with hunting rifles that clearly
saw and identified a '7.65 Mauser' by looking at the receiver of the
rifle found hidden behind books in the TSBD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nuloZxeW9g

He signed an affidavit that he identified a '7.65 Mauser' and he
knew he was liable if he stated it incorrectly. He also was seen to
look carefully at the rifle before identifying it.

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
>
> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- No chain of possession {for CE399}. The witnesses who HELD IT
> > > IN THEIR HAND deny that it was the same type of bullet.
>
> > > DVP -- And yet Darrell Tomlinson agreed that 399 looked like the same
> > > bullet he found at Parkland on November 22nd. Go figure.
>

Sadly, he stated for a fact that the CE399 'magic' bullet was
definitely found on an uninvolved stretcher and not the one Connally
was on. Where did it come from? Who put it where it was? Why?
Where did they get it?

> > > BTW, has any conspiracy theorist ever figured out the logic of the
> > > patsy-framing plotters wanting to plant a bullet that was barely
> > > damaged? And planting it under a mat on a stretcher where it may never
> > > be found (or directly connected with the Kennedy case)? Or planting it
> > > at a time when it was impossible for ANY plotter to know for certain
> > > if all bullets and fragments would be recovered later on (since
> > > Connally was just going into surgery at the time)?
>

It wasn't placed in a hard to find location as per Tomlinson, see
the above video.

> > > Did these plotters just get really, really lucky when the amount of
> > > lead missing from this so-called "planted" missile just happened to
> > > approximate the very tiny amount of lead recovered from the victims?
> > > Or did these incredible plotters use a crystal ball? Or did they just
> > > throw up their collective evidence-planting hands and shout: "What the
> > > fuck...we'll plant this almost-whole bullet anyway...even though we
> > > have little to no information at our disposal to support such a
> > > planting prior to 2:00 PM CST on Nov. 22nd"?
>

Yep, this "almost-whole bullet" that was supposed to have passed
through Connally 7 times hitting bone at least twice. Supposedly a
mate to the bullet that was storied to have gone through only JFK's
head and was mashed into little fragments and then fell out of
Connally and dropped on an uninvolved stretcher at Parkland. Sure.

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
>
> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- Yep...they were there {the two bullet fragments in the front
> > > seat of the limo}. They didn't have Oswald's name on them,
> > > unfortunately.
>
> > > DVP -- Almost as good as Oswald's signature. They were both fired in
> > > Oz's gun. And Oz was seen firing a gun in the window. The math isn't
> > > too hard from this point. (Except if you reside in Kookville, where
> > > the letters O-S-W-A-L-D aren't found in any dictionary in the whole
> > > town. Go figure.)
>

Well now, a guy with a large bald spot was also seen firing a gun
from that window too. Where did he go? And the guy (Brennan) who
said he could see Oswald in the window well enough to identify him in
a lineup also couldn't tell if there was a scope on the rifle! And
another person that saw the window with a gun coming out of it
couldn't identifying anyone from the person he saw:
"Mr. Specter. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the
man who was there?
Mr. Euins. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head,
because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins. Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. Specter. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. Euins. I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could
see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. Specter. Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. Euins. I didn't get to see him.
Mr. Specter. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall
or short?
Mr. Euins. No.Mr. Specter. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. Euins. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a
reflection, shaded.

Amos Euins was within 10 feet of Brennan and looking at the same
thing. Brennan says he could see Oswald and identified him in a
lineup, and the 16 year old Amos Euins could not even tell if the guy
in the window was black or white!! Amazing eyesight for old
Brennan...:)

> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- You see, there aren't any CT'ers who will claim that JFK was
> > > knifed rather than shot.
>
> > > DVP -- No. You kooks will merely claim that virtually all of the
> > > ballistics evidence leading to Pope Lee Harvey was tampered with in
> > > order to vilify an innocent patsy.
>
> > > You'd be better off trying to prove that JFK had, indeed, been knifed.
> > > Or hanged.
>

Nope. Won't do. Two skilled and experienced snipers said that they
tried to duplicate the shots and couldn't, and that it was not doable
from the SN.

> > > -------------------------------------------
>
> > > CTer -- The {paraffin/nitrate} tests show that Oswald had not fired
> > > either a pistol or a rifle that day.
>
> > > DVP -- I guess it's the time of the month when conspiracy kooks like
> > > to drag tired, worn-out information out of their stale CT
> > > closets....like this paraffin stuff. (Or maybe these CTers just simply
> > > have no memory whatsoever.)
>
> > > In any event, the entire topic of paraffin/nitrate tests is useless
> > > and meaningless to begin with....because such tests have been proven
> > > to be totally unreliable when attempting to determine whether or not a
> > > person fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.
>

Yep. Stating a phony case that CTers say there was no paraffin
remainder is false and misleading. The test showed clear remains on
the right hand, but not on the cheek where it would usually appear if
firing a rifle. The evidence suggests that Oswald might have fired a
pistol, but not a rifle.

OK. So now you've invalidated evidence that Oswald shot Tippit, as
well as evidence that he MAY have shot at JFK. :)

Yep, given what the income might be from a book...:)

> > > And he does step on several toes within his 1973 publication. It's a
> > > very, very good book, serving as a first-rate extension to the 888-
> > > page Warren Report volume:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3
>
> > ONLY THE "RABID KOOKS?" Good point. You mean like Robert Blakey? Robert
> > MacNeil? Wecht?
>

For those that need more information:
Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland, saw entrance wounds, believes shot
from front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

12. Evalea Glanges saw bullet hole at Parkland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7RYjgcepX0

13. Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also
said Oswald and Ruby were friends:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

14. Sgt. Delgado-Oswald buddy in service, FBI wanted him to lie about
marksmanship
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

15. John Elrod-cellmate to LHO who told him of prev. meeting with
Jack Ruby
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=aMWlf8xZyDc&NR=1

16. Roger Craig relates the finding and IDing of the Mauser
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2168628935793686311#

17. Tomlinson at Parkland found bullet on wrong stretcher
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

18. Photographer with autopsy pictures faked up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE


Chris

[David Von Pein]

Apparently "mainframe" doesn't realize that Darrell Tomlinson changed
his story over the years regarding the stretcher that the bullet was
on. In 1967, he told CBS News the exact opposite of what he told PBS
in 1988.

[mainframetech]

Somebody free me from this beanbag's foolishness. Here is a statement from a different writer: "In 1988, in the P.B.S. television production of Nova entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Mr. Tomlinson re-enacted his finding of the bullet for the cameras and again re-iterated his conviction that the bullet was not found on Connally's cot."
From: http://shogun555.vacau.com/truth2.html

There seems to be a number of conflicting views that I've found. Some say the '67 CBS version had Tomlinson saying the bullet was on Connally's stretcher ans some say on the hallway stretcher. To determine the right version of what Tomlinson meant, I watched the video supplied below and watched Tomlinson manipulating a stretcher out of the elevator and saying clearly that the bullet was on the hallway stretcher and not the elevator stretcher which he had just brought down from being used by Connally. I have much more faith in him recreating his movements and remembering clearly (watch the video) where the bullet was found. Most people seem to be citing whichever version they come across that matched their belief. Here's the video I rely on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Chris

[Bud]

Once Tomlinson told the Warren Commission he wasn`t sure which
stretcher he found the bullet on you were done. Nearly 5 decades later
the retards still don`t understand this.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Once Tomlinson told the Warren Commission he wasn`t sure which stretcher he found the bullet on you were done." <<<

And Tomlinson only said "I'm not sure" about 4 or 5 times in his WC
testimony. That fact, of course, means nothing to the conspiracy
crackpots. They like Tomlinson's definitive statement in the NOVA
program 24 or 25 years later, so that's what conspiracy-happy beanbags
like mainframe will "rely on", and to hell with this original 1964
testimony:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--
I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath
which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember." ....

MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?"

MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-38.html

[mainframetech]

Ah, but they do understand it. In a way that you keep avoiding.
Remember that a few witnesses have changed their testimony from their
earlier version, like Seymour Weitzman who clearly made a signed
affidavit that he identified the rifle in the TSBD as a 'Mauser 7.65'.
(Mauser stamps their logo or name on their rifles) He knew that his
signature on his statement carried official meaning, yet he signed
it. A DPD officer saw him examine the rifle carefully. Tomlinson may
have been coerced as many witnesses in this case have complained of,
by the FBI, who were single minded in making Hoover's wacky lone nut
theory look true.
http://dealeyintimidation.tripod.com/index.htm

Chris

[mainframetech]

Poor DVP is sweating this one out. Follow along below, it badly
damages your claim...:)

A shame that link above can't be followed. That site can't be
trusted with all the bias showing up there. A video of Tomlinson
might be more useful, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

I'm much more impressed by the video where Tomlinson went through
the motions of his prevous movements with stretchers. His memory in
going through the motions seems very clear and without any hesitation
as seems to be the case in testimony. His testimony under harassing
questioning by Specter was very interesting. Tomlinson made it clear
near the beginning that he looked at the stretcher from the elevator
and put it in the hallway in position 'A'. He noted a stretcher ('B')
in the hall a bit out from the wall, but blocking the men's bathroom.
Someone needed to get to the men's room and Tomlinson moved the
stretcher away from the door and the bullet fell onto the floor from
that stretcher. Proof of this is below.

Oddly enough, When he was not getting the answers he wanted from
Tomlinson, Specter makes it known to Tomlinson and us that they had a
conversation previous to Tomlinson's testimony, that a Secret Service
person had made a report about the stretchers and Tomlinson, and
Specter told Tomlinson what the report said. Now, in anyone's book,
that's an attempt to get Tomlinson to mimic that report during
testimony. Specter was reminding him what he had said in previous
conversation when he wasn't saying what Specter wanted him to say.
This was very important because if Tomlinson didn't say what he
wanted, Specter would have the problem of the source of the bullet
that turned up on an uninvolved stretcher. My comments are between
the '---'.

Tomlinson said early in his grilling:
---
Mr. SPECTER. And describe the appearance of that stretcher, if you
will, please.
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that stretcher had sheets on it and had a
white covering on the pad.
Mr. SPECTER. What did you say about the covering on the pad, excuse
me?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe it was a white sheet that was on the pad.
Mr. SPECTER. And was there anything else on that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I don't believe there was on that one, I'm not sure,
but I don't believe there was.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, did you do with that stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I took it off of the elevator and put it over against
the south wall.
---
So the elevator stretcher was clean of anything important as per
Tomlinson, who had looked it over. Then we get the placement of the
stretcher:
---
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any other stretcher in that area at that time?
Mr. TOMLINSON. There was a stretcher about 2 feet from the wall
already there.
(Indicating on drawing to which the witness referred.)
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have just pointed to a drawing which you have
made of this situation, have you not, while we were talking a few
minutes before the court reporter started to take down your testimony?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark in ink with my pen the stretcher
which you pushed off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that it was this one right here (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Will you draw the outline of it in ink and mark an "A"
right in the center of that?
---
Now we have the elevator stretcher marked as 'A', and the hallway
stretcher 2 feet from the wall, which will be marked as 'B'.
---
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get
in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the
stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way
where we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON, I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet
rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B".
---
OK, we've now gotten the bullet from the 'B' stretcher, which was
the 'hallway' stretcher that Tomlinson saw there as he came out of the
elevator the first time. Now how a bullet got 'lodged' under a mat is
another story. It certainly didn't fall out of a body on the
stretcher and grow legs and scramble under the mat on its own.
Someone had to push it under the edge of the mat. Tomlinson hasn't
said what Specter wants him to. Specter tries to get him to say what
he wants:
---
Mr. SPECTER. Now, just before we started this deposition, before I
placed you under oath and before the court reporter started to take
down my questions and your answers, you and I had a brief talk, did we
not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And we discussed in a general way the information which
you have testified about, did we not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And at the time we started our discussion, it was your
recollection at that point that the bullet came off of stretcher A,
was it not ?
Mr. TOMLINSON. B.
Mr. SPECTER. Pardon me, stretcher B, but it was stretcher A that you
took off of the elevator.
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that's right.
---
Tomlinson has now repeated his first statement that the bullet came
from the hallway stretcher and not the elevator stretcher, and then he
reaffirmed it. Specter doesn't like this at all. What follows is
Specter harassing Tomlinson as to what he said and Specter gets him to
say he's not sure now, which is the text that DVP copied above in his
claim that Tomlinson didn't know which stretcher had the bullet. From
what we've seen up to now, he knew very well, but Specter couldn't
have that and tried to get him confused as to which stretcher was the
the one with the bullet. The confusion is better than saying it was
the hallway uninvolved stretcher. Which he has already said. The
best Specter can do with Tomlinson is to get him to be unsure which
stretcher the bullet came from. Specter then tries to intimidate him
with the following:
---
Mr. SPECTER. Now, before I started to ask you questions under oath,
which have been taken down here, I told you, did I not, that the
Secret Service man wrote a report where he said that the bullet was
found on the stretcher which you took off of the elevator---I called
that to your attention, didn't I?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; you told me that.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, after I tell you that, does that have any effect on
refreshing your recollection of what you told the Secret Service man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No it really doesn't---it really doesn't.
---
LOL! Specter tries to tell him to say what he told the SS guy, and
makes sure he knows what he's supposed to say. Specter knows the
elevator stretcher came from the surgery suites and it would be easy
to assume that Connally was being worked on up there and the bullet
fell out onto the stretcher there and came down with Tomlinson. But
Tomlinson wants to tell the truth and he knows he's being manipulated
by all these people to say what they want. He goes back to insisting
that the bullet came from the hallway stretcher!! Good for him! An
unsung hero! Note as well, that if Connally had been on the elevator
stretcher, it would surely have had some blood on it, and should have
been messed up to some degree. But Tomlinson reported it to be clean
and with a few folded things on it.

So, poor ol' Dave, your claim is just a copy of a lawyer using his
skills to confuse a witness that was sure of his testimony. And the
truth from the witness shines out. The bullet came from an uninvolved
stretcher, opening up the questions of where it came from, who put it

there, and where did they get it?

Chris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "A video of Tomlinson might be more useful." <<<

Here you go, kook....

Go to Part 2, at 41:16:

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

[aeffects]

On Aug 21, 11:51 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
...

no advertising King, er, asshole!

[David Von Pein]

Also:

Tomlinson told conspiracy researcher Ray Marcus in 1966 that he found
the bullet on a stretcher that was taken off the elevator:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OkszAXPYCLM/Tubf6UQmxbI/AAAAAAAAA9A/UkYZ9vmu6us/s1600-h/Marcus-Tomlinson-Interview-Transcript-Page-2.jpg

Complete transcript:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

[aeffects]

On Aug 21, 12:15 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also:
>
> Tomlinson told conspiracy researcher Ray Marcus in 1966 that he found
> the bullet on a stretcher that was taken off the elevator:
>

> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OkszAXPYCLM/Tubf6UQmxbI/AAAAAAAAA9A/UkYZ9vm...
>
> Complete transcript:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7...

Also:

[Bud]

On Aug 21, 7:30 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 7:06 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 6:19 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:05:47 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Apparently "mainframe" doesn't realize that Darrell Tomlinson changed
>
> > > > his story over the years regarding the stretcher that the bullet was
>
> > > > on. In 1967, he told CBS News the exact opposite of what he told PBS
>
> > > > in 1988.
>
> > > Somebody free me from this beanbag's foolishness.  Here is a statement from a different writer:  "In 1988, in the P.B.S. television production of Nova entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Mr. Tomlinson re-enacted his finding of the bullet for the cameras and again re-iterated his conviction that the bullet was not found on Connally's cot."
> > > From:http://shogun555.vacau.com/truth2.html
>
> > >   There seems to be a number of conflicting views that I've found.  Some say the '67 CBS version had Tomlinson saying the bullet was on Connally's stretcher ans some say on the hallway stretcher.  To determine the right version of what Tomlinson meant, I watched the video supplied below and watched Tomlinson manipulating a stretcher out of the elevator and saying clearly that the bullet was on the hallway stretcher and not the elevator stretcher which he had just brought down from being used by Connally.  I have much more faith in him recreating his movements and remembering clearly (watch the video) where the bullet was found.  Most people seem to be citing whichever version they come across that matched their belief.  Here's the video I rely on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A
>
> > > Chris
>
> >   Once Tomlinson told the Warren Commission he wasn`t sure which
> > stretcher he found the bullet on you were done. Nearly 5 decades later
> > the retards still don`t understand this.
>
>   Ah, but they do understand it.

They show no signs of it.

>  In a way that you keep avoiding.

You retards just chuck out information that goes against your silly
ideas.

> Remember that a few witnesses have changed their testimony from their
> earlier version, like Seymour Weitzman who clearly made a signed
> affidavit that he identified the rifle in the TSBD as a 'Mauser 7.65'.

There is film of the rifle found, stupid.

> (Mauser stamps their logo or name on their rifles) He knew that his
> signature on his statement carried official meaning, yet he signed
> it.  A DPD officer saw him examine the rifle carefully.  Tomlinson may
> have been coerced as many witnesses in this case have complained of,

Did Tomlinson say he was?

[mainframetech]

On Aug 21, 2:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "A video of Tomlinson might be more useful." <<<
>
> Here you go, kook....
>
> Go to Part 2, at 41:16:
>

> http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-...

LOL! Talk about desperation! Nutball DVP trying to save himself
from going into ignominy and prove a wacky theory from the WCR. Now
we have another Tomlinson video, but this one is from his own website,
which is not trustworthy because of bias. However if you have dating
for that, it would be nice for you to present it to go with Walter
Cronkite. Once again Tomlinson says something different than other
times. The only difference we have is that in WC testimony he was
under oath, and he expressed a dislike of not telling the truth under
oath. In that set of information, he was very clear about where the
bullet came from. Did he have a meeting with the FBI in between?
They had changed many witness statements through intimidation as per
the witnesses themselves. Otherwise, why would Tomlinson flat out
change the whole main point of his testimony?

It seems almost impossible for Tomlinson to not know that he had
turned around and stated something very different than in testimony
for the cameras. The video previously shown, and his testimony at th
WC both back each other up, with the testimony being under oath. That
gives that version of his story a bit more strength. We see even an
effort on the part of Specter to get Tomlinson to say what he wanted,
but when he didn't, Specter let it go. Why, Since it ws so important
to the wacky 'magic' bullet theory.

We must also think about the stretcher that was brought down in the
elevator. Was it even the one that carried Connally? Why didn't
Tomlinson report any blood on it? He said it was clean and had some
sheets folded up on it. No blood reported, which he reported for the
hallway stretcher when he saw it.

And then we have this, which invalidates the CE399 story as well as
the CE567 fragments:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

Another thought:
Examine CE399 in the picture of 4 bullets, especially with the
CE572 (left hand bullet) right next to it. Notice the slight bend in
the bullets, and then notice the tiny amount of material missing from
the tail end of each. CE572 was a test bullet, and the similarity
with CE399 is startling! CE399 was named as the 'magic' bullet
because with almost no damage to it it was supposed to have gone
through JFK and then make 7 ins and outs in Connally hitting bone
twice. Naah. Not and then be compared with the CE567 fragments that
were supposedly only go through a skull. Nope. Copper jacket bullets
aren't suppose to come apart just going through one part of a body.
It should look more like CE399...:)


Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland hospital, saw entrance wounds, believes
JFK shot from front, and he had seen bullet wounds before many times
at Parkland. This also would invalidate any usefulness of CE399 or
CE567.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Chris

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Copper jacket bullets aren't suppose to come apart just going through one part of a body. It should look more like CE399." <<<

Which means that Dr. Lattimer was a rotten liar too, eh Chris? And Dr.
Olivier too. Because we have these pictures from Lattimer's 1980 book,
which verify that a Carcano/WCC bullet will behave exactly like
CE567/569 after smashing into a human skull:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/FromJohnLattimersBook--BulletFragme.jpg

Let's hear your CT rebuttal to those photos. Any chance I won't hear
the words "Lattimer's a fraud" or "Olivier's tests were phony" in said
rebuttal? I doubt it.

[mainframetech]

On Aug 21, 6:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Copper jacket bullets aren't suppose to come apart just going through one part of a body. It should look more like CE399." <<<
>
> Which means that Dr. Lattimer was a rotten liar too, eh Chris? And Dr.
> Olivier too. Because we have these pictures from Lattimer's 1980 book,
> which verify that a Carcano/WCC bullet will behave exactly like
> CE567/569 after smashing into a human skull:
>

> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...

>
> Let's hear your CT rebuttal to those photos. Any chance I won't hear
> the words "Lattimer's a fraud" or "Olivier's tests were phony" in said
> rebuttal? I doubt it.

Poor DVP...Locked into his WCR wacky beliefs and can't get
out...:) A reply/rebuttal to your obvious change of subject from
your foolish contention that the CE399 bullet was not put on an
uninvolved stretcher is a simple task. Actually, you have already
been given an answer to your question, but you didn't want to listen
to it or check it out.

As to the possibility you suggested that I would say the testers
were frauds, I cannot comment without knowing them or their work.
Let's assume they were on the up and up. It really works better that
way...:)

First, and simplest is to get Lattimer and Olivier out of the way.
Shooting holes in skulls really proves little, and we don't know how
many shots they fired to get the results shown. The picture we have
states that the fragments (CE567 and CE569) went through JFK's skull
and then into the windshield. So if that were true, then the bullet
could have fragmented at the windshield and not from the skull. No
way to tell, but the windshield woulde be more resistant. Put in your
mind the various drawings the WC used to see the path of the bullet
that went through JFK's skull from the 6th floor. It was proof of the
ridiculous lengths they would go to to prove the wacky 'magic' bullet
theory. But now add on the forward windshield in the limo. Suddenly
that path that was somewhat angled downward (and looking stupid), has
to angle upward to get to the windshield! Another 'magic' bullet!
the drawings show the bullet emerging straight toward the lower part
of the front seat of the limo. None of the WC drawings show such an
angling of the bullet upward, but let's pretend it happened that way
for the sake of argument...:) Here's one of the pictures the WC used
to display the bullet path:
http://tinyurl.com/87ak4ks

If we accepted that the head shot was fragmented by going through a
skull bone, as the picture suggests, then we have to wonder about the
'magic' bullet and why it didn't fragment after going in and out of
Connally 7 times twice hitting bone along the way.

Second, let's deal with the 'neutron activation test'. The neutron
activation test done and testified to by Guinn before the WC is no
longer valid. New information has come in that invalidates that
supposed 'proof'. A pair of gentlemen named Randich and Grant did
their own work and found:

""As it happens, the non-MCC bullets Guinn used in his comparison
tests were non-jacketed, and so, bullet to bullet, had homogenous Sb
levels. Imagining that his test samples were typical of the universe
of all non-MCC shells, Guinn drew the wrong conclusions. The varying
Sb levels he found in JFK's fragments did not prove they had come from
MCC shells; they could have come from many kinds of jacketed rounds."
From: http://tinyurl.com/8h66qvb

The above copy is only part of the reasoning that disproves the
'neutron activation' theory that Bugliosi tried to use to prove his
point that Oswald killed JFK. There is a great deal more scientific
evidence against that wacky theory. So this says that the matching of
the fragments to the skull bits was not valid. Read the full article
for more reasons it wasn't valid. This disproves the theory that the
fragments in the front of the limo were the same as the fragments in
JFK's skull.

Third, the impossibility of the wacky bullet path from the 6th
floor to JFK and through him, thence to the windshield, is rejected by
Dr. Charles Crenshaw who flatly says that he saw the wounds in throat
and head and knows they were "without a doubt from the front". He had
the experience of seeing many bullet wounds at his work at Parkland
hospital. This is important because he got to see the body before it
went on the long journey to Bethesda after being stolen illegally from
Parkland at gunpoint. The damage to the body had increased
dramatically from the drawings of the medical staff at Parkland to the
photos and X-rays at Bethesda. This evidence alone invalidates any
bullet evidence in poor DVP's hopes. Here's Crenshaw's statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

If any bullet from the M-C rifle was fired by someone from the 6th
floor 'nest', it might explain the slamming of the limo upper
windshield support and then the fragments (CE567 and 569) might have
fallen down from that to the front seat. But since the wounds came
from the front, it's almost sure that the weapon used wasn't the M-
C.

If any of this 'evidence' were intended to be used at a trial of
LHO, he would get off scot free. Any evidence collected from the limo
would be rejected because the limo was stolen and the fragments and
such were found without benefit of a log or procedure followed for
chain of custody or rules of evidence. During the time between the
crime and the supposed finding of evidence in the middle of the night,
there were too many opportunities for evidence to be planted or
spirited away. Like with the limo, which was soon taken away and
completly refurbished, wiping any last vestige of evidence that may
have there.

Sorry, DVP. You put your hopes on Bugliosi and I know him to be a
liar. I proved it here once when I caught him lying about the throat
wound and Carrico's testimony.

Good Luck,
Chris

[David Von Pein]

RE: Lattimer's and Olivier's work:

Corroboration normally equals verification and, to a certain extent,
confirmation. (At least "confirmation" to the extent that the tests
being performed prove that a MC bullet CAN, at least, behave in a
certain way after striking a certain object. Which is exactly what the
Olivier and Lattimer bullet tests did confirm. And it doesn't matter
how many attempts they each made to achieve that confirmation.)

But to a conspiracy monger, corroboration means nothing. Zilch. Zero.

Isn't that nice?

And it's also nice to see Chris now taking full credit for Kook
Holmes' Bugliosi/Carrico/throat wound "discovery". Or did Ben Holmes
steal it from you, mainframe? Either way, I've explained that
discrepancy in a reasonable and sensible (and non-"liar" fashion)
here. Naturally, you will ignore logic once more in order to label Mr.
Bugliosi an evil liar and in order to cling to the make-believe
conspiracy you hold so dear:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

[aeffects]

you're getting to old to make any sense here Dudster... time to call
it quits...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <adfda147-ea16-44cb...@k9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 21, 2:43=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 7:30=A0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 20, 7:06=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>>
>> > > On Aug 20, 6:19=A0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:05:47 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

>> > > > > Apparently "mainframe" doesn't realize that Darrell Tomlinson cha=
>nged
>>
>> > > > > his story over the years regarding the stretcher that the bullet =
>was
>>
>> > > > > on. In 1967, he told CBS News the exact opposite of what he told =
>PBS
>>
>> > > > > in 1988.
>>
>> > > > Somebody free me from this beanbag's foolishness. =A0Here is a stat=
>ement from a different writer: =A0"In 1988, in the P.B.S. television produc=
>tion of Nova entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Mr. Tomlinson re-enact=
>ed his finding of the bullet for the cameras and again re-iterated his conv=

>iction that the bullet was not found on Connally's cot."
>> > > > From:http://shogun555.vacau.com/truth2.html
>>

>> > > > =A0 There seems to be a number of conflicting views that I've found=
>. =A0Some say the '67 CBS version had Tomlinson saying the bullet was on Co=
>nnally's stretcher ans some say on the hallway stretcher. =A0To determine t=
>he right version of what Tomlinson meant, I watched the video supplied belo=
>w and watched Tomlinson manipulating a stretcher out of the elevator and sa=
>ying clearly that the bullet was on the hallway stretcher and not the eleva=
>tor stretcher which he had just brought down from being used by Connally. =
>=A0I have much more faith in him recreating his movements and remembering c=
>learly (watch the video) where the bullet was found. =A0Most people seem to=
> be citing whichever version they come across that matched their belief. =
>=A0Here's the video I rely on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DMx1sxYc8r2A
>>
>> > > > Chris
>>
>> > > =A0 Once Tomlinson told the Warren Commission he wasn`t sure which
>> > > stretcher he found the bullet on you were done. Nearly 5 decades late=

>r
>> > > the retards still don`t understand this.
>>

>> > =A0 Ah, but they do understand it.
>>
>> =A0 They show no signs of it.
>>
>> > =A0In a way that you keep avoiding.
>>
>> =A0 You retards just chuck out information that goes against your silly

>> ideas.
>>
>> > Remember that a few witnesses have changed their testimony from their
>> > earlier version, like Seymour Weitzman who clearly made a signed
>> > affidavit that he identified the rifle in the TSBD as a 'Mauser 7.65'.
>>

>> =A0 There is film of the rifle found, stupid.

>>
>> > (Mauser stamps their logo or name on their rifles) He knew that his
>> > signature on his statement carried official meaning, yet he signed

>> > it. =A0A DPD officer saw him examine the rifle carefully. =A0Tomlinson =

>may
>> > have been coerced as many witnesses in this case have complained of,
>>
>> Did Tomlinson say he was?

Tomlinson indeed stated that he'd been threatened. He refused to provide the
exact wording of the threat, undoubtedly something along the lines of keeping
his mouth shut about the bullet he found... but he did comment: "...and they
know how to make you believe them".

Of course... this has been commented on many times before.


"Bud" has long had the tendency to pretend he's never heard of something, even
when you can quote him responding to this information in the past.

>you're getting to old to make any sense here Dudster... time to call
>it quits...

Nah... he's just a coward.

>> > by the FBI, who were single minded in making Hoover's wacky lone nut
>> > theory look true.http://dealeyintimidation.tripod.com/index.htm
>>
>> > Chris

[Bud]

I have quit trying to talk sense to you.

And it seems your master told you to respond here so he could add
some cowardly remarks he is afraid to make to me face to face.

[Bud]

On Aug 22, 4:11 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <adfda147-ea16-44cb-a4d8-bbea2af68...@k9g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,

Doesn`t speak to the point, does it retard? Your ideas require
witnesses who knew "A" to be true, but where forced in some way to say
that "B" was true (hence "coerced"). Got any?

> >you're getting to old to make any sense here Dudster... time to call
> >it quits...
>
> Nah... he's just a coward.

What do you call a person who hides from someone they label a
coward?

[Bud]

On Aug 21, 6:13 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2:51 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "A video of Tomlinson might be more useful." <<<
>
> > Here you go, kook....
>
> > Go to Part 2, at 41:16:
>
> >http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-...
>
>   LOL!  Talk about desperation!

You challenged him to produce a video of Tomlinson and he did. Are
you purposely trying to show yourself to be an idiot?

>  Nutball DVP trying to save himself
> from going into ignominy and prove a wacky  theory from the WCR.  Now
> we have another Tomlinson video, but this one is from his own website,
> which is not trustworthy because of bias.

Are you saying it isn`t Tomlinson in the video, stupid?

>  However if you have dating
> for that, it would be nice for you to present it to go with Walter
> Cronkite. Once again Tomlinson says something different than other
> times.  The only difference we have is that in WC testimony he was
> under oath, and he expressed a dislike of not telling the truth under
> oath.  In that set of information, he was very clear about where the
> bullet came from.  Did he have a meeting with the FBI in between?
> They had changed many witness statements through intimidation as per
> the witnesses themselves.  Otherwise, why would Tomlinson flat out
> change the whole main point of his testimony?

You are too stupid to understand that it doesn`t matter whether
Tomlinson said it was the non-Connally stretcher from the start and
adamantly stuck to that story for life. The expressed belief of a
hospital orderly could never support the fantastic idea that someone
had control of Oswalds`s rifle, shot and recovered a bullet,
infiltrated Parkland, knew where Connally`s stretcher would come to
rest and snuck this manufactured bullet onto it.

>    It seems almost impossible for Tomlinson to not know that he had
> turned around and stated something very different than in testimony
> for the cameras.  The video previously shown, and his testimony at th
> WC both back each other up, with the testimony being under oath.  That
> gives that version of his story a bit more strength.  We see even an
> effort on the part of Specter to get Tomlinson to say what he wanted,
> but when he didn't, Specter let it go.  Why,  Since it ws so important
> to the wacky 'magic' bullet theory.

Retards think it`s "wacky" for the victims to be hit from where
someone was seen shooting.

>    We must also think about the stretcher that was brought down in the
> elevator.  Was it even the one that carried Connally?  Why didn't
> Tomlinson report any blood on it?  He said it was clean and had some
> sheets folded up on it.  No blood reported, which he reported for the
> hallway stretcher when he saw it.
>
>   And then we have this, which invalidates the CE399 story as well as

> the CE567 fragments:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearin...

>
> Another thought:
>    Examine CE399 in the picture of 4 bullets, especially with the
> CE572 (left hand bullet) right next to it.  Notice the slight bend in
> the bullets, and then notice the tiny amount of material missing from
> the tail end of each.  CE572 was a test bullet, and the similarity
> with CE399 is startling!  CE399 was named as the 'magic' bullet
> because with almost no damage to it it was supposed to have gone
> through JFK and then make 7 ins and outs in Connally hitting bone
> twice.  Naah.  Not and then be compared with the CE567 fragments that
> were supposedly only go through a skull.  Nope.  Copper jacket bullets
> aren't suppose to come apart just going through one part of a body.
> It should look more like CE399...:)
>
> Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Parkland hospital, saw entrance wounds, believes
> JFK shot from front, and he had seen bullet wounds before many times
> at Parkland.  This also would invalidate any usefulness of CE399 or
> CE567.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Add "invalidate" to the list of words you don`t understand.

> Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! Well, show that face sirrah!! or will it scare us all to hell
and gone? :)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Aug 22, 2:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> RE: Lattimer's and Olivier's work:
>
> Corroboration normally equals verification and, to a certain extent,
> confirmation. (At least "confirmation" to the extent that the tests
> being performed prove that a MC bullet CAN, at least, behave in a
> certain way after striking a certain object. Which is exactly what the
> Olivier and Lattimer bullet tests did confirm. And it doesn't matter
> how many attempts they each made to achieve that confirmation.)
>

Well now, you see it does matter how many times they tried to get
the results shown. If it was a thousand times, then the first or
second time a bullet is fired in a particular event the odds are that
it won't happen on those tries. But it's all moot since it was proven
that the bullet couldn't be matched to the fragments in the skull.
However, it shows that if the type of bullet in question can split
when hitting a hard object, then that allows my explanation that if
anyone fired the M-C rifle out of a 6th floor window, it could have
hit the windshield support and made the obvious hard dent in it and
the fragments would fall down to the front seat area.

It's certainly clear from evidence put forward that no bullet went
through JFK from the 6th floor. That fits with the medical opinion
that the shots that hit JFK were from the front. The bullets were
either lost behind the limo, or they went into the rear seat of the
limo and were quickly replaced when the limo was refurbished. That
alone disproves all other scenarios presented by you in your attempt
at keeping the wacky old WCR alive well past its death knell.

And please don't bother to use the autopsy to prove any point of
this discussion, since Douglas Horne has disproved the validity of
that exercise in fakery and incompetence already.

It is important that we note the scientific viewpoint that Occam's
Razor must be considered, and in this case the frontal shot from the
GK is simpler and more straightforward than the wacky 'magic' bullet
theory in a failed effort to show an incompetent loser could shoot
like a sniper, which he was never able to do. Here is an interview
with Sgt. Delgado, a buddy of LHO when in the service. Incidentally,
the FBI wanted him to lie about LHO's marksmanship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS9Zi0B60lw

I do suggest that you look over the video of Dr. Crenshaw and see
where he places the head wound using his own forehead indicating the
entry point. We can see in th autopsy photos exactly what he is
talking avout, even though muchdamage has been done to the body in a
foolish attempt to make it look like a bullet came from behind and
from the 6th floor. Here's Crenshaw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs5f4I5hK-c

Here's the autopsy photos showing what Crenshaw was talking about:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

Look at BE2_HI to see the exit hole as described by the many
medical personnel at Parkland and Dr. Crenshaw. It was behind and at
the right rear as per Crenshaw and others at Parkland. The damamge at
the top of the head appeared after the trip from Parkland to
Bethesda. Then check photo called 'Groden Superior' at the end of
photos. You will see a disturbed area on the right upper forehead
just past the hairline, which it has been said was morticians wax to
cover the hole that Crenshaw saw there. It certainly isn't the normal
way the hair would look as with the rest of the forehead and hairline.

> But to a conspiracy monger, corroboration means nothing. Zilch. Zero.
>

LOL! If I'm a conspiracy monger, does that make you a wacky theory-
monger? I think you will find much corroboration in the complaints
that the FBI tried (and were often successful) in silencing witnesses
or getting them to change their statements. And the ad hominem
attacks don't work on me, remember?

> Isn't that nice?
>
> And it's also nice to see Chris now taking full credit for Kook
> Holmes' Bugliosi/Carrico/throat wound "discovery". Or did Ben Holmes
> steal it from you, mainframe? Either way, I've explained that
> discrepancy in a reasonable and sensible (and non-"liar" fashion)
> here. Naturally, you will ignore logic once more in order to label Mr.
> Bugliosi an evil liar and in order to cling to the make-believe
> conspiracy you hold so dear:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

I would appreciate you not pushing your little links to your
website, since for me it is not trustworthy, you being so biased and
having put up statements that I wouldn't agree with. You must know
enough to find honest data to back yourself up, and in the case of the
Neutron Activation Test, your files are not up to date and reflect a
false attempt to indict Oswald.

I take no responsibility for what anyone says here except myself. I
found the discrepancy in Bugliosi's text when we were all discussing
it. No doubt that Bugliosi lied about what was said by Carrico, and
there was also a misunderstanding of Carrico's comments related to the
laryngoscope and the view it gives of the inside of the throat
(ragged). In the fashion it was presented to me, the statement that
Bugliosi made was a lie, which I proved and now will not entertain any
reading of his work.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Hmm. The next day has arrived and I'm so lonely! Ol' Davey has
left me alone and not replied to my last point. Has he run away?
Will my prodding bring him back? hehehehe...:)

Chris

[aeffects]

ask Tony Marsh, dipso!

[Ben Holmes]

In article <35419e93-5455-4026...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 22, 2:54=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 4:11=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <adfda147-ea16-44cb-a4d8-bbea2af68...@k9g2000pbr.googlegroup=
>s.com>,
>> > aeffects says...
>>
>> > >On Aug 21, 2:43=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Aug 21, 7:30=3DA0am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > >> > On Aug 20, 7:06=3DA0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > On Aug 20, 6:19=3DA0pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> =
>wrote:
>>
>> > >> > > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:05:47 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wr=
>ote:
>> > >> > > > > Apparently "mainframe" doesn't realize that Darrell Tomlinso=
>n cha=3D
>> > >nged
>>
>> > >> > > > > his story over the years regarding the stretcher that the bu=
>llet =3D
>> > >was
>>
>> > >> > > > > on. In 1967, he told CBS News the exact opposite of what he =
>told =3D
>> > >PBS
>>
>> > >> > > > > in 1988.
>>
>> > >> > > > Somebody free me from this beanbag's foolishness. =3DA0Here is=
> a stat=3D
>> > >ement from a different writer: =3DA0"In 1988, in the P.B.S. television=
> produc=3D
>> > >tion of Nova entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Mr. Tomlinson re-=
>enact=3D
>> > >ed his finding of the bullet for the cameras and again re-iterated his=
> conv=3D

>> > >iction that the bullet was not found on Connally's cot."
>> > >> > > > From:http://shogun555.vacau.com/truth2.html
>>

>> > >> > > > =3DA0 There seems to be a number of conflicting views that I'v=
>e found=3D
>> > >. =3DA0Some say the '67 CBS version had Tomlinson saying the bullet wa=
>s on Co=3D
>> > >nnally's stretcher ans some say on the hallway stretcher. =3DA0To dete=
>rmine t=3D
>> > >he right version of what Tomlinson meant, I watched the video supplied=
> belo=3D
>> > >w and watched Tomlinson manipulating a stretcher out of the elevator a=
>nd sa=3D
>> > >ying clearly that the bullet was on the hallway stretcher and not the =
>eleva=3D
>> > >tor stretcher which he had just brought down from being used by Connal=
>ly. =3D
>> > >=3DA0I have much more faith in him recreating his movements and rememb=
>ering c=3D
>> > >learly (watch the video) where the bullet was found. =3DA0Most people =
>seem to=3D
>> > > be citing whichever version they come across that matched their belie=
>f. =3D
>> > >=3DA0Here's the video I rely on:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D3DMx1=
>sxYc8r2A
>>
>> > >> > > > Chris
>>
>> > >> > > =3DA0 Once Tomlinson told the Warren Commission he wasn`t sure w=
>hich
>> > >> > > stretcher he found the bullet on you were done. Nearly 5 decades=
> late=3D

>> > >r
>> > >> > > the retards still don`t understand this.
>>

>> > >> > =3DA0 Ah, but they do understand it.
>>
>> > >> =3DA0 They show no signs of it.
>>
>> > >> > =3DA0In a way that you keep avoiding.
>>
>> > >> =3DA0 You retards just chuck out information that goes against your =
>silly
>> > >> ideas.
>>
>> > >> > Remember that a few witnesses have changed their testimony from th=

>eir
>> > >> > earlier version, like Seymour Weitzman who clearly made a signed

>> > >> > affidavit that he identified the rifle in the TSBD as a 'Mauser 7.=
>65'.
>>
>> > >> =3DA0 There is film of the rifle found, stupid.
>>
>> > >> > (Mauser stamps their logo or name on their rifles) He knew that hi=

>s
>> > >> > signature on his statement carried official meaning, yet he signed

>> > >> > it. =3DA0A DPD officer saw him examine the rifle carefully. =3DA0T=
>omlinson =3D
>> > >may
>> > >> > have been coerced as many witnesses in this case have complained o=

>f,
>>
>> > >> Did Tomlinson say he was?
>>

>> > Tomlinson indeed stated that he'd been threatened. He refused to provid=
>e the
>> > exact wording of the threat, undoubtedly something along the lines of k=
>eeping
>> > his mouth shut about the bullet he found... but he did comment: "...and=

> they
>> > know how to make you believe them".
>>
>> > Of course... this has been commented on many times before.
>>
>> > "Bud" has long had the tendency to pretend he's never heard of something,
>> > even when you can quote him responding to this information in the past.
>>
>> Doesn`t speak to the point, does it retard?

You're lying again.

The point was raised: "Tomlinson may have been coerced as many witnesses in this
case have complained of..."

You asked if Tomlinson said that he had been.

The answer, WHICH YOU ALREADY KNOW, is that yes, he most clearly spoke of being
threatened and intimidated by the FBI.

This is merely historical fact, and speaks DIRECTLY to the question of coercion
of eyewitnesses.

That you can deny it with a straight face merely shows just how mind-bogglingly
dishonest you are. Black is white, and the sun is shining brightly at midnight.

>> Your ideas require
>> witnesses who knew "A" to be true, but where forced in some way to say
>> that "B" was true (hence "coerced"). Got any?

Sorry liar, just provided a quote from one of those eyewitnesses.

Gutless coward, aren't you?

>> > >you're getting to old to make any sense here Dudster... time to call
>> > >it quits...
>>
>> > Nah... he's just a coward.
>>
>> What do you call a person who hides from someone they label a
>> coward?
>
>ask Tony Marsh, dipso!

Yep... Tony's almost as dishonest as "Bud" is.

Tony, like "Bud", has the opportunity to cite even if *NO-ONE* was reading their
posts... but he can't do it.


>> > >> > by the FBI, who were single minded in making Hoover's wacky lone n=

[Bud]

On Aug 23, 3:47 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <35419e93-5455-4026-aa16-37b8233de...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,

No, you just can`t follow a discussion. And as usual you can`t tell
an apple from an orange.

> The point was raised: "Tomlinson may have been coerced as many witnesses in this
> case have complained of..."

The discussion was about a particular issue, which stretcher
Tomlinson found the bullet on. The idea the other retard Chris was
advancing was that Tomlinson was coerced into his statements about the
stretcher bullet. You see Tomlinson gave differing accounts. Chris was
raising the possibility that in the accounts he likes Tomlinson was
being truthful, and in the accounts he doesn`t like Tomlinson was
coerced. My question revolved around why, if in some accounts he was
being truthful why didn`t he come clean about being coerced in the
other statements? All my subtle points need to be spelled out to you
dunces, who will miss them anyway.

> You asked if Tomlinson said that he had been.

Had been coerced into saying the bullet he was found was on the
stretcher he didn`t find it on was the full thought, not spelled out
but implied by the discussions previous.

> The answer, WHICH YOU ALREADY KNOW, is that yes, he most clearly spoke of being
> threatened and intimidated by the FBI.

Again, that doesn`t speak to the issues we were discussing. A
general gag rule issued (if one even was) is a completely different
animal than coercing a witness to give false testimony.

> This is merely historical fact,

It`s a fact that Tomlinson said this. Not that Tomlinson`s
characterization of the discussion was accurate.

> and speaks DIRECTLY to the question of coercion
> of eyewitnesses.

Doesn`t speak to the issues being discussed. The idea was that
Tomlinson was in some way made to give false information to the WC but
in later versions gave his real opinions.

Follow the discussion back and see if the main issue isn`t about
Tomlinson and the information he gave about which stretcher he found
the bullet on. If you have something from Tomlinson saying he was
coerced on this issue introduce it, if not shut the fuck up.

> That you can deny it with a straight face merely shows just how mind-bogglingly
> dishonest you are. Black is white, and the sun is shining brightly at midnight.

You are too stupid to follow a discussion. It was about ideas and
issues your information didn`t speak to.

> >> Your ideas require
> >> witnesses who knew "A" to be true, but where forced in some way to say
> >> that "B" was true (hence "coerced"). Got any?
>
> Sorry liar, just provided a quote from one of those eyewitnesses.

I`ll take your running as an admission that you have no such
witnesses, just as you failed in the past to produce any such
witnesses when I challenged you to do so. But these are the type of
witness the ideas of conspiracy retards require, the exact kind you
can`t produce.

> Gutless coward, aren't you?

What do you call a person who hides from someone they call a gutless
coward?

> >> > >you're getting to old to make any sense here Dudster... time to call
> >> > >it quits...
>
> >> > Nah... he's just a coward.
>
> >> What do you call a person who hides from someone they label a
> >> coward?
>
> >ask Tony Marsh, dipso!
>
> Yep... Tony's almost as dishonest as "Bud" is.

Why didn`t you answer my question, chickenshit? What do you call a

person who hides from someone they label a coward?

[mainframetech]

On Aug 23, 8:27 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Aug 23, 3:47 pm, Ben Holmes <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <35419e93-5455-4026-aa16-37b8233de...@k3g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>,
> > aeffects says...
>
> > >On Aug 22, 2:54=A0pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

The version of Tomlinson's statement that I rely on was named and
dated 'NOVA 1988", which is the newest version I saw. If someone has
newer version. Let me know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

Now we need to look at the FBI involvement in trying to shut
Tomlinson's up about finding the bullet on the wrong stretcher. Here
is the copy of a call from Tomlinson to Ray Marcus:

"Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours
after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson
was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he "keep his
mouth shut" about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital. This is
from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The
interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up
on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there
any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you
to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period."
From: http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Ther above article is excellent. It describes al the things I've
been putting down separately and includes the attempt by the FBI to
shut Tomlinson about the bullet he found. This was very early in the
case.

The affidavit of Seymour Weitzman - Mauser identification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nuloZxeW9g

Chris

[Bud]

> newer version. Let me know.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

>
>    Now we need to look at the FBI involvement in trying to shut
> Tomlinson's up about finding the bullet on the wrong stretcher.

<snicker> You produce what he said then lie about it. He was
instructed not to talk about the bullet, period, not about which
stretcher it was found.

>  Here
> is the copy of a call from Tomlinson to Ray Marcus:
>
> "Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours
> after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson
> was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he "keep his
> mouth shut" about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital. This is
> from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The
> interview is also documented in the HSCA records.
>
> Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
> that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up
> on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
>
> Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>
> Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
>
> Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
> pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say  - was there
> any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you
> to talk about it period?
>
> Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period."
> From:http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
>    Ther above article is excellent.  It describes al the things I've
> been putting down separately and includes the attempt by the FBI to
> shut Tomlinson about the bullet he found.  This was very early in the
> case.

The WC asked him about the bullet so there must not have been cover-
up about the finding of the bullet.

[mainframetech]

'snicker'? Must be Beavis or Butthead mumbling again. It's amazing
what you can read into a sentence or even a phrase. The words were
""keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found..." Do you think
maybe Tomlinson assumed that it would include the stretcher that he
got the bullet from? I betcha he thought that...:) This argument is
for the adults...what are you doing popping in at this point? Do you
have any backup for anything you say? Any logic or even common
sense? Or just the tired, old WCR that rules your life?

> >  Here
> > is the copy of a call from Tomlinson to Ray Marcus:
>
> > "Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours
> > after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson
> > was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he "keep his
> > mouth shut" about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital. This is
> > from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The
> > interview is also documented in the HSCA records.
>
> > Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
> > that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up
> > on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
>
> > Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>
> > Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…
>
> > Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
> > pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say  - was there
> > any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you
> > to talk about it period?
>
> > Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period."
> > From:http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> >    Ther above article is excellent.  It describes al the things I've
> > been putting down separately and includes the attempt by the FBI to

> > shut up Tomlinson about the bullet he found.  This was very early in the

> > case.
>
>    The WC asked him about the bullet so there must not have been cover-
> up about the finding of the bullet.

So you decided that Tomlinson was lying? Naah. The FBI wanted him
to butt out because his testimony could put the bullet on the wrong
stretcher and mess up the case against Oswald. If the bullet had been
found on Connally's stretcher, it would make sense and all would be
well. The FBI wouldn't have intervened in that case. That fact alone
proves that Tomlinson found the bullet on the wrong stretcher. Thanks
for the opportunity to prove that...:)

[Bud]

You read "stretcher" into what Tomlinson said, stupid.

And what your ideas require is Tomlinson saying he was coerced into
saying which stretcher he found the bullet, stupid. You don`t have
that, stupid, although you will play make pretend games about it.

> The words were
> ""keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found..." Do you think
> maybe Tomlinson assumed that it would include the stretcher that he
> got the bullet from?  I betcha he thought that...:)  This argument is
> for the adults...what are you doing popping in at this point?  Do you
> have any backup for anything you say?

You produced Tomlinson`s words that proved you lied.

Try responding to what I said, stupid. If the FBI was covering up
the existence of that bullet how was the WC aware of it?

>  The FBI wanted him
> to butt out because his testimony could put the bullet on the wrong
> stretcher and mess up the case against Oswald.  If the bullet had been
> found on Connally's stretcher, it would make sense and all would be
> well.  The FBI wouldn't have intervened in that case.  That fact alone
> proves that Tomlinson found the bullet on the wrong stretcher.  Thanks
> for the opportunity to prove that...:)

Retards can convince themselves of anything.

[mainframetech]

> > > >    Ther above article is excellent.  It describes all the things I've

> > > > been putting down separately and includes the attempt by the FBI to
> > > > shut up Tomlinson about the bullet he found.  This was very early in the
> > > > case.
>
> > >    The WC asked him about the bullet so there must not have been cover-
> > > up about the finding of the bullet.
>
> >   So you decided that Tomlinson was lying?  Naah.
>
>   Try responding to what I said, stupid. If the FBI was covering up
> the existence of that bullet how was the WC aware of it?
>

Well, stupid, you must not have thought too long before saying
that. Thinking can help you out of these jams you kep getting
yourself into. The FBI had the scenario from Hooover the same day of
the murder, and the FBI boys bgan carrying it out immediately. That
included the effort to cover up the finding of a bullet on the wrong
stretcher that would make difficulty if made public. The answer was
to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried. Over time
the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
covering it up. As long as they could distract from where the bullet
was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
the original intention. By the time the WC convened, it was public
knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
condition. He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.

> >  The FBI wanted him
> > to butt out because his testimony could put the bullet on the wrong
> > stretcher and mess up the case against Oswald.  If the bullet had been
> > found on Connally's stretcher, it would make sense and all would be
> > well.  The FBI wouldn't have intervened in that case.  That fact alone
> > proves that Tomlinson found the bullet on the wrong stretcher.  Thanks
> > for the opportunity to prove that...:)
>
>   Retards can convince themselves of anything.

Oh geez! I just convinced myself that you're an idiot that keeps
saying things to make yourself look more stupid than the time
before...:)

[Bud]

Is this what you figure happened, retard? That doesn`t count for
anything, does it? When you can start showing these things you figure
happened then you`ll have something. You might want to hurry, while
there are still some people who remember who JFK was.

> The answer was
> to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> covering it up.

Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?

>  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.

Those that can`t criticize those that can.

[mainframetech]

I see you have nothing to support your foolish litle comments. I,
at least, provided the text from a site and referenced it. What have
you referenced, your left nostril that you just picked? Try to
understand that the evidence of Tomlinson being called by the FBI to
shut him up shows that the bullet was found on the wrong stretcher.
If it had been found on the stretcher that purportedly carried
Connally, they wouldn't care. It would all fit. So not only do we
now have proof or more FBI intimidation, but also further proof that
the bullet was found on an uninvolved stretcher. Thank you for this
opportunity to bring this info out to everyone...:)

> > The answer was
> > to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> > the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> > covering it up.
>
>   Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?
>

Nope. Doesn't matter as long as it was before the WC panel asking
questions about it. But it was at least before March 20, 1964, the
date of Tomlinson's testimony at the WC. The information was in the
hands of law enforcement right after the bullet was found.

> >  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> > was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> > the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> > knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> > find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> > condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> > course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.
>
>   Those that can`t criticize those that can.

Huh? Want to explain that? Since you're the main criticizer here.

[Bud]

More retard figuring.

> If it had been found on the stretcher that purportedly carried
> Connally, they wouldn't care.  It would all fit.

You should try to hide the fact that you are just a retard arranging
information into shapes he finds personally pleasing better.

> So not only do we
> now have proof or more FBI intimidation, but also further proof that
> the bullet was found on an uninvolved stretcher.  Thank you for this
> opportunity to bring this info out to everyone...:)

What retards figure doesn`t amount to anything.

> > > The answer was
> > > to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> > > the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> > > covering it up.
>
> >   Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?
>
>   Nope.  Doesn't matter

Of course not, this information could only do harm to your stupid
ideas.

> as long as it was before the WC panel asking
> questions about it.  But it was at least before March 20, 1964, the
> date of Tomlinson's testimony at the WC.  The information was in the
> hands of law enforcement right after the bullet was found.

And only there, stupid? Word hadn`t gotten out to anyone besides
Tomlinson? Or have you decided that doesn`t matter either?

> > >  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> > > was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> > > the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> > > knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> > > find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> > > condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> > > course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.
>
> >   Those that can`t criticize those that can.
>
> Huh?  Want to explain that?  Since you're the main criticizer here.

No stupid, you idiots are the critics of the official investigations
and finding. So you criticize Hoover for being able to figure out the
most easily solved crime in history in one day because you are unable
to do so in nearly 50 years. You criticize those that can put a theory
on the table when you retards cannot.

[mainframetech]

Ah, I take it 'figuring' is new to you and you don't quite
understand what it's for. You made the statement, but you have no
comment to prove or disprove anything I said. So you must agree,
eh? :)

> > If it had been found on the stretcher that purportedly carried
> > Connally, they wouldn't care.  It would all fit.
>
>   You should try to hide the fact that you are just a retard arranging
> information into shapes he finds personally pleasing better.
>

Welp little buddy, if YOU don't find the shapes pleasing, then offer
something intelligent to show me up. Then flash some pleasing backup.
Or just quietly go back under your rock and be quiet.

> > So not only do we
> > now have proof or more FBI intimidation, but also further proof that
> > the bullet was found on an uninvolved stretcher.  Thank you for this
> > opportunity to bring this info out to everyone...:)
>
>   What retards figure doesn`t amount to anything.
>

You must not be in the audience...it looks a lot different from
there. Making all your little comments doesn't advance the impression
of your intelligence, it just shows sour grapes. Try joining the
discussion...:)

> > > > The answer was
> > > > to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> > > > the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> > > > covering it up.
>
> > >   Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?
>
> >   Nope.  Doesn't matter
>
>   Of course not, this information could only do harm to your stupid
> ideas.
>

Now that was silly. If you think it does harm to my ideas, in the
past you've made it clear you would jump at the chance to show what a
fool I am. Since you didn't do that, I have to think that you're
either going nuts, or you just can't find anything wrong with my logic
about Tomlinson and the bullet from the uninvolved stretcher.

> > as long as it was before the WC panel asking
> > questions about it.  But it was at least before March 20, 1964, the
> > date of Tomlinson's testimony at the WC.  The information was in the
> > hands of law enforcement right after the bullet was found.
>
>   And only there, stupid? Word hadn`t gotten out to anyone besides
> Tomlinson? Or have you decided that doesn`t matter either?

buddy, if you have something to say, spit it out. Playing cat and
mouse with me is a losing game. If the information got out that
Tomlinson found the bullet on an uninvolved stretcher, what would it
hurt except the big phony 'lone nut' scenario of Hoover's? Think of
what you said above there. Tomlinson was the one that found the
bullet, so he was in the know first. I think Wright was next. So?

>
> > > >  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> > > > was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> > > > the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> > > > knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> > > > find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> > > > condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> > > > course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > >   Those that can`t criticize those that can.
>
> > Huh?  Want to explain that?  Since you're the main criticizer here.
>
>   No stupid, you idiots are the critics of the official investigations
> and finding. So you criticize Hoover for being able to figure out the
> most easily solved crime in history in one day because you are unable
> to do so in nearly 50 years. You criticize those that can put a theory
> on the table when you retards cannot.

I won't speak for the CTers, since I'm a Conspiracy with Evidence
person (CE?). I could easily put up a made up scenario just like
Hoover, but it would then have the same faults that the tired old WCR
has. I like evidence, and piecing it together is something I enjoy.
So bit by bit I'm getting there to where the truth is. Not just some
made up story that someone like you would believe.

> > > >  The FBI wanted him
> > > > > > to butt out because his testimony could put the bullet on the wrong
> > > > > > stretcher and mess up the case against Oswald.  If the bullet had been
> > > > > > found on Connally's stretcher, it would make sense and all would be
> > > > > > well.  The FBI wouldn't have intervened in that case.  That fact alone
> > > > > > proves that Tomlinson found the bullet on the wrong stretcher.  Thanks
> > > > > > for the opportunity to prove that...:)
>
> > > > >   Retards can convince themselves of anything.
>
> > > >    Oh geez! I just convinced myself that you're an idiot that keeps
> > > > saying things to make yourself look more stupid than the time
> > > > before...:)
>

Rose Cheramie - predicted the assassination days ahead and also said
Oswald and Ruby knew each other:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Rose_Cherami

Chris

[Bud]

Even more retard figuring.

> > > If it had been found on the stretcher that purportedly carried
> > > Connally, they wouldn't care.  It would all fit.
>
> >   You should try to hide the fact that you are just a retard arranging
> > information into shapes he finds personally pleasing better.
>
>   Welp little buddy, if YOU don't find the shapes pleasing, then offer
> something intelligent to show me up. Then flash some pleasing backup.
> Or just quietly go back under your rock and be quiet.

Oh, I`ll leave you alone. It isn`t like you are hurting anything, or
doing anything. Just playing games and indulging in this retard hobby
many before you have indulged, with the same results.

> > > So not only do we
> > > now have proof or more FBI intimidation, but also further proof that
> > > the bullet was found on an uninvolved stretcher.  Thank you for this
> > > opportunity to bring this info out to everyone...:)
>
> >   What retards figure doesn`t amount to anything.
>
>   You must not be in the audience...it looks a lot different from
> there.  Making all your little comments doesn't advance the impression
> of your intelligence, it just shows sour grapes.  Try joining the
> discussion...:)

<snicker> With who? A stump like you?

> > > > > The answer was
> > > > > to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> > > > > the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> > > > > covering it up.
>
> > > >   Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?
>
> > >   Nope.  Doesn't matter
>
> >   Of course not, this information could only do harm to your stupid
> > ideas.
>
>   Now that was silly.

How can I have a discussion with you if you are only going to run
from what I say?

>  If you think it does harm to my ideas, in the
> past you've made it clear you would jump at the chance to show what a
> fool I am.  Since you didn't do that, I have to think that you're
> either going nuts, or you just can't find anything wrong with my logic
> about Tomlinson and the bullet from the uninvolved stretcher.

Once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which gurney he found the bullet
on you were done. He did this decades ago and you still aren`t up to
speed.

But let anyone reading in on how you think a bullet matching
Oswald`s rifle could have been found at Parkland. Give them a taste of
that retard "figuring".

> > > as long as it was before the WC panel asking
> > > questions about it.  But it was at least before March 20, 1964, the
> > > date of Tomlinson's testimony at the WC.  The information was in the
> > > hands of law enforcement right after the bullet was found.
>
> >   And only there, stupid? Word hadn`t gotten out to anyone besides
> > Tomlinson? Or have you decided that doesn`t matter either?
>
>   buddy, if you have something to say, spit it out.

Take you by the hand again? How can I make you smarter?

>  Playing cat and
> mouse with me is a losing game.
>  If the information got out that
> Tomlinson found the bullet on an uninvolved stretcher,

Thats your invention, it`s not what Tomlinson said.

> what would it
> hurt except the big phony 'lone nut'  scenario of Hoover's?  Think of
> what you said above there.  Tomlinson was the one that found the
> bullet, so he was in the know first.  I think Wright was next.  So?

So you think it was just these two?

> > > > >  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> > > > > was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> > > > > the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> > > > > knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> > > > > find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> > > > > condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> > > > > course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > > >   Those that can`t criticize those that can.
>
> > > Huh?  Want to explain that?  Since you're the main criticizer here.
>
> >   No stupid, you idiots are the critics of the official investigations
> > and finding. So you criticize Hoover for being able to figure out the
> > most easily solved crime in history in one day because you are unable
> > to do so in nearly 50 years. You criticize those that can put a theory
> > on the table when you retards cannot.
>
>    I won't speak for the CTers, since I'm a Conspiracy with Evidence
> person (CE?).  I could easily put up a made up scenario just like
> Hoover, but it would then have the same faults that the tired old WCR
> has.  I like evidence, and piecing it together is something I enjoy.

Well, enjoy yourself retard. Like I said, you aren`t hurting
anything, or accomplishing anything.

> So bit by bit I'm getting there to where the truth is.  Not just some
> made up story that someone like you would believe.

Yah, you`re too astute, it couldn`t have been Oswald, it was just
everyone out to make it look like it was him.

[mainframetech]

LOL! Deep insult there...:)

> > > > If it had been found on the stretcher that purportedly carried
> > > > Connally, they wouldn't care.  It would all fit.
>
> > >   You should try to hide the fact that you are just a retard arranging
> > > information into shapes he finds personally pleasing better.
>
> >   Welp little buddy, if YOU don't find the shapes pleasing, then offer
> > something intelligent to show me up. Then flash some pleasing backup.
> > Or just quietly go back under your rock and be quiet.
>
>   Oh, I`ll leave you alone. It isn`t like you are hurting anything, or
> doing anything. Just playing games and indulging in this retard hobby
> many before you have indulged, with the same results.
>

Yep. Same results of your embarrassment in public and new thinking
for the readers...:)

> > > > So not only do we
> > > > now have proof or more FBI intimidation, but also further proof that
> > > > the bullet was found on an uninvolved stretcher.  Thank you for this
> > > > opportunity to bring this info out to everyone...:)
>
> > >   What retards figure doesn`t amount to anything.
>
> >   You must not be in the audience...it looks a lot different from
> > there.  Making all your little comments doesn't advance the impression
> > of your intelligence, it just shows sour grapes.  Try joining the
> > discussion...:)
>
>   <snicker> With who? A stump like you?
>

Ah! It's Beavis or Butthead again. Aren't you the least bit
embarrassed at being constantly schooled by a stump?

> > > > > > The answer was
> > > > > > to intimidate Tomlinson into shutting up, which they tried.  Over time
> > > > > > the bullet discovery became public and there was no more use in
> > > > > > covering it up.
>
> > > > >   Any idea when the public became aware of that bullet?
>
> > > >   Nope.  Doesn't matter
>
> > >   Of course not, this information could only do harm to your stupid
> > > ideas.
>
> >   Now that was silly.
>
>   How can I have a discussion with you if you are only going to run
> from what I say?
>
> >  If you think it does harm to my ideas, in the
> > past you've made it clear you would jump at the chance to show what a
> > fool I am.  Since you didn't do that, I have to think that you're
> > either going nuts, or you just can't find anything wrong with my logic
> > about Tomlinson and the bullet from the uninvolved stretcher.
>
>   Once Tomlinson said he wasn`t sure which gurney he found the bullet
> on you were done. He did this decades ago and you still aren`t up to
> speed.
>

Ah! A point to be made! Finally! Tomlinson made it clear that the
FBI had tried to intimidate him and shut him up about finding the
bullet on an uninvolved stretcher. As we learned before, that late
night call to do that to him proved that the bullet was indeed found
on the wrong stretcher or they wouldn't have bothered to make the
call. He went before the WC decades ago and even with Specter trying
to get him to say he found the bullet on the 'right' stretcher, he
held his ground and was only a bit confused after harassing
questioning by Specter. This was his earliest 'official' statement.

At a later time he chose to say that he wasn't sure which stretcher
it was on, but why would he forget his statement earlier to the WC?
So he knew the truth but didn't say it, meaning he had been gotten to,
possibly by the FBI who had tried in the past. However, after decades
had passed he decided to tell it like it is and did a video with NOVA
(1988) where he walked through the motions of the fateful day and
showed what he did with the stretchers, and then he made sure to point
out once again that the bullet was found on the wrong stretcher. So
we leave Tomlinson having stated that the bullet was indeed found on
the uninvolved stretcher.

We still have the outstanding questions of who put the bullet on
the wrong stretcher, and where did they get it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

>   But let anyone reading in on how you think a bullet matching
> Oswald`s rifle could have been found at Parkland. Give them a taste of
> that retard "figuring".
>

No problem little buddy...:) There's a good chance the bullets
handled by the FBI were fired through the M-C that was found, and that
rifle may have belonged to LHO. Let's assume it did, though there are
some who contest that. The FBI got the rifle early on and ran test
bullets through it, which is a matter of record. The CE399 bullet
found on an uninvolved stretcher at Parkland matches almost perfectly,
a test bullet. Let's look at the two on this page:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_HSCA_Public_Hearings_Exhibits_-_p6

Go down to item F-294 and click on it to expand it. Look at the
CE399 bullet on the left which was found on the wrong stretcher at
Parkland. Then look at the bullet right next to it (CE572). Note
that the 2 bullets have the same slight bend in the middle, and the
same small amount of material missing from the tail end. The CE572 is
labelled as a 'test bullet' so there is a great possibility that CE399
was also a test bullet.

2 or more agents in the FBI, and both Tomlinson and Wright all said
they could not identify the bullet that later was shown to them as if
it were CE399. This raises the obvious point that the bullet that was
found on the uninvolved stretcher was NOT the bullet that later was
used as evidence, but a substitute that was a test bullet that came
from the FBI having control of the M-C rifle and being able to test
it. At least one of the witnesses said the bullet found on the
uninvolved stretrcher was definitely 'pointed' and not 'rounded' like
the CE399. This information fits right in with the suggestion that
the bullet found on the uninvolved stretcher was planted and they
didn't know what kind of bullet to put down, so they used whatever
they guessed would be right.

Poor buddy, you've been very interested in who knew about
Tomlinson's discovery of a bullet, so here's a link to explain the
whole mess with the CE399 bullet and who had it in what order, and who
in the FBI screwed up the chain of custody and who in the FBI couldn't
identify it:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > > > as long as it was before the WC panel asking
> > > > questions about it.  But it was at least before March 20, 1964, the
> > > > date of Tomlinson's testimony at the WC.  The information was in the
> > > > hands of law enforcement right after the bullet was found.
>
> > >   And only there, stupid? Word hadn`t gotten out to anyone besides
> > > Tomlinson? Or have you decided that doesn`t matter either?
>
> >   buddy, if you have something to say, spit it out.
>
>   Take you by the hand again? How can I make you smarter?
>
> >  Playing cat and
> > mouse with me is a losing game.
> >  If the information got out that
> > Tomlinson found the bullet on an uninvolved stretcher,
>
>   Thats your invention, it`s not what Tomlinson said.
>

Ah, but it IS what Tomlinson said, and said at the WC, and said it
also in 1988 for NOVA, here's the proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx1sxYc8r2A

> > what would it
> > hurt except the big phony 'lone nut'  scenario of Hoover's?  Think of
> > what you said above there.  Tomlinson was the one that found the
> > bullet, so he was in the know first.  I think Wright was next.  So?
>
>   So you think it was just these two?
>

Not particularly, but if it matters, say so and back up your
statement. If you won't explain yourself, then I'll give you this
link that will explain all the hands that got on to the CE399, and the
people that know about it, and the FBI people that refused to identify
it later, and also the civilians that were unable to identify it
later:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

> > > > > >  As long as they could distract from where the bullet
> > > > > > was found, they could actually use it to nail Oswald, as was probably
> > > > > > the original intention.  By the time the WC convened, it was public
> > > > > > knowledge that the bullet was found, and it only left it to Specter to
> > > > > > find some godawful excuse for the bullet being in almost pristine
> > > > > > condition.  He did...the wacky 'magic' single bullet theory, which (of
> > > > > > course) the WC bought hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > > > >   Those that can`t criticize those that can.
>
> > > > Huh?  Want to explain that?  Since you're the main criticizer here.
>
> > >   No stupid, you idiots are the critics of the official investigations
> > > and finding. So you criticize Hoover for being able to figure out the
> > > most easily solved crime in history in one day because you are unable
> > > to do so in nearly 50 years. You criticize those that can put a theory
> > > on the table when you retards cannot.
>
> >    I won't speak for the CTers, since I'm a Conspiracy with Evidence
> > person (CE?).  I could easily put up a made up scenario just like
> > Hoover, but it would then have the same faults that the tired old WCR
> > has.  I like evidence, and piecing it together is something I enjoy.
>
>   Well, enjoy yourself retard. Like I said, you aren`t hurting
> anything, or accomplishing anything.
>

Oh, I think I'm accomplishing a great deal. I'm showing to many
people that your jaundiced view of the murder is not the only way to
think about this case, and that there are ways it could have been
accomplished without too much fuss by some of the authorities (mostly
FBI).

> > So bit by bit I'm getting there to where the truth is.  Not just some
> > made up story that someone like you would believe.
>
>   Yah, you`re too astute, it couldn`t have been Oswald, it was just
> everyone out to make it look like it was him.

Everyone? No, just a few people. Many people just ran around
following orders, like the FBI people and the DPD. And the evidence
shows that Oswald was not the shooter, or even a misser...:)