Is Bullet CE399 Legitimate? -- The Common-Sense Answer Is: Yes
David Von Pein
SWITCHED? PLANTED? OR THE REAL DEAL?
======================================
The entire subject of a "switched bullet" or "planted bullet" is a
worthless red herring argument. And the main reason it's worthless
(and stupid) is due to the fact that such a "switch"/"plant" isn't the
slightest bit necessary, even under the crazy circumstances believed
by so many CTers -- i.e., the "Let's Frame Lee Oswald For JFK's
Murder" circumstances.
And everyone knows why such a switch/plant would be totally
unnecessary (even via such "Let's Get LHO" conditions).....It's
because there was already ample physical evidence elsewhere to link
Oswald to JFK's murder -- e.g., bullet fragments CE567 & CE569 in the
limo itself, the Carcano rifle (CE139), the paper bag (CE142) with
Oswald's prints, and the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest.
Good gravy! How much LHO-incriminating stuff do you need to frame the
guy?! Why on Earth would ANYONE feel the burning need or desire to
plant ADDITIONAL evidence against the man to whom ALL OF THE OTHER
PHYSICAL (AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL) EVIDENCE LEADS?
Were these plotters just overactive? Or just flat-out morons who
WANTED to probably get caught? (I can't think of a reasonable third
option here. Can anyone?)
And the idea of putting into the official body of evidence in this
case a phony Oswald bullet to replace the "real" stretcher bullet is
absurd (even if civilians saw the so-called "real" "pointy" bullet at
Parkland).
Under those conditions (and assuming all the authorities were rotten,
lying scumbags, like many CTers firmly believe evidently), why not
just get rid of the "pointy" bullet and not worry about "replacing" it
with a phony Oswald/Carcano bullet?
Why wouldn't the plotters merely make that bullet "disappear", just
like "they" did with multiple other bullets in this case (per certain
CTers who disbelieve the wholly-accurate SBT)?
And at least one of those vanishing bullets, per some CTers, was also
SEEN by one or more witnesses who weren't part of the plot. But
evidently the bad guys didn't hesitate to get rid of those bullets
that went into JFK but never exited his body. And those mystery
missiles never got a CE399-like "replacement".
So, why should the stretcher bullet be treated any differently by
these conspiratorial lowlifes who wanted Oswald framed so badly?
Now seems like a good time to reiterate my favorite quote from author
and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.....
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L.M.
Sturdivan "The JFK Myths" (2005)
RICLAND
> CE399 TALK.....
>
> SWITCHED? PLANTED? OR THE REAL DEAL?
>
> ======================================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ae677de454e17086/b112ee4ed0366c08?hl=en&
>
> The entire subject of a "switched bullet" or "planted bullet" is a
> worthless red herring argument. And the main reason it's worthless
> (and stupid) is due to the fact that such a "switch"/"plant" isn't the
> slightest bit necessary, even under the crazy circumstances believed
> by so many CTers -- i.e., the "Let's Frame Lee Oswald For JFK's
> Murder" circumstances.
This is a mission of mercy and the last time I embark on it.
Stop imitating Bugliosi's writing style, it marks you as a hack writer.
There's no need to call a red herring "worthless." Bugliosi does things
like this because he's never studied writing. And adding "(stupid) after
worthless is stupid. It adds nothing to your prose save showing everyone
how clueless you (and Bugliosi) are about academic standards.
Finally, regarding the magic bullet, certainly today there would be
compelling reason for a judge to toss it. The recent Texas A&M
ballistics study is one reason, the ridiculous chain of possession is
another, it's near-pristine condition doesn't help, and the slap-stick
conditions under which it was found (worthy of an Abbot and Costello
movie) yet another.
You argue that if CE999 had been a severely damaged bullet found on
Connally's stretcher it would be no more credible than the actual CE999
and were this question asked of you in court and your answer were that,
you'd be laughed out of court.
In other words, all you're really saying, David, is that it would be
very helpful to you if we ignored all the problems with CE999, which is
to say, you're trying to persuade us -- dealing in sophistry, not science.
But sophistry, although it works in the courtroom, doesn't work in
academia. Scholars are not persuaded as easily as juries, a distinction
Bugliosi clearly doesn't understand. When he and you write as you do
below that a switch would be "totally unnecessary because there's ample
physical evidence" to link CE999 to the rifle, that doesn't settle the
question of CE999's chain of possession or flawed testing. We politely
disagree and wonder to ourselves where kooks like you come from.
What I'm saying is neither your writing or thinking meets the level of
scholarly discourse you seem to think it does. Not even close. And this,
David, is not to say that mentoring is a bad thing, only that choosing
Bugliosi as a mentor is a bad thing.
ricland
>
> And everyone knows why such a switch/plant would be totally
> unnecessary (even via such "Let's Get LHO" conditions).....It's
> because there was already ample physical evidence elsewhere to link
> Oswald to JFK's murder (e.g., bullet fragments CE567 & 569 in the limo
> itself, the Carcano (CE139), the paper bag (CE142) with Oswald's
> prints, and the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest.
>
> Good gravy! How much LHO-incriminating stuff do you need to frame the
> guy?! Why on Earth would ANYONE feel the burning need or desire to
> plant ADDITIONAL evidence against the man to whom ALL OF THE OTHER
> PHYSICAL (AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL) EVIDENCE LEADS?
>
> Were these plotters just overactive? Or just flat-out morons who
> WANTED to probably get caught? (I can't think of a reasonable third
> option here. Can anyone?)
>
> And the idea of putting into the official body of evidence in this
> case a phony Oswald bullet to replace the "real" stretcher bullet is
> absurd (even if civilians saw the so-called "real" "pointy" bullet at
> Parkland).
>
> Under those conditions (and assuming all the authorities were rotten,
> lying scumbags, like many CTers firmly believe evidently), why not
> just get rid of the "pointy" bullet?
>
> Why wouldn't the plotters merely make that bullet "disappear", just
> like "they" did with multiple other bullets in this case (per certain
> CTers who disbelieve the wholly-accurate SBT)?
>
> And at least one of those vanishing bullets, per some CTers, was also
> SEEN by witnesses who weren't part of the plot. But evidently the bad
> guys didn't hesitate to get rid of those bullets that went into JFK
> but never exited his body. And those mystery missiles never got a
> CE399-like "replacement".
>
> So, why should the stretcher bullet be treated any differently by
> these conspiratorial lowlifes who wanted Oswald framed so badly?
>
> Now seems like a good time to reiterate my favorite quote from author
> and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.....
>
> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
> been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
> team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
> in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L.M.
> Sturdivan "The JFK Myths" (2005)
>
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
MSwanberg
> CE399 TALK.....
>
> SWITCHED? PLANTED? OR THE REAL DEAL?
>
> ======================================
>
The answer is pretty simple, actually.
You have the luxury of over 40 years of evidence and information. On
11/22/63, the plotters/co-conspirators did not have that luxury. It's
not as if they could plant some evidence, then have a trial, see what
the outcome is, and then plant more evidence if the result wasn't as
they intended. They had very little time to throw as much stuff out
there as they could.
And in the end, the more of a slamdunk there is against the patsy, the
more the public would (should) buy it, lock, stock, and barrel.
Trouble is, the American public actually read the WCR and didn't buy
it. It wasn't a question of the amount of evidence, but rather the
veracity of it.
-Mike
lazu...@webtv.net
could positively identify it-nothing suspicious there- just like moving
the EOP wound up 4 inches to the cowlick-nothing suspicious there-just
like moving the t-3 back wound to the neck for the Warren
Commission-nothing suspicious there.
How come in documents pertaining to the magic bullet, the witnesses who
handled the bullet don't say" it resembled the bullet I saw, but I can't
make a positive identification if the bullet was in fact close in
appearance? If you lone nutters would quit promoting this career Govt.
defending evidence twisting, lying Hoover, helms, rather, De Loach, LBJ
Ass Kisser Bugliosi, instead of reading Thompson's Six Seconds In Dallas
which unlike Bugs has the lack of chain of possession on ce 399 that
Vince couldn't find the time for. Also, you will see that there is no
certain evidence the stretcher was even Connally's..one is left with the
impression that it is at least as likely and maybe more than 50-50 that
it was the black boy who had just been treated...Jeff
garag...@gmail.com
> Now seems like a good time to reiterate my favorite quote from author
> and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.....
>
> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
> been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
> team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
> in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L.M.
> Sturdivan "The JFK Myths" (2005)
Re 399 and the other recovered fragments, you appear to be under the
same, wrong impression that Larry Sturidivan is/was under: that the
lead in the fragments was provably Mannlicher Carcano bullet lead.
While 399 is certainly a Mannlicher Carcano bullet, the fragments
aren't necessarily from Mannlicher Carcano bullets.
How do we know? From the work of metallurgists who know, unlike
Sturdivan, who doesn't know, that's how.
Namely, Erik Randich, Ph.D. and Pat Grant, Ph.D., of Lawrence
Livermore Lab.
In their article in the Journal of Forensic Science
[July 2006, Vol. 51, No. 4 doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00165.x
Available online at: www.blackwell-synergy.com]
Randich and Grant finally put to rest the metallurgical nonsense that
had been promulgated by Guinn, a non-metallurgist, Rahn, another non-
metallurgist and Sturdivan, a non-Ph.D., non-metallurgist.
The final paragraph of their article follows:
Quote:
We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard metallurgical
practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental NAA
measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that their
assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest), a conclusion of
material evidence for only two bullets in the
questioned JFK assassination specimens has no forensic basis. Although
collateral information from the overall investigation might very well
narrow the choices, as stand-alone primary evidence, the recovered
bullet fragments could be reflective of anywhere between two and five
different rounds fired in Dealey Plaza
that day. Only the near-complete mass of CE-399, the stretcher bullet,
precludes the conclusion of one to five rounds. Moreover, the
fragments need not necessarily have originated from MC ammunition.
Indeed, the antimony compositions of the evidentiary specimens are
consistent with any number of jacketed ammunitions
containing unhardened lead.
Unquote.
Regarding 399, we have solid reasons to believe that, although a
bullet was indeed found at Parkland, it probably wasn't 399. None of
the first 4 men in the bullet's chain of possession later identified
399 as the bullet they held in their hands on 11/22.
With Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. (Yale) I wrote an essay on what newly
discovered documents and personal interviews with FBI Agent Bardwell
Odum have to tell us about the peculiar odyssey of 399. It's at:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
I've pasted the entire article below, but go to the website to see the
figures that are described below.
Gary
The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
Introduction
Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly
divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the "Single
Bullet Theory." The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer,
Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the
theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission's case that with
but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had
single handedly altered the course of history. [Fig. 1]
Mr. Specter's hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind
from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It
was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping
of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with
the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one
shooter was involved.
For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President
Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds -
eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from
the supposed "sniper's nest" would have been necessary to explain all
the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham
Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent
shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired,
reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory
neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole
bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal
wounds sustained by both men.[1]
Figure 1. CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused
both of JFK's non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally's
wounds, is shown in two views, above left. Arlen Specter theorized the
bullet had followed a path much like the one shown at right. (National
Archives photo)
But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature:
it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually
unscathed itself. The shell's near-pristine appearance, which prompted
some to call it the "magic bullet," left many skeptics wondering
whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had
said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the
bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead
on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.
Mr. Specter's idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and
Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor's clothes
and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never
unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the
stretcher where the bullet was discovered.[2] Nevertheless, studies
done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile
to Oswald's rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on
July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet's chain of
possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two
hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it
as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview
That a bullet, fired from Oswald's weapon and later identified by
hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the
hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a
little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But
apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to
doubt the bullet's bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors
reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the
bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the
bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look
like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was
in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that
Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell
he'd held on the day of the murder.
For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved.
Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the
attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body
charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the
Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led
to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out
that the FBI's own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position
the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission,
and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a
further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone
interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI
had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.
A Bullet is Found at Parkland Hospital
The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas
hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after
being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital
senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled
stretchers when he bumped a stretcher "against the wall and a bullet
rolled out."[3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright,
Parkland's personnel director. After examining the bullet together,
Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents
who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen.[4]
Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed
it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn,
gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,[5] who carried it to
agent Robert Frazier in the FBI's Crime Lab.[6] Without exploring the
fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness
who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what
concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence,
Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found
originally.
The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out
in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page,
July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren
Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace
"various items of physical evidence," among them #399 [Fig. 2]. #2011
relates that, in chasing down the bullet's chain of possession, FBI
agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on
June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the
bullet "appears to be the same one" they found on the day of the
assassination, but that neither could "positively identify" it. [Figs.
2, 3]
Figure 2. C.E. 2011. Chain of possession of #399 (FBI Letterhead Memo
Dallas 7/7/64)
Positive identification" of a piece of evidence by a witness means
that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence
is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to
establish positive identification is for a witness to place his
initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of
such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a
link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in
evidence and a crime.
Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on
the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so
soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had
found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was
indeed the same one.
However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions
about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,[7] it also
states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet
from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably
the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to
identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd
that they "could not identify this bullet as the one" they saw on the
day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure
being merely one of not "positively identifying" the shell that,
otherwise, "appeared to be the same" bullet they had originally
handled. [Figs. 2, 3]
Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said
#399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret
Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received
the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on
6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to
identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the
time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing
acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have
expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same
bullet, even if neither could "positively identify" it by an inscribed
initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their
initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a
resemblance.
Figure 3. Last two pages of 7/7/64 FBI memo to Warren Commission, as
published in C.E. #2011. Note that FBI states that both Dallas
witnesses said #399 looked like the bullet they found on 11/22/63.
And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors
published a book in 1967.
Two Different Accounts from One Witness
Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in
November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any
description of #399, Wright said: "That bullet had a pointed tip."
"Pointed tip?" Thompson asked.
"Yeah, I'll show you. It was like this one here," he said, reaching
into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six
Seconds."[8]
As Thompson described it in 1967, "I then showed him photographs of
CE's 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald's
rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of
these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half
an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected
the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the
stretcher."[9]
[Fig. 4]
Figure 4. In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P.
Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did
not look like C.E. # 399.
Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that
Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright
denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the
JFK Review Board support author Thompson's 1967 report.
A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in
Dallas ("SAC, Dallas" - i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon
Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, "For information
WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic],
who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT,
Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from
TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can
identify bullet ... ." [Fig. 5 - Page 1, Page 2]
Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had
told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 "appears to be the same"
bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this
previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is
there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a
resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum's name mentioned anywhere in the
once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson
or with Wright.
Figure 5. Declassified FBI memo reporting neither Tomlinson nor Wright
could identify "C1" [#399] as the bullet they handled on 11/22/63.
[Page 1, Page 2]
A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE
2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo
from the FBI's Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, "ON
JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF ...
ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY
RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had
logged in as #399, was called "C ONE"), BY INSPECTION (capitals in
original). [Fig. 6]
Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about
for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should,
for example, have been some original "302s " - the raw FBI field
reports from the Agent Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on
June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd's
interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24,
1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum
reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets.
And perhaps we'd also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or
Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details
about the bullet.
Figure 6. Suppressed 1964 FBI report detailing that neither of the
Secret Service agents who handled "#399" on 11/22/63 could later
identify it.
In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to
scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed
light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK
Review Board's T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the
Review Board's Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn's behalf, answered,
saying: "[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional
records that would account for the problem you suggest."[10] [Fig. 8]
Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the
National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National
Archives. [Fig. 9]
On Mr. Tilley's behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National
Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he
searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the
FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however,
that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran "concurrently, with
no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these
files."[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the
only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a
similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet
later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum's name show up
in any of the files.
Figure 7. Letter to Assassinations Records Review Board requesting a
search for records that might support FBI's claim that hospital
witnesses identified #399.
Figure 8. ARRB reports that it is unable to find records supporting
FBI claim Parkland Hospital witnesses identified #399.
Figure 9. Letter to National Archives requesting search for additional
files on C.E. #399.
Figure 10. Letter from National Archives disclosing no additional
files exist on C.E. #399.
[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National
Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search
for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399
being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of
NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered
any such reports.]
Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. "What does Odum have
to say about it?" Thompson asked.
"Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?"
"I'll find out," he promised.
Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum's home
address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He
was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year
old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar
with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy
case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts
in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files - CE
# 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the "FBI
AIRTEL" memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.
Mr. Odum told Aguilar, "I didn't show it [#399] to anybody at
Parkland. I didn't have any bullet ... I don't think I ever saw it
even." [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr.
Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert,
friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a
comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out
before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.
Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the
Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI's
investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might
have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would
have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence.
But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he
said he would certainly have turned in a "302" report covering
something that important. Odum's sensible comment had the ring of
truth. For not only was Odum's name absent from the FBI's once secret
files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to
besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which
he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.
Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011
claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between
#399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the
FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell
Odum, and the Bureau's own once-secret records, don't back up #2011.
Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to
identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression
they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact
that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were
dissimilar. Thus, Thompson's surprising discovery about Wright, which
might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in
#2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed
FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides
further, indirect corroboration.
Missing 302s?
But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another
unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been
written by the agents who investigated #399's chain of possession in
both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the
June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s
whatsoever backing them up.
But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove
that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission's formal request, as
outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing
slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on
6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was
checked out to FBI Agent Todd. [Fig. 12] What transpired during these
episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely
that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have
submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer
Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends
here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the
record.
Figure 12. FBI routing slip. Note that #399 was sent from Washington
to Dallas and back again, and that FBI agent Todd checked out the
bullet on 6/24/64, the day it was reported the Secret Service Agents
told Todd they could not identify #399. [See Fig. 5 (page 1, page 2)
and Fig. 6.] (Courtesy of John Hunt)
Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If
the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright's testimonies with a
bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn't it also adjust Johnsen
and Rowley's? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question
will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI
authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the
official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington
than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in
Dallas.
Summary
In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its
investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI
reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson
and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered
on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have
interviewed both men and the Bureau's own suppressed records
contradict the FBI's public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the
FBI's earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor
Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed
file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is
precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.
What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of
possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the
FBI's chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the
key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI's own,
suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also
lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the
field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399
in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent
investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI's file
incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when
he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like
a bullet that could have come from Oswald's rifle.
tomnln
CE 399 was "NOT Traceble to CE 139".
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182722874....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
flat-out wrong. All he has to do is read here:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/Review_of_RG/Review.html
Let us hope that day comes soon.
Yes, boys and girls, even experienced metallurgists can be wrong in how
they apply their metallurgical knowledge to unfamiliar fields. Randich
offers us a textbook example.
Ken Rahn
<garag...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182722874....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:MbEfi.75153$2K1....@newsfe18.lga...
> HSCA Volume I pages 463-464;
>
> CE 399 was "NOT Traceble to CE 139".
You are wrong, period. These pages refer to the HSCA's test firings of
CE 139 that came much later than the FBI's original test firings. The
examiner was unable to match the two sets. On page 464 he states that this
is perfectly understandable, given the number of times that CE 139 was fired
in between the two test sets. CE 399 is not mentioned on these pages.
Your credibility will be enhanced if you read more carefully before you
post next time.
Ken Rahn
Ben Holmes
The phrase "common-sense" is most often used by LNT'ers when they are detailing
a theory that has *no* evidence supporting it.
In this particular case, the evidence actually contradicts the LNT'er theory, so
a resort to "common-sense" is made. Of course, it's *NOT* "common-sense" to
ignore the evidence.
In article <1182715307.7...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, MSwanberg
says...
>
>On Jun 24, 10:21 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> CE399 TALK.....
>>
>> SWITCHED? PLANTED? OR THE REAL DEAL?
>>
>> ======================================
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> The entire subject of a "switched bullet" or "planted bullet" is a
>> worthless red herring argument. And the main reason it's worthless
>> (and stupid) is due to the fact that such a "switch"/"plant" isn't the
>> slightest bit necessary, even under the crazy circumstances believed
>> by so many CTers -- i.e., the "Let's Frame Lee Oswald For JFK's
>> Murder" circumstances.
>>
>> And everyone knows why such a switch/plant would be totally
>> unnecessary (even via such "Let's Get LHO" conditions).....It's
>> because there was already ample physical evidence elsewhere to link
>> Oswald to JFK's murder -- e.g., bullet fragments CE567 & CE569 in the
>> limo itself, the Carcano rifle (CE139), the paper bag (CE142) with
>> Oswald's prints, and the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest.
>>
>> Good gravy! How much LHO-incriminating stuff do you need to frame the
>> guy?! Why on Earth would ANYONE feel the burning need or desire to
>> plant ADDITIONAL evidence against the man to whom ALL OF THE OTHER
>> PHYSICAL (AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL) EVIDENCE LEADS?
Anyone with even the slightest ability to reason can certainly supply a sound
hypothetical reason.
The bullet recovered did *NOT* match the MC - and would have instantly been
evidence of a conspiracy. Thus, by swapping it with a bullet fired out of the
MC, that scenario was avoided.
Now... was that difficult? Am I a genius for managing to come up with that
possibility? Or are LNT'ers merely blinded by their faith?
>> Were these plotters just overactive? Or just flat-out morons who
>> WANTED to probably get caught? (I can't think of a reasonable third
>> option here. Can anyone?)
Of course... just did.
LNT'ers rather unreasonably think their arguments are unanswerable, when in fact
we answer them all the time.
Again, no doubt their 'faith' is precluding them from opening their eyes and
being honest.
>> And the idea of putting into the official body of evidence in this
>> case a phony Oswald bullet to replace the "real" stretcher bullet is
>> absurd (even if civilians saw the so-called "real" "pointy" bullet at
>> Parkland).
"Absurd?" To the faithful, perhaps yes.
>> Under those conditions (and assuming all the authorities were rotten,
>> lying scumbags, like many CTers firmly believe evidently), why not
>> just get rid of the "pointy" bullet and not worry about "replacing" it
>> with a phony Oswald/Carcano bullet?
An *excellent* example of the superb reasoning capability of a troll!!!
I think I'll just leave this one alone - as I can't really imagine that the
answer is not immediately obvious to any honest lurker...
>> Why wouldn't the plotters merely make that bullet "disappear", just
>> like "they" did with multiple other bullets in this case (per certain
>> CTers who disbelieve the wholly-accurate SBT)?
I wonder... does this troll really think he can convince anyone with *this* sort
of logic?
>> And at least one of those vanishing bullets, per some CTers, was also
>> SEEN by one or more witnesses who weren't part of the plot.
Seen, and described.
>> But evidently the bad guys didn't hesitate to get rid of those bullets
>> that went into JFK but never exited his body. And those mystery
>> missiles never got a CE399-like "replacement".
Ouch! The lack of logic is giving me a headache!
>> So, why should the stretcher bullet be treated any differently by
>> these conspiratorial lowlifes who wanted Oswald framed so badly?
Perhaps if you whacked yourself over the head a few times, you're head might
clear, and the answer become obvious.
>> Now seems like a good time to reiterate my favorite quote from author
>> and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan.....
>>
>> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
>> been faked by an expert,
And, I might note, has been *scientifically* shown to have been altered (The BOH
photo and several X-rays)
>> there is no possibility that an expert, or
>> team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
>> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
>> in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- L.M.
>> Sturdivan "The JFK Myths" (2005)
And yet, it was clearly done. No "superhuman" abilities needed. Sounds like
one of those "aliens did it" theories for the pyramids... since 'obviously' it
was a 'superhuman' feat that couldn't have been done by mere humans.
>The answer is pretty simple, actually.
>
>You have the luxury of over 40 years of evidence and information. On
>11/22/63, the plotters/co-conspirators did not have that luxury. It's
>not as if they could plant some evidence, then have a trial, see what
>the outcome is, and then plant more evidence if the result wasn't as
>they intended. They had very little time to throw as much stuff out
>there as they could.
And they clearly made mistakes. The 6.5mm virtually round object, for example,
was a big mistake. Probably the left hand not knowing what the right hand was
doing.
>And in the end, the more of a slamdunk there is against the patsy, the
>more the public would (should) buy it, lock, stock, and barrel.
>
>Trouble is, the American public actually read the WCR and didn't buy
>it. It wasn't a question of the amount of evidence, but rather the
>veracity of it.
100% on the money...
>-Mike
tomnln
HSCA Volume I pages 463-464.
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f5n5s...@news3.newsguy.com...
tomnln
Read it & WEEP Ken;
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f5n6f...@news3.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f5n6f...@news3.newsguy.com...
Gil Jesus
Destroying the Single Bullet Theory:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuzWy00JC6s
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nCf3C7R8dg
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-0Hf5L2yXQ
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ViRMc29W0
David Von Pein
Because if the SBT isn't true, then JFK & JBC just flat-out weren't
shot at all. Live with it, kook. ~Mark VII~ .....
A COMMON-SENSE APPROACH TO THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
WHERE'S THE LOGICAL CONSPIRACY-ORIENTED ALTERNATIVE TO THE SBT?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ee3ea6cfa4a58c9
MORE SBT TALK (WITH A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE INCLUDED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
YET ANOTHER SINGLE-BULLET THEORY ESSAY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c19abd308e0026e1
STILL MORE SINGLE-BULLET CONVERSATION (FOR GOOD MEASURE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/284975f119fe13c0
AND A LITTLE MORE SBT LOGIC (TONGUE-IN-CHEEK STYLE):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
IN A (LONE) NUTSHELL -- THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IN ACTION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
YEP, HERE'S ANOTHER SBT ESSAY (WITH COMMON SENSE AGAIN INSERTED):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/00a4ecbb835edc89
JOHN CONNALLY SAID THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY IS "POSSIBLE":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/741a872f58796bfe
BULLET CE399 -- WAS IT "PLANTED" IN PARKLAND HOSPITAL?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
TOO MANY CE399 BULLET FRAGMENTS IN JOHN CONNALLY? HARDLY:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/61fe27a14fb7dd35
GERALD FORD AND THE SBT -- DID HIS "MOVE" REALLY MATTER AT ALL?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13
THE "SBT PERFECTION" OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT NUMBER 903:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c65419db537d4abf
RICLAND
> The phrase "common-sense" is most often used by LNT'ers when they are detailing
> a theory that has *no* evidence supporting it.
>
> In this particular case, the evidence actually contradicts the LNT'er theory, so
> a resort to "common-sense" is made. Of course, it's *NOT* "common-sense" to
> ignore the evidence.
>
Actually, the argument makes sense when a lawyer has every piece to the
puzzle but one. The "common-sense" argument is then persuasive and often
sways a jury.
But this is not the case with Bugliosi's defense of the lone gunman
theory and that's because he overdoes it -- he makes the common-sense
appeal for all the pieces he can't fit.
ricland
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182768416.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
lazu...@webtv.net
in JFK and JBC. In fact, it never hit anything harder than the inside of
a watertank or a bale of cotton.---Old Laz, who is not a switch-hitter,
but who can sure spot a switcheroo.
David Von Pein
>>> "Old Laz, who is not a switch-hitter, but who can sure spot a switcheroo." <<<
Who performed this needless, superfluous, dangerous "switch", Old Laz?
Barbara Eden? Or Liz Montgomery?
Or would you rather engage in worthless speculation and blame the evil
authorities of despicable acts like falsifying evidence in a
Presidential murder case?
(Better stick with Jeannie's arm-folding magic. Because that other
option really sucks.)
Bud
lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> So, no one from Tomlinson and OP Wright to SS Agents and FBI Agents
> could positively identify it-nothing suspicious there- just like moving
> the EOP wound up 4 inches to the cowlick-nothing suspicious there-just
> like moving the t-3 back wound to the neck for the Warren
> Commission-nothing suspicious there.
>
> How come in documents pertaining to the magic bullet, the witnesses who
> handled the bullet don't say" it resembled the bullet I saw, but I can't
> make a positive identification if the bullet was in fact close in
> appearance?
Jean Davison produced an interview of Tomlinson where he says that
very thing.
And what witness who handled the bullet said CE 399 could not be
the bullet they had handled?
> If you lone nutters would quit promoting this career Govt.
> defending evidence twisting, lying Hoover, helms, rather, De Loach, LBJ
> Ass Kisser Bugliosi, instead of reading Thompson's Six Seconds In Dallas
> which unlike Bugs has the lack of chain of possession on ce 399 that
> Vince couldn't find the time for.
You kooks need to make up your mind. Was the bullet planted, or
switched later on after the FBI got ahold of it?
> Also, you will see that there is no
> certain evidence the stretcher was even Connally's..one is left with the
> impression that it is at least as likely and maybe more than 50-50 that
> it was the black boy who had just been treated...
Oswald shot him too?
>Jeff
Kenneth A. Rahn
Care to address my specific points?
Ken Rahn
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BrHfi.191121$nh4....@newsfe20.lga...
Kenneth A. Rahn
Care to address my specific points?
Ken Rahn
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NGHfi.191133$nh4....@newsfe20.lga...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:BbHfi.136490$3L1.1...@newsfe14.lga...
> CE399 can NOT be traced to CE 139.
>
> HSCA Volume I pages 463-464.
Wrong. CE 399 is not mentioned there. Other bullets are mentioned, from test
firings. (Big hint: CE 399 was not from a test firing, unless you consider
the assassination a big test.)
Ken Rahn
garag...@gmail.com
Kenneth A. Rahn wrote:
> One of these days Gary is going to realize that Randich and Grant were
> flat-out wrong. All he has to do is read here:
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_topics/NAA/Review_of_RG/Review.html
> Let us hope that day comes soon.
> Yes, boys and girls, even experienced metallurgists can be wrong in how
> they apply their metallurgical knowledge to unfamiliar fields. Randich
> offers us a textbook example.
>
> Ken Rahn
>
Does Rahn really expect anyone to take him seriously, or is he just
putting everyone on?
Rahn has a track record of making unsubstantiated assertions. I submit
the above is just another example.
Before 1200 witnesses in 11/03 Rahn refused to answer whether he'd
ever had a paper on NAA rejected from a peer review journal. He
explained that the peer review process is such that an author is not
permitted to disclose such information. That's complete nonsense, as
anyone who has done peer review can tell you, including, I'm sure, Ken
Rahn!
As someone who's both published in the peer review med/scientific
literature and done peer reviews, the ONLY rule about confidentiality
is that an author is not permitted to disclose the CONTENTS of an
ACCEPTED paper before the "embargo date," roughly the publication
date. But one may freely admit that she's had a paper accepted or
rejected, so long as she doesn't tell of information in the article
before it appears.
I challenged Rahn to name any credible, published scientist who would
back up his assertion. I'm still waiting and the cows came home long
ago.
It appears that Rahn does not consider his word his bond.
Rahn/ Sturdivan, and Guinn before them, say that, because of their
unique profile, NAA proves that JFK's recovered bullet fragments came
from Mannlicher Carcano bullets. How do they know? Neither Rahn/
Sturdivan nor Guinn are metallurgists. None have proven expertise to
say such a thing.
Lawrence Livermore Lab Ph.D. metallurgist Erik Randich says that
they're simply wrong; the NAA profile of the bullet fragments is
consistent with many kinds of JACKETED bullets. So we've asked Rahn
for his evidence. We're still waiting and the cows are coming home.
Rahn hasn't been able to name a single recognized metallurgist who
agrees with him on this. It would appear he hasn't because he can't
find one. So Rahn would have us take his inexpert word over that of a
credentialed, published authority. He's simply not credible and his
evasiveness proves, yet again, that he places little value on his
word. (It doesn't say too much about his courage, either.)
In sum, Rahn has now had his published work twice debunked in the peer-
reviewed, scientific literature - first by Randich and Grant and then
by Spiegelman, Tobin, Wexler et al - people who have vastly better
credentials as metallurgists and statisticians than Guinn and/or Rahn
and/or Sturdivan.
If Rahn were right, he'd have long since gotten a paper published in
rebuttal to Randich and Grant's paper, which was published more than a
year ago.
But Rahn hasn't been able to get so much as a letter to the editor
published in any recognized journal. All he has is his silly website,
and, of course, his dwindling band of true believers.
But maybe Rahn really can produce someone, anyone, who will back him
up that authors are required to keep mum that they've had a paper
accepted or rejected from a peer review journal. And maybe Rahn can
name a recognized metallurgist who will say that Mannlicher Carcano
bullet lead is unique, even among jacketed bullets - someone who can
prove it. But I wouldn't hold my breath. For from my own personal
observations, and those of many others, Rahn's word is unreliable. And
one hopes that Rahn does not consider his word to be his bond because
he knows he's just kiddin' around..
Gary
tomnln
evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f5pn8...@news1.newsguy.com...
tomnln
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:f5pnc...@news1.newsguy.com...