EXHIBIT 399 WAS FIRED IN THE RIFLE

[CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219a.htm

[tom...@cox.net]

the hcsa said that ce399 could "not" be traced to the rifle ce-139 ! ! !
===========================================================================


CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219a.h
> tm

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

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:42:34 PM UTC-5, CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND wrote:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0219a.htm



Well of course, the CE399 bullet was fired out of the MC rifle! No
argument there. Robert Frazier went to the testing of the MC rifle the
very next day after the murder and could have easily grabbed one of the
test bullets from testing. He was also the custodian of the bullet
evidence, including the bullet that originally was CE399, and had been
found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland. He replaced that bullet, which
was 'pointy nosed' with a test bullet that was round nosed, and now there
was a bullet in custody from the MC rifle, making Oswald look more guilty.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that...:)

Chris

[CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND]

Pay attention! I just gave you Frazier's testimony. I gave you volume
and page. You lost!

[David Von Pein]

Tom Rossley knows full well (or he should know) why the HSCA test bullets
could not be matched to CE399. But, like a good little CT soldier, Tom R.
will pretend he doesn't know what's on pages 464 and 465 of HSCA Vol. 1:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0234b.htm


EXCERPT FROM 2009 DISCUSSION....

GIL J. JESUS SAID:

THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS WITH THE
C2766 RIFLE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just so that people aren't misled by a Gil Jesus, please note that the
VERY NEXT WORDS out of John Bates' mouth (right after the words that Gil
last posted) were the following words, which fully explain why the various
test bullets could not be matched to each other:

Mr. MCDONALD. Would you have expected that result considering the number
of times that CE-139 [Oswald's Carcano rifle #C2766] has been
fired over the years?

Mr. BATES. Yes, we would have.

Mr. MCDONALD. Would you explain?

Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each other and
the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by
us to be due by one or a combination of several factors. No. 1, repeated
test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive changes in the
individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon. No. 2,
natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting
in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the
bore of the weapon. And No. 3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over
an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning,
maintenance and/or protective lubrication.

Mr. MCDONALD. So what you are saying though, you can't compare the bullets
but, of course, we have had previous testimony regarding the cartridge
cases with firing pin impressions and the like and because of the
deterioration in the barrel, it has made it impossible to match up your
test fires with the FBI test fires, is that correct?

Mr. BATES. That is correct, yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm

=========================

I knew that such an explanation most certainly existed in the record
for such a thing after reading Gil's post, wherein he conveniently cut
off Bates' explanation for WHY the test bullets did not match.

IOW--Gil wanted to obscure the full truth. And that's because he
desperately WANTS that make-believe conspiracy of his to exist.

But, you see, there IS a good explanation for every point that [CTers]
can raise. And that's because: Oswald killed Kennedy (all by himself).
And the physical evidence proves it.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/k7fk1No97dc/W5jQiOxQv48J

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:37:26 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> the hcsa said that ce399 could "not" be traced to the rifle ce-139 ! ! !
> ===========================================================================
>

Please provide a link to that information. Thanks!

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/31/2014 10:37 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> the hcsa said that ce399 could "not" be traced to the rifle ce-139 ! ! !
> ===========================================================================
>
>

That is not true. You come here only to say things that are not true.

[BILL HARFORD]

Gil the OBSCURE? thanks for the information. That should settle the
argument once and for all. It won't. It should. It won't.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 6:39:33 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

That's very interesting. I hadn't been aware that a barrel could
degrade in a few years to where it no longer can be matched to bullets
fired through it earlier. Sot of liker a leopard changing its spots. Is
there any professional information that backs that up? Or is it strictly
the one guy saying it and it being taken as gospel? Are we to believe
that the FBI and the army who tested the rifle after the murder failed to
keep the rifle in at least the condition it was found in, or was it
impossible to match anything to the rifle in the first place, and someone
lied on the stand?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Pat attention! It's not a game of win or lose. It's a business of
evidence and what makes sense. I just gave you the method that was used
by Frazier to replace the CE399 bullet with a test bullet, and if you
want, I'll be happy to work with you and show you how the test bullet he
substituted for the real CE399 is almost exactly like the test bullets
they created when testing the MC rifle right after the murder. And please
remember that Frazier was the custodian of the bullet evidence as well as
the tester of the MC rifle.

As well, I'll be glad to shoe you what was said by the 4 men that were
asked to identify the CE399 bullet and their refusal to do that. One of
which said the original CE399 bullet was 'pointy nosed' and not 'round
nosed' like the one shown around.

Let me know if you want that evidence and links.

Chris

[bigdog]

So did the conspirators plant the wrong kind of bullet on the wrong
gurney, the wrong bullet on the right gurney, or that the bullet found at
Parkland on the wrong gurney had nothing to do with the assassination?

[BILL HARFORD]

Pat Attention? Pat? Chris, you and Rossley should face each other in a
spelling B competition.

[Anthony Marsh]

Anyone who knows about ballistics already knew this.

[bigdog]

The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds or
thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.
Imperfections in the interior of the barrel are what impart microscopic
scratches on the surface of the bullet as it passes through the barrel.
Over time, the friction of the bullet against the interior of the barrel
will create different patterns of imperfections and change the ballistic
markings imparted to the bullet. A bullet can be positively matched to a
gun that recently fire it because any changes would be minimal. If
thousands of rounds have passed through the barrel, it is likely the
pattern of scratches will have changed to the point where matching is
impossible. This has been one of the arguments against ballistic
fingerprinting of firearms at the factory.

[mainframetech]

I know this is all too hard for you to follow, but here it is for you to
try again:

A bullet was found on a gurney in the hall of Parkland hospital at
about the right time for it to have come from the Connally surgery.
After looking into it carefully, Thompson, a JFK researcher, found that
the gurney the bullet was found on was used by a small boy who needed
stitches. So the bullet was planted. However, needing a piece of
evidence connecting the shooting to Oswald, that bullet was trumpeted as
one of the killer bullets that had hit JFK and JBC together, and it went
into custody with the FBI. Then they replaced the bullet in custody with
a test bullet from the testing of the MC rifle so that the bullet in
custody would look like the bullet that hit JFK and JBC had come from the
MC rifle. Simple for most folks to follow.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Or a conspiracy author plants the wrong type of bullet on the witness
years later.

Maybe the bullet came from little Ronnie Fuller. That could explain what
happened to the missed shot.

[Anthony Marsh]

And who said that Oswald's rifle was fired hundreds of times between
attempts at ballistics matching?

> Imperfections in the interior of the barrel are what impart microscopic
> scratches on the surface of the bullet as it passes through the barrel.
> Over time, the friction of the bullet against the interior of the barrel
> will create different patterns of imperfections and change the ballistic
> markings imparted to the bullet. A bullet can be positively matched to a
> gun that recently fire it because any changes would be minimal. If
> thousands of rounds have passed through the barrel, it is likely the
> pattern of scratches will have changed to the point where matching is
> impossible. This has been one of the arguments against ballistic
> fingerprinting of firearms at the factory.
>

Show me the thousands of times that Oswald's rifle was fired.

[bigdog]

OK, Sherlock. So your explaination is that the conspirators were so dumb
they planted the wrong kind of bullet on the wrong stretcher. If there
intent was to frame Oswald, why wouldn't they plant a bullet that had been
fired by Oswald's rifle. They must have had access to the rifle ahead of
time since they used it to fire a bullet into the limo that was found
fragmented in the limo. With a bullet from Oswald's rifle fired into the
limo, why would they plant a non-matching bullet which would indicate two
different rifles had been used. If they killed JFK with Oswald's rifle,
they surely wouldn't need to plant another bullet from that rifle. If they
used a different rifle to kill JFK, how would they know bullets from that
rifle wouldn't be recovered. If your answer is they knew they had the FBI
to cover up the ballistic evidence for them, that means people within the
FBI had prior knowledge of the assassination and allowed it to happen. The
more you analyze this nonsensical bullet planting/switching scernio, the
sillier it becomes. It is why I picked this cockamamie theory to
illustrate the point that once you reject the idea that Oswald was the
shooter, the evidence ceases to fit neatly together. It all becomse
disjointed. There is only one way it fits. Oswald did it.

[mainframetech]

Wrong as usual! So you have NO professional information on that. I
thought so. The condition of the barrel of the MC rifle the day of the
murder was shown by the 2 bullets that came from it. Although one of them
was probably fired the next day (CE399). Still, that makes them close to
one another, and they were certainly matched to the rifle, so any change
in the rifling was minimal. Now since those tests, there were no more
than one hundred shots fired by the FBI the next day in testing, and then
later a few months, the army took some tests with the rifle. I assume the
rifle wasn't used in the meantime, and so the rifling will not have
changed in that time. Why wouldn't the HSCA test match with so little
usage in the meantime?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:34:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/3/2015 5:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds or
> > thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.
>
> And who said that Oswald's rifle was fired hundreds of times between
> attempts at ballistics matching?
>

I give up, Tony. Who said that? Another of your strawmen?

> > Imperfections in the interior of the barrel are what impart microscopic
> > scratches on the surface of the bullet as it passes through the barrel.
> > Over time, the friction of the bullet against the interior of the barrel
> > will create different patterns of imperfections and change the ballistic
> > markings imparted to the bullet. A bullet can be positively matched to a
> > gun that recently fire it because any changes would be minimal. If
> > thousands of rounds have passed through the barrel, it is likely the
> > pattern of scratches will have changed to the point where matching is
> > impossible. This has been one of the arguments against ballistic
> > fingerprinting of firearms at the factory.
> >
>
> Show me the thousands of times that Oswald's rifle was fired.

Well I asked if this was another of your strawmen. I guess you just
answered that question.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yes, if one removes Oswald from this then one has to jerry-rig
conspiracies (plural) to explain what happened. Conspiracy on top of
conspiracy, layer after layer....at some point it all falls on its weight.

As to the supposed bullet planting: How did "they" know what QUALITY of
bullet to plant? Quality as in condition, size, shape?

This supposed planting was done before Connally went into surgery. So, how
did "they" know beforehand that the real bullet didn't fragment? Or a part
of it lodge in Connally? Or exit and hit/land in the limo? Or a dozen and
one other scenarios?

This theory claims that the conspirators fired a bullet from Oswald's
rifle BEFORE the actual shooting and then took that nearly intact bullet
and planted it in the hospital while Connally is being rushed into
surgery. But they planted it without knowing exactly what happened to the
actual bullet that was fired into Connally.

Again, if that actual bullet had lodged in the limo or hit another body or
larger parts remained in JC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then the
fake bullet they planted - which would not match with what actually
happened - would expose the conspiracy.

Proving again that if you remove Oswald from this one has to come up with
wild, illogical actions on the part of the conspirators.

[mainframetech]

Nope, wrong. No need to make up only one conspiracy. Oswald cannot be
removed because of the critical importance of having a 'patsy' to take the
blame for all criminal acts the day of the murder of JFK. If there were
no sucker to blame, then the real conspirators would be tracked down the
rest of their lives and sooner or later have to answer for their crime.

> As to the supposed bullet planting: How did "they" know what QUALITY of
> bullet to plant? Quality as in condition, size, shape?
>

There was NO need to plant some special bullet. The planted bullet was
a place holder which would be replaced as soon as the MC rifle was tested
by the FBI, who were also the custodians of the bullets in the case.
That testing occurred the very next day, and the custodian of the bullets
was one of the test team, and could grab as many MC rifle test bullets as
he wanted. If you look at the CE399 bullet next to a test bullet, you see
they are almost exactly alike:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

In the above photo, the first bullet is compared to the second bullet
which is CE572, a test bullet. They have the same slight bend in the
middle, the same slight flattening, and they both are missing just a bit
of material at the tail end. The CE399 is a test bullet.

No one would have figured the replacement out except that there was a
problem with the verification of the CE399 bullet in custody, and so they
decided to show it to 4 men that had handled the bullet the day of the
murder. They all refused to identify the bullet as the one they had
handled that day. One of them even said the bullet shown was 'round
nosed' (like the MC type) but the original bullet was 'pointy nosed'. An
obvious replacement to make Oswald more guilty.

> This supposed planting was done before Connally went into surgery. So, how
> did "they" know beforehand that the real bullet didn't fragment? Or a part
> of it lodge in Connally? Or exit and hit/land in the limo? Or a dozen and
> one other scenarios?
>

My understanding is that the planting was done after the surgery. The
gurneys were already in the hall, one of which was probably used in the
Connally surgery, and so it had to be AFTER.

> This theory claims that the conspirators fired a bullet from Oswald's
> rifle BEFORE the actual shooting and then took that nearly intact bullet
> and planted it in the hospital while Connally is being rushed into
> surgery. But they planted it without knowing exactly what happened to the
> actual bullet that was fired into Connally.
>

nope. Wrong again. NO bullet was fired form Oswald's gun before the
murder. That's all too complicated. As explained above, the bullet
(CE399) was replaced while in the custody of the FBI, after getting a
bullet from testing the MC rifle.

> Again, if that actual bullet had lodged in the limo or hit another body or
> larger parts remained in JC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then the
> fake bullet they planted - which would not match with what actually
> happened - would expose the conspiracy.
>

Nope. The length of time the replacement bullet was in custody
pretending to be the CE399 bullet was brief. Only a day or so. And there
was no reason for anyone to want to examine the bullets in custody. It
was a fluke that they decided to have the bullet examined. There's also
no reason to think that the planted bullet would be fired at anything.
They just had to pull the bullet out of a cartridge and plant it.

> Proving again that if you remove Oswald from this one has to come up with
> wild, illogical actions on the part of the conspirators.

And finally, there was no need to remove Oswald from the scenario, since
he was critical to it for the safety of the shooters.

Chris

[tom...@cox.net]

CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:37:26 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > the hcsa said that ce399 could "not" be traced to the rifle ce-139 ! !
> > !
> > =======================================================================
> > ====
> >
> >
> > CASSIUS CLAY BERTRAND <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_021
> > > 9a.h tm
> >
> > --
> > -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
> > Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
>
> Pay attention! I just gave you Frazier's testimony. I gave you volume
> and page. You lost!

===========================================================================
===== THAT SAME TESTIMONY STATES THAT CE-139 WAS "NOT" FIRED ON FRIDAY ! !
! THE BARREL WAS FOULED AND THE WAY TO CLEAN IT WAS TO FIRE A ROUND
THROUGH IT ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
======WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTANDBOUT ABOUT HSCA ? ? ? ?
===========================================================================
========

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 5:47:46 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, January 2, 2015 10:09:18 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 1, 2015 10:48:10 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 4:42:34 PM UTC-5, CASSIUS CLAY

> > > > BERTRA=
> ND wrote:
> > > > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3
> > > > > _0=
> 219a.htm
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > Well of course, the CE399 bullet was fired out of the MC rifle!

> > > > N=
> o=20

> > > > argument there. Robert Frazier went to the testing of the MC rifle

> > > > t=
> he=20

> > > > very next day after the murder and could have easily grabbed one of

> > > > t=
> he=20

> > > > test bullets from testing. He was also the custodian of the

> > > > bullet=
> =20

> > > > evidence, including the bullet that originally was CE399, and had

> > > > bee=
> n=20

> > > > found on the WRONG stretcher at Parkland. He replaced that bullet,

> > > > w=
> hich=20

> > > > was 'pointy nosed' with a test bullet that was round nosed, and now

> > > > t=
> here=20

> > > > was a bullet in custody from the MC rifle, making Oswald look more

> > > > gu=
> ilty.
> > > >=20

> > > > Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that...:)

> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > So did the conspirators plant the wrong kind of bullet on the

> > > wrong=20 gurney, the wrong bullet on the right gurney, or that the
> > > bullet found =
> at=20

> > > Parkland on the wrong gurney had nothing to do with the
> > > assassination?

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > I know this is all too hard for you to follow, but here it is for you

> > t=
> o=20
> > try again:
> >=20

> > A bullet was found on a gurney in the hall of Parkland hospital

> > at=20 about the right time for it to have come from the Connally
> > surgery. =20 After looking into it carefully, Thompson, a JFK
> > researcher, found that=
> =20

> > the gurney the bullet was found on was used by a small boy who

> > needed=20 stitches. So the bullet was planted. However, needing a
> > piece of=20 evidence connecting the shooting to Oswald, that bullet was
> > trumpeted as=
> =20

> > one of the killer bullets that had hit JFK and JBC together, and it

> > went=
> =20

> > into custody with the FBI. Then they replaced the bullet in custody

> > with=
> =20
> > a test bullet from the testing of the MC rifle so that the bullet in=20

> > custody would look like the bullet that hit JFK and JBC had come from

> > the=
> =20

> > MC rifle. Simple for most folks to follow.

> >=20

>
> OK, Sherlock. So your explaination is that the conspirators were so dumb
> they planted the wrong kind of bullet on the wrong stretcher. If there
> intent was to frame Oswald, why wouldn't they plant a bullet that had
> been fired by Oswald's rifle. They must have had access to the rifle
> ahead of time since they used it to fire a bullet into the limo that was
> found fragmented in the limo. With a bullet from Oswald's rifle fired
> into the limo, why would they plant a non-matching bullet which would
> indicate two different rifles had been used. If they killed JFK with
> Oswald's rifle, they surely wouldn't need to plant another bullet from
> that rifle. If they used a different rifle to kill JFK, how would they
> know bullets from that rifle wouldn't be recovered. If your answer is
> they knew they had the FBI to cover up the ballistic evidence for them,
> that means people within the FBI had prior knowledge of the assassination
> and allowed it to happen. The more you analyze this nonsensical bullet
> planting/switching scernio, the sillier it becomes. It is why I picked
> this cockamamie theory to illustrate the point that once you reject the
> idea that Oswald was the shooter, the evidence ceases to fit neatly
> together. It all becomse disjointed. There is only one way it fits.
> Oswald did it.

===========================================================================
===== CORBETT BELIES IN GUILT BY ACCUSATION; MAY GOD BESTOW UPON HIM THE
SAME LEVEL OF JUSTICE THAT HE ADVOCATES FOR OTHERS ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

DOCTOR SHAW'S PRESS CONFERENCE STATED THAT THE BULLET WAS STILL IN
CONNALLY'S LEG; SEE>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9dHHalE3
===========================================================================
========

[Anthony Marsh]

False. Reductio ad Absurdum.

> As to the supposed bullet planting: How did "they" know what QUALITY of
> bullet to plant? Quality as in condition, size, shape?
>

It had to be relatively unmangled to link it to Oswald's rifle. Kinda
hard to do with a different caliber.

> This supposed planting was done before Connally went into surgery. So, how
> did "they" know beforehand that the real bullet didn't fragment? Or a part
> of it lodge in Connally? Or exit and hit/land in the limo? Or a dozen and
> one other scenarios?
>

Well, they knew that 5 shots were fired so this could be the bullet
which only went through JFK and fell out. The idea was to plant it on
JFK's stretcher.

> This theory claims that the conspirators fired a bullet from Oswald's
> rifle BEFORE the actual shooting and then took that nearly intact bullet
> and planted it in the hospital while Connally is being rushed into
> surgery. But they planted it without knowing exactly what happened to the
> actual bullet that was fired into Connally.
>

That wasn't the plan. Connally was not part of the plan.

> Again, if that actual bullet had lodged in the limo or hit another body or
> larger parts remained in JC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then the
> fake bullet they planted - which would not match with what actually
> happened - would expose the conspiracy.
>

No. All they had to do was lie about the damage to the limo. Instead of
the missed shot which went through the floor they could say that bullet
plopped out of JFK's throat and fell into Connally's pants pocket. Yeah,
that's it.

> Proving again that if you remove Oswald from this one has to come up with
> wild, illogical actions on the part of the conspirators.
>

If you lie about the physical evidence then you have to invent a SBT.
Or admit conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/4/2015 5:41 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:34:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/3/2015 5:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>> The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds or
>>> thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.
>>
>> And who said that Oswald's rifle was fired hundreds of times between
>> attempts at ballistics matching?
>>
>
> I give up, Tony. Who said that? Another of your strawmen?
>

You made a false comparison.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/5/2015 8:41 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:37:26 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>>> the hcsa said that ce399 could "not" be traced to the rifle ce-139 ! !
>>> !
>>> =======================================================================
>>> ====
>>>
>>
>> Please provide a link to that information. Thanks!
>>
>> Chris
> ===========================================================================
> ======WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTANDBOUT ABOUT HSCA ? ? ? ?
> ===========================================================================
> ========
>

FAIL

[bigdog]

I'm not here to defend the HSCA. They pretty much had it right until they
fumbled the ball at the one yard line. Oh, so close.

The WC nailed it the first time. They had the ballistics evidence that
positively showed the only recovered bullets from the shooting came from
Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. No
bullets from any other weapon were ever found. You can imagine all sorts
of bullets for all sorts of places, but those are the facts you have to
deal with.

[bigdog]

On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:12:52 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/4/2015 5:41 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:34:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 1/3/2015 5:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds or
> >>> thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.
> >>
> >> And who said that Oswald's rifle was fired hundreds of times between
> >> attempts at ballistics matching?
> >>
> >
> > I give up, Tony. Who said that? Another of your strawmen?
> >
>
> You made a false comparison.

I made no comparison. STRAWMAN!!!

[bigdog]

On Monday, January 5, 2015 8:47:07 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> ===== CORBETT BELIES IN GUILT BY ACCUSATION; MAY GOD BESTOW UPON HIM THE
> SAME LEVEL OF JUSTICE THAT HE ADVOCATES FOR OTHERS ! ! !
> ===========================================================================

I've given God lot's of things to get me for.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 5:33:23 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 3, 2015 5:43:32 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 2, 2015 11:10:14 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 1, 2015 6:39:33 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Tom Rossley knows full well (or he should know) why the HSCA test

> > > > > b=
> ullets=20

> > > > > could not be matched to CE399. But, like a good little CT

> > > > > soldier, =
> Tom R.=20

> > > > > will pretend he doesn't know what's on pages 464 and 465 of HSCA

> > > > > Vo=
> l. 1:
> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/
> > > > > HS=
> CA_Vol1_0234b.htm
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > EXCERPT FROM 2009 DISCUSSION....
> > > > >=20
> > > > > GIL J. JESUS SAID:
> > > > >=20

> > > > > THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS

> > > > > WITH =
> THE=20
> > > > > C2766 RIFLE.
> > > > >=20
> > > > >=20
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Just so that people aren't misled by a Gil Jesus, please note

> > > > > that =
> the=20

> > > > > VERY NEXT WORDS out of John Bates' mouth (right after the words

> > > > > tha=
> t Gil=20

> > > > > last posted) were the following words, which fully explain why

> > > > > the =
> various=20

> > > > > test bullets could not be matched to each other:

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. MCDONALD. Would you have expected that result considering the

> > > > > n=
> umber=20

> > > > > of times that CE-139 [Oswald's Carcano rifle #C2766] has been
> > > > > fired over the years?

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. BATES. Yes, we would have.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. MCDONALD. Would you explain?

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each

> > > > > othe=
> r and=20

> > > > > the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is

> > > > > belie=
> ved by=20

> > > > > us to be due by one or a combination of several factors. No. 1,

> > > > > rep=
> eated=20

> > > > > test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive changes in

> > > > > t=
> he=20

> > > > > individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the

> > > > > weapon.=
> No. 2,=20

> > > > > natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet

> > > > > re=
> sulting=20

> > > > > in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet

> > > > > throu=
> gh the=20

> > > > > bore of the weapon. And No. 3, deterioration of the rifling

> > > > > surface=
> s over=20

> > > > > an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning,

> > > > > =
> =20
> > > > > maintenance and/or protective lubrication.
> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. MCDONALD. So what you are saying though, you can't compare

> > > > > the =
> bullets=20

> > > > > but, of course, we have had previous testimony regarding the

> > > > > cartri=
> dge=20

> > > > > cases with firing pin impressions and the like and because of

> > > > > the=
> =20

> > > > > deterioration in the barrel, it has made it impossible to match

> > > > > up =
> your=20

> > > > > test fires with the FBI test fires, is that correct?

> > > > >=20

> > > > > Mr. BATES. That is correct, yes.

> > > > >=20
> > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm
> > > > >=20
> > > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > > > > D=
> =3D=3D=3D
> > > > >=20

> > > > > I knew that such an explanation most certainly existed in the

> > > > > recor=

> d
> > > > > for such a thing after reading Gil's post, wherein he

> > > > > conveniently =

> cut
> > > > > off Bates' explanation for WHY the test bullets did not match.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > IOW--Gil wanted to obscure the full truth. And that's because he
> > > > > desperately WANTS that make-believe conspiracy of his to exist.

> > > > >=20

> > > > > But, you see, there IS a good explanation for every point that

> > > > > [CTe=
> rs]=20

> > > > > can raise. And that's because: Oswald killed Kennedy (all by

> > > > > himsel=
> f).=20

> > > > > And the physical evidence proves it.

> > > > >=20
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/k7fk1No97dc/W5
> > > > > jQ=
> iOxQv48J
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
> > > >=20

> > > > That's very interesting. I hadn't been aware that a barrel

> > > > could=
> =20

> > > > degrade in a few years to where it no longer can be matched to

> > > > bullet=
> s=20

> > > > fired through it earlier. Sot of liker a leopard changing its

> > > > spots.=
> Is=20

> > > > there any professional information that backs that up? Or is it

> > > > stri=
> ctly=20

> > > > the one guy saying it and it being taken as gospel? Are we to

> > > > believ=
> e=20

> > > > that the FBI and the army who tested the rifle after the murder

> > > > faile=
> d to=20

> > > > keep the rifle in at least the condition it was found in, or was

> > > > it=
> =20

> > > > impossible to match anything to the rifle in the first place, and

> > > > som=
> eone=20
> > > > lied on the stand?
> > > >=20
> > >=20

> > > The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds

> > > o=
> r=20
> > > thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.=20

> > > Imperfections in the interior of the barrel are what impart

> > > microscopic=
> =20

> > > scratches on the surface of the bullet as it passes through the

> > > barrel.=
> =20

> > > Over time, the friction of the bullet against the interior of the

> > > barre=
> l=20

> > > will create different patterns of imperfections and change the

> > > ballisti=
> c=20

> > > markings imparted to the bullet. A bullet can be positively matched

> > > to =
> a=20
> > > gun that recently fire it because any changes would be minimal. If=20

> > > thousands of rounds have passed through the barrel, it is likely

> > > the=20 pattern of scratches will have changed to the point where
> > > matching is=
> =20
> > > impossible. This has been one of the arguments against ballistic=20

> > > fingerprinting of firearms at the factory.

> >=20
> >=20
> >=20

> > Wrong as usual! So you have NO professional information on that.

> > I=
> =20

> > thought so. The condition of the barrel of the MC rifle the day of

> > the=
> =20

> > murder was shown by the 2 bullets that came from it. Although one of

> > the=
> m=20

> > was probably fired the next day (CE399). Still, that makes them close

> > to=
> =20

> > one another, and they were certainly matched to the rifle, so any

> > change=
> =20

> > in the rifling was minimal. Now since those tests, there were no

> > more=20 than one hundred shots fired by the FBI the next day in
> > testing, and then=
> =20

> > later a few months, the army took some tests with the rifle. I assume

> > th=
> e=20
> > rifle wasn't used in the meantime, and so the rifling will not have=20

> > changed in that time. Why wouldn't the HSCA test match with so

> > little=20 usage in the meantime?
> >=20

> > Inquiring minds want to know.

> >=20

>
> I'm not here to defend the HSCA. They pretty much had it right until they
> fumbled the ball at the one yard line. Oh, so close.
>
> The WC nailed it the first time. They had the ballistics evidence that
> positively showed the only recovered bullets from the shooting came from
> Oswald's Carcano to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. No
> bullets from any other weapon were ever found. You can imagine all sorts
> of bullets for all sorts of places, but those are the facts you have to
> deal with.

===========================================================================
===== What the governor obviously didn't realize however, is that the
bullet was not "swept aside". Certainly, the nurse who recovered it would
not have just discarded the most important piece of forensic evidence she
had ever handled. As it turned out, the Dallas District attorney arrived at
the hospital, eager to find out how his old friend, governor Connally was
doing. It seems that he arrived at about the same time that the surgery on
the governor was completed, when he ran into that same nurse who found the
bullet. This is from an interview of Dallas District attorney, Henry Wade,
by the Dallas Morning News.


I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating
room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went
on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume
that's the pristine bullet.
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
===== THE FIRST TRUTH YOU'VE ECER POSTED HERE ! ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====

> That wasn't the plan. Connally was not part of the plan.

CONNALLY INSISTED THAT THEY USE THE TRADE MART. OR, HE WOULD CANCEL THE
WHOLE MOTORCADE ! ! ! SEE >>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/connally_to_hsca.htm
===========================================================================

>
> > Again, if that actual bullet had lodged in the limo or hit another body
> > or larger parts remained in JC, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then
> > the fake bullet they planted - which would not match with what actually
> > happened - would expose the conspiracy.
> >
>
> No. All they had to do was lie about the damage to the limo. Instead of
> the missed shot which went through the floor they could say that bullet
> plopped out of JFK's throat and fell into Connally's pants pocket. Yeah,
> that's it.
>
> > Proving again that if you remove Oswald from this one has to come up
> > with wild, illogical actions on the part of the conspirators.
> >
>
> If you lie about the physical evidence then you have to invent a SBT.
> Or admit conspiracy.

[mainframetech]

Close? They were miles away. Don't fool yourself. The bullets and
recordings of their criteria had to have been saved, and so could be used
over and over to match to the MC rifle. There were not "thousands" of
firings through the rifle, between the WC tests and later tests by the
HSCA. So are we dealing with incompetent firearms specialists, or what?

NOW...let's clear up that phony assertion that only 2 bullets were
found and both were MC bullets. Complete crap to try to feed to suckers.
There were many bullets found, and made to disappear before they were
saved. I've listed up to 9 bullets that struck in Dealey Plaza that day,
and there have been a number of bullets that have been found by nurses and
others.

The 2 MC bullets that were found did not hit or hurt ANYONE. Try
proving otherwise!

Chris

[JAMON F HERERRA]

TOM ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS INVOLVED IN THIS ALLEGED
CONSPIRACY IN THE WORDS OF WALT 'I HAVE HEARD OF TAKING ONE FOR THE TEAM'

[Anthony Marsh]

See, it was the COPS who first called it pristine, not the conspiracy
believers.

[Anthony Marsh]

You compared the example of thousands of firings to Oswald's rifle as
the explanation for not getting a match.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:20:20 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Close? They were miles away. Don't fool yourself. The bullets and
> recordings of their criteria had to have been saved, and so could be used
> over and over to match to the MC rifle. There were not "thousands" of
> firings through the rifle, between the WC tests and later tests by the
> HSCA. So are we dealing with incompetent firearms specialists, or what?
>

I never claimed the Carcano was fired thousands of times. I simply pointed
out to you why and how ballistic markings change over time, a fact you
seemed surprised to learn.

> NOW...let's clear up that phony assertion that only 2 bullets were
> found and both were MC bullets. Complete crap to try to feed to suckers.
> There were many bullets found, and made to disappear before they were
> saved. I've listed up to 9 bullets that struck in Dealey Plaza that day,
> and there have been a number of bullets that have been found by nurses and
> others.
>
> The 2 MC bullets that were found did not hit or hurt ANYONE. Try
> proving otherwise!
>

Oh, that's right. I forgot to count your magic disappearing bullets. Not
telling how many of those were fired. There could have been hundreds.
Thousands. It's hard to put magic vanishing bullets into evidence. That's
why we have only two real bullets.

[Doctor W]

On Thursday, January 1, 2015 6:39:33 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> Tom Rossley knows full well (or he should know) why the HSCA test bullets
> could not be matched to CE399. But, like a good little CT soldier, Tom R.
> will pretend he doesn't know what's on pages 464 and 465 of HSCA Vol. 1:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0234b.htm
>
>
> EXCERPT FROM 2009 DISCUSSION....
>
> GIL J. JESUS SAID:
>
> THE HSCA COULD NOT CONNECT CE399 OR THE FBI 1964 TEST BULLETS WITH THE
> C2766 RIFLE.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>

> Just so that people aren't misled by a Gil Jesus, please note that the
> VERY NEXT WORDS out of John Bates' mouth (right after the words that Gil
> last posted) were the following words, which fully explain why the various

> test bullets could not be matched to each other:
>

> Mr. MCDONALD. Would you have expected that result considering the number

> of times that CE-139 [Oswald's Carcano rifle #C2766] has been
> fired over the years?
>

> Mr. BATES. Yes, we would have.
>

> Mr. MCDONALD. Would you explain?
>

> Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panel tests with each other and
> the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by
> us to be due by one or a combination of several factors. No. 1, repeated
> test firing of CE-139 over the years causing extensive changes in the
> individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon. No. 2,
> natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting
> in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the
> bore of the weapon. And No. 3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over

> an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning,

> maintenance and/or protective lubrication.
>

Between the various investigators during the years it should be documented
how many times each investigator fired the CE-139 rifle.

From each of the investigators who fired the rifle over the years we
should be able to determine an approximate, or exact, correct total number
of times it has been fired since Dallas. (I highly doubt it is in the
thousands of times)

Does anyone have an approximate, or exact, number of times the rifle has
been fired since Dallas?

When was the most recent time fired? (during the HSCA?)

> Mr. MCDONALD. So what you are saying though, you can't compare the bullets
> but, of course, we have had previous testimony regarding the cartridge

> cases with firing pin impressions and the like and because of the

> deterioration in the barrel, it has made it impossible to match up your

> test fires with the FBI test fires, is that correct?
>

> Mr. BATES. That is correct, yes.
>

> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm
>
> =========================
>
> I knew that such an explanation most certainly existed in the record
> for such a thing after reading Gil's post, wherein he conveniently cut

> off Bates' explanation for WHY the test bullets did not match.
>

> IOW--Gil wanted to obscure the full truth. And that's because he
> desperately WANTS that make-believe conspiracy of his to exist.
>

> But, you see, there IS a good explanation for every point that [CTers]
> can raise. And that's because: Oswald killed Kennedy (all by himself).

> And the physical evidence proves it.
>

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/k7fk1No97dc/W5jQiOxQv48J

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you kidding? That would be too much like a real investigation.
Actually some of it was documented in secret memos, some of which have
been leaked.

> From each of the investigators who fired the rifle over the years we
> should be able to determine an approximate, or exact, correct total number
> of times it has been fired since Dallas. (I highly doubt it is in the
> thousands of times)
>
> Does anyone have an approximate, or exact, number of times the rifle has
> been fired since Dallas?
>

57.

> When was the most recent time fired? (during the HSCA?)
>

I doubt that the HSCA actually fired Oswald's rifle. They used
duplicates in their tests.
But don't ask them to release that information.
It might trigger WWIII.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/8/2015 10:56 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:20:20 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>> Close? They were miles away. Don't fool yourself. The bullets and
>> recordings of their criteria had to have been saved, and so could be used
>> over and over to match to the MC rifle. There were not "thousands" of
>> firings through the rifle, between the WC tests and later tests by the
>> HSCA. So are we dealing with incompetent firearms specialists, or what?
>>
>
> I never claimed the Carcano was fired thousands of times. I simply pointed
> out to you why and how ballistic markings change over time, a fact you
> seemed surprised to learn.
>

More false charges.
If it is not relevant to Oswald's rifle, then why did you bring it up?
Just to mislead people.

>> NOW...let's clear up that phony assertion that only 2 bullets were
>> found and both were MC bullets. Complete crap to try to feed to suckers.
>> There were many bullets found, and made to disappear before they were
>> saved. I've listed up to 9 bullets that struck in Dealey Plaza that day,
>> and there have been a number of bullets that have been found by nurses and
>> others.
>>
>> The 2 MC bullets that were found did not hit or hurt ANYONE. Try
>> proving otherwise!
>>
>
> Oh, that's right. I forgot to count your magic disappearing bullets. Not
> telling how many of those were fired. There could have been hundreds.
> Thousands. It's hard to put magic vanishing bullets into evidence. That's
> why we have only two real bullets.

What about your missed shot. How come you never show us that bullet or
what it hit?

Where do you get two real bullets? Did you pull them out of your ass?
We have CE 399. That's ONE. What is your second bullet?
Show it to me. Tell me the CE number or Q number or C number.
Stop bluffing your way through life.

[bigdog]

Right, Tony. Wade was the DA, not a cop. And Wade stated that in an
interview in 1993. Still think he was the first?

[bigdog]

I made no comparison. I simply explained how ballistic markings change
over time. Anybody can go back and read my first post on that subject and
see that there was no comparison made. Of course the irony is you are the
one who is always screaming about other people twisting your words. You
are far and away the worst offender of that practice on this forum.

[mainframetech]

Gil Jesus didn't obscure the truth,. That's a typical shot taken by
LNs when someone is away and can't respond.

It is obvious from the above information that the MC rifle wasn't
fired enough to change the barrel configuration appreciably. Therefore
Gil Jesus (who knew better) needn't finish copying the conversation, since
it would mean nothing.

Chris

[mainframetech]

You don't think it was smart of the FBI and others to 'disappear' the
bullets found other than MC bullets? We know the bullets were found.
While you try to escape the point with some kind of humor, it sits there
waiting for you, and smelling worse the longer you leave it. Prove that
either of the 2 MC bullets hit or hurt anyone!

Chris

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 9:21:30 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/8/2015 10:56 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:20:20 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >>
> >> Close? They were miles away. Don't fool yourself. The bullets and
> >> recordings of their criteria had to have been saved, and so could be used
> >> over and over to match to the MC rifle. There were not "thousands" of
> >> firings through the rifle, between the WC tests and later tests by the
> >> HSCA. So are we dealing with incompetent firearms specialists, or what?
> >>
> >
> > I never claimed the Carcano was fired thousands of times. I simply pointed
> > out to you why and how ballistic markings change over time, a fact you
> > seemed surprised to learn.
> >
>
> More false charges.
> If it is not relevant to Oswald's rifle, then why did you bring it up?
> Just to mislead people.
>

I didn't bring it up. I simply commented on something somebody else
brought up.

> >> NOW...let's clear up that phony assertion that only 2 bullets were
> >> found and both were MC bullets. Complete crap to try to feed to suckers.
> >> There were many bullets found, and made to disappear before they were
> >> saved. I've listed up to 9 bullets that struck in Dealey Plaza that day,
> >> and there have been a number of bullets that have been found by nurses and
> >> others.
> >>
> >> The 2 MC bullets that were found did not hit or hurt ANYONE. Try
> >> proving otherwise!
> >>
> >
> > Oh, that's right. I forgot to count your magic disappearing bullets. Not
> > telling how many of those were fired. There could have been hundreds.
> > Thousands. It's hard to put magic vanishing bullets into evidence. That's
> > why we have only two real bullets.
>
> What about your missed shot. How come you never show us that bullet or
> what it hit?
>

One of your favorite inane questions.

> Where do you get two real bullets? Did you pull them out of your ass?
> We have CE 399. That's ONE. What is your second bullet?
> Show it to me. Tell me the CE number or Q number or C number.
> Stop bluffing your way through life.

And another.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> You don't think it was smart of the FBI and others to 'disappear' the
> bullets found other than MC bullets? We know the bullets were found.
> While you try to escape the point with some kind of humor, it sits there
> waiting for you, and smelling worse the longer you leave it. Prove that
> either of the 2 MC bullets hit or hurt anyone!
>

Correction: You think you know other bullets were found. In reality you
have simply bought into myths and factoids. The fragmented bullet in the
limo and CE399 were the only bullets recovered and they were both fired
from Oswald's Carcano. By Oswald.

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical evasion. You demand absolute proof from the conspiracy
believers, but can never prove anything from your side.

[Anthony Marsh]

You always ASSuME a lot, but never PROVE anything.

> While you try to escape the point with some kind of humor, it sits there
> waiting for you, and smelling worse the longer you leave it. Prove that
> either of the 2 MC bullets hit or hurt anyone!
>

SHOW me your 2 bullets.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Gil Jesus respond here? That's news to me. You cite him so then you are
responsible for what he says.

[Anthony Marsh]

Even Frazier admitted that he couldn't prove that the two large
fragments came from the same bullet. So you may have 3 bullets instead
of just your 2.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/8/2015 11:24 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at 11:24:03 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 1/6/2015 11:06 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 5, 2015 9:12:52 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/2015 5:41 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:34:29 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/3/2015 5:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that a barrel's markings will change over time when hundreds or
>>>>>>> thousands of rounds have been fired through it is well known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And who said that Oswald's rifle was fired hundreds of times between
>>>>>> attempts at ballistics matching?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I give up, Tony. Who said that? Another of your strawmen?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You made a false comparison.
>>>
>>> I made no comparison. STRAWMAN!!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> You compared the example of thousands of firings to Oswald's rifle as
>> the explanation for not getting a match.
>
> I made no comparison. I simply explained how ballistic markings change

Which is irrelevant to Oswald's rifle.

[mainframetech]

Well, you got one thing right and one thing wrong, just to keep up your
record. Both of the bullets found matched the MC rifle, but neither were
fired by Oswald, and neither hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove
otherwise!

So you are saying that the bullet found on the wrong gurney was a myth
or factoid? After all, it was found laying around the Parkland hospital.

Actually, the bullets that were found and suddenly disappeared, existed
and were gotten rid of. And that's another one you can't prove otherwise.
People saw the bullets, not one person, but more than one to corroborate
the witnessing.

Actually, wit hall the bullets falling all over Dealey Plaza, there had
to be many bullets fired from many rifles.

Chris

[mainframetech]

The second MC bullet was the 2 fragments in the front seat of the limo.
They were supposedly tested and matched the MC rifle. But neither of the
MC bullets hit or hurt anything. And bd can't prove otherwise.

Chris

[bigdog]

There is physical evidence that there were three shots fired by Oswald.
There is no physical evidence that any other shots were fired by anyone
else from any other location. I don't demand absolute proof of anything
from you conspiracy hobbyists. Just a little supporting evidence would be
nice.

[bigdog]

He couldn't prove that ballistically. At some point common sense needs to
kick in. That's where conspiracy hobbyists fall short. Kind of like
Chris's claim that were are supposed to prove that the two recovered
bullets were the ones that went through the bodies of JFK and JBC.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 1:15:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 2:24:04 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > You don't think it was smart of the FBI and others to 'disappear' the
> > > bullets found other than MC bullets? We know the bullets were found.
> > > While you try to escape the point with some kind of humor, it sits there
> > > waiting for you, and smelling worse the longer you leave it. Prove that
> > > either of the 2 MC bullets hit or hurt anyone!
> > >
> >
> > Correction: You think you know other bullets were found. In reality you
> > have simply bought into myths and factoids. The fragmented bullet in the
> > limo and CE399 were the only bullets recovered and they were both fired
> > from Oswald's Carcano. By Oswald.
>
>
>
> Well, you got one thing right and one thing wrong, just to keep up your
> record. Both of the bullets found matched the MC rifle, but neither were
> fired by Oswald, and neither hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove
> otherwise!
>
> So you are saying that the bullet found on the wrong gurney was a myth
> or factoid? After all, it was found laying around the Parkland hospital.
>

If you read Tomlinson's testimony, he wasn't even sure which of the two
gurneys he wheeled off the elevator. He parked that one but later he saw
one of the gurneys was blocking the entrance to the men's room so he moved
it and that's when he discovered CE399. He didn't think that was the
gurney he wheeled off the elevator, but because he had parked it earlier,
he wasn't sure. This is an experpt from his WC testimony:

Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). Here's the deal--I rolled that thing off,
we got a call, and went to second floor, picked the man up and brought him
down. He went on over across, to clear out of the emergency area, but
across from it, and picked up two pints of, I believe it was, blood. He
told me to hold for him, he had to get right back to the operating room,
so I held, and the minute he hit there, we took off for the second floor
and I came. back to the ground. Now, I don't know how many people went
through that---I don't know how many people hit them--I don't know
anything about what could have happened to them in between the time I was
gone, and I made several trips before I discovered the bullet on the end
of it there.

Mr. SPECTER. You think, then, that this could have been either, you took out
of the elevator as you sit here at the moment, or you just can't be sure?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could be, but I can't be positive or positively sure I
think it was A, but I'm not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. That you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
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.
Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first
started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the stretcher
you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I told you that the
Secret Service man said it was---that you had said the stretcher you took
off of the elevator was the one that you found the bullet off, and when we
talked about the whole matter and talked over the entire situation, you
really can't be completely sure about which stretcher you took off of the
elevator, because you didn't push the stretcher that you took off of the
elevator right against the wall at first?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what you
told me before?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don't remember telling him
definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could have
been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know where---
Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been brought
down from the second floor.
Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from, whether
it was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought
it was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a positive
statement to that effect.
Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the
elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. But, you don't remember whether you told him it was A you took
off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think it was A---I'm not really sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Which did you tell the Secret Service agent--that you thought
it was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Really, I couldn't be real truthful in saying I told him this
or that.
Mr. SPECTER. You just don't remember for sure whether you told him you
thought it was A or not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I really don't remember. I'm not accustomed to being
questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they are writing
down everything, I mean.
Mr. SPECTER. That's all right. I understand exactly what you are saying
and I appreciate it and I really just want to get your best recollection.
We understand it isn't easy to remember all that went on, on a day like
November 22d, and that a man's recollection is not perfect like every
other part of a man, but I want you to tell me just what you remember, and
that's the best you can do today, and I appreciate that, and so does the
President's Commission, and that's all we can ask a man.
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I'm going to tell you all I can, and I'm not going to
tell you something I can't lay down and sleep at night with either.

Several things are clear. There was a time lag from when Tomlinson parked
the gurney that came off the elevator. He was involved in several events
during that time. He didn't think the bullet was on the gurney he wheeled
off the elevator but he couldn't be remember for sure which one of the two
he had parked and he didn't want to say he was sure when he knew he
wasn't.

> Actually, the bullets that were found and suddenly disappeared, existed
> and were gotten rid of. And that's another one you can't prove otherwise.
> People saw the bullets, not one person, but more than one to corroborate
> the witnessing.
>

OK. Another case where I'm supposed to prove myths are false. You don't
think you have any burden to prove the things you are proposing are
true.

I propose that JFK was shot from a Martian hovercraft that whizzed away
immediately following the shooting and went undetected. Prove me wrong.

People made a lot of assumptions (guesses) about things they saw going on
in DP. Of course there is no evidence to corroborate those guesses. But
you choose to accept them at face value any way.

> Actually, wit hall the bullets falling all over Dealey Plaza, there had
> to be many bullets fired from many rifles.
>

And amazingly all those shooters were getting Maggie's Drawers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then don't say second bullet. They could not prove that the two largest

fragments came from the same bullet.

> They were supposedly tested and matched the MC rifle. But neither of the

Supposedly? Prove it. Upload the test.

> MC bullets hit or hurt anything. And bd can't prove otherwise.
>

Then what hit the windshield and the chrome topping?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/10/2015 1:15 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 2:24:04 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 11:37:02 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't think it was smart of the FBI and others to 'disappear' the
>>> bullets found other than MC bullets? We know the bullets were found.
>>> While you try to escape the point with some kind of humor, it sits there
>>> waiting for you, and smelling worse the longer you leave it. Prove that
>>> either of the 2 MC bullets hit or hurt anyone!
>>>
>>
>> Correction: You think you know other bullets were found. In reality you
>> have simply bought into myths and factoids. The fragmented bullet in the
>> limo and CE399 were the only bullets recovered and they were both fired
>> from Oswald's Carcano. By Oswald.
>
>
>
> Well, you got one thing right and one thing wrong, just to keep up your
> record. Both of the bullets found matched the MC rifle, but neither were
> fired by Oswald, and neither hit or hurt anyone, and you can't prove
> otherwise!
>

Again, there were not two bullets recovered. You are making up crap.

[mainframetech]

The testimony was clear where the bullet was found, on the wrong
gurney, until the lawyer got into it, then it was 'unsure'. However, he
was sure again in 1978 in the NOVA video.

He was sure before the lawyer questioned it.

> > Actually, the bullets that were found and suddenly disappeared, existed
> > and were gotten rid of. And that's another one you can't prove otherwise.
> > People saw the bullets, not one person, but more than one to corroborate
> > the witnessing.
> >
>
> OK. Another case where I'm supposed to prove myths are false. You don't
> think you have any burden to prove the things you are proposing are
> true.
>

When you have more than one witness, you have corroboration. And good
odds that the event or sight was true.

> I propose that JFK was shot from a Martian hovercraft that whizzed away
> immediately following the shooting and went undetected. Prove me wrong.
>

UFOs have been determined to be false. So anything done by them is
also untrue, or mistaken from something else.

> People made a lot of assumptions (guesses) about things they saw going on
> in DP. Of course there is no evidence to corroborate those guesses. But
> you choose to accept them at face value any way.
>

Many things that YOU would like to believe also were said to have
happened in DP, but are untrue. So what do you do about that?




> > Actually, with all the bullets falling all over Dealey Plaza, there had

> > to be many bullets fired from many rifles.
> >
>
> And amazingly all those shooters were getting Maggie's Drawers.

Almost true. Though they were leaving signs of their presence, like
the curb strike near James Tague. Or the windshield bullet hole seen by 6
witnesses. Or the bullet strike overhead on the chrome strip on the limo.
And I haven't even mentioned the ones in JFK and Connally!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Nope, wrong again. The 2 fragments were no doubt from the same bullet.
And I'm classed in with the CTs, so you're wrong on that statement
too...:)

You see, you're so busy pulling the wool over the eyes of the
onlookers, that you forget that your baloney is standing out! I've made
the accusation, and backed it up with evidence and facts that the 2 MC
bullets never hit anyone, and NO ONE has been able to prove otherwise.
The original error was made by the WC by rushing in to call the bullet
found on the wrong gurney a killer bullet, when it hadn't been near a
wound in its whole life. Not to mention the replacing of it while in FBI
custody. The 2 fragment bullet wasn't near any wound either. If you look
at the strike point where it hit in the limousine, you see that it had to
be a primary strike, and not a ricochet from the head of JFK, which is
ridiculous on its face.

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Chrome_trim_Trask.jpg

That point of the chrome overhead is usually backed by a steel beam
going over the windshield, and the shot hit hard.

Chris

[mainframetech]

As usual, you're wrong in your thinking. The proof of 2 shots hitting
JFK is obvious, since they discounted the SBT, there is a bullet for
Connally, the wounds tell the tale there, same as JFK. Then we have the
pictures of the curb all the way over the other side of the plaza where
James Tague got hit on the cheek by a chip of something. So the curb and
the wound are physical. Then we have the bullet strike on the chrome
overhead of the limo, a primary strike, NOT a ricochet. Then we have the
bullet hole in the windshield of the limo. Let's see, that's 6.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called a chrome topping, also known as the trim. It covers the
steel frame of the car.

[bigdog]

The testimony was anything but clear. He new which gurney he found the
bullet on. What he wasn't sure about because of the time lag was whether
that was the same gurney he wheeled off the elevator and parked. He was
adamant that he didn't want to say he was certain about things he was
unsure of.

>
> He was sure before the lawyer questioned it.
>

Then he wasn't really sure.

[mainframetech]

LOL! A good lawyer can do that to a witness. But keep trying to cover
up the problem, I'll keep uncovering it...:)

Chris

[OLIVER REVILO]

You haven't uncovered anything.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>

> LOL! A good lawyer can do that to a witness. But keep trying to cover
> up the problem, I'll keep uncovering it...:)
>

Well at least you admit Specter was a good lawyer.