Questions & Answers

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html
>

I have a few questions, David. Would you like to answer them:-)



Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:12:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

Anather attempt by DVP to drag people away to his own site.

Chris

[Edward Bauer]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:12:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

DVP, your web sites are the best and most accurate on the planet.
However, LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used
the first shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his
reassembled rifle. That's why the first shot missed; it wasn't aimed at
the limo. That's also why the first shot was fired much earlier than
Z160. It was fired exactly where the FBI spliced those seven frames from
the Tina Towner film to hide her camera jiggle reaction to that early
first shot.

[BOZ]

I have a question Bob. Do you think your videos might be viewed in Korea?
Korea has the second highest suicide rate in the world.

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

All right. Who left the cheese out but forgot to set the trap?

[mainframetech]

Sadly, I have to inform you that NO bullet from the MC rifle hit or
hurt anyone in Dealey Plaza, and no one can prove otherwise.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

ED BAUER SAID:

LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used the first
shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his reassembled rifle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You know you can't possibly PROVE what you just said, Ed. Any more than I
can "prove" beyond all doubt that you are wrong.

You *could* be 100% right, yes. But you could also be 100% wrong.

I'm wondering, though, Ed, if Oswald would have wanted to deliberately
waste (in a sense) his very first shot for merely "zeroing-in"
purposes?

Why couldn't that first shot have served double duty -- i.e., a shot aimed
AT the President AND also serving (if need be) a "zeroing-in" purpose as
well? Why isn't that scenario possible?

That way, LHO would have the best of both worlds. He could have done some
zeroing-in while at the *same time* possibly hitting (and maybe killing)
the President with his first shot when everyone in the Plaza was taken by
*complete* surprise -- as opposed to waiting for the 2nd shot to aim at
JFK, when potentially more people would be alerted to the fact that a
gunman was on the sixth floor.

Your theory *is* intriguing. No doubt about it. But I have a hard time
accepting the notion that Mr. Oswald would have had a desire to draw
attention to himself and his shooting perch by firing a shot that served
*only* the function of zeroing-in his weapon.

BTW.....

Have you heard about the "Only 2 Shots Were Fired" theory (as proposed by
Mike Majerus in his book "Phantom Shot")? ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1037.html

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/21/2016 9:05 PM, Edward Bauer wrote:
> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:12:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html
>
> DVP, your web sites are the best and most accurate on the planet.

No, the Secret Service told me that MY Web sites are the best and most

accurate on the planet.

> However, LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used
> the first shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his
> reassembled rifle. That's why the first shot missed; it wasn't aimed at

Physically impossible. I see that you know absolutely nothing about
guns. To zero in a rifle you need to have a fixed target at an
accurately measured distance. An error of on 25 yards can result in a
complete miss.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Whelan81.jpg

> the limo. That's also why the first shot was fired much earlier than

Maybe the traffic light support bar forced an early shot. See Max
Holland's theory.

> Z160. It was fired exactly where the FBI spliced those seven frames from
> the Tina Towner film to hide her camera jiggle reaction to that early
> first shot.
>

Tell me more about the Tina Towner film. You've examined the original
and can see how the background in the frames shifts radically? Like the
TSBD just danced?



>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing wrong with that. He doesn't lie ALL the time.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Stop being rude.

>
> Robert Harris
>

[Robert Harris]

Edward, you could be right about that early shot. I suggested
it myself, in some of my video presentations.

But Ed, Oswald's rifle was proven to generate a 130 decibel
shock wave within a radius of 10 feet of the bullet's path -
that's 16 times louder than 90db, which is the point at which
involuntary startle reactions will occur.

So, how could it be that no one heard this shot? How could
JFK have been the only one to react to it?

The WC confirmed that "most" of the witnesses who commented
on the shots, only heard ONE of the early ones and the two
closely bunched shots at the end.

I wrote this article, mainly for LN advocates. It contains
the testimonial, scientific and empirical evidence which
proves that Oswald couldn't have fired any of the early shots
and no more than one of the final ones. Be objective.

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html




Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

One thing you can be sure of, is that the MC rifle bullets never hit or
hurt anyone. And no one can prove otherwise.

Chris

[Edward Bauer]

David, thank you for your reply.

You say "merely," I say "indispensable requirement." See my blog post
where 17 gun manufacturers and firearms experts weigh in on the need to
re-zero a reassembled firearm.

http://thefinaltruthjfk.blogspot.com/2015/02/for-those-who-might-like-bit.html

The first shot could not have served double duty, David, because it was
imperative that Oswald see exactly where it hit relative to the
crosshairs... where it would kick up some dust... where nobody was
watching... say, the south curb of Main Street near the triple underpass.
Also, to have the time to adjust the windage and elevation screws before
the second shot, that first shot had to be fired very early.

Oswald assumed that no one would react for ten brief seconds. He was
correct. In fact, as you well know, David, SA Clint Hill did not react
until after the second shot. That was 9.5 seconds later.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/22/2016 11:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ED BAUER SAID:
>
> LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used the first
> shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his reassembled rifle.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You know you can't possibly PROVE what you just said, Ed. Any more than I
> can "prove" beyond all doubt that you are wrong.
>

ERROR
It is not a matter of believing or not believing it happened.
It is just physically impossible. You can't zero in a rifle on the fly
like that.

> You *could* be 100% right, yes. But you could also be 100% wrong.
>

But he IS 100% silly. Doesn't that count for anything?

> I'm wondering, though, Ed, if Oswald would have wanted to deliberately
> waste (in a sense) his very first shot for merely "zeroing-in"
> purposes?
>

The problem is that he is a non shooter who once read something online
that he didn't understand, so he tries to extrapolate it into the JFK
assassination.

I had the same problem trying to explain the fouling shot.

Another researcher knew nothing about it and thought I was just making up
some kooky conspiracy hoax. I am sure that even if silencers were used, no
one would be stupid enough to take a fouling shot before making the kill
shots. But in fact the very first shot fired from the TSBD became the
fouling shot. With a reduced muzzle velocity that alone might account for
the miss. A factor that non-shooters would not know about.

> Why couldn't that first shot have served double duty -- i.e., a shot aimed
> AT the President AND also serving (if need be) a "zeroing-in" purpose as
> well? Why isn't that scenario possible?
>

You need a fixed target at a measured distance to zero in.

> That way, LHO would have the best of both worlds. He could have done some
> zeroing-in while at the *same time* possibly hitting (and maybe killing)
> the President with his first shot when everyone in the Plaza was taken by
> *complete* surprise -- as opposed to waiting for the 2nd shot to aim at
> JFK, when potentially more people would be alerted to the fact that a
> gunman was on the sixth floor.
>

So what if they heard the first shot? No one reacted. What could anyone
do? Pick up a machine gun and spray the TSBD?

> Your theory *is* intriguing. No doubt about it. But I have a hard time

No, it's dumb. It's physically impossible.

> accepting the notion that Mr. Oswald would have had a desire to draw
> attention to himself and his shooting perch by firing a shot that served
> *only* the function of zeroing-in his weapon.
>

Now you're borrowing Lifton's theory that the gun in the TSBD was just a
diversion to lead the police away from the real shooter inside the tree
on the grassy knoll.

> BTW.....
>
> Have you heard about the "Only 2 Shots Were Fired" theory (as proposed by
> Mike Majerus in his book "Phantom Shot")? ....
>

Can you give us a link to his book?
I think some kook already posted about it, but I am not sure it is the
same guy.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1037.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Defective question. Which Korea? Everything is censored in North Korea.
Anything goes in South Korea.

[mainframetech]

As it turns out, the MC rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad
mounting, and could not be sighted in as per the army testers. It was
sent to their gunsmith who shimmed up the scope, which allowed it to be
sighted in after that. Any talk of "zeroing in" is wasted, since it
couldn't be done before the shimming was done, the scope wouldn't allow
that adjustment.

As well, no bullet from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone in the plaza
that day, and no one can prove otherwise.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Actually, Oswald fired none of the shots. Carolyn Arnold stated that
she saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and at about
that time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor window, and they
weren't going to let Oswald near the window they had commandeered. The 2
men had to be the shooters at the motorcade.

Not to mention that Oswald's rifle still had a misaligned scope from a
bad mounting, and a sticky bolt which would not allow for rapid shooting.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, Ed.

But all of that "zeroing-in" would have been unnecessary if Oswald decided
to use the iron sights from the get-go --- OR --- if Oswald had had the
following mindset on 11/22/63:

I'll use the scope for the first shot (even though I know I should
probably zero-in the scope), and if I don't strike the target, I'll switch
quickly to the iron sights for my remaining shots at the target.

[David Von Pein]

Scope / Iron Sights Addendum....

As Jim Hess (at Facebook) pointed out recently (via the photo below),
switching quickly from using the telescopic sight to the iron sights while
firing a Carcano rifle is not a difficult or cumbersome task at all:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-70pG41We3W8/VvPpgfx4vDI/AAAAAAABJfM/4svaIxG3vvE2MymSuD-a_O2Wlb3mAPpDQ/s1600/Rifle-Scope-Iron-Sights-Viewpoint.jpg

Jim Hess' original Facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Lee.H.Oswald.Lone.Gunman/permalink/982708118483342/

[David Von Pein]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492738956?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1492738956&linkCode=xm2&tag=dvsre-20

[BOZ]

South Korea. It's none of your damn business.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Er, how do you figure THAT, Chris?

I mean, given that the bullet fragments found in the limousine were
ballistically matched to the alleged murder weapon, to the EXCLUSION of
all other weapons, it's pretty much an open and shut case from THAT
perspective.

Case CLOSED!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> The problem is that he is a non shooter who once read something online
> that he didn't understand, so he tries to extrapolate it into the JFK
> assassination.

Tony, this is the fourth time I've told you: I began competitive rifle
shooting in 1966.

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, it's dumb. It's physically impossible.

Impossible, Tony? Oswald gave himself one round and about 10 seconds to
zero his firearm. Could he do it?

(1) The captain of my high school rifle team could usually zero a rifle in
one shot.

(2) Even without the rigorous Marine Corps training in rifle marksmanship
that Oswald received, if it takes you more than five seconds to turn two
knobs a few clicks, you have my sympathy.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:57:45 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 14:16:50 UTC+11, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:06:00 PM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:12:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html
> > >
> > > DVP, your web sites are the best and most accurate on the planet.
> > > However, LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used
> > > the first shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his
> > > reassembled rifle. That's why the first shot missed; it wasn't aimed at
> > > the limo. That's also why the first shot was fired much earlier than
> > > Z160. It was fired exactly where the FBI spliced those seven frames from
> > > the Tina Towner film to hide her camera jiggle reaction to that early
> > > first shot.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sadly, I have to inform you that NO bullet from the MC rifle hit or
> > hurt anyone in Dealey Plaza, and no one can prove otherwise.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Er, how do you figure THAT, Chris?
>
> I mean, given that the bullet fragments found in the limousine were
> ballistically matched to the alleged murder weapon, to the EXCLUSION of
> all other weapons, it's pretty much an open and shut case from THAT
> perspective.
>
> Case CLOSED!
>

You'll be sorry you asked.

[mainframetech]

Switching to the iron sights on that rifle wouldn't be all that easy,
since the scope was mounted way back and would poke you in the head if you
were trying to use the iron sights.

Of course, you could take off the scope and put it back on after
shootng at the motorcade. If you had time to do that before hiding it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Ther MC rifle of Oswald's was found by the Army testers to have a
misaligned scope from a bad mounting. It could NOT be adjusted to sight
it in. It had to be taken to the gunsmith for shimming up to allow it to
make the adjustment properly.

As well, Oswald was seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at about 12:15pm by
Carolyn Arnold, and at about that same time 2 men were seen in the 6th
floor window with a gun. They would not let Oswald near the window if he
tried to get there.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:57:45 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, 23 March 2016 14:16:50 UTC+11, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:06:00 PM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:
> > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:12:57 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html
> > >
> > > DVP, your web sites are the best and most accurate on the planet.
> > > However, LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used
> > > the first shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his
> > > reassembled rifle. That's why the first shot missed; it wasn't aimed at
> > > the limo. That's also why the first shot was fired much earlier than
> > > Z160. It was fired exactly where the FBI spliced those seven frames from
> > > the Tina Towner film to hide her camera jiggle reaction to that early
> > > first shot.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sadly, I have to inform you that NO bullet from the MC rifle hit or
> > hurt anyone in Dealey Plaza, and no one can prove otherwise.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Er, how do you figure THAT, Chris?
>
> I mean, given that the bullet fragments found in the limousine were
> ballistically matched to the alleged murder weapon, to the EXCLUSION of
> all other weapons, it's pretty much an open and shut case from THAT
> perspective.
>
> Case CLOSED!
>

Naah. Case OPEN. Finding fragments from the MC rifle bullet does NOT
prove that the bullet hit anyone, and the odds are far better that the
bullet in question struck the chrome overhead over the windshield, which
broke it so badly. That chrome was backed by a steel roll bar inside.
The 2 pieces would then fall to the front seat where they were found:

http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg

Chris

[mainframetech]

Somehow that doesn't look the same as the MC rifle of Oswald's. The
scope looks larger than the one on the MC rifle, and it isn't placed over
the centerline of the rifle.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, she didn't.

> that time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor window, and they
> weren't going to let Oswald near the window they had commandeered. The 2
> men had to be the shooters at the motorcade.
>
> Not to mention that Oswald's rifle still had a misaligned scope from a
> bad mounting, and a sticky bolt which would not allow for rapid shooting.
>

When?

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Case opened, of course. The 2 fragments were indeed from the MC rifle,
but they hit the chrome overhead over the windshield, which had a steel
roll bar underneath it. The bullet slammed it hard enough to break it up
into the pieces that were found in the front seat of the limousine. The
location that was hit over the windshield was too high for a bullet to
have hit a person and then to hit the overhead if the shooter was above
the height of the windshield.

http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/25/2016 8:29 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> No, it's dumb. It's physically impossible.
>>
>> Impossible, Tony? Oswald gave himself one round and about 10 seconds to
>> zero his firearm. Could he do it?
>>
>> (1) The captain of my high school rifle team could usually zero a rifle in
>> one shot.
>>
>> (2) Even without the rigorous Marine Corps training in rifle marksmanship
>> that Oswald received, if it takes you more than five seconds to turn two
>> knobs a few clicks, you have my sympathy.
>
>
>
> Ther MC rifle of Oswald's was found by the Army testers to have a
> misaligned scope from a bad mounting. It could NOT be adjusted to sight

They never said that. That's YOUR theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/25/2016 8:29 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:47:25 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Thanks, Ed.
>>
>> But all of that "zeroing-in" would have been unnecessary if Oswald decided
>> to use the iron sights from the get-go --- OR --- if Oswald had had the
>> following mindset on 11/22/63:
>>
>> I'll use the scope for the first shot (even though I know I should
>> probably zero-in the scope), and if I don't strike the target, I'll switch
>> quickly to the iron sights for my remaining shots at the target.
>
>
>
> Switching to the iron sights on that rifle wouldn't be all that easy,
> since the scope was mounted way back and would poke you in the head if you
> were trying to use the iron sights.
>

Not true.

[tims...@gmail.com]

You know, I think you're probably right!

Chortlin' Regards,

[John Paul Jones]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 5:12:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

The condition of CE 573 versus CE 399 is curious.

[John Paul Jones]

On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 5:12:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html

I seemed you mostly complained about the questions.

[tims...@gmail.com]

Shows absolutely NO understanding of how powerful the FMJ ammunition
Oswald was firing was.

To entertain your RIDICULOUS scenario, the whole windscreen would have
been blasted out if the bullet hit NOTHING but the chrome strip.

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, nor do you appear
to have done any pertinent research on the matter.

Case CLOSED and stick to blundering your way through mainframeteching
would be be my advice.

Informative Regards,

[David Von Pein]

http://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-RIFLES

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun

[Anthony Marsh]

How so? Stop being cryptic and come right out and say what you think.

[Anthony Marsh]

You will have a very hard time proving that. Frazier did not think it
was a direct hit by a Carcano bullet. Unless it was leaving the barrel
at a much lower than normal velocity, about half the value of a fouling
shot. A fouling shot would still be going fast enough to cause more damage.
This can be tested. But not by you.

> into the pieces that were found in the front seat of the limousine. The
> location that was hit over the windshield was too high for a bullet to
> have hit a person and then to hit the overhead if the shooter was above
> the height of the windshield.
>

Wrong. It could hit someone and be deflected up.
Mark Furhman thinks it was the bullet that went through JFK and then CE
399 went through only Connally.

> http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
>
> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Of course no one would take your advice. It would lead to failure.
You're completely wrong in your opinion about the windscreen and parts of
the limousine. There is indeed a steel roll bar under that chrome
exterior as there is on most heavy Cadillac and Lincoln cars. It is
plenty strong enough to cause an MC bullet to flatten and break in the
middle as happened to the CE567-9.

Most knowledgeable Regards,

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yes, and well it should be. The CE573 bullet which was supposedly the
'Walker bullet' from a shooting at Walker one night, was listed by 2 DPD
detectives as a STEEL jacketed bullet, which Walker himself saw when they
found it in his house. It was badly mangled and couldn't be matched to a
gun or caliber. It was put into an evidence box and sealed until about
Dec. 4th after the JFK murder. It was then put in the hands of FBI bullet
custodian Robert Frazier.

Soon, a bullet was shown to the public and was supposed to be the
Walker bullet, but now it had changed to being a COPPER jacketed bullet
like the ones for the MC rifle of Oswald's. It also looked like CE573 and
had enough material on it to do a match to a rifle or to judge caliber.
But since the original Walker bullet was too mamngled for that, they did
not do those checks on the new Walker bullet. However, Walker himself
compalined that the bullet they had shown to the public to convince them
that Oswald was ready to murder anyone, was NOT the bulelt he had
witnesses at his hous months ago. He asked that they withdraw the phony
bullet, but they ignored him. I guess having more evidence against Oswald
was more important.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Windscreen? Speak American here please. Translators cost a lot of money.
No, the windshield would not be blasted out if the bullet hit nothing

but the chrome strip.

> You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about, nor do you appear
> to have done any pertinent research on the matter.
>

Watch Mythbusters or can't you get cable TV Down Under?

[Bud]

It seems that after over fifty years conspiracy hobbyists can only raise
questions. I could raise question about any historical event from now til
doomsday, what would that accomplish?

[BOZ]

Fuhrman planted CE 399. What did OJ Simpson say to Judge Ito after the
jury found him not guilty? "Your Honor may I have my glove back please?"

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you wouldn't even dare to raise any questions. You just believe
whatever the government tells you.
You didn't raise any questions about the US interring the Japanese
Americans in WWII.
You didn't raise any questions about the Lincoln Assassination.
You didn't raise any questions about the CIA plotting to assassinate Castro.
You didn't raise any questions about the US using nuclear bombs on Japan.
You didn't raise any questions about Watergate.
You didn't raise any questions about MK/ULTRA.
You didn't raise any questions about the CIA feeding radioactive cereal
to retarded children.

Go back to sleep.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/27/2016 8:17 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 10:57:43 AM UTC-4, John Paul Jones wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 5:12:57 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/09/questions-and-answers.html
>>
>> The condition of CE 573 versus CE 399 is curious.
>
>
>
> Yes, and well it should be. The CE573 bullet which was supposedly the
> 'Walker bullet' from a shooting at Walker one night, was listed by 2 DPD
> detectives as a STEEL jacketed bullet, which Walker himself saw when they

That report is meaningless. They only looked at it and guessed.
They didn't test it. They were too poor to own a magnet.

> found it in his house. It was badly mangled and couldn't be matched to a
> gun or caliber. It was put into an evidence box and sealed until about

I can. It is a Carcano bullet, same brand as Oswald's. But you can think
that someone else fired it.

> Dec. 4th after the JFK murder. It was then put in the hands of FBI bullet
> custodian Robert Frazier.
>
> Soon, a bullet was shown to the public and was supposed to be the
> Walker bullet, but now it had changed to being a COPPER jacketed bullet
> like the ones for the MC rifle of Oswald's. It also looked like CE573 and
> had enough material on it to do a match to a rifle or to judge caliber.
> But since the original Walker bullet was too mamngled for that, they did
> not do those checks on the new Walker bullet. However, Walker himself
> compalined that the bullet they had shown to the public to convince them
> that Oswald was ready to murder anyone, was NOT the bulelt he had
> witnesses at his hous months ago. He asked that they withdraw the phony
> bullet, but they ignored him. I guess having more evidence against Oswald
> was more important.
>
> Chris
>

You are an alerationist. Worthless.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/27/2016 8:17 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Maybe, but you would need to have a much lower velocity if you think it
was a direct hit of an intact bullet.
This can be tested.

> Most knowledgeable Regards,
>
> Chris
>

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Yuk yuk------ that's a good one !!!! Why can't you be that funny, Anthony
?

[bigdog]

The Carcano scope was offset.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ah, in case you couldn't figure it out, I said since Day One that Simpson
killed Nichol and Ron. I just point out that sometimes the police do frame
a guilty man, because there is not evidence at the crime scene to convict
the guy they know is really guilty.

The Boston detectives do it all the time against the drug dealers here.
What's really fun is when they frame an innocent person to cover up the
fact that they did the crime. Same for the FBI. Look up the case of the 5
Boston bookies.

[BOZ]

I have insomnia.

[Anthony Marsh]

You haven't been here long enough to see all my jokes.

[tims...@gmail.com]

I said you had NO idea how powerful the FMJ ammunition Oswald was using
and you STILL don't. Go read up how CE 573, the Walker bullet, behaved
when it was fired in April. In the unlikely event that you even know where
to find the reference, that is...

> Most knowledgeable Regards,
>

HA! It is to laugh, as they say.

> Chris

Case still CLOSED!

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 25 March 2016 11:09:20 UTC+11, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 11:26:58 PM UTC-4, Edward Bauer wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 11:29:55 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> > > ED BAUER SAID:
> > >
> > > LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used the first
> > > shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his reassembled rifle.
> > >
> > >

> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > You know you can't possibly PROVE what you just said, Ed. Any more than I
> > > can "prove" beyond all doubt that you are wrong.
> > >
> > > You *could* be 100% right, yes. But you could also be 100% wrong.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering, though, Ed, if Oswald would have wanted to deliberately
> > > waste (in a sense) his very first shot for merely "zeroing-in"
> > > purposes?
> > >
> > > Why couldn't that first shot have served double duty -- i.e., a shot aimed
> > > AT the President AND also serving (if need be) a "zeroing-in" purpose as
> > > well? Why isn't that scenario possible?
> > >
> > > That way, LHO would have the best of both worlds. He could have done some
> > > zeroing-in while at the *same time* possibly hitting (and maybe killing)
> > > the President with his first shot when everyone in the Plaza was taken by
> > > *complete* surprise -- as opposed to waiting for the 2nd shot to aim at
> > > JFK, when potentially more people would be alerted to the fact that a
> > > gunman was on the sixth floor.
> > >
> > > Your theory *is* intriguing. No doubt about it. But I have a hard time
> > > accepting the notion that Mr. Oswald would have had a desire to draw
> > > attention to himself and his shooting perch by firing a shot that served
> > > *only* the function of zeroing-in his weapon.
> > >
>
>
> As it turns out, the MC rifle had a misaligned scope from a bad
> mounting, and could not be sighted in as per the army testers. It was
> sent to their gunsmith who shimmed up the scope, which allowed it to be
> sighted in after that. Any talk of "zeroing in" is wasted, since it
> couldn't be done before the shimming was done, the scope wouldn't allow
> that adjustment.
>
> As well, no bullet from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone in the plaza
> that day, and no one can prove otherwise.

Is that why CE 399, the OTHER recovered bullet from Oswald's rifle, was
found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Injured people OFTEN end up in a hospital, Chris. Maybe it's time you put
two and two together, eh?

Case CLOSED!

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

You haven't been here long enough to see all my jokes.

And he hasn't missed anything.

[BOZ]

Yes the police do plant evidence. When the LAPD realized that Simpson had
left so much DNA at the murder scene they decided it was unnecessary to
frame him. Simpson left everything but his Heismann.

[mainframetech]

Beg pardon. I agree. However, it would still not be much of a rifle to
use with the iron sights while the scope was mounted. Here's the opinion
jof an experienced shooter:

"During this exercise, I tried a couple of shots with the open sights, and
found having the scope right in your face made this an extremely awkward
and uncomfortable thing to do. As I said before, those who think the
inadequacies of the scope would have prompted LHO to use the open sights
during the assassination are as much as saying LHO never practiced at a
range with this rifle. If he had, he would have removed the scope long
before he brought the rifle to Dealey Plaza."

From: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21671

Chris

[tims...@gmail.com]

> into the pieces that were found in the front seat of the limousine. The
> location that was hit over the windshield was too high for a bullet to
> have hit a person and then to hit the overhead if the shooter was above
> the height of the windshield.
>

> http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
>
> Chris

Well not if it was deflected UPWARD, like after hitting a hard surface
like somebody's skull, for instance. You have absolutely NO idea what you
are talking about, Chris. In fact, you NEVER do.

[bigdog]

He tried that. He came up with an irrational number.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 1:09:06 PM UTC-4, tims...@gmail.com wrote:

CE399 was found on the WRONG gurney at Parkland hospital, and later
when 4 men that had handled that bullet were asked to identify it, they
all were unable to, and one of them even noted that the bullet they were
shown was the wrong shape, in that it was round nosed, and the ORIGINAL
bullet was pointy nosed. A clear substitution. There was an opportunity
to make that substitution when the FBI bullet custodian was part of the
testing of the MC rifle the very next day, and they used up to 60 bullets
firing them into various materials. Here's a WC photo of the CE399 bullet
and a test bullet right next to it:

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

Note that CE572, which is second and third from the left is a test
bullet, and CE399 and the test bullet both have a flattening in the middle
and a slight bend in the middle too. Also, they both are missing a bit of
material at the tail end. CE399 is now a test bullet from the MC rifle.
That substitution made good evidence for implicating Oswald.

> Injured people OFTEN end up in a hospital, Chris. Maybe it's time you put
> two and two together, eh?
>
> Case CLOSED!
>

Naah. Connally ended up in the hospital but that doesn't mean that the
bullet found on the WRONG gurney in the hallway was from an injured
person. The Connally bullet was brought out of the Connally surgery by a
nurse and given to Bobby Nolan of the Highway Patrol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9jIAiGNYg

Now do you really think there were 2 bullets found in the hospital from
the same gun, both of which were from Connally's body? If there were 2
bullets then some real changes would have to be made in the scenarios they
theorized about in the WCR. You see, it's been proven that the bullet
that hit JFK in the back did NOT go through and hit Connally. That leaves
a big problem for the LNs pretending that Oswald was a 'lone nut' that
fired only 3 bullets.

I welcome your proof that the above is not true.

Even More Regards,

Chris

[mainframetech]

Well now, do you mean the original bullet that went through the wall at
the Walker residence, that had the STEEL jacket, of do you mean the
replacement bullet with the COPPER jacket that was substituted after Dec.
4th, 1963?

While they might go through a number of wood boards, they would be
stopped dead by a heavy steel roll bar, that's for sure. Of course, the
replacement bullet had Walker up in arms, since he knew what the original
bullet looked like, and when they showed the wrong bullet, he then wrote
them letters to have them withdraw the phony bullet:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/W%20Disk/Walker%20Shooting/Item%2005.pdf


More Most knowledgeable Regards,

Case opened yet again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

How come the WC didn't say that or diagram it?
How come the HSCA didn't say that or diagram it?
How come only John Lattimer TRIED to diagram it and failed?
How come Dale Myers did not diagram that until I badgered him for 4 years?
SHOW us YOUR diagram.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, silly. When the police couldn't find the murder weapon they realized
that OJ Simpson hopped onto a plane and dumped it somewhere outside of
their jurisdiction. So they had to plant the bloody glove instead. Some
criminals are smart enough to wear gloves.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. Look at the cannelure. If you think they switched the bullet
because you are an alterationist, then don't even bother citing a phony CE.

> While they might go through a number of wood boards, they would be
> stopped dead by a heavy steel roll bar, that's for sure. Of course, the

Do I have to remind everyone about the test bullet fired through 47
inches of Ponderosa Pine that looks pristine?

> replacement bullet had Walker up in arms, since he knew what the original
> bullet looked like, and when they showed the wrong bullet, he then wrote
> them letters to have them withdraw the phony bullet:
>

We don't know that Walker saw on TV.

[BOZ]

The glove was not planted. Fuhrman wasn't even the first cop on the scene.
Read EVIDENCE DISMISSED>