CE399 Damage Challenge

[BT George]

I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:

https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF

As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)

Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?

And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.

So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

you are as dense as San Francisco fog...

[Hank Sienzant]

So Healy resorts to ad hominem logical fallacy instead of trying to discuss anything reasonably.

Are there any other logical fallacies you’d care to invoke, Healy?

[BT George]

The silence is deafening.

[Bruce]

The claim that it was pristine has always been dubious. Warren Commission tested on carcasses from what I remember and it produced similar damage.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

> I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding.

I`ve seen water mentioned more often here.

> From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
>
> https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
>
> As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)

I`ve always felt the flattening came from hitting the rib. I can just picture the bullet hitting the rib with it`s whole length and having the rib flex in and absorb much of the bullet`s energy before the rib shattered.

[BT George]

That's why I said "probably" his wrist. But I don't see any way way water or wadding would do the the trick either way for what we see only on one side. (They certainly didn't fire the sucker side ways or attempt to create a tumble when they really didn't know yet they needed one.)

[healyd...@gmail.com]

I AM ad hominem, personified! Nutter's deserve nothing less, to stupid to come in from the rain...

[BT George]

HICCUPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[healyd...@gmail.com]

love you snookum's.... mmmmmwahhhhhh!

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

Can one really be agnostic about "agnostic" Bruce? He began with a lie, so expect no better from him now.

[Ben Holmes]

That's an outright lie.

Watch folks, as "Bruce" absolutely REFUSES to cite for his wacky and
dishonest claim.

[John Corbett]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

All good questions. A long time ago a CT theorized CE399 had been flattened in a vise. The "why" question is an obvious one. The other point is if a vise were used, it would flatten on both sides since a vise would apply equal pressure to both sides. Same as a hammer and anvil. CE399 looks different from Carcano bullets fired directly into bones for the same reason a car hitting a tree head on is going to sustain different damage than a car that slides sideways into a guard rail. Different amounts of force on a different part of the car.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 11:02:36 AM UTC-8, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 10:07:56 AM UTC-8, BT George wrote:
> > > > I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
> > > >
> > > > https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
> > > >
> > > > As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
> > > >
> > > > Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
> > > >

> > > > And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some .months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.

> > > >
> > > > So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?
> > > you are as dense as San Francisco fog...
> > So Healy resorts to ad hominem logical fallacy instead of trying to discuss anything reasonably.
> >
> > Are there any other logical fallacies you’d care to invoke, Healy?
> I AM ad hominem, personified! Nutter's deserve nothing less, to stupid to come in from the rain...

Oh, the irony… I love when some who cannot handle the difference between ‘two’, ‘to’, and ‘to’ calls other people stupid. Healy, you mean “too stupid.”

[BT George]

Yes. The deafening CT silence each time I have asked it tells me most of them think about it, and realize they have no clue.

[BT George]

I started to point out the same thing, but, hey; he was spelling pretty good being by this point, likely two bottles of Old Grandad 100 proof in.

[Bud]

His wacky claim of remembering it that way?

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:17:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

And now we see Chickenshit trying to support a lie.

Neither "Bruce" nor Chickenshit has the honesty to cite for this
outright lie.

They can't.

[Bud]

On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?

> They can't.

You can`t address what people actually say.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:54:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I could care less what he "remembered."

It's a lie.

And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie, and simply refuse to
cite for it as well, just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.

>> They can't.
>
> You can`t address what people actually say.

Just did. You ran. You're STILL running. No-one has the courage or
honesty to cite for "Bruce's" claim.

[Bud]

Or what he actually said.

> It's a lie.

On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?

> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,

How do I know how he remembered it? And more importantly, how do you?

>and simply refuse to
> cite for it as well,

You want me to cite for how he remembered this? Are you serious?

>just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.

It merely shows you are too busy molesting children to address what people actually say.

> >> They can't.
> >
> > You can`t address what people actually say.
> Just did.

You are simply lying.

Unless you want to cop to being too stupid to make a distinction between someone stating something and someone saying they remember something a certain way.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:22:11 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

Which was an outright lie, no matter how you want to spin it.

>> It's a lie.
>
> On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?

Because the facts are different.

I'm well aware that you want to excuse him on the basis of it's only
what he "remembered." But he POSTED IT HERE.

And can't support it.

Just as you've repeatedly refused to support it.

>> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,
>>

>>and simply refuse to
>> cite for it as well,
>

> You want me to cite for...


The fact he gave.

Which is a lie.

It's simply not true.

And amusingly, you're too dishonest to publicly admit that it's not
true.

>>just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.
>>

>>>> They can't.
>>>
>>> You can`t address what people actually say.
>> Just did.
>>

>> You ran. You're STILL running. No-one has the courage or
>> honesty to cite for "Bruce's" claim.

And of course, no one ever will. It's a lie.

[Bud]

Then how he remembered them?

> I'm well aware that you want to excuse him on the basis of it's only
> what he "remembered." But he POSTED IT HERE.

He posted how he remembered it here.

> And can't support it.
>
> Just as you've repeatedly refused to support it.

How do I know how he remembers things? More importantly, how do you?

> >> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,
> >>
> >>and simply refuse to
> >> cite for it as well,
> >
> > You want me to cite for...
>
>
> The fact he gave.

Now you can`t make a distinction between a fact and how someone remembers something? You`re a special kind of stupid.

> Which is a lie.
>
> It's simply not true.

What makes you an authority on how he remembers things?

> And amusingly, you're too dishonest to publicly admit that it's not
> true.

What makes me an authority on how he remembers things?

> >>just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.
> >>
> >>>> They can't.
> >>>
> >>> You can`t address what people actually say.
> >> Just did.
> >>
> >> You ran. You're STILL running. No-one has the courage or
> >> honesty to cite for "Bruce's" claim.
> And of course, no one ever will. It's a lie.

Words have meanings, whether you are honest enough to acknowledge their use or not.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 16:40:17 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

I'm well aware that you want to excuse him on the basis of it's only
what he "remembered." But he POSTED IT HERE.

And can't support it.

Just as you've repeatedly refused to support it.

>> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,
>>
>>and simply refuse to
>> cite for it as well,
>
> You want me to cite for...


The fact he gave.

Which is a lie.

It's simply not true.

And amusingly, you're too dishonest to publicly admit that it's not
true.

[Bud]

Not spin, words have meanings. You have to address what he *actually* said.

> >> It's a lie.
> >
> > On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?
>
>
> Because the facts are different.

Then he remembered them?

> I'm well aware that you want to excuse him on the basis of it's only
> what he "remembered." But he POSTED IT HERE.

He posted it as he remembered it here.

> And can't support it.

On what grounds do you dispute that he remembered it that way?

> Just as you've repeatedly refused to support it.

I`m not the one claiming to know how he remembers things, you are.

> >> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,
> >>
> >>and simply refuse to
> >> cite for it as well,
> >
> > You want me to cite for...
>
>
> The fact he gave.

You think if someone remember something a certain way that makes it a fact? Put on the dunce hat and go sit in the corner.

> Which is a lie.

You haven`t shown that he didn`t remember it that way.

> It's simply not true.

Support your idea that he didn`t remember it that way.

> And amusingly, you're too dishonest to publicly admit that it's not
> true.

Neither of us is an authority on how he remembers things. One of us knows this.

> >>just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.
> >>
> >>>> They can't.
> >>>
> >>> You can`t address what people actually say.
> >> Just did.
> >>
> >> You ran. You're STILL running. No-one has the courage or
> >> honesty to cite for "Bruce's" claim.
>
> And of course, no one ever will. It's a lie.

You have yet to address what he actually said.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#CE399

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 09:12:09 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>http://jfk-archives.blogspot...

And Davey steps in to help support the lie.

[David Von Pein]

And CE399 can always lead into a discussion about CE567/569. Let's have a gander at one of those discussions, shall we? ....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-964.html

[David Von Pein]

"The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows to the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that NO SHOTS whatsoever were fired from the C2766 rifle on November 22. What those CTers are therefore forced to do is what they do with CE399 as well --- they'll just pretend those two front-seat bullet fragments were planted (or that the "real" fragments--from a different rifle--were disposed of and then replaced with two banged-all-to-hell fragments fired from Oswald's rifle). Frankly, the "Everything's Fake In This Case" refrain has been laughably out of tune for decades (as far as I'm concerned anyway). It's just a crutch and a cop-out for CTers to use to try and--yet again--exonerate Mr. Oswald." -- DVP; June 26, 2015

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 13:59:05 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>And CE399 can ...

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 15:02:26 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>"The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows ...

ROTFLMAO!!!

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 6:02:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> "The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows to the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that NO SHOTS whatsoever were fired from the C2766 rifle on November 22. What those CTers are therefore forced to do is what they do with CE399 as well --- they'll just pretend those two front-seat bullet fragments were planted (or that the "real" fragments--from a different rifle--were disposed of and then replaced with two banged-all-to-hell fragments fired from Oswald's rifle). Frankly, the "Everything's Fake In This Case" refrain has been laughably out of tune for decades (as far as I'm concerned anyway). It's just a crutch and a cop-out for CTers to use to try and--yet again--exonerate Mr. Oswald." -- DVP; June 26, 2015

It would make more sense to argue that the conspirators just shot JFK with Oswald's rifle rather than claim they shot him with a different rifle and then swapped the recovered bullet and fragments. CTers have to argue the evidence is fake because all the evidence points to Oswald and no one else. By dismissing all of the evidence, that gives them a blank canvass to paint the picture they want to believe. You could fill an art gallery with all the different pictures the CTs have painted of the assassination.

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 8:07:10 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> It would make more sense to argue that the conspirators just shot JFK with Oswald's rifle rather than claim they shot him with a different rifle and then swapped the recovered bullet and fragments.

Exactly.

"I've always been a bit baffled by the crackpot conspiracy theorists who argue that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered or paid for or ever took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963. It seems to me that even the rabid CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity would be better off by just admitting the obvious---that Oswald did purchase that rifle. Because the CTers could then pretend that the conspirators who framed Oswald did so by using OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE. Isn't that a better theory than the loopy "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle At All" theory? Via that theory of LHO never ordering the weapon, the CTers are then forced to pretend that the entire rifle transaction and the paperwork for that transaction was falsely manufactured from the ground up! And yet that type of "Everything's Fake" nonsense is supposedly more believable than just conceding that Rifle C2766 was Oswald's own rifle and some plotters framed LHO with it on 11/22/63? Bizarre. But that's the CT world, I guess --- Bizarre." -- DVP; August 7, 2015

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22156-22-outlandish-things-david-von-pein-believes/?do=findComment&comment=311350

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-to-frame-patsy.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:39:15 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 8:07:10 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> It would make more sense to argue that the conspirators just shot JFK with Oswald's rifle rather than claim they shot him with a different rifle and then swapped the recovered bullet and fragments.
>
>Exactly.
>
>"I've always been a bit baffled by the crackpot conspiracy theorists who argue that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered or paid for or ever took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963. It seems to me that even the rabid CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity would be better off by just admitting the obvious---that Oswald did purchase that rifle. Because the CTers could then pretend that the conspirators who framed Oswald did so by using OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE. Isn't that a better theory than the loopy "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle At All" theory? Via that theory of LHO never ordering the weapon, the CTers are then forced to pretend that the entire rifle transaction and the paperwork for that transaction was falsely manufactured from the ground up! And yet that type of "Everything's Fake" nonsense is supposedly more believable than just conceding that Rifle C2766 was Oswald's own rifle and some plotters framed LHO with it on 11/22/63? Bizarre. But that's the CT
>world, I guess --- Bizarre." -- DVP; August 7, 2015

What you have is simply speculation.

What you can't defend are the "facts" you so carefully dance over...

Run Davey... RUN!

[David Von Pein]

Another classic Pot/Kettle moment from one of the kings of such moments---Benjamin "P.K." Holmes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:53:45 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein

Another classic logical fallacy.

Davey knows he cannot refute the facts involved here that I've
previously pointed out - he knows just how weak the case is, and he
cannot explain the proven lies told by the WCR.

So logical fallacies are all he has.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks, P.K. Your Kettle never runs dry. (Care to try for the "P.K." Hat Trick today?)

[David Von Pein]

Just to illustrate the fact that Ben P.K. Holmes isn't necessarily the biggest conspiracy kook on the planet, I present to you a Mr. Roderick A. MacKenzie....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

[healyd...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 2:32:25 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> Just to illustrate the fact that Ben P.K. Holmes isn't necessarily the biggest conspiracy kook on the planet, I present to you a Mr. Roderick A. MacKenzie....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

smart move, best to stay away from Oliver Stone and company... what with their recent smash documentary...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 14:32:24 -0800 (PST), David Von Pein
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:

>Just to illustrate the fact that Ben P.K. Holmes isn't necessarily the biggest conspiracy kook on the planet...

Just to illustrate the fact that Davey Von Peiny isn't necessarily the
dumbest moron on the planet...

[BT George]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 12:07:56 PM UTC-6, BT George wrote:
> I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
>
> https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
>
> As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
>
> Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
>
> And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.
>
> So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?

May I note my challenge remains *UNTOUCHED*.

[BT George]

For ABO's more bizarre = more credible.

[John Corbett]

CTs will always opt for convoluted over simple and obvious.

[John Corbett]

Swapping the recovered bullets with bullets and fragments from Oswald's rifle introduces so
many problems and risks if the intent is to frame Oswald. First you need fired rounds from Oswald's rifle. Did they produce those rounds before the assassination or after. The DPD found the rifle originally and then turned it over to the FBI so if it was done afterward, one or both would have to be involved in the plot. Either way, you have to not only plant the bullets from Oswald's rifle, you have to make sure you recover all the ammo from whatever rifle(s) was used to kill JFK. How do you know how many bullets would be recoverable and where they would be. What if you miss one. Suppose the SS had found a fragment in the limo from a rifle other than Oswald's. Supposed a bullet had been removed from either JFK's or JBC's body that did not come from Oswald's rifle? If you have either of those and bullets or fragments from Oswald's rifle that were planted, it makes it kind of difficult to make the case
that it was a lone assassin. As with most things, CTs never bother to think their theories through to determine if they are even plausible. When presented with such dilemmas, they usually choose to just sluff them off.

[Steven Galbraith]

It's like the backyard photos: they can do anything. And while "they" did this, others just stood there and watched them. Then the investigators simply either deliberately covered up what happened or completely missed it.
Look, we know that the police can be crooked, that they frame suspects. And can be incompetent as well as corrupt. I'm sure the "good old boys" at DPD were known to do that. And we know the FBI did dirty tricks. These were not all angels. And one more: we know conspiracies happen.
But what is being claimed involves so many different people and agencies and levels of cooperation that it's simply not possible. This is murdering the president; this isn't framing a person for murdering a convenience store clerk.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

to remind you, we are talking here of the 1963 murder of the president of the United States.

We can handle it, and it appears we lived through a treasonous president recently. Do you support more surprises or conspiracies for us?

[healyd...@gmail.com]

What challenge?

Most here are a bit busy catching up on latter day antics of the 45th tyrant. Appears he may have committed treason (amongst many seat sniffers) -- and these guys and gals are 'LIVING' and on-the-hook, thanks to Mark. We'll get back to ya.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:25:12 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's like the backyard photos: they can do anything. And while "they" did this, others just stood there and watched them. Then the investigators simply either deliberately covered up what happened or completely missed it.
>Look, we know that the police can be crooked, that they frame suspects. And can be incompetent as well as corrupt. I'm sure the "good old boys" at DPD were known to do that. And we know the FBI did dirty tricks. These were not all angels. And one more: we know conspiracies happen.
>But what is being claimed involves so many different people and agencies and levels of cooperation that it's simply not possible. This is murdering the president; this isn't framing a person for murdering a convenience store clerk.

I present facts & evidence.

All Steven offers in return are speculations...

That fact tells the tale...

[Bud]

You look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

holy mooly, bud the dud of wrong looker fame, needs to do some 'splain... without showing examples, what is: right looking as opposed to wrong looking? No fair using alphabet organizations playbook, just use your over educated, 3 brain cell mind (or was it 4)?

[Bud]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:39:04 AM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:54:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:33:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:25:12 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
> > > <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >It's like the backyard photos: they can do anything. And while "they" did this, others just stood there and watched them. Then the investigators simply either deliberately covered up what happened or completely missed it.
> > > >Look, we know that the police can be crooked, that they frame suspects. And can be incompetent as well as corrupt. I'm sure the "good old boys" at DPD were known to do that. And we know the FBI did dirty tricks. These were not all angels. And one more: we know conspiracies happen.
> > > >But what is being claimed involves so many different people and agencies and levels of cooperation that it's simply not possible. This is murdering the president; this isn't framing a person for murdering a convenience store clerk.
> > > I present facts & evidence.
> > You look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.
> > > All Steven offers in return are speculations...
> > >
> > > That fact tells the tale...
> holy mooly, bud the dud of wrong looker fame, needs to do some 'splain...

Right after Ben explains...

"I present facts & evidence."

For the most part wasn`t this presented by the WC?

>without showing examples, what is: right looking as opposed to wrong looking?

Exactly.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
>
> https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
>
> As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
>
> Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
>
> And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.
>
> So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?

I don't believe the damage is faked, I believe the damage is real, I believe the bullet was fired from the Depository rifle, I just don't believe it was fired in Dealey Plaza.
And this is why:
This bullet allegedly travelled through two men creating seven wounds and ended up inside the thigh of the second victim.

Did it have any blood from either victim on it ?
Bone particles ?
Clothing fibers ?
Did any of the 4 witnesses ( 2 at the hospital and 2 Secret Service employees ) who handled this bullet identify this bullet as the bullet they handled ?
Was the Commission able to recreate the condition of this bullet during its wounds/ballistics testing ?

If this bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and did what they said it did, then ALL of the answers to the above questions should be a resounding YES.

NO ONE who saw or handled the bullet identified THIS bullet as the bullet they handled until it got to FBI agent Elmer Todd.
Did he mark this bullet for identification ?
If so, where's his mark ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/initials.png

If he didn't mark it, how could he identify it ?

You figure it out.

[healyd...@gmail.com]

Georgous Gerogie here is fluff -- however I am curious as to how Bud the Dudster and Sherbet-Corbett are gonna try and spin your response.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 9:49:40 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
> >
> > https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
> >
> > As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
> >
> > Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
> >
> > And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.
> >
> > So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?
> I don't believe the damage is faked, I believe the damage is real, I believe the bullet was fired from the Depository rifle, I just don't believe it was fired in Dealey Plaza.
> And this is why:
> This bullet allegedly travelled through two men creating seven wounds and ended up inside the thigh of the second victim.
>
> Did it have any blood from either victim on it ?
> Bone particles ?
> Clothing fibers ?

The bullet was never tested for blood because there was no evidentiary value in that. The FBI was concerned with determining if the bullet came from Oswald's rifle, not who got hit by it. If there had been any bone or clothing fibers, they could easily been removed through ordinary handling. That makes this a red herring.

> Did any of the 4 witnesses ( 2 at the hospital and 2 Secret Service employees ) who handled this bullet identify this bullet as the bullet they handled ?
> Was the Commission able to recreate the condition of this bullet during its wounds/ballistics testing ?

Why would they even try? This is another red herring argument. Is it a normal procedure to try to recreate any shooting? It was only after the CTs tried to make an issue of it that somebody decided to test it out. And yes, the Australian research team working on the documentary Inside the Target Car did recreate the condition of CE399 using animal carcasses.

>
> If this bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and did what they said it did, then ALL of the answers to the above questions should be a resounding YES.

Not really.

>
> NO ONE who saw or handled the bullet identified THIS bullet as the bullet they handled until it got to FBI agent Elmer Todd.
> Did he mark this bullet for identification ?
> If so, where's his mark ?
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/initials.png
>

The initials were scratched into the bullet and not picked up by the photo. Just because John Hunt couldn't find the initials doesn't mean they aren't there. Copper is a very hard metal and any scratches are not going to be easy to see. Easily overlooked. Another red herring.

> If he didn't mark it, how could he identify it ?
>
> You figure it out.

It is not necessary to mark a bullet to establish chain of possession. All that is necessary is the following:

Person A testifies he gave the bullet to person B
Person B testifies the bullet he received from person A was given to person C
Person C testifies the bullet he received from person B was given to person D
and so on.

We have the chain established by the above means.

[Bud]

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 9:49:40 AM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> > I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
> >
> > https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
> >
> > As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
> >
> > Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
> >
> > And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.
> >
> > So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?
> I don't believe the damage is faked, I believe the damage is real, I believe the bullet was fired from the Depository rifle, I just don't believe it was fired in Dealey Plaza.
> And this is why:
> This bullet allegedly travelled through two men creating seven wounds and ended up inside the thigh of the second victim.
>
> Did it have any blood from either victim on it ?
> Bone particles ?
> Clothing fibers ?

The person who found it put it in his pocket. He gave it to another person, who put it in his pocket. Why would you expect anything of evidential value after this occurred?

> Did any of the 4 witnesses ( 2 at the hospital and 2 Secret Service employees ) who handled this bullet identify this bullet as the bullet they handled ?

Tomlinson did.

> Was the Commission able to recreate the condition of this bullet during its wounds/ballistics testing ?

In what other murder case was this done?

> If this bullet was fired in Dealey Plaza and did what they said it did, then ALL of the answers to the above questions should be a resounding YES.

You are doing the conspiracy hobbyist thing where you look at all the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.

> NO ONE who saw or handled the bullet identified THIS bullet as the bullet they handled until it got to FBI agent Elmer Todd.

Tomlinson said the bullet in evidence looks like the bullet he found.

[BT George]

You are changing the subject. The topic is not Trump; it's the assassination of the 35th POTUS of the United States. CE399 is a *key* piece of evidence that shows your boy LHO's sole guilt. You deny that, hence presumably don't believe CE399 is a legitimate piece of evidence. So again, SOBER UP and take a stab at the challenge *at hand*.

Else just go back to the sauce and chime out.

HIIIIIIIIICCCCCCCCCCCUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!

[BT George]

On Sunday, December 12, 2021 at 4:50:10 PM UTC-6, BT George wrote:

Gil,

I'll piggy back on John's answer to you. All I would add is the answer to identification is both "yes" and "no". Identify *positively* beyond Todd "no". Identify as very possibly the self-same bullet, "yes". See this discussion from my AAJFK days with Bob Harris:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/jxeT8nter4I/m/RllEZGM-vEEJ

The comments most relevant to this discussion issue are found nearer to the middle of the post begging with, "Of course, you believe it is because the real bullet was replaced with
CE399. I trust you will see where I made the point about could not (or "refused to") identify vs. "could not positively identify" --- esp. with regard to Tomlinson who told radio host Ray Marcus regarding the bullet he had been shown: "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."

Not mentioned much that part of the interview in CTdome, but it sure seems relevant given it was relatively early happening 7-25-66.

Brock

[Hank Sienzant]

Or they expand the conspiracy. “It wouldn’t matter if extra bullets or fragments were found. They would just swap those out, or lie and say they were traceable to Oswald’s weapon anyway,” is the way it usually goes. But by adding this extra layer of conspiracy, a reasonable person must ask, “If the conspirators could do all this, why did they bother to swap out any bullets at all? Since the experts would testify the way the conspirators wanted in any case, why not show the actual found bullet to Tomlinson and the others along the chain of evidence, and get them to positively ID the bullet as the one they found, and then just have the experts lie about the ballistic match? Doing it that way, there would be less for anyone of a conspiratorial bent to argue over.

Of course, if they were going to plant Oswald’s weapon in the Depository, or frame him for owning a weapon the conspirators possessed all along, the easiest way to commit the assassination and frame Oswald is to use the C2766 weapon to shoot Kennedy from the Depository. Then, all the evidence points to that weapon, and hence to Oswald and all these bizarre explanations (like swapping the rifle and the shells, body alteration, Zapruder film alteration, and inconvenient witness death squads) for the contradictions in the eyewitness testimony vanish — unless people are still human and still make mistakes. Then, of course, there might still be easy-to-explain contradictions in the record, like somebody saying, “It looked like a Mauser” or “I think the shell I found was more pointed”, etc.

Then, only true conspiracy doors would cling to the bizarre explanations advanced by other conspiracy doors. Because it would be obvious to all but the most unhinged of doors that if all the evidence points to Oswald, there’s either a massive conspiracy to frame Oswald or Oswald actually committed the assassination.

Of course, that’s exactly the circumstance we have now. These unhinged doors choose to believe in a massive conspiracy to frame Oswald, not because the evidence points elsewhere, but because the vast bulk of it points uniformly to Oswald (with easy to explain exceptions). And the unhinged doors don’t want that.

So they imagine a vast conspiracy doing everything the hard way instead of the easy way. With an infinite budget to support doing it the hard way. And because the conspirators want to retain their infinite budget and not have their infinite budget cut in half*, these unhinged doors imagine the most convoluted, most bizarre explanations imaginable, because if you have an infinite budget, you must find ways to spend it all every year, otherwise you risk getting it cut in half. Framing Oswald is cheap and easy, but CTs imagine the *infinitely* harder way.

And there’s a reason for that. Most CTs don’t want to go near a one-shooter conspiracy plot framing Oswald, because if one shooter using Oswald’s weapon could use Oswald’s weapon and kill Kennedy, then the question reduces to “Why not Oswald as the shooter?” And the whole reason for the massive conspiracy collapses.

Not one CT will respond to this post honestly.

________
* Yeah, I know half of infinity is still infinity.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 13:54:21 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:33:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:25:12 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It's like the backyard photos: they can do anything. And while "they" did this, others just stood there and watched them. Then the investigators simply either deliberately covered up what happened or completely missed it.
>>>Look, we know that the police can be crooked, that they frame suspects. And can be incompetent as well as corrupt. I'm sure the "good old boys" at DPD were known to do that. And we know the FBI did dirty tricks. These were not all angels. And one more: we know conspiracies happen.
>>>But what is being claimed involves so many different people and agencies and levels of cooperation that it's simply not possible. This is murdering the president; this isn't framing a person for murdering a convenience store clerk.
>>
>> I present facts & evidence.

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:03:01 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 7:13:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:54:31 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:20:17 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 15:17:30 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 9:35:44 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 17:24:12 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 1:07:56 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>>>>>>>> I've tried this one a few times, but no useful takers yet. It is often claimed that CE399 shows approximately the same damage as bullet fired into cotton wadding. From some vantage points that seems true, but *not* from the end-on orientation shown here:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide1.GIF
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you can see, it is *considerably* flattened, but only on *one* sided. From an LN perspective this makes *complete* sense as we hold that the bullet began to tumble after it exited Kennedy and hit Connolly, where it was flattened on one side when it---for the first time---struck a solid bone squarely as it tumbled. (Most likely JBC's wrist bone.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now to the the CT who thinks it's a fake, I ask, How did they "fake" that damage pattern? Hammer and anvil? A set of really weird one-sided pliers or a wrench?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And perhaps *more* importantly, "WHY"? The need for a SBT took some months to even be realized. Nor was the realization immediate that a tumbling bullet was likely required---and *that* only because CE399 already in evidence fit that damage pattern, but otherwise could not have inflicted Connally's wrist injuries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So please attempt a reasonably believable scenario of the "how" *and* the "why" they would decide to fake such damage?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>The claim that it was pristine has always been dubious. Warren Commission tested on carcasses from what I remember and it produced similar damage.
>>>>>> That's an outright lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Watch folks, as "Bruce" absolutely REFUSES to cite for his wacky and
>>>>>> dishonest claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> His wacky claim of remembering it that way?
>>>> And now we see Chickenshit trying to support a lie.
>>>>
>>>> Neither "Bruce" nor Chickenshit has the honesty to cite for this
>>>> outright lie.
>>>
>>> On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?
>> I could care less what he "remembered."
>
> Or what he actually said.


Which was an outright lie, no matter how you want to spin it.


>> It's a lie.
>
> On what grounds do you call it a lie that he remembered it that way?


Because the facts are different.

I'm well aware that you want to excuse him on the basis of it's only
what he "remembered." But he POSTED IT HERE.

And can't support it.

Just as you've repeatedly refused to support it.


>> And the fact that *YOU* can't admit it's a lie,
>>
>>and simply refuse to
>> cite for it as well,
>
> You want me to cite for...


The fact he gave.

Which is a lie.

It's simply not true.

And amusingly, you're too dishonest to publicly admit that it's not
true.


>>just goes to show what a liar *YOU* are.
>>
>>>> They can't.
>>>
>>> You can`t address what people actually say.
>> Just did.
>>
>> You ran. You're STILL running. No-one has the courage or
>> honesty to cite for "Bruce's" claim.

And of course, no one ever will. It's a lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 02:31:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:39:04 AM UTC-5, healyd...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 1:54:22 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:33:37 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 12:25:12 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
>>>> <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's like the backyard photos: they can do anything. And while "they" did this, others just stood there and watched them. Then the investigators simply either deliberately covered up what happened or completely missed it.
>>>>>Look, we know that the police can be crooked, that they frame suspects. And can be incompetent as well as corrupt. I'm sure the "good old boys" at DPD were known to do that. And we know the FBI did dirty tricks. These were not all angels. And one more: we know conspiracies happen.
>>>>>But what is being claimed involves so many different people and agencies and levels of cooperation that it's simply not possible. This is murdering the president; this isn't framing a person for murdering a convenience store clerk.
>>>> I present facts & evidence.
>>> You look at the wrong things, and then look at those wrong things incorrectly.
>>>> All Steven offers in return are speculations...
>>>>
>>>> That fact tells the tale...
>> holy mooly, bud the dud of wrong looker fame, needs to do some 'splain...
>
> Right after Ben explains...

LFD.

>>without showing examples, what is: right looking as opposed to wrong looking?
>
> Exactly.

Chickenshit admits that he can't define "right looking."