Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

Apr 7, 2007, 6:28:59 PM4/7/07



"{There is} NO good witness who places that bullet on Connally's
stretcher. So it's quite plausible to think it was a plant. And how
can we explain the absence of blood or tissue on the bullet?"


Re. those two things you just mentioned (i.e., "planting" the bullet
on the WRONG stretcher and "planting" a clean bullet).....

I always get kind of a kick out of this argument from the CT
brigade....because the illogic of it is twofold (not to mention the
possible conspiracy-PROVING act that these boob plotters were
performing by supposedly planting a whole bullet prior to 2 PM CST on
Nov. 22, when the plotters could not possibly have known where all of
the "REAL" bullets in the case rested).

What if an extra two or three bullets turned up...discovered, say, by
Dr. Perry or a nurse or by Dr. McClelland or Dr. Shaw?

What would the plotters have done then? They'd be stuck with TOO MANY
BULLETS...thus proving the plot they want so desperately to conceal.

It's just silly to even WANT to plant that bullet, even within a
"LET'S GET OSWALD" patsy plot. Because there's so much OTHER stuff
(gun, prints, shells in the Sniper's Nest, and fragments from his
rifle in the limo) that forever ties Lee Oswald to this murder, it
ain't even funny.

But the Patsy Framers decide they want still MORE stuff -- so they
take a whole bullet from Oswald's rifle and then proceed to plant it
on the WRONG stretcher in the hospital?? And plant it under a mat
where it may not even be recovered at all? And they plant a CLEAN
bullet? Wouldn't they want to bang it up some, or smear a little bit
of blood on it?

Or were these plotters so good that they could foresee the "SBT"
months ahead of time? They KNEW, therefore, to plant a perfect "SBT"-
fitting bullet? I.E., a bullet with just about the right amount of
missing lead (about 2.2 grains) and flattened a tad on one side
(simulating the JBC rib strike).

In other words, they seem to KNOW that that whole, not-very-damaged
bullet would fit in nicely with Specter's "Single-Bullet Theory" come

Golly, those plotters WERE good.

Footnote -- BTW, when did the conspirators manage to steal Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Paine garage in order to get CE399?
And who did this?

Nobody has ever answered those questions...least of all Mr. Oliver
Stone, whose film is like a bible to many CTers I've conversed with.

There are many reasons to know that CE399 was not "planted" in that
hospital at the time when it would have needed to be planted.

Common sense, alone, tells a reasonable person that 399 is a bullet
that injured both victims on 11/22/63 and ended up falling out of John
Connally's thigh onto his stretcher.

There isn't a scrap of hard evidence to support the notion that
Stretcher Bullet CE399 was planted by conspirators inside Parkland
Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963.











Herbert Blenner

Apr 7, 2007, 8:08:04 PM4/7/07

>Subject: "Planted " bullet makes no sense
>From: mecorn...@aol.com (Mecornett)
>Date: 8/30/02 10:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20020830175323.01014.00000...@mb-ct.aol.com>

>I wonder how many CTs have actually sat down and asked themselves how a
>"Planted" bullet at Parkland could possibly work in the real world. (I
>think we can all agree that even if Kennedy was killed as the result of a
>conspiracy, he was killed in the real world.) If the bullet was planted at
>Parkland to frame Oswald, it had to be planted by someone. Either that
>person was acting on his own, a lone planter if you will, or he was
>following orders. Let's call the person in charge of this coverup Mr. X,
>to borrow a title from Oliver Stone. Let's say Mr. X had full power to
>plant evidence, remove evidence or to convince witnesses to say whatever
>he wanted them to say.

Let us say Mr. X was intelligent. He read the newspapers and learned
how to use
CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE in ousting an administration. Application of
esoteric knowledge would relieve him from the tasks of altering
evidence and
influencing witness testimony.

>Even with all this being true, there's no way Mr. X
>could know a bullet needed to be planted. Even if there were two shooters,
>Mr. X would have to assume, in the real world, that the bullets would
>still be inside the victim's bodies upon their arrival at Parkland.

Mr. X and associates would require foreknowledge only if they intended
to plant
LOGICALLY CONSISTENT evidence. Since foreknowledge is impossible in
the real
world, they employed contradictory evidence.

The contradictory evidence would be a dilemma for the new government.
having every conspirator behind bars, the prestige and ultimately the
of the new administration to govern would depend on suppression of
contradictory evidence.

>Planting a bullet there would have had the OPPOSITE effect of that
>intended by Mr. X. Rather than framing one person, an extra bullet at the
>scene would point to more than one shooter. Only if Mr. X could count on
>all the Parkland doctors to go along with this plot, by hidding the real
>bullets from the officials, could it have any chance of working. Since he
>couldn't possibly know which Dr. would work on which victim, he would have
>to have assurance in advance, that all of them would be involved. Since no
>bullets were found in Kennedy or Connally, (other than small fragments in
>JBC) where are the real bullets if the stretcher bullet was a plant? Even
>if there were bullets in Kennedy that Humes and Boswell lied about at the
>autopsy, Mr. X would still have no reason to plant a bullet. Does anyone
>really think the Parkland doctors were in on this thing? If they do, they
>have my simpathy.

National security interests dictated where the pieces fell and who
said what
because the new administration could not survive an unsolved



Apr 7, 2007, 10:29:19 PM4/7/07

Herbert, I believe there were two doctors at Parkland who were part
of the plot....Their first loyalty may have been to the KKK I don't
know .... But I'm fairly certainly Dr Rose the pathologist was
supposed to retrieve the bullet ( CE 399) from JFK's body. When Kenny
O'Donnall and Roy Kellerman decided that they were going to get Jackie
out of Dallas ASAP and prevented Rose from dong the autopsy, they
forced the plotters to change plans.....the plotters then conveniently
found the "incriminating'"bullet on a bloody stretcher in the hall way
at Parkland.

By the way.... One of Dr Rose's arguments for doing the autopsy at
Parkland was he said he could do it in 45 minutes.
This seems very fast to me..... but I don't know. I believe it took
several hours to do the autopsy at Bethesda, and just recently it took
about four hours to perform theautopsy on Anna Nicole Smith. If Dr.
Rose only wanted 45 minutes I'd bet he wanted just enough time to
removed any bullets that would NOT incriminate Oswald and produce the
one that would.


> > ===============================================- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

David Von Pein

Apr 7, 2007, 10:34:17 PM4/7/07
>>> "If Dr. Rose only wanted 45 minutes I'd bet he wanted just enough time to removed any bullets that would NOT incriminate Oswald and produce the one that would." <<<

It didn't take long for Kook Rule #4 to rear its hideous head once
more, did it?

You just can't help but to act like a stupid kook, can you Walt? It
must be involuntary. .....


David Von Pein

Apr 7, 2007, 11:07:40 PM4/7/07
A CT-KOOK SAID -- I didn't say the Gov't planted the bullet. At no
time do I say that anywhere in my post.

DVP SAYS -- But you sure as heck implied the possibility within your
wealth of "IFs" in your last post, including...."If the plotters were
within the government...".

But that convenient word "IF" gets a CTer off the hook each and every
time, of course.

They can't produce a lick of hard evidence to support ANY conspiracy,
so the CT brigade relies on "IFs", 24/7. Nice tactic, huh?


CTer -- You can't dismiss my arguments by calling them "silly".

DVP -- Oh, sure I can. I already have, within a goodly number of your
"Let's Follow DVP Around Amazon Like A Puppy Dog" comments at this

And that's because -- Your arguments ARE "silly".

~Mark VII~


CTer -- But you have shown for a long time that intelligent rebuttal
is not your strength.

DVP -- And attempting to speak for the rights of dear sweet killer LHO
isn't yours. Actually, it's insulting to the memory of both John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.


CTer -- Bugliosi sounds much the same, which is why you like him so

DVP -- I KNEW there had to be a reason. Maybe you've hit on it! ;)

Either that, or it's merely the fact that anybody who has the gumption
to say this in public has GOT to be A-OK in my book (and then

"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- VINCE BUGLIOSI; Nov.


David Von Pein

Apr 8, 2007, 12:43:51 AM4/8/07
>>> "Connally insisted to his deathbed that he was not hit by the first shot." <<<

Right. And he WASN'T hit by the first shot. He was hit by the second
(SBT) shot.


>>> "His {JBC's} repeated testimony and interviews are definitive." <<<

Maybe you never saw Gov. Connally's TV interview with Eddie Barker in
1967 on CBS, wherein he says that the SBT is "possible".....


>>> "{Connally} was not hit by the first shot." <<<

Correct. He wasn't.

>>> "As you point out, Connally was hit somewhere in the Z-226 to Z-236 range." <<<

Z224 to be precise. ....



>>> "Either the FBI was wrong or the Warren Commission was wrong, or there was a conspiracy." <<<

The FBI was definitely wrong. The Bureau made several early errors.
More on those errors here.....


>>> "Re-read the portion of the Warren Report that deals with the order of the shots. Note the weasel language, the hedging, the obfuscation..." <<<

It's more like FORTHRIGHT HONESTY, in my view. Instead of pinning
themselves down to a specific Z-Film frame (which, in circa 1964, was
much more difficult to do than it is today, what with the newer,
clearer digital versions of the film that we have now, plus toggling
Internet clips of selected frames, etc.), the WC, instead, bracketed
the "SBT hit", from Z210 to Z225.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO. For, the Commission KNEW that a "SBT"
frame DID and does exist within the Zapruder Film.

The HSCA knew it too, based on other evidence that makes it quite
clear that a single bullet went through both JFK & JBC on 11/22/63.
The HSCA got it wrong, IMO. The original Z210-Z225 WC bracketing was
more accurate in '64, with Z224 being the precise moment that both men
were hit, IMO.

>>> "Professional writers drafted that (lawyers), and they knew exactly what they were doing." <<<

Yep. Being forthright and honest by not saying something so bold in
'64 as "The SBT occurs definitely at such-&-such a Z-Frame". The
"bracketing" of the SBT hit, in fact, only further makes me think more
highly of the WC and its detailed study of the assassination.

The WC and FBI did very detailed angle measurements in May '64, via a
surveyor and "thru-the-Oswald-rifle-scope" determinations from the
Sniper's Nest.

And it was determined (as best as could be determined, circa 1964)
that both victims were generally lined up in the limo to receive the
"SBT" bullet from approx. Z210 through approx. Z225.


CTers scoff at this "bracketing", saying it can't be right. But those
CTers are attempting to place an EXACTITUDE on the event that can't
really be placed there. Some things MUST be estimated to a
degree....and the WC did that. And did a damn good job at it too.
Because "Z210-Z225" certainly encompasses the now-widely-accepted SBT
Z-Frame of Z224 (a frame I fully endorse for many, many reasons).

IOW -- The WC got it perfectly correct DECADES prior to the digital Z-
Film copies fully backing up their findings of a SBT hit somewhere
between Z210 and Z225.

So what's the big gripe, is my question? The Warren Commission GOT IT
RIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Conspiracists just don't wish to accept the
"SBT/Occam's-like" scenario of one bullet transitting both victims.

Instead, they (the CTers) would rather rely on pure guesswork,
involving multiple disappearing bullets and an SBT-like alignment of
wounds on two men (created by two or three gunmen!) that would make
David Copperfield proud.

>>> "Incidentally, the WC did not dare include the FBI's summary report of the shooting dated December 9, 1963. That report makes it clear that the FBI did not believe that JFK and Connally were hit by the same bullet." <<<

See the above-linked essay re. "FBI Mistakes". That rushed FBI report
was wrong in multiple key respects. Heck, J. Edgar Hoover even told
LBJ at one point that the Stretcher Bullet had actually rolled out of
JFK's HEAD! So, the FBI was certainly not immune to errors. But, so

>>> "In short, the single bullet theory was concocted by desperate men..{Blah-Blah}..." <<<

Better read Page 117 of the Warren Report again. It'll set you
straight on whether the WC was "desperate" in the SBT regard or not.
(Or is Page 117 all a lie too?).....


>>> "For you to defend that garbage more than forty years later reveals much about your intellect and your integrity." <<<

Nonsense. The Warren Commission's account of the JFK assassination has
never, ever been undermined and/or disproven....and certainly not for
lack of trying by conspiracy buffs and assorted kooks (like Jim
Garrison, Jim Fetzer, and Oliver Stone, et al).


Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages