If CE399 Didn't Wound John Connally.....Do CTers Think The "Real" Stretcher Bullet Did?

Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

Sep 5, 2007, 6:52:35 AM9/5/07

>>> "What do you think of what I and others have posted on the "Failure To Identify CE 399" topic?" <<<

It's a bit odd, yes. I cannot deny that fact.


CE399 remains the only whole bullet connected with JFK's murder and
Connally's injuries.

And we know, for a fact, that CE399 was fired from Oswald's rifle.

And Oswald's rifle was found in a building overlooking the motorcade

These are the raw facts surrounding Bullet 399.

Now, to believe that CE399 was a "plant" of some kind is to believe
that one or more individuals had a desire to remove from evidence the
real stretcher bullet found by Darrell C. Tomlinson in Parkland
Hospital, and replace it with a bullet that was fired from Oswald's

Is it MORE reasonable to believe in the latter scenario which has
people doing illegal, underhanded things CONNECTED TO A PRESIDENTIAL
ASSASSINATION (of all things)?

Or is it (perhaps) more reasonable to believe that people who saw the
bullet on November 22 had trouble later confirming with 100% accuracy
that that exact bullet was, indeed, the bullet they saw in November?

We must also consider what I believe to be a very important fact
regarding the Tomlinson stretcher bullet -- Every person who saw the
stretcher bullet on 11/22/63 saw a WHOLE, INTACT BULLET. They didn't
see a banged-all-to-hell, fragmented bullet.

And almost all CTers seem to think that if a bullet had done the
damage it did to Governor Connally, the bullet (no matter whether it
was CE399 or some OTHER bullet) would have been badly deformed and

Most of the CTers who offer up an opinion on this subject certainly
don't think that ANY bullet (pointed or otherwise) would have ended up
in the fairly-good condition it was found in by Tomlinson after
breaking the bones that we know the ONE bullet that struck Connally
did break.

And whether you think the stretcher bullet was CE399 or some pointy-
tipped bullet from some other non-Oswald gun....a major point to be
made here is: There WAS a "stretcher bullet" found by Tomlinson in a
Parkland hallway on or near Connally's stretcher at approx. 1:30 PM
CST on 11/22/63.

That, to me, is a key point. Because if that bullet found by Tomlinson
WASN'T inside Governor Connally on November 22....then where did the
one bullet go that went into (and fell out of) John B. Connally's body
that day?

Food for (399) thought anyway.



Sep 5, 2007, 1:29:29 PM9/5/07

Think of how ludicrous it would have been for the conspirators to have
planned ahead of time to plant CE399. If these alleged conspirators
did the shooting with Oswald's MC rifle, why would they bother to
plant another bullet from that same rifle. Why not just let the
bullets that did the killing incriminate Oswald. If they shot JFK with
a rifle(s) other than MC rifle C2766. If they did that and then
planted a bullet from the MC, they could expect that there would be
bullets from two different rifles introduced into evidence, thus
establishing two shooters and a conspiracy. To think that the bullet
was swapped with the real bullet implies that they would have known
ahead of time the "real" bullet would be found on the stretcher. How
could they know ahead of time that there would be a loose bullet for
them to pull the switch with. The more likely expectation would be for
the bullet to end up inside the limo or inside the body of one of the
victims. Also, as David pointed out, why was the real bullet not
seriously deformed. The CTs have argued for years that there was no
way a bullet could have gone through Connally's wrist without being
seriously flattened. Or was the orignal bullet planted too. Yeah,
that's it. First the conspirators planted a sharp nosed bullet, then
realized they planted the wrong one and then planted CE399.

Message has been deleted


Sep 6, 2007, 1:03:48 AM9/6/07
The unfortunate Mr. Von Pein isn't up to speed. There is much we've
discovered about the "Magic Bullet" that he doesn't tell. But that
doesn't mean that it shouldn't be told.

Here's the rest of the story, the part Mr. Von Pein withholds, the
part that is easily available on-line at historymatters.com with great
images of original, source documents and hotlinks to others:

Suffice it to say, there's more than good reason to wonder exactly
what bullet was actually picked up on that Parkland stretcher on
11/22/63. If you're a slave to the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover, then
you're likely to believe you know. But if you orientation isn't "faith-
based," here's what you might like to know.


The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?

Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson

Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly
divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the "Single
Bullet Theory." The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer,
Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the
theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission's case that with
but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had
single handedly altered the course of history. [Fig. 1]

Mr. Specter's hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind
from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It
was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping
of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with
the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one
shooter was involved.

For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President
Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds -
eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from
the supposed "sniper's nest" would have been necessary to explain all
the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham
Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent
shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired,
reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory
neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole
bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal
wounds sustained by both men.[1]

Figure 1. CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused
both of JFK's non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally's
wounds, is shown in two views, above left. Arlen Specter theorized the
bullet had followed a path much like the one shown at right. (National
Archives photo)

But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature:
it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually
unscathed itself. The shell's near-pristine appearance, which prompted
some to call it the "magic bullet," left many skeptics wondering
whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had
said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the
bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead
on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.

Mr. Specter's idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and
Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor's clothes
and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never
unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the
stretcher where the bullet was discovered.[2] Nevertheless, studies
done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile
to Oswald's rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on
July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet's chain of
possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two
hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it
as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview

That a bullet, fired from Oswald's weapon and later identified by
hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the
hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a
little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But
apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to
doubt the bullet's bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors
reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the
bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the
bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look
like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was
in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that
Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell
he'd held on the day of the murder.

For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved.
Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the
attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body
charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the
Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led
to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out
that the FBI's own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position
the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission,
and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a
further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone
interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI
had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.
A Bullet is Found at Parkland Hospital

The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas
hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after
being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital
senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled
stretchers when he bumped a stretcher "against the wall and a bullet
rolled out."[3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright,
Parkland's personnel director. After examining the bullet together,
Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents
who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen.[4]

Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed
it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn,
gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,[5] who carried it to
agent Robert Frazier in the FBI's Crime Lab.[6] Without exploring the
fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness
who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what
concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence,
Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found

The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out
in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page,
July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren
Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace
"various items of physical evidence," among them #399 [Fig. 2]. #2011
relates that, in chasing down the bullet's chain of possession, FBI
agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on
June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the
bullet "appears to be the same one" they found on the day of the
assassination, but that neither could "positively identify" it. [Figs.
2, 3]

Figure 2. C.E. 2011. Chain of possession of #399 (FBI Letterhead Memo
Dallas 7/7/64)

Positive identification" of a piece of evidence by a witness means
that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence
is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to
establish positive identification is for a witness to place his
initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of
such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a
link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in
evidence and a crime.

Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on
the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so
soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had
found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was
indeed the same one.

However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions
about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,[7] it also
states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet
from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably
the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to
identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd
that they "could not identify this bullet as the one" they saw on the
day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure
being merely one of not "positively identifying" the shell that,
otherwise, "appeared to be the same" bullet they had originally
handled. [Figs. 2, 3]

Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said
#399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret
Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received
the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on
6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to
identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the
time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing
acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have
expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same
bullet, even if neither could "positively identify" it by an inscribed
initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their
initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a

Figure 3. Last two pages of 7/7/64 FBI memo to Warren Commission, as
published in C.E. #2011. Note that FBI states that both Dallas
witnesses said #399 looked like the bullet they found on 11/22/63.

And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors
published a book in 1967.
Two Different Accounts from One Witness

Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in
November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any
description of #399, Wright said: "That bullet had a pointed tip."

"Pointed tip?" Thompson asked.

"Yeah, I'll show you. It was like this one here," he said, reaching
into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six

As Thompson described it in 1967, "I then showed him photographs of
CE's 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald's
rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of
these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half
an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected
the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the
[Fig. 4]

Figure 4. In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P.
Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did
not look like C.E. # 399.

Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that
Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright
denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the
JFK Review Board support author Thompson's 1967 report.

A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in
Dallas ("SAC, Dallas" - i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon
Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, "For information
WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic],
who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT,
Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from
TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can
identify bullet ... ." [Fig. 5 - Page 1, Page 2]

Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had
told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 "appears to be the same"
bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this
previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is
there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a
resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum's name mentioned anywhere in the
once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson
or with Wright.

Figure 5. Declassified FBI memo reporting neither Tomlinson nor Wright
could identify "C1" [#399] as the bullet they handled on 11/22/63.
[Page 1, Page 2]

A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE
2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo
from the FBI's Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, "ON
RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had
logged in as #399, was called "C ONE"), BY INSPECTION (capitals in
original). [Fig. 6]

Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about
for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should,
for example, have been some original "302s " - the raw FBI field
reports from the Agent Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on
June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd's
interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24,
1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum
reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets.
And perhaps we'd also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or
Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details
about the bullet.

Figure 6. Suppressed 1964 FBI report detailing that neither of the
Secret Service agents who handled "#399" on 11/22/63 could later
identify it.

In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to
scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed
light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK
Review Board's T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the
Review Board's Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn's behalf, answered,
saying: "[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional
records that would account for the problem you suggest."[10] [Fig. 8]
Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the
National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National
Archives. [Fig. 9]

On Mr. Tilley's behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National
Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he
searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the
FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however,
that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran "concurrently, with
no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these
files."[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the
only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a
similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet
later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum's name show up
in any of the files.

Figure 7. Letter to Assassinations Records Review Board requesting a
search for records that might support FBI's claim that hospital
witnesses identified #399.

Figure 8. ARRB reports that it is unable to find records supporting
FBI claim Parkland Hospital witnesses identified #399.

Figure 9. Letter to National Archives requesting search for additional
files on C.E. #399.

Figure 10. Letter from National Archives disclosing no additional
files exist on C.E. #399.

[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National
Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search
for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399
being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of
NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered
any such reports.]

Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. "What does Odum have
to say about it?" Thompson asked.

"Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?"

"I'll find out," he promised.

Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum's home
address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He
was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year
old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar
with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy
case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts
in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files - CE
# 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the "FBI
AIRTEL" memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.

Mr. Odum told Aguilar, "I didn't show it [#399] to anybody at
Parkland. I didn't have any bullet ... I don't think I ever saw it
even." [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr.
Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert,
friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a
comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out
before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.

Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the
Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI's
investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might
have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would
have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence.
But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he
said he would certainly have turned in a "302" report covering
something that important. Odum's sensible comment had the ring of
truth. For not only was Odum's name absent from the FBI's once secret
files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to
besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.

Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which
he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.

Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011
claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between
#399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the
FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell
Odum, and the Bureau's own once-secret records, don't back up #2011.
Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to
identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression
they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact
that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were
dissimilar. Thus, Thompson's surprising discovery about Wright, which
might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in
#2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed
FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides
further, indirect corroboration.
Missing 302s?

But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another
unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been
written by the agents who investigated #399's chain of possession in
both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the
June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s
whatsoever backing them up.

But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove
that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission's formal request, as
outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing
slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on
6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was
checked out to FBI Agent Todd. [Fig. 12] What transpired during these
episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely
that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have
submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer
Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends
here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the

Figure 12. FBI routing slip. Note that #399 was sent from Washington
to Dallas and back again, and that FBI agent Todd checked out the
bullet on 6/24/64, the day it was reported the Secret Service Agents
told Todd they could not identify #399. [See Fig. 5 (page 1, page 2)
and Fig. 6.] (Courtesy of John Hunt)

Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If
the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright's testimonies with a
bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn't it also adjust Johnsen
and Rowley's? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question
will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI
authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the
official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington
than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in

In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its
investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI
reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson
and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered
on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have
interviewed both men and the Bureau's own suppressed records
contradict the FBI's public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the
FBI's earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor
Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed
file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is
precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.

What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of
possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the
FBI's chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the
key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI's own,
suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also
lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the
field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399
in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent
investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI's file
incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when
he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like
a bullet that could have come from Oswald's rifle.

[1] The eighth wound, JFK's head wound, accounted for one of the
bullets. And evidence from the scene and from a home movie taken of
the murder by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, suggests that a third
bullet had missed entirely.

[2] Josiah Thompson. Six Seconds in Dallas. Bernard Geis Associates
for Random House, 1967, p. 161 - 164.

[3] The President's Commission on the Assassination of President John
F. Kennedy - Report. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1964, p. 81. See also 6H130 - 131.

[4] 18H800. See also: Thompson, J. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York:
Bernard Geis Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 155.

[5] 24H412.

[6] 3H428; 24H412.

[7] See Ray Marcus monograph, The Bastard Bullet.

[8] Text of email message from Josiah Thompson to Aguilar, 12/10/99.

[9] Thompson, Josiah. Six Seconds in Dallas. New York: Bernard Geis
Associates for Random House, 1967, p. 175.

[10] 5/11/98 email message from Eileen Sullivan re: "Your letter to
Jeremy Gunn, April 4, 1998."

[11] Personal letter from Stuart Culy, archivist, National Archives,
July 16, 1999.

David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 1:09:04 AM9/6/07
CTers have absolutely no place to go (via logic and common sense, that
is) with ANY of their arguments regarding CE399, or regarding their
arguments about a purported "pointy-nosed" bullet, etc.

Because if CTers wants to say that CE399 was actually the bullet found
at Parkland by Tomlinson (whether it was a "planted" bullet or not),
then those same CTers are forced to jettison one of their favorite
arguments -- i.e., that Tomlinson, et al, failed to identify CE399 as
the stretcher bullet DUE TO THE FACT THAT CE399 *WASN'T* THE REAL

And if CTers wish to say that a "pointy"-tipped bullet was actually
seen by Tomlinson and Wright, et al, on November 22 at Parkland...then
where does that argument take the CTers?

Answer -- Deep into "Absurdville"! That's where.

For, if a "pointy" bullet WAS the "real" stretcher bullet found by
Tomlinson, then that means one of the following three things must
certainly be correct and true....

1.) The "pointy" bullet was the one and only bullet that did the
damage to John B. Connally (and the best evidence, by far, is that
just ONE single bullet struck Connally, causing all of his wounds).

But if #1 here is true...then the CTers must abandon one of their very
favorite gripes: i.e., ANY bullet that did that much damage to JBC
must have been pretty banged up by the end of the day.

But if Tomlinson saw a "pointy"-nosed bullet, then that bullet was
certainly in pretty decent shape, right? The POINTY NOSE wasn't even
crushed. (Otherwise, how did Tomlinson, et al, see any "pointy" nose
on the missile?)

Also: It's fairly obvious that the discrepancy re. the stretcher
bullet noted by Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen (et al) is NOT a
discrepancy with respect to the GENERAL AMOUNT OF DAMAGE that was done
to the bullet.

It's obvious from everyone's testimony on this matter that the bullet
Tomlinson found on a Parkland stretcher was an INTACT bullet; i.e., a
bullet that wasn't banged up very much at all.

Or do CTers want to now purport that the people who later failed to
positively I.D. CE399 REALLY saw a banged-all-to-hell, mushroomed, and
very damaged bullet...but they failed to MENTION THAT FACT TO ANYONE,

2.) The bullet Tomlinson picked up was a "PLANTED" bullet, but was not
CE399, and then 399 was inserted into the record to replace the "real"
stretcher bullet.

#2 here is totally crazy...because: WHY IN THE HELL WOULD ANY PLOTTERS

And if some CTers want to think the bullet was planted, but Oswald
WASN'T really being set up as a lone patsy....I'd then ask: Huh?
(Because if Oswald wasn't being framed, then why was there any need to
plant ANY bullet at all inside Parkland?)

This whole #2 option is just too kooky for even most CT-Kooks. (Isn't

3.) The bullet Darrell Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland
wasn't even connected (in any fashion; "planted" or otherwise) to the
JFK assassination or to JBC's wounds. Perhaps it really did come from
the little boy's stretcher (Ronny Fuller's). But, then again, was
young Ronald Fuller SHOT BY A RIFLE BULLET on November 22nd? I don't
think he was. Which means there's a problem here too.

But the logical observation associated with option #3 that needs to be
uttered aloud is -- If it had been later learned that the stretcher
bullet had really been connected to Fuller (or some other case,
totally unconnected to the JFK/JBC case), then it would turn into a
"So what?" situation. Because why would the authorities feel it
necessary to tie in a bullet to the JFK case that legitimately was not
connected to the Kennedy case in any way? That's just....dumb.


So, any way things are sliced, CTers are forced to abandon at least
ONE of their favorite theories with respect to Bullet CE399. Because
when a little ordinary common sense is applied to the conversation
surrounding the stretcher bullet, CTers don't have a leg to stand on.

In short, conspiracy theorists are, by necessity, forced to either
accept the obvious truth about the stretcher bullet (which is: CE399
came out of Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63 and wounded both JFK & JBC in
Dealey Plaza)....or they are forced to look like total idiots by
purporting theories that don't make much sense at all. And many of
those conspiracists are also forced to spout theories that completely
CONTRADICT other theories they have been married to for decades.

Accepting the truth surrounding Bullet CE399 is easy. But accepting
ANY of the conspiracy-tinged replacement theories revolving around
that bullet is virtually impossible.

David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 1:18:48 AM9/6/07
Bottom line FACT that CTers cannot deal with (logically), or answer

An INTACT (not banged up) rifle bullet WAS found by Darrell C.
Tomlinson on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital prior to 2:00 PM CST on
Nov. 22, 1963.

If that same bullet didn't do the damage to JBC's body....what bullet
did? And if that INTACT bullet found by Tomlinson DID cause Connally's
wounds, why wasn't it banged up (like all CTers seem to think a bullet
would be after causing such bony damage to a human being)?

Food for thought.

chuck schuyler

Sep 6, 2007, 2:27:53 AM9/6/07

Great points, and I'm sure Gary will do his best to avoid answering
these questions (because he can't).

Sounds like Gary has his own "magic bullet" or "pristine bullet" to
contend with...an intact bullet that Tomlinson found that apparently
didn't even have its so called "pointy nose" dented.

Maybe Gary can find some pointy nosed bullets and fire them at dead
goats or something and post the resulting photos.

Let's keep trying to solve this Gary! You're getting close!


Sep 6, 2007, 12:54:45 PM9/6/07

Should we be suprised that CTers attack the WC from opposite sides of
the same issue. CE399 couldn't be real because it should be flattened
and CE399 can't be real because a witness said the real bullet was
sharp nose, but ironically not flattened. So which is it CTers? If the
bullet that shattered Connally's wrist should have a flattened nose,
does that mean the bullet that was originally found on the stretcher
was not the one that caused the wounds and the conspirators swapped
one phoney bullet with another? Or was the bullet that you think was
actually found on the stretcher a "real" bullet, thus proving that a
bullet could shatter Connally's wrist without being flattened at its
nose. Your duplicity on this subject has left us LNers very confused
about the official CT position on this issue.

Gary A

Sep 6, 2007, 4:02:05 PM9/6/07

Thanks ever so much for cleaning up your language, Mr. Von Pein!

Indeed, Tomlinson did find a bullet on a stretcher. But was it
actually #399?

I mean, the FBI agent (Bardwell Odum) who was supposed to have showed
#399 to Tomlinson and Wright and who is supposed to have heard them
say #399 resembled the bullet they found on 11/22, he (Odum) said he'd
never had that bullet in his possession; that he never took any kind
of bullet to Parkland; but that if he had, he'd have submitted the
requisite "FD-302" report that all field agents submit after
conducting interviews with witnesses. Well, there are no 302's on
#399's trip to Dallas in June, 1964, whether from Odum or any other

Next, as Thompson described it in his classic book, Six Seconds in
Dallas, "I then showed him photographs of CE 399 ... and he rejected all

of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher.
Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again

rejected the picture of # 399 as resembling the bullet found on the
stretcher ... As a professional law enforcement officer, Wright has an
educated eye for bullet shapes."

Where did Wright get his "educated eye? When he was former deputy
Chief of Police in Dallas, that's where. And when a former deputy
Chief of Police says a bullet did or didn't look like some bullet,
he's worth paying attention to.

Then, of course, there's the matter of the only, and I mean ONLY, memo
from the Dallas FBI office that mentions Tomlinson and Wright. And
here I refer to the "AIIRTEL" by Gordon Shanklin to J. Edgar Hoover.
It reported, "For information WFO (Washington Field Office of the
FBI), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland

Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland
Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special

Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet ... ." That was all it
said and it was not the 302 from the agent who'd conducted the
interview at the hospital.

In other words, when the Washington FBI office wrote the Warren
Commission on July 7, 1964 saying that Tomlinson and Wright said #399
resembled the bullet they found on 11/22, there were NO internal FBI
records that supported that coming from Dallas. On the contrary. The
ONLY record from Dallas clearly implied, nay, said directly, "neither

DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital,
Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who
obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas
11/22/63, can identify bullet ... ."

So, sure, some bullet may have been passed up the chain from Parkland,
but FBI records and my interview with the key FBI agent, Bardwell
Odum, lead me to suspect #399 isn't the bullet that Tomlinson and
Wright originally found.

Now this suggests there was a little hanky-panky at the FBI lab. If
the FBI Lab's history of hanky-panky weren't already so well
established, why it might make sense to dismiss such a possibility out
of hand. Alas, the unimpressive history of the FBI's Lab make ruling
out hanky-panky a priori an unwise way to go.

Especially since neither of the next two men in #399's chain of
possession after Tomlinson and Wright - namely Richard JohnsEn and the
Chief of the Secret Servvice, James Rowley - also "could NOT identify"
#399 as the bullet they had on 11/22.


David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 5:34:58 PM9/6/07
>>> "Great points, and I'm sure Gary will do his best to avoid answering these questions (because he can't)." <<<

Thanks, Chuck.

And you're right....Gary has ignored the common-sense issues I've laid
out (issues that no CTer can fight).

I guess simple human error and witnesses not wanting to commit
themselves to IDing something that they had some doubts about
positively identifying are things that can't play a part in the
"CE399" puzzle to a CTer. A pity.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 5:49:06 PM9/6/07
>>> "Funeral services for the Single Bullet Theory (known to friend and foe alike as SBT) will be held tomorrow at noon. To accord it the dignity it deserves, the remains of the SBT will be dumped in a trash bin and set afire. Supported by only a dedicated few in its later years, it was scorned by many, rejected by almost everyone, and often subject to open ridicule. It will not be missed. To quote Hunter Thompson, "You can't miss what you never had"." <<<

What an idiot.

Anyone as obviously schooled in the JFK evidence as you, Akwilks, who
can utter the above absurdity re. the wholly-accurate SBT does,
indeed, deserve the "idiot" label. Sad, but true.

The SBT was not "scorned" by the WC (they endorsed it as a unit and in
the Warren Report)....

The SBT was not "scorned" by the HSCA (they totally endorsed the SBT).
It was a slightly-different timeline from the WC version; but the key
points are identical--JFK & JBC both wounded by bullet CE399.

The SBT has also been endorsed by virtually every single scientist and
official investigator who examined the JFK case for every major U.S.
Govt. investigation since 1963.

The SBT was mimicked almost to the letter on TV in 2004 (not a
perfect, to-the-inch re-creation, granted....but certainly close
enough to at least push the idea of the SBT beyond the "It Couldn't
Have Possibly Happened In A Million Years" point-of-view. (Although
many kooks still feel that way even after the Discovery Channel re-
creation in 2004, detailed at the link below....)


Ever hear of Dale K. Myers? Surely you have. But I suppose he's just
another fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants LN nutcase who clings to the SBT
like a life preserver in the Pacific, huh?

Think again.

Mr. Myers has done THE most detailed study of the SBT to date,
utilizing computer animation to greatly aid his 10-plus-year efforts
re. the subject.

His animation has literally been ATTACHED to the actual Zapruder Film
via a "Key Framing" technique used by Myers. And guess what? The SBT
fits like a perfect-fitting glove.

Do you want to call Myers' exacting animation study a crackpot ruse
perhaps? Or did he deliberately skew his data beyond recognition just
to endorse his crazy pro-SBT beliefs (as some CT-Kooks actually want
to believe he did)?

Answer to that: No.

And he proves it here:


More on Myers.........

Two video clips with Dale Myers re. the SBT:




Dale's "Secrets Of A Homicide" DVD Preview (the DVD has been delayed
for years and I doubt we'll ever see its release, but this trailer is
quite interesting, providing some clips from Dale's amazing animation




David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 5:49:42 PM9/6/07

Gary A

Sep 6, 2007, 9:04:42 PM9/6/07
On Sep 6, 2:49 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Funeral services for the Single Bullet Theory (known to friend and foe alike as SBT) will be held tomorrow at noon. To accord it the dignity it deserves, the remains of the SBT will be dumped in a trash bin and set afire. Supported by only a dedicated few in its later years, it was scorned by many, rejected by almost everyone, and often subject to open ridicule. It will not be missed. To quote Hunter Thompson, "You can't miss what you never had"." <<<
> What an idiot.
> Anyone as obviously schooled in the JFK evidence as you, Akwilks, who
> can utter the above absurdity re. the wholly-accurate SBT does,
> indeed, deserve the "idiot" label. Sad, but true.
> The SBT was not "scorned" by the WC (they endorsed it as a unit and in
> the Warren Report)....


Congressman Richard Russell and LBJ never bought the Single Bullet
Theory, and you should know that.

Rankin deftly dropped the strong caveat Russell insisted upon putting
in the Report before he agreed to sign off on the Warren Report. So
the Warren Report doesn't even honestly reflect the opinion of the
Warren Commissioners!

And for his part, Russell went to his grave believing there was a
conspiracy behind Oswald, not that the Warren Commission Report had
the honesty to tell the public that.


Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Sep 6, 2007, 10:33:00 PM9/6/07
Maybe that's why I phrased my post the way I did, Gary -- i.e., the WC
embraced the SBT "as a unit". Not as individuals.

And I didn't know that LBJ was a member of the WC. Curious.

And it's certainly not my fault that Goofball Dick Russell couldn't
see the obviousness of the SBT. But then too, Russell might as well
have stayed home every day in '64 anyway. He was pretty much
worthless. No wonder he couldn't see the correctness of the SBT.

chuck schuyler

Sep 6, 2007, 10:40:16 PM9/6/07

Gary, the so-called conspiracy these folks believed in was
(overwhelmingly) that Oswald killed JFK and had help or encouragement
from another group or government, and that these links were possibly
hushed up or deliberately glossed over for the sake of not starting a
World War.

Hardly the multi-shooter, switched bullet, switched body, forged
Zfilm, "mysterious deaths" baloney most CT'ers at acj. buy into.

Gary A

Sep 7, 2007, 2:09:45 AM9/7/07
On Sep 6, 7:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Maybe that's why I phrased my post the way I did, Gary -- i.e., the WC
> embraced the SBT "as a unit". Not as individuals.

Mr. VP. You're a riot!

You write, "The SBT was not "scorned" by the WC (they endorsed it as a
unit and in the Warren Report) ..." and you expect readers to surmise
that you really, actually, sincerely meant to say that, while
individually they may have had problems with the SBT, they signed off
on it "as a unit?" Right.

But, again, what about Russell? My point was that he DID NOT sign off
on it, as written. He ONLY AGREED on the condition a caveat be put
into the record. The agreement was reached and Machiavelli Rankin
quietly dropped Russell's caveat from the record, despite having
agreed to put it in.

So much for the integrity of the Warren Commission! As this episode
alone shows, the Warren Commission was all about managing perception.
And it worked, till people wised up. (Some people still haven't! ;
~ })


David Von Pein

Sep 7, 2007, 2:16:24 AM9/7/07
>>> "You expect readers to surmise that you really, actually, sincerely meant to say that, while individually they may have had problems with the SBT, they signed off on it "as a unit?" Right." <<<

They did sign off on the SBT as a unit. Positively. And absolutely.

Because the SBT is IN the completed WR, and Richard Russell's name is
signed to that Report.

Russell, individually (because he was a goofball), did question the
validity of the SBT...yes. I don't deny that. But he did sign off on
the WR. And the SBT is part of the WR. That's a fact.

Gosh, Gary's goofy.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages