Effective February 22, 2024, Google Groups will no longer support new Usenet content. Posting and subscribing will be disallowed, and new content from Usenet peers will not appear. Viewing and searching of historical data will still be supported as it is done today.
Dismiss

The Bullets, Darrell Tomlinson, Dr. Guinn, NAA, And Some Common Sense

50 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 7, 2007, 12:30:46 AM9/7/07
to
Conspiracy theorists have absolutely no place to go (via logic and
common sense, that is) with ANY of their arguments regarding Bullet
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
STRETCHER BULLET FOUND BY TOMLINSON.

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,
EVER?!

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
(BENT ON FRAMING LEE OSWALD) WANT TO PLANT A BULLET THAT COULD NEVER
BE TRACED TO THE PATSY?

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
it?)

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.


Bottom line FACT that CTers cannot deal with (logically), or answer
(logically)........

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.


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


SOME MORE BULLET TALK:


Simple question (not a scientific one, no, but a good, solid, common-
sense inquiry).......

What do you think the odds would be of ONLY bullets and identifiable
fragments from Lee Oswald's C2766 gun being recovered after a
particular shooting event IF there had actually been two or three (or
more) guns involved in said crime (with bullets from at least one of
those other non-Oswald guns striking a victim)?

Anybody want to guess at the odds of this occurring?

NAA isn't even really needed here at all. Ordinary common sense tells
a reasonable person examining the OSWALD-ONLY fragments and bullet
(CE399) connected with JFK's murder that just one gun's bullets struck
any limo victim on Nov. 22....and it wasn't James Files' Fireball.

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

AND A LITTLE MORE ABOUT DR. GUINN AND HIS 1978 NAA RESULTS:


Some conspiracy theorists seem to think that the newer "broader" range
of possibilities for the bullet fragments somehow TOTALLY ELIMINATES
Lee Oswald's gun from the general mix.

But Oswald's gun and his bullets have always been in that mix. And
still are, quite obviously.

And since we KNOW for an ironclad fact that TWO of the five specimens
in question are definitely specimens from Oswald's gun "to the
exclusion" (those being CE399 and CE567)....and with ZERO other pieces
of bullet or whole bullets in the mix that can be used to EXCLUDE
Oswald's own rifle....

Well...the (common-sense) math isn't really too difficult to perform
here, in my opinion.


The ODDS that any non-Oswald fragments are among the only other THREE
fragments that are not linked (positively) to Oswald's rifle are
pretty slim by percentages (and via common sense).

40% of those 5 specimens are definitely from Oswald's rifle (#C2766).
And that 40% definitely includes TWO separate bullets, without
question. (And the preponderance of evidence indicates that ONLY TWO
BULLETS hit any victims in the limousine....a key point there.)

So....given these basic ballistics facts, the likelihood of the other
60% of the five bullet specimens examined by Dr. Vincent Guinn (which
were the three smallest fragments) having come from other non-C2766
weapons is pretty slim indeed.


http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Scientific_topics/NAA/Spiegelman.html

Gary A

unread,
Sep 7, 2007, 2:16:21 AM9/7/07
to

Oh, so in other words, you're here agreeing that Rahn was wrong to say
NAA is the "Rosetta Stone" of the JFK case; that NAA, alone, proves
Oswald did it.

In that case, I agree with you.

Now it's admirably loyal of you to adduce myriad non-NAA reasons why
NAA might be irrelevant to the case that Oswald did it, but the issues
here are the sweeping conclusions made on NAA's behalf by its
proponents - Guinn, Rahn and Sturdivan. Those assertions have been
totally crushed, sad to say.

I'm glad you now agree with Drs. Art Snyder, Erik Randich, Pat Grant,
Cliff Spiegelman, William Tobin, etc. It's about time!

Gary

David Von Pein

unread,
Sep 7, 2007, 2:18:07 AM9/7/07
to

Golly and Gosh, Gary's Gigantically Goofy.

chuck schuyler

unread,
Sep 7, 2007, 2:26:01 AM9/7/07
to
On Sep 7, 1:18 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Golly and Gosh, Gary's Gigantically Goofy.

David:

What I have come to realize about Gary Aguilar from reading his posts
the past few years is this:

Gary doesn't really seem to care about who killed JFK.

What he cares about is proving Ken Rahn and Larry Sturdivan wrong on
NAA.

Gary seems to have two primary interests regarding the JFK
assassination. The aforementioned NAA topic and the supposed BOH wound
witnesses. (Note to lurkers: John McAdams has laughably destroyed
Gary's selective and creative use of testimony promoting the large BOH
wound brouhaha at aaj. Current threads authored by McAdams on this BOH
subject are in play at the moderated board.)

That's it.

I've never read a detailed analysis by Gary on how this went down,
what the shot sequence was, etc. Decades of "study" and "research"
about the crime-of-the-century, and there is apparently little
curiosity about how this fits together. Although he is a doctor, he
shows the same startling lack of critical thinking skills that some of
our resident morons-Gil Jesus and David Healy immediately leap to mind-
display.

In other words, Gary, bright guy that I know he is, is guilty of the
same idiocy that the high school dropout Tom Rossley is guilty of:
Spraying the doubts raised in their own minds about an issue without
offering an alternative that is cogent and fits in with the evidence
in the case that isn't disputed. (I should be careful with that last
sentence because I know many CT'ers dismiss almost ALL of the
evidence.)

As has been pointed out by many, I am very curious about where this
fourth or fifth (or sixth or seventh, etc.) bullet went that
supposedly plowed into JBC or JFK. Did the plotters know in advance
that NAA testing would be done on the fragments? The mind boggles with
this sort of "inside baseball" stuff. It really is laughable, but here
we are 43+ years later arguing with everyone from doctors-to-dropouts
about dart-firing umbrellas, tramps, a large BOH hole that doesn't
show up in the autopsy photos, Tippit's killer got away and somehow
slipped a pistol to Oswald that could ballistically be linked to JDT's
murder, the Zapruder film was altered and Abe Zapruder himself was
impersonated and went along with this hoax until his death, etc. It's
funny in a sad way. The case continues to expand. New suspects,
theories and motives. It all makes sense to the CT mind.

This has really come down to a belief system. Belief in a JFK
conspiracy is faith, like a religion. I see the same thing at 9/11
boards, where people claim explosives were planted in the WTC and
remotely detonated. You can ask these Truthers all day long to explain
how teams of people would've hidden these explosives in walls, hidden
the wires, etc. and there is just no answer. It fits their theory that
Bush/Cheney/Halliburton killed 3,000 Americans to start a war for oil,
so it must be true.

There seems to be a fear among the mentally lazy cowards that populate
conspiracist movements to confront raw evil. On 9/11/01, Islamikazes
caught us napping and destroyed thousands of innocent lives. To deal
with this head on requires that we make tough, courageous choices.
It's much easier to say "Bush did it" than deal with a real response
to Islamofacism. Same thing with 11/22/63. The cowards in the JFK
"Truther" movement offer zero in terms of an alternate scenario that
connects all of the dots. It's easier to just say "the CIA did it" or
"Johnson did it", or whatever the conspiracy theory flavor of the
month happens to be. Assigning the chaos to one man-a nut with a rifle-
makes no sense to the cowardly...even when that is where the evidence
points.

0 new messages