Discussion:
64 EMPLOYEES SAW NO STRANGER IN TSBD
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-05-27 00:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
mainframetech
2018-05-28 20:17:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.

Chris
BOZ
2018-05-29 20:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
mainframetech
2018-05-30 19:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.

If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.

Chris
Bud
2018-05-31 03:40:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade.
I read that. He said "UGH! White men shootum Big Chief with fire stick.
Heap big conspiracy!"
Post by mainframetech
3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-01 02:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade.
I read that. He said "UGH! White men shootum Big Chief with fire stick.
Heap big conspiracy!"
Typical LN attitude. When you have no evidence, attempt ridicule.

Chris
BOZ
2018-05-31 23:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
Chris
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. THAT STORY WAS WRITTEN BY ANCESTORS OF SITTING
BULL.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 20:37:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
Chris
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. THAT STORY WAS WRITTEN BY ANCESTORS OF SITTING
BULL.
Well, it sounds like bull to me.
But I would not dismiss a story only because it came from a Native
Ameerican. But I don't think this story came from a Native American.
I think it came from a kook and liar.
mainframetech
2018-06-02 01:12:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
Chris
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. THAT STORY WAS WRITTEN BY ANCESTORS OF SITTING
BULL.
Oh? You know the date of publishing?

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-01 20:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
We only have the authors' word that any of it is true.
mainframetech
2018-06-03 03:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
We only have the authors' word that any of it is true.
Given all the phony choosing of witnesses, the WCR is no better.
The problem is that many have decided that sooner or later some of the
people involved in the plot will let out the truth, so this is one of the
possible names doing that.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 23:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Of course I can! Read a book called "The Men on the Sixth Floor", by
Collum and Sample. The authors say it is an eyewitness account of an
American Indian that was paid to join a group that snuck up to the 6th
floor with others and helped fire on the motorcade. 3 of them were
strangers, and they supposedly went in through the loading dock door, and
went up the back stairs while everyone was looking out for the motorcade.
If true, it is the story of an eyewitness to strangers in the TSBD.
We only have the authors' word that any of it is true.
Given all the phony choosing of witnesses, the WCR is no better.
The WC is slightly better because they actually questioned witnesses
under oath rather than just guessing.
Post by mainframetech
The problem is that many have decided that sooner or later some of the
people involved in the plot will let out the truth, so this is one of the
possible names doing that.
Rather hard to do that when they're dead.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-30 19:47:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Trying to prove negatives again? YOU are a negative.
BOZ
2018-05-31 23:03:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Trying to prove negatives again? YOU are a negative.
MARSH YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A STRANGER WHO ENTERED
THE TSBD WITH OSWALD'S RIFLE. YOU HAVE ONLY FAKE CONSPIRACY NEWS. YOU ARE
ASSUMING AGAIN. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHAKE STEVE BARBER'S HAND FOR
DEBUNKING THE DICTABELT. WHY DON'T YOU GET AN AUDOGRAPH sic?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 20:37:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT A STRANGER ENTERED NOT COULD
HAVE ENTERED. SHOW ME EVIDENCE THAT A STRANGER WAS THERE. YOU CAN'T.
Trying to prove negatives again? YOU are a negative.
MARSH YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF A STRANGER WHO ENTERED
THE TSBD WITH OSWALD'S RIFLE. YOU HAVE ONLY FAKE CONSPIRACY NEWS. YOU ARE
No, I don't.
Post by BOZ
ASSUMING AGAIN. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SHAKE STEVE BARBER'S HAND FOR
DEBUNKING THE DICTABELT. WHY DON'T YOU GET AN AUDOGRAPH sic?
Now you changed the terms. Because you realize you lost last time.
claviger
2018-06-01 00:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
mainframetech
2018-06-02 01:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.

Chris
John McAdams
2018-06-02 01:11:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."

I would be an absurdly risky plan.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-06-03 03:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."
I would be an absurdly risky plan.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Not so absurd. With the motorcade coming, everyone would be at the
windows waiting for the motorcade and not looking behind them for
strangers entering the building. And when leaving, the same thing would
be true. People would be at their windows watching the events unfold
after the shooting. And carrying at least one weapon who would want to
stop them and ask questions? If a car was waiting by the loading dock,
there would be a perfect escape, which was also described in the book.

Interestingly enough, there is also quite a story in a book called "The
Men Who Don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. That book agrees with
the first book as to who was in the TSBD with Mac Wallace, LBJ's known
assassin.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 23:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."
I would be an absurdly risky plan.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Not so absurd. With the motorcade coming, everyone would be at the
Don't play into his hands like that. The CIA thought up plenty of absurd
plans and he can't deny them ALL.
Post by mainframetech
windows waiting for the motorcade and not looking behind them for
strangers entering the building. And when leaving, the same thing would
be true. People would be at their windows watching the events unfold
after the shooting. And carrying at least one weapon who would want to
stop them and ask questions? If a car was waiting by the loading dock,
there would be a perfect escape, which was also described in the book.
Interestingly enough, there is also quite a story in a book called "The
Men Who Don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. That book agrees with
the first book as to who was in the TSBD with Mac Wallace, LBJ's known
assassin.
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-03 03:17:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."
I would be an absurdly risky plan.
Excellent point. How could anyone know in advance that there would be
vacant floors from which the sniper team could operate? Even Oswald didn't
know that but he had only one chance so he gambled and won. Bonnie Ray
Williams might have screwed up his plans if he had stayed on the 6th
floor. It's one of the fascinating what-ifs of the assassination. Would
Oswald have gone ahead with a witness on the floor. It's hard to imagine
he would have any qualms about killing BRW given he killed a cop a short
time later. Or maybe he would have moved to the vacant 7th floor.

A lot of things broke right for Oswald that day. Just having the motorcade
routed past his work place was a remarkable stroke of luck for him. He was
left alone on the 6th floor to do the deed. The weather cleared up
allowing the bubble top to be removed. It wasn't bullet proof but Oswald
wouldn't have known that and might have elected not to take the shot had
it been on the limo.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 23:03:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."
I would be an absurdly risky plan.
Excellent point. How could anyone know in advance that there would be
vacant floors from which the sniper team could operate? Even Oswald didn't
know that but he had only one chance so he gambled and won. Bonnie Ray
Williams might have screwed up his plans if he had stayed on the 6th
floor. It's one of the fascinating what-ifs of the assassination. Would
Oswald have gone ahead with a witness on the floor. It's hard to imagine
he would have any qualms about killing BRW given he killed a cop a short
time later. Or maybe he would have moved to the vacant 7th floor.
A lot of things broke right for Oswald that day. Just having the motorcade
routed past his work place was a remarkable stroke of luck for him. He was
left alone on the 6th floor to do the deed. The weather cleared up
allowing the bubble top to be removed. It wasn't bullet proof but Oswald
wouldn't have known that and might have elected not to take the shot had
it been on the limo.
BTW, the 7th floor was also vacant and rarely used.
A professional might choose the roof.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:39:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
You should be asking "what idiot would *plan* a shooting that involved
getting a team into the Depository and then out again *after* the
shooting without anybody noticing."
And yet some WC defenders think that Oswald was part of a plan and he
got out without anyone noticing.
Post by John McAdams
I would be an absurdly risky plan.
How about the CIA's stupid plans to assassinate Castro?
Exploding sea shell?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-06-03 03:17:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
What idiot would accept the word of a couple authors with absolutely no
corroborating evidence for their tale?
BOZ
2018-06-03 03:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
Chris
PROVE IT. THE MEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR IS A WORK OF FICTION.
mainframetech
2018-06-04 00:10:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
Chris
PROVE IT. THE MEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR IS A WORK OF FICTION.
Prove it! The book does NOT have the typical legal text that is
required on a work of fiction to protect the publishers and authors. The
authors state clearly that the book covers exactly what they experienced
and their dealings with Lawrence Loy Factor, the main witness in the book.

Many have thought that over time there would be some who had
information about the JFK murder, and they would after getting closer to
their death, have a need to let out the story. Factor was very sick and
died near the end of the writing of the book. A dying confession, in
effect. No reason to lie, and no effort to enjoy the attention.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-06-04 22:14:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
Chris
PROVE IT. THE MEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR IS A WORK OF FICTION.
Prove it! The book does NOT have the typical legal text that is
required on a work of fiction to protect the publishers and authors. The
authors state clearly that the book covers exactly what they experienced
and their dealings with Lawrence Loy Factor, the main witness in the book.
Many have thought that over time there would be some who had
information about the JFK murder, and they would after getting closer to
their death, have a need to let out the story. Factor was very sick and
died near the end of the writing of the book. A dying confession, in
effect. No reason to lie, and no effort to enjoy the attention.
Chris
And you *buy* this crap!?!

No wonder you can't figure out one of the simplest murder cases in history.
bigdog
2018-06-06 01:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
Chris
PROVE IT. THE MEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR IS A WORK OF FICTION.
Prove it! The book does NOT have the typical legal text that is
required on a work of fiction to protect the publishers and authors. The
authors state clearly that the book covers exactly what they experienced
and their dealings with Lawrence Loy Factor, the main witness in the book.
Who is conveniently dead. Name one item from that book that the authors
couldn't have made up out of thin air. Name one item from that book that
has corroborating evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Many have thought that over time there would be some who had
information about the JFK murder, and they would after getting closer to
their death, have a need to let out the story. Factor was very sick and
died near the end of the writing of the book. A dying confession, in
effect. No reason to lie, and no effort to enjoy the attention.
I'll bet the authors didn't record him saying any of this in his own
voice. How do you know it isn't the authors who are lying?
mainframetech
2018-06-07 01:04:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
What team of idiots would think of doing that? If for any reason DPD
officers responded quickly and locked the doors then this team of morons
is trapped inside the TSBD with no chance for escape. Did they all plan to
shoot their way out of the building? LHO was lucky because he had no
weapon on him when Baker confronted him. Another DPD with more experience
might have detained him until the search was over.
What idiot would think that a team couldn't get away with entering,
firing and leaving the TSBD unseen? Because it happened and it worked.
Chris
PROVE IT. THE MEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR IS A WORK OF FICTION.
Prove it! The book does NOT have the typical legal text that is
required on a work of fiction to protect the publishers and authors. The
authors state clearly that the book covers exactly what they experienced
and their dealings with Lawrence Loy Factor, the main witness in the book.
Who is conveniently dead. Name one item from that book that the authors
couldn't have made up out of thin air. Name one item from that book that
has corroborating evidence.
Any number of LN witnesses are dead too, so that's no point. However,
I've already pointed out the corroboration in the autobiography "The Men
that Don't Fit in" by Roderick Mackenzie III. There is also corroboration
in that there were 2 men with a gun in the 6th floor window, which matches
the eyewitness accounts of 3 people. So there's 2 matches. Of course, I
could have written the WCR if I was of a mind to. Like any writing from
'history', anyone can make it up.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Many have thought that over time there would be some who had
information about the JFK murder, and they would after getting closer to
their death, have a need to let out the story. Factor was very sick and
died near the end of the writing of the book. A dying confession, in
effect. No reason to lie, and no effort to enjoy the attention.
I'll bet the authors didn't record him saying any of this in his own
voice. How do you know it isn't the authors who are lying?
How do you know the writers of the WCR weren't lying? In the memory of
Factor, the real world matched the statements exactly.

Chris
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-06 01:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.

No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!

Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-06-07 01:01:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:55:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Typical CIA plot.
mainframetech
2018-06-08 01:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 01:42:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Even sillier is seeing the bullet hole in the forehead and claiming that
the shot came from behind.
InsideSparta
2018-06-11 02:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.

On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....

"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.

After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."

There's my proof. Where's yours?
mainframetech
2018-06-12 02:14:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
non-human things. For instance, the chrome bar on top of the windshield:

Loading Image...

Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.

The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!

If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.

To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.

Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
the tail end. The test bullet is CE572:

Loading Image...

Chris
InsideSparta
2018-06-12 21:23:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 14:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
So you dispute simple facts. Google it.
Or take a look at the WC tests. They would never lie to you, would they?
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
Then diagram the path.
If that is the bullet that caused the dent of the chrome topping, what
smasheed in the back of the rearview mirror? And do you also need an
additional bullet to hit the windshield? You never think through the
implications of your guesswork.
Post by InsideSparta
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Yes, like a bucket of water.

BTW, there was NO tumbling.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The bullet hole in the forehead.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
Baloney!
mainframetech
2018-06-13 19:53:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.

The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!

You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.


Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
hole shows:

Loading Image...

Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would \be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.


So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.

It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!

Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?

I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?

Chris
InsideSparta
2018-06-14 23:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
If you can site an example in which an expert in analyzing x-ray photos of
head wounds has reviewed the x-rays and made a valid case that that the
path of the bullet which struck the president's head was from front to
back, then please provide that source. I'm not saying there isn't a
published opinion, only that I have not seen one. Enlighten me.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.
The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!
"No one can see" the bullet hole in the BOH? The three pathologists that
actually examined the body in person saw it, and documented it. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell all testified oath that there was a bullet hole in the
BOH. The review of the photos and x-rays by the HSCA also came to the same
conclusion. Your argument about the path of the bullet fragments is
exactly like the argument CT's used to espouse when discussing the path of
CE399 between it exiting Kennedy's throat and entering Connolly's back
(left turn, right turn in mid-air), which has shown to be a false
argument, as tests in which stand-ins were positioned to align with the
Zapurder film shows that a straight path between Kennedy's throat wound
and Connolly's wounds was not only plausible, the laser trajectory showed
that the path led straight back to the 6th floor window.
Post by mainframetech
You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.
Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
How do you know that the "leaked photo" wasn't somehow manipulated to
eradicate the entry wound in the BOH? I hate playing the Cinque card, but
the HSCA experts reviewed the autopsy photos, and they were satisfied that
the original report was correct in regards to an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would \be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.
Thank you for making my point by stating "saying a bullet did this or that
means nothing unless you have some evidence that shows what happened".
That's exactly your dilemma. You have no real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Provide that bullet. Where is it?
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
So what? Of course there were test bullets. Prove to me that one was
swapped with the bullet found on the gurney.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!
I can point to bullet fragments found in the car that have been proven to
be fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, and that rifle proven to
be owned by Oswald. Where are your bullet fragments?

I have CE399, which was proven to be fired from Oswald's rifle as well.
Where's your pointy bullet?
Post by mainframetech
Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?
I've seen the photo, and it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest.
The original autopsy pathologists found no such bullet hole in the
forehead, nor did the experts that reviewed the photos and x-rays of the
HSCA (which included the biggest critic of the autopsy report, Dr. Cyril
Wecht). Those that see a bullet hole in the forehead are no different than
those that see Badgeman in the Mooreman photo. People will see what they
want to see. Interpretations made from looking at a photo simply cannot
compare with the actual hands on examination that was performed at
Bethesda Medical Center on 11/22/63.
Post by mainframetech
I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:40:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
If you can site an example in which an expert in analyzing x-ray photos of
head wounds has reviewed the x-rays and made a valid case that that the
path of the bullet which struck the president's head was from front to
back, then please provide that source. I'm not saying there isn't a
published opinion, only that I have not seen one. Enlighten me.
Here ya go. The path of the fragments in the head do not line up
correctly to have come from the sniper's nest.The blue line is higher
than the HSCA line in red.

Loading Image...
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.
The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!
"No one can see" the bullet hole in the BOH? The three pathologists that
actually examined the body in person saw it, and documented it. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell all testified oath that there was a bullet hole in the
BOH. The review of the photos and x-rays by the HSCA also came to the same
conclusion. Your argument about the path of the bullet fragments is
exactly like the argument CT's used to espouse when discussing the path of
CE399 between it exiting Kennedy's throat and entering Connolly's back
(left turn, right turn in mid-air), which has shown to be a false
argument, as tests in which stand-ins were positioned to align with the
Zapurder film shows that a straight path between Kennedy's throat wound
and Connolly's wounds was not only plausible, the laser trajectory showed
that the path led straight back to the 6th floor window.
Post by mainframetech
You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.
Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
How do you know that the "leaked photo" wasn't somehow manipulated to
eradicate the entry wound in the BOH? I hate playing the Cinque card, but
the HSCA experts reviewed the autopsy photos, and they were satisfied that
the original report was correct in regards to an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would \be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.
Thank you for making my point by stating "saying a bullet did this or that
means nothing unless you have some evidence that shows what happened".
That's exactly your dilemma. You have no real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Provide that bullet. Where is it?
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
So what? Of course there were test bullets. Prove to me that one was
swapped with the bullet found on the gurney.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!
I can point to bullet fragments found in the car that have been proven to
be fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, and that rifle proven to
be owned by Oswald. Where are your bullet fragments?
In the head.
Post by InsideSparta
I have CE399, which was proven to be fired from Oswald's rifle as well.
Where's your pointy bullet?
Where is your missed shot?
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?
I've seen the photo, and it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest.
The original autopsy pathologists found no such bullet hole in the
forehead, nor did the experts that reviewed the photos and x-rays of the
HSCA (which included the biggest critic of the autopsy report, Dr. Cyril
Wecht). Those that see a bullet hole in the forehead are no different than
those that see Badgeman in the Mooreman photo. People will see what they
want to see. Interpretations made from looking at a photo simply cannot
compare with the actual hands on examination that was performed at
Bethesda Medical Center on 11/22/63.
Post by mainframetech
I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?
Chris
InsideSparta
2018-06-17 01:43:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
If you can site an example in which an expert in analyzing x-ray photos of
head wounds has reviewed the x-rays and made a valid case that that the
path of the bullet which struck the president's head was from front to
back, then please provide that source. I'm not saying there isn't a
published opinion, only that I have not seen one. Enlighten me.
Here ya go. The path of the fragments in the head do not line up
correctly to have come from the sniper's nest.The blue line is higher
than the HSCA line in red.
What's the source of this x-ray diagram? Was is drawn up by someone that
knows what they're talking about; or was it drawn up by you?
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rgbskull.gif
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.
The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!
"No one can see" the bullet hole in the BOH? The three pathologists that
actually examined the body in person saw it, and documented it. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell all testified oath that there was a bullet hole in the
BOH. The review of the photos and x-rays by the HSCA also came to the same
conclusion. Your argument about the path of the bullet fragments is
exactly like the argument CT's used to espouse when discussing the path of
CE399 between it exiting Kennedy's throat and entering Connolly's back
(left turn, right turn in mid-air), which has shown to be a false
argument, as tests in which stand-ins were positioned to align with the
Zapurder film shows that a straight path between Kennedy's throat wound
and Connolly's wounds was not only plausible, the laser trajectory showed
that the path led straight back to the 6th floor window.
Post by mainframetech
You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.
Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
How do you know that the "leaked photo" wasn't somehow manipulated to
eradicate the entry wound in the BOH? I hate playing the Cinque card, but
the HSCA experts reviewed the autopsy photos, and they were satisfied that
the original report was correct in regards to an entry wound in the BOH.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would \be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.
Thank you for making my point by stating "saying a bullet did this or that
means nothing unless you have some evidence that shows what happened".
That's exactly your dilemma. You have no real evidence.
Post by mainframetech
So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Provide that bullet. Where is it?
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
So what? Of course there were test bullets. Prove to me that one was
swapped with the bullet found on the gurney.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!
I can point to bullet fragments found in the car that have been proven to
be fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, and that rifle proven to
be owned by Oswald. Where are your bullet fragments?
In the head.
Post by InsideSparta
I have CE399, which was proven to be fired from Oswald's rifle as well.
Where's your pointy bullet?
Where is your missed shot?
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?
I've seen the photo, and it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest.
The original autopsy pathologists found no such bullet hole in the
forehead, nor did the experts that reviewed the photos and x-rays of the
HSCA (which included the biggest critic of the autopsy report, Dr. Cyril
Wecht). Those that see a bullet hole in the forehead are no different than
those that see Badgeman in the Mooreman photo. People will see what they
want to see. Interpretations made from looking at a photo simply cannot
compare with the actual hands on examination that was performed at
Bethesda Medical Center on 11/22/63.
Post by mainframetech
I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?
Chris
mainframetech
2018-06-16 16:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
If you can site an example in which an expert in analyzing x-ray photos of
head wounds has reviewed the x-rays and made a valid case that that the
path of the bullet which struck the president's head was from front to
back, then please provide that source. I'm not saying there isn't a
published opinion, only that I have not seen one. Enlighten me.
Offhand, I haven't seen that, but I also haven't spent any time
looking for it. You see, I have a valid case that there is a bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area of JFK. It can be seen by most people that
use the instructions to look for it. Given the location of the bullet
wound there, it's clear that the bullet would have to travel through the
brain and the odds are that it would use the path that was discovered by
some X-ray Technicians as if it came from the rear. In other words, the
path could be used for either direction.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.
The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!
"No one can see" the bullet hole in the BOH? The three pathologists that
actually examined the body in person saw it, and documented it. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell all testified oath that there was a bullet hole in the
BOH. The review of the photos and x-rays by the HSCA also came to the same
conclusion. Your argument about the path of the bullet fragments is
exactly like the argument CT's used to espouse when discussing the path of
CE399 between it exiting Kennedy's throat and entering Connolly's back
(left turn, right turn in mid-air), which has shown to be a false
argument, as tests in which stand-ins were positioned to align with the
Zapurder film shows that a straight path between Kennedy's throat wound
and Connolly's wounds was not only plausible, the laser trajectory showed
that the path led straight back to the 6th floor window.
Ah, nothing like 'proof' of something to work on. No problem.
First, we have the 3 prosectors. Remember that I'm a CT, and therefore
think it was a conspiracy. I believe the military pathologists got orders
before the body got to Bethesda to search for and remove any bullets from
the body, and to change the body as much as they could to look more like
it was hit from above and behind. The prosectors were forced to lie about
the results of the autopsy, but fortunately they were not the only ones
present, and I'll show you what was seen by others below. The body was
made to arrive at the morgue 42 minutes earlier than the press and the
family and agents. And they used that time to accomplish their orders.

Next, the hole in the BOH. Well, I will show you a photo supposedly
from the autopsy, that is plenty clear and it will show you the BOH and
you will not find any bullet hole there at all. And the positions that
Boswell and Humes stated were the location of that bullet hole in the BOH
is NOT there. Here's that photo. See if you can find the bullet hole.
Let me know if you do. And here's a hint, it's not the little red spot:

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg

Next, the path of CE399. I don't need to try and follow that path, since
I'm going to show you why the 'Single bullet' theory is just that, a
theory and not a fact. CE399 was said to have hit JFK in the upper back
and then passed through him and came out through a throat wound, and then
hit Connally. It was later found on a gurney at Parkland hospital. Now,
during the autopsy they were removing the organs and could see the pleura
which surrounds the lungs. Here's Paul O'Connor, Technologist, who was an
autopsy team member:

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body. Law: You can be reasonably sure of that? O'Connor:
Absolutely. Law: It was just from the probe then? O'Connor: Oh yes. Law:
And these doctors knew that? O'Connor: Absolutely. Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the EYE of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

The bullet never left the body of JFK. The throat wound was a separate
wound, and Connolly was hit by one or more bullets that may have been
fired at JFK.

The other Technologist, James Jenkins, agrees with O'Connor. Even the
Autopsy Report (AR) says that the "pleura was INTACT", meaning nothing
penetrated it.

There are much more items of proof, but the above gives you the gist
of the situation, and that the SBT wasn't real. It was an invention of
some WC lawyers because there were too many wounds and not enough shells
in the TSBD.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.
Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
How do you know that the "leaked photo" wasn't somehow manipulated to
eradicate the entry wound in the BOH? I hate playing the Cinque card, but
the HSCA experts reviewed the autopsy photos, and they were satisfied that
the original report was correct in regards to an entry wound in the BOH.
There is no Cinque card here. Think what you've said. The plotters
wanted to prove there was a 'lone nut' killer that did the murder. There
absolutely HAD to be a bullet wound in the BOH from the 6th floor of the
TSBD, and Humes and Boswell stated under oath that there was such a bullet
hole there. The problem is that whoever was picking and choosing photos
missed the fact of no bullet hole and 'leaked' the photo as it was.
Instead of showing the medical panels the real photos they showed them
drawings made by Ida Dox, from the photos. Supposedly the family didn't
want anyone to view the real body and wounds. Now get ready to laugh.
Here's the drawing of the photo you just looked at:

Loading Image...

Look closely and you'll note the bullet hole which has magically
appeared in the drawing but isn't in the photo!

If they showed the medical panels that drawing instead of the photo,
anyone would think it was the bullet hole right where Humes said it was!
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.
Thank you for making my point by stating "saying a bullet did this or that
means nothing unless you have some evidence that shows what happened".
That's exactly your dilemma. You have no real evidence.
Incorrect. I have the point in the chrome bar where the bullet slammed
into it. Under the circumstances there isn't anything else that could
cause that dent, and the bullet that hit that spot would indeed fall down
to the front seat mangled.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Provide that bullet. Where is it?
'Please' works well with me. However, as I just got through saying;
that bullet was probably destroyed by the bullet custodian. The CE399 is
in custody as if it were the bullet found on the gurney. Which it was
not.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
So what? Of course there were test bullets. Prove to me that one was
swapped with the bullet found on the gurney.
Where were you when I went all through that? I don't have any
eyewitnesses, but the replacement is the only thing that makes sense when
4 men that had seen the original bullet refused to identify it. 2 of whom
should have carved their initials into it to prove they had had it. And
then to have the exact same thing occur with the Walker bullet. The
bullet no longer looked like it did at the time of the crime.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!
I can point to bullet fragments found in the car that have been proven to
be fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, and that rifle proven to
be owned by Oswald. Where are your bullet fragments?
Proving the fragments are from the MC rifle I agree with. That doesn't
prove that Oswald fired it into the motorcade. I believe the rifle was
used by another person in setting up Oswald.
Post by InsideSparta
I have CE399, which was proven to be fired from Oswald's rifle as well.
Where's your pointy bullet?
You don't really think the guy that did the replacement would keep it
around do you? However, we have the statement of the man who noticed that
the bullet was not the same bullet he had first handled, and 3 other men
that also refused to identify the CE399 bullet. As well, you've been
shown the almost perfect match between a test bullet and the CE399.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?
I've seen the photo, and it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest.
The original autopsy pathologists found no such bullet hole in the
forehead, nor did the experts that reviewed the photos and x-rays of the
HSCA (which included the biggest critic of the autopsy report, Dr. Cyril
Wecht). Those that see a bullet hole in the forehead are no different than
those that see Badgeman in the Mooreman photo. People will see what they
want to see. Interpretations made from looking at a photo simply cannot
compare with the actual hands on examination that was performed at
Bethesda Medical Center on 11/22/63.
I would appreciate your telling me what you saw when you looked at the
'bullet hole'. While it's true that the pathologists did not report the
bullet hole, for obvious reasons, 2 members of the autopsy team did indeed
see the bullet hole and thought it might be from a bullet! One of them
was one of the pathologists, Finck. Here' the interview of Technologist,
James Jenkins:

"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."

From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html



So you see, a pathologist (the more expert one) did indeed see the
bullet hole and thought it might indeed be a bullet hole. But he had
orders to prove something other than death by a frontal bullet wound, so
he had to let it go. It's OK though. I'm sure you didn't know about that
interview.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?
So what did you see when you looked for the bullet hole? I gather you
saw something, but you didn't say what.


Chris
InsideSparta
2018-06-17 20:29:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
And you attained your expertise on interpreting x-rays where?
Don't be silly. I repeat things from experts, or I use physics and
common sense for some things. That includes the knowledge that FMJ
bullets are to stay together to do less damage to soldiers so that more of
them survive in wartime. And that lead bullets are made to expand and
sometimes come apart into small particles in a body. Better chance to
kill an animal, since they are often used for hunting.
If you can site an example in which an expert in analyzing x-ray photos of
head wounds has reviewed the x-rays and made a valid case that that the
path of the bullet which struck the president's head was from front to
back, then please provide that source. I'm not saying there isn't a
published opinion, only that I have not seen one. Enlighten me.
Offhand, I haven't seen that, but I also haven't spent any time
looking for it. You see, I have a valid case that there is a bullet hole
in the forehead/temple area of JFK. It can be seen by most people that
use the instructions to look for it. Given the location of the bullet
wound there, it's clear that the bullet would have to travel through the
brain and the odds are that it would use the path that was discovered by
some X-ray Technicians as if it came from the rear. In other words, the
path could be used for either direction.
So, just to be clear, you're admitting that you cannot provide a single
example in which an expert in analyzing x-rays of head wounds caused by
bullets has made a case that the bullet which struck Kennedy's head
traveled front to back?
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield. One of those fragments was found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the two fragments found in the front area of the car are perfect
to have be the remains of the bullet that struck the presidents head,
especially a shot from behind. The bullet found on the gurney most
definitely had hit something, as it was flattened, and carries the
characteristics of a 6.5mm bullet having pierced soft tissue, then tumbled
and struck flesh while in a tumbling mode.
Well, picture what you've just tried to describe, but in detail. You
are going to assume that the bullet originated in the 6th floor of the
TSBD and was fired downward at 45-60 degrees as per Humes the pathologist.
The bullet then hits the BOH at a spot that no one can see, even though
we have an autopsy photo of the BOH with NO bullet hole in it. The bullet
then blows out the right side of the head of JFK, which send sit on a
trajectory to the side of the limo. I don't know how it got to fire way
up to the top edge of the windshield! Face it. After a bullet comes out
the side of the head, it can't be going forward to the windshield, and it
didn't simply hover in air when leaving the head and turn toward the
forward direction and then politely fall into the front seat. That ;a
coincidence I'd pay to see!
"No one can see" the bullet hole in the BOH? The three pathologists that
actually examined the body in person saw it, and documented it. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell all testified oath that there was a bullet hole in the
BOH. The review of the photos and x-rays by the HSCA also came to the same
conclusion. Your argument about the path of the bullet fragments is
exactly like the argument CT's used to espouse when discussing the path of
CE399 between it exiting Kennedy's throat and entering Connolly's back
(left turn, right turn in mid-air), which has shown to be a false
argument, as tests in which stand-ins were positioned to align with the
Zapurder film shows that a straight path between Kennedy's throat wound
and Connolly's wounds was not only plausible, the laser trajectory showed
that the path led straight back to the 6th floor window.
Ah, nothing like 'proof' of something to work on. No problem.
First, we have the 3 prosectors. Remember that I'm a CT, and therefore
think it was a conspiracy. I believe the military pathologists got orders
before the body got to Bethesda to search for and remove any bullets from
the body, and to change the body as much as they could to look more like
it was hit from above and behind. The prosectors were forced to lie about
the results of the autopsy, but fortunately they were not the only ones
present, and I'll show you what was seen by others below. The body was
made to arrive at the morgue 42 minutes earlier than the press and the
family and agents. And they used that time to accomplish their orders.
You "think" it was a conspiracy and you "believe" the military
pathologists got orders to remove any bullets from the body; but you can't
prove either of those were the case. Correct?
Post by mainframetech
Next, the hole in the BOH. Well, I will show you a photo supposedly
from the autopsy, that is plenty clear and it will show you the BOH and
you will not find any bullet hole there at all. And the positions that
Boswell and Humes stated were the location of that bullet hole in the BOH
is NOT there. Here's that photo. See if you can find the bullet hole.
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Next, the path of CE399. I don't need to try and follow that path, since
I'm going to show you why the 'Single bullet' theory is just that, a
theory and not a fact. CE399 was said to have hit JFK in the upper back
and then passed through him and came out through a throat wound, and then
hit Connally. It was later found on a gurney at Parkland hospital. Now,
during the autopsy they were removing the organs and could see the pleura
which surrounds the lungs. Here's Paul O'Connor, Technologist, who was an
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
And these doctors knew that? O'Connor: Absolutely. Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the EYE of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
The bullet never left the body of JFK. The throat wound was a separate
wound, and Connolly was hit by one or more bullets that may have been
fired at JFK.
The other Technologist, James Jenkins, agrees with O'Connor. Even the
Autopsy Report (AR) says that the "pleura was INTACT", meaning nothing
penetrated it.
There are much more items of proof, but the above gives you the gist
of the situation, and that the SBT wasn't real. It was an invention of
some WC lawyers because there were too many wounds and not enough shells
in the TSBD.
There's no credible evidence of a conspiracy. In order for your theories
and opinions to become fact, there would have had to have been literally
dozens of people involved, from different factions of local, state, and
the federal government (CIA, military, SSA, DPD, DSO, etc. etc.). 54 years
later and no credible evidence of this massive conspiracy has ever come to
surface. It's a fairy tale.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
You have a much better chance to have the bullet be aimed incorrectly
and fired too high, hitting the windshield chrome bar first and after
slamming itself into the metal bar, breaking up and falling straight down
because the chrome bar stopped its forward movement.
Here's the BOH 'leaked' autopsy photo to look at. You can see the
quality is just fine for seeing a bullet hole in the BOH, but no bullet
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/AutopsyBack2_thumb.jpg
Check all the areas that the pathologists tried to guess at where the
bullet entered the BOH. No bullet. But you can see the bullet in the
front of the head at the forehead/temple area clearly in a good quality
photo by simply ENLARGING the photo and looking under the hair hanging
down on the right side.
How do you know that the "leaked photo" wasn't somehow manipulated to
eradicate the entry wound in the BOH? I hate playing the Cinque card, but
the HSCA experts reviewed the autopsy photos, and they were satisfied that
the original report was correct in regards to an entry wound in the BOH.
There is no Cinque card here. Think what you've said. The plotters
wanted to prove there was a 'lone nut' killer that did the murder. There
absolutely HAD to be a bullet wound in the BOH from the 6th floor of the
TSBD, and Humes and Boswell stated under oath that there was such a bullet
hole there. The problem is that whoever was picking and choosing photos
missed the fact of no bullet hole and 'leaked' the photo as it was.
Instead of showing the medical panels the real photos they showed them
drawings made by Ida Dox, from the photos. Supposedly the family didn't
want anyone to view the real body and wounds. Now get ready to laugh.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
Look closely and you'll note the bullet hole which has magically
appeared in the drawing but isn't in the photo!
If they showed the medical panels that drawing instead of the photo,
anyone would think it was the bullet hole right where Humes said it was!
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
You can't prove the fragments came from a bullet that only hit the
interior windshield chrome. On the other hand, we have a shot to the head,
from the rear, causing a bullet to break apart, and fragments of a bullet
that were fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. If you
insist on dismissing that evidence, with absolutely no ballistic evidence
of any other bullet striking the president in the head, then I really can
help you in your delusions.
You just described what you THINK a bullet did with absolutely NO
proof that your guesses were correct. You are left with no proof of your
contentions. Saying a bullet did this or that mean nothing unless you
have some evidence that shows what happened. Now with the bullet hitting
the chrome bar over the windshield, it would be normal for it to break up
and fall down straight to the front seat. With a bullet hitting the BOH
(where there is no hole to prove it) it would go off to the side, and not
forward, hover over the front seat and fall down to it.
Thank you for making my point by stating "saying a bullet did this or that
means nothing unless you have some evidence that shows what happened".
That's exactly your dilemma. You have no real evidence.
Incorrect. I have the point in the chrome bar where the bullet slammed
into it. Under the circumstances there isn't anything else that could
cause that dent, and the bullet that hit that spot would indeed fall down
to the front seat mangled.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
So the simple logic says that bullet couldn't do what you want it to
do, but it could do what I said it did. So perhaps you would need the
help instead of me.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
Where's your "pointy nosed" bullet?
It was a place holder for the test bullet that would implicate Oswald
which became CE399. I'm sure the bullet custodian destroyed it after
doing the replacement with a test bullet.
Provide that bullet. Where is it?
'Please' works well with me. However, as I just got through saying;
that bullet was probably destroyed by the bullet custodian. The CE399 is
in custody as if it were the bullet found on the gurney. Which it was
not.
I could've gotten on my hands and knees and begged you with pretty please
to provide that pointy bullet, and you wouldn't be able to do so. Those
nasty boogie men threw it away.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle. I
didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
This isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. Thus
far, you have no evidence to prove that a bullet other than two fired from
Oswald's MC was ever fired.
The testing of the MC rifle which was done the very next day is part
of the official record. If needed I can get the sworn testimony of
Frazier saying he did that testing. And the testing would leave him with
a certain number of test bullets which is obvious.
So what? Of course there were test bullets. Prove to me that one was
swapped with the bullet found on the gurney.
Where were you when I went all through that? I don't have any
eyewitnesses, but the replacement is the only thing that makes sense when
4 men that had seen the original bullet refused to identify it. 2 of whom
should have carved their initials into it to prove they had had it. And
then to have the exact same thing occur with the Walker bullet. The
bullet no longer looked like it did at the time of the crime.
You don't have any eyewitnesses? Now there's a shock.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Again, you're providing your opinion, without any credible evidence your
fantasy ever occurred.
there is credible evidence in that the same exact problem occurred
with the Walker bullet, which also could NOT be identified by Walker
himself, even though he got a good look at it at his house. Same
situation for the MC rifle bullet. N one would identify it of the 4 men
that had handled it. A nd2 of them were SS agents, who know to mark a
bullet when they handle it as evidence.
It is circumstantial evidence, but beyond coincidence.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing from
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Chris
Rather than try and poke holes in the evidence that both shots that struck
Kennedy and Connolly came from Oswald's MC, produce credible ballistic
evidence that proves they were struck by a bullet fired from a different
weapon, from a location other than the 6th floor SE window of the TSBD. If
you can't do that, just admit you have no credible evidence, and instead
have to hang your hat on your own personal opinions and beliefs.
You have to be joking! You presented NO EVIDENCE of anything and want
me to agree with you that I'm wrong. Does that make any sense to you?
You haven't proved a single thing and you think I'm wrong! Amazing!
I can point to bullet fragments found in the car that have been proven to
be fired from the rifle found on the 6th floor, and that rifle proven to
be owned by Oswald. Where are your bullet fragments?
Proving the fragments are from the MC rifle I agree with. That doesn't
prove that Oswald fired it into the motorcade. I believe the rifle was
used by another person in setting up Oswald.
Well, it was Oswald that was seen on the 6th floor during the lunch break
by Charles Givens. It was Oswald's rifle that was found on the 6th floor
and fired the bullets that produced the fragments found in the limo. No
other strangers were seen in TSBD on the day of the assassination, save
one old guy that needed to use the restroom. If Oswald had chosen to watch
the motorcade from the 5th floor with Jarmin, Williams, and Norman, or
gone outside with the other TSBD employees, then his being set-up by
conspirators to be the fall guy would have been blown out of the water
completely. If Oswald had really been in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the
time of the assassination, and just one additional employee in the
building had chosen to skip the motorcade and had eaten their lunch in
that room, Oswald would have had an alibi. Do you really think the
conspirators that set-up Oswald just simply gambled that there wouldn't be
anyone else in the lunchroom, or that Oswald wouldn't position himself
among other motorcade spectators? Did these evil conspirator really just
get lucky that Oswald chose to ride back to Irving on Thursday to pick-up
curtain rods? When exactly did these conspirators steal Oswald's rifle
from the Paine garage? How did they even know Oswald had a rifle or where
exactly it was being stored?

Hmm. Shooters that nobody sees, firing bullets that nobody can find any
evidence of. That's a hell of a case you have. Good luck actually proving
it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
I have CE399, which was proven to be fired from Oswald's rifle as well.
Where's your pointy bullet?
You don't really think the guy that did the replacement would keep it
around do you? However, we have the statement of the man who noticed that
the bullet was not the same bullet he had first handled, and 3 other men
that also refused to identify the CE399 bullet. As well, you've been
shown the almost perfect match between a test bullet and the CE399.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Does it help if I can show you a bullet hole in the front of the head
of JFK in the forehead/temple area? Or wouldn't you have the courage to
look at it?
I've seen the photo, and it doesn't change my opinion in the slightest.
The original autopsy pathologists found no such bullet hole in the
forehead, nor did the experts that reviewed the photos and x-rays of the
HSCA (which included the biggest critic of the autopsy report, Dr. Cyril
Wecht). Those that see a bullet hole in the forehead are no different than
those that see Badgeman in the Mooreman photo. People will see what they
want to see. Interpretations made from looking at a photo simply cannot
compare with the actual hands on examination that was performed at
Bethesda Medical Center on 11/22/63.
I would appreciate your telling me what you saw when you looked at the
'bullet hole'. While it's true that the pathologists did not report the
bullet hole, for obvious reasons, 2 members of the autopsy team did indeed
see the bullet hole and thought it might be from a bullet! One of them
was one of the pathologists, Finck. Here' the interview of Technologist,
"JAMES JENKINS RECALLS EVIDENCE OF A BULLET HOLE IN THE RIGHT TEMPORAL
AREA, IMMEDIATELY FORWARD OF, AND JUST ABOVE, THE RIGHT EAR: Jenkins
recalled the large posterior hole in JFK’s head, but also recalled
a small (approximately 5 mm in diameter) hole in the right temporal bone,
just forward of and just above the right ear. He saw this quite early in
the autopsy, and recalls that Dr. Finck saw this and commented on it. The
circumference was gray, which suggested to Jenkins the passage of a
bullet. He said that even Dr. Finck speculated that a bullet might have
caused this hole. However, none of the pathologists ever returned to this
site, nor did they discuss it any further."
From: https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/10811.html
So you see, a pathologist (the more expert one) did indeed see the
bullet hole and thought it might indeed be a bullet hole. But he had
orders to prove something other than death by a frontal bullet wound, so
he had to let it go. It's OK though. I'm sure you didn't know about that
interview.
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
I've shown you (above) the photo of the BOH with NO BULLET HOLE in it,
so I can also show you the forehead/temple area with a nice round bullet
hole there. Whaddya say? Want to try it? Or too chicken?
So what did you see when you looked for the bullet hole? I gather you
saw something, but you didn't say what.
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-13 02:26:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
mainframetech
2018-06-14 02:25:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
You might want to apply some thinking to this one. An FMJ bullet
going through a person is supposed to stay together, but when it slams
into a solid metal bar, I think it will wind up looking like CE567 & 569.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
I guess you haven't been listening. It's not a guarantee, but the
odds are in favor of it, rather than trying to get away with a story that
a bullet was fired downward from the 6th floor, Hit a head and was sent
off going out to the side, and quickly made a 90 degree turn and hovered
over the front seat and then flopped down at that point.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
I've given you the circumstantial proof, which is far more than you
have given for a downward bullet going out the side and flopping into the
front seat. You've mentioned a bullet doing impossible things and said
that's proof, which it is not.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Don't forget this little conversation was started from my saying that
you cannot prove that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. And so far,
I'm right.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Amazing how you were able to state that, since the firearms and
pathology experts were unable to say it. And the key point I made
remains, that you cannot prove that ANY MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
The flattening on BOTH the CE399 test bullet, and the CE572 test bullet
were the same. However, a flattening on a bullet does NOT automatically
say that the bullet hit a rib! That's your guess, but there's nothing to
prove that, as I originally said.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-15 14:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
You might want to apply some thinking to this one. An FMJ bullet
going through a person is supposed to stay together, but when it slams
into a solid metal bar, I think it will wind up looking like CE567 & 569.
What does what you think prove?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
I guess you haven't been listening. It's not a guarantee, but the
odds are in favor of it,
So we are expected to PROVE the Carcano bullets went through the two
victims but you are allowed to just GUESS for your theories. Typical of
your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
rather than trying to get away with a story that
a bullet was fired downward from the 6th floor, Hit a head and was sent
off going out to the side, and quickly made a 90 degree turn and hovered
over the front seat and then flopped down at that point.
You have enough trouble trying to explain your scenario, don't bother
trying to explain the one presented by the WC.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
I've given you the circumstantial proof,
So bullet fragments found in the limo the two victims were riding in and a
whole bullet found at the hospital they were taken to is not
circumstantial proof that those bullet passed through the victims but your
guess as to what caused the dent in the chrome bar does constitute
circumstantial proof. More of your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
which is far more than you
have given for a downward bullet going out the side and flopping into the
front seat. You've mentioned a bullet doing impossible things and said
that's proof, which it is not.
There was an entrance wound in the BOH and an exit wound in the parietal
bone. That's what every knowledgeable person has concluded. Ballistic
matching proves that the fragmented bullet found in the limo and the whole
bullet found at Parkland were fired from the rifle found in the TSBD. That
is what most reasonable people would consider "circumstantial proof".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Don't forget this little conversation was started from my saying that
you cannot prove that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. And so far,
I'm right.
I guess when you are the one making the rules you get the outcome you
desire. You demand we PROVE that the recovered bullets went through the
victims but your scenario is valid if somebody else can't disprove it. Is
there no end to the double standards you employ. God forbid you should
ever adhere to the same standards of proof you demand from others.

If you were to adhere to the same standards you try to impose on us, the
burden would be on you to disprove that the recovered bullets went through
the victims. But of course you would never agree to play by your own
rules.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Amazing how you were able to state that, since the firearms and
pathology experts were unable to say it. And the key point I made
remains, that you cannot prove that ANY MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
Bullets flatten out when they strike a hard substance and they flatten at
the part of the bullet that struck the hard substance. Usually that is the
nose of the bullet but not when the bullet tumbles.
Post by mainframetech
The flattening on BOTH the CE399 test bullet, and the CE572 test bullet
were the same.
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
However, a flattening on a bullet does NOT automatically
say that the bullet hit a rib! That's your guess, but there's nothing to
prove that, as I originally said.
No, it indicates the bullet hit something hard enough to flatten it. That
could have been Connally's wrist bone.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 16:28:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
You might want to apply some thinking to this one. An FMJ bullet
going through a person is supposed to stay together, but when it slams
into a solid metal bar, I think it will wind up looking like CE567 & 569.
What does what you think prove?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
I guess you haven't been listening. It's not a guarantee, but the
odds are in favor of it,
So we are expected to PROVE the Carcano bullets went through the two
victims but you are allowed to just GUESS for your theories. Typical of
your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
rather than trying to get away with a story that
a bullet was fired downward from the 6th floor, Hit a head and was sent
off going out to the side, and quickly made a 90 degree turn and hovered
over the front seat and then flopped down at that point.
You have enough trouble trying to explain your scenario, don't bother
trying to explain the one presented by the WC.
YOU speak for the WC? You haven't even read it. You can't even afford to
buy a copy.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
I've given you the circumstantial proof,
So bullet fragments found in the limo the two victims were riding in and a
whole bullet found at the hospital they were taken to is not
circumstantial proof that those bullet passed through the victims but your
It's not proof that CE 399 went through both men.
Post by bigdog
guess as to what caused the dent in the chrome bar does constitute
circumstantial proof. More of your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
which is far more than you
have given for a downward bullet going out the side and flopping into the
front seat. You've mentioned a bullet doing impossible things and said
that's proof, which it is not.
There was an entrance wound in the BOH and an exit wound in the parietal
bone. That's what every knowledgeable person has concluded. Ballistic
False. Show me the path. Do you claim the bullet exited intact?
Post by bigdog
matching proves that the fragmented bullet found in the limo and the whole
bullet found at Parkland were fired from the rifle found in the TSBD. That
is what most reasonable people would consider "circumstantial proof".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Don't forget this little conversation was started from my saying that
you cannot prove that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. And so far,
I'm right.
I guess when you are the one making the rules you get the outcome you
desire. You demand we PROVE that the recovered bullets went through the
victims but your scenario is valid if somebody else can't disprove it. Is
there no end to the double standards you employ. God forbid you should
ever adhere to the same standards of proof you demand from others.
If you were to adhere to the same standards you try to impose on us, the
burden would be on you to disprove that the recovered bullets went through
the victims. But of course you would never agree to play by your own
rules.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Amazing how you were able to state that, since the firearms and
pathology experts were unable to say it. And the key point I made
remains, that you cannot prove that ANY MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
Bullets flatten out when they strike a hard substance and they flatten at
the part of the bullet that struck the hard substance. Usually that is the
nose of the bullet but not when the bullet tumbles.
Post by mainframetech
The flattening on BOTH the CE399 test bullet, and the CE572 test bullet
were the same.
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
However, a flattening on a bullet does NOT automatically
say that the bullet hit a rib! That's your guess, but there's nothing to
prove that, as I originally said.
No, it indicates the bullet hit something hard enough to flatten it. That
could have been Connally's wrist bone.
Or maybe that would smash the bullet into several pieces.
mainframetech
2018-06-16 21:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
You might want to apply some thinking to this one. An FMJ bullet
going through a person is supposed to stay together, but when it slams
into a solid metal bar, I think it will wind up looking like CE567 & 569.
What does what you think prove?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
I guess you haven't been listening. It's not a guarantee, but the
odds are in favor of it,
So we are expected to PROVE the Carcano bullets went through the two
victims but you are allowed to just GUESS for your theories. Typical of
your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
rather than trying to get away with a story that
a bullet was fired downward from the 6th floor, Hit a head and was sent
off going out to the side, and quickly made a 90 degree turn and hovered
over the front seat and then flopped down at that point.
You have enough trouble trying to explain your scenario, don't bother
trying to explain the one presented by the WC.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
I've given you the circumstantial proof,
So bullet fragments found in the limo the two victims were riding in and a
whole bullet found at the hospital they were taken to is not
circumstantial proof that those bullet passed through the victims but your
guess as to what caused the dent in the chrome bar does constitute
circumstantial proof. More of your double standards.
Post by mainframetech
which is far more than you
have given for a downward bullet going out the side and flopping into the
front seat. You've mentioned a bullet doing impossible things and said
that's proof, which it is not.
There was an entrance wound in the BOH and an exit wound in the parietal
bone. That's what every knowledgeable person has concluded. Ballistic
matching proves that the fragmented bullet found in the limo and the whole
bullet found at Parkland were fired from the rifle found in the TSBD. That
is what most reasonable people would consider "circumstantial proof".
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Don't forget this little conversation was started from my saying that
you cannot prove that any MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone. And so far,
I'm right.
I guess when you are the one making the rules you get the outcome you
desire. You demand we PROVE that the recovered bullets went through the
victims but your scenario is valid if somebody else can't disprove it. Is
there no end to the double standards you employ. God forbid you should
ever adhere to the same standards of proof you demand from others.
If you were to adhere to the same standards you try to impose on us, the
burden would be on you to disprove that the recovered bullets went through
the victims. But of course you would never agree to play by your own
rules.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Amazing how you were able to state that, since the firearms and
pathology experts were unable to say it. And the key point I made
remains, that you cannot prove that ANY MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
Bullets flatten out when they strike a hard substance and they flatten at
the part of the bullet that struck the hard substance. Usually that is the
nose of the bullet but not when the bullet tumbles.
Post by mainframetech
The flattening on BOTH the CE399 test bullet, and the CE572 test bullet
were the same.
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
However, a flattening on a bullet does NOT automatically
say that the bullet hit a rib! That's your guess, but there's nothing to
prove that, as I originally said.
No, it indicates the bullet hit something hard enough to flatten it. That
could have been Connally's wrist bone.
A chrome bar will do far more damage than a wrist bone when the bullet
is traveling very slowly near the end of its energy toward the wrist.
For the chrome metal bar, there was no slowdown.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-17 20:30:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Amazing how you were able to state that, since the firearms and
pathology experts were unable to say it. And the key point I made
remains, that you cannot prove that ANY MC type bullet hit or hurt anyone.
Bullets flatten out when they strike a hard substance and they flatten at
the part of the bullet that struck the hard substance. Usually that is the
nose of the bullet but not when the bullet tumbles.
Post by mainframetech
The flattening on BOTH the CE399 test bullet, and the CE572 test bullet
were the same.
Wrong.
Post by mainframetech
However, a flattening on a bullet does NOT automatically
say that the bullet hit a rib! That's your guess, but there's nothing to
prove that, as I originally said.
No, it indicates the bullet hit something hard enough to flatten it. That
could have been Connally's wrist bone.
A chrome bar will do far more damage than a wrist bone when the bullet
is traveling very slowly near the end of its energy toward the wrist.
For the chrome metal bar, there was no slowdown.
Why would you bring the chrome bar into a discussion about the validity of
CE399? Do you think CE399 hit the chrome bar?

Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 19:16:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
And now I'll correct your statement. One of the X-rays shows a path of
tiny particles left in the wake of a bullet that passed through the brain
of JFK. The MC rifle fired FMJ type bullets, which were made not to break
apart in the body for the most part. The path of tiny particles are much
more likely to have been from a lead bullet or other than an FMJ type.
You're ignoring the fact the FMJ Carcone bullet fragmented badly which
pretty much shoots down this argument.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
Yes, but fired on the motorcade doesn't mean anything was hit, except
http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg
You have demanded proof that bullets from the Carcano struck either of the
victims in the limo. So where's your proof a Carcono bullet hit the chrome
bar?
Post by mainframetech
Note that there were 2 fragments (CE567 & 569) that fell into the front
seat area of the limo, which would be perfect to be remains of the bullet
that struck above the windshield.
You're postulating. Where's your proof?
Post by mainframetech
One of those fragments were found to be
from the MC rifle, and I'm sure the other was more of the same bullet.
That removes one of the 3 shells fired from the TSBD. Others have not
been shown to have hit or hurt anyone. The bullet found on a gurney in
the Parkland hospital cannot be proved to have hit anyone. and a third is
missing. So as far as I'm concerned, my statement cannot be proven wrong.
You're statement can't be proven right either.
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
You've supplied proof only of 2 bullets having been fired by the MC
rifle. But you have NOT proven that either of them hit or hurt anyone.
So you're allowed to ASSUME one of them hit the chrome bar but we have to
prove they hit the victims. Typical.
Post by mainframetech
I have long ago accepted that the bullet now labeled CE399 was from the MC
rifle, but it was not the original bullet from the day of the murder.
Where's your proof. Oh, that's right. You aren't require to prove
anything. Only the LNs must do that and they must do that to standards of
proof that aren't required in any other case.
Post by mainframetech
However, there is no proof that that bullet hit or hurt anyone either. I
have also accepted that the fragments in the limo (CE567 & 569) were also
from the MC rifle, But my statement was that no bullet from the MC rifle
hit or hurt anyone, and that no one can prove otherwise.
The bullet on the gurney was grabbed and passed to the bullet
custodian (Robert Frazier) who also was in charge of the testing of the MC
rifle the very next day, where they fired over 65 MC type bullets through
Oswald's MC rifle into various materials. That gave him a large stock of
expended MC bullets from Oswald's rifle. Later, there were complaints
form the public that the bullet in custody was not from the MC rifle, and
so they took it out and showed it to 4 men that hand handled that bullet
on the day of the murder. all 4 refused to identify the bullet, and one
of them even said it was the wrong shape. That the original bullet was
'pointy nosed' and this current bullet was 'round nosed'!
If the goal was to implicate Oswald in firing his rifle into the
motorcade, proving that the bullet that was on the gurney might help in
doing that. I believe the bullet custodian switched the original bullet
for one of the test bullets he had from the testing of the MC rifle.
What you believe and what really happened are parallel lines. They will
never intersect.
Post by mainframetech
I didn't think that at first until I heard that the exact same problem of
identification of the Walker bullet occurred! That bullet was described
by 2 detectives as being STEEL jacketed, but when the bullet custodian
unsealed the Walker evidence box after Dec. 4th, he said the Walker bullet
was suddenly COPPER jacketed! It was described originally as being too
damaged to determine caliber, and match it to a rifle barrel, but later
when the custodian opened the evidence box, the bullet (now Copper
jacketed) was not too damaged to determine caliber, and they had enough
material to match to a barrel, though they didn't do that test.
To me, it's obvious that the bullet custodian was in a perfect
position to substitute his test bullets from the MC rifle for the bullets
in the 2 cases, so that Oswald would be implicated in both cases.
Well since you said it was obvious I guess no proof is needed.
Post by mainframetech
Finally, the supposed gurney bullet (CE399) is shown below next to a
test bullet. They both had a slight bend in the middle and a slight
flattening there too, and they both had a bit of the material missing form
http://grassyknoll.us/sites/default/files/images/Bullets/Test%20Bullets.jpg
Only CE399 has a flattened base which happened when it struck Connally's
bones.
Maybe, but which ones? And maybe it was flattened by hitting something
else. Very similar to Henry Hurt's test bullet fired into a barrel of
water.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-12 13:11:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Even sillier is shooting at JFK from multiple directions and believing you
could blame it on one man.
Well, it worked! Many believed that only 3 shots were fired and all
from one place. Except that you can't prove that anyone was hit or hurt
by an MC type bullet.
Chris
Let me correct your statement. It is YOU who can't prove that anyone was
hit or hurt by a bullet OTHER than one fired from an MC rifle.
Which one? He does not believe the grassy knoll weapon was a Carcano,
but I do. And again, some of the damage is done by FRAGMENTS not
necessarily another bullet. Learn the difference.
Post by InsideSparta
On the other hand, it has been proven that Oswald's MC rifle fired upon
the motorcade.....
"Our experts in the field of firearms identification analyzed the nearly
whole bullet, the two largest fragments and the three cartridge cases to
determine whether they had been fired from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. Two of these experts
testified before the Commission. One was Robert A. Frazier, a special
agent of the FBI assigned to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
Frazier has worked generally in the field of firearms identification for
23 years, examining firearms of various types for the purpose of
identifying the caliber and other characteristics of the weapons and
making comparisons of bullets and cartridge cases for the purpose of
determining whether or not they were fired in a particular weapon. He
estimated that he has made "in the neighborhood of 50,000 to 60,000"
firearms comparisons and has testified in court on about 400 occasions.
The second witness who testified on this subject was Joseph D. Nicol,
superintendent of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation
for the State of Illinois. Nicol also has had long and substantial
experience since 1941 in firearms identification, and estimated that he
has made thousands of bullet and cartridge case examinations.
After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been fired
in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Each of the two bullet fragments had
sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis for an identification.
However, it was not possible to determine whether the two bullet fragments
were from the same bullet or from two different bullets. With regard to
the other bullet fragments discovered in the limousine and in the course
of treating President Kennedy and Governor Connally, however, expert
examination could demonstrate only that the fragments were "similar in
metallic composition" to each other, to the two larger fragments and to
the nearly whole bullet. After examination of the three cartridge cases
found on the sixth floor of the Depository, Frazier and Nicol concluded
that they had been fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons. Two other experts from the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, who made independent examinations of the nearly whole
bullet, bullet fragments and cartridge cases, reached the identical
conclusions."
There's my proof. Where's yours?
Not proof. Opinion. Whose opinion?
What about the fragment removed from Connally which did not match the
other bullets or fragments?
Frazier admitted that the two large fragments could have been from two
different bullets. If they were, then show me the shooting sequence
which could havd produced them. With diagrams.
Or how about the evasion of the issue by the SS saying that the chrome
topping was always dented and not struck by a bullet. Then you may need
a third bullet. Then you have a miss, so now you're up to 4 bullets.
You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. Stop digging yourself in
while you're ahead.
mainframetech
2018-06-07 01:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
I have to admit nothing of the kind! Many here have suggested that
LHO was not in his right mind, yet they are willing to accept that he
fired at the motorcade from the 6th floor window. No reason someone else
couldn't do the same. Note that the POTUS was NOT surrounded by a
security force. They were mostly back in the following limousine. A few
local cops were on motorcycles around the limo, but that wouldn't stop
bullets. And did it occur to you that the intention of shooting from the
6th floor of the TSBD was for the reason of having the people in the
street see it happening so they could point out the location of the killer
so the cops, who could go directly there and kill the 'patsy'? That the
rifle was fired out the window instead of back in the room so that the
rifle was easily seen?


Today's snipers are taught to set up back away from the surrounding
wall or whatever cover they have. It hides the muzzle flash and makes
them harder to hit. It will also muffle the sound of the shots.
Post by d***@gmail.com
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
Except that with everyone out front watching the unfolding drama, it was easy to leave without trouble. The proof is that it worked.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building.
Actually, Oswald was seemingly innocent and would have claimed that when he was stopped, and sooner than later, someone would have vouched for him, as Truly did.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window.
Actually, you will have to face the fact that whether Oswald was the shooter or someone else, they both got away. And you have to face the fact that the story told by Loy Factor fits the facts of the case very well, and can you think of a reason for this guy to come out with a story like he did? Even naming a guy that was LBJ's hit man (Mac Wallace) as the leader of the 'team'?
Post by d***@gmail.com
You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Did it occur to you that the intent was to let the building get sealed (after the shooters left) to keep LHO inside until he was caught and hopefully shot dead? The best thing for the plotters was for Oswald to be dead after the 'big event'. That's why they dispatched Jack Ruby to kill him before he told his side of the story.

Chris
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-08 00:52:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Did it occur to you that the intent was to let the building get sealed (after the shooters left) to keep LHO inside until he was caught and hopefully shot dead? The best thing for the plotters was for Oswald to be dead after the 'big event'. That's why they dispatched Jack Ruby to kill him before he told his side of the story.
Chris
So, explain how that works and how they (those involved in the
assassination plot) planned for such a contingency.

Shots are fired from the TSBD. Pow! Pow! Pow! Many bystanders notice it -
a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. They immediately point toward the
building. "The shots came from there!" they shout. Maybe even one of the
Secret Service agents is convinced the shots came from the TSBD - or any
one of the many police officers. This is not some fantasy or unlikely
occurrence. In fact, this is what I would EXPECT if I were planning this.
I would put this in the category of more-likely-than-not.

How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-06-09 01:20:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Did it occur to you that the intent was to let the building get sealed (after the shooters left) to keep LHO inside until he was caught and hopefully shot dead? The best thing for the plotters was for Oswald to be dead after the 'big event'. That's why they dispatched Jack Ruby to kill him before he told his side of the story.
Chris
So, explain how that works and how they (those involved in the
assassination plot) planned for such a contingency.
Shots are fired from the TSBD. Pow! Pow! Pow! Many bystanders notice it -
a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. They immediately point toward the
building. "The shots came from there!" they shout. Maybe even one of the
Secret Service agents is convinced the shots came from the TSBD - or any
one of the many police officers. This is not some fantasy or unlikely
occurrence. In fact, this is what I would EXPECT if I were planning this.
I would put this in the category of more-likely-than-not.
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
The answer is easy. Remember that humans will pause often when a
monumental event occurs in their neighborhood. In fact, they all kept
looking out their windows and from the front stoop of the building when
the shots rang out and there was commotion in the motorcade with the SS
man (Clint Hill) running forward to the limo, which had almost stopped,
and then the limo taking off. Folks would quickly figure out that shots
had been fired, but they would paused a bit to take it all in, and to
witness anything they could. That moment gives time to escape the
building.

In some ways humans are predictable.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-10 00:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Did it occur to you that the intent was to let the building get sealed (after the shooters left) to keep LHO inside until he was caught and hopefully shot dead? The best thing for the plotters was for Oswald to be dead after the 'big event'. That's why they dispatched Jack Ruby to kill him before he told his side of the story.
Chris
So, explain how that works and how they (those involved in the
assassination plot) planned for such a contingency.
Shots are fired from the TSBD. Pow! Pow! Pow! Many bystanders notice it -
a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. They immediately point toward the
building. "The shots came from there!" they shout. Maybe even one of the
Secret Service agents is convinced the shots came from the TSBD - or any
one of the many police officers. This is not some fantasy or unlikely
occurrence. In fact, this is what I would EXPECT if I were planning this.
I would put this in the category of more-likely-than-not.
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
The answer is easy. Remember that humans will pause often when a
monumental event occurs in their neighborhood. In fact, they all kept
looking out their windows and from the front stoop of the building when
the shots rang out and there was commotion in the motorcade with the SS
man (Clint Hill) running forward to the limo, which had almost stopped,
and then the limo taking off. Folks would quickly figure out that shots
had been fired, but they would paused a bit to take it all in, and to
witness anything they could. That moment gives time to escape the
building.
In some ways humans are predictable.
So are conspiracy hobbyists.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-09 14:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
Did it occur to you that the intent was to let the building get sealed (after the shooters left) to keep LHO inside until he was caught and hopefully shot dead? The best thing for the plotters was for Oswald to be dead after the 'big event'. That's why they dispatched Jack Ruby to kill him before he told his side of the story.
Chris
So, explain how that works and how they (those involved in the
assassination plot) planned for such a contingency.
Shots are fired from the TSBD. Pow! Pow! Pow! Many bystanders notice it -
More bystanders noticed the shot from the grassy knoll. Be careful which
piece of evidence you pick, it may come back to bite you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. They immediately point toward the
They? SHow me our THEY. *I* am the only one who pointed out Euins
pointing to eh sniper's nest.
Post by d***@gmail.com
building. "The shots came from there!" they shout. Maybe even one of the
Who? Give me names.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Secret Service agents is convinced the shots came from the TSBD - or any
Wow, so what? You want to play cherry pick your favorite witness?
Post by d***@gmail.com
one of the many police officers. This is not some fantasy or unlikely
Baker KNEW that shots came from the TSBD, that's why he parked his cycle
and ran in there.
Post by d***@gmail.com
occurrence. In fact, this is what I would EXPECT if I were planning this.
If you could plan anything. Would you plan to put a bomb in a sea shell?
Post by d***@gmail.com
I would put this in the category of more-likely-than-not.
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-11 02:07:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?

Loading Image...

You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-06-12 02:12:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-13 02:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
mainframetech
2018-06-14 02:27:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
Could be Oswald wasn't anywhere but at the 2nd floor lunchroom through
all the trouble outside. You assumed that he was on the 6th floor, but he
wasn't firing a rifle, so he could be anywhere.


We know that Officer Baker and Truly saw Oswald in the 'foyer' to the
lunch room on the second floor, so if Oswald was somewhere else in the
building, he certainly got back in time to meet those 2.


The "shooting team" is not mine, it is from Collum and Sample, the
authors of the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor". It's their team. As to
their escape, for all we know they heard some people down the stairs and
they waited on the third floor of the stairs, and when the talking went
away, they proceeded down the stairs and out the back loading dock door.
Stranger things have happened, as per the WCR. A fellow named Richard
Carr may have seen Mac Wallace going out to the street from the loading
dock area.

You might find this interesting:

"34.Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he
saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104)

35.Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did
testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court
in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving
charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the
transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later
saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106)
Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses
were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan
sport coat.(108) As the man ran, he was continually looking over his
shoulder as though he was being followed."

From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscawtns.htm#tsbd

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-15 14:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
Could be Oswald wasn't anywhere but at the 2nd floor lunchroom through
all the trouble outside. You assumed that he was on the 6th floor, but he
wasn't firing a rifle, so he could be anywhere.
No, there is ample proof that he was on the 6th floor firing the shots
that killed JFK. There is almost as much proof of that as there is that
JFK was killed.
Post by mainframetech
We know that Officer Baker and Truly saw Oswald in the 'foyer' to the
lunch room on the second floor, so if Oswald was somewhere else in the
building, he certainly got back in time to meet those 2.
Yes he did. He had just enough time to arrive on the second floor just
before Truly and Baker got there. This is nothing more than an educated
guess but it is my belief Oswald intended to just continue down the stairs
to the ground floor but ducked into the lunchroom when he heard Truly and
Baker racing up the stairs. He tried to escape detection but an alert
Baker spotted him.
Post by mainframetech
The "shooting team" is not mine, it is from Collum and Sample, the
authors of the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor".
I thought you had bought into their story or are you now throwing them
under the bus?
Post by mainframetech
It's their team. As to
their escape, for all we know they heard some people down the stairs and
they waited on the third floor of the stairs, and when the talking went
away, they proceeded down the stairs and out the back loading dock door.
Stranger things have happened, as per the WCR. A fellow named Richard
Carr may have seen Mac Wallace going out to the street from the loading
dock area.
So now maybes are good enough for you. No evidence necessary. That's good
because you have no evidence for the things you believe.
Post by mainframetech
"34.Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he
saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104)
35.Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did
testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court
in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving
charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the
transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later
saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106)
Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses
were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan
sport coat.(108) As the man ran, he was continually looking over his
shoulder as though he was being followed."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscawtns.htm#tsbd
Witnesses claiming they saw something do not by themselves establish that
what they said really happened. You have presented two different stories
give by Carr. In one he said he saw someone on the top floor and by 1969,
he had moved it to the fifth floor. It seems he was enhancing his story.
That doesn't do much for the credibility of either version.
mainframetech
2018-06-16 16:16:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
Could be Oswald wasn't anywhere but at the 2nd floor lunchroom through
all the trouble outside. You assumed that he was on the 6th floor, but he
wasn't firing a rifle, so he could be anywhere.
No, there is ample proof that he was on the 6th floor firing the shots
that killed JFK. There is almost as much proof of that as there is that
JFK was killed.
Please list off the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the
shots rang out. The only thing that tried to put Oswald in the 6th floor
window was Howard Brennan and we've dealt with him and his phony
statements. No one else identified Oswald there.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We know that Officer Baker and Truly saw Oswald in the 'foyer' to the
lunch room on the second floor, so if Oswald was somewhere else in the
building, he certainly got back in time to meet those 2.
Yes he did. He had just enough time to arrive on the second floor just
before Truly and Baker got there. This is nothing more than an educated
guess but it is my belief Oswald intended to just continue down the stairs
to the ground floor but ducked into the lunchroom when he heard Truly and
Baker racing up the stairs. He tried to escape detection but an alert
Baker spotted him.
I agree. Imagination.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The "shooting team" is not mine, it is from Collum and Sample, the
authors of the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor".
I thought you had bought into their story or are you now throwing them
under the bus?
Nope. They've provided much needed info that fits with a lot of other
stuff for me. I don't have a smoking gun yet, but it may come along.
For now they're a maybe. Same for "The Men that didn't Fit in".
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's their team. As to
their escape, for all we know they heard some people down the stairs and
they waited on the third floor of the stairs, and when the talking went
away, they proceeded down the stairs and out the back loading dock door.
Stranger things have happened, as per the WCR. A fellow named Richard
Carr may have seen Mac Wallace going out to the street from the loading
dock area.
So now maybes are good enough for you. No evidence necessary. That's good
because you have no evidence for the things you believe.
Now don't go off being ridiculous! Plenty of evidence, but not a
smoking gun. Certainly better than the WCR though.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"34.Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he
saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104)
35.Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did
testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court
in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving
charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the
transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later
saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106)
Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses
were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan
sport coat.(108) As the man ran, he was continually looking over his
shoulder as though he was being followed."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscawtns.htm#tsbd
Witnesses claiming they saw something do not by themselves establish that
what they said really happened. You have presented two different stories
give by Carr. In one he said he saw someone on the top floor and by 1969,
he had moved it to the fifth floor. It seems he was enhancing his story.
That doesn't do much for the credibility of either version.
I presented one story from Carr. It was mentioned in 2 different
places, and I wanted to get in the part of the heavy black glasses:

Loading Image...

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-17 20:30:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
Could be Oswald wasn't anywhere but at the 2nd floor lunchroom through
all the trouble outside. You assumed that he was on the 6th floor, but he
wasn't firing a rifle, so he could be anywhere.
No, there is ample proof that he was on the 6th floor firing the shots
that killed JFK. There is almost as much proof of that as there is that
JFK was killed.
Please list off the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the
shots rang out. The only thing that tried to put Oswald in the 6th floor
window was Howard Brennan and we've dealt with him and his phony
statements. No one else identified Oswald there.
Write it down this time so you don't have to keep asking. His rifle was
found on the 6th floor. Shells from his rifle were found at the location
where witnesses saw the gunman. The only bullets recovered were matched to
his rifle. His palm print was on his rifle. Fibers matching his shirt were
on his rifle. His fingerprints were found at the location where the
witnesses saw the shooter oriented in the way the shooter would have left
them. His fingerprints were on a bag that was long enough to hold this
disassembled rifle and his palm print was on the barrel of the rifle in a
place it could only have been left if the rifle had been disassembled. An
eyewitness IDed him as the shooter. I realize that is a lot for you to
absorb but when you add it all up it leaves no doubt Oswald was the
shooter. Only in a fantasy world could all that evidence be pointing to
his guilt if he were actually innocent. Here's were you counter with
excuses to dismiss each and every one of those damning pieces of evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We know that Officer Baker and Truly saw Oswald in the 'foyer' to the
lunch room on the second floor, so if Oswald was somewhere else in the
building, he certainly got back in time to meet those 2.
Yes he did. He had just enough time to arrive on the second floor just
before Truly and Baker got there. This is nothing more than an educated
guess but it is my belief Oswald intended to just continue down the stairs
to the ground floor but ducked into the lunchroom when he heard Truly and
Baker racing up the stairs. He tried to escape detection but an alert
Baker spotted him.
I agree. Imagination.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The "shooting team" is not mine, it is from Collum and Sample, the
authors of the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor".
I thought you had bought into their story or are you now throwing them
under the bus?
Nope. They've provided much needed info that fits with a lot of other
stuff for me. I don't have a smoking gun yet, but it may come along.
For now they're a maybe. Same for "The Men that didn't Fit in".
So you're still groping for the right answer 54 and a half years later.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's their team. As to
their escape, for all we know they heard some people down the stairs and
they waited on the third floor of the stairs, and when the talking went
away, they proceeded down the stairs and out the back loading dock door.
Stranger things have happened, as per the WCR. A fellow named Richard
Carr may have seen Mac Wallace going out to the street from the loading
dock area.
So now maybes are good enough for you. No evidence necessary. That's good
because you have no evidence for the things you believe.
Now don't go off being ridiculous! Plenty of evidence, but not a
smoking gun. Certainly better than the WCR though.
The WCR listed real evidence. Not the make believe stuff you buy into.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
"34.Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he
saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104)
35.Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did
testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court
in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving
charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the
transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later
saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106)
Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses
were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan
sport coat.(108) As the man ran, he was continually looking over his
shoulder as though he was being followed."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscawtns.htm#tsbd
Witnesses claiming they saw something do not by themselves establish that
what they said really happened. You have presented two different stories
give by Carr. In one he said he saw someone on the top floor and by 1969,
he had moved it to the fifth floor. It seems he was enhancing his story.
That doesn't do much for the credibility of either version.
I presented one story from Carr. It was mentioned in 2 different
http://jfktruth.org/mac-1951.gif
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 16:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Which means that Oswald would have had time to reach the second floor
lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. He had less distance to cover than
your imaginary shooting team did to escape down the back stairs before
Baker and Truly reached those stairs while Baker and Truly would have had
farther to go to encounter Oswald than they would have to encounter your
shooters who had to descend all the way to the first floor.
Could be Oswald wasn't anywhere but at the 2nd floor lunchroom through
all the trouble outside. You assumed that he was on the 6th floor, but he
wasn't firing a rifle, so he could be anywhere.
No, there is ample proof that he was on the 6th floor firing the shots
that killed JFK. There is almost as much proof of that as there is that
JFK was killed.
None.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
We know that Officer Baker and Truly saw Oswald in the 'foyer' to the
lunch room on the second floor, so if Oswald was somewhere else in the
building, he certainly got back in time to meet those 2.
Yes he did. He had just enough time to arrive on the second floor just
Why "just"? You are boxing yourself into a corner. Say "ample."
Post by bigdog
before Truly and Baker got there. This is nothing more than an educated
guess but it is my belief Oswald intended to just continue down the stairs
to the ground floor but ducked into the lunchroom when he heard Truly and
Silly. He was on his way to get a Coke. Baker saw Oswald with a Coke.
Unless you say Oswald had the Coke all the time. And ran down the
strairs with it.
Post by bigdog
Baker racing up the stairs. He tried to escape detection but an alert
Baker spotted him.
Actually a very alert Baker spotted the door closing automatically and
followed that clue.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
The "shooting team" is not mine, it is from Collum and Sample, the
authors of the book "The Men on the Sixth Floor".
I thought you had bought into their story or are you now throwing them
under the bus?
Post by mainframetech
It's their team. As to
their escape, for all we know they heard some people down the stairs and
they waited on the third floor of the stairs, and when the talking went
away, they proceeded down the stairs and out the back loading dock door.
Stranger things have happened, as per the WCR. A fellow named Richard
Carr may have seen Mac Wallace going out to the street from the loading
dock area.
So now maybes are good enough for you. No evidence necessary. That's good
because you have no evidence for the things you believe.
Post by mainframetech
"34.Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he
saw a man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104)
35.Carr was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. He did
testify on February 19, 1969 in the Parish County Criminal District Court
in New Orleans in State of Louisiana v. Clay L. Shaw, a case involving
charges of conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the
transcript of his testimony, Carr stated that he saw the man in the fifth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.(105) He said he later
saw the man going down Houston Street; turning at Commerce Street.(106)
Carr also described the hat worn by the man as felt and said his glasses
were heavy-rimmed with heavy ear pieces.(107) He had on a tie and a tan
sport coat.(108) As the man ran, he was continually looking over his
shoulder as though he was being followed."
From: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscawtns.htm#tsbd
Witnesses claiming they saw something do not by themselves establish that
what they said really happened. You have presented two different stories
So why do you rely on one witness would said he saw Oswald in the
sniper's nest?
Post by bigdog
give by Carr. In one he said he saw someone on the top floor and by 1969,
he had moved it to the fifth floor. It seems he was enhancing his story.
That doesn't do much for the credibility of either version.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-13 20:01:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
I doubt seriously that there were any fake SS agents planted in the
So do I, but some didhonest people ask HOW it could be done and then
when I tell them HOW it could be done they claim that I said that is
HOW I said it WAS done.
Post by mainframetech
TSBD or at the front stoop. In the murder there were many people looking
out their windows or standing on the street, or on the TSBD stoop. When
shooters fired into the motorcade, the effect was that people would look
at what events were transpiring while the shooters were making their way
down the stairs and out the back loading dock door, where they had a car
parked. They had enough time to do that before anyone came into the
building looking for a murderer.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-12 13:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
You have some type of learning disability where you can't understand the
difference between what is possible and what actually happened. I never
said actually happened so stop putting words in my mouth to win an
argument dishonestly. Try to learn to debate honestly.

You asked how it could be done. So I gave you an example. I did not say
that actually happened.

You have no grounds to claim that SS agents could NEVER be on the ground.
Officer Smith assumed the man on the grassy knoll really was assigned to
be on the ground. It didn't look suspicious to him.
Post by d***@gmail.com
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
You have no basis to ASSuME those things to be true.
Post by d***@gmail.com
you control that your "dirty cop" is just where he needs to be? And how
If the cop really is dirty, you control him and you tell him to be waiting
at the TSBD to let the real killers out and kill Oswald. I did not even
mention fake cops. I do not believe in Badge Man, but I know that two fake
cops got into a museum in Boston and stole paintings. I myself had a real
Boston Police uniform and could have done it. But again you don't
understand English so you'll claim I was the one who did it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
does he stop the building from being sealed off when dozens of people are
pointing directly at the building - just like they did during the MLK
SHOW me the dozens. You are making up crap after you've lost the
argument. I showed you the frame of Euins pointing to the sniper's nest.
Euins is not dozens.
Post by d***@gmail.com
assassination? Even if it were not sealed off, how are these assassins
(ostensibly, not Oswald) going to prevent from being noticed by TSBD
employees?
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/gty_mlk_assassination_kb_130403_wmain.jpg
You can't see how incredibly risky this with too many variables that would
need to be controlled?
Can't you read? Can't you read the Inspector General's Report on the CIA
plots to assassinate Castro? Some of those were incredibly risky and did
not work. That didn't stop the CIA from trying them.

Tell me the name of the man who hid a bomb inside a fake camera and blew
up the leader of the Afghan resistance Ahmad Shah Massoud.

Do you remember the assassination of bin Laden? Several things went wrong
with that PERECT plan, but they overcame the problems and were successful.

Remember the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand? That plan was not so
perfect and it failed, but the mastermind stuck around and got lucky and
finished the job.

You know absolutely nothing about assassinations. That is why you are
posting in an assassination newsgroup.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-13 02:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
You have some type of learning disability where you can't understand the
difference between what is possible and what actually happened. I never
said actually happened so stop putting words in my mouth to win an
argument dishonestly. Try to learn to debate honestly.
I'm simply responding to my invitation for somebody to suggest HOW the
Depository could be prevented from being immediately sealed off IF it
became obvious where the source of the shots came from - which I said
would HAVE to be a reasonable consideration for any 6th floor shooter who
harbored any hope of taking multiple shots from an open window and NOT be
noticed.

You offered what I assume was intended to be a plausible answer to my
hypothetical: "Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare
people away. Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the
back."

Fair enough. We're both dealing in hypotheticals. I thought that was
obvious on both our parts. It's a thought experiment that forces us to
consider what is possible or even reasonable.

I suggested that it was POSSIBLE that the source of the shots could have
been very obvious - like in the case of the MLK assassination where
everybody was pointing in the same direction. Apparently, the area of the
Lorraine Motel was no "echo chamber".

I doubt this "team of assassins" did an acoustical study of Dealey Plaza
and was counting on the confusion.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You asked how it could be done. So I gave you an example. I did not say
that actually happened.
I realize that. But do you think your example is plausible - or even
remotely possible? If not, why engage yourself in the discussion?
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no grounds to claim that SS agents could NEVER be on the ground.
Officer Smith assumed the man on the grassy knoll really was assigned to
be on the ground. It didn't look suspicious to him.
It didn't look suspicious to Officer Smith because, probably like most
people, they do not realize that the Secret Service presidential
protection division does not protect the president in that manner. In
fact, probably most people think it would be perfectly reasonable to
expect Secret Service agents all along the presidential motorcade route
... and they would be absolutely WRONG.

In any case, this encounter of Officer Smith's was not at the entrance of
the TSBD. Officer Smith's intention was not to enter the TSBD.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
You have no basis to ASSuME those things to be true.
I don't have to assume anything. The policy and procedures of the Secret
Service would NOT have involved placing a Secret Service agent in this
area. Besides, if a Secret Service agent WAS in this area (for his
encounter with Officer Smith) it would be very easy to determine WHO that
agent was.

1) We know all the Secret Service agents who were assigned to the Texas trip.
2) It would be easy to determine what each of their assignments were.
3) It would be easy to determine if they were located where they were
assigned via witnesses.
4) Was there an unaccounted for Secret Service agent? Not that I know of.

So, using a fake Secret Service agent would be very stupid as part of the
assassination machinations because it would tend to REVEAL a coordinated
conspiracy - the LAST thing they would have wanted.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Tell me the name of the man who hid a bomb inside a fake camera and blew
up the leader of the Afghan resistance Ahmad Shah Massoud.
Do you remember the assassination of bin Laden? Several things went wrong
with that PERECT plan, but they overcame the problems and were successful.
Remember the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand? That plan was not so
perfect and it failed, but the mastermind stuck around and got lucky and
finished the job.
I'm perfectly aware that there have been sloppily-planned assassination
plots that worked. Are you suggesting that the assassination of Kennedy is
an example of a sloppy plot that just happened to work? Because, from what
I can tell from all these varied conspiracy theories, they all seem quite
complex ... not just the shooting itself, but the preparation
(sheep-dipping of Oswald) and the cover-up ... planting evidence, altering
evidence, producing fraudulent evidence, tampering with evidence, swapping
out evidence, intimidating witnesses, etc.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know absolutely nothing about assassinations. That is why you are
posting in an assassination newsgroup.
Did you really just say that? Hell, you practically LIVE here. I come and
go - sometimes not posting for as much as MONTHS at a time. You post here
more often than you have bowel movements.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 14:50:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
How do you PREVENT the building from being immediately sealed off? How do
you prevent security forces from storming the building in an instant? How
could you make sure that didn't happen?
Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare people away.
Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the back.
Is there any evidence that the REASON the Depository wasn't immediately
sealed off is BECAUSE of planted fake Secret Service agents (which is
You have some type of learning disability where you can't understand the
difference between what is possible and what actually happened. I never
said actually happened so stop putting words in my mouth to win an
argument dishonestly. Try to learn to debate honestly.
I'm simply responding to my invitation for somebody to suggest HOW the
Depository could be prevented from being immediately sealed off IF it
became obvious where the source of the shots came from - which I said
would HAVE to be a reasonable consideration for any 6th floor shooter who
harbored any hope of taking multiple shots from an open window and NOT be
noticed.
You offered what I assume was intended to be a plausible answer to my
hypothetical: "Plant fake SS agents or dirty cops in the entrance to scare
people away. Block the front entrance so that your crew can sneak out the
back."
Plausible, not what actually happened.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Fair enough. We're both dealing in hypotheticals. I thought that was
obvious on both our parts. It's a thought experiment that forces us to
consider what is possible or even reasonable.
Sometimes it helps to understand what might happen in other situations.
Like the two fake Boston Policemen who robbed the Museum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I suggested that it was POSSIBLE that the source of the shots could have
been very obvious - like in the case of the MLK assassination where
everybody was pointing in the same direction. Apparently, the area of the
Lorraine Motel was no "echo chamber".
Yes, almost all of them. Not hundreds, not dozens. You are not required
to remember the exact number or their names.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I doubt this "team of assassins" did an acoustical study of Dealey Plaza
and was counting on the confusion.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You asked how it could be done. So I gave you an example. I did not say
that actually happened.
I realize that. But do you think your example is plausible - or even
remotely possible? If not, why engage yourself in the discussion?
Plausible and maybe used in another crime.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no grounds to claim that SS agents could NEVER be on the ground.
Officer Smith assumed the man on the grassy knoll really was assigned to
be on the ground. It didn't look suspicious to him.
It didn't look suspicious to Officer Smith because, probably like most
people, they do not realize that the Secret Service presidential
protection division does not protect the president in that manner. In
He did not say what the ID was. There was a Secret Service agent in
Dallas days before to plan the route.
Post by d***@gmail.com
fact, probably most people think it would be perfectly reasonable to
expect Secret Service agents all along the presidential motorcade route
... and they would be absolutely WRONG.
Some people might assume that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In any case, this encounter of Officer Smith's was not at the entrance of
the TSBD. Officer Smith's intention was not to enter the TSBD.
Could have been. That is where Smith was headed.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
immediately suspect since SS Agents wouldn't be along the motorcade route
for the purposes of protecting the president) or a dirty cop? No! How can
You have no basis to ASSuME those things to be true.
I don't have to assume anything. The policy and procedures of the Secret
Service would NOT have involved placing a Secret Service agent in this
area. Besides, if a Secret Service agent WAS in this area (for his
WE know that. The average cop would not.
Post by d***@gmail.com
encounter with Officer Smith) it would be very easy to determine WHO that
agent was.
No. He would not have to give his name.
Post by d***@gmail.com
1) We know all the Secret Service agents who were assigned to the Texas trip.
2) It would be easy to determine what each of their assignments were.
3) It would be easy to determine if they were located where they were
assigned via witnesses.
4) Was there an unaccounted for Secret Service agent? Not that I know of.
The HSCA already considered all that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, using a fake Secret Service agent would be very stupid as part of the
assassination machinations because it would tend to REVEAL a coordinated
conspiracy - the LAST thing they would have wanted.
It would work for the brief moment.
The fake SS agent helped them search the cars.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Tell me the name of the man who hid a bomb inside a fake camera and blew
up the leader of the Afghan resistance Ahmad Shah Massoud.
Do you remember the assassination of bin Laden? Several things went wrong
with that PERECT plan, but they overcame the problems and were successful.
Remember the Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand? That plan was not so
perfect and it failed, but the mastermind stuck around and got lucky and
finished the job.
I'm perfectly aware that there have been sloppily-planned assassination
plots that worked. Are you suggesting that the assassination of Kennedy is
an example of a sloppy plot that just happened to work? Because, from what
Sure. Trying to frame Oswald with a piece of junk rifle.
Having to take the insurance shot from the grassy knoll. Dead giveaways.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I can tell from all these varied conspiracy theories, they all seem quite
complex ... not just the shooting itself, but the preparation
(sheep-dipping of Oswald) and the cover-up ... planting evidence, altering
evidence, producing fraudulent evidence, tampering with evidence, swapping
out evidence, intimidating witnesses, etc.
Don't confuse the conspiracy to murder with the conspiracy to cover up.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
You know absolutely nothing about assassinations. That is why you are
posting in an assassination newsgroup.
Did you really just say that? Hell, you practically LIVE here. I come and
go - sometimes not posting for as much as MONTHS at a time. You post here
more often than you have bowel movements.
Well, maybe you have not been here long enough. How far back can you
remember?

Can you remember when I didn't post for several hours? Windows update.
Luckily today's update took only 15 minutes.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 13:40:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Which does not prove that no stranger was in the building. While
everyone was watching the motorcade, shooters could have come in through
the loading ramp door and up the back stairs to the 6th floor. They could
have left the same way while everyone was watching the drama in the
street.
Chris
You have to admit, no rational person would harbor the realistic
possibility of a clean escape when shooting the President of the United
You say that without ever doing ANY real research and studying other
assassinations or attempts. Like MLK or Chen.
Sometimes the shooter gets away. If you think Oswald was the shooter, he
got away.
The police let him go.
Post by d***@gmail.com
States from an open window on the 6th floor of a building overlooking the
motorcade route while the president was surrounded with an intense
security force along with the many potential bystanders who could point
out the source of the shots.
Security that did nothing to protect him.
Post by d***@gmail.com
No matter what precautions one might take - no matter how sly you think
you may be - you would HAVE to know that you had less-than-50% chance of
escaping that building. That is far too risky!
All you have is guessing, never any references.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Even Oswald was caught within 90 seconds. If it weren't for a stroke of
tremendous luck, he would've never gotten out of the building. I'm
convinced that Oswald probably had a very fatalistic view about how this
JFK had a fatalistic view about being shot from an office building.
Post by d***@gmail.com
was going to play out for him - and he wasn't exactly the sharpest tool in
the shed. A more sophisticated group of assassins would CERTAINLY
recognize the improbability of getting out of the building after doing
something so brazen from an open and highly visible window. You would
simply HAVE to expect that you would be noticed and the building sealed
off immediately. Now, I realize that didn't happen, but you couldn't have
predicted that nor counted upon it.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Amy Joyce
2018-06-01 20:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.

This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
BOZ
2018-06-02 17:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
AMY WHAT IS CHEERY PICKING? HAPPY AND OPTIMISTIC?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:39:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
AMY WHAT IS CHEERY PICKING? HAPPY AND OPTIMISTIC?
Selection Bias. Don't play stupid.
Amy Joyce
2018-06-04 01:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
AMY WHAT IS CHEERY PICKING? HAPPY AND OPTIMISTIC?
"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete
evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to
confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of
related cases or data that may contradict that position.

It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of
which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed
intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in
public debate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Jason Burke
2018-06-04 22:14:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
AMY WHAT IS CHEERY PICKING? HAPPY AND OPTIMISTIC?
"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete
evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to
confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of
related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of
which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed
intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in
public debate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
Seriously!?!

Why am I not surprised that one of the CT crowd has no reading
comprehension ability?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 23:43:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be. They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear. In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
AMY WHAT IS CHEERY PICKING? HAPPY AND OPTIMISTIC?
"Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies.
Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete
evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to
confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of
related cases or data that may contradict that position.
It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of
which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed
intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in
public debate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
I liked the hearings where they would publically identify who was going to
testify so they copuld be bumped off by the mob. Ah, the good old days.
Now, Trump doesn't even know which mistress is testifying in secret today.
bigdog
2018-06-03 03:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Jason Burke
2018-06-03 22:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Why doesn't Ralphie-boy post as himself anymore?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 23:49:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Why doesn't Ralphie-boy post as himself anymore?
Are you claiming that he posts with an alias? It is against the rules to
claim that someone is using an alias.
Jason Burke
2018-06-05 20:48:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Why doesn't Ralphie-boy post as himself anymore?
Are you claiming that he posts with an alias? It is against the rules to
Now just where did I say that?

If I may use one of your favorite sayings... You just ASSumed that.

Better check for monsters under the bed again.
Post by Anthony Marsh
claim that someone is using an alias.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:56:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
Why doesn't Ralphie-boy post as himself anymore?
Are you claiming that he posts with an alias? It is against the rules to
Now just where did I say that?
"as himself."
Post by Jason Burke
If I may use one of your favorite sayings... You just ASSumed that.
English.
Post by Jason Burke
Better check for monsters under the bed again.
I like that new commercial where there really is a monster under the
bead, checking for bad wiring.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
claim that someone is using an alias.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 23:03:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by BOZ
https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=TSBD+NO+STRANGER+RECLAIMING+HISTORY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKn93-nqTbAhXEq1kKHZuwBl4Q6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=DANNY%20ARCE&f=false
Don't forget that the WC is infamous for cheery picking their witnesses.
By cherry picking witnesses, do you mean they resolved the conflicts among
the witnesses. The alternative would be to accept everything every witness
said, even if the varying accounts were mutually exclusive. Does that
approach make any sense?
Post by Amy Joyce
Arguably a direct result of being told beforehand what their conclusion
should be.
You can argue anything you want. When you rely on actual evidence, your
choices become much more limited.
Post by Amy Joyce
They only called for testimony from people they already knew
would say what they wanted to hear.
Nonsense. They had a record of what the witnesses had said. The called
witnesses to testify whom they judged would have something to contribute.
Post by Amy Joyce
In this case and for the record, they
only asked employees they already knew would say that they didn't notice
any strangers. Anyone that saw a stranger wasn't asked or wasn't even
called to testify.
Who saw a stranger?
Post by Amy Joyce
This is a great example of what occurs during bias hearings that have
absolutely no oversight or opposing representation.
The Warren Commission was not an adversarial process. It was a fact
finding body. They found the facts. Sorry if you don't like them.
False. They were a cover-up.
If you don't like witnesses, don't cite them.
Loading...