David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) David, I will not be drawn in this thread to discussing in details the Walker note, I asked you questions in the hope of furthering my understanding of the note. In a separate diary I'll post what I know about the note. Before I do so, I had hoped to have the benefit of your knowledge. I'm sure your knowledge concerning "the Walker note" is much more extensive and detailed than my own. I know the basic facts regarding the note, however. And those basic facts indicate that Marina Oswald found the note (with a post office key on the top of it) in Lee's "study" (i.e., closet) at the Neely Street apartment in Dallas on the night of 4/10/63. MARINA OSWALD'S HSCA TESTIMONY RE: THE WALKER INCIDENT Marina saved the note by stashing it inside a book. (I've always wondered why Lee didn't demand that Marina give him the note back so he could burn it, but evidently he didn't do that; so the note survives as CE1.) And the Russian writing we see in that note was determined to be the writing of Lee H. Oswald (sourced previously via an appropriate official FBI source--Cadigan). And Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her on April 10 that he had just shot at Walker. Those two things--the note and Marina's testimony--are corroborative of one another and form the proof, IMO, that Lee Oswald did, indeed, fire a shot at General Walker. Plus, the Walker bullet looks very much like CE399 (which we know came out of Oswald's rifle). The FBI could not say that CE573 (the Walker bullet) positively came from Oswald's C2766 Carcano, but on the other hand, the FBI said there was nothing to indicate that 573 did not come from that gun. And as a layperson, just looking at these two bullets, I'm struck by the general similarities in the bullets. I'm sure you can see the similarities as well. (Who couldn't?).... Edited January 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cliff, Can one be sure no bullets or fragments of bullets attributable to the back wound or the throat wound were recovered at the autopsy? Didn't some SS or FBI agent sign a receipt for a "missile", sign the receipt in the autopsy room? If so, could not the missile in question have been attributable to one or the other of the wounds? Jon, I believe it was a fragment from the head wound. The throat wound wasn't examined and the back wound was found to be shallow. Remind me again how the back wound was determined to be shallow. I haven't had a good laugh in a few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) David, I will not be drawn in this thread to discussing in details the Walker note, I asked you questions in the hope of furthering my understanding of the note. In a separate diary I'll post what I know about the note. Before I do so, I had hoped to have the benefit of your knowledge. I'm sure your knowledge concerning "the Walker note" is much more extensive and detailed than my own. I know the basic facts regarding the note, however. And those basic facts indicate that Marina Oswald found the note (with a post office key on the top of it) in Lee's "study" (i.e., closet) at the Neely Street apartment in Dallas on the night of 4/10/63. MARINA OSWALD'S HSCA TESTIMONY RE: THE WALKER INCIDENT Marina saved the note by stashing it inside a book. (I've always wondered why Lee didn't demand that Marina give him the note back so he could burn it, but evidently he didn't do that; so the note survives as CE1.) And the Russian writing we see in that note was determined to be the writing of Lee H. Oswald (sourced previously via an appropriate official FBI source--Cadigan). And Marina has never recanted her story about Lee telling her on April 10 that he had just shot at Walker. Those two things--the note and Marina's testimony--are corroborative of one another and form the proof, IMO, that Lee Oswald did, indeed, fire a shot at General Walker. Plus, the Walker bullet looks very much like CE399 (which we know came out of Oswald's rifle). The FBI could not say that CE573 (the Walker bullet) positively came from Oswald's C2766 Carcano, but on the other hand, the FBI said there was nothing to indicate that 573 did not come from that gun. And as a layperson, just looking at these two bullets, I'm struck by the general similarities in the bullets. I'm sure you can see the similarities as well. (Who couldn't?).... Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI was considered a firearms expert. He gathered most of the ballistics evidence in the JFK assassination and presented his findings in evidence to the Warren Commission. However, a careful examination of his work and evidenvce reveals a plethora of errors. One such error is revealed in the excerpt from his testimony below, and this error will explain why the bullet shown in the evidence photo and known as CE 399 could never have been fired from Oswald's rifle, or any other 6.5mm Carcano. "Mr. EISENBERG - Well, no; not at this time. Can you explain the American equivalent to the 6.5 mm. caliber? Mr. FRAZIER - That is the same as .25 caliber. Such weapons in the United States as the .25-20 Winchester, .25-35, the .250 Savage, and the .257 Roberts, are all of the same barrel diameter, or approximately the same barrel diameter. So a decimal figure of .257 inch is the equivalent of 6.5 mm." This is a popular misconception in the shooting world regarding .25 calibre and 6.5mm calibre rifles. Mr. Frazier is 100% wrong in his belief. The bore diameter of a .25 calibre rifle is .250"; the bore diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .256". The groove diameter (also bullet diameter) of a .25 calibre rifle is .257"; the groove and bullet diameter of a 6.5mm calibre rifle is .264" (.268" in a Carcano). The confusion between the two calibres stems from the bore diameter of the 6.5mm and the groove diameter of the .25 calibre both being .257". This misconception plagued Frazier throughout his investigation and shows up again in his testimony about the Walker bullet. "Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe the general rifling characteristics which you referred to? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. They consist of impressions from four lands and grooves. The bullet is mutilated on a portion of its surface. However, it can be determined that there were four land impressions and four groove impressions originally on this bullet. The width of the land impression is 7/100ths of an inch, that is 0.07 inch--whereas the width of the groove impression is 0.13 inch, or 13/100ths of an inch. The bullet is flattened so that it was not possible to measure its diameter. However, by adding the land width to the groove width, and multiplying by the number of lands and grooves, you can determine the circumference of the bullet and mathematically determine its diameter, which in this case corresponds to 6.5 mm. ammunition, or approximately .267 inch." As I pointed out in another thread, adding the measurements from the Walker bullet of a land impression (.070" or 1.778 mm) and a groove impression (.130" or 3.302 mm) and multiplying by 4 to determine circumference, and then dividing by pi (3.1416) to obtain diameter, does not produce .267". (.070 + .130) x 4 = .800 divided by 3.1416 = .255" Amazingly, this is almost exactly the diameter of a .25 calibre bullet. The REAL specs for the lands and grooves of a 6.5mm Carcano rifle are lands = .085" (2.159 mm) and grooves = .125" (3.175 mm). With these specs, let's try Frazier's formula again. (.085 + .125) x 4 = .840 divided by 3.1416 = .267" (the correct diameter for a Carcano bullet) P.S. I should point out the actual diameter of a Carcano 6.5mm bullet , to four decimals, is .2677". It is often rounded off to .267 or .268, and this leads to confusion. Edited January 18, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Oh, good Lord. Help us in time of great need. (Such as when Bob P. shows up with nonsense like the above post.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 General similarities between the bullets, Dave? Uh, d-uh, let's see. They're both copper coloured, and both have rifling marks on them. Boy, that sure narrows it down. Good thing for you most people here don't know their butts from their elbows when it comes to firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Oh, good Lord. Help us in time of great need. (Such as when Bob P. shows up with nonsense like the above post.) Laugh it up, boy. When you come up with a genuine rebuttal, let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cliff, Can one be sure no bullets or fragments of bullets attributable to the back wound or the throat wound were recovered at the autopsy? Didn't some SS or FBI agent sign a receipt for a "missile", sign the receipt in the autopsy room? If so, could not the missile in question have been attributable to one or the other of the wounds? Jon, I believe it was a fragment from the head wound. The throat wound wasn't examined and the back wound was found to be shallow. Remind me again how the back wound was determined to be shallow. I haven't had a good laugh in a few days. Maybe you need to work on your sense of humor. Just say'n... From the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy: During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. Here's what Roy Kellerman told the WC: Mr. KELLERMAN. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go? He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cliff, Can one be sure no bullets or fragments of bullets attributable to the back wound or the throat wound were recovered at the autopsy? Didn't some SS or FBI agent sign a receipt for a "missile", sign the receipt in the autopsy room? If so, could not the missile in question have been attributable to one or the other of the wounds? Jon, I believe it was a fragment from the head wound. The throat wound wasn't examined and the back wound was found to be shallow. Remind me again how the back wound was determined to be shallow. I haven't had a good laugh in a few days. Maybe you need to work on your sense of humor. Just say'n... From the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy: During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. Here's what Roy Kellerman told the WC: Mr. KELLERMAN. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go? He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." Cliff Listen REAL close. I know you are thick headed, and I'm only going to tell this to you once. I measured my little finger at the first knuckle, and found it to be 3/4 inch in diameter. A 6.5mm Carcano bullet is just a shade over 1/4 inch in diameter, or 1/3 the diameter of my baby finger. Unless Humes had fingers like a four year old girl, tell me how he could probe the back wound with a finger. Take your time, I have all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cliff, Can one be sure no bullets or fragments of bullets attributable to the back wound or the throat wound were recovered at the autopsy? Didn't some SS or FBI agent sign a receipt for a "missile", sign the receipt in the autopsy room? If so, could not the missile in question have been attributable to one or the other of the wounds? Jon, I believe it was a fragment from the head wound. The throat wound wasn't examined and the back wound was found to be shallow. Remind me again how the back wound was determined to be shallow. I haven't had a good laugh in a few days. Maybe you need to work on your sense of humor. Just say'n... From the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy: During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. Here's what Roy Kellerman told the WC: Mr. KELLERMAN. There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck--during the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said, "Colonel, where did it go? He said, "There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in this man's shoulder." Cliff Listen REAL close. I know you are thick headed, and I'm only going to tell this to you once. I measured my little finger at the first knuckle, and found it to be 3/4 inch in diameter. A 6.5mm Carcano bullet is just a shade over 1/4 inch in diameter, or 1/3 the diameter of my baby finger. Unless Humes had fingers like a four year old girl, tell me how he could probe the back wound with a finger. Take your time, I have all day. I don't have to explain anything. You have a problem with Sibert and O'Neill, not me. Did they hallucinate Humes probing the wound with his finger? Why do you insist on bashing witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Think Dave is phoning Langley right now to get advice on how to deal with this "problem"? There is no "problem". Never was. You're looking for a "problem" and (naturally) finding one to suit your needs. Par for the CT course, as per usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) David, Questions about the "Walker note": 1. Who found the note? 2. Where was the note found? 3. When was the note found? 4. Who translated the note? 5. Did the person who translated the note make any comments about the grammatical quality of the note? Or about the formation of certain characters? 6. Is it odd in your view that the note is not signed or dated? 7. Is it odd in your view that there are no Oswald fingerprints on the note? 8. Did Marina upon first being presented the note by U.S. Government officers acknowledge that she recognized the note? 9. Is it possible in your view that someone other than Oswald prepared the note? 10. How skilled, in your view, was Oswald at speaking Russian? Not very? Highly? Some other degree? Good questions. Comments regarding specific questions: 5. Did the person who translated the note make any comments about the grammatical quality of the note? It's logical to assume that if the grammar in the note was good, the translator wouldn't necessarily have mentioned it, whereas if the grammar was bad, the translator would have said so. 6. Is it odd in your view that the note is not signed or dated? If the note was written by Oswald, Marina would have recognized the handwriting and known that it had been written by him and put by him in the special place where she (allegedly) found it -- therefore there was no need for his potentially self-incriminating signature. If he indeed was to take a shot at Walker and was either arrested for it or were to go into hiding, Marina would have put "two plus two together" and realized that Oswald had not only written the ominous note but had actually followed through on the dastardly deed alluded to in it, and therefore no potentially self-incriminating date on the letter would have been needed for her to realize that he had written the note about his intentions against Walker. What good would it have done Marina if the note had been signed and/or dated? Should Oswald have signed it "I will love you and Junie forever"? Oswald was known for not dating many missives over the years. If someone forged the note, they could have easily forged Oswald's signature (as it apparently was forged on several other Warren Commission documents and pieces of "evidence") and correctly dated it, as well. 7. Is it odd in your view that there are no Oswald fingerprints on the note? Excellent point. See this analysis by Gil Jesus: http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/note.htm (The only thing I disagree with Gil about in his analysis of the note is whether or not Marina could read English-language newspapers well enough to be able to send to the Russian embassy any articles that might appear in the local newspapers about Oswald's shooting of Walker. I believe Marina only pretended to Ruth Paine that she couldn't speak or read English very well. In fact, in her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine volunteers the information that one of her neighbors noticed that Marina's English seemed to improve so dramatically between October, 1963 and January, 1964, that the neighbor was "amazed". https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=38&relPageId=498 But I digress...) --Tommy Edited January 18, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Think Dave is phoning Langley right now to get advice on how to deal with this "problem"? There is no "problem". Never was. You're looking for a "problem" and (naturally) finding one to suit your needs. Par for the CT course, as per usual. Aww, gee, Dave, am I talking over your head again? As I said, let me know when you have a genuine rebuttal. Until then, go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Let's see --- I have a choice: Should I believe Robert A. Frazier, a person with 23 years of experience as a firearms identification expert as of 1964? Or should I place my faith in a self-appointed firearms identification "expert" and conspiracy hobbyist named Robert Prudhomme? Oh gosh....what a tough choice that is. Edited January 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Let's see --- I have a choice: Should I believe Robert A. Frazier, a person with 23 years of experience as a firearms identification expert as of 1964? Or should I place my faith in a self-appointed firearms identification "expert" and conspiracy hobbyist named Robert Prudhomme? Oh gosh....what a tough choice that is. No, don't believe either one, Dave. The mathematics speak for themselves. Robert Frazier measured a .25 calibre bullet, not a 6.5mm Carcano bullet. Want to see some more screw ups by Frazier? I have lots of them. P.S. I'm being generous calling them screw ups. Some might call them outright lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 If all else fails, the trolls fall back on having the "experts" on their side. I'm still waiting for that logical rebuttal, Dave. I'd have you a battle of wits, but it's clear you're unarmed, and that would hardly be sporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now