Robert Harris and the CE399 Tom Foolery!

[Mike Williams]

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie.

Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home.

Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up...

Lee,

Again with the "lie" gimmick?

Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"?

Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged?

[Mike Williams]

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie.

Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home.

Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up...

Lee,

Again with the "lie" gimmick?

Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"?

Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged?

Walker said it's NOT the bullet. Do you know more about that bullet than General Edwin Walker?

If someone stole your car (let's say a BMW) and the police claim they've found it and drive up to your home in a Nissan would you believe they'd found your car?

In answer to your last question. No. Just the stuff that was planted and forged...

...classic DVP and McAdams type of question though Mike. How about trying the "How many people where involved in this giant and all encompassing conspiracy?' next time?

Keep ignoring the evidence though...

Of course the errors in your analogy are glaring. If the police brought me a Nissan I would know it was not my car. However that bullet was not Walkers bullet.....so why should we give weight to his identification? It was Oswald's bullet, not Walkers.

So typical of the CT crowd to put witness testimony above physical evidence. Did you not know that witness testimony is the LEAST reliable?

No wonder there is so much confusion in figuring out a simple case for some folks.....

[Mike Williams]

I agree with Mike that physical evidence SHOULD trump eyewitness recollections

Martin

And I agree with you. It SHOULD. But in very many areas of this case, it doesn't. CE399 and CE573 are in good, or should that be bad, company.

Lee

So in fact both of you claim that witness testimony should take a back seat to physical evidence, and then accept the testimony over the evidence.

Impressive.....no.....really....

[Bill Byas]

Mike, you are

Mike, you're good with guns and ballistics, but not so good when you try to put the guns in Oswald's hands, as your bias slips in.

As for debating DVP, there's nothing to debate. He would have to continually check with his hero's bible Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which he tells us was originaly going to be called Final Verdict, but they can't seem to put the final nail in Oswald's coffin.

It's easy to follow the planted evidence that frames Oswald The Patsy, but as soon as you latch on to it, you're distracted long enough to let the real assassins slip away.

DVP would never come here to join in the debate for the same reasons Dale Myers and the rest of those YoYos won't, because they would be exposed for what they are.

DVP has said many times he would like to post here but Mr. Simkin wo'nt let him. Maybe you could talk to Mr. Simkin?

BB

P.S. Before anybody says it, no I am not DVP.

[Pat Speer]

Mike, you are

Mike, you're good with guns and ballistics, but not so good when you try to put the guns in Oswald's hands, as your bias slips in.

As for debating DVP, there's nothing to debate. He would have to continually check with his hero's bible Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, which he tells us was originaly going to be called Final Verdict, but they can't seem to put the final nail in Oswald's coffin.

It's easy to follow the planted evidence that frames Oswald The Patsy, but as soon as you latch on to it, you're distracted long enough to let the real assassins slip away.

DVP would never come here to join in the debate for the same reasons Dale Myers and the rest of those YoYos won't, because they would be exposed for what they are.

DVP has said many times he would like to post here but Mr. Simkin wo'nt let him. Maybe you could talk to Mr. Simkin?

BB

P.S. Before anybody says it, no I am not DVP.

DVP was a member here for a brief time some years ago, but refused to post an avatar and let his membership be revoked. He, as most LNs, have no real interest in posting here, as few here are open to the gospel according to Bugliosi, etc.

[Pat Speer]

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards.

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help.

In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly.

Now the Carcano Chart.

Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range).

This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range)

Those trajectories match.

It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed.

You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course.

I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Okay. So we're stuck. You insist the scope was zeroed in at 400 yards without any evidence to support as much, beyond that you want this to be the truth. You also insist that the scope was damaged after 11-27, once again without any evidence, and in opposition to Frazier's testimony. You also keep evading that the FBI said the rifle could not be aligned without shims, that the Army confirmed this and added shims, and that Lattimer confirmed that this was a problem with the rifle/scope combination, and not unique to Oswald's rifle. You want to believe that the rifle was accurate on 11-22. Well I want to believe the shots came from the knoll. But the evidence tells me different. Whatever theory you're conjuring up that claims the scope was properly sighted-in and accurate on 11-22 should similarly be reconsidered.

Let me draw your attention once again to Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

The problem was with the construction...NOT with the individual scope.

Now watch how Eisenberg tries to get him to say the problem was with the individual scope, and that it had somehow been damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY CLAIMING THE SCOPE HAD NOT RECENTLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO ITS BEING TESTED ON 11-27.)

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. (HE IS THEREBY ADMITTING THAT HE AT NO TIME NOTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE SCOPE WHICH HE COULD ASSOCIATE WITH ITS INABILITY TO BE PROPERLY SIGHTED-IN. AS STATED, LATTIMER CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RIFLE/SCOPE COMBINATION. SO WHY, AGAIN, ARE WE TO PRETEND THE SCOPE GOT DAMAGED SUBSEQUENT TO 11-27? BECAUSE IT FITS THE SINGLE-ASSASSIN THEORY?)

He later clarifies his position.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle. (HE THEREBY CLARIFIES THAT NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE IN DALLAS, THE SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ALIGNMENT.)

There is also this:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY REPEATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INHERENT IN THE SCOPE, AND NOT THAT THE SCOPE HAD BEEN DAMAGED.)

As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.

I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right. (FRAZIER IS THEREBY TESTIFYING THAT THE CROSSHAIRS WERE SET HIGH AND THAT THE SCOPE WAS NOT IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS CONTRADICTS THE THEORY THAT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS, AND THAT THE BULLETS' LANDING HIGH WAS AS EXPECTED, AND COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERLY SET CROSSHAIRS.)

And this:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high. (NOTE THAT THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FRAZIER MENTIONS AS A DISTANCE FOR WHICH A RIFLE WOULD BE SIGHTED IN IS 600 FEET OR 200 YARDS--HALF THE DISTANCE NEEDED TO MAKE HIS SHOTS LANDING HIGH ON 11-27 FIT THE EXPECTED TRAJECTORY. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.)

He confirms this later:

Mr. EISENBERG - What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?

Mr. FRAZIER - It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.

(WHILE HE DOESN'T MENTION A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER SUGGESTS HE FELT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT NO MORE THAN 200 YARDS.)

[Mike Williams]

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards.

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help.

In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly.

Now the Carcano Chart.

Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range).

This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range)

Those trajectories match.

It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed.

You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course.

I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Okay. So we're stuck. You insist the scope was zeroed in at 400 yards without any evidence to support as much, beyond that you want this to be the truth. You also insist that the scope was damaged after 11-27, once again without any evidence, and in opposition to Frazier's testimony. You also keep evading that the FBI said the rifle could not be aligned without shims, that the Army confirmed this and added shims, and that Lattimer confirmed that this was a problem with the rifle/scope combination, and not unique to Oswald's rifle. You want to believe that the rifle was accurate on 11-22. Well I want to believe the shots came from the knoll. But the evidence tells me different. Whatever theory you're conjuring up that claims the scope was properly sighted-in and accurate on 11-22 should similarly be reconsidered.

Let me draw your attention once again to Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

The problem was with the construction...NOT with the individual scope.

Now watch how Eisenberg tries to get him to say the problem was with the individual scope, and that it had somehow been damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY CLAIMING THE SCOPE HAD NOT RECENTLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO ITS BEING TESTED ON 11-27.)

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. (HE IS THEREBY ADMITTING THAT HE AT NO TIME NOTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE SCOPE WHICH HE COULD ASSOCIATE WITH ITS INABILITY TO BE PROPERLY SIGHTED-IN. AS STATED, LATTIMER CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RIFLE/SCOPE COMBINATION. SO WHY, AGAIN, ARE WE TO PRETEND THE SCOPE GOT DAMAGED SUBSEQUENT TO 11-27? BECAUSE IT FITS THE SINGLE-ASSASSIN THEORY?)

He later clarifies his position.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle. (HE THEREBY CLARIFIES THAT NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE IN DALLAS, THE SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ALIGNMENT.)

There is also this:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY REPEATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INHERENT IN THE SCOPE, AND NOT THAT THE SCOPE HAD BEEN DAMAGED.)

As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.

I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right. (FRAZIER IS THEREBY TESTIFYING THAT THE CROSSHAIRS WERE SET HIGH AND THAT THE SCOPE WAS NOT IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS CONTRADICTS THE THEORY THAT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS, AND THAT THE BULLETS' LANDING HIGH WAS AS EXPECTED, AND COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERLY SET CROSSHAIRS.)

And this:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high. (NOTE THAT THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FRAZIER MENTIONS AS A DISTANCE FOR WHICH A RIFLE WOULD BE SIGHTED IN IS 600 FEET OR 200 YARDS--HALF THE DISTANCE NEEDED TO MAKE HIS SHOTS LANDING HIGH ON 11-27 FIT THE EXPECTED TRAJECTORY. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.)

He confirms this later:

Mr. EISENBERG - What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?

Mr. FRAZIER - It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.

(WHILE HE DOESN'T MENTION A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER SUGGESTS HE FELT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT NO MORE THAN 200 YARDS.)

Pat,

I do see a few things that I need to change in my examination, and thank you much for that. Let me put some thought into this and we can keep moving forward.

I gotta tell you it's refreshing to talk to someone about this who actually ponders and does not just copy and paste epic sections of nonsense!

I for one appreciate it!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

I agree with Mike that physical evidence SHOULD trump eyewitness recollections

Martin

And I agree with you. It SHOULD. But in very many areas of this case, it doesn't. CE399 and CE573 are in good, or should that be bad, company.

Lee

So in fact both of you claim that witness testimony should take a back seat to physical evidence, and then accept the testimony over the evidence.

Impressive.....no.....really....

Mike,

You know, I understand your position but I cannot fathom why Texas Police officers would describe the bullet as steel jacketed and why a carrer army officer who held the bullet in his hand would agree if in fact it was copper jacketed. The simple fact of the matter is that no proof exists that CE573 was the actual bullet found at the scene. The only evidence we have is a police report that describes a different type of bullet. If you've got a reasonable explanation then fell free to share it.

Look, it's the same situation as the autopsy photos of the head where almost every witness we have corroborates each other in a way that completely contradicts the photos. Who or what do we believe? If 20 people told you that they saw me yesterday morning wearing a red shirt and I gave you a picture of myself wearing a blue one would you say that all 20 people were mistaken and/or colorblind? Of course you wouldn't. You'd say that the picture was taken at another time or that I switched shirts. Because people are often mistaken in their recollections but not in a uniform, corroborative manner.

Take care,

Martin

Martin,

I will look further into the Walker bullet, as you have peaked my interest. I would like to see how that evidence washes out for myself.

Thanks again Martin!

Mike

[Michael Hogan]

JFK Analysis of a Shooting

The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4091594.htm

http://www.jfkanalysis.com/

I have not read this book; just came across it today.

[Pat Speer]

JFK Analysis of a Shooting

The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4091594.htm

http://www.jfkanalysis.com/

I have not read this book; just came across it today.

The summary is not too inspiring, IMO. It sounds like Mr. Martin just decided to write a book presenting his (apparently untested) theories. Still, hopefully the book will make some points and present some fresh arguments...

[Mike Williams]

JFK Analysis of a Shooting

The Ultimate Ballistics Truth Exposed

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4091594.htm

http://www.jfkanalysis.com/

I have not read this book; just came across it today.

The summary is not too inspiring, IMO. It sounds like Mr. Martin just decided to write a book presenting his (apparently untested) theories. Still, hopefully the book will make some points and present some fresh arguments...

Pat,

I tend to agree with ya there. How can one offer a complete study of velocities etc, of the weapons used, when only one has any physical evidence involved? I think it will be an epic string of assumptions.

Im still working on a reply for you, but there is something in it that I have to reconcile, or frankly abandon my position, in part. One little key piece of evidence is missing and I need to have it cleared up.

I sure appreciate the pleasant conversation and debate Pat, these exchanges do tend to be the most productive, and obviously you have a far better grasp of the material than most.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Okay. So we're stuck. You insist the scope was zeroed in at 400 yards without any evidence to support as much, beyond that you want this to be the truth. You also insist that the scope was damaged after 11-27, once again without any evidence, and in opposition to Frazier's testimony. You also keep evading that the FBI said the rifle could not be aligned without shims, that the Army confirmed this and added shims, and that Lattimer confirmed that this was a problem with the rifle/scope combination, and not unique to Oswald's rifle. You want to believe that the rifle was accurate on 11-22. Well I want to believe the shots came from the knoll. But the evidence tells me different. Whatever theory you're conjuring up that claims the scope was properly sighted-in and accurate on 11-22 should similarly be reconsidered.

First off I can not imagine how you could say that I have no evidence that the rifle was sight in at 400 yards, when I just dropped the evidence in your lap. Now I am not trying to be pointed here Pat, I happen to think very highly of you, but do you really just not understand trajectory? It really comes down to this. If we have a bullets weight(161grains), shape (Ballistic coefficient.283), and speed (velocity2165fps), we can then have a determined and irrefutable trajectory pattern. We have exactly that pattern, represented by the 400 yard zero table that I posted for you. The distances that Frazier shot at 15 and 25 yards give us a determined amount of rise, how far the bullet rose between those two distances, that amount of rise is replicated in the 400 yard zero trajectory. In short, If they had fired the weapon at 400 yards on 11/27/63, they would have blown the middle out of it. That's pretty significant evidence.

Your other error here is that I have a predetermined theory or scenario that I am trying to support. The fact is I did, right up until the time I evaluated the evidence and it told me specifically that my theory was incorrect. So you see while I was trying to support something, this study showed me it had no support. I am not trying to support anything. I simply reported what the evidence shows.

I have not evaded any issue with the Army and the shims. I have no doubt that when they had the weapon it may have needed shims. This has been my point all along. When were those shims needed? It certainly was not on 11/27/63, one look at the groups they shot will tell you that, or at least it should.

The very first mention of damage to the scope is on March 16th, 1964 by Frazier when they tried to use it at Quantico. Do you really believe that Frazier would have failed to mention the damage during the discussions of earlier tests if the damage had in fact existed at that time? Of course he would have.

Let me draw your attention once again to Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

The problem was with the construction...NOT with the individual scope

I think here is where we need to understand that there are two separate issues involved here. One is instability, or the inability of the scope to maintain its "settings" for the lack of a better word. This is absolutely due to construction, and is in fact inherent in all scopes. An excellent article to read by Chuck Hawks describes this well and can be found here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/sight-in_rifle.htm

The second issue has nothing to do with the first. It is alignment. It differs in that if you have bad alignment, you could shoot a very tight group, because the scope was stable, but, you could never get that group into the center of the target.

When Frazier talks about the construction, he is referring to stability, an inherent issue with all scopes of this design, as we can see in the Hawks article.

However when he says:

Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

He is addressing the issue of alignment. The reason he was unable to adjust the crosshairs for elevation sufficiently is because the scope, at this point, was damaged in some manner that caused a misalignment in the barrel/scope relationship, which had nothing at all to do with the inherent stability issue. I do note that Frazier says that the scope had a scrape/damage, "When it was received in the laboratory". I wish he would have been more clear about when it was received, or better phrased, which time it was received, as this rifle sure made its rounds, no pun intended.

Now watch how Eisenberg tries to get him to say the problem was with the individual scope, and that it had somehow been damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY CLAIMING THE SCOPE HAD NOT RECENTLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO ITS BEING TESTED ON 11-27.)

Correct. Frazier is saying that the scope had not been recently damaged, and was firing in a rather stable fashion on 11/27/64. This does address stability.

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. (HE IS THEREBY ADMITTING THAT HE AT NO TIME NOTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE SCOPE WHICH HE COULD ASSOCIATE WITH ITS INABILITY TO BE PROPERLY SIGHTED-IN. AS STATED, LATTIMER CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RIFLE/SCOPE COMBINATION. SO WHY, AGAIN, ARE WE TO PRETEND THE SCOPE GOT DAMAGED SUBSEQUENT TO 11-27? BECAUSE IT FITS THE SINGLE-ASSASSIN THEORY?)

Here Frazier is talking about alignment. The alignment issue could be because " the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted". Which of course can be attributed to the damage he noticed in that the "back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. "

He later clarifies his position.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle. (HE THEREBY CLARIFIES THAT NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE IN DALLAS, THE SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ALIGNMENT.)

In other words, the front of the scope is to low. Causing one to have to lift the muzzle to align the scope with the target, and put the muzzle then at an angle which would cause the bullet to strike high. What could have caused this, as there was no great error in alignment on 11/27/63?

The "back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged. "

There is also this:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY REPEATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INHERENT IN THE SCOPE, AND NOT THAT THE SCOPE HAD BEEN DAMAGED.)

Not at all. What he is saying here is that the mount is far enough off that it will not allow the crosshair adjustment to compensate for the misalignment. Which of course was not first discovered until March 16th, 1964.

As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.

I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right. (FRAZIER IS THEREBY TESTIFYING THAT THE CROSSHAIRS WERE SET HIGH AND THAT THE SCOPE WAS NOT IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS CONTRADICTS THE THEORY THAT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS, AND THAT THE BULLETS' LANDING HIGH WAS AS EXPECTED, AND COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERLY SET CROSSHAIRS.)

What Frazier is saying is that the rifle fired high on the first targets on 11/27/63, which of course it would have unless you tend to believe that the weapon was only zeroed for 15 yards. You completely misunderstand what he is saying here. The only way that a shot would not hit high at 15 yards is if the rifle were sighted in for 15 yards, which of course is ridiculous. As for the claim, by you, that the scope was not in proper alignment, this is completely proven false in that it was in fact in perfect alignment had the rifle been sighted in at 400 yards. Alignment is certainly relative to the position that you are shooting at.

You can verify this yourself with a ballistic calculator. Use the specifications for the Carcano, and run shots at 100 200 300 400 and 500 yards. The one uniformity is that you will ALWAYS see shots high at 15 yards. The only way, once again, that you would not see shots high at 15 yards, is if you specifically sighted in the weapon for 15 yards. Misalignment would be shown by gross inaccuracy. Something we do not at all see exhibited with this weapon.

And this:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high. (NOTE THAT THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FRAZIER MENTIONS AS A DISTANCE FOR WHICH A RIFLE WOULD BE SIGHTED IN IS 600 FEET OR 200 YARDS--HALF THE DISTANCE NEEDED TO MAKE HIS SHOTS LANDING HIGH ON 11-27 FIT THE EXPECTED TRAJECTORY. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.)

He confirms this later:

Mr. EISENBERG - What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?

Mr. FRAZIER - It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.

(WHILE HE DOESN'T MENTION A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER SUGGESTS HE FELT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT NO MORE THAN 200 YARDS.)

This is not at all what he is saying. What Frazier is explaining is the same thing I have been, in regard to the lift and fall of a ballistic arc. Where do you see Frazier say that he thinks the furthest it would be sighted in 600 feet? I read that nowhere above. 600 feet is the furthest distance he uses in his explanation of trajectory, nothing more. In point of fact what Frazier says, in your own typing which I have underlined, is that the MINIMUM it would be sighted in for is 150 to 200 yards. There is no indication of Frazier at all of what distance he believed it was sighted for.

[Robert Harris]

James DiEugenio writes:

"Since I have given Von Pein three pastings in a little over a month, one of them specifically over the issue of the provenance of CE 399, I kind of guessed that he would go after the Bob Harris video since John Kelin and myself posted it at ctka.net.

(You can see two of the pastings at http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html)

The reason I posted it there was because Robert included the previous work of Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar, and John Hunt on this issue i.e. the switching of the Parkland Hospital bullet for CE 399.

In the first part of my two-part essay on Von Pein, I closed with eight questions that DVP should have posed to Vince Bugliosi about this issue. He did not pose any of them. All he did was relay the message from the prosecutor that the judge in that phony London Showtime trial had admitted a picture of CE 399 into evidence, and that he felt he could get the exhibit admitted at an actual trial. Von Pein, predictably, did not challenge either point. Even though Bugliosi said that the chain of custody test means showing that the prosecution's exhibit is what they say it is.

As Bob Tanenbaum said in Pittsburgh in 2003, one way to do this is through eyewitness identification.

Now, a pre-trial evidence admittance hearing is called a 402 proceeding. If the Dallas Police had not helped Ruby kill Oswald, there would have been several of these at Oswald's trial e.g. over the paper package which Wesley Frazier and his sister saw. (Although it is highly unlikely she saw it, and the mother made no mention of it to the FBI.)

But the one on CE 399 would have been most interesting. Even amusing.

If I were defending Oswald, I would have called D. Tomlinson, O P Wright, his wife, Bardwell Odum, and Elmer Lee Todd for starters.

Tomlinson would show two things: there is a question as to whose stretcher CE 399 was found on. TInk Thompson deduced that it probably was not found on Kennedy's or Connally's but a little boy named Ronald Fuller. (See Thompson pgs. 161-164, Marrs p. 364) And Tomlinson always felt that Arlen Specter had manipulated him on the stretcher identification issue. (Marrs pgs 363-64) Secondly, although he was not as familiar with weapons and ammo as Wright, he rejected CE 399 as the bullet found and said it was more like a pointed hunting round. (Marrs, p. 365) Right here, with the first witness, you have the beginning of an origination problem and an identification problem.

OP Wright would deepen this. Since he was very experienced with guns and ammo. When Thompson showed him a photo of CE 399 he immediately rejected it. (Thompson, p. 175) And he showed Thompson what it actually looked like and Thompson has a photo of this in his book. (ibid) No one as familiar with guns as ex law enforcement officer Wright could mistake one for the other.

Arlen Specter knew this. So when you look at the listing of Commission witnesses in Walt Brown's valuable book "The Warren Omission", you will not see OP Wright's name. Does anyone except Dave Von Pein -- and maybe Mike Williams -- think there were 500 witnesses more important than Wright? If you do, you need some help.

So now, you have both people who handled the stretcher bullet saying that the bullet in evidence -- the Magic Bullet which is absolutely essential to the Commission's efficacy ---- is not the bullet they turned over to the authorities. By Vincent Bugliosi's own definition, the government's version of the exhibit is not what the primary witnesses say it was. (See the first part of my DVP essay.)

Wright's wife was supervisor of nursing at Parkland. When Thompson went looking for Wright again after Oliver Stone's film came out, he found out he had passed away, but she was still alive. She told Thompson that there were other bullets found that day! (See Part 1 of my Reclaiming History review.)

This was startling, to everyone except Von Pein. And it may be that this Harris bullet is one of the others planted that day. Her testimony gives you a background to make the evidence planting more viable.

Bardwell Odum would give you the witness you need inside the FBI to show that Hoover knew that Wright would never identify CE 399 as the evidence he turned over.

When Aguilar and Thompson found him in retirement they decided to interview him.

For an FBI report of 6/12/64 says that Odum showed CE 399 to Wright and Tomlinson. The report says that both men said the bullet "appear to be the same one" they found on the stretcher. A funny thing happened when the authors confronted Odum with this report. This was puzzling since another FBI report of 6/2/64 says that neither man can identify the bullet.

So on November 24, 2001, 38 years after Kennedy's murder, the public found out that Hoover lied about this identification. For on that day, Thompson and Aguilar did what the HSCA should have done if Robert Blakey would not have been such a flunky. They showed the FBi report to Odum. He denied he ever showed CE 399 to any Parkland Hospital employee. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 284) Further, since he knew Wright, he would have recalled such an event.

Odum would show that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the bullet found at Parkland.

Does it get any better than that?

Actually, it does. As everyone knows both the FBI and the Commission say in writing that FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd put his initials on CE 399. (Thompson, p. 155) Todd is crucial since he picked up the bullet at the White House from the Secret Service and then delivered it to the FBI lab and Robert Frazier that evening. Researcher John Hunt did something that neither Von Pein nor his hero Vincent Bugliosi did not. He went to the National Archives to see if this was true. Guess what, to no one's surprise except maybe Von Pein's, it is not. Hunt photographed the entire circumference of CE 399 and Todd's initials are not there. (See my Reclaiming History series, Part 7, Section 3.) So you would now have Todd on the stand trying to explain why the FBI lied about his initials and why they are not there if he did handle the bullet.

But further, Todd would have something else to explain. Frazier wrote down the time he received the stretcher bullet as 7:30. This one would tie Todd in knots. For he wrote down the time he got the bullet from the Secret Service as 8:50. If that does not constitute a break in the chain of custody then I don't know what does. The Magic Bullet is more magical than anyone ever dreamed.

So on both the chain of custody and the identification question, what prosecutor would want to go through a 402 hearing on CE 399? Maybe Von Pein, but who else? This is why this was all avoided in the phony trial that Bugliosi took part in. But if I were defending Oswald I would not ask for the 402 proceeding. At a 402, the jury is out of the room. I would want them to see and her all of this. Especially the parts about Hoover lying about a bullet he knows is the wrong one. Judges and juries don' t like to hear this kind of thing. Because it says the prosecution cannot be trusted. And it casts aspersions on the entire phalanx of evidence presented.

I would want this all in the open because after you destroyed Brennan, showed how the police coerced Frazier, showed how Givens changed history, and have Sebastian LaTona show how a print in Dallas disappeared on a plane to Washington, CE 399 would be the icing on the cake.

After that debacle, I would move to throw out the prosecution case on the grounds that it was the result of misconduct. Which of course, we know that Wade and Fritz did a lot of. But not as much as Hoover. I would then sue both the DPD and FBI and make Oswald -- and myself -- rich men.

Von Pein and Bugliosi ignore all this. And they try and discredit it all by saying Harris made a mistake. As if Bob making an error erases the clear substitution of evidence that was concealed by the FBI for almost 40 years. And which helped frame an innocent man.

The Harris video is not perfect. It couldn't be since Specter and the FBI made sure the trail would be cold and covered up when it came time to show how the bullet was actually switched. But Harris has made a decent start. That Von Pein says not a word about what Hoover and the Commission did in this fiasco, or how it was concealed for decades, but instead goes after a mistake by Harris -- well that tells you all you need to know about Davey Boy.

And also Mr. Williams.

So lets see.

In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over!

Hilariously stupid error in my book.

SO Bill,

Perhaps you would like to prove another part of the theory for Robert, since he so obviously cant.

Can you prove there was anything erased and written over?

Can you prove any of his other ridiculous assumptions?

Step on up. Everyone gets a swing at the ball!

Mike

Hi Mike,

That was all Jimmy D speaking, not me. I just posted it for him. But he seems to make sense. Although we don't have to think in terms of the fake trail they had in London or a hypothetical trial of Oswald, we can still take this to court while going after the real killers.

Sorry, I can't follow this chain or hardly any of the chain of custody of any of the evidence. All the chains seem to break at the first few rungs and I don't think its because of the incompentency of the Dallas cops. I think they did it on purpose.

Now looking at this just briefly, you mean to tell me that there even is/was an envelop that contained a bullet and two to four fragments taken from Connally, and all the people who handled this envelop signed their initials to it just like they do on CSI Miami?

But nobody knows who the nurse was who started the chain?

I get the part where the cop delivers it to Fritz's office, but he doesn't know who he gave it to there? And then we have Fritz's signature initials on it, upside down.

And Von Pain quotes a Warren Commission doctor who actually had the fragments in hand who, when asked if they weighed more than what was missing from CE399 actually responds with the size, and says they weighted as much as a postage stamp?

How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399?

BK

The average stamp weights about a gram, or 15 grains. We know that 399 has much less loss. However a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. I hardly think we can determine anything conclusively by what anyone guessed, considering the minute weight involved.

I think the most 399 could weigh is 162. Loss from firing .4-.6 grains. So that leaves us with 161.5 potentially (using the average of .4 to.6)

Found it weighed 158.6 so it would have a loss of no more than 2.9 grains.

As you know Bill I am hardly one to support the SBT, at least not yet. So I really have no dog in this race.

I still can not help but bust a gut when I see the Robert "upside down" Harris make such gross assumptions, just to have it blow up in his face.

Since I have no communication with Jim DiEugenio Please pass on to him, that if he wished to include me in a conversation, to please have to stones to step up to the plate here himself and speak directly to me. I have little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post. If he cant stand his own ground, then he should refrain.

What do you mean what the average stamp weighs? Can't they weight bullet fragments?

Is that how you determine ballistics, compare the weight of bullet fragments to average postage stamps and then weight the stamp to see how much the bullet fragment weighs?

What kind of investigation is that?

And if you have such little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post, who can't stand on his own ground, then why did you bring a donkey like Barron Von Pain to a dog race?

BK

Bill,

I was not the one who compared the fragments to the stamp, a doctor did. I in fact proposed that this was not an accurate method, in that the weights are very minute.

This should clearly tell you that I would not investigate that way at all.

I only addressed it at all because you asked the question:

How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399?

Now as for DVP.

It was not I who tried to claim that DVP agreed to the erasing on the envelope, Harris did. I simply corrected his error, yet again, in showing that DVP was not in fact in agreement. What is the issue here?

I was not speaking for DVP, nor posting for him. I was simply relating, yet again, another piece of fabrication by Bob Harris.

I would hope that if someone misrepresented me, you would do the same. I know that if someone horribly misrepresented you, of totally fabricated a statement, and tried to pass it off as your words, I would certainly stand up for you even if I did not agree with you.

I never in my life stated that Von Pein "agreed to the erasing on the envelope". I said at that point in time, that he never disputed it. PLEASE stop misrepresenting me.

And anyone who denies that the CE842 envelope was erased and altered, just doesn't have all four wheels on the ground. Look closely at this envelope which I posted for both you and David a long time ago in the other forum,

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg

This could not have been the same envelope that Bell filled out and initialed. And it could not have been originally labeled as containing multiple fragments. Not only did the DPD list it in their inventory as containing a single frag but Frazier testified to the WC that it only contained one as well, which was probably a somewhat mutilated bullet. And it is obvious, that the person who wrote in "fragments" was not the same person who filled out the other information on the envelope - despite the fact that Bell said she filled it out by herself.

And I don't think any rational person can avoid doubts about the initials that are on that envelope. The alterations and erasures made it worthless in a court of law and Fritz would never have signed off on such a thing. Initials are easy to copy. Give me 10 minutes and I will give you a good duplicate of any of them.

Von Pein's argument is that two secret service agents just forgot to initial CE-399 and then nurse Bell just forgot to initial the CE842 evidence envelope. And I'm still waiting for his excuse for why Todd's initials disappeared from CE399.

What you guys don't get is that when Hoover said "the public must be convinced" that Oswald acted alone, he meant it.

[John Dolva]

I think the memo said ''satisfied'', and Katz meant it, and this has not occured, so the memo stands, unfulfilled. (2bits)

[Mike Williams]

James DiEugenio writes:

"Since I have given Von Pein three pastings in a little over a month, one of them specifically over the issue of the provenance of CE 399, I kind of guessed that he would go after the Bob Harris video since John Kelin and myself posted it at ctka.net.

(You can see two of the pastings at http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html)

The reason I posted it there was because Robert included the previous work of Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar, and John Hunt on this issue i.e. the switching of the Parkland Hospital bullet for CE 399.

In the first part of my two-part essay on Von Pein, I closed with eight questions that DVP should have posed to Vince Bugliosi about this issue. He did not pose any of them. All he did was relay the message from the prosecutor that the judge in that phony London Showtime trial had admitted a picture of CE 399 into evidence, and that he felt he could get the exhibit admitted at an actual trial. Von Pein, predictably, did not challenge either point. Even though Bugliosi said that the chain of custody test means showing that the prosecution's exhibit is what they say it is.

As Bob Tanenbaum said in Pittsburgh in 2003, one way to do this is through eyewitness identification.

Now, a pre-trial evidence admittance hearing is called a 402 proceeding. If the Dallas Police had not helped Ruby kill Oswald, there would have been several of these at Oswald's trial e.g. over the paper package which Wesley Frazier and his sister saw. (Although it is highly unlikely she saw it, and the mother made no mention of it to the FBI.)

But the one on CE 399 would have been most interesting. Even amusing.

If I were defending Oswald, I would have called D. Tomlinson, O P Wright, his wife, Bardwell Odum, and Elmer Lee Todd for starters.

Tomlinson would show two things: there is a question as to whose stretcher CE 399 was found on. TInk Thompson deduced that it probably was not found on Kennedy's or Connally's but a little boy named Ronald Fuller. (See Thompson pgs. 161-164, Marrs p. 364) And Tomlinson always felt that Arlen Specter had manipulated him on the stretcher identification issue. (Marrs pgs 363-64) Secondly, although he was not as familiar with weapons and ammo as Wright, he rejected CE 399 as the bullet found and said it was more like a pointed hunting round. (Marrs, p. 365) Right here, with the first witness, you have the beginning of an origination problem and an identification problem.

OP Wright would deepen this. Since he was very experienced with guns and ammo. When Thompson showed him a photo of CE 399 he immediately rejected it. (Thompson, p. 175) And he showed Thompson what it actually looked like and Thompson has a photo of this in his book. (ibid) No one as familiar with guns as ex law enforcement officer Wright could mistake one for the other.

Arlen Specter knew this. So when you look at the listing of Commission witnesses in Walt Brown's valuable book "The Warren Omission", you will not see OP Wright's name. Does anyone except Dave Von Pein -- and maybe Mike Williams -- think there were 500 witnesses more important than Wright? If you do, you need some help.

So now, you have both people who handled the stretcher bullet saying that the bullet in evidence -- the Magic Bullet which is absolutely essential to the Commission's efficacy ---- is not the bullet they turned over to the authorities. By Vincent Bugliosi's own definition, the government's version of the exhibit is not what the primary witnesses say it was. (See the first part of my DVP essay.)

Wright's wife was supervisor of nursing at Parkland. When Thompson went looking for Wright again after Oliver Stone's film came out, he found out he had passed away, but she was still alive. She told Thompson that there were other bullets found that day! (See Part 1 of my Reclaiming History review.)

This was startling, to everyone except Von Pein. And it may be that this Harris bullet is one of the others planted that day. Her testimony gives you a background to make the evidence planting more viable.

Bardwell Odum would give you the witness you need inside the FBI to show that Hoover knew that Wright would never identify CE 399 as the evidence he turned over.

When Aguilar and Thompson found him in retirement they decided to interview him.

For an FBI report of 6/12/64 says that Odum showed CE 399 to Wright and Tomlinson. The report says that both men said the bullet "appear to be the same one" they found on the stretcher. A funny thing happened when the authors confronted Odum with this report. This was puzzling since another FBI report of 6/2/64 says that neither man can identify the bullet.

So on November 24, 2001, 38 years after Kennedy's murder, the public found out that Hoover lied about this identification. For on that day, Thompson and Aguilar did what the HSCA should have done if Robert Blakey would not have been such a flunky. They showed the FBi report to Odum. He denied he ever showed CE 399 to any Parkland Hospital employee. (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 284) Further, since he knew Wright, he would have recalled such an event.

Odum would show that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the bullet found at Parkland.

Does it get any better than that?

Actually, it does. As everyone knows both the FBI and the Commission say in writing that FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd put his initials on CE 399. (Thompson, p. 155) Todd is crucial since he picked up the bullet at the White House from the Secret Service and then delivered it to the FBI lab and Robert Frazier that evening. Researcher John Hunt did something that neither Von Pein nor his hero Vincent Bugliosi did not. He went to the National Archives to see if this was true. Guess what, to no one's surprise except maybe Von Pein's, it is not. Hunt photographed the entire circumference of CE 399 and Todd's initials are not there. (See my Reclaiming History series, Part 7, Section 3.) So you would now have Todd on the stand trying to explain why the FBI lied about his initials and why they are not there if he did handle the bullet.

But further, Todd would have something else to explain. Frazier wrote down the time he received the stretcher bullet as 7:30. This one would tie Todd in knots. For he wrote down the time he got the bullet from the Secret Service as 8:50. If that does not constitute a break in the chain of custody then I don't know what does. The Magic Bullet is more magical than anyone ever dreamed.

So on both the chain of custody and the identification question, what prosecutor would want to go through a 402 hearing on CE 399? Maybe Von Pein, but who else? This is why this was all avoided in the phony trial that Bugliosi took part in. But if I were defending Oswald I would not ask for the 402 proceeding. At a 402, the jury is out of the room. I would want them to see and her all of this. Especially the parts about Hoover lying about a bullet he knows is the wrong one. Judges and juries don' t like to hear this kind of thing. Because it says the prosecution cannot be trusted. And it casts aspersions on the entire phalanx of evidence presented.

I would want this all in the open because after you destroyed Brennan, showed how the police coerced Frazier, showed how Givens changed history, and have Sebastian LaTona show how a print in Dallas disappeared on a plane to Washington, CE 399 would be the icing on the cake.

After that debacle, I would move to throw out the prosecution case on the grounds that it was the result of misconduct. Which of course, we know that Wade and Fritz did a lot of. But not as much as Hoover. I would then sue both the DPD and FBI and make Oswald -- and myself -- rich men.

Von Pein and Bugliosi ignore all this. And they try and discredit it all by saying Harris made a mistake. As if Bob making an error erases the clear substitution of evidence that was concealed by the FBI for almost 40 years. And which helped frame an innocent man.

The Harris video is not perfect. It couldn't be since Specter and the FBI made sure the trail would be cold and covered up when it came time to show how the bullet was actually switched. But Harris has made a decent start. That Von Pein says not a word about what Hoover and the Commission did in this fiasco, or how it was concealed for decades, but instead goes after a mistake by Harris -- well that tells you all you need to know about Davey Boy.

And also Mr. Williams.

So lets see.

In Harris theory the initials of Bell, turn out to be that of Fritz when turned over!

Hilariously stupid error in my book.

SO Bill,

Perhaps you would like to prove another part of the theory for Robert, since he so obviously cant.

Can you prove there was anything erased and written over?

Can you prove any of his other ridiculous assumptions?

Step on up. Everyone gets a swing at the ball!

Mike

Hi Mike,

That was all Jimmy D speaking, not me. I just posted it for him. But he seems to make sense. Although we don't have to think in terms of the fake trail they had in London or a hypothetical trial of Oswald, we can still take this to court while going after the real killers.

Sorry, I can't follow this chain or hardly any of the chain of custody of any of the evidence. All the chains seem to break at the first few rungs and I don't think its because of the incompentency of the Dallas cops. I think they did it on purpose.

Now looking at this just briefly, you mean to tell me that there even is/was an envelop that contained a bullet and two to four fragments taken from Connally, and all the people who handled this envelop signed their initials to it just like they do on CSI Miami?

But nobody knows who the nurse was who started the chain?

I get the part where the cop delivers it to Fritz's office, but he doesn't know who he gave it to there? And then we have Fritz's signature initials on it, upside down.

And Von Pain quotes a Warren Commission doctor who actually had the fragments in hand who, when asked if they weighed more than what was missing from CE399 actually responds with the size, and says they weighted as much as a postage stamp?

How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399?

BK

The average stamp weights about a gram, or 15 grains. We know that 399 has much less loss. However a grain is 1/7000th of a pound. I hardly think we can determine anything conclusively by what anyone guessed, considering the minute weight involved.

I think the most 399 could weigh is 162. Loss from firing .4-.6 grains. So that leaves us with 161.5 potentially (using the average of .4 to.6)

Found it weighed 158.6 so it would have a loss of no more than 2.9 grains.

As you know Bill I am hardly one to support the SBT, at least not yet. So I really have no dog in this race.

I still can not help but bust a gut when I see the Robert "upside down" Harris make such gross assumptions, just to have it blow up in his face.

Since I have no communication with Jim DiEugenio Please pass on to him, that if he wished to include me in a conversation, to please have to stones to step up to the plate here himself and speak directly to me. I have little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post. If he cant stand his own ground, then he should refrain.

What do you mean what the average stamp weighs? Can't they weight bullet fragments?

Is that how you determine ballistics, compare the weight of bullet fragments to average postage stamps and then weight the stamp to see how much the bullet fragment weighs?

What kind of investigation is that?

And if you have such little respect for a man who feels the need to go through another to make a simple post, who can't stand on his own ground, then why did you bring a donkey like Barron Von Pain to a dog race?

BK

Bill,

I was not the one who compared the fragments to the stamp, a doctor did. I in fact proposed that this was not an accurate method, in that the weights are very minute.

This should clearly tell you that I would not investigate that way at all.

I only addressed it at all because you asked the question:

How much does a postage stamp weight, and how much is missing from CE399?

Now as for DVP.

It was not I who tried to claim that DVP agreed to the erasing on the envelope, Harris did. I simply corrected his error, yet again, in showing that DVP was not in fact in agreement. What is the issue here?

I was not speaking for DVP, nor posting for him. I was simply relating, yet again, another piece of fabrication by Bob Harris.

I would hope that if someone misrepresented me, you would do the same. I know that if someone horribly misrepresented you, of totally fabricated a statement, and tried to pass it off as your words, I would certainly stand up for you even if I did not agree with you.

I never in my life stated that Von Pein "agreed to the erasing on the envelope". I said at that point in time, that he never disputed it. PLEASE stop misrepresenting me.

And anyone who denies that the CE842 envelope was erased and altered, just doesn't have all four wheels on the ground. Look closely at this envelope which I posted for both you and David a long time ago in the other forum,

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg

This could not have been the same envelope that Bell filled out and initialed. And it could not have been originally labeled as containing multiple fragments. Not only did the DPD list it in their inventory as containing a single frag but Frazier testified to the WC that it only contained one as well, which was probably a somewhat mutilated bullet. And it is obvious, that the person who wrote in "fragments" was not the same person who filled out the other information on the envelope - despite the fact that Bell said she filled it out by herself.

And I don't think any rational person can avoid doubts about the initials that are on that envelope. The alterations and erasures made it worthless in a court of law and Fritz would never have signed off on such a thing. Initials are easy to copy. Give me 10 minutes and I will give you a good duplicate of any of them.

Von Pein's argument is that two secret service agents just forgot to initial CE-399 and then nurse Bell just forgot to initial the CE842 evidence envelope. And I'm still waiting for his excuse for why Todd's initials disappeared from CE399.

What you guys don't get is that when Hoover said "the public must be convinced" that Oswald acted alone, he meant it.

Are you sure you read Hoovers document correctly? Perhaps you needed to flip it over! :tomatoes