Ray Mitcham Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I'd love to know how CE399, the "magic bullet", came through all those wounds and lost just a small amount of lead from the base. Jfk's back, Jfk's throat, Connally's back Connally's rib Connally's chest, Connally's Wrist Connally's thigh. A truly "Magic" bullet. It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that? And no damage? Show me another bullet which has done anything similar which didn't show damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 You either believe Frazier was telling the truth about the bag or you think he was lying. So you don't even allow for the possibility of Frazier being "mistaken" about the length of the paper bag? Is that correct? As I said, it's no wonder you're lost. Was Linnie Mae also mistaken? How inconvenient that they both were "mistaken" about the size of the bag. When you are in a hole, David, stop digging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 DVP has not much cred. left, like Photon, Bill brown, C.Lamson, Jean Davidson, G Posner and John M. (how the mighty have fallen....) he is successfully being countered time and time again, and almost (!) every time they bite the dust. I wonder why these people continue, is it because of their pseudo religious fervor, or are they that stubborn and don't see the forest through the trees or are they paid disinfo 'artists'? Answers on a postcard please......... Some of them aren't intelligent enough to be paid disinfo artists....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Thomas, I rely on the weight of evidence. If you're suggesting that Lee wasn't carrying a package that morning, how do you account for those people that saw him carrying one? How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle? If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognize that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts. The question stands. What was in that paper bag? It is plausible that Frazier and his sister were coerced into saying that Oswald took a package to work that morning. After all, Frazier was a suspect himself. He worked in the TSBD and he owned a .303 caliber rifle. He was a neighbor of Oswald's wife and occasionally gave Oswald a ride to and from work, making Frazier the perfect person to force into lying about Oswald's journey to work that morning. Frazier was himself arrested that evening and "questioned" about the assassination. IMHO, Wesley Buell Frazier and his sister would have been easy to put pressure on and forced into lying. The fact that Frazier told the authorities that the package was short enough for Oswald to tuck one end of it under his armpit and the other end in his cupped hand supports the theory that there was no package because it suggests that Frazier guessed at how long the package would have been, but guessed wrong -- the broken down rifle was significantly longer than he thought and could not have been carried like that. Either that, or this was Frazier's way of accommodating the authorities (saying Oswald took a package to work) and exonerating Oswald at the same time. If that was the case, then Frazier was more clever than we think. --Tommy Here's an idea: Maybe Frazier could carry his Lee-Enfield .303 like that (tucked under his armpit and cupped in his hand) when it was broken-down, and that's why he thought Oswald could do it with a broken-down MC. A question for Robert Prudhomme or any other gun enthusiast: How long was Frazier's broken-down (disassembled) Lee-Enfield .303? I tried to do a little "research" on it but couldn't find anything. I'm guessing though that it would have been pretty long because it looks like Lee-Enfields had a relatively long stock Thanks, --Tommy . Edited April 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Thomas, I rely on the weight of evidence. If you're suggesting that Lee wasn't carrying a package that morning, how do you account for those people that saw him carrying one? How do you account for the fact that Frazier said the package was not long enough to have contained the broken-down rifle? If you've seen The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald, you'll recognise that Buell isn't the sharpest tool in the box. That's why he worked in the TSBD. Though at heart he is clearly an honest person, he's one that could probably be easily cajoled into saying anything. A smart attorney will twist him around his little finger. Gerry Spence plays with heartstrings. Bugliosi works with facts. The question stands. What was in that paper bag? My God, what nonsense! The only people who saw something said it wasn't what the Warren Commission claimed it was. That's the whole point. Can we say they might have been wrong? Yes. But should we ASSUME they were wrong, a la the Warren Commission? NO. No one knows what was in the bag, but Buelll Frazier has said from day one it was far too small to have held the rifle. He was a country boy, scared of the police. They pushed him around and tried to get him to sign a confession. And yet, he stood his ground. All these years later, he is still standing his ground. I've met him twice and have talked with him for over an hour. I've also met his son. They're as patriotic and straightforward as can be. Assuming Frazier was wrong is no better than assuming he was lying... I suspect--no, scratch that, know-- those assuming he was wrong or lying do so for their own selfish reasons... "Hmmm...I think I've got everything figured out, but this guy won't tell me what I want to hear...SO, he must be a bumpkin, an idiot. Yeah, that's it. Frazier was too stupid to be able to tell the difference in a relatively small bag made of thin paper and a bag at least twice its size made of thicker paper. And let's not mention the drive out to Irving--y'know, the one where Frazier failed to notice a 38 by 17 inch piece of crisp shipping paper folded in eigths and stuffed in Oswald's clothes. That happens everyday, right? Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you have never worked in a warehouse and never handled shipping paper of any kind. Am I right? Because if you had, you'd know the Warren Commission's assumption Oswald made the bag at work on the 21st and smuggled it out to Irving in his clothes without Frazier or anyone else noticing is one of the lamest most unrealistic conclusions in the whole report. As Frazier told me. "That did not happen." Hi Pat, How lame is that assumption, that Oswald made a bag and managed to smuggle it out of the building? It seems perfectly feasible to me. Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land. Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there). The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple. Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning. No it hasn't. If you want to ignore the scientific analyses of the assorted bullet fragments recovered, that's fine. Let's forget about that. How then do you account for the film that shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to a shot at precisely the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land. Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there). The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple. Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning. No it hasn't. If you want to ignore the scientific analyses of the assorted bullet fragments recovered, that's fine. Let's forget about that. How then do you account for the film that shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to a shot at precisely the same time? You are quite right, Paul, They are both reacting to a shot at precisely the same time. Trouble was they were reacting to a shot , not to "BEING" shot. Edited April 21, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 You are quite right, Paul, They are both reacting to a shot at precisely the same time. Trouble was they were reacting to a shot , not to "BEING" shot. Ok, so I need to couch my words in more precise terms. If Connally was merely reacting to the sound of a shot, how do you account for that anguished grimace? Was that 'Oh no! Someone's shooting!', or 'S**t, that hurts'? Look at his expression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I think I might grimace if a shot came past my shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) But let's say that Oswald did take his rifle to work that day, in a package or inside his pants, and used it to shoot at the president. If he did that, he wasn't the only one shooting. How do we know that? Because for one thing, the Mannlicher Carcano, or any other rifle you can name, does not fire magic bullets. Which brings us back to Von Pein's fairy-tale land. Are you aware, Ron, that sound scientific analysis has proven the so-called 'magic bullet' theory? If you're not, and you think there is a more rational explanation, I'd like to hear it. If all of the shots didn't come from behind, where do you think they came from? There was no grassy knoll shooter, unless you really do trust the likes of Jean Hill (changed her story in an effort to seek publicity) and Gordon Arnold (a retard who wasn't even there). The head shot. Do you believe that came from the front? If you do, I'll show you why you're wrong. It's really quite simple. Sound science has thoroughly debunked the SBT from the beginning. No it hasn't. If you want to ignore the scientific analyses of the assorted bullet fragments recovered, that's fine. Let's forget about that. How then do you account for the film that shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to a shot at precisely the same time? "Precisely" the same time? You're repeating propaganda. The only panel of photographic experts to study the Zapruder film concluded Kennedy showed signs of being hit before going behind the sign in the film and Connally didn't show signs of being hit until after coming out from behind the sign in the film. The single-assassin community, the supposed defenders of science and the official record, eventually came to conclude Connally was indeed hit just as he came out from behind the sign. This was a problem for the first shot hit as concluded by the HSCA photography panel. So PRESTO--the single-assassin theorist community pretends it never happened. Dale Myers, who claimed he'd reproduced the Z-film frame by frame, admits that he only reproduced one of every nine frames during the sequence where the HSCA panel said Kennedy had been shot. It only follows then that he animated the rest to show no reaction to a shot. Vincent Bugliosi, who introduced evidence supporting a first shot hit before Kennedy went behind the sign in the Zapruder film at the 1986 mock trial of Oswald, failed to acknowledge that he'd done so anywhere in his over 2500 page book Reclaiming History. He pretended as though he'd never claimed Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign. Even so, in Reclaiming History, he still scrambled things up by going back and forth between a second shot hit while Kennedy and Connally were first going behind the sign in the film, and a second shot hit just as they were coming out from behind the sign. Edited April 21, 2015 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Hi Pat and Ray, Do either of you have a more rational explanation for the wounds sustained by Kennedy and Connally? I haven't heard one yet. There seems to be emphasis on discrediting the people that support it, rather than providing a reasonable alternative explanation. I hope you both understand, I'm not towing any particular line here. I'm quite able to change my opinion. So if either of you can provide a convincing alternative explanation I would dearly love to hear it. Kind Regards, Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 DVP has not much cred. left, like Photon, Bill brown, C.Lamson, Jean Davidson, G Posner and John M. (how the mighty have fallen....) he is successfully being countered time and time again, and almost (!) every time they bite the dust. I wonder why these people continue, is it because of their pseudo religious fervor, or are they that stubborn and don't see the forest through the trees or are they paid disinfo 'artists'? Answers on a postcard please......... For what it's worth, here's my answer. Not on a postcard. None of the so-called 'mighty' have fallen. They continue to speak and write basic common sense. You can't even put a coherent sentence together. How on earth do you expect any level of respect? Tell us something useful, rather than spouting unmitigated bullxxxx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Schmidt Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Paul, Have you checked out Pat's website (http://www.patspeer.com/)? It exhaustively covers the physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and official investigations over the years. I was very impressed. It is essential reading and is more efficient in understanding Pat's position if you really have the open mind you say you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Baker Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Hi Brian, Thanks. I've been out of the picture for a while, and haven't looked at Pat's site. I'll take a look. I do have an open mind! Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 21, 2015 Author Share Posted April 21, 2015 To be clear, Paul, my study of the evidence led me to accept a different shooting scenario than proposed by the most LNs, and most CTs. I could certainly be wrong. But the point of my research, IMO, is to demonstrate that it's clearly wrong to assume all the alternatives have been discussed and presented before the public, and that one must choose between the current LN consensus, three shots fired from the school book depository with a first shot miss and a third shot entering at the supposed cowlick entry, or the most common CT scenario, more than three shots fired from multiple locations with a fatal shot coming from the grassy knoll and blowing out the back of Kennedy's head. There's just too many problems with these scenarios, IMO. It's time for less problematic scenarios to arise. You appear to be on the youngish side. Perhaps, if you look at this enough, you can come up with one that will stand the test of time. 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