Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

The "Wound Ballistics Of 6.5-mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Ammunition" Report

Recommended Posts

So, Ken, you're going to just toss the two front-seat C2766 bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) out the window and either pretend they never existed or that they were planted in the car, is that it?

How nice of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you can tell me how a bullet that could not be recovered at all can be shown to have been POSITIVELY shot AT the limo from C2766, then you cannot say that the three shells POSITIVELY contained the bullets that are found in the limo. (aside from CE399)

Shouldn't just plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning spell out the answer here, Glenn? It sure does for me.

Why can't any conspiracy theorist manage to perform this fourth-grade math? ....

1.) A bullet from Rifle C2766 (split in two parts) was recovered in the President's car.

2.) A whole bullet from Rifle C2766 was found in Parkland Hospital (which is where the two limo victims were taken right after the shooting occurred). [Let the booing and hissing from the "Planted Bullet" brigade begin.]

3.) Three spent bullet shell casings from Rifle C2766 were found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

4.) No whole bullets were recovered from the bodies of either of the two victims. (Only tiny fragments were recovered from Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.)

5.) The enormous majority of the earwitnesses heard exactly THREE shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza.

Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

1.) A bullet from Rifle C2766 (split in two parts) was recovered in the President's car. BS. No test was performed that 'proves' this.

No bullet found in Parkland hospital was proven to have been fired from 2766 on 11/22. The one that was found there has never been linked to either the shooting of JFK or John Connally. In fact the condition of that bullet indicates it was fired in laboratory conditions to preserve the condition of the bullet.

3 spent shells are not proof of having been fired from the location where they were placed. No similar 'dented' shell has been produced by this rifle in all the test firings.

5.) The enormous majority of the earwitnesses heard exactly THREE shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza. A totally untrue statement.

Tho all your statements are either untrue or can't be proven, what is clear is that LHO can't be placed in the Sniper's nest that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, you're going to just toss the two front-seat C2766 bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) out the window and either pretend they never existed or that they were planted in the car, is that it?

How nice of you.

No. Just that there is no proof that they are related to 2766. No Proof....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, you're going to just toss the two front-seat C2766 bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) out the window and either pretend they never existed or that they were planted in the car, is that it?

How nice of you.

No. Just that there is no proof that they are related to 2766. No Proof....

You're wrong. Dead wrong.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Ken, you're going to just toss the two front-seat C2766 bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) out the window and either pretend they never existed or that they were planted in the car, is that it?

How nice of you.

No. Just that there is no proof that they are related to 2766. No Proof....

You're wrong. Dead wrong.

Not Dead, Not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah -- THAT's why I used the word "proof", Dave, errantly thinking that you'd have by now learned the difference.

see, "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning" doesn't work in a courtroom, Davey, and the charges you've submitted require proof.

there's nothing in Common Law or US Federal Law or ANY State Law that holds that a jury can decide a defendant's fate if he's guilty up to and including plain, old common sense and deductive reasoning.

it didn't work in England hundreds of years ago, and it doesn't apply now.

try to understand: Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning".

Period.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, a straight up serious question for you, that, if you duck, I'll accept that you have no the answer.

DO YOU understand the definition of the word "proof?" I don't mean pasting and copying it from Dictionary.com, I mean know it...

DO you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

1 - three spent shell casings do NOT prove that three bullets were fired from that gun. On 11/22/63 or ANY day. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

2 - there's no forensic or ballistic evidence that POSITIVELY connects CE567 and CE569 with C2766. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

3 - whether planted OR NOT, there's NO evidence that POSITIVELY puts CE399 INSIDE C2766.

4 - the 5th starting point has NOTHING to do with the ballistic connection between ANY bullet on the planet and C2766. NONE. (deductive reasoning is NOT evidence)

IF you find a way to show me you know the definition of the word proof, then i challenge you to refute any of these statements. By refute, I mean SHOW me where exactly they're wrong, not TELL me how YOUR opinion differs from these statements. These statements are NOT opinion. According to the definition of the word "proof", they are FACT.

and although I'm sure you're not able to rise to the challenge, that is what that is - a challenge to prove, POSITIVELY, an error in those statements FOR WHICH YOU ASKED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't just plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning spell out the answer here, Glenn? It sure does for me.

Try to understand: Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning".

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard any CTer utter.

What Glenn Nall just basically said is that no juror can be allowed to use "common sense" or "deductive reasoning" in trying to arrive at the truth in a criminal case. And that I am not allowed to utilize those things either when discussing the JFK case. Because Glenn assures me there's just "NO room for plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning" in a courtroom (or at a JFK forum like this one).

Glenn can't possibly realize how silly he sounded just now when he said that. For if he did realize it, he never would have said something so ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, he does not know the difference. I can see DVP as part of a lynch mob.

"Well, he shore looks guilty! String him up!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here.

But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, he does not know the difference. I can see DVP as part of a lynch mob.

"Well, he shore looks guilty! String him up!"

I'm fairly "shore" that if all juries consisted of "JFK Internet CTers", all guilty defendants would be set free. You'd find SOME evidence that you could pretend was fake.

Most Internet CTers can't even find it within themselves to string Oswald up for Officer Tippit's murder, let alone JFK's. And the Tippit murder can easily be solved by any first grader with a learning disability. And yet the CTers are stumped by it. Go figure.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you ducked another question. I challenged you to POSITIVELY put the assumed errant bullet IN C2766.

You didn't even try. How come?

I can put the third BULLET SHELL CASING in C2766. And THREE shots were fired (based on the preponderance of evidence and the witness accounts). So the math isn't too difficult here.

But, you see Glenn, I'm using some of that "common sense and deductive reasoning" I was talking about before. And THAT is taboo in your world, isn't it?

If you can put the third shell casing in C2766, can you prove what day it was fired on? Anyone can fire a bullet somewhere else and leave the shell casing on the 6th floor as "evidence". Prove it was fired on 22/11/63.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not the shell casing. the bullet. you said you can prove the BULLET came from the gun. I'm asking how. you're ducking the question, or you're not reading it slowly enough.

and you've never served on a criminal jury have you. you've never read any kind of jury instruction from a criminal case before. if you had, you'd know the difference. the judge will fairly well specifically TELL the jury that NO MATTER what their gut tells them (think Michael Jackson trial in LA) that the ONLY thing that they can base their decision on is the... EVIDENCE.

Not "my world" - The world of American Jurisprudence. That would be YOUR world, Dave, because it is THIS set of standards to which you are unavoidably and irrevocably attached to, whether you accept that or not. IF you broke a law, and IF a policeman saw you do so, there's NO AMOUNT of DVP Reasoning that will get you out of it. It will be the EVIDENCE that provides the outcome.

So - you can put the - oh - "put" in this context means "show this as fact", which means "prove such and such" - you're saying that you can "put" the casing that once owned the third bullet IN the gun. (Even though what i actually challenged you with is completely different from that. I asked for you to put any of those bullets in that gun, but you ducked.)

My heart is aflutter in anticipation of this revelatory event.

Show me, Dave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...