Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 ok, well, that's cool. in the meantime, the list of questions you've ducked is growing leaps and bounds. like RABBIT'S families. like bacteria. it just grows... and grows... and your credibility? well, now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 see? bob and weave. stick and move. when a man cannot reason, his only response is a counter-attack. I still think he has a photo of Specter over his bed.... gotta learn from the best, right? David... who found these items, when and were they photographed within the limo? or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it? http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm is the "fragment of the nose of a bullet" with CE569 a fragment of the base... CE568 and 570 are supposedly comparisons of these two fragments to a shot fired from C2766... - Frasier has to explain why they don't match exactly in his testimony... But the real question is how did FBI Orin Bartlett get it? For 14-16 hours, no one but the Secret Service and some corpsman named Mills is in contact with this vital piece of evidence. One wonders how "2 SS agents" becomes the Deputy Chief of the SS and some Navy Corpsman?? This is the same SS where CE399 goes from being NOT the bullet handed over to Rowley by Johnson, to being the bullet Rowley hands to Todd to Frazier... So we already have a break in CE399's chain which results in it coming into being in the hands of the Chief of the SS... And now Q2 & Q3 come into being at the hands of the SS and yet again, some corpsman from the Navy (how did he get in on this?)... Whether Orin delivers what these men provide him is unknowable... What these men turn over to the FBI liaison Orin Bartlett is also unknowable. What is knowable is that the SS and FBI have established a history of altering, providing and destroying evidence which could cause them problems... Tell us why we would EVER believe them related to ANYTHING in this case David, when their evidence to convict is such crap? Q. When was this examination made? FRASIER. Between 2 and 4:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963. Q. That was about 10 hours, 12 hours after the assassination? A. Yes, sir; 14 to 16 hours. Q. Fourteen to sixteen hours. A. Yes, sir. Q. May I ask, do you know in whose custody the automobile was prior to your examination from the time it was shipped on the airplane? A. When I arrived there were two Secret Service men present but I do not recall their names. They were introduced to me and they were there during the entire examination but I don't recall their actual names. The car was under guard in the Secret Service garage in Washington, D.C. Other than that I do not know. Q. Was this a joint examination by you and by the Secret Se or was the examination made by the FBI? A. No, sir; by the FBI at the request of the Secret Service who had already examined the interior of the car for personal effects and other items. Q. Did they certify to you or advise you that the car had been under their custody during this 14- to 16-hour period? A. I don't recall whether they actually stated that. What they stated was that the car had immediately been flown to Washington and placed in this garage and kept under surveillance the entire time. Q. Thank you. During the above examination, two Secret Service Agents noticed two large fragments on the front seat and retrieved them (Q2 and Q3) CE 567 (Q2), the nose of a WCC/MC bullet, was found on the front seat of the limousine just to the right of the driver by Mr. Paul Paterni, Deputy Chief of the United States Secret Service, late on the 22nd of November while the car was in the Secret Service garage. He then gave it to White House Detail Chief (of the Secret Service) Floyd M. Boring, who gave it to FBI liaison Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, who passed it to FBI Special Agent Frazier at 11:50 p.m. on 22 November, according to records maintained by SA Frazier. This chain of custody is also legally binding. CE 569 (Q3), the base of a bullet (brass jacket only), was found on the floor between the right front seat of the limousine and the right front door by Chief Hospital Corpsman Thomas G. Mills of the U.S. Navy, who was assigned to the White House doctor’s office. Corpsman Mills gave it to FBI liaison Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, who passed it to FBI Special Agent Frazier at 11:50 p.m. on 22 November, according to records maintained by SA Frazier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Glenn, you should bear in mind that much has changed in 50 years, trees have grown, etc. I noticed the trees were much different back in the 90's than they were back in the 60's the first time I was there. So you can't rely on the view from the 6th floor as being very similar. One thing you also can't get the feel for is that you can't just stand at that window and get that view. The camera appears to be about 3 feet above floor level, a position that would not have been possible in 63 because of the upper half of the window. Actually firing a rifle from the spot necessary based on window opening at the time, shooter would have to be sitting or lying on the floor and sighting with his left eye. Basically an impossible shot. You can't see any of the obstructions within the room itself. Why do you believe the shooter would have to be sighting with his let eye? because i've been at the site and it is impossible to sight a rifle onto elm street with the rifle on the right side of your body. I'm not saying a contortionist 'absolutely' couldn't do it, but it would be a very uncomfortable for a normal sized person. The bottom of the window is only about a foot off the floor, so a person definitely couldn't stand up and fire through the lower half of the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it? Yes, we are. What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder. But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD? And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence. So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22? Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness? There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this: Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. I'm not like the CTers. I don't automatically think J. Edgar and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does). Edited June 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) David J., Not taking into account WHO was firing the rifle, the FACT remains that Carcano rifle # C2766 WAS fired at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. That fact is proven by the existence of CE567 and CE569 in the front seat of JFK's car. You can try and dodge those C2766 bullet fragments by pretending those fragments really WEREN'T fired from the C2766 rifle at all (despite the numerous firearms identification experts who said they were) or that those two fragments were planted into the official record in this case by some person or persons who wanted to frame Lee Oswald for the President's murder. But those two fragments are forever going to be part of the evidence in this case just the same---whether you like it or not. And if you DON'T think those fragments were planted into the official record, then it's impossible for Rifle C2766 to NOT have been fired at Kennedy's car on November 22nd. Now, David, can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence? First DVP, there is no proof as to 'when' any fragments were fired from any rifle. Even if there were proof (which there isn't) that the fragments were fired from that rifle, there is no proof as to 'when' they were fired through that rifle. Just as those shells that were recovered from Tippits scene were replaced as evidence, I'm going with there "is not proof, at all, that any fragment in the limo was ever inside 2766. You can guess, speculate or lie all you wish, but you can't put those fragments into 2766 on 11/22. I don't have to pretend they weren't, you have to prove they were. Since no one in the civilized world has been able to do so in 50+ years, I'm going with 'you can't do it at all". Edited June 28, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 "Yes, we are." ah. this explains pretty much everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 No, Glenn. It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. You know, it's that stuff ("common sense and deductive reasoning") that you said there is "NO room for" when trying to ascertain someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can just hear Vince Bugliosi laughing aloud at this ludicrous statement.... "Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning"." -- Glenn Nall; 6/26/15 It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. Something which you don't seem to have a walking acquaintance with. If you can hear Bug Man laughing, you've lost your mind. If you were on trial for murder and the jury were told to use common sense on the evidence that they didn't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would you be okay with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it? Yes, we are. What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder. But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD. And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence. So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22? Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness? There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this: Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. I'm not like the CTers. I don't automatically think J. Edgar and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does). so then you don't believe Hoover knew Frank Costello personally while he lied to america about the Mafia, or slept with his main man, or blackmailed the Kennedys - and you don't believe that LBJ lied and cheated his way through the Senate and the White House... all that's made up, too... right? you think Mac Wallace and Billy Sol Estes are lying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 "Now, David, can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?" remember lesson 1 in making accusations, Davey? It's not the Defender who has to prove the Accuser wrong, it's the Accuser who has to PROVE his accusations. we don't HAVE to effin' prove they are fraudulent. YOU have to effin' prove that they're evidence. why is that so effin' hard to understand??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Yes, Glenn, Mr. DVP is quite the artful dodger, isn't he. He writes these great long posts with absolutely no content to them. A thousand word post by DVP can be boiled down to nothing more than "Trust and believe the FBI, the SS, the Warren Commission and the HSCA. They are your friends." That's okay, I've had about enough of the verbal diarrhea from DVP. The question is, "How did the Magic Bullet get through JFK's neck without hitting any vertebrae?" and I am going to put DVP's tail through the wringer until he admits it could not have happened. Either that, or I will make him want to leave this forum. I don't really care which happens first. Edited June 28, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 No, Glenn. It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. You know, it's that stuff ("common sense and deductive reasoning") that you said there is "NO room for" when trying to ascertain someone's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can just hear Vince Bugliosi laughing aloud at this ludicrous statement.... "Guilt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS NO room for "plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning"." -- Glenn Nall; 6/26/15 It's part of that "common sense" stuff I'm always talking about. Something which you don't seem to have a walking acquaintance with. If you can hear Bug Man laughing, you've lost your mind. If you were on trial for murder and the jury were told to use common sense on the evidence that they didn't need 'beyond a reasonable doubt' would you be okay with that? yet another question he won't answer truthfully. or at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 "The Costello – Hoover relationship was hidden for many years. However, it was later discovered that whenever Hoover was in New York City he would meet secretly with Costello for breakfast, and sometimes even on a park bench. The question that should be asked, is if Costello was providing Hoover with information on fixed horse races, what did Hoover do for Costello? The answer is simple. During this period of time, although Hoover went rabidly after such Number One Public Enemies like John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson, Hoover absolutely refused to recognize that the Mafia, or the “Cosa Nostra” even existed." https://joebrunoonthemob.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/joe-bruno-on-the-mob-frank-costello-%E2%80%93-the-prime-minister-of-the-underworld/ this is the man who would not frame a person for murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) "Yes, we are. [We must always take somebody's "word" for everything.]" -- DVP ah. this explains pretty much everything. Glenn, if you don't "take somebody's word" for SOMETHING somewhere along the line, how can you ever even begin to try and solve the case? Are you actually suggesting that conspiracy theorists NEVER "take anyone's word" for anything connected with the JFK murder? Example #1 --- Aren't CTers "taking the word" of Earlene Roberts when she said Lee Oswald stayed in his room on Beckley Avenue for "3 or 4 minutes" on 11/22/63? Example #2 --- Aren't CTers "taking the word" of both Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley when they said the murder of J.D. Tippit occurred at specific times on November 22nd? Edited June 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 (edited) Yes, Glenn, Mr. DVP is quite the artful dodger, isn't he. He writes these great long posts with absolutely no content to them. A thousand word post by DVP can be boiled down to nothing more than "Trust and believe the FBI, the SS, the Warren Commission and the HSCA. They are your friends." That's okay, I've had about enough of the verbal diarrhea from DVP. The question is, "How did the Magic Bullet get through JFK's neck without hitting any vertebrae?" and I am going to put DVP's tail through the wringer until he admits it could not have happened. Either that, or I will make him want to leave this forum. I don't really care which happens first. Hilarious. Pompous Prudhomme The Great thinks he's such an expert on human anatomy that I should, indeed, toss ALL of the following under the bus... WC HSCA/FPP 3 autopsists Clark Panel Rockefeller Commission Somebody needs to widen Prudhomme's front door. I doubt his head can fit inside that door anymore. Edited June 28, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 28, 2015 Author Share Posted June 28, 2015 i take the word of people who are not proven hypocrites and liars, D. that's the difference. and your insults make you look a lot worse than me, dude. so keep them coming. 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