Duke Lane

It seems to me that some here are proposing the possibility of multiple shooters at multiple locations, while others are propounding one shooter firing from one location, the latter ruling out any possibility of a particular shot based upon the supposed facts that /A/ the inability of a shot to have been fired at "a" particular point in time and have hit something in particular precludes such a shot have been fired at any time to hit anything, and /B/ if there was more than one shooter, all "must" have been using the same xxxxty Carcano rifles.

Am I to understand that there was never a time that anyone anywhere in or on the Dal-Tex building could have fired a shot that hit JFK ever? Am I likewise to understand that the only proof of such as shot is its hitting its target? And also that if someone made a shot from there and it did not hit its intended target, then it was not taken?

Understand that I'm not propounding that a shot did come from Dal-Tex, where in Dal-Tex it may have come from, when it was taken, nor to where it might have gone. I am merely asking if the possibility of a Dal-Tex shot is ruled out at all times, from all places, from hitting anything at any place along the route. Nobody ever had a clear shot, even if it missed.

I'd also ask, relative to the windshield "hit" (if that's what it was), for any projectile travelling at any speed, first off: how slow would it have to be going to cause only that amount of damage if in fact the damage was caused by a projectile; and second: if a bullet of any caliber was travelling at that speed, what would happen to a human body - or, in particular, its head - if it was struck by that projectile?

If nothing, then I agree: there'd be no sense in using such a round.

I don't recall if Tony Marsh had ever posted photos - say, from Love Field or along the parade route - that showed that there was not a dent in the windshield frame prior to Dealey Plaza. Presuming for a minute that he did (where's Robin Unger when you need him?), then would we all agree that the damage must have been or at least most likely was incurred during the course of the shooting?

If the damage was not there prior, but was there by the time everyone got to Parkland, if we cannot pinpoint exactly what caused the damage or - assuming it was a shot - where it may have been fired (or thrown!) from, must we then conclude either /a/ the damage happened elsewhere or /b/ the damage didn't happen at all?

Is there ever a possibility that anything can happen without leaving behind a clue to the cause of its occurrence, or do all things leave behind discernable evidence and is all such evidence always found?

Just trying to nail down what our point of reference is here. All the theoretical expertise in the world does not a fact make.

I'm also looking at the photo referenced earlier (http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/ike5big.jpg - may have to cut-and-paste to see, they don't like remote referencing for some reason) and am wondering what the traffic signals have to do with a shot from anywhere in Dal-Tex?

Where have all the pictures gone?

Here is a blank line:

... which is about all I'm seeing. And it ain't my browser!

Mr. Super Prosecutor has done it again: put forth the proposition that someone he thinks is "guilty of murder" therefore must be so.

Vincent Bugliosi's recent The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder is not finding the same receptive audience as did his earlier work that we might subtitle similarly, "The Prosecution of Lee Harvey Oswald for Murder" (interestingly, I note his publishers have already re-titled -- and condensed -- it into an almost readable trade paperback called Four Days in November, which the cover says is "derived from" his lengthier masterpiece).

A review on Bloomberg.com by Scott McLemee characterizes The Prosecution of Bush as "one of the most unoriginal, repetitious and self-indulgent books to reach the market in living memory." Woe that he hadn't read that book first before the Post reviewed the much more acclaimed Rewriting History. McLemee goes on to note:

Why, McLemee asks, "did publishers and lawyers look away when Bugliosi presented them with his manuscript? Not from fear, necessarily. At times," he says, "embarrassment is a decent feeling."

I couldn't help but post a comment:

(Couldn't help myself.)

Easy answer is:

(1) CE 399 didn't come from Connally's thigh; and (2) it wasn't planted at Parkland.

CE399 fell out of the shallow back wound of JFK at Parkland.

It would appear that we have a winner!

Once again does nothing to answer the question about the Connolly thigh wound!

Before one soars with the eagles, he should first learn to walk with the chickens.

Besides that metaphor, I long ago explained that the Connally leg/thigh wound was created by the one and only true "Magic Bullet".. IE: Shot#3!

The one down in front of James Altgens position which went through the coat collar of JFK, struck in the edge of the hairline, tunnelling DOWNWARD through the soft tissue at the base of the neck to strike the skull in the EOP region of the skull at a higher elevation than the entry point through the skin at the base of the neck, to thereafter continue on through the mid-brain of JFK, exit in the frontal lobe of the brain where the skull bone was already absent from the second shot/aka Z313 impact.

To then exit the frontal lobe of the skull and continue on downwards, striking JBC in the back right shoulder; penetrating downward through his chest and glancing off the right fifth rib to exit the chest and then enter the left leg/thigh.

All of which shot, as well as the bullet, was ultimately made to disappear.

Bawwk! Bawwk-baawwwk! (Skip-skip, flap-flap!) Okay, so I admit that I couldn't follow that last if I was tied to it! Damn them eagles and their "magic" anyway!

I've always held a certain fondness that CE399 was, indeed, exactly as Humes and Tink (? I think it was him) surmised: bullet worked back out during CPR, someone picked it up as a souvenir, thought better of it but too late, stuck it on a stretcher and hoped nobody saw him (or her). When it became the solution to the entire murder, well, what idiot's gonna admit what they'd done now?!?

As for Connally's thigh, the rest of that scenario - that CE399 only penetrated a short distance - is that the fragment was of the bullet that went through his back, shattered with the impact on his wrist (which did the same), and scattered through the car and onto the street, including hitting the inside of the windshield.

It could be possible - tho' unlikely - that it ended up chipping a curb not too far away as well, but I'm not going to go out on that limb (and have it tumble my trajectory!!).

Some things become self-evident in this scenario, especially as relates to the question of what happened to the rest of the bullet. First, that if a whole bullet chipped the "Tague curb," then this is a fourth bullet. Second, if it is a fourth bullet, then it wasn't fired from the Carcano. And third, if it wasn't fired from the Carcano, then none of the characteristics of the 6.5 ammo needs have applied to this projectile, including that it needn't have been full metal jacket or have been of even the same general weight characteristics.

No evidence of it? Of course not: it was designed to effectively explode on impact with a surface roughly as dense as a skull. The rib didn't qualify; the radius did. Poof! Aww gone. All that's left is a little lead ... and of course, such a bullet could have been made using the lead "guts" of the 6.5 ammo (and whatever else).

Not my theory, tho' I admit it's not half-bad!

CE399 was merely a fluke, an accident of "nature," as it were.

Being mostly Irish myself (tho' I've got a fifth of Scotch in me!), I knew that. I only supposed you were Scottish because you don't know how to spell your last name correctly!

And how do you figure that out Duke? Duncan MacRae = Duncan Son of Rae

Also, Scotch is an alcoholic drink and not accepted by us Scots as a shorter abbreviation of Scottish. Ask Bill Miller, I believe he's probably an expert on Scotch

Well, of course, good sir, I'd have realized that by havin' some of that foin malt, and a wee bit too much, I'd have! Now, of course, to say that Scots and Scotch aren't both alcoholic, I think, is to stretch matters just a tad, but I think I discern yer distinction, tho' I'm sure you'd have to admit it's a bit blurred ... or maybe that's "blurry." But c'mon: bagpipes 'n' skirts? That nails it, fer sure: QED, as I'm so fond o' sayin'!

As my grandpa used to say, there's no need to argue the point for we all realize that there are but two kinds of people in the world: the Irish and the ones who wish they were. (Should that all be capitalized? I'm nah sure.) As proof, I submit to you March 17 and challenge you to come up with another day when everyone acts like a drunken Scottish fool!

I rest my case and invite you to spell yer name any which way you choose (for McRae would mean the same thing across the Sea, tho' Ray would probably have spelled his name right too!), so long as neither of us are bloody Brits! Carferanip? I kindrinkta that!

(closest thing to a sweepin' bow they had!)

And PS - Miller? Lite? Well, I suppose just about anything's possible.

... Some wise man once said (I forget the source) that in figuring out an assassination one should not ask who pulled the trigger, but WHO PAID FOR THE BULLETS?

... I believe that by learning who pulled the trigger, it may lead to who bought the bullets. You have to start someplace.

OK, start at Klein's: they didn't ship the ammo with the gun; I'm not sure they even carried it. Then there's Green's in Dallas and elsewhere, who also carried MC rifles, and may have handled some of the Italian ammo (that came already in clips [see CD778] ... which could answer how the MC ended up with a clip, no?) but not the WCC ammo. Two of the salespeople who worked in the gun department there were interviewed and said the same things, including that neither recognized LHO as having been a customer (but then, it was a big place as evidenced by the fact that the gun department was on the fourth floor, so who knows?); they were not asked, apparently, if they could recall anyone to whom they'd sold the 6.5 Italian ammo.

The FBI canvassed all of the locations listed in the yellow pages for "ammunition, guns, hardware stores, pawn shops, department stores, discount stores, sporting goods stores, and Army and Navy surplus stores" (a pretty varied lot, seems to cover all the bases) and asked if they "had ever handled the 6.5 M/M Mannlicher-Carcano, Western Cartridge Company, ammunition, and if he knew of any source handling this type ammunition" (again, no question about the 6.5 Italian loads, which as noted could have been a source for the clip, or to whom it may have been sold).

There were only two sources in the Dallas area for WCC 6.5 ammo, one having sold some to the other. Both store owners were questioned, and both denied selling to Oswald or having him in the store as a customer. One denied knowing the identity of any individual to whom he'd sold any to, although, he said, if someone had bought a lot of it - more than a box or two - then he'd surely have remembered him; the other was apparently not asked.

In effect, they said that they hadn't sold the ammo used in the shooting, but if they had, they didn't know who they might've sold it to except that it wasn't Oswald. If someone bought it for Oswald - which would also indicate some sort of accomplice, assuming that Oswald ever had anything to do with the rifle or ammo - we'd have no way of knowing because these guys didn't know their customers and apparently didn't keep any kind of receipt system.

Just to do that math, WCC 6.5 bullets came in boxes of 20. John Brinegar bought a case of this ammo at a cost of "$45 per 1000 rounds." If that means that a case consisted of 1000 rounds, then he had 50 boxes. He sold 20 to John Masen, leaving 30 to himself. At the time of the interview with the FBI, he had six boxes remaining, meaning he'd retailed a total of 24 boxes. Masen had two boxes remaining after having retailed 18 of them, for a total of 42 boxes sold.

There were a total of eight boxes of ammo between the two stores at the time, and the FBI apparently bought two of them to send in to the lab in DC. (No indication of which of the two they got 'em from, or if one from each ... or if they were acquired elsewhere.)

That's a total of somewhere between 21 and 42 people who bought the ammo - 9 to 18 at one store, 12 to 24 at the other - at not "more than a box or two" ... and not a one of them with an identity either proprietor could recall! Case closed ... unsolved.

How or to what extent it was able to be determined that the ammo wasn't mail-ordered (did postal regulations permit such a thing?), I don't know (maybe someone can elucidate?), but presuming that to be so and presuming that Fort Worth was also included in the inquiry at least to some extent, there were but two sources of 6.5 WCC rounds in Dallas to be considered, and the ammo had to come from one of them.

The WC and FBI's focus on Lee Oswald acting alone and unaided prevented investigators' consideration of the possibility that another of either Masen or Brineger's customers could have bought - or even Masen or Brinegar having provided - the ammunition used in the assassination, whether or not it eventually ended up in Oswald's hands.

It also illustrates both what I have elsewhere termed "inter-service rivalry" - where information was not shared between government agencies - and the WC and FBI's "ostrich-like" collection and examination of evidence for, had neither existed, the consideration of John Masen's apparent involvement in illegal gun-running would have come to the fore, and his easy and off-handed denial of having sold the ammo to Oswald or another perpetrator might not have been so quickly and summarily accepted.

(At the time, Masen was still under investigation if not indictment for his supposed part in the theft of weaponry from Fort Hood and area armories, for which he'd been arrested in early November. In that light, his resemblance to Lee Oswald might have become more conspicuous and curious. Frank Ellsworth, the BATF agent assigned to armory case, had been at DPD HQ that afternoon, and upon seeing Oswald in custody, had supposedly wondered what Masen had done to get arrested by the locals so soon.)

If, as has been purported, bullets tested by the FBI materially matched the composition of the bullets and fragments found following the shooting, and those bullets indeed were acquired from either or both of these two men, does that not increase the likelihood that the bullets fired on Elm Street came from one or both of these men or their stores? If the Elm Street bullets came from a Dallas store but were not purchased by Lee Oswald, does that not lead to the conclusion that either someone else bought them for Oswald - thereby becoming an accomplice, wittingly or not - or that someone else bought them and used them?

The FBI did not consider or investigate the former possibility, and much less the latter.

None of this proves anything except that it wasn't investigated and the FBI wasn't interested. But it nevertheless remains a fact that no purchase of ammunition of any sort - not for the rifle or for the revolver - was ever connected with Oswald, and that no other shells or bullets other than those found at the murder scenes or (supposedly) on his person were ever found to have ever been in his possession. In describing this anomaly, I'm reminded of the accident report to the insurance company: "the car came out of nowhere, hit me, and disappeared," for certainly all other traces of their existence seems to not exist other than which came about as a result of their being there.

... I'd think it's highly unlikely that the Paines dumped the boxes in question anywhere, if only inasmuch as the pair seemed more than willing to aid in providing anything to the authorities that wouldn't help Oswald. Instead, I'd think they'd have walked them downtown if that's what it took to get them to the FBI; I don't for a moment envision either of them hiding anything that would incriminate Lee.

Duke, I agree that they were'nt solicitous of Lee's interest, but, how would Italian cartridges incriminate Lee, since it was determined that the cartridges he used were made by the Western Cartridge Company? Western was a clearinghouse for American surplus ammo while SMI, not SIM, was a clearinghouse for Italian-made ammo.

I wouldn't think that they'd be aware of the distinction, either as Quakers who foreswore firearms as instruments of violence, or as members of the general public who were unaware of the fine details of the investigations of the FBI and WC before the Report came out.

... NOT!

Duncan,

Being mostly Irish myself (tho' I've got a fifth of Scotch in me!), I knew that. I only supposed you were Scottish because you don't know how to spell your last name correctly!

... I am amazed at the amount of people who cant distinguish possibility from probability...

... and I am amazed at how much we've carried on without waiting for a response from the person to whom this thread is directed a mere two days ago.

Given the limited question that was initially proposed - or at least its general topic - is there any question why nobody pays a bit of attention to "conspiracy theorists" who cannot let just one question stand on its own without bringing up 35 others, all demanding equal time and attention?

... And since we've asked and answered each and every one of them and created new arguments - including internecine ad hominem attacks - what, exactly is anyone trying to accomplish here?

"Sir, we have a question. No, four. Actually, 20. And three different opinions about each one, along with six different perspectives on each of those. Can you spare a minute to respond in minute detail to everything to my total satisfaction and that of everyone else here?"

My suggestion would be that it is NOT answers to "Questions for Gary Mack."

Duke, Italian ammunition had SMI stamped on it, the same company that manufactured the rifle clip listed. Brinegar or some guy that worked for H.L. Green Co. mentions this. It's seems to me this is very meaningful. The boxes likely were dumped there by Ruth or Michael Paine.

Thanks, Royce. I took a look at CD778, which details the FBI's investigation of MC rifle and ammo availability in Dallas, as well as the proximity of possible practice ranges for Oswald near his residences. It appears that the Carcano rifle was fairly prevalent in Dallas and around the country at the time. The Italian military shells were supposed to have either "SIM" or "SMI" on the base, according to Richard Lopez, who had worked as a clerk in the gun department at H.L. Green Co. There's a whole section on how the Italian military rounds were package vice the Western Cartridge Company rounds (I find it stranger still that an Italian company would put "Italian 6.5" on their boxes).

Both Masen and Brinegar, whose two gunshops were the only stores - including pawn shops - in or around Dallas that carried WCC MC ammo. Brinegar bought a case of it, and Masen twice got lots of 10 boxes from Brinegar. That neither of them had sold or remembered selling any of these bullets to Oswald is the basis on which it's stated that Oswald couldn't be found to have bought any. (Not remembering someone who looks enough like you to be a brother would seem a natural reaction for Masen, whose closet was not devoid of skeletons with guns.)

I'd think it's highly unlikely that the Paines dumped the boxes in question anywhere, if only inasmuch as the pair seemed more than willing to aid in providing anything to the authorities that wouldn't help Oswald. Instead, I'd think they'd have walked them downtown if that's what it took to get them to the FBI; I don't for a moment envision either of them hiding anything that would incriminate Lee.

Oh yes the correct labeling for your 9mm Taurus Ammunition should be "Girl buwwets" HAHAHA!

Spehwing is awways impawtint - it would be "girwie buwwets!" Still wouldn't want to be at the pointy end of one going fast tho'!

For whatever reason, the ability to upload attachments is "net zero", otherwise, I would again show the paper slip which is found in original boxes of WCC ammo which identifies the contents.

I'd have you send it to me - I've got lots of room left for attachments - but your inbox is also full!

QED, Tom. QED.

I must admit some befuddlement about this also and would like to know more. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of this list before. What is the source for this? Is it in the Warren Commision record? Are the other items referred to in this list in evidence? [EDIT On second look I see that the other two cards DO refer to items actually in evidence] If the items referred to in this list [card] are not in evidence, how and where was this list discovered? Do we know where the "two boxes" were found?

One odd thing about this is that the ammo found in the Sixth Floor was not Italian but was manufactured by Western Cartridge Co. no?

I imagine that a Western Cartridge Co. ammo box would not say "Italian" anywhere on the box, so at first blush this does not sound like the same brand of ammo found in the TSBD. The card reads TWO EMPTY BOXES MARKED "6.5 ITALIAN AMMUNITION" which sounds like whoever made this card is referring to two empty boxes on which someone had ADDED the "mark" or notation "6.5 Italian ammunition" for identification purposes. It is not clear that the mark "6.5 Italian ammunition" is actually from the original manufacturers label.

I am sure some of the early critics pointed out that the Warren Commission could find no evidence that Lee Oswald EVER bought or possessed ammo for the Carcano, so this item is indeed a curiosity.

I came across that in the Commission Documents. I will try to find the exact location for you. I also found the "Italian" to be a bit curious, but have not found one dog gone word about that either!

It would seem that the ammo boxes were found at the Paines home. Given the number sequence and the other items on the list, this would seem to make sense. Ruth Paine lives not far from me perhaps I can give her a call and see if she recalls anything about this.

There is a typewritten list containing these items as well: CD1554/75. This lists a series of "FBI Exhibits" without indicating their origin. The 5/28/64 Gemberling Report (CD1066/96) is a similar list. Their origin seems to be indicated in CD205/97, which says that Irving resident William J. Honea found them "in the vicinity of an abandoned gravel pit" and contacted the Dallas Sheriff's Office about them. The report says that the boxes "apparently at one time contained 6.5 caliber [sic] Italian ammunition." It does not specifically state that Deputy Sheriff B.J. Courson, to whom Honea "furnished" the empty boxes, in turn furnished them to the FBI or whether he was simply reporting that someone had furnished them to him, but the coincidence of the FBI being informed of two empty cardboard boxes "apparently" (whatever made that "apparent" is not indicated either) containing the ammo at one time, and then having two empty cardboard boxes marked as 6.5 "Italian ammunition" seems too unlikely to think that they were not the same items.

I agree that "Italian ammunition" as a manufacturer's label name is unlikely, just like .303 Enfield rounds would not likely be labeled as "English ammunition" or 9mm rounds for my Taurus aren't likely to be labeled "Brazilian ammunition." Okay, so the last one's a little far-fetched, but the point is that ammo isn't likely to be called anything according to a country of origin of the weapon(s) that might fire it, unless Italian rifles were the only guns that fired 6.5mm rounds, which I can't imagine to be the case simply based on the idea that without nearly everyone owning an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, the rounds would tend to be as scarce as hen's teeth. There must have been enough rifles that used them for gun shops to even bother carrying them, which we know at least two or three around Dallas did ... or a lot of M-C rifles in Dallas.

It doesn't seem that the fact that this item is interspersed between items generally attributed to having been found at the Paine residence is necessarily meaningful, especially given the likelihood that if they had been found among LHO's effects it would have served as proof of his having bought such ammo, which proof nobody claimed to have had. Whether it was intended to look that way is another story.

... Nowhere am I able to purchase less than a box lot of any gauge/caliber ammunition. [Again, understand that I buy at retail, and not from the CIA station.]

Mark, when you get your next bonus check, you might want to look into this. The secret "back-door" number to the Company store is 1-800-I SHOT JFK (474-8535). Don't tell anyone.

Now, now, children: I'm beginning to think that Duncan MacRae and Bill Miller have alter-egos on this forum!

Let's see:

It's a big sandbox: we can all play nice in it, can't we?

Although I have long suspicioned that Robert Frazier has always known more than he has told, I have yet to find any of that testimony in his specific field to be incorrect....

But Tom: In the immortal words of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, are you a trained suspicioner?

In case you hadn't noticed,Tom Purvis has laid out a convinvcing case as to how the SBT could be total horse manure, yet the scenario of a single assassin could be plausible.

Of course! One must also give potential consideration that I am merely one of those "doppleganger's" who was sent here to create confusion; mis-direction; and to completely disrupt all of those who are SO CLOSE to the truth!

My entire "Bonus Check" is dependent upon same!

Yours, too, huh?

...In regards to the "probing" of the wound!

After opening of the chest and finding the bruising of the apical area of the right lung, the parietal pleura (membrane which surrounds the lung) could also be seen to have a corresponding area of bruising. With the lungs removed and the chest open, the probe was inserted into the back wound and the front of the probe could be observed inside the open chest, pushing against the parietal pluera in the exact area of the brusing of this membrane.

Due to the physical location of the apex of the lung, as relates to the central location of the anterior throat wound, it is for all practical purposes physically impossible for the same projectile to have created these two separate wounds and not have also torn the neck all to pieces.

Then, when one adds in the fractured and fragmented right transverse process of the C7/T1? vertebrae, along with the purported metallic residue left in the area of the fracture, and the deviated trachea, then it becomes all but impossible for a single projectile to have been responsible for creation of these injuries. ....

Tom, I lay no claims to medical expertise!

My intent is not to debate the physical probabilities, possibilities, improbabilities or impossibilities, but merely to comment on and question the nature of "hard evidence."

Absent the "hard evidence" that the bullet traversed the body - for example, "the wound is probed and it passes through, over the pleura, bruising the membrane, and continues through the trachea, exiting at a point where an elongated wound appears in the anterior neck" - then there is no proof, no "hard evidence" that the bullet did do so.

It is both offensive and intellectually dishonest for anyone with no "hard evidence" to support the possibility of an event such as the SBT - cannot even state that it was proven that the bullet at least passed all the way through Kennedy! - to state that it "must have happened" and demand an apparently much higher degree of "hard evidence" of others to refute their own lack of same.

As to the points you raise, what it seems like the doctors described, as did you, was a missile that entered sufficiently and with sufficient force to have created bruising and no more. I have no doubt that such a bullet could have entered and struck an area described "near" the apex but not "at" it, and bruised it, and that a probe pushed into the wound, following the track of the bullet, would be seen pushing against - but not "penetrating" - the exact area at the bruising of the lung. All makes "perfect" sense to me.

I even understand the "inference" to explain where the bullet might have gone since it wasn't in the body. I mean, it must've gone somewhere, right? Before the autopsists knew about the hole that was in the throat before the tracheostomy, they were content that it had fallen out; what other explanation could there have been?

An option might have been that "the bullet passed through the upper thorax and emerged through a tracheostomy incision." Sure, but their probe of the wound did not indicate that anything had done any such thing.

When they did learn of the hole in the throat, they no longer had the body to verify that their inference did, in fact, occur the way they could only have imagined it did. Sure, maybe it made sense at the time (a standard proof of scientific procedure), but it doesn't constitute any form of proof that it did.

One wonders what the results might have been had they somehow been informed before the autopsy that there was a "wound of entrance" in the front! One of the imponderables that we'll never know.

Put in another light, it is all not unlike thinking that your wife's been cheating on you. You hire a PI to follow her, he loses her "for just a second," then finds a car that looks just like hers parked a few blocks away in the same direction she'd been going, just a few cars away from one that "everyone knows" belongs to that notorious philanderer Bob Jones's, and just a couple of blocks from a motel. He went to get coffee, when he came back, the cars were both gone; upon returning to your house, he found your wife's car parked in the driveway, hood still warm.

He's got no license plate, no close observation of the car, no visual sighting of your wife, no sighting of the philanderer, no seeing them entering the motel or exiting from it, merely the inference that a car "like hers" was in the same general area, "near" a motel, and only the fact that her car engine was warm when he got back to your house.

Do you think it's time to send the retainer to the divorce lawyer yet? Are you sure it's even time to pay the PI yet?

I suppose the question comes down to, what is "hard evidence" and what is not, and who needs produce it and who doesn't?

We have, first, the quote opening this thread:

[Wim Dankbaar] Let me ask you point blank: Is it your statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

[Gary Mack] Of course it is possible. Is it likely? No, but there's no hard evidence that it is impossible.

Here is another in the same exchange that's even more intriguing:

[Gary Mack] The single bullet theory was tested and found to be possible. In the absence of any other hard evidence, therefore, it must have happened.

It's a good point that to show the SBT to be "possible" requires more than simply proving that a bullet could have gone through one man's body, but that it also has to include going through another man's in the same manner and with the same relative lack of damage as the bullet that purportedly did so (and I'm thinking that numerous test-firings through the wrists of human cadavers did not demonstrate that "possibility" after having gone only through that one "leg" of the trip, just as firing bullets through live goats' chests - by a veterinarian, no less! No Hypocratic Oath there, I guess - did not).

What I find lacking, though, is the "hard evidence" of a bullet actually traversing Kennedy's body in order to graduate the SBT from merely "having possibly happened" to "must have happened."

Let's consider "hard evidence":

• The chief prosector probed the back wound with his finger and "determined" the missile did not traverse the body "inasmuch as he could feel" where the track ended. Is this "hard evidence" that the bullet did not do so?
  
• He did the same with a metal probe, which met with resistance, seemingly validating the above determination. Is this further "hard evidence" of the same?
  
• The published autopsy protocol states that "the missile path ... cannot be easily probled." Is this "hard evidence" that it was successfully probed, just not "easily?"
  
• Autopsists did not dissect the shoulder and could not therefore state with absolute certainty that the missile's path ended at the point where the metal probe and his finger ceased to indicate a bullet track. Is this "hard evidence" that it "must have happened?"
  

Is there "hard evidence," then, either that the bullet did or did not traverse the body, one or the other?

If probing to the end of the bullet track is "hard evidence" that the bullet did not do so, then the statement that it "must have happened" is completely, utterly and knowingly false. If it is not "hard evidence" of its not having done so - leaving open the mere possibility that it did - is that "hard evidence" that it "must have happened?" If so, why?

Does an absence of "hard evidence" prove that something "must have happened" simply because there's no "hard evidence" to the contrary? I would think that the statement that something "must have happened" would demand the same "hard evidence" that it did happen - not that it merely "could have" happened, that it is possible - as is required of the statement that it "couldn't have happened" because, after all, it is "possible."

In shorter form, what I really like is (paraphrasing) "It's possible, but it's not likely. But since it's not impossible, it must have happened. There's no hard evidence that something else happened, and none that it did happen, but my lack of hard evidence trumps your lack of hard evidence." I have, in effect, proven my point simply by telling you that you can't prove yours.

I wonder how this "hard evidence" question would apply to the throat wound, because I'm thinking that there "must have been" someone at Parkland malicious or barbarous enough to have stuck his or her fingers in the corpse's throat and just yanked and thrust while nobody was watching in order to turn Dr. Perry's neat little surgical incision into the "distorted" wound that appears in the autopsy photos.

There's no "hard evidence" that it happened while the body was in transit (sorry, David), nor any that it occurred at Bethesda. Since Dr. Perry said that was still a neat cut when he last saw it, and it wasn't a "neat cut" at the outset of the autopsy when they took photos, it could only have happened somewhere between Trauma Room One and the casket. Are there any candidates?

Of course, I'm being somewhat facetious, but applying the same "hard evidence" logic. Or is the "hard evidence" that the tracheostomy incision always looked like a surgical cut despite the "hard evidence" of the photos and the autopsists' description? Hmmm, will have to ponder that further ....

Duke

--------------------

Some further thoughts:

The autopsy protocol in published form reads in relevent part:

The essence is that there was a wound in the back whose path could not be "easily" probed, surrounding which in the musculature there was considerable bruising, extending to the membrane lining the body cavity but not penetrating it, and also to the tip of the lung which abuts the membrane, also not being penetrated. There is also bruising on and in the throat, but - being described merely as ecchymosis and contusion, i.e., bruising - there is likewise no penetration.

Therefore, the bullet "must have" traversed the body since it is not(?) extant on X-rays; there's no "hard evidence." It could not have fallen out during exteral cardiac massage, as first postulated by the autopsists, or by any other means: there's no "hard evidence" such as a missing, unmutilated bullet anywhere. And a bullet entering from the front - for which there is no "hard evidence" - could not exist because it, too, is non-extant in the X-rays.

Summing up:

• There is no "hard evidence" of a bullet traversing the body, only that a bullet was in the body and caused bruising.
  
• Since it was not still in the body, it therefore "must have" gone through, providing the needed "hard evidence" that it did so.
  
• The "hard evidence" that the bullet traversed the body allows for the possibility that the same bullet also hit Governor Connally;
  
• Knowing that Governor Connally was hit by a bullet that could have been the one that traversed Kennedy's body is "hard evidence" of that bullet being the same as that traversing Kennedy;
  
• That "hard evidence" proves once and for all that the single-bullet theory "must have happened."
  

QED. Proving that something "must have happened" requires only either qualifying what "hard evidence" is as needed, or stating that possibility is probability; proving that it "couldn't have happened" requires absolute certainty.

What have we been thinking all this time? All we ever had to do was use faulty logic and wrap it in the cloak of authority and it would have all been so simple!

... Of course, it is also possible that JFK's reaction behind and/or emerging from behind the sign was acute myocardial infarction, and that the man was dead even before his head was blown off (so to speak). This reduces the potential charge from "murder" to "mutilation of a corpse," a misdemeanor. Since it's possible that this was overlooked in favor of the gross observation of the head wound(s), does it follow that since there is no "hard evidence" to the contrary, that it "must have happened" that way?

Added a new topic on Oswald's Marine Ring (opens in same window).

... Oswald is said to also have his brother Robert's USMC manual, which he reportedly memorized before enlisting.

Memorizing the USMC manual as well as enlisting in the USMC, are of course actions which can be considered typical undertakings of communists/marxists.....

Let us not forget our Marxist was also arrested wearing his Marine Corp Ring.

Much ado is made over the fact that Lee Oswald left his wedding band behind at Ruth Paine's house on the morning of November 22. When he was in custody entering DPD HQ, he was photographed with his hands in raised fists; on his left third finger is his USMC ring, in place of where the vast majority of American men (and women) wear their wedding bands.

Did Oswald normally wear his Corps ring, or did he replace his wedding band with it that morning? Some Marines (a relative few) wear their Corps rings on the same finger as their wedding bands, which looks uncomfortable to me but nevertheless happens. Was that his usual custom and he simply removed the additional ring in the morning?

If the latter, removing one's wedding band has the same significance - whatever it might be - one way or the other; but to have replaced the wedding band with his Corps ring may signify something entirely different.

Do any earlier photos of him (e.g., arrest photo from New Orleans?) show his left hand and what ring(s) he wore on it?

Let us not forget our Marxist was also arrested wearing his Marine Corp Ring.

Ah, the surest possible sign of someone dissatisfied with the American Way of Life, eh? Let's see: "I hate this place, want to kill the President ... and proud to be a Marine!"

Think so?

Good Day.... OSWALD's U.S. Marine Corps manual that he gave to CARLOS BRINGUIER in August 1963 recently was auctioned by BRINGUIER on eBay for $ 72,500.

....Proves that smartly and pro-actively seeking out the right customer(s) to satisfy his/her wants, positively pays handsomely !

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/56190-Lee...sspagenameZWDVW

My only question is whether the guy used an eBay MasterCard to get up to $25.00 back ....?

QED.*

-------

* For the uninitiated, quod erat demonstrandum ("which demonstrates itself"), proving once again that I can shpell mosht shtuff, even Latin, when I want to.