Kenneth Drew

here is a quote from Hemming on that comment that you linked to above: Moreover, I mentioned that when Stone had rented the "6th Floor Museum" for 3 hours of our use, I had pointed out to Bob Groden that: with the bottom of the window-sill just 7+ inches above the floor, that a shooter [with LHO's upper torso measurements] would have great difficulty "hunching-down" so as to shoot through the window -- which only opened to the half-way point. I further pointed out that the FBI re-enactment photos show that the man holding the rifle is practically a midget, which you can verify with comparative measurement of the M/Carcano versus his upper torso.

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you. But Dave is an old 'retired' guy that has unlimited time to devote to hobbies.

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate.

Besides that, with a rifle sticking out blazing away, why didn't any of the cameras taking photo's of the assassination get a picture of that rifle sticking out the window.

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.) Also: If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall. Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose. The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341. EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is.... Wait a minute. Bugs is standing where there was a box located. in fact in the very area where he is, there was 4 boxes located. Spence is standing entirely in an area that contained stacks of boxes. Put a scope to Bug's eye and see where the rifle is. But first you have to put him on top of a box that was in that corner. He would've had to shoot straight down if he could even have gotten a shot out the window from there. I'm still saying it is NOT POSSIBLE to shoot a right handed shot from that window to spot X. Note also that the window sash is completely raised, not just half way.

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room. BTW / FWIW.... Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before. A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it. What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence.... Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because.... So just because the WC 'forgot' to mention it must mean he 'really ' did have enough room. I'm sure you're not going to show us a diagram with all the boxes in place and him standing/kneeling in place with his right eye to the scope. I don't know any grown men whose shoulders aren't more than 13 inches across.

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box. You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510. CE511 (on the right) shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window.... So, two of them are directly under where the rifle would have had to be. That's his point. It doesn't matter, they were all planted. No one shot from there. Not enough room

That's certainly part of the problem. Also move his body far enough forward to put his shoulder to the rifle stock and where does that put his left shoulder. The two pipes are in the way. There is no way anyone fired a rifle shot from that snipers nest with that arrangement of boxes and with the window only half open. And of course, no one has ever given any proof that there was a shot fired from there that day. In this photo, it seems as if the shooter has 'unlimited' floor space for his body. Look at WC exhibit 1301,,the floor is only 6 boards wide at the point where he is located. that's 6 x 2.5 inches or about 15 inches. This shooter has 'waaaayyy' more than that. See that box that says BOOKS, that's about how wide his space was, the base of the tripod alone is wider than the actual space at the time of the 'alleged' shooting.

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave? Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor. And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest.... Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd. Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.) But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill). The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94] But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives). As I have said many times before.... With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable. As Larry Sturdivan said so well.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005) And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words.... "Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor. Just think about that for a minute. Hundreds of people taking pictures all over the place and 4 witnesses 'see' a gun, but fortunately for LHO, no one took a picture of him up there posing for History. Here he is, setting the stage for killing a US President, gets a position that he knows hundreds will be looking straight at, dozens and dozens of cameras rolling and 'darn it' wouldn't you know it. Not one single little bitty camera caught even a teeny weeny shot of LHO in all his staged glory. And there we are, way down by the grassy knoll where nothing is going to happen, and suddenly 'all the action' takes place there. It's kinda like there might have been someone down there in that area was doing something to get attention, or something. How many shots(photos) show the TSBD at the time of the shooting and 'no rifle sticking out the window'. How did that happen? Oh, wait, I forgot, we have DVP here to tell us how that unfortunate little detail happened. Ok DVP, all those shots, cameras aimed at the TSBD, window open, boxes in windows, and NO RIFLE. How did LHO create that illusion?

So, I guess you think NOBODY was really firing shots from that cramped Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, is that right, Dave? Even though four witnesses SEE a gun pointing out that exact window on the sixth floor. And even though these three shells litter the floor of the Nest.... Even with all of the above staring David Josephs in the face, he is making noise in this thread as if to suggest NOBODY could have possibly fired ANY shots out that window on November 22nd. Right, David? (Otherwise you wouldn't have opened your mouth at all in this thread.) But, you see, the "conspiracy theorist" world is so much different from my own. I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. But JFK conspiracy theorists sure as heck have that habit. And I don't accuse people of lying through their teeth when they testify about the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases (except, of course, when I'm talking about proven liars like Roger Craig and Jean Hill). The evidence in the JFK case is what it is. You can either accept it as genuine evidence or not. That's up to each individual who looks at the evidence. And it's mighty easy to just dismiss all the evidence with the wave of one's hand and exclaim "This evidence is phony". Anybody can make that type of accusation about the evidence in ANY criminal case. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case for proof of how far off the deep end some lawyers are willing to go in order to try and get a jury to believe that evidence in a murder case is fraudulent---even when the defendant himself (Simpson) proved that some of that alleged phony evidence wasn't planted -----> "I recall bleeding at my house. .... If it's dripped, it's what I dripped running around trying to leave." [O.J. Simpson; 6/13/94] But, of course, since the prosecution was stupid enough to not introduce Simpson's highly incriminating interview with Detectives Lange and Vannatter, the jury never heard Simpson himself admit that he was dripping blood all over his property on the night of his ex-wife's murder, which left the door open for the slimy defense team to pretend that some of the blood at Simpson's home HAD, in fact, been planted there by the police---even when they (the defense) surely knew for a fact that such an allegation was not true at all (via Simpson's 32-minute tape recorded interview with the police detectives). As I have said many times before.... With so much evidence in the JFK case pointing toward the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald --- e.g., bullets, guns, shells, prints, eyewitnesses (including the Tippit murder), and Oswald's own highly incriminating words and actions --- to believe that ALL of that evidence was manufactured and faked is to believe in something that just is not reasonable. As Larry Sturdivan said so well.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" by Larry M. Sturdivan (c.2005) And Bud at the aaj/acj newsgroups summed it up in just fifteen very accurate words.... "Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 I don't have a habit of accusing people of creating phony evidence in Presidential assassination investigations without a speck of proof to back up those accusations and allegations. That may be true, but you do have a habit of claiming that you have evidence that does prove something when you have never supplied one sliver(to use your word) of proof to prove any of it. No evidence that LHO owned a rifle, no proof a shot was fired from the snipers nest, no proof that LHO was anywhere near where tippit got killed, no proof of where any shots were fired toward JFK, no proof of where the two fragments appeared magically from that landed on the front seat of the limo. Your turn.

That's certainly part of the problem. Also move his body far enough forward to put his shoulder to the rifle stock and where does that put his left shoulder. The two pipes are in the way. There is no way anyone fired a rifle shot from that snipers nest with that arrangement of boxes and with the window only half open. And of course, no one has ever given any proof that there was a shot fired from there that day.

Yes and he's lining it up with his Left arm and he is still quite a bit to the right (shooters right) of where he could have been with the row of boxes that were where the whole right side of his body is. Notice that (as has been pointed out) that they had to remove that row of boxes that were there (and are seen in the photos from outside) for that person to even get into the spot he's in. Now take that man in exactly the position he's in and put a rifle stock to his right shoulder and the scope to his right eye and tell me that's possible.... I'll show you my listings for ocean front property.

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures.... Look closely at Shaneyfelt's position in CE 887. He is some distance BEHIND the rifle. Now, anyone who has ever fires a rifle knows that you do NOT fire one with the buttstock of the rifle centered on your chest. The buttstock has to be against the shoulder of the shooter. Oswald was a right-handed shooter. So the buttstock of the rifle would have been against his right shoulder if he was firing that weapon in that position. That would mean that ALL of Oswald's torso would have been between the buttstock and the wall where the pipes are. Oswald may have been slim, but I must conclude that the possibility of the shooting occuring exactly that way is even more slim...nearly to the point of impossibility. [Maybe that's slim enough to be the "sliver" of evidence that DVP has been yammering about.] Mark, I'm sure LHO must have had the rifle mounted on a tripod such as the FBI did so that they could be far enough behind the rifle to sight with their right eye. They just haven't produced the tripod yet as evidence, but if necessary, it will turn up. So DVP, if he pulls the rifle stock up to his right shoulder, where does he put the left side of his body? Through the wall? You don't happen to have a photo that actually shows a man holding a rifle in the position he would have to make the shot do you?

Technically, your edit occurred one minute after my post went up (assuming you only edited that post one time). But you must certainly be right about the edit, because I doubt you could type THAT fast. I do think that was the 2nd edit, but the effect is the same. My apologies to you, Ken, for being a bit harsh regarding this point. It does appear you realized you were wrong when you said Shaneyfelt did not have the C2766 rifle in CE887 and you edited your post as soon as possible (before ever reading my comment). Whether you want to believe me or not, I too have put some errors in my posts and then suddenly realized they were wrong, and then made a mad scramble to try and edit the post before the CTer I was arguing with could see the mistakes. So, again, I'm sorry about that. (And I'm deleting my harsh comments from my other post too.) Correct, in fact earlier, about a page ago, you made an edit that cleared up something. My mistake in that photo was that the camera mounted and the way he was looking into the camera was not clear that was what he was doing and it appeared initially that the rifle did not have a normal stock on it. I still believe that if you put that rifle in photo 1301, you can't make that shot. he is aiming below the trees. The X was above the trees.

After I set Ken straight on this, and after the embarrassment sunk in that he didn't have the slightest idea what the hell he was talking about (although he was SO SURE the rifle that Shaneyfelt had wasn't even a Carcano rifle AT ALL, let alone the C2766 Carcano), Ken edited his post to this version of pure tripe.... Kenneth Drew is flying by the seat of his conspiracy-woven pants. And he proves that he's winging it via the above two posts (the hilarious original and then the equally laughable edited version). BS After I set Ken straight on this, and after the embarrassment sunk in I edited my post prior to your posting your comment. Unlike you, I admit when I see something incorrectly. View your WC exhibit 1301 photo re-creation of the scene and Put a shooter in that photo. All of this is a distraction because you were proven to be totally wrong on the fragments in limo. In fact, once you were wrong, I couldn't even get you to answer a question about it, you changed the subject to this because you thought you had something. Put the shooter in WC exhibit 1301 and don't let him point the rifle straight down at the street, it needs to go out quite a ways.

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures.... yep, and notice that is NOT a Manlicher Carcano and notice it doesn't have a stock. If it had a stock the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. If this were a MC rifle as 2766 is, that position is NOT possible. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that. Oh, for Pete sake. Kenny, you just buried yourself in deep do-do with your above quote. The rifle we see in the above photo is the C2766 Carcano rifle (CE139). Let's listen to Shaneyfelt..... Mr. SHANEYFELT. Commission Exhibit No. 887 is a picture of me that was taken on May 24, 1964. My location was at the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository that we have designated as our control point. I have the rifle that is the assassination rifle mounted on a tripod, and on the rifle is mounted an Arriflex 16-mm. motion picture camera, that is alined to take photographs through the telescopic sight. This Arriflex motion picture camera is commonly known as a reflex camera in that as you view through the viewfinder a prism allows you to view directly through the lens system as you are taking your photographs so that as I took the photographs looking into the viewfinder I was also looking through the scope and seeing the actual image that was being recorded on the film. Mr. SPECTER. Was the view recorded on the film as shown on Exhibit No. 886 the actual view which would have been seen had you been looking through the telescopic sight of the Mannlicher-Carcano itself? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. How did you determine the level and angle at which to hold the rifle? Mr. SHANEYFELT. I placed the rifle in the approximate position based on prior knowledge of where the boxes were stacked and the elevation of the window and other information that was furnished to me by representatives of the Commission. You will notice that I edited my comment prior to your reply, so go back and address the comment as edited. No one would hold a rifle the way shaneyfelt is holding that rifle and the angle would not hit anywhere near where 313 was.

It's not anyone's eye at all. It's a camera (of course) looking through the scope. Here's a picture of the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt with the camera mounted to the scope in order to take the pictures.... yep, and notice that the downward angle he is firing would fall very short of where the shot is claimed to have gone. To get the proper angle the shooter head would be 'inside' the wall behind him. See how 'things' are manipulated to fit 'the story'. Just another 'sliver' there DVP. Now explain that. Go back to your re-creation photo from a few days ago and put all those boxes where you claimed they were and 'then' put him in that position.

That's an easy one ---- The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there. But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP..... Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile. Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is. Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory. ================== (I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.) The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, Maybe this is a 'sliver', let me see. A bullet, which was NOT recovered, split off some fragments which continued on..... Now let's figure out how we know that bullet split off exactly two fragments and that 'fortunately' they hit a dash chrome strip and a windshield and then fell harmlessly down onto or beside the drivers seat so that they could be found and identified as 'definitely a part of the third bullet' which we never could find. Now, even though we never did find that third bullet, we were able to identify that these two fragments were definitely a part of that unfound bullet. And even without finding that third bullet, we know for sure what rifle it came from because it was firing metal fragments and any bullet fragment that day had to have come from 2766. right? Does that qualify as a 'sliver' DVP, or are we still gonna be sliver hunting? If you think this is humorous, you should read DVP's answer.....

You're funny, Glenn. You've got everything backwards (as usual). It's the conspiracy buffs who are always arguing that the various pieces of evidence are fake/phony/planted/manufactured/fraudulent/worthless. Therefore, it's THAT accusation that must be PROVED. And since it's an extraordinary and outrageous accusation (particularly when it involves nearly ALL of the evidence in BOTH murders--JFK's & Tippit's), then the accusation requires an extraordinary amount of proof to back it up. Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant CT Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked---let alone the DOZENS of pieces of evidence the CT Brigade claims was faked. Try again, Glenn. I need another laugh before supper. And you seem to be making a habit out of impersonating Red Skelton. Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant CT Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked Oh, I get it,, it's a 'sliver' you're looking for. Well, other than the fact that the shells from the tippit scene that had the marks of 2 police officers at the scene disappeared and was replaced with others without the officers marks, and other than the fact that the bullets recovered from tippits body got changed out before they got intro'd, And other than the fact that the manufacturer of the bullets and shells from tippets murder didn't match LHO's revolver. I'm sure those don't qualify as 'slivers', so you might ignore those.

DVP, were these fragments found before or after the limo was sent to The Rouge and the windshield replaced? Oh, and which one of the two fragments did they decide it was that hit the back of the rear view mirror? by back of rear view mirror, I mean the side of the rear view mirror that faces the front of the limo.

Hey DVP, in that photo above....the top one. where is the body of the person holding that rifle? Is that his left eye or right eye looking through that scope? And let's see if this is right. The bullet was traveling downward, hit JFK in the back/right of head, came out the right front of his head and then veered left to go over to the drivers side of the car. That about the way you see it? Them Manlicher Carcano bullets are always 'veering' off to fulfull the needs of the evidence. right? Even though there is a seat back between his head and the agents in the front seat, the bullet apparently rose upward to miss that seat back then came back to the right and dented the chrome strip on one side of the car and the windshield (which wasn't damaged) on the other side. Did we get some test firing showing these marvelous characteristics of the bullets ability to veer right, left, up, down, or what ever was necessary to get to the right spot? And these are now known as the MFT (mutiple fragment theory)

That's an easy one ---- The fragments got into the front seat of SS-100-X by way of Lee Oswald firing a bullet into John Kennedy's head at Zapruder Frame 313. The majority of that bullet was not recovered. Two fragments, however, continued forward after exiting President Kennedy's cranium and ended up in the front seat of the car. It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there. But if I had said "I don't know" to Ken's question above, would that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a l-i-a-r when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP..... Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile. Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is. Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory. ================== (I wonder why we can't write out the word "l-i-a-r" in our EF posts anymore? It gets changed automatically to "xxxx". Is that a new restriction? I sure don't remember that restriction being in place yesterday. EF must be getting ideas from Duncan MacRae's forum.) . It's likely that one of those two fragments struck the windshield, resulting in the lead that was found on the glass; while the other fragment likely hit the chrome topping, resulting in the dent seen there. let's see if I got this right now. It 'might' have come from the 3rd shot? but 'we' don't know that. and then one of the fragments, which we don't know where it came from, might have hit the windshield, even though all the Nutters swear the windshield 'had no damage', but if that bullet, which might have come out of JFK's rectum might have hit the windshield. We're guessing on that one since we can't even prove it is a fragment of that bullet and we can't prove that that fragment is actually a piece of a bullet that was fired from 2766, and then this other piece of a bullet came from 'Wonderland" and dented the chrome strip and fell on the seat. Now we can't really prove where this fragment came from or when it got into the limo, but we are pretty sure it was in Wonderland before that and we sure didn't find any bullet that had lost a fragment, but somehow this one, why it come with a label on it that said 'fragment of 3rd bullet from 'Wonderland" and it was just laying there on the seat waiting for us to find it so that we could solve this mystery. Wasn't that nice that we could wrap it up so cleanly and solve the crime of the century. That sounds about like the fairy tale you want thinking people to believe? Your grade on that answer was F- -.

And if I say "I don't know", does that mean that I should automatically believe the FBI's Bob Frazier was a xxxx when he said this to the WC? The added emphasis provided by DVP..... Mr. EISENBERG - Now finally in the category of bullets and bullet fragments, I hand you what is apparently a bullet fragment, which is in a pill box marked Q-3, and which, I state for the record, was also found in the front portion of the President's car, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this item, marked Q-3? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this was submitted to me as having been found beside the front seat of the automobile. Mr. EISENBERG - Your mark is on that fragment? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is. Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory. Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that? Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett. Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23. Not one word of that information would ever be heard by a jury. They offer absolutely no proof of any of it. They did not, and can not say how any of the fragments got where they are. They can't say when any of those bullets were ever fired by 2766. But other than those minor details.................

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). Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy. But you don't ever expect anyone to ever be able to prove that. right?

Well DVP we're still waiting for you to tell where the fragments came from and how they got on the drivers seat. Is there a reason, other than you don't have a clue, that you don't answer?