Stu Wexler

Looking further the above essay was written (I think) by Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, who sure looks zany. But at the same time he appears to be sourcing it to *something*  1988 or before. Just without footnotes or endnotes!  

The earliest reference I can find is the 1988 edition of Rights magazine. Seems like a right wing type deal.  Unfortunately Google Books gives only a snippet view of the page.

Yes, I explored the issue of elemental discriminants in some depth for my work. Guinn argued for 3:  copper, antimony and silver. Copper could not work possibly because of the copper jacket. Silver actually suggesting a grouping of fragments inconsistent with the official scenario. That left only Antimony. The problem is that forensic chemists, since Guinn, were arguing for more and more, not fewer, elemental discriminants. Guinn gets a bit of pass because of when he did the HSCA analysis but not much--  using one element was never satisfactory. But Rahn and Sturdivan do not get any pass. They went all in on the magic of antimony-- but only for MC rounds. Poor Oswald picked the only brand of bullets that are fabricated like rainbow crayon boxes and the only one that can tell us everything about a shooting using just one element. I had independent forensic chemists, one of whom worked on MC rounds, outright ridicule that assertion. But Grant and Randich took it further by pointing out, from their extensive background with bullet fabrication, that low levels of antimony in bullets is far from rare. There are like 10 levels on which the Guinn/Rahn material fail.

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Orlando Bosh posted this on Facebook today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/books/review/the-brothers-by-stephen-kinzer.html?unlocked_article_code=1.c00.S4ir.SRDFZXw8C9WH&smid=url-share

*The* Orlando Bosch?

Pat: I believe you have one aspect of the bullet story confused, inter-bullet heterogeneity.  It is actually and quite deliberately the case that multiple bullets in a production lot-- we are talking thousands--  will have almost precisely the same amount of key elements from bullet to bullet. This is done deliberately by metallurgists--  to ensure a brand of bullets shares the same flight characteristics. A box of bullet may all be the same or, based on production lots, there might be say, 3 sets of chemical profiles constituting a bullet box. And hundreds of boxes just like that will be put into pallets and sent to the same geographic region. The end result is: you can never tell if a bullet came from a box, or a pallet of boxes, or a freight of pallets sent to the same part of the U.S. This is well known to metallurgists and chemists who are part of the bullet fabrication and shipment process. It was scandalously "left out" of analyses by forensic chemists at the FBI and state crime labs--  until the entire comparative bullet lead field was taken down by the likes of Spiegelman, Tobin, Grant and Randich, all of whom specifically used the JFK case to help promote the problem. I helped both groups, and am the historian for the Spiegelman paper.  Our key contribution to the JFK field was to show that the supposed rainbow crayon box theory of the MCC ammo was bogus--  contrary to LN theorists and consistent with common sense, MC bullets were fabricated and distributed like other bullet boxes.  This means, again, that multiple bullets in the same box, gun store, city will share a chemical profile. You can not say, with any confidence, that a fragment came from a specific box much less a specific bullet. Moreover-- and this always gets lost-- you cannot count bullet profiles and say "only and exactly X bullets contributed to this suite of fragments" found at a crime scene. You can only say-- at LEAST x bullets are in this suite of fragments/bullets, based on chemical profiles. 

Randich and Grant contributed three other key insights. First-- they showed that the mysterious intra-bullet heterogeneity one sees with MC rounds is not unusual. It is a function of poor sampling from the rounds--  if one hits micro sections that have elemental spikes.  For that reason they confirmed Wallace Milam, who pointed out that based on intrabullet variation, you cannot even say the wrist fragments are from one MC bullet grouping (to CE399) rather than another. Finally, they pointed out, as experienced metallurgists and chemists dealing with bullet fabrication, that the supposedly low range of Antimony that Rahn and Guinn highlighted as being unique to MC rounds is not unique. Many other brands of bullets, especially softnosed, share that low range of Sb.

Pat, you made a great contribution with your analysis of the cheek cast NAA.  I only wish it could be duplicated with a much larger sample size.

Stu

Matt. I tend to agree with your take. And I especially agree, as I said earlier, re seeing these kinds of characters in JFK. JFK people could have saved Octopus people a lot of time.  I see it in other cases too. No one understands the capacity of others for grifting, quasi-truth telling, hoaxing, delusion and fabulism (if that is a word.) But astute JFK people have a sixth sense for it after a while.

Hopefully Daniel Jones has been working on antipication on deep throws and rehabbing his knee (I kid, for anyone who gets it.) 

Oh my goodness. Sorry for the mistake.

Fyi, Jim: his (Oliver's) son just passed. Condolensces if you knew him.

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DId anyone answer my question yet about the Cuellar visit to Casolaro the night he died?  Which the cops covered up or did not know about?

 

Is that in there?

See above

So it is clear:  the journalist herself argues that the Z-film thing was a quasi-psyop (and not government) by what amounts to a grifter to keep her off balance.  There are a bunch of grifters in this story.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have not seen the series yet.

But do they depict the police covered up visit by Joe Cuellar to Casolaro the night he died?  Because it appears Cuellar followed Danny across country.

BTW, is it a combination of documentary with acted out scenes?

They definitely raise questions about Cuellar and the presence of someone, possibly Cuellar, entering Danny's room. It is a mix of actual broll plus reenactments. I think the main documentarian actually "plays" Danny. 

I think there is a lot of insight that JFK researchers bring to this series (I watched it the first day) that most Americands would benefit from before watching.  Coincidences that make you wonder? Check. Multiple grifters or fabulists who put a great deal of effort and time into weaving tales? Check.  Possible sinister individuals who nonetheless are likely exaggerating (maybe greatly exaggerating) peripheral insights into something much greater? Check.  An ultimate outcome that could well be conspiratorial in nature  but very unlikely to be as outrageous as some think?  Check. 

Especially on the grifter/fabulist front. No one is more attune to it than we are. I think a very large portion of Americans do not know the lengths people will go for a scam. We've seen it happen two dozen times. The Z-film thing:  almost definitely fits that bill.

Stu

3 hours ago, Matt Cloud said:

One more for the night: if you want to discuss why Moynihan is/was/must be Deep Throat, the Watergate source, we can discuss.  But that most certainly is a topic for another thread, if not another forum or board altogether.  But of course they are connected, as Nixon either knew, suspected, or found out.  He certainly found out.  On reflection, let's make that "probably found out," if he didn't already know.  

I think we have a pretty solid idea of who Deep Throat is.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/deep-throat-is-revealed

I found it. It was Norman Mailer not Lifton. Here is what Epstein said:

EPSTEIN: George De Mohrenschildt would just be more food for thought. I was with him, I was interviewing him, on a four-day interview, and in the middle he shot himself [Laughter]. I don’t know whether I bored him to death or there were extraneous factors [Laughter]. But the only thing that always interested me about it is the last thing that he pointed to before he went home and got killed. Was that he had a photograph that Oswald had given him, he claimed the night Oswald went to shoot at a right-wing general called Walker.

He said that he reported this to the CIA contact man he was with. And why I always found this interesting, going back to the conspiracy that Hitch talks about, is that it would show that if the CIA had had knowledge that he was a potential assassin, they would’ve had reason to do a cover-up no matter what their involvement was. So I always found that fairly interesting. I always consider it another unresolved, mysterious death. But thank you Victor.

Back when JFK (the movie) first came out, there was a convocation with Edward Epstein, David Lifton and I think Stone. I attended. Someone needs to dig it up because, in it, Epstein said that in his last interviews with George deM , shortly before George died, he indicated that he told J. Walton Moore about the Walker incident not long after it happened. That is how I remember it but I would love to have that double checked. And to consider how that would even go down with George in Haiti.

Paul: I skimmed segments that seemed to rehash the excellent work he did on Jane Roman, Mexico City, etc.  Are you saying he actually supported the Veciana meeting?  Can you refer us to the time clip. Because that would, indeed, be quite a surprise.

What did the Voebels contribute? Anything worthwhile?

This is what people who will compromise  almost every other value they have to support RFK Jr. because he supports a CT do not get:  he is so out to lunch on vaccines and medical-adjacent material that his support may well undermine our efforts. Even with his own family. People, by association, may see CT in JFK as whacked out as his vaccine related CTs.

Stu

Ha. Not sure if that was a compliment.

And only if you watched the game. My tweets, playing on the lookalike theme.

Has anyone ever been shot with any of these exotic rounds?  The priors here have to be pretty low.  And I would bet even a low velocity exotic round, while it may dissolve in the body, would penetrate further.  BB gun pellets can go 3 to 4 inches in gelatin. If you want to take it farther back you would lose velocity but then, regardless of the weapon, you would likely lose accuracy. How far away do you have the exotic weapon shooter? What velocity?

Stu

Greg:  Larry Sturdivan, who is not only an LNer but probably the most qualified LNer on the subject (wound ballistics specialist) believes in an EOP entrance. I believe he brought a few LNers along for the ride. I think John Canal was  pro-EOP even before Larry S but they interacted quite a bit. John was a weird variation of an LNer (he believed Oswald was a lone, deranged shooter but that Ruby killed LHO as part of a mob conspiracy.

Larry Sturdivan (with whom I have had sharp disagreements on other matters) and Canal both argued that the low entering bullet somehow ricocheted or changed directions upwards within the skull. Tough to believe, but again, Sturdivan requires some additional level of refutation, imo, as he is a wound ballistics expert. A biased one, mind you.

I do think there a few key issues here that require shoring up from Pat's side.  One has been brought up:  my problem with the EOP to throat damage, which dates back to Tink Thompson's argument of a bone fragment-caused throat wound, is that JFK appears to be in a quasi-choking position from Z230+.  It also requires that some rear entering bullet only penetrates a few inches.  I know Pat and others try and addess this but even a BB pellet travels farther than this purported Dealey Plaza back shot when it is fired into ballistics gelatin.  Is exotic bullet + brachial plexus reaction really that less far fetched than the SBT? I would strongly at least encourage Pat (and he has indicated he would pursue it) and others to get independent experts to support this scenario.

I also think we have to think critically about why so many experts placed a wound at the cowlick. My understanding it is because of radiating fracture lines being located where we find the controversial 6.5ish milimeter roundish metal fragment.  Now Larry Sturdivan I believe argues that (a) radiating fracture lines don't always signify a point of entrance and (b) the fragment is some sort of coincidental unrelated artifact from the Xray plate.  To which most would say (a) it usually is and (b) what a coincidence in terms of size and shape and (c) wow, what an even bigger coincidence that a and b are both consistent with a gunshot.  I do not recall how Pat deals with (a) but he argues (b) has been widely misinterpreted as a rear situated fragment but one that is really located near the front.  This is even more in need of expert verification, perhaps, than the assertion re the back wound issue.  Multiple different individuals from widely different perspectives, areas of specialization, etc. have looked at those X-rays. I know of none who claim what Pat claims re: the 6.5mmish fragment. They literally all were fooled, at independent times. Again LN and CT alike. Mike Griffith has pointed out some of the practical problems even from a lay-person in asserting this kind of mistake. I very much hope Pat gets expert support from *someone* for that assertion re the fragment.

Now this "fragment" is highly problematic from a wound ballistics standpoint. I got Larry Sturdivan to admit that even before he became an EOP enthusiast. Multiple other ballistics experts argue that a fragment like that, from a direct bullet strike and even possibly from a ricochet, is borderline impossible. It implies some kind of tampering, given its location and coincidental size. And Mantik and Chesser have verified each other's density work that also points to some kind of tampering.  I go back and forth on it.

Anyway, this shows an even greater imperative of Pat's work getting outside verification. That is not an insult to Pat. Quite the opposite. He has some of the most thorough and innovative thinking on this case and presents one of the best counter proposals. But it needs expert support, imo.

Stu

Why wouldn't I believe William Sullivan on King? Hmm...  maybe it has something to do with the fact that he attempted a psyop that encouraged MLK to literally kill himself.  Or the fact that he was a key cog in FBI's efforts to spy on Americans and generate blackmail material for J. Edgar Hoover to stay in power, something that is a far greater mark against someone's character than womanizing.

Why don't I trust the specific claims coming from Garrow?  Because he is relying on accounts of a tape of unknown quality when every FBI tape/bug I have ever seen described is grainy. And we are supposed to think that based on these tapes, the Hoover FBI/DOJ (and they were still a Hoover FBI for years after Hoover died) can know for certain what kind of allegedly sexual misconduct is happening in a closed motel room and who is seeing what and who is laughing about what.  MLK never waivered from non-violence, but I am to assume he participated in a violent rape based on this.  It fails all sorts of basic historical tests.

But let me return to *your* slander on MLK, Robert. He may have had extra marital affairs. He was constantly on the road and under enormous stress including threats to his life. But he was not a bedroom moralizer in his preaching. His sermons and his mission was focused almost entirely on anti-racism, anti-poverty and anti-war. This contrasts with the hypocrites in the present-day white evangelical community who idol worship someone who has had multiple affairs, claims to never have been in need of God's forgiveness for anything, and lies and hurls invective against others on a regular basis. Those are your hypocrites. 

But the thing about King is that even though he knew that Hoover abused his power to accrue all sorts of rumor of innuendo against him, based on hearsay and grainy surveillance recordings, even though he knew that Hoover was more and more willing to weaponize that dirt as King's influence and esteem waned in an increasingly more radical America, King was willing to risk his entire reputation to push forward with his mission. This is not speculation. My friend, the civil rights activist and minister Ed King, challenged his friend MLK about his commitment to the Poor People's Campaign. Ed loved Martin, but had an ongoing quasi-rift with him over the marches in Selma, where Ed felt MLK caved to pressure when he kneeled and turned protestors around. MLK promised that he would push the Poor People's Campaign to the steps of the White House itself, even if MLK knew that the end would be an onslaught of character assassination by Hoover, Sullivan and their media cronies. Ed knew the implications--  that MLK was willing to ruin his reputation if it solved the crisis of poverty. All of us have secrets and regrets we are not proud of. How many of us would expose all of them for the benefit of the greater community?  Would you Robert?  I doubt it.

Stu

I tried to get the MLK records released by way of the Clerk of the House ~15 years ago.  In all of my document request efforts, that might have been the "rudest" rejection, so to speak. The seal expired a long time ago. The Clerk could have released it then. They could release it now. That said: those who worry that the records include Hoover's anti-King rumors and innuendos are apparently not wrong (I know from an insider.) That is a major concern to people who do not want to do Hoover's dirty work for him. See the hit job on King by Garrow a few years ago, relying on the interpretation of Bill Sullivan's people of a tape that you can bet was grainy as heck (I have never heard of any 60s FBI tap that was anything but grainy) to make assumptions about what was allegedly occuring inside a motel room. It was outrageous. Given the recent turn against MLK by people like Charlie Kirk, I am not even unsympathetic to those who worry that the HSCA files will be used for nefarious purposes. I feel the best way to do get these files would be through the auspices of the Cold Case Review board, who could (excuse the very bad pun) segregrate out Hoover's nonsense.  But we need to get that board more support-- a current focus of mine.

Stu