The CE399 Planters

[David Von Pein]

As Howard Donahue has stated, the HSCA never dented a shell like that.

Bullxxxx. The exact opposite is true. The HSCA firearms panel dented a shell very similar to the way CE543 was dented.

Look at 1 HSCA 454:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0229b.htm

Mr. McDONALD. Have you examined CE-543?

FIREARMS EXPERT DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir; I have. .... This composite photograph depicts CE-543 and in particular the area of the mouth that has an indentation in it. This is shown primarily in the lower left-hand photograph. It is rather difficult to see but it is there. It can also be seen to a certain extent in the upper left-hand photograph in this area.

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Champagne; as you have testified, this was one of the cartridges found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building and the mouth has a dent. Could that dent have occurred during the loading process.

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir; this is not a dent that would have been in the cartridge case during the loading process.

Mr. McDONALD. Could it have occurred during the ejection process?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes; during the testing of the weapon we found that one of the tests that were fired and ejected from the weapon by the panelists also included a cartridge case with a similar deformation of the mouth of the cartridge case. .... We also examined Federal tests. Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth.

Mr. McDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon. .... The ejection is that process whereby the bolt handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case, ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.

Mr. McDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested the rifle, of your panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge case that came out with the dent?

Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.

Mr. McDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and demonstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge case.

Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the manner that I would consider to be employed during an attempt to rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being applied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.

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

All lies, right DiEugenio?

In his over 20 years as a professional marksman, he never saw a shell deformed like that.

Who cares?

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the patsy-framers WANTED to plant a shell that they had to know couldn't have been fired in LHO's rifle on 11/22?

You really DO think your patsy-framers were total morons, don't you Jimbo?

Besides, as mentioned, your argument is totally worthless anyway, because as I just proved via the above-cited HSCA testimony of Champagne and Lutz at 1 HSCA 454, we know that the HSCA firearms panel positively dented a lip in a similar fashion to CE543.

Plus: even John McAdams said he had dented a shell in that fashion too. (He was lying out his ass, right Jimbo?)

Plus: Why would there be ANY need to "plant" any shells in the Nest at all? You REALLY think that NOBODY was firing from the one and only rifle THAT THE GOOFBALL PLOTTERS WERE TRYING TO FRAME OSWALD WITH, Jimbo? More insanity from Patsy Framing University, it seems.

Here are the minutes from the final meeting at Patsy Univ. in Nov. '63:

Hey, guys! I've got a great idea! Let's take the time to set up this schnook named Oswald by putting together fake photos of him and by impersonating him all over Dallas in places that don't mean a Goddamn thing relating to this assassination---and then let's do something REALLY great! Let's NOT USE OSWALD'S RIFLE AT ALL ON ASSASSINATION DAY!! How 'bout it, guys? You with me?!

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Or the neck wound was a fragment and the back wound was a "short shot".

Short shot, okay.

But the neck wound resulting from a fragment?

No way. The wound was an entrance, for one, and how was it that JFK was reacting

to a wound in his throat 6 seconds before that fragment could have exited?

Or the Speer-Cranor idea about the trajectory.

Which is?

Trying to say that there could be no other explanation is the last desperate act of a guy who has no way to support his own argument.

But the idea that we are ever going to know what really happened to JFK is ridiculous on its face. Because the autopsy was probably one of the worst ever recorded in the annals of medical history. And according to Al Lewis, one of the lawyers under Sprague, incompetence does not begin to describe its utter failure.

Agreed. But I divide the medical evidence into two categories, which for me explains

a great deal about what happened to JFK.

There is evidence that was properly prepared according to the prevailing professional protocols: the autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors describing the throat entrance wound, the FBI autopsy report.

There is evidence that was NOT prepared according to proper professional protocols:

the final autopsy report, the measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet,

the autopsy photographs.

In regard to the x-rays, I dismiss the head x-rays because of the conflicts with the

witness testimonies, and the note in the FBI autopsy report of surgery to the head area.

I accept the neck x-ray as genuine, or at least have no reason to suspect it is not.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

Plus: Why would there be ANY need to "plant" any shells in the Nest at all? You REALLY think that NOBODY was firing from the one and only rifle THAT THE GOOFBALL PLOTTERS WERE TRYING TO FRAME OSWALD WITH, Jimbo? More insanity from Patsy Framing University, it seems.

Here are the minutes from the final meeting at Patsy Univ. in Nov. '63:

Hey, guys! I've got a great idea! Let's take the time to set up this schnook named Oswald by putting together fake photos of him and by impersonating him all over Dallas in places that don't mean a Goddamn thing relating to this assassination---and then let's do something REALLY great! Let's NOT USE OSWALD'S RIFLE AT ALL ON ASSASSINATION DAY!! How 'bout it, guys? You with me?!

It doesn't get any more lightweight than this. David would get booted off the freshman debating team at Mooresville High School for this kind of stuff.

[David Von Pein]

It doesn't get any more lightweight than this. David would get booted off the freshman debating team at Mooresville High School for this kind of stuff.

Yeah, common sense never has appealed to you conspiracy mongers, has it Mike?

[David Von Pein]

BTW, this Champagne, Lutz BS is right out of RH--a book that I think after that long thread we had is--to be kind-- rather suspect.

Bullxxxx. The Champagne-Lutz stuff is RIGHT OUT OF HSCA VOLUME #1, as I linked earlier. I wasn't citing "Reclaiming History". I was citing directly from 1 HSCA 454.

Please note, though, how Jimbo has no problem discarding at the drop of a hat the HSCA testimony of firearms experts like Monty Lutz and Donald Champagne. They each said something that Delusional DiEugenio doesn't like--so, they're each tossed under the bus. (And don't come back with any "You Tossed Roger Craig Under That Bus Too, Davey Boy" -- because Roger baby deserved his trip under the White House Press Bus for the multitude of provable lies he told re the JFK case; I'm sure DiEugenio likes Craig a lot though; normally, CT mongers go for the least reliable evidence while ignoring the best evidence.)

But if you want to see just how far out VB and Lutz are on the ballistics issue, they say they could fire 3 shots from the MC in 3.8 seconds.

Penn and Teller [below] did it in 3.45 seconds (dry firing). Big deal.

I'm sure that DiEugenio thinks this video should be tossed under the same bus with Champagne and Lutz--because Bugliosi pops up at the end:

TWO JFK CONSPIRACY MYTHS DEBUNKED IN LESS THAN THREE MINUTES

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

Milicent and Pat have postulated that the trajectory of a bullet from the wound that Speer has found-near the EOP-- may have left a fragment out the neck.

I fI am not getting this right, Pat will correct me.

Milicent Cranor has an article on this at the Lancer site.

And so everyone who reported the wound as an entrance got it wrong and JFK

reacted to this wound in his throat 6 seconds before it occured?

That dog not only doesn't hunt, it never suckled a mothers' teat.

[David Von Pein]

As more and more emerges about the record of Blakey and the HSCA, I find their work more and more circumspect.

Not surprising, Jimbo. That's because you're an ABO CT monger who will do whatever it takes (and call as many people liars and cover-up operatives as humanly possible) in order to promote your silly Anybody-But-Oz fantasy.

So, now we can add the names of Donald Champagne and Monty Lutz to Jimbo DiEugenio's ever-growing list of "Liars" and/or "Cover-Up Agents".

Are you up to 4 figures yet on your Liars List, DiEugenio? Just wondering.

[David Von Pein]

That whole Champagne dog and pony show is used by your hero on page 928 of his book.

So what? I'm sure Vince does use that "dented lip" info provided by Champagne and Lutz. Why in the heck WOULDN'T he use it, for Pete sake?

But in my prior post, I wasn't referring to RH or VB. I was citing directly from 1 HSCA 454.

So don't say it's BS, it's right there.

Huh? I never said it was "BS". You did (as usual).

You are REALLY out in left field tonight. Too many green apples for dinner, Jimbo?

You keep on forgetting I know that book better than you do. Yes, he quotes the HSCA, but he does it as carelessly and as with as much disregard of the true facts as you do.

You're delusional, my friend.

Back to bed with Armstrong and your hero Garrison now, Jimbo.

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Notice how Delusional DiEugenio rails against Blakey -- the same guy who headed the House Select Committee, the same Committee which said that there WAS a conspiracy in the JFK case.

So, Delusional Jimbo is probably fixed firmly between the ol' rock and a hard place on G. Robert -- should Delusional DiEugenio call Blakey a crook (for saying Oswald alone hit JFK with any bullets)?

Or should Jimbo "Everybody's A xxxx" D. embrace Blakey because of the HSCA's "It Was A Conspiracy" nonsense?

It's tough to be Jimbo here.

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Oh really, quoting DVP: "Bullxxxx. The Champagne-Lutz stuff is RIGHT OUT OF HSCA VOLUME #1.

DiEugenio has, indeed, blown a series of gaskets this evening.

He actually thinks my first word in that previous post ("Bullxxxx") was meant to mean that I thought Champagne's and Lutz' testimony was "bullxxxx".

Of course, quite obviously, the "bullxxxx" remark was referring to Jimbo's quoted text as being "bullxxxx".

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

No, Jimbo, you wanted people to think that I ran straight to RH for my Champagne & Lutz testimony--which I did not.

You said the Champagne stuff was straight out of RH, which it wasn't (as far as my usage of the testimony in this thread is concerned). I was citing directly from HSCA Volume 1--and I even linked to the page.

But, yes, of course, Bugliosi was going to use 1 HSCA 454 to debunk the silly CTers of the world like you who continue to promote the lie that CE543 could not possibly have been fired in Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano on November 22nd, 1963.

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Geez Davey, I wonder why I would think that you ran straight to RH?

In that particular "Champagne/Lutz" instance, I have no idea....because it was obvious in that instance I was not citing any RH passages. I was citing the HSCA directly.

You probably just got one of your "VB Is A xxxx" or "DVP Is An RH Shill" or "Hoover Was A Cover-Up Artist" wires crossed tonight.

It must be kinda hard to keep all of that conspiracy-oriented nonsense straight, week after week. Right, James?

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

Solid evidence, OFFICIAL evidence, valid evidence are not the equivalent of solid proof.

This shows what Michael Hogan's mindset is -- he's saying that not even "valid evidence" and "solid evidence" are good enough to provide "solid proof" of something in the JFK case.

A curious mindset indeed.

Why, David?

Seems to me, you're the one with the curious mindset.

Prosecutors don't take cases to court unless they believe they have enough solid evidence to have a reasonable chance of securing a conviction.

Your mindset suggests that prosecutors should never lose a case.

Yet they do, don't the David? Why? Because solid evidence is not proof. An airtight alibi trumps it, as sometimes does cross examination, or alternative explanations for the evidence.

And then of course, as you would expect me to say... solid evidence has to have a provable chain of custody... for very solid reasons....

[David Von Pein]

Which proves you are a shill for RH.

So, if a person enjoys a book and endorses it and quotes from it (and also had a really strong inkling that the book WAS, indeed, going to be a good book even many years before it was published)....this means that that person is automatically a "shill" for that particular publication? Is that correct, Jim?

Does this mean I can then start calling you a "Garrison shill" or an "On The Trail Of The Assassins" shill, Jim? (I probably already have done so, however, in one of our many Internet fights since 2008, but I'd have to check the ol' archives for verification of that.)

And the fact that on the page I used from RH, p. 928 at FN 75, VB uses the same source from the HSCA, since he used Lutz at the phony London trial.

So? As I said earlier (allow me to repeat this very good and utterly accurate statement from Post #54 in this thread):

"But, yes, of course, Bugliosi was going to use 1 HSCA 454 to debunk the silly CTers of the world like you [James DiEugenio] who continue to promote the lie that CE543 could not possibly have been fired in Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano on November 22nd, 1963." -- David "Shill" Von Pein

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Dream on Davey. That you label this piece of PR a "Book Review" shows how far gone you are.

Well, this former Secret Service agent seemed to like it:

http://www.makereadyforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=50341

Edited September 22, 2010 by David Von Pein