David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) You're probably right, David. David Atlee Phillip's or E. Howard Hunt's or George DeMohrenschildt's "partials" were probably found on the note. And the prints of Ferrie, Banister, Shaw, Hoover, LBJ, Wallace, Marcello, Tippit, Ruby, Frank Sinatra, and Captain Fritz are on the note too. After all, we all know that November 1963 was "The World Vs. The Patsy" month in Dallas, Texas, USA. :-) Edited January 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) But to say flat-out that Mr. Frazier had NO intention to mislead is also a matter of speculation. But why would Bob Frazier's intentions (good or bad) have had any effect whatsoever on the determinations of the other firearms identification experts who have said over the years that CE399 was fired in Rifle C2766? All of the other WC and HSCA firearms people were in cahoots with Mr. Frazier? Is that the idea? Edited January 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 If CE399 as pictured here is the very same bullet currently in the archives, then according to Walker it is not the same as the bullet recovered after the shooting. Jon - you have mentioned something you would like to share here regarding The Oswald Walker note. Got my curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Edwin Walker stated, without equivocation, that CE 573 was NOT the bullet he was shown by police as the one having been fired at his home. Therefore, simply "proving" that CE 573 was fired from Carcano rifle serial number C2766 is not conclusive proof that it was Oswald who shot at Walker. Since the history of CE 573 is in question, it matters not whether it was fired from C2766. And the question of who fired CE 573, and the question of who fired at Walker's home, then, become two separate questions. Questions which have not been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. "Someone in authority said it, I believe it, end of story" is great for religion; it shows great faith. Faith is NOT evidence. Mr. Von Pein is apparently a man of great faith; that is beyond question. But I firmly believe that a competent defense attorney would put Walker on the stand and introduce VERY reasonable doubt that CE 573 was the bullet from the Walker shooting. Once the link between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting is in doubt, much of the other evidence then becomes questionable. So...now there are THREE questions that should be answered: 1) If CE 573 is not the bullet from the Walker shooting, why is it in evidence? 2)Who pulled the trigger when CE 573 was fired...and why [a two-part question]? And 3)Who actually fired the shot at Walker's home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 So...now there are THREE questions that should be answered: 1) If CE 573 is not the bullet from the Walker shooting, why is it in evidence? 2)Who pulled the trigger when CE 573 was fired...and why [a two-part question]? And 3)Who actually fired the shot at Walker's home? And this is your idea of "correct questions" re JFK? Does it ever occur to anybody that the people who handled Oswald were themselves groomed for potential patsy-hood? &The killers of JFK had nothing to do with Oswald whatsoever? Two separate operations directed from the top. One to kill JFK. One to kill Oswald. Highly compartmentalized. Going after Oswald's handlers isn't the same as going after JFK's killers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Cliff, You pose this question: "&The killers of JFK had nothing to do with Oswald whatsoever?" Excellent question, I believe. You then write: "Two separate operations directed from the top. One to kill JFK. One to kill Oswald. Highly compartmentalized. Going after Oswald's handlers isn't the same as going after JFK's killers." You provide an interesting, coherent way to think about the question you pose. How do you defend the three statements I've quoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 Paul @ post #63: I'm working on it. I'm having the "Walker note" translated, with comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 At post #60, Mark Knight asks: "Did Mr. Frazier have an agenda?" Referring to FBI's Robert Frazier. Key question. If Frazier viewed his job as requiring him to tell the truth to the extent the truth didn't embarrass J. Edgar Hoover, that's an if, Frazier's credibility crumbles. Are there indications Frazier viewed his job this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) What are your questions the answer to which is obtainable and furthers one's grasp of the JFK assassination? 3. Given the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation knew of Lee Harvey Oswald's presence in the Dallas area in the weeks leading up to November 22, 1963, and knowing full well that the FBI would be cast in a very negative light by many people after the assassination due to the FBI having been in possession of that knowledge about Mr. Oswald prior to the President's visit to Texas, then why would FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (of ALL people on the planet) have had even the slightest desire to want to frame and falsely implicate an INNOCENT man named Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both John Fitzgerald Kennedy and J.D. Tippit? Did Mr. Hoover relish the idea of having many people say this after the assassination? ---- Why didn't Hoover's FBI keep better tabs on Lee Oswald when JFK went to Dallas? Edited January 18, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 David Von Pein @ post #69: Excellent questions. Your first question demands an answer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html -------------- J. Edgar Hoover and his boys should have been dying to FIND A CONSPIRACY surrounding JFK's murder, rather than running around trying to cover one up; and Hoover should have been even more anxious to get Oswald completely OFF the murdering hook, not ONTO that hook. But many conspiracists actually think that Hoover and his crew were trying to frame a completely INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, even though such a frame-up was bound to bring even MORE heat down on Hoover and his FBI boys, for not having kept a better eye on Oswald on Assassination Day. I guess Hoover must have liked the idea of being on the hot seat, huh? So instead of going out and trying to find President Kennedy's "real killers", evidently many conspiracy theorists think Mr. Hoover was deliberately putting himself (and his entire Bureau, in a sense) right into the frying pan by wanting to FRAME a totally innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald....i.e., a man who tried to defect to Russia just four years earlier and a man whom the FBI knew about in the weeks leading up to November 22, 1963. Crazy. David Von Pein September 2007 February 2014 Edited January 19, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html -------------- J. Edgar Hoover and his boys should have been dying to FIND A CONSPIRACY surrounding JFK's murder, rather than running around trying to cover one up; and Hoover should have been even more anxious to get Oswald completely OFF the murdering hook, not ONTO that hook. But many conspiracists actually think that Hoover and his crew were trying to frame a completely INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, even though such a frame-up was bound to bring even MORE heat down on Hoover and his FBI boys, for not having kept a better eye on Oswald on Assassination Day. I guess Hoover must have liked the idea of being on the hot seat, huh? So instead of going out and trying to find President Kennedy's "real killers", evidently many conspiracy theorists think Mr. Hoover was deliberately putting himself (and his entire Bureau, in a sense) right into the frying pan by wanting to FRAME a totally innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald....i.e., a man who tried to defect to Russia just four years earlier and a man whom the FBI knew about in the weeks leading up to November 22, 1963. Crazy. David Von Pein September 2007 February 2014 Hoover's "incompetent" FBI was able to survive the disaster by having James Hosty destroy a crucial note and by having LBJ put The Bureau in charge of the Investigation. Which might have been a prearranged deal between Hoover and LBJ, anyway... --Tommy Edited January 19, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Edwin Walker stated, without equivocation, that CE 573 was NOT the bullet he was shown by police as the one having been fired at his home. Therefore, simply "proving" that CE 573 was fired from Carcano rifle serial number C2766 is not conclusive proof that it was Oswald who shot at Walker. Since the history of CE 573 is in question, it matters not whether it was fired from C2766. And the question of who fired CE 573, and the question of who fired at Walker's home, then, become two separate questions. Questions which have not been answered beyond a reasonable doubt. "Someone in authority said it, I believe it, end of story" is great for religion; it shows great faith. Faith is NOT evidence. Mr. Von Pein is apparently a man of great faith; that is beyond question. But I firmly believe that a competent defense attorney would put Walker on the stand and introduce VERY reasonable doubt that CE 573 was the bullet from the Walker shooting. Once the link between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting is in doubt, much of the other evidence then becomes questionable. So...now there are THREE questions that should be answered: 1) If CE 573 is not the bullet from the Walker shooting, why is it in evidence? 2)Who pulled the trigger when CE 573 was fired...and why [a two-part question]? And 3)Who actually fired the shot at Walker's home? Hello Mark SA Robert A. Frazier testified that he found the diameter of the Walker bullet by measuring one land impression and one groove impression on the recovered bullet, adding them together, multiplying by four (no. of lands and grooves) and dividing the resulting number by pi (3.1416) to obtain the diameter. First, the land and groove measurements are not even close to those of a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38. Second, the numbers he uses, if calculated as he did, give us the bullet diameter of a .25 calibre rifle, .256", not of a Carcano 6.5mm rifle, .268". Third, Frazier mistakenly believed .25 calibre rifles to have the same diameter of bullet as a 6.5mm Carcano rifle; .256" as opposed to .268". The question you should be asking is, is the Walker bullet in evidence, CE 573, a bullet fired from a .25 calibre rifle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Bob Prudhomme now has another problem..... If Bob Frazier was a xxxx and CE399 really DIDN'T come from Rifle C2766, then why on Earth would someone want to PLANT a bullet from some OTHER non-Oswald gun in order to frame Lee Oswald? (And we all know, of course, that Bob Prudhomme thinks that CE399 was, indeed, a "planted" and/or "substituted" bullet. Right, Bob? Because no CTer worth his salt would even begin to think that CE399 actually wounded anyone on 11/22/63.) So many patsy-framers. So few brains did they possess. But luckily for the sinister plotters, they had Robert A. Frazier to come to their rescue and say that 399 was fired in OSWALD'S gun "to the exclusion", even though, per Prudhomme, it really was fired in some other gun altogether. What amazing good fortune for "them". Edited January 19, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 DVP is, of course, attempting to mix the pristine bullet CE 399, allegedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, with the completely mangled bullet CE 573, allegedly removed from the Walker residence following the attempted shooting of Gen. Edwin Walker. Please, let's deal with one bullet at a time. We'll come to CE 399 soon enough. The reason CE 573 had to be substituted for the real bullet fired at Walker is very simple, and one of those "nitpicking" little details that gets Dave so upset. You see, the real Walker bullet looked nothing like CE 573. Here is a link to the Supplementary Offense Report written by the DPD officers who investigated the shooting. Note that the bullet is described as "...of unknown caliber, steel jacket....". It is an established fact that 6.5mm Carcano ammunition, manufactured by the Western Cartridge Co., is jacketed with a copper alloy, bearing a distinct copper colour. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=333529 Would any of you have described CE 573, seen below, as being steel jacketed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now