Was CE 399 fired from the Depository Rifle ?

[Gil Jesus]

Was CE 399 fired from the Depository Rifle ?

by Gil Jesus ( 2022 )

"Based on a comparison of test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and the two bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle". ( Warren Report, pg. 558 )



The Commission based this conclusion on the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier. ( 3 H 429 )


But what if that wasn't true. What if the FBI lied ?
What if the evidence showed that the "stretcher bullet" ( CE 399 ) wasn't fired from the CE 139 ( Depository ) rifle ?


In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel examined CE 399 and the FBI test bullets ( CE 572 ) and found that they were fired from the same weapon. ( 1 HSCA 465 )


And since CE 399 had been fired from the same weapon as CE 572, it would be safe to assume that whatever results the Panel obtained from its comparsion between its test bullets and CE 572 would apply to CE 399 as well.


In his testimony, the Panel's expert, John S. Bates, Jr. of the New York State Police Scientific Lab in Albany, was careful not to say that CE 399 and CE 572 had been fired from the CE 139 rifle, only to say that they were fired from the same "firearm barrel". ( ibid.)


A careful and curious choice of words.


But there's a reason why he worded it that way.


Because when they test fired the CE139 rifle, the HSCA Firearms Panel found that their test bullets did not match the test bullets fired by the FBI in 1963.



Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139 ?

Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.

Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show ?

Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not detemine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.

Mr. MCDONALD. And would you please explain your answer ?

Mr. BATES. Based in the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual indentifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets.

( 1 HSCA 463 )



Mr. Bates testified that the difference in the individual characteristics was ( in the Panel's opinion ) due to "deterioration in the barrel". He gave 3 examples of how the markings in the barrel could have deteriorated.


Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panels tests with each other and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.


No.1, repeated test firing over the years causing extensive changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon.


No.2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon.


No.3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning and/or protective lubrication. ( 1 HSCA 464 )


This in and of itself is unbelieveable.


"Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first."


www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm


Next, neither the 6.5 rifle nor its ammunition was considered "high velocity". In his Warren Commission testimony, Frazier called both the rifle and the bullets "low velocity". ( 3 H 422 )


In any other criminal case, this would be proof that although the bullets in evidence ( CE 399 and CE 572 ) matched each other, neither were fired from the alleged murder weapon. And to understand that, we must understand how firearms identification works.



Firearms identification

Firearms identification involves taking a "standard" ( the bullets you fire through a suspected murder weapon ) and comparing them with a bullet from a source not known to you ( evidence ).


"Fired standards,...are examined first to determine if in fact the barrel is producing striated marks in a unique and consistent pattern. Once a consistently reoccurring pattern to the marks is identified on standards, the standards are compared to the evidence bullets to see if the same pattern of marks exists on the evidence."

www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm


The "standards" are the ones you know to be true because you fired them through the weapon. The "evidence" are the bullets you did not fire yourself and are comparing to the "standards".


In this case the "standards" were the bullets fired by the HSCA Firearms Panel and the "evidence bullets" were the ones fired by the FBI in 1963.


The fact that the bullets didn't match was proof that the 1963 bullets, including CE 399 was not fired from the CE 139 rifle.


By accepting the "deterioration in the barrel" excuse for why the bullets did not match, the Select Committee then accepted the "evidence" bullets from 1963 as if they had matched their own "standards" even though they hadn't and assumed that all of the bullets from 1963 had been in fact fired from the CE 139 rifle.


Then the Committee, in its final report, said that its conclusion that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository was based in part because:


"The positive identifcation of firearms experts that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine." ( HSCA final report, page 51 )


That was a lie.

As I've cited above, the Firearms Panel's examination of the bullets made no such positive identification.

In fact, their experts avoided saying exactly that.


Although the Committee was willing to accept any or all three of its panel's reasons for barrel deterioration, there was a 4th possibility and one that they never stated publicly: the differences in the individual identifying characteristics between CE 572 / CE 399 and the ones fired from CE 139 in 1978 proved that those 1963 bullets were not fired from CE 139.


They could have been fired from another 6.5 rifle and the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such weapon in their possession.



CE 542: the FBI's "replica" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano


Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a "replica" rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein's had mounted the scope. ( 3 H 396 )


Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle ( CE 542 ), they had to tell Klein's where to position the scope. ( ibid. )


Lo and behold when he finally received the replica rifle with the scope mounted, it was mounted exactly they way the scope was mounted on CE-139.


Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope ?


It's like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.

It's ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.



Questions remain


Could the condition of the CE 139 rifle have been so bad when the FBI received it that they used a replica rifle to obtain the "bullet evidence" they needed ?


What significance should we give the fact that the spent shells contain exhibit numbers ( 543, 544, and 545 ) that follow sequentially the exhibit number of the replica rifle ( 542 ) instead of the CE-139 rifle ? Shouldn't those spent shells have been introduced into evidence right after the alleged murder weapon ?


The evidence indicates that the three spent 6.5 shells that were retrieved from the sixth floor of the TSBD contained marks from another weapon on them. That weapon was never identified by the FBI. Why not ? Was the replica rifle the rifle that left those marks ?


Were parts interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle ? Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle ? Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle's bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance ?

Why does CE399's chain of possession begin in the FBI lab with Robert Frazier ?

Why is FBI agent Elmer Todd's mark not on this bullet ?

Was CE 399 fired by the FBI the reason why four people who handled the stretcher bullet BEFORE IT GOT TO THE FBI could not identify it as the bullet they handled ?

Why didn't the HSCA Firearms Panel examine the replica rifle and test IT, if for no other reason than to eliminate it as a possible source for those 1963 bullets, shells and fragments ?


The House Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.


But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored.


They weren't interested in opening doors.


So the questions remain.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

7 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Was CE 399 fired from the Depository Rifle ?

by Gil Jesus ( 2022 )

"Based on a comparison of test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and the two bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle". ( Warren Report, pg. 558 )



The Commission based this conclusion on the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier. ( 3 H 429 )


But what if that wasn't true. What if the FBI lied ?
What if the evidence showed that the "stretcher bullet" ( CE 399 ) wasn't fired from the CE 139 ( Depository ) rifle ?


In 1978, The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms Panel examined CE 399 and the FBI test bullets ( CE 572 ) and found that they were fired from the same weapon. ( 1 HSCA 465 )


And since CE 399 had been fired from the same weapon as CE 572, it would be safe to assume that whatever results the Panel obtained from its comparsion between its test bullets and CE 572 would apply to CE 399 as well.


In his testimony, the Panel's expert, John S. Bates, Jr. of the New York State Police Scientific Lab in Albany, was careful not to say that CE 399 and CE 572 had been fired from the CE 139 rifle, only to say that they were fired from the same "firearm barrel". ( ibid.)


A careful and curious choice of words.


But there's a reason why he worded it that way.


Because when they test fired the CE139 rifle, the HSCA Firearms Panel found that their test bullets did not match the test bullets fired by the FBI in 1963.



Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139 ?

Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.

Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show ?

Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not detemine whether the FBI test bullets were, in fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.

Mr. MCDONALD. And would you please explain your answer ?

Mr. BATES. Based in the microscopic comparison, there were differences in the individual indentifying characteristics found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets.

( 1 HSCA 463 )



Mr. Bates testified that the difference in the individual characteristics was ( in the Panel's opinion ) due to "deterioration in the barrel". He gave 3 examples of how the markings in the barrel could have deteriorated.


Mr. BATES. Our inability to identify our panels tests with each other and the failure to identify the panel tests with the FBI tests is believed by us to be due by one or a combination of several factors.


No.1, repeated test firing over the years causing extensive changes in the individual rifling characteristics within the barrel of the weapon.


No.2, natural variations caused by the high velocity of the 6.5 bullet resulting in extreme heat and friction during the passage of the bullet through the bore of the weapon.


No.3, deterioration of the rifling surfaces over an extended period of time due to the absence of proper cleaning and/or protective lubrication. ( 1 HSCA 464 )


This in and of itself is unbelieveable.


"Firearms do not normally change much over time. This allows for firearms recovered months or even years after a shooting to be identified as having fired a specific bullet or cartridge case. Tests have been conducted that found that even after firing several hundred rounds through a firearm the last bullet fired could still be identified to the first."


www.firearmsid.com/A_FirearmsID.htm


Next, neither the 6.5 rifle nor its ammunition was considered "high velocity". In his Warren Commission testimony, Frazier called both the rifle and the bullets "low velocity". ( 3 H 422 )


In any other criminal case, this would be proof that although the bullets in evidence ( CE 399 and CE 572 ) matched each other, neither were fired from the alleged murder weapon. And to understand that, we must understand how firearms identification works.



Firearms identification

Firearms identification involves taking a "standard" ( the bullets you fire through a suspected murder weapon ) and comparing them with a bullet from a source not known to you ( evidence ).


"Fired standards,...are examined first to determine if in fact the barrel is producing striated marks in a unique and consistent pattern. Once a consistently reoccurring pattern to the marks is identified on standards, the standards are compared to the evidence bullets to see if the same pattern of marks exists on the evidence."

www.firearmsid.com/A_BulletID.htm


The "standards" are the ones you know to be true because you fired them through the weapon. The "evidence" are the bullets you did not fire yourself and are comparing to the "standards".


In this case the "standards" were the bullets fired by the HSCA Firearms Panel and the "evidence bullets" were the ones fired by the FBI in 1963.


The fact that the bullets didn't match was proof that the 1963 bullets, including CE 399 was not fired from the CE 139 rifle.


By accepting the "deterioration in the barrel" excuse for why the bullets did not match, the Select Committee then accepted the "evidence" bullets from 1963 as if they had matched their own "standards" even though they hadn't and assumed that all of the bullets from 1963 had been in fact fired from the CE 139 rifle.


Then the Committee, in its final report, said that its conclusion that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository was based in part because:


"The positive identifcation of firearms experts that the rifle that was found on the sixth floor of the depository was the one that fired the bullet found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments found in the Presidential limousine." ( HSCA final report, page 51 )


That was a lie.

As I've cited above, the Firearms Panel's examination of the bullets made no such positive identification.

In fact, their experts avoided saying exactly that.


Although the Committee was willing to accept any or all three of its panel's reasons for barrel deterioration, there was a 4th possibility and one that they never stated publicly: the differences in the individual identifying characteristics between CE 572 / CE 399 and the ones fired from CE 139 in 1978 proved that those 1963 bullets were not fired from CE 139.


They could have been fired from another 6.5 rifle and the evidence indicates that during the investigation, the FBI had one such weapon in their possession.



CE 542: the FBI's "replica" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano


Robert Frazier testified that the FBI ordered a "replica" rifle to the CE 139 rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in order to determine if Klein's had mounted the scope. ( 3 H 396 )


Then he testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle ( CE 542 ), they had to tell Klein's where to position the scope. ( ibid. )


Lo and behold when he finally received the replica rifle with the scope mounted, it was mounted exactly they way the scope was mounted on CE-139.


Why would you order a rifle with a scope, with the intent of examining how the scope was mounted, then tell them exactly how to mount the scope ?


It's like giving a test and providing the answers before the test begins.

It's ridiculous, it makes no sense unless there was another reason for ordering this replica.



Questions remain


Could the condition of the CE 139 rifle have been so bad when the FBI received it that they used a replica rifle to obtain the "bullet evidence" they needed ?


What significance should we give the fact that the spent shells contain exhibit numbers ( 543, 544, and 545 ) that follow sequentially the exhibit number of the replica rifle ( 542 ) instead of the CE-139 rifle ? Shouldn't those spent shells have been introduced into evidence right after the alleged murder weapon ?


The evidence indicates that the three spent 6.5 shells that were retrieved from the sixth floor of the TSBD contained marks from another weapon on them. That weapon was never identified by the FBI. Why not ? Was the replica rifle the rifle that left those marks ?


Were parts interchangeable between CE-139 and the replica rifle ? Could the bullets have been fired from the replica then swapped out the bolt and firing pin and installed both in the CE 139 rifle ? Was swapping out the bolt the reason why the CE 139 rifle's bolt was reportedly stiff when they went to test the rifle for performance ?


Why didn't the HSCA Firearms Panel examine the replica rifle and test IT, if for no other reason than to eliminate it as a possible source for those 1963 bullets, shells and fragments ?


The House Committee could have and SHOULD have answered those questions.


But like the Warren Commission before it, the House Select Committee on Assassinations began with a pre-conceived conclusion and anything that did not support that conclusion was ignored.


They weren't interested in opening doors.


So the questions remain.

Great stuff, Gil. I had no idea the HSCA findings were so squishy. 

The story on the RFK-murder handgun and bullet evidence is even worse. 

[Gil Jesus]

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Great stuff, Gil. I had no idea the HSCA findings were so squishy. 

The story on the RFK-murder handgun and bullet evidence is even worse. 

Thanks, Ben. If the FBI were the ones who fired CE 399 like I suspect, it answers a lot of questions about this bullet.

Like:

why it's chain of possession begins in the FBI lab with Robert Frazier.

why four people who handled the stretcher bullet before the FBI received it could not identify CE 399 as the bullet they handled.

why the bullet doesn't have Elmer Todd's mark on it.

why the bullet did not contain any blood, clothing fibers or bone particles on it from either victim.

why the bullet sustained minimal damage in spite of allegedly creating seven wounds in two people and striking two bones.

why more lead fragments were seen in the Connally x-rays than were missing from CE 399.

All of a sudden, it all makes sense.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Gary Aguilar and others have done some great work on the chain of possession and CE-399. It sure looks like CE 399 was entered into the evidentiary record by someone in the FBI. 

[Sean Coleman]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Gary Aguilar and others have done some great work on the chain of possession and CE-399. It sure looks like CE 399 was entered into the evidentiary record by someone in the FBI. 

Too right Ben….

 

So, the boys have done a great job there. Now if they’d be so kind as to identify the bullet…..

Mmmmmm….fishy 

[Michael Crane]

Gosh it's been well over 20 years since I read Best Evidence,but I think the plotters originally planted it & said that it came from Kennedy's stretcher,because it came out of JFK's back from "cardiac massage" but then the single bullet theory was developed & the plotters knew that they had to say that it came from Governor Connally's stretcher.Specter tried to get Tomlinson to say that it came from Connally's stretcher,but Tomlinson refused.

Edited May 27, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Pete Mellor]

Another great piece Gil.  Questions remain on whatever rifle was supposedly found on the 6th floor of the TSBD & the so called ballistics evidence associated with it.  Just like the Oswald hand gun supposedly involved in the Tippit killing along with the ballistic evidence and the chains of possession in each case.  Also, as Ben has pointed out the evidence against Sirhan's weapon being responsible for killing RFK is equally shoddy.  Add to all this the case against James Earl Ray & the investigation into the killing of Malcolm Little.....all would make a satirical comedy if the subject wasn't so tragic.

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

CE-399 is one of the "fire cracker" bullets to hit their mark.  For a rifle shot to sound like a fire cracker, the shot has to be far away.

 Dr. Humes states that the shot to the back of JFK was an oval shaped shot of entry.  That shot had to come from high and above.

The perfect location for this shot is the roof top of the records building.  High enough to make a "fire cracker" sound close enough to barely hit a target.

Since the entry hole was oval in shape, to be exact 7 mm x 4 mm similar to the image attached, the CE-399 bullet entered downward into JFK's back. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza Keyvan.

We proved that in JFK Revisited.  In spades.

It could never have been entered into a court of law.  Period.  Its rubbish.

And Gil shows another way that its garbage.

How many different planes of discreditation does one need until we stop this exercise of a dog chasing its tail.

The question with CE 399 should have been the same one as with the photos of JFK's brain.

In that case we asked, if Stringer did not take them, as he admitted he did not, then who did?

With CE 399, its who planted the bullet?  That is the way the crime would have been solved.

Edited May 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza Keyvan.

We proved that in JFK Revisited.  In spades.

It could never have been entered into a court of law.  Period.  Its rubbish.

And Gil shows another way that its garbage.

How many different planes of discreditation does one need until we stop this exercise of a dog chasing its tail.

The question with CE 399 should have been the same one as with the photos of JFK's brain.

In that case we asked, if Stringer did not take them, as he admitted he did not, then who did?

With CE 399, its who planted the bullet?  That is the way the crime would have been solved.

Here is John Stringer's tape 3 AARB testimony - https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/audio/ARRB_Stringer_R2S1.mp3
Mr. Stringer discredit the Lifton interview as not being factual.  You can listen to Mr. Stringer in his own voice.  You can also listen to how Mr. Stringer does not remember many things.  There are multiple documents that he does not remember signing.  He is not a very good witness.  Did he take a picture of the brain?  Who knows!

Dr. James C. Jenkins, at the time of the autopsy he was a orderly, in his interview with Patrick Bet-Davis in 2018 states that he held the brain.  There was a small area to the back of the brain that was damaged.  The other parts of the brain did not look damaged.  You can listen to Dr. Jenkins in the following YouTube video.

To be clear, IMO - A bullet (CE399 if that is the bullet) did not enter the skull.  It entered JFK's back from high and above.  From the top of the Records building. The shot was taken far away.  That is the reason people heard fire cracker sounds and that is the reason this bullet did not penetrate deep into JFK's back.
Was CE399 a plant?  Maybe, but not at Parkland.

I love your work, don't get me wrong.  I just don't agree with some of it.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Keyvan Shahrdar

[Pat Speer]

On 5/28/2022 at 12:16 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

CE-399 is one of the "fire cracker" bullets to hit their mark.  For a rifle shot to sound like a fire cracker, the shot has to be far away.

 Dr. Humes states that the shot to the back of JFK was an oval shaped shot of entry.  That shot had to come from high and above.

The perfect location for this shot is the roof top of the records building.  High enough to make a "fire cracker" sound close enough to barely hit a target.

Since the entry hole was oval in shape, to be exact 7 mm x 4 mm similar to the image attached, the CE-399 bullet entered downward into JFK's back. 

 

A slight correction. A shot fired from back within a building would give the muffled sound of a shot fired from further away. 

[James DiEugenio]

Keyvan:  Stringer does not want to remember those things since he was coerced into signing them.

But in his ARRB interview he is quite clear on the film he used, and the process he used.  He should be since he wrote the book on them. And he taught the classes.

If you are going to argue it was not planted at Parkland, then you most likely have to argue that somehow the bullet was switched on its way from there to FBI HQ.

Not an easy one to make..

Edited May 29, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

A slight correction. A shot fired from back within a building would give the muffled sound of a shot fired from further away. 

I go hunting quite a bit for deer and duck.  When I leave the camp and take off my ear plugs, I can still hear them shooting.  It is muffled, and it does sound like a fire cracker.

[James DiEugenio]

I take back what I wrote.  I was running out the door to the gym as we are going to a play tonight. 

Indeed CE 399 could have been switched en route.

As we all know, Wright did not recognize what Thompson showed him.  

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Keyvan:  Stringer does not want to remember those things since he was coerced into signing them.

But in his ARRB interview he is quite clear on the film he used, and the process he used.  He should be since he wrote the book on them. And he taught the classes.

If you are going to argue it was not planted at Parkland, then you most likely have to argue that somehow the bullet was switched on its way from there to FBI HQ.

Not an easy one to make..

But in his ARRB interview he is quite clear on the film he used, and the process he used.  He should be since he wrote the book on them. And he taught the classes. Keyvan>> He is not sure, did you listen to him.  In 1963 they were transitioning from 4x5 to 35 mm film. His assistant was taking photographs as well and he did not know what he used.  He did not know the camera that he used.  He used the camera that was on the camera stand.  He did not know if JFK's autopsy photos were taken in black and white or in color or both.  He assumed they took color photos because his protocol was to take the black/white then the color photographs.  He even mentioned that his assistants camera film was taken out of the camera by a Secret Service agent.  He also mentions the logs that they are supposed to take to match up each photograph and keep a record of everything.  He also mentions that he does not remember if he kept a log.  He also mentions that he works under the direct supervision of the pathologist.  He takes photographs that he is told to take.

If you are going to argue it was not planted at Parkland, then you most likely have to argue that somehow the bullet was switched on its way from there to FBI HQ. Keyvan>> If CE399 was not planted at Parkland, Secret Service & FBI had months to create it.  IMO - Not worth arguing something that cannot be proved.

I am not looking at the JFK assassination as you do or most people do.  I look at evidence and fit them in place.  I don't believe anything anyone says.  Just look at evidence.

What I look at:

1. We don't know if CE399 was used in the assassination. 
2. There are more than one gunman.
3. Was JFK's first shot in the throat?
4. What JFK's first shot in the back?

What I know is:

1. Zframes show a ghost gunman on the roof top of the Records building under what looks like a lamp.
2. The Nix film shows the Records building roof top with a lamp.
3. The zframe ghost gunman looks like he fired a shot and at the same time, JFK's head snapped forward and down.
4. There is a bullet mark on the cement of the manhole cover on the south side of Elm street that points to the the top of the Records building.
5. Listening to John Stringer, he mentions that he remembers the probe getting inserted to the back of JFK.  It would not go through.

My thoughts on this:

CE399 was probably from the Records building gunman.

CE399 was a shallow shot to the back of JFK from high and above.

I don't know what shot hit him first, the neck or back shot.

Hey, I can be completely wrong on this, but those are my thoughts on this for years now.