Jump to content
The Education Forum

New Photographic Proof: Todd's Initials on 399!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I see the "ET" and, beyond the questions of why others allegedly missed it and the notion that it was added later, even if (if) one concedes this point, there is a whole lot more to the chain of custody of CE399 and other related matters than just this. One is reminded of those who "exposed" the three tramps as just tramps in the movie JFK, as if that debunked the entire movie and all of its many components...epic fail. There is a whole lot to the two and four hour versions of Stone's new doc far beyond just this one component.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I see the "ET" and, beyond the questions of why others allegedly missed it and the notion that it was added later, even if (if) one concedes this point, there is a whole lot more to the chain of custody of CE399 and other related matters than just this. One is reminded of those who "exposed" the three tramps as just tramps in the movie JFK, as if that debunked the entire movie and all of its many components...epic fail. There is a whole lot to the two and four hour versions of Stone's new doc far beyond just this one component.

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. But to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch--but to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Fair enough. I must admit that I see the "ET" right away and am stunned others who saw the bullet in person missed it...if it was truly there for many decades.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch--but to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Pat, do you believe that huge E and T were there all this time and everyone missed it? It seems hard to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Pat, do you believe that huge E and T were there all this time and everyone missed it? It seems hard to believe.

Sure. Depending on the lighting, it can be very hard to pick up a faint inscription on metal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch. But to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Yes and no.  It depends on whether the "bad apple" is an essential premise of an explanatory theory.

It is much easier to debunk a theory based on empirical evidence than to definitively prove one-- something that requires confirmation by all of the known evidence.

From the philosophy of science, we know that a single false, essential premise/fact effectively invalidates a theory.

This is, certainly, true in the case of the Warren Commission's Lone Assassin-in-the-TSBD theory.

That theory is effectively debunked by a wide array of scientific facts-- e.g., ballistic, acoustic, and video evidence.

But, on the flip side, what comprehensive, alternative theory of JFK's assassination by Oliver Stone, DiEugenio, et.al., has been debunked?  None.

 

 

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is this: Given that NIST did this work in 2015, why is it that only now we learn that the initials ET were found?

Does anybody know why NIST did this work? (I didn't read Roe's article and don't plan to.)

 

Unfortunately there is no way for us to know if the initials were always there or if they were added as part of an effort to debunk CT work. I'd be satisfied of a debunking if Mantik went again to the Archives, looked at the bullet again, and confirmed that it is REALLY hard to see the initials. (Though that still wouldn't prove that somebody didn't later scratch the initials onto the bullet.)

 

I wonder why Roe didn't post this photo on the forum. I like to have LNers on the forum, but only if they really contribute something useful. This photo, for example.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My question is this: Given that NIST did this work in 2015, why is it that only now we learn that the initials ET were found?

Does anybody know why NIST did this work? (I didn't read Roe's article and don't plan to.)

 

Unfortunately there is no way for us to know if the initials were always there or if they were added as part of an effort to debunk CT work. I'd be satisfied of a debunking if Mantik went again to the Archives, looked at the bullet again, and confirmed that it is REALLY hard to see the initials. (Though that still wouldn't prove that somebody didn't later scratch the initials onto the bullet.)

 

I wonder why Roe didn't post this photo on the forum. I like to have LNers on the forum, but only if they really contribute something useful. This photo, for example.

 

NIST didn't bother to publish more images of their model of CE 399, and it seems that nobody bothered to ask them for more images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HSCA firearms panel  did a microscopic analysis and reported every nook and cranny they saw on lab reports. They were not specifically looking for initials but they reported everyone but Todd's. David Mantik and Gary Murr looked in person. John Hunt had high resolution photos that are online. And Gregg D. went looking with the same NIST stuff a few months ago only to say he was wrong and did not see them. I am actually hoping he (and Gary M) both comment on this. Did Gregg do a thorough search or only the area he suspected had the initials?

I would normally concede this but all of the above has me a bit suspicious as it came after Stone's film advertised it widely. If Greg and Gary (and Mantik) concede they could have missed it. I am inclined to say it has been missed.

Stu

Edited by Stu Wexler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wonder why Roe didn't post this photo on the forum. I like to have LNers on the forum, but only if they really contribute something useful. This photo, for example.

If you want to see the photo just read the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I wonder why Roe didn't post this photo on the forum. I like to have LNers on the forum, but only if they really contribute something useful. This photo, for example.

 

28 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If you want to see the photo just read the article.

 

Tracy,

I saw the photo... that wasn't my point.

My point was that it would be good for CTers (and The Truth) if LNers like Roe would post legitimate things like that photo on the forum. (Assuming it's legitimate, of course.) He's posted numerous times and I don't believe I've ever seen anything useful in any of his posts.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Wow that’s amazing Tracy. Over the years this bullet has been eyeballed up close - not in a picture - by countless people who never saw these initials. Didn’t I also see you tell the head of elections in Georgia that there were 11,000 missing votes? Oh no, that was Trump. Same difference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...