The lies of the Warren Report

[Gil Jesus]

7 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

The Warren Commission was nothing more than LBJ wrapping up the case before his next election. Eff the truth.

That's right. Originally, he wanted the case wrapped up by Tuesday, November 26th.

Can you imagine that ? The assassination of the President of the United States and he wants the case wrapped up and an FBI report on his desk in FOUR DAYS ? He wanted to quell rumors of his involvement ASAP.

[Charles Blackmon]

The original responsibility for the cover-up of the truth rests squarely with LBJ. The continuing cover-up is another matter.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

ah- but of course

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I agree. The FBI used terms like "similar" to mask the fact that things they compared were not identical.

What do you mean by "identical"? That seems like an impossibly high standard in the real world. I don't know how it would play in a court of law, but I'd be skeptical of an expert witness claiming that two physical objects were identical.

[Mark Knight]

I believe that the [perhaps injudicious] use of "identical" in the context provided is meant to convey that the bullet in evidence was "conclusively" fired from the weapon in question, "to the exclusion of any other firearm." That level of evidentiary certainty might be interpreted as being "identical."

[Steve Roe]

On 7/6/2023 at 7:16 AM, Tom Gram said:

Nicol is blowing smoke and telling Eisenberg what he wants to hear. The FBI lab report indicates that the toolmarks on the Walker bullet actually were in good enough condition to be matched to a specific rifle, and that they did not match C2766.

Wait just a minute Tom. You and Ben Cole told the world that CE 573 that Nicol examined was not the real Walker bullet. Your article devotes a lot of time trying to convince everyone that the real Walker bullet was a steel-jacketed bullet, not CE 573.

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/walker-bullet-ce-573-is-it-real

What is it? Real or a Switcheroo?

[Tom Gram]

24 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Wait just a minute Tom. You and Ben Cole told the world that CE 573 that Nicol examined was not the real Walker bullet. Your article devotes a lot of time trying to convince everyone that the real Walker bullet was a steel-jacketed bullet, not CE 573.

 https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/walker-bullet-ce-573-is-it-real

What is it? Real or a Switcheroo?

I don’t really get this idea that if the bullet didn’t match the C2766 rifle, it couldn’t have been substituted for the original bullet. What are the chances of someone randomly taking a pot shot at Walker with a different MC? Pretty close to zero, right? But if the barrel markings legitimately didn’t match, as the lab report indicates, and the chances of toolmarks changing substantially in seven months with minimal firing is also near-zero, which seems to be the consensus with modern firearm experts according to Larry, that suggests the bullet was fired from a different MC, right? 

Well who didn’t have access to C2766 around the time the FBI requested the bullet? Did any of those people have a plausible motive to wrap up the unsolved Walker case? 

This is speculation obviously, but a switcheroo and an unmatchable bullet are not mutually exclusive, at all, and to say so is just false. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Tom Gram there is a difference between having toolmarks that match a "class" of rifle and a specific rifle. The FBI lab said the bullet could only be matched a class but not the specific rifle. 

[Tom Gram]

3 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Tom Gram there is a difference between having toolmarks that match a "class" of rifle and a specific rifle. The FBI lab said the bullet could only be matched a class but not the specific rifle. 

For sure, and the lab also clearly indicated that the barrel markings were in good enough condition to be matched to a specific rifle, but they didn’t match C2766. The lab wanted other bullets from April ‘63 because they thought the barrel markings might have changed between April and November, and said they could potentially match to the rifle if such bullets were found. I believe you said in a different thread that modern research suggests that toolmarks do not change that rapidly. Is that correct? 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Tom Gram yes and I specifically asked that question in a CSAFE conference last year. I did so because the HSCA firearms committee said the 1978 firings of CE139 did not match the 1963 bullets. they attrributed this to the poor condition of the rifle and that its marks changed from roughly 100 tests in 1963. we now know both of these excuses do not hold water. 

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

I don’t really get this idea that if the bullet didn’t match the C2766 rifle, it couldn’t have been substituted for the original bullet. What are the chances of someone randomly taking a pot shot at Walker with a different MC? Pretty close to zero, right? But if the barrel markings legitimately didn’t match, as the lab report indicates, and the chances of toolmarks changing substantially in seven months with minimal firing is also near-zero, which seems to be the consensus with modern firearm experts according to Larry, that suggests the bullet was fired from a different MC, right? 

Well who didn’t have access to C2766 around the time the FBI requested the bullet? Did any of those people have a plausible motive to wrap up the unsolved Walker case? 

This is speculation obviously, but a switcheroo and an unmatchable bullet are not mutually exclusive, at all, and to say so is just false. 

Tom, the FBI had no idea how many rounds were fired through Oswald's rifle from April to November 1963. Right? Nobody did.

The request for the comparison from the FBI test fired bullets with CE 399 were right after the assassination. But with CE 573 (the real Walker bullet) they wanted to be more precise. Why?

"Lands" of the rifle barrel do have wear over time, depending on the number of rounds fired and the maintenance/cleaning of the barrel. This is why they were requesting test fired bullets or recovered bullets from April 1963. Which of course, there were none.

When the rifle barrel "lands" wear, they do exhibit a different pattern on the grooves of the spent bullet. It could be somewhat less deep on the grooves of the bullet and flattened out somewhat over time. 

Bottom line, the FBI wanted any recovered bullets from that April time period to compare with CE 573. There were none, so that most likely factored in as well on their decision, that they could not conclude that CE 573 was fired exclusively from all other rifles. The condition of the mangled bullet as well was also consideration. 

Nichol states in his WC testimony that the FBI did not make conclusions on "probability". 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Steve Roe recemt studies have shown that the lands do not materially wear after thousands of rounds of firing. the idea that a hundred rounds could have changed the markings is bogus.  Statistian Clff Spiegleman testified at the mock trial to this fact at the 2017 mock trial. CSAFE conference also discussed this. any notion that the toolmarks changed between April and November 1963 is pure crap.  even if it was thought this could happen in 1963, it is now clear that this is not a scientifically valid excuse. Same for whatever hundred or so firings occurred in 1964. 

And there is no credible evidence that Oswald ever fired that rifle between april 10th and November 22nd.