Paul Landis Revelation About Assassination Bullet

[Bill Fite]

On 10/1/2023 at 12:11 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

A good scientific method is to make a hypothesis & then cherry pick the evidence that fits.

iirc - that's the opposite of the way I learned the scientific method
 

1. gather all the evidence available
2. make a falsifiable hypothesis that fits all the evidence. if more than 1 pick the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence - the one with the least assumptions
3. use (2) until proven false with new evidence - then reject hypothesis and go to (1)

Edited October 14, 2023 by Bill Fite
added to post - clarification

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

6 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

iirc - that's the opposite of the way I learned the scientific method
 

1. gather all the evidence available
2. make a falsifiable hypothesis that fits all the evidence. if more than 1 pick the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence - the one with the least assumptions
3. use (2) until proven false with new evidence - then reject hypothesis and go to (1)

Yes, but, re  any science, there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence.

But, re the jfka, there are zero hypotheses that fit the (so called) evidence.

[Bill Fite]

Just now, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

Yes, but, re  any science, there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence.

But, re the jfka, there are zero hypotheses that fit the (so called) evidence.

But only 1 hypothesis that fits the evidence is the simplest explanation, the one with the least assumptions.

wrt the JFKA many people make the mistake of saying that LHO as the lone assassin satisfies Occam's razor.  But it doesn't satisfy the second part - agrees with all the evidence.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

7 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

But only 1 hypothesis that fits the evidence is the simplest explanation, the one with the least assumptions.

wrt the JFKA many people make the mistake of saying that LHO as the lone assassin satisfies Occam's razor.  But it doesn't satisfy the second part - agrees with all the evidence.

I said....Yes, but, re  any science, there are always an infinite number of hypotheses that fit the evidence.

....................................But, re the jfka, there are zero hypotheses that fit the (so called) evidence.

But, re jfka, there are many contradictions re any & all hypotheses.

No hypothesis fits the evidence.

And, there is only one correct hypothesis, & that is mine, that Hickey fired at Z312 (i say mine, but it came firstly from Donahue, then supported by McLaren)(but only i have explained that Hickey fired at least 4 shots).

And, i doubt that my hypothesis has the least assumptions.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Marjan Rynkiewicz

[David Von Pein]

Here's yet another interesting twist to the Paul Landis bullet story. In this video below (from Sept. 11, 2023), Clint Hill says that Landis told him in 2014 that he (Landis) put the whole bullet on a stretcher "in the hallway" of Parkland Hospital, vs. putting it on Kennedy's gurney (or exam table), which is what Landis is now saying in 2023.

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Here's yet another interesting twist to the Paul Landis bullet story. In this video below (from Sept. 11, 2023), Clint Hill says that Landis told him in 2014 that he (Landis) put the whole bullet on a stretcher "in the hallway" of Parkland Hospital, vs. putting it on Kennedy's gurney (or exam table), which is what Landis is now saying in 2023.

 

Verily. 

But now Robenalt says that Hill mis-characterized what Landis said. 

But...what this all comes done to is, "Is the current Landis story true?" 

Landis' version does have one redeeming virtue: The condition of CE399 is inconsistent with a slug fired at ~2000 fps, and which then took out four inches of rib, and then smashed a wrist bone of a large male. 

Almost without exception, every forensic pathologist finds that prospect inconceivable. 

So, what are the origins of CE399?

Even if Landis on 11/22 put the CE399 slug on a gurney in the PH hallway (Hill's memory of what Landis said) that would still explain the unusual condition of the slug. 

If Landis did find an underpowered slug that struck JFK in his upper back, but then popped out, that might explain why CE399 has such minor damages to it. 

Of course, who knows if Landis is 100% solid.

I can say Landis' version holds more water than the prospects that single-bullet passed through JFK's neck, then did major damage to JBC's bones, passed through JBC's chest and wrist, then popped out from JBC's leg in operating room, but was found on a gurney a few floors down from the operating room. And looks almost new. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

 

[David Von Pein]

From September 11, 2023:

 

[Joe Bauer]

Just listened to the 5 minute long segment of the WTAM radio interview of Landis.

Listen to this everybody!

 Landis says he placed his Presidential limousine found bullet right on the end of the gurney JFK was brought into Parkland hospital Trauma Room 1 on. Next to his feet.  While it was in Trauma Room 1.

Or, is he saying he placed the bullet next to JFK's bare feet while JFK's body was placed on the exam table?

Assuming he placed the bullet on JFK's gurney, soon enough the gurney was taken out of Trauma Room 1 and moved to some other hallway location...correct?

No one lifting JFK's body off the gurney onto the exam table or pushing the empty gurney out and farther down the hall noticed a 1 1/2 inch to 2 inch long shiny brass metal bullet right there on it while doing so?

Landis clearly waffled when asked whether he believed Oswald was the lone shooter.

At first he said yes, then he immediately backed off of his sureness and said he really wasn't sure exactly what happened and even stated he had his own theories as to what happened. Then he quickly changed the subject.

That response to the interviewer's question as to whether he "Landis" believed Oswald was the lone shooter, but then immediately backing off of that belief is the bomb shell of the entire interview imo.

Landis definitely backed off the Oswald lone gunman finding more than standing by it.

I find Landis's obliviousness to the importance of his almost intact bullet as evidence preposterous.

If I am Landis, my first thought when finding that bullet would have been to hand it over to my superior agent boss. Knowing immediately that the bullet was an incredibly important piece of evidence.

Pocketing it and then haphazardly placing it on JFK's gurney ( while the gurney was in Trauma Room 1 ) seems so ignorantly negligent and irresponsible it's absurd.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[David Von Pein]

Bump....

Does anyone have any information as to whether or not Paul Landis did or did not speak at some kind of "Wecht Conference" last month? I had heard that he was going to speak at some 60th Anniversary conference. And--hopefully--Mr. Landis would also be answering some questions from the audience. Anybody know if he did?

As I said three months ago....

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH the 1983 newspaper article and the 1988 newspaper article at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment". I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.
 

Edited December 10, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Larry Hancock]

Yes, he did speak at the Wecht conference and had exchanges with Bill Simpich and others there, perhaps Bill will post on that.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Yes, he did speak at the Wecht conference and had exchanges with Bill Simpich and others there, perhaps Bill will post on that.

That would be interesting.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for the info, Larry.

 

[William Paris]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Bump....

Does anyone have any information as to whether or not Paul Landis did or did not speak at some kind of "Wecht Conference" last month? I had heard that he was going to speak at some 60th Anniversary conference. And--hopefully--Mr. Landis would also be answering some questions from the audience. Anybody know if he did?

As I said three months ago....

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH the 1983 newspaper article and the 1988 newspaper article at the same time, which each say the very same thing concerning the matter of the "bullet fragment". I'd be interested to know if Landis thinks he was misquoted in both of those articles, five years apart.
 

I was at the recent Pittsburgh event.  I'm really glad I made it.  I believe he believes what he's saying now.  He seemed very sincere.  If you would like an answer to the 83/88 issue I suggest you pursue it.  

So many of the presentations were very interesting.  I was even able to ask Rob Reiner a question!

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, William Paris said:

If you would like an answer to the 83/88 issue I suggest you pursue it.  

I take it then, based on your reply above, that nobody at the 2023 Wecht Conference bothered to ask Mr. Landis any questions at all about the contradictory nature of Landis' current version of his "bullet" story as compared to those 1983 and 1988 newspaper articles....is that correct?

If that is correct, I can only wonder....why not?

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by David Von Pein