Paul Landis could be right after all. Here's how.

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

So, according to you, Landis is just lying when he says that he purposely did not mention the bullet earlier and that he is revealing it now because he believes its existence should be known.

The lone-gunman theory cannot even explain the one back-seat fragment that you are willing to acknowledge. The nose and tail of the head-shot bullet were found on the floor in the front seat. Two more fragments were acknowledged as having been removed from JFK's head during the autopsy, and the autopsy x-rays show a snowstorm of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-front part of the skull. Plus, HSCA radiologic experts detected another fragment in the back of the skull, near the 6.5 mm object that was added to the x-rays after the autopsy.

And shall we mention the deformed bullet that two Navy petty officers found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw before it was handed to Dr. Humes? 

Just admit it: More than one gunman fired at JFK.

VINCE PALAMARA SAID:

David, what do you think Landis' motive is? To sell books? My enthusiasm over his book is in the toilet and it isn't even released yet! What a difference a few days makes.

 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince, I really haven't the slightest idea what Landis' motive might be.

Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I have posted.

Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo.

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the newspaper articles in question 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 suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself].

But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles.

So he now needs to have BOTH the 1983 and the 1988 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Paul Cummings]

I must be missing something about this story. He puts the bullet on a stretcher instead of giving it to proper authorities?

[Michael Griffith]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

VINCE PALAMARA SAID THIS.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Vince, I really haven't the slightest idea what Landis' motive might be.

Mr. Landis certainly gives the appearance of being a very forthright and truthful person. And I certainly don't relish the notion of calling him an outright teller of deliberate falsehoods. But the fact remains: He changed his story significantly over these last 40 years. I don't think there can be any question about that fact after you take a look at the two newspaper clippings I have posted above.

Perhaps his advanced age has taken its toll on his memory and his ability to be able to recall things clearly and correctly. But when we've got TWO different interviews from the 1980s (when Mr. Landis was a much younger man) which are verifying BOTH of the key elements of his "bullet" story --- i.e., it was a bullet "fragment" he saw/handled and "gave to somebody" --- then it seems pretty clear what the truth really is when it comes to Mr. Landis' 11/22/63 involvement with any type of "bullets" or "fragments" in the limo.

Mr. Landis, IMO, needs to be confronted with BOTH of the above newspaper articles 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 suppose that Paul Landis could, if he wanted to, now start saying that he did indeed retrieve a bullet "fragment" from the limo and "gave it to somebody", but he ALSO saw and picked up a "whole bullet" on the back seat and took it into the hospital. And the reason he never told a single soul about the "whole bullet" ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION was because.....well.....uh.....um.....[fill in your own choice of reasons here, because I can't think of a single good one myself].

But I think that even that opportunity may have passed Mr. Landis by, because I read a few days back that Landis has, indeed, claimed he was "misquoted" in one of the earlier newspaper articles.

So he now needs to have BOTH the 1983 and the 1988 articles shoved before his eyes at the same time while a live microphone awaits his response.

Uh-huh. Landis admits that he withheld the finding of the bullet until now. So, yes, he made previous statements that contradict what he's now saying, but he's explained the contradiction, just as Kenny O'Donnell explained to Tip O'Neill why his WC testimony said nothing about shots from the grassy knoll--he withheld it to avoid controversy after FBI agents told him he must have been imagining things, but he was certain that shots had come from the knoll.

And, again, even the one back-seat fragment that you're willing to acknowledge destroys the lone-gunman theory. As it is, there are too many bullet fragments in the official record to have come from the head-shot bullet, as I explained in my previous reply. And this is not to mention the bullet that two Navy corpsmen found in the rear of the limo and that Dr. Young saw at the autopsy before it was handed to Humes. 

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

I must be missing something about this story. He puts the bullet on a stretcher instead of giving it to proper authorities?

Correct. That is indeed Paul Landis' new 2023 story. (Really believable, huh?)

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

27 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

And, again, even the one back-seat fragment that you're willing to acknowledge destroys the lone-gunman theory.

No, it doesn't. Not even close. A single "fragment" being found by Paul Landis in the back of the limousine doesn't do the Lone Gunman scenario a bit of harm. As I said before, over HALF of the head-shot bullet was never recovered at all. So why would it be surprising to have some small fragments from the head shot left in the limo where President Kennedy was located?

It's certainly not a matter of there being too many head-shot fragments seen and/or recovered (despite what Michael Griffith said in a prior post), because not even close to the entire head-shot bullet was ever seen or recovered.

The best the CTers can possibly do regarding this matter of "fragments" being found in the BACK SEAT of the limo is to gripe about the fact that whoever did see and/or pick up any such small head-shot fragments didn't bother to place those fragments into the official record of the JFK case (for some unknown reason).

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

22 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

No, it doesn't. Not even close. A single "fragment" doesn't do the lone-gunman scenario a bit of harm. As I said before, over HALF of the head-shot bullet was never recovered at all. So why would it be surprising to have some small fragments from the head shot left in the limo where President Kennedy was located?

It's certainly not a matter of there being too many head-shot fragments seen and/or recovered (despite what Michael Griffith said in a prior post), because not even close to the entire head-shot bullet was ever seen or recovered.

The best the CTers can possibly do regarding this matter of "fragments" being found in the BACK SEAT of the limo is to gripe about the fact that whoever did see and/or pick up any such small head-shot fragments didn't bother to place those fragments into the official record of the JFK case (for some unknown reason).

"Not even close"??? Let's review: Two fragments, CE 567 and 569, the nose and tail of a bullet, were recovered from the floor in the front seat of the limo. A 7x2 mm fragment and a 3x1 mm fragment were removed from the skull during the autopsy. The skull x-rays show a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment within the 6.5 mm object, 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site and about 8 cm above the entry site described in the autopsy report (aka EOP entry site). Dr. McDonnel identified another fragment to the left of the 6.5 mm object, even farther away from the nonexistent cowlick site and from the EOP entry site. On top of all these fragments, the skull x-rays show some 40 small fragments in the right-front part of the skull. 

How, how, how can you say that the one Landis fragment that you're willing to acknowledge, which was found in the back seat, can be explained by the lone-gunman theory?

I notice you once again avoided mentioning the bullet found in the rear of the limo by two Navy corpsmen and observed by Dr. James Young at the autopsy.  Dr. Young, as you may know, ardently believed the WC's version of the shooting and innocently assumed that the deformed bullet that he saw was one of the three shots acknowledged by the WC.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

So, according to you, Landis is just lying when he says that he purposely did not mention the bullet earlier and that he is revealing it now because he believes its existence should be known.

 

Michael,

Are you certain that Landis says now that he purposely did not mention the whole-bullet earlier?

I ask because that is one of the two speculations I had to make in my hypothesis (in the OP of this thread). That would be great if he did say that because then my hypothesis would require only one speculation, the one that explains Clint Hill's so-called debunking of Landis.

 

[Michael Griffith]

23 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Michael,

Are you certain that Landis says now that he purposely did not mention the whole-bullet earlier?

I ask because that is one of the two speculations I had to make in my hypothesis (in the OP of this thread). That would be great if he did say that because then my hypothesis would require only one speculation, the one that explains Clint Hill's so-called debunking of Landis.

NBC News quoted Landis as saying he has been afraid to share his true story until now (LINK, 3:55 to 5:15). Landis mentioned that in an email exchange with Clint Hill in 2014, Hill advised him not to say anything about finding a bullet because it would have "many ramifications."

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

How, how, how can you say that the one Landis fragment that you're willing to acknowledge, which was found in the back seat, can be explained by the lone-gunman theory?

You can't possibly be serious.

You really believe that these two fragments taken from JFK's head (CE843), which weighed 1.8 grains, plus the fragments seen in this X-ray plus these three small fragments recovered from under Nellie Connally's seat in the limo (which were said by Robert Frazier to weigh a total of 2.3 grains) plus the 65.6 grains of total weight that exists in the two large front-seat bullet fragments (21.0 grains for one of the fragments and 44.6 grains for the other, per Robert Frazier's Warren Commission testimony)....you want to believe that all of those fragments, when added together, weighed more than approximately 160 grains (which is the average weight of a Carcano bullet)?

Let's add them up.....

1.8 + 2.3 + 65.6 = 69.7 grains.

Weight of Oswald's unfired bullet = Approx. 160 grains (but some people have said it's as high as 161).

Unaccounted for weight = 90.3 grains (which would include the fragments left in JFK's skull, which were never weighed, of course).

But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that those bullet fragments that were left in JFK's head weighed a total of 90 grains (which is, of course, a ridiculously high weight estimate for such tiny little fragments), that would still leave 0.3 grains unaccounted for (or 1.3 grains if you want to go with a pre-fired bullet weight of 161 instead of 160).

I guess perhaps you want to theorize that the one "Paul Landis" bullet fragment (which I have acknowledged) was a really, really big one, is that it? We'll never know the weight of any Landis Fragment, of course, since the person that Landis said he gave that fragment to apparently did a disappearing act and never placed the fragment into evidence. But you can always guess as to the weight. But you'd better guess pretty high, because that's the only way you're ever going to get the total weight of the head-shot bullet to exceed 160 grains.

As I said before --- you can't be serious. (Can you?)

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

21 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You can't possibly be serious.

You really believe that these two fragments taken from JFK's head (CE843), which weighed 1.8 grains, plus the fragments seen in this X-ray plus these very small fragments recovered from under Nellie Connally's seat in the limo (which were said by Robert Frazier to weigh a total of 2.3 grains) plus the 65.6 grains of total weight that exists in the two large front-seat bullet fragments (21.0 grains for one of the fragments and 44.6 grains for the other, per Robert Frazier's WC testimony)....you want to believe that all of those fragments, when added together, weighed more than approximately 160 grains (which is the average weight of a Carcano bullet)?

Let's add them up.....

1.8 + 2.3 + 65.6 = 69.7 grains.

Weight of Oswald's bullet = Approx. 160 grains (but some people have said it's as high as 161).

Unaccounted for weight = 90.3 grains (which would include the fragments left in JFK's skull, which were never weighed, of course).

But even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that those bullet fragments that were left in JFK's head weighed a total of 90 grains (which is, of course, a ridiculously high weight estimate for such tiny little fragments), that would still leave 0.3 grains unaccounted for (or 1.3 grains if you want to go with a pre-fired bullet weight of 161 instead of 160).

As I said before --- you can't be serious. (Can you?)

And the Landis fragment that you're willing to acknowledge? And the other fragment that Landis mentioned? And the bullet that Landis found, whose existence Landis was afraid to reveal until now? And the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object? And the large fragment that Jerrol Custer told the ARRB he saw fall out of JFK's back at the autopsy? And the bullet that the two Navy corpsmen found--in the back seat of the limo--and that Dr. Young saw? 

Now is a good time to mention the fact that the back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo (FMJ) that Oswald allegedly used. The fact that the autopsy x-rays show at least one small back-of-head fragment on the outer table of the skull has been acknowledged by everyone from Dr. Joseph Riley to the HSCA medical panel to the Clark Panel to Dr. David O. Davis to Dr. Norman Chase to Dr. Larry Sturdivan. This is the fragment that for many years was misidentified as the lateral-view image of the 6.5 mm object. It is about 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.

Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who served as a wound ballistics consultant for the HSCA, treats the small back-of-head fragment in a curious manner. In commenting on the HSCA medical panel's findings, he correctly notes that this fragment cannot be the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment:

          The frontal x-ray of the head . . . shows a nearly circular density near the higher entry site that the panel identified as a bullet fragment deposited on the skull at entry. It appears to be a disk of something as dense as metal, with a small circular "bite" taken out of the lower edge. . . . This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP [the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, aka the HSCA medical panel] and is mentioned by Dr. Baden [chairman of the panel] as a "relatively large metal fragment". . . . It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC [FMJ] bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the test bullets' jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls. . . .

          When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out, . . there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on [from the side/sideways]. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray], it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the President's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the JFK Assassination, 2005, pp. 184-185)

Now, why is Sturdivan so vague about the small back-of-head fragment? He does not deny its existence. But, he never calls it a fragment. He calls it "the slightly lighter area." He admits that the HSCA medical panel identified it as the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and does not dispute the panel's identification and placement of the fragment. However, he does not go beyond observing that the fragment cannot be the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object or of a metal disk. Why the apparent vagueness? Because he has just acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not fragment on the outside of the skull, so he knows that this fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet. I suspect this is also why he says nothing about the McDonnel fragment.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[David Von Pein]

Even if the "6.5 mm. object" on the X-ray is, indeed, a bullet fragment, that still wouldn't make the total weight of the head-shot bullet greater than 160 grains. No way. No how.

 

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Even if the "6.5 mm. object" on the X-ray is, indeed, a bullet fragment, that still wouldn't make the total weight of the head-shot bullet greater than 160 grains. No way. No how.

You are missing the key point that the 6.3 x 2.5 mm metal fragment inside the 6.5 mm object and the McDonnel fragment could not have come from the FMJ ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

Plus, you ignored the large fragment seen by Custer, the bullet that Landis found, and the bullet found by two Navy corpsmen and seen by Dr. Young. The WC scenario simply cannot explain all of these bullets and fragments. No way. No how.

Obviously, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment is not the McDonnel fragment, as a few WC apologists have erroneously argued. The McDonnel fragment is about 5 cm above the lambda, "lies medial" to "the depressed fracture in the right occipital bone," and is "between the galea and the outer table of the skull" ("Report of G.M. McDonnel," 8/4/78, p. 2, 7 HSCA 218), whereas the other fragment is 3-4 cm above the lambda on the lateral view, is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline on the AP x-ray, is 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site, and is on the outer table of the skull. 

The McDonnel fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. Similarly, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site could not have come from an FMJ bullet and could only be a ricochet fragment. These facts prove that more than one gunman fired at JFK.
 

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Plus, you ignored the large fragment seen by Custer, the bullet that Landis found, and the bullet found by two Navy corpsmen and seen by Dr. Young. The WC scenario simply cannot explain all of these bullets and fragments. No way. No how.

No sensible person could possibly truly believe the stories told by all of the various people who have come forward over the years to say they saw bullets all over the place. It's absurd.

I don't think even very many CTers believe all of the "I Saw A Bullet" stories.

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No sensible person could possibly truly believe the stories told by all of the various people who have come forward over the years to say they saw bullets all over the place. It's absurd.

I don't think even very many CTers believe all of the "I Saw A Bullet" stories.

Ah, yes. Here we go.  So all these witnesses are lying or incomprehensibly "mistaken." Dr. Young couldn't tell the difference between a bullet and CE 569. Chief Petty Officer Mills similarly mistook a small fragment for a bullet. Landis is lying or dreaming about finding a bullet in the back seat, even though he says he was afraid to talk about the bullet until now. Jerrol Custer, of all people, lied or merely dreamed about seeing a large fragment fall from JFK's back during the autopsy. 

Your true position is "If there had been a conspiracy, someone would have talked, but whenever someone does talk, we will look for any and every excuse to reject their account."

I notice you said nothing about Sturdivan's admission that no FMJ bullet would have left fragments on the rear outer table of the skull. This refreshing admission is devastating given the fact that there are two fragments on the rear exterior of the skull, one in the outer table (the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment) and one between the galea and the outer table (the McDonnel fragment). Crucially, both fragments are far away--some 8 cm--from the rear head entry wound at the EOP (and at least 1 cm from the now-debunked cowlick entry site). 

These two fragments could only be ricochet fragments, just as Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel told Howard Donahue regarding the 6.5 mm object.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

And the Landis fragment that you're willing to acknowledge? And the other fragment that Landis mentioned? And the bullet that Landis found, whose existence Landis was afraid to reveal until now? And the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the 6.5 mm object? And the large fragment that Jerrol Custer told the ARRB he saw fall out of JFK's back at the autopsy? And the bullet that the two Navy corpsmen found--in the back seat of the limo--and that Dr. Young saw? 

Now is a good time to mention the fact that the back-of-head fragments could not have come from the kind of ammo (FMJ) that Oswald allegedly used. The fact that the autopsy x-rays show at least one small back-of-head fragment on the outer table of the skull has been acknowledged by everyone from Dr. Joseph Riley to the HSCA medical panel to the Clark Panel to Dr. David O. Davis to Dr. Norman Chase to Dr. Larry Sturdivan. This is the fragment that for many years was misidentified as the lateral-view image of the 6.5 mm object. It is about 1 cm below the debunked cowlick entry site.

Dr. Larry Sturdivan, who served as a wound ballistics consultant for the HSCA, treats the small back-of-head fragment in a curious manner. In commenting on the HSCA medical panel's findings, he correctly notes that this fragment cannot be the companion image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the 6.5 mm object cannot be an FMJ bullet fragment:

          The frontal x-ray of the head . . . shows a nearly circular density near the higher entry site that the panel identified as a bullet fragment deposited on the skull at entry. It appears to be a disk of something as dense as metal, with a small circular "bite" taken out of the lower edge. . . . This second bit of evidence was discussed several times during the meetings of the FPP [the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, aka the HSCA medical panel] and is mentioned by Dr. Baden [chairman of the panel] as a "relatively large metal fragment". . . . It is interesting that it was phrased that way, ducking the obvious fact that it cannot be a bullet fragment and is not that near to their proposed entry site. A fully jacketed WCC/MC [FMJ] bullet will deform as it penetrates bone, but will not fragment on the outside of the skull. In the Biophysics Lab tests, most of the test bullets' jackets ruptured about midway through the skulls. . . .

          When they break up in the target, real bullets break into irregular pieces of jacket, sometimes complete enough to contain pieces of the lead core, and a varying number of irregular chunks of lead core. It cannot break into circular slices, especially one with a circular bite out of the edge. As radiologist David Mantik points out, . . there is no corresponding density on the lateral x-ray. The slightly lighter area indicated by the FPP as the lateral view of this object is not nearly light enough to be a metal disk seen edge-on [from the side/sideways]. As bright as it is seen flat in the frontal x-ray [AP x-ray], it should be even brighter when seen edge-on in the lateral. If an object is present in only one x-ray view, it could not have been embedded in the President's skull or scalp. (The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the JFK Assassination, 2005, pp. 184-185)

Now, why is Sturdivan so vague about the small back-of-head fragment? He does not deny its existence. But, he never calls it a fragment. He calls it "the slightly lighter area." He admits that the HSCA medical panel identified it as the 6.5 mm object on the lateral x-rays, and does not dispute the panel's identification and placement of the fragment. However, he does not go beyond observing that the fragment cannot be the lateral image of the 6.5 mm object or of a metal disk. Why the apparent vagueness? Because he has just acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not fragment on the outside of the skull, so he knows that this fragment could not have come from an FMJ bullet. I suspect this is also why he says nothing about the McDonnel fragment.

@David Von Pein  In reviewing our exchanges, I realized that my above-quoted reply did not give your argument proper credit. You were correct in noting that the fragments that I mentioned did not equal more than the weight of a 6.5 mm Carcano bullet. Although I did not include the Young bullet, the Landis bullet and/or both Landis fragments among the bullet material, my point that the fragments that I did list exceeded the weight of a Carcano bullet was incorrect. 

But that's the rub: If we include the Young bullet, the Landis bullet and/or the two Landis fragments, not to mention the large fragment that Custer reported to the ARRB, we have more bullet material than the lone-gunman theory can explain. 

Even if Landis only saw one fragment in the back seat, that fragment is fatal for the lone-gunman scenario. We know from forensic science and ballistics tests that FMJ bullets do not deposit fragments on the outside of a skull when they strike a skull. All the other fragments were found well forward of JFK. A fragment in the back seat could not have come from an FMJ bullet that struck JFK's head from behind. No such unprecedented behavior was seen in the WC's own ballistics tests. 

And then there's the fact that the two fragments in the back of the skull could not have come from an FMJ bullet.