• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

Status
Not open for further replies.
RoboTimbo said:
)

LOL! We grasped that you had nothing before you did. We've seen it from every other CTist and you're no different. Your hypothesis of "the gubmint" conspiring to assassinate JFK is just a dream that you can't substantiate.

Next.
Click to expand...
LÖL.
 
manifesto said:
Are you sure? The three existing signatures are engraved, probably with a diamond pen, the standard tool for marking bullets and casings.

You say "ink pen"? Source?



Probably because there is no information of the method used in the FBI report either.
Click to expand...

Current direction from the California Office of the Attorney General:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/evidence_collection.pdf

Handling Firearms Evidence

Fired bullets need to be carefully handled to protect critical markings
on the bullet surface and any adhering trace evidence -Do NOT mark bullet

Emphasis in original.

Here's another California Department of Justice bulletin on the subject:

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/CAfirearms.pdf

I'm a retired LEO, a graduate of the FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) in firearms forensics and tool marks, a certified expert witness wrt firearms, a qualified instructor in small arms of all types.

Bullets in evidence are sealed/signed on the container by the examiner, and the projectile is not in any way marked by anyone in the chain of custody.

Back in the past, and I have knowledge of the processes through my father, who fulfilled in his agency the niche I filled in mine, the policy was that if a projectile in evidence was marked at all and the projectile was a jacketed, it was ink marked on the base, not the nose. Bullets were never "engraved with any type of tool. If the bullet was a lead type or was seriously deformed, the bullet would be sealed and the packaging would be signed. No different than today.
 
RoboTimbo said:
You can easily follow the conversation.









Are you claiming that he was only involved in the cover up after his assassination?




The one you've claimed in the above conversation. Are you lying about it now?
Click to expand...
How do you cover up something before it happens?
 
BStrong said:
Current direction from the California Office of the Attorney General:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/evidence_collection.pdf

Handling Firearms Evidence

Fired bullets need to be carefully handled to protect critical markings
on the bullet surface and any adhering trace evidence -Do NOT mark bullet

Emphasis in original.

Here's another California Department of Justice bulletin on the subject:

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/CAfirearms.pdf

I'm a retired LEO, a graduate of the FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) in firearms forensics and tool marks, a certified expert witness wrt firearms, a qualified instructor in small arms of all types.

Bullets in evidence are sealed/signed on the container by the examiner, and the projectile is not in any way marked by anyone in the chain of custody.

Back in the past, and I have knowledge of the processes through my father, who fulfilled in his agency the niche I filled in mine, the policy was that if a projectile in evidence was marked at all and the projectile was a jacketed, it was ink marked on the base, not the nose. Bullets were never "engraved with any type of tool. If the bullet was a lead type or was seriously deformed, the bullet would be sealed and the packaging would be signed. No different than today.
Click to expand...
The three other FBI signatures on the bullet are engraved. Todd used "ink"?
 
manifesto said:
The three other FBI signatures on the bullet are engraved. Todd used "ink"?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to any photographic evidence of this, because those photos at JFKlancer don't show anything that I can determine as engraving by anything other than the lands and grooves of the Carcano.

And no, engraving a bullet with a diamond pen or other tool is not the established protocol for evidence handling by investigators then or now, although I know that in some instances pathologists will mark projectiles they remove from a body - and the bullet we're discussing was not removed from JFK's body.
 
BStrong said:
Do you have a link to any photographic evidence of this, because those photos at JFKlancer don't show anything that I can determine as engraving by anything other than the lands and grooves of the Carcano.
Click to expand...

And they don't show the base of the bullet. Do we know for certain that the missing initials weren't there?

Dave
 
RoboTimbo said:
You should have asked the President before you accused him of conspiring to cover up his assassination. Which of the joint chiefs were in on it?
Click to expand...
No, you wrote:
RoboTimbo said:
But you said the president was one of the parties responsible for national security when asked who in government participated in the conspiracy to assassinate the president.
Click to expand...
This is a lie. I do not associate with liars. Period.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And they don't show the base of the bullet. Do we know for certain that the missing initials weren't there?

Dave
Click to expand...

If I read the JFKlancer page correctly, it's indicated that the markings are on the nose, which makes absolutely no sense to me and I've never seen a projectile marked for evidence in this manner.
 
manifesto said:
Lets say that you have a theory that Oswald assassinated JFK. In order to make this theory plausible you present evidence, witnesses etc.

Now, I do not need to know (and present a theory of) who actually assassinated JFK to show that the theory doesn't hold up. It is sufficient to show that the evidence and the witnesses doesn't hold up.

Is this so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

Why the JFK-CT loons continuously fail is because the evidence against Oswald is solid. His gun, fired from his place of employment, on a day he was present, he fled the scene while everyone else on the building stayed (and it's not like he could afford time off from work), he shoots a cop who stops him, and ALMOST SHOOTS ANOTHER COP while he is being taken down by Dallas PD. The gun in his possession in the theater is the same gun he shoots officer Tippet with.

His action are in no way consistent with an innocent man.

The only thing that has never held up is the multiple gunmen theories. No credible evidence has been presented by anyone. Every theory has be shoot down in flames.

It is hard to believe I wasted so much of my free time being a JFK Assassination troglodyte. Weather you work backward from the crime, or follow the events and investigations in the days, week, months, and years after it always comes back to Oswald. Before you can rule in a conspiracy you have to rule out LHO, and nobody can.
 
manifesto said:
Private investigator Barry Krusch asked the people at NARA to send him photographs of the three spent shells found on the floor in the snipers nest, TSBD. They did but the initials proving chain of custody isn't on them.

Anyone here keen to explain why? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25QiW5K9U9c
Click to expand...

It's a shell game by Krusch.

I just looked at the video and saw a whopper of a lie.

At the 8:22 mark he says "... and when we turn the shell around we see no markings at all..."

That is untrue. The "Q" from the "Q6" FBI marking is there. Note where the dent in the lip is -- facing the camera. He then shows you an image that he says is a quarter turn (@8:35), then another quarter turn (at the 8:44 mark). He says "And here's our final quarter turn of the shell".

NOTE WHERE THE DENT IN THE LIP IS.

Two quarter-turns should put the dent in the lip AWAY from the camera, but there it is again -- facing the camera. Note he says "Notice that the very beginning of the "Q" appears at the bottom of the picture..."

Note where it is, and now go back to the 8:22 mark (which is supposedly of the other side after two quarter turns). There's the "Q" in the same place!

What he's doing is showing you the same image twice, and pretending he's showing you both sides.

He's a huckster. You are not seeing both sides. He's hiding something.

Now, clearly he's lying to you. The only question is why?

To sell his book.

If you buy the book, you will get more of the same, while he lines his pockets with your money.

Hank
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
Current direction from the California Office of the Attorney General:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cci/reference/evidence_collection.pdf

Handling Firearms Evidence

Fired bullets need to be carefully handled to protect critical markings
on the bullet surface and any adhering trace evidence -Do NOT mark bullet

Emphasis in original.

Here's another California Department of Justice bulletin on the subject:

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/CAfirearms.pdf

I'm a retired LEO, a graduate of the FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) in firearms forensics and tool marks, a certified expert witness wrt firearms, a qualified instructor in small arms of all types.

Bullets in evidence are sealed/signed on the container by the examiner, and the projectile is not in any way marked by anyone in the chain of custody.

Back in the past, and I have knowledge of the processes through my father, who fulfilled in his agency the niche I filled in mine, the policy was that if a projectile in evidence was marked at all and the projectile was a jacketed, it was ink marked on the base, not the nose. Bullets were never "engraved with any type of tool. If the bullet was a lead type or was seriously deformed, the bullet would be sealed and the packaging would be signed. No different than today.
Click to expand...


You're confusing bullets (the projectile part) with the hulls, or shells, that are left behind when the rifle or revolver is fired (unless it's an automatic, which ejects the hulls from the weapon).

But it's not important, because Krusch is lying and pretending to show both sides of the hull, when he's actually showing the same side twice.

Like I said, he's playing a shell game with the evidence.

And in fact, J.C.Day did in fact find his initials on the evidence, and it was marked with a diamond stylus.

== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked "Exhibit 545," I will ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. DAY. This is one of the hulls in the envelope which I opened at 10 o'clock. It has my name written on the end of it.
Mr. BELIN. When you say, on the end of it, where on the end of it?
Mr. DAY. On the small end where the slug would go.
Mr. BELIN. And it has "Day" on it?
Mr. DAY. Scratched on there; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. With what instrument did you scratch it on?
Mr. DAY. A diamond point pencil.
== unquote ==

The reason Krusch isn't showing us the other side is because that's apparently where Day initialed it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Not until I have a theory, no.

Do you want to present a theory of any sort before you have any to present?
Click to expand...

You're falling all over yourself trying to show that there was something wrong with the way the evidence in the case was handled. You're walking right up to that particular point -- and no other point -- and then disingenuously stepping away from it the moment someone asks whether you have any affinity for it or not. That's a dishonest way to have a discussion.

The assessment is right -- "Just Asking Questions" is getting you worse than nowhere. Yes, there are many ways of identifying evidence for chain-of-custody purposes. Yes, you are selecting one of them -- initials by the recovering officer -- and obsessing over it. Yes, you are insinuating that something is wrong because your particular favorite method wasn't immediately apparent as the one that was used.

And no, no amount of backpedaling or disavowal changes the impression you're making. You are adamant that you have no point. But you are equally adamant in pursuing what then must be a pointless line of questioning.

Get to your point and stop wasting everyone's time pretending you don't have one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom