Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[HSienzant]

The three other FBI signatures on the bullet are engraved. Todd used "ink"?

The link you provided showed three hulls, not three bullets.

Are you confused, or am I?

EDIT: Nevermind. You're talking about the second link you provided, not the first. This is on me.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Private investigator John Hurt went to NARA trying to find the initials on "the magic bullet" CE-399 proving the chain of custody, but they were not on it.

Anyone here keen to explain why that is? http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

If one reads the link, one sees that John Hunt (not John Hurt) says Elmer Todd's initials are not on the bullet, but he does not show us the whole bullet.

Todd was shown CE399 on June 24th of 1964, and he did find his initials thereon.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

Note Elmer Todd did not specify where on the bullet he marked it.

Now, either Todd lied about finding his initials or Hunt is not showing us the whole bullet for the same reason Barry Krusch didn't show us the whole shell.

Now, I think we can eliminate Todd lied, because if Todd was willing to lie and say his mark was on there, he could have easily have marked the substitute and claimed it was the bullet he was given by James Rowley of the Secret Service.

So I'm going with John Hunt is not showing the whole bullet because doing so would expose his lie.

Here's the images Hunt provides. I only see the top half of the bullet, not the whole bullet. What do you see?

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image003.jpg

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

He meant the NEW President, LBJ, not the dead one, JFK.

He misspoke, but didn't grasp the import when you asked the first time.

Hank

Ah, we were talking at cross purposes. We could have avoided the confusion if he had done as he was asked and named names.

Thanks for clearing it up!

 

[BStrong]

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

When I read the material at JFKLancer, there were two four panel pics of a round nose jacketed projectile that was described as CE 399 and the representation is that there are three sets of initials on the projectile.

Check out figures 3 and 5 at the link.

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

I'm on a laptop now w/ better resolution and I still can't make out any initials on the slug.

I see where our new CTist got that "diamond pen" jive now, so thanks.

 

[HSienzant]

When I read the material at JFKLancer, there were two four panel pics of a round nose jacketed projectile that was described as CE 399 and the representation is that there are three sets of initials on the projectile.

Check out figures 3 and 5 at the link.

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

I'm on a laptop now w/ better resolution and I still can't make out any initials on the slug.

I see where our new CTist got that "diamond pen" jive now, so thanks.

Yeah, you guys were talking about the second link and I didn't realize that.
I was stuck on the first link about the three hulls.

Apologies.

 

[BStrong]

Yeah, you guys were talking about the second link and I didn't realize that.

Apologies.

No worries.

I've learned much here, and I didn't do so by always being right - something that absolutely separates us from the CTer's.

I am still waiting for an explanation from Manifesto of how the lack of something (bullet marking) that isn't sop, to the best of my knowledge never was sop and is expressly forbidden by the California Department of Justice and the office of the Attorney General going back at least to the early 80's constitutes evidence of conspiracy.

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto?

Is it manifest that the one bullet and the three hulls are missing the initials as the conspiracy theorists you quote (Barry Krusch & John Hunt) claim?

Or is there a hole in their arguments big enough to drive an 18-wheeler through?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Hunt article about CE399 makes this claim:

"Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Never?

That's not what this document (cited by Hunt in his article) says:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

See the first paragraph:

"On June 12, 1964, Darrell G. Tomlinson... was shown exhibit C1, a rifle slug... Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet...."

Do you see that? Was Hunt correct in saying "Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Hank

 

[manifesto]

My god are you slippery. If you don't want an actual discussion, then get out.

Talking of "slippery", are you considering the members of the Secret Service who took part in stealing the corps of JFK from Parkland Memorial before it could be examined by an autopsy, as part af a "conspiracy". I mean, it was criminal and they have had to discuss i before they took part in it. They even threatened the medical personel with firearms.


Do you have a "conspiracy theory" regarding this little incident?

 

[Belz...]

Talking of "slippery", are you considering the members of the Secret Service who took part in stealing the corps of JFK from Parkland Memorial before it could be examined by an autopsy, as part af a "conspiracy".

What do you mean "before" ? The body of JFK _has_ been autopsied.

I mean, it was criminal and they have had to discuss i before they took part in it. They even threatened the medical personel with firearms.

If that's what they did then yes. Now, what in the blue hell are you talking about ?

Do you have a "conspiracy theory" regarding this little incident?

Not everyone has a chip on their shoulder, you know. Not everyone needs to make up theories to fit their biases.

And how is any of this related to my use of the word "slippery" ? Seems you're just throwing words around for no reason.

 

[JayUtah]

Talking of "slippery", are you considering the members of the Secret Service...

And off you gallop on a whole new topic. Let's try to find some closure on the chain-of-custody claims first. What do you think of the notion that the evidence was suitably marked, but you just didn't know it was? What do you think of the notion that your expectations for how the evidence should have appeared were not based on anything substantial? Or were you just making pleasant conversation, tossing out a curious factoid here and there?

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto? Yoo hoo, you there?

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

 

[HSienzant]

Manifesto?

If one reads the link, one sees that John Hunt (not John Hurt) says Elmer Todd's initials are not on the bullet, but he does not show us the whole bullet.

Todd was shown CE399 on June 24th of 1964, and he did find his initials thereon.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

Note Elmer Todd did not specify where on the bullet he marked it.

Now, either Todd lied about finding his initials or Hunt is not showing us the whole bullet for the same reason Barry Krusch didn't show us the whole shell.

Now, I think we can eliminate Todd lied, because if Todd was willing to lie and say his mark was on there, he could have easily have marked the substitute and claimed it was the bullet he was given by James Rowley of the Secret Service.

So I'm going with John Hunt is not showing the whole bullet because doing so would expose his lie.

Here's the images Hunt provides. I only see the top half of the bullet, not the whole bullet. What do you see?

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image003.jpg

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Knock, knock? Is this thing working?

Manifesto?

The Hunt article about CE399 makes this claim:

"Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Never?

That's not what this document (cited by Hunt in his article) says:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

See the first paragraph:

"On June 12, 1964, Darrell G. Tomlinson... was shown exhibit C1, a rifle slug... Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet...."

Do you see that? Was Hunt correct in saying "Incredibly, Tomlinson, whose testimony was taken in Dallas, was queried extensively about where he found a bullet (which stretcher), but was never shown CE-399 or asked to identify it as the bullet he found the day Kennedy was assassinated."

Hank

Now, Manifesto, why don't you tell us what is wrong with Krusch's FIVE shell and two separate chains of evidence claims that was made in the link you provided?

You do know that's just another shell game being played by Barry Krusch to sell books, right?

I'll be happy to explain how he's twisting the evidence there if you can't figure it out.

Let me know.

 

[Axxman300]

The problem with the shells being switched - using CT logic (such as it is) - is why would they switch casings in the first place? You're team is tasked with killing JFK, you have to have the basics all lined up in advance. Basics like the weapons (the rifle and the hand gun) and their ammo needs to be set in stone.

That way all 26 or however many gunmen you think were in Dealy Plaza all have the same weapon and ammo. This means your chain of manufactured evidence is consistent, and nobody has to swap out or tamper or do anything that might DRAW ATTENTION TO YOUR CONSPIRACY.

This shell casing nonsense makes zero sense within the confines of even a basic CT.

 

[turingtest]

The problem with the shells being switched - using CT logic (such as it is) - is why would they switch casings in the first place? You're team is tasked with killing JFK, you have to have the basics all lined up in advance. Basics like the weapons (the rifle and the hand gun) and their ammo needs to be set in stone.

That way all 26 or however many gunmen you think were in Dealy Plaza all have the same weapon and ammo. This means your chain of manufactured evidence is consistent, and nobody has to swap out or tamper or do anything that might DRAW ATTENTION TO YOUR CONSPIRACY.

This shell casing nonsense makes zero sense within the confines of even a basic CT.

Which is the reason they won't lay out even a basic CT; they know their own theory would never withstand the same standard of scrutiny they demand of "the official story." The whole thing is only them playing the most superficial anomaly-hunting game.

 

[Axxman300]

Which is the reason they won't lay out even a basic CT; they know their own theory would never withstand the same standard of scrutiny they demand of "the official story." The whole thing is only them playing the most superficial anomaly-hunting game.

And that's the problem. A good conspiracy or CT should have as few moving parts as possible. And it should be fairly easy to spot once the plot has been revealed. For the casings to have been substituted would not only signal a large group of well placed individuals - it would show that they didn't know what they were doing re: different rifles forcing them to make a switch.

That's pretty bone-headed, and a real conspiracy would have fallen off the rails within hours.

 

[Belz...]

And that's the problem. A good conspiracy or CT should have as few moving parts as possible.

And that's the exact opposite of what we're actually seeing. CTers are like mad scientists, trying to make uselessly-complex machines just for the hell of it, and refusing to explain how it works, just assuring us that it's way better than the regular stuff.

 

[turingtest]

And that's the exact opposite of what we're actually seeing. CTers are like mad scientists, trying to make uselessly-complex machines just for the hell of it, and refusing to explain how it works, just assuring us that it's way better than the regular stuff.

True- there's a definite Rube Goldberg madness in their method.

 

[HSienzant]

The problem with the shells being switched - using CT logic (such as it is) - is why would they switch casings in the first place? You're team is tasked with killing JFK, you have to have the basics all lined up in advance. Basics like the weapons (the rifle and the hand gun) and their ammo needs to be set in stone.

That way all 26 or however many gunmen you think were in Dealy Plaza all have the same weapon and ammo. This means your chain of manufactured evidence is consistent, and nobody has to swap out or tamper or do anything that might DRAW ATTENTION TO YOUR CONSPIRACY.

This shell casing nonsense makes zero sense within the confines of even a basic CT.

No, that's wrong. The problem is a bullet can be matched to a specific gun due to microscopic markings that are randomly laid down in the barrel as a result of the machining necessary to get each working part into specification.

Because these are microscopic differences, if three bullets were recovered, and only one weapon, but two of the three bullets didn't match that weapon on a microscopic level, you know you have a second shooter.

Having multiple gunmen is just plain stupid if you intend to frame a lone nut; having multiple gunmen shooting from three or four or more different locations is insane. Even if no bullet survives the shooting with enough lands and grooves to match back to the "patsy's" weapon, the trajectories of the bullet wounds would reveal the multiple shooters.

If you intend to frame a patsy, you frame him for owning a good weapon (not a war-surplus weapon that was two decades old at the time) and then you just shoot JFK with that weapon.

And that's all you need to do.

Period. Cut and dry.

Everything else added onto the conspiracy (swapping of shells, or the rifle, or alteration of the body, killing of witnesses, etc.) is just post-facto justifications because they can't keep the conspiracy theory alive otherwise.

Hank