Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III

[manifesto]

Yes, I already said that, except it's not from the Warren Report; it's from the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence.
Specifically, from volume 4, starting at page 249 (or 4H249).

His diamond reference in the actual printed testimony can be found here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0131b.htm

I quoted it here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10707882#post10707882

Yes, you certainly did. Good, then there is still the question if BStrong's sop "ink pen" was used by SA Elmer Todd when marking CE-399.

Any clue?

Did you ask him why he's concealing one side of the first shell in the video?

Or why he's pretending there's evidence for five shells instead of three?

Hank

No, I did not. I'm still not sure if he does.

 

[HSienzant]

From the WC hearing again:

(1) Your proposed initials are not "on the small end".

(2) Looks to me that he uses "Day", not "JCD" or "JDY".

But I agree, this doesn't prove 100% that no initials (from Day and one more, depending on shell) are on the hulls, but it shows that there is good reason to investigate it once and for all.

If the documents and the witnesses fail to show chain of custody, it's critical to look att the physical evidence and so far it doesn't look good, does it?

Looks fine to me. J.C.Day says he found his initials on it. I'm satisfied he did.

And the stylus in the image appears to be pointing to what I found more so than it's pointing to the "Q6". The NA staff personnel had the actual hull in front of them. Right?

I'd like to know how Krusch determined no initials are on the shells. Those scratches (and all the others) are susceptible to numerous interpretations, given as how we're looking at images, and not the three-dimensional actual evidence. There's plenty of apparent scratches all over the surface of the hull.

Depending on the orientation of the hull (rotate it 90 or 180 or 270 degrees, the initials may be more readily apparent, or not.

It's his (Krusch's) claim no initials are there; he needs to document how he determined there's no initials on it. Just saying, "I didn't see any" isn't sufficient. Nor is asking anyone else to point out initials - that's a shifting of the burden of proof.

And what about the five shell nonsense from the same link?

Have you researched that any?

Do you understand what he's doing there?

Hank

PS: The small end isn't in focus and is partially concealed by the pointer in one image. I don't know how that's sufficient to eliminate J.C.Day's initials from the hull. I can't do it - how does Krusch?

 

[manifesto]

I've bolded the above point which you have yet to address.

You've yet to address most of my points, in fact.

Hank

I did address it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10709975&postcount=1489

What is missing?

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, you certainly did. Good, then there is still the question if BStrong's sop "ink pen" was used by SA Elmer Todd when marking CE-399.

Any clue?



No, I did not. I'm still not sure if he does.

It may be that J.C.Day marked the interior of the bullet hull:

== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it again?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into the shell....

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.
== unquote ==

The interior of the hulls are not shown very well at all.

I'm not certain Krusch has proven anything. Are you?

If Day was willing to lie and say he put his name on the shells, why didn't he just put his name on the shells so Krusch could find them 50 years later and there wouldn't be any issue here?

Same question for anyone else Krusch thinks should have initialed the shells, testified they did, and then didn't bother to close the gap by actually initially the shells.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I did address it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10709975&postcount=1489

What is missing?

All you did was deny you were using it as an 'out'. You didn't bother to address any of the implications of the two different methodologies suggested for marking the hulls.

If you're claiming *ink was used* as an out, you're basically invalidating the claims of Barry Krusch and John Hunt entirely. Their claims are that the missing initials are evidence of a swap of evidence, and hence, of a frame-up of Oswald. But if ink was used, and now worn away, their claims are moot. So which was it? Ink was used, and the claims of Krusch and Hunt don't withstand scrutiny; or a diamond stylus was used, and both men did not show us the complete surface of the bullet or the three hulls, and therefore their claims are unproven?

 

[manifesto]

Looks fine to me. J.C.Day says he found his initials on it. I'm satisfied he did.

You take his word for it?

And the stylus in the image appears to be pointing to what I found more so than it's pointing to the "Q6". The NA staff personnel had the actual hull in front of them. Right?

I'd like to know how Krusch determined no initials are on the shells. Those scratches (and all the others) are susceptible to numerous interpretations, given as how we're looking at images, and not the three-dimensional actual evidence. There's plenty of apparent scratches all over the surface of the hull.

Depending on the orientation of the hull (rotate it 90 or 180 or 270 degrees, the initials may be more readily apparent, or not.

It's his (Krusch's) claim no initials are there; he needs to document how he determined there's no initials on it. Just saying, "I didn't see any" isn't sufficient. Nor is asking anyone else to point out initials - that's a shifting of the burden of proof.

As I said, this is not proof of no initials, but it is compelling evidence. Remember, he asked NARA to point out where they found engravings, and there is no pointer to initials anywhere and certainly not to "the small end" of the shell where Lt Day testifies he see it in the WC hearings.

Of course, there is also a possibility that NARA took more photographs and Krusch is omitting this, but that is fraudulent and I doubt he would take that risk. He's naming the NARA employee, Amy Delong, who took the pictures and therefore it's very very easy to call his bluff.

And what about the five shell nonsense from the same link?

Have you researched that any?

Do you understand what he's doing there?

Hank

What's the problem with this?

PS: The small end isn't in focus and is partially concealed by the pointer in one image. I don't know how that's sufficient to eliminate J.C.Day's initials from the hull. I can't do it - how does Krusch?

As I said, it should be a pointer to "DAY" on the small end of all three shells, but there is none. The only possibility left is that Krusch is omitting to show photographs where the pointer indicates this.

Would he take that risk?

 

[HSienzant]

Yes, he was right, twice actually.

1. He's referring to the WC hearing by Specter and no, he was not asked to identify CE-399. You are referring to a report from FBI which says he was asked to identify the bullet.

Reasonable people may differ, but he says, with no clarification:

"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. Having Tomlinson ID the bullet is the "proof" that would have established that the bullet's bone fides were in order. But that didn't happen."

That, sir, is simply untrue. "Never shown" means something different to Hunt than to me.

The document I previously cited states he was shown the bullet, and he did say it looked like the bullet he found. I showed you that memo. Isn't it incumbent on John Hunt to clarify exactly what he's saying? Tomlinson's testimony was in March of 1964, and he wasn't shown the bullet until June, according to the FBI document in question. Isn't it clear from the available documentation that the bullet simply wasn't in Dallas to show to Tomlinson at the time of his testimony, and Odum showed it to him later?

2. The FBI report is stating that it was Dallas SA Bardwell Odum that made the interview but Odum is denying (to Josiah Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar) having anything to do with any bullet in the JFK case, and that he did not interview Thomlinson (or Wright) and no, he had never seen CE-399 before. He says that he would of course have remembered such an important event and he would also have filed a proper report on it, which is nowhere to be found in the archives.

http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html

How many decades after the event did this follow-up interview occur? How old was Odum at the time? Why should his memory be trusted? Because he says so? That's not the way it works. Especially decades after the event.

I don't think you've shown sufficient cause to doubt the document I cited.

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

And if you doubt the veracity of the document based on a four or five decades after the fact *recollection*, isn't it the case that you would also doubt the veracity of the testimony if he was shown the bullet, and he did say essentially the same thing?

If J.C.Day recalls, four or five decades after the event, that he marked the shells, is that good enough to establish he did? Or are you going to want something stronger?

Why doesn't the same standard hold for Odum's recollection?

So it reduces to you don't like the available evidence. And you're cherry-picking what you do accept. No big surprise there. We knew you were going to argue that going in.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You take his word for it?

More so than Krusch's, yes. Compare the apparent standards you use.

If Day said something, we need to see it, verifiably and in high definition - even five decades after the fact. We apparently should not take his word for it.

If Krusch says something, we shouldn't really doubt it because he could exposed, and probably wouldn't take that risk.

Why doesn't the same standard apply to both men?

As I said, this is not proof of no initials, but it is compelling evidence. Remember, he asked NARA to point out where they found engravings, and there is no pointer to initials anywhere and certainly not to "the small end" of the shell where Lt Day testifies he see it in the WC hearings.

Of course, there is also a possibility that NARA took more photographs and Krusch is omitting this, but that is fraudulent and I doubt he would take that risk. He's naming the NARA employee, Amy Delong, who took the pictures and therefore it's very very easy to call his bluff.

As I said, it should be a pointer to "DAY" on the small end of all three shells, but there is none. The only possibility left is that Krusch is omitting to show photographs where the pointer indicates this.

Would he take that risk?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

More so than Krusch's, yes. Compare the apparent standards you use.

If Day said something, we need to see it, verifiably and in high definition - even five decades after the fact. We apparently should not take his word for it.

If Krusch says something, we shouldn't really doubt it because he could exposed, and probably wouldn't take that risk.

Why doesn't the same standard apply to both men?





Hank

In the case of Lt Day you have 75 years of no access to the evidence and after that special admission to investigate it. In the case of Krusch you just need a telephone.

And yes, I do not trust DPD 1963. Do you?

 

[manifesto]

Reasonable people may differ, but he says, with no clarification:

"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. Having Tomlinson ID the bullet is the "proof" that would have established that the bullet's bone fides were in order. But that didn't happen."

That, sir, is simply untrue. "Never shown" means something different to Hunt than to me.

But you have to quote Hunt out of context to make this conclusion. He is explicitly talking of the WC hearing and the extraordinary fact that Specter did not ask the person who first found the bullet to identify it. Specter, hence the WC, "never" asked him to do that.

The document I previously cited states he was shown the bullet, and he did say it looked like the bullet he found. I showed you that memo.

Yes, it's a well known memo.

Isn't it incumbent on John Hunt to clarify exactly what he's saying? Tomlinson's testimony was in March of 1964, and he wasn't shown the bullet until June, according to the FBI document in question. Isn't it clear from the available documentation that the bullet simply wasn't in Dallas to show to Tomlinson at the time of his testimony, and Odum showed it to him later?

Hunt is saying that the WC did not verify the chain of custody of CE-399 by asking the person who found it if he could identify it. Not when Specter interviewed him March -64, not ever never. Remember, it was the task of WC to investigate first and foremost the veracity of FBI's investigation of the assassination. It would have been easy for WC to send someone over at a later date when they had access to CE-399, but they didn't. "Never".

How many decades after the event did this follow-up interview occur? How old was Odum at the time? Why should his memory be trusted? Because he says so? That's not the way it works. Especially decades after the event.

I don't think you've shown sufficient cause to doubt the document I cited.

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

And if you doubt the veracity of the document based on a four or five decades after the fact *recollection*, isn't it the case that you would also doubt the veracity of the testimony if he was shown the bullet, and he did say essentially the same thing?

He is proud of his decades long service in the FBI. If he had been responsible for CE-399, the most famous bullet in the history of USA, the World, take it to Parkland and show it to Thomlinson and Wright, making notes, filing a report and send it back to HQ in Washington D.C., he would not remember it?

The most important task in his career? He was still alert, with no sign of dementia or other old age brain impairment.

On top of that, there is no report of this interview to be found anywhere. All the similar files are found and all in chronological order with no gaps in the time line.

Again. No files, no witnesses ...

If J.C.Day recalls, four or five decades after the event, that he marked the shells, is that good enough to establish he did? Or are you going to want something stronger?

Why doesn't the same standard hold for Odum's recollection?

Odum has no conceivable reason to lie. If you read Krusch's artikel on the twists and turns of among others, Lt Day, his behavior and contradictory recollections, there is ample evidence of foul play.

How foul? Very.

So it reduces to you don't like the available evidence. And you're cherry-picking what you do accept. No big surprise there. We knew you were going to argue that going in.

Hank

No, you are simply wrong.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Of course not. I do not need a fully developed alternative theory in order to point out problems with another theory. If the evidens doesn't hold up, the theory goes down.

It isn't enough to say, "See those couple of pebbles next to that pail filled with stones? I bet there's a hole in the thing. Seems to me then that container is faulty and can't be counted on to hold anything."

The stones, pebbles and rocks have to be all held somehow. Are you saying you haven't got a better bucket?

 

[JayUtah]

<lengthy post snipped, ending with...>
No, you are simply wrong.

That's a lot of words for someone who repeatedly claims he has no dog in this fight. Or any sort of "dog" at all. Are you just naturally obsessed with certain chain-of-custody details in old cases, or are you ready to come clean about this being part of something larger?

Reginald is right. Unless you've got a better bucket, you don't really have the right to demand a lot more attention.

 

[JayUtah]

The most important task in his career?

This is pretty standard JFK rhetoric. "This case was oh-so-important, so everyone naturally must have taken great pains to make sure everything was done scrupulously by the book. Therefore anything that's not the way I think 'scrupulously by the book' should go is therefore very suspicious."

That's a straw man.

He was still alert, with no sign of dementia or other old age brain impairment.

Memory doesn't work that way.

First, the importance or significance of an occasion has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how well you remember it. Contrary to lay expectations, people do not remember "significant" events better than others.

Second, the fading of memory is not commensurate to "dementia" or "old age brain impairment," even if you were competent to diagnose that in someone. It is a natural function of the narrative way memories form in the brain. The brain tries to fit observed details to a narrative framework. Details that don't fit the framework are discarded; details that reinforce the framework are unconsciously fabricated. Over time the narrative smooths out and many details are lost.

Yet another straw man.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Reginald is right.

Err...

 

[Belz...]

Don't try to deny it !

 

[Hans]

Err...

Ah Ha! Your secret magical name is out this means the evil forces held in the basement of the Musée d'archéologie Nationale will flood forward to make you eat cold oatmeal, be a source of attraction to unattractive members of your preferred type of mating partners who don't wash often enough and a commission in the Spanish Foreign legion (Legión Española).

 

[manifesto]

It may be that J.C.Day marked the interior of the bullet hull:

== quote ==
Mr. BELIN. Does that cartridge case, Exhibit 544, have your name on it again?
Mr. DAY. It has my name on the small end where the slug would go into the shell....

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.
== unquote ==

The interior of the hulls are not shown very well at all.

Are you kidding?

I'm not certain Krusch has proven anything. Are you?

In this stage, no, but he has shown us that there are no to us visible signatures, "DAY" or "GD", on the empty shells at NARA.

I'm waiting for confirmation regarding the number of photos taken, and if it adds up, I'm pretty sure Krusch is right. 95%.

If Day was willing to lie and say he put his name on the shells, why didn't he just put his name on the shells so Krusch could find them 50 years later and there wouldn't be any issue here?

Same question for anyone else Krusch thinks should have initialed the shells, testified they did, and then didn't bother to close the gap by actually initially the shells.

Hank

If you read Krusch's free of charge chapter in his book, you'll see that Lt Day is lying all the time. The cover up was improvised and very sloppy at best, but it doesn't matter when you are in power, invoking National Security and the imminent threat of 40 million dead americans in a nuclear war.

That is the benign version.

 

[BStrong]

Are you kidding?



In this stage, no, but he has shown us that there are no to us visible signatures, "DAY" or "GD", on the empty shells at NARA.

I'm waiting for confirmation regarding the number of photos taken, and if it adds up, I'm pretty sure Krusch is right. 95%.



If you read Krusch's free of charge chapter in his book, you'll see that Lt Day is lying all the time. The cover up was improvised and very sloppy at best, but it doesn't matter when you are in power, invoking National Security and the imminent threat of 40 million dead americans in a nuclear war.

That is the benign version.

Benign is not a synonym for imaginary, which is what Krusch's scenario adds up to.

Rather than grand conspiracy with multiple conspirators, how about good old American Standard Law Enforcement misreporting?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10684302&postcount=1098

Officers make mistakes every day of the week, even in situations with little to no stress and no immediate danger to anyone. The above post is illustrative of that, and I can't begin to imagine how ********** up things must have been in Dallas with multiple agencies, no chain of command and a dead POTUS.

My bet is on Mr. Murphy.

 

[manifesto]

All you did was deny you were using it as an 'out'. You didn't bother to address any of the implications of the two different methodologies suggested for marking the hulls.

If you're claiming *ink was used* as an out, you're basically invalidating the claims of Barry Krusch and John Hunt entirely. Their claims are that the missing initials are evidence of a swap of evidence, and hence, of a frame-up of Oswald. But if ink was used, and now worn away, their claims are moot. So which was it? Ink was used, and the claims of Krusch and Hunt don't withstand scrutiny; or a diamond stylus was used, and both men did not show us the complete surface of the bullet or the three hulls, and therefore their claims are unproven?

I believe this is a misunderstanding. My point was and is that IF the missing signatures can be explained by the use of an "ink pen", it's enough. We do not have to argue this and that for eternity.

In the case of Krusch, Lt Day is saying he used a "diamond pen", so his claim of missing signatures with implications still stands as I see it.

In the case of Hunt, we still do not know what kind of marking tool SA Elmer Todd used, so here it's still an open question, although the other three signatures are engraved according to Hunt.


And of course, the final proof (in both cases) will only be attained in an independent test of the items and the results published for every one to see.

Until then I use the word "probability" in order to put forward what I believe is a reasonable judgement on the issue.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Ah Ha! Your secret magical name is out this means the evil forces held in the basement of the Musée d'archéologie Nationale will flood forward to make you eat cold oatmeal, be a source of attraction to unattractive members of your preferred type of mating partners who don't wash often enough and a commission in the Spanish Foreign legion (Legión Española).

I didn't expect the evil forces held in the basement of the Musée d'archéologie Nationale!