On 17 May, 13:15, Ben Holmes <ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
<3eada29f-2a10-4779-9361-207b3cf1b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> curtjester1 says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 16, 8:07=3DA0pm, yeuhd <wall...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On May 16, 9:37=3DA0pm, HPW...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> >> > > How could two bullets supposedly the same react in such a
> >> > > different fa****on from each other?
>
> >> > Simple. It was a plant used to frame Oswald.
>
> >> If it was a "plant" --
>
> >> 1. Why would someone plant a bullet in the condition that CE399 was,
> >> inviting decades of skepticism?
>
> >Oh, like they would know in advance. =A0The conspiratists bumbled, and
> >bumbled all the time. =A0They just denied, stonewalled, or covered-up.
> >Just like the library card found on Oswald...the ol' hot potato
> >routine.
>
> The 6.5mm virtually round object in the AP X-ray is another good example
o=
f a
> fumble... as is the wallet found, not at the Tippit scene, but in the
park=
ing
> lot, as Walt has so devastatingly proved.
>
> The coverup was *not* perfect.
>
> >> 2. How did the person(s) get the barrel markings of Oswald's rifle on
> >> the bullet?
>
> >If they can manufacture a money order and an order blank, all they had
> >to do would be to get the rifle into play and monitor it. =A0Just give
> >it a fire, and keep the bullet.
>
> Yep... this is the silliest of all questions... It presupposes that the
FB=
I had
> no access to the MC.
>
> >> 3. How would the person(s) planting the bullet
>
> This strawman has long ago been destroyed.
>
> No "planting" was needed... indeed, every person who handled CE399
refused=
to
> identify it as the bullet that they'd handled.
>
> All that's needed is for the bullet to be swapped at the FBI... which is
t=
he
> only thing that *I* can think of to explain the evidence as we know it.
=
=A0But
> perhaps some LNT'er can explain why the chain of custody is as bad as it
i=
s in
> this particular case...
>
> >> know how many bullets
> >> would be recovered in surgery and in the limousine, and thus whether
> >> CE399 would be one bullet too many?
>
> >The idea of having a bullet tagged to a specific weapon trumped
> >anything. =A0Or IOW, what if the bullet(s) couldn't be tagged to a MC?
>
> The plot, at it's most simple, would have been to use the rifle that
they =
could
> ascribe owner****p to the patsy... but more than this - it was im****tant
to=
have
> at least one bullet that could indisputably be ballistically matched to
th=
at
> rifle.
>
> I suspect that this was not pre-planned, it's not improbable to consider
t=
hat
> the bullet found =A0at Parkland had nothing whatsoever to do with the
case=
..
Ben, would you explain why you think that ......."the bullet found at
Parkland had nothing whatsoever to do with the case."
Thanks
>
>
>
> >CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
