(PART 646)


"DVP" conveniently refuses to acknowledge that there was no provenance for CE399.


"Pamela" continues to ignore the unified findings of both the Warren Commission and HSCA. Of course, as always, all conspiracy-happy wanderers will forever ignore everything that has an "official" tag wrapped around its findings.

But, regardless of "Pam's" disbelief, both of those entities (WC/HSCA) believed that Commission Exhibit No. 399 was the SBT bullet that struck both John Kennedy and John Connally.

And since both the Warren Commission and HSCA had some common sense (most of the time) when evaluating the evidence connected to the assassination of JFK, it probably wasn't too difficult to totally disregard the foolish and unprovable notion that Bullet Three-Niner-Niner was a "planted" or "substituted" missile.

Some of the common sense that can be utilized plays out as follows:

Since CE399 is a bullet that can be linked definitively to the rifle owned by the man who was also linked to a BUNCH OF OTHER EVIDENCE in the JFK and Tippit murder cases (including several additional pieces of BALLISTICS EVIDENCE linked directly to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle)....then what are the odds of Bullet CE399 NOT being legitimately connected to the shooting in Dealey Plaza?

The Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists will, as always, find a way to slither around the logic and garden-variety common sense that the above paragraph contains. Probably even "Pam".

But the logic and common sense will still remain (even after a CTer attempts to mangle the hell out of it).

Right, "Pamela"?

FYI FOOTNOTE --- For those who care and are unaware, the reason that "Pam" and I always place quotation marks around each other's names in our posts is due to the fact that "Pam" has a crazy idea that "DVP" (that's me) probably really isn't the person he says he is. I'm apparently supposed to be a collection of various aliases and unknown persons, posing as this person called "DVP". So, for the last few months, I have decided that "Pamela" deserves the same kind of reciprocal (albeit silly) "quotation mark" treatment.

David Von Pein
August 3, 2009