(PART 964)


All of the stuff in this post written by Greg Burnham becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy theorists (aka denialists) when we realize this fact....

Regardless of whether Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was a so-called piece of "crap" or not, the fact remains that that exact C2766 rifle, "to the exclusion", put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63. And that fact is proven via the front-seat bullet fragments seen in CE567 and CE569.

And there are a variety of reasons to know that CE567 & 569 are fragments from the HEAD SHOT. So, "crap" or not, Rifle No. C2766 was GOOD ENOUGH to put a bullet into John F. Kennedy's head.

And when we sensibly talk about Commission Exhibit 399, which most CTers can never do, then we're up to TWO verified "C2766" bullets being pumped into President Kennedy's car on November 22, 1963.


Nicely put, Dave - some reasoning I can agree with....

"...put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63."

...which is contrary to your assertion that three empty shells virtually proved three shots were fired from the 6th floor, and is exactly the argument I used in rebuttal.

While I still hold that there's no proof putting CE399 in the limo, I feel that you've made great progress and am looking forward to more in our next session.



I don't think my "at least one bullet" remark is "contrary" to my additional thinking about three shots coming from the Sniper's Nest (and all from Lee Oswald's rifle, as proven by those three shells themselves).

I worded that statement the way I did in that post -- "put at least one bullet into JFK's car on 11/22/63" -- because I knew I would get slapped in the face by CTers if I even DARED say that TWO bullets positively were fired into the limousine. (So I decided to tack on the stuff about CE399 at the end of that post, after the prefacing remark of "...And when we sensibly talk about CE399".)

But from the limited POV of Bullets being found inside the limousine that can be tied to the C2766 rifle, I am, of course, forced to stop at just ONE bullet POSITIVELY being pumped into the car by that rifle, because I believe Oswald's first shot missed the whole car and therefore could not be recovered at all, and CE399 was found outside the automobile--in the hospital.

The CE567/569 fragments are devastating blows to the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that NO SHOTS whatsoever were fired from the C2766 rifle on November 22. What those CTers are therefore forced to do is what they do with CE399 as well --- they'll just pretend those two front-seat bullet fragments were planted (or that the "real" fragments--from a different rifle--were disposed of and then replaced with two banged-all-to-hell fragments fired from Oswald's rifle).

Frankly, the "Everything's Fake In This Case" refrain has been laughably out of tune for decades (as far as I'm concerned anyway). It's just a crutch and a cop-out for CTers to use to try and--yet again--exonerate Mr. Oswald. (IMHO.)


Unless you can tell me how a bullet that could not be recovered at all can be shown to have been POSITIVELY shot AT the limo from C2766, then you cannot say that the three shells POSITIVELY contained the bullets that are found in the limo (aside from CE399).

All you did was inadvertently agree with logic. I know it was an accident, but you did it.


Shouldn't just plain ordinary common sense and deductive reasoning spell out the answer here, Glenn? It sure does for me.

Why can't any conspiracy theorist manage to perform this 4th-grade math? ....

1.) A bullet from Rifle C2766 (split in two parts) was recovered in the President's car.

2.) A whole bullet from Rifle C2766 was found in Parkland Hospital (which is where the two limo victims were taken right after the shooting occurred). [Let the booing and hissing from the "Planted Bullet" brigade begin.]

3.) Three spent bullet shell casings from Rifle C2766 were found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

4.) No whole bullets were recovered from the bodies of either of the two victims. (Only tiny fragments were recovered from Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.)

5.) The enormous majority of the earwitnesses heard exactly THREE shots being fired at the Presidential motorcade in Dealey Plaza.

Therefore, given the above starting points, please explain to me why I should NOT conclude that ALL of the shots fired on 11/22/63 (three in number) came from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?


...and THIS CTer has never once implied that he thinks everything is fake.


Good. Then Oswald's almost certainly guilty, isn't he? (Under such conditions, how could he not be?)

To use your own words....

...all you did was inadvertently agree with logic. I know it was an accident, but you did it.



IMO, Oswald was merely feigning ignorance when he spoke to James Jarman (and I think maybe even Harold Norman) about the motorcade route on the morning of November 22. LHO knew darn well what route the motorcade was going to take when he talked with Jarman.

As for knowing the EXACT time when JFK would pass the building ..... Well, nobody could have known the precise time. But Oswald surely knew it would have been around noon or shortly after noon. And I think the overall weight of the testimony indicates that Oswald WAS on the sixth floor from noon forward, which means he would have been up there in (or near) his sniper's perch in plenty of time.

Yes, CTers can utilize Carolyn Arnold's statements. But her account is tainted in numerous ways. And if you discard Arnold, who else do you have to keep LHO off of the sixth floor between 12:00 and 12:30? Is there anyone else? Eddie Piper won't do it. Neither will Shelley.

I think it's also important to remember that Oswald was very likely quite literally winging it for most of the day on November 22. There were so many variables and so many things that could have spelled doom for his plan to kill the President, things that he could not possibly have controlled -- like people staying on the sixth floor to watch the parade (which could have easily happened, but didn't). Plus the weather. If it kept raining, the bubble would have been on the car, making a kill shot much more problematic and uncertain.

So I believe a lot of "winging it" and "flying by the seat of his pants" was going on with Lee Oswald that whole day.

I've always said that Oswald's mindset from the beginning of the day on 11/22/63 was likely this one:

If I get a good chance to shoot at Kennedy today from my workplace, I'll take it. If I don't, so be it.


Can any conspiracy theorist answer this for me?.....

If firing those shots at JFK from the sixth floor (while using the Carcano rifle) was so utterly "impossible" (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think it truly was)....and if a large part of the assassination "plot" was to frame Lee Harvey Oswald....then why were the architects of the "frame-up plot" so reckless? Did they think (on 11/21/63) they could make people believe Oswald could really do the impossible?

In reality, of course, the shots from Oswald's sniper's perch were not difficult shots at all. All of the shots were under 90 yards. And even if LHO didn't use the scope, so what? He was trained to use a rifle in the military. And he compiled some pretty decent shooting statistics (while firing at targets a lot farther away than 88 yards). And he certainly didn't have the benefit of a four-power telescope to aid him when he attained the ranking of Sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956. So why would shooting at a target that was barely in motion at all (JFK's head), from a distance of under 90 yards, be such an arduous chore for a former Marine like Oswald?

In short, the notion that Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, was more difficult than building the Pyramids is yet another conspiracy myth that was disproven decades ago. And yet the myth persists.


David...who found these items [CE567 & CE569], when and were they photographed within the limo? Or are we supposed to take the SS or FBI's word for it?


Yes, we are.

What else CAN we do with respect to CE567/569, or ANY other piece of evidence for that matter? We must always take somebody's "word" for everything. Since neither you nor I were there in the White House garage when the two front-seat bullet fragments were found by the Secret Service, then we are forced to either "take somebody's word" for the details surrounding the discovery of those fragments (and the ballistics tests that were performed on them by the FBI), or we must just throw up our hands and say (as you seem to be saying) -- I have no idea whether anybody is telling us the truth about these bullet fragments; therefore, I can't use those fragments at all when trying to solve JFK's murder.

But, of course, ANY piece of evidence COULD conceivably be planted or switched. But why would I go down that "Planted" path when I also know that there is so much other C2766 rifle evidence found elsewhere---in the hospital and in the TSBD? And neither the FBI nor the Secret Service collected any of the Depository C2766 evidence. The DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers found and collected all that TSBD evidence.

So, should I pretend there was some kind of amazing "Let's Frame Oswald" like-mindedness occurring between the SS, FBI, and the Dallas local police on November 22?

Why on Earth would anyone believe such craziness?

There is just too much evidence--which all points to Oswald's gun--to conclude anything other than this:

Rifle C2766 was the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy.

I'm not like the conspiracy theorists. I don't automatically think J. Edgar Hoover and his employees were trying to frame a man for murders he never committed. YMMV (and obviously does).


"Yes, we are. [We must always take somebody's "word" for everything.]" -- DVP

Ah, this explains pretty much everything.


Glenn, if you don't "take somebody's word" for SOMETHING somewhere along the line, how can you ever even begin to try and solve the case?

Are you actually suggesting that conspiracy theorists NEVER "take anyone's word" for anything connected with the JFK murder?

Example #1 ---

Aren't CTers "taking the word" of Earlene Roberts when she said Lee Oswald stayed in his room on Beckley Avenue for "3 or 4 minutes" on 11/22/63?

Example #2 ---

Aren't CTers "taking the word" of both Helen Markham and T.F. Bowley when they said the murder of J.D. Tippit occurred at specific times on November 22nd?


I take the word of people who are not proven hypocrites and liars. That's the difference.


I see.

And YOU get to decide who the "proven liars" are, right Glenn?


"Can you PROVE that CE567 and 569 are fraudulent pieces of evidence?" -- DVP

Remember lesson 1 in making accusations, Davey? It's not the Defender who has to prove the Accuser wrong, it's the Accuser who has to PROVE his accusations.

We don't HAVE to effin' prove they are fraudulent. YOU have to effin' prove that they're evidence.

Why is that so effin' hard to understand??? :)


You're funny, Glenn. You've got everything backwards (as usual).

It's the conspiracy buffs who are always arguing that the various pieces of evidence are fake/phony/planted/manufactured/fraudulent/worthless. Therefore, it's THAT accusation that must be PROVED. And since it's an extraordinary and outrageous accusation (particularly when it involves nearly ALL of the evidence in BOTH murders--JFK's & Tippit's), then the accusation requires an extraordinary amount of proof to back it up.

Thus far, there hasn't been a SLIVER of PROOF that has come forth from the arrogant Conspiracy Brigade to prove that ANY piece of evidence was faked---let alone the DOZENS of pieces of evidence the CT Brigade claims were faked.

Try again, Glenn. I need another laugh before supper. And you seem to be making a habit out of impersonating Red Skelton.

David Von Pein
June 26, 2015
June 26, 2015
June 27-28, 2015