A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Dan O'meara]

And so the conversation we had with Andrew is going off the rails, just like Todd intended.
Have fun with the next 10 pages or so of yes vs no arguments.

I don't think so.
To be honest, I reckon this thread has run it's course.
The weight of evidence regarding CE399, as it stands, strongly supports the view that it was not the bullet found by Tomlinson in Parkland.
The evidence supporting the counter-position, the CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, is almost non-existent.
It appears that at some point in the FBI lab in Washington, the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen, becomes CE399.
Beyond that we can only speculate as to what happened, who did it and why.

[Alan Ford]

I don't think so.
To be honest, I reckon this thread has run it's course.
The weight of evidence regarding CE399, as it stands, strongly supports the view that it was not the bullet found by Tomlinson in Parkland.
The evidence supporting the counter-position, the CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland, is almost non-existent.
It appears that at some point in the FBI lab in Washington, the pointy-tipped bullet Wright gave to Johnsen, becomes CE399.
Beyond that we can only speculate as to what happened, who did it and why.

Excellent work!

But whatever about the 'what' and the 'who', the answer to 'Why?' is surely logical rather than speculative..........

 

[Dan O'meara]

Excellent work!

But whatever about the 'what' and the 'who', the answer to 'Why?' is surely logical rather than speculative..........

 

Thanks Alan.

It isn't an either/or situation.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.

[Alan Ford]

Thanks Alan.

It isn't an either/or situation.
Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.

Well, whatever adjective we want to use for the answer to the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody?", the answer itself is pretty obvious: to promote a lone-gunman scenario

[Andrew Mason]

Answering the question "Why was CE399 substituted/planted/introduced into the chain of custody", must be speculative because we don't have direct evidence of it, but that speculation must be logical otherwise it's meaningless.

Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

[Martin Weidmann]

Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

Who said anything about all the evidence being false?

the issue is whether the evidence fits together.

No. The evidence needs to be authentic and fit together.

[Andrew Mason]

Who said anything about all the evidence being false?

the issue is whether the evidence fits together.

No. The evidence needs to be authentic and fit together.

Authenticity can often be inferred from the way the evidence fits together: e.g. a witness says they saw the same thing that was independently reported by two other witnesses.

[Dan O'meara]

Logic has little to do with it.   If it did, there would have been no assassination. People do things for all sorts of strange reasons.

Rather the issue is whether the evidence fits together.  If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

Logic has little to do with it.

I imagine most of us are aware of your disdain for Logic, without which your dead theory would never have been constructed in the first place.

If your premise is that all the evidence is false then there is nothing to talk about.

If your premise is that all the evidence [contradicting your dead theory] is false then there is nothing to talk about.
#fixed

What is the evidence that supports the view that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland?