RIP to the Single-bullet theory?

[Andrew Mason]

Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

The evidence of Landis that he retrieved a bullet that he describes as being identical to CE399 (whole bullet with just a dent on one side on the butt end), explains how CE399 got into Parkland.  How, or whether, it ended up on Connally's stretcher is still unknown but that is a minor detail.  He does not say that there were two such bullets, so I don't see how that puts the SBT in jeopardy.

What puts the second shot SBT in jeopardy is the 1.......2....3 shot pattern.  What puts the first shot SBT in jeopardy is the evidence of the Connallys as well as Gayle Newman who were adamant that Governor Connally was hit in the upper body on the second of three shots.

[Martin Weidmann]

A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
 As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.

The sensitivity is all yours. Your ad hom attack on me is pathetic. Who do you think you are that you, after having been a passive member for years, feel that you can jump in and berate active members of this forum for not staying on topic just because you are interested in "new evidence"?

Ever since this thread started, you could have joined the conversation and kept it going. You didn't. So, why should I, or anybody else, care that you find what we are doing boring. Why don't you first try to make some sort of contribution to a discussion before you start complaining that you're not getting what you want?

You said about hearing Landis speak;

For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion.

Well, if it is worth a discussion it's worth you joining that discussion, instead of complaining about the thread having been derailed, don't you think?

[Alan Ford]

Mrs. Kennedy's left hand

[Royell Storing]

A little sensitive are we? I understand your comfort level with this forum spending an inordinate amount of time insulting other members, since you are usually right in the fray. But speaking for myself, it's not really productive and doesn't do service to the collective expertise of many of the members, you included. To be honest, I find it boring. This was only my second post ever, so I guess I should be proud that it only took that long to be belittled. Let me point out why I brought up to other topics in my post Martin.
 As you know Agent Landis was one of 8 agents within approximately 30 feet of the people they were trying to protect. They were not required to look back like the driver and passengers of the Kennedy limo, they had a front row seat. Of those 8, 2 remain. One has spoken volumes and written books, one has been quiet and now is promoting a book. For me, listening to him and listing to his answers is new, interesting and worth a discussion. The accidental shooting of JFK by Agent Hickey is less than credible, and doesn't have the credibility similar to that of an agent who was as close to the Kennedy's as Landis was. In other words, his story is worth looking at. Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth. So you missed my use of analogy to make a point. The point was new information is valuable. Especially because if true it puts the SBT in pretty substantial jeopardy. I was not trying to derail the thread to argue Mumford or Hickey.

I have seen many times members, including yourself, tell posters to start a new thread or go to a similar thread that is elsewhere on the forum. I think that is appropriate with where this thread has gone, if indeed the Landis information is a stale as you suggest.

   Why many of you wantta green light the recent 60 yr old recollection of Landis and then totally ignore the "Original Report" he filed immediately after the assassination is hard to understand. In that report, Landis recalled seeing a motorcycle cop at the Elm St curb as the Queen Mary was about to enter the Triple Underpass. This Landis timeline eliminates Motorcycle officer Haygood as being the motorcycle cop that he reported having seen. This means Landis saw a different cop that history has failed to ID. Skinny Holland, Lee Bowers and others detailed under oath having watched a motorcycle cop riding UP the knoll. This could be the same still unknown cop that Landis detailed in his report. If you're gonna buy into the 60 yr old bullet retrieval story that Landis is now offering, you also have to give his "Original Report" that same level of credibility. 

[John Iacoletti]

“Lt. DAY stated he received instructions from Chief of Police JESSE B. CURRY, Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, to turn over all of the evidence collected that he was examining, which related to LEE HARVEY OSWALD, to the FBI shortly before midnight on November 22, 1963.”

Those are the words of Vincent Drain. Not the words of Carl Day. If you are going to claim that Day was told to turn over the palm print you need better evidence than Vincent Drain’s words.

I don’t believe Day was told to turn over the palm print. Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

[John Iacoletti]

Mary Mumford shows that when new information is presented, new theories can evolve, and we can inch closer to the truth.

Her name was Doris.

[Charles Collins]

I don’t believe Day was told to turn over the palm print. Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

Nobody else even knew of the existence of this palm print.

From memory, I believe that Day said he told both Curry and Fritz about it on the night of 11/22/63 before Drain took the rifle to Washington DC. I don’t remember where that was said, but I seem to remember reading that. Maybe someone else has a better memory and can locate that statement.



But do you believe Drain lied in his report about Day telling him he was instructed to turn over all the evidence?

No, I don’t believe Drain lied. I think your idea of “all of the evidence” in the context of Drain’s report is wrong. I think that Drain was referring to all of the evidence that the FBI had requested. The DPD had a freaking truckload of evidence, the FBI had only requested a few items. Drain told Sneed what part of that evidence the FBI had requested. I quoted this in a recent post in this thread.


Why do you always defer to decades-old memories told to Sneed instead?

I don’t. In this case, Sneed allowed his interviewees to tell their stories in their own words. Drain’s elaboration of what evidence the FBI had requested essentially agrees with Day’s statements. I am pointing this out.

[Royell Storing]

  Jerry - Thanks for posting the Landis snippet from his "Original Report" along with the visual aids/still shots. I am not sure what your position is regarding Landis having seen a motorcycle at the Elm St. curb There is no way Landis was referencing the Hargis motorcycle. The motorcycle Landis saw/reported, along with the Black Male were both on the (N Elm Curb. The Hargis motorcycle was on the (S) Elm curb.