Whose Target was General Edwin Walker?

[Mitch Todd]

The silvery-looking jackets aren't steel but cupronickel, FYI

T.Y.  I am aware of the fact....  The point is ...The 6.5mm bullets of Italian manufacture were "silvery-looking" like steel...
If the bullet that was fired through Walker's window was in fact a 6.5mm bullet from a carcano there is a 99.8 probability that it was "silvery looking"    If it was copper colored it was manufactured for the CIA......

Some of the Italian ammunition. Re-read the ref I posted:

""Ball 'Cartucce a pallottola' or 'Cartuccia a palla ordinaria'
    Round nose, full metal jacket bullet with lead core, jacket materials include copper-nickle, gilding metal, copper-nickle plated steel and gilding metal plated steel.""

[Mitch Todd]

Your point is moot since CE 573 is NOT completely mutilated.

Show me exactly what Walker would consider "completely mutilated" and what he would not consider "completely mutilated," with examples.  CE573 looks pretty damned mutilated to me. BTW, what do you think he was looking at in the televised HSCA hearings that he thought CE573 was?

[Rob Caprio]

Didn't have to. They were televised and videotaped. There used to be guys who'd sell you the whole thing on VHS, and I'll bet you can find the bulk of the hearings (and maybe everything) if you look long enough on Youtube. You don't have to do that, though. The hearings were also transcribed and printed as the first five volumes of the HSCA set. You can search those if you wish. I've never found where they showed CE573 (also "walker bullet," etc) or a photo of it.

So you are claiming that EAW never saw CE 573?

[Rob Caprio]

Show me exactly what Walker would consider "completely mutilated" and what he would not consider "completely mutilated," with examples.  CE573 looks pretty damned mutilated to me. BTW, what do you think he was looking at in the televised HSCA hearings that he thought CE573 was?

Your spin won't work. EAW saw and held the bullet found on the evening of April 10, 1963, and he most assuredly saw CE 573 at some point and said they were NOT the same. End of story.

[Mitch Todd]

So you are claiming that EAW never saw CE 573?

I'm saying that he couldn't have seen CE573 on the televised HSCA hearings  ("The bullet used and pictured on the TV by US Senate G. Robert Blakey
Committee on Assassinations") as his letter to the Attorney General claimed. Given that he uses "any unfired bullet in shape or form" as a reference in the same letter, I'd say he saw CE399 and assumed it was the letter fired at him. By t1979, he was a perverted, 70-old geezer who'd been groping random people around White Rock Lake (and had been twice arrested for it), so he likely wasn't particularly straight in the head by then.

[Mitch Todd]

Your spin won't work. EAW saw and held the bullet found on the evening of April 10, 1963, and he most assuredly saw CE 573 at some point and said they were NOT the same. End of story.

Here's what I asked you:
"Show me exactly what Walker would consider 'completely mutilated' and what he would not consider 'completely mutilated,' with examples.  CE573 looks pretty damned mutilated to me. BTW, what do you think he was looking at in the televised HSCA hearings that he thought CE573 was?"

1.) How is asking a couple of questions "spin," Kemo Sabe? Or did they turn into spin the second you ran out of answers?
2.) Walker specifically states that he saw it on TV, and by "US Senate G.Robert Blakey Committee on Assassinations" he has to mean the HSCA hearings. But they never showed CE573 or a photo of it.
3.) Answer the questions, grasshopper.

[Jerry Freeman]

  The hearings were also transcribed and printed as the first five volumes of the HSCA set. 

HistoryMatters does the entire set on line-----
 It should all be available on DVD by now but I haven't seen it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vols.htm
 

[Mitch Todd]

You're the guy who used CE2113 to argue that Elm was as wide as Main, therefore there was no reason to use Main rather than Elm. I just pointed out that your key piece of evidence isn't what you think it is or present it to be, and therefore your argument falls on its face. Your only response is to pretend I changed the subject, then repeat your now-baseless assertion in hopes no one notices you're standing buck-naked in the middle of the royal procession.

You haven't "proven" anything.  The map and events speak for themselves. Elm Street should have been used.

It is quite laughable that you think that you have proven otherwise.

Oh, but I did, grasshopper.
Let me bring back CE2113.

Notice that Elm, Main, and Commerce (in fact, most of the streets in the old CDB) are shown as being wider that either the North- and South-bound carriageways of I-35E, and the Stemmons carriageways are shown as no wider than their entry/exit ramps. None of that was true. That's how we know that the map is a schematic rather than a to-scale representation of downtown streets. If you can't trust it to show that 35E was wider than Elm, Main, or Commerce, then you can't rely on it to claim Elm was as wide as Main.