The Edwin Walker Factor in Assassination Lit 101

[Randy Bednorz]

During the "50th anniversary propaganda frenzy," Lone-Nut-ists pointed to Oswald's attempt to "kill" General Edwin Walker. This -- no less a part of the "frenzy" -- was part of the O'Reilly "Killing Kennedy" dramatization.I had visited some of the material on this event much, much earlier. I didn't pursue it in depth, having discovered a short-cut to "basic questions" which I unveiled here in 2005 and 2009. Compared to the "historians" with a long publishing history on the general topic, I'm new to this. I didn't start "catching up" until spring, 1999. It all became an exercise for me to prove to myself -- with a high degree of confidence [a statistical concept] -- that there really was a conspiracy.Having done that, I didn't go bonkers looking at more material about the Walker story.Walker himself had plenty of motive to kill JFK, since he'd been cashiered from his military career for distributing right-wing propaganda to his soldiers in Germany. To the day of his death, Walker insisted that Oswald had an accomplice in the shooting. That automatically adds a conspiratorial twist to the overall story ending with November 22 of that year. Yet, the Lone-Nut-ists cite Marina Oswald's own words of Oswald's "confession" to making an attempt on Walker's life. Of course, we know Marina Porter's views as they persist today: she's not in the camp of the Lone-Nut-ists.After seeing this material I'd mentioned in the 50th anniversary Propaganda Burst, I revisited the story again -- albeit superficially.The discrepancies between the two events -- shooting at Walker and killing JFK -- are stark. Again, I can only draw from my young experience handling a rifle.I once took my old Mossberg semi-auto out into the Southern California foothills with my Volkswagon. I wanted to adjust the sights on the gun. I set up some of the classic Coors Beer cans about 150 feet from the car, and used the top of the VW as a gun-rest. EDIT: I just checked this distance from my recollection: it was more like 75 feet. I only had target-competition sights on the gun -- no scope. Oswald had a (4X[?]) scope. I was able to put ten rounds through the Coors "coat-of-arms" black label on the beer cans, unable to count the holes because the label was pretty much obliterated. But it was obliterated without so much as a single round touching any other area of the can. To those unfamiliar with Coors, that label was approximately 1/2" wide and 1" high.So we look at the Walker shooting. Oswald was just a bit further from Walker's house than I was to my Coors cans -- I think the description was about 30 meters or approximately 100 feet. It was night-time -- he had darkness all around him. Walker's property had a fence around it, and Oswald would have been able to prop the gun on the fence. With Walker visible in the interior light of his home, he was not much of a moving target. Especially, he wasn't sitting in a limosine with people in proximity, moving away from a gunman. Supposedly, Oswald fired a single round, which hit the 1.5" wooden window frame, deflecting the bullet. He might as easily have waited until Walker's head or torso was acceptably visible in a window pane. Even so, one can only speculate, given Walker's movements visible in the window, whether that chance might arise. But Oswald could easily have changed his position along the fence for a shot unobstructed with the window frame. On the other hand, Oswald would certainly have known what would have happened with the bullet hitting the wooden frame.So one would than have to ask the question we might otherwise have less and less use for: "If Oswald could botch the Walker shooting, how could he have managed to score the legendary hits with JFK?" And of course, we have recorded tests -- including Jesse Ventura's as a qualified riflery "Expert" able to score only a single headshot in something exceeding 7 seconds. With Ventura's test, the target wasn't really "moving:" there were three fixed targets, located at the various distances suggested by the Zapruder film.Is there anything more that clarifies the Walker legend? See -- when the Lone-Nut-ists produce their sometimes ridiculous arguments and distortions, it is imperative to destroy those arguments if possible -- provided we stick to an unwavering allegiance to the Truth. It has become more and more apparent that the Lone-Nut-ists are not Truth-seekers.

[kenmurray]

The Walker "Bullet".http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/bullet.htm

[Randy Bednorz]

Interesting. Walker's own statements would indicate that he wasn't privy to any staged attempt to sheep-dip Oswald -- without even asking him such a question. Yet he and other witnesses suggest that at least two men may have been involved in the shooting. The bullet they HAVE doesn't match those in the JFK shooting, which just adds more confusion with evidence that there were other projectiles in the assassination and a possible Mercury bullet.I've said it before: I'm not the type of juror lawyers would choose in a murder trial. Whether or not Oswald's participation in the Walker shooting can be proven, it doesn't seem likely that either the skill requirements or the bullet matches this way or that. If they matched Oswald and the associated forensics to the Walker incident, I'd have to say there was plenty of "reasonable doubt" that he could have done the JFK shooting -- as the Warren Report says he did. But if the associated evidence -- like the bullet -- doesn't match, and it could be proven two people were involved, one can't distill much more than confusion for any link between the two events.

[JDThomas]

The late Gerry Hemming provided an interesting alternative to the mercury round scenario:There are no bullets less than 20 millimeters that actually explode. Twenty millimeter is the smallest you can put a fuse assembly in. The Germans came up with the first one. Hydroshock rounds were developed in the last 20 years. It's a hydraulic function that turns it into a frangible bullet. They want the bullet to penetrate and then explode. Another procedure involves boring out a hole in the bullet, then the same exact weight of the lead that was removed is replaced with solder. Then a little brass plug is put in it. As that sucker is traveling through the air, it's getting hotter and hotter. The solder is melting. It melts at the back of the slug before it melts at the front. When that copper jacket hits anything that gives resistance, the little brass nut starts traveling forward and a hydraulic action occurs. It starts mushrooming and splitting the bullet. The bullet has started to stop, but that little brass plug in the rear of the bullet wants to keep on going. There's nothing to stop it but the liquid. This is squeezing the liquid. You can't compress liquids, and it transfers a foot pound energy throughout that liquid. If the f*cker hits metal, it will explode like a f*cking firecracker into many fragments. If it hits skin, it will only explode probably after it's penetrated three or four inches. Then it starts coming apart into a lot of small pieces. You'll recover solder, copper and lead. The solder melts. It becomes black speckles. It won't even seem metallic."Let's not forget that Hemming's HSCA testimony remains sealed and it is also claimed that the HSCA uncovered an internal CIA memo which admitted that Hemming trained a shooter team for Dallas 22 November 1963. Hemming's version was that he was offered the hit, but turned it down, but also stated that if the FBI and Police had done their job properly, he should have been arrested in the aftermath of the assassination.

[kenmurray]

More on the Walker shooting:http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-os ... win-walker

[RobertP]

JDThomas wrote:The late Gerry Hemming provided an interesting alternative to the mercury round scenario:There are no bullets less than 20 millimeters that actually explode. Twenty millimeter is the smallest you can put a fuse assembly in. The Germans came up with the first one. Hydroshock rounds were developed in the last 20 years. It's a hydraulic function that turns it into a frangible bullet. They want the bullet to penetrate and then explode. Another procedure involves boring out a hole in the bullet, then the same exact weight of the lead that was removed is replaced with solder. Then a little brass plug is put in it. As that sucker is traveling through the air, it's getting hotter and hotter. The solder is melting. It melts at the back of the slug before it melts at the front. When that copper jacket hits anything that gives resistance, the little brass nut starts traveling forward and a hydraulic action occurs. It starts mushrooming and splitting the bullet. The bullet has started to stop, but that little brass plug in the rear of the bullet wants to keep on going. There's nothing to stop it but the liquid. This is squeezing the liquid. You can't compress liquids, and it transfers a foot pound energy throughout that liquid. If the f*cker hits metal, it will explode like a f*cking firecracker into many fragments. If it hits skin, it will only explode probably after it's penetrated three or four inches. Then it starts coming apart into a lot of small pieces. You'll recover solder, copper and lead. The solder melts. It becomes black speckles. It won't even seem metallic."Let's not forget that Hemming's HSCA testimony remains sealed and it is also claimed that the HSCA uncovered an internal CIA memo which admitted that Hemming trained a shooter team for Dallas 22 November 1963. Hemming's version was that he was offered the hit, but turned it down, but also stated that if the FBI and Police had done their job properly, he should have been arrested in the aftermath of the assassination. The sad thing about Hemming is that he actually has started to believe his own stories.Many armies have, mostly in the early part of the 20th Century, developed exploding bullets for small calibre weapons, including the Italians and the Americans. An exploding bullet was made for both the 6.5mm Carcano and the 30-06 Springfield, and was referred to as an "observation round". As its name implies, it was used mainly to establish the range of long distance shots. When one of these struck the ground at, say, 1000 metres out, it would explode, and the cloud of dust it raised would mark its location.Drilling a bullet out and replacing the lead with solder is something I have never heard of, and I cannot see the purpose in it. Granted, lead/tin solder mixtures do have a lower melting point than pure lead, but that melting point is still close to 400° Fahrenheit. How would this bullet get that hot? By flying through the air? Hardly.

[JDThomas]

Robert, the most intriguing bit for me is what the HSCA discovered about the CIA memo. Unless the CIA 'planted' the memo on themselves to blow smoke, this would clearly put Hemming in the frame for involvement to conspire, even if the training he provided came to nought.As for his statement on exploding rounds, I defer to your expertise. Hemming did make specific claims however and I find it interesting that on many of them, nobody, expert or otherwise, called him out when he was alive and there was ample opportunity. There were plenty of people on both sides of the LN/CT argument who would have had vested interests to discredit Hemming and their prior silence speak volumes to me.

[RobertP]

JDThomas wrote:Robert, the most intriguing bit for me is what the HSCA discovered about the CIA memo. Unless the CIA 'planted' the memo on themselves to blow smoke, this would clearly put Hemming in the frame for involvement to conspire, even if the training he provided came to nought.As for his statement on exploding rounds, I defer to your expertise. Hemming did make specific claims however and I find it interesting that on many of them, nobody, expert or otherwise, called him out when he was alive and there was ample opportunity. There were plenty of people on both sides of the LN/CT argument who would have had vested interests to discredit Hemming and their prior silence speak volumes to me.It has been my experience that the vast majority of both sides of the JFK debate have a serious lack of understanding in firearms and ballistics, and that there are many "beliefs" by many authors that should have been called out years ago.

[kenmurray]

Now I find this quite interesting. A letter from Edwin Walker to Senator Frank Church:http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_E ... Church.pdf

[kenmurray]

A new book on General Walker. Looks interesting:http://www.amazon.com/General-Walker-Mu ... books+2015