JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Lack Of Damage To CE-399
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on January 21, 2019, 10:53:40 PM ---First of all, the 3cm stated in his initial report was not correct. This was corrected by Dr. Shaw who said that it was roughly elliptical and 1.5 cm in its largest diameter (4H104):
"Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade."
Such a wound can only be created by a non-yawing 6.5mm bullet (its long axis aligned with its direction of motion) striking at an angle. If the bullet hit sideways, it would look like the bullet profile and would not tunnel into the underlying tissue with a nice round hole.
Olivier never said that it was a "glancing, non-penetrating, wound". Olivier referred to the entrance wound being caused by a "tangential" strike he was obviously aware that the bullet that made that entrance wound had penetrated Gov. Connally's chest. He was using "tangential" in the sense of "large angle" (an angle with a "large tangent"). How can a wound at 60 degrees be "non-penetrating"? The only way it could not penetrate would be if it was deflected. What is going to deflect it and prevent it from just plowing through in the same direction it was travelling before it entered?
Are you saying that Dr. Olivier did not know what he was talking about?
--- End quote ---
Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?
The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.
If Olivier had viewed what SPersonivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet.
Gary Craig:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on January 22, 2019, 03:46:54 AM ---Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?
The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.
If Olivier had viewed what SPersonivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet.
--- End quote ---
"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."
It's not accurate.
Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.
It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.
Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.
"If Olivier had viewed what SPersonivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet."
This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Gary Craig on January 22, 2019, 04:05:06 AM ---"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."
It's not accurate.
Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.
It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.
Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.
"If Olivier had viewed what SPersonivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet."
This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.
--- End quote ---
I'm not currently arguing here that the wound was actually 3 cm long. I'm merely pointing out that Olivier was using that description of it when opining on it. Quit being so dense.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Gary Craig on January 22, 2019, 04:05:06 AM ---
Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.
--- End quote ---
So, Andrew was wrong to use Olivier in the way he did? OK. Thumb1:
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on January 22, 2019, 03:46:54 AM ---Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?
The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.
--- End quote ---
The "glancing" "non-penetrating" adjectives are yours not Dr. Olivier's. Besides, no one said that the bullet wound looked like it entered side-on. That would make the bullet wound look like the shape of the bullet. In order to make an elliptical entry wound 3 cm long the bullet would just have to enter at an angle of 75 degrees (cos(75)= .25) from the perpendicular to the surface (15 degrees to the surface).
--- Quote ---If Olivier had viewed what SPersonivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet.
--- End quote ---
Since you seem to be avoiding trying to answer it, perhaps Larry SPersonivan can explain how an elliptical entrance wound could be made by anything other than a pristine bullet striking at an angle from the perpendicular but, more importantly, why he thinks it wasn't. He still has never explained why "elliptical" means to him "ovoid", "egg-shaped" or, as you are suggesting, bullet-shaped.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version