A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Joe Elliott]

Indeed. He seems to think that in a conspiracy every individual player needs to be a willing participant who knows the entire plan and goes along with it.

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

[Martin Weidmann]

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it.

Go along with what? Be precise and please give an example.

For example, what would SA Frazier have to go along with when all that happened was that he was given a bullet and some fragments and told the latter came from the limo?

[Martin Weidmann]

You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;

Well, perhaps you don't know the right ballistic experts. Why don't you name a few who say that CE399 could have caused the wounds of JFK and Connally?

1. Luke Haag
2. Michael G. Haag

a website about him is at:

https://forensicfirearms.com/

Below is an interview of Luke and Michael Haag:

3. Larry Sturdivan

I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.

So, let's have a look at another, recent, video

I don't think he is a ballistics expert but, as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.

Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.

The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.

Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!

I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case. I was under the impression the rifle was not fired too many times. But it doesn't matter if the rifle was fired one hundred times, or one thousand times, or ten thousand times. Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones. No one denies this will greatly deform the bullet. The question is "What happens if the bullet is first slowed by something else, like JFK's neck?".

I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.

Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?

Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.

"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!

No where does Dolce say that he tried to account for this. No where does Dolce indicates that he is even aware of this problem, and needs to slow down the bullet to better replicate the Single Bullet Theory. You need to first slow down the bullet some, as JFK's neck would have done. If nothing else, you can make special bullets with less of a powered charge. Anything is better than simply firing the rifle almost directly into bone.

For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.
 

Dolce is not the ideal choice for three reasons:

1. He works for the Army. The Army is not interested in "Who done it?". So throughout his career, he wasn't doing the sort of experiments a regular ballistic expert would do, like Luke and Michael Haag.

2. He did not work with ballistic gel, where, with each firing test, you can see the path of the bullet and see which targets (bones) the bullet hit and which it missed.

3. But for all these disadvantages, it could have occurred to him that he needs to slow the bullet, as the 63 yards to the target, and the path through JFK's neck, would have done, before hitting a dead animals rib cage. But this never seems to have occurred to him. His biggest weakest, in my opinion, is that he did not think things through.

Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.

And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?

Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?

[Jon Banks]

Well, they might all need to know the entire plan. But they all would have to go along with it. And you seemed to indicate that it didn't matter how much evidence had to be covered up, the conspirators controlled everything. They controlled everyone. It would be no problem.

The law doesn’t always excuse participation in a conspiracy if you’re an unwitting participant.

So the fear of being prosecuted or facing other consequences may be enough to ensure that even people who were unwitting don’t talk.

And that logic applies typically to criminal conspiracies (ie organized crime) but it extends to the government when they engage in illegal activities.

[Joe Elliott]

You made a bit of a mess of your previous post, so I can't quote from it correctly. Instead I'll do it this way;

I was aware of that video. All it tells me is that not all the experts agree.

So, let's have a look at another, recent, video

I don't think he is a ballistics expert but,

You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.

His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.

as the video will show, he basically does the same thing as the Haag team said they did. Except - as he explains this in the video - he used a skull filled with gel and fake blood and containers with water to catch the bullet.

Something to consider. You said that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck meeting very little resistance but slowing it down nevertheless. Well, in this video the bullet does hit skull bone twice, going in an out of the head, and still had enough speed to destroy the first couple of water containers. Just look how it came out.

Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

The destructive power of the bullet is perhaps best shown in the first attempt he used a skull. Two things stand out; (1) despite hitting bone the bullet completely destroyed the first water bottle and (2) unlike the bullet that hit Kennedy it did not disintegrate but I came out of the skull at the other side. This of course justifies the question if the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head was indeed a 6.5 MJ bullet.

Another thing I noticed was a comment he made that the bullet that allegedly came through Kennedy's neck and met very little resistance, left the body leaving only a small hole, which in turn would mean that the bullet wasn't yet tumbling. But, the story is that Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. So, if that's true, when did the bullet start tumbling? It doesn't make sense!

The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.

I'm not an expert on all the minutia of this case.

Then why are you expressing opinions about something you don't know about?

Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

Dolce seems to be saying he fired directly into dead animal torsos, directly into dead animal wrist (or equivalent) bones.

"Seems to be saying"? You really need to read his report before you make such a comical claim. It's in the National Archives. Read it!

Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.

For crying out loud, what you saw was a short clip of a few seconds in a documentary. Do you really expect him to explain the entire procedure? You haven't got a clue about how the tests were done.

Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.

Amazing. You are throwing a guy under the bus who the WC hired for his credentials. The leading ballistics expert of the US army .... and why? For one reason only; you don't like what he has to say.

The WC might not have made a wise decision with Dolce. Specter and the other WC investigators were recent graduates from law school. Perhaps, with more experience, they would have picked someone else. And, in 1964, the science of ballistic investigation might not have been as advanced as it is today. I don't know if anyone was doing the sort of recreations that we can see Luke and Michael Haag did on the NOVA program.

And now you're also throwing the WC and Specter under the bus because they had not enough experience. Don't you see just how hilarious this is?

To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.

Face it, experts will always disagree with eachother. You see it happening in every courtroom. But the bottom line is that the WC hired Dolce (and a bunch of other experts) and they produced a report that basically said that none of the 100 bullets they fired came even close to looking as CE399, Specter not only did not call Dolce to testify but also buried the report. Now, what does that tell you about CE399?

What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".

[John Iacoletti]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.

[Martin Weidmann]

You think so? Yeah, I sort of got the same impression. Still, not too bad for an amateur. Catching bullets after they hit a target with plastic bottles of water? Yes, I think that can work, and is as good a way as any for the cost. The low density of the water, the low density of the plastic, whether it is hard or not, should not deform the bullet much.

And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will

His best insight? You can run the same experiment ten different times, and no two of the resulting bullets are going to be identical. Variations in muzzle velocity, where the target is hit, the exact density of the target, the amount of subsequent yaw in a bullet that may result (if not fragmented) can all effect how the bullet turns out.

Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.

Yes, but here is something you didn't consider. And something the amateur did not either. This "skull" was not a real skull. What do I think the problem with the model was? That it was already weakened by the first bullet and so it failed to fragment the second?

No. The problem was the "skull", or the "bone" did not have the same density as a real bone. It needs to have twice the density of water. I don't know if this is true (the density of the "bone" is his model heads), but I think it must be true, else the bullet would have fragmented. Real experts use real bones (still fresh enough to be twice water density), or at least material with twice the density of bone.

The fact that this material may have been hard, doesn't matter. Only density matters. A target that is dense enough can fragment such a bullet. A target that is not, won't. This is information I got from Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.

The bullet started to yaw within JFK's neck, just before it exited the neck. But was still pointed straight enough to leave a pretty round exit wound in JFK's neck.

That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.

This yaw continued during the next three feet until it struck Connally. By now, the yaw was great enough to leave an oblong entrance wound in Connally's back.

To make it clearer, let me give you an example. Let's say a bullet starts to yaw at 3 degrees per inch of travel just before it leaves a target. As it leaves the target, it might have only yawed by 3 degrees, which would leave a fairly round exit wound. 29 inches later, when it strikes a second target, it could have now yawed by 90 degrees, hitting the second target sideways, causing a oblong wound.

Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

Because I have read up on the opinions of a real expert, and relating the information in my posts. But, yes, the best way to get this information is to read Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!

It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

Then why don't you quote it? If Dolce said something about slowing the bullet before hitting dead animal torsos or "wrists", provide a quote.

I suspect you won't. You will simply imply that such information might be there, somewhere, but not provide an easy way for me or anyone else to see it.

Fine, then give us the information that shows Dolce did slow the bullet before hitting a bone target, as would have happened at z222.

I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.

To win my respect, an "expert" has to run an experiment correctly. And he has to make it clear, on air in an interview or in writing, that he did so.

An expert who shows CE-399 is impossible because he fired a bullet almost directly into bone and the bullet fragment, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting CTer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could not have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

An expert who shows CE-399 is possible because he fired a bullet through three feet of ballistic gel before first striking bone and the bullet came out pretty pristine, cannot be taken seriously. No self respecting LNer should cite this guy as showing CE-399 could have resulted from striking JFK and Connally.

Which confirms perfectly my earlier comment that the only person you consider an "expert" is somebody who does the tests the way you want him to do it (probably the way Sturdivan did) and reaches the conclusion that you want to hear.

You need someone who fires through about six inches of ballistic gel, before striking a second target, hitting bone almost immediate, and then checking the state of the bullet. That is the minimum qualification.

Question: Does Dolce meet this minimum qualification?

An answer of "I don't know, maybe he does" is not good enough.

Thank you for telling me what isn't good enough for you. It makes a conversation so much easier. If he were still alive, I seriously doubt that Dolce would give a damn about your opinion of how he was supposed to do the test.

What real expert who conducted a valid test (slowed the bullet with the equivalent of JFK's neck) says CE-399 is not consistent with a bullet that wounded both JFK and Connally?

Let me guess.... probably none, because who ever gets named will, in your opinion, not be a "real expert who conducted a valid test"

You say different experts disagree? Name a valid one. Dolce will not do until you provide some evidence that he slowed the bullet, as JFK's neck would have done, before his test bullets struck rib cages or "wrists".

Again, valid as in really valid or valid as in your opinion valid? Of course Dolce will not do for you. He will never do for you, regardless of whatever evidence you are shown. He will not do for you because you don't like what he said.

Regardless of your opinions, the facts remain that Dolce was hired by the WC to do the tests. He was given the original rifle and 100 bullets and concluded in a detailed report that CE399 could not have been fired through two bodies, hitting bone and staying nearly intact. I know you don't like it, but there it is; deal with it!