A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, but you never explain what this "error" means? Or might mean?

What's the "worst" interpretation that could mean conspiracy?

The error, if that's what is was, is by itself inexcusable for a forensic specialist as Frazier who was or should have been aware of the importance of a credible chain of custody.

Having said that, if it wasn't an error I could mean that Frazier was delivered another bullet than the one Johnsen gave to Rowley, which in turn would mean that evidence was being manipulated. That by itself points to a conspiracy.

But about as much evidence as one would expect if CE 399 was collected and put into a pocket. And a largely intact bullet like CE 399 might not have enough blood or tissue on it to be detectable, unlike a rough surfaced bullet fragment, even if not put into a pocket.

"as much evidence as one would expect" ? What in the world are you talking about? The lack of evidence that a bullet went through bodies is exactly that; no evidence at all! Regardless of what you expected! You can not argue that the fact that no evidence was found is somehow evidence of it happening just because you didn't expect to find any evidence.

Dr. Humes was a medical doctor, one of those who performed the autopsy. But not a ballistic expert.

This is probably true, but he would have seen plenty of bullets and bullet wounds in his time to have an opinion. And one can only wonder why Arlen Specter introduced CE399 into evidence (subject to later proof, which never came) during Humes' testimony and asked him for his opinion?

Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.
Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?
Commander HUMES - I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, please do.
Commander HUMES - The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.
Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:
"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."
The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.


Since when do you have to be a ballistics expert to determine if a bullet could have caused all the wounds. Seems more a question for a medical examiner to answer, which is of course why Specter asked Humes.

Not an expert who can judge the likely condition of a bullet after striking one or more people. Only a ballistic expert who does real world tests with ballistic gel targets can make that determination.

Like Joseph Dolce, right?

And all the ballistic experts that I know of, who are trusted to give testimony in criminal cases, believe that CE 399 quite plausibly caused the wounds to JFK and Connally, expect for JFK's head wound, of course.

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?

You can find all kinds of testimony from non ballistic experts on how impossible it is for CE 399 to end up in the condition it is. But not one "true" ballistic expert. Maybe someone who is called a "ballistic expert". But not a true one. Not one who makes extensive tests firing into ballistic gel targets. Or who has been called upon to give expert ballistic testimony in criminal trials.

I'm not sure who you are talking about. And what do you mean by a "true ballistic expert"? Could that be one who says what you want to hear? It sure looks that way!

Oh Dear!

It is difficult to imagine who such "proof" could ever be provided for any bullet. Maybe a bullet fragment, using recent DNA technology. Although even that could be faked.

Take it up with Specter. He said it

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

In other words, the proof Specter was talking about was the authentication of the bullet by way of the chain of custody. Clearly, Specter wasn't convinced that there was a solid chain of custody for CE399 and other pieces of evidence, which is exactly why the WC asked the FBI to verify the chains of custody about a month after Humes' testimony.

I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.

As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.

I am not really interested in what you think or believe you know. Dolce is on video saying that he was given the original rifle and 100 bullets to conduct tests. Hear and see the man say it himself at 42.34.

Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.

And yet, Dolce was the man picked by the WC to do the tests. Your argument that he did not have experience in criminal cases is invalid. Dolce saw plenty of gunshot wounds in WW2 and there is no difference whatsoever between a bullet striking a man in combat or a bullet striking a man during a crime. Dolce got the details exactly right, but they just were not what Arlen Specter wanted to hear, which is why Dolce's testimony and report were left out of the WC report.

Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?

You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.

This is an irrelevant question. I don't know enough about Dolce to say if he was ever called as an expert in a criminal proceeding. He was in the miitary and may well not have been allowed to be involved in crimimal cases. The bottom line is that the WC called upon him to do the work, which is exactly what he did. You second guessing his procedures is of no importance.

Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.
Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.

Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before. Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.
Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.

Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths". But Sturdivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are Sturdivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.

Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths".

There was no need for you to point that out. It is pretty obvious that you just parrotted the opinion of somebody else who you seem to think is credible, simply because what he says sound plausible to you.
The problem is that your opinion is a biased one and Sturdivan clearly had an objective to discredit anything that didn't fit with the lone nut narrative.

I, on the other hand, listen to the man who actually conducted the tests and I have no reason to assume that he is not telling to truth or is incompetent or did not conduct his tests correctly.


Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No.

This comment of yours tells the whole story;

Earlier in your post you wrote; "Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert." (which he was) but by the time you get to questioning his procedures he has suddenly become a "ballistic expert"

And how do you even know how Dolce conducted the tests, when you don't even know he used the original rifle and used 100 bullets? Dolce's report is at the National Archives. Perhaps you should read it before making comments about something you clearly don't know anything about.

Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.

The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.

If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.

I don't believe in a large secret conspiracy, whatever that is supposed to mean, nor did I describe one.

[John Iacoletti]

I don't believe in a large secret conspiracy, whatever that is supposed to mean.

It’s the only alternative that Joe can think of to the WC fiction.

[Martin Weidmann]

It’s the only alternative that Joe can think of to the WC fiction.

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.

[Jack Trojan]

I don't think the original MC rifle ever fired 100 bullets after the assassination. My impression was it was fired as little as possible, maybe a dozen times, to ensure it was preserved. And didn't break it's firing pin.

The point was that none of the bullets fired looked like CE399. Clearly CE399 was the most damaged bullet fired into and retrieved from a swimming pool, otherwise it would have been smashed and covered with DNA.

As far as I know, Joseph Dolce's one test, was to fire a MC rifle directly into the wrist of a human cadaver at near muzzle velocity. Naturally, this would smash, even fragment (I expect) a WCC/MC bullet.

Joseph Dolce may have been a leading US Army ballistic expert. But he did not have extensive experience in criminal cases, where getting the details right is critical.

Question: Can you give me a single example, where in a criminal court of law, Joseph Dolce was called upon to give expert ballistic testimony?

You see, this is the sort of expert I'm looking for. One with extensive experience shooting a ballistic gel targets. Where one can actually see the path of a bullet and judge what it actually hit. Did the bullet strike bone? One cannot tell with animal cadavers. But one can tell with with ballistic gel, which is transparent. And whose expertise is trusted enough to be used in court.

You sound like a defense lawyer trying to discredit testimony you don't like.

Did CE 399 pass through and break Connally's wrist bone? Yes. Was it fired directly into a wrist bone, as "ballistic expert" ?!? Joseph Dolce recreated? No. What did CE 399 do?

The bullet traveled about 63 years yards.

Let's go with the WCR:

The magic bullet arced very slightly while traveling 189 ft (58 m) in a downward net angle of 19 degrees (allowing for the 3 degrees downward slope of Elm Street), after an initial supersonic rifle exit muzzle velocity of 1,850 to 2,000 feet per second (560 to 610 m/s), then entered President Kennedy's rear suit coat at about 1,700 feet per second (520 m/s)

Passed through the back of JFK's clothes.
Passed through the skin of the back of the neck of JFK.
Note: Both skin (and I assume clothes) are tough and would slow a bullet more than normal tissue. A tenth of an inch of skin slows a bullet the same as about two inches of muscle)
Passed through the skin of the front of the neck of JFK.
Passed through the clothes of JFK in front of his neck.

Clothes, skin and muscle do not appreciably slow down or deflect a full metal jacketed bullet shot with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps.

Passed through six inches of JFK's neck without directly striking any bone.

Impossible. If JFK's backwound is connected to the throat wound, as you claim, then the bullet must pass thru bone.

Here is an overhead of the magic bullet’s trajectory thru JFK relative to the TSBD. It must have passed thru a vertebrae.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png

JFK's alleged x-ray shows the magic bullet striking the T1 vertebrae, which would have smashed the MB.
http://www.kohlbstudio.com/images/x-ray_mb.gif

Started passing through Connally's, apparently somewhat sideways, judging from the shape of the entrance wound. While travelling sideways the bullet would decelerate at a much greater rate than before.

If the exit wound was a small hole in JFK's throat, the magic bullet wasn't tumbling as it struck Connally's 5th rib since there wasn't enough distance between JFK and Connally to tumble.

Now the bullet would be decelerating at three to five times it's former rate, due to it's much larger cross section.

A tumbling bullet's cross section has nothing to do with deacceleration over such a short distance.

Passed through the back of Connally's clothes.
Passed through the skin on the back of Connally.
Passed through an unknown (by me) amount of flesh, maybe one inch or so.

And then, finally, for the first time, directly striking bone, a rib bone of Connally.

Only bone (at anything less than muzzle velocity) can smash, damage, fragment, a WCC/MC bullet. And only if the bullet is still travelling fast enough, 1700 fps (travelling point first) or 1400 fps (travelling sideways), Sturdivan's estimates.

By the time the bullet reached the rib, it was travelling at (Larry Sturdivan's estimate) at about 1400 fps, just fast enough to slightly damage the bullet. And only because it was travelling sideways. Had the bullet still been travelling point first, it would not have been damaged at all.

The MB's trajectory from the TSBD goes thru JFK's T1 vertebrae yet exited cleanly thru a small hole in the throat in pristine condition. This meant it wasn't tumbling when it exited JFK and had not smashed thru bone. This irreconcilable contradiction is compounded by the MB continuing to smash thru Connally's 5th rib then into his wrist bone and was found on the wrong gurney in swimming pool condition. You do the math counsellor.

Note, I am, of course not a ballistic expert. I have just read a book by one, Larry Sturdivan's book "The JFK Myths". But Sturdivan's estimates sound plausible. The bullet passed through about 18 to 20 inches of flesh and bone, total. It first struck JFK at about 2000 fps. It had passed through about 7 inches of flesh when it first directly struck bone, Connally's rib and was still going 1400 fps. In the next 11 inches of bone and flesh, it slowed to 0 fps. All estimates of speed are Sturdivan's estimates. This sounds quite plausible. After travelling about a third of it's way through human bodies, the bullet only had about two thirds of it's speed left.

You can convince yourself that the MB was impossible using some photogrammetry and a simple reenactment:
Get in between 2 lasers aimed at each other at a 17 degree angle and note where each laser strikes your body and do whatever it takes to match JFK's autopsy photos of the alleged exit and entrance wounds. I couldn't do it, maybe you can.
www.kohlbstudio.com/images/JFK_2lasers.png

Your right. This is perfectly possible. The conspirators could totally control all the evidence. If one believed that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are not highly improbable.

The problem is that I don't believe that Large-Secret-Conspiracies are at all likely. That one can easily get everyone on board. And hide the evidence of a James Tague being wounded. And possibly others, in a worst cast scenario, like if Mrs. Kennedy, or Mrs. Connally or any Secret Service Agents are wounded. And get all the Secret Service agents to help plant false evidence. And all the autopsy doctors to eagerly join in. And all the rest of them.

If one believes in Large-Secret-Conspiracies, the conspiracy you described to control all the evidence is quite plausible. But to a skeptic, it's a very tough sell.

Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:

The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

and yes, the:

U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.

This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.

Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.

Skeptics yes, scoftics no. But what you scoftics fail to explain are all the inconsistencies and contradictions associated with the LN hypothesis, which is a house of cards that toppled long ago. Nothing but endless excuse making remains from the diehard LNers. However, it is the LN hypothesis that is the nutbar conspiracy theory. It only takes 1 inescapable fact supporting a conspiracy that destroys decades of LN apologizing and excuse making. If you reenact the MB with 2 lasers, you can only come to 1 conclusion. But it appears the truth isn't what LNers are looking for.

[Martin Weidmann]

I see you added this to your post after I answered it. So, I'll reply to it now.

Skeptics are consistent. We are skeptical of all Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies. And have been for centuries. Like the alleged conspiracies of:

The Freemasons
The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

and yes, the:

U. S. Government extensive involvement in the JFK assassination.

This 'technique' of skeptics is useful, because Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracies are inherently fascinating to people and a surprising large number of false theories are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy theories. If you can recognize these, you can steer yourself away from a lot of false theories. Not all, but a lot.

Skeptics are consistently on the rational side.

Freemasons do exist (don't ask me how I know, but I do) but I am clueless about what kind of conspiracy you are talking about involving them.

I am not only skeptical about;

The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

I just don't believe any of those conspiracy theories nor do I believe the world is flat.

That only leaves the JFK case and there I am also skeptical, but mainly about the offical narrative. I do think it's possible there was a conspiracy but if there was one, it wasn't a "Large-Secret-Enduring" one. In fact most of the evidence for such a conspiracy is IMO buried in the official narrative and the records at the National Archives. It's all a matter of interpretation.

The best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible. It's very possible that's exactly what happened here.

[Jon Banks]

I see you added this to your post after I answered it. So, I'll reply to it now.


Freemasons do exist (don't ask me how I know, but I do) but I am clueless about what kind of conspiracy you are talking about involving them.

I am not only skeptical about;

The Elders of Zion
U. S. Government / Space Aliens collaborations
The Fake Apollo Moon Landings
Fake 9/11 hijacking and building demolitions
Massive Vote fraud in the 2020 U. S. election

I just don't believe any of those conspiracy theories nor do I believe the world is flat.

That only leaves the JFK case and there I am also skeptical, but mainly about the offical narrative. I do think it's possible there was a conspiracy but if there was one, it wasn't a "Large-Secret-Enduring" one. In fact most of the evidence for such a conspiracy is IMO buried in the official narrative and the records at the National Archives. It's all a matter of interpretation.

The best lie is one that stays as close to the truth as possible. It's very possible that's exactly what happened here.

I'm right there with you.

I'm a HUGE skeptic most of the time when people share conspiracy theories with me. But a conspiracy in the JFK assassination seems plausible based on the evidence.

In the Kennedy assassination, people don't even need to speculate about "who" did it. One can simply conclude that there might've been a conspiracy based on the hard and circumstantial evidence.

There are a number of JFK assassination researchers who make plausible arguments on "why" there was a conspiracy without speculating about "who did it". Josiah Thompson is the first name that comes to mind but there are many others.

[Joe Elliott]

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

Since when do you have to be a ballistics expert to determine if a bullet could have caused all the wounds. Seems more a question for a medical examiner to answer, which is of course why Specter asked Humes.

No, it's a question for a ballistic expert. Only a true ballistic expert can determine what shape a bullet may end up in after causing a certain number of wounds.

I'm not sure who you are talking about. And what do you mean by a "true ballistic expert"? Could that be one who says what you want to hear? It sure looks that way!

I will go over this, one more time.

The type of ballistic expert I'm talking about is:

1. Some one who does real world testing shooting at ballistic gel targets.

Only in that way can one have a hope of recreating a shot. Firing into animals is not too good, because you can't see through their bodies. It's hard to tell if any bones were hit.

I is difficult, in a case like CE 399, but one can attempt this with ballistic gel targets.

From 63 yards away shoot through:

a six inch ballistic block
a second block three three away with an array of ribs bones
a third block with an array of wrist bones
a fourth block

Difficult because the exact path of the bullet is hard to predict. It generally won't be a perfectly straight line.

This kind of testing can indicate the conditions where a bullet will be greatly deform from striking a bone, like if it is fired almost directly into the bone, striking the bone at very high speed
and the conditions where this will not happen, like when a bullet hits a bone after being slowed by several inches of ballistic gel.

I would like a ballistic expert to have extensive experience with these types of expertiments.

2. Has testified in criminal cases as a ballistic expert. Which shows that his knowledge is considered by the legal profession to be very high.

These are the ideal qualifications. Luke and Michael Haag meet both conditions. Larry Sturdivan meets qualification 1 but not 2, as far as I know.

I am not really interested in what you think or believe you know. Dolce is on video saying that he was given the original rifle and 100 bullets to conduct tests. Hear and see the man say it himself at 42.34.

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?".

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.

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.

And yet, Dolce was the man picked by the WC to do the tests. Your argument that he did not have experience in criminal cases is invalid. Dolce saw plenty of gunshot wounds in WW2 and there is no difference whatsoever between a bullet striking a man in combat or a bullet striking a man during a crime. Dolce got the details exactly right, but they just were not what Arlen Specter wanted to hear, which is why Dolce's testimony and report were left out of the WC report.

This is an irrelevant question. I don't know enough about Dolce to say if he was ever called as an expert in a criminal proceeding. He was in the miitary and may well not have been allowed to be involved in crimimal cases. The bottom line is that the WC called upon him to do the work, which is exactly what he did. You second guessing his procedures is of no importance.

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.