Fourth Edition of "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

[Royell Storing]

I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.

   Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.

[John Corbett]

   Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.

I already have been. The prosecution never attempted to recreate the shooting and the defense never demanded that they do that. We found the accused guilty anyway.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:09:08 PM
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.

Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.

I know. His argument is so ridiculous.

When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.

Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.

Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.

In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.

What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).

The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed").

In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.

When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.



 

[John Corbett]

I know. His argument is so ridiculous.

When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.

I must be having a senior moment. I don't remember having made that argument. I don't remember even thinking that. I'm not even familiar with that particular test. The evidence that Oswald's ammo killed JFK is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. Two of those fragments could be positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.

Can you name one shooting in the history of firearms that was perfectly replicated?

Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.

Do you think that perfectly replicated the SBT.

In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.

You don't seem to understand that simulating is not replicating.

What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).

I don't. None of the tests replicated the shooting of JFK and JBC. [/quote]

The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed"). [/quote]

One more test that didn't replicate the shooting. Replication is impossible.

In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.

When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.

You have pointed to a number of tests that tried to simulate, but could not replicate the actual shooting. At best, any test can show what is possible. None can prove what did happen. I find it puzzling that people put so much emphasis on replicating the assassination. It's a fool's errand.

When the Haag's did testing for the Nova program, they tested individual elements of the shooting. They fired a Carcano bullet through both ballistic gel and ballistic soap. The gel showed a bullet COULD yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove CE399 did yaw. The best evidence of that was the elongated entrance wound on JFK's back. The ballistic soap was used to show the pressure cavity a Carcano bullet creates as it passes through a body. Unlike the gel, the soap doesn't collapse after the bullet passes through maintaining the pressure cavity.

I know of no case in the history of firearms in which a shooting was replicated. The JFKA is the only shooting I am aware of where such a thing was tried.

[Michael T. Griffith]

MG: I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).

In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.

Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments.  Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud. In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.

The distance is irrelevant. What matters is the velocity a bullet strikes the object at.

Another amateurish blunder. Umm, the distance is definitely relevant because it affects the velocity at which the bullet strikes the object. The longer the bullet has to travel through air, the more its velocity will be reduced.

Plus, as the scientists who conducted the test explained, the very short distance meant the bullet did not have time to stabilize its flight: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

When are you going to back up your spurious claim that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets? Where do you get that piece of fiction? Can you cite a single forensic source that even implies this?

Why do you suppose Dr. DiMaio did not specify that his statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets did not apply to WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets? Obviously, because those FMJ bullets behave like all other FMJ bullets.

You constantly just make up nonsense that you want to believe and then pretend that it explains facts that refute your theory.

[John Corbett]

Another amateurish blunder. Umm, the distance is definitely relevant because it affects the velocity at which the bullet strikes the object. The longer the bullet has to travel through air, the more its velocity will be reduced.

Plus, as the scientists who conducted the test explained, the very short distance meant the bullet did not have time to stabilize its flight: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

When are you going to back up your spurious claim that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets? Where do you get that piece of fiction? Can you cite a single forensic source that even implies this?

I don't have anything to back up. You are the one claiming how a FMJ Carcano will behave after striking a skull. The burden is on you to establish that. I know of only one case study in which a FMJ Carcano bullet did strike a skull and that was the JFKA. It is a one of one case study. We have a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet, the only one recovered from the limo following the devastating headshot. That bullet shows what can happen when such a bullet strikes a skull. Would every FMJ Carcano bullet fragment in that manner when striking a skull? Who knows? We have a very limited sample size. We have just one case to study.

Why do you suppose Dr. DiMaio did not specify that his statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets did not apply to WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets? Obviously, because those FMJ bullets behave like all other FMJ bullets.

You constantly just make up nonsense that you want to believe and then pretend that it explains facts that refute your theory.

As I understand it, DiMaio's book was a textbook speaking of ballistics in general, not the JFKA. If that is the case, there would be no reason for him to address how the Carcano bullet might behave when striking a skull. Since you apparently have that book, you should be able to tell us whether DiMaio even addressed the behavior of the fragmented Carcano bullet found in the limo.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I don't have anything to back up. You are the one claiming how a FMJ Carcano will behave after striking a skull. The burden is on you to establish that. I know of only one case study in which a FMJ Carcano bullet did strike a skull and that was the JFKA. It is a one of one case study. We have a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet, the only one recovered from the limo following the devastating headshot. That bullet shows what can happen when such a bullet strikes a skull. Would every FMJ Carcano bullet fragment in that manner when striking a skull? Who knows? We have a very limited sample size. We have just one case to study.
As I understand it, DiMaio's book was a textbook speaking of ballistics in general, not the JFKA. If that is the case, there would be no reason for him to address how the Carcano bullet might behave when striking a skull. Since you apparently have that book, you should be able to tell us whether DiMaio even addressed the behavior of the fragmented Carcano bullet found in the limo.

This is yet another one of your dishonest juvenile dodges in which you once again hilariously dismiss the science of wound-ballistics testing. Obviously, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your grasping fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than other FMJ bullets, because then, among other things, you'd have to explain why the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test did not even fragment after penetrating skull bone.

DiMaio was talking about the behavior of all FMJ bullets, period. DiMaio certainly would have said something if the millions of 6.5 mm FMJ bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company behaved differently than other FMJ bullets, especially since tens of thousands of those bullets were still being used when he wrote the first and second editions of his book (first edition in 1985, second in 1999).

BTW, WCC produced 4 million 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in 1954 alone.

You keep making false statements about the number of headshot wound-ballistics tests that have used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ ammo: the WC's test, Lattimer's test, and DeSalles' test, all of which failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. Are you ever going to explain why the x-rays of the test skulls in the WC's test show bullet fragmentation that looks nothing like that seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, both in the number of fragments and in their distribution patterns?

And let me just remind you, again, that your side's leading wound-ballistics experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the bullets that Oswald allegedly used would never, ever have deposited a fragment from their cross-section on the outer table of a skull at or near the entry point.

Finally, I notice you said nothing about your gaffe that the distance a bullet travels is irrelevant to how it performs. This is so typical of you: you make a blundering, idiotic claim and then you either refuse to acknowledge your blunder when it is pointed out to you or you blame the blunder on some faulty source that you should have known better than to consult in the first place.