The Forgotten Rifle Test: The HSCA's Rifle Test

[Michael T. Griffith]

Your reply takes your trashy conduct to a new low. I see that you've now resorted to crude name-calling, referring to me as "a-hole," "a pathetic a-hole." I'm a bit surprised that the moderators are allowing such conduct. Anyway, let's continue.

I'm going to split my response into two parts, due to the length required to answer your errant claims. The first part will deal with your arguments about Oswald's marksmanship, the various rifle tests, Oswald's alleged shooting feat, and supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber, you surprise me. I not only have acknowledged the maximum time allowed for Oswald's last two shots, I have pointed out that he actually only took about 4.97 seconds between the last two shots. That was ample time for two aimed shots at such close ranges. But you are so dumb, you think Blakey's test that limited the shooters to just 1.7 seconds was a fair comparison. It wasn't remotely possible the test shooters could have accurately fired a Carcano in such a short time span. How stupid are you that you even need to have that pointed out to you.

I guess you forgot that four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two others took over six seconds to fire.

Also, you have again failed to take into account the fact that any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette was counted as a hit, which at least tripled the size of the target area compared to the small area that your alleged lone gunman hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

You keep ignoring key facts that refute your spin.

You really are a pathetic a-hole. I have never argued that I thought Oswald used the iron sights. I pointed out that Blakey chose not to have his test shooters use the scope. It was YOU who countered that OTHER LNs have postulated that as if I am obligated to defend that position. I did nothing more than point out it is theoretically possible Oswald could have used the iron sights but I never subscribed to that theory. You are just playing word games because you have no arguments of substance to make.

One would never know to read this phony protesting that you have argued that Oswald could have performed the shooting feat using the iron sights. You have not asserted that he used the iron sights, but you have clearly argued that he still could have performed the alleged shooting feat using the iron sights.

MG: One, the time span between Z209 and Z313, or 102 frames, would have been 5.60 seconds, not 4.97 seconds (103 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second equals 5.62 seconds).

Now you put your piss poor reading comprehension on display for the rest of us to laugh at. Oswald did not fire a shot at Z209.

Oh my goodness. Your inability to comprehend English at a high-school level rears its head again. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "between." Saying "between Z209 and Z313" is not the same as saying "from Z209 to Z313." In using "between Z209 and Z313," this excludes Z209 and Z313, since we're talking about the time "between" those two frames.

Let me try to simplify it even more for you: If you say the distance "between the door and the wall is 10 feet" or "it takes six seconds to walk between the door and the wall," obviously your measurement in either case does not include the door itself and the wall itself.

But such basic English comprehension escaped you when you read my statement, which caused you to mistakenly infer that I was saying the gunman fired at Z209. You should have realized I was obviously not saying this anyway because I've repeatedly said the sixth-floor gunman would not have fired until JFK reemerged into view from under the oak tree, which did not happen until Z210.

I see that throughout your reply, you repeat your misreading of my statement and erroneously accuse me of positing a shot at Z209 several times. This is what happens when your education level is so poor that you can't understand the difference between saying "between Z209 and Z313" and "from Z209-313."

Also, you are, of course, assuming a priori that the head shot came from the sixth-floor window, a doubtful proposition. That's where you're getting the flight time of two to three frames. But, a shot from the grassy knoll would have only taken one frame to arrive at the target. 

The WC calculated that Oswald would not even have had a clear shot until Z210 and it is foolish to think he would fire a shot the instant his target came into the clear.

Umm, yeah, that's why I said "between" Z209 and Z313. What is "foolish" is your assumption that I said or implied that the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209.

Based on the reactions of JFK and JBC at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227, it is likely JFK was struck about Z222, plus or minus one frame. That shot would have been fired in the Z219-220 window, about 91 frames before the headshot was fired. I can't dumb it down for you more than that.

Leaving aside your implausible timing scenario, which casts aside Connally's certainty that he was not hit before Z229, your brain seems incapable of credibly dealing with the fact that the WC's Master-rated riflemen combined missed all but one of their second and third shots. IOW, of the 14 shots fired at the second-shot and third-shot target boards, only one was a hit. Yet, you claim that Oswald's second and third shots were both hits.

I don't know why you keep insisting the shot would have to have been fired at Z209.

Umm, I don't. You just can't read English above a high-school level.

That was never the conclusion of the WC. Perhaps you got your information from Walter Cronkite who made the false claim the WC concluded Oswald fired his FIRST shot at Z210, probably the sloppiest piece of reporting he did in his entire career. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Uncle Walter said that in 1988, years after he left the anchor desk at CBS and might have been getting a little fuzzy in the head at his advanced age. What's your excuse?

Another unfortunate exhibition of your reading-comprehension deficiency. No one says the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209. No one. You just misread plain English due to your lack of education. 
 

Two, if it is "perfectly reasonable" to believe your supposed lone assassin went two for two after the limo cleared the oak tree, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to do this? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

My source indicates the shooters were trying to fire THREE shots in under SIX seconds, a time constraint Oswald was not under. That made the test considerably more difficult.

A continuation of your discrediting juvenile dodge. Regardless of what they were trying to do, Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first set of shots and 7.0 seconds for his second set, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set. Yet, all of Hendrix and Staley's second and third shots missed.

But, according to your fiction, Oswald scored hits on his final two shots and did so within 5.6 seconds. (I hope you understand the difference between "within 5.6 seconds" and "in 5.6 seconds.") Just to make sure you don't misread me again, let me rephrase to say that your alleged lone gunman scored hits on his final two shots and did so in less than 5.6 seconds.

Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army's Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch, told the WC how long the Master-rated riflemen took to fire:

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.

Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6.75 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 6.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. (3 H 446)

MG: Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by one frame with the head shot being fired at Z311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 102, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.60 seconds.

You seem to be showing signs of dementia. Why do you keep using Z209 as the time Oswald fired his second shot. You are the first person I've seen claim that. Walter Cronkite reported the WC concluded Oswald fired his first shot at Z210 which is about as dumb as what you keep insisting. It's really not much of a challenge arguing with adversaries who have such a poor command of basic facts.

Another unfortunate display of your reading-comprehension problem. Again, no one is saying "Oswald" fired "his" second shot at Z209. The problem is that you can't read English at a high-school level, and it's probably unfair to your average high school student to compare their readings skills with yours.

MG: Anyway, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Gee, could it be they were trying to fire 3 shots in about the same amount of time Oswald fired his last 2.

Yet another discrediting evasion of the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first series and 7.0 seconds for his second series, and that all of his second and third shots missed.

It is important to note that Hendrix's time of 8.25 seconds for his first series equals a firing rate of 2.75 seconds per shot (8.25 divided by 3 shots), which was slower than the firing rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots: 2.485 seconds per shot. You claim Oswald fired his supposed last two shots in 4.97 seconds, which equals a firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot. 

Hendrix's time of 7.0 seconds for his second series equals a firing rate of 2.33 seconds per shot, not very much faster than the rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Hendrix's combined average firing time for his two series of shots was 2.54 seconds per shot. (2.75 seconds per shot plus 2.33 seconds per shot divided by two equals an average of 2.54 seconds per shot.) IOW, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Yet, Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. 

Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 second for his second series. This means his combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots.

Miller fired more rapidly than did Hendrix and Staley -- 4.6 seconds in his first series, 5.15 seconds in his second series, and 4.45 seconds in his third series -- but only one of his six final two shots landed in the head and neck area of the silhouette.

But, according to you, a guy who only barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories, while firing a superb semi-automatic rifle at stationary targets that he had recently practiced against and while having at least 5 seconds per shot to fire -- went two-for-two on his final two shots while firing from a 60-foot elevation in a cramped space through a half-open window while firing, even though the WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed with 13 of their 14 second and third shots. 

MG: Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first set of shots and 7 seconds for his second set, while Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.

That's still faster than Oswald would have had to shoot. If my analysis is correct, Oswald had 9 seconds to fire his three shots. If Tom Graves is correct, he took over 10 seconds.

Uh-huh, readers should be advised that your ludicrous scenario assumes that Oswald fired at JFK before JFK passed under the oak tree, when he was less than 160 feet from the sixth-floor window, and yet somehow, someway missed not only JFK but missed the entire gigantic limousine. That's the only way you can expand your alleged lone gunman's firing time to 9 seconds or more.

Even the WC doubted that the supposed single assassin missed with his first and closest shot, noting that it was unlikely that he would have missed not only JFK but the entire limo:

On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (Warren Report, p. 11)

But you guys, ignoring your beloved WC, can't accept this commonsense observation because you know you must expand your supposed lone gunman's firing time to avoid having to argue that he fired three shots within 5.6 seconds.

The least-absurd lone-gunman scenario is that Oswald did not fire until after Z209, since JFK reemerged into view from beneath the tree at Z210. But this, of course, would mean that he fired three shots in no more than 5.6 seconds. This is why you guys implausibly have him firing before JFK went under the oak tree and have him missing both Kennedy and the huge limo.

MG: Miller fired more rapidly (4.6, 5.15, and 4.45 seconds), but his shots were also the most inaccurate.

Exactly. The faster one shoots, the less accurate they are. Oswald wasn't trying to shoot in a specified period of time. He could aim his rifle at his target an put a slow squeeze on the trigger. The shot he might have rushed was the first shot because he tried to get that shot off after the limo passed his window but before it went under the tree. Not surprising that he missed with that one.

This is both silly and absurd. A sixth-floor gunman would have had at least several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. He would have had no need to rush this shot, whereas he definitely would have needed to rush in order to fire just two shots, much less three shots, within 5.6 seconds after Z209.

MG: Even though Hendrix took 8 seconds in his first series and 7 seconds in second series, he failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat. Needless to say, Miller and Staley also failed to do so. This was the case even though all three riflemen took as long as they wanted before firing their first shot.

In fact, the second and third shots of all three of these world-class riflemen were severely off the mark, with many of them missing the silhouette completely.

Yes, that's what can happen when you prioritize speed over accuracy. Oswald didn't make that mistake.

LOL! You are the poster child for hilarious confirmation bias. It is hard to fathom how you could make this statement in response to the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds on his first series and 7.0 seconds on second series. Again, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.
 

But when we strip away all of your evasion, distortion, and omission, you're saying that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories while using a superb semi-automatic rifle and with at least 6 seconds per shot to fire at targets he'd recently practiced against -- you're saying that this guy did what the three Master-rated riflemen could not do. That's what you're saying.

The test shooters were trying to shoot for speed instead of accuracy.

This is another howler that proves you have no business posting in this forum. You are just making up nonsense again. The WC made it clear that the riflemen were not merely firing to see how rapidly the rifle could be fired. The FBI did do such a test, and they specified that they were not firing for accuracy but just to determine the minimum time needed to operate the bolt and the trigger.

The Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, as the WC made clear, were trying to prove that Oswald could have scored two hits in three shots within the WC's posited timeframe. The WC clearly leaned toward the view that the gunman had 4.8 seconds to 7.9 seconds to fire, between "4.8 to 5.6 seconds" or "7.1 to 7.9 seconds," depending on which shot missed (Warren Report, p. 117). The Commission acknowledged that the only way to add more firing time would be to assume that "more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit." And, again, the WC clearly doubted the idea of a first-shot miss.   

Oswald's top score was just two points below Charles Whitman who killed a dozen people and injured many more from a height and distances far greater than Oswald. He even managed to hit a moving target when he shot a bicyclist a few blocks away.

LOL! Whitman fired over 150 shots! Your comparison is ridiculous.

MG: This gets back to your discrediting unwillingness to even admit the obvious fact that it is easier to fire accurately and quickly with a semi-automatic rifle than it is with a bolt-action rifle.

Operating the bolt adds little time to the process. Mostly it involves reacquiring the target and then making a controlled squeeze on the trigger. When a shooter rushes his shot, the tendency is to jerk the trigger rather than squeeze it and accuracy suffers.

This evasive blather is another display of your juvenile behavior. Anyone who knows anything about marksmanship knows it is considerably easier to fire quickly and accurately with a semi-automatic rifle than with a bolt-action rifle. But you're so dishonest and immature that you can't even admit this undisputed fact.

MG: Uh-huh, but we've seen that you can't put Oswald in the sixth-floor window when confronted with the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

No such evidence exists. Oswald has no alibi the time the shots were fired.

You have no idea if such evidence exists because you've done only a scant amount of reading on the JFK case, and what little reading you've done has mostly been confined to pro-WC sources. People can see in the ongoing thread on Charles Givens that you have no credible answer to the evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

Says the clown who keeps insisting I have taken the position that Oswald fired his second shot at Z209. I can say without hesitation that in 35 years of arguing this case in online forums, I have never once taken such a stupid position.

Says the man who can't comprehend English at a high-school level and who blunderingly misread "between Z209 and Z313" to mean a shot was fired at Z209. What makes this gaffe especially baffling is that I have repeatedly noted that JFK did not reemerge into view from under the oak tree until Z210.

No, I want YOU to define what YOU would consider an acceptable duplication. I understand your reluctance. If you define reasonable parameters for a duplication, you know there have been duplications that would fit those parameters. If you define impossible parameters for a duplication, you will demonstrate once again what an a-hole you are. So you take the cowardly way out and refuse to specify what would constitute a duplication. It's what we've come to expect from you.

More juvenile ducking and dodging. Are you just hoping that all the people who read this thread will have the same juvenile mindset and the same lack of character and education that you have? Are you just hoping that people won't easily see through your deceitful claim that I have not already made perfectly clear herein what would constitute a genuine duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? In addition, you seem to have forgotten about my thread "What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?"

But, since part of me almost suspects that you just might be so severely lacking in reading and reasoning skills that you actually don't comprehend what I would consider to be a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat, let me try to make even clearer what I have already made obvious:

At a minimum, a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat would be for at least one rifleman to fire three shots and to score two hits with his final two shots in no more 5.6 seconds, on his first and only attempt. Got it?

The WC's Master-rated riflemen failed to do this, even though two of them had two attempts and one of them had three attempts. So did the HSCA's expert riflemen, even though they had more than one attempt. And so did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, even though they had more than one attempt (and the one rifleman who did score two hits in three shots on his first attempt only did so because CBS counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which at least tripled the size of the target compared to the small area that Oswald alleged hit twice in no more than 5.6 seconds).
 

MG: Umm, just a reminder that your theory of the shooting has "Oswald" scoring two hits in two shots within 5.6 seconds, or 2.8 seconds per shot, and that the target area that he allegedly hit was at least three times smaller than the target area allowed for the HSCA's expert riflemen to score hits, and they were only firing from 20 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot in each series.

Here's where you show just how bad your analytical skills are. 2 shots in 5.6 seconds is not 2.8 seconds per shot. The clock starts when the first shot is fired. That leaves 5.6 seconds for the next shot. This fallacy was pointed out many years ago but apparently despite your vast research, you still don't understand that.

This is more of your amateurish bungling. You still refuse to process the fact that any gunman, whether novice or expert, would have had to take time to acquire the target and then aim before firing. He would not have just fired the millisecond the target came into view if he had any hope of firing accurately. I also point out, again, that it takes the human brain a minimum of 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames.

But you keep pretending that time for target acquisition and aiming doesn't count. Your sixth-floor gunman, no matter who he was, would have needed three frames, or 166.67 milliseconds, at the bare minimum, to register and respond to the visual image of JFK's reemergence from under the oak tree before he fired a shot.

If you can't understand this, watch the video clips of the 1967 CBS rifle test and see how long it takes the shooters to fire their first shot, and see how long it takes them to fire another shot after they work the bolt and put their eye back on the scope. They each took several seconds before firing their first shot and then took about one second to fire again after they worked the bolt and put their eye back up to the scope. 

When you're talking about a scenario where the target suddenly emerges into view and where two shots have to be fired from that moment until no more than 5.6 seconds later, you can't say "the clock starts when the first shot is fired." You have to allow time for the gunman to acquire and then aim at the target before firing his first shot.

Regardless of how early you want to assume your lone gunman fired his first alleged shot, he would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire his final two shots, and he would have required, at the very least, three frames just for his brain to register and react to the visual data of the image of JFK's emerging into view from under the oak tree in Z210.

I would repeat the fact that Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots.

I would also repeat the fact that Staley's combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots. 

It's still a half-a$$ed calculation. Using your bogus time frame for the shot being at Z209, that would have left Oswald 5.6 seconds for the follow up head shot. You ought to consider taking up a new hobby. This one requires analytical skills which you don't seem to possess.

You again sound like a insolent teenager who's lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Again, just to make sure you understand, I did not even hint, much less say, that the sixth-floor gunman fired at Z209. Your blunderingly inferred this due to your poor reading-comprehension skills.

MG: This is a ball of confused evasion. You purposely, or perhaps ignorantly, keep missing the forest for the trees (or in this case a few small bushes). The nanosecond that JFK emerged from beneath the tree, the sixth-floor gunman would have had to begin acquiring and aiming at his target, and the human brain takes 166.67 milliseconds (1/6th of a second) just to recognize and react to visual data. That means it would have taken him at least three Zapruder frames to acquire and aim.

So what. He didn't fire that shot until about a half second. 9-10 frames after his target came into the clear.

Yeah, "so what"! Here's the "so what": This means you can't assume that the acquisition and aiming time doesn't count.

This whole surreal discussion is based on your discrediting refusal to admit that firing two shots in no more than 5.6 seconds after JFK emerged from under the oak tree would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.

This is just a continuation of your ducking and dodging around the fact that your supposed single assassin would have had to score two hits with his final two shots within 5.6 seconds,

Not at all difficult at such close ranges.

Yet, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen scored only one hit in their 14 combined second and third shots, even though one of them had a combined firing rate that was slower than the rate you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots. Furthermore, in all the rifle tests that have been done, the shooters' first shots have always been their most accurate and have almost always been hits, whereas their second and third shots have been their most inaccurate and have almost always been misses. But your shooting scenario turns that pattern on its head and assumes your supposed lone gunman missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot.

MG: yet the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots, even though Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first series and 7 seconds for his second series, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 seconds for his second series.

You keep ignoring the fact that they were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald only fired 2.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.

MG: Your "detailed explanation" is nonsense. You keep ignoring the fact that the gunman would have had to acquire and aim at his target before firing his second shot. Your "detailed explanation" is junior-high-level sophistry in an effort to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact that going two for two in 5.6 seconds would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert riflemen, as the WC, CBS, and HSCA rifle tests all proved.

Are you really so ignorant that you don't know in all these tests, the shooters were trying to fire 3 shots, not 2, in a compressed time frame.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.
 

I'll make a bet with you. I'll pay you $100 dollars if you can find a post of mine where I said Oswald used the iron sights. If you can't find such a post, you only have to pay me $10. Do we have a bet?

Here's a better idea: How about if you find one post where I said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights?

MG: The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever).

You do love your strawman arguments. For starters, I have never said Oswald used the iron sights. You also seem to be unaware the scope on his rifle was offset which means had he chosen to do so, he could have used the iron sights with the scope in place.

Umm, yeah, and, again, I've never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You came razor close to saying it, but never actually said it. You said that he "could" have used the iron sights and that he "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat with the iron sights.

Is this supposed to be a newsflash? You really are showing signs of senility. Seriously. You should get it checked out.

Another childish reaction to an undisputed fact. This is your dishonest smokescreen to avoid the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights.

You keep making the strawman argument that I have claimed Oswald used the iron sights. I guess when you can't refute what I have actually written, it's easier to make up things I have never stated and take issue with those.

No, you keep making up the strawman that I've said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You're doing this to try to obscure the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights, which is nonsense.

Another pile of timeworn claims that makes you sound like you're caught in a time warp and are writing in the late 1960s. Every one of those arguments has been thoroughly examined and proven to be fraught with problems or easily explainable.

Apparently you aren't up to the task.

No, what's apparent is that you have no business posting in this forum, since you obviously have no clue about the scholarly research (and, yes, it is scholarly research) on every one of the items of evidence that you recited.

Here's a short quiz for you: True or False: The WC was so suspicious of the latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly produced that they asked him to sign a sworn statement affirming when and how he saw it and lifted it, and Lt. Day refused to sign the statement.

MG: Another juvenile dodge. I didn't say it was an established fact that the alleged lone gunman used the iron sights. I said that a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights when they've been confronted with the fact that the rifle's scope was defective.

That's right, a-hole. OTHER LNs have postulated Oswald used the iron sights. I have never taken that position. So why do you falsely keep claiming I have?

This childish nonsense again? Why do you keep proving that you can't comprehend basic English by falsely claiming that I've accused you of saying Oswald used the iron sights? This whole conversation is just ridiculous. If you weren't so poorly educated and unable to understand English at an adult level, we wouldn't even be having this idiotic discussion. Again, I never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights, even though you've repeatedly said he "could" have used them and that he "could" have performed the alleged shooting feat if he had used them.

Actually he could have because the scope was offset, a basic fact you seem ignorant of.

And, actually, as I stated in my most recent reply, I have changed my mind about this and agree that the scope was mounted to the left of center and that the gunman could have used the iron sights.

The classic Tony Marsh dodge when faced with a question he had no answer for.
You seem to have the nutty idea that I am obligated to defend positions other LNs have taken. Why is that?

Translation: Your research has been so limited that you don't even know half of what your fellow WC apologists have said, or even half of what the leading published WC apologists have said.

The lowest class of USMC marksman were the ones that didn't qualify at all. To achieve even the grade of marksman, Oswald had to demonstrate some proficiency with a rifle and be able to consistently hit targets at ranges far greater than he shot JFK at.

Again, veterans who read this are gonna recognize your dishonest spin. When I went to Army basic training, even guys who had never fired a rifle before in their lives almost always qualified in the Marksman category, and a few of them even qualified in the Sharpshooter category.

Why don't you mention the fact that at the Marine Corps rifle range, Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the two so-called "rapid fire" phases? Why don't you mention that during the three other phases of the qualification test he had 72 seconds per shot? Yes, let me repeat that: he had 72 seconds, or 1.2 minutes per shot in three of the five phases of the qualification test.

It is laughable that you and other WC apologists cite Oswald's mediocre Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, especially given the fact that none of the WC's three Master-riflemen performed the feat, that none of the HSCA's four expert riflemen performed the feat, and that only one of the 12 CBS riflemen performed the feat (he only did it because he was an expert rifleman and because the test counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which was at least three times larger than the target area that the sixth-floor gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds).

MG: If so, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

Why do you keep asking the same question over an over again. Even though you are getting boring, I won't fall back on your lame dodge of "I've already answered that". I think this is the third time I've answered you question in just this post. Those other marksmen were trying to fire 3 shots in the time Oswald took to fire his last two. I wonder if you are going to ask this question again in this post. When you can't remember what you have already written, that could be a sign of senility.

I've continued to ask it because you have yet to provide a credible, rational, fact-based answer. Your ridiculous ducking and dodging and special pleading do not qualify as a credible, rational, factual answer. 
 

MG: I should add that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to score two hits in three shots on their first attempt, and the only one of the 12 who did this was an experienced, expert rifleman, and any of shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette were counted as hits, even if they were far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice with his final two shots.

Not surprising given that the dummies at CBS like Cronkite and Rather were under the impression that the WC concluded Oswald fired all 3 of his shots in 5.6 seconds or less. It's not surprising at all they had trouble doing that.

Uh-huh, never mind that most of the CBS riflemen were far more experienced and skilled than Oswald, that five them took 6-7 seconds to fire one or two of their series, and that they were allowed to fire nine practice rounds before the test. Yeah, so what? Right?

MG: And, of course, none of the HSCA's experienced, expert riflemen scored two hits in three shots on any of their series, even though they fired from only 20 feet up, even though any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette was counted as a hit, and even though they were allowed to take as much as time as they wanted for their first shot.

They could take as much time as they wanted for the first shot but were supposed to fire the follow up shots in 1.7 seconds. At least that's the claim you made in your OP.

More ducking and dodging. Again, the sixth-floor gunman would have been able to take several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. And, again, four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two of them took over six seconds to fire.

Once more, it's like your brain simply cannot process contrary facts.

You're in luck because we have CTs on this forum who are almost as dumb as you.

Oh, yes, Mr. Teenager. Do you feel good now? And, hey, at least those "CTs" can understand English at a high-school level, unlike you.
 

Uh-huh. In other words, you were unaware that many of your fellow WC apologists have praised the Carcano as an accurate, reliable weapon. You're just too much of a juvenile to admit it.

More of your strawman arguments. I've never made such an argument and I'm not responsible for what others have stated.

Good grief, where in those two sentences did you read that I said you've made this argument? Where? I said you obviously were not aware that some of your fellow WC apologists have made this argument, and that you're just too immature to admit it. And we see that you still won't admit it.

[John Corbett]

Your reply takes your trashy conduct to a new low. I see that you've now resorted to crude name-calling, referring to me as "a-hole," "a pathetic a-hole." I'm a bit surprised that the moderators are allowing such conduct. Anyway, let's continue.

Your long winded posts are filled with personal insults you hurl at me, then you whimper like a little school girl when I respond in kind. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

I'm going to split my response into two parts, due to the length required to answer your errant claims. The first part will deal with your arguments about Oswald's marksmanship, the various rifle tests, Oswald's alleged shooting feat, and supposed evidence of Oswald's guilt.

I guess you forgot that four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two others took over six seconds to fire.

Also, you have again failed to take into account the fact that any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette was counted as a hit, which at least tripled the size of the target area compared to the small area that your alleged lone gunman hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

You keep ignoring key facts that refute your spin.

One would never know to read this phony protesting that you have argued that Oswald could have performed the shooting feat using the iron sights. You have not asserted that he used the iron sights, but you have clearly argued that he still could have performed the alleged shooting feat using the iron sights.

I guess the term "theoretical possibility" went right over your head. Not surprising. Those are two pretty big words.

Oh my goodness. Your inability to comprehend English at a high-school level rears its head again. You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "between." Saying "between Z209 and Z313" is not the same as saying "from Z209 to Z313." In using "between Z209 and Z313," this excludes Z209 and Z313, since we're talking about the time "between" those two frames.

Let me try to simplify it even more for you: If you say the distance "between the door and the wall is 10 feet" or "it takes six seconds to walk between the door and the wall," obviously your measurement in either case does not include the door itself and the wall itself.

But such basic English comprehension escaped you when you read my statement, which caused you to mistakenly infer that I was saying the gunman fired at Z209. You should have realized I was obviously not saying this anyway because I've repeatedly said the sixth-floor gunman would not have fired until JFK reemerged into view from under the oak tree, which did not happen until Z210.

I see that throughout your reply, you repeat your misreading of my statement and erroneously accuse me of positing a shot at Z209 several times. This is what happens when your education level is so poor that you can't understand the difference between saying "between Z209 and Z313" and "from Z209-313."

Also, you are, of course, assuming a priori that the head shot came from the sixth-floor window, a doubtful proposition. That's where you're getting the flight time of two to three frames. But, a shot from the grassy knoll would have only taken one frame to arrive at the target. 

Umm, yeah, that's why I said "between" Z209 and Z313. What is "foolish" is your assumption that I said or implied that the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209.

Leaving aside your implausible timing scenario, which casts aside Connally's certainty that he was not hit before Z229, your brain seems incapable of credibly dealing with the fact that the WC's Master-rated riflemen combined missed all but one of their second and third shots. IOW, of the 14 shots fired at the second-shot and third-shot target boards, only one was a hit. Yet, you claim that Oswald's second and third shots were both hits.

Umm, I don't. You just can't read English above a high-school level.

Another unfortunate exhibition of your reading-comprehension deficiency. No one says the alleged lone gunman fired at Z209. No one. You just misread plain English due to your lack of education. 
 
A continuation of your discrediting juvenile dodge. Regardless of what they were trying to do, Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first set of shots and 7.0 seconds for his second set, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set. Yet, all of Hendrix and Staley's second and third shots missed.

But, according to your fiction, Oswald scored hits on his final two shots and did so within 5.6 seconds. (I hope you understand the difference between "within 5.6 seconds" and "in 5.6 seconds.") Just to make sure you don't misread me again, let me rephrase to say that your alleged lone gunman scored hits on his final two shots and did so in less than 5.6 seconds.

Ronald Simmons, chief of the U.S. Army's Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch, told the WC how long the Master-rated riflemen took to fire:

Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds.

Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6.75 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds.

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 6.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight. (3 H 446)

Another unfortunate display of your reading-comprehension problem. Again, no one is saying "Oswald" fired "his" second shot at Z209. The problem is that you can't read English at a high-school level, and it's probably unfair to your average high school student to compare their readings skills with yours.

Yet another discrediting evasion of the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds for his first series and 7.0 seconds for his second series, and that all of his second and third shots missed.

It is important to note that Hendrix's time of 8.25 seconds for his first series equals a firing rate of 2.75 seconds per shot (8.25 divided by 3 shots), which was slower than the firing rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots: 2.485 seconds per shot. You claim Oswald fired his supposed last two shots in 4.97 seconds, which equals a firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot.

You really have a hard time with a very simply concept. 8.25  seconds for 3 shots is not 2.75 seconds per shot. The clock starts at 0:00 with the first shot. That gives the shooter 8.25 seconds for the next TWO shots. That gives the shooter and average of 4.125 seconds for his next two shots. CTs had been making this same mistake when discussing Oswald's shooting until it got explained to them. I hadn't seen anybody make this blunder for decades until you revived it.

Let me try to dumb it down for you one more time, but I doubt you will understand it. I believe Oswald fired his first shot in the Z147-148 window, the second shot in the Z219-220 window, and the third shot in the Z310-311 window. That works out to a total time of 8.9 seconds. That doesn't mean he took 2.97 seconds per shot, because the clock starts when the first shot was taken. That gave him 8.9 seconds to fire the next TWO shots which is an average of 4.45 seconds between shots, not 2.97. None of the 8.9 second time span was used to fire the first shot. The way it breaks down is that after he took his first shot, he took 72 frames or 3.93 seconds to fire his second shot and 91 frames or 4.97 seconds to fire the third and final shot.

Hendrix's time of 7.0 seconds for his second series equals a firing rate of 2.33 seconds per shot, not very much faster than the rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Hendrix's combined average firing time for his two series of shots was 2.54 seconds per shot. (2.75 seconds per shot plus 2.33 seconds per shot divided by two equals an average of 2.54 seconds per shot.) IOW, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.

Yet, Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. 

Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 second for his second series. This means his combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots.

Miller fired more rapidly than did Hendrix and Staley -- 4.6 seconds in his first series, 5.15 seconds in his second series, and 4.45 seconds in his third series -- but only one of his six final two shots landed in the head and neck area of the silhouette.

But, according to you, a guy who only barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories, while firing a superb semi-automatic rifle at stationary targets that he had recently practiced against and while having at least 5 seconds per shot to fire -- went two-for-two on his final two shots while firing from a 60-foot elevation in a cramped space through a half-open window while firing, even though the WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed with 13 of their 14 second and third shots. 

Uh-huh, readers should be advised that your ludicrous scenario assumes that Oswald fired at JFK before JFK passed under the oak tree, when he was less than 160 feet from the sixth-floor window, and yet somehow, someway missed not only JFK but missed the entire gigantic limousine. That's the only way you can expand your alleged lone gunman's firing time to 9 seconds or more.

Even the WC doubted that the supposed single assassin missed with his first and closest shot, noting that it was unlikely that he would have missed not only JFK but the entire limo:

On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile. (Warren Report, p. 11)

But you guys, ignoring your beloved WC, can't accept this commonsense observation because you know you must expand your supposed lone gunman's firing time to avoid having to argue that he fired three shots within 5.6 seconds.

The least-absurd lone-gunman scenario is that Oswald did not fire until after Z209, since JFK reemerged into view from beneath the tree at Z210. But this, of course, would mean that he fired three shots in no more than 5.6 seconds. This is why you guys implausibly have him firing before JFK went under the oak tree and have him missing both Kennedy and the huge limo.

This is both silly and absurd. A sixth-floor gunman would have had at least several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. He would have had no need to rush this shot, whereas he definitely would have needed to rush in order to fire just two shots, much less three shots, within 5.6 seconds after Z209.

LOL! You are the poster child for hilarious confirmation bias. It is hard to fathom how you could make this statement in response to the fact that Hendrix took 8.25 seconds on his first series and 7.0 seconds on second series. Again, Hendrix's combined average firing rate for his two series of shots was slower than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds that you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots.
 
This is another howler that proves you have no business posting in this forum. You are just making up nonsense again. The WC made it clear that the riflemen were not merely firing to see how rapidly the rifle could be fired. The FBI did do such a test, and they specified that they were not firing for accuracy but just to determine the minimum time needed to operate the bolt and the trigger.

The Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test, as the WC made clear, were trying to prove that Oswald could have scored two hits in three shots within the WC's posited timeframe. The WC clearly leaned toward the view that the gunman had 4.8 seconds to 7.9 seconds to fire, between "4.8 to 5.6 seconds" or "7.1 to 7.9 seconds," depending on which shot missed (Warren Report, p. 117). The Commission acknowledged that the only way to add more firing time would be to assume that "more than 2.3 seconds elapsed between a shot that missed and one that hit." And, again, the WC clearly doubted the idea of a first-shot miss.   

LOL! Whitman fired over 150 shots! Your comparison is ridiculous.

This evasive blather is another display of your juvenile behavior. Anyone who knows anything about marksmanship knows it is considerably easier to fire quickly and accurately with a semi-automatic rifle than with a bolt-action rifle. But you're so dishonest and immature that you can't even admit this undisputed fact.

You have no idea if such evidence exists because you've done only a scant amount of reading on the JFK case, and what little reading you've done has mostly been confined to pro-WC sources. People can see in the ongoing thread on Charles Givens that you have no credible answer to the evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

Says the man who can't comprehend English at a high-school level and who blunderingly misread "between Z209 and Z313" to mean a shot was fired at Z209. What makes this gaffe especially baffling is that I have repeatedly noted that JFK did not reemerge into view from under the oak tree until Z210.

More juvenile ducking and dodging. Are you just hoping that all the people who read this thread will have the same juvenile mindset and the same lack of character and education that you have? Are you just hoping that people won't easily see through your deceitful claim that I have not already made perfectly clear herein what would constitute a genuine duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat? In addition, you seem to have forgotten about my thread "What Would a Valid Lone-Gunman Rifle Test Look Like?"

But, since part of me almost suspects that you just might be so severely lacking in reading and reasoning skills that you actually don't comprehend what I would consider to be a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat, let me try to make even clearer what I have already made obvious:

At a minimum, a valid duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat would be for at least one rifleman to fire three shots and to score two hits with his final two shots in no more 5.6 seconds, on his first and only attempt. Got it?

The WC's Master-rated riflemen failed to do this, even though two of them had two attempts and one of them had three attempts. So did the HSCA's expert riflemen, even though they had more than one attempt. And so did 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test, even though they had more than one attempt (and the one rifleman who did score two hits in three shots on his first attempt only did so because CBS counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which at least tripled the size of the target compared to the small area that Oswald alleged hit twice in no more than 5.6 seconds).
 
This is more of your amateurish bungling. You still refuse to process the fact that any gunman, whether novice or expert, would have had to take time to acquire the target and then aim before firing. He would not have just fired the millisecond the target came into view if he had any hope of firing accurately. I also point out, again, that it takes the human brain a minimum of 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames.

But you keep pretending that time for target acquisition and aiming doesn't count. Your sixth-floor gunman, no matter who he was, would have needed three frames, or 166.67 milliseconds, at the bare minimum, to register and respond to the visual image of JFK's reemergence from under the oak tree before he fired a shot.

If you can't understand this, watch the video clips of the 1967 CBS rifle test and see how long it takes the shooters to fire their first shot, and see how long it takes them to fire another shot after they work the bolt and put their eye back on the scope. They each took several seconds before firing their first shot and then took about one second to fire again after they worked the bolt and put their eye back up to the scope. 

When you're talking about a scenario where the target suddenly emerges into view and where two shots have to be fired from that moment until no more than 5.6 seconds later, you can't say "the clock starts when the first shot is fired." You have to allow time for the gunman to acquire and then aim at the target before firing his first shot.

Regardless of how early you want to assume your lone gunman fired his first alleged shot, he would have had no more than 5.6 seconds to fire his final two shots, and he would have required, at the very least, three frames just for his brain to register and react to the visual data of the image of JFK's emerging into view from under the oak tree in Z210.

I would repeat the fact that Hendrix, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots while firing at a slower rate than the rate you posit for Oswald's supposed final two shots.

I would also repeat the fact that Staley's combined average firing time for his two series was 2.2 seconds per shot, not markedly faster than the firing rate of 2.485 seconds per shot that you posit for Oswald's final two shots. Yet, Staley, a Master-rated rifleman firing from a 30-foot tower at  stationary target boards, missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes with all of his second and third shots. 

You again sound like a insolent teenager who's lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Again, just to make sure you understand, I did not even hint, much less say, that the sixth-floor gunman fired at Z209. Your blunderingly inferred this due to your poor reading-comprehension skills.

Yeah, "so what"! Here's the "so what": This means you can't assume that the acquisition and aiming time doesn't count.

This whole surreal discussion is based on your discrediting refusal to admit that firing two shots in no more than 5.6 seconds after JFK emerged from under the oak tree would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, world-class rifleman.

Yet, the WC's three Master-rated riflemen scored only one hit in their 14 combined second and third shots, even though one of them had a combined firing rate that was slower than the rate you posit for Oswald's alleged final two shots. Furthermore, in all the rifle tests that have been done, the shooters' first shots have always been their most accurate and have almost always been hits, whereas their second and third shots have been their most inaccurate and have almost always been misses. But your shooting scenario turns that pattern on its head and assumes your supposed lone gunman missed both JFK and the entire huge limousine with his first and closest shot.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.

This is just a continuation of your juvenile dodge, which I've already answered. See above.
 
Here's a better idea: How about if you find one post where I said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights?

Umm, yeah, and, again, I've never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You came razor close to saying it, but never actually said it. You said that he "could" have used the iron sights and that he "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat with the iron sights.

Another childish reaction to an undisputed fact. This is your dishonest smokescreen to avoid the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights.

No, you keep making up the strawman that I've said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights. You're doing this to try to obscure the fact that you have repeatedly said Oswald "could" have performed his alleged shooting feat even if he had used the iron sights, which is nonsense.

No, what's apparent is that you have no business posting in this forum, since you obviously have no clue about the scholarly research (and, yes, it is scholarly research) on every one of the items of evidence that you recited.

Here's a short quiz for you: True or False: The WC was so suspicious of the latent palm print that Lt. Day belatedly produced that they asked him to sign a sworn statement affirming when and how he saw it and lifted it, and Lt. Day refused to sign the statement.

This childish nonsense again? Why do you keep proving that you can't comprehend basic English by falsely claiming that I've accused you of saying Oswald used the iron sights? This whole conversation is just ridiculous. If you weren't so poorly educated and unable to understand English at an adult level, we wouldn't even be having this idiotic discussion. Again, I never said you claimed Oswald used the iron sights, even though you've repeatedly said he "could" have used them and that he "could" have performed the alleged shooting feat if he had used them.

You berated me for even suggesting that Oswald could have used the iron sights. Do you recall making these statements:

"Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever)."

Clearly, you were scoffing at me for stating it was even possible that Oswald could have used the iron sights. That was probably due to your ignorance of the fact that the scope was offset and the iron sights could be used with the scope in place. It's amazing that somebody who claims to be a researcher wouldn't know this fact. But you aren't interested in facts because they don't support your beliefs. You prefer to regurgitate factoids because they are the building blocks of your beliefs.

And, actually, as I stated in my most recent reply, I have changed my mind about this and agree that the scope was mounted to the left of center and that the gunman could have used the iron sights.

Translation: Your research has been so limited that you don't even know half of what your fellow WC apologists have said, or even half of what the leading published WC apologists have said.

Again, veterans who read this are gonna recognize your dishonest spin. When I went to Army basic training, even guys who had never fired a rifle before in their lives almost always qualified in the Marksman category, and a few of them even qualified in the Sharpshooter category.

Why don't you mention the fact that at the Marine Corps rifle range, Oswald had 5 seconds per shot in the two so-called "rapid fire" phases? Why don't you mention that during the three other phases of the qualification test he had 72 seconds per shot? Yes, let me repeat that: he had 72 seconds, or 1.2 minutes per shot in three of the five phases of the qualification test.

Oswald used about 5 seconds to aim and fire the kill shot.

It is laughable that you and other WC apologists cite Oswald's mediocre Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat, especially given the fact that none of the WC's three Master-riflemen performed the feat, that none of the HSCA's four expert riflemen performed the feat, and that only one of the 12 CBS riflemen performed the feat (he only did it because he was an expert rifleman and because the test counted as a hit any shot that landed anywhere in the target silhouette, which was at least three times larger than the target area that the sixth-floor gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds).

I've continued to ask it because you have yet to provide a credible, rational, fact-based answer. Your ridiculous ducking and dodging and special pleading do not qualify as a credible, rational, factual answer. 

You were given answers each time you asked this silly question. You lie when you say I ducked and dodged it. Just because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean you weren't given one. This is one of the many reasons I referred to you as an a-hole.

Uh-huh, never mind that most of the CBS riflemen were far more experienced and skilled than Oswald, that five them took 6-7 seconds to fire one or two of their series, and that they were allowed to fire nine practice rounds before the test. Yeah, so what? Right?

More ducking and dodging. Again, the sixth-floor gunman would have been able to take several seconds to aim at JFK before he went under the oak tree. And, again, four of the 10 series in the HSCA's test took over seven seconds to fire, and two of them took over six seconds to fire.

Once more, it's like your brain simply cannot process contrary facts.

Oh, yes, Mr. Teenager. Do you feel good now? And, hey, at least those "CTs" can understand English at a high-school level, unlike you.
 
Good grief, where in those two sentences did you read that I said you've made this argument? Where? I said you obviously were not aware that some of your fellow WC apologists have made this argument, and that you're just too immature to admit it. And we see that you still won't admit it.

I haven't responded point-by-point to the above post because as MTG's posts get longer and longer, it takes much more of my time to respond to each statement, more time than his nonsense deserves. I've spent well over an hour on each of his last two posts. From now on, I will simply pick and choose the most glaring errors of his to respond to.

[Zeon Mason]

@MTG: the older experimental shooting using the 30ft tower and  stationary targets seems to suggest it was no easy feat what the TSBD shooter achieved ( if he is the only shooter)with a hit at Z312.

However a few of the CBS time trial shooters managed to score  2 hits ( albeit not head) in less than 6 secs.  And ONE of them ( the old engineer) seems to have scored 3 hits in 5.1 secs according to the video narrator.

However…

IDK if they really did score hits on the target or not because there was no zoomed in camera on the target to show holes appearing  nearly simultaneous with the rifle firing.

Also because they used a RED silhouette on a square black ( or dark blue) target that was on a WHITE track, the result is not quite conclusive as those things may have aided the shooters to easier track.
 
Question: Was  the ONE CBS shooter apparently scoring 3 hits in 5.1 seconds (recorded by camera firing an MC rifle and using zeroed functional scope), ever brought before the HSCA and interviewed personally or asked to repeat his shooting feat with an HSCA group of observers in real time ?

If not then at best the CBS experiment imo only proves that a person  can fire an MC rifle 3 times in less than 6 seconds.
 
Is this enough to establish that the TSBD shooter could NOT possibly have fired the MC rifle in less than 7 secs and scored a body hit at Z233 and a head shot at Z312 and in the 1…..2..3 pattern that 75% witness recall?

Given Dan O’mearas theory that the 3 shot sequence from a TSBD 6th floor shooter begins with the 1st shot as a hit at Z233 and the 2nd shot then 4.8 secs later at Z312, and then the 3rd shot could have been fired as fast as 2 secs later, if not aimed, then it IS possible to replicate the 1….2..3 pattern in 6.5 seconds.


If this assassination was a pre planned shooting to be performed by an expert solitary shooter , then choosing Dealey Plaza as arena , the TSBD 6th floor as the platform, and a moving target situation , is NOT what professional hit man ( or team) would likely do. It’s introducing too many variables.

The simple more easy way with less variables would be to select an arena where JFK is standing on a podium giving a speech. And elevation of the shooter nearly at same elevation as the podium. A single FMJ  6.5 or 7.62 bullet laced with cyanide fired at only about 1200 ft /sec velocity ( subsonic ammo) with rifle with a suppressor , would not have been heard at all.

One shot one kill, no rifle left behind , shooter has easier escape.

So if a conspiracy why did the shooter ( or2) choose  Dealey Plaza and the TSBD 6th floor ?

[John Corbett]

@MTG: the older experimental shooting using the 30ft tower and  stationary targets seems to suggest it was no easy feat what the TSBD shooter achieved ( if he is the only shooter)with a hit at Z312.

However a few of the CBS time trial shooters managed to score  2 hits ( albeit not head) in less than 6 secs.  And ONE of them ( the old engineer) seems to have scored 3 hits in 5.1 secs according to the video narrator.

The CBS test shooting was boneheaded in that they only allowed the shooters 5.6 seconds to fire three shots, an unreasonable constraint. The WC did allow for that possibility but that was no its conclusion.

However…

IDK if they really did score hits on the target or not because there was no zoomed in camera on the target to show holes appearing  nearly simultaneous with the rifle firing.

Also because they used a RED silhouette on a square black ( or dark blue) target that was on a WHITE track, the result is not quite conclusive as those things may have aided the shooters to easier track.
 
Question: Was  the ONE CBS shooter apparently scoring 3 hits in 5.1 seconds (recorded by camera firing an MC rifle and using zeroed functional scope), ever brought before the HSCA and interviewed personally or asked to repeat his shooting feat with an HSCA group of observers in real time ?

Attempts to recreate a shooting using erroneous assumptions are quite silly. The silliest assumption is that Oswald fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.

If not then at best the CBS experiment imo only proves that a person  can fire an MC rifle 3 times in less than 6 seconds.

Yes, that's both possible and difficult with a bolt action rifle. Oswald wasn't hampered by that time constraint. He could fire his weapon using whatever timeframe he thought gave him the best chance to score a kill shot on JFK. He killed JFK with his third shot which by my analysis was fired 8.9 seconds (163 frames) after his first shot.

 
Is this enough to establish that the TSBD shooter could NOT possibly have fired the MC rifle in less than 7 secs and scored a body hit at Z233 and a head shot at Z312 and in the 1…..2..3 pattern that 75% witness recall?

I'd say it was difficult but not impossible. An additional 3 seconds of time to fire all three shots would make it much more doable. It gives adequate time for aiming the rifle.

Given Dan O’mearas theory that the 3 shot sequence from a TSBD 6th floor shooter begins with the 1st shot as a hit at Z233 and the 2nd shot then 4.8 secs later at Z312, and then the 3rd shot could have been fired as fast as 2 secs later, if not aimed, then it IS possible to replicate the 1….2..3 pattern in 6.5 seconds.

I have yet to see any theory from Dan O'Meara that makes any sense. 

If this assassination was a pre planned shooting to be performed by an expert solitary shooter , then choosing Dealey Plaza as arena , the TSBD 6th floor as the platform, and a moving target situation , is NOT what professional hit man ( or team) would likely do. It’s introducing too many variables.

It was selected because it was the opportunity that was presented to Oswald. It was a crime of opportunity. Had the motorcade not been routed past his workplace, I doubt Oswald would have even attempted the assassination. Since he didn't drive, moving around Dallas with a rifle would have been problematic although he did manage to get to Walker's house and back home with the rifle so I won't say he couldn't have tried. The routing of the motorcade made it much easier for him.

The simple more easy way with less variables would be to select an arena where JFK is standing on a podium giving a speech. And elevation of the shooter nearly at same elevation as the podium. A single FMJ  6.5 or 7.62 bullet laced with cyanide fired at only about 1200 ft /sec velocity ( subsonic ammo) with rifle with a suppressor , would not have been heard at all.

One shot one kill, no rifle left behind , shooter has easier escape.

Such an opportunity presented itself that morning in front of the Ft. Worth hotel. Had plotters selected the shooting location, that would have been a much better one. Oswald didn't select his shooting location. It was dealt to him.

A professional assassin wouldn't have needed a cyanide bullet for one shot, one kill. He would also likely leave behind an untraceable rifle rather than try to flee with it.

So if a conspiracy why did the shooter ( or2) choose  Dealey Plaza and the TSBD 6th floor ?

Good questions. I have yet to see good answers for them.

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is the second part of my reply.

Are you really going to try to claim these are not accurate transcripts of WC testimony. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll be more than happy to find the same testimony in other sources and jam them right up your nose.

This is your juvenile response to my point that you never would have known about that WC testimony if you had not stumbled across on McAdams' old website? Let me make it clear to you: Since you have done little or no reading of primary sources, such as the WC volumes, you would have never known about Frazier and Nicol's testimony if you had not gone desperately searching among pro-WC websites.

This testimony most certainly applies to what we have talked about. You made the false claim that the two large fragments recovered from the limo could not be matched to Oswald's rifle and I presented verbatim testimony that shows you lied about that.

Umm, I said that those fragments cannot be matched to Oswald's alleged ammo via NAA testing, contrary to what Dr. Guinn claimed and contrary to what many WC apologists still falsely assert. I made the point that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo. If you had a lick of objectivity and reasoning ability, these two facts alone would cause you to question the provenance of the two limo fragments.

Let's cut through your smoke and put it this way: Show me where in any of these statements Frazier or Nicol explained the fact that NAA testing did not show that the limo fragments must have come from Oswald's bullets and that it showed they could have come from other bullets. Oh, gee, that's right: Frazier and Nicol testified before NAA testing had been done on any of the fragments.

This is what you do when you've been caught in an obvious lie. You try to divert the conversation to an unrelated issue. NAA testing had nothing to do with the ballistic matching of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. That was done through the long established process of comparing recovered bullets to test bullets fired from a weapon. If the markings are the same, that establishes the recovered bullets and the test bullets were fired from the same weapon. That is how Frazier and Nicol determined the recovered fragments had passed through the barrel of Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

LOL! Umm, okay. You understand that matching markings on bullet fragments, shells, and bullets to a particular rifle barrel is highly subjective, whereas NAA testing is hard science, right? There is no universal numerical measurement or automated threshold for what constitutes "sufficient agreement" between the striations on an evidence bullet/fragment/shell and a test-fired bullet/fragment/shell. Ever heard of the journal Scientific American? In 2022, Scientific American published an article by three criminal science experts titled [/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url] and with the executive summary statement "The matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts."

Just this once, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Let's read some of what the article points out:

In 2003, Donald Kennedy, then editor in chief of the journal Science, wrote an editorial called, “Forensic Science: Oxymoron?” He answered this question, in effect, “yes.” Unfortunately, the answer remains much the same today. Forensic experts continue to employ unproven techniques, and courts continue to accept their testimony largely unchecked. However, courts have recently begun to recognize the scientific limitations of one forensic field: firearms identification, in which an examiner visually compares fired bullets or cartridge cases and opines on whether the items were fired by the same gun. Contrary to its popular reputation, firearms identification is a field built largely on smoke and mirrors.

Firearms examiners suffer from what might be called “Sherlock Holmes Syndrome.” They claim they can “match” a cartridge case or bullet to a specific gun, and thus solve a case. Science is not on their side, however. Few studies of firearms exist and those that do indicate that examiners cannot reliably determine whether bullets or cartridges were fired by a particular gun. ([/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url])

MG: Show me where they explain the fact that the limo fragments are deformed in ways that bear no resemblance to any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Ignoring contrary facts won't make them go away. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first to point out this crucial fact, noting that it is more likely the fragments were from the bullet that hit pavement and that were then sprayed into the limo. Nothing you have presented above even addresses this point.

Another of your pathetic attempts at diversion. The fragments were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.

No, they were not. The subjective "match" done by Frazier and Nicol is not "proof" of anything. See above.

So here's where we stand. Two bullets were positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. You are denying either of these bullets struck JFK. That would mean that none of the bullets that struck JFK and JBC were recovered. How do you explain that. Were they shot with magic disappearing bullets?

No, here's where we stand: You are desperately clinging to the subjective assertion by Frazier and Nicol that they matched striations from CE 399 and the two large limo fragments to those of test bullets fired from the barrel of the alleged murder weapon, and that they matched striations on the three conveniently abandoned shells with the shells of the test bullets.

At the same time, you're still ducking and dodging (1) the fact that every single JFK headshot wound-ballistics test has failed to produce an FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside the skull and that magically deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) the fact that the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test show only a few fragments and show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, (3) the fact that world-renowned forensic pathologists have stated that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone and that on the "rare" occasions when they do fragment, they will  leave only a few fragments, and (4) the fact that the small fragments in the rear outer table of the skull on the JFK skull x-rays could not  have come from an FMJ bullet (at least not on this planet).

That's where we stand.   

MG: Show me where they explain the fact that forensic science has known for decades that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull. This was widely known even in the 1960s, and it has been reaffirmed in forensic sources since then.

This is where you try to demonstrate expertise you don't actually possess.

No, this is where you show you are a dissembling, uneducated lone-gunman apologist who has done no reading in forensic and ballistic sources. I've read a number of books on forensics and ballistics. You have clearly read none.

And this is not to mention the serious, documented, widely discussed problems with the chain of custody and origin of the bullet fragments, the spent shells, and CE 399.

At various times, you have pretended to be a doctor, a ballistics expert, a radiologist, and now you are playing lawyer. You aren't very good at any of these.

Actually, that's what you have done. We'll see in a second that you've even pretended to know more about FMJ bullet behavior than Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger.

MG: Oh, really?! Well, what is your evidence that CE 399 hit anyone during the assassination?

It was recovered from the gurney of one of the victims. How do you suppose it got there. PFM (pure freaking magic)?

LOL! My goodness, you really are caught in a time warp, aren't you? Obviously, you are clueless about the veritable mountain of research that has been done on the glaring contradictions and problems with CE 399's chain of custody and alleged origin. Pretend you have an ounce of objectivity and read this introductory article on some of those contradictions and problems written by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson:

[/url=https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm]"The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?[/url]

This is not to mention the fact that not a single SBT wound-ballistics test has produced a bullet that did the damage claimed for CE 399 and emerged as virtually undamaged as CE 399.

Wow, this should be interesting! No one's ever claimed to have such evidence before. Alert the news media! John "I Don't Need to Be Objective and I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett is going to present evidence that CE 399 hit JFK and/or Connally! This I gotta see.

That conclusion requires common sense, an asset you clearly don't possess. I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution presented us with two bullets recovered from the site of the murder. No attempt was made to prove those two bullets had passed through the victim and the defense wasn't dumb enough to argue that they hadn't. The judge instructed us to use our judgement to make logical inferences (aka common sense) from the evidence presented. We as a jury unanimously convicted the accused because we didn't need anybody to prove to us the bullets placed in evidence had passed through the victim's body.

More drivel. Umm, we don't need to "make logical inferences" about the behavior of FMJ bullets because forensic science has known for decades that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull, much less while also depositing small fragments on the outer table of the skull near the entry point. This isn't inference. It's a statement of fact based on wound-ballistics testing, innumerable gunshot cases, and the overwhelming consensus of forensic science literature.
 

Another one of your overheated juvenile reactions to simple facts that you don't want to hear.

No, this is just another example of your ignorance of long-established facts that refute your version of the shooting.[/b]

In almost 63 years, no one has presented any facts the refute what I know happened on 11/22/1963, although many have tried. Most of them did a better job than you have.

Oh, I'm certain that no facts could cause your mind to reject what you "know" happened. You have no clue what happened. You haven't even read enough to know what your own side's leading apologists have said on many key issues, as we have seen over and over in this forum.

MG: "The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." You still can't even distinguish between bullets and fragments. There were two bullet fragments recovered from the limo, and two groups of scientists proved decades ago that NAA testing does not show that those fragments could have only come from Oswald's ammo, in addition to the fact that the limo fragments appear to have struck pavement first, not skull bone. 

We don't need NAA testing to know the recovered bullet and fragments had been fired by Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Whoof! Ho, ho, ho! So now you're rejecting the science of NAA testing?! Hey, why not?! I mean, you've already dismissed as meaningless the science of wound-ballistics testing, the science of acoustically locating gunfire, and the science of trajectory analysis. So, yeah, why not add NAA testing to your list of worthless scientific methods?!

Is there no level of silliness and self-embarrassment to which you will not sink to cling to your lone-gunman myth?

I know it won't, but this should give you some clue as to why 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman tale.

MG: Still another juvenile dodge. You pretend that I haven't already presented a small mountain of documented evidence that other bullets hit JFK, starting with my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

Really? Whatever happened to those bullets? Were they magic disappearing bullets?

Humm, well, here's a clue for you: Criminals who aren't trying to get caught, and who aren't being framed, well, you see, they make every effort to ensure they don't leave behind a bunch of incriminating evidence in plain sight to be easily found by police; they try to avoid leaving a paper trail that leads right back to them when they acquire their weapons; they don't have pictures taken of themselves holding a murder weapon and then tell police about the garage where those photos are stored; etc., etc. You know, stuff like that.

Also, when a cover-up is being done by certain local police and/or certain federal officers, they will make unwanted extra bullets and fragments disappear (e.g., the bullet that was found in the grass near the manhole cover, the bullet that was contained in the FBI evidence envelope that surfaced among the ARRB releases, and the bullet that Dr. James Young saw at the autopsy); they will alter evidence if they think they need to do so (e.g., the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, which we know for a scientific fact were altered at some point from the end of the autopsy until the time the Clark Panel saw them); they will plant evidence (e.g., the paper bag "gun case"); they will alter witness statements or misrepresent what witnesses said (legions of examples of this have been found, as even Anthony Summers notes); etc., etc.

They would realize that your analysis of all things related to the JFKA is FUBAR.

Oh, wow, a juvenile insult with the pejorative term in all-caps. How old are you, anyway? 16? 14? 12? Seriously, you talk like an enraged teenager who is lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Why don't you start acting like a grown man with at least an ounce of class and decorum?

They would also notice that you still have not offered a shred of evidence for your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all FMJ bullets. You invented this silly dodge to avoid admitting the importance of the JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests and the observations by forensic and ballistics experts about the behavior of FMJ ammo.

You are the one claiming those bullets could not have fragmented in they manner in which they were found. The burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.

LOL! What?! Huh?! Hello? I cited DiMaio and Fillinger on the behavior of standard FMJ rifle bullets, and I cited wound-ballistics tests that confirm their observations. In reply, you made up the nonsensical claims (1) that those forensic experts' statements are wrong because WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other standard FMJ rifle bullets, and (2) that the wound-ballistics tests are worthless because no two standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave in exactly the same manner in every single aspect of their penetration and fragmentation.

Obviously, you have no evidence to back up this fiction. This is why you keep dodging when I ask you to produce your evidence. 

MG: Yes, I have provided a ton of evidence, but you've either ignored it or offered absurd special pleading in response to it.

The problem isn't the evidence you present. The problem is your FUBAR analysis of that evidence.

We both know this is false. Dr. DiMaio's unambiguous observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. Dr. Fillinger's clear observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. Etc., etc., etc.

MG: Oh, were those bullet fragments found in JFK's skull?! We're talking about how FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls, not how they fragment after they leave skulls and hit other objects.

The lead fragments from the bullet's core found inside JFK's skull is ample proof the bullet fragmented before it exited the skull.

LOL! Hashtag "circular reasoning" and "confirmation bias"! We both know the problem here is that you desperately want to avoid admitting that if FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the skull x-rays would not show dozens of tiny fragments, plus two scattered fragments near the right orbit, plus several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull. A standard FMJ rifle bullet simply would not behave in this manner, as forensic and ballistics experts have noted and as wound-ballistics testing has confirmed. 

Let's see: I've cited sources that actually show those x-rays so that anyone can see for themselves that the test bullets did not fragment into dozens of tiny pieces and did not produce fragmentation patterns that even remotely resemble the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays. I've cited forensic experts, including Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger, considered two of the greatest forensic experts in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, who've observed that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside skulls.

Why would you assume all bullets would fragment in the same manner?

A continuation of your silly dodge. Bullets of the same design, i.e., whether FMJ or frangible, will, of course, never fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every aspect of their fragmentation. Nobody says they do -- this is just your juvenile strawman dodge to avoid dealing with evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

In the major aspects of their fragmentation, i.e., the range of the number of fragments they leave, their general fragmentation pattern, and when they begin to fragment in the skull, standard FMJ rifle bullets will fragment in the same manner. You see, that's why there are these things called forensic science and ballistics science. That's why forensic and ballistics sources explain how the various types of bullets behave. Oh, that's right: you say they're all wrong!

MG: I guess in your uneducated, dissembling mind, such scholarly evidence constitutes "nonsense," hey?

I love how you throw the word "scholarly" around to give you posts credence. It's not working.

Humm, so you're saying that Dr. Vincent DiMaio was not a scholar, that Dr. Halbert Fillinger was not a scholar, that Berg, Green, Oura, Brix, Junno, etc, are not scholars?

You proved you don't even know what the word "scholar" means when you cited Dale Myers' farcical SBT trajectory animation and his amateurish, misleading attack on the acoustical evidence. You guys love to cite Pat Speers when it comes to a handful of issues involving evidence alteration and fabrication. Why don't you cite his destruction of Myers' fraudulent SBT trajectory animation? Here it is:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania

MG: Uh-huh, another juvenile dodge and a silly strawman argument. No one says FMJ bullets will never fragment at all. The point is that on the rare when FMJ bullets do fragment, they will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces. Let me refresh your memory yet again by once more quoting what Dr. Vincent DiMaio said on this issue:

It would take hundreds of test firings of FMJ Carcano bullets into a human skull to determine how they might fragment. We only have one case study and that is the JFKA.

And the Earth is flat, right? And Dr. DiMaio must have just made up his observations about standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior, right? And the headshot wound-ballistics tests done by the WC, Lattimer, DeSalles, and Failure Analysis don't count, right? And all the forensic science books that describe the behavior of standard FMJ rifle, hunting, and hollow-point/soft-point/frangible ammo are all wrong because no two bullets will behave in exactly, precisely the same identical manner, right?

BTW, how do you explain the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test show virtually no fragments? Humm? (Some say the x-rays show no fragments at all.) Lattimer used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in his test. Yet, virtually all of the fragments from the bullets exited the skull and were recovered outside the skull -- only a few, if any, of the fragments were deposited inside the skull, as the x-rays of his test skulls prove.

MG: [quoting DiMaio] An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . . (Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

That is based on how other types of FMJ bullets behave on striking a skull.

Says who? Where do you get this? This is just pure wishful thinking on your part. You're just making up nonsense again because you wish DiMaio was talking about "how other types of FMJ bullets behave."

Gee, why didn't DiMaio explain that he was only talking about certain makes of FMJ bullets? Answer: Because he wasn't. Because he was talking about all standard FMJ rifle bullets. We both know that you know this, but you are too dishonest and childish to admit it.

Different makes, diameters, lengths, velocities, etc. It would be very poor science to assume that Carcano bullets would fragment in the same manner as these other bullets.

Oh?! Well, then DiMaio, Fillinger, Green, Berg, Oura, Brix, etc., etc., are all guilty of "poor science" for not explaining that their observations did not apply to all standard FMJ rifle bullets but only to certain makes of standard FMJ rifle bullets, right?!

I'm still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence for your childish dodge that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets. We both know you have no such evidence because WCC FMJ bullets behave like all other standard FMJ rifle bullets. 

MG: [quoting DiMaio] In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds[i/], p. 318, emphasis added)

When you finally felt compelled to address these statements, you committed the baffling gaffe of claiming that DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets, even though, as we see, he twice specified he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

I'll bet you can't find a case study DiMaio did of a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when striking a skull.

Oh! So now you, John Corbett, who can't read English at a high-school level, are saying that Vincent DiMaio, recognized as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of both the 20th and 21st centuries, not only failed to specify that he wasn't talking about WCC FMJ bullets when he described how FMJ rifle bullets behave when they hit skull bone, but his observations about FMJ rifle bullet behavior had no basis in fact, neither in testing nor in actual cases! He just made it all up to sell his book, hey?!   

Like I've said, your replies are a non-stop total clown show.

MG: Your xxxx argument is your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets do not behave like other FMJ bullets. I'm still waiting for you to cough up a shred of evidence to support this desperate claim.

The burden is on you to prove that those bullets DO fragment in the same manner as other types of FMJ bullets. Still waiting. You are a liar.

No, you're just a juvenile in an adult body who's comically and dishonestly grasping and straining to avoid dealing with the overwhelming consensus in forensic science that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, much less "shear off" small fragments onto the outer table of the skull and at a location removed from the entry site.

Logically, the burden is clearly on you to prove your made-up claim that DiMaio was guilty of wrongly describing standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior because, according to you, he was excluding WCC FMJ bullets but for some reason did not mention he was doing so. According to you, DiMaio was guilty of "poor science" for pretending to describe how standard FMJ rifle bullets behave because he was supposedly excluding WCC FMJ bullets, even though WCC had produced many millions of FMJ bullets and even though tens of thousands of those bullets, if not more, were still in use when he wrote his observations.

BTW, Fillinger commented specifically on how WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave when they hit skull bone because he was being interviewed by physicist Howard Roffman about the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, as I have documented for you. And, gee, he said the same thing that DiMaio said about FMJ bullets when they hit skull bone: he said they leave few fragments inside skulls, if they fragment at all inside the skull. Fillinger added that they will never leave fragments at the entry point on the outer table of the skull. He also said FMJ bullets will not even leave "residues" at the margins of the entry point, yet there are two small fragments and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:

The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.

During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)

I'm just waiting for you to cite Dale Myers on this issue as well (since you cited his fraudulent, error-riddled attack on the acoustical evidence).

MG: Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo.

Where is Donahue's proof for his theory?

Umm, the two limo fragments and the two sizeable fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Hello? How can you not know this?

You know that Donahue was a court-certified firearms and ballistics expert, right? You know that Donahue spoke with numerous forensic pathologists as part of his research, right?

MG: I see Nickerson has posted photos of some of the fragments from the WC's headshot test. Notice that not one of them has a large part of its peeled backward by nearly 180 degrees. Certainly some of them are deformed, but not to the degree of the two limo fragments, as Donahue noted.

What kind of dumba$$ would think bullets are going to fragment in the same manner?

What kind of an uneducated juvenile would continue to use this embarrassing strawman dodge? Stuart Fillmore, a former FBI agent who has done his extensive ballistic testing, very politely explained to you that of course no two FMJ rifle bullets are going to fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every single aspect of their fragmentation. No one says that. That's just a juvenile strawman dodge that you've made up to avoid dealing with forensic and ballistics evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

Standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave the same in the same essential way, i.e., in the general range of the number of fragments they leave (few vs. many); the distance they will travel in the skull before they fragment, if they fragment at all; and the skull damage they will cause, depending on the velocity of the rifle that fired them and the distance at which they were fired.

It occurs to me that I should not assume you understand that we are talking about standard FMJ rifle bullets, not light FMJ or medium FMJ bullets, such as the Remington .223 (5.56 NATO) light FMJ bullet that was made for the high-velocity M-16 rifle and the Browning 7.65 mm medium FMJ bullet (which is a pistol bullet). Such FMJ bullets, by virtue of their lighter weight, are designed to fragment -- and, in the case of .223/5.56 light FMJ rifle bullets, this design includes the assumption they will be fired from high-velocity rifles. This is why herein I have frequently used the specific term "standard FMJ rifle bullets" instead of just "FMJ bullets" or "FMJ rifle bullets."

Light FMJ bullets only weigh 35-55 grains, such as the Remington .223 (NATO 5.56), which weighs no more than 55 grains. Medium FMJ bullets, such as the Browning 7.65 FMJ pistol bullet, weigh 60 to 100 grains (the Browning 7.65 FMJ bullet weighs 71 to 73 grains). In contrast, standard FMJ rifle bullets, i.e., the 6.5 mm and 7.62 mm FMJ rifle bullets, weigh 122 to 170 grains (with a few weighing slightly over 200 grains). The 7.62 mm NATO FMJ bullet, described as "the standard military rifle cartridge," weighs 147 grains. The WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet weighs 160-161 grains. Obviously, the heavier the FMJ bullet, the stronger it will be, the slower it will travel, and the deeper it will penetrate without significant deformation. 

As Dr. James Green has explained, the .223/5.56 FMJ bullet made for the U.S. Army's M-16 rifle is the one FMJ rifle bullet that can tumble and fragment upon impact, and even then this requires that the bullet is traveling at a velocity of over 3,000 fps (the M-16's muzzle velocity is 3,150 fps). I discuss this in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which you apparently still have not read.

In their article "Destabilization and Intracranial Fragmentation of a Full Metal Jacket Bullet" in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (2009, 16:7, pp. 400-402) forensic experts Audrey Farrugia (medical examiner), Jean Raul (professor of forensic medicine), Annie Geraut (medical examiner), Marie Tortel (forensic pathologist and anatomopathologist), and Bertrand Ludes (professor of forensic medicine) discuss an "atypical" case involving an FMJ bullet. They start by noting that a bullet's tendency for deformation and fragmentation is an "intended feature of the bullet" and that each type of bullet is "fashioned for this effect by the manufacturers" (p. 400). (But not according to you!)

They continue by noting that "normally" FMJ bullets are "fashioned not to fragment," but that "certain types" of FMJ bullets are "designed" to fragment extensively:

Normally, the total and full metal jackets were fashioned not to fragment. However, certain types of full metal jacket rifle bullets are designed to fragment extensively. Moreover, the bullet’s destabilization in flight by intermediary obstacles can induce a fragmentation of the projectile. We report this case to illustrate this possible phenomenon and to highlight the use of radiography and histopathology for establishing the bullet trajectory. (p. 400)

And what kind of weapon and FMJ bullet were involved in this "atypical" FMJ bullet case? The weapon was a pistol, and the bullet was a 7.65 mm FMJ bullet:

The concerned weapon was a semi-automatic pistol with 7.65 mm full metal jacket cartridge. (p. 401)

Again, the Browning 7.65 mm FMJ pistol bullet weighs only 71-73 grains. Your average standard FMJ rifle bullet weighs 122 to 180 grains. Your supposed lone gunman allegedly used bullets that weighed 160-161 grains.

In their article "Fractures Due to Gunshot Wounds" in the Iowa Orthpaedic Journal (2015, volume 35), John T. Riehl, Keith Connolly, George Haidukewych, and Ken Koval note that only certain FMJ ammo is known to fragment after impact, and, lo and behold, the only example they cite is the high-velocity M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet. After noting that investigations have "clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets," i.e., hollow-point/soft-point/frangible bullets, "even certain jacketed ammo" is known to fragment within tissue, and again, the only example they cite is the M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet:

Hollow point bullets, which use a soft, pliable core with a pit at the bullet point, allow for rapid expansion of the bullet upon impact and a significantly larger destructive path, magnified up to four times in the generation of the temporary cavity. By making a larger cavity in soft tissue, this type of ammunition expends more energy in the target and prevents over penetration. However, when such projectiles hit bone, they often fragment into multiple smaller pieces that are often retained in the fracture site. Figures 1a and 1b show radiographic evidence consistent with a hollow point bullet injury. Although investigations have clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets, even certain jacketed ammunition has been notorious for fragmenting within tissue. The M-16 5.56 mm round may lose one-third of its mass through bullet fragments within its target. (p. 55)

And notice that even in the case of the high-velocity M-16 5.56/.223 FMJ bullet, which is designed to fragment, the authors put the maximum fragmentation at one-third of its mass. In contrast, they note that expanding bullets, i.e., frangible/hollow-point/soft-point bullets, "often fragment into multiple smaller pieces."

Another known exception to standard FMJ bullet behavior was found in a 2023 ballistics test involving a standard FMJ rifle bullet that weighed 149.6 grains and that was fired from a high-velocity sporting rifle. I'm referring to the Oura-Niinimäki-Brix-Lammentausta-Liimatainen-A.Junno-T.Junno 2023 ballistics test reported in the July 2023 edition of the International Journal of Legal Medicine (pp. 671-676). In this test, a 149.6-grain Norma Jaktmatch FMJ bullet was fired from a high-velocity rifle and fragmented because it hit the target after traveling only 15 feet. 

In the test, three bullets were fired into 250 mm x 250 mm (9.8 inch x 9.8 inch) 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 bullets were the Norma Jaktmatch FMJ 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 scientists who conducted the test found it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact:

For both expanding bullets, Ecostrike and Oryx, the fragments were clearly smaller than those left behind by the full metal-jacketed Jaktmatch. This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact.

Now, gee, why did the seven scientists who conducted this ballistics test expect the FMJ bullet "to remain intact"? Humm? Gee, how about that? Gosh, what could have led those scientists to find it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet did not remain intact?

The scientists attributed the FMJ bullet's unexpected behavior to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance, which prevented it from stabilizing properly: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

Now, yes, the test bullets did not hit a skull before transiting the gelatin. However, even though both the FMJ bullet and the frangible bullet were fired from a high-velocity rifle into a block of ballistics gelatin from only 15 feet away, the FMJ bullet broke into far fewer fragments than did the soft-point bullet, left much larger fragments than did the soft-point bullet, and created a much smaller fragment cloud than did the soft-point bullet. Humm, sound familiar? 

[John Corbett]

This is the second part of my reply.

This is your juvenile response to my point that you never would have known about that WC testimony if you had not stumbled across on McAdams' old website? Let me make it clear to you: Since you have done little or no reading of primary sources, such as the WC volumes, you would have never known about Frazier and Nicol's testimony if you had not gone desperately searching among pro-WC websites.

Umm, I said that those fragments cannot be matched to Oswald's alleged ammo via NAA testing, contrary to what Dr. Guinn claimed and contrary to what many WC apologists still falsely assert. I made the point that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo. If you had a lick of objectivity and reasoning ability, these two facts alone would cause you to question the provenance of the two limo fragments.

LOL! Umm, okay. You understand that matching markings on bullet fragments, shells, and bullets to a particular rifle barrel is highly subjective, whereas NAA testing is hard science, right? There is no universal numerical measurement or automated threshold for what constitutes "sufficient agreement" between the striations on an evidence bullet/fragment/shell and a test-fired bullet/fragment/shell. Ever heard of the journal Scientific American? In 2022, Scientific American published an article by three criminal science experts titled [/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url] and with the executive summary statement "The matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts."

Just this once, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Let's read some of what the article points out:

In 2003, Donald Kennedy, then editor in chief of the journal Science, wrote an editorial called, “Forensic Science: Oxymoron?” He answered this question, in effect, “yes.” Unfortunately, the answer remains much the same today. Forensic experts continue to employ unproven techniques, and courts continue to accept their testimony largely unchecked. However, courts have recently begun to recognize the scientific limitations of one forensic field: firearms identification, in which an examiner visually compares fired bullets or cartridge cases and opines on whether the items were fired by the same gun. Contrary to its popular reputation, firearms identification is a field built largely on smoke and mirrors.

Firearms examiners suffer from what might be called “Sherlock Holmes Syndrome.” They claim they can “match” a cartridge case or bullet to a specific gun, and thus solve a case. Science is not on their side, however. Few studies of firearms exist and those that do indicate that examiners cannot reliably determine whether bullets or cartridges were fired by a particular gun. ([/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url])

No, they were not. The subjective "match" done by Frazier and Nicol is not "proof" of anything. See above.

No, here's where we stand: You are desperately clinging to the subjective assertion by Frazier and Nicol that they matched striations from CE 399 and the two large limo fragments to those of test bullets fired from the barrel of the alleged murder weapon, and that they matched striations on the three conveniently abandoned shells with the shells of the test bullets.

At the same time, you're still ducking and dodging (1) the fact that every single JFK headshot wound-ballistics test has failed to produce an FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside the skull and that magically deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) the fact that the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test show only a few fragments and show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, (3) the fact that world-renowned forensic pathologists have stated that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone and that on the "rare" occasions when they do fragment, they will  leave only a few fragments, and (4) the fact that the small fragments in the rear outer table of the skull on the JFK skull x-rays could not  have come from an FMJ bullet (at least not on this planet).

That's where we stand.   

No, this is where you show you are a dissembling, uneducated lone-gunman apologist who has done no reading in forensic and ballistic sources. I've read a number of books on forensics and ballistics. You have clearly read none.

Actually, that's what you have done. We'll see in a second that you've even pretended to know more about FMJ bullet behavior than Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger.

LOL! My goodness, you really are caught in a time warp, aren't you? Obviously, you are clueless about the veritable mountain of research that has been done on the glaring contradictions and problems with CE 399's chain of custody and alleged origin. Pretend you have an ounce of objectivity and read this introductory article on some of those contradictions and problems written by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson:

[/url=https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm]"The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?[/url]

This is not to mention the fact that not a single SBT wound-ballistics test has produced a bullet that did the damage claimed for CE 399 and emerged as virtually undamaged as CE 399.

More drivel. Umm, we don't need to "make logical inferences" about the behavior of FMJ bullets because forensic science has known for decades that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull, much less while also depositing small fragments on the outer table of the skull near the entry point. This isn't inference. It's a statement of fact based on wound-ballistics testing, innumerable gunshot cases, and the overwhelming consensus of forensic science literature.
 
Oh, I'm certain that no facts could cause your mind to reject what you "know" happened. You have no clue what happened. You haven't even read enough to know what your own side's leading apologists have said on many key issues, as we have seen over and over in this forum.

Whoof! Ho, ho, ho! So now you're rejecting the science of NAA testing?! Hey, why not?! I mean, you've already dismissed as meaningless the science of wound-ballistics testing, the science of acoustically locating gunfire, and the science of trajectory analysis. So, yeah, why not add NAA testing to your list of worthless scientific methods?!

Is there no level of silliness and self-embarrassment to which you will not sink to cling to your lone-gunman myth?

I know it won't, but this should give you some clue as to why 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman tale.

Humm, well, here's a clue for you: Criminals who aren't trying to get caught, and who aren't being framed, well, you see, they make every effort to ensure they don't leave behind a bunch of incriminating evidence in plain sight to be easily found by police; they try to avoid leaving a paper trail that leads right back to them when they acquire their weapons; they don't have pictures taken of themselves holding a murder weapon and then tell police about the garage where those photos are stored; etc., etc. You know, stuff like that.

Also, when a cover-up is being done by certain local police and/or certain federal officers, they will make unwanted extra bullets and fragments disappear (e.g., the bullet that was found in the grass near the manhole cover, the bullet that was contained in the FBI evidence envelope that surfaced among the ARRB releases, and the bullet that Dr. James Young saw at the autopsy); they will alter evidence if they think they need to do so (e.g., the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, which we know for a scientific fact were altered at some point from the end of the autopsy until the time the Clark Panel saw them); they will plant evidence (e.g., the paper bag "gun case"); they will alter witness statements or misrepresent what witnesses said (legions of examples of this have been found, as even Anthony Summers notes); etc., etc.

Oh, wow, a juvenile insult with the pejorative term in all-caps. How old are you, anyway? 16? 14? 12? Seriously, you talk like an enraged teenager who is lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Why don't you start acting like a grown man with at least an ounce of class and decorum?

LOL! What?! Huh?! Hello? I cited DiMaio and Fillinger on the behavior of standard FMJ rifle bullets, and I cited wound-ballistics tests that confirm their observations. In reply, you made up the nonsensical claims (1) that those forensic experts' statements are wrong because WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other standard FMJ rifle bullets, and (2) that the wound-ballistics tests are worthless because no two standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave in exactly the same manner in every single aspect of their penetration and fragmentation.

Obviously, you have no evidence to back up this fiction. This is why you keep dodging when I ask you to produce your evidence. 

We both know this is false. Dr. DiMaio's unambiguous observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. Dr. Fillinger's clear observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. Etc., etc., etc.

LOL! Hashtag "circular reasoning" and "confirmation bias"! We both know the problem here is that you desperately want to avoid admitting that if FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the skull x-rays would not show dozens of tiny fragments, plus two scattered fragments near the right orbit, plus several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull. A standard FMJ rifle bullet simply would not behave in this manner, as forensic and ballistics experts have noted and as wound-ballistics testing has confirmed. 

A continuation of your silly dodge. Bullets of the same design, i.e., whether FMJ or frangible, will, of course, never fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every aspect of their fragmentation. Nobody says they do -- this is just your juvenile strawman dodge to avoid dealing with evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

In the major aspects of their fragmentation, i.e., the range of the number of fragments they leave, their general fragmentation pattern, and when they begin to fragment in the skull, standard FMJ rifle bullets will fragment in the same manner. You see, that's why there are these things called forensic science and ballistics science. That's why forensic and ballistics sources explain how the various types of bullets behave. Oh, that's right: you say they're all wrong!

Humm, so you're saying that Dr. Vincent DiMaio was not a scholar, that Dr. Halbert Fillinger was not a scholar, that Berg, Green, Oura, Brix, Junno, etc, are not scholars?

You proved you don't even know what the word "scholar" means when you cited Dale Myers' farcical SBT trajectory animation and his amateurish, misleading attack on the acoustical evidence. You guys love to cite Pat Speers when it comes to a handful of issues involving evidence alteration and fabrication. Why don't you cite his destruction of Myers' fraudulent SBT trajectory animation? Here it is:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania

And the Earth is flat, right? And Dr. DiMaio must have just made up his observations about standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior, right? And the headshot wound-ballistics tests done by the WC, Lattimer, DeSalles, and Failure Analysis don't count, right? And all the forensic science books that describe the behavior of standard FMJ rifle, hunting, and hollow-point/soft-point/frangible ammo are all wrong because no two bullets will behave in exactly, precisely the same identical manner, right?

BTW, how do you explain the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test show virtually no fragments? Humm? (Some say the x-rays show no fragments at all.) Lattimer used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in his test. Yet, virtually all of the fragments from the bullets exited the skull and were recovered outside the skull -- only a few, if any, of the fragments were deposited inside the skull, as the x-rays of his test skulls prove.

Says who? Where do you get this? This is just pure wishful thinking on your part. You're just making up nonsense again because you wish DiMaio was talking about "how other types of FMJ bullets behave."

Gee, why didn't DiMaio explain that he was only talking about certain makes of FMJ bullets? Answer: Because he wasn't. Because he was talking about all standard FMJ rifle bullets. We both know that you know this, but you are too dishonest and childish to admit it.

Oh?! Well, then DiMaio, Fillinger, Green, Berg, Oura, Brix, etc., etc., are all guilty of "poor science" for not explaining that their observations did not apply to all standard FMJ rifle bullets but only to certain makes of standard FMJ rifle bullets, right?!

I'm still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence for your childish dodge that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets. We both know you have no such evidence because WCC FMJ bullets behave like all other standard FMJ rifle bullets. 

Oh! So now you, John Corbett, who can't read English at a high-school level, are saying that Vincent DiMaio, recognized as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of both the 20th and 21st centuries, not only failed to specify that he wasn't talking about WCC FMJ bullets when he described how FMJ rifle bullets behave when they hit skull bone, but his observations about FMJ rifle bullet behavior had no basis in fact, neither in testing nor in actual cases! He just made it all up to sell his book, hey?!   

Like I've said, your replies are a non-stop total clown show.

No, you're just a juvenile in an adult body who's comically and dishonestly grasping and straining to avoid dealing with the overwhelming consensus in forensic science that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, much less "shear off" small fragments onto the outer table of the skull and at a location removed from the entry site.

Logically, the burden is clearly on you to prove your made-up claim that DiMaio was guilty of wrongly describing standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior because, according to you, he was excluding WCC FMJ bullets but for some reason did not mention he was doing so. According to you, DiMaio was guilty of "poor science" for pretending to describe how standard FMJ rifle bullets behave because he was supposedly excluding WCC FMJ bullets, even though WCC had produced many millions of FMJ bullets and even though tens of thousands of those bullets, if not more, were still in use when he wrote his observations.

BTW, Fillinger commented specifically on how WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave when they hit skull bone because he was being interviewed by physicist Howard Roffman about the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, as I have documented for you. And, gee, he said the same thing that DiMaio said about FMJ bullets when they hit skull bone: he said they leave few fragments inside skulls, if they fragment at all inside the skull. Fillinger added that they will never leave fragments at the entry point on the outer table of the skull. He also said FMJ bullets will not even leave "residues" at the margins of the entry point, yet there are two small fragments and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:

The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.

During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)

I'm just waiting for you to cite Dale Myers on this issue as well (since you cited his fraudulent, error-riddled attack on the acoustical evidence).

Umm, the two limo fragments and the two sizeable fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Hello? How can you not know this?

You know that Donahue was a court-certified firearms and ballistics expert, right? You know that Donahue spoke with numerous forensic pathologists as part of his research, right?

What kind of an uneducated juvenile would continue to use this embarrassing strawman dodge? Stuart Fillmore, a former FBI agent who has done his extensive ballistic testing, very politely explained to you that of course no two FMJ rifle bullets are going to fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every single aspect of their fragmentation. No one says that. That's just a juvenile strawman dodge that you've made up to avoid dealing with forensic and ballistics evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

Standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave the same in the same essential way, i.e., in the general range of the number of fragments they leave (few vs. many); the distance they will travel in the skull before they fragment, if they fragment at all; and the skull damage they will cause, depending on the velocity of the rifle that fired them and the distance at which they were fired.

It occurs to me that I should not assume you understand that we are talking about standard FMJ rifle bullets, not light FMJ or medium FMJ bullets, such as the Remington .223 (5.56 NATO) light FMJ bullet that was made for the high-velocity M-16 rifle and the Browning 7.65 mm medium FMJ bullet (which is a pistol bullet). Such FMJ bullets, by virtue of their lighter weight, are designed to fragment -- and, in the case of .223/5.56 light FMJ rifle bullets, this design includes the assumption they will be fired from high-velocity rifles. This is why herein I have frequently used the specific term "standard FMJ rifle bullets" instead of just "FMJ bullets" or "FMJ rifle bullets."

Light FMJ bullets only weigh 35-55 grains, such as the Remington .223 (NATO 5.56), which weighs no more than 55 grains. Medium FMJ bullets, such as the Browning 7.65 FMJ pistol bullet, weigh 60 to 100 grains (the Browning 7.65 FMJ bullet weighs 71 to 73 grains). In contrast, standard FMJ rifle bullets, i.e., the 6.5 mm and 7.62 mm FMJ rifle bullets, weigh 122 to 170 grains (with a few weighing slightly over 200 grains). The 7.62 mm NATO FMJ bullet, described as "the standard military rifle cartridge," weighs 147 grains. The WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet weighs 160-161 grains. Obviously, the heavier the FMJ bullet, the stronger it will be, the slower it will travel, and the deeper it will penetrate without significant deformation. 

As Dr. James Green has explained, the .223/5.56 FMJ bullet made for the U.S. Army's M-16 rifle is the one FMJ rifle bullet that can tumble and fragment upon impact, and even then this requires that the bullet is traveling at a velocity of over 3,000 fps (the M-16's muzzle velocity is 3,150 fps). I discuss this in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which you apparently still have not read.

In their article "Destabilization and Intracranial Fragmentation of a Full Metal Jacket Bullet" in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (2009, 16:7, pp. 400-402) forensic experts Audrey Farrugia (medical examiner), Jean Raul (professor of forensic medicine), Annie Geraut (medical examiner), Marie Tortel (forensic pathologist and anatomopathologist), and Bertrand Ludes (professor of forensic medicine) discuss an "atypical" case involving an FMJ bullet. They start by noting that a bullet's tendency for deformation and fragmentation is an "intended feature of the bullet" and that each type of bullet is "fashioned for this effect by the manufacturers" (p. 400). (But not according to you!)

They continue by noting that "normally" FMJ bullets are "fashioned not to fragment," but that "certain types" of FMJ bullets are "designed" to fragment extensively:

Normally, the total and full metal jackets were fashioned not to fragment. However, certain types of full metal jacket rifle bullets are designed to fragment extensively. Moreover, the bullet’s destabilization in flight by intermediary obstacles can induce a fragmentation of the projectile. We report this case to illustrate this possible phenomenon and to highlight the use of radiography and histopathology for establishing the bullet trajectory. (p. 400)

And what kind of weapon and FMJ bullet were involved in this "atypical" FMJ bullet case? The weapon was a pistol, and the bullet was a 7.65 mm FMJ bullet:

The concerned weapon was a semi-automatic pistol with 7.65 mm full metal jacket cartridge. (p. 401)

Again, the Browning 7.65 mm FMJ pistol bullet weighs only 71-73 grains. Your average standard FMJ rifle bullet weighs 122 to 180 grains. Your supposed lone gunman allegedly used bullets that weighed 160-161 grains.

In their article "Fractures Due to Gunshot Wounds" in the Iowa Orthpaedic Journal (2015, volume 35), John T. Riehl, Keith Connolly, George Haidukewych, and Ken Koval note that only certain FMJ ammo is known to fragment after impact, and, lo and behold, the only example they cite is the high-velocity M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet. After noting that investigations have "clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets," i.e., hollow-point/soft-point/frangible bullets, "even certain jacketed ammo" is known to fragment within tissue, and again, the only example they cite is the M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet:

Hollow point bullets, which use a soft, pliable core with a pit at the bullet point, allow for rapid expansion of the bullet upon impact and a significantly larger destructive path, magnified up to four times in the generation of the temporary cavity. By making a larger cavity in soft tissue, this type of ammunition expends more energy in the target and prevents over penetration. However, when such projectiles hit bone, they often fragment into multiple smaller pieces that are often retained in the fracture site. Figures 1a and 1b show radiographic evidence consistent with a hollow point bullet injury. Although investigations have clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets, even certain jacketed ammunition has been notorious for fragmenting within tissue. The M-16 5.56 mm round may lose one-third of its mass through bullet fragments within its target. (p. 55)

And notice that even in the case of the high-velocity M-16 5.56/.223 FMJ bullet, which is designed to fragment, the authors put the maximum fragmentation at one-third of its mass. In contrast, they note that expanding bullets, i.e., frangible/hollow-point/soft-point bullets, "often fragment into multiple smaller pieces."

Another known exception to standard FMJ bullet behavior was found in a 2023 ballistics test involving a standard FMJ rifle bullet that weighed 149.6 grains and that was fired from a high-velocity sporting rifle. I'm referring to the Oura-Niinimäki-Brix-Lammentausta-Liimatainen-A.Junno-T.Junno 2023 ballistics test reported in the July 2023 edition of the International Journal of Legal Medicine (pp. 671-676). In this test, a 149.6-grain Norma Jaktmatch FMJ bullet was fired from a high-velocity rifle and fragmented because it hit the target after traveling only 15 feet. 

In the test, three bullets were fired into 250 mm x 250 mm (9.8 inch x 9.8 inch) 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 bullets were the Norma Jaktmatch FMJ 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 scientists who conducted the test found it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact:

For both expanding bullets, Ecostrike and Oryx, the fragments were clearly smaller than those left behind by the full metal-jacketed Jaktmatch. This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact.

Now, gee, why did the seven scientists who conducted this ballistics test expect the FMJ bullet "to remain intact"? Humm? Gee, how about that? Gosh, what could have led those scientists to find it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet did not remain intact?

The scientists attributed the FMJ bullet's unexpected behavior to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance, which prevented it from stabilizing properly: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

Now, yes, the test bullets did not hit a skull before transiting the gelatin. However, even though both the FMJ bullet and the frangible bullet were fired from a high-velocity rifle into a block of ballistics gelatin from only 15 feet away, the FMJ bullet broke into far fewer fragments than did the soft-point bullet, left much larger fragments than did the soft-point bullet, and created a much smaller fragment cloud than did the soft-point bullet. Humm, sound familiar?

Another of MTG's long winded novellas in which he tries to make up for in quantity what his posts lack in quality. I will give a Cliff Notes response, addressing just the silliest of the arguments he has made.

He starts off by disparaging my choice of McAdams' assassination witness page as a source for witness testimony. He insinuates, without actually saying, that the McAdams webpage is not a reliable source. That's what internet trolls do. They always leave themselves an escape hatch so they can deny they actually said what they were clearly suggesting.

Then he goes on to suggest that my only source of knowledge of the JFKA is McAdams website. This ignores the fact I was regularly kicking his a$$ on the old Prodigy system 35 years ago, long before I ever heard of John McAdams. He was spewing the same crap back then that he is now and it hasn't improved with age. His arguments were clay pigeons then and are clay pigeons now. There isn't much sport in shooting them down.

Then he denies saying the bullet fragments couldn't be matched to Oswald's rifle by saying he was talking about the NAA matching. Then, a few minutes later he quotes this statement:
"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url] and with the executive summary statementThe matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts."

Ballistic matching has long been accepted by our courts as a valid method of determining whether a particular bullet came from a particular firearm and remains so to this day. It is considered as reliable as fingerprint evidence. Even if his dubious claim that this sort of matching is not 100% definitive were true, it would be the most remarkable of coincidences if the markings on the limo fragments matched the test bullets if they had not been fired by the same weapon, just as it would be a remarkable coincidence if the fibers on the butt plate of the rifle and the fibers found in the rifle bag would match Oswald's shirt and rifle blanket if they had come from a different source.

Then he insinuates, without saying, that the Guinn's NAA testing on bullet fragments recovered from the limo, JFK, JBC as well as CE399 did not produce a match. In fact the NAA testing showed they did match. If anything has changed, it is that like fiber matching, NAA testing is not 100% conclusive that the matched items came from the same source. As with the fiber evidence, it would be amazing if these matching fragments had coincidentally matched if they had not come from the same source. It has long been a practice of CTs to dismiss highly probative evidence of Oswald's guilt if that evidence is not 100% conclusive. It's the excuse they need to dismiss evidence of Oswald's guilt. But MTG will proudly tout the fact BBN determined with 91% probability that the acoustics evidence showed their was a shooter on the GK. Never mind that they were evaluating their own work. I wish my teachers in high school would have let me grade my own work. I would have gotten straight A's.

Later on he claimed I reject NAA testing because I said the ballistic matching alone proves the limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle. On the contrary, I accept the NAA testing which contrary to MTG's suggestion, DID MATCH the various fragments. The fact that such matching is not 100% conclusive doesn't change the fact they did match.

He demand that I produce an example of another FMJ Carcano bullet that fragmented the way the bullet recovered from the limo did, even thought the JFKA is the only case study we have of how such a bullet would behave when striking a human skull. It is a one of one example.

He proudly states "I've read a number of books on forensics and ballistics." as if that makes him an expert. Reading a book and understanding it are not one and the same, especially when one does the reading through the distorting lens of conspiracy.

His answer to my question of what happened to the bullets that struck JFK if it was not CE399  nor the fragments found in the limo was one of the most comical statements he has ever made. He wrote:

"Criminals who aren't trying to get caught, and who aren't being framed, well, you see, they make every effort to ensure they don't leave behind a bunch of incriminating evidence in plain sight to be easily found by police"

Are we supposed to believe that the person who fired the shots that killed JFK would have then retrieved the bullets from those shots so as to not leave behind incriminating evidence?
He has taken comic relief to a whole new level with that statement.

The above is just a smattering of MTG's ridiculous (and funny) arguments. Even trying to present the Cliff Notes rebuttal I have already spent way more time on this than I intended. I'll save further comments for another post. I'm sure MTG will provide plenty more easy targets in his future posts.