JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on August 26, 2026, 11:19:18 PM
-
For those who might be interested, I have web-published a revised and expanded version of my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." Here is the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing
This is the fourth edition of the article.
-
For those who might be interested, I have web-published a revised and expanded version of my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." Here is the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing
This is the fourth edition of the article.
Dear Michael T. "Useful Idiot" Griffith,
Speaking of heads, perhaps you should have yours examined.
-- Tom
-
For those who might be interested, I have web-published a revised and expanded version of my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." Here is the link:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jYMrT9P4ab2BtENAqI_0dQSEY6IJWczi/view?usp=sharing
This is the fourth edition of the article.
Nobody cares, at least not coming from an amateur like yourself with zero training or experience in the field of forensic medicine.
Why did you need a fourth edition? Did the first three suck?
-
Dear Michael T. "Useful Idiot" Griffith,
Speaking of heads, perhaps you should have yours examined.
-- Tom
Nobody cares, at least not coming from an amateur like yourself with zero training or experience in the field of forensic medicine.
Why did you need a fourth edition? Did the first three suck?
Of course these two oddballs immediately dismiss the article, clearly without bothering to read it.
As some here may know, Corbett has proven he can't even read English at a high-school level, while Graves continues to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a witting or unwitting Russian asset. It's a tossup as to which one of them is the oddest and farthest on the fringe.
Graves goes back and forth between calling me "Comrade" (a witting Russian asset) and "Useful Idiot" (an unwitting Russian asset).
But at least Graves is able to understand English at a high-school level, whereas Corbett has committed astounding gaffes because he failed to comprehend even short quoted statements that were presented to him numerous times.
-
Of course these two oddballs immediately dismiss the article, clearly without bothering to read it.
If you are familiar with the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, you have your answer as to why we didn't bother to read it.
As some here may know, Corbett has proven he can't even read English at a high-school level, while Graves continues to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a witting or unwitting Russian asset. It's a tossup as to which one of them is the oddest and farthest on the fringe.
Now there are some impressive arguments for a JFKA conspiracy.
Graves goes back and forth between calling me "Comrade" (a witting Russian asset) and "Useful Idiot" (an unwitting Russian asset).
But at least Graves is able to understand English at a high-school level, whereas Corbett has committed astounding gaffes because he failed to comprehend even short quoted statements that were presented to him numerous times.
I will confess that your arguments make no sense to me.
-
Graves goes back and forth between calling me "Comrade" (a witting Russian asset) and "Useful Idiot" (an unwitting Russian asset).
Dear Comrade Michael T. "Useful Idiot" Griffith,
Thanks for throwing the "unwitting" in there.
I may start to like you, yet, Comrade.
-- Tom
-
Head shot fragments hit JCs upheld wrist, AKA top of wrist. Nelly said she thought the third shot is the one that hit his wrist. Head fragment removes a possibility of slug shedding tiny fragments within the skull.
-
Head shot fragments hit JCs upheld wrist, AKA top of wrist. Nelly said she thought the third shot is the one that hit his wrist. Head fragment removes a possibility of slug shedding tiny fragments within the skull.
Is that the way it happened in your Bizzaro Universe.
-
As part of an ongoing project testing the forensic/ballistic elements of the assassination. I’ve done extensive and redundant ballistic testing, trajectory analysis and forensic reconstructions. To test the head shot trajectory and fragmentation pattern, I shot three intact pig’s heads. I had pre and post X-rays taken. Using surplus 6.5 Carcano on one of the heads, the shot did not explode the head and left a relatively small exit hole (8-9mm) with minor skull fracturing. A witness panel 2 feet behind the head revealed only a slight yaw and the x-ray showed no fragmentation/jacket separation. The maintained its trajectory through the skull into the witness panel. Then using .257 Roberts with a thin jacketed sierra matchking projectile at 3300 fps, it took out the occipital skull and most of the brain with it. It left the characteristic lead snowstorm on the x-ray and the smallest of fragments on the witness panel.
I was a little uncertain as to the cortical thickness of the skull so I did a separate test shooting a 7 mm thick pork shoulder blade embedded on one end of a 8 inch ballistic gel block and pork ribs on the other end. The Carcano round made a 6 mm round hole in the shoulder blade, cut a straight path through the ballistic gel, and clipped the edge of one if the ribs leaving a perfect semi circle. The witness panel again showed a slight yaw and no fragmentation/jacket separation whatsoever with no deviation in trajectory.
I’ve long been skeptical of the trajectories of CE 567 and 569, so that was the purpose of the test—but I couldn’t get the Carcano jacket to shear.
-
As part of an ongoing project testing the forensic/ballistic elements of the assassination. I’ve done extensive and redundant ballistic testing, trajectory analysis and forensic reconstructions. To test the head shot trajectory and fragmentation pattern, I shot three intact pig’s heads. I had pre and post X-rays taken. Using surplus 6.5 Carcano on one of the heads, the shot did not explode the head and left a relatively small exit hole (8-9mm) with minor skull fracturing. A witness panel 2 feet behind the head revealed only a slight yaw and the x-ray showed no fragmentation/jacket separation. The maintained its trajectory through the skull into the witness panel. Then using .257 Roberts with a thin jacketed sierra matchking projectile at 3300 fps, it took out the occipital skull and most of the brain with it. It left the characteristic lead snowstorm on the x-ray and the smallest of fragments on the witness panel.
I was a little uncertain as to the cortical thickness of the skull so I did a separate test shooting a 7 mm thick pork shoulder blade embedded on one end of a 8 inch ballistic gel block and pork ribs on the other end. The Carcano round made a 6 mm round hole in the shoulder blade, cut a straight path through the ballistic gel, and clipped the edge of one if the ribs leaving a perfect semi circle. The witness panel again showed a slight yaw and no fragmentation/jacket separation whatsoever with no deviation in trajectory.
I’ve long been skeptical of the trajectories of CE 567 and 569, so that was the purpose of the test—but I couldn’t get the Carcano jacket to shear.
I have said for a long time that no shooting can be perfectly replicated. There are simply too many variables. Even if a pig skull replicates JFK's skull, which of course it doesn't, even a slight change in the angle of entry could produce an entirely different result. A recreation can show what MIGHT have happened but it can never prove what did happen. You could do your experiment 100 times and you would likely get 100 different results. Some of them might be very similar, but none are going to be identical.
The proof of what CAN happen when a 6.5 X 52mm Carcano bullet strikes a human skull lay on the floor of the presidential limo and in the photos and x-rays of JFK's skull. There is no evidence of any other type of bullet having been fired at JFK that day. 3 spent shells were found on the 6th floor of the TSBD that were positively matched to the rifle found a short distance away and that rifle was positively matched to CE399 found at Parkland and to two of the fragments found on the floor of the limo. It doesn't take Columbo to figure out the fragmented bullet found on the floor of the limo was the one that struck JFK's skull and also cracked the windshield and dented the frame. For that to possible, it only needed to happen once. It does not need to be duplicated.
-
As part of an ongoing project testing the forensic/ballistic elements of the assassination. I’ve done extensive and redundant ballistic testing, trajectory analysis and forensic reconstructions. To test the head shot trajectory and fragmentation pattern, I shot three intact pig’s heads. I had pre and post X-rays taken. Using surplus 6.5 Carcano on one of the heads, the shot did not explode the head and left a relatively small exit hole (8-9mm) with minor skull fracturing. A witness panel 2 feet behind the head revealed only a slight yaw and the x-ray showed no fragmentation/jacket separation. The maintained its trajectory through the skull into the witness panel.
Yes, this is always how FMJ bullets behave when they hit skull bone. They will never shatter into dozens of tiny fragments, much less do so and then also shear off fragments at the entry site. This has been confirmed in numerous wound-ballistics tests.
Then using .257 Roberts with a thin jacketed sierra matchking projectile at 3300 fps, it took out the occipital skull and most of the brain with it. It left the characteristic lead snowstorm on the x-ray and the smallest of fragments on the witness panel.
Yes, indeed. The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved in a very similar manner, i.e., like high-velocity frangible ammo.
I was a little uncertain as to the cortical thickness of the skull so I did a separate test shooting a 7 mm thick pork shoulder blade embedded on one end of a 8 inch ballistic gel block and pork ribs on the other end. The Carcano round made a 6 mm round hole in the shoulder blade, cut a straight path through the ballistic gel, and clipped the edge of one if the ribs leaving a perfect semi circle. The witness panel again showed a slight yaw and no fragmentation/jacket separation whatsoever with no deviation in trajectory.
In contrast, the non-fatal bullet that hit Governor Connally left fragments in his chest, wrist, and thigh, and it also veered leftward and downward.
I’ve long been skeptical of the trajectories of CE 567 and 569, so that was the purpose of the test—but I couldn’t get the Carcano jacket to shear.
Yes, forensic literature indicates that the only time an FMJ bullet may shear off its jacket is if it is fired from a very short distance from a high-velocity rifle and does not have time to stabilize its flight.
Thank you for sharing this interesting information.
-
Head shot fragments hit JCs upheld wrist, AKA top of wrist. Nelly said she thought the third shot is the one that hit his wrist. Head fragment removes a possibility of slug shedding tiny fragments within the skull.
What is your source for saying that Nellie "said she thought the third shot is the one that hit his wrist"?
-
In contrast, the non-fatal bullet that hit Governor Connally left fragments in his chest, wrist, and thigh, and it also veered leftward and downward
I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony. But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg. The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants. Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record. For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range. Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape. And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires. The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.
-
I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony. But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg. The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants. Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record. For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range. Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape. And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires. The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.
Why would you expect you reenactment of the shooting to produce exactly the same result as the actual shootiing?
-
Why would you expect you reenactment of the shooting to produce exactly the same result as the actual shootiing?
I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting. I never claimed it did. But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions. Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests.
I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally. I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with. The work is actually fun to me. I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions. I’m currently working on the head shot. Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.
-
I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony. But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg.
I recall reading that there was one small fragment in Connally's chest, but I can't remember the source off the top of my head.
The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants. Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record. For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range. Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape. And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires. The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.
Very interesting. I agree that your research raises further doubts about the claim that the alleged bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) shattered the wrist bone.
Are you familiar with the 1967 CBS wound-ballistics test that tried to validate the SBT? They fired FMJ bullets through a block of ballistics gelatin to see if they would then shatter cadaver wrists and then penetrate into a simulated thigh. They did not include a rib bone in the test. Yet, not one of the bullets had enough velocity to penetrate the simulated thigh. In fact, some of the bullets even failed to leave the wrist. And this, even though the bullets were not required to smash 4 inches of rib bone before hitting the wrist.
Yes, forensic literature indicates that the only time an FMJ bullet may shear off its jacket is if it is fired from a very short distance from a high-velocity rifle and does not have time to stabilize its flight.
I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).
In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.
The FMJ bullet deposited fragments from its lead core and from its copper jacket. On a side note, the solid copper bullet only left one fragment in the gelatin block.
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 were surprised that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact: "This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact." The scientists attributed this to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."
Researchers who are familiar with the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head will see a number of important parallels between the JFK head ammo and the high-velocity frangible ammo in the 2023 test.
-
I recall reading that there was one small fragment in Connally's chest, but I can't remember the source off the top of my head.
Very interesting. I agree that your research raises further doubts about the claim that the alleged bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) shattered the wrist bone.
Are you familiar with the 1967 CBS wound-ballistics test that tried to validate the SBT? They fired FMJ bullets through a block of ballistics gelatin to see if they would then shatter cadaver wrists and then penetrate into a simulated thigh. They did not include a rib bone in the test. Yet, not one of the bullets had enough velocity to penetrate the simulated thigh. In fact, some of the bullets even failed to leave the wrist. And this, even though the bullets were not required to smash 4 inches of rib bone before hitting the wrist.
No shooting can be perfectly replicated because each shooting has its own set of variables. Shooting through ballistic gel into a cadaver's wrist does not replicate what CE399 did on 11/22/1963. It's an apples to oranges comparison. [/quote]
I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).
In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.
The FMJ bullet deposited fragments from its lead core and from its copper jacket. On a side note, the solid copper bullet only left one fragment in the gelatin block.[/quote]
What does that have to do with the JFKA. Shooting replications can only show what might happen. They can't prove what always happen.
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.
Still more apples to oranges comparisons.
The scientists who conducted the test were surprised that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact: "This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact." The scientists attributed this to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."
The distance is irrelevant. What matters is the velocity a bullet strikes the object at. For those interested, I found this article which explains the forces at work but the calculations make my head spin.
https://modern-physics.org/bullet/
I won't even attempt to calculate the velocity Oswald's bullets struck JFK in the back and the head even though the average muzzle velocity (2265 fps) and approximate distances are know. Suffice it to say that the bullet would have slowed from its muzzle velocity when the two shots struck JFK.
Researchers who are familiar with the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head will see a number of important parallels between the JFK head ammo and the high-velocity frangible ammo in the 2023 test.
The only example I know of that tells us how a Carcano bullet would behave is the JFKA. Do you know of any other case studies that show what happens when a 6.5 x 52mm Carcano bullet strikes various parts of a human body or are you just guessing?
-
I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting. I never claimed it did. But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions.
Exactly. As you note, it is an impossible standard (many would say a very unreasonable standard) to expect that wound-ballistics tests will always duplicate every single aspect and every single result of an alleged shooting incident.
Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests.
Yes, indeed. And, conversely, if repeated wound-ballistics testing fails every single time to replicate most or all of the results of an alleged shooting incident, this is a solid basis for doubting it, if not for rejecting it.
Two SBT wound-ballistics tests (one of Lattimer's tests and an Australian test) actually duplicated all the wounds posited by the SBT, but in both cases the bullets emerged visibly more damaged than CE 399.
And, of course, both of those tests assumed that JFK and Connally were aligned in a way to make the wounding possible in the first place, when in fact the most advanced, sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the 2023 Knott Lab analysis, found that the two men were not aligned in a way that would make the SBT theoretically possible. In addition, the few pro-SBT trajectory analyses have had to make demonstrably invalid assumptions about the size of Connally's back wound (doubling its size), the size and nature of the wound path through Connally's chest (ignoring the fact that it was rather narrow), and JFK and Connally's positions and rotations (putting the men in positions and/or rotations that are wholly unsupported by the photographic evidence).
I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally. I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with. The work is actually fun to me. I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions. I’m currently working on the head shot. Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.
This is very interesting to hear. You are joining a long list of experts who initially believed in the lone-gunman theory but who changed their minds after doing more research into the case. These experts include Dr. David Mantik (radiation oncologist, radiologist, and physicist), Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist), Dr. Joseph Riley (neuroanatomist), Dr. Roger McCarthy (wound-ballistics expert), and Howard Donahue (firearms and ballistics expert).
I, too, grew up believing in the WC's version of the shooting, since that's what I was taught in school. Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused me to start reading about the case, partly because I thought "this just can't be true."
The first big doubt that I formed involved Oswald's alleged shooting feat. I did 21 years in the Army and qualified at all three marksmanship levels (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). When I became aware of the details of the alleged shooting performance, I recognized right away that it would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, highly skilled rifleman, and far beyond the ability of someone whose best day at the Marine Corps rifle range was to barely qualify in the sharpshooter category using a semi-automatic rifle against targets he'd practiced against for hours and with vastly more time to fire than the alleged lone gunman would have had.
-
I would never expect a reconstruction to exactly produce the same result as the actual shooting. I never claimed it did. But reconstructions/wound ballistics testing are frequently used in court as illustrative or demonstrative of a shooting incident. The goal isn’t to exactly reproduce a shooting incident—that’s an impossible standard—but to test whether the known/claimed forensic elements of the incident can be replicated consistently under similar conditions. Reconstructions are not meant as the final word either way but as a means of assigning weight to the credibility or believability of an assertion—if the shooting can substantially be replicated, it simply means it’s more likely than not it happened the way the evidence suggests.
I was a longtime believer in the official conclusion of the assassination. But with forensic training and experience from a 29 year career as an FBI Agent and additional years working murder cases as a private investigator, I thought it would be an interesting project to test the ballistic and forensic elements of the assassination personally. I had no agenda other than seeing what I came up with. The work is actually fun to me. I’ve extensively and redundantly tested the single bullet theory through ballistic tests, trajectory analysis using strings, lasers and rods with both mannequins and stand ins, and other forensic reconstructions. I’m currently working on the head shot. Despite rigorous and faithful replication of the official parameters, I cannot replicate numerous elements of the SBT. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No but the weight of what I’ve found sufficiently convinced me it’s wrong.
Elements of a shooting can be replicated individually to demonstrate what is possible. For example the Haag forensic team demonstrated by firing a Carcano round through ballistic gel that such a round tends to yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove the bullet that left JFK's throat yawed upon exiting but combined with the fact that the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated, it seems highly likely that is what happened. Likewise, an Australian documentary team used animal carcasses to simulate JFK's and JBC's bodies. It took them a number of tries before they got the bullet to pass through the simulated soft tissue and bone that the single bullet would have but when they did, the bullet ended up looking very similar to CE399. The nose was intact and there was flattening at the base. The bullet was bent more than CE399 but it is unreasonable to expect such an experiment could perfectly replicate CE399.
-
I, too, grew up believing in the WC's version of the shooting, since that's what I was taught in school. Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused me to start reading about the case, partly because I thought "this just can't be true."
So you learned much of what you think you know about the JFKA from watching Oliver Stone's fictional account of the JFKA. That explains a lot. It's no wonder you were led astray. That was about time you and I both started posting on the old Prodigy forum. 35 years later you are still parroting some of the same myths Ollie created in his crappy movie:
The Warren Commission said Oswald fired 3 shots in 5.6 seconds or less. BS:
The WC did allow for that possibility but it was not a conclusion of theirs and they gave no indication they favored that scenario over other scenarios. The timeframe for the three shots is dependent on which shot missed. They concluded, correctly, that the two shots that hit JFK struck between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds apart. Only if the second shot was the missed shot did all three shots have to be fired in 5.6 seconds or less.
The Warren Commission said Oswald hit JFK by firing 88 yards through heavy foliage. BS:
The headshot was 88 yards but it was not fired through heavy foliage. By the time the headshot struck JFK, he had been in the clear for 5.6 seconds. Oswald had a clear line of sight for both the shots that hit JFK
In addition, when Garrison's assistant told Garrison (Costner), "I'm Oswald. Time me." and dry fired the rifle 3 times, Garrison said it took between 6 and 7 seconds. In reality, if you time that sequence yourself, it takes less than 5.6 seconds. When I made that point on Fred Litwin's podcast, he overlaid an electronic timer to that sequence and showed it took only 5.2 seconds.
These are just a few of around 100 outright lies Ollie presented in his movie. If I were a CT, which I was for a short time back in the 1980s, I would be embarrassed to admit that Ollie's movie was the basis for my skepticism of the WCR. At the very least you should find a little more honest presentation of the JFKA to point to as the basis for your beliefs but maybe you couldn't find any.
The first big doubt that I formed involved Oswald's alleged shooting feat. I did 21 years in the Army and qualified at all three marksmanship levels (marksman, sharpshooter, and expert). When I became aware of the details of the alleged shooting performance, I recognized right away that it would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, highly skilled rifleman, and far beyond the ability of someone whose best day at the Marine Corps rifle range was to barely qualify in the sharpshooter category using a semi-automatic rifle against targets he'd practiced against for hours and with vastly more time to fire than the alleged lone gunman would have had.
The longest of Oswald's 3 shots was 88 yards. To qualify in the USMC at any of the three levels, he had to consistently hit a target at ranges of 200 yards or more without the aid of a scope. Oswald completely missed with one of his three shots and the two they struck were about 10-12 inches apart. How well do you think he would have scored in the USMC if he replicated that performance throughout his qualifying session. Tell us what about the shooting was so difficult that it made you doubt Oswald could have done the shooting.
-
Two SBT wound-ballistics tests (one of Lattimer's tests and an Australian test) actually duplicated all the wounds posited by the SBT, but in both cases the bullets emerged visibly more damaged than CE 399.
And, of course, both of those tests assumed that JFK and Connally were aligned in a way to make the wounding possible in the first place, when in fact the most advanced, sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the 2023 Knott Lab analysis, found that the two men were not aligned in a way that would make the SBT theoretically possible. In addition, the few pro-SBT trajectory analyses have had to make demonstrably invalid assumptions about the size of Connally's back wound (doubling its size), the size and nature of the wound path through Connally's chest (ignoring the fact that it was rather narrow), and JFK and Connally's positions and rotations (putting the men in positions and/or rotations that are wholly unsupported by the photographic evidence).
I’m not aware of Lattimer duplicating the overall shot with dummies set up in the same relative positions as JFK and JBC as Alex Krstic (the Australian test) did on the Unsolved History episode. Lattimer duplicated several elements of the SBT but if he did an overall reconstruction, I’d like to see his results if you can tell me where I could find it.
The Krstic test actually set up the reconstruction pretty rigorously following the parameters of the shot with JFK and JBC in their relative positions. They marked the entry point approximately 14 cm below the dummy’s mastoid process. They shot from 60 feet up and hit just a little low and left of the aim point. They showed a graphic from a side view showing the bullet exited in JFK’s chest, well below the throat. They failed to show the actual exit point but through a narrator said the single bullet theory worked. The bullet’s nose was flattened and the bullet shaft bent. The narrator explained that the nose was flattened because the bullet struck two ribs in the test—otherwise it would have been very similar to 399. They forgot to add that 399 struck JBC’s wrist bone.
But you’re absolutely correct about the alignment issues. My testing on both the range and with a 1:1 model of the limousine using mannequins and stand ins, has revealed neither the vertical angle (slope), nor the horizontal angle (right to left direction) of the shot works. The 17 degree slope of the shot exits 2 1/2 inches below the throat with an entry on the suit coat 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar (with the coat bunched approximately 2 inches). It gets further out of whack with the 13 degree right to left aspect of the shot. My testing has revealed JBC’s midline sitting centered in a 20.5 inch wide jump seat placed 2.5 inches from the car door had to be moved 9 inches inboard for the shot to align. This was done with string run through pre cut holes in the mannequins/stand ins clothes at the exact FBI measurements. The string forces the geometry and I think is more compelling than animated reconstructions.
-
I’m not aware of Lattimer duplicating the overall shot with dummies set up in the same relative positions as JFK and JBC as Alex Krstic (the Australian test) did on the Unsolved History episode. Lattimer duplicated several elements of the SBT but if he did an overall reconstruction, I’d like to see his results if you can tell me where I could find it.
The Krstic test actually set up the reconstruction pretty rigorously following the parameters of the shot with JFK and JBC in their relative positions. They marked the entry point approximately 14 cm below the dummy’s mastoid process. They shot from 60 feet up and hit just a little low and left of the aim point. They showed a graphic from a side view showing the bullet exited in JFK’s chest, well below the throat. They failed to show the actual exit point but through a narrator said the single bullet theory worked. The bullet’s nose was flattened and the bullet shaft bent. The narrator explained that the nose was flattened because the bullet struck two ribs in the test—otherwise it would have been very similar to 399. They forgot to add that 399 struck JBC’s wrist bone.
In all probability, CE399 had turned end for end or close to it when it had hit the wrist bone. Given the likelihood the bullet yawed upon exit from JFK's throat, it's likely the tumbling action would have continued as the bullet passed through JBC's chest and blew out a section of rib. It's impossible to say whether the flattening at the base occurred when the bullet hit rib or when it hit the wrist. The fact lead fragments were deposited in JBC's wrist and the lead was only exposed at the base bullet further indicates it's likely the wrist was struck by the base of the bullet and not the nose. There's no reason to believe the nose would be flattened when it didn't hit anything hard.
But you’re absolutely correct about the alignment issues. My testing on both the range and with a 1:1 model of the limousine using mannequins and stand ins, has revealed neither the vertical angle (slope), nor the horizontal angle (right to left direction) of the shot works. The 17 degree slope of the shot exits 2 1/2 inches below the throat with an entry on the suit coat 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar (with the coat bunched approximately 2 inches). It gets further out of whack with the 13 degree right to left aspect of the shot. My testing has revealed JBC’s midline sitting centered in a 20.5 inch wide jump seat placed 2.5 inches from the car door had to be moved 9 inches inboard for the shot to align. This was done with string run through pre cut holes in the mannequins/stand ins clothes at the exact FBI measurements. The string forces the geometry and I think is more compelling than animated reconstructions.
9 inches is approximately how far inboard JBC was from JFK. We know this because of the movie David Powers was taking from the Queen Mary. We can see roughly half of JBC's torso in front of JFK. It it wasn't half a body width, it was close to it. Did you take into account that JBC's shoulders were turned to the right at the time the bullet hit.
Since you believe JBC wasn't far enough left of JFK to have been hit next to the armpit, why didn't the bullet exiting JFK's throat hit more toward the center or even the left side of JBC's back. How could that shot have missed him completely. It makes no sense.
As for the Knott Lab animation, it is primitive compared to what Dale Myers had done more than 20 years earlier. The graphics were on par with 1980s era video games. Even with the low grade graphics, they slid JBC to various positions in front of JFK and the position he was in when they showed the bullet hitting next to his armpit, it looked very close to the position the Z-film showed he was in. Since they only showed the view from the side and not from behind or above, we can't really see where JBC would have been positioned for the bullet to hit next to his armpit. Myers 3D animation allowed views from any angle at any point during the animation. If the Knott Lab animation allowed that, they didn't show those views on their website.
-
Elements of a shooting can be replicated individually to demonstrate what is possible. For example the Haag forensic team demonstrated by firing a Carcano round through ballistic gel that such a round tends to yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove the bullet that left JFK's throat yawed upon exiting but combined with the fact that the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated, it seems highly likely that is what happened. Likewise, an Australian documentary team used animal carcasses to simulate JFK's and JBC's bodies. It took them a number of tries before they got the bullet to pass through the simulated soft tissue and bone that the single bullet would have but when they did, the bullet ended up looking very similar to CE399. The nose was intact and there was flattening at the base. The bullet was bent more than CE399 but it is unreasonable to expect such an experiment could perfectly replicate CE399.
Indeed the Carcano bullet tends to yaw upon exiting. I’ve recreated it with ballistic dummies with pigskin wrapped around the neck while wearing a dress shirt, necktie and suit coat. In fact most times (3 of 4 in my testing) made full side on entries in the Connally dummy. But Connally’s jacket didn’t reflect a side on entry but a 1/2 by 3/8 inch hole (which was compromised as evidence because it was dry cleaned before being properly analyzed. Haag incorrectly said that Connally had a full side on wound. Dr Shaw described the wound as elliptical and 1.5 cm in its greatest diameter. He later told the HSCA he felt the wound was from a tangential entry rather than a yawing bullet. But I agree, an elongated wound could indicate the bullet had been knocked off a stable trajectory (ie going thru JFK first). However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit. I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry. So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left. The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide.
Regarding the Australian test, if you’re talking about the one done for Unsolved History (JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet) by Alex Krstic, they didn’t shoot animals (the Edgewood testing did) but ballistic dummies with bones embedded in the Connally dummy. They set it up following the SBT parameters fairly accurately. Yet despite an exit well below the throat in JFK’s chest. They recovered the bullet and its nose was deformed and the shaft of the bullet was bent. Despite both these discrepancies, the narrator stated the single bullet theory had been confirmed.
Interestingly when I first started my testing, I tried simply to replicate the 1/2 inch overlapping vertical slits in the dress that J Edgar Hoover told the WC was typical of a bullet exiting cloth. I also faithfully set up my dummy (with the same ballistic gel covered around the neck with pigskin and wearing a suit) by the WC parameters. My aim point was 5 3/8 inches below the top of the suit collar with the jacket bunched approximately 2 inches and the dummy sitting normally upright. With a 17 degree shot to that point, I not only got a round exit hole but an exit in the chest 2 1/2 inches below the throat. To get the bullet to exit near the shirt collar, it took a near horizontal shot aimed at the suit collar. I ran it 19 times and got 19 round exit holes—not a single vertical slit. But the trajectory discrepancy really intrigued me and led to the remainder of my SBT testing.
-
In all probability, CE399 had turned end for end or close to it when it had hit the wrist bone. Given the likelihood the bullet yawed upon exit from JFK's throat, it's likely the tumbling action would have continued as the bullet passed through JBC's chest and blew out a section of rib. It's impossible to say whether the flattening at the base occurred when the bullet hit rib or when it hit the wrist. The fact lead fragments were deposited in JBC's wrist and the lead was only exposed at the base bullet further indicates it's likely the wrist was struck by the base of the bullet and not the nose. There's no reason to believe the nose would be flattened when it didn't hit anything hard.
9 inches is approximately how far inboard JBC was from JFK. We know this because of the movie David Powers was taking from the Queen Mary. We can see roughly half of JBC's torso in front of JFK. It it wasn't half a body width, it was close to it. Did you take into account that JBC's shoulders were turned to the right at the time the bullet hit.
Since you believe JBC wasn't far enough left of JFK to have been hit next to the armpit, why didn't the bullet exiting JFK's throat hit more toward the center or even the left side of JBC's back. How could that shot have missed him completely. It makes no sense.
I should clarify that the additional 9 inches inboard I mentioned for the string to align based on a 13 degree horizontal angle (HSCA finding) was measured from the middle of the 20.5 inch wide jump seat. I started under the presumption that Connally would have been centered in the seat (which was 2.5 inches inboard) and took measurements from there. Because JFK was sitting at the far right side of the car, it had the effect of Connally being inboard of him by several inches. But even with this offset the string had to make a 15 degree right turn from JFK’s left edge of the necktie to get to Connally’s right shoulder. So to align the string, the dummy had to be moved (I did the same test with a stand in) 9 inches further inboard. Since he started out with his midline already 11 3/4 inches inboard, the additional 9 inches out half his body off the jumpseat near the middle of the car. This means Connally’s tailbone had to move 9 inches left when he turned. This is not supported by his positioning in relation to the limousine opera window seen in either Z190 (HSCA estimate of the shot) or Z223 (~WC estimate). This discrepancy can easily be seen in the published WC photos taken by the FBI during the May 1964 reenactment with a camera set up to look through Oswald’s scope. The vertical post of the scope’s reticle (which dictates where the bullet would strike right, left or center of target) is clearly over Connally’s left side for frames 207 and 222. I agree it makes no sense but I’ll tell you this horizontal angle discrepancy is even more apparent on the gun range. It was so obvious that the bullet wouldn’t align, that it wasn’t worth wasting the ammo.
As for the Knott Lab animation, it is primitive compared to what Dale Myers had done more than 20 years earlier. The graphics were on par with 1980s era video games. Even with the low grade graphics, they slid JBC to various positions in front of JFK and the position he was in when they showed the bullet hitting next to his armpit, it looked very close to the position the Z-film showed he was in. Since they only showed the view from the side and not from behind or above, we can't really see where JBC would have been positioned for the bullet to hit next to his armpit. Myers 3D animation allowed views from any angle at any point during the animation. If the Knott Lab animation allowed that, they didn't show those views on their website.
I don’t give either the Knott Labs or the Dale Myers animations much credibility. The Galaga machine I played back in the early 80s had better looking tech than either one. But appearance aside, I believe they are both can be easily manipulated to get a wanted result. I find my method of a 1:1 mockup with same size mannequins and stand ins wearing the size clothes with holes in the exactly the official measured locations placed in seats measured from the Hess and Eisenhardt blueprint published by the WC. Although I painstakingly measured everything (and checked twice) I acknowledge there could be measurement errors—but they’re very slight. And as I said, the string forces the geometry and is either straight or it’s not.
-
As part of an ongoing project testing the forensic/ballistic elements of the assassination. I’ve done extensive and redundant ballistic testing, trajectory analysis and forensic reconstructions. To test the head shot trajectory and fragmentation pattern, I shot three intact pig’s heads. I had pre and post X-rays taken. Using surplus 6.5 Carcano on one of the heads, the shot did not explode the head and left a relatively small exit hole (8-9mm) with minor skull fracturing. A witness panel 2 feet behind the head revealed only a slight yaw and the x-ray showed no fragmentation/jacket separation. The maintained its trajectory through the skull into the witness panel. Then using .257 Roberts with a thin jacketed sierra matchking projectile at 3300 fps, it took out the occipital skull and most of the brain with it. It left the characteristic lead snowstorm on the x-ray and the smallest of fragments on the witness panel.
I was a little uncertain as to the cortical thickness of the skull so I did a separate test shooting a 7 mm thick pork shoulder blade embedded on one end of a 8 inch ballistic gel block and pork ribs on the other end. The Carcano round made a 6 mm round hole in the shoulder blade, cut a straight path through the ballistic gel, and clipped the edge of one if the ribs leaving a perfect semi circle. The witness panel again showed a slight yaw and no fragmentation/jacket separation whatsoever with no deviation in trajectory.
I’ve long been skeptical of the trajectories of CE 567 and 569, so that was the purpose of the test—but I couldn’t get the Carcano jacket to shear.
Have you read the WC Testimonies of Alfred Olivier and Arthur Dziemian and their "Wound Ballistics of 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano Ammunition" report? Their firing of WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets into the skulls of human cadavers resulted in the bullets massively fragmenting and the heads exploding as well.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/dziemian.htm
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/62296#relPageId=1&search=edgewood%20
-
I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony. But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg. The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants. Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record. For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range. Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape. And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires. The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.
FBI firearms examiner Robert Frazier said that he could make no determinations from the holes in the shirt and jacket due to the fact that they had been laundered. I assume that the pants had been cleaned as well.
-
I’m not aware of Lattimer duplicating the overall shot with dummies set up in the same relative positions as JFK and JBC as Alex Krstic (the Australian test) did on the Unsolved History episode. Lattimer duplicated several elements of the SBT but if he did an overall reconstruction, I’d like to see his results if you can tell me where I could find it.
The Krstic test actually set up the reconstruction pretty rigorously following the parameters of the shot with JFK and JBC in their relative positions. They marked the entry point approximately 14 cm below the dummy’s mastoid process. They shot from 60 feet up and hit just a little low and left of the aim point. They showed a graphic from a side view showing the bullet exited in JFK’s chest, well below the throat. They failed to show the actual exit point but through a narrator said the single bullet theory worked. The bullet’s nose was flattened and the bullet shaft bent. The narrator explained that the nose was flattened because the bullet struck two ribs in the test—otherwise it would have been very similar to 399. They forgot to add that 399 struck JBC’s wrist bone.
But you’re absolutely correct about the alignment issues. My testing on both the range and with a 1:1 model of the limousine using mannequins and stand ins, has revealed neither the vertical angle (slope), nor the horizontal angle (right to left direction) of the shot works. The 17 degree slope of the shot exits 2 1/2 inches below the throat with an entry on the suit coat 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar (with the coat bunched approximately 2 inches). It gets further out of whack with the 13 degree right to left aspect of the shot. My testing has revealed JBC’s midline sitting centered in a 20.5 inch wide jump seat placed 2.5 inches from the car door had to be moved 9 inches inboard for the shot to align. This was done with string run through pre cut holes in the mannequins/stand ins clothes at the exact FBI measurements. The string forces the geometry and I think is more compelling than animated reconstructions.
Connally's jump seat wasn't 2.5 inches from the car door. The 2.5 inches is from the draft diagram of the limo, not the completed product. Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley measured the distance from the Jump seat to the door to be 6 inches. The ITEK Corporation film analysis of the assassination measured Connally to be as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy. When factoring in the approximate 30 degree right rotation of Connally at the time of the single bullet shot, the lateral trajectory is easily made to work.
The vertical angle of trajectory through Kennedy was about 17.5 degrees. I assure you that it does work. I would show it to you visually but apparently we are not supposed to use Imgur here. This information found in the Clark Panel report should help you visualize it though.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image07.htm
Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41).
"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body."
-
Dr Shaw described the wound as elliptical and 1.5 cm in its greatest diameter. He later told the HSCA he felt the wound was from a tangential entry rather than a yawing bullet. But I agree, an elongated wound could indicate the bullet had been knocked off a stable trajectory (ie going thru JFK first). However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit. I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry. So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left. The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide.
Dr. Shaw recorded in his Nov 22, 1963 operative report on Connally that the wound was approximately 3 cm in length. Even at his revised length of 1.5 cm the bullet had to have been tumbling. Wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan testified to that fact before the HSCA. Linked to below are graphics provided by the HSCA that explain the difference between a tangential strike and a strike by a bullet that is yawed. Unfortunately they mislabeled them.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0089a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0088b.htm
-
Indeed the Carcano bullet tends to yaw upon exiting. I’ve recreated it with ballistic dummies with pigskin wrapped around the neck while wearing a dress shirt, necktie and suit coat. In fact most times (3 of 4 in my testing) made full side on entries in the Connally dummy. But Connally’s jacket didn’t reflect a side on entry but a 1/2 by 3/8 inch hole (which was compromised as evidence because it was dry cleaned before being properly analyzed. Haag incorrectly said that Connally had a full side on wound. Dr Shaw described the wound as elliptical and 1.5 cm in its greatest diameter. He later told the HSCA he felt the wound was from a tangential entry rather than a yawing bullet. But I agree, an elongated wound could indicate the bullet had been knocked off a stable trajectory (ie going thru JFK first). However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit. I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry. So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left. The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide.
Regarding the Australian test, if you’re talking about the one done for Unsolved History (JFK Beyond the Magic Bullet) by Alex Krstic, they didn’t shoot animals (the Edgewood testing did) but ballistic dummies with bones embedded in the Connally dummy. They set it up following the SBT parameters fairly accurately. Yet despite an exit well below the throat in JFK’s chest. They recovered the bullet and its nose was deformed and the shaft of the bullet was bent. Despite both these discrepancies, the narrator stated the single bullet theory had been confirmed.
Interestingly when I first started my testing, I tried simply to replicate the 1/2 inch overlapping vertical slits in the dress that J Edgar Hoover told the WC was typical of a bullet exiting cloth. I also faithfully set up my dummy (with the same ballistic gel covered around the neck with pigskin and wearing a suit) by the WC parameters. My aim point was 5 3/8 inches below the top of the suit collar with the jacket bunched approximately 2 inches and the dummy sitting normally upright. With a 17 degree shot to that point, I not only got a round exit hole but an exit in the chest 2 1/2 inches below the throat. To get the bullet to exit near the shirt collar, it took a near horizontal shot aimed at the suit collar. I ran it 19 times and got 19 round exit holes—not a single vertical slit. But the trajectory discrepancy really intrigued me and led to the remainder of my SBT testing.
So you want to dismiss the Aussie test because the bullet didn't come out looking exactly like CE399. IOW, you expect a perfect replication. Why would CE399 have a damaged nose if the nose never struck bone. The smaller exit wound in JBC's chest simply indicates it had continued to yaw as it passed through his chest and had down almost a full 180 by the time it exited his chest and headed toward his wrist.
You didn't even try to explain why if JBC wasn't far enough to the left of JFK to be struck next to his right armpit that the bullet didn't hit JBC farther to the left on his back. How could a bullet exiting JFK's throat have missed him completely? I've never seen a CT who claimed that JBC's wounds didn't line up with JFK's exit wound even try to explain that.
A bullet striking JFK two inches to the right of his spine and exiting from the center of his throat would have been going directly at JBC's back and would have to have hit him somewhere. We know what they somewhere was. Furthermore, how could a different bullet whether from Oswald's gun or a second shooter have hit JBC next to his armpit, exited from below his right nipple, and hit his wrist with JFK in the way? People who dispute the SBT never seem to have any interest in providing a plausible alternative. You'd think if the SBT was false, somebody could have at least come up with a plausible alternative after 62 years. As it is, the SBT wins by default as the only plausible explanation for JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds.
-
Have you read the WC Testimonies of Alfred Olivier and Arthur Dziemian and their "Wound Ballistics of 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano Ammunition" report? Their firing of WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets into the skulls of human cadavers resulted in the bullets massively fragmenting and the heads exploding as well.
This is incorrect, as I've explained to you before in other threads, and as I document in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which is the subject of this thread. Have you read my article yet? It deals extensively with the WC's head-shot wound-ballistics test.
For starters -- again, as I've pointed out to you before -- the extant x-rays of the skulls from the WC's test refute any notion that the bullets exploded into dozens of fragments, much less that their fragmentation pattern resembles the pattern we see in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
Dr. Olivier specified to Howard Donahue in 1969 that the bullets in the WC's test only broke into a few fragments each time.
Even if we take CE 857 and CE 859 at face value, they show that the WC's test did not duplicate the fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I quote from my article:
CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857. It appears to show between 26 and 30 fragments, and all of them are either small or very small—not one of them is as large as the two large fragments seen in CE 857.
Yet, even CE 859 shows fewer fragments than the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right-frontal region alone—these fragments have been described as a "snowstorm.” To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the debunked cowlick entry site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's
head-shot test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, or in any region, and none of them left a trail of fragments that ranged upward from the fragment cloud.
In addition, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show at least two fragments on the back of the skull, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not one of the bullets in the WC's tests deposited fragments on or above the outer table.
Given Dr. Olivier’s statements to Donahue in 1969, and given the obvious discrepancy between the fragments seen in CE 857 and CE 859, it seems apparent that the two exhibits consist of fragments from more than just one of the FMJ bullets, and perhaps from all 10 of the FMJ bullets, that were fired in Olivier’s test.
Furthermore, if the CE 857 and CE 859 fragments really came from only one of the test bullets, what about the fragments from the nine other bullets? Leaving aside the fact that the two exhibits obviously do not contain the same fragments, even though Dr. Olivier said they should, the fact that no fragments from the nine other bullets were identified as such or entered into evidence as such raises serious doubts about the integrity of the two exhibits. (pp. 12-13)
-
This is incorrect, as I've explained to you before in other threads, and as I document in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which is the subject of this thread. Have you read my article yet? It deals extensively with the WC's head-shot wound-ballistics test.
For starters -- again, as I've pointed out to you before -- the extant x-rays of the skulls from the WC's test refute any notion that the bullets exploded into dozens of fragments, much less that their fragmentation pattern resembles the pattern we see in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
Dr. Olivier specified to Howard Donahue in 1969 that the bullets in the WC's test only broke into a few fragments each time.
Even if we take CE 857 and CE 859 at face value, they show that the WC's test did not duplicate the fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I quote from my article:
CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857. It appears to show between 26 and 30 fragments, and all of them are either small or very small—not one of them is as large as the two large fragments seen in CE 857.
Yet, even CE 859 shows fewer fragments than the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right-frontal region alone—these fragments have been described as a "snowstorm.” To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the debunked cowlick entry site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's
head-shot test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, or in any region, and none of them left a trail of fragments that ranged upward from the fragment cloud.
In addition, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show at least two fragments on the back of the skull, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not one of the bullets in the WC's tests deposited fragments on or above the outer table.
Given Dr. Olivier’s statements to Donahue in 1969, and given the obvious discrepancy between the fragments seen in CE 857 and CE 859, it seems apparent that the two exhibits consist of fragments from more than just one of the FMJ bullets, and perhaps from all 10 of the FMJ bullets, that were fired in Olivier’s test.
Furthermore, if the CE 857 and CE 859 fragments really came from only one of the test bullets, what about the fragments from the nine other bullets? Leaving aside the fact that the two exhibits obviously do not contain the same fragments, even though Dr. Olivier said they should, the fact that no fragments from the nine other bullets were identified as such or entered into evidence as such raises serious doubts about the integrity of the two exhibits. (pp. 12-13)
Stewart stated that his own test in firing 6.5 Carcano bullets into pig skulls resulted in only minor skull fracturing and no fragmentation/jacket separation of the bullets. I was merely informing him that the firing of WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets into the skulls of human cadavers at Edgewood Arsenal resulted in the bullets massively fragmenting and the heads exploding as well. Your declaration that my information is incorrect reveals that you continue to respond to posts like mine without taking the time to understand what you are replying to.
FTR, I recall counting about 40 fragments in CE-859. Those fragments were collected by Olivier.
Just one more thing; The X-Rays do not show two fragments on the back of the skull. The "6.5 mm object" seen in the AP view is the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye. The right lateral X-Ray shows a large fragment imbedded in the frontal skull bone. It is also visible on the AP view but it is mistaken by many to be the 7mm by 2mm fragment. That Has been pointed out to you by me numerous times. You avoid addressing it because you are unable to say where that imbedded fragment is in the AP view.
-
This is incorrect, as I've explained to you before in other threads, and as I document in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which is the subject of this thread. Have you read my article yet? It deals extensively with the WC's head-shot wound-ballistics test.
For starters -- again, as I've pointed out to you before -- the extant x-rays of the skulls from the WC's test refute any notion that the bullets exploded into dozens of fragments, much less that their fragmentation pattern resembles the pattern we see in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.
Dr. Olivier specified to Howard Donahue in 1969 that the bullets in the WC's test only broke into a few fragments each time.
Even if we take CE 857 and CE 859 at face value, they show that the WC's test did not duplicate the fragmentation seen in the autopsy skull x-rays. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I quote from my article:
CE 859 shows more fragments than are seen in CE 857. It appears to show between 26 and 30 fragments, and all of them are either small or very small—not one of them is as large as the two large fragments seen in CE 857.
Yet, even CE 859 shows fewer fragments than the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show. The skull x-rays show about 40 tiny fragments just in the right-frontal region alone—these fragments have been described as a "snowstorm.” To the viewer's left of this fragment cloud we see a number of other fragments that are larger in size than the cloud fragments and that extend upward to a point at least 1 inch from the debunked cowlick entry site. Not one of the bullets in Olivier's
head-shot test deposited a "snowstorm" of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, or in any region, and none of them left a trail of fragments that ranged upward from the fragment cloud.
In addition, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays show at least two fragments on the back of the skull, one in the outer table and another between the galea and the outer table. Not one of the bullets in the WC's tests deposited fragments on or above the outer table.
Given Dr. Olivier’s statements to Donahue in 1969, and given the obvious discrepancy between the fragments seen in CE 857 and CE 859, it seems apparent that the two exhibits consist of fragments from more than just one of the FMJ bullets, and perhaps from all 10 of the FMJ bullets, that were fired in Olivier’s test.
Furthermore, if the CE 857 and CE 859 fragments really came from only one of the test bullets, what about the fragments from the nine other bullets? Leaving aside the fact that the two exhibits obviously do not contain the same fragments, even though Dr. Olivier said they should, the fact that no fragments from the nine other bullets were identified as such or entered into evidence as such raises serious doubts about the integrity of the two exhibits. (pp. 12-13)
The demand for duplication of the JFK assassination is one of the biggest red herrings the CT crowd as ever floated. As if any shooting can be duplicated. Every shooting is a unique event with unique results. I don't know of any other murder case in which the prosecution was required to duplicate the shooting. It's an unreasonable demand from unreasonable people.
-
Have you read the WC Testimonies of Alfred Olivier and Arthur Dziemian and their "Wound Ballistics of 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano Ammunition" report? Their firing of WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets into the skulls of human cadavers resulted in the bullets massively fragmenting and the heads exploding as well.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/olivier.htm
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/dziemian.htm
https://www.maryferrell.org/xdoc/62296#relPageId=1&search=edgewood%20
I have read the testimony. What I wanted to test was how two large fragments (567 and 569) deflected upwards off a an approximate 15 degree downward vertical angle to hit the windshield and the windshield frame. They didn’t document fragment trajectory. Generally speaking (and bullets do crazy things) when the jacket shears off an FMJ the core will continue on the same vector. Their test skulls were filled with ballistic gel to simulate brain tissue and covered with an additional layer of gel and goat skin. I don’t know how they attached the skin to the gel but it’s a reasonable set up. The one skull they published however had significant damage to the face and more apparent overall bone loss (possibly due to there being more brittleness to the dried skulls). Regardless the face damage on the test skull would indicate the bullet (or at least the core didn’t deviate significantly off path). So I wanted to see if a fragmenting Carcano would deflect upwards through actual skull and brain tissue. I only shot three pig’s heads but there was no deviation of trajectory and the jacket’s didn’t separate. I was actually expecting the (and hoping) the jacket would separate because the purpose was to see how much the core would come apart. We did fire one of the Carcano’s straight into the ground because we were having trouble recovering the test bullets from the berm we were shooting into. The bullet went 23 inches into the round. The jacket and core separated but the core stayed intact (it was deformed but no fragments broke off from it. Im not surprised the Edgewood testing shattered the skulls. But actual scalp is way tougher than a layer of ballistic gel. Thats why I used the pig’s heads. But I couldn’t get the jackets to separate.
-
FBI firearms examiner Robert Frazier said that he could make no determinations from the holes in the shirt and jacket due to the fact that they had been laundered. I assume that the pants had been cleaned as well.
I think more specifically Frazier testified he could not determine directionality and metal content because the clothes had been compromised by the dry cleaning. However he acknowledged that some type of missile caused the damage. Thus it’s possible to recreate the holes in surrogate clothes based on the documented measurements/locations of the bullet holes and run string through the holes to get some idea of the path. I did it with a mannequin arm with holes in it corresponding to JBC’s wounds and with a stand in with string taped to the corresponding locations of the wounds. It revealed the French cuff had to be entirely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated to an extreme degree of its range. It’s entirely possible that’s how JBC was sitting but it’s an awkward position.
-
I have read the testimony. What I wanted to test was how two large fragments (567 and 569) deflected upwards off a an approximate 15 degree downward vertical angle to hit the windshield and the windshield frame. They didn’t document fragment trajectory. Generally speaking (and bullets do crazy things) when the jacket shears off an FMJ the core will continue on the same vector. Their test skulls were filled with ballistic gel to simulate brain tissue and covered with an additional layer of gel and goat skin. I don’t know how they attached the skin to the gel but it’s a reasonable set up. The one skull they published however had significant damage to the face and more apparent overall bone loss (possibly due to there being more brittleness to the dried skulls). Regardless the face damage on the test skull would indicate the bullet (or at least the core didn’t deviate significantly off path). So I wanted to see if a fragmenting Carcano would deflect upwards through actual skull and brain tissue. I only shot three pig’s heads but there was no deviation of trajectory and the jacket’s didn’t separate. I was actually expecting the (and hoping) the jacket would separate because the purpose was to see how much the core would come apart. We did fire one of the Carcano’s straight into the ground because we were having trouble recovering the test bullets from the berm we were shooting into. The bullet went 23 inches into the round. The jacket and core separated but the core stayed intact (it was deformed but no fragments broke off from it. Im not surprised the Edgewood testing shattered the skulls. But actual scalp is way tougher than a layer of ballistic gel. Thats why I used the pig’s heads. But I couldn’t get the jackets to separate.
The fragments didn't deflect upwards. The deformed bullet curved upward as it passed through the head, fragmenting as it went. The curvature of the path was considerable, considering that the bullet entered just above the EOP at a downward angle of 12 degrees.
-
I think more specifically Frazier testified he could not determine directionality and metal content because the clothes had been compromised by the dry cleaning. However he acknowledged that some type of missile caused the damage. Thus it’s possible to recreate the holes in surrogate clothes based on the documented measurements/locations of the bullet holes and run string through the holes to get some idea of the path. I did it with a mannequin arm with holes in it corresponding to JBC’s wounds and with a stand in with string taped to the corresponding locations of the wounds. It revealed the French cuff had to be entirely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated to an extreme degree of its range. It’s entirely possible that’s how JBC was sitting but it’s an awkward position.
Frazier said that he couldn't even say that the holes in the clothes were actually bullet holes.
-
I think more specifically Frazier testified he could not determine directionality and metal content because the clothes had been compromised by the dry cleaning. However he acknowledged that some type of missile caused the damage. Thus it’s possible to recreate the holes in surrogate clothes based on the documented measurements/locations of the bullet holes and run string through the holes to get some idea of the path. I did it with a mannequin arm with holes in it corresponding to JBC’s wounds and with a stand in with string taped to the corresponding locations of the wounds. It revealed the French cuff had to be entirely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated to an extreme degree of its range. It’s entirely possible that’s how JBC was sitting but it’s an awkward position.
I don't think it would be possible to recreate the holes in surrogate clothes to any good degree of accuracy, even if Connally's clothes hadn't been washed. Fabric stretches, and not all fabric stretches the same.
-
Frazier said that he couldn't even say that the holes in the clothes were actually bullet holes.
He testified they were consistent with being bullet holes but he could not determine directionality. He must have presumed they were bullet holes however because in his testimony regarding the May 1964 reconstruction, he offered no resistance to being asked if all the holes in the clothes of both men reasonably aligned.
-
He testified they were consistent with being bullet holes but he could not determine directionality. He must have presumed they were bullet holes however because in his testimony regarding the May 1964 reconstruction, he offered no resistance to being asked if all the holes in the clothes of both men reasonably aligned.
At the time of his post May 24, 1964 testimony, he was assuming that they were bullet holes. And rightly so. The questions that he was being asked in the testimony about trajectory alignment seemed rather pointless after he pointed out to Specter that he hadn't made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film.
-
At the time of his post May 24, 1964 testimony, he was assuming that they were bullet holes. And rightly so. The questions that he was being asked in the testimony about trajectory alignment seemed rather pointless after he pointed out to Specter that he hadn't made a very thorough study of the Zapruder film.
JBC had a hole in his back and another in his chest. His clothes had holes in the same location. Who in their right mind would argue that the holes in his body and the holes in his clothes were not caused by the same bullet?
-
I’m not aware of Lattimer duplicating the overall shot with dummies set up in the same relative positions as JFK and JBC as Alex Krstic (the Australian test) did on the Unsolved History episode. Lattimer duplicated several elements of the SBT but if he did an overall reconstruction, I’d like to see his results if you can tell me where I could find it.
Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. But nothing was used to simulate Connally's back or chest muscles.
Lattimer said four out of his 20 bullets struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, pp. 41-42).
A detailed analysis of Lattimer's research can be found in chapter 6 of British physiologist Russell Kent's 2022 book JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies.
Lattimer discussed his SBT test in two articles that I know of:
"The Kennedy-Connally Single Bullet Theory: A Feasibility Study," International Surgery, 50:6, 1968, pp. 524-532.
"Observations Based on A Review of the Autopsy Photographs, X-Rays, and Related Materials of the Late President John F. Kennedy," Resident and Staff Physician, May 1972, pp. 34-64.
I'm guessing you may have already read John Hunt's seminal article "Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory," (https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm) which, among other things, discusses the Australian SBT test.
I would also recommend an article written by our very own Benjamin Cole: "The Death of the Tumbling Magic-Bullet Theory: the Governor’s Shirt, the President’s Shirt, and the Overlooked Dr. Robert Shaw." (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-death-of-the-tumbling-magic-bullet-theory-the-governor-s-shirt-the-president-s-shirt-and-the-overlooked-dr-robert-shaw)
I would further recommend chapter 11 in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination. (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11thesingle-bullettheory) Speer spends considerable time talking about Lattimer's SBT claims.
-
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.
-
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.
Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.
-
Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.
I already have been. The prosecution never attempted to recreate the shooting and the defense never demanded that they do that. We found the accused guilty anyway.
-
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:09:08 PM
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.
Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.
I know. His argument is so ridiculous.
When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.
Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.
Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.
In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.
What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).
The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed").
In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.
When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.
-
I know. His argument is so ridiculous.
When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.
I must be having a senior moment. I don't remember having made that argument. I don't remember even thinking that. I'm not even familiar with that particular test. The evidence that Oswald's ammo killed JFK is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. Two of those fragments could be positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.
Can you name one shooting in the history of firearms that was perfectly replicated?
Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.
Do you think that perfectly replicated the SBT.
In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.
You don't seem to understand that simulating is not replicating.
What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).
I don't. None of the tests replicated the shooting of JFK and JBC. [/quote]
The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed"). [/quote]
One more test that didn't replicate the shooting. Replication is impossible.
In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.
When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.
You have pointed to a number of tests that tried to simulate, but could not replicate the actual shooting. At best, any test can show what is possible. None can prove what did happen. I find it puzzling that people put so much emphasis on replicating the assassination. It's a fool's errand.
When the Haag's did testing for the Nova program, they tested individual elements of the shooting. They fired a Carcano bullet through both ballistic gel and ballistic soap. The gel showed a bullet COULD yaw upon exiting soft tissue. That doesn't prove CE399 did yaw. The best evidence of that was the elongated entrance wound on JFK's back. The ballistic soap was used to show the pressure cavity a Carcano bullet creates as it passes through a body. Unlike the gel, the soap doesn't collapse after the bullet passes through maintaining the pressure cavity.
I know of no case in the history of firearms in which a shooting was replicated. The JFKA is the only shooting I am aware of where such a thing was tried.
-
MG: I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).
In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.
Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments. Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud. In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.
The distance is irrelevant. What matters is the velocity a bullet strikes the object at.
Another amateurish blunder. Umm, the distance is definitely relevant because it affects the velocity at which the bullet strikes the object. The longer the bullet has to travel through air, the more its velocity will be reduced.
Plus, as the scientists who conducted the test explained, the very short distance meant the bullet did not have time to stabilize its flight: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."
When are you going to back up your spurious claim that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets? Where do you get that piece of fiction? Can you cite a single forensic source that even implies this?
Why do you suppose Dr. DiMaio did not specify that his statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets did not apply to WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets? Obviously, because those FMJ bullets behave like all other FMJ bullets.
You constantly just make up nonsense that you want to believe and then pretend that it explains facts that refute your theory.
-
Another amateurish blunder. Umm, the distance is definitely relevant because it affects the velocity at which the bullet strikes the object. The longer the bullet has to travel through air, the more its velocity will be reduced.
Plus, as the scientists who conducted the test explained, the very short distance meant the bullet did not have time to stabilize its flight: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."
When are you going to back up your spurious claim that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets? Where do you get that piece of fiction? Can you cite a single forensic source that even implies this?
I don't have anything to back up. You are the one claiming how a FMJ Carcano will behave after striking a skull. The burden is on you to establish that. I know of only one case study in which a FMJ Carcano bullet did strike a skull and that was the JFKA. It is a one of one case study. We have a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet, the only one recovered from the limo following the devastating headshot. That bullet shows what can happen when such a bullet strikes a skull. Would every FMJ Carcano bullet fragment in that manner when striking a skull? Who knows? We have a very limited sample size. We have just one case to study.
Why do you suppose Dr. DiMaio did not specify that his statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets did not apply to WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets? Obviously, because those FMJ bullets behave like all other FMJ bullets.
You constantly just make up nonsense that you want to believe and then pretend that it explains facts that refute your theory.
As I understand it, DiMaio's book was a textbook speaking of ballistics in general, not the JFKA. If that is the case, there would be no reason for him to address how the Carcano bullet might behave when striking a skull. Since you apparently have that book, you should be able to tell us whether DiMaio even addressed the behavior of the fragmented Carcano bullet found in the limo.
-
I don't have anything to back up. You are the one claiming how a FMJ Carcano will behave after striking a skull. The burden is on you to establish that. I know of only one case study in which a FMJ Carcano bullet did strike a skull and that was the JFKA. It is a one of one case study. We have a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet, the only one recovered from the limo following the devastating headshot. That bullet shows what can happen when such a bullet strikes a skull. Would every FMJ Carcano bullet fragment in that manner when striking a skull? Who knows? We have a very limited sample size. We have just one case to study.
As I understand it, DiMaio's book was a textbook speaking of ballistics in general, not the JFKA. If that is the case, there would be no reason for him to address how the Carcano bullet might behave when striking a skull. Since you apparently have that book, you should be able to tell us whether DiMaio even addressed the behavior of the fragmented Carcano bullet found in the limo.
This is yet another one of your dishonest juvenile dodges in which you once again hilariously dismiss the science of wound-ballistics testing. Obviously, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your grasping fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than other FMJ bullets, because then, among other things, you'd have to explain why the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test did not even fragment after penetrating skull bone.
DiMaio was talking about the behavior of all FMJ bullets, period. DiMaio certainly would have said something if the millions of 6.5 mm FMJ bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company behaved differently than other FMJ bullets, especially since tens of thousands of those bullets were still being used when he wrote the first and second editions of his book (first edition in 1985, second in 1999).
BTW, WCC produced 4 million 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in 1954 alone.
You keep making false statements about the number of headshot wound-ballistics tests that have used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ ammo: the WC's test, Lattimer's test, and DeSalles' test, all of which failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. Are you ever going to explain why the x-rays of the test skulls in the WC's test show bullet fragmentation that looks nothing like that seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, both in the number of fragments and in their distribution patterns?
And let me just remind you, again, that your side's leading wound-ballistics experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the bullets that Oswald allegedly used would never, ever have deposited a fragment from their cross-section on the outer table of a skull at or near the entry point.
Finally, I notice you said nothing about your gaffe that the distance a bullet travels is irrelevant to how it performs. This is so typical of you: you make a blundering, idiotic claim and then you either refuse to acknowledge your blunder when it is pointed out to you or you blame the blunder on some faulty source that you should have known better than to consult in the first place.
-
This is yet another one of your dishonest juvenile dodges in which you once again hilariously dismiss the science of wound-ballistics testing. Obviously, you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your grasping fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than other FMJ bullets, because then, among other things, you'd have to explain why the FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test did not even fragment after penetrating skull bone.
As usual, you have things bassackwards. You are the one who is asserting that a Carcano bullet could not have been the one that struck JFK in the head because of the way it fragmented so the burden is on you to prove that. The simple fact is a fragmented Carcano bullet is the only one recovered from the limo so that is prima facia evidence it was the one that caused the head wound. No other bullets or fragments from any other bullet was recovered in the limo which would be a very strange occurrence if another type of bullet had struck JFK in the head. Maybe it was one of those magic bullets that completely vanish after striking the victim.
DiMaio was talking about the behavior of all FMJ bullets, period. DiMaio certainly would have said something if the millions of 6.5 mm FMJ bullets manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company behaved differently than other FMJ bullets, especially since tens of thousands of those bullets were still being used when he wrote the first and second editions of his book (first edition in 1985, second in 1999).
BTW, WCC produced 4 million 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in 1954 alone.
Of those 4 million FMJ Carcano bullets, how many were determined to have struck a victim in the head? I know of only one such case. Apparently you don't know of any others either.
You keep making false statements about the number of headshot wound-ballistics tests that have used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ ammo: the WC's test, Lattimer's test, and DeSalles' test, all of which failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head. Are you ever going to explain why the x-rays of the test skulls in the WC's test show bullet fragmentation that looks nothing like that seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, both in the number of fragments and in their distribution patterns?
I have told you on numerous occasions that every shooting is unique and that it is almost impossible to perfectly duplicate any shooting. Perhaps you can point to a case in which that was done.
And let me just remind you, again, that your side's leading wound-ballistics experts, Dr. Larry Sturdivan, has admitted that the bullets that Oswald allegedly used would never, ever have deposited a fragment from their cross-section on the outer table of a skull at or near the entry point.
When did Larry Sturdivan end up on my side. You have this quirky idea that all LNs think alike.
Finally, I notice you said nothing about your gaffe that the distance a bullet travels is irrelevant to how it performs. This is so typical of you: you make a blundering, idiotic claim and then you either refuse to acknowledge your blunder when it is pointed out to you or you blame the blunder on some faulty source that you should have known better than to consult in the first place.
I said velocity is what matters to how a bullet will behave when striking an object.
-
When did Larry Sturdivan end up on my side. You have this quirky idea that all LNs think alike.
Just so you know, a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason. It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.
-
Just so you know, a bullet fragment was not deposited on the outer table of the skull at or near the entry point. Sturdivan had trouble understanding what that "6.5 mm" object was doing in the back of the head, and for good reason. It was not in the back of the head. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment that Humes removed from behind and just above the right eye.
LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! I had mistakenly assumed you had abandoned this fiction after our last exchange on the subject, but I see I assumed too much.
So, let me just briefly repeat the facts that I documented for you the last time I dealt with this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment above the right orbit: the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:
AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OB4N0h4pRvBludfvSfJjG6oBA1Ug0v7/view?usp=sharing) (JPG, regular size)
AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9w1xWwh9aXopFb5g25wzUYT1PVlPjSk/view?usp=sharing) (PDF, enlarged)
As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object, is about 1/4 inch to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and has an obviously different shape than the 6.5 mm object.
Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.
-
LOL! You're still peddling this hilarious nonsense?! I had mistakenly assumed you had abandoned this fiction after our last exchange on the subject, but I see I assumed too much.
So, let me just briefly repeat the facts that I documented for you the last time I dealt with this hokum: Every medical panel that has looked at the skull x-rays has identified the 6.5 mm object as a separate image from the 7 x 2 mm fragment above the right orbit: the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission medical panel, the HSCA FPP, the HSCA FPP's radiology consultants, and the ARRB's medical panel. Both objects are clearly visible on the AP skull x-rays, and anyone with functioning eyes can see they have different shapes and are located in different vertical positions in relation to the right orbit:
AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-OB4N0h4pRvBludfvSfJjG6oBA1Ug0v7/view?usp=sharing) (JPG, regular size)
AP X-Ray Showing 6.5 mm Object and 7x2 mm Fragment (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9w1xWwh9aXopFb5g25wzUYT1PVlPjSk/view?usp=sharing) (PDF, enlarged)
As you can see, the 7 x 2 mm fragment is at least 1 inch higher in the skull than the 6.5 mm object, is about 1/4 inch to the left of the 6.5 mm object, and has an obviously different shape than the 6.5 mm object.
Any objective people who read this exchange are going to wonder how in the world you can claim with a straight face that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are the same objects.
Humes removed the "6.5 mm object". It was the 7 x 2 mm fragment that was "somewhat behind the President's eye" and "in the brain tissue". Humes would later view the enhanced AP X-Ray and , after some difficulty, identify that 6.5 mm object as being the 7 x 2 mm fragment. Edward Reed and Jerrol Custer identified it without hesitation.
Gunn: Okay. Can you go back and look at it once again, from the left on the screen to the right on the body? There is a semi-circular white dot there. Do you see that?
Reed: Yes. I do.
Gunn: Do you recall seeing that on the night of the autopsy?
Reed: Yes. I did.
Gunn: What was your understanding of what that Was?
Reed: That is a metallic fragment from the bullet.
-------------------------------
Gunn: Can you identify that as an autopsy X-Ray that you took on the night of November 22nd/23rd 1963?
Custer: Yes, sir. Correct.
Gunn: HOW can you identify that as being one that you took?
Custer: Bullet fragment, right orbital ridge.
...................
Gunn: Earlier you pointed to what I’m going to call the half-circle that appears to be at the lightest part of the film, and you referred to that as a bullet fragment; is that right?
Custer: Yes, sir.
Gunn: Where was that bullet fragment located? Let me withdraw that question, and ask another question. Do you know where the bullet fragment located on the body?
Custer: Right orbital ridge, superior.
=========
And there's this from Joseph N Riley, Ph.D.:
"the location in terms of distance from vertex of the round fragment corresponds exactly with a bullet fragment located at the front of the skull at the "height" of the upper part of the frontal sinus. This corresponds, in the frontal x-ray, to the circular fragment located at the level of the right supraorbital ridge. Using an optical micrometer, the cross-sectional diameter of these two fragments is identical. (In the author's measurements, both fragments were measured to be 7mm in diameter; the Panel, using better quality material, measured the circular fragment as 6.5mm in diameter and Is almost certainly more accurate.) There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow.
The sole rationale for this contention by the Panel is that a sharp radiopaque image usually represents an object close to the x-ray film. For example, when Humes met with the Panel, the following exchange occurred (HSCA 7:251):
DR. PETTY. Now, may I ask you one other question on this X-ray, Dr. Humes.
Here is a view taken, I assume, with the radiation point above the face and the film behind the back of the head.
DR. HUMES. Not being a radiologist, I presume that.
DR. PETTY. If that's true, then the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen In the lateral view —
DR. HUMES. Up by the eyebrow.
DR. PETTY. No. Up by the — in the back of the skull.
The anatomical evidence is unequivocal; however, for the sake of completeness, it may be pointed out that the clarity of a radiographic image, assuming sufficient beam intensity, depends upon the coherence ("sharpness") of the radiopaque image on the photographic emulsion. Physical factors that determine coherence include radiopaqueness (100% for a metal fragment), sharpness of the edge (minimizing beam scatter), and location relative to the radiation beam (minimizing defraction). In general, distance will correlate with clarity (the greater the distance to the emulsion, the greater the displacement due to scatter) but it is not causal. A bullet fragment in cross-section and located near the center of the radiation beam would be expected to produce an image such as that observed in the frontal x-ray. The essential points, however, are: (1) It is anatomically impossible that the "high" fragment is the circular fragment in the frontal x-ray and (2) The round fragment correlates exactly in size and location to the fragment in the lateral x-ray immediately superior to the frontal sinus.
There is a major bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. The evidence is unequivocal and, without qualification, the Panel is in error in equating the round fragment in the frontal x-ray with the "high" fragment in the lateral x-ray." -- Joseph N Riley, Ph.D. - "Respected neurologist who specialized in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology. His neurological research was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, including the Journal of Comparative Neurology, Cell and Tissue Research, and Brain Research, and his research was cited by many other neuroscientists. He taught neuroscience at the University of Florida, the University of California, and the State University of New York."
https://archive.org/details/nsia-RileyJosephN/nsia-RileyJosephN/Riley%20Joseph%20N%2005/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
===========
THERE IS A METALLIC FRAGMENT ABOVE THE SINUS APPEARING TO BE BETWEEN THE BONY TABLES OF THE FRONTAL BONE
- Dr. G. M. McDonnel, in his report to the HSCA concerning Observation, analysis, and conclusions in connection with radiographic images and enhanced images attributed to President John F. Kennedy.
============
Post the enhanced AP X-Ray with an arrow pointing at the fragment that my red arrow is pointing at in the lateral view below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/D0hGLjwL/Head-Fragments2.jpg)