To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around half of it's original speed, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...What is your source for that? According to Dr. Olivier (5H75) the muzzle velocity was 2,160 fps and the average speed on entry of the back was 1,904 fps (5H77).
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.Not according to Dr. Olivier. He said (5H84) that the entrance wound on Gov. Connally's back was consistent with a non-yawing/tumbling bullet entring on a tangent and could not say that it was less probable than being caused by a yawing bullet.
Not according to Dr. Olivier. He said (5H84) that the entrance wound on Gov. Connally's back was consistent with a non-yawing/tumbling bullet entring on a tangent and could not say that it was less probable than being caused by a yawing bullet.\
To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around half of it's original speed, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
So, as I was saying, Dr. Olivier said that the wound could be caused by a tangential strike or a yawing bullet and he could not say which was more probable, just that "With this particular bullet those would be the two probable causes of this wound of this size".In other words he did not agree with your assertion the the wound measurement proved that it was made by a tumbling/yawing bullet.
You were saying?
Olivier offered that the longitudinal dimension could possibly be explained by a tangential strike if the strike was at a slight angle on his back so that it came in cutting the skin but refused to commit himself on it because he hadn't actually seen the wound.
So, as I was saying, Dr. Olivier said that the wound could be caused by a tangential strike or a yawing bullet and he could not say which was more probable, just that "With this particular bullet those would be the two probable causes of this wound of this size".In other words he did not agree with your assertion the the wound measurement proved that it was made by a tumbling/yawing bullet.
If the wound was caused by a tangential strike then it had to have been a pristine bullet. At the angle it entered JBC back and exited from just below his right nipple from where would the shot have originated from?
So, as I was saying, Dr. Olivier said that the wound could be caused by a tangential strike or a yawing bullet and he could not say which was more probable, just that "With this particular bullet those would be the two probable causes of this wound of this size".In other words he did not agree with your assertion the the wound measurement proved that it was made by a tumbling/yawing bullet.
Perhaps Sturdivan should have studied geometry as well as ballistics. An ellipse is a symmetrical shape, so if the entrance hole was truly an ellipse not only could it be made by a non-yawing bullet striking at a tangent, it could only be made such a bullet. A yawing or tumbling bullet will make an entrance wound that looks anything from the side of the bullet to an egg shape which could be similar to an ellipse but not an ellipse because it is not symmetrical. An elliptical entrance wound that was twice as long as it was wide would be made by a bullet oriented in the direction of travel striking at a 60 degree angle to the perpendicular from the surface at the point of impact. Who says that such a wound would not penetrate? The skin and soft tissue is not going to deflect it. Bone might but if it hit at a 60 degree angle on the fifth rib, it is more likely that the bullet would push on the rib until the rib either moved out of the way or until the bullet penetrated the bone.
How does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?First of all, the 3cm stated in his initial report was not correct. This was corrected by Dr. Shaw who said that it was roughly elliptical and 1.5 cm in its largest diameter (4H104):
Olivier himself acknowledged that the only other possible explanation for a wound being 3 cm in length is if it was a tangential wound. Meaning a glancing, non-penetrating, wound.Olivier never said that it was a "glancing, non-penetrating, wound". Olivier referred to the entrance wound being caused by a "tangential" strike he was obviously aware that the bullet that made that entrance wound had penetrated Gov. Connally's chest. He was using "tangential" in the sense of "large angle" (an angle with a "large tangent"). How can a wound at 60 degrees be "non-penetrating"? The only way it could not penetrate would be if it was deflected. What is going to deflect it and prevent it from just plowing through in the same direction it was travelling before it entered?
Sturdivan knew what he was talking about. He still does.Are you saying that Dr. Olivier did not know what he was talking about?
To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around half of it's original speed, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
How does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon? Olivier himself acknowledged that the only other possible explanation for a wound being 3 cm in length is if it was a tangential wound. Meaning a glancing, non-penetrating, wound.
Sturdivan knew what he was talking about. He still does.
(https://i.imgur.com/9Kwbtek.png)
First of all, the 3cm stated in his initial report was not correct. This was corrected by Dr. Shaw who said that it was roughly elliptical and 1.5 cm in its largest diameter (4H104):"Dr. SHAW. This was a small wound approximately a centimeter and a half in its greatest diameter. It was roughly elliptical. It was just medial to the axilliary fold or the crease of the armpit, but we could tell that this wound, the depth of the wound, had not penetrated the shoulder blade."
Such a wound can only be created by a non-yawing 6.5mm bullet (its long axis aligned with its direction of motion) striking at an angle. If the bullet hit sideways, it would look like the bullet profile and would not tunnel into the underlying tissue with a nice round hole.
Olivier never said that it was a "glancing, non-penetrating, wound". Olivier referred to the entrance wound being caused by a "tangential" strike he was obviously aware that the bullet that made that entrance wound had penetrated Gov. Connally's chest. He was using "tangential" in the sense of "large angle" (an angle with a "large tangent"). How can a wound at 60 degrees be "non-penetrating"? The only way it could not penetrate would be if it was deflected. What is going to deflect it and prevent it from just plowing through in the same direction it was travelling before it entered?
Are you saying that Dr. Olivier did not know what he was talking about?
Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?
The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.
If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet.
(https://i.imgur.com/9Kwbtek.png])
"The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with."
It's not accurate.
Dr. Shaw testified the wound was 1.5cm.
It became 3cm when he trimmed the jagged edges of the wound before closing it.
Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.
"If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet."
This folks is called WC apologist logic. I'm guessing Mr Nickerson cut his teeth at the Flat Earth Society.
Any conclusions reached using a 3cm measurement for the wound in JBC's back are wrong.
Just to repeat the question; how does a bullet that is 3 cm in length create a hole that in 3 cm in length if not by entering fully sideon?The "glancing" "non-penetrating" adjectives are yours not Dr. Olivier's. Besides, no one said that the bullet wound looked like it entered side-on. That would make the bullet wound look like the shape of the bullet. In order to make an elliptical entry wound 3 cm long the bullet would just have to enter at an angle of 75 degrees (cos(75)= .25) from the perpendicular to the surface (15 degrees to the surface).
The wound that Olivier was asked to opine on was described to him as being 3 centimetres in its longest diameter. Whether 3 cm is accurate or not isn't relevant here. That's what Olivier was given to work with. Going with that description, he offered two possible causes for that wound. One was the bullet hitting while tilted from the perpendicular. The other was a tangential strike. That is , it was a tangential wound. An oblique, glancing wound.
If Olivier had viewed what Sturdivan did, he would have been able to offer the same concrete opinion. The wound described by Dr. Shaw had to have been caused by a yawed bullet.Since you seem to be avoiding trying to answer it, perhaps Larry Sturdivan can explain how an elliptical entrance wound could be made by anything other than a pristine bullet striking at an angle from the perpendicular but, more importantly, why he thinks it wasn't. He still has never explained why "elliptical" means to him "ovoid", "egg-shaped" or, as you are suggesting, bullet-shaped.
(https://i.imgur.com/9Kwbtek.png)It depends on what the bullet looked like and its dimensions and its condition. It did not necessarily hit sideways. If the bullet was large diameter and yawing it could have made that kind of entry wound - or if the bullet was deformed. In the case of CE399 which is 2.8 cm long and undamaged, in order to make a 3 cm wound BC's back wound due to tumbling it would have to hit side-on.
Does that look like the shape of a bullet?
I'm sorry but I don't see where you get 3 cm from. Yes, the Cosine of 75? is 0.25. Well, closer to 0.26 really. How are you applying that to get 3 cm?A pristine bullet striking at an angle x to the perpendicular to the surface will make an elliptical entrance wound whose length to width is in proportion to:1/cos x. The wound was described as roughly 1.5 cm long. If the width was roughly .75cm it was roughly twice as long as the width so it could be made by a bullet striking at an angle of 60 degrees. 3 cm is 4 times the width which makes the angle cos -1(.25) = 75 deg. If we had accurate measurements we could be more accurate in the angle.
Sturdivan doesn't need to explain it. The above photo speaks for itself. Also, "elliptical" and "ovoid" are synonymous with one another.An egg shape or ovoid shape is not symmetrical. An ellipse is. If you don't care about being accurate you can use them any way you want. If you want to say that an egg is an ellipsoid or a sphere go ahead. But it is incorrect.
Synonyms for ovoid (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ovoid)
Synonyms
elliptical (or elliptic), oval, ovate
I appreciate the discussion....but....The reason it is still talked about is that in order to believe that it was not fired at the President's car one would have to believe in a broad conspiracy that involved someone who:
I dont know why people still talk about this bullet.
The man who found it already has said the one in the archives is not the one he found
at the hospital and the Warren Commission itself didnt give the theory 'the thumbs up' either...
( It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building. )
Why do people say its an official truth?
The Warren Commission didnt.
It's nothing of the kind.
I appreciate the discussion....but....
I dont know why people still talk about this bullet.
The man who found it already has said the one in the archives is not the one he found
at the hospital and the Warren Commission itself didnt give the theory 'the thumbs up' either...
( It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building. )
Why do people say its an official truth?
The Warren Commission didnt.
It's nothing of the kind.
It depends on what the bullet looked like and its dimensions and its condition. It did not necessarily hit sideways. If the bullet was large diameter and yawing it could have made that kind of entry wound - or if the bullet was deformed. In the case of CE399 which is 2.8 cm long and undamaged, in order to make a 3 cm wound BC's back wound due to tumbling it would have to hit side-on.
Why do people say its an official truth?The Report states -----
The Warren Commission didn't.
The Warren Commission found "persuasive evidence from the experts" that a single bullet caused the President's neck wound and all the wounds found in Governor Connally. It acknowledged that there was a "difference of opinion" among members of the Commission "as to this probability", but stated that the theory was not essential to its conclusions and that all members had no doubt that all shots were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Depository building.So there you have it.... If the Report claimed it then it became evidence and therefor truth ;)
The Report states ----- So there you have it.... If the Report claimed it then it became evidence and therefor truth ;)
The evidence leads to the SBT.Isn't that what I posted? :-\ One question-- If it's truth, why is it still called a theory?
Isn't that what I posted? :-\ One question-- If it's truth, why is it still called a theory?
The reason it is still talked about is that in order to believe that it was not fired at the President's car one would have to believe in a broad conspiracy that involved someone who:
1. created the bullet by firing it with Oswald's gun before the assassination for a reason that is not readily apparent.
2. knew before hand that there would be a bullet that passed through at least one person without striking bone and that could not later be found
2. went to all the trouble of getting into Parkland Hospital and planting it in or near Gov. Connally's stretcher, for reasons that are not readily apparent
3. relied on someone to discover it in circumstances where it could be traced to Gov. Connally's stretcher, or not, for reasons not readily apparent
Since there is not only no evidence of the above but no rational theory whereby it even begins to make any sense, the possibility that it is not a bullet fired by the MC during the assassination is one that does not loom very large in the opinion of most reasonable people who have considered the evidence.
Whenever I refer to it as "fact", some CTs get all vexed over it. I have no problem with referring to it as the Single Bullet theory.
The reason it is still talked about is that in order to believe that it was not fired at the President's car one would have to believe in a broad conspiracy that involved someone who: created the bullet by firing it with Oswald's gun before the assassination for a reason that is not readily apparent.
?there is my absolute knowledge that ? one bullet caused the president?s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.? It was John Connally?s testimony that persuaded one of the Warren Commissioners, Senator Richard Russell, that the single?bullet theory was untenable
Nellie Connally: ?I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. ? Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John?Testimony ignored. There were 4 escort motorcycle police riding beside the limo--not one of them were called to testify. Now why is it impossible for someone to have fired a shot from CE-139 into a pillow and then plant the bullet as needed to implicate Oswald?
Mr. SPECTER. But, you don't remember whether you told him it was A you took off of the elevator?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think it was A---I'm not really sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Which did you tell the Secret Service agent--that you thought it was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Really, I couldn't be real truthful in saying I told him this or that.
Mr. SPECTER. You just don't remember for sure whether you told him you thought it was A or not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I really don't remember. I'm not accustomed to being questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they are writing down everything, I mean.
Splitting hairs Tim,
Tomlinson found the bullet and called O.P. Wright , the two examined the bullet and handed it to
the secret service.
Wright said the bullets were not the same when showed a photo of CE399 by
author Josiah Thompson in Nov 1966.
Im not particularly a fan but I have no reason to doubt the
story as it was a 'first hand' account.
Oh dear,
Tim in this particular example 'first hand' means that the conveyor of the information
ie Thompson himself, was in some way witness to the substance of the info.
Thompson asserts this info was supplied by Wright to himself .
That... is first hand, whether you like or not, and I am at a loss as to where 'third hand' comes from.
Secondly, I have no idea if Thompson is a man who lies or tells the truth,
but, Thompson made this incident quite public, I have never heard of his account being challenged
or denied and I have no reason at all to suspect he made it up.
If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge
that alerts me to the possibilty.
I have know such knowledge in this case ... about Thomson or Wright.
If you have evidence to the contrary I'm absolutely all 'ears' or if you like ... all eyes.
Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson. What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge
that alerts me to the possibilty.
Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson. What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
Actually Thompson is a fairly respected researcher and I'm not comfortable in suggesting that he would knowingly tell something that he believed to be untrue.
Actually Thompson is a fairly respected researcher and I'm not comfortable in suggesting that he would knowingly tell something that he believed to be untrue. I have wrongly lumped him in together with John Hunt. It is Hunt who has called Elmer Todd a liar. Not just Todd, but Robert Frazier as well. Wright may have very well recalled that the bullet was pointed. If that is the case then he recalled wrong. Like Wright, Tomlinson was interviewed three or four years later and he said that someone with the FBI showed him a bullet that appeared to be the one that he had found. That's not to say that he positively identified it. It just looked the same.
Thompson and Gary Aguilar made a big deal out of two differently worded reports on what Wright and Tomlinson said when shown CE-399 by an FBI agent. One report said that they both said that it appeared to be the same one they handled but that they could not positively identify it. The other report just said that neither of them could identify it. Thompson and Aguilar presented it as that the two reports conflicted with one another and that the first one was really a fabrication.
CE-399 was also shown by an FBI Agent to the two Secret Service Agents who had handled it. Neither of them could positively identify it because they hadn't marked it. The FBI agent who showed the bullet to them and wrote the report on the showings was able to identify his own mark that he had placed on the bullet after receiving it from Secret Service Agent James Rowley. That FBI Agent's name was Elmer Todd.
In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):
"When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
and then announced:
Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
[Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
that gun right now!
And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/underpass/holland/holland-view-1967.jpg)
The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
A little bit less deceptive please, counselor...?..It is not as if Rowley said there were other bullets that he had given to Todd that were given to him by Johnson. So by Todd verifying that CE399 was the one that Rowley gave to him, Todd is verifying that it is the same bullet that Johnson had given to Rowley - unless Rowley was lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet.
Why does that principle not apply to the statements of Agent Todd who positively identified CE399 as the bullet that was handed to him by Agent Rowley who, at the time, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been handed to him by Agent Johnson who, in turn, - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by O.P. Wright. who - without being able to positively identify the bullet itself - said it had been given to him by Darrell Thomlinson, who could not positively identify the bullet itself. What reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
There, I fixed it for you.
And to answer your question; nobody was lying. Tomlinson gave a bullet to Wright, who in turn gave it to Johnson, who in turn gave it to Rowley, who in turn gave it Todd, but none of the first four men could identify the bullet now in evidence as CE399 as the one they had passed on.
It is not as if Rowley said there were other bullets that he had given to Todd that were given to him by Johnson. So by Todd verifying that CE399 was the one that Rowley gave to him, Todd is verifying that it is the same bullet that Johnson had given to Rowley - unless Rowley was lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet.
And, by similar reasoning, that verifies that CE399 was the bullet given to Johnson by OP Wright - unless Johnson is lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet. And that verifies that CE399 was the bullet given to OP Wright by Tomlinson unless Wright is lying and had deliberately substituted CE399 for the actual bullet. And that verifies that CE399 was the bullet discovered by Tomlinson, unless Tomlinson is lying and had deliberately fabricated the story of CE399 being found at Parkland. So the only way CE399 was not the bullet found by Tomlinson is if someone was lying AND had substituted CE399 for another bullet.
So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
So by Todd verifying that CE399 was the one that Rowley gave to him, Todd is verifying that it is the same bullet that Johnson had given to RowleyIf Johnson gave Rowley only one bullet and Rowley says he passed the bullet that he received from Johnson to Todd, how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?
As Todd had no way of knowing which bullet Rowley received from Johnson, there is no way that Todd could even come close to verifying anything beyond that CE399 is the bullet he received from Rowley.
If Johnson gave Rowley only one bullet and Rowley says he passed the bullet that he received from Johnson to Todd, how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?
In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):
"When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
and then announced:
Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
[Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
that gun right now!
And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/underpass/holland/holland-view-1967.jpg)
The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
Because it can not be ruled out that, if anybody substituted the bullet, it was Todd himself.So you are saying that it could be that Todd was lying. Which proves my point that the only alternative to CE399 being the bullet found by Tomlinson is one in which someone was lying.
So you are saying that it could be that Todd was lying. Which proves my point that the only alternative to CE399 being the bullet found by Tomlinson is one in which someone was lying.
So, again, what reliable knowledge do you have that any of those people were lying?
Your question, to which I responded, was; "how does Todd's verification NOT verify that the bullet that Rowley received from Johnson was CE399 (unless Rowley was lying and substituted another bullet)?"By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
Do you now agree that Todd's verification does not automatically verify anything other than that he received a bullet from Rowley?
As for the "reliable knowledge" question, there are two sides to that coin;According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
Do you have reliable knowledge that nobody was lying?
Can a circumstantial case of possible evidence tampering be made? Yes...IMO it can.So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
Will that case ever be conclusive? Based on the evidence now available, the honest answer would be no, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth...
By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?
WCC 6.5mm bullets are actually 3 cm long. But you're correct in acknowledging that in order to make a 3 cm wound in Connally's back it would have had to have been tumbling. I'll take that as your use of Olivier's testimony as being inoperative.Why would you conclude that? I have already shown that in order to make a 3cm elliptical entrance wound the bullet just has to strike at an angle of about 75 degrees.
By itself it establishes that Rowley had possession of CE399 unless Todd was lying and he (Todd) switched the bullet he received from Rowley with CE399.You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?
Which is exactly why your previous argument, down the line to Tomlinson, was not sound.
According to your statement of principle, It isn't needed.
It was you who said you should presume someone to be truthful unless there is 'reliable knowledge' that he is lying.
I don't recall ever making such a statement.
So who was lying? And what is the 'reliable knowledge' that you have of such lying?Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
Why do you repeat the same question when it has already been answered?
You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?Because you haven't answered it. You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified. Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
You don't recall saying: "If someone tells me something , I dont just assume that person is lying unless I have some other reliable knowledge that alerts me to the possibilty."?It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now? This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.
No. I do not recall. If I said it, please provide a link
You don't seem to understand that if Todd can verify that Rowley handed him CE399 then it is not necessary for Rowley to verify it as well. It has been verified.The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.
Unless Todd was lying....
Unless you think that Todd was lying. But you wouldn't think that without 'reliable knowledge'.
Your "logic" doesn't depend on what I think or have to think in your opinion. If it has been verified unless Todd was lying, it hasn't been verified!
Not just someone with the FBI.... it was SAC Gordon Shanklin and it happened about a week after the murder.
The first "report" you are talking about was in fact a memo prepared for the WC, written by an unidentified FBI agent, that was included in CE 2011. It says that both Tomlinson and Wright said that the bullet appeared to be the same but they could not positively identify it, but - unlike for all the other claims made in CE 2011 - there is absolutely nothing to back up this claim. In fact, it claims that, in April 1964, FBI Odum had shown CE399 to both men, but Odum denied that and there is no corresponding FD 302 from Odum for it. Also, Tomlinson is on record as saying he had only been shown a bullet for identification once, and that was by SAC Shanklin in late November 1963.
The second "report" was in fact an airtel from SAC Shanklin to FBI headquarters which confirms that neither Tomlinson or Wright could identify the bullet. There was no mention of either man having ever said "that the bullet appeared to be the same".
In reading "Six Seconds in Dallas," I suspect that Thompson was "leading" the witness Sam Holland. In a dramatic apogee worthy of Gordon Ramsey's "24 Hours to Hell and Back", Thompson wrote (p 127-29, Geis):
"When we took Holland to the assassination site and asked him to
stand in the position where he found the curious footprints and saw
the smoke, his head appears in the exact position defined by this
shape. Earlier, we had shown him the Moorman photo in a
particularly clear print. He looked at the photo for a long time,
and then announced:
Well, now you have something there ... I didn't see this before.
[Almost twenty seconds pass, then Holland continues:] Well do
you know I think that you're looking right down at the barrel of
that gun right now!
And that's not where Holland saw the "smoke" anyway. He saw it in a line-of-sight to the retaining wall.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/underpass/holland/holland-view-1967.jpg)
The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.
Since when is somebody who has no recollection of something "the better witness"?
It was Liam Kelly - but you responded to my post in response to that statement. If you disagree with it, why are you responding now? This whole point of this sub-thread is to show that one cannot presume that the witnesses are not lying. but still question CE399.The whole point was that if you do not assume people are lying without 'reasonable knowledge' and you admit there is no such knowledge then there is no reason to think that CE399 was not found by Thomlinson.
If you are going to step into a discussion read the previous posts. Otherwise you waste our time.
Where is the FD-302 Shanklin's?
You haven't added anything to what I stated. Saying that "the bullet appeared to be the same" is not a positive identification. The FBI Memorandum of July 7 is a legitimate document. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
Well, Thompson was writing a case for Oswald's defense. He didn't have much to work with. Being selective with the evidence was all he could do.
Bardwell Odum had no recollection of handling CE-399 four decades prior. How should we categorize him? "The better witness" or not?
Why would you conclude that? I have already shown that in order to make a 3cm elliptical entrance wound the bullet just has to strike at an angle of about 75 degrees.
So it's your position that what it says in CE2011 is the same as it says in SAC Shanklin's airtel?
Yes.
Actually, Odum denied ever having in his possession bullet CE399 or showing it to anyone, which is a far cry from having no recollection. But I don't care how you want to categorize Odum.
Tomlinson was pretty clear that he was only shown a bullet by an FBI agent once (he said it twice, if I remember correctly) and that was by Shanklin about a week after the murder.
The day before the interview with Holland, Thompson interviewed Marilyn Sitzman who stood about 150 ft closer to the fence corner than was Holland. Sitzman was also elevated and could see down towards the fence line and into the parking lot. She had no recollection of a figure standing there. Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.Now Jerry...you've been out there and know better than that. For those who haven't--- A brief 15 sec. clip shows the area pretty well. We know where all the persons mentioned were located. Sitzman looking east to the right of the frame at the motorcade moving west...How would she be able to see a 'figure' behind her? There is abundant blockage in the parking lot behind. A perfect lair for an assassination.
It seems it was you who wasn't paying attention, so don't blame that on me.It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found CE399. It is based on evidence. The only assumption is that no one in the chain is lying and was part of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. Somehow you think it is reasonable to assume that someone was lying and was part of a conspiracy. That is not reasonable.
Furthermore, I have destroyed your entire argument. You can not simply assume that Tomlinson found the bullet now in evidence as CE399 simply because you don't have reasonable knowledge about who it is that could have been lying. There is a circumstantial case to make that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 isn't the one that Tomlinson found, but you probably don't want to know about it.
You haven't though. You claimed that a pristine bullet striking at an angle x to the perpendicular to the surface will make an elliptical entrance wound whose length to width is in proportion to:1/cos x. You haven't shown where you came up with that. Even still, with using it, the length of the entrance wound would be 3.86 cm.Length/Width = 1/cos x. So L = W/cos x. The width is not 1 cm. It is roughly .75 cm, a bit bigger than the diameter of the bullet.
1/cos75? = 3.86
Where can we view Odum's statement?
It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found CE399. It is based on evidence. The only assumption is that no one in the chain is lying and was part of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. Somehow you think it is reasonable to assume that someone was lying and was part of a conspiracy. That is not reasonable.
The fact that people in the chain of possession cannot remember what the bullet looked like is immaterial. That is why police seal exhibits in little bags and put their initials on them and put them in lockers. They can't rely on memory to recognize these things later.
Suppose you have a chain of 5 people digging in a dark tunnel, A, B, C, D and E. A finds an object that feels like a bullet and hands it to the person next to him and says pass it on. That is repeated to the end of the chain and E, the last person, puts his initials on the object and identifies it as a bullet CE399. Each other person in the chain says they can't recognize the bullet-like object that they were handed but they handed over whatever it was that was handed to them and said "pass it on". I say that this is evidence that CE399 was the object found by A. You would you say that there is circumstantial evidence that the object isn't and that at least one of A, B, C, D or E is lying. If not, what is the difference between that scenario and Tomlinson, OPWright, Johnson, Rowley and Todd?
Now Jerry...you've been out there and know better than that. For those who haven't--- A brief 15 sec. clip shows the area pretty well. We know where all the persons mentioned were located. Sitzman looking east to the right of the frame at the motorcade moving west...How would she be able to see a 'figure' behind her? There is abundant blockage in the parking lot behind. A perfect lair for an assassination.
[tr
Sitzman was roughly looking SE at the moment of the headshot. To see the view above, she merely had to turn her head to face roughly SW. In filming, Zapruder had no problem swinging his camera that way. If there had been a shot from the picket fence, she would have heard it. She not only didn't hear a shot (recall that Holland claimed to have heard a noise from there as well) but she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW). Nor did she see any figures present or moving behind the fence. |
Why so disingenuos, Tim? Why are you asking only for Odum's statement and not Tomlinson's?
You know full well that there is no testimony or deposition from Odum. But that doesn't mean he didn't say what he said, does it now?
As we have discussed this before, I also know that you know full well where the information came from. If you didn't, you wouldn't have been able to incorrectly claim earlier that "Bardwell Odum had no recollection of handling CE-399 four decades prior".
Odum told Gary Alquiler on 09/12/02 that he never had CE399 or showed it to anyone.
We find confirmation for this in two statements made by Tomlinson. On March 23, 1964 Tomlinson gave a deposition to Specter in which he said;
Mr. SPECTER. Have you been interviewed about this matter by any other Federal representative?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Who interviewed you about it?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I don't remember the name of either one of them, but one was the FBI man and one was the Secret Service man.
Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. How many times did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Once.
Mr. SPECTER. When did the FBI interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe they were the first to do it.
Mr. SPECTER. Approximately when was that?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that was the latter part of November.
Mr. SPECTER. And when did the Secret Service interview you?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Approximately a week later, the first part of December.
Btw, the Secret Service interview, which took place on December 4 - 5, 1963, is recorded in a report by SA Roger C Warner dated December 5, 1963
The second interview was with Raymond Marcus on July 25, 1966. In the verbatim report of the interview, which is held by the National Archives as part of the HSCA files, Tomlinson clearly says that he was only shown the bullet once, which was by SAC Shanklin about a week after the murder.
Combined, these two statements made by Tomlinson make it beyond obvious that Odum never showed Tomlinson CE399, which in my mind not only shows that the reference in CE2011 to Odum showing both men the bullet is a lie. It also provides an explanation for why SAC Shanklin wrote in his airtel that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet. I am convinced that when Shanklin received the bullet now in evidence as CE399 in mid 1964 he instantly knew that it wasn't the same bullet he had seen and shown to Tomlinson and Wright in December 1963. There was no need for Odum to show the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright (and risk a firm denial from two key witnesses) and it was far easier to deal with the matter as he did in the airtel.
This may come as a shock to some but J Edgar Hoover's FBI was corrupt.
We can be almost certain that the FBI, like the CIA, covered up some things about the JFK assassination.
Let's examine what we know;
1. General Walker is on record with his firm denial that the bullet now in evidence as the Walker bullet is not the one he saw and held after it was taken out of the wall. Several contemporary police reports describe a bullet which is clearly different that the one now knowns as the Walker bullet.
2. Late Friday evening, an FBI team arrives at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo and they are given bullet fragments which were allegedly already found in (and removed from) the car.
3. The bullet now known as CE399 does not have a credible chain of custody until it arrives at the FBI lab, where it's evidentiary life starts when SA Todd marks a bullet given to him by Secret Service Chief Rowley. The first four men to handle the bullet found at Parkland Hospital (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnson and Rowley) are unable to identify CE399 as the bullet they had handled. In a memo (included in CE2011) an unidentified FBI officers claims that SA Odum showed CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright, but the evidence suggests that never happened.
4. A wallet was taken from Oswald by Paul Bentley in the car on the way to the police station. In a television interview, the next day, Bentley claims he found a drivers license and credit card in the wallet. He, nor any of the three other officers in the car, ever say a word about finding a Hidell ID in the wallet. Only at the police station where Detective Rose had just started working a wallet shows up with a Hidell ID in it. Not one contempory DPD report exists from those early days in which there is any mention of a Hidell ID being found in Oswald's wallet.
5. At the Texas Theater, Detective Hill is given a revolver after Oswald's arrest. He allegedly carries that revolver on him for nearly two hours before presenting it to several officers in the lunchroom of the police station. Those officers have no way of knowing if this is the same revolver that was taken from Oswald, yet they initial it anyway.
6. A unidentified police officers calls in that a white jacket was found under a car in a carpark near the Tippit murder scene. He passes that jacket to Westbrook who in turn gives it to yet another unidentified officer. The jacket then disappears and somehow shows up, some two hours later in the possession of Westbrook who places it in the evidence locker after it was also initialed by officers who never handled the jacket. But now the jacket is suddenly grey. Strangely enough, Buell Frazier saw Oswald wear a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening...?.
7. Oswald is supposed to have taken the bus, after leaving the TSBD.... It took the DPD several hours to find a bus transfer in Oswald's shirt! The same goes for the bullets that Oswald is supposed to have had in his pockets.
8. A paper bag is allegedly found at the TSBD, but there is no photo of it in situ, despite the fact that there is a photo of a DPD officer looking at the area where bag was allegedly found.
The list goes on and on and on..... Move along, nothing to see here ;D
[tr [/t]
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zapfence.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z400-z486/Lost-Bullet-z469.jpg)
Sitzman was roughly looking SE at the moment of the headshot. To see the view above, she merely had to turn her head to face roughly SW. In filming, Zapruder had no problem swinging his camera that way.
If there had been a shot from the picket fence, she would have heard it. She not only didn't hear a shot (recall that Holland claimed to have heard a noise from there as well) but she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW). Nor did she see any figures present or moving behind the fence.
There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson. You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399. You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.
It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found CE399.
Wrong. It is not an assumption that Tomlinson found a bullet. It is a massive assumption to say that bullet is the one now in evidence as CE399.
It is based on evidence.
No it isn't. There isn't a shred of evidence that shows the bullet found by Tomlinson is the same one that is now in evidence as CE399.
The only assumption is that no one in the chain is lying and was part of a conspiracy to falsify evidence. Somehow you think it is reasonable to assume that someone was lying and was part of a conspiracy. That is not reasonable.I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie. This whole discussion is based on acceptance of Liam Kelly's statement . Since you reject it we don't really have anything to discuss here.
How in the world is assuming that nobody was lying more reasonable than assuming that someone was lying? Both are assumptionsIt is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence. We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them? Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.
Thompson therefore ignored the better witness.If Mr Holland were the only claim for a grassy knoll gunman, I might be inclined to dismiss him too. However, through the years afterward ...
There is certainly evidence that CE399 was the bullet found by Tomlinson. You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399. You have no evidence or a rational theory of why someone would do that let alone evidence that someone did.
I disagree. It is perfectly reasonable. The five people provided mutually consistent statements and had no reason to lie. This whole discussion is based on acceptance of Liam Kelly's statement . Since you reject it we don't really have anything to discuss here.
It is not an assumption. It is an inference based on evidence. We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. If you see horse hoof prints in the mud do you conclude that a zebra made them? Juries understand this. I am not sure why you do not.
she failed to see a puff of smoke (it would have been in her field of vision even if she kept her head facing SW)
This would depend on the background .....From Sam Holland's point the background would have been dark and the light colored smoke would have been visible.....
The light colored concrete of the overpass or sky, in the background would have made the smoke difficult to see, and the smoke could easily have gone unnoticed.....
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z400-z486/z435.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z400-z486/z451.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox/z400-z486/z476.jpg) |
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_muchmore_700.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Moorman_FBI_Copy.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0240.jpg) |
There is certainly evidence that CE399 wwas the bullet found by Tomlinson.The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.
Ok, I'll bite? please provide that evidence.
You just don't think it is reliable because you think that someone switched the bullet withd CE399.Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .
Why do you presume to know what I think?
And you are wrong as well. If you mean by "evidence" the seriously flawed chain of custody, then I don't think it's reliable simply because it is not reliable! I don't know if someone switched the bullet with CE399. I just know it is possible, which is why I need a sound chain of custody to eliminate that possibility. That's what a chain of custody is for!There is a chain of custody. You just don't think the witnesses are being truthful when they said that the bullet that was handed to them was the one they passed on.
So we disagree on language. An inference is a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning. An assumption is not based on either necessarily. It is usually based on experience but is subject to being rebutted by evidence.
An inference is is nothing more than a conclusion based on reasoning. So is an assumption!
We can conclude that they are not part of a conspiracy because there is no evidence of a conspiracy.It depends on the quality of the investigation. If there has been a thorough investigation that ought to have turned up some evidence of involvement of others if it existed then, yes: absence of evidence is probative of absnce of a conspiracy. Just like evidence of whether it rained. If I look ouside on the street, sidewalk, grass, deck, windows, rain barrel and there is no sign of water I can reasonably conclude that it did not rain.
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Really?
If you wake up and look outside and the whole street is wet, do you conclude that it rained during the night or do you leave open the possibility that a water main has broken in your street?I keep looking. If my window is wet I conclude that it rained.
The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.
Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .
There is a chain of custody. You just don't think the witnesses are being truthful when they said that the bullet that was handed to them was the one they passed on.
So we disagree on language. An inference is a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning. An assumption is not based on either necessarily. It is usually based on experience but is subject to being rebutted by evidence.
It depends on the quality of the investigation. If there has been a thorough investigation that ought to have turned up some evidence of involvement of others if it existed then, yes: absence of evidence is probative of absnce of a conspiracy. Just like evidence of whether it rained. If I look ouside on the street, sidewalk, grass, deck, windows, rain barrel and there is no sign of water I can reasonably conclude that it did not rain.
I keep looking. If my window is wet I conclude that it rained.
The evidence is: Tomlinson found a bullet and that he gave it to Wright; Wright gave that same bullet to Johnson; Johnson gave the bullet he received from Wright to Rowley; Rowley gave it to Todd; Todd marked it with his initials and it was produced as CE399.I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully?
In other words; you just assume it was the same bullet all the way down the line because you take Todd's word for it. Got it. You seem to go above and beyond what that WC was willing to accept initially, as they asked the FBI to investigate the chain of custody for CE399 which prompted the production of the questionable (and in my opinion deceitful) FBI memo included in CE2011. The WC must have had a reason for their request, don't you think? Any idea what that reason could have been?
Sorry. I assumed you could reason. If Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399 then someone must have switched it with CE399 at some point before Todd put his initials on it .He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed. All we really need to know from Wright is that he passed along the same bullet that was handed to him by Tomlinson.
Wow, amazing reasoning. And how do we deal with the fact that, in an interview with Josiah Thompson, in November 1966, O.P. Wright said that the bullet he handled had a pointed tip? And not only that, but when shown photos of CE399, CE572 and CE606 Wright rejected all of them as resembling the bullet Tomlinson had found on the stretcher. Was Wright lying?
Oh they were being truthful alright about having passed on a bullet. But all four collectively failed to confirm that CE399 was the bullet they had passed on.The point is that they didn't have to recognize it. They just had to be truthful that they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399. Otherwise, how did their non-CE399 become CE399 in the hands of Todd?
Bottom line; all you have evidence for is that a bullet was passed on by four men until it arrived at the FBI Lab in Washington and despite the fact that you can not rule out the possibility that the bullet was substituted you simply assume that the bullet the men passed on must have been CE399.I didn't say that. I said that if it was not CE399 then it must have been switched by that person or someone down the line. I just don't see any evidence that it was switched. You seemed to take offence at me saying that you were asserting that one of those persons was being untruthful when they said they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. Are you now conceding that to be the only possibility?
I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully?
He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed. All we really need to know from Wright is that he passed along the same bullet that was handed to him by Tomlinson.
The point is that they didn't have to recognize it. They just had to be truthful that they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399. Otherwise, how did their non-CE399 become CE399 in the hands of Todd?
I didn't say that. I said that if it was not CE399 then it must have been switched by that person or someone down the line. I just don't see any evidence that it was switched. You seemed to take offence at me saying that you were asserting that one of those persons was being untruthful when they said they passed along the bullet that had been handed to them. Are you now conceding that to be the only possibility?
Quote?there is my absolute knowledge that ? one bullet caused the president?s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.?John ConnallyQuote?I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. ? Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John?Mrs Connally
There were 4 escort motorcycle police riding beside the limo--not one of them were called to testify.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
After 4 months of preparation, Darrell Tomlinson still failed to provide the testimony that Arlen Specter really needed...the absolute certainty of just where he had found that bullet.
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_8_lrg.jpg)
I don't assume deceit. I need evidence. What is the evidence that CE2011 was made deceitfully?All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
Before we get into that why don't you first answer my question? If it was enough to take Todd's word for it to assume that Tomlinson found CE399, why did the WC request an investigation into the chain of custody and why did the FBI take the trouble (if CE 2011 is to be believed) to show bullet CE399 to all men?
He may just have not paid much attention to the bullet and got it mixed up with other similar calibre bullets, which are usually pointed.Honest witness error is much more likely.
So, just another witness that was mistaken? Easy solution to a problem, right? You may not assume deceit, but you have no problem to assume witness error!
If the bullet that they passed on was not CE399, then it is just a matter of logic that someone afterwards must have switched it for CE399.I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).
Correct, but how could it ever be established that the bullet they passed on was not CE399 if - according to your logic - they didn't have to recognize it?
All Todd could say first-hand was that CE399 was the same bullet that was given to him by Rowley. While the WC was aware of the chain to Tomlinson, I assume they wanted to see if witnesses could actually identify CE399. They couldn't. But they did confirm the chain: that each passed along the bullet that they had received or found. That is enough to establish that CE399 was found by Tomlinson - absent one of the five lying and substituting CE399 for the bullet that was found.
Honest witness error is much more likely.
I am at a loss to understand why you cannot seem to grasp the simple point that they don't all have to recognize the bullet if they confirm that they passed on whatever it was they had received. All you need is one person to establish what it was (CE399).
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.
In your version of it, the chain of custody only confirms that a piece of evidence was passed on by serveral people. It does not confirm what was passed on! If it is enough that only the last person in the chain confirms what the item is, there wouldn't be any need for initials of all those in the chain as you simply rely only on the word of the last man in the chain.
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truth that they simply passed on the the bullet that was handed to them or, in the case of Tomonlinson and OPWright, what they saw lying on the stretcher.
Again, the same old, same old?. Still no plausible explanation for why the WC requested the FBI to go and see if the witnesses could actually identify CE399I gave you a possible explanation. They wanted to see if others in the chain of custody could identify CE399. But, as I explained, it isn't necessary if each was able to confirm that they passed on the bullet that they had received. Since they didn't mark the bullet they would have to rely on their memory. Memories of such details fade with time. However, none of them said that the bullet CE399 wasn't the one that they had received and passed on - just that they could not be sure.
or how your opinion relates to the purpose of a chain of custody. But I understand, as giving that explanation would destroy your own argument.The purpose of a chain of custody is to confirm that the bullet CE399 was the one that was found by Tomlinson. The evidence of the 5 people in the chain established that to the satisfaction of the WC because the alternative was to speculate that one of them was lying and had substituted a bullet that had actually been fired by Oswald's MC. Such a conclusion would mean that one of the five was part of a plot to deceive the WC. The WC did not think that there was any reason to draw such a conclusion. Perhaps they felt, as Prof. Feynman explained, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A) that one applies common sense and experience to the argument "well is it impossible that x could be true?".
It confirms that CE399 is what was passed on if you accept that each person was telling the truthThe WC did not know that. In fact, according to the FBI memo (CE2011) even OP Wright did not know that in June of 1964 - he just could not confirm that CE399 was the same bullet that he saw on the stretcher. Unless he took a photo or wrote a detailed description of the bullet, how does Wright "know" in 1966 that it was not the same bullet if in 1964 he was just not sure? How does his memory get better over the next two years?
But the problem is that you can not simply assume that everybody told the truth when at least one person in the chain of custody (Wright, who was not called to testify of give a deposition by the WC) is on record saying, in 1966, that the bullet now known as CE399 isn't the one he saw.
Length/Width = 1/cos x. So L = W/cos x. The width is not 1 cm. It is roughly .75 cm, a bit bigger than the diameter of the bullet.
The relationship is just based on geometry. When a cylindrical object passes through a flat surface at an angle, it makes an elliptical shaped hole on the surface. The width, W, of the ellipse is the diameter of the cylinder. The length of that ellipse, L, is the hypotenuse of a right triangle, one side of which is the bullet diameter, W. The angle between those two sides, x, is the angle that the bullet axis makes to the perpendicular to the surface (90 deg. - bullet angle to the surface). By trigonometry, Lcos x = W
Poke a bullet into a wad of flattened plasticine and you will see this.
I gave you a possible explanation. They wanted to see if others in the chain of custody could identify CE399. But, as I explained, it isn't necessary. Since they didn't mark the bullet they would have to rely on their memory. Memories of such details fade with time. However, none of them said that the bullet CE399 wasn't the one that they had received and passed on - just that they could not be sure.
The purpose of a chain of custody is to confirm that the bullet CE399 was the one that was found by Tomlinson. The evidence of the 5 people in the chain established that to the satisfaction of the WC because the alternative was to speculate that one of them was lying and had substituted a bullet that had actually been fired by Oswald's MC. Such a conclusion would mean that one of the five was part of a plot to deceive the WC. The WC did not think that there was any reason to draw such a conclusion. Perhaps they felt, as Prof. Feynman explained, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A) that one applies common sense and experience to the argument "well is it impossible that x could be true?".
The WC did not know that. In fact, according to the FBI memo (CE2011) even OP Wright did not know that in June of 1964 - he just could not confirm that CE399 was the same bullet that he saw on the stretcher. Unless he took a photo or wrote a detailed description of the bullet, how does Wright "know" in 1966 that it was not the same bullet if in 1964 he was just not sure? How does his memory get better over the next two years?
John Connally Mrs Connally
There were 4 escort motorcycle police riding beside the limo--not one of them were called to testify.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
After 4 months of preparation, Darrell Tomlinson still failed to provide the testimony that Arlen Specter really needed...the absolute certainty of just where he had found that bullet.
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_8_lrg.jpg)
Testimony ignored and post ignored because it flies in the face of a theory that will never hold water.
The bullet was sent to Dalls for id by Tomlinson and Wright.
They were unable to ID the bullet and neither could Rowley or Johnsen.
All of these men were involved in the chain of possession.
Much later,an unsigned FBI memo was found that said that an agent took the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson who said it resembled the one they found
and this agent was Barwell Odum.
Garry Aguilar contacted Odum for confirmation and he said that he had never seen CE399.
The positive ID was finally made by FBI agent Elmer Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley and delivered it to Robert Frazier at the crime lab.
Todd swore that he initialed the bullet ? but his initials are not on it either. The only initials on the bullet are those of Frazier and the other crime lab examiners.
The FBI maintains that the bullet ? known as ?Q1? ? was delivered from Todd to Frazier at 7:30 p.m.
However, this does not jibe with Johnsen?s note stating that he gave the ?attached expended bullet? to his boss Chief James Rowley at 7:30 p.m.
Todd has a written receipt from Rowley dated 8:50 p.m., which again doesn?t jibe with the FBI lab?s claim that Todd delivered it to Frazier by 7:30 p.m.!
CE573 looks just like a Carcano bullet. Anybody can tell that just by glancing at the picture below (which shows the similarities between CE573 and CE399):
I've always been surprised that no firearms expert could link it to Rifle C2766, because it sure looks like it's got plenty of undamaged surface area to make a positive identification. But evidently not.
CE573+%26+CE399+Comparison.jpg
NUTS!!..... I wanted to post a picture of the Walker bullet, CE 573, to illustrate a bullet that struck a soft wooden window sash and a plaster wall.....both materials are much softer than a a man's wrist bone.....
Soft wooden window sash? LOL! Was it as soft as the cotton wadding that they fired bullets into at the Edgewood Arsenal?
I found a good pic of the Walker bullet (CE 573) that had been posted on Mc Adams WS ......The Walker bullet had not stuck anything as dense as Connally's wrist and yet it is badly mangled.
What velocity was the Walker bullet traveling at when it struck the "soft wooden window sash"? What velocity was CE-399 traveling at when it struck Connally's wrist?
I don't believe that CE 399 stuck Connally's wrist......there were several bullet fragments recovered from his wrist and a fairly large fragment embedded in his thigh....
Where the hell did those fragments come from?? Certainly not the 160 grain CE 399.......
Thanks for posting this. Where did you find these?
(https://i.imgur.com/zQeZT2G.png)
Why not? What specifically precludes those fragments from having come from CE-399?
Why not? What specifically precludes those fragments from having come from CE-399?Nothing "precludes" them. The lead that was impacted into the femur could have been made by the butt end of CE399. But the characteristics of the wrist wound - particularly the damage to the radius and the spray of metal flakes into the arm itself - suggests that it was struck by something other than CE399. The damage to the radius, if made by a slower moving CE399 would have to be made by the hard nose of the bullet. Sturdivan's figures for speed and yield pressure of the MC 6.5 mm ammunition was based on the nose striking bone, not the softer butt end. I expect that the yield pressure of the butt end was substantially less so that if the butt end had struck the radius with enough force to break the very hard radius, there would have been more damage to the bullet.
Nothing "precludes" them. The lead that was impacted into the femur could have been made by the butt end of CE399. But the characteristics of the wrist wound - particularly the damage to the radius and the spray of metal flakes into the arm itself - suggests that it was struck by something other than CE399. The damage to the radius, if made by a slower moving CE399 would have to be made by the hard nose of the bullet. Sturdivan's figures for speed and yield pressure of the MC 6.5 mm ammunition was based on the nose striking bone, not the softer butt end. I expect that the yield pressure of the butt end was substantially less so that if the butt end had struck the radius with enough force to break the very hard radius, there would have been more damage to the bullet.
Thanks for posting this. Where did you find these?
This confirms that the visors were struck by blood, tissue or bone fragments. It also indicates that the right visor was struck on both sides, which suggests that material bounced off the windshield or frame and hit the front side of the right visor. Both visors were flipped up at the time of the shots and not as showing in the sketch.
The basic facts are.... the nominal weight of the bullet is 160 grains.... but due to manufacturing tolerance it could have weighed 159.5
CE399 obviously lost some weight in the barrel of the rifle..... which would put it's weight at approximately 159.6 at the muzzle.....CE 399 weighed 158.6
Which leaves only one (1) grain for the fragments..... and the fragment in Connally's leg was probably heavier than 1 grain....
Nothing "precludes" them. The lead that was impacted into the femur could have been made by the butt end of CE399. But the characteristics of the wrist wound - particularly the damage to the radius and the spray of metal flakes into the arm itself - suggests that it was struck by something other than CE399. The damage to the radius, if made by a slower moving CE399 would have to be made by the hard nose of the bullet. Sturdivan's figures for speed and yield pressure of the MC 6.5 mm ammunition was based on the nose striking bone, not the softer butt end. I expect that the yield pressure of the butt end was substantially less so that if the butt end had struck the radius with enough force to break the very hard radius, there would have been more damage to the bullet.
Thanks for posting this. Where did you find these?
This confirms that the visors were struck by blood, tissue or bone fragments. It also indicates that the right visor was struck on both sides, which suggests that material bounced off the windshield or frame and hit the front side of the right visor. Both visors were flipped up at the time of the shots and not as showing in the sketch.
A better copy and the the backside of page:He doesn't mention any hole in windshield. He must have been in on it. One of the 645 conspirators.
(https://i.imgur.com/80IRPn5.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4SGqyQ5.jpg)
I think that I may have got those from the ED forum. Not sure though.
He doesn't mention any hole in windshield. He must have been in on it. One of the 645 conspirators.
The examination of the provenance and authenticity of CE399 was a joint collaboration of Garry Aguilar
and Josiah Thompson.
This is my chief source for these points and my source for the lack of Todds initials on the bullet is
John Hunt who did examine it at the archives.
Hunt was adamant they were not to be found.
I'm quite happy to entertain the possibility that a scratch on a bullet may be hard to find,
but remember, this is stored in the National Archives, not someone's garage and the propostion that "the initials are
there but we just cant see them' is unsatisfactory to say the least.
I have no reason to believe that Todd was lying when he swore he initialed the bullet.
I also, have no reason to believe that John Hunt was lying when he says on close examination of the bullet
the initials are not present.
So, at this stage that point is unresolved.
Tim, you said
"Odum was well into his 80s and four decades had passed. He can be forgiven for not recalling having handled the bullet."
Really Tim?
Where is the proof his memory was deficient or that the passage of years had somehow affected the reliability of his statement?
And it's not a question of memory in any case.
He did not say he couldnt recall the bullet...he said he had never ever seen or touched CE399 and further more, he said that he
had never visited Wright or Tomlinson as part of any enquiry into it's authenticity.
Nothing vague about that..
Fazier and his times:
If Frazier has demonstrated a pattern of incorrect entry of times in various documents it matters not and if so then
discussion of whether or not this item fits that pattern is yet another point.
Im happy to accept the possibility of errors from Frazier.
As far as the points I'm making, what Frazier does or doesnt do is somewhat irrelevant.
My points on this matter dont rely on Frazier's accuracy with times.
Here is my position which reflects my first post on the topic.
OP Wright said the bullet in the archives is not the one they found at Parkland.
An FBI memo says Odum showed the bullet to Wright and Tomlinson and they recognised it.
Odum says he did no such thing and he has never laid eyes or hands on CE399.
Elmer Todd said he initalled the bullet.
John Hunt says that the initialls cannot be found on the bullet in the archives.
Any enquiry as to the authenticity and provenance of the bullet is therefore problematic and as far as I'm
concerned remains unresolved.
The other point I also made was that the 'magic bullet theory' was just that...a theory.
The commssion was split down the middle on this and said exactly that, and further stated that whether
or not the theory was true, it didnt matter to the conclusions of it's report anyway.
And its worthwhile to note that the 'theory' was the commissions.
The FBI backed the governor's account of 2 separate bullets.
In my view, the official account concerning CE399 says far more about the commission and the FBI, than it
does about the shooting.
Two things: 1) The lead fragment was not in the femur.Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory viewed the xrays taken from both angles (front and side) and agreed that there was a fragment in the femur. Dr. Shires debrided the wound down to the femur which suggests that the wound was deep. It was also oblique in the direction of the femur so it was a fair distance to debride it down to tbe femur. Te HSCA looked at the xrays and one of the medical experts thought that the object that looked like a fragment on the femur was just a film artifact. I am not sure how that conclusion was reached since the fragment was seen on both xrays, and it was a conclusion not shared by Shires. No one thought to have Gov. Connally's femur re-xrayed.
2) Sturdivan's figure for speed and yield pressure of the MC 6.5 mm ammunition was based on the butt end striking bone, not the nose. The fragments in the wrist are explained by the bullet striking base first.Not sure about that. It is difficult to obtain that kind of data from experiment because it is hard to get bullets to fly backward, but I' ll reread his HSCA testimony.
Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory viewed the xrays taken from both angles (front and side) and agreed that there was a fragment in the femur. Dr. Shires debrided the wound down to the femur which suggests that the wound was deep. It was also oblique in the direction of the femur so it was a fair distance to debride it down to tbe femur. Te HSCA looked at the xrays and one of the medical experts thought that the object that looked like a fragment on the femur was just a film artifact. I am not sure how that conclusion was reached since the fragment was seen on both xrays, and it was a conclusion not shared by Shires. No one thought to have Gov. Connally's femur re-xrayed.
"The FBI never really backed the Governor's account of 2 separate bullets. Just look at the drawing of Robert Frazier's that I posted. No bullet holes were found in the limo. The bullet that passed through Kennedy had to go somewhere. If not into Connally, then where?" -TimN.Frazier's reasoning is valid. He had searched the car for bullet marks and had not found any in the rear seating compartment. But his assumption may not have been. The assumption was that one bullet had made all of Connally's wounds since he only felt one bullet hit -the second. Connally said he never felt the thigh or wrist wounds and never felt pain from any of the three wounds. He felt the chest bullet because of the impact and the damage. Apparently, he did not notice the damage to his wrist because it was pressed against his chest all the way to Parkland.
Tim, since when do contradictions matter to the CT crowd? Their claims always fall a dot or two short of completing any given connection to reality.
Dr Gregory: ......a fragment of metal, again microscopic measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.He later gave a clearer description that the fragment was close to the femur (6 H 99):
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_89.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Photo_hsca_ex_84.jpg)
The fragments seen in those X-rays were in soft tissue, not in bone.In order to tell whether it is in the bone, you need both posterior/anterior and lateral views.
"A" pristine bullet takes in a lot of territory. Not to mention it distances itself from "THE" pristine bullet.
In order to tell whether it is in the bone, you need both posterior/anterior and lateral views.
The preoperative lateral view of the wrist (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0187a.htm) shows the wrist fragments a short distance from the bone, so you are right about that.
But the xrays of the thigh show the small fragment over the bone in both lateral and posterior/anterior views (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Connally_Thigh_xrays_both_views_sxs.jpg):
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Connally_Thigh_xrays_both_views_sxs.jpg)
@8:28 - 9:15 Hoover tells LBJ three bullets were recovered. Splinters from 2 and a whole bullet. They were connected to the TSBD Carcano by the FBI. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's 3 bullets impacting inside the Limo. The 2 splintered bullets plus the intact "Magic Bullet". With what is seen on the Z-film and what is known about how fast the Carcano could be fired that is an impossibility.
LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover, 11/29/63. 1:40P
@8:28 - 9:15 Hoover tells LBJ three bullets were recovered. Splinters from 2 and a whole bullet. They were connected to the TSBD Carcano by the FBI. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's 3 bullets impacting inside the Limo. The 2 splintered bullets plus the intact "Magic Bullet". With what is seen on the Z-film and what is known about how fast the Carcano could be fired that is an impossibility.CE399 was in the hands of Officer Todd by the evening of 22Nov63, before the FBI had done a full inspection of the limo. How did the conspirators know that the fragments found in the car would not account for all three bullets fired?
Speculating here: The bullet + (splinters) tying the TSBD Carcano and Ozzie to JFK's murder were planted before the Z-film and/or it's implications were known. Thus the disconnect from the official narrative and the need for the "Magic Bullet" created by the "Cover-up Commission"(WC).
CE399 was in the hands of Officer Todd by the evening of 22Nov63, before the FBI had done a full inspection of the limo. How did the conspirators know that the fragments found in the car would not account for all three bullets fired?
CE399 was in the hands of Officer Todd by the evening of 22Nov63, before the FBI had done a full inspection of the limo. How did the conspirators know that the fragments found in the car would not account for all three bullets fired?
The conspirators knew. They were good. They were the best. ;D
With what is seen on the Z-film and what is known about how fast the Carcano could be fired that is an impossibility.
Excellent observation, Mr Craig.....
LOOK at the book that is being presented as the Warren Report...... Has anybody ever seen a copy of the WR that thick??
Clearly they used some thick book as a stage prop, to fool us pissants into believing millions of our tax dollars hadn't been wasted on a frivolous pursuit, or a methodical cover up that benefited the maniacal brigand holding the tome.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/connally.jpg%201.jpg)
Three sets of initials appear on the bullet: RF, CK, and JH. RF and CK were easily identifiable from FBI Laboratory documents at NARA. RF was Lead examiner in the JFK case, SA Robert Frazier. CK was SA Charles Killion, who'd assisted Frazier. The third set of initials, JH, proved somewhat problematic. At first I though it might be SA John Handley, who served under Malley, but they were both assigned to the General Investigative Division, not Firearms and Toolmarks.
I asked Robert Frazier who "JH" was when we spoke in 2003. He related that JH was SA Cortlandt Cunningham. I asked why that was, and Frazier said that it was to prevent confusion in the event that Cortlandt Cunningham had to mark a document. He said that "CC" might be confused with "cc," the notation for carbon copy. To avoid confusion, Cunningham's mark became JH.
Something else Frazier told me that day cinched the identification of Cunningham as JH, the JFK assassination was the only case in the history of the FBI where more that one Examiner was assigned. Frazier was to be the Lead Examiner and Killion and Cunningham would verify his conclusions. Frazier's WC testimony backs that notion up:
How the hell do you get "JH" from Courtlandt Cunningham?
I asked Robert Frazier who "JH" was when we spoke in 2003. He related that JH was SA Cortlandt Cunningham. I asked why that was, and Frazier said that it was to prevent confusion in the event that Cortlandt Cunningham had to mark a document. He said that "CC" might be confused with "cc," the notation for carbon copy. To avoid confusion, Cunningham's mark became JH.Well that makes a lot of sense. So who the hell was 'carbon copy'?
?there is my absolute knowledge that ? one bullet caused the president?s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.? John ConnallyTheir statements means conspiracy --plain and simple.
?I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. ? Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John? Mrs Connally
there is my absolute knowledge that ? one bullet caused the president?s first wound and that an entirely separate shot struck me. It is a certainty. I will never change my mind.? John Connally
Do you have a source for that? Looks suspicious to me.It is a reliable quote. It is from Life Magazine "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt", Nov. 25, 1966 (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Life_nov25_1966_full_colour.pdf) at p.48. It is also available on Google Books (https://books.google.ca/books/about/LIFE.html?id=DFMEAAAAMBAJ&redir_esc=y)
It is a reliable quote. It is from Life Magazine "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt", Nov. 25, 1966 (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Life_nov25_1966_full_colour.pdf) at p.48. It is also available on Google Books (https://books.google.ca/books/about/LIFE.html?id=DFMEAAAAMBAJ&redir_esc=y)
Thanks for that. Of course, Connally backed away from that degree of certainty later on. Some things he never faltered on though . One, he was certain that he was not hit by the first shot. Two, he said "Oh, no, no, no. They are going tom kill us all" after he was hit and before the third shot.He was not even certain about saying "Oh, no, no, no" after he was hit in the back. In the Life article he says it was before:
He was not even certain about saying "Oh, no, no, no" after he was hit in the back. In the Life article he says it was before:Between the time I heard the first shot and felt the impact of the other bullet that obviously hit me, I sensed something was wrong and said, ?Oh, no, no, no?. After I felt the impact I glanced down and saw that my whole chest was covered with blood.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/69p5k4.jpg) "Oh, no, no, no!" |
| (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z287.jpg) | (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z294.jpg) |
Mrs. CONNALLY. In fact the receptions had been. so good every place that I had showed much restraint by not mentioning something about it before.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_n.htm
I could resist no longer. When we got past this area I did turn to the President and said, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you."
Then I don't know how soon, it seems to me it was very soon, that I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.
I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.
Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."
I never again----
Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/conn_j.htm
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.
I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no." And then I said, "My God, they are going to kill us all." Nellie, when she pulled me over into her lap----
Mr. SPECTER. Nellie is Mrs. Connally?
I think the Governor would at times go along with Nellie's claim that he said "Oh, no, no, no, no!" before he was struck by the second shot. She may have been wrong on that as she was on some other things.It is evident from his various statements that JBC wasn't really sure about when he said it. It is interesting that in his HSCA testimony Connally said that he uttered the words "Oh, no, no, no" not out of concern for his own wounding but out of concern for the President (1 HSCA 43):
In any event, Connally is not seen on the film to mouth words until Z242; see "Listening to the Zapruder Film" ( Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm) ). The article's placement of "Oh, no, no, no!" at Z242-50 suits Mason because he believes the Governor said that separate from "My God, they're going to kill us all!" and--per Nellie and sometimes the Governor--before he was struck in the back by the second shot (which Mason places at Z272).which is that the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot were correct; that the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.....2..3 were correct; and the 20+ witnesses who said that the first shot was after z186 were correct.
According to the Mason Theory, therefore, Connally would have to shout something like "My God, they're going to kill us all!" in the the 2.24 sec between Z272 and Z312. The SBT proponents have Connally taking about one second (Z223 to Z242) to perceive the strike to the back and then formulate words. That would leave the Mason Theory with 1.2 sec (Z290 to Z312) for the Governor to say "My God, they're going to kill us all!" The lip-readers say he took 1.75 sec (Z255 to Z287) to say "My God, they're going to kill us all!"
The Mason Theory
not only doesn't have enough time for Connally to say those words but the lip-readers said he stopped speaking at Z287. Furthermore, we see Connally turn towards the camera beginning Z289 and he's not mouthing anything.The lip readers were not exactly sure when he said "My God, they're going to kill us all". They cannot see his lips from z255-287 because, as they pointed out, his faces is in shadow during this period so we cannot see his lips. (His face is sideways to the camera and the sun is at the back of his head):
Nellie, however, was always consistent in stating that JBC uttered the words after the first shot and before he was hit in the chest.Insistent is more like it. The governor testified that he was saying them when he was hit [read my post above]
Amazing that people can read lips on the Zapruder film ::) Insistent is more like it. The governor testified that he was saying them when he was hit [read my post above]But my point was that on other occasions he stated that he uttered these words BEFORE he was hit. Nellie always said he uttered those words before the second shot.
What difference does it make?The difference is in the timing of the second shot!!
Nellie, however, was always consistent in stating that JBC uttered the words after the first shot and before he was hit in the chest.
But my point was that on other occasions he stated that he uttered these words BEFORE he was hit. Nellie always said he uttered those words before the second shot.The difference is in the timing of the second shot!!Re-read that statement. Do you realize that there is no contradiction there? Why get anal about when something was said rather than the testimony of when shots were fired....
the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.The Governor thought [at the time] that someone might be out there with an automatic rifle. He made his statement under oath.
Nellie, however, was always consistent in stating that JBC uttered the words after the first shot and before he was hit in the chest.
which is that the 20+ witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot were correct; that the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.....2..3 were correct; and the 20+ witnesses who said that the first shot was after z186 were correct.
The lip readers were not exactly sure when he said "My God, they're going to kill us all". They cannot see his lips from z255-287 because, as they pointed out, his faces is in shadow during this period so we cannot see his lips.
(His face is sideways to the camera and the sun is at the back of his head):
"255-287: Gov. Connally is screaming and talking (his face is in shadow; he may be saying, "My God, they're going to kill us all," based on what can be seen of his expressions); President Kennedy, meanwhile, is fainting. "
They also say that he appears to be uttering some words from 312-320:
"312 to 320s Gov. and Mrs. Connally seem to be talking (his mouth is moving; she testified "John said nothing" after he slumped back into her lap). 320s Gov. Connally's mouth seems to be forming the word "Go."
JBC did not mention that he said anything after "My God, they're going to kill us all". So it may be that he started to utter these words sometime just before the head shot and finished saying them just after.
Surely you meant to say "hit in the back" and not hit in the chest".One can use "chest" to mean the trunk. Besides, even if I were to use "chest" to mean just the anterior part of the trunk, he was hit in the chest - just from the inside out.
LOL! Point one and three are entirely your interpretation.No. I am just pointing out what they said. The interpretation that they actually meant the second shot when they said it was the first is yours.
Many who recount the impact of two shots actually said he first reacted or slumped on the shot that occurred before the head shot. In a typical LN three shot scenario, JFK first reacts on the second shot, not the "first".Like I said.
I don't recall any of the 20+ witnesses referencing Zapruder frame nos. showing the approach to the sign.I don't recall any who said the first shot was at z160 either.
They still concluded that Connally was talking (making "expressions").I am not sure they concluded anything. The were unsure of anything except when he said "Oh, no, no, no".
I think the Governor would at times go along with Nellie's claim that he said "Oh, no, no, no, no!" before he was struck by the second shot. She may have been wrong on that as she was on some other things.
"Oh, no, no, no!"
In any event, Connally is not seen on the film to mouth words until Z242; see "Listening to the Zapruder Film" ( Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm) ). The article's placement of "Oh, no, no, no!" at Z242-50 suits Mason because he believes the Governor said that separate from "My God, they're going to kill us all!" and--per Nellie and sometimes the Governor--before he was struck in the back by the second shot (which Mason places at Z272).
According to the Mason Theory, therefore, Connally would have to shout something like "My God, they're going to kill us all!" in the the 2.24 sec between Z272 and Z312. The SBT proponents have Connally taking about one second (Z223 to Z242) to perceive the strike to the back and then formulate words. That would leave the Mason Theory with 1.2 sec (Z290 to Z312) for the Governor to say "My God, they're going to kill us all!" The lip-readers say he took 1.75 sec (Z255 to Z287) to say "My God, they're going to kill us all!"
The Mason Theory not only doesn't have enough time for Connally to say those words but the lip-readers said he stopped speaking at Z287. Furthermore, we see Connally turn towards the camera beginning Z289 and he's not mouthing anything.
(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z287.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z250-z299/z294.jpg)
Jackie reference JBC saying No No No not once but in two different interviews.
WC: Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, "Oh, no, no, no."
Jackie (Theodore White "Camelot" Interview 12/19): "They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was this one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying no no no nonono, with his fist beating----
------------------
The whole concept of an early missed shot would explain three shots with the carcano, the only problem is it never happened and the reason you know that is the eyewitnesses state JFK reacted to the first shot.
But then Jackie goes on from there to describe the head shot impact. So she's saying Connally yelled "Oh, no, no, no!" after the shot heard before the head shot. So, unless you believe a two-shot scenario, she's describing what happened at Z242 to Z250 as occurring after the second shot.Jerry, that is your editorializing on the evidence. One does not have to believe a two-shot scenario to conclude that z242-250 is before the second shot.
The first shot must have missed if it made no real impression on Jackie. Could be she mistook the first shot as a backfire. "They were gunning the motorcycles." In the Z150s, the cycles are straightening up and beginning to speed up. She would have heard the accelerating cycles and first shot at the same time, and associated the two.
Andrew can explain whatever it is he can explain, maybe how an unimpeded round struck JBC's leg but only went in an inch or whatever is the current thought.Whether a first shot could have missed is not the point. The evidence is very consistent that it did not miss. This was implicitly accepted by the WC and their counsel so it is not an outrageous conclusion from the evidence, despite what SBTers would like to suggest.
Whether a first shot could have missed is not the point. The evidence is very consistent that it did not miss. This was implicitly accepted by the WC and their counsel so it is not an outrageous conclusion from the evidence, despite what SBTers would like to suggest.The HSCA did a trajectory analysis. Maybe you should review it. No where in their analysis is a bullet whizzing by JFK's head to make his hair wave and then nose diving to wound JBC by the right armpit. They also did not place JBC on one side of JFK for one shot and then move JBC to the other side of JFK for the other shot.
As far as the first shot striking JBC in the thigh, I am not an expert so I can only say what appears from the evidence. The conclusion that the first shot struck JBC in the left thigh but not in the back or wrist is based on the following:
1. the trajectory through JFK's neck goes right to left and appears to pass just to left of JBC's midline
2. the bullet passed through at least 5 layers of clothing (jacket, lining shirt, doubled shirt in front), and struck the underside of JFK's tie on exiting. It also passed through 2 layers of skin and several inches of strap muscle. How much all that caused the bullet to slow is not really known. It is estimated based on some tests but those tests obviously did not duplicate the path exactly and used some assumptions about the stopping power of the above.
3. the bullet then likely tumbled end over end in travelling toward JBC.
4. the wound characteristics of the thigh wound fit a 6.5 mm missile striking at an angle butt-first and penetrating about an inch and a half to the femur. There was evidence that a fragment of lead was embedded in the femur at the end of the bullet path. All of this fits with the known characteristics of CE399.
5. the wound characteristics of the wrist wound fit an irregular shaped missile striking the radius with enough force to shatter it into several pieces but not destroy it. It also sent a spray of lead flakes into the wound. These characteristics led Dr. Gregory to say that it was likely caused by the same bullet that exited the chest but that it was not likely caused by CE399. Since the bullet struck but did not penetrate the radius, it is difficult to understand how much of the bullet would not have deflected away from the point of contact, although it is possible that a fragment could have gone through the wrist. The thin laceration of the skin on the palm side of the wrist could have been made by a bullet fragment or possibly a bone fragment.
6. the only evidence of fragments flying up from the rear compartment came on the second shot (Tague and Greer).
7. it is extremely difficult to conceive of CE399 passing through JFK, JBC's chest, taking out 10 cm of rib, smashing the radius, making a tiny exit laceration in the palm side of the wrist and then (with no apparent cause) deflecting left ward to the left thigh with enough energy to penetrate the thigh to a depth of about 1.5 inches.
8. JBC said he never felt the thigh wound and never felt pain from any of his wounds.
The HSCA did a trajectory analysis. Maybe you should review it. No where in their analysis is a bullet whizzing by JFK's head to make his hair wave and then nose diving to wound JBC by the right armpit. They also did not place JBC on one side of JFK for one shot and then move JBC to the other side of JFK for the other shot.The HSCA did do a trajectory analysis. They found that JBC had to be sitting over the centre console to have his right armpit align with the path through JFK's middle. They had NASA engineer Thomas Canning do a photographic analysis and using faulty reasoning that is where he put JBC. But that analysis was based on a faulty concept - that JBC's right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if the man in front of Betzner had not been there. In fact, JBC's right shoulder would not have been visible because it was blocked by the car.
Serioulsly, would it not be easier to just accept there was just two shots than to go through all this pseudo logic about evidence and your liberal interpretation of the evidence and the witness statements?
The HSCA did do a trajectory analysis. They found that JBC had to be sitting over the centre console to have his right armpit align with the path through JFK's middle. They had NASA engineer Thomas Canning do a photographic analysis and using faulty reasoning that is where he put JBC. But that analysis was based on a faulty concept - that JBC's right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if the man in front of Betzner had not been there. In fact, JBC's right shoulder would not have been visible because it was blocked by the car.
As far as JBC moving - he didn't. JFK moved between shots one and two. In addition, the car turned left slightly, reducing the angle from the SN to about 3 degrees. A bullet from the SN passing over JFK's right shoulder would have gone on to strike JBC in the right armpit at that point.
The HSCA did do a trajectory analysis. They found that JBC had to be sitting over the centre console to have his right armpit align with the path through JFK's middle.
They had NASA engineer Thomas Canning do a photographic analysis and using faulty reasoning that is where he put JBC.
But that analysis was based on a faulty concept - that JBC's right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's z186 photo if the man in front of Betzner had not been there. In fact, JBC's right shoulder would not have been visible because it was blocked by the car
| (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_alt5Groden.jpg) | (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/betzner-close.jpg) |
As far as JBC moving - he didn't. JFK moved between shots one and two. In addition, the car turned left slightly, reducing the angle from the SN to about 3 degrees. A bullet from the SN passing over JFK's right shoulder would have gone on to strike JBC in the right armpit at that point.
Canning's chief mistake was that he didn't place Kennedy's shoulder mass over the car rail (see comparable image above). Otherwise, the lateral relationship of Kennedy and Connally held true.
Even if the shoulder line being blocked was so, we can rule out Connally being as rightward as you place him because we could have to be seeing his head in Betzner.
The WC/Canning/3D Legitimate Expert analysis all point to a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat going on to strike the right back of Connally.
You, on the other hand, have proposed an already-wounded Connally receiving a bullet at Z272 that more-honest analysis show would have entered the side of his shoulder mass.
You need to demonstrate that your proposed MB trajectory was even possible before you can make ANY assertions and your graphics are a non-starter.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MD_CGI.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f144_sbttrajectory.gif)Where do YOU see JBC's left buttock in Canning's drawing? (2 HSCA 183). I see it perched to the left of the jump seat, off the seat.
Connally was "sitting over the centre console." You must have excelled in hyperbole at law school.
Even if the shoulder line being blocked was so, we can rule out Connally being as rightward as you place him because we could have to be seeing his head in Betzner.I have him in the middle of the jump seat. That is consistent with the Betzner photo. Besides we can see where he is in the film taken by David Powers and he is no where near the middle console. And JFK's right shoulder is well within the car even though he is leaning to the right.
By "shot two" you mean your shot two at Z272.No. I mean Oswald's second shot at z272 - actually z271-272.
The WC/Canning/3D Legitimate Expert analysis all point to a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat going on to strike the right back of Connally.I am not sure what you mean and why you think it is not an honest analysis. The bullet followed along the outside of the fifth rib until it exerted so much inward pressure on the rib that it penetrated it and sent shards of bone into the lower lobe of the right lung and also caused the rib to fracture near the spine. In order to put that much inward pressure on the rib it had to have entered the back/armpit in a direction that was toward the midline. Since the shot from the SN was almost directly from behind at z271-72, in order to have the bullet go from the right side toward the middle, the body had to be turned, which, of course, it was.
You, on the other hand, have proposed an already-wounded Connally receiving a bullet at Z272 that more-honest analysis show would have entered the side of his shoulder mass.
Where do YOU see JBC's left buttock in Canning's drawing? (2 HSCA 183). I see it perched to the left of the jump seat, off the seat.
I have him in the middle of the jump seat. That is consistent with the Betzner photo. Besides we can see where he is in the film taken by David Powers and he is no where near the middle console. And JFK's right shoulder is well within the car even though he is leaning to the right.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/shoehorn-shoulder-width.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DPowers.jpg) |
No. I mean Oswald's second shot at z272 - actually z271-272.
I am not sure what you mean and why you think it is not an honest analysis. The bullet followed along the outside of the fifth rib until it exerted so much inward pressure on the rib that it penetrated it and sent shards of bone into the lower lobe of the right lung and also caused the rib to fracture near the spine. In order to put that much inward pressure on the rib it had to have entered the back/armpit in a direction that was toward the midline. Since the shot from the SN was almost directly from behind at z271-72, in order to have the bullet go from the right side toward the middle, the body had to be turned, which, of course, it was.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/connally-torso-transit-z271.jpg) Mason's disturbing visual of his Z272 torso-transit; Mason's skewing of the image reduces the amount of deflection angle to make it seem "possible" | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/shoehorn-271-shoulder-joint-entry.jpg) Mason's 3D study |
So... Connally is no longer "sitting over the centre console"? Just half a buttock reaching to the console mid-line.You are quibbling over semantics. So, to you, that is not sitting over the console. To me, it is. But you are making progress. Even you now acknowledge that Canning's placement was wrong. You have come a long way. I should also point out that Canning admitted to me that he found my argument that his placement was wrong persuasive. He admitted that he would likely revise his placement if he were to do it again. You can read his interesting 2003 email to me here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/email_canning_Apr1103.PDF).
If you think your SketchUp alignment of Kennedy and Connally (where their heads are almost in a line) is comparable to Powers, you need to get your eyes checked. There are Power frames where Kennedy straightened up and his shoulder was more over the car rail, similar to how he was seated in the Zapruder film as he approached the sign.Since his elbow is on the car rail and it is extended out to his right as we see in the zfilm then his shoulder is not over the car rail.
LOL!You now realize I have a sense of humour. Again, progress!
Mason's disturbing visual of his Z272You appear to disturb easily.
torso-transit; Mason's skewing of the
image reduces the amount of deflection
angle to make it seem "possible"
The entry wound is on Connally's back surface (slightly above the armpit), not in through the right surface of his right shoulder (where there is no armpit).I understand the entry point. It was just to the right of the right shoulder blade and impacted the fifth rib, which is below the level of the right armpit. Here is a picture showing the armpit and fifth rib.
If you had been following, you would know it's not a "Magic Bullet" trajectory but a 3D recreation of Z193, to demonstrate where a bullet through Kennedy would end up if fired in the Z190s (which Mason proposed would sail pass Connally on his left side and gently lodge in his left thigh). The model is valid in demonstrating right-to-left issues and thus invalidates Mason's claim.
In my recreation, the bullet does strike Kennedy "high" because the 3D models I use are typically in standard anatomical-position.
Above: Forget Mason's version. It's forever discredited. Regarding Z193 and my reconstruction, compare Kennedy's chin level and left ear relative to his left shoulder. I believe all are much lower than in my anatomical model. As well, to be prefect, the left shoulder (or is it the left shoulder of the jacket) would have to be raised. It's early days and some fine-tuning will be necessary.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)
My anatomical-position 3D model would have to have the slouch applied. The slouch would bring more of the back forward and thus the entry point would be lower when the body is returned to the anatomical position.
If one build a 3D model based on surrogates, one would be recreating the surrogate's body type and posture, and not that of the person on the film.
The HSCA Photographic Panel noticed that Kennedy in the wounding-position was different from the anatomical-position. Kennedy was slouched forward and the Panel drew the slouch accordingly.
If you had been following, you would know it's not a "Magic Bullet" trajectory but a 3D recreation of Z193, to demonstrate where a bullet through Kennedy would end up if fired in the Z190s (which Mason proposed would sail pass Connally on his left side and gently lodge in his left thigh). The model is valid in demonstrating right-to-left issues and thus invalidates Mason's claim.You still haven't established that it is a correct 3D recreation. Where is the overhead shot with the men in the same position and showing the horizontal angle of the shot trajectory to the car direction? Where is the side view showing the vertical angle to the car of the shot trajectory? Where is the view showing the SN so that we can see that the line from the SN through JFK's neck ends up striking JBC's right armpit and then his left thigh? I'd really like to see you work out those details. Until you do, you cannot claim to have invalidated anything.
If that was a rendering of Z193 then JFK was NOT in the correct position to receive the MB from the SN. This is all about demonstrating that the MB trajectory was possible before trying to figure out how and where it zig-zagged in and out of Connally.
Either you simulate JFK's correct body position for the MB trajectory or you don't. If you don't then your whole model is crap and you can't make any assertions.
All your graphics are invalid because they aren't based on real-world data. You must use surrogates with comparable body dimensions to create accurate models and avoid future embarrassment.
Slouch? Go ahead, re-enact JFK's slouch and show the MB trajectory with revised graphics and try to advance your position. Otherwise, you are wasting our time.
You are quibbling over semantics. So, to you, that is not sitting over the console. To me, it is. But you are making progress. Even you now acknowledge that Canning's placement was wrong. You have come a long way. I should also point out that Canning admitted to me that he found my argument that his placement was wrong persuasive. He admitted that he would likely revise his placement if he were to do it again. You can read his interesting 2003 email to me here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/email_canning_Apr1103.PDF).
Since his elbow is on the car rail and it is extended out to his right as we see in the zfilm then his shoulder is not over the car rail.
You now realize I have a sense of humour. Again, progress!
You appear to disturb easily.
I understand the entry point. It was just to the right of the right shoulder blade and impacted the fifth rib, which is below the level of the right armpit. Here is a picture showing the armpit and fifth rib.
(https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Fig4-Anterior-thoracic-wall-cont-119_fig4_293810223)
That point was exposed to the SN at z272. A better question would be: "How does the bullet strike that point at z223?"
You still haven't established that it is a correct 3D recreation. Where is the overhead shot with the men in the same position and showing the horizontal angle of the shot trajectory to the car direction? Where is the side view showing the vertical angle to the car of the shot trajectory? Where is the view showing the SN so that we can see that the line from the SN through JFK's neck ends up striking JBC's right armpit and then his left thigh? I'd really like to see you work out those details. Until you do, you cannot claim to have invalidated anything.
That's a pretty polite response from Canning considering you accused him of "using faulty reasoning" and having Connallly sitting over the centre console.I never accused him of "faulty reasoning" when he was alive. Unfortunately, he died in 2009. The "faulty reasoning" that I alleged here could be seen as sound reasoning based on a "faulty premise" (that JBC's right shoulder would have been visible in Betzner's photo if the man in front of Betzner had not been there). Mr. Canning seemed to acknowledge that the premise was not correct ie. it was "faulty".
Canning agrees with me that Connally's head (if it were not as inboard relative to Kennedy as he determined) would be visible in Bretzner.It is rather obvious to all of us that his head would be visible if the man in front of Betzner was not there. He never said that would mean Connally was as inboard he had placed him on his assumption that his entire right shoulder was blocked. That should be obvious to all of us as well. Canning said " The resulting shift would not destroy the conclusion I drew." Of course, it doesn't. The failure of the presumption alone just means that we cannot place a rightward limit on the position of the right shoulder - just the rightward position of JBC's head.
I have done a Bretzner sightline in SketchUp and Connally's head is just barely blocked by the foreground figure. If Connally were a little bit less inboard relative to Kennedy, a portion of his head would be visible.I would like to see your analysis and drawing. You have to take into account that by being turned to the right as JBC's torso is in z186, his head has to move forward away from the seat back, to accommodate the turned torso.
Seems he's cautioning you on your "simultaneous eye-witness evidence" with a personal antidote.I think you meant "anecdote". He candidly admitted "Your explanation of the power of simultaneous eye-witness evidence impressed me particularly in view of my recently recognized poor performance in a stressful situation involving "freeway rage". His anecdote was simply that he was not a very good witness in the incident he described - not that 40+ people observing the same shot pattern were bad witnesses. If that were the case, they would only have a random chance of agreeing with each other. I think Canning understood probability and statistics.
That only shows the front half of the 5th rib, genius. The 5th rib slants down from the back area. A bullet entering the HSCA inshoot and going downward and to the left would contact it pretty quickly. And without the Dali-esque deflection required by your theory.So Dr. Shaw misplaced and misidentified the location of the entry wound? The axilla or armpit is the region immediately below the joint between the torso and the arm. The fifth rib is below that joint even in the back:
Gee, Andrew, you have a couple of years experience in SketchUp and 3D on me. Don't expect me to obtain overnight your mastery of fine precision and vivid reality.So you must be agreeing that you have not invalidated anything. Still waiting for your less than precise, not vividly real views.
To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...Conjecture that addresses nothing. Reply #5 ...Where is the proof that CE-399 was even fired at the motorcade that day?
The bullet, now traveling at around half of it's original speed, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib. etc etc.
Conjecture that addresses nothing. Reply #5 ...Where is the proof that CE-399 was even fired at the motorcade that day?The evidence that it was fired at the motorcade consists of the following:
So far, I've seen nothing that does that.
The evidence that it was fired at the motorcade consists of the following:
1. three shots were fired at the motorcade
2. a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson on the afternoon of 22/11/63 and passed along to Todd who put his initials on it.
3. the fragments of bullets found in the limo amounted to less than one bullet. None of the fragments could be conclusively tied to Oswald's gun.
4. point 3. was not known by anyone at the time that CE399 was found on the stretcher by Tomlinson and at the time Todd scratched his initials in CE399
5. CE399 was fired at some time by Oswald's MC
6. the above leaves two possibilities: a) CE399 was planted by a conspirator b) CE399 was one of three bullets fired at the time of the assassination.
7. Any theory that someone planted CE399 on Connally's stretcher requires: i). that conspirators anticipated a need to make it appear that Oswald's gun had been used to fire the shots that struck the limo when it hadn't ii). that conspirators knew what the bullets in the car showed or did not show and iii) that the wounds of the men in the car would be consistent with a whole bullet being found on Connally's stretcher iv) that the conspirators knew that CE399 would be discovered at Parkland by planting it on a stretcher v) that the purpose of planting CE399 was so important that it far outweighed the risk of the conspiracy being discovered.
8. 7. makes no sense.
6. the above leaves two possibilities: a) CE399 was planted by a conspirator b) CE399 was one of three bullets fired at the time of the assassination.There was no opportunity from the time the rifle was discovered in the SN for anyone to fire a bullet with the C2766 rifle, recover the full bullet and plant it at Parkland before it was discovered by Tomlinson. So if the FBI planted it, they had it before the assassination. This would make them part of the conspiracy to murder JFK.
Or, alternatively, CE399 was (just like the Walker bullet) part of an FBI scheme to wrap a very weak case around Oswald very quickly?
There was no opportunity from the time the rifle was discovered in the SN for anyone to fire a bullet with the C2766 rifle, recover the full bullet and plant it at Parkland before it was discovered by Tomlinson. So if the FBI planted it, they had it before the assassination. This would make them part of the conspiracy to murder JFK.
There was no opportunity from the time the rifle was discovered in the SN for anyone to fire a bullet with the C2766 rifle,
No need? on Friday night both the bullet found at Parkland as well as the MC rifle were in Washington.
recover the full bullet and plant it at Parkland before it was discovered by Tomlinson.
Who said the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital? You have zero evidence for that! All you can show is that a bullet was passed on by four men. What you can not (and will never ever be able to) show is that it was CE399. For all anybody knows the bullet found at Parkland could just have been an unrelated bullet that came in handy.
So if the FBI planted it, they had it before the assassination.
Wrong. They could have easily substituted the bullet from Parkland for one fired by the MC rifle at the FBI lab.
This would make them part of the conspiracy to murder JFK.
No it doesn't. You just don't want to consider the possibility of a substitution at the FBI lab.
There was no opportunity from the time the rifle was discovered in the SN for anyone to fire a bullet with the C2766 rifle,So not only did Todd lie, but also Robert Frazier and others at the FBI lab. And they lied and put themselves in a position where they would stand to lose their job and be charged criminally for what reason? Because they knew that the real bullet didn't match Oswald's MC? Why would they want to frame Oswald if his gun had not fired at the limo? It makes absolutely no sense. It is no wonder there is absolutely no evidence to support such fanciful idea.
No need? on Friday night both the bullet found at Parkland as well as the MC rifle were in Washington.
recover the full bullet and plant it at Parkland before it was discovered by Tomlinson.
Who said the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital? You have zero evidence for that! All you can show is that a bullet was passed on by four men. What you can not (and will never ever be able to) show is that it was CE399. For all anybody knows the bullet found at Parkland could just have been an unrelated bullet that came in handy.
So if the FBI planted it, they had it before the assassination.
Wrong. They could have easily substituted the bullet from Parkland for one fired by the MC rifle at the FBI lab.
This would make them part of the conspiracy to murder JFK.
No it doesn't. You just don't want to consider the possibility of a substitution at the FBI lab.
The evidence that it was fired at the motorcade consists of the following:I do not understand why at this point it is so difficult to accept this.
1. three shots were fired at the motorcade
Three shots were reported. Does not prove 399 was one of them.
2. a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson on the afternoon of 22/11/63 and passed along to Todd who put his initials on it.
No proof really, that 399 was fired at the motorcade.
3. the fragments of bullets found in the limo amounted to less than one bullet. None of the fragments could be conclusively tied to Oswald's gun.
And they certainly tried to do that.
4. point 3. was not known by anyone at the time that CE399 was found on the stretcher by Tomlinson and at the time Todd scratched his initials in CE399
Does not prove anything
5. CE399 was fired at some time by Oswald's MC
Yes at some time
6. the above leaves two possibilities: a) CE399 was planted by a conspirator b) CE399 was one of three bullets fired at the time of the assassination.
A bullet fired and striking flesh and bone would have been deformed and therefore difficult to link to the rifle
7. Any theory that someone planted CE399 on Connally's stretcher requires: i). that conspirators anticipated a need to make it appear that Oswald's gun had been used to fire the shots that struck the limo when it hadn't ii). that conspirators knew what the bullets in the car showed or did not show and iii) that the wounds of the men in the car would be consistent with a whole bullet being found on Connally's stretcher iv) that the conspirators knew that CE399 would be discovered at Parkland by planting it on a stretcher v) that the purpose of planting CE399 was so important that it far outweighed the risk of the conspiracy being discovered.
8. 7. makes no sense.
Regarding 7 v) It was assured that a conspiracy would not be discovered. The new president, FBI director, Dallas district attorney and other city authorities would assure this.
So not only did Todd lie, but also Robert Frazier and others at the FBI lab. And they lied and put themselves in a position where they would stand to lose their job and be charged criminally for what reason? Because they knew that the real bullet didn't match Oswald's MC? Why would they want to frame Oswald if his gun had not fired at the limo? It makes absolutely no sense. It is no wonder there is absolutely no evidence to support such fanciful idea.
6. the above leaves two possibilities: a) CE399 was planted by a conspirator b) CE399 was one of three bullets fired at the time of the assassination.
Or, alternatively, CE399 was (just like the Walker bullet) part of an FBI scheme to wrap a very weak case around Oswald very quickly?
I do not understand why at this point it is so difficult to accept this.Of course you don't. You think you can get the truth by rejecting evidence because it could leave doubt and reaching conclusions based on the possibility of contrary evidence existing but which has not been discovered.
2. a bullet was found on a stretcher at Parkland by Tomlinson on the afternoon of 22/11/63 and passed along to Todd who put his initials on it.
You think you can get the truth by rejecting evidence because it could leave doubt and reaching conclusions based on the possibility of contrary evidence existing but which has not been discovered.Not that I am one...but that is what criminal defense lawyers do. It's called an Appeal.
Not that I am one...but that is what criminal defense lawyers do. It's called an Appeal.It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence. Defence counsel do not want judges rejecting evidence by subjecting each piece of evidence to the "reasonable doubt" standard. That is a sure way for the prosecutor to set aside an acquittal on appeal.
It is a well established principle of law that when weighing the evidence the fact finder must not subject each piece of evidence to the standard of proof (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). The trier of fact must apply that standard of proof to the whole of the evidence. Defence counsel do not want judges rejecting evidence by subjecting each piece of evidence to the "reasonable doubt" standard. That is a sure way for the prosecutor to set aside an acquittal on appeal.
How is this a "well established principle of law"?
If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?
Seems you find putting the pieces (of evidence) together somewhat frightening
How is this a "well established principle of law"?I would have to check the US authorities but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated this on many occasions, the leading case is The Queen v. Morin [1988] 2 SCR 345. The court stated the point this way (p. 362):
If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?It is very simple, common sense. One can reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about a fact based on many independent pieces of evidence that point to guilt but do not individually prove guilt.
I would have to check the US authorities but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated this on many occasions, the leading case is The Queen v. Morin [1988] 2 SCR 345. The court stated the point this way (p. 362):
"The jury should be told that the facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard. This instruction is a necessary corollary to the basic rule referred to above. Without it there is some danger that a jury might conclude that the requirement that each issue or element of the offence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt demands that individual items of evidence be so proved."
It is very simple, common sense. One can reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about a fact based on many independent pieces of evidence that point to guilt but do not individually prove guilt.
For example, suppose the issue is identity of the killer and 16 witnesses independently describe 8 different things about the identity of the person who committed the crime (he wore a baseball cap, he had a beard, he had a bleeding cut on his left hand, he spoke with a french accent, he had blonde medium length hair, he wore blue running shoes, he had a blue denim jacket and he drove away in a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light). None of the witnesses were 100% sure that they made correct observations. Now it so happens that a man fitting that description was stopped about a mile from the scene of the crime within a two minutes of the crime being committed, driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light. It also turns out that the accused had been captured on video in a bar drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening.
Each one of those pieces of evidence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself nor can a single piece of evidence prove the identity of the accused as the killer beyond a reasonable doubt. But together they form the basis on which a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was the killer.
You have to go where the evidence takes you. The evidence leads to the SBT.
Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct? If so, this would seem to be exactly what Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time, was basing his case on in his book. Very interesting. Thank you.Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case.
May I ask if you have any legal training?35 years as a criminal defence lawyer (Canada).
Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct? If so, this would seem to be exactly what Bugliosi, arguably the greatest prosecutor of his time, was basing his case on in his book. Very interesting.Yes that is very interesting. It comes down to who can write the thickest book. (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case.
It is not so much the absolute quantity of evidence but the fact that there are many independent pieces of evidence that fit together that makes the case. The more such pieces one has, and the more unlikely it is that each piece would fit by chance, the easier it is to dispel all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion. It is the way that evidence fits together that ultimately gives one the assurance that the sources of evidence are reliable (eg. the fact that multiple witnesses made similar observations and this fit with the accused's description upon arrest and with the connection to the accused) that dispels all reasonable doubt about the overall conclusion (which, in the example I gave, was the identity of the killer).
The key is the independence of the evidence. The nature and quantity of evidence may help dispel doubt about the independence of the pieces of evidence (for example: if the only other conclusion is that there would have to have been an elaborate scheme of collusion between a large number of people, all of whom lied under oath, and that the scheme was perfectly planned and executed - a conclusion rejected as being unreasonable).35 years as a criminal defence lawyer (Canada).
This is getting a bit (https://bibleforums.org/images/aux-s/9crazy.gif) [out there for me]
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?
The bullet that Tomlinson found was on an unrelated stretcher and had a pointed tip.
How is this a "well established principle of law"?
If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?
Unfortunately many of the loons and kooks have gotten their impression of how a trial would have played out from the 1992 fantasy book by Walt Brown "The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald" ....... Evidence and proof are casually thrown out like the Big Mac wrappers at a Trump state dinner.
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?
Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage.
My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399
@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image
(https://i.postimg.cc/mk6ZbPtR/CE399butt.jpg)
That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"
Are we still discussing a bullet that appears to have no visible damage?Oh, so you were discussing a bullet that had no visible damage. My bad, all along I thought the discussion was about CE 399@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image
If you fire a bullet [even though it is through the vacant head of the strawman that made reply #204] it will certainly cause explosive damage to the base. Something called a PRIMER ::) If you fire it through a real live body it will be seriously damaged. Go find a bullet that wasn't. I guess Chappo assumes that [newbies] are automatically idiots and do not know this.
That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet. This is right in line with the JFK Autopsy Photo where a Dr is pulling JFK's hair Up & Over the Entire Back of his Head. Like the audience viewing a David Copperfield performance, this chicanery prompts everyone to ask themselves, "Just What is this guy trying to hide?"
That photo of CE 399 does Not display roughly 90% of the bullet LOL
But 100% of the rear view. See the side view for the other 90% By your calculations, it seems you guys are the ones hiding something... that 10%But congrats on being the first CTer to include the CE399 butt-end view in a post.
So the bullet came out backwards (http://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/grin.gif)
(http://www.grandsubversion.com/jfkAssassination/nobotimg/Magic_single_Theory/magic_bullet_1.jpg)
So much drivel over the most improbable theory [Only because if it doesn't work ...then it doesn't work]
I have in my possession a 6.5mm carcano bullet that I fired into a water trap.... It looks nearly identical to CE 399... My bullet is of Italian manufacture so the jacket is white colored metal....
BTW, where there any rib bones involved that watery test?
Lets see you post an image of that 'nearly identical to CE 399' water bullet
BTW, where there any rib bones involved that watery test?
How is this a "well established principle of law"?
If each piece of evidence individually doesn't meet a reasonable doubt standard, then how could they possibly meet it when combined?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4272#relPageId=23&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JFKce399JerryMcKnight.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4272#relPageId=26&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JFKhumesCE399WCpurpose.jpg)
........
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JFKhumesCE399footnote1.jpg)
BINGO !
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0191b.htm
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JFKhumesCE399_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/JFKhumesCE399_2of2.jpg)
BINGO !
Humes: The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Humes' only objection seems to have been the same as Finck's. With Boswell concurring with Humes, that would make all three of them objecting to CE-399 for the same reason.
Charles Colson - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/charles.html
Known within the Nixon administration as the "evil genius," special counsel Charles W. Colson served seven months in prison in 1974 after pleading guilty to ...
John Dean - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/johndean.html
Former White House counsel John W. Dean III was charged with obstruction of justice and spent four months in prison for his role in the Watergate cover-up.
John Mitchell - Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/Johnmitchell.html
Nixon's former law partner served as attorney general before resigning in 1972 to head the Committee for the Re-election of the President. He stood trial in 1974 ...
BINGO !
.......
Is the obvious and practical solution to the "lawyering" resulting in deliberate deception and obfuscation,
to /disbar/imprison/(perhaps) execute the offending attorneys deliberately undermining our National Security these untolled years?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0060a.htm
(http://jfkforum.com/images/jfkWarrenReportPage95CE399.jpg)
White House releases ethics waivers granted to 14 staffers - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/.../white-house-releases-ethics-waivers-granted-to-14-staffer...
Jun 5, 2017 - The waivers have been granted to four ex-lobbyists and numerous ... by White House counsel Don McGahn and Stefan Passantino, the chief ...
Top Ethics Officer Challenges Trump Over Secret Waivers for Ex ...
https://www.nytimes.com/.../top-ethics-officer-challenges-trump-over-secret-waivers-for...
May 1, 2017 - But Mr. Trump has chosen to keep the waivers secret. ... The 20 Best TV Dramas Since 'The Sopranos' ... A letter sent in late February by Stefan C. Passantino, the top White House ethics lawyer, argued that Mr. Shaub does ...
White House aides get waivers on ethics; Bannon's retroactive
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2017/.../white-house-aides-get-waivers-on-ethic...
Jun 2, 2017 - White House aides get waivers on ethics; Bannon's retroactive ... counsel Don McGahn and Stefan Passantino, the counsel's chief ethics officer. ... 20, according to a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in ...
Trump exempts senior staff from ethics rules | TheHill
https://thehill.com/.../335878-white-house-releases-waivers-to-administrations-ethics-p...
By Megan Wilson - 05/31/17 11:20 PM EDT 626. 5,902 ... The White House on Wednesday evening released its list of waivers to the Trump ... Don McGahn and the leader of the White House ethics office, Stefan Passantino, vetted the waivers.QuoteBush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor ...
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1224.html
December 25, 1992
Read the full text of The Times article or other headlines from the day. ... after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday. .... Mr. Bush consulted with Attorney General William P. Barr and Brent Scowcroft, the ..
BTW, where there any rib bones involved that watery test?
No bones involved..... But I did recover one bullet that stuck the side of the water trap .... It struck at a very shallow angle and it was badly bent and flattened....
I didn't realize Kennedy was under water when shot.That claim won't hold water.
People, FMJ ammo is designed to remain as intact as possible
BINGO !
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0191b.htm
Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?I am not sure if any of the experts who said CE399 made the wrist wound had seen the photos of the holes in the jacket and shirt cuffs?:
Colonel FINCK - ]No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
Unfortunately many of the loons and kooks have gotten their impression of how a trial would have played out from the 1992 fantasy book by Walt Brown "The People Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald".
@Newbies
FMJ ammo is designed to resist damage while passing through flesh.
People, FMJ ammo is designed to remain as intact as possible
I have in my possession a 6.5mm carcano bullet that I fired into a water trap.... It looks nearly identical to CE 399... My bullet is of Italian manufacture so the jacket is white colored metal....
Walt you are in a unique position to answer your own questions. Repeat your experiment but weigh the FMJ bullet before and after to see how much material gets lost in the barrel. I'll bet it will match CE-399 perfectly. It would also explain why there was no DNA on the bullet.
Don't forget to weigh the FMJ bullet (slug & hull) before firing it into the water trap, then subtract the weight of the spent hull from the total to determine the weight of the slug before firing. Then subtract the weight of the fired slug to determine how much mass is missing. Then post your results. Not that any LNers will believe you, but don't let that stop you. The rest of us would like to know.
Good luck!
And yet, LNers want you to believe that a FMJ bullet totally disintegrated upon hitting JFK's skull. Sure.
CE399 did not strike hard bone nose-first
It glanced off rib bone at speed thus producing the somewhat flattened end
@Newbies
FMJ ammo is designed to resist damage while passing through flesh. See where RoboCall leaves the flesh designation out. What out for him and practically every other CTer. They twist everything; either from stupidity or just plain disingenuousness.
In fact, it's hilarious how these dimwits keep obsessing over how pristine the bullet might be; when in reality it was designed to remain as intact as possible in the first place. Duh.
And yet, LNers want you to believe that a FMJ bullet totally disintegrated upon hitting JFK's skull. Sure.
And what happened when CE399 Struck/Broke the Radius BONE?
That claim won't hold water.
Another easy one. CE399 was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed as compared to the head shot bullet velocity... thus retaining its front-end structural integrity.
Governor Connally's Wrist Wound
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zimmerman/frontmenu_000024.htm
"Governor Connally was seated in front and to the left of President Kennedy. His exact position is not known, as photographs are not pinpoint accurate with regards to his position, compounded with the fact that nobody knows exactly when he was hit. Nevertheless, he was in a position such that a bullet exiting his chest at a downward, right to left trajectory could hit his right wrist. Governor Connally sat in the presidential limousine with his hands across his lap, save for one detail. He was holding onto his gray Stetson cowboy hat with his right hand. Whether his right wrist was lying on his leg or whether it was across his left arm is not known for sure. It is also not know if his arm was resting or in the air. Regardless, he received an entrance wound to the dorsal, or towards the rear (backside), of his forearm, about 2 inches from the wrist on the thumb side. This bullet shattered the smaller bone of the forearm- the radius.
Define "front end" with regard to "maintaining it's Structural Integrity". CE399 maintained its' "structural integrity" from its' base all the way up to the nose.
That's not a claim, Dumbo.Dumbo? How frigging original. Dude really owned me there....not. You know El Chapo..You?ll really go far someday?and I sincerely hope you'll stay there.
Another easy one. CE399 was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed as compared to the head shot bullet velocity... thus retaining its front-end structural integrity.
BS: How did the FMJ bullet cause this much damage when it was designed to remain intact (not explode)?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
Compare that to 2 small holes as CE-399 smashed thru JFK's T1 vertebrae.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)
Then it supposedly tumbled into Connally's rib, wrist and thigh and magically dropped out onto the wrong stretcher in glorious pristine condition. So is that your story? ;D
Dumbo? How frigging original. Dude really owned me there....not. You know El Chapo..You?ll really go far someday?and I sincerely hope you'll stay there.
See everybody? Chappy went back in time with a stop watch and clocked the velocity of each those shots (https://bibleforums.org/images/aux-s/9crazy.gif)
I don't have a story; I'm just an observer... a juror You continue to ignore my research. I have addressed the bone v flesh FMJ-expected reactions in accordance with that research.A 'juror'..a 'researcher'...... (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
And what happened when CE399 Struck/Broke the Radius BONE?CE399 could not strike the radius unless it also caused this damage to the Governor's shirt cuff:
I don't have a story; I'm just an observer... a juror
It's up to the prosecution & defence to present their cases
You are the ones concocting the 'stories'
(But I suggest you keep your day job)
You continue to ignore my research. I have addressed the bone v flesh FMJ-expected reactions in accordance with that research.
BS: How did the FMJ bullet cause this much damage when it was designed to remain intact (not explode)?
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/323.png)
Compare that to 2 small holes as CE-399 smashed thru JFK's T1 vertebrae.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)
Then it supposedly tumbled into Connally's rib, wrist and thigh and magically dropped out onto the wrong stretcher in glorious pristine condition. So is that your story? ;D
Have you ever researched the type of wounds from 6.5 mm rifles inflicted on Allied soldiers during WWII? There were relatively-"clean" through-and-through soft-tissue wounds as well as devastating hard-tissue head wounds.
That's air in the missile passage. It compromises the opacity of bone. The calvicle and ribs are weak on X-ray because of air.
You fail to appreciate the difference between how bullets of this type impact soft vs. hard tissue.
Have you ever researched the type of wounds from 6.5 mm rifles inflicted on Allied soldiers during WWII? There were relatively-"clean" through-and-through soft-tissue wounds as well as devastating hard-tissue head wounds.Opacity of bone is a matter of bone density and thickness. Ribs are not really thick so they don't absorb xrays well when perpendicular to the xrays. When at an angle to the xrays they present more bone to the xray path so they block more, which is why the ribs at the sides are more opaque than the central parts. So although the opacity of the ribs is weakest where the lungs are fulllest, it is not because of air. Air doesn't affect the bone's opacity.
That's air in the missile passage. It compromises the opacity of bone. The calvicle and ribs are weak on X-ray because of air.
You fail to appreciate the difference between how bullets of this type impact soft vs. hard tissue.The bullet destroyed 10 cm of rib. According to you it was still travelling at 1700 fps when it struck the 5th rib. According to you it did not strike nose-first. According to Larry Sturdivan the jacketed 6.5 mm bullet will deform if it strikes bone at a much lesser speed nose-first and even lesser still if not nose first. And that is just striking the rib. Then there is the radius, which is a very hard bone. Do the irregular holes in the shirt cuff really look like they were made by CE399?:
Opacity of bone is a matter of bone density and thickness. Ribs are not really thick so they don't absorb xrays well when perpendicular to the xrays. When at an angle to the xrays they present more bone to the xray path so they block more, which is why the ribs at the sides are more opaque than the central parts. So although the opacity of the ribs is weakest where the lungs are fulllest, it is not because of air. Air doesn't affect the bone's opacity.
The bullet destroyed 10 cm of rib. According to you it was still travelling at 1700 fps when it struck the 5th rib. According to you it did not strike nose-first. According to Larry Sturdivan the jacketed 6.5 mm bullet will deform if it strikes bone at a much lesser speed nose-first and even lesser still if not nose first.
And that is just striking the rib. Then there is the radius, which is a very hard bone. Do the irregular holes in the shirt cuff really look like they were made by CE399?:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_shirt_cuff.jpg)
Since air in the lungs appear as black on an X-ray, it compromises the brightness of bone between the lungs and the X-ray machine lens.
Sturdivan is all over the map. The SBT rib strike would be oblique to the bone (ie: more of the bone's mass was in the missile path) whereas your theory would have the bullet strike the rib bone perpendicular (ie: very little bone in the missile path).
So, better to believe your cockamamie theory that a bullet (unimpeded and nose-on) made a right-angle turn (3D will show this, plus it would have to traverse the shoulder cuff to reach the fifth rib at all) off the thin weak fifth rib bone.
Your graphic:
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/connally-torso-transit-z271.jpg)
You expecting a punched-out clean silhouette of the bullet shape? Unlike the back, the wrist is going to move quite a bit when struck and the bullet would deflect. Not a simple matter of a bullet going through a stiff supported surface and leaving clean holes.
Not a simple matter of a bullet going through a stiff supported surface and leaving clean holes.
That's not completely true...... The bullet that allegedly created this ragged teat , CE 399 was nearly pristine....It sure as hell wouldn't have created this kind of damage .... I would agree that CE 399 may not have created a neat little hole.....but it would NOT have created this ragged tear either.....
Mason and you are barking up the wrong tree.
"The initial entrance of a bullet into fabric is generally circular or elliptical,
depending upon the angle of fire. If the bullet has been unbalanced in flight,
it may strike with a wobble or end over end; in either case, the hole is likely
to be irregular in form. The size of the bullet hole is only roughly characteristic
of the caliber of the bullet. If the bullet has met the fabric obliquely, the latter
may be abraded on the near edge to present an appearance similar to that of
moth-eaten area."
"As might be expected, the fibers at the edge of the bullet hole are frequently
pressed through the hole in the direction of passage. This finding is not
sufficiently constant, however, to be considered with any degree of assurance.
The explosive action of the bullet and gases in some instances causes a reversed
appearance."
"In estimating direction, due consideration should be given to the fact that the
clothing is generally free to swing and assume positions other than that of the
surface of the body."
-- Excerpts from "Bullet Holes and Chemical Residues in Shooting Cases"
Joseph T. Walker, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Winter 1940
Here's another one for the clothing bunch:
"By lining up the holes in the clothing with the entrance and exit wounds,
it can be determined whether the victim was sitting, standing, slouched,
or in another position."
-- "Gunshot Wounds" ( Link (https://www.relentlessdefense.com/forensics/gunshot-wounds/) )
Sturdivan is all over the map. The SBT rib strike would be oblique to the bone (ie: more of the bone's mass was in the missile path) whereas your theory would have the bullet strike the rib bone perpendicular (ie: very little bone in the missile path).That is your take. The bullet would have struck JBC's rib somewhat obliquely and bent the rib inward before penetrating the bone. After all, it caused a fracture of the 5th rib near the spine and pentetrated the last 10 cm of rib.
So, better to believe your cockamamie theory that a bullet (unimpeded and nose-on) made a right-angle turn (3D will show this, plus it would have to traverse the shoulder cuff to reach the fifth rib at all) off the thin weak fifth rib bone.There is no right angle turn. The cockamamie theory is the one that has the intact barely damaged bullet CE399 deflecting around the point of contact on the radius (instead of deflecting away from it), making a significant jagged tear in the cuff drawing threads into the wrist wound and then making a tiny, almost unnoticed, slit in the wrist on exit.
You expecting a punched-out clean silhouette of the bullet shape? Unlike the back, the wrist is going to move quite a bit when struck and the bullet would deflect. Not a simple matter of a bullet going through a stiff supported surface and leaving clean holes.You do realize that the wrist cannot possibly move while the bullet is in contact with it. The time is too short. It is in contact with the wrist for a fraction of a millisecond.
That is your take. The bullet would have struck JBC's rib somewhat obliquely and bent the rib inward before penetrating the bone. After all, it caused a fracture of the 5th rib near the spine and pentetrated the last 10 cm of rib.
There is no right angle turn. The cockamamie theory is the one that has the bullet deflecting around the radius making a significant jagged tear in the cuff drawing threads into the wrist wound and then making a tiny, almost unnoticed slit in the wrist on exit.
You do realize that the wrist cannot possibly move while the bullet is in contact with it. The time is too short. It is in contact with the wrist for a fraction of a millisecond.
A 'juror'..a 'researcher'...... (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
I would have to check the US authorities but the Supreme Court of Canada has stated this on many occasions, the leading case is The Queen v. Morin [1988] 2 SCR 345. The court stated the point this way (p. 362):
"The jury should be told that the facts are not to be examined separately and in isolation with reference to the criminal standard. This instruction is a necessary corollary to the basic rule referred to above. Without it there is some danger that a jury might conclude that the requirement that each issue or element of the offence be proved beyond a reasonable doubt demands that individual items of evidence be so proved."
It is very simple, common sense. One can reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt about a fact based on many independent pieces of evidence that point to guilt but do not individually prove guilt.
For example, suppose the issue is identity of the killer and 16 witnesses independently describe 8 different things about the identity of the person who committed the crime (he wore a baseball cap, he had a beard, he had a bleeding cut on his left hand, he spoke with a french accent, he had blonde medium length hair, he wore blue running shoes, he had a blue denim jacket and he drove away in a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light). None of the witnesses were 100% sure that they made correct observations. Now it so happens that a man fitting that description was stopped about a mile from the scene of the crime within a two minutes of the crime being committed, driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light. It also turns out that the accused had been captured on video in a bar drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening.
Each one of those pieces of evidence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself nor can a single piece of evidence prove the identity of the accused as the killer beyond a reasonable doubt. But together they form the basis on which a jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was the killer.
Yes. If there is enough independent evidence for the trier of fact to be satisfied that it could not reasonably fit together, as it does, without the ultimate conclusion advanced by the prosecution being correct, then the prosecution has proven the case.
The key is the independence of the evidence.
Hi Andrew, so if I'm understanding you correctly you're stating that, in at least some cases, it can come down to the shear quantity of evidence rather than the quality of each individual piece of evidence, is that correct?
@Newbies: You'll never see any CTer post this image
@Newbies
FMJ ammo is designed to resist damage while passing through flesh. See where RoboCall leaves that flesh designation out. Watch out for him and practically every other CTer. They twist everything; either from stupidity or just plain disingenuousness.
Another easy one. CE399 was travelling at a much lower rate-of-speed as compared to the head shot bullet velocity... thus retaining its front-end structural integrity.
What's this latest drivel of yours got to do with reality?
Tell us why anyone would need to measure the speed of each missile in order to conclude that CE399 would certainly lose velocity by dint of passing through two clothed bodies, while the head shot missile had an open flight path to the intended target
In your example, there is no reasonable doubt that the accused was "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", right? And there's no reasonable doubt that a video exists of him drinking with the deceased earlier in the evening, right (although I'm not sure how that's relevant unless he claimed to not know the victim at all, or he had an alibi that was contradicted by the video)?In my scenario, yes. But it is not required. At some point you have to arrest the accused. Let's call him "Dave". There could have be a friend who said he saw his friend Dave (whom he knew) driving his red pickup truck and noticed that the truck had a damaged right tail light. You could question whether he was correct. And there could be doubt that the video shows "Dave" with the accused - it could be poor resolution and just show a guy with a beard who could be Dave. It doesn't matter if you have enough pieces of independent evidence.
If there is reasonable doubt of these things, then it's a whole different conversation.Not at all. First of all, it is a mistake to apply reasonable doubt to a piece of evidence. Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim". That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.
Instead, let's say for example that the cops claimed he was arrested "driving a red pickup truck with a damaged right tail-light", but they lost the truck, or they produce a photo of the truck but it doesn't have a broken tail-light. Or there are witnesses to the arrest who say he was arrested in a blue car...It all depends on what the other evidence shows. But these things really don't happen that way. When someone drives away in a red truck, two minutes later they are likely still in the red truck. If a person is stopped in the blue truck, they are probably not going to fit the description because they are not the culprit. You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.
Say you have a picture of Dave killing the victim. Would you say "oh, it is just a digital picture and show the jury one pixel at a time and ask: does this look like Dave?". The jury would say, "no it doesn't but when you put them all together I see Dave killing the victim". That is an extreme example but it is kind of how evidence works.
You can make up anything you want and say "what if a guy fitting the exact description is stopped but he is in a blue truck" but that is very unlikely to actually occur.
It's not just extreme, it's a faulty analogy. A more appropriate analogy is me holding up a bunch of random pixels and just claiming that they combine to form the picture of Dave killing the victim. Then losing the pixels.Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?
No, what I'm saying is that you have 4 witnesses. One says yellow bus, one says blue car, one says red truck, and one says orange SUV. The prosecutor says well, the police said they arrested a guy in a red truck, so obviously the other 3 were mistaken.If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.
Then you aren't going to be able to present the pixels as evidence. What evidence was lost?
If you have 4 witnesses and all saying 4 different things, there may be a much better chance that they are deliberately lying and making it up than honestly relating what they saw. Honest witnesses are just not that wildly different in recalling events. As I said, you can make up anything. It doesn't mean it happens in real life.
BS:
Are you claiming that CE399 only hit flesh? Interesting...
Arjan Hut had a thread on the old forum called "Erasing the past to protect a fairytale" in which he compiled hundreds of examples of evidence that should exist but for whatever reason is now "missing". He's resurrected the list on another forum. But to give you a few examples, the Klein's microfilm, the negative for the CE133A backyard photo, and the alleged prints on the CE142 large paper bag.This is not exactly missing evidence. In each case, there is evidence of what they showed. Marina said that she took the photos and there were, in fact, at least two identical prints that turned up. There is no rule of evidence that one has to produce a negative of every photograph that is entered or that a court is required to order production if asked to do so. The Klein's microfilm was used to produce the records using a process that simply copied the information. I think it is the original documents that were missing. The large paper bag was subjected to destructive fingerprint processes so they made a similar bag to show what the original looked like. But before it was damaged, it was photographed (with a ruler).
Ok, so what does it mean if different witnesses near say a police officer shooting describe a man wearing a white jacket, a dark wool coat, a long coat, a brown jacket, a gray jacket, and a tan jacket?My recollection is that there was reasonable consistency in the description of what he was wearing. Having said that "white", "tan" and "gray" could be just a semantic difference in description - they all refer to a light colour. I would be interested to know who said he wore a long coat or a dark wool coat though. Can you provide me with the source of your information with citations to the actual statements?
Marina said that she took the photos
There is no rule of evidence that one has to produce a negative of every photograph that is entered or that a court is required to order production if asked to do so.
The Klein's microfilm was used to produce the records using a process that simply copied the information. I think it is the original documents that were missing.
The large paper bag was subjected to destructive fingerprint processes so they made a similar bag to show what the original looked like. But before it was damaged, it was photographed (with a ruler).
I would be interested to know who said he wore a long coat or a dark wool coat though. Can you provide me with the source of your information with citations to the actual statements?
Were there any other witnesses who said he had a dark jacket? I notice that her sister, Virginia Davis, who was standing with her said that the man who had the gun had a "light brown tan jacket" (6 H 457). Others gave similar descriptions. You can have outliers in any group but they are rarely corroborated. Minds can play tricks but they rarely play the same tricks on more than one person.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. [Barbara] DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Frank Wright interview:He defines "long coat" as a coat that ends just above the hands. The waist is just above the hands. So this was a possibly slightly longer than waist length jacket.
"I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man. The man who was standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands."
He defines "long coat" as a coat that ends just above the hands. The waist is just above the hands. So this was a possibly slightly longer than waist length jacket.
| (https://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg) | (https://s.hdnux.com/photos/20/77/41/4454491/3/628x471.jpg) |
Marina said that she took one photo with a black camera that you hold up to your face. Then she changed that to two photos.
If one wants to claim that a certain camera took a certain photo, I think one does. Or if an examination of an enlargement of a purported area of said negative is conducted without having the negative to validate it.
The microfilm itself is missing too. So we're left with having to take somebody's word for it that the copies reflect what was actually on the film and that the film reflects the original documents.
So we're left with having to take somebody's word for it that the now destroyed prints were those of a particular person.
Mr. BALL. I have a jacket, I would like to show you, which is Commission Exhibit No. 162. Does this look anything like the jacket that the man had on that was going across your lawn?
Mrs. [Barbara] DAVIS. No, sir.
Mr. BALL. How is it different?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, it was dark and to me it looked like it was maybe a wool fabric, it looked sort of rough. Like more of a sporting jacket.
Frank Wright interview:
"I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man. The man who was standing in front of him was about medium height. He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands."
Marrs, Crossfire,
Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy
(https://harveyandlee.net/November/Jacket%20CE%20162.jpg) (https://s.hdnux.com/photos/20/77/41/4454491/3/628x471.jpg)
Almost sounds like Wright is referring to the jacket sleeves being so long that the cuff end went beyond Oswald's scrawny wrists.
There were only two backyard photos. There was no 133c.
This is true .....Marina did tell the cover up committee that she took CE 133A and CE 133B BUT.... I don't believe she did...I do believe she took CE 133A...But she did NOT take CE 133B and most definitely did not take 133c .
There were only two backyard photos. There was no 133c.
Right. I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA. It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC. Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.
HSCA Exhibit 133-C
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV36p171.jpg)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/6IV36p171.jpg
Right. I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA. It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC. Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.
133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two. Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures? That makes no sense. She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures. What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three? It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.
Andrew, how would she forget that she held the camera at waist level?Are you assuming that this was a moment in time for which every detail would be permanently seared in Marina's memory? I take pictures with my camera, with cameras belonging to others. I don't necessarily remember what camera I used let alone how many photos I took. She remembered taking a photo of her husband with his guns and that there was no one else in the backyard taking photos. When shown that there was more than one photo that appeared to be at a very similar time and in the same location with the same conditions, she agreed that she must have taken more than one. She still couldn't remember taking more than one but she agreed she did only because the photo was shown to her. 133A is very similar to 133C. What makes you think she would not have said the same thing if shown 133C?
The Imperial reflex is operated like a Hasselblad, not like a 35mm eye level camera, and unlike the Hasselblad does not have an eye view finder. She said she held it to up her eyes. She should also have remembered that the image in the camera was upside down, which it is in a reflex camera.Was the image reversed left to right or upside down? Wikipedia says that TLR cameras with the waist-level finder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera#Disadvantages)reversed left and right. That makes sense, because you are looking at the upside-down reflection from the mirror and the mirror is reflecting the focused image from the viewing lens which is inverted (i.e upside down and reversed left-right)
Both very hard to forget.But easy to not remember in the first place. Our brain does not store details that are unimportant so that it has room to store the important things. At the time, the detail of where she held the camera was of no importance to her. Why would she remember? She admitted she took at least one of the photos. They were all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera so it is apparent that she was wrong on thinking it was taken with a camera that had an eye-level viewfinder.
Right. I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA. It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC. Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.
133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two. Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures? That makes no sense. She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures. What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three? It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.
Right. I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA. It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC. Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.
133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two. Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures? That makes no sense. She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures. What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three? It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.
133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA. It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.There were a lot of items that did not get put into evidence before the WC. They did not put the entire contents of Ruth Paine's garage into evidence. Someone has to decide what is relevant and what is not. Having said that, I agree that 133c should have been put into evidence. We don't know why it wasn't. Maybe someone handling the Dallas Police exhibits saw there were two negatives and thought, without doing a careful comparison, that 133c was just a copy of one of the others. We don't know why it was not put into evidence. If it showed something significant not shown in the other two one might think up a sinister reason, but that isn't the case.
So what you're saying is The DPD had the evidence (133c) and withheld it from a legal investigation.... That my friend is FELONY..... So the DPD were felons.
Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures? That makes no sense. She didn't remember taking two pictures,If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo. What's your point?
How does Marina not remembering she took two photos relate to the fact that she did remember having one of the pictures (which turned out to be the fourth) in her possession and destroying it to keep it from law enforcement? Does that make any sense to you?
If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo. What's your point?The point is that Marina was lying when she said that she took any of the pictures.
If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo. What's your point?
Are you assuming that this was a moment in time for which every detail would be permanently seared in Marina's memory? I take pictures with my camera, with cameras belonging to others. I don't necessarily remember what camera I used let alone how many photos I took.
She remembered taking a photo of her husband with his guns and that there was no one else in the backyard taking photos. When shown that there was more than one photo that appeared to be at a very similar time and in the same location with the same conditions, she agreed that she must have taken more than one. She still couldn't remember taking more than one but she agreed she did only because the photo was shown to her. 133A is very similar to 133C. What makes you think she would not have said the same thing if shown 133C?
Was the image reversed left to right or upside down? Wikipedia says that TLR cameras with the waist-level finder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-lens_reflex_camera#Disadvantages)reversed left and right. That makes sense, because you are looking at the upside-down reflection from the mirror and the mirror is reflecting the focused image from the viewing lens which is inverted (i.e upside down and reversed left-right)But easy to not remember in the first place. Our brain does not store details that are unimportant so that it has room to store the important things. At the time, the detail of where she held the camera was of no importance to her. Why would she remember? She admitted she took at least one of the photos. They were all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera so it is apparent that she was wrong on thinking it was taken with a camera that had an eye-level viewfinder.
Oh it did happen alright, and her obviously not telling to truth is exactly the point. She can't remember how she operated the camera nor does she recall how many photos she took, but she did instantly remember to destroy the one photo she had, thus displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.she did instantly remember to destroy the one photo she had, thus displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.
Perhaps she never really took the pictures in the first place and was only given one. That might explain her very selective memory, might it not?
How about Michael Paine confirming in a TV interview that he had seen a BY photo shortly after it was taken (something he previously denied) or the high quality copy of one photograph (with Russian text that Marina denied writing) that ended up - and years later was found - in a storage unit belonging to George De Mohrenschildt, in a box that De Mohrenschildt believed had been placed there by Michael Paine? The Paine's claimed to not know the De Mohrenschildt's very well, so why would Michael Paine have access to their storage unit, while they were in Ha?ti? And then there was Roscoe White of course. How did he get a copy of a photo? Seems to me, none of these people would have had any connection to the photos if it was just a simple matter of a wife taking some pictures of her husband in the backyard!
And then of course, on a separate note, there was the DPD who claimed to have found the BY photos in Ruth Paine's garage during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon, and yet Michael Paine confirmed in his testimony that he was shown a BY photo on Friday evening and asked if he could identify the location, which of course he did. We know he did, because Fritz wrote in his notes that prior to showing a BY photo to Oswald on Saturday, he already knew (from Michael Paine) where the photo was taken.
My point was that it is NOT upside-down. It is just switched right-left, which is not that obvious.
Yes, she was quite wrong, and that what makes it so suspicious. Of course you would remember if you had to look down at an upside down image.
My point was that it is NOT upside-down. It is just switched right-left, which is not that obvious.A mirror was utilized to keep the image from inverting. I also found the Marina statement about the twin lens camera FBI statement CE 1788 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1788.pdf
They were all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera so it is apparent that she was wrong on thinking it was taken with a camera that had an eye-level viewfinder.
...or they weren't all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera.Why would that even matter? 133B and 133c were taken with it. 133A has the same depth of field and other characteristics. Marina said she took the pictures and there was no one else there. So there is no evidence that anyone but Marina took them with that camera.
Why would that even matter? 133B and 133c were taken with it. 133A has the same depth of field and other characteristics. Marina said she took the pictures and there was no one else there. So there is no evidence that anyone but Marina took them with that camera.
I have no problem accepting that Marina took CE 133A.....But there's no doubt that CE 133A has been "retouched" and the what appears to be a sling has been added to trick the viewer into believing the rifle had a sling attached. And CE 133B is obviously an altered photo ..... I believe that Lee Oswald created these photos when he thought that the police would be chasing him after the hoax "attempt" to shoot General Walker. He thought the photo would be published because he had tried to shoot General Walker and Castro Agents would see it and accept that he really was a supporter of the revolution.Ok. You just made that up. I can make up an even more interesting possibility, but I prefer to stick to evidence.
The hoax fell apart because the police didn't really believe that someone had tried to shoot Walker......
Ok. You just made that up. I can make up an even more interesting possibility, but I prefer to stick to evidence.
Made WHAT? up, Andy...This part Wally:
It is a FACT that CE 133A has been "RETOUCHED".... and that "retouching" also appears in the De M print which did not surface until February of 1967.How is is it that anyone with expertise on photo retouching in 1963 concluded that it was not retouched? Photo retouching can always be identified when looking at the granular pattern of the print or negative. It might be disguised in the lithographic process for magazines but not on the prints or negatives.
This part Wally:
"...Lee Oswald created these photos when he thought that the police would be chasing him after the hoax "attempt" to shoot General Walker. He thought the photo would be published because he had tried to shoot General Walker and Castro Agents would see it and accept that he really was a supporter of the revolution.
The hoax fell apart because the police didn't really believe that someone had tried to shoot Walker......"
That is the part you just made up.How is is it that anyone with expertise on photo retouching in 1963 concluded that it was not retouched? Photo retouching can always be identified when looking at the granular pattern of the print or negative. It might be disguised in the lithographic process for magazines but not on the prints or negatives.
Andy I'm no photo expert by any stretch...But the experts at LIFE and other publications said the photo had been retouched before they ever eceived them...
You made that up too.
The byp used for the Life magazine cover was retouched.
Not surprising, since virtually all published images undergo the process.
No, I didn't John... Are you so bent on being a jerk that you feel compelled to challenge everybody.....
Who the hell are you to challenge Howard Brennan?.... He was there and he said that he saw a man STANDING and aiming a HIGH POWERED (ie;hunting) rifle out of a sixth floor window. Brennan described the man as in his early thirties, weighing as much as 175 pounds, and dressed in light colored khaki shirt and trousers.
If you weren't such a jerk you'd admit that Brennan could NOT have been describing the SE corner window because a man could not have STOOD behind that window and aimed a rifle out of the window, with the barrel of the rifle out side the window.
"...Lee Oswald created these photos when he thought that the police would be chasing him after the hoax "attempt" to shoot General Walker. He thought the photo would be published because he had tried to shoot General Walker and Castro Agents would see it and accept that he really was a supporter of the revolution.
The hoax fell apart because the police didn't really believe that someone had tried to shoot Walker......"
That is the part you just made up. How is is it that anyone with expertise on photo retouching in 1963 concluded that it was not retouched? Photo retouching can always be identified when looking at the granular pattern of the print or negative. It might be disguised in the lithographic process for magazines but not on the prints or negatives.
Where is the proof that CE-399 was fired at the motorcade that day?Over 300 posts based on nothing but a theory...
... strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
:D - --LOL
"upper back, exits neck"
(https://images2.imgbox.com/50/29/gP4bRQ2M_o.jpg)
Comes close here but that model doesn't have Kennedy's slouch.
To address the "lack of damage" to CE-399...What about the bullet fragment in Connallys thigh?
The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second.
The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck.
The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.
The bullet, now traveling at around half of it's original speed, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib.
The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius.
The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh.
The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back.
Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, cast doubt on whether the bullet subsequently entered into evidence as CE 399 was the same bullet he held in his hand that day. Wright told Thompson that the bullet they found was point nosed, whereas CE 399 is round nosed.[115] However, in 1964, both Wright and Darrel Tomlinson, a maintenance employee at Parkland who passed the bullet along to Wright, were shown the bullet and said the bullet in evidence appeared to be the same one as the bullet found on the stretcher, though neither could positively identify the bullet as the same one.[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#Chain_of_evidence
Not only did Parkland Personnel Director O.P. Wright cast doubt on whether the bullet entered into evidence as CE 399 was the same bullet he held in his hand that day ! Wright said the bullet we found that day was point nosed whereas CE 399 was round nosed ? General Walker had doubts about the bullet that he saw the day he was shot at and the bullet that he was shown later on as the same bullet ? It sounds like Gen. Walker & Parkland Personnel Director O.P. Wright wandered away from the script of what they were supposed to say concerning the bullets . If they would have taken out the bullet that was lodged in John Connally's thigh , then they could have seen the bullet , you know CE 399 , the Dog that don't hunt !
Not only did Parkland Personnel Director O.P. Wright cast doubt on whether the bullet entered into evidence as CE 399 was the same bullet he held in his hand that day ! Wright said the bullet we found that day was point nosed whereas CE 399 was round nosed ?
General Walker had doubts about the bullet that he saw the day he was shot at and the bullet that he was shown later on as the same bullet ? It sounds like Gen. Walker & Parkland Personnel Director O.P. Wright wandered away from the script of what they were supposed to say concerning the bullets . If they would have taken out the bullet that was lodged in John Connally's thigh , then they could have seen the bullet , you know CE 399 , the Dog that don't hunt !
General Walker was a loon.... An utter screwball, and a liar. And I certainly would bet the farm on the recollection of O.P Wright.
And I certainly would bet the farm
Now that's funny
A bullet was lodged in Connally's thigh? :D ;D
Connally has / had bullet fragment(s) in his thigh. Never removed. Fragments allegedly from pristine CE399. Oops.
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. ...books.google.com › books (https://books.google.com/books?id=q1VJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT2656&lpg=PT2656&dq="+connally+family+angrily+rejected"&source=bl&ots=6BU4U1Uxoi&sig=ACfU3U0hz8dRDflU2uQq8J5kzamm-kORtw&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9u8Xix6foAhWpd98KHXNgACgQ6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q="%20connally%20family%20angrily%20rejected"&f=false)
Vincent Bugliosi - 2007 - History
There is an interesting footnote to all of this: John B. Connally died on June 15, ... Janet Reno requesting that the bullet fragments remaining inside Connally's ... the Connally family angrily rejected the request, which was conveyed to them by ...
Connally's family refused to give consent, allegedly approached by the FBI in the middle of the funeral service, possibly delayed by the time it took to influence
the government to make the request. It certainly seems it was better to ask at any time before the casket with Connally's remains was lowered into the ground, than to wait until after.
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/18/us/fbi-backs-plan-to-remove-connally-bullet-fragments.html
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldConnallyFragmentsRemoval.jpg)
A conspiracy loon asked him three years later.In obvious condescension of Josiah Thompson.
In obvious condescension of Josiah Thompson.
Consistently resorts to redundant cognitive bias when the sorry as hell official tale winds up in the latrine where it belongs.
A typo like Lee had "white spombleprofglidnoctobuns" on when he was photographed.... is funny.... A typo like I certainly would ( not) bet the farm doesn't seem to be very humorous.
Connally has / had bullet fragment(s) in his thigh. Never removed. Fragments allegedly from pristine CE399. Oops.
WHOOSH!
.. relating 'funny' to 'farm' was what I was after here
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldConnallyFragmentsRemoval.jpg)
Before former Texas Gov. John Connally was buried Thursday, his family rejected a request from the FBI that bullet fragments be removed from his body in an effort to learn more about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a government official said. Connally, who was wounded while riding in the presidential limousine in Dallas when Kennedy was killed on Nov. 22, 1963, died Tuesday of lung disease.
On Wednesday, research groups asked Attorney General Janet Reno to seek the removal of bullet fragments thought to be in Connally's wrist and thigh so the pieces could be analyzed.
The government official said a Dallas FBI agent made the request to the family and was turned down. He did not say why. The researchers - longtime critics of the Warren Commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy and wounding Connally - say the fragments lodged in Connally's body could prove that more than one assailant fired on the limousine carrying Kennedy and Connally.The researchers argue that tests might show that Kennedy and Connally were hit by different bullets, which could disprove the so-called "single-bullet" theory, which formed the core of the Warren Commission's controversial finding.
Why not go for the bullet in John Connallys thigh ? First of all , there can't be 2 ' CE 399's ' , can there ? What is there to worry about ? The truth hasn't bothered the Warren Commission up to this point , has it ? Just as USMC Carlos Hathcock said , we set up the scenario in Virginia and nobody could make the shots that LHO was to have made , and that includes Hathcock himself , who was one of the best snipers ever ! A fusillade of shots came into the Limo with JFK getting hit in the head 3 times , a frontal throat shot and a shallow shot in the back which makes JFK being hit 5 times himself as per Douglas Horne AARB . Who told Gerald Ford that it was OK to move JFK's Back Shot up to the base of the neck therefore starting the Arlen Specter lie of 'The Single Bullet Theory' ! Ford was J Edgar Hoovers mole IMO .
Who prodded Nellie Connally to resist the fragment removal?
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1993-06-18-9306180244-story.html
Yes, you're right, there is ample evidence that Gerald Ford was Hoover's spy on the Warren commission.
Such as?
It's a long story, Read the WR. and Portrait of an Assassin.
Just because he adhered to a lone nut theory it does not make him an "inside man".But ultimately it made him a president. Name any political figure who publicly vocally disagreed with the Warren Report and wasn't shunned or otherwise ostracized?
What would be the point in removing those fragments?Always answers a question with a question. It never fails.
What would be the point in removing those fragments?
Those fragments, along with CE 399 ( including the two fragments found in the limo), when weighed and added together, would end up with a weight far greater than one bullet.
Those fragments would have told us whether they came from CE-399 thru laser ablation. That would positively link the fragments to CE-399 or not. I suspect not because CE-399 was obviously shot into a swimming pool then retrieved before being planted on the wrong gurney and became the Impossible Pristine Magic Bullet.
Those fragments, along with CE 399 ( including the two fragments found in the limo), when weighed and added together, would end up with a weight far greater than one bullet.
Why are you including fragments found in the limo? They never came from CE 399. The fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399. The total mass of the six fragments deposited in Connally comes no where near to exceeding the mass missing from CE 399.The large mangled pieces of bullet found in the limo came from the head shot on JFK.
Are you sure the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was ever at Parkland Hospital?
The large mangled pieces of bullet found in the limo came from the head shot on JFK.
Linky to the report that proves this pls. It better include the fragments extracted from JFK's brain and compared with the larger pieces.
Its common sense. How else did they get in the limo? They were hardly thrown in.
How do you know the fragments now in evidence came from the limo? More "common sense", perhaps?
It seems like such a big clumsy plot to be planting evidence like those fragments.
How do you know the fragments now in evidence came from the limo? More "common sense", perhaps?
(https://i.imgur.com/UKZQY2y.png)
Mr. EISENBERG - When did you receive that fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - At 11:50 p.m., November 22, 1963, from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett, our liaison agent with the Secret Service, in the FBI laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the last bullet fragment you examined, Exhibit 567, when did you receive that?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was received at the same time from Special Agent Bartlett.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine both at that time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; beginning the following morning, November 23.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569?
Why are you including fragments found in the limo? They never came from CE 399. The fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399. The total mass of the six fragments deposited in Connally comes no where near to exceeding the mass missing from CE 399.
There’s a lot of assumption in those absolute statements. How do you know Connally’s fragments came from CE 399? How do you know what the starting weight of CE 399 was?
John Tonkovich's claim is that the mass of the fragments purported to have come from CE 399 would end up greater than the mass of one bullet. We know that the fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399 because that bullet was found on the stretcher that he had been on. Whether you accept that fact or not is separate from the question of "does the mass of those fragments exceed the mass missing from CE 399?"
Robert Frazier weighed three WCC 6.5 mm bullets.
Mr. FRAZIER - We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed--- 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.
Lattimer weighed 100 WCC 6.5 mm bullets. The average weight was 160.844 grains, with the lowest being 159.9 grains.
Even if we were to assume that CE 399 weighed 159.9 grains before being fired, the total mass of the fragments deposited in Connally still would not exceed the mass missing from that bullet.
We know that the fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399 because that bullet was found on the stretcher that he had been on.
Even if we were to assume that CE 399 weighed 159.9 grains before being fired, the total mass of the fragments deposited in Connally still would not exceed the mass missing from that bullet.
How can you make such a statement when you don't know what the combined weight is of the fragments that are still in Connally's body?
Aren't you forgetting those fragments recovered from Connally during surgery that Audrey Bell gave to either an FBI agent or a Secret Service agent?
Dr. Gregory estimated the largest fragment deposited in the wrist to be five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in diameter. In looking at the X-Ray of the thigh, said that the fragment in it was about 5 tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters. At those dimensions, the lead fragment would weigh 17.8 milligrams. One grain is equivalent to 64.8 milligrams. So, those two fragments together weighed about 1/2 of a grain.
A postoperative X-Ray shows a tiny fragment left in the wrist. Gregory referred to it as a needle in a hay stack. It was so tiny that it wasn't worth the effort to try and remove it. Combine that fragment with the three small ones removed from the wrist and you'd really have to stretch the imagination to get their total mass up to 1/4 of a grain.
Here are the fragments removed from Connally by Dr. Gregory:
(https://i.imgur.com/GH0modO.gif)
Audrey Bell gave them to Texas Highway Patrolman Bobby M. Nolan. Bell recalled that he wasn't in uniform. He probably wasn't, which was not uncommon for Texas Patrolmen back then.
Dr. Gregory estimated the largest fragment deposited in the wrist to be five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in diameter. In looking at the X-Ray of the thigh, said that the fragment in it was about 5 tenths of a millimeter by 2 millimeters. At those dimensions, the lead fragment would weigh 17.8 milligrams. One grain is equivalent to 64.8 milligrams. So, those two fragments together weighed about 1/2 of a grain.
A postoperative X-Ray shows a tiny fragment left in the wrist. Gregory referred to it as a needle in a hay stack. It was so tiny that it wasn't worth the effort to try and remove it. Combine that fragment with the three small ones removed from the wrist and you'd really have to stretch the imagination to get their total mass up to 1/4 of a grain.
Here are the fragments removed from Connally by Dr. Gregory:
(https://i.imgur.com/GH0modO.gif)
Audrey Bell gave them to Texas Highway Patrolman Bobby M. Nolan. Bell recalled that he wasn't in uniform. He probably wasn't, which was not uncommon for Texas Patrolmen back then.
Audrey Bell gave them to Texas Highway Patrolman Bobby M. Nolan.
Actually, no, apparently she didn't. She told the ARRB that she turned over the fragments to two plain clothes law enforcement officers who she believed to be FBI or Secret Service Agents. She got a handwritten reciept from one of the men, which she gave to the hospital administrator, Jack Price.
She also told the ARRB that the fragments shown in CE 842 were too small and too few in number to represent what she handled on 11/22/63.
Bell recalled that he wasn't in uniform. He probably wasn't, which was not uncommon for Texas Patrolmen back then.
Bell never recalled that he [Nolan] wasn't in uniform. She never mentioned Nolan at all. All she said was that she gave the fragments to two plain clothes officers. Could either one of those have been Nolan? Sure, but Bell never recalled that! Also, that Nolan probably wasn't in uniform is an assumption on your part for which there is no evidence to support it.
What part of CE-399 did those fragments come from? And why did they shear off from an otherwise slightly deformed bullet? And how much material was lost passing thru the barrel? And where was the DNA on the bullet? And why was it found on the wrong stretcher? And lastly, why does the FBI no longer apply a Neutron Activation Analysis to match bullet fragments?
She believed that he was either FBI or a Secret Service agent because he was not wearing a uniform. She was shown a photocopy of the following envelope:
(https://i.imgur.com/GwCpAGK.jpg)
She identified the handwriting on it as being hers. Nolan identified his own mark on it. She did not get a handwritten receipt from one of the men. She wrote out a receipt herself and had Nolan sign it. She signed it as well. In her ARRB interview, she described what the receipt was written on.
(https://i.imgur.com/H9NI4Fd.jpg)
That is false. She was shown a photocopy of CE 842 and could only make out the large fragment in it. She was sure that there were 3 to 5 fragments in total. She thought four. She did not say that the fragments were too small.
She never recalled Nolan's name. Why would she? She recalled that the person wasn't in uniform. Since that person was Bobby Nolan, it's not much of an assumption on my part to say that he wasn't wearing a uniform.
The lead came from the base of the bullet.
Any blood that might have still been on it when Robert Frazier received it was wiped off by him.
It wasn't found on the wrong stretcher.
The FBI no longer uses Neutron Activation Analysis to match bullet fragments because the accuracy of the procedure is apparently questionable.
How do you know this?
Why are you including fragments found in the limo? They never came from CE 399. The fragments deposited in Connally came from CE 399. The total mass of the six fragments deposited in Connally comes no where near to exceeding the mass missing from CE 399.
You can't know the the total mass of what's in Connally. Because some of what you allege to be CE399 is still in Connaly's leg, and he's buried in a coffin Texas.
CE399 never came near Connally.
However, although I am not at home and don't have access to all my files, I did check a hard drive with some material on it and came across a newspaper clip from the days of the HSCA. It does not say the name of the paper or an exact date, but mentions that HSCA investigators had finished talking to Audrey Bell. In the article it says that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body. He turned them over to the FBI. My initial thought was that he must have been the other plain clothes officer with Nolan, but the article says that Harbison was given the three fragments on 11/25/63. Three days after Bell gave her fragments to Nolan. I wonder what happened to Harbison's fragments and why he - according to the article - was never called to testify.....
It does not say in the ARRB report that she was shown a photocopy nor that she could only make out the large fragment. And she did in fact say that the fragments were too small!
The ARRB report says: "When shown CE 842 (page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII), she said that the fragment(s) photographed in the container were too small, and were too few in number, to represent what she handled on 11/22/63."
You can't know the the total mass of what's in Connally. Because some of what you allege to be CE399 is still in Connaly's leg, and he's buried in a coffin Texas.
I would suggest to you that the newspaper article got it wrong.
She was shown an image of the fragments, not the actual fragments. The image of the fragments on the top of page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm) is not of very good quality. Bell makes a reference to photocopy. The ARRB report on the interview was done by Doug Horne. He misrepresented what Audrey Bell said in the interview. Or at least the intent of her statement. She looked at it and only saw one fragment and was adamant that there had been at least three. After looking at it a bit she said that it was hard to tell what those other things in the image were. Gunn then told her that they were in fact part of the photographic image. He notes that it was unclear as to what they were. Which makes it obvious that she was not shown a good quality image. They were the other three fragments. Bell did not state outright that the fragment(s) were too small.
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html
In what way
Interesting link. I'm going to need to some time to listen to the recordings. I'll get back to you once I have done that.
In saying that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body.
At the beginning of tape #2 is where you'll hear the discussion of CE 842.
In saying that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body.
Do you know the article and have you read it?
It starts with: "A Texas highway patrolman who guarded then Gov John Connally's room at Parkland Hospital has told the Dallas Morning News he recalls turning over to an FBI agent more than three bullet fragments purportedly removed from Connally the day President John Kennedy was assassinated."
Later in the article it says: "Harbison was interviewed by the News Saturday"
This means they got the information directly from Harbison. Was the officers lying?
We know the approximate mass of what's still in Connally because Dr Gregory told us the approximate size of the fragment seen in the X-ray of the thigh. Half a mm by 2 mm. Dr Shires said that it looked smaller than that.An X ray is a 2D image. Hard to tell mass without depth, i.e. 3D.
No, I have not read it.
I'd have to see the newspaper article before addressing your question.
And to add to the general confusion about bullets and fragments, there's this;Thx for the video. Forgot to say so in above post.
between 1.56 and 2.18 it gets interesting
Whatever happened to the bullet she saw next to Kennedy?
And to add to the general confusion about bullets and fragments, there's this;
between 1.56 and 2.18 it gets interesting
Whatever happened to the bullet she saw next to Kennedy?
An X ray is a 2D image. Hard to tell mass without depth, i.e. 3D.
Fair enough. I had not seen the actual receipt and only quoted from her ARRB statement. So, she did give it to Nolan after all.
However, although I am not at home and don't have access to all my files, I did check a hard drive with some material on it and came across a newspaper clip from the days of the HSCA. It does not say the name of the paper or an exact date, but mentions that HSCA investigators had finished talking to Audrey Bell. In the article it says that another Patrolman named C. Harbison was also given 3 fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body. He turned them over to the FBI. My initial thought was that he must have been the other plain clothes officer with Nolan, but the article says that Harbison was given the three fragments on 11/25/63. Three days after Bell gave her fragments to Nolan. I wonder what happened to Harbison's fragments and why he - according to the article - was never called to testify.....
It does not say in the ARRB report that she was shown a photocopy nor that she could only make out the large fragment. And she did in fact say that the fragments were too small!
The ARRB report says: "When shown CE 842 (page 841 in Warren Commission Volume XVII), she said that the fragment(s) photographed in the container were too small, and were too few in number, to represent what she handled on 11/22/63."
As I said before, fair enough.
the article says that Harbison was given the three fragments on 11/25/63. Three days after Bell gave her fragments to Nolan.
Item number 7 on the evidence list for 11/22/63 lists "Bullet fragments taken from body of of Governor Connally" The note accompanying the description of item #7 says....Mrs Audrey Bell, Operating room nurse , to Bob Nolan, DPS, to Capt. Fritz, to Crime lab, to FBI.
Walt, please read the preceding posts before you jump into the discussion.
The three fragments that Harbison were given on 11/25/63, while guarding the room where Connally was in, are not the same ones as those given by nurse Bell to Officer Nolan three days earlier. The record, as it currently stands, makes no mention of the Harbison fragments. All we have is what he told Earl Golz.
the evidence list of the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63,
Walt, please read the preceding posts before you jump into the discussion.
I was merely stating information.....I have no dog in this hunt......
I merely pointed out that the evidence list of the evidence that was turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63, lists the fragments removed from Connally.
Are you suggesting that they removed more fragments from Connally three days later ..... That doesn't make sense.
That's exactly why I said that you should have read the preceding posts. Then you would have known what my comments were about.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm saying that I came across a newspaper article from the late 70's in which it says that Patrolman C. Harbison, who was guarding Connally's room at the hospital, was also given fragments of a bullet that came from Connally's body. This apparently happened on 11/25/63. Harbison claims he turned them over to the FBI but they haven't been seen since. Apparently this matter got the attention of HSCA investigators who - it seems - ultimately did nothing with it. Earl Golz brought it to the attention of the ARRB, which is mentioned in the memo I provided a link for in my earlier post.
There was more than one X-Ray taken of the thigh. There were three. Two anterior posterial views and one lateral view. Dr Gregory examined all three.
As I said.... I was merely posting the information from the evidence list..... But now that you've enlightened me about the newspaper story from the late seventies I'll offer my opinion ..... The news paper reporter was confused.
You're suggesting...I can deduce the weight of an object by looking at crude (2D) pictures of said object? Well, I'm just a simple country boy, so I'd want to just use a scale.
You're suggesting...I can deduce the weight of an object by looking at crude (2D) pictures of said object? Well, I'm just a simple country boy, so I'd want to just use a scale.
Speaking of pictures.... I know that you're very good at finding and posting pictures.....Soooo Would you please find the evidence photo of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63. It sows the envelope that contains the fragments that were removed from Connally.....The blanket, the unstained paper bag ( Which means the photo was taken before the FBI examined the paper bag) the pistol, and several other items of evidence.
Thank you.
Speaking of pictures.... I know that you're very good at finding and posting pictures.....Soooo Would you please find the evidence photo of the evidence that was released to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63. It sows the envelope that contains the fragments that were removed from Connally.....The blanket, the unstained paper bag ( Which means the photo was taken before the FBI examined the paper bag) the pistol, and several other items of evidence.
Thank you.
Here you go:
(https://i.imgur.com/8c31948.jpg)
Thank you for your effort, but I was looking for the photo of this evidence.....
You'll find a photo at the following link. The rifle is not in it. You can zoom in and see the envelope.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49656/m1/1/
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/BaginDallasarchives.png)
Thank you..... Since the paper bag isn't stained and destroyed in this photo we can be certain that this photo was taken when the FBI received the evidence at midnight on 11/22 63. Is that correct?
And this is the list that accompanied the photo , is that correct?
Since the paper bag isn't stained and destroyed in this photo we can be certain that this photo was taken when the FBI received the evidence at midnight on 11/22 63. Is that correct?
IMO it doesn't have to be the moment when the FBI received the evidence. It could have been taken earlier that evening. What the photo does do, is provide an explanation how fibers from the blanket could have gotten into the paper bag.
And this is the list that accompanied the photo , is that correct?
Actually, on the list is written what the FBI returned to the DPD the next day.
The document clearly shows that the three fragments handed in by Nurse Bell have already become one fragment. One can only wonder how that happened....
Since the paper bag isn't stained and destroyed in this photo we can be certain that this photo was taken when the FBI received the evidence at midnight on 11/22 63. Is that correct?
IMO it doesn't have to be the moment when the FBI received the evidence. It could have been taken earlier that evening. What the photo does do, is provide an explanation how fibers from the blanket could have gotten into the paper bag.
And this is the list that accompanied the photo , is that correct?
Actually, on the list is written what the FBI returned to the DPD the next day.
The document clearly shows that the three fragments handed in by Nurse Bell have already become one fragment. One can only wonder how that happened....
Since the paper bag isn't stained and destroyed in this photo we can be certain that this photo was taken when the FBI received the evidence at midnight on 11/22 63. Is that correct?
IMO it doesn't have to be the moment when the FBI received the evidence. It could have been taken earlier that evening. What the photo does do, is provide an explanation how fibers from the blanket could have gotten into the paper bag.
And this is the list that accompanied the photo , is that correct?
Actually, on the list is written what the FBI returned to the DPD the next day.
The document clearly shows that the three fragments handed in by Nurse Bell have already become one fragment. One can only wonder how that happened....
The list says.....one bullet fragment from the body of Gov, John Connally.
The evidence envelope that was signed bu nurse Audrey Bell says ' bullet fragments- right arm"
I can't read the envelope in the photo but it appears to be the same envelope that Audrey bell signed which says FRAGMENTS ( plural) from right arm
So why the hell does the evidence list say FRAGMENT ( singular) from Connally's body.....
There are a number of documents of the day that refer to the fragments in the singular, including the receipt for the transfer of them from Audrey Bell to Bobby Nolan.
(https://i.imgur.com/H9NI4Fd.jpg)
Simply amazing, how every single piece of physical evidence somehow turns into a source for confusion and controversy.
On the night of 11/22/63 the DPD released 15 items of evidence to the FBI.... A couple of days later the FBI returned 9 items to the DPD....
the items that were not returned ( or at least were not listed ) is:.....
1) The brass button from Tippit's jacket
2) several fragments taken from the body of Gov Connally.......( the FBI returned only one fragment)
3) 1- Piece of cardboard containing palm print of subject
4) 3-Empty cardboard boxes A, B. & C
5) 1-Cardboard box , empty, size 11 3/4" X 13" X 17 1/2" from which thumb print of subject was found.
6) 1- Partial palm print "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " on rifle # C2766
7) 3- negatives of partial prints found on trigger housing of rifle ser # C2766
Bull. The magic partial palmprint didn’t get to the FBI until November 29th.
That means nothing. A dead body cant give a fingerprint. So the print was not lifted off Oswalds body after he died as Oliver Stone claimed in the JFK movie.
That means nothing. A dead body cant give a fingerprint. So the print was not lifted off Oswalds body after he died as Oliver Stone claimed in the JFK movie.
That means nothing. A dead body cant give a fingerprint. So the print was not lifted off Oswalds body after he died as Oliver Stone claimed in the JFK movie.
It is also near impossible to lift a print and leave no residue behind. The FBI examined the rifle on 11/23/63 and found no trace of a print.
Near impossible? Where do you get that from?
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
The content of the letter you posted has nothing to do with risidue of a print being left behind when the print is lifted.
The FBI found not even a trace of a print on 11/23/63. When the rifle is returned to the DPD, Day has prints of Oswald's hand and palm available.
How easy would it be to stick such a print to the rifle and thus obtain the irregularities onto the lift?
A dead body cant give a fingerprint. So the print was not lifted off Oswalds body after he died as Oliver Stone claimed in the JFK movie.Nonsense. As usual you fail to research something before you post it. Oswald was not found in the desert months after he died.
Near impossible? Where do you get that from?
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
Beside, let’s see the actual examination. We got a claim from Hoover and a smudge.
Oh Thank you , thank you. thank you...... for bringing up my favorite subject.....
This letter from Hoover's Mob is a gargantuan CROCK!..... And since you have posted it..... WHERE are he photos of the microscopic comparison between the lifted print and the metal barrel?? Have you forgotten that it was an FBI Lab man who testified that he had not been able to find any evidence that the area of the carcano where Day claimed that he had found and lifted the print had been subjected to finger print powder nor could he detect that a lift had been performed. He said he had never experienced any case in which a print had been lifted so completely that there was none of the print left behind....
(https://i.imgur.com/XCVyI1h.png)
El Bumpo-------------------------Thread from 2 years ago
El Bumpo-------------------------The bullet in the video is a hollow-point and as such, it mushrooms quite nicely. Because that's exactly what it's designed to do.
If you take this thread to page 12 or so you will find that CE 399 was abandoned for jackets and backyard photographs and darn it I am going to put it back.
I discovered this video posted by Martin Weidmann in a now locked thread.
It clearly shows this bullet fired into a block of gelatin. If you can stop action the motion in time at the very first you can see the bullet with a clearly defined nose enter and then when it exits [yes it traveled straight through without deviation] when it leaves the gel...the nose is flatter than a 5 year old. In fact you can see it slowly flatten on the way through.
So what does this say about all this lack of damage to CE 399?
Thread from 2 years agoDitto with this example. This time, the bullets have a red polymer tip embedded in the nose cavity as an expansion aid.
Another video start action at 2:30.........
The gel looks like the Terminator T-1000
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cl0Rg0JwQ0Ziw3WARgmiyN04WVfGxgOM) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Bone_Flap.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Be3_crop.jpg) |
OK...I tripped using the above video as an example. So I found a vid using a regular 30 cal round and it doesn't flatten but starts to yaw. What it might illustrate is my previous speculation that CE 399 was fired by C2766 into a gel block to be used for 'evidence' and presented to the FBI lab.....
I seriously doubt that the "Magic Bullet" ( CE 399) was fired through the worn barrel of the TSBD carcano. (C2766)So how is it that the rifling grooves in CE399 match those of bullets that were test-fired by the FBI from C2766?
The photos of CE 399 reveal a bullet that was fired through a barrel in good condition.
So how is it that the rifling grooves in CE399 match those of bullets that were test-fired by the FBI from C2766?
How do you know that they matched? We have only the statements of the FBI....You are absolutely right. I was left with only the word of the FBI that the bullet that they say they fired with the real C2766 rifle and on which the groves align perfectly with those on CE399 was actually fired by the real C2766 gun that was linked to Oswald.