JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Joe Elliott on May 04, 2020, 02:57:58 AM
-
Question for CTers: Who is the best ballistic expert ?
LNers have had excellent support from the true ballistic experts over the years. Most recently, to quote Dale Myers website on FAQ, December 2019:
The December issue of the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology (Vol. 40, No. 4, pp.336-346) features an important article by respected firearms examiner and author Lucien C. “Luke” Haag that explores the unique characteristics of the ammunition used by Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK assassination and offers a clearer understanding of the ballistic principles that resulted in the president’s death.
Haag, a former Criminalist and Technical Director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory, with over 50-years of experience in the field of criminalistics and forensic firearms examination, and author of over 200 scientific papers dealing with the effects and behavior of projectiles, brings his first-hand knowledge and testing to bear on questions surrounding the single-bullet theory and Kennedy’s fatal head wound.
Who is the best ballistic expert who supports the CT side? That CE-399 could not have wounded both Connally and JFK.
By which I mean a true ballistic expert. Not a self-proclaimed expert, of which CTers can name several. Someone like a Luke Haag. Former Technical Director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory. Author of over 200 scientific papers on ballistics. And who has testified in court as a ballistic expert.
Is there anyone equivalent in America on the CT side? Who says CE-399 could not have done it?
Or, if the Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy controls all of them, how about someone in Canada? In Europe? Or in Japan or India? Are they all controlled by this Large=Secret-Enduring Conspiracy?
-
Question for CTers: Who is the best ballistic expert ?
LNers have had excellent support from the true ballistic experts over the years. Most recently, to quote Dale Myers website on FAQ, December 2019:
Who is the best ballistic expert who supports the CT side? That CE-399 could not have wounded both Connally and JFK.
By which I mean a true ballistic expert. Not a self-proclaimed expert, of which CTers can name several. Someone like a Luke Haag. Former Technical Director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory. Author of over 200 scientific papers on ballistics. And who has testified in court as a ballistic expert.
Is there anyone equivalent in America on the CT side? Who says CE-399 could not have done it?
Or, if the Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy controls all of them, how about someone in Canada? In Europe? Or in Japan or India? Are they all controlled by this Large=Secret-Enduring Conspiracy?
A pointless question unless you can first prove that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 (1) was indeed fired from the MC rifle on 11/22/63 and (2) is the same bullet that Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
-
:-\
Marine snipers are considered among the best shots in the world so why ask some ballistic expert that can't hit crap?
There have been experts who were willing to stand on their head and say "Yeah Oswald could have easily done it".
Page 86--- https://books.google.com/books?id=1rjbdQ2hzfoC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=duplicate+oswald+shots&source=bl&ots=l4tBJKqiXW&sig=ACfU3U2poBRrJFGDyZpI2ZN9d6_kvkO2Ow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJgbS2tJnpAhUC5awKHYGEBg84FBDoATACegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=
-
A pointless question unless you can first prove that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 (1) was indeed fired from the MC rifle on 11/22/63 and (2) is the same bullet that Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
CTers have argued that just on the basis of the condition of CE399, it could not have wounded both men. Have CTers been lying to us about this? If not, where is the true ballistic expert who argues so. So far you have named none.
I guess you could argue that it doesn’t matter if CTers have been lying to us about the condition of CE 399 precluding it from being the bullet that wounded both men. If it turned out there are other reasons we can discount the SBT. But I tend to conclude that if CTers have been lying to us that the condition of CE 399 precludes it from wounding both men, then they are lying to us about other issues as well.
-
CTers have argued that just on the basis of the condition of CE399, it could not have wounded both men. Have CTers been lying to us about this? If not, where is the true ballistic expert who argues so. So far you have named none.
I guess you could argue that it doesn’t matter if CTers have been lying to us about the condition of CE 399 precluding it from being the bullet that wounded both men. If it turned out there are other reasons we can discount the SBT. But I tend to conclude that if CTers have been lying to us that the condition of CE 399 precludes it from wounding both men, then they are lying to us about other issues as well.
CTers have argued that just on the basis of the condition of CE399, it could not have wounded both men. Have CTers been lying to us about this?
I've never argued that, because that would be pointless as long as I can not be sure that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was in fact fired by the MC rifle on 11/22/63. Others may have other opinions... Having an opinion is something else than lying.
Your question isn't even a fair one. Of course a bullet could wound two men, IMO, but that's not the question that needs to be asked if one is truly interested in the truth. You should be asking if a bullet could have caused all the wounds in both men and still come out nearly undamaged. I wouldn't want to rely on the opinion of a ballistics expert to make that determination.
But, for the sake of argument, let me ask you this; has any ballistics expert ever been able to reproduce the event and achieve the same result?
I guess you could argue that it doesn’t matter if CTers have been lying to us about the condition of CE 399 precluding it from being the bullet that wounded both men. If it turned out there are other reasons we can discount the SBT.
As the SBT relies completely on CE399 being fired by the MC rifle on 11/22/63, you first need to establish the veracity and evidentiary value of the bullet now in evidence as CE399. If you can't the SBT is already discounted!
But I tend to conclude that if CTers have been lying to us that the condition of CE 399 precludes it from wounding both men, then they are lying to us about other issues as well.
Which is exactly where you wanted to go with this thread. It is also the reason you prefer to assume that CE399 was indeed the bullet found by Tomlinson, rather than dealing with the evidentiary problems that go along with that bullet.
So, I conclude this entire thread is agenda driven and completely disingenuous.
-
Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor Connally's physician, says that CE 399, the "Magic Bullet",
could not have caused the wounds he saw and treated in Governor Connally.
-
"explores the unique characteristics of the ammunition used by Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK assassination"
LOL.
If the best your experts can do is say that CE399 could have wounded both men, then there's really no need to go any farther. Because that would also mean that it could have not wounded both men. Or anybody.
-
Didn't the government fire bullets in cadavers and other hard bony objects and they were never able to replicate a bullet as clean as the one in the Archives?
-
Duncan MacPherson, author of “Bullet Penetration”, the seminal book on wound ballistics offered this constructive comment:
“The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms”.
-
Duncan MacPherson, author of “Bullet Penetration”, the seminal book on wound ballistics offered this constructive comment:
“The major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms”.
Did he mention ballistic/firearms experts Gerald Ford and David Belin? The inventors of the ridiculous single bullet theory in the first place. There can be only one shooter therefore there can be only one bullet. What is called constructive there... I call gullible.
-
Did he mention ballistic/firearms experts Gerald Ford and David Belin? The inventors of the ridiculous single bullet theory in the first place. There can be only one shooter therefore there can be only one bullet. What is called constructive there... I call gullible.
Who exactly considers Ford and/or Belin to be firearms/ballistic experts? Please be specific.
-
What can the ballistic experts tell you anyway? This one is straightforward. Prove that there is a straight-line path from the 6th floor into JFK's back, out his throat and into Connally. This involves an easy peasy experiment that anyone can do. Try it yourself using 2 lasers pointed at each other and get in between them as shown below. Position yourself so that the lasers point to the entrance and exit wounds according to the autopsy photos, then post your results and make us CTs eat crow. I've suggested this definitive challenge for years now and still no takers.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.png)
But I must warn you, every LNer that has actually done this experiment doesn't post here anymore.
-
Jack,
Wouldn't the relative seating orientation of Connally also be important to the laser demonstration here besides only showing the angle was 16 deg.?
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IPoEziycfWTghqonCNbuO2AOyT0lA32I/view?usp=sharing)
-
Who exactly considers Ford and/or Belin to be firearms/ballistic experts? Please be specific.
I miswrote Belin...so erase him and put Specter.
Sarcasm was my intent...But then I think you knew that.
Ford moved the entry around to fit the theory----
http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
The solution created by Commission counsel Arlen Specter was to posit that both men had been hit by a single shot which entered JFK's upper back,
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Single_Bullet_Theory.html
Otherwise it was a pretty stupid question.
-
Jack,
Wouldn't the relative seating orientation of Connally also be important to the laser demonstration here besides only showing the angle was 16 deg.?
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IPoEziycfWTghqonCNbuO2AOyT0lA32I/view?usp=sharing)
Yes, the seating orientation of Connally is crucial. Also, the angle was 17 degrees. My point is that it is up to YOU as a surrogate to orient yourself any damn way you please to make the Magic Bullet work. You can slouch or bend forward anyway you like as long as you match JFK's body orientation at the time the Magic Bullet struck him.
You can include Connally into the mix if you like and I can show you how to do that once you get past the Magic Bullet's trajectory thru JFK. The lasers are just a tool to determine the entry/exit wounds of the Magic Bullet, which none of the ballistic experts bothered to utilize in their analyses. They are given way too much credit to sort out the geometry involved. They typically aren't physicists who can calculate bullet trajectories.
-
Yes, the seating orientation of Connally is crucial. Also, the angle was 17 degrees. My point is that it is up to YOU as a surrogate to orient yourself any damn way you please to make the Magic Bullet work. You can slouch or bend forward anyway you like as long as you match JFK's body orientation at the time the Magic Bullet struck him.
You can include Connally into the mix if you like and I can show you how to do that once you get past the Magic Bullet's trajectory thru JFK. The lasers are just a tool to determine the entry/exit wounds of the Magic Bullet, which none of the ballistic experts bothered to utilize in their analyses. They are given way too much credit to sort out the geometry involved. They typically aren't physicists who can calculate bullet trajectories.
That’s actually what they do. Forensics ballistics experts specialize in looking at anything that has to do with firearms, from the identification of a specific round or weapon to determining the trajectory of a bullet. Ballistics experts can identify the caliber of a firearm's round and, with the help of national databases, can learn where the bullet was manufactured and possibly even the gun that fired it.
-
That’s actually what they do. Forensics ballistics experts specialize in looking at anything that has to do with firearms, from the identification of a specific round or weapon to determining the trajectory of a bullet. Ballistics experts can identify the caliber of a firearm's round and, with the help of national databases, can learn where the bullet was manufactured and possibly even the gun that fired it.
What has that got to do with trajectories?
-
What has that got to do with trajectories?
Read it again. Determining trajectories is part of the job description.
-
What can the ballistic experts tell you anyway? This one is straightforward. Prove that there is a straight-line path from the 6th floor into JFK's back, out his throat and into Connally. This involves an easy peasy experiment that anyone can do. Try it yourself using 2 lasers pointed at each other and get in between them as shown below. Position yourself so that the lasers point to the entrance and exit wounds according to the autopsy photos, then post your results and make us CTs eat crow. I've suggested this definitive challenge for years now and still no takers.
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasersJFK.png)
But I must warn you, every LNer that has actually done this experiment doesn't post here anymore.
Name them
-
Name them
No
-
What can the ballistic experts tell you anyway? This one is straightforward. Prove that there is a straight-line path from the 6th floor into JFK's back, out his throat and into Connally. This involves an easy peasy experiment that anyone can do. Try it yourself using 2 lasers pointed at each other and get in between them as shown below. Position yourself so that the lasers point to the entrance and exit wounds according to the autopsy photos, then post your results and make us CTs eat crow. I've suggested this definitive challenge for years now and still no takers.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/c3/07/8lPU2KrI_o.png)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/jeffries_5.jpg)
The top of the back collar of the jacket is nearly level with the mouth.
But I must warn you, every LNer that has actually done this experiment doesn't post here anymore.
Why would your experiment showing a bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket put any LNer off?
-
Yes, the seating orientation of Connally is crucial. Also, the angle was 17 degrees. My point is that it is up to YOU as a surrogate to orient yourself any damn way you please to make the Magic Bullet work. You can slouch or bend forward anyway you like as long as you match JFK's body orientation at the time the Magic Bullet struck him.
You can include Connally into the mix if you like and I can show you how to do that once you get past the Magic Bullet's trajectory thru JFK. The lasers are just a tool to determine the entry/exit wounds of the Magic Bullet, which none of the ballistic experts bothered to utilize in their analyses. They are given way too much credit to sort out the geometry involved. They typically aren't physicists who can calculate bullet trajectories.
Thanks, I can see the basic idea is to make the triangle to full scale using lasers to check the angle using a full scale general orientation (similar to that seen on a small scale in Croft's picture).
(https://yuqaza.dm.files.1drv.com/y4mi29NR0iwDiIJnij4f2_SB43LlwdvDxZ9IBfvqSlFJ-Ba-M3_8p43HrHf09NKwZN0AgEDCJAOBdZsOtnyKffBWupDAd0MseI6PbYQALNvxzMRKphkqD0YSVjdD9XWzOF0qMsQxzronBN8zrD_JqTBl-PsA4Fei81QxZhAIcLuL3kQIEbhqxsgeBxqkhWW4zyZUlphKNeI7gvESmX77GC3Pw?width=640&height=413&cropmode=none)
-
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/jeffries_5.jpg)
The top of the back collar of the jacket is nearly level with the mouth.
Why would your experiment showing a bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket put any LNer off?
You are obsessed with CAD. My graphic is not the experiment, it is the setup. Have you done the experiment yet Jerry? If so, then post your results and show us all that the MB was possible. Otherwise, no graphic or photo can resolve this. Besides, this is an experiment for the LNers to convince themselves that the MB was possible.
Computer screens are 2D and this requires a 3D model using a surrogate and lasers. A 3D CAD model projected onto a 2D screen will never cut it, which is why I haven't bothered making one. I can't demonstrate that it was NOT possible. You would say I didn't try hard enough. Would you buy anything I posted that contradicted your position? Didn't think so.
-
You are obsessed with CAD. My graphic is not the experiment, it is the setup. Have you done the experiment yet Jerry? If so, then post your results and show us all that the MB was possible. Otherwise, no graphic or photo can resolve this. Besides, this is an experiment for the LNers to convince themselves that the MB was possible.
Computer screens are 2D and this requires a 3D model using a surrogate and lasers. A 3D CAD model projected onto a 2D screen will never cut it, which is why I haven't bothered making one. I can't demonstrate that it was NOT possible. You would say I didn't try hard enough. Would you buy anything I posted that contradicted your position? Didn't think so.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)
You seem to forget that we've been improving on your original "ET" drawing (right, above).
It's been asked of you before, but please post photos of your own laser experiment and we'll compare your posture with Kennedy's actual posture in the motorcade. If the experiment is done honestly, nothing will change how the cross-section shows the bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket and exiting just above the base of the throat.
Dismissing 3D studies because they ultimately appear on 2D screens is absurd.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)
You seem to forget that we've been improving on your original "ET" drawing (right, above).
It's been asked of you before, but please post photos of your own laser experiment and we'll compare your posture with Kennedy's actual posture in the motorcade. If the experiment is done honestly, nothing will change how the cross-section shows the bullet entering several inches below the top of the jacket and exiting just above the base of the throat.
You just can't get out of your CAD bubble and accept that my graphic was NOT intended to be the experiment, only a demo of the setup for a real 3D experiment. Why would you opt for a 2D CAD rendering when you can do a real 3D analysis that was definitive? Not all physics engines (software behind CAD apps) are created equal and they all render a 3D model onto a 2D screen, which no one can verify as accurate. Why are you so afraid of reality? Oh right, you're a LNer and reality might shatter your world.
Dismissing 3D studies because they ultimately appear on 2D screens is absurd.
Sez you. I'm a photogrammetrist and I know how CAD apps work and their limitations. GIGO. Besides, I would never trust any 3D CAD study you put out since they are obviously not up to photogrammetric standards. EOS.