JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Tonkovich on August 14, 2020, 11:00:58 PM
-
Unlike other pieces of clothing which were treated as evidence, and now reside, unaltered, in the National Archives , such as JFK's suit jacket, shirt, tie, etc., Mr Connally's suit was laundered before being presented as evidence.
Why?
-
It was laundered so as to keep as much evidence as possible under wraps . Back in the day nothing was questioned . Today , everything is questioned and it should be . Upper echelon feels like there is no explanation . How dare you question my authority . It's like J Edgar Hoover saying there was no such thing as the Mafia ! When Bobby Kennedy went after the Mob , it was the beginning of the end for the Kennedy's . Oh I did not know that a bloody suit should not be laundered ! What the hell was I thinking ?
-
You wouldn't have a clue whether it's altered or not.....if it's even there.
Uh, so, why was Connally's suit laundered?
-
I redact my statement.
I doubt you would actually know that a piece of evidence was unaltered.
Like any of JFK's clothing.
The holes in JFK 's shirt, coat and tie correspond to the medical and ballistic reports.
-
None of them were present during the autopsy.
Chain of possession?
Why was Connally's suit laundered?
Hint: politics
-
Laundering the suit to remove blood spatter evidence.
Which would reveal Connally's position when he was shot.
Which did not occur at Z224, or Z234.
Think Z312. And after.
-
This is one of the more obvious proofs of the cover-up. The FBI knew full well that Connally's shirt and coat were crucial forensic evidence, yet for months--not weeks, but months--both the FBI and the Secret Service acted as though Connally's clothes did not exist and showed no interest in them.
Nellie Connally notified the FBI and the Secret Service that she had her husband's bloody clothes, but, she said, "nobody seemed interested." She waited two months after notifying the FBI and the Secret Service, and then she decided to have them cleaned because she logically thought that for some reason there was no interest in them.
Finally, the FBI went and got the clothes from Mrs. Connally, and the FBI lab received them on April 1, 1964, but, as mentioned, Mrs. Connally had already had them cleaned, so they were of very limited forensic value. The holes could not be tested for metallic residue, not even by super-sensitive methods, and the value of the fabric and shape of the clothing holes was diminished.
Why the keystone-cop lack of interest? One reason was that the FBI was aware that both of Connally's surgeons suspected that the bullet that hit Connally had fragmented, which would explain the weird H-shaped tears in the front of the shirt and the dimensions and nature of the wrist wounds.
Another reason for the astonishing months-long lack of interest was that the FBI knew that spectrographic testing of the Connally clothing holes could reveal metallic residues that were different in composition from the residues found on the edges of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, which of course would prove that Connally and JFK were hit by different bullets.
-
Mr Connally's suit was laundered before being presented as evidence. Why?
Where was that documented?
-
Where was that documented?
It's in the WC's report in the blandest form possible--one sentence is devoted to it, and no explanation is given for this surreal failure to properly examine Connally's clothing (p. 94).
Dr. McKnight discusses this in much more detail in Breach of Trust (pp. 142-144).
-
It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.
-
It's strange that Nellie would do that. It's not like her husband was ever going to wear that damaged suit again.
I agree. I would have kept the clothes as they were. But, Nellie felt it would be better if they were cleaned. Go figure.
-
This is one of the more obvious proofs of the cover-up. The FBI knew full well that Connally's shirt and coat were crucial forensic evidence, yet for months--not weeks, but months--both the FBI and the Secret Service acted as though Connally's clothes did not exist and showed no interest in them.
Nellie Connally notified the FBI and the Secret Service that she had her husband's bloody clothes, but, she said, "nobody seemed interested." She waited two months after notifying the FBI and the Secret Service, and then she decided to have them cleaned because she logically thought that for some reason there was no interest in them.
Finally, the FBI went and got the clothes from Mrs. Connally, and the FBI lab received them on April 1, 1964, but, as mentioned, Mrs. Connally had already had them cleaned, so they were of very limited forensic value. The holes could not be tested for metallic residue, not even by super-sensitive methods, and the value of the fabric and shape of the clothing holes was diminished.
Why the keystone-cop lack of interest? One reason was that the FBI was aware that both of Connally's surgeons suspected that the bullet that hit Connally had fragmented, which would explain the weird H-shaped tears in the front of the shirt and the dimensions and nature of the wrist wounds.
Another reason for the astonishing months-long lack of interest was that the FBI knew that spectrographic testing of the Connally clothing holes could reveal metallic residues that were different in composition from the residues found on the edges of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat, which of course would prove that Connally and JFK were hit by different bullets.[/size]
Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.
I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.
The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?
Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.
The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.
The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.
Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.
-
Both the FBI and the Secret Service had no interest in Connally’s clothes.
I had no idea the Secret Service was into doing these sorts of investigations. Or had any clue about how to conduct such an investigation.
The FBI? That’s a different story. But what good could Connally’s clothes do them?
Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.
The clothes won’t establish what type of bullet was fired. Only the bullet or a major fragment of a bullet can establish that.
The only things the clothes would establish was who was wounded. But does anyone doubt that it was President Kennedy and Governor Connally who were wounded.
Connally’s clothes may “make the man”, but they didn’t have much relevance to this case.
This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.
Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected.
-
This is just sad. Can you guys ever admit anything? First and foremost, Connally's clothes should have been immediately tested for metallic residues around the clothing holes, as JFK's clothes were. There is no innocent explanation for the FBI's failure to do this. Clearly, the FBI was worried that the metallic traces would not match the traces from JFK's rear clothing holes in their chemical composition.
And this is typically done in murder cases? In 1963? Checking the clothes for metallic traces.
Are bullet the only things that can add metallic traces to clothes? Are these tests run on both the areas around the bullet holes and other parts of the clothes, to check for the possibility that something else might have added these traces?
Two, immediate examination of the Connally clothing holes might have shed more light on whether the wrist and thigh were hit by fragments rather than an intact bullet, as Connally's surgeons suspected. [/size]
Yes. Being hit by a fragment can explain why the damage to Connally’s wrist was not greater. As can being hit by an intact bullet, which was slowed by a neck and torso. I have never heard a ballistic expert say otherwise.
And, of course, what good would the examination of Connally’s clothes do? The examination of JFK’s clothes indicate that he was hit in the back by a bullet, which exited his throat. But this has not affected your opinion about the shot coming from the front in the slightest.
Nowhere, have I heard that the opinion of some Parkland doctors about the throat wound being an entrance or exit wound, was based on any kind of examination of his clothes, which they could have done, but didn’t. Of course, there job was not to examine the clothes. Their job ended when it was determined he had died. But their opinions would carry some weight if these opinions were based, in part, of their careful evaluation of his clothes, which they did not do.
-
And this is typically done in murder cases? In 1963? Checking the clothes for metallic traces.
You're kidding, right? Why do you suppose the FBI was so quick to test the JFK clothing holes for metallic residue?
Are bullet the only things that can add metallic traces to clothes? Are these tests run on both the areas around the bullet holes and other parts of the clothes, to check for the possibility that something else might have added these traces?
Huh? Did you just start studying the JFK case last month? What else but a bullet would leave metallic residue around the edges of the holes? When bullets enter and exit clothing, they typically leave metallic traces on the edges of the holes they create. Those traces can be tested and their chemical composition can be compared with the composition of the bullets that are suspected of having caused the holes. This is Forensics 101 stuff.
Yes. Being hit by a fragment can explain why the damage to Connally’s wrist was not greater. As can being hit by an intact bullet, which was slowed by a neck and torso. I have never heard a ballistic expert say otherwise.
You have no clue in Kentucky what you are talking about. The projectile that struck Connally's wrist shattered--shattered--the radius bone, which is one of the hardest bones in the body. So whatever hit the wrist did a great deal of damage. That is why even the autopsy doctors, as late as April 1964, before they knew what they were supposed to say on the matter, insisted that CE 399 could not have been the missile that hit Connally's wrist.
Dr. Charles Gregory, the surgeon who operated on the wrist, told the WC that the wrist damage indicated that an "irregular missile" had hit the wrist:
In attending this wound, it was evident early that clot had been carried into the wound from the dorsal surface to the bone and into the fracture. This would imply that an irregular missile had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect. (6 H 98)
The WC's most experienced and highly qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told WC staffers that there was no way CE 399 could have shattered the radius bone without suffering substantial deformity.
And, of course, what good would the examination of Connally’s clothes do?
Once again the problem is that you have not done the necessary homework to discuss the subject credibly. Go get two or three basic forensic handbooks and read up on why ballistics and forensic experts examine clothing when there's been a shooting.
The examination of JFK’s clothes indicate that he was hit in the back by a bullet, which exited his throat.
Wrong. It indicated no such thing. If a bullet or bullet fragment had made the front shirt slits, there should have been metallic residue around the slits. But even when the slits were tested with NAA, no metallic traces were detected. Also, if a bullet or fragment had made the slits, there would be fabric missing from them, but there is none. And, we know a bullet or fragment did not cause the slits because there is no hole through the tie knot--only a small nick made by one of the Parkland nurses, and the nick is clearly inward from the left edge of the knot.
When are you guys going to deal with the powerful evidence that we now have that at the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined that the back wound had no exit point? When? We now know that the doctors removed the chest organs so that they could look through the chest cavity to see the back wound's tract, and that when they did this, they could see the end of the tract--they could see that the tract did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because they could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. That's when Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and said the back wound had no exit point. And now we know that others at the autopsy were aware of this as well, including one medical technician who witnessed the probing.
Nowhere, have I heard that the opinion of some Parkland doctors about the throat wound being an entrance or exit wound, was based on any kind of examination of his clothes, which they could have done, but didn’t. Of course, there job was not to examine the clothes. Their job ended when it was determined he had died. But their opinions would carry some weight if these opinions were based, in part, of their careful evaluation of his clothes, which they did not do.
Huh? Who has ever claimed that the Parkland doctors examined JFK's clothes, much less that they used the clothing as the basis for their conclusion that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
The Parkland doctors concluded that the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm), because it was neat, and because it was punched in, not avulsed.
You guys wave aside the size of the wound because you can't abandon your brainwashing that only 6.5 mm ammo was used and that the throat wound was an exit wound, never mind all the evidence that we now have that the back wound had no exit point. Several other kinds of ammo could have caused an entrance wound that was 3-5 mm in diameter, but you guys ignore this fact because you insist on basing everything on your false paradigm that the only ammo used was 6.5 mm ammo.
And of course you are also waving aside Dr. Carrico's clear, repeated assertion that the throat wound was above the collar, even though that location is supported by his 11/22/63 medical report. You won't even seriously consider his account because it destroys your house of cards. So you reflexively look for any excuse, no matter how lame or arbitrary, to reject it.
-
You have no clue in Kentucky what you are talking about. The projectile that struck Connally's wrist shattered--shattered--the radius bone, which is one of the hardest bones in the body. So whatever hit the wrist did a great deal of damage. That is why even the autopsy doctors, as late as April 1964, before they knew what they were supposed to say on the matter, insisted that CE 399 could not have been the missile that hit Connally's wrist.
But those doctors were not ballistic experts, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
Dr. Charles Gregory, the surgeon who operated on the wrist, told the WC that the wrist damage indicated that an "irregular missile" had hit the wrist:[/size]
Again, a doctor who was not a ballistic expert, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
The WC's most experienced and highly qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, told WC staffers that there was no way CE 399 could have shattered the radius bone without suffering substantial deformity.
Once again the problem is that you have not done the necessary homework to discuss the subject credibly. Go get two or three basic forensic handbooks and read up on why ballistics and forensic experts examine clothing when there's been a shooting.
Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:
My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination
By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS
http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter
As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullet s from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.
Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.
So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.
Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.
What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.
They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.
Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.
Wrong. It indicated no such thing. If a bullet or bullet fragment had made the front shirt slits, there should have been metallic residue around the slits. But even when the slits were tested with NAA, no metallic traces were detected. Also, if a bullet or fragment had made the slits, there would be fabric missing from them, but there is none. And, we know a bullet or fragment did not cause the slits because there is no hole through the tie knot--only a small nick made by one of the Parkland nurses, and the nick is clearly inward from the left edge of the knot.
So, I take it, your theory is the “slits” in the shirt were not made by a bullet, but by a scalpel, used by a doctor or nurse to hurriedly help remove the shirt.
The slits, whether made from a bullet or from a scalpel, were cut from the inside. This would not be the case if made by a scalpel. No medical professional wound slide the blade of a scalpel between the tight fit of the shirt and the neck to somehow cut the shirt from the inside. Causing the threads to be pushed outward. Only a bullet would do that.
Also, I don’t think the doctor or nurse would cho0se to cut the shirt directly over the wound, although, I am not a medical professional of any sort so I don’t know. But I don’t think they would do that.
I think those “slits” were caused by an exiting bullet alright.
. . .
Huh? Who has ever claimed that the Parkland doctors examined JFK's clothes, much less that they used the clothing as the basis for their conclusion that the throat wound was an entrance wound?
The Parkland doctors concluded that the throat wound was an entrance wound because it was small (3-5 mm), because it was neat, and because it was punched in, not avulsed.
At a minimum, for the Parkland doctors who thought the neck wound was an entrance wound, for their opinions on this matter to be taken seriously, they would have to examine the clothes. One cannot make a good, professional analysis, without checking the clothes. This provides the definitive evidence for the direction of the bullets. Any expert, who declared the direction of the bullet, from the wounds alone, and chooses not to make a close examination of the clothes as well, when readily available, is not behaving in a professional manner. Of course, the Parkland doctors are excused, because this was not part of their jobs. But this still greatly diminishes their conclusions.
And of course you are also waving aside Dr. Carrico's clear, repeated assertion that the throat wound was above the collar, even though that location is supported by his 11/22/63 medical report. You won't even seriously consider his account because it destroys your house of cards. So you reflexively look for any excuse, no matter how lame or arbitrary, to reject it.
I trust what the autopsy photographs show, not the memory of a doctor.
-
But those doctors were not ballistic experts, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
Oh. . . . Okay. . . . So now you don't care what the autopsy doctors said! Right. . . . I can't count how many times you and other WC apologists have cited the autopsy report as an authoritative document and have quoted the autopsy doctors as credible authorities. But, oh, when you find out that even the autopsy doctors knew enough to know that CE 399 could not have shattered the radius bone without being deformed, you're ready to dismiss their views as irrelevant.
Actually, Finck was a qualified forensic pathologist who had ample experience with gunshot wounds. He had not done an autopsy in two years as of the day of the assassination, but he had done dozens of autopsies on gunshot victims. They were all pathologists who knew that the radius bone is one of the hardest bones in the body.
Again, a doctor who was not a ballistic expert, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
Oh, this is just rich. So who cares about the surgeon who actually operated on the wrist, who saw the damage up close, and who knew that the projectile that hit the wrist left several sizable fragments because he removed them?! Who cares what he said, hey? And who cares that Nurse Bell verified that at least three sizable fragments were removed from the wrist, which of course rules out CE 399 as the offending missile.
Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.
Where did you get this nonsense? Of course, ever since you guys found out that Dr. Dolce rejected the SBT, you have minimized his credentials. So let's look at his credentials:
In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. After he retired from the Army, he became chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the Warren Commission (WC) asked the Army to provide its top wound ballistics expert as a consultant, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than Olivier and Dziemian did.
And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:
Uh, I mentioned Dr. Dolce's letter a couple of weeks ago. I guess you missed that.
My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination
By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS
http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter
As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullet s from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.
Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.
So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.
Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.
Let's peel through this dishonest spin and sophistry. Dr. Dolce's findings and conclusions about the SBT are all the more devastating precisely because Dolce, since he focused only on the wound ballistics of the shooting, did not realize that the lone-gunman theory cannot allow that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets and that Connally's wrist was struck by a fragment from the JFK head shot. He was not immersed in the details of the rest of the JFK case, so he did not realize that his findings and conclusions were fatal for the lone-gunman theory, and that this was why the WC ignored him.
If Dr. Dolce had rejected both the SBT and the lone-gunman theory, you guys would hold this against him and would claim that as a conspiracy theorist he was biased and was trying to prove what he wanted to believe. The fact that he still believed that Oswald was the only gunman and that only three shots were fired makes his ardent, science-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling and devastating.
Dr. Dolce was unaware of the hard scientific evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination. He did not know that the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek had been subjected to NAA at the Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge facility, and that experiments done at Oak Ridge found that every single time one of the participants fired a bolt-action rifle, their paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates--every single time. He did not know this because the FBI withheld this information from the WC.
What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.
They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.
More dishonesty, or a severe lack of knowledge, about CE 399. First off, CE 399 is not "moderately distorted." That is hogwash. Even its lands and grooves are intact. Do you understand what that means? CE 399 also lost virtually none of its substance, no more than 3-4 grains Do you know how small and light 3-4 grains are?
You are ignoring the fact that in Dr. Dolce's tests, even some of the bullets that were merely fired through simulated soft tissue emerged more deformed than CE 399, and that every single bullet that was fired into rib bone emerged markedly deformed.
I invite everyone to watch the interview with Dr. Dolce in Chip Selby's superb documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory. His interview begins at 42:16 and continues for just over a minute:
Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.
No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:
To buck up the controversial SBT, Lucien Haag “proved” that the bullet that struck Governor Connally had passed through JFK first. His evidence? Haag said that the missile didn’t leave a small, puncture-type wound in the Governor’s back, like a typical entrance wound. Instead, it left an oval, 3-cm long, “yawed” entry wound, the full length of Commission Exhibit, #399, the so-called “magic bullet.” The ovality of that back wound was forensic proof, Haag asserted, that the bullet had been destabilized by passing through JFK and was traveling sideways, not point forward, when it hit Connally’s back. As we pointed out, this particular myth has long been debunked. Connally’s back wound was no more oval than JFK’s skull wound, and no one has ever argued JFK’s fatal missile had been destabilized and was yawing when it took the President’s life. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs)
More reading on the Haags' just science:
https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf
In the 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test, conducted in consultation with forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht, the test bullet emerged markedly deformed. The bullet penetrated a gelatin block, then damaged one bone, and then damaged another bone. It emerged markedly, visibly deformed.
In the 1967 CBS wound ballistics tests, all four of the bullets failed to penetrate the equivalent of the thigh. This led the supervising expert, Dr. Enos, to conclude that the SBT was "highly improbable."
So, I take it, your theory is the “slits” in the shirt were not made by a bullet, but by a scalpel, used by a doctor or nurse to hurriedly help remove the shirt.
The slits, whether made from a bullet or from a scalpel, were cut from the inside. This would not be the case if made by a scalpel. No medical professional wound slide the blade of a scalpel between the tight fit of the shirt and the neck to somehow cut the shirt from the inside. Causing the threads to be pushed outward. Only a bullet would do that.
Also, I don’t think the doctor or nurse would cho0se to cut the shirt directly over the wound, although, I am not a medical professional of any sort so I don’t know. But I don’t think they would do that.
I think those “slits” were caused by an exiting bullet alright.
Of course you do, because you don't care that there's no hole through the tie; you don't care that the nick in the tie knot is inward from the left edge; you don't care about the disclosures regarding the probing of the back wound at the autopsy and the absolute, certain determination that the wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the wound tract; you don't care that no metallic residue was found on the edges of the shirt slits; and you don't care that Nurse Henchliffe has confirmed that she or Nurse Bowron made the shirt slits and the nick in the tie. You just wave aside all these facts and continue to see the emperor's new clothes.
At a minimum, for the Parkland doctors who thought the neck wound was an entrance wound, for their opinions on this matter to be taken seriously, they would have to examine the clothes. One cannot make a good, professional analysis, without checking the clothes. This provides the definitive evidence for the direction of the bullets.
Any expert, who declared the direction of the bullet, from the wounds alone, and chooses not to make a close examination of the clothes as well, when readily available, is not behaving in a professional manner. Of course, the Parkland doctors are excused, because this was not part of their jobs. But this still greatly diminishes their conclusions.
That is nonsense. Pray tell, how do doctors determine whether wounds are entry or exit if the bullets did not go through fabric before hitting the person? Gosh, this is silly. And of course you wave aside Dr. Carrico's firm recollection that the throat wound was above the collar (and his recollection is supported by his 11/22/63 medical report, written just a few hours after JFK died).
Dr. Carrico, Dr. Clark, and Dr. Perry had far more experience with gunshot wounds than Humes and Boswell did. They had treated dozens of such wounds, whereas Humes and Boswell had never treated a single one.
I trust what the autopsy photographs show, not the memory of a doctor.
Well, of course you do, because otherwise your case collapses. Never mind that the autopsy photos contradict each other and contradict the autopsy x-rays. Never mind that we have the Parkland doctors' medical reports that they wrote on 11/22/63, just hours after having treated Kennedy and having observed his wounds while Father Huber gave the last rites and then while the body was washed and wrapped. Never mind that those medical reports say the same thing about the throat wound that Perry and Clark said about it during the press conference they held barely two hours after the shooting. Never mind that we know from Humes's own notes that Perry told him that the throat wound was "small" and only "3-5 mm" in diameter. Yeah, never mind all that. They just imagined that the wound was small, neat, and punched in. After all, they had only seen dozens of gunshot wounds before then. And never mind that Nurse Henchliffe said that in all her years as an ER nurse, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound. Yeah, they were all just "mistaken."
-
Oh. . . . Okay. . . . So now you don't care what the autopsy doctors said! Right. . . . I can't count how many times you and other WC apologists have cited the autopsy report as an authoritative document and have quoted the autopsy doctors as credible authorities. But, oh, when you find out that even the autopsy doctors knew enough to know that CE 399 could not have shattered the radius bone without being deformed, you're ready to dismiss their views as irrelevant.
Actually, Finck was a qualified forensic pathologist who had ample experience with gunshot wounds. He had not done an autopsy in two years as of the day of the assassination, but he had done dozens of autopsies on gunshot victims. They were all pathologists who knew that the radius bone is one of the hardest bones in the body.
Oh, this is just rich. So who cares about the surgeon who actually operated on the wrist, who saw the damage up close, and who knew that the projectile that hit the wrist left several sizable fragments because he removed them?! Who cares what he said, hey? And who cares that Nurse Bell verified that at least three sizable fragments were removed from the wrist, which of course rules out CE 399 as the offending missile.
I don’t care about the doctor’s opinions on if CE 399 could break the radius bone and come out with relatively little damage. Because a medical doctor cannot make that determination. Only a ballistic expert who conducts and observes real life tests firing bullets into targets imbedded in ballistic gel.
Where did you get this nonsense? Of course, ever since you guys found out that Dr. Dolce rejected the SBT, you have minimized his credentials. So let's look at his credentials:
In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. After he retired from the Army, he became chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the Warren Commission (WC) asked the Army to provide its top wound ballistics expert as a consultant, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than Olivier and Dziemian did.
I never questioned Dr. Dolce, or any of the other doctors, medical expertise. Only their expertise in judging if CE 399 could have wounded Kennedy and Connally, which requires a ballistic expert to judge on that.
Uh, I mentioned Dr. Dolce's letter a couple of weeks ago. I guess you missed that.
But forgot to mention that in Dr. Dolce’s opinion, all the wounds to Kennedy and Connally can be accounted for by three shots from Oswald with his Carcano rifle. You were hoping that the readers would not notice.
Let's peel through this dishonest spin and sophistry. Dr. Dolce's findings and conclusions about the SBT are all the more devastating precisely because Dolce, since he focused only on the wound ballistics of the shooting, did not realize that the lone-gunman theory cannot allow that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets and that Connally's wrist was struck by a fragment from the JFK head shot. He was not immersed in the details of the rest of the JFK case, so he did not realize that his findings and conclusions were fatal for the lone-gunman theory, and that this was why the WC ignored him.
False. This is a lie that CTers have been using for over 50 years. The LN Theory does not stand or fall on the SBT, even if Oswald is limited to 3 shots.
One shot can wound Kennedy. A second shot can wound Connally. A third shot, in the head, can kill Kennedy and a fragment of that bullet wound Tague. The Warren Commission specifically mentioned this scenario in its report as a possibility.
But a different scenario is the stronger theory. One bullet missed the limousine and caused no wounds or damage to the limousine. A second bullet wounded both Kennedy and Connally. A third bullet struck Kennedy in the head and a fragment went on to wound Tague. This is a much superior theory, in part because it does not require a bullet which wounds Kennedy or Connally to vanish from existence the instant it inflicts the wound.
If Dr. Dolce had rejected both the SBT and the lone-gunman theory, you guys would hold this against him and would claim that as a conspiracy theorist he was biased and was trying to prove what he wanted to believe. The fact that he still believed that Oswald was the only gunman and that only three shots were fired makes his ardent, science-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling and devastating.
No. Like the other doctors, he rejected the SBT not on medical grounds, but because he didn’t believe CE 399 could inflict those wounds and yet come out with only moderate damage. But a ballistic expert, who fires real bullets into targets imbedded within ballistic gel have found that such a bullet can penetrate through a couple of feet of ballistic gel, break bones, and still come out with moderate damage to the bullet, like CE 399.
Dr. Dolce was unaware of the hard scientific evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination. He did not know that the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek had been subjected to NAA at the Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge facility, and that experiments done at Oak Ridge found that every single time one of the participants fired a bolt-action rifle, their paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates--every single time. He did not know this because the FBI withheld this information from the WC.
So now you are admitting that Oswald could have been the lone assassin, using the Carcano rifle. That, using the judgement of Dr. Dolce, we know this to be so. This scenario explains all the evidence. Except the paraffin test which proves Oswald did not fire a rifle at all.
The same paraffin test was had been dropped by most police departments by 1963, because it had proven to be too unreliable. The same paraffin test that has been dropped by all police departments, in all the United States, in all the western world, so for all I know. The same paraffin test dropped by all the police departments in the world, so far as I know. The same paraffin test which went used on a man who test fired Oswald’s rifle indicated that that man had not fired a rifle at all, just as it did with Oswald. That paraffin test.
You are just groping for excuses to cherry pick the conclusions of Dr. Dolce that you like, and reject the conclusions that you don’t like. That Dr. Dolce believed that Oswald was the lone assassin and that all the evidence can be accounted for with three shots from his rifle.
More dishonesty, or a severe lack of knowledge, about CE 399. First off, CE 399 is not "moderately distorted." That is hogwash. Even its lands and grooves are intact. Do you understand what that means? CE 399 also lost virtually none of its substance, no more than 3-4 grains Do you know how small and light 3-4 grains are?
(https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/2018/images/18-06-15/CE399-bullet.jpg)
If anything, “moderately distorted” is understating the damage to that bullet. You would need a vice to damage a bullet that much. Ballistic experts, through their tests, are well satisfied that a bullet can do this damage and come out looking like CE 399. Which is why CTers use the opinions of others, any others, like medical doctors who don’t know, to argue that this is impossible.
You are ignoring the fact that in Dr. Dolce's tests, even some of the bullets that were merely fired through simulated soft tissue emerged more deformed than CE 399, and that every single bullet that was fired into rib bone emerged markedly deformed.
Bullet that were fired directly into a rib bone, and not first slowed and forced to yaw by passing through something equivalent to JFK’s neck.
I invite everyone to watch the interview with Dr. Dolce in Chip Selby's superb documentary Reasonable Doubt: The Single-Bullet Theory. His interview begins at 42:16 and continues for just over a minute:
More medical doctors giving opinions outside of their area of expertise, on what CE 399 should look like.
-
I don’t care about the doctor’s opinions on if CE 399 could break the radius bone and come out with relatively little damage. Because a medical doctor cannot make that determination. Only a ballistic expert who conducts and observes real life tests firing bullets into targets imbedded in ballistic gel.
Finck had dealt with dozens of gunshot cases, so he had plenty of first-hand experience with how bullets look after they strike bone and tissue. He also studied this kind of stuff at the AFIP. Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory likewise had treated dozens, if not hundreds, of gunshot victims, so they had seen how bullets behave when they strike tissue and bone. Shaw said that more bullet fragments were left in the chest than were missing from CE 399, and Gregory said that he removed more fragments from the wrist than were missing from CE 399.
I never questioned Dr. Dolce, or any of the other doctors, medical expertise. Only their expertise in judging if CE 399 could have wounded Kennedy and Connally, which requires a ballistic expert to judge on that.
Dolce *was* a ballistics expert. How did you miss that?
But forgot to mention that in Dr. Dolce’s opinion, all the wounds to Kennedy and Connally can be accounted for by three shots from Oswald with his Carcano rifle. You were hoping that the readers would not notice.
Not at all. Indeed, as I said, the fact that Dolce was not a WC critic makes his ballistics-based and experience-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling.
False. This is a lie that CTers have been using for over 50 years. The LN Theory does not stand or fall on the SBT, even if Oswald is limited to 3 shots.
This statement proves you don't know what you're talking about. Your claim is an egregious gaffe that suggests your reading on the case has been woefully insufficient, or that you are lying.
One shot can wound Kennedy. A second shot can wound Connally. A third shot, in the head, can kill Kennedy and a fragment of that bullet wound Tague. The Warren Commission specifically mentioned this scenario in its report as a possibility.
And that scenario is ludicrous. The limousine was about 260 feet away, nearly a football field away, from the Tague curb spot when the fatal head shot occurred. There was a reason that the FBI and the WC ignored the Tague wounding until they were forced to deal with it.
Offering up a wildly implausible theory and then saying, "See, we don't need the SBT," is a lame, silly argument.
But a different scenario is the stronger theory. One bullet missed the limousine and caused no wounds or damage to the limousine. A second bullet wounded both Kennedy and Connally. A third bullet struck Kennedy in the head and a fragment went on to wound Tague. This is a much superior theory, in part because it does not require a bullet which wounds Kennedy or Connally to vanish from existence the instant it inflicts the wound.
That theory is even more absurd. Your "stronger theory" is the worst and goofiest--it consists of a wild miss, the ludicrous head-shot-fragment-to-Tague theory, and the SBT. Gosh, this ground has been covered a zillion times, and you guys still get on public boards and post this clown material.
How on earth would even a blind gunman have missed the entire huge limousine? How? So the same guy who performed a shooting feat that the WC's NRA-Master-rated riflemen could not come close to duplicating somehow missed the entire enormous limousine? And no head-shot fragment could have magically cleared the windshield and the roll bar and then traveled 260 feet and either hit Tague hard enough to cut him or hit the curb hard enough to send a concrete fragment streaking to Tague.
What about the bullet that five witnesses saw strike the curb early in the shooting sequence? What about the deformed bullet that Dr. Young received at the autopsy? What about the four fragments, comprising at least one bullet, for which Chief of the Day Dennis David typed a receipt for a federal agent at Bethesda? What about the three to four fragments that Dr. Gregory and Nurse Bell said were removed from Connally's wrist? What about the documentary evidence we now have that at the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined with absolute certainty that the back wound had no exit point? Etc, etc., etc.?
No. Like the other doctors, he rejected the SBT not on medical grounds, but because he didn’t believe CE 399 could inflict those wounds and yet come out with only moderate damage. But a ballistic expert, who fires real bullets into targets imbedded within ballistic gel have found that such a bullet can penetrate through a couple of feet of ballistic gel, break bones, and still come out with moderate damage to the bullet, like CE 399.
You're a broken, misleading record. You are not here to discuss, but to mislead. I already answered these arguments. And, again, CE 399 did not emerge with "moderate damage." You clearly know nothing about ballistics if you think that a bullet that emerges with its lands and grooves intact and with only 3-4 grains of its substance missing constitutes a "moderately damaged" bullet. No, such a bullet is a virtually pristine bullet, a virtually undamaged bullet, a virtually whole and intact bullet.
So now you are admitting that Oswald could have been the lone assassin, using the Carcano rifle. That, using the judgement of Dr. Dolce, we know this to be so.
As I said, you're not here to discuss with candor and objectivity, but to twist and mislead.
Dr. Dolce was not a student of the JFK case. He never ventured beyond his field of expertise. He accepted the WC's claim that Oswald was the sole gunman and that only three shots were fired. Yet, because he knew that the SBT was impossible, he would not go along with it and tried to explain why it was absurd, and that's why the WC ignored him, even though he was the Army's best wound ballistics expert.
This scenario explains all the evidence.
It does no such thing. You know, you can repeat these silly, debunked myths 10 times a week here, but they will still be myths.
Except the paraffin test which proves Oswald did not fire a rifle at all. The same paraffin test was had been dropped by most police departments by 1963, because it had proven to be too unreliable. The same paraffin test that has been dropped by all police departments, in all the United States, in all the western world, so for all I know. The same paraffin test dropped by all the police departments in the world, so far as I know. The same paraffin test which went used on a man who test fired Oswald’s rifle indicated that that man had not fired a rifle at all, just as it did with Oswald. That paraffin test.
You're lying again. Let me repeat the fact, which you ignored, that the Oak Ridge tests found that every single time the gunman fired a Carcano, the paraffin cast of his cheek tested positive for nitrates with NAA. NAA is far more sensitive than the regular spectrographic testing that was done by local police departments, but it is also much more expensive and labor intensive, and police departments did not want to deal with the expense and hassle of arranging for NAA testing of paraffin casts. False negatives from paraffin casts of cheeks tested with NAA are unheard of, unless a person could take several hours to somehow steam out the nitrates from his cheeks. NAA is simply too sensitive to produce a false negative of a paraffin cheek cast in cases such as Oswald's paraffin cast.
You are just groping for excuses to cherry pick the conclusions of Dr. Dolce that you like, and reject the conclusions that you don’t like.
You're lying again. You are ducking and dodging the weight of Dr. Dolce's research and conclusions. As I've said, I will be more than happy to stipulate every single time I mention Dr. Dolce and the SBT that he rejected the SBT even though he believed Oswald was the gunman. No problem at all.
That Dr. Dolce believed that Oswald was the lone assassin and that all the evidence can be accounted for with three shots from his rifle.
Dr. Dolce did not believe that "all the evidence" can be explained by three shots from Oswald's rifle. He was not like Cyril Wecht, who took the time to study the entire case. Dolce did not realize that the lone-gunman theory collapses without the SBT. The WC knew this, and that's why they ignored their best, most experienced and qualified ballistics expert. Dolce never did understand why the commission shut him out just because he told them, and proved, that the SBT was impossible, and he was very upset about it. In fact, he even accused Olivier and Dziemian of misrepresenting the test results.
If anything, “moderately distorted” is understating the damage to that bullet. You would need a vice to damage a bullet that much. Ballistic experts, through their tests, are well satisfied that a bullet can do this damage and come out looking like CE 399. Which is why CTers use the opinions of others, any others, like medical doctors who don’t know, to argue that this is impossible.
You're lying again, and making clownish claims in the process. No valid ballistics test has yet produced a bullet that did the SBT damage and emerged with its lands and grooves intact and with only 3-4 grains of its substance missing.
If you would need a vice to damage a bullet "that much," then why did some bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC tests emerge with more deformity? Why did bullets that were merely fired into chest ribs and cotton wadding emerge with far more deformity? (See below.)
Bullet that were fired directly into a rib bone, and not first slowed and forced to yaw by passing through something equivalent to JFK’s neck.
Wrong. You might want to check with your buddies and get your story straight. Your fellow WC apologists have always insisted that CE 399 would have lost little velocity in transiting JFK's neck. The argument has always been that the magic bullet still would have enough velocity to cause all of Connally's wounds because it would have lost little velocity while going through the neck. Sturdivan, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, told the HSCA that “this bullet if only encountering a few inches of soft tissue [in traversing Kennedy’s neck] would go through losing almost no velocity, 100 feet per second or thereabouts” (1 HSCA 407). Dr. Olivier said the same thing to the WC, noting that his tests showed that bullets going through simulated neck tissue lost no more than 106-132 fps, even the bullets that transited simulated necks made of goat meat (5 H 77).
The yawing myth again. If Connally's back-wound was yawing, then Kennedy's rear-head-wound was also yawing: they both produced oval entry wounds that were nearly identical in size. Non-yawing bullets can cause oval wounds if they strike at an angle. I already pointed this out, but you ignored it.
More medical doctors giving opinions outside of their area of expertise, on what CE 399 should look like.
Right, what do medical doctors who have treated gunshot wounds and have seen how bullets look after hitting tissue and bone--yeah, what do they know?
In the Discovery Channel ballistics test, the rib bullet went through less rib than CE 399 supposedly did but still emerged much more deformed than CE 399:
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_4_lrg.jpg)
Let's compare some of the bullets from Olivier's tests with CE 399:
(https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/images/figure_8_lrg.jpg)
And some more: CE 572 consists of two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding--and note that they are more deformed than CE 399, while CE 853 was fired through a rib, and CE 856 was fired through a wrist:
(https://external-preview.redd.it/x480oBZRNO_ZOob3kJXCzSDw2s2h6ArFcrsrJafx8uE.jpg?auto=webp&s=0d211f0ab19a220d2535d110dea4a42ddb4520a2)
Facts are stubborn things.
-
Well, they could establish the direction of the shot. But it is known that Connally was shot from behind. Otherwise, the bullet would have ended up in Connally’s chest, not in his leg. And we know it ended up in his leg because his leg only has an entrance wound, no exit wound.
Yes, if you pre-assume a single bullet. How utterly circular.
-
Finck had dealt with dozens of gunshot cases, so he had plenty of first-hand experience with how bullets look after they strike bone and tissue. He also studied this kind of stuff at the AFIP. Dr. Shaw and Dr. Gregory likewise had treated dozens, if not hundreds, of gunshot victims, so they had seen how bullets behave when they strike tissue and bone. Shaw said that more bullet fragments were left in the chest than were missing from CE 399, and Gregory said that he removed more fragments from the wrist than were missing from CE 399.
Dolce *was* a ballistics expert. How did you miss that?
Dr. Dolce was not a ballistic expert. He does not make real world tests were bullets are fired into targets, like bones, embedded in ballistic gel, to simulate soft tissue, to observe what damage is done to the bullets. This is done by ballistic experts.
Basically, here is how it works. Forensic pathologists, like Dr. Dolce, work with ballistic experts. The forensic pathologists study the human body. Could a bullet do this amount of damage to the body. Would a bullet of this type do the observed amount of damage to the human body? What would be the effect of this bullet? Could this bullet alone cause death?
It is the ballistic expert who rule on the damage to the bullet. Could the bullet have done this amount of damage and come out in the shape it was found? To put it simply, forensic pathologists should stick to the bodies, ballistic experts should stick to the bullets.
The forensic pathologist does not make sole judgements on:
• Could a bullet penetrate through “X” inches of soft tissue and “Y” inches of bone. Not without consulting a ballistic expert.
• Could a bullet do this amount of damage and come out in this shape. This is a question only for the ballistic expert.
Dr. Dolce giving an opinion on how a WCC/MC FMJ bullet should appear after doing so much damage, would be like the ballistic expert Luke Haag overruling a forensic pathologist and insisting that the bullet taking the path it did could not have caused a collapsed lung. Forensic pathologist should stick to evaluating the damage to the body. Ballistic experts should stick to evaluating the damage to the bullet.
Question:
Which of your “experts” has been called on by a court of law to give opinions on, questions like:
Could this bullet have been fired from this weapon.
Could this bullet have done this damage and come out in the condition it was found?
I’m not saying none of them are experts. They are medical experts. But which of them are ballistic experts?
Not at all. Indeed, as I said, the fact that Dolce was not a WC critic makes his ballistics-based and experience-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling.
Oh, well, if that make it even better for you, why was I was the one who pointed out that Dr. Dolce said out that all the facts of the case were consistent with Oswald firing all the shots with his Carcano, but causing the damage with 3 bullets, not 2. The truth is you were hoping no one would notice and you could get away with it.
Later on, you state that the Oswald two bullet theory (with the SBT) is even more absurd than the Oswald three bullet theory. So, both theories are absurd. Which means, that the expert you touted, Dr. Dolce, believed in an absurd theory regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. Since this was the case, you had no business citing him as an expert who supports your views. Because he doesn’t. If you must cite him, note to the reader that you have massive disagreements with him on the Kennedy assassination. But on the narrow question of the SBT, you think he makes a good point. Don’t imply he supports your views on the Kennedy assassination.
What you did would be like me saying I know the backwards motion of President Kennedy’s head form z313-z317, can be explained, because Dr. Luis Walter Alvarez, the brilliant Nobel Prize Physicist, found that this is possible. I would not do this because it would be dishonest. Because I totally disagree with his reasons, that it was caused by the Jet Effect. I think he was wrong on this point. I think it was because of a Ballistic Neuromuscular Reaction. So, I am not going to imply that he agreed with my views on the head motion.
And that scenario is ludicrous. The limousine was about 260 feet away, nearly a football field away, from the Tague curb spot when the fatal head shot occurred. There was a reason that the FBI and the WC ignored the Tague wounding until they were forced to deal with it.
Name a valid ballistic expert who finds this scenario, ludicrous.
That theory is even more absurd. Your "stronger theory" is the worst and goofiest--it consists of a wild miss, the ludicrous head-shot-fragment-to-Tague theory, and the SBT. Gosh, this ground has been covered a zillion times, and you guys still get on public boards and post this clown material.
This is where you let slip that Dr. Dolce believed in an absurd theory, admittedly, the less absurd theory (in your view), but still an absurd theory. So much for your expert.
How on earth would even a blind gunman have missed the entire huge limousine? How? So the same guy who performed a shooting feat that the WC's NRA-Master-rated riflemen could not come close to duplicating somehow missed the entire enormous limousine? And no head-shot fragment could have magically cleared the windshield and the roll bar and then traveled 260 feet and either hit Tague hard enough to cut him or hit the curb hard enough to send a concrete fragment streaking to Tague.
Simple. The angular velocity of the target was the highest of the three shots:
Shot 1: z-153 4.8 degrees per second
Shot 2: z-222 1.9 degrees per second
Shot 3: z-312 0.58 degrees per second
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2640.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2640.0.html)
These are my estimates. I don’t know the exact effect of a target moving at 4.8 degrees per second. I don’t shoot rifles. But it is plausible that this would throw off the aim a great deal.
It is of interest to note, that this scenario, basically accepted by LNers, accounts for the accuracy of the shots. The first shot missing by 5 feet or more, the second by 8 inches, the third by 2 inches. Assuming the center of the head was the target all along, which is reasonable because one would assume that Oswald wanted to kill, not wound. The slower the angular velocity of the target came, the more accurate the shot.
You're lying again. Let me repeat the fact, which you ignored, that the Oak Ridge tests found that every single time the gunman fired a Carcano, the paraffin cast of his cheek tested positive for nitrates with NAA. NAA is far more sensitive than the regular spectrographic testing that was done by local police departments, but it is also much more expensive and labor intensive, and police departments did not want to deal with the expense and hassle of arranging for NAA testing of paraffin casts. False negatives from paraffin casts of cheeks tested with NAA are unheard of, unless a person could take several hours to somehow steam out the nitrates from his cheeks. NAA is simply too sensitive to produce a false negative of a paraffin cheek cast in cases such as Oswald's paraffin cast.
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm)
In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative.
Reliability of the Test
. . . Before the assassination, the FBI had conducted experiments showing the unreliability of paraffin tests. FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham testified to this in front of the Warren Commission (3H487):
And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands.It is evident that false positives and false negatives occur with the revolvers. After the assassination the Warren Commission directed the FBI to run the same experiment using the C2766 rifle and ammunition which was identical to what was found in the Texas School Book Depository. Cunningham related the results of that experiment (3H494):
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
EISENBERG: So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.
Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):
EISENBERG: A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM: Yes.
EISENBERG: Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM: No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
To summarize, both false positives, from nitrates present in ordinary substances other than gunpowder, and false negatives, due to the sealed-chamber design of the C2766, arose in paraffin tests.
Question:
If the paraffin test is a reliable way of finding out if someone had fired a weapon or not, why isn’t it used today. Why had this test been largely discarded by 1963 (except in backwater places like Dallas) and is totally discarded today?
As usual, I expect you will dodge my simple question.
-
Back to the original question, please.
JFK's jacket, shirt and tie were all tested for metallic residue.
( by the way, might want to look into the hole in JFK's suit collar; it's the Rosetta stone.)