Yikes, "is our children learning?" You really should learn to speak English at a high-school level before you try to question anyone's credibility.
If you can't even speak English at a high-school level, it's a good bet you have no business passing judgment on who qualifies as a scholar.
Oh, goody for you. You caught one of my typos. I bet that made your day.
No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.
No, you took Di Maio's statements out of context and applied your interpretation of them, then presented them as if Di Maio expressed those opinions. He never wrote anything that said Oswald's Carano bullet could not have shattered the way the x-rays showed it did. Then you flat out lied that he had changed his mind about Oswald being the assassin. He never said any such thing and we both know it.
Is this some kind of joke? You said this in response to my quoting of world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observation that if an x-ray shows dozens of tiny fragments, a "lead snowstorm," this rules out FMJ ammo, and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking bone, the fragments will be "few" in number. Did you miss that? Let's read it again:
You're lying again. I should have been more skeptical of your statements when I first read them given your history of misrepresenting the people you cite. Contrary to what you have implied, neither of Di Maio's books, Gunshot Wounds or Forensic Pathology, even address the issues of the JFK assassination.. Here is how AI answered that question:
Do Vincent DiMaio’s Gunshot Wounds and Forensic Pathology Address the JFK Assassination?Neither Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques nor Forensic Pathology by Vincent J.M. DiMaio is a book that focuses on the JFK assassination.
About Gunshot Wounds
This CRC Press textbook, written by DiMaio — a former chief medical examiner in San Antonio — is a comprehensive, technical reference on firearm injuries, ballistics, wound classification, autopsy procedures, and forensic laboratory analysis Google Books+1. It covers the science and practice of examining gunshot wounds in general, but it does not contain a dedicated chapter or analysis of the JFK case. The book’s scope is broad, aimed at forensic pathologists, law enforcement, and legal professionals, but it is not case-specific.
About Forensic Pathology
The Forensic Pathology text also focuses on the principles and practice of forensic medicine, including autopsy techniques, cause and manner of death determination, and the role of forensic pathology in legal investigations Amazon. Like Gunshot Wounds, it is a general forensic science reference, not a case study or historical analysis of the JFK assassination.
Why they don’t address JFK
Both books are general forensic pathology and ballistics texts, not historical or political investigations.
They do not include case studies of the JFK assassination or related events.
DiMaio’s other works, such as those in the Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations series, may cover broader criminal investigations, but the JFK assassination is not a featured topic in the editions reviewed.
Conclusion
If you are looking for DiMaio’s work on the JFK assassination, you would need to consult other sources — such as historical investigations, official reports, or books specifically dedicated to the case — rather than these general forensic science texts.
An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)
In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)
You should now understand (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.
This is your interpretation of Di Maio's work. He never wrote specifically about the JFK assassination in either of these textbooks and never expressed the opinions you attributed to him.
Uh, no, they cannot. Go back and re-read DiMaio's statements quoted above. I'll wait. . . . Still waiting. . . . Okay, that's long enough. Are we clear now?
For your additional education, I quote Dr. Cyril Wecht, a famous forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:
It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)
You're citing Mortal Error? One of the goofiest theories of the JFK assassination ever offered. But you don't care. You'll embrace anything that disputes the WCR. You don't even care that the sources you cite conflict with one another.
I defy you to cite a single forensic source that says that FMJ bullets will ever shatter into dozens of tiny pieces after striking bone, regardless of their velocity. I'll save you some time: there aren't any such sources.
The conclusions of the FPP said exactly that.
Never mind that your alleged FMJ bullet not only supposedly shattered into dozens of tiny fragments but also allegedly did this while supposedly "shearing off" a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry and while also supposedly depositing two isolated fragments at the opposite end of the skull. Never mind that. Just find me one forensic source that says an FMJ bullet will ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone. Again, I'll save you some time: no such sources exist.
[/quote[
Forgive me if I'm not at all impressed by your opinions about wound ballistics. You are a rank amateur on that subject.
"Full velocity"? What is that? There's no such thing as a "full-velocity" rifle or "full velocity" ammo. Is "full velocity" your evasive synonym for "high velocity," since I proved to you that the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle? Because you seem to need things repeated, let's read once again what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC's about the rifle's velocity:
I won't presume to speak for Bill Brown. He does a fine job of doing that for himself. High or low velocity when referring to bullets is a relative term. The Carcano had a lower velocity than an AR-15 or various .30-06 rounds. It had a much higher velocity than FMJ bullets fired from handguns which are by far used in more homicides than rifle bullets and which make up the bulk of the homicides in case studies of homicides involving FMJ ammo.
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
Yet, a whole bunch of experts who have examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, including the Clark Panel, have concluded they show damage caused by ammo that was moving at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said, "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet traveling at high velocity" (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).
The Rockefeller Commission's medical panel concurred with the Clark Panel's conclusion about the velocity of the ammo that hit the head (see the medical panel's report in Rockefeller Commission Report, pp. 258-261). BTW, just FYI, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel consisted of Drs. Werner Spitz, Fred Hodges, Alfred Olivier, and Richard Lindenberg, and LTC Robert R. McMeekin, chief of aerospace pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
Do you know of an accepted definition of what constitutes a high velocity round that both Eisenberg and the two panels you cited would have been adhering to? Eisenberg was comparing the Carcano to other military style rifles that do have a higher velocity. That does not relegate the Carcano to a low-velocity rifle. At 2265 fps, a Carcano FMJ
bullet produced enough energy to inflict a devastating wound on JFK's head.
Dr. Gerald McDonnel, one of the radiology experts consulted by the HSCA FPP, concluded that the bullet that hit the back of JFK's skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218). Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains, far too heavy.
So you have your alleged lone gunman firing the wrong kind of rifle (a low-velocity rifle, not a high-velocity rifle), using the wrong kind of ammo (FMJ ammo), and using the wrong kind of ammo that was also too heavy (ammo that was at least 38.6 grains too heavy to qualify as low-mass ammo, or at least 31% heavier than the heaviest low-mass ammo). Trifecta!
There you go again playing semantics with whether the Carcano was a high or low velocity weapon. It's all relative. The question is whether it was capable of inflicting the wounds on JFK and JBC. It certainly was.
Recent Poststhat does Not matter.
