This is the second part of my reply.

Are you really going to try to claim these are not accurate transcripts of WC testimony. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll be more than happy to find the same testimony in other sources and jam them right up your nose.

This is your juvenile response to my point that you never would have known about that WC testimony if you had not stumbled across on McAdams' old website? Let me make it clear to you: Since you have done little or no reading of primary sources, such as the WC volumes, you would have never known about Frazier and Nicol's testimony if you had not gone desperately searching among pro-WC websites.

This testimony most certainly applies to what we have talked about. You made the false claim that the two large fragments recovered from the limo could not be matched to Oswald's rifle and I presented verbatim testimony that shows you lied about that.

Umm, I said that those fragments cannot be matched to Oswald's alleged ammo via NAA testing, contrary to what Dr. Guinn claimed and contrary to what many WC apologists still falsely assert. I made the point that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo. If you had a lick of objectivity and reasoning ability, these two facts alone would cause you to question the provenance of the two limo fragments.

Let's cut through your smoke and put it this way: Show me where in any of these statements Frazier or Nicol explained the fact that NAA testing did not show that the limo fragments must have come from Oswald's bullets and that it showed they could have come from other bullets. Oh, gee, that's right: Frazier and Nicol testified before NAA testing had been done on any of the fragments.

This is what you do when you've been caught in an obvious lie. You try to divert the conversation to an unrelated issue. NAA testing had nothing to do with the ballistic matching of the fragments to Oswald's rifle. That was done through the long established process of comparing recovered bullets to test bullets fired from a weapon. If the markings are the same, that establishes the recovered bullets and the test bullets were fired from the same weapon. That is how Frazier and Nicol determined the recovered fragments had passed through the barrel of Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

LOL! Umm, okay. You understand that matching markings on bullet fragments, shells, and bullets to a particular rifle barrel is highly subjective, whereas NAA testing is hard science, right? There is no universal numerical measurement or automated threshold for what constitutes "sufficient agreement" between the striations on an evidence bullet/fragment/shell and a test-fired bullet/fragment/shell. Ever heard of the journal Scientific American? In 2022, Scientific American published an article by three criminal science experts titled [/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url] and with the executive summary statement "The matching of bullets to guns is subjective, and courts are starting to question it because of testimony from scientific experts."

Just this once, do yourself a favor and educate yourself. Let's read some of what the article points out:

In 2003, Donald Kennedy, then editor in chief of the journal Science, wrote an editorial called, “Forensic Science: Oxymoron?” He answered this question, in effect, “yes.” Unfortunately, the answer remains much the same today. Forensic experts continue to employ unproven techniques, and courts continue to accept their testimony largely unchecked. However, courts have recently begun to recognize the scientific limitations of one forensic field: firearms identification, in which an examiner visually compares fired bullets or cartridge cases and opines on whether the items were fired by the same gun. Contrary to its popular reputation, firearms identification is a field built largely on smoke and mirrors.

Firearms examiners suffer from what might be called “Sherlock Holmes Syndrome.” They claim they can “match” a cartridge case or bullet to a specific gun, and thus solve a case. Science is not on their side, however. Few studies of firearms exist and those that do indicate that examiners cannot reliably determine whether bullets or cartridges were fired by a particular gun. ([/url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-field-of-firearms-forensics-is-flawed/]"The Field of Firearms Forensics Is Flawed"[/url])

MG: Show me where they explain the fact that the limo fragments are deformed in ways that bear no resemblance to any of the fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Ignoring contrary facts won't make them go away. Firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue was the first to point out this crucial fact, noting that it is more likely the fragments were from the bullet that hit pavement and that were then sprayed into the limo. Nothing you have presented above even addresses this point.

Another of your pathetic attempts at diversion. The fragments were proven to have been fired from Oswald's rifle.

No, they were not. The subjective "match" done by Frazier and Nicol is not "proof" of anything. See above.

So here's where we stand. Two bullets were positively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. You are denying either of these bullets struck JFK. That would mean that none of the bullets that struck JFK and JBC were recovered. How do you explain that. Were they shot with magic disappearing bullets?

No, here's where we stand: You are desperately clinging to the subjective assertion by Frazier and Nicol that they matched striations from CE 399 and the two large limo fragments to those of test bullets fired from the barrel of the alleged murder weapon, and that they matched striations on the three conveniently abandoned shells with the shells of the test bullets.

At the same time, you're still ducking and dodging (1) the fact that every single JFK headshot wound-ballistics test has failed to produce an FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside the skull and that magically deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, (2) the fact that the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test show only a few fragments and show a fragmentation pattern that looks nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, (3) the fact that world-renowned forensic pathologists have stated that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after penetrating skull bone and that on the "rare" occasions when they do fragment, they will  leave only a few fragments, and (4) the fact that the small fragments in the rear outer table of the skull on the JFK skull x-rays could not  have come from an FMJ bullet (at least not on this planet).

That's where we stand.   

MG: Show me where they explain the fact that forensic science has known for decades that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull. This was widely known even in the 1960s, and it has been reaffirmed in forensic sources since then.

This is where you try to demonstrate expertise you don't actually possess.

No, this is where you show you are a dissembling, uneducated lone-gunman apologist who has done no reading in forensic and ballistic sources. I've read a number of books on forensics and ballistics. You have clearly read none.

And this is not to mention the serious, documented, widely discussed problems with the chain of custody and origin of the bullet fragments, the spent shells, and CE 399.

At various times, you have pretended to be a doctor, a ballistics expert, a radiologist, and now you are playing lawyer. You aren't very good at any of these.

Actually, that's what you have done. We'll see in a second that you've even pretended to know more about FMJ bullet behavior than Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger.

MG: Oh, really?! Well, what is your evidence that CE 399 hit anyone during the assassination?

It was recovered from the gurney of one of the victims. How do you suppose it got there. PFM (pure freaking magic)?

LOL! My goodness, you really are caught in a time warp, aren't you? Obviously, you are clueless about the veritable mountain of research that has been done on the glaring contradictions and problems with CE 399's chain of custody and alleged origin. Pretend you have an ounce of objectivity and read this introductory article on some of those contradictions and problems written by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Josiah Thompson:

[/url=https://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm]"The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?[/url]

This is not to mention the fact that not a single SBT wound-ballistics test has produced a bullet that did the damage claimed for CE 399 and emerged as virtually undamaged as CE 399.

Wow, this should be interesting! No one's ever claimed to have such evidence before. Alert the news media! John "I Don't Need to Be Objective and I Don't Need a Rational Explanation" Corbett is going to present evidence that CE 399 hit JFK and/or Connally! This I gotta see.

That conclusion requires common sense, an asset you clearly don't possess. I served on a jury in a murder case. The prosecution presented us with two bullets recovered from the site of the murder. No attempt was made to prove those two bullets had passed through the victim and the defense wasn't dumb enough to argue that they hadn't. The judge instructed us to use our judgement to make logical inferences (aka common sense) from the evidence presented. We as a jury unanimously convicted the accused because we didn't need anybody to prove to us the bullets placed in evidence had passed through the victim's body.

More drivel. Umm, we don't need to "make logical inferences" about the behavior of FMJ bullets because forensic science has known for decades that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces inside a skull, much less while also depositing small fragments on the outer table of the skull near the entry point. This isn't inference. It's a statement of fact based on wound-ballistics testing, innumerable gunshot cases, and the overwhelming consensus of forensic science literature.
 

Another one of your overheated juvenile reactions to simple facts that you don't want to hear.

No, this is just another example of your ignorance of long-established facts that refute your version of the shooting.[/b]

In almost 63 years, no one has presented any facts the refute what I know happened on 11/22/1963, although many have tried. Most of them did a better job than you have.

Oh, I'm certain that no facts could cause your mind to reject what you "know" happened. You have no clue what happened. You haven't even read enough to know what your own side's leading apologists have said on many key issues, as we have seen over and over in this forum.

MG: "The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." You still can't even distinguish between bullets and fragments. There were two bullet fragments recovered from the limo, and two groups of scientists proved decades ago that NAA testing does not show that those fragments could have only come from Oswald's ammo, in addition to the fact that the limo fragments appear to have struck pavement first, not skull bone. 

We don't need NAA testing to know the recovered bullet and fragments had been fired by Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

Whoof! Ho, ho, ho! So now you're rejecting the science of NAA testing?! Hey, why not?! I mean, you've already dismissed as meaningless the science of wound-ballistics testing, the science of acoustically locating gunfire, and the science of trajectory analysis. So, yeah, why not add NAA testing to your list of worthless scientific methods?!

Is there no level of silliness and self-embarrassment to which you will not sink to cling to your lone-gunman myth?

I know it won't, but this should give you some clue as to why 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world rejects your lone-gunman tale.

MG: Still another juvenile dodge. You pretend that I haven't already presented a small mountain of documented evidence that other bullets hit JFK, starting with my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds"

Really? Whatever happened to those bullets? Were they magic disappearing bullets?

Humm, well, here's a clue for you: Criminals who aren't trying to get caught, and who aren't being framed, well, you see, they make every effort to ensure they don't leave behind a bunch of incriminating evidence in plain sight to be easily found by police; they try to avoid leaving a paper trail that leads right back to them when they acquire their weapons; they don't have pictures taken of themselves holding a murder weapon and then tell police about the garage where those photos are stored; etc., etc. You know, stuff like that.

Also, when a cover-up is being done by certain local police and/or certain federal officers, they will make unwanted extra bullets and fragments disappear (e.g., the bullet that was found in the grass near the manhole cover, the bullet that was contained in the FBI evidence envelope that surfaced among the ARRB releases, and the bullet that Dr. James Young saw at the autopsy); they will alter evidence if they think they need to do so (e.g., the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, which we know for a scientific fact were altered at some point from the end of the autopsy until the time the Clark Panel saw them); they will plant evidence (e.g., the paper bag "gun case"); they will alter witness statements or misrepresent what witnesses said (legions of examples of this have been found, as even Anthony Summers notes); etc., etc.

They would realize that your analysis of all things related to the JFKA is FUBAR.

Oh, wow, a juvenile insult with the pejorative term in all-caps. How old are you, anyway? 16? 14? 12? Seriously, you talk like an enraged teenager who is lashing out because he knows he's losing the argument. Why don't you start acting like a grown man with at least an ounce of class and decorum?

They would also notice that you still have not offered a shred of evidence for your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all FMJ bullets. You invented this silly dodge to avoid admitting the importance of the JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests and the observations by forensic and ballistics experts about the behavior of FMJ ammo.

You are the one claiming those bullets could not have fragmented in they manner in which they were found. The burden is on you to prove that hypothesis.

LOL! What?! Huh?! Hello? I cited DiMaio and Fillinger on the behavior of standard FMJ rifle bullets, and I cited wound-ballistics tests that confirm their observations. In reply, you made up the nonsensical claims (1) that those forensic experts' statements are wrong because WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other standard FMJ rifle bullets, and (2) that the wound-ballistics tests are worthless because no two standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave in exactly the same manner in every single aspect of their penetration and fragmentation.

Obviously, you have no evidence to back up this fiction. This is why you keep dodging when I ask you to produce your evidence. 

MG: Yes, I have provided a ton of evidence, but you've either ignored it or offered absurd special pleading in response to it.

The problem isn't the evidence you present. The problem is your FUBAR analysis of that evidence.

We both know this is false. Dr. DiMaio's unambiguous observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. Dr. Fillinger's clear observations about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. The x-rays of the test skulls in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test are not my analysis. Etc., etc., etc.

MG: Oh, were those bullet fragments found in JFK's skull?! We're talking about how FMJ bullets fragment inside skulls, not how they fragment after they leave skulls and hit other objects.

The lead fragments from the bullet's core found inside JFK's skull is ample proof the bullet fragmented before it exited the skull.

LOL! Hashtag "circular reasoning" and "confirmation bias"! We both know the problem here is that you desperately want to avoid admitting that if FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the skull x-rays would not show dozens of tiny fragments, plus two scattered fragments near the right orbit, plus several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull. A standard FMJ rifle bullet simply would not behave in this manner, as forensic and ballistics experts have noted and as wound-ballistics testing has confirmed. 

Let's see: I've cited sources that actually show those x-rays so that anyone can see for themselves that the test bullets did not fragment into dozens of tiny pieces and did not produce fragmentation patterns that even remotely resemble the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays. I've cited forensic experts, including Dr. Vincent DiMaio and Dr. Halbert Fillinger, considered two of the greatest forensic experts in the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, who've observed that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside skulls.

Why would you assume all bullets would fragment in the same manner?

A continuation of your silly dodge. Bullets of the same design, i.e., whether FMJ or frangible, will, of course, never fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every aspect of their fragmentation. Nobody says they do -- this is just your juvenile strawman dodge to avoid dealing with evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

In the major aspects of their fragmentation, i.e., the range of the number of fragments they leave, their general fragmentation pattern, and when they begin to fragment in the skull, standard FMJ rifle bullets will fragment in the same manner. You see, that's why there are these things called forensic science and ballistics science. That's why forensic and ballistics sources explain how the various types of bullets behave. Oh, that's right: you say they're all wrong!

MG: I guess in your uneducated, dissembling mind, such scholarly evidence constitutes "nonsense," hey?

I love how you throw the word "scholarly" around to give you posts credence. It's not working.

Humm, so you're saying that Dr. Vincent DiMaio was not a scholar, that Dr. Halbert Fillinger was not a scholar, that Berg, Green, Oura, Brix, Junno, etc, are not scholars?

You proved you don't even know what the word "scholar" means when you cited Dale Myers' farcical SBT trajectory animation and his amateurish, misleading attack on the acoustical evidence. You guys love to cite Pat Speers when it comes to a handful of issues involving evidence alteration and fabrication. Why don't you cite his destruction of Myers' fraudulent SBT trajectory animation? Here it is:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter12canimania

MG: Uh-huh, another juvenile dodge and a silly strawman argument. No one says FMJ bullets will never fragment at all. The point is that on the rare when FMJ bullets do fragment, they will not shatter into dozens of tiny pieces. Let me refresh your memory yet again by once more quoting what Dr. Vincent DiMaio said on this issue:

It would take hundreds of test firings of FMJ Carcano bullets into a human skull to determine how they might fragment. We only have one case study and that is the JFKA.

And the Earth is flat, right? And Dr. DiMaio must have just made up his observations about standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior, right? And the headshot wound-ballistics tests done by the WC, Lattimer, DeSalles, and Failure Analysis don't count, right? And all the forensic science books that describe the behavior of standard FMJ rifle, hunting, and hollow-point/soft-point/frangible ammo are all wrong because no two bullets will behave in exactly, precisely the same identical manner, right?

BTW, how do you explain the fact that the x-rays of the skulls from Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test show virtually no fragments? Humm? (Some say the x-rays show no fragments at all.) Lattimer used WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in his test. Yet, virtually all of the fragments from the bullets exited the skull and were recovered outside the skull -- only a few, if any, of the fragments were deposited inside the skull, as the x-rays of his test skulls prove.

MG: [quoting DiMaio] 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)

That is based on how other types of FMJ bullets behave on striking a skull.

Says who? Where do you get this? This is just pure wishful thinking on your part. You're just making up nonsense again because you wish DiMaio was talking about "how other types of FMJ bullets behave."

Gee, why didn't DiMaio explain that he was only talking about certain makes of FMJ bullets? Answer: Because he wasn't. Because he was talking about all standard FMJ rifle bullets. We both know that you know this, but you are too dishonest and childish to admit it.

Different makes, diameters, lengths, velocities, etc. It would be very poor science to assume that Carcano bullets would fragment in the same manner as these other bullets.

Oh?! Well, then DiMaio, Fillinger, Green, Berg, Oura, Brix, etc., etc., are all guilty of "poor science" for not explaining that their observations did not apply to all standard FMJ rifle bullets but only to certain makes of standard FMJ rifle bullets, right?!

I'm still waiting for you to provide one shred of evidence for your childish dodge that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets. We both know you have no such evidence because WCC FMJ bullets behave like all other standard FMJ rifle bullets. 

MG: [quoting DiMaio] 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[i/], p. 318, emphasis added)

When you finally felt compelled to address these statements, you committed the baffling gaffe of claiming that DiMaio was talking about FMJ handgun bullets, even though, as we see, he twice specified he was talking about FMJ rifle bullets.

I'll bet you can't find a case study DiMaio did of a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when striking a skull.

Oh! So now you, John Corbett, who can't read English at a high-school level, are saying that Vincent DiMaio, recognized as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of both the 20th and 21st centuries, not only failed to specify that he wasn't talking about WCC FMJ bullets when he described how FMJ rifle bullets behave when they hit skull bone, but his observations about FMJ rifle bullet behavior had no basis in fact, neither in testing nor in actual cases! He just made it all up to sell his book, hey?!   

Like I've said, your replies are a non-stop total clown show.

MG: Your xxxx argument is your fiction that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets do not behave like other FMJ bullets. I'm still waiting for you to cough up a shred of evidence to support this desperate claim.

The burden is on you to prove that those bullets DO fragment in the same manner as other types of FMJ bullets. Still waiting. You are a liar.

No, you're just a juvenile in an adult body who's comically and dishonestly grasping and straining to avoid dealing with the overwhelming consensus in forensic science that standard FMJ rifle bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, much less "shear off" small fragments onto the outer table of the skull and at a location removed from the entry site.

Logically, the burden is clearly on you to prove your made-up claim that DiMaio was guilty of wrongly describing standard FMJ rifle bullet behavior because, according to you, he was excluding WCC FMJ bullets but for some reason did not mention he was doing so. According to you, DiMaio was guilty of "poor science" for pretending to describe how standard FMJ rifle bullets behave because he was supposedly excluding WCC FMJ bullets, even though WCC had produced many millions of FMJ bullets and even though tens of thousands of those bullets, if not more, were still in use when he wrote his observations.

BTW, Fillinger commented specifically on how WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave when they hit skull bone because he was being interviewed by physicist Howard Roffman about the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, as I have documented for you. And, gee, he said the same thing that DiMaio said about FMJ bullets when they hit skull bone: he said they leave few fragments inside skulls, if they fragment at all inside the skull. Fillinger added that they will never leave fragments at the entry point on the outer table of the skull. He also said FMJ bullets will not even leave "residues" at the margins of the entry point, yet there are two small fragments and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays.

Just as a reminder, Dr. Fillinger was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. The International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners chose Dr. Fillinger to represent them on the U.S. Department of Justice's National Medicolegal Review Panel. The website Practical Homicide says this about him:

The "Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" is named in honor of Dr. Halbert Fillinger, who was a forensic pathologist. His 40 years of service included his time as Chief Medical Examiner in the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office before being elected Coroner of Montgomery County, PA.

During his career, Dr. Fillinger lectured many times at the FBI academy in Quantico, Va., and all branches of the Armed Forces. Respected for his work, officials in the states of Texas, Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, and Colorado sought his advice. (https://www.practicalhomicide.com/current/Vidocq.html)

I'm just waiting for you to cite Dale Myers on this issue as well (since you cited his fraudulent, error-riddled attack on the acoustical evidence).

MG: Sheesh, this is another example of your poor command of the English language. There were two bullet fragments found in the limo. They weighed a total of 65.6 grains (44.6 grains plus 21.0 grains), barely one-third of the mass of a WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet. Both of them were severely deformed, with parts of them peeled back almost 180 degrees, yet not a single one of the bullet fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test was deformed in this way, not one. This led court-certified firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue to argue that the limo fragments came from the bullet that hit the pavement near the limo.

Where is Donahue's proof for his theory?

Umm, the two limo fragments and the two sizeable fragments from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test. Hello? How can you not know this?

You know that Donahue was a court-certified firearms and ballistics expert, right? You know that Donahue spoke with numerous forensic pathologists as part of his research, right?

MG: I see Nickerson has posted photos of some of the fragments from the WC's headshot test. Notice that not one of them has a large part of its peeled backward by nearly 180 degrees. Certainly some of them are deformed, but not to the degree of the two limo fragments, as Donahue noted.

What kind of dumba$$ would think bullets are going to fragment in the same manner?

What kind of an uneducated juvenile would continue to use this embarrassing strawman dodge? Stuart Fillmore, a former FBI agent who has done his extensive ballistic testing, very politely explained to you that of course no two FMJ rifle bullets are going to fragment in exactly, precisely the same identical manner in every single aspect of their fragmentation. No one says that. That's just a juvenile strawman dodge that you've made up to avoid dealing with forensic and ballistics evidence that refutes your version of the shooting.

Standard FMJ rifle bullets will behave the same in the same essential way, i.e., in the general range of the number of fragments they leave (few vs. many); the distance they will travel in the skull before they fragment, if they fragment at all; and the skull damage they will cause, depending on the velocity of the rifle that fired them and the distance at which they were fired.

It occurs to me that I should not assume you understand that we are talking about standard FMJ rifle bullets, not light FMJ or medium FMJ bullets, such as the Remington .223 (5.56 NATO) light FMJ bullet that was made for the high-velocity M-16 rifle and the Browning 7.65 mm medium FMJ bullet (which is a pistol bullet). Such FMJ bullets, by virtue of their lighter weight, are designed to fragment -- and, in the case of .223/5.56 light FMJ rifle bullets, this design includes the assumption they will be fired from high-velocity rifles. This is why herein I have frequently used the specific term "standard FMJ rifle bullets" instead of just "FMJ bullets" or "FMJ rifle bullets."

Light FMJ bullets only weigh 35-55 grains, such as the Remington .223 (NATO 5.56), which weighs no more than 55 grains. Medium FMJ bullets, such as the Browning 7.65 FMJ pistol bullet, weigh 60 to 100 grains (the Browning 7.65 FMJ bullet weighs 71 to 73 grains). In contrast, standard FMJ rifle bullets, i.e., the 6.5 mm and 7.62 mm FMJ rifle bullets, weigh 122 to 170 grains (with a few weighing slightly over 200 grains). The 7.62 mm NATO FMJ bullet, described as "the standard military rifle cartridge," weighs 147 grains. The WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullet weighs 160-161 grains. Obviously, the heavier the FMJ bullet, the stronger it will be, the slower it will travel, and the deeper it will penetrate without significant deformation. 

As Dr. James Green has explained, the .223/5.56 FMJ bullet made for the U.S. Army's M-16 rifle is the one FMJ rifle bullet that can tumble and fragment upon impact, and even then this requires that the bullet is traveling at a velocity of over 3,000 fps (the M-16's muzzle velocity is 3,150 fps). I discuss this in my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," which you apparently still have not read.

In their article "Destabilization and Intracranial Fragmentation of a Full Metal Jacket Bullet" in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (2009, 16:7, pp. 400-402) forensic experts Audrey Farrugia (medical examiner), Jean Raul (professor of forensic medicine), Annie Geraut (medical examiner), Marie Tortel (forensic pathologist and anatomopathologist), and Bertrand Ludes (professor of forensic medicine) discuss an "atypical" case involving an FMJ bullet. They start by noting that a bullet's tendency for deformation and fragmentation is an "intended feature of the bullet" and that each type of bullet is "fashioned for this effect by the manufacturers" (p. 400). (But not according to you!)

They continue by noting that "normally" FMJ bullets are "fashioned not to fragment," but that "certain types" of FMJ bullets are "designed" to fragment extensively:

Normally, the total and full metal jackets were fashioned not to fragment. However, certain types of full metal jacket rifle bullets are designed to fragment extensively. Moreover, the bullet’s destabilization in flight by intermediary obstacles can induce a fragmentation of the projectile. We report this case to illustrate this possible phenomenon and to highlight the use of radiography and histopathology for establishing the bullet trajectory. (p. 400)

And what kind of weapon and FMJ bullet were involved in this "atypical" FMJ bullet case? The weapon was a pistol, and the bullet was a 7.65 mm FMJ bullet:

The concerned weapon was a semi-automatic pistol with 7.65 mm full metal jacket cartridge. (p. 401)

Again, the Browning 7.65 mm FMJ pistol bullet weighs only 71-73 grains. Your average standard FMJ rifle bullet weighs 122 to 180 grains. Your supposed lone gunman allegedly used bullets that weighed 160-161 grains.

In their article "Fractures Due to Gunshot Wounds" in the Iowa Orthpaedic Journal (2015, volume 35), John T. Riehl, Keith Connolly, George Haidukewych, and Ken Koval note that only certain FMJ ammo is known to fragment after impact, and, lo and behold, the only example they cite is the high-velocity M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet. After noting that investigations have "clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets," i.e., hollow-point/soft-point/frangible bullets, "even certain jacketed ammo" is known to fragment within tissue, and again, the only example they cite is the M-16 5.6 mm (.223) FMJ bullet:

Hollow point bullets, which use a soft, pliable core with a pit at the bullet point, allow for rapid expansion of the bullet upon impact and a significantly larger destructive path, magnified up to four times in the generation of the temporary cavity. By making a larger cavity in soft tissue, this type of ammunition expends more energy in the target and prevents over penetration. However, when such projectiles hit bone, they often fragment into multiple smaller pieces that are often retained in the fracture site. Figures 1a and 1b show radiographic evidence consistent with a hollow point bullet injury. Although investigations have clearly shown increased fragmentation and resulting tissue destruction from expanding bullets, even certain jacketed ammunition has been notorious for fragmenting within tissue. The M-16 5.56 mm round may lose one-third of its mass through bullet fragments within its target. (p. 55)

And notice that even in the case of the high-velocity M-16 5.56/.223 FMJ bullet, which is designed to fragment, the authors put the maximum fragmentation at one-third of its mass. In contrast, they note that expanding bullets, i.e., frangible/hollow-point/soft-point bullets, "often fragment into multiple smaller pieces."

Another known exception to standard FMJ bullet behavior was found in a 2023 ballistics test involving a standard FMJ rifle bullet that weighed 149.6 grains and that was fired from a high-velocity sporting rifle. I'm referring to the Oura-Niinimäki-Brix-Lammentausta-Liimatainen-A.Junno-T.Junno 2023 ballistics test reported in the July 2023 edition of the International Journal of Legal Medicine (pp. 671-676). In this test, a 149.6-grain Norma Jaktmatch FMJ bullet was fired from a high-velocity rifle and fragmented because it hit the target after traveling only 15 feet. 

In the test, three bullets were fired into 250 mm x 250 mm (9.8 inch x 9.8 inch) blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullets were the Norma Jaktmatch FMJ bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.

Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments.  Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud.

In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.

The scientists who conducted the test found it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet fragmented at all because they expected it to remain intact:

For both expanding bullets, Ecostrike and Oryx, the fragments were clearly smaller than those left behind by the full metal-jacketed Jaktmatch. This was surprising as the full metal-jacketed bullet was expected to remain intact.

Now, gee, why did the seven scientists who conducted this ballistics test expect the FMJ bullet "to remain intact"? Humm? Gee, how about that? Gosh, what could have led those scientists to find it "surprising" that the FMJ bullet did not remain intact?

The scientists attributed the FMJ bullet's unexpected behavior to the fact that the bullet was fired from such a short distance, which prevented it from stabilizing properly: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

Now, yes, the test bullets did not hit a skull before transiting the gelatin. However, even though both the FMJ bullet and the frangible bullet were fired from a high-velocity rifle into a block of ballistics gelatin from only 15 feet away, the FMJ bullet broke into far fewer fragments than did the soft-point bullet, left much larger fragments than did the soft-point bullet, and created a much smaller fragment cloud than did the soft-point bullet. Humm, sound familiar? 

You are right about the timing of the shot that went through JFK's throat but wrong about the sequence. That was the second shot and it went on to pass through JBC as well. JBC was
adamant to his dying day that he had heard a shot before than one that struck him. He is seen turning to look over his right shoulder in reaction to the first shot at Z164.

My own belief is the shot struck at Z222 but since JFK was hidden from view and we only have the reactions of JFK, JBC, and Zapruder to tell us when the shot struck, it is impossible to say precisely when the bullet actually struck JFK. Either Z222 or Z223 could be correct.

Zapruder's camera jiggle in reaction to the headshot, which we can pinpoint, came five frames after JFK's head exploded. Since the distance from the rifle to Zapruder's ears was a constant for all three shots, we should expect a similar reaction time. Zapruder's camera jiggle following the single bullet was at Z227. Going back five frames takes us to Z222. However, it is unlikely the number of elapsed frames from when the bullet was fired until Zapruder reacted is going to be an integer. Maybe the reaction time measured in elapsed frames was actually 4.75 or 5.64 or somewhere else in that approximate time frame. It isn't necessary to pinpoint the exact frame the bullet struck. The simultaneous reaction of JFK and JBC when both men flipped their arms upward would likely have occurred 3-4 frames after the two men were struck.

Debate, is this your new battle cry? Other threads you brought up debate with other posters. Your story is so weak you now have to pretend there is something to debate? How about explain Rowland answers to Specter that is what is being discussed.

Typical CT nonsense, ask some ridiculous meaningless question instead of provide an answer. What I think is immaterial.

This is all you need to concern yourself with:

You are trying to weasel word your way out of explaining Rowlands testimony. How about you man up and relate his sighting to reality.

As I suspected...you lack the backbone to answer the incredibly simple yes/no question that forms the basis of this thread. The thread specifically created to deal with this subject - the ridiculous claims of those who believe Rowland invented a man with a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD building and, by some miracle, happened to be right.

I understand why you won't just come out and answer a simple yes or no.
You won't do it because of how ridiculous it would make you look...and even you have your limits.

And I will debate you about any aspect of this anytime. As I say, watching you fall apart never gets old.

What I think is immaterial.

This is the truest thing you have ever posted.

"I know I have the option of not reading these posts. However, I remain mystified as to how most of these replies have anything at all to do with JFK. I suggest that there be a TDS Forum added to the Education Forum so that those wishing to discuss Trump have a place to do so."--Greg Burnham 10.7.2026 post in Education Forum.

Burnham is a solid JFKA researcher, who has different views from mine. So it goes.

Verily, and the title of the thread in which Burnham posted?

Donald Trump, the Deep State and the JFK Assassination

There are others, such as JFK Files and the Jeffrey Epstein files

Such threads are, of course, tailor-made for TDS, Israel Derangement Syndrome (IDS) and other feculent mental disabilities. You can imagine what is said about Epstein. Or maybe you can't---much of it is nutty.

(BTW, I have mixed regard for Trump).

In truth, the Education Forum has improved under the leadership of Andrew Iler, and the deposing of the florid anti-Semitic crackpot and "moderator" William Niedernut.

The posts connecting Jews, 9.11, the USS Liberty, the RFKA, Mossad, Watergate and and the King and Malcom X assssinations, and I forget what else, have largely disappeared.

But Iler is saddled with the legacy founder, John Simkin, who seems to ache for platform to post his far left-wing views on every topic under the sun, from US national debt, to whatever Trump said now. Other legacy members pile on...and on....and on....and on.....

To be honest, there is a fair sprinkling of LNT'er posters in the Education Forum now, including Fred Litwin. I like to see all points of view, and that is an improvement.

But, if you have TDS, there is a home for you in the JFKA research land...the Education Forum!