Anyone can check the sources of my quotes and see that I am not misrepresenting them. You'd know this if you'd ever bother to read the sources I cite. I guess that just didn't occur to you.
Like when you cited Di Maio rejecting his earlier position that he believed Oswald was the assassin. Then I find out that the book you cited was a textbook a wound ballistics that didn't even mention the JFK assassination.
This is so ridiculous. Good grief, this nonsense was debunked literally decades ago.
Dolce's point, which he made clear, was that CE 399 would have been far more damaged if it had caused all the wounds it allegedly caused. CE 399 is virtually undamaged.
That's a lie and you know it. If you don't know that, you even more ignorant about the facts of the JFKA than I thought.
Many experts have described CE 399 as non-deformed because its deformation is so minimal, which is why even the lands and grooves are intact, and which is why it lost no more than 4 grains of its substance.
Keep doubling down on your lies. What you mean is your fellow liars have described CE399 as non-deformed. The truth is there is a flattening at the base and the bullet has a noticeable bend in it. Liars like to show photos of the bullet taken from a perspective that hides the bend, but a proper perspective shows the bend clearly.
There are plenty of photos available of CE 399. Anyone not brainwashed by the single-bullet theory (SBT) can see that the missile is virtually undamaged.
It speaks to the weakness of your position that you have to tell such bald faced lies.
But here you are trying to mislead people into believing that CE 399 suffered more than just minimal/slight damage.
Here is a perspective of CE399 the CTs never want you to see:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=99RyzIxM&id=1FD79F8347681E399A9B1024A91B9838400B6648&thid=OIP.99RyzIxMZywFH3fvM8Af5AHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpoi2LOStwcU%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.f7d472cc8c4c672c051f77ef33c01fe4%3Frik%3DSGYLQDiYG6kkEA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=warren+commission+exhibit+showing+photos+of+CE399&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A5A660563ABC77CC151869632C602ABD&selectedIndex=9&itb=0&cw=1375&ch=659&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0Undamaged my aching ass.
The damage is virtually imperceptible unless you look at the base of the bullet.
This is along the lines of "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs.Lincoln?". Yes, if you don't look at the bullet from the side that shows the damage, one might believe the bullet is undamaged. Looking at it from the perspective I posted, the damage is quite clear.
Let's read FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's description of the minimal/slight damage done to CE 399 -- indeed, notice that Frazier said the bullet may not have even lost any of its substance, among other points:
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?
Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.
Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?
Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.
Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?
Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?
Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other. (3 H 429, emphasis added)
A strawman argument. Nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material. There were the few flakes of lead that ended up in JBC's wrist and thign.
You just keep repeating the same gibberish, the same debunked claims, over and over and over, even though you know they have been refuted.
You are so full of it. I have never seen you make a claim that hasn't been debunked many, many times.
How many times have I pointed out to you that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Connally back-wound bullet was yawing or tumbling
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your BS, it's still BS.
Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head wound, yet no one has ever claimed that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling. JFK's head wound was 1.5 x 0.6 cm, while Connally's back wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. Yet, again, not a soul has ever suggested that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling.
JFK's head was tilted forward when the bullet struck creating a tangential angle of entry. That was not the case with the back wound. It was elongated because the bullet was yawing.
How many times have I pointed out to you that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that transited Connally's chest did not yaw or tumble but created a narrow wound track through the chest, so much so that it stripped out ribbed bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
Which is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso. There is no reason to think that the bullet would suddenly stabilize after entering JBC's back.
How many times have I pointed out to you Dr. Shaw's point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing?
So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years now that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, that personnel around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, that this definitive view of the probing was possible because the pathologists removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing and to be able to see where the probe went? They could see that the back-wound bullet did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity.
I don't count how many times you repeat the same lies.
It is laughable that you would cite Finck's bogus testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in response to the disclosures about the probing. Why do you suppose Finck did not mention in his testimony that he stated during the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point?
Since you don't quote him nor cite a source, I can only conclude you are misrepresenting what Finck said. Finck recognized the probe only a short distance. Unlike you, he knew that didn't mean the bullet did not transit through JFK's torso. He explained why in his Clay Shaw testimony and you ignored his explanation. You do that a lot when faced with inconvenient truths.
Why do you suppose he failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and manipulated the body "every which way" precisely to loosen the muscles and to facilitate the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the crucial, all-important fact that the probe reached the end of the bullet's path and that the path did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because the end of the probe could be seen pushing up against the chest cavity lining?
Finck explained all that in his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial and you continue to ignore his explanation. Because Finck knew what he was talking about and you obviously don't, he understood that the fact a probe won't pass through a bullet channel is not an indication the bullet did not transit. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe something so silly. There's nothing wrong with not being able to understand principles of highly technical fields that require years of training. You go astray when you pretend you do understand them.
But, no, none of these key facts occurred to you when you ignorantly cited Finck's false testimony as some kind of answer to the disclosures about the back-wound probing. The disclosures prove that Finck was lying through his teeth about the probing. Contrary to his lies, the disclosures prove that he was able to probe "from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction," and that "the contraction of the muscles" did not prevent the probing but was overcome by manipulating the body and removing the chest organs.
It's funny how the only people who dispute Finck's explanation of why the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel are know-nothings such as yourself who think reading a few articles qualifies you as an expert in forensic pathology.
Again, for the umpteenth time, we now know that personnel standing near the autopsy table could see where the wound path ended because they could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that it was at this point that Finck himself declared that the back wound had no exit point.
No, WE don't know that. YOU think you know that. The list of things you don't know but think you do is quite extensive.
How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound, and that Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy noted that the pathologists determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point?
Again, I don't keep a tabulation of your BS. It is true that the autopsy team was puzzled by the lack of an apparent exit wound and no bullet in the body. I don't know when it occurred to them that the tracheostomy might have been performed over the exit wound but they had to speak to Dr. Perry the next morning to confirm that. It's not important what was in their early drafts. What matters is their final conclusion an they got that right. The entire FPP concurred with their final answer that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. It would be pretty silly of the rest of us to reject that finding simply because a know-nothing like you disagrees with the people who are trained to make such judgements.
You just keep dishonestly ignoring these facts and repeating SBT claims that you know are false.
Your factoids are not facts no matter how fervently you believe them.
LOL! So according to you, Dr. Dolce, the Army's best expert on wound ballistics at the time, the expert whom the Army recommended when the WC asked for a wound ballistics expert, the expert who chaired the Army's Wound Ballistics Board, the expert who was so highly regarded that all cases involving members of Congress and others VIPs were submitted to him for review -- according to you, he was not qualified to pass judgment on the SBT! This is just clown material.
I don't base my beliefs on my own knowledge because unlike you, I understand I am not qualified to make such judgements. Only Cyril Wecht from the FPP dissented on the SBT. All of them agreed the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, your silly opinions notwithstanding. When Vincent Bugliosi cross examined Wecht at the mock trial in London, he asked Wecht where that bullet could have gone if it didn't strike Connally. Wecht's answer made him look extremely foolish.
Once again you prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case in a public forum. Obviously, you went running to some pro-WC websites and copied and pasted,
That's the easiest way to quote a source and also the surest way because it eliminates the possibility of misquoting the source. Since you rarely quote the people you cite and when you do, you select a single word or phrase out of context, it's easy for you to just type in the cherry picked word(s).
or paraphrased, this stuff from them. I'm guessing you were unaware that these claims have been refuted many times over. Let's do a brief summary of the information you don't know regarding the SBT and wound ballistics tests:
They have been disputed, not refuted.
-- Contrary to your false claim, the Australian SBT wound ballistics test, which was rebroadcast on the Discovery Channel, did not produce a bullet with as minimal damage as CE 399. I quote John Hunt:
The results of that test bear out of the notion that CE-399 could not have inflicted Connally’s injuries. Below is a screen shot of the bullet that passed through “JFK” and went through “Connally’s” rib and wrist. (See Figure 3.)
The Discovery Channel’s “Single Bullet” went through less rib than the bullet that went through Connally and was grossly distorted in comparison to CE-399. (See Figure 4.)
The main difference between the Australian test bullet and CE399 is the test bullet had a little bit more bend in it but otherwise was very much the same. It is ludicrous to expect a perfect reproduction because of the variables involved. The test did show that the bullet could pass through similar tissue and emerge in a very similar condition without the nose of the bullet being damaged.
Some might argue that because the Discovery Channel bullet went through two ribs while traveling sideways, the results of the test cannot tell us anything about the JFK assassination.
This viewpoint would be wrong for a simple, logical reason: CE-399 hit whatever it hit with its side and so did the Discovery Channel bullet. And even though the Discovery Chanel bullet struck two ribs, it did not pulverize nearly 10 cm of bone, as was the case with the bullet that went through Connally’s chest.
Only a moron would expect an exact replication of the actual shooting.
Despite the Australian marksman’s claim that their tests validated the SBT, anyone with functioning eyes and at least two working brain cells can see that was not the case at all. Despite the on-camera proclamation, the Discovery Channel bullet produced less damage and incurred significantly more deformity than the SBT can tolerate. ("Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory")[/font]
As I was saying...
Anyone can look at the bullet from the Australian test and see that it was much more deformed than CE 399. Hunt provides a side-by-side comparison of the Australian test bullet and CE 399.
-- In the WC's SBT test, FMJ bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same deformity or more deformity than CE 399. See CE 572.
-- In the WC's SBT test, an FMJ bullet that was fired through a goat carcass and broke one rib emerged with more deformity than CE 399, even though the goat rib was smaller than Connally's fifth rib. That bullet is shown in CE 853.
Of course it did. It hadn't passed through two bodies before hitting bone and had not started to yaw. CE399 yawed upon exiting.
CE 572 shows the two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC's SBT test. One bullet shows the same amount of deformation as CE 399, while the other bullet shows more deformation than CE 399. To see this clearly, look at JFK Exhibit F-294 (see link below), which Dr. Cyril Wecht presented during his HSCA testimony. F-294 shows CE 399 beside the two CE 572 bullets, CE 583, and CE 856.
I also recommend looking at F-102 (see link below), which shows CE 399 from the side and from the bottom, to see just how minimally/slightly CE 399 was deformed.
So what do you think that proves? That bullets fired into different materials will end up looking different. There's a real discovery.
Here's a link to Dr. Wecht's testimony, which includes F-294 and F-102:
https://share.google/DVlT9F239tY7dOt9c
Isn't it amazing that after hearing from Wecht, the HSCA chose to concur with the conclusions of the rest of the panel.
Dr. Wecht pointed out that the CE 572 bullets were traveling at the same speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling before it allegedly hit JFK, and that CE 853, the goat-carcass bullet, was traveling at a speed very close to the speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling if it had transited JFK's neck before tearing through Connally's chest:
With regard to Commission Exhibit 572, the two bullets fired in the cotton wadding, that muzzle velocity was exactly the same as 399 initially, and CE 853, through the carcass of a goat, would have been reduced, it is estimated, about one-tenth, 10 percent of the original velocity, not terribly substantial. (1 HSCA 353)
What is mind boggling is that anyone would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399.
-- In the Failure Analysis SBT wound ballistics test, bullets were fired into cadaver wrists at a reduced velocity, but no effort was made to simulate passing through a human neck, passing through a human chest, smashing 5 inches of rib bone, and penetrating a human thigh.
-- None other than Dr. Martin Fackler has observed that one layer of human skin has the approximate resistance strength of 4 inches of muscle tissue (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-19). This means that three layers of human skin have the resistance strength of 12 inches of muscle tissue, which means that CE 399 would have had to pass through the equivalent of 18 inches of muscle tissue before it even hit the wrist (three layers of skin = 12 inches of muscle tissue, plus at least 6 inches of muscle tissue in JFK's neck and Connally's back).
-- Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:
I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.
Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .
This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and then these shattered bones!
I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)
Just how much experience do you think anyone has had seeing how a bullet would deform after passing through two bodies and then striking a wrist. The people you cite are simply making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses)
-- If you're thinking about citing the Haags' SBT research, Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT claims:
Dr. Gary Aguilar? Another long time JFKA quack. Birds of a feather....[
For those who care, Dr. Gary Aquilar is an ophthalmologist. Just the kind of "expert" we'd expect MTG to turn to in a discussion of ballistics.
In fairness, I'm guessing Aguilar is a competent eye doctor.
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)
The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a 6.5 mm bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso?
-- The 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test provided further evidence against the SBT. FMJ bullets that merely penetrated a 12-inch gelatin block before hitting a cadaver radius bone were unable to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them never even exited the cadaver radius bone. One of the expert forensic consultants for the CBS test, Dr. William F. Enos, said the CBS test proved the SBT was "highly improbable" (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218).
CBS hired Dr. Alfred Olivier to conduct its SBT test. In a televised interview, Olivier admitted that his CBS test did not include striking a rib: "Of course, we have no rib here [in the test], but it still simulates passing through the flesh."
Olivier further admitted that even without simulating the damage to Connally's rib, some the bullets failed to exit the wrist: "In some cases, it passed through the wrist; in other cases it lodged in the wrist."
Crucially, as mentioned, not a single bullet in the CBS test managed to lodge in the simulated thigh.
By failing to put a simulated rib bone within the 12-inch block of ballistics gelatin, Olivier ensured that the test bullets would not become badly deformed while passing through the simulated chest. But this led to another complication: It meant the bullets would strike the simulated wrist at a greater velocity than the bullet presumed to have struck Connally's wrist -- yet, even so, not one of the bullets lodged in the simulated thigh.
-- Dr. John Lattimer's SBT test was actually fairly realistic, but, as was his habit, he misrepresented the results by falsely claiming that his test produced a bullet with the same minimal damage as CE 399.
For his SBT test, Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. Lattimer said four bullets out of 20 struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).
None of these tests replicate Oswald's shooting of JFK. That would be impossible. They can't prove what did happen. They can only show what could have happened. What we know if we are willing to listen to qualified people is that a Carcano bullet will yaw upon exiting from soft tissue as the Haag experiments demonstrated conclusively. JBC was directly in line with a bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have been amazing if the bullet hadn't hit him. The entrance wound on his back was elongated as would be expected with a yawing bullet. The flattening at the base of CE399 is what we would expect to see if a bullet had yawed before striking bone. Had it been a stable bullet that hit JBC's wrist, the expectation is the nose would have been deformed. Carcano bullets don't yaw unless they are strike an object first. In fact, due to the cylindrical construction, it is an extremely stable round.
Recent Posts