You stated in the OP these riflemen were supposed to take no more than 1.7 seconds between shots. Since the clock starts with the first shot, that would leave them 3.4 seconds to fire two more. With such a ridiculous constraint, and the fact they weren't using the scope, it's not surprising they would have trouble hitting the targets. Even if they actually took more than 3.4 seconds, The fact that they were even trying to fire the rifle as fast as they could would adversely affect their marksmanship. Oswald had neither of these constraints. He could take whatever amount of time between shots he thought was necessary to fire his shots accurately.

Amazingly, you again refuse to process the fact that your supposed lone gunman would have had to score both of his hits within 5.6 seconds, since you claim his first shot missed (and missed not just JFK but the entire gigantic limo). So he most certainly would have had a serious time constraint, especially given his poor rifle skills and given the firing times of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test.

And I guess you missed the fact that the HSCA's rifle test counted as hits any shot that landed anywhere in the silhouette, tripling or quadrupling the size of the target area that the alleged lone gunman supposedly hit twice within 5.6 seconds.

He could also use the scope if he chose to do so.

Perhaps it's an insult to juveniles to point out the juvenile nature of so many of your replies. Your supposed lone gunman would have had no choice but to use the scope, unless you want to theorize that for some odd reason he took precious time to needlessly attach the scope after the shooting before he began his impossible dash down to the second-floor lunchroom. 

Which is more than 3 times the 1.7 seconds the test shooters were triying to fire their rifle in. In actuality, Oswald took about 4.97 seconds (91 Z-frames) between the two shots he fired after the limo cleared the tree. Perfectly reasonable he could hit the target twice with those two shots. I'll bet the test shooters would have been able to hit the target twice if given that amount of time rather than the 1.7 seconds Blakey imposed upon them.

Oh boy. . . .

One, the time span between Z209 and Z313, or 102 frames, [IOW not counting Z209 and Z313] would have been 5.60 seconds, not 4.97 seconds (102 frames divided by 18.3 frames per second equals 5.60 seconds).

Two, if it is "perfectly reasonable" to believe your supposed lone assassin went two for two after the limo cleared the oak tree, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to do this? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

You're being too generous to Oswald. The Z313 strike would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. The second shot which struck JFK in the back would have been fired in the Z219-220 window. That's how we get 91 Z-frames between shots. Perfectly doable for a marksman the caliber of Oswald.

LOL! You seem to be forgetting that he would have had to acquire the target and then aim starting immediately in Z210 before he could fire his second shot. The human brain takes 1/6th of a second, or 166.67 milliseconds, to register and respond to visual data. 166.67 milliseconds equals three Zapruder frames (166.67 milliseconds divided by 54.64 milliseconds per Zapruder frame).

Sure, go ahead and cut the firing time between the head shot and Z209 by one frame with the head shot being fired at Z311. Be my guest. That's 101 frames instead of 102, which equals 5.51 seconds instead of 5.60 seconds.

Anyway, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots? 

Before you repeat your "they fired too quickly" goop, I'll repeat the fact Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first set of shots and 7 seconds for his second set, while Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first set and 6.45 seconds for his second set.

Miller fired more rapidly (4.6, 5.15, and 4.45 seconds), but his shots were also the most inaccurate.

Even though Hendrix took 8 seconds in his first series and 7 seconds in second series, he failed to duplicate Oswald's alleged feat. Needless to say, Miller and Staley also failed to do so. This was the case even though all three riflemen took as long as they wanted before firing their first shot.

In fact, the second and third shots of all three of these world-class riflemen were severely off the mark, with many of them missing the silhouette completely.

But when we strip away all of your evasion, distortion, and omission, you're saying that a guy who barely qualified in the second of three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories while using a superb semi-automatic rifle and with at least 6 seconds per shot to fire at targets he'd recently practiced against -- you're saying that this guy did what the three Master-rated riflemen could not do. That's what you're saying.

This gets back to your discrediting unwillingness to even admit the obvious fact that it is easier to fire accurately and quickly with a semi-automatic rifle than it is with a bolt-action rifle.

Oswald was firing under a time constraint but not nearly the constraint the test shooters were under. Oswald had chambered the last round in the clip and would have had time to fire it but realized it was unnecessary. Zapruder continued filming for another 113 frames following the headshot and the limo was still in range during that time. Oswald would have had more than 6 additional seconds had he chosen to fire a fourth shot.

Uh-huh, but we've seen that you can't put Oswald in the sixth-floor window when confronted with the evidence that he was not on the sixth floor during the shooting.

How ironic that somebody as silly as you would hurl that accusation at somebody else.

Nope, in fact we've just seen another example of your stunning inability or refusal to process contrary facts.
 

I would expect to flunk when being graded by a dunce like you.

Oh, boy! What a tough guy you are! This is the kind of juvenile sputtering I would expect from someone with such an low level of education and lack of integrity and character. You've proven you can't even comprehend English at a high-school level and that you have no business pretending to know enough about the JFK case to comment on it with any credibility.

If you are going to make the claim that Oswald's shooting has never been duplicated, it is incumbent upon you to define what would constitute a duplication. It's not surprising that shooters required to fire their rifles much faster than Oswald did would not be as accurate as Oswald and would have difficulty scoring as many hits as Oswald did in considerably less time.

Here, too, you either can't comprehend high-school-level English or you're once again pretending not to understand what would constitute duplication of Oswald's alleged shooting feat.

Yes it did and the reason give was stupid. Blakey was trying to validate the dubious acoustics evidence by showing it was possible for Oswald to accurately fire his rifle in the amount of time between shots that the acoustics team determined. As I understand, the acoustics team determine Oswald fired the first two shots from the sniper's nest in 1.7 seconds. Common sense should have told Blakey how absurd that conclusion was. That would not even be possible if Oswald took the time to aim his second shot. It has been shown that a Carcano can be fired that rapidly on a range if the shooter doesn't bother to take time to aim the rifle but I'm quite sure Oswald was trying to hit a target and not show how fast he could shoot.

Umm, just a reminder that your theory of the shooting has "Oswald" scoring two hits in two shots within 5.6 seconds, or 2.8 seconds per shot, and that the target area that he allegedly hit was at least three times smaller than the target area allowed for the HSCA's expert riflemen to score hits, and they were only firing from 20 feet up and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot in each series.

Christ, you can't even do basic arithmetic.  Half of 5.6 is 2.8, not 2.3

Obviously, 2.3 was a typo. I meant to type 2.8.

but even 2.8 is not the right answer because the clock would start with the first shot and Oswald would have had an additional 5.6 seconds to fire the second of those shots. The WC determined the limo didn't come into the clear until Z210 and that was 5.6 seconds before the headshot, but even that isn't quite right.

This is a ball of confused evasion. You purposely, or perhaps ignorantly, keep missing the forest for the trees (or in this case a few small bushes). The nanosecond that JFK emerged from beneath the tree, the sixth-floor gunman would have had to begin acquiring and aiming at his target, and the human brain takes 166.67 milliseconds (1/6th of a second) just to recognize and react to visual data. That means it would have taken him at least three Zapruder frames to acquire and aim.

It would have taken 2-3 frames for the bullet to reach JFK's head so that the headshot would have been fired in the Z310-311 window. 100 Z-frames works out to about 5.46 seconds between shots. That is the theoretical maximum amount time between the last two shots. That assumes Oswald fired the first those two shots the instant JFK came into the clear. In reality, he fired that shot about a half second later, which works out to about 4.97 seconds between the two shots that struck JFK.

This is just a continuation of your ducking and dodging around the fact that your supposed single assassin would have had to score two hits with his final two shots within 5.6 seconds, yet the WC's Master-rated riflemen missed nearly all of their second and third shots, even though Hendrix took 8 seconds for his first series and 7 seconds for his second series, and Staley took 6.75 seconds for his first series and 6.45 seconds for his second series.

MG: It is just weird that you simply refuse to process such a self-evident fact [i.e., that "Oswald" would have had to score two hits in two shots in 5.6 seconds].

I just gave you a detailed explanation of the calculation but apparently remedial arithmetic isn't your strong suit. I've been reading your crap for 35 years and I have yet to detect what your strong suit is.

Your "detailed explanation" is nonsense. You keep ignoring the fact that the gunman would have had to acquire and aim at his target before firing his second shot. Your "detailed explanation" is junior-high-level sophistry in an effort to avoid dealing with the inconvenient fact that going two for two in 5.6 seconds would have been extremely difficult even for an experienced, expert riflemen, as the WC, CBS, and HSCA rifle tests all proved.

Yes, I've seen some LNs theorize Oswald used the iron sights but that hardly establishes that as a fact. Oswald could have used either and only he would know which he used. Whoever made the decision that the test shooters should use the fixed iron sights seems to have assumed Oswald used the fixed iron sights without knowing that to be a fact.

Hello? Hello? Did you miss the fact that the gunman could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle? How long is it going to take for your brain to process this information? I mean, this is just unbelievable.

The rifle was found with the scope attached. So, if you want to add time for attaching the scope to Oswald's alleged dash to the second floor, please put this on the table. While you're at it, explain why he would have bothered to do so instead of just stuffing the scope into a box (where it likely would not have been found for months, if ever).

What is a fact is that both the scope and the fixed iron sights would have been aiming high at the range Oswald was firing at. The WC pointed out that would have been an aid to Oswald since he would need to lead his target and to do that he would need to aim high. Whether Oswald had taken all of this into account or just got lucky we don't know. What we do know is that whatever the condition of the Carcano was and whether or not the shooter took that into account, it was the Carcano that fired the only two shots that hit JFK because those were the only two bullets that were recovered, one inside the limo and the other at Parkland.

You've made this same argument several times in other threads. Why don't you tell readers that I've pointed out that Marine rifle expert MSG James Zahm said that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat more difficult? Huh? did this "slip your mind"? Let me repeat what I've presented to you in other threads:

Mr. SPECTER. Can you characterize the increased efficiency of a marksman in using a four-power scope as opposed to using only the iron sights?

Sergeant ZAHM. Well, with the iron sights you have more room for error in the fact that you have three variables. You have your targets, your front sight and your rear sight, and you have the possibility of an error in aligning the sights, and then you also have the possibility of an error in the sights on the targets, which we refer to as the sight picture. Looking through aperture or even the open buckhorn type sights, when you are concentrating on your sights, your targets tend to become blurred because of the close focus of your eye in aligning the sights. (11 H 307)

As I just explained, that theory is not an established fact. Only a possibility. The only possibility Blakey seemed to have considered when setting up his silly test. Blakey wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Another juvenile dodge. I didn't say it was an established fact that the alleged lone gunman used the iron sights. I said that a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights when they've been confronted with the fact that the rifle's scope was defective.

A few expert riflemen have said they fire more accurately with iron sights than with scopes, but they are in the minority. Most expert riflemen prefer to use scopes because they fire more accurately with them. 

MG: We can't be sure which Oswald used, but a comprehensive test would have tested both.

As is SOP for you, you declare the argument silly without addressing the points made or explaining why it is silly. That's a pretty good indication you have no rebuttal to the argument made.

You've "explained" nothing. You've just ducked and dodged around the fact that "Oswald" could not have used the iron sights with the scope attached to the rifle. This is just another example of your refusal to admit anything.

An assumption is a conclusion made in absence of evidence. There is ample evidence Oswald was the shooter. It was his rifle that fired all the recovered shells and the only two recovered bullets from the shooting. His palm print was on the underside of the barrel which could only have been placed there with the rifle disassembled. His palm and fingerprint was on a bag found next to the sniper's nest. That bag was long enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it contained fibers that matched the blanket Oswald used to store his rifle. The butt plate of the rifle contained fibers that matched the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested. Oswald's fingerprints were on the boxes that had been stacked to form a rifle rest at the sniper's nest window and those fingerprints were oriented as they would be if Oswald was facing down Elm St. In almost 63 years, no CT has ever presented a plausible explanation for how all the above could be true if Oswald was actually innocent. As Dan O'Meara demonstrated within the past day, CTs will offer a vague explanation but the devil is always in the details. No detailed narrative that explains all of the above evidence is possible without concluding Oswald was the assassin. If such a narrative were available, somebody would have thought of it by now.

Another pile of timeworn claims that makes you sound like you're caught in a time warp and are writing in the late 1960s. Every one of those arguments has been thoroughly examined and proven to be fraught with problems or easily explainable.

I thought this thread was about the HSCA test, but all that indicates is that rifleman considered the possibility that Oswald could have used either sight.

I've already answered this. 

The fallacy of Blakey's test wasn't that he had the test done with the iron sights. The fallacy is that he ONLY did the test with the iron sights. That was a boneheaded decision. If he was trying to determine what was possible, he would have tested with both sights.

Uh-huh, again, a number of your fellow WC apologists have argued that "Oswald" used the iron sights in an attempt to explain the evidence that the alleged murder weapon's scope was defective.   

Why the hell would I? Even his lower qualifying score of 191 required Oswald to consistent hit a target at ranges of 200 yards and up. His longest shot that day was less than half of that. The killing of JFK at that range was well within the capabilities of someone who qualified as a USMC Marksman.

Oh, wow, any veteran who's fired at a Marine Corps rifle range is gonna recognize what deceptive nonsense you're peddling here.

So now, according to you, even someone who qualified in the lowest category of rifle qualification had capabilities that were "well within" those required to perform the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat! What a total joke.

If so, again, why did the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test fail to score two hits with their last two shots in any of their shot series? Why did they fire so inaccurately on their second and third shots?

I should add that 11 of the 12 riflemen in the CBS rifle test failed to score two hits in three shots on their first attempt, and the only one of the 12 who did this was an experienced, expert rifleman, and any of shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette were counted as hits, even if they were far from the small area that Oswald allegedly hit twice with his final two shots.

And, of course, none of the HSCA's experienced, expert riflemen scored two hits in three shots on any of their series, even though they fired from only 20 feet up, even though any of their shots that landed anywhere on the target silhouette was counted as a hit,  and even though they were allowed to take as much as time as they wanted for their first shot.

I keep repeating these arguments because they are sound and yours are most definitively not.

You bet. I'll let readers decide whose arguments are more credible.

I am not obligated to accept or defend every argument any LN has made on any forum since  the day the internet became available to the general public. I've seen some LNs make arguments that are almost as dumb as yours.

Uh-huh. In other words, you were unaware that many of your fellow WC apologists have praised the Carcano as an accurate, reliable weapon. You're just too much of a juvenile to admit it.

I remember a lot of instances in which you have disputed my arguments but none in which you have actually refuted them.
Another of your wild claims that fly in the face of the facts. The FBI crime lab determined that two of the fragments recovered from the limo had sufficient size and markings to positivley match them to Oswald's rifle. From pages 557-558 of the WCR:

"The Rifle Bullets

In addition to the three cartridge cases found in the Texas School Book Depository Building, a nearly whole bullet was found on Governor Connally's stretcher and two bullet fragments were found in the front of the President's car. 40 The stretcher bullet weighed 158.6 grains, or several grains less than the average Western Cartridge Co. 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.41 It was slightly flattened, but otherwise unmutilated. 42 The two bullet fragments weighed 44.6 and 21.0 grains, respectively. 43 The heavier fragment was a portion of a bullet's nose area, as shown by its rounded contour and the

Page 558

character of the markings it bore. 44 The lighter fragment consisted of bullet's base portion, as shown by its shape and by the presence of a cannelure. 45 The two fragments were both mutilated, and it was not possible to determine from the fragments themselves whether they comprised the base and nose of one bullet or of two separate bullets. 46 However, each had sufficient unmutilated area to provide the basis of an identification. 47 Based on a comparison with test bullets fired from the C2766 rifle, the stretcher bullet and both bullet fragments were identified as having been fired from the C2766 rifle."

This conclusion was based on the expert testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier. Below is a passage from that testimony.

Mr. EISENBERG - I now hand you a bullet fragment, what appears to be a bullet fragment, in a pill box which is labeled jacket and Lead Q-2, and it has certain initials on it. For the record, this was found--this bullet fragment was found--in the front portion of the car in which the President was riding. I ask you whether you are familiar with this object.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is your mark on--
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this? Is this a bullet fragment, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This consists of a piece of the jacket portion of a bullet from the nose area and a piece of the lead core from under the jacket.
Mr. EISENBERG - How were you able to conclude it is part of the nose area?
Mr. FRAZIER - Because of the rifling marks which extend part way up the side, and then have the characteristic leading edge impressions and no longer continue along the bullet, and by the fact that the bullet has a rounded contour to it which has not been mutilated.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion?
Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle

Similar testimony was give regarding the other fragment. For those who want to read Frazier's entire testimony on this matter, they can read it here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

But the WC did not just accept Frazier's conclusion at face value. They turned to Joseph Nicol of the Illinois crime lab for verification. This, in part, was his testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Nicol, did you examine the three exhibits which were given to you as Q-1, Q-2, and Q-3, and which are now, I believe 567, 569, and 399?
Mr. NICOL. Yes sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. To determine whether or not they had come from the identical barrel as that in which the two--the bullets in Exhibit 572 had been fired?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us your conclusions?
Mr. NICOL. Yes. It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399.
Mr. EISENBERG. That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?
Mr. NICOL. Correct.

So we have a choice here. We can accept the opinions of recognized experts in the field of ballistics, or we can accept your FUBAR amateurish analysis. Gee, that's a tough call.

Oh, so here we go. You went grasping to McAdams' old website and stumbled across these statements. I'm not even sure you understand what you've quoted here. You're blowing a lot of smoke. Half of this stuff doesn't even actually apply to what we're talking about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MG: When you say "bullets," you can only be talking about CE 399, which is a joke. As you know, every single SBT wound-ballistics test has contradicted the claim that CE 399 was the SBT's supposed magic bullet. There is zero evidence that it hit anyone on the day of the shooting, and there is considerable evidence that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

This is a perfect example of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

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

As for the shells, there is no evidence they were used to fire bullets at JFK.

Are you trying to set the record for the most dumba$$ statements in one post. You have to be getting close if you have not already surpassed it.

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

MG: In fact, one of them could not have been used to fire a bullet at anyone on the day of the shooting because it was too dented.

Still more of "your FUBAR amateurish analysis".

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

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

The shells don't prove that but the recovered bullets do.

No, they do not. There were no "recovered bullets." There were recovered bullet fragments, 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. 

You, on the other hand, want to believe JFK was hit by bullets for which no weapon, shells, or bullets were ever recovered. So where the hell is your evidence JFK was killed by a weapon other than Oswald's Carcano?

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."

Sensible people who have read our exchanges would laugh their asses off at some of the ridiculous arguments you have made. In this thread alone you have provided plenty of comic relief.

No, they would just realize that your replies exhibit juvenile, amateurish dissembling and evasion. They would realize that you've done nothing but offer comical dodges to wound-ballistics tests and observations from forensic and ballistics experts regarding the behavior of FMJ bullets.

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.

The only example of what such ammo will do when striking a human skull is the fragmented bullet found in the limo by the Secret Service. You are the one claiming a 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet would not fragment in that manner. You need to provide the evidence of that. So far you have provided none. That means I have provided one more example than you have.

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

And yet a badly fragmented FMJ Carcano bullet was found in the limo which proves such bullets don't always do what they were designed for. I guess that went right over your head.

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.

[MG]I know you know, because I have documented for you, that the skull x-rays of the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test prove that the test bullets (all of which were WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets) left only a few fragments and created fragmentation patterns that look nothing like the pattern seen on the JFK skull x-rays.

I would have to be seriously head-f****d to believe even half the nonsense you post.

Oh? What "nonsense" have I posted on this point? 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.

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

[MG]Similarly, even the WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets in Lattimer's headshot wound-ballistics test produced far fewer fragments in the test skulls than the dozens of fragments seen in the JFK skull x-rays.

Oh, but they did fragment, didn't they, even though they were designed not to fragment. I guess they were supposed to produce the same number of fragments as the bullet that hit JFK's head.

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:

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)

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.

Your fallback 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.

You know nothing of science. One of the hallmarks of good science is to exert skepticism, even of one's own findings. Especially of one's own findings. You, on the other hand, choose to accept any claim made, no matter how baseless, if it supports your cherished belief that JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald. You are completely incapable of critical thinking, which is a prerequisite for applying good science to available data.

I won't bother responding to this juvenile rant, especially coming from someone as uneducated and immature as you.

So I guess we should just ignore the fragmented FMJ bullet that was found in the limo because "forensic science" tells us it couldn't have fragmented like that.

More ignorance and deceit. For the hundredth time, there was no "fragmented bullet" found in the limo. 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. 

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.

I've already refuted this, several times. Again, Connally's back wound was no more "elongated" than JFK's rear head entry wound. The moderate degree of elongation was due to the fact that Connally was turning when the bullet hit him.

The autopsy report itself doesn't mention the dimensions of the hole in the skull. It gives the dimensions of the laceration in the scalp. A tear. You cannot make any real determination regarding bullet size or orientation from a laceration. If the skull hole was similar, that still wouldn't tell you much because of the keyhole effect that bullets have when striking skull bone.

Again, the likes of Posner, Myers, Lattimer, and the Haags have falsely claimed the wound was 3.0 cm wide,

That operative report takes precedence over Dr Shaw's recollection made 5 months later. Not only did he reduce the length of the wound by half, he also got the orientation of the wound wrong. The long axis was horizontal, not vertical. Dr Baden measured the scar on Connally's back to be 1.125 inches long and up to 0.375 inch wide centrally.

Larry Sturdivan noted during his HSCA testimony that, even at the revised dimensions given by Dr Shaw, the wound was one made by a bullet that was yawed upon entry.

What sensible person wouldn't ignore the nonsense you post. I give it far more attention than it deserves. You seem to think what you post is a fountain of wisdom. I won't say what it is that you do spew, but it flows downhill and nobody wants to be in that valley.

Lee Bowers said he heard three shots and none originated from behind the fence. Again just three shots. All from one location (either end of Elm Street). He said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of shooting.

Here is Bowers: "Now I could see back, or the South side, of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."

Could he be wrong? Of course. His account needs corroboration, more support. And other evidence indicates there may have been a shooter behind the fence. We need to weight it all.

But in conspiracy world, in the cartoon world of Michael Griffith, Bower's account is not simply uncorroborated, not reliable; it's evidence that there *was* a shooter behind the fence. Up is now down. Why? Because the conspirators (unnamed, unseen, undocumented) intimidated him into changing his story.

Here we have a perfect witness for events behind the fence. Again, he could be mistaken. But to take his account and turn it into evidence of a shooter behind the fence when he explicitly said there was no one is classic conspiracy thinking.

As I said, it's hopeless trying to reason with this view.

Another surreal reply where you simply ignore a mass of information that has been presented and documented to you and then repeat your same old arguments that are refuted by that information.

What sensible person wouldn't ignore the nonsense you post. I give it far more attention than it deserves. You seem to think what you post is a fountain of wisdom. I won't say what it is that you do spew, but it flows downhill and nobody wants to be in that valley.

Barber has proved no such thing. You are decades behind the information curve. You might want to read my last 10 replies in this thread to educate yourself on the acoustical evidence.

No, you're a complete nutjob who believes every dumb JFK conspiracy theory. I'd love to see you explain exactly why Steve Barber didn't prove the Dictabelt did not record Dealey Plaza gunfire. I'd also love to see you explain which DPD officer was in Dealey Plaza during the murder who also had his mic stuck open. Won't hold my breath...