This revealing exchange deserves a second look. Before this exchange, I had quoted DiMaio's two paragraphs about the behavior of FMJ rifle bullets at least six times to Corbett. DiMaio specified three times in those two paragraphs that he was talking about FMJ rifle ammo. Yet, somehow, someway Corbett failed to notice this and suggested that DiMaio was really only talking about handgun ammo! Let's read:
Quote from: John Corbett on August 11, 2026, 02:37:14 PM
In fact, it would not surprise me if DiMaio was addressing only handgun rounds in his textbook on gunshot wounds.
More comedy. Uh, did you miss the part where DiMaio specified he was talking about rifle bullets?! Let's read his statements yet again:
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)
How could you miss this? I have presented these quotes to you at least six times in the last three months, yet you still somehow, someway missed the fact that he specified he was talking about rifle bullets. I suspect the problem is that you simply are not educated enough to read material that requires at least a high-school level of reading comprehension.
Furthermore, if you had bothered to even skim through DiMaio's book, of if you had just looked at the table of contents, you would have seen that he has separate sections for handgun bullets and rifle bullets. But, obviously, you did neither. That's because you have no interest in actual research and in learning facts.
And how did Corbett reply to my exposure of his horrendous blunder? He wrote a one-sentence comment that said nothing about his baffling gaffe. Instead, his one-sentence response actually made the hilarious argument that the kind of FMJ ammo that Oswald allegedly used behaves differently than all other FMJ ammo, and that therefore DiMaio's observations about the behavior of FMJ bullets is not a "true comparison"! Let's read:
Now tell us how many of those studies involved FMJ 6.5x52mm Carcano ammo which is what Oswald fired. It's the only true comparison.
Notice he said nothing about his baffling failure to notice that DiMaio specified three times in the two quoted paragraphs that he was talking about FMJ rifle ammo. A mature, honest person would have said something like this in reply:
"Ok, yes, I blundered. I don't know how I could have thought he was talking about handgun ammo when he said three times he was talking about rifle bullets. I admit it: I goofed."
I mean, really, leaving aside his display of immaturity and insincerity in refusing to acknowledge his blunder, you have to wonder how anyone could read those two quoted paragraphs and not see that DiMaio was clearly talking about FMJ rifle bullets. What makes Corbett's blunder especially telling is that I had quoted those two paragraphs to him at least six times in replies, and, then, to make matters worse, he even started this thread in which he has claimed that DiMaio was talking about handgun ammo. I'm not joking here at all when I say that he actually seems to have a genuine reading-comprehension problem.
As for Corbett's desperate, comical, and baseless speculation that WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets, I think this is further proof that he is unserious, insincere, and uninformed. Notice that he failed to provide a shred of evidence for his ridiculous speculation.
Furthermore, I have pointed out to Corbett many times that the WC's head-shot wound-ballistics test used WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ bullets, i.e., Oswald's alleged bullets, and that not one of those 10 bullets even remotely duplicated the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head, as proved by the x-rays of the test skulls alone. I discuss the WC's test at length in
"Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds." You can see the x-rays of the WC's test skulls in chapter 5 of physicist Howard Roffman's book
Presumed Guilty.
In fact, let's read what Roffman points out about the x-rays of the WC's test skulls:
These x-rays depict gelatin-filled human skulls shot with ammunition of the type allegedly used by Oswald. They were classified by the government and remained suppressed until recently; they are printed here for the first time ever. What they reveal is that Oswald's rifle could not have produced the head wounds suffered by President Kennedy. The bullet that hit the president in the head exploded into a multitude of minuscule fragments. One Secret Service agent described the appearance of these metal fragments on the x-rays: "The whole head looked like a little mass of stars." The fragmentation depicted on these test x-rays obviously differs from that described in the president's head. The upper x-ray reveals only relatively large fragments concentrated at the point of entrance; the lower reveals only a few tiny fragments altogether. This gives dramatic, suppressed proof that Oswald did not fire the shot that killed President Kennedy.Note that the fragmentation seen in the x-rays of the test skulls is similar to the kind of fragmentation that DiMaio said will occur when FMJ bullets do fragment after hitting skull bone. Moreover, the scientist who conducted the WC's test, Dr. Alfred Olivier, told firearms and ballistics expert Howard Donahue in a recorded interview in 1969 that the 10 test bullets only left a few fragments in each instance, which is consistent with what the x-rays of the test skulls show. Again, I discuss the WC's test at great length in
"Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds."I should add that ardent WC apologist Dr. John Lattimer also conducted a head-shot wound-ballistics test with WCC 6.5 x .52 FMJ ammo. His test, like the WC test, failed to duplicate the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head, both in the number of fragments and in the fragmentation pattern. Keeping in mind that Lattimer was caught several times falsifying his test results, he claimed that one of his bullets produced eight visible fragments and about 10-15 smaller ones. However, the ammo that hit JFK's head left at least 35 tiny fragments in a "lead snowstorm" in the right-frontal region, left several small fragments to the left of the lead snowstorm, left two small fragments and some metal particles in the rear outer table of the skull, and left two small fragments at the opposite end of the skull just above and behind the right orbit that were at least 1 inch from the right-frontal fragment cloud.
The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that if FMJ ammo had hit JFK's head, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays would not show a cloud of dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region, several small fragments to the left of the fragment cloud, two small fragments and some metal particles in the rear outer table of the skull, and two small fragments at the opposite end of the skull near the right orbit.
Recent Posts