Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Dr. Joseph Dolce was never called to testify to the Warren Commission (WC), even though he was one of the WC's wound ballistics consultants and was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics at the time. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, so, needless to say, he had dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. WC staff attorney Arlen Specter never arranged for Dr. Dolce to testify because Dolce had already told him that the single-bullet theory (SBT) was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this. Michael Green explains:

When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not. 

Because it was impossible to avoid consulting him on the matter of CE 399 after the autopsy report had been completed, Joseph Dolce, M.D., was part of a staff conference April 21, 1964, chaired by WC counsel Melvin Eisenberg and attended by Dr. Alfred Olivier, chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dr. F. L. Light of the Wound Assessment Branch at Edgewood Arsenal; Drs. Charles Gregory and Robert Shaw from Parkland Hospital; and later in the conference, Governor John Connally and his wife, J. Lee Rankin, and Warren Commission member John J. McCloy.

Dr. Dolce told the Commission personnel emphatically that it was impossible for CE 399 to have made those wounds. The Commission lawyers and staff tried to muscle him into changing his professional opinion, but he refused, so he was never called as a witness and the test findings were distorted and suppressed.

Dolce advised Chip Selby in 1986,

“The disturbing feature at this conference was that the lawyer [Specter] says, ‘Now Doctor, we want you to tell us exactly how this bullet traveled, the velocity traveled, the velocity lost during the period of travel. And why it came out as a pristine bullet, unmarked bullet.’ I said, ‘Sorry, it doesn’t happen that way. This bullet should have been deformed.’ … they wanted this [CE 399] to be the bullet that caused all of the damage and I did not go along with that". . . .

In fact, after Dr. Dolce told the Commission principals that “This is impossible. It doesn’t work that way,” his group was told to conduct tests at the Edgewood Arsenal using Oswald’s alleged rifle. Dr. Dolce told Selby “that our experiments have shown beyond any doubt, that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically [even without it also smashing a rib]. . . in every instance [of 10 bullets] the front, or the tip of the bullet, was smashed. This was not so with [with CE 399]. They did not accept this.” (Harold Weisberg, Never Again, pp.298-299) (Green, "Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)


Green continues by discussing the fraud that Specter committed in leading Olivier through his testimony, and that even then Olivier provided some damaging information:

Instead of Dr. Dolce, Arlen Specter called as his expert witness Alfred G. Olivier, D.V.M, and a supervisory research veterinarian at Edgewood Arsenal. Specter had Dr. Olivier compare CE 399 with a test bullet, CE 853, which was fired through a goat, x-rays of which showed a broken rib. I note that Specter fails to establish that CE 853 broke the rib shown in the x-ray of the goat only because he immediately engages in two other forensic frauds. The first fraud is to have Olivier compare a bullet that testimony implies broke a goat rib with a bullet that allegedly broke both a rib and a radius as though that were a relevant comparison. Even so, Olivier testified that CE 853 was much more badly damaged than CE 399, and was “quite flattened throughout [its entire length, with] lead core extruding somewhat from the rear.” The extruded core looked like a nipple at the base of the bullet. By contrast, Dr. Olivier noted that CE 399 showed only “a suggestion of flattening” and only at its base. The FBI concealed how much more badly damaged CE 853 was by photographing it only along its side, with the flattening symmetrically distributed along its axis so that no damage can be observed. Dr. Olivier testified of CE 399, “Also, the lead core has extruded from the rear in the same fashion, and it appears that some of it has even broken from the rear” (5H80).

Arlen Specter’s second fraud, with Dr. Olivier’s complicity, is to pretend that the base of CE 399 has been damaged. The “extrusion” and the part “broken from the rear” is merely the divot that the FBI cut out to perform its analysis of the bullet core. No forensic expert could testify about a bullet that is the basis for comparison for all its tests and not know that the FBI cut a tiny nick from the tip and a substantial divot from the base for its tests. The divot is visible in the National Archives photo of CE 399 above, and a very clear photo of the divot will be given later in this essay. FBI agent Robert Frazier testified that visual inspection of CE 399 did not demonstrate loss of material from the base. Henry Hurt’s Reasonable Doubt, 1985, provides a pre-divot photograph of CE 399 without extrusion or loss of material, which is one of many reasons why the honest Dr. Dolce stated that the Edgewood Arsenal tests proved it could not have smashed both rib and wrist bones.

Specter and Dr. Olivier address the capacity of a single bullet to cause all the damage done to Kennedy and Connally, and they address a possible bullet flight pattern. In between we see a bullet that shattered a radius bone, and it is “very severely flattened on the end,” looking like a cigarette stubbed out hard in a glass ashtray (5H82, see also CE 856). Specter leads Olivier to testify that CE 399 was “capable” of producing all the wounds – but in that context they ignore whether breaking the bones would leave CE 399 so little blemished (5H90).

Specter never asks the obvious:

“Dr. Olivier, is CE 853 the bullet that broke the goat’s rib shown in this x-ray?”

“How many times did you have to fire bullets through goats’ ribs to obtain a bullet so little damaged as CE 853?”

“Did you ever break a goat’s rib with a bullet that was as little damaged from the impact as CE 399?”

“Dr. Olivier, let us put aside the pretense that the FBI divot was actual damage to CE 399. Even assuming it were possible that CE 399 had been so considerably less damaged after breaking Governor Connally’s rib than CE 853 was after breaking the goat’s rib, would you expect its going on to shatter a radius bone to leave it no more deformed?”

Neither Specter nor Olivier ever alluded to the other nine bullets from the Edgewood Arsenal tests that were grossly deformed from smashing only a radius bone. ("Besmirching History: Vincent Bugliosi Assassinates Kennedy Again -- The Military and Warren Commission Cover-up," https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html#ref4)



72
1)  I don't need to show Calvery & Reed in Wiegman because the logic of locating both of them in Zapruder and Couch/Darnell trumps any other excuse-making claims...Film evidence that you can see with your own eyes trumps all other disingenuous, inferior claims and dispenses with the need to regress to them...Those making such regressive arguments can be legitimately dismissed and considered as losing their arguments and not answering to the better evidence...They are not to be taken seriously...

2)   Wiegman, as he runs down to the motorcade spectators, is a blurry mess with the camera being swung back and forth...It is not really honest to contend the running women could be seen in that clip...

   So are you NOW claiming that these 2 women sprinting up the sidewalk are in the Wiegman Film? That we just can Not see them? Is that your new wrinkle? This is what happens when you Fail to thoroughly think through your claim. It requires patching. Again, you need to CHANGE THE TIMELINES.
73
The saddest little man was Sandy Larsen who abused his moderator power to bail out the Prayer Man people with the lie that the clearly-seen dress neckline on Prayer Man in the 6th Floor Museum copy was a CIA forgery designed to conceal Oswald's work shirt collar...

Something the reformed new administration at The Education Forum won't allow any review of lest people realize they are an incestuous den of bogus evidence-intimidating crooks...

I'm sure Larsen, if he were still alive, would enthusiastically back the put-people-on-ignore missive by administrator Iler...

   The CIA altering Oswald's work shirt into a dress neckline is Cinque worthy. You're Not doing your cause any favors with these wild claims.
74
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 06:16:53 PM »
"Evidence," my you-know-what.

The first shot at "Z-124" sounded different from the other two, probably because the muzzle of Oswald's short-rifle was inside the building for the steeply-downward-angled shot when he fired it.

A lot of people thought it was just another motorcycle backfire, or a firecracker, or even a tire blowout. That, and the fact that Dealy Plaza is an echo chamber, threw off a lot of people. Unfortunately, eighty of them provided their mistaken opinions.
One has to understand how to assess probabilities of independent events. The probability that 25 would independently imagine seeing the same thing, which did not occur, while none would report what actually did occur, is effectively zero.

Quote
Is English your second language?
Yes. Have you considered remedial reading classes? They may help.
75
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:57:56 PM »
My Bing AI says that a motorcycle backfire can be as high as 100 decibels while rifles from .223 up to 30.06 and .308 caliber are generally about 170 decibels.

Therefore should not Brehm the combat veteran at least have been able to distinguish the difference in sound level of a 100 db motorcycle backfire and a 170db rifle blast?

He seems he should have but obviously he didn't. Why is anybody's guess. Have you ever had the experience of trying to get someone's attention and they don't seem to hear you because their attention is fixated on something else? I have. Many times. I've screamed at someone at the top of my voice and they seem not to hear me even though I knew I had yelled plenty loud enough. I'm sure the sound of my voice reached their ears but not their brains. It can be frustrating as hell but it does happen.

In Dealey Plaza we had lots of spectators probably seeing a POTUS as well as his beautiful first lady for the first time in their lives. I don't doubt that 100% of their focus was on the two people riding in the rear seat of the limo. I can easily understand why some did not recognize the first shot for what it was. With the Secret Service agents, it could be something similar. Of course this wasn't their first rodeo, but their attention would naturally be on the spectators. That combined with the roar of the motorcycles right off the front bumper of the follow up car may have prevented some of them from recognizing the first shot. 
76
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 05:42:19 PM »
If there are witnesses describing the location of the 1st shot heard being when the crowd is thinning out or is “spotty” then that’s not at Z124 because there’s much larger crowd around that front TSBD entrance and where Amos Euins was.
77
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Yesterday at 05:36:57 PM »
My Bing AI says that a motorcycle backfire can be as high as 100 decibels while rifles from .223 up to 30.06 and .308 caliber are generally about 170 decibels.

Therefore should not Brehm the combat veteran at least have been able to distinguish the difference in sound level of a 100 db motorcycle backfire and a 170db rifle blast?
78
This issue is a prime example of the fact that some people judge the facts by their theory instead of judging their theory by the facts.

Oh, the irony! There is nobody on this forum who exemplifies that approach more than MTG. He sees bullet holes where none exist. He cites the opinions of people who operate outside their field of expertise and ignores people who are actual experts in those fields. He will embrace any opinion that runs counter to the findings of the WC because he decided long ago that the WC was wrong because he wanted to believe a different story than the one the WC gave us. He doesn't even care if the people he cites conflict with each other as long as their opinions conflict with the WC.
Quote

We have solid, mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts, from three different locations, that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Two of the witnesses were police officers. Two other witnesses were Secret Service agents. One witness was a medical student who went on to become the head of the surgery department at a major hospital in the Dallas area.

A perfect example of what I just wrote. He cites the opinions of people who took just a casual glance at the windshield and ignore the findings of the Secret Service who were able to give a close examination of the windshield and determined that it had been struck from the inside and that a missile hand NOT gone through the windshield in either direction.
Quote

We have a highly credible witness, George Whitaker, who was actually involved in replacing the limo's windshield on 11/25/63 at the Ford Motor Company's River Rouge Assembly Plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and this same witness saw the bullet hole and was certain, based on years of relevant experience, that it was a front-to-back hole.

Relevant experience??? Just how many windshields with bullet holes in them does he think George Whitaker replaced?
Quote

Whitaker said in a recorded 1993 interview that when he arrived to work on 11/25/63, the limo was already at the plant, in Building B, and that the windshield had already been removed. Two of the employees whom he supervised had been ordered to remove it, and they were given a cover story if anyone asked them what they did. He examined the windshield and saw the bullet hole. He added that the windshield was soon destroyed. Toward the end of his life, Whitaker produced a written statement about what he had seen and experienced on 11/25/1963.

I'll take the word of the Secret Service over George Whitaker.
Quote

We have support for Whitaker's account in the second-hand accounts of two family members whose father, Robert Harrison, worked at the Dearborn plant at the time and who told his family he saw a hole in the windshield. We have the fact that the logs for the White House garage show that no one came to see the limo on 11/25/63, whereas the logs show that people came before and after that date to see the limo. It would have been an easy operation to fly the limo to the Dearborn plant, have the windshield removed, and then fly the limo back to the White House garage in one day.

I guess that explanation makes sense to MTG. Of course it does. It feeds his wacky mindset.
Quote

You couldn't ask for a more credible, solid witness than George Whitaker. Doug Weldon spends nearly three pages in his chapter on the limo talking about why Whitaker was a credible witness. Anyone who listens to Whitaker's 1993 recorded interview can't help but be struck by his sincerity and clarity. Whitaker never sought publicity, had no interest in the JFK case, and spoke on the record reluctantly and only at the urging of his oldest son.

Like MTG, Weldon finds Whitaker credible solely because his story conflicts with the WCR.
Quote

Whitaker's account explains why the windshield in the limo on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn has no hole in it.

This is comical. Does he think they would have put the limo on display with the bullet hole still in it. I guess MTG isn't aware that the limo was completely reconfigured, converted to a hardtop, and put back into service. Does he think they would have done all that and not replaced the windshield?  I doubt he knows that the Ford Motor company owned the vehicle throughout its service life and leased it to the government at a nominal cost. 
Quote

Whitaker's account shows that all those witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield were not "mistaken." The windshield in evidence is not the original windshield. It was replaced on 11/25/63. It was replaced (1) because the Secret Service was aware that many witnesses had seen the windshield hole while the limo was parked outside the ER entrance at Parkland Hospital, and (2) because the Secret Service knew that if any independent experts examined the original windshield, they would realize the hole was made by a missile that entered from the front.

All Whitaker did was show he got the same mistaken impression of the damaged windshield as the people who saw it at Parkland. It's understandable why those people would have gotten that impression since they knew JFK had been shot while riding in that limo and when they saw the crack in the windshield, they would have jumped to the conclusion a shot was fired through the windshield. At the time those witnesses saw the windshield, they would have had no idea of where the limo was when the shots were fired or from where the shots were fired. MTG never bothers to consider how silly it would have been to fire a shot at JFK through the windshield from a frontal position. The shooter would have been right out in the open for all to see. The witnesses on the bridge would have easily seen such a shooter and heard the shot. That shooter would have had to thread the needle to get a shot past Kellerman and JBC. Really neat trick given that Kellerman was in the front passenger seat and JBC's jump seat was offset to the inside. A bullet fired from the bridge striking low on the windshield where MTG claims it did, would never have been on a trajectory to reach JFK. Considering all those factors would have required MTG to apply critical thinking to the situation. Critical thinking is a trait rarely displayed by JFKA conspiracy fanatics.....like MTG.
79
This issue is a prime example of the fact that some people judge the facts by their theory instead of judging their theory by the facts.

We have solid, mutually corroborating eyewitness accounts, from three different locations, that there was a bullet hole in the windshield. Two of the witnesses were police officers. Two other witnesses were Secret Service agents. One witness was a medical student who went on to become the head of the surgery department at a major hospital in the Dallas area.

We have a highly credible witness, George Whitaker, who was actually involved in replacing the limo's windshield on 11/25/63 at the Ford Motor Company's River Rouge Assembly Plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and this same witness saw the bullet hole and was certain, based on years of relevant experience, that it was a front-to-back hole.

Whitaker said in a recorded 1993 interview that when he arrived to work on 11/25/63, the limo was already at the plant, in Building B, and that the windshield had already been removed. Two of the employees whom he supervised had been ordered to remove it, and they were given a cover story if anyone asked them what they did. He examined the windshield and saw the bullet hole. He added that the windshield was soon destroyed. Toward the end of his life, Whitaker produced a written statement about what he had seen and experienced on 11/25/1963.

We have support for Whitaker's account in the second-hand accounts of two family members whose father, Robert Harrison, worked at the Dearborn plant at the time and who told his family he saw a hole in the windshield. We have the fact that the logs for the White House garage show that no one came to see the limo on 11/25/63, whereas the logs show that people came before and after that date to see the limo. It would have been an easy operation to fly the limo to the Dearborn plant, have the windshield removed, and then fly the limo back to the White House garage in one day.

You couldn't ask for a more credible, solid witness than George Whitaker. Doug Weldon spends nearly three pages in his chapter on the limo talking about why Whitaker was a credible witness. Anyone who listens to Whitaker's 1993 recorded interview can't help but be struck by his sincerity and clarity. Whitaker never sought publicity, had no interest in the JFK case, and spoke on the record reluctantly and only at the urging of his oldest son.

Whitaker's account explains why the windshield in the limo on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn has no hole in it. Whitaker's account shows that all those witnesses who reported seeing a hole in the windshield were not "mistaken." The windshield in evidence is not the original windshield. It was replaced on 11/25/63. It was replaced (1) because the Secret Service was aware that many witnesses had seen the windshield hole while the limo was parked outside the ER entrance at Parkland Hospital, and (2) because the Secret Service knew that if any independent experts examined the original windshield, they would realize the hole was made by a missile that entered from the front.
80

1)  I don't need to show Calvery & Reed in Wiegman because the logic of locating both of them in Zapruder and Couch/Darnell trumps any other excuse-making claims...Film evidence that you can see with your own eyes trumps all other disingenuous, inferior claims and dispenses with the need to regress to them...Those making such regressive arguments can be legitimately dismissed and considered as losing their arguments and not answering to the better evidence...They are not to be taken seriously...

2)   Wiegman, as he runs down to the motorcade spectators, is a blurry mess with the camera being swung back and forth...It is not really honest to contend the running women could be seen in that clip...

 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10