Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence. And WCR link.

[Tim Nickerson]

Welcome to the new forum, Tim.

Thanks for the welcome Bill.

[Tim Nickerson]

So, with conflicting testimony, who is to be believed?  We do know that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests and all yielded a positive reaction on the casts.  However, Cunningham never stated how many tests they ran before casts yielded a negative reaction.  He only provides the results of a "Mr Killian".  Of course the question is never asked "how many times", and thus we are led to believe that there was just one test.  If there was only one test and the results were negative, it was clearly a fluke (considering the multiple positive tests).  If there were multiple tests with one negative result, how many?  We then could play the odds to determine whether or not it was likely that LHOs tests would have a positive reaction.

Larry, Where do you get that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests with CE-139 that yielded positive reactions?

[Larry Baldwin]

Larry, Where do you get that the FBI laboratory ran multiple tests with CE-139 that yielded positive reactions?

I didn't say CE-139.  Their tests used a similar rifle and ammunition.   

However, after reading your post again, I noticed that there were multile tests ran with CE-139, yet only mention the negative reaction results. It appears that their first test yeilded positive. Contrived?  Hmmm.

"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts."   

[John Iacoletti]

"We fired the rifle[CE-139]. Mr. Killion fired it [CE-139] three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts." 

                                                                               VS

"powder residues taken from the hands and cheeks of individuals who have shot a rifle similar to the one reportedly owned by Lee Harvey Oswald."


How could you possibly conclude that the latter even matches the former, let alone that it raises it?

First of all, they don't know what ammunition was used in the assassination.  Second of all, do you have a plausible reason to accept that Mannlicher Carcano rifles would differ this widely?

[Tim Nickerson]

First of all, they don't know what ammunition was used in the assassination.  Second of all, do you have a plausible reason to accept that Mannlicher Carcano rifles would differ this widely?

The ammunition used in the assassination were WCC 6.5 mm bullets.

I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would not differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham would lie under oath.

[Mike Orr]

Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.

[Gary Craig]

Bugliosi and the Warren Commission said that the Parkland Doctors were wrong about where they put the head wounds on JFK . The back of the blown-out head wound is not mentioned by the WC or Bugliosi.

The Clark Panel said the autopsy doctors were wrong about the head wounds.

The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel.

[John Iacoletti]

The ammunition used in the assassination were WCC 6.5 mm bullets.

That's an assumption.  There's no physical proof of that.

I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would not differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham would lie under oath.

Ok, but I could just as easily say that I have no reason to believe that Carcano rifles would differ that widely, or that SA Cunningham was correct.