Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 28881 times)

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2023, 11:16:58 PM »
Advertisement

. . .

Sturdivan understands strength of materials and yield pressures of bullets and targets.  But his explanation of CE399 being consistent with the SBT is quite controversial.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #40 on: January 16, 2023, 11:16:58 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2023, 10:34:32 PM »
I see no reason why this bright object could not be the 7x2 mm fragment that was recovered from the autopsy. Always adopt the simpler theory over a more contrived one, unless the evidence is strong. And the evidence that this must be an artifact is not strong at all.

This is just silly. If you see no reason that the 7 x 2 mm fragment recovered during the autopsy cannot be the 6.5 mm object, then you haven't read my previous replies in this thread. Again, among other facts, the two objects are plainly visible on the AP x-ray. One is not the other. I mean, how can anyone be confused about this? You can see both objects on the AP x-ray, and they are not what you would call "close" to each other, so obviously the 7 x 2 mm fragment is not the 6.5 mm object. The two objects also have very different OD measurements.

The evidence that the object is an artifact is indisputable. This has been established by dozens of OD measurements, not to mention that forensic science knows of no FMJ bullet that has left a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entering the skull. Even Sturdivan says this is impossible.

Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2023, 10:59:19 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2023, 12:47:08 AM »
You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

Dolce was only engaged in a single meeting involving the Edgewood staff. In this case Dolce joined Light and Olivier to discuss Governor Connally's wounds with the Connallys, Gregory, Shaw, and Shires. He wasn't involved in the earlier April 14, 1964 meeting between Humes. Boswell, Finck, Olivier and Light. Nor is he listed as an author or even contributor in the Edgewood report detailing the tests.  He doesn't seem to have been the top expert that you think he is, otherwise his name would have popped up more often. He's also wrong. He chides Olivier and Dziemian for accepting Gregory's dorsal-to-volar path through the wrist, but Gregory was correct. Dolce claimed that Gregory had "no wound ballistic experience," when Gregory had served as a surgeon for the 1st Marine Division in Korea, and of course gained GSW experience working at Parkland.  Dolce assumed that the wrist tests conducted by Edgewood covered all cases where a Carcano bullet truck a radius bone, but this is simply impossible. In fact, the Edgewood wrist tests are completely irrelevant to the SBT as far as any expected deformation is concerned. 

For that matter, Roger McCarthy is also not a "ballistics expert." He's a mechanical engineer whose actual forte appears to be business and management. For the ABA mock trial, the company he led, Failure Analysis, had to hire a recognized ballistic expert to run their shooting tests. That expert was Dr Martin Fackler, who was widely considered at the time to be the leading expert in the field of terminal ballistics of flesh, bullet, and bone. Fackler came out of these tests concluding that CE399 could indeed be responsible for all of the wounds attributed by the WC.


No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

And here's someone else who thinks that they can achieve though adjectives what they cannot manage through evidence and/or argument.


The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

Luke Haag actually is recognized to be an expert in terminal ballistics and shooting reconstruction, both in academia and in the courts.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2023, 12:47:08 AM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2023, 03:47:56 AM »

You're either misleading people again or you have a bad memory. As I've pointed out before in exchanges with you, the Army's leading wound ballistics experts at the time of the WC, Dr. Joseph Dolce, said there was no way CE 399 could have done all the damage claimed for it. Another wound ballistics expert, Dr. Roger McCarthy, rejected the SBT at the 1992 ABA mock Oswald trial.

Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? That is a joke.

Dr. Joseph Dolce. What was he doctor of? Physics? Chemistry? No. He was a doctor. A medical doctor. Medical doctors are not ballistic experts. His connection to the Edgewood Arsenal? He was a consultant to the Biophysics Division of the Edgewood Arsenal. Not a ballistic expert. Just a consultant, based on his knowledge of medicine.

Question: Was Dr. Joseph Dolce a medical doctor?

Question: Are medical doctors also ballistic experts?

No legitimate, non-rigged ballistics test has supported the SBT.

Any ballistic test that supports the SBT, is automatically considered "Rigged" by you.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. When you see an alleged expert cite Dr. Lattimer's fraudulent, erroneous research to support the SBT or the lone-gunman head-shot scenario(s), you know that person is no expert.

The Haags are not to be taken seriously. Oh my God! Someone should have warned the California Association of Criminalists.

Below is a video of Luke Haag giving a lecture for the California Association of Criminalists:


And below is a website explaining what the California Association of Criminalists is:

https://www.cacnews.org/membership/purpose.shtml

But, I guess you would know better than the California Association of Criminalists about who they should invite to give a lecture.

Luke Haag was a forensic scientist at Forensic Science Services and former technical director of the Phoenix Crime Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. And a true ballistic expert.

Give me a quote from a real ballistic expert that says that Luke Haas is not a ballistic expert. Who do you have who can support your claim?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 03:50:56 AM by Joe Elliott »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2023, 12:21:41 PM »
Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? That is a joke.

Dr. Joseph Dolce. What was he doctor of? Physics? Chemistry? No. He was a doctor. A medical doctor. Medical doctors are not ballistic experts. His connection to the Edgewood Arsenal? He was a consultant to the Biophysics Division of the Edgewood Arsenal. Not a ballistic expert. Just a consultant, based on his knowledge of medicine.

Question: Was Dr. Joseph Dolce a medical doctor?

Question: Are medical doctors also ballistic experts?

Any ballistic test that supports the SBT, is automatically considered "Rigged" by you.

This is another example of the fact that you post the same falsehoods over and over again. You post your falsehoods, then someone refutes them, then you fall silent, but then you post them again when the same subject is discussed a few weeks or months later.

Allow me to quote from some exchanges I have had with you regarding Dr. Dolce:

----------------------BEGIN-------------------------------

Again, Dr. Joseph Dolce, a medical doctor who consults with ballistic experts but was not a ballistic expert himself, who run real world tests to see what damage a bullet can do while still being distorted a moderate amount like CE 399.

Where did you get this nonsense? Of course, ever since you guys found out that Dr. Dolce rejected the SBT, you have minimized his credentials. So let's look at his credentials:

In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. After he retired from the Army, he became chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the Warren Commission (WC) asked the Army to provide its top wound ballistics expert as a consultant, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. 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 Olivier and Dziemian did.

And let’s talk about Dr. Joseph Dolce a little bit. We can see what he wrote in a letter below. Search for the word “Dolce” the eight of nine occurrences will see the start a letter he wrote with the title:

Uh, I mentioned Dr. Dolce's letter a couple of weeks ago. I guess you missed that.

My Thoughts re President J. F. Kennedy Assassination By Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, MD FACS

http://22november1963.org.uk/edgewood-arsenal-bullet-tests#dolce-letter

As you alluded to, Dr. Joseph Dolce’s professional opinion is that two bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could not have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. But there is something else he says, that three bullets from Oswald’s Carcano rifle could have done all the damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Dr. Joseph Dolce was not a CTer but a LNer who believed that the evidence best supported the theory that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally. But not with two bullets from Oswald rifle, but with three.

Again, you saw fit to without pertinent information from us. A habit of yours which, perhaps, you are not consciously aware of.

So, what you really want us to do, is accept Dr. Dolce’s professional opinion. That two WCC/MC bullets could not have done this. But to reject his equally professional opinion that three WCC/MC bullets could. You want to cherry pick which of his conclusions are correct and which are to be rejected.

Like any CTer, you need multiple shooters, or if forced to go with one shooter, it has to be anyone but Oswald, using his Carcano rifle. Hence, the cherry picking of which of Dr. Dolce’s opinions is correct.

Let's peel through this dishonest spin and sophistry. Dr. Dolce's findings and conclusions about the SBT are all the more devastating precisely because Dolce, since he focused only on the wound ballistics of the shooting, did not realize that the lone-gunman theory cannot allow that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets and that Connally's wrist was struck by a fragment from the JFK head shot. He was not immersed in the details of the rest of the JFK case, so he did not realize that his findings and conclusions were fatal for the lone-gunman theory, and that this was why the WC ignored him.

If Dr. Dolce had rejected both the SBT and the lone-gunman theory, you guys would hold this against him and would claim that as a conspiracy theorist he was biased and was trying to prove what he wanted to believe. The fact that he still believed that Oswald was the only gunman and that only three shots were fired makes his ardent, science-based rejection of the SBT all the more compelling and devastating.

Dr. Dolce was unaware of the scientific evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination. He did not know that the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek had been subjected to NAA at the Atomic Energy Commission's Oak Ridge facility, and that experiments done at Oak Ridge found that every single time one of the participants fired a bolt-action rifle, their paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates--every single time. He did not know this because the FBI withheld this information from the WC.

What is my opinion of the 1964 Edgewood tests? That they were insufficient to conclude that the two bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that the three bullet WCC/MC theory was correct. And insufficient to conclude that both WCC/MC theories are incorrect and that some other theory must be true.

They fired a WCC/MC bullet directly into the wrist of a human cadaver. This is an invalid test. Nothing was done to slow the bullet with soft tissue, or the equivalent, like ballistic gel, to simulate Kennedy’s Neck and Connally’s torso, to see if the bullet could do something like the same amount of damage to Connally’s wrist, while the bullet remained only moderately distorted. Of course, firing directly into the wrist, without slowing it down first, resulted in much greater damage than the damage done to Connally’s wrist, and the bullet receiving much more damage to it than CE 399.

More dishonesty, or a severe lack of knowledge, about CE 399. First off, CE 399 is not "moderately distorted." That is hogwash. Even its lands and grooves are intact. Do you understand what that means? CE 399 also lost virtually none of its substance, no more than 3-4 grains Do you know how small and light 3-4 grains are?

You are ignoring the fact that in Dr. Dolce's tests, even some of the bullets that were merely fired through simulated soft tissue emerged more deformed than CE 399, and that every single bullet that was fired into rib bone emerged markedly deformed.

----------------------END-------------------------------
And:
----------------------BEGIN-----------------------------

The Warren Commission’s (WC’s) most qualified wound ballistics expert, Dr. Joseph Dolce, conducted ballistics tests that refuted the SBT, but the commission simply ignored the tests. In a 1986 interview, Dr. Dolce said,

“The disturbing feature at this conference [with Arlen Specter and others] 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 to be the bullet that caused all of the damage, and I did not go along with that.”

The results of Dr. Dolce’s wound ballistics tests were revealing—and devastating to the SBT. 10 bullets were fired into the wrists of human cadavers; one bullet was fired into a goat’s rib; and one bullet was fired into a block of gelatin.

Of the 10 bullets fired into cadaver wrists, the WC was only willing to include pictures of four of them in its report: all four bullets emerged substantially more deformed than CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=35). And keep in mind that these bullets did not smash through several inches of rib before hitting the wrists.

The bullet that was fired into a goat’s rib emerged much more flattened than CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=43).

The bullet that was fired into a gelatin block emerged looking a lot like CE 399 (see https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296&relPageId=43). 

There was a reason that Dr. Michael Baden, chairman of the HSCA medical panel, refused Dr. Cyril Wecht’s request that the panel arrange for a wound ballistics test to be done to determine if an FMJ bullet like CE 399 could do all the damage claimed by the SBT and still emerge looking like CE 399.

In 1992, All-American Television arranged for a wound ballistics test. A 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into a gelatin block with two chicken bones positioned several inches apart inside it. The bullet emerged markedly deformed, far more deformed than CE 399.

-------------------------END-------------------------------
On the Haags and wound ballistics tests:
-----------------------BEGIN-------------------------------

Since 1964, better ballistic tests have been run to show that a WCC/MC bullet could do the damage it did and still emerge being only moderately distorted.

No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:[/size]

Quote
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)

More reading on the Haags' junk science:

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

In the 1992 All-American Television wound ballistics test, conducted in consultation with forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht, the test bullet emerged markedly deformed. The bullet penetrated a gelatin block, then damaged one bone, and then damaged another bone. It emerged markedly, visibly deformed.

In the 1967 CBS wound ballistics tests, all four of the bullets failed to penetrate the equivalent of the thigh. This led the supervising expert, Dr. W. F. Enos, to conclude that the SBT was "highly improbable."

--------------------------END-------------------------------

Finally, allow me to note that this thread is about the inability of LNers to explain the two back-of-head fragments, not the SBT. I notice that you made no effort to reply to my debunking of your embarrassing statement that you saw no reason that the 6.5 mm object could not be the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed during the autopsy. Let's repeat some basic facts on this matter:

-- The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round, except for a neat semi-circular slice from its left edge (viewer's right), whereas the 7 x 2 mm fragment looks nothing like this but is a 7 mm long and 2 mm wide and curves to the left in its upper quarter.

-- The 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment are both plainly, clearly visible on the AP x-ray.

-- The 7 x 2 mm fragment is visible on the AP x-ray and on the lateral x-ray, whereas the 6.5 mm object is only visible on the AP x-ray, which is a physical impossibility unless the object is an artifact on the AP x-ray.

-- The 6.5 mm object's OD measurements are drastically different from the 7 x 2 mm fragment's OD measurements.

Not only do WC apologists have no rational explanation for the presence of the two back-of-head fragments, but they also cannot explain how two alleged FMJ "sheared-off" fragments magically moved and ended up at least 1 cm from their alleged entry hole, and even ended up in different layers of the skull. If this were any normal case, such fantasy would be laughed to scorn.

It's interesting that the HSCA medical panel tacitly admitted they were on shaky ground in claiming that the 6.5 mm object was a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. The panel said that it was "rare" but "possible" for an FMJ bullet to shear off fragments as it entered a skull. However, the panel did not cite a single example of an FMJ bullet doing this. As I've noted before, the HSCA own wound ballistics consultant, Dr. Sturdivan, later admitted that it's impossible, that FMJ bullets simply do not shear off fragments when they strike skulls.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 02:22:30 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2023, 12:21:41 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1210
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2023, 04:41:20 PM »
Very controversial. Among many non-ballistic experts.

But among real ballistic experts. Who participate in systematic ballistic experiments with targets embedded in ballistic gel. Who give expert testimony in courts. And who have the respect of the peers. Men like Luke Haag, Michael Haag and Larry Sturdivan find CE-399 quite plausible for being the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally at z-222. I have seen a youtube video of Luke Haag giving a lecture to his fellow peers in the ballistic field.

Is there any ballistic expert, in the U. S., in Canada, in Europe, or anywhere who does not think CE-399 could have caused those wounds? No one on this forum has brought one up.
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
  • “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)

I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2023, 12:32:53 AM »
It is controversial because no one has ever been able to produce a similar bullet fired at 2000 fps that has done the kind of damage done to JFK and JBC looking anything like CE399.
  • “It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn't make a difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Richard Feynman (1964)

I am not aware of any ballistics expert other than Sturdivan who has examined, let alone opined on, the CE399/SBT hypothesis.

As noted, Fackler worked with FaAA for the ABA mock trial in the early 1990's. He thought CE399 could have inflicted the wounds attributed to it by the WC and come out looking as it did. Lucien Haag is also considered to be an expert in terminal and wound ballistics both by the courts and in academia.

As for tests, the impact and deformation dynamics involved in a bullet's impact are multivariable and nonlinear. And that's just for one impact. Chaining together several successive impacts increases the variability by orders of magnitude. Given these circumstances, it's silly to think that one or even a handful of test shots will allow you to determine all possible outcomes. Dozens, scores, or even hundreds of tests would be required to really give us a good idea as to what's possible and what's not. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.   

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2023, 12:32:53 AM »


Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1656
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2023, 02:51:42 AM »

This is another example of the fact that you post the same falsehoods over and over again. You post your falsehoods, then someone refutes them, then you fall silent, but then you post them

In WW II, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims.

In WW II, Dr. John Lattimer was a battlefield surgeon in Europe. He dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims.

Why shouldn't we go with Dr. John Lattimer's opinion about CE-399 instead of Dr. Dolce?

The truth is, Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor, and in no way a ballistic expert. And I hold this opinion not because he rejects CE-399.
The truth is, Dr. John Lattimer was a medical doctor, and again in no way a ballistic expert. I don't care if he accepts CE-399.

Although, I believe Dr. John Lattimer conducted some reasonably well thought out and scientfic ballistic experiments. But he was definitely, an amateur ballistic experimenter. You have presented no evidence that Dr. Dolce was even that much. Just his fancy title.

It doesn't matter what title the army gives Dr. Dolce. "Chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistic Board". "Supreme Inspector of All Army Latrines". He was not a ballistic expert. He never conducted any expertiments with firearms with ballistic gel. He has no experience in conducting systematic ballistic experiments to see under what circumstances a bullet may end up with minimum damage, moderate damage, major damage or even fragment.


And where is your evidence that Luke Haag was not a ballistic expert?
Why should your opinion carry more weight than than the California Association of Criminalists?

No, they have not. I hope you're not talking about Lattimer's test or the Haags' test. If you are, neither of those tests duplicated the single-bullet theory and CE 399's virtually pristine end state. Lattimer's test has already been destroyed many times. The Haags came on the scene a few years ago. When it comes to the JFK case, they are quacks who have clearly failed to do their homework. Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the Haags' research:

Oh. And is Dr. Gary Aguilar a ballistic expert? No, just another medical doctor.

When are you going to surprise me bring up someone, let's say, associated with the California Association of Criminalists who supports your postion? And not another damm doctor who can treat a patient but has no clue about what condition a bullet may be found in after striking some human beings?

Find me a real ballistic expert who discredits Mr. Luke Haag.