A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Joe Elliott]

And still the two bullets he recovered were both far more damaged than CE399. If that doesn't tell you something, then nothing will


Which still doesn't alter the fact that his two bullets showed far more damage than CE399.

Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Well, if you had paid attention to what he said, you would have known that the skulls were made by Ballistic Dummy Labs (who specialize in this stuff) and came as close to a real skull as possible. And no skull was weakened by the first bullet and thus failed to fragment the second because he used a different skull for each shot.

I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.

If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.

Special Note:

I'm not saying a WCC/MC can directly strike a head and come out pristine. I'm saying that Martin seems to accept these "Ballistic Dummy Labs" models as a good model for the human body and so he seems to accept that a real human head won't greatly damage a WCC/MC bullet, just as in the video he provided.

That's just silly. Parkland doctors saw a small round hole and thought it was an entry wound. You have no evidence that the bullet started to yaw in Kennedy's neck. You're just guessing.

The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.

Thank you for sharing that. I can't do much with it because, just like you I'm not an expert. I can't make an informed determination about something I don't know enough about. It seems you feel you can make such determinations based on no first hand knowledge at all.

So you are reading a book and parot it's content, without actually knowing if you understand and interpret the information correctly. Got it!

Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.

It seems that you consider somebody a "real expert" when he says something you agree with.

No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.

I did not imply that such information might be there. I advised you to read the report. Why should I do the work for you.

You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".

[Walt Cakebread]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm according to Shaw. He also stated that that shape could have been caused by the angle of entry and not a tumbling bullet.
/quote]

Connally’s back wound wasn’t all that oblong — it was 1.5 cm x 0.6 cm

   1.5 cm X 10 = 15.0 mm    .6 cm X 10 = 6mm

A mannlicher catcano projectile is ----6.5mm in diameter and 30.5mm long

[Martin Weidmann]

Clearly false. One of the bullets rolled, according to him. CE-399's base was oval, like an ellipse with a ratio of 4 to 3 between the major and minor axis. So it wouldn't roll very well. One of those bullets came out in better shape than CE-399, and the second in pretty similar shape.

And the bullet that went through the "head" came out pretty similar to CE-399, possibly even better, because that bullet could roll. From the glance I got of it on the video, it looks similar to CE-399. Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?

Btw both bullets went through the "head"

Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.

I checked the Ballistic Dummy Labs website. The most it would say is that:

Q: What are the bones made of?
A: The bones are made of a high-density resin closely replicating average human bone.

"Replicating average human bone". How? In size? In shape? In density? They don't say.

"High density resin". What does that mean? 1.1 times the density of water? 1.2 times the density of water? 2.0 times the density of water? They don't want to say.

I tried googling density of resin. I found that resin may have 1.02 or 1.22 times the density of water. I didn't find anything about any type of resin being twice as heavy as water. I suspect the "bones" in these models come no where close to the density of human bone, and the website tries to disguise that, by not providing the information.

I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.

It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.

But let's for a moment assume it is a good model. Let's see you answer one question.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine, the bullet is intact and can even roll on it's side.

We "know" from the video, that a WCC/MC can be fired directly through real human skull and come out pretty pristine

No we don't know that from the video. That is a gross misrepresentation of what the video actually shows. Neither bullet came out "pretty prisitine"

If this is true, then why couldn't a bullet pass through JFK's neck, Connally's torso, wrist and into the thigh and come out in a similar condition?

In both cases the bullet can even smash through bone and come out in pretty good shape.

There is no point to answer this because the premise of the question is simply not true.

The small round hole is consistent with a bullet that did not yaw at all. But it is also consistent with a bullet that just started to yaw.

Real world tests by Dr. Lattimer showed, in four out of five cases, that a "neck" would cause a bullet to start yawing as it exited the "neck". Other evidence, the oblong wound in Connally's back, the damage to the side (not the front) of CE-399 are consistent with a yawing bullet.

If you say so...

Better than you who, I gather, has never read a book about ballistics, although you seem reluctant to admit that.

Reluctant to admit that? Really? You are sinking this low? I've said this several times before on this forum, but I'll gladly repeat it here. Except for the Warren Report, I haven't read a single book (LN or CT) about the Kennedy murder. I'm just not interested in opinions of writers who clearly have an agenda. As much as I can, I prefer to do my own research using the actual evidence and make up my own mind that way.

No. If Luke and Michael used a test where a bullet went through 3 feet of ballistic gel, then struck a bone, and the bullet came out pristine, so they declared that CE-399 was vindicated, I would not respect their opinion, even if I agreed with their overall conclusion. Their using just 6 inches of ballistic gel to slow the bullet, gains my respect. That sounds like a valid test.

Yeah sure. Who do you think you are fooling?

You would be happy to do the work for me, if the information was there. So the information is not there. Dolce had the bullets fired directly into the torsos and the "wrists".

Do you mistake me for your personal assistant? But it's a good illustration how you jump to conclusions based on assumptions.

Readers of these posts should conclude that the Dolce tests were bogus. Until you or someone provides evidence to the contrary. That shows Dolce had the bullets slowed by six inches of ballistic gel, or slowed somehow, before striking a "torso" or "wrist".

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Having said that, I still wish you and your loved ones a Merry Xmas.

[Joe Elliott]

Yes, guys... Dolce was the top ballastic experts for the army during and after WWII. But Joe tells us his tests for the Warren Commission were "bogus". Why? Because Joe doesn't like the outcome. Hilarious.

Telling people how they should answer your loaded questions, telling them in advance what you will and won't accept as an answer and now telling people not to believe their own eyes and ears and think the way you want them too.... I've seen you do this before. It's classic Joe.... and it makes it absolutely impossible to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you.

It doesn't matter how much factual evidence is thrown at you, you will always move the goalposts and start arguing again. I don't have the time or the patience for that BS.

Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:

https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/

Willy,

“You will see here a photo of the bullet in the best shape after going through a goats rib – from the experiments at Edgewood Arsenal supervised by Dr Dolce. No wonder Dolce claimed that Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.”

On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.

The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.

This was explained in the Edgewood ballistics report. For example, see the last paragraph here which says, “The comparative sizes of the entrance and exit wound, the amount of bone damage and the lack of bullet deformation [in CE 399] all indicate that the wrist was struck by a tumbling bullet traveling at a reduced velocity”:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=62296&relPageId=6

That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.


WILLY WHITTEN
APRIL 4, 2015 AT 2:09 PM
“I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.”~Jean

Dolce worked at Ridgeway during the time of the Warren Commission. He moved to Flaorida when retiring from the army. It was there that the HSCA was contacted.
. . . .

“Dolce wanted his views to be heard by the HSCA, and they were. Then they ignored what he said and didn’t call him — and for good reason, imo.”

Yes for the very good reason that he contradicted the story they wanted to hear, and got from those that he did indeed direct at Edgewood.
Those experiments you read of by Olivier and Dziemian, are the very ones that Dolce was directing. So the ones of shots through other matter before hitting the cadaver wrists are the very ones that Dolce is speaking to, and those bullets you see representing the more deformed bullets are the same ones that both Dolce and Olivier and Dziemian refer to.

So, it appears the bullets were

The deformed test bullets were fired directly into bone at full speed. They weren’t slowed by passing first through a simulated neck or chest.
...
That a slower bullet would both be less damaged and cause less damage to its target is a principle illustrated by Martin Fackler’s experiment that we talked about before. It’s something like a car banging into another car at 5mph or at 55mph — different outcomes.

On Dr. Dolce:

On the contrary, I think that the test results show that Dr. Dolce didn’t know what he was talking about.
...
I don’t believe the Edgewood tests were “supervised by Dr. Dolce.” He was a Florida surgeon. According to the HSCA document you posted, he was “called by the Warren Commission to serve as a consultant in analyzing the wounds of Kennedy and Connally but from what I gather, it was on a limited basis.” As an Army surgeon, he may’ve known a lot about *wounds*, but his opinions on how bullets behave are contradicted by the HSCA’s experts, among others.

So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".

That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?

[Martin Weidmann]

Check this website to see what Jean Davison thinks of Dr. Dolce, from an email (or letter) sent to someone named Willy:

https://jfkfacts.org/milicent-cranors-response-to-jean-davison/

So, it appears the bullets were

On Dr. Dolce:

So, it appears Dr. Dolce's expertise was as a medical doctor, with experience with treating bullet wounds, but not a ballistic expert on what bodies do to bullets. Only an expert on what bullets do to bodies.

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

That the bullets in the Edgewood tests were not fired directly into "torsos" or "wrists".

That Dr. Dolce was not a medical doctor but a real ballistic expert, an expert on what bodies do to bullets?

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

Not the way it works in the real world. When you make a claim you need to provide the evidence for it. Even if nobody can prove you're wrong that still doesn't mean you are right. So, instead of pulling the same old "prove me wrong" LN crap, why don't you provide the evidence that Davison was right.

In the meantime, this might be useful.

https://palmbeachpost.newspapers.com/clip/86888004/joseph-dolce-2/

[Joe Elliott]

When was the last time you had your eyes checked. The first bullet was far more damaged than CE399 and yes the second one could still roll but also had far more damage than CE399. Did you even watch the video?

Btw both bullets went through the "head"

Of course, it would have fragmented, if the model was similar enough to a real head, with "bones" between twice the density of water.

Or alternatively the bullet that fragmented in Kennedy's head wasn't a 6.5.

Irrelevant. We don't know WCC/MC bullets fragment in human heads when striking at a high speed (>= 1900 fps) just from the fragments found in the limousine. Let's ignore that evidence.

We know this just from ballistic tests. If a WCC/MC strikes bone at speeds at or over 1900 fps, it will fragment. Indeed, if it strikes any material with a density twice that of water, it will fragment.

And yet, a WCC/MC bullet, in the video, struck the Ballistic Dummy Labs "skull" and did not fragment.

The obvious explanation? The "bone" in these Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" do not have twice the density of water. Hence, they do not cause WCC/MC bullets to fragment. Hence, they are not very good models for a real human head. Regardless of what a Ballistic Dummy Labs sales brochures may say.

I knew in advance you were going to question the work done by Ballistic Dummy Labs. Too bad that anybody can look up their website and find out for themselves.

It's pretty obvious that you are stubbornly looking for anything, no matter how trivial, you can use to discredit information you don't like.

If you can find definitive information that shows differently, that Ballistic Dummy Labs "skulls" are good models of a human head, that the "bone" in these models have twice the density of water, just like human bones, let's hear it. Find us something on the Ballistic Dummy Labs website, or from some other source.

Now, let's test your knowledge of ballistics:

Question:

What is the highest velocity a WCC/MC bullet will NOT start to deform (the first stage of fragmentation) upon first striking human bone?

* 2000 fps ?

* 1500 fps ?

* 1000 fps ?

* 500 fps ?

* 0 fps, because a WCC/MC bullet will always fragment upon striking bone regardless of the speed?

If you don't know, then stop questioning the judgment of people like Larry Sturdivan who do know, from the systematic ballistic experiments they have run using WCC/MC bullets.

That is the source of my information. If you think his information is no good, then who does have this information?

[Joe Elliott]

Now, does anyone have any evidence that Jean Davison was wrong?

Not the way it works in the real world. When you make a claim you need to provide the evidence for it. Even if nobody can prove you're wrong that still doesn't mean you are right. So, instead of pulling the same old "prove me wrong" LN crap, why don't you provide the evidence that Davison was right.

Evidence? I suppose none. Since the Edgewood people did not record their experiments on film.

But we have various people, like Jean Davison, who claim the Edgewood people fired their rifles directly into "torsos" and "wrists". And none who say otherwise.

And we have experiments conducted by Luke and Michael Haag, and other experiments involving Larry Sturdivan show, time and time again, that WCC bullets fired directly into bones do fragment (like in the Edgewood experiments), but the same bullets slowed down, just a modest amount, like by six inches of ballistic gel, do not fragment nor become greatly deformed. Much like CE-399.

So, we don't have to rely on the Edgewood experiment, which I think is flawed because the bullets were fired directly into the targets, and which you think is flawed (if you are rational) because you basically say we don't know if the rifles were fired directly fired into the targets, or the bullets were first slowed down some how.

We can rely on experiments that are recorded on film, like that shown on the NOVA program with Luke and Michael Haag. But that is no good to you because it doesn't give the answer you want. So you insist on using the Edgewood experiment, which resulted in greatly deformed bullets, but the details on those experiments are disputed, but seem to be that the rifles were fired directly into the targets, making them invalid for judging if CE-399 is valid evidence.

In the meantime, this might be useful.

https://palmbeachpost.newspapers.com/clip/86888004/joseph-dolce-2/

This is helpful. It conforms that Dr. Dolce was a medical doctor. Not a real ballistic expert.

I think the confusion comes form the term "ballistic expert" There are two types of "ballistic experts".

1. Medical doctors. Who determine what a bullet can do to a human body.

2. Real Ballistic Experts. Who determine what a human body can do to a bullet.

Dr. Dolce's opinion on the SBT was based on the condition of CE-399. He didn't think the human body can do this to a WCC/MCbullet.

This opinion is totally out his field of expertise. It would be as if Dr. Dolce determined that a murder victim died from an excessive loss of blood and Ballistic Expert Luke Haag, said no, the victim died from shock.