JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory

[Michael T. Griffith]

You really show your ignorance with this one.

Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.

The reason exit wounds are usually larger than entrance wounds is because lead bullets will deform when striking a body whether they hit bone or soft tissue. A deformed bullet will not make a nice neat round exit wound. Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet. These bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue. They make the same size hole going out as they do coming in when they don't strike bone. Lead or lead nosed bullets are more common and an experienced ER doctor like Perry would have seen more exit wounds caused by soft lead bullets than FMJ bullets. It's amazing that somebody who has been at this as long as you have needs that explained to you.

Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.

Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.

I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."

I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible".

Oswald was firing a FMJ bullet.

You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.

You don't get to dictate what options WC defenders have. We get to decide that.

You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum. You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.

The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.

The back wound was unquestionably an entrance wound. If the throat wound was also an entrance wound, there was no exit for either wound. That means there should have been two bullets in the body. There were none. These bullets apparently vanished inside JFK's body. That requires not one but two Magic Bullets.

I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:

(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.

(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.

(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.

(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.

(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.

And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding. 

[John Corbett]

Given your obvious lack of education, as evidenced by your repeated junior-high-level writing and grammatical errors, you really should avoid using the word "ignorance," especially toward others.

This is the dictionary definition of the word "ignorance".
ig·nor·ance
[ˈɪɡnər(ə)n(t)s]

noun
ignorance (noun)
lack of knowledge or information

This is exactly what you exhibit when you argue that the only possible explanation for the neat round exit wound in JFK's throat could be it was shored up by JFK's shirt collar and tie. You seem not to know that FMJ bullets do not deform when striking soft tissue and as a result, will make small neat exit wound similar to an entrance wound. That lack of knowledge on your part is ignorance.

Your continued focus on my typos, which we all make, shows how lacking you are in substantive arguments. You think you score points with this petty practice of yours. All you accomplish with such childish observations is that you prove horse's asses outnumber horses.

 

Yeah, uh-huh. Blah, blah, blah. You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the exit wounds in the WC's SBT wound ballistics test were larger than the entry wounds -- every single one of them. Not even the HSCA FPP floated your ridiculous claim that FMJ bullets make entry and exit wounds that are the same size if they don't hit bone. Instead, the FPP majority appealed to the impossible shored-wound theory to explain the entry-like appearance of the throat wound.

Now you are proving that one can be a smartass and a dumbass at the same time. Of course all the other wounds caused by the single bullet did not make neat round holes because the bullet yawed upon exiting JFK's throat. I guess you were ignorant of that fact as well.

Plus, we've known since the 1990s via CT scans of males with the same torso dimensions as JFK that there was no path from the back wound to the throat wound that could have missed striking the vertebrae or missed tearing through the right lung. As usual, you are years behind the information curve.

Oh, I'm the one who is behind the information curve? That's funny coming from someone making the same lame arguments you were making on the Prodigy forum back in 1991. Your objections to the WCR are the same ones you and your cohorts were making back then. Those objections have been explained and refuted countless times on many forums since. But you continue to make the same stale arguments over and over as if your fallacies haven't been pointed out to you countless times. Your arguments were lame back in 1991 and they haven't improved with age.

I notice you are still in denial about the 1970s to 1990s disclosures that the autopsy doctors established for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point. We've known for years from the released transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. The first draft correctly stated that the back wound had no exit point, which is also what the 11/26/63 Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy says ("Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/63, p. 4). Sibert and O'Neill both emphatically confirmed this in their ARRB testimony. Two witnesses at the autopsy independently confirmed that men around the autopsy table could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity -- it was at this point that Finck declared, "this wound has no exit."

I guess you are ignorant of Finck's testimony in the Clay Shaw trial that the failure of the probe to pass through the bullet channel is not proof the bullet had no exit. Not that this will do you any good because you will simply ignore it, but I post this passage just to expose your ignorance......again:

Q: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?
A: I did.
Q: With what?
A: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck I may have created a false passage.
Q: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?
A: I did not consider a dissection of the path.
Q: How far did the probe go into the back of the neck?
A: Repeat the question.
Q: How far did the probe go into this wound?
A: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

What sense does it make to cite the observers of the autopsy instead of the ones performing the autopsy? Why do you choose to ignore the unanimous finding of the FPP, including that of Dr. Cyril Wecht, that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat? Do you think you are more knowledgeable of forensic medicine than they were? Do you think you have better information than they did? These are of course rhetorical question that answer themselves. Of course you don't. You are just an amatuer hack pretending you know more than people who are qualified to make these judgements.

I also notice you are still in denial about the fact that JFK's clothing proves concretely that no bullet exited the throat, as I document in "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible".

The clothing proves no such thing. That is just a conclusion reached by a know nothing such as yourself. The fibers in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket were pushed inward in the back and pushed outward in the front collar of the shirt. How does that happen if the throat wound was caused by a frontal shot?

You mean you believe he was firing "an FMJ bullet." English 101 again. I recommend you take a grade-school-level online course in basic English so you can learn how to properly use indefinite articles ("a" and "an"), among other things.

I know he was firing FMJ bullets because two FMJ bullets were recovered and they were both matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Another fact you are either unaware of or choose to ignore.

You don't get to decide anything. You're not even qualified to be talking about the JFK case in a public forum.

The funny part is that you think you are.

You don't even know all the important claims that your side has made, much less the evidence that WC skeptics have presented, as you have proven over and over again.

I don't have a side. I am only interested in the truth. That doesn't obligate me to defend every claim ever made by LNs. We have at least one LN on this forum who has posted a whole lot of nonsense which I have refuted countless times.

The list of inexcusable gaffes you have made just in the last four months would fill at least one page, such as your howlers that Wecht agreed with everything the FPP majority said except for the SBT, that the HSCA FPP identified one of the skull fragments as frontal bone, that the SBT does not require that the alleged magic bullet nicked JFK's tie knot, that the back wound was above the throat wound, that Olivier's head-shot wound ballistics test proves that FMJ bullets can both shatter into dozens of tiny fragments and break into a number of sizable fragments after striking skull bone, that wound ballistics tests are useless in the JFK case, that trajectory analyses are useless in the JFK case, that moving a wound 4 inches would have no meaningful impact on the trajectory of the bullet that caused it, etc., etc., etc.

Just because you dispute the statements I have made does not make them gaffes. The fact that you dispute them indicates they are most likely correct. I would have to rethink some of my positions if you actually agreed with any of them.

I've answered this argument twice now, but you just keep repeating it. Once again:

(1) We have several credible reports from personnel at the autopsy that two bullets and over 10 bullet fragments were found during the autopsy but were never entered into evidence.

Oh really. Just what is your evidence for that fantastic claim?

(2) If a glass fragment from the windshield shot caused the throat wound, which is an entirely plausible scenario, the fragment would have been easy to miss and would have been hard to see on the x-rays.

OMG. Your nonsense has reached a new low. You don't think a FMJ bullet could make a neat round exit wound in the throat, but you think a glass shard could make a neat round entrance wound. That is dumb and dumber.

(3) We've known for years that the official collection of autopsy x-rays is missing a number of x-rays, including x-rays of the chest and neck. The evidence of this fact is compelling.

You seem to have a vast knowledge of things that simply aren't true. Where do you get these ideas from? The voices in your head?

(4) We've known for years that Humes and Boswell performed illicit surgery on the body before the autopsy began. Two witnesses, including one of the morticians, saw this pre-autopsy surgery. The mortician, Tom Robinson, said that during the surgery at least 10 fragments were removed and placed in a container, and Navy corpsman Dennis David prepared a receipt for four of the larger fragments of those fragments. Yet, the official autopsy record says that only two fragments were removed from the body.

You just keep making shit up. It isn't helping your cause.

(5) Bullets do not always leave a body but sometimes expend their energy and come to a stop in the body. Dr. Perry believed that the throat-wound bullet ranged downward into the chest, as evidenced by the damage that he saw behind and below the wound -- and that damage, BTW, was larger than the throat wound itself, a textbook indication of an entry wound.

So once again you pretend to be an expert in forensic medicine. Every time you do, you make a fool of yourself. The autopsy team originally thought the bullet that entered the back did not exit because they were unaware that a tracheostomy had been performed over the throat wound. They took x-rays of the body and found no bullet which puzzled them until they spoke with Dr. Perry the next morning.

And I notice you said nothing about the presence of an abrasion collar around the throat wound, another good indication that it was an entry wound, even though I noted this fact in the paragraph that you quoted and to which you were supposedly responding.

The throat wound was obliterated by the tracheostomy. There is no evidence of an abrasion collar. Just another one of your many factoids. It's amazing somebody who has studied the JFKA as long as you have could know so little about it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

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)

[John Corbett]

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.

Whenever MTG quotes a single word out of context rather than a complete quote, it's a safe bet he is misrepresenting that the person he cited actually said.

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". . . .

At last, an in context quote. Dolce says the bullet should have been deformed. The fact is, it was deformed. There was a flattening of the base and the bullet was also bent. The nose was not severely deformed because the nose never struck a solid object. It only hit soft tissue before it yawed.

There are a few questions a critical thinker would apply to Dolce's observations.

1.In treating wounded soldiers during WWII, had Dolce ever come across a FMJ rifle bullet that struck only soft tissue but remained in the body?

2. If so, was such a bullet deformed?

3. Did Dolce ever come across a bullet in a soldier's body that he knew had first passed through another soldier's body first?

If the answers to these questions are no, then who is Dolce to say what would happen to a FMJ military round that had passed through one soldier and gone on to wound another?

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)[/font]

Not pertinent because Oswald did not fire one of his rounds directly into JBC's wrist, striking it nose first. The bullet that struck JBC's wrist had first been slowed by passing through the torsos of two men and had yawed so that it was no longer traveling nose first when it struck the wrist.

In the Australian produced documentary Inside the Target Car, the team used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies of JFK and JBC. It took them several tries before they got a bullet to strike bone as Oswald's shot would have, but they did get a round to pass through soft tissue, strike rib cage, and then a bone simulating the wrist. It came out looking very much like CE399. The bullet's nost was intact and there was a bend to the bullet, similar to CE399, thus disproving Dolce's contention that it was impossible for CE399 to have caused all the wounds and emerge as it did.

'

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).

CE853 did not fully mimic what CE399 had done which was to pass through the soft tissue of two men's bodies before striking rib bone and then wrist. The aforementioned Australian team was able to achieve that and the test bullet sustained damage very similar to CE399.

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.

It proved no such thing. It didn't mimic what CE399 had done.

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)[/font]

Of course bullets that smashed only radius bone would be much more deformed than CE399.  That's a no-brainer. Again I reference the tests done for the documentary Inside the Target Car. No shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables, but the tests done showed it was possible for a Carcano bullet to have passed through as much flesh and bone as CE399 did and emerge in the condition it did.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Whenever MTG quotes a single word out of context rather than a complete quote, it's a safe bet he is misrepresenting that the person he cited actually said.

Anyone can check the sources of my quotes and see that I am not misrepresenting them. You'd know this if you'd ever bother to read the sources I cite. I guess that just didn't occur to you.

At last, an in context quote. Dolce says the bullet should have been deformed. The fact is, it was deformed. There was a flattening of the base and the bullet was also bent.

This is so ridiculous. Good grief, this nonsense was debunked literally decades ago.

Dolce's point, which he made clear, was that CE 399 would have been far more damaged if it had caused all the wounds it allegedly caused. CE 399 is virtually undamaged. Many experts have described CE 399 as non-deformed because its deformation is so minimal, which is why even the lands and grooves are intact, and which is why it lost no more than 4 grains of its substance.

There are plenty of photos available of CE 399. Anyone not brainwashed by the single-bullet theory (SBT) can see that the missile is virtually undamaged. But here you are trying to mislead people into believing that CE 399 suffered more than just minimal/slight damage. The damage is virtually imperceptible unless you look at the base of the bullet.

Let's read FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's description of the minimal/slight damage done to CE 399 -- indeed, notice that Frazier said the bullet may not have even lost any of its substance, among other points:

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.

Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.

Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?

Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other. (3 H 429, emphasis added)

The nose was not severely deformed because the nose never struck a solid object. It only hit soft tissue before it yawed.

You just keep repeating the same gibberish, the same debunked claims, over and over and over, even though you know they have been refuted.

How many times have I pointed out to you that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Connally back-wound bullet was yawing or tumbling? Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head wound, yet no one has ever claimed that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling. JFK's head wound was 1.5 x 0.6 cm, while Connally's back wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. Yet, again, not a soul has ever suggested that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling.

How many times have I pointed out to you that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that transited Connally's chest did not yaw or tumble but created a narrow wound track through the chest, so much so that it stripped out ribbed bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

How many times have I pointed out to you Dr. Shaw's point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing?

How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years now that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, that personnel around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, that this definitive view of the probing was possible because the pathologists removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing and to be able to see where the probe went? They could see that the back-wound bullet did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity.

It is laughable that you would cite Finck's bogus testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in response to the disclosures about the probing. Why do you suppose Finck did not mention in his testimony that he stated during the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and manipulated the body "every which way" precisely to loosen the muscles and to facilitate the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the crucial, all-important fact that the probe reached the end of the bullet's path and that the path did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because the end of the probe could be seen pushing up against the chest cavity lining?

But, no, none of these key facts occurred to you when you ignorantly cited Finck's false testimony as some kind of answer to the disclosures about the back-wound probing. The disclosures prove that Finck was lying through his teeth about the probing. Contrary to his lies, the disclosures prove that he was able to probe "from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction," and that "the contraction of the muscles" did not prevent the probing but was overcome by manipulating the body and removing the chest organs.

Again, for the umpteenth time, we now know that personnel standing near the autopsy table could see where the wound path ended because they could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that it was at this point that Finck himself declared that the back wound had no exit point.   

How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound, and that Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy noted that the pathologists determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point? 

You just keep dishonestly ignoring these facts and repeating SBT claims that you know are false.

There are a few questions a critical thinker would apply to Dolce's observations.

1. In treating wounded soldiers during WWII, had Dolce ever come across a FMJ rifle bullet that struck only soft tissue but remained in the body? 2. If so, was such a bullet deformed? 3. Did Dolce ever come across a bullet in a soldier's body that he knew had first passed through another soldier's body first?

If the answers to these questions are no, then who is Dolce to say what would happen to a FMJ military round that had passed through one soldier and gone on to wound another?

LOL! So according to you, Dr. Dolce, the Army's best expert on wound ballistics at the time, the expert whom the Army recommended when the WC asked for a wound ballistics expert, the expert who chaired the Army's Wound Ballistics Board, the expert who was so highly regarded that all cases involving members of Congress and others VIPs were submitted to him for review -- according to you, he was not qualified to pass judgment on the SBT! This is just clown material. 

Not pertinent because Oswald did not fire one of his rounds directly into JBC's wrist, striking it nose first. The bullet that struck JBC's wrist had first been slowed by passing through the torsos of two men and had yawed so that it was no longer traveling nose first when it struck the wrist.

In the Australian produced documentary Inside the Target Car, the team used animal carcasses to simulate the bodies of JFK and JBC. It took them several tries before they got a bullet to strike bone as Oswald's shot would have, but they did get a round to pass through soft tissue, strike rib cage, and then a bone simulating the wrist. It came out looking very much like CE399. The bullet's nose was intact and there was a bend to the bullet, similar to CE399, thus disproving Dolce's contention that it was impossible for CE399 to have caused all the wounds and emerge as it did.
 
CE853 did not fully mimic what CE399 had done which was to pass through the soft tissue of two men's bodies before striking rib bone and then wrist. The aforementioned Australian team was able to achieve that and the test bullet sustained damage very similar to CE399.

It proved no such thing. It didn't mimic what CE399 had done.

Of course bullets that smashed only radius bone would be much more deformed than CE399.  That's a no-brainer. Again I reference the tests done for the documentary Inside the Target Car. No shooting can be perfectly replicated because there are so many variables, but the tests done showed it was possible for a Carcano bullet to have passed through as much flesh and bone as CE399 did and emerge in the condition it did.

Once again you prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case in a public forum. Obviously, you went running to some pro-WC websites and copied and pasted, or paraphrased, this stuff from them. I'm guessing you were unaware that these claims have been refuted many times over. Let's do a brief summary of the information you don't know regarding the SBT and wound ballistics tests:

-- Contrary to your false claim, the Australian SBT wound ballistics test, which was rebroadcast on the Discovery Channel, did not produce a bullet with as minimal damage as CE 399. I quote John Hunt:

The results of that test bear out of the notion that CE-399 could not have inflicted Connally’s injuries. Below is a screen shot of the bullet that passed through “JFK” and went through “Connally’s” rib and wrist. (See Figure 3.)

The Discovery Channel’s “Single Bullet” went through less rib than the bullet that went through Connally and was grossly distorted in comparison to CE-399. (See Figure 4.)

Some might argue that because the Discovery Channel bullet went through two ribs while traveling sideways, the results of the test cannot tell us anything about the JFK assassination.

This viewpoint would be wrong for a simple, logical reason: CE-399 hit whatever it hit with its side and so did the Discovery Channel bullet. And even though the Discovery Chanel bullet struck two ribs, it did not pulverize nearly 10 cm of bone, as was the case with the bullet that went through Connally’s chest.

Despite the Australian marksman’s claim that their tests validated the SBT, anyone with functioning eyes and at least two working brain cells can see that was not the case at all. Despite the on-camera proclamation, the Discovery Channel bullet produced less damage and incurred significantly more deformity than the SBT can tolerate. ("Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory")

Anyone can look at the bullet from the Australian test and see that it was much more deformed than CE 399. Hunt provides a side-by-side comparison of the Australian test bullet and CE 399.

-- In the WC's SBT test, FMJ bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same deformity or more deformity than CE 399. See CE 572.

-- In the WC's SBT test, an FMJ bullet that was fired through a goat carcass and broke one rib emerged with more deformity than CE 399, even though the goat rib was smaller than Connally's fifth rib. That bullet is shown in CE 853.

CE 572 shows the two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC's SBT test. One bullet shows the same amount of deformation as CE 399, while the other bullet shows more deformation than CE 399. To see this clearly, look at JFK Exhibit F-294 (see link below), which Dr. Cyril Wecht presented during his HSCA testimony. F-294 shows CE 399 beside the two CE 572 bullets, CE 583, and CE 856.

I also recommend looking at F-102 (see link below), which shows CE 399 from the side and from the bottom, to see just how minimally/slightly CE 399 was deformed.

Here's a link to Dr. Wecht's testimony, which includes F-294 and F-102:

https://share.google/DVlT9F239tY7dOt9c

Dr. Wecht pointed out that the CE 572 bullets were traveling at the same speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling before it allegedly hit JFK, and that CE 853, the goat-carcass bullet, was traveling at a speed very close to the speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling if it had transited JFK's neck before tearing through Connally's chest:

With regard to Commission Exhibit 572, the two bullets fired in the cotton wadding, that muzzle velocity was exactly the same as 399 initially, and CE 853, through the carcass of a goat, would have been reduced, it is estimated, about one-tenth, 10 percent of the original velocity, not terribly substantial. (1 HSCA 353)

-- In the Failure Analysis SBT wound ballistics test, bullets were fired into cadaver wrists at a reduced velocity, but no effort was made to simulate passing through a human neck, passing through a human chest, smashing 5 inches of rib bone, and penetrating a human thigh.

-- None other than Dr. Martin Fackler has observed that one layer of human skin has the approximate resistance strength of 4 inches of muscle tissue (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-19). This means that three layers of human skin have the resistance strength of 12 inches of muscle tissue, which means that CE 399 would have had to pass through the equivalent of 18 inches of muscle tissue before it even hit the wrist (three layers of skin = 12 inches of muscle tissue, plus at least 6 inches of muscle tissue in JFK's neck and Connally's back).

-- Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:

I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.

Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .

This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and then these shattered bones!

I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)

-- If you're thinking about citing the Haags' SBT research, Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT claims:

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)

The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a 6.5 mm bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso?

-- The 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test provided further evidence against the SBT. FMJ bullets that merely penetrated a 12-inch gelatin block before hitting a cadaver radius bone were unable to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them never even exited the cadaver radius bone. One of the expert forensic consultants for the CBS test, Dr. William F. Enos, said the CBS test proved the SBT was "highly improbable" (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218).

CBS hired Dr. Alfred Olivier to conduct its SBT test. In a televised interview, Olivier admitted that his CBS test did not include striking a rib: "Of course, we have no rib here [in the test], but it still simulates passing through the flesh."

Olivier further admitted that even without simulating the damage to Connally's rib, some the bullets failed to exit the wrist: "In some cases, it passed through the wrist; in other cases it lodged in the wrist."

Crucially, as mentioned, not a single bullet in the CBS test managed to lodge in the simulated thigh.

By failing to put a simulated rib bone within the 12-inch block of ballistics gelatin, Olivier ensured that the test bullets would not become badly deformed while passing through the simulated chest. But this led to another complication: It meant the bullets would strike the simulated wrist at a greater velocity than the bullet presumed to have struck Connally's wrist -- yet, even so, not one of the bullets lodged in the simulated thigh.

-- Dr. John Lattimer's SBT test was actually fairly realistic, but, as was his habit, he misrepresented the results by falsely claiming that his test produced a bullet with the same minimal damage as CE 399.

For his SBT test, Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. Lattimer said four bullets out of 20 struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).

[John Corbett]

Anyone can check the sources of my quotes and see that I am not misrepresenting them. You'd know this if you'd ever bother to read the sources I cite. I guess that just didn't occur to you.

Like when you cited Di Maio rejecting his earlier position that he believed Oswald was the assassin. Then I find out that the book you cited was a textbook a wound ballistics that didn't even mention the JFK assassination.

This is so ridiculous. Good grief, this nonsense was debunked literally decades ago.

Dolce's point, which he made clear, was that CE 399 would have been far more damaged if it had caused all the wounds it allegedly caused. CE 399 is virtually undamaged.

That's a lie and you know it. If you don't know that, you even more ignorant about the facts of the JFKA than I thought.

Many experts have described CE 399 as non-deformed because its deformation is so minimal, which is why even the lands and grooves are intact, and which is why it lost no more than 4 grains of its substance.

Keep doubling down on your lies. What you mean is your fellow liars have described CE399 as non-deformed. The truth is there is a flattening at the base and the bullet has a noticeable bend in it. Liars like to show photos of the bullet taken from a perspective that hides the bend, but a proper perspective shows the bend clearly.

There are plenty of photos available of CE 399. Anyone not brainwashed by the single-bullet theory (SBT) can see that the missile is virtually undamaged.

It speaks to the weakness of your position that you have to tell such bald faced lies.

But here you are trying to mislead people into believing that CE 399 suffered more than just minimal/slight damage.

Here is a perspective of CE399 the CTs never want you to see:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=99RyzIxM&id=1FD79F8347681E399A9B1024A91B9838400B6648&thid=OIP.99RyzIxMZywFH3fvM8Af5AHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpoi2LOStwcU%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.f7d472cc8c4c672c051f77ef33c01fe4%3Frik%3DSGYLQDiYG6kkEA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=warren+commission+exhibit+showing+photos+of+CE399&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A5A660563ABC77CC151869632C602ABD&selectedIndex=9&itb=0&cw=1375&ch=659&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

Undamaged my aching ass.

The damage is virtually imperceptible unless you look at the base of the bullet.

This is along the lines of "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs.Lincoln?". Yes, if you don't look at the bullet from the side that shows the damage, one might believe the bullet is undamaged. Looking at it from the perspective I posted, the damage is quite clear.

Let's read FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier's description of the minimal/slight damage done to CE 399 -- indeed, notice that Frazier said the bullet may not have even lost any of its substance, among other points:

Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were the markings on the bullet at all defaced?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes; they were, in that the bullet is distorted by having been slightly flattened or twisted.

Mr. EISENBERG. How material would you call that defacement?

Mr. FRAZIER. It is hardly visible unless you look at the base of the bullet and notice it is not round.

Mr. EISENBERG. How far does it affect your examination for purposes of identification?

Mr. FRAZIER. It had no effect on it at all.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you explain why?

Mr. FRAZIER. Because it did not mutilate or distort the original microscopic marks beyond the point where you could recognize the pattern and find the same pattern of marks on one bullet as were present on the other. (3 H 429, emphasis added)

A strawman argument. Nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material. There were the few flakes of lead that ended up in JBC's wrist and thign.

You just keep repeating the same gibberish, the same debunked claims, over and over and over, even though you know they have been refuted.

You are so full of it. I have never seen you make a claim that hasn't been debunked many, many times.

How many times have I pointed out to you that you don't have a shred of evidence that the Connally back-wound bullet was yawing or tumbling

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your BS, it's still BS.

Connally's back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear head wound, yet no one has ever claimed that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling. JFK's head wound was 1.5 x 0.6 cm, while Connally's back wound was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. Yet, again, not a soul has ever suggested that the JFK rear-head-shot bullet was yawing or tumbling.

JFK's head was tilted forward when the bullet struck creating a tangential angle of entry. That was not the case with the back wound. It was elongated because the bullet was yawing.

How many times have I pointed out to you that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that transited Connally's chest did not yaw or tumble but created a narrow wound track through the chest, so much so that it stripped out ribbed bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Dr. Shaw observed that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).

Which is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso. There is no reason to think that the bullet would suddenly stabilize after entering JBC's back.

How many times have I pointed out to you Dr. Shaw's point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing?

So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.

How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years now that the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, that personnel around the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, that this definitive view of the probing was possible because the pathologists removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing and to be able to see where the probe went? They could see that the back-wound bullet did not go beyond the lining of the chest cavity.

I don't count how many times you repeat the same lies.

It is laughable that you would cite Finck's bogus testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in response to the disclosures about the probing. Why do you suppose Finck did not mention in his testimony that he stated during the autopsy that he had determined the back wound had no exit point?

Since you don't quote him nor cite a source, I can only conclude you are misrepresenting what Finck said. Finck recognized the probe only a short distance. Unlike you, he knew that didn't mean the bullet did not transit through JFK's torso. He explained why in his Clay Shaw testimony and you ignored his explanation. You do that a lot when faced with inconvenient truths. 

Why do you suppose he failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and manipulated the body "every which way" precisely to loosen the muscles and to facilitate the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention the crucial, all-important fact that the probe reached the end of the bullet's path and that the path did not penetrate the lining of the chest cavity because the end of the probe could be seen pushing up against the chest cavity lining?

Finck explained all that in his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial and you continue to ignore his explanation. Because Finck knew what he was talking about and you obviously don't, he understood that the fact a probe won't pass through a bullet channel is not an indication the bullet did not transit. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe something so silly. There's nothing wrong with not being able to understand principles of highly technical fields that require years of training. You go astray when you pretend you do understand them.

But, no, none of these key facts occurred to you when you ignorantly cited Finck's false testimony as some kind of answer to the disclosures about the back-wound probing. The disclosures prove that Finck was lying through his teeth about the probing. Contrary to his lies, the disclosures prove that he was able to probe "from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction," and that "the contraction of the muscles" did not prevent the probing but was overcome by manipulating the body and removing the chest organs.

It's funny how the only people who dispute Finck's explanation of why the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel are know-nothings such as yourself who think reading a few articles qualifies you as an expert in forensic pathology.

Again, for the umpteenth time, we now know that personnel standing near the autopsy table could see where the wound path ended because they could see the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity, and that it was at this point that Finck himself declared that the back wound had no exit point.

No, WE don't know that. YOU think you know that. The list of things you don't know but think you do is quite extensive.

   

How many times have I pointed out to you that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound, and that Sibert and O'Neill's report on the autopsy noted that the pathologists determined that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point?

Again, I don't keep a tabulation of your BS. It is true that the autopsy team was puzzled by the lack of an apparent exit wound and no bullet in the body. I don't know when it occurred to them that the tracheostomy might have been performed over the exit wound but they had to speak to Dr. Perry the next morning to confirm that. It's not important what was in their early drafts. What matters is their final conclusion an they got that right. The entire FPP concurred with their final answer that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. It would be pretty silly of the rest of us to reject that finding simply because a know-nothing like you disagrees with the people who are trained to make such judgements.

 

You just keep dishonestly ignoring these facts and repeating SBT claims that you know are false.

Your factoids are not facts no matter how fervently you believe them.

LOL! So according to you, Dr. Dolce, the Army's best expert on wound ballistics at the time, the expert whom the Army recommended when the WC asked for a wound ballistics expert, the expert who chaired the Army's Wound Ballistics Board, the expert who was so highly regarded that all cases involving members of Congress and others VIPs were submitted to him for review -- according to you, he was not qualified to pass judgment on the SBT! This is just clown material.

I don't base my beliefs on my own knowledge because unlike you, I understand I am not qualified to make such judgements. Only Cyril Wecht from the FPP dissented on the SBT. All of them agreed the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, your silly opinions notwithstanding. When Vincent Bugliosi cross examined Wecht at the mock trial in London, he asked Wecht where that bullet could have gone if it didn't strike Connally. Wecht's answer made him look extremely foolish.

 

Once again you prove you have no business commenting on the JFK case in a public forum. Obviously, you went running to some pro-WC websites and copied and pasted,

That's the easiest way to quote a source and also the surest way because it eliminates the possibility of misquoting the source. Since you rarely quote the people  you cite and when you do, you select a single word or phrase out of context, it's easy for you to just type in the cherry picked word(s).

or paraphrased, this stuff from them. I'm guessing you were unaware that these claims have been refuted many times over. Let's do a brief summary of the information you don't know regarding the SBT and wound ballistics tests:

They have been disputed, not refuted.

-- Contrary to your false claim, the Australian SBT wound ballistics test, which was rebroadcast on the Discovery Channel, did not produce a bullet with as minimal damage as CE 399. I quote John Hunt:

The results of that test bear out of the notion that CE-399 could not have inflicted Connally’s injuries. Below is a screen shot of the bullet that passed through “JFK” and went through “Connally’s” rib and wrist. (See Figure 3.)

The Discovery Channel’s “Single Bullet” went through less rib than the bullet that went through Connally and was grossly distorted in comparison to CE-399. (See Figure 4.)

The main difference between the Australian test bullet and CE399 is the test bullet had a little bit more bend in it but otherwise was very much the same. It is ludicrous to expect a perfect reproduction because of the variables involved. The test did show that the bullet could pass through similar tissue and emerge in a very similar condition without the nose of the bullet being damaged.

Some might argue that because the Discovery Channel bullet went through two ribs while traveling sideways, the results of the test cannot tell us anything about the JFK assassination.

This viewpoint would be wrong for a simple, logical reason: CE-399 hit whatever it hit with its side and so did the Discovery Channel bullet. And even though the Discovery Chanel bullet struck two ribs, it did not pulverize nearly 10 cm of bone, as was the case with the bullet that went through Connally’s chest.

Only a moron would expect an exact replication of the actual shooting.

Despite the Australian marksman’s claim that their tests validated the SBT, anyone with functioning eyes and at least two working brain cells can see that was not the case at all. Despite the on-camera proclamation, the Discovery Channel bullet produced less damage and incurred significantly more deformity than the SBT can tolerate. ("Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory")[/font]

As I was saying...

Anyone can look at the bullet from the Australian test and see that it was much more deformed than CE 399. Hunt provides a side-by-side comparison of the Australian test bullet and CE 399.

-- In the WC's SBT test, FMJ bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding emerged with the same deformity or more deformity than CE 399. See CE 572.

-- In the WC's SBT test, an FMJ bullet that was fired through a goat carcass and broke one rib emerged with more deformity than CE 399, even though the goat rib was smaller than Connally's fifth rib. That bullet is shown in CE 853.

Of course it did. It hadn't passed through two bodies before hitting bone and had not started to yaw. CE399 yawed upon exiting.

CE 572 shows the two bullets that were merely fired into cotton wadding in the WC's SBT test. One bullet shows the same amount of deformation as CE 399, while the other bullet shows more deformation than CE 399. To see this clearly, look at JFK Exhibit F-294 (see link below), which Dr. Cyril Wecht presented during his HSCA testimony. F-294 shows CE 399 beside the two CE 572 bullets, CE 583, and CE 856.

I also recommend looking at F-102 (see link below), which shows CE 399 from the side and from the bottom, to see just how minimally/slightly CE 399 was deformed.

So what do you think that proves? That bullets fired into different materials will end up looking different. There's a real discovery.

Here's a link to Dr. Wecht's testimony, which includes F-294 and F-102:

https://share.google/DVlT9F239tY7dOt9c

Isn't it amazing that after hearing from Wecht, the HSCA chose to concur with the conclusions of the rest of the panel.

Dr. Wecht pointed out that the CE 572 bullets were traveling at the same speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling before it allegedly hit JFK, and that CE 853, the goat-carcass bullet, was traveling at a speed very close to the speed at which CE 399 would have been traveling if it had transited JFK's neck before tearing through Connally's chest:

With regard to Commission Exhibit 572, the two bullets fired in the cotton wadding, that muzzle velocity was exactly the same as 399 initially, and CE 853, through the carcass of a goat, would have been reduced, it is estimated, about one-tenth, 10 percent of the original velocity, not terribly substantial. (1 HSCA 353)

What is mind boggling is that anyone would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399.

-- In the Failure Analysis SBT wound ballistics test, bullets were fired into cadaver wrists at a reduced velocity, but no effort was made to simulate passing through a human neck, passing through a human chest, smashing 5 inches of rib bone, and penetrating a human thigh.

-- None other than Dr. Martin Fackler has observed that one layer of human skin has the approximate resistance strength of 4 inches of muscle tissue (https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-19). This means that three layers of human skin have the resistance strength of 12 inches of muscle tissue, which means that CE 399 would have had to pass through the equivalent of 18 inches of muscle tissue before it even hit the wrist (three layers of skin = 12 inches of muscle tissue, plus at least 6 inches of muscle tissue in JFK's neck and Connally's back).

-- Dr. Milton Helpern, one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century, who supervised over 10,000 gunshot-wound autopsies, noted that human skin is tough, elastic, and resistant, and that this was one of the reasons he did not buy the SBT:

I cannot accept the premise that this bullet [CE 399] thrashed around in all that bony tissue and lost only 1.4 to 2.4 grains of its original weight. I cannot believe, either, that this bullet is going to emerge . . . with its lands and grooves intact.

Mr. Specter and the Commission have asked too much from this bullet. You must remember that next to bone, the skin offers the greatest resistance to a bullet in its course through the body than any other kind of tissue. The energy of the bullet is sometimes so spent that it can't quite get out through the final layer of skin, and it comes to rest just beneath the outside layer of skin. If it does get through the skin, it may not have enough energy to penetrate even an undershirt or a light cotton blouse. . . .

This single-bullet theory requires us to believe that this bullet went through seven layers of skin—tough, elastic, resistant skin. . . . In addition to these seven layers of tough human skin, this bullet [CE 399] passed through other layers of soft tissue; and then these shattered bones!

I just can’t believe that this bullet had the force to do what Mr. Specter and the Commission have demanded of it; and I don't think they have really stopped to think out carefully what they have asked of this bullet for the simple reason that they still do not understand the resistant nature of human skin to bullets. (Where Death Delights, pp. 62-63)

Just how much experience do you think anyone has had seeing how a bullet would deform after passing through two bodies and then striking a wrist. The people you cite are simply making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses)

-- If you're thinking about citing the Haags' SBT research, Dr. Gary Aguilar discusses just a couple of the problems with the junk science behind the Haags' SBT claims:

Dr. Gary Aguilar? Another long time JFKA quack. Birds of a feather....[

For those who care, Dr. Gary Aquilar is an ophthalmologist. Just the kind of "expert" we'd expect MTG to turn to in a discussion of ballistics.

In fairness, I'm guessing Aguilar is a competent eye doctor.

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)

The Haags should have known that Dr. Shaw said Connally's back wound was 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's head wound. The 3-cm size was the size of the wound after Shaw debrided and cleaned it, as Shaw himself explained. This is JFK 101 stuff, and the Haags couldn't even get this simple stuff right. They used the misleading 3-cm size to support their assumption that the bullet that allegedly exited JFK's throat was traveling sideways when it hit Connally, even though Dr. Shaw said the bullet created a narrow wound track through Connally's chest. How does a 6.5 mm bullet traveling sideways create a 1.5-cm wide entry wound and a narrow wound track through a torso?

-- The 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test provided further evidence against the SBT. FMJ bullets that merely penetrated a 12-inch gelatin block before hitting a cadaver radius bone were unable to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them never even exited the cadaver radius bone. One of the expert forensic consultants for the CBS test, Dr. William F. Enos, said the CBS test proved the SBT was "highly improbable" (Mal Jay Hayman, Burying the Lead: The Media and the JFK Assassination, Trine Day LLC, 2019, pp. 214, 218).

CBS hired Dr. Alfred Olivier to conduct its SBT test. In a televised interview, Olivier admitted that his CBS test did not include striking a rib: "Of course, we have no rib here [in the test], but it still simulates passing through the flesh."

Olivier further admitted that even without simulating the damage to Connally's rib, some the bullets failed to exit the wrist: "In some cases, it passed through the wrist; in other cases it lodged in the wrist."

Crucially, as mentioned, not a single bullet in the CBS test managed to lodge in the simulated thigh.

By failing to put a simulated rib bone within the 12-inch block of ballistics gelatin, Olivier ensured that the test bullets would not become badly deformed while passing through the simulated chest. But this led to another complication: It meant the bullets would strike the simulated wrist at a greater velocity than the bullet presumed to have struck Connally's wrist -- yet, even so, not one of the bullets lodged in the simulated thigh.

-- Dr. John Lattimer's SBT test was actually fairly realistic, but, as was his habit, he misrepresented the results by falsely claiming that his test produced a bullet with the same minimal damage as CE 399.

For his SBT test, Lattimer used animal tissue to simulate Kennedy's neck, a rib cage to simulate Connally's torso, and radius bones wrapped in simulated forearms to simulate Connally's forearm. Lattimer said four bullets out of 20 struck all three objects. A picture of one of the test bullets shows it was split at the nose in several places and was markedly deformed, much more deformed than CE 399. When Stewart Galanor asked Lattimer, in a filmed interview, if he could examine the bullets that struck all three simulation objects, Lattimer said he had thrown them away (Galanor, Cover-Up, New York: Kestrel Books, 1998, p. 42).

None of these tests replicate Oswald's shooting of JFK. That would be impossible. They can't prove what did happen. They can only show what could have happened. What we know if we are willing to listen to qualified people is that a Carcano bullet will yaw upon exiting from soft tissue as the Haag experiments demonstrated conclusively. JBC was directly in line with a bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have been amazing if the bullet hadn't hit him. The entrance wound on his back was elongated as would be expected with a yawing bullet. The flattening at the base of CE399 is what we would expect to see if a bullet had yawed before striking bone. Had it been a stable bullet that hit JBC's wrist, the expectation is the nose would have been deformed. Carcano bullets don't yaw unless they are strike an object first. In fact, due to the cylindrical construction, it is an extremely stable round.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Like when you cited Di Maio rejecting his earlier position that he believed Oswald was the assassin. Then I find out that the book you cited was a textbook a wound ballistics that didn't even mention the JFK assassination.

One, I never cited DiMaio's Gunshot Wounds handbook as evidence that he rejected the lone-assassin theory. I cited it to prove that FMJ ammo could not have produced the bullet fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. To refresh your memory, DiMaio said that if a skull x-ray shows numerous tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo, and that when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking skull bone they will only leave a few fragments. A host of other forensic experts have made the same point.

Two, toward the end of his life, DiMaio told British physiologist Russell Kent, after corresponding extensively with Kent, that he no longer believed in the single-bullet theory. Do you think Kent was lying?

That's a lie and you know it. If you don't know that, you even more ignorant about the facts of the JFKA than I thought.
Keep doubling down on your lies. What you mean is your fellow liars have described CE399 as non-deformed. The truth is there is a flattening at the base and the bullet has a noticeable bend in it. Liars like to show photos of the bullet taken from a perspective that hides the bend, but a proper perspective shows the bend clearly.
It speaks to the weakness of your position that you have to tell such bald faced lies.
Here is a perspective of CE399 the CTs never want you to see:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=99RyzIxM&id=1FD79F8347681E399A9B1024A91B9838400B6648&thid=OIP.99RyzIxMZywFH3fvM8Af5AHaEK&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fpoi2LOStwcU%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.f7d472cc8c4c672c051f77ef33c01fe4%3Frik%3DSGYLQDiYG6kkEA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=720&expw=1280&q=warren+commission+exhibit+showing+photos+of+CE399&FORM=IRPRST&ck=A5A660563ABC77CC151869632C602ABD&selectedIndex=9&itb=0&cw=1375&ch=659&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

Undamaged my aching ass.
This is along the lines of "Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs.Lincoln?". Yes, if you don't look at the bullet from the side that shows the damage, one might believe the bullet is undamaged. Looking at it from the perspective I posted, the damage is quite clear.
A strawman argument. Nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material. There were the few flakes of lead that ended up in JBC's wrist and thign.
You are so full of it. I have never seen you make a claim that hasn't been debunked many, many times.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your BS, it's still BS.
JFK's head was tilted forward when the bullet struck creating a tangential angle of entry. That was not the case with the back wound. It was elongated because the bullet was yawing.
Which is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso. There is no reason to think that the bullet would suddenly stabilize after entering JBC's back.
So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.
I don't count how many times you repeat the same lies.
Since you don't quote him nor cite a source, I can only conclude you are misrepresenting what Finck said. Finck recognized the probe only a short distance. Unlike you, he knew that didn't mean the bullet did not transit through JFK's torso. He explained why in his Clay Shaw testimony and you ignored his explanation. You do that a lot when faced with inconvenient truths. 
Finck explained all that in his testimony in the Clay Shaw trial and you continue to ignore his explanation. Because Finck knew what he was talking about and you obviously don't, he understood that the fact a probe won't pass through a bullet channel is not an indication the bullet did not transit. Only a know-nothing such as yourself would believe something so silly. There's nothing wrong with not being able to understand principles of highly technical fields that require years of training. You go astray when you pretend you do understand them.
It's funny how the only people who dispute Finck's explanation of why the probe wouldn't pass through the bullet channel are know-nothings such as yourself who think reading a few articles qualifies you as an expert in forensic pathology.
No, WE don't know that. YOU think you know that. The list of things you don't know but think you do is quite extensive.
Again, I don't keep a tabulation of your BS. It is true that the autopsy team was puzzled by the lack of an apparent exit wound and no bullet in the body. I don't know when it occurred to them that the tracheostomy might have been performed over the exit wound but they had to speak to Dr. Perry the next morning to confirm that. It's not important what was in their early drafts. What matters is their final conclusion an they got that right. The entire FPP concurred with their final answer that the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat. It would be pretty silly of the rest of us to reject that finding simply because a know-nothing like you disagrees with the people who are trained to make such judgements.
Your factoids are not facts no matter how fervently you believe them.
I don't base my beliefs on my own knowledge because unlike you, I understand I am not qualified to make such judgements. Only Cyril Wecht from the FPP dissented on the SBT. All of them agreed the bullet that entered JFK's back exited from his throat, your silly opinions notwithstanding. When Vincent Bugliosi cross examined Wecht at the mock trial in London, he asked Wecht where that bullet could have gone if it didn't strike Connally. Wecht's answer made him look extremely foolish.
That's the easiest way to quote a source and also the surest way because it eliminates the possibility of misquoting the source. Since you rarely quote the people  you cite and when you do, you select a single word or phrase out of context, it's easy for you to just type in the cherry picked word(s).
They have been disputed, not refuted.
The main difference between the Australian test bullet and CE399 is the test bullet had a little bit more bend in it but otherwise was very much the same. It is ludicrous to expect a perfect reproduction because of the variables involved. The test did show that the bullet could pass through similar tissue and emerge in a very similar condition without the nose of the bullet being damaged.
Only a moron would expect an exact replication of the actual shooting.
As I was saying...
Of course it did. It hadn't passed through two bodies before hitting bone and had not started to yaw. CE399 yawed upon exiting. 

So what do you think that proves? That bullets fired into different materials will end up looking different. There's a real discovery.
Isn't it amazing that after hearing from Wecht, the HSCA chose to concur with the conclusions of the rest of the panel.
What is mind boggling is that anyone would expect bullets fired into wadding or a goat carcass would emerge looking like CE399.
Just how much experience do you think anyone has had seeing how a bullet would deform after passing through two bodies and then striking a wrist. The people you cite are simply making SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses)
Dr. Gary Aguilar? Another long time JFKA quack. Birds of a feather....[

For those who care, Dr. Gary Aquilar is an ophthalmologist. Just the kind of "expert" we'd expect MTG to turn to in a discussion of ballistics.

In fairness, I'm guessing Aguilar is a competent eye doctor.
None of these tests replicate Oswald's shooting of JFK. That would be impossible. They can't prove what did happen. They can only show what could have happened. What we know if we are willing to listen to qualified people is that a Carcano bullet will yaw upon exiting from soft tissue as the Haag experiments demonstrated conclusively. JBC was directly in line with a bullet exiting JFK's throat. It would have been amazing if the bullet hadn't hit him. The entrance wound on his back was elongated as would be expected with a yawing bullet. The flattening at the base of CE399 is what we would expect to see if a bullet had yawed before striking bone. Had it been a stable bullet that hit JBC's wrist, the expectation is the nose would have been deformed. Carcano bullets don't yaw unless they are strike an object first. In fact, due to the cylindrical construction, it is an extremely stable round.

This is just so much comedy and nonsense. I see that you simply refuse to deal with evidence honestly and credibly. Even when you're caught in bald-faced error, you won't admit it, and then, amazingly, you repeat your error more emphatically, as if that somehow makes it correct, such as your fiction that Connally's back wound was elongated.

I literally burst out laughing when I read your argument that JFK's rear head entry wound was not elongated because his head was tilted forward but that Connally's back wound was elongated because he was sitting upright. Holy cow. I guess you didn't know that the official version, which you supposedly accept, says the head-shot bullet hit the head virtually straight on. Have you not seen the WC's and the HSCA FPP's wound diagrams of the rear head entry wound?

An even bigger howler is your argument that the narrow wound track through Connally's chest "is an indication the bullet was tumbling through JBC's torso." Umm, no, it is not. It indicates the opposite. If the bullet had been tumbling through the chest, the wound track would not have been narrow. How can you not understand this? Do you have any clue how silly you look here?

Comically, you again resort to appealing to the FPP's conclusion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. Did you forget that the FPP also said the back wound was nearly 2 inches lower than where the WC placed it, that the back wound was actually slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet that hit the back struck at an upward angle -- and that the only explanation the FPP offered for the throat wound's entry-like appearance was the impossible shored-wound theory? Did you forget all that?

Incredibly, you claim that the first two drafts of the autopsy report are "not important," and that what really matters is "their final conclusion"! To support this odd argument, you repeat the long-debunked myth that Humes didn't talk with Perry until the following morning, when we have known for years that Humes was in contact with Perry well before the autopsy ended. I documented this fact earlier in this thread, but you continue to ignore it.

People are going to see what a total clown you are when they look at the Australian SBT test bullet and CE 399. CE 399 is clearly far less deformed than the test bullet. I'm guessing you're just hoping that most readers won't bother to look at the side-by-side comparison of the two bullets, or else you're legally blind. Here's the link again:

"Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory" See Figure 4.

In response to my quoting of Frazier on CE 399's "slight" deformity and virtually zero loss of substance, you falsely label this "a strawman argument" because "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." You completely avoided Frazier's comments about the minimal amount of deformity to CE 399, including the fact that its lands and grooves were intact and that the deformation is barely visible unless you view the bullet from the base.

You just whiffed on all that and focused on his remark about the loss of substance with the inane argument that "nobody has said the bullet lost a lot of its material." Can you read? I didn't say that anyone had ever said the bullet lost "a lot of its substance." The argument has always been that the bullet should have lost a lot of its substance if it did all the damaged claimed for it.

The fragments in Connally's wrist were not "flakes." Good grief, even Humes and Finck noted this to the WC in explaining why they did not think CE 399 could have caused Connally's wrist wound. The "flakes" myth was buried for good in the 1990s with the ARRB disclosures. Nurse Bell, who assisted with the wrist surgery, handled the fragments from the wrist -- she noted they were definitely not flakes. But of course you know nothing about any of this because you won't read anything that disagrees with you.

In reply to my point that Dr. Shaw noted that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited zero fibers, even though it had supposedly torn through four layers of JFK's clothing and two layers of Connally's clothing, you said,

So what are you trying to say? Are you claiming the bullet that entered JBC's back hadn't first going through his clothing? I'd love to see your explanation for that.

Huh? Just Huh? How does this address the point that the bullet that hit Connally's wrist deposited fibers in the wrist wound but that the bullet that hit Connally's back deposited no fibers in the back wound? Huh? How does that work?

As I've pointed out to you before, it is entirely possible that the bullet that hit the wrist was not the same bullet that hit Connally's back. How else do you explain the absence of fibers in the back wound?

If the Connally back-wound bullet only tore through two layers of clothing, i.e., Connally's coat and shirt, one could understand why the bullet did not deposit fibers in the back wound -- but not if the bullet tore through six layers of clothing. No, that's not plausible, given that the wrist-wound bullet deposited fibers in the wound.

I notice you dismissed the 1967 CBS SBT wound ballistics test and Lattimer's SBT wound ballistics test, both of which failed to support the SBT, with the lame argument that they did not "duplicate" the shooting of JFK. One, Lattimer's test actually did duplicate every part of the SBT's alleged journey, but the resulting bullets were badly damaged. Two, the CBS test, as you surely already knew, was not designed to duplicate every part of CE 399's supposed journey but only part of its alleged journey through Connally's chest, through his wrist, and into his thigh -- yet, even then, not one of the test bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh, and many of them failed to leave the wrist at all.

Finally, I come to your repetition of your bogus argument that Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony "explains" the disclosures about the back-wound probing, the early versions of the autopsy report, and the Sibert and O'Neill report on the autopsy. You must be kidding.

You simply ignored my point that the disclosures prove that Finck was indeed able to find the end of the wound, not to mention that it was at that point that Finck himself announced for all to hear that the back wound had no exit point. You just ignored all that and repeated your previous nonsense that Finck "explained all that." No, he did not. He falsely claimed he could not probe the wound path because of the "contraction of muscles." The ARRB disclosures alone prove this was not true. Go read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB interviews, for starters.

I again ask you, why do you suppose Finck failed to mention that they removed the chest organs and then manipulated the body in order to complete the probing? Why do you suppose he failed to mention that he himself declared right after the probing that the back wound had no exit point? Why did not a single autopsy witness recall Finck expressing any doubt whatsoever about his no-exit declaration? (Answer: Because he had no doubt about it, since he could see the same thing that the other man around the autopsy table could see, as we now know.)

You see, you can't bring yourself to be honest about this crucial issue because you know that if you admit the back wound had no exit point, your entire theory of the shooting collapses.